Four NY Times op-eds - four views of the road ahead.

One of these are already posted, but the four belong together.

PAUL KRUGMAN (the great one) reminds everyone that the election was close - 51% to 48% - and this hardly calls for such pessimism among Democrats. He urges them to stick with a strong message, rather than slide towards the center.

ANDREI CHERNY (a Kerry speechwriter) says that the Democrats need to give a broad vision of what the party stands for, rather than just a laundry list of issues. He says that there is little a speechwriter can do to add pizzazz to a list of issues.

(Hmm... I think the vision is there. America as a responsible world leader rather than a go-it-aloner. A fight on terror that respects human rights, rather than abuses them Abu-Ghraib style. An economic policy that values work, not wealth. A sense of personal responsibility rather then credit-card spending by the US government. How's that?)

THOMAS FRANK ("What's the matter with Kansas?") argues that the 'culture war' against the Dems is important - but that the Dems should not give in, should oppose it with an equally agressive "class-war". (Yeah! Imagine if every time someone talked about values, Kerry or Edwards shot back that the Republicans have 'Halliburton values'?)

NICHOLAS KRISTOF argues that the Dems need to make a compromise with the evangelicals, and that is not just a matter of style - they need to change policy positions that offend fundies.

(I disagree of course. He made a better case on 11/3 - that the Dems. need candidates who can talk to working-class people, including evangelists. Show 'em respect. This was an Edwards strength and a Kerry weakness. But pander to their positions? No. PLEASE MAKE THIS DISTINCTION. (1). They're republicans, screw 'em. (2) Convert the moderates, show some respect. (3) Compromise on positions. I'm with #2.

These are the four positions, and I think a synthesis would provide a good guide to the future.

KRUGMAN: No surrender (posted earlier)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html

CHERNEY: Why we lost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05cherny.html

FRANK: Why they won.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05frank.html

KRISTOF: Time to get religion (not as good as 11/3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06kristof.html

KRISTOF: Living poor, voting rich (Good, but posted earlier.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html

Sorry, I don't need to read analysis based on a lie.

agree to impose their beliefs on all Americans.

This is not acceptable. We cannot agree to Christo-Fascist ideas and taking away freedoms in the name of one group of Radical Right-wing Religious Republicans. That would be insane.

The more you give them, the more they will want. They must be opposed and converting them is fine with me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06quart.html

Another one who buys the Republican cover story.

Alissa Quart says the young people didn't vote. Are the statistics in? All those new registers were over 25? Those people standing on line for six, seven, eight hours were middle-aged with surprisingly strong legs and bladders?

I see the announcements that the young didn't turn out in the same places I read that Bush suddenly acquired millions of votes from religious fanatics who prefer hating gays to having jobs, healthcare, or peace. It's the Republican cover story. It accounts for the "inaccurate" exit polls which, coincidentally, only occurred in states where the machines provided no paper trail.

I spent election day in Bayside, conducting an exit poll for the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Not a really youthful community because of the rents. Yet they came. All day long, amid the aged in wheelchairs and walkers; the parents holding the hands of toddlers; the young voters came, in black leather and jeans, with girlfriends and boyfriends, they came. And they voted.

The Times op-ed section is very busy analyzing the Democratic "defeat." Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to buy the most Bush-convenient lie.

What a load of crap. This is WAR! This is war against the theocrats and the fascists, and we're supposed to frickin' APPEASE them?!?!

And I got news for Kristof, Tony Blair's "New Labour" is EXACTLY what we DON'T want to be -- neo-liberal corporatist dupes. Give me a BREAK!

Kristof, and all his phony "liberal" ilk can take a flyin' leap. He can ESPECIALLY take his idiotic idea that the "base" wants Hillary Clinton. The ONLY people I EVER hear talking about Hillary are the damn mainstream media hacks. She sure ain't MY idea of a grassroots champion.

I'm through listening to these lily-livered ruling class lapdogs who think the Democratic party belongs to them. If the party can't wake up smell the class warfare, then let them fade away into the obsolescence they deserve.

This is WAR!

sw