I've been reading all these messages on the various boards and all the post mortems in the media about "What the Dems did wrong", "What they need to do", etc. Most of the points made have been valid but we shouldn't panic.
First, Bush won with one of the smallest margins of any incumbent President in history. He got no mandate. We should not be discouraged. If not for right-wing evangelicals who came out in record numbers this year, Bush would have lost. And it is unlikely they'll come out again for any of the current leaders in GOP field (more on that later).
Second, right now the Liberal/Move On wing of the party is bThat laming the Moderate/DLC wing while the Moderate/DLC wing is blaming the Liberal/Move On wing. Nothing could be more harmful right now. There's an old saying "When Dems circle the wagons, they shoot inwards". can't happen this time. We need both wings of the party to win. And remember Kerry, a northeaster liberal, was in no way the first choice of the DLC. Lieberman, Clark, Gephardt and even Edwards were all ahead of Kerry. Nor was Kerry the first choice of the left, Dean was. So neither wing can fully be blamed.
Third, we need to educate ourselves on how the party and the party leadership really works otherwise we come off as a lunatic fringe making arguments that have no foundation in fact and thus no credibility. A while back I was discussing the DNC with someone on one board and they insisted every Dem. Representative and Senator was a member of the DNC. Nothing is further from the truth. The DNC is made up mainly of state party officials only a few Reps. and Senators are members for the DNC. If anyone is interested in how the DNC is really made up you can read about it here: http://www.democrats.org/about/function.html.
Fourth, we need to recognize there is a lot of misinformation out there in the mass-media and learn to separate fact from fiction. Nothing angers me more than seeing a pundit or columnist who trashed Gore with lies being quoted by a Gore supporter because now their trashing someone we don't like. I don't care what bad things Maureen Dowd writes about Bush, she's lost all her credibility with her attacks on Gore. Nor do I care what Bob Novak or Rush Limbaugh have to say, they are proven liars. It is just moral relativism to denounce someone when they are attacking people you like to then turn around and embrace them when they are attacking someone you don't like. The right wing propaganda machine feeds on validating people's preconceived bias and then repeating each others lies enough times that everyone thinks it's the truth. We need to look thoughtfully at who is saying what and try to verify it with trusted sources. Case in point, everyone assumes Hillary Clinton will be running in 2008 but as this article in Slate shows that has been mainly manufactured by right-wing pundits: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088758/. (More on Hillary later.)
All of the above be translated into positive action that will have impact on 2008.
The DNC - We need to find out who Gore supports for DNC chairman and back that person by calling & writing our state DNC members to support that person too. (Personally, I think Joe Trippi would be a great choice. He's shown the way on organizing grassroots support and internet fund-raising.) But my choice is unimportant, Gore's choice is critical. The DNC meets in December to choose new leadership. We all need to find out who our state representatives are ASAP and start lobbying those people.
Message - This problem is twofold. For too long we've allowed the GOP and their puppets in the media define us. Read the second item from Saturday's Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml. That illustrates this problem better than anything else I've read recently. Conservatives knew they couldn't win the debate so they moved the game. Now it is time we moved the game back. We have to all act as truth squads combating right-wing misinformation where ever we see it. There just aren't enough Joe Conasan's and Eric Alterman's to do that. Whenever we see this misinformation in the Newspaper or on TV we need to respond immediately with emails, calls and letters to the editors. We need to build up a network of people that will spring into action whenever needed. Move On has only partially started this kind of effort. Additionally, the Democratic party needs to clearly define its message. We all saw the role 'Moral Values' played in this election. Well, tolerance is a moral value, wanting corporate accountability and fair wages to all workers is a moral value, being against the death penalty and war is a moral value, wanting good health care and an education to all children is a moral value, being for the average working man or woman over CEOs is a moral value. Even separation of church and state is a moral value, wasn't it Christ who said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God". These are issues that need to be addressed simply and in the proper context to resonate with ordinary people.
GOP Candidates in 2008 - First I think after another 4 years of GOP rule it will be a lot easier for a Dem to get elected. But we need to consider who the Republicans will most likely put up:
Jeb Bush - He's the most logical choice. He's also one of the reasons I think Cheney was made VP so there would be no heir apparent other than Jeb. But will the Christian right come out for him the way they did for his brother? I don't think so. Jeb is a converted Catholic and evangelicals don't like or trust Catholics.
Rudy Giuliani - He is also a Catholic. He's also a liberal on many issues including abortion and gay rights. Plus he tends to be a nasty candidate. While that worked in NYC it may not play as well in the heartland.
John McCain - Another moderate who won't ignite the base of the Christian right.
Rick Santorum and/or Bill Frist - Both are hardliner conservatives however both can also be perceived to be Washington insiders. However, either might work as VP to Jeb or McCain.
An unknown Republican Governor - Just as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter came from out of nowhere the same may happen here. Pataki of New York is spoken about but he has the same problems as Rudy.
Dem. Candidates in 2008 - Who would make the most sense?
Hillary Clinton - While she is now being called the front-runner as shown above most of that is from the right. She may have a hard re-election campaign in 2006 and may even have to pledge not to run in '08. Plus she is such a divisive figure it is unlikely she'll win any red states.
Joe Biden - Would be a great candidate and a great President. But might be tagged with the northeast liberal label and Washington insider label as well. Like Kerry he'll have a voting record in the Senate that can be twisted against him.
John Edwards - Losing VP candidates rarely come back to win the nomination next time out. Mondale was the last one and that turned out to be a disaster.
Howard Dean - Fairly or unfairly he's defined by the infamous 'Dean scream'. In the south he'll be seen as another north eastern liberal and real liberals will look at his record as Governor & see that he was way too far to the right.
An unknown Democratic Governor - Same as above. Bill Richardson has been mentioned as have Vilsack of Iowa and Easley of North Carolina. But they are all moderates who may not ignite the liberal wing of the party.
Al Gore - It has been said he was a bad candidate in 2000 but let's look at some facts:
First, Bush won with one of the smallest margins of any incumbent President in history. He got no mandate. We should not be discouraged. If not for right-wing evangelicals who came out in record numbers this year, Bush would have lost. And it is unlikely they'll come out again for any of the current leaders in GOP field (more on that later).
Second, right now the Liberal/Move On wing of the party is bThat laming the Moderate/DLC wing while the Moderate/DLC wing is blaming the Liberal/Move On wing. Nothing could be more harmful right now. There's an old saying "When Dems circle the wagons, they shoot inwards". can't happen this time. We need both wings of the party to win. And remember Kerry, a northeaster liberal, was in no way the first choice of the DLC. Lieberman, Clark, Gephardt and even Edwards were all ahead of Kerry. Nor was Kerry the first choice of the left, Dean was. So neither wing can fully be blamed.
Third, we need to educate ourselves on how the party and the party leadership really works otherwise we come off as a lunatic fringe making arguments that have no foundation in fact and thus no credibility. A while back I was discussing the DNC with someone on one board and they insisted every Dem. Representative and Senator was a member of the DNC. Nothing is further from the truth. The DNC is made up mainly of state party officials only a few Reps. and Senators are members for the DNC. If anyone is interested in how the DNC is really made up you can read about it here: http://www.democrats.org/about/function.html.
Fourth, we need to recognize there is a lot of misinformation out there in the mass-media and learn to separate fact from fiction. Nothing angers me more than seeing a pundit or columnist who trashed Gore with lies being quoted by a Gore supporter because now their trashing someone we don't like. I don't care what bad things Maureen Dowd writes about Bush, she's lost all her credibility with her attacks on Gore. Nor do I care what Bob Novak or Rush Limbaugh have to say, they are proven liars. It is just moral relativism to denounce someone when they are attacking people you like to then turn around and embrace them when they are attacking someone you don't like. The right wing propaganda machine feeds on validating people's preconceived bias and then repeating each others lies enough times that everyone thinks it's the truth. We need to look thoughtfully at who is saying what and try to verify it with trusted sources. Case in point, everyone assumes Hillary Clinton will be running in 2008 but as this article in Slate shows that has been mainly manufactured by right-wing pundits: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088758/. (More on Hillary later.)
All of the above be translated into positive action that will have impact on 2008.
The DNC - We need to find out who Gore supports for DNC chairman and back that person by calling & writing our state DNC members to support that person too. (Personally, I think Joe Trippi would be a great choice. He's shown the way on organizing grassroots support and internet fund-raising.) But my choice is unimportant, Gore's choice is critical. The DNC meets in December to choose new leadership. We all need to find out who our state representatives are ASAP and start lobbying those people.
Message - This problem is twofold. For too long we've allowed the GOP and their puppets in the media define us. Read the second item from Saturday's Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml. That illustrates this problem better than anything else I've read recently. Conservatives knew they couldn't win the debate so they moved the game. Now it is time we moved the game back. We have to all act as truth squads combating right-wing misinformation where ever we see it. There just aren't enough Joe Conasan's and Eric Alterman's to do that. Whenever we see this misinformation in the Newspaper or on TV we need to respond immediately with emails, calls and letters to the editors. We need to build up a network of people that will spring into action whenever needed. Move On has only partially started this kind of effort. Additionally, the Democratic party needs to clearly define its message. We all saw the role 'Moral Values' played in this election. Well, tolerance is a moral value, wanting corporate accountability and fair wages to all workers is a moral value, being against the death penalty and war is a moral value, wanting good health care and an education to all children is a moral value, being for the average working man or woman over CEOs is a moral value. Even separation of church and state is a moral value, wasn't it Christ who said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God". These are issues that need to be addressed simply and in the proper context to resonate with ordinary people.
GOP Candidates in 2008 - First I think after another 4 years of GOP rule it will be a lot easier for a Dem to get elected. But we need to consider who the Republicans will most likely put up:
Jeb Bush - He's the most logical choice. He's also one of the reasons I think Cheney was made VP so there would be no heir apparent other than Jeb. But will the Christian right come out for him the way they did for his brother? I don't think so. Jeb is a converted Catholic and evangelicals don't like or trust Catholics.
Rudy Giuliani - He is also a Catholic. He's also a liberal on many issues including abortion and gay rights. Plus he tends to be a nasty candidate. While that worked in NYC it may not play as well in the heartland.
John McCain - Another moderate who won't ignite the base of the Christian right.
Rick Santorum and/or Bill Frist - Both are hardliner conservatives however both can also be perceived to be Washington insiders. However, either might work as VP to Jeb or McCain.
An unknown Republican Governor - Just as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter came from out of nowhere the same may happen here. Pataki of New York is spoken about but he has the same problems as Rudy.
Dem. Candidates in 2008 - Who would make the most sense?
Hillary Clinton - While she is now being called the front-runner as shown above most of that is from the right. She may have a hard re-election campaign in 2006 and may even have to pledge not to run in '08. Plus she is such a divisive figure it is unlikely she'll win any red states.
Joe Biden - Would be a great candidate and a great President. But might be tagged with the northeast liberal label and Washington insider label as well. Like Kerry he'll have a voting record in the Senate that can be twisted against him.
John Edwards - Losing VP candidates rarely come back to win the nomination next time out. Mondale was the last one and that turned out to be a disaster.
Howard Dean - Fairly or unfairly he's defined by the infamous 'Dean scream'. In the south he'll be seen as another north eastern liberal and real liberals will look at his record as Governor & see that he was way too far to the right.
An unknown Democratic Governor - Same as above. Bill Richardson has been mentioned as have Vilsack of Iowa and Easley of North Carolina. But they are all moderates who may not ignite the liberal wing of the party.
Al Gore - It has been said he was a bad candidate in 2000 but let's look at some facts:
- He was behind Bush by double digits in the polls 18 months before the election.
- He was seen as too moderate by many on the left who then voted for Nader.
- He was outspent by Bush 2 to 1 overall and 3 to 1 in some key areas.
- The media was continually hostile to him throughout the campaign.
- He had all of Clinton's baggage to contend with.
