A pundit who actually gets what is wrong with Dem party

Now all we need is for the DU "my party right or wrong" people and our politicians to get this. Sirota gets at the heart and soul with what is wrong with the dem party in very short order.

"Terry Neal has a terrific piece in the Washington Post about how both parties essentially screwed themselves in their behavior on the Terri Schiavo case. I talked with him for a while about it, and he quoted me. Here's what I said:

Democratic strategist David Sirota said the Schiavo case creates three impressions. "Firstly, Republicans are zealots," he said. "Secondly, where the hell are the Democrats? And thirdly, well, at least the zealots believe in something strongly. And that's the problem for Democrats right now on this issue, and a whole host of others. The party seems unwilling to stand up for anything controversial."

"The calculus by Democrats is that they don't want to offend anyone," Sirota said. "But in trying not to offend anyone, they lose support from everyone. What many Democrats haven't yet learned from Republicans is that it is better to be loved by some, and hated by others, than try to be liked by everyone. Because when you do that, you are liked by no one."

I really believe what I said is true - Americans, above anything else, want authenticity from their political leaders. When Democrats refuse to take controversial stands, they set themselves back in the quest to be seen as a party with conviction. That has to change."

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/03/political-expediency-in-schiavo-case.html

over the last 25 years or so, the Democratic Party has become a very cautious and safe Party, unwilling to speak up on many controversial issues.

... until they WAKE the EFF UP, and realize it's NOT and never has been a winning strategy.

Our agenda is great. Our politicians SUCK.

At least the Greens aren't afraid to take firm positions, and yes, positions founded upon liberal MORALS.

Schiavo vote last weekend... one question hit me like a brick wall:

What the hell am I wasting my time voting Dem (a life long dem) when they won't even vote in lockstep to stop the outrageous attacks on people's privacy?

I want to vote Green. I don't know if I will abandon the Dems just yet.

Obviously I'm conflicted.

Thanks to our stupid DEM reps who thought the Schiavo case required their pfhucking OPINIONS about personal matters in congress. We have the ability of forming our OWN bloody opinions about personal matters and it doesn't require the vote of one stupid pfhucking DEM rep.

What was REQUIRED was a mass Dem walkout out the front steps of congress, in front of msm cameras,screaming bloody murder about privacy rights!

Next election, I'm going to ask the Dem rep if she/he thinks it's their PFUCKING JOB to vote their OPINIONS about private matters FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE CITIZEN in congress. Unless the answer is no, I'm not voting for her/him.

But no... not our Dem best & brightest. They chose to play the gop game and voted.

I don't even care if they voted for or against this stupid $7M blunder. They should have walked the pfhuck out.

Guess I'm getting "greener".

really in the same way that the GOP brought them the IWR vote in the election of 2002.

So what exactly was the dilemma? Dem's choices were to either vote "against" the sham legislation put forth by the GOP (which would have been the correct thing to do) or vote "for" it (which was the wrong thing to do, but was going to be possibly politically expedient depending on how everything would shake out).

The way I see it, Dems opted for the political expedient vote, "just in case", because of fears that going against this circus would have come back to haunt them--aka, being labeled "anti-life" during the 2006 elections. This was the safer gamble, Dems voting "for" the law.

Was it the right principled thing to do? NO.

Was it the politically expedient thing to do? Not in this case, because of how things are shaking out. Republicans looked really bad on this one, and the majority of Americans agreed that this was pushing the boundaries, Democrats forfeited an issue that could have helped them in 2006, to illustrate that the GOP, in fact, are attempting to break down all separations of power within our government. The Dems who voted for the legislation actually helped buffer and neutralize the GOP's ridiculous stance, and therefore, they will not be able to justify articulating that this was Republican activism at it's worse, which it was.

My Conclusion: Thank goodness the courts did not let the congress upsurp the power of the court. We can thank the judges for how things turned out and not the Democrats.

Democrats took a safe bet and end up looking like they do not stand for anything.

Republicans used the same 'ol formula (e.g., the IWR)in attempting to consolidate power and lost, but the loss is minimal.

I think that as long as Democrats vote against principle due to political fear of how America will react, Democrats in congress will be held captive by the right.

Long Term effects: There is absolutely no backbone to be found in most Democrats in congress when it comes to principle. Democrats have just confirmed to the GOP and to the nation that they are unwilling to stand up and fight unless they know the results (of how the public will react) beforehand of how it will all come down, which for the most part, is an impossible task.

So who are the winners and the losers?

Republicans lose short term; will regroup and be whole again very shortly.

Democrats lose short and long term. Until they are willing to stand when everyone else is sitting, they will not restore American's faith in our party.

Americans lose. Republicans, with a confirmed view of the Democrats' mentality, will be back with a slightly altered plan.

The Court system wins. They understood the symbolic damage congress would have wrought on our judicial system and the separation of powers.

Your post makes me wonder why I would keep contributing, $ and votes, to a party that continuously disregards their constitutional duties. They keep playing the straightman to the gop's attacks.

They had the perfect opportunity to take advantage of the media coverage last weekend. They could have had their say in the hearings ending with the words... WE WILL NOT BE PARTY to this unconstitutional intrusion upon the rights of the American people. Bye Bye.

They screwed American workers and unions much in the same manner. They now reach out to pro-lifers at the expense of their base. They blather about being personally against gay marriage when what they should really be saying is... WE DON'T DISCRIMINATE and it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to discriminate, we're pro-gay marriage.

Why should anyone be angry at MSM bashing Dems? Dems do it to themselves.

Every time they get handed a plum issue to take a stand on... they waffle.

I will never vote gop... and will probably vote Dem again just because the neocons scare me. But I think I'll put my $ towards the Green party because they deserve a chance to grow and become a viable challenge to the existing choices (mutt & jeff).

have ended up in a post-Goldwater wasteland. Instead, they rallied around a core set of beliefs and four years later retook the White House.

It's a useful object lesson about sticking to your guns in the face of temporary setback.

We might want to study and learn from their successes.

the following comes from a book i'm reading called:

"Regime Change Begins at Home: Freeing America from Corporate Rule" by Charles Derber who is a professor at Boston College

Rule 1: Embrace Defeat
It's hard enough to accept defeat, let alone enthusiastically embrace it. But this is precisely what the New Righters did in 1964, when President Johnson crushed Arizona republican Senator Barry Goldwater in a landslide. Goldwater had rejected the normal politics of Eisenhower republicans in the 1950's and campaigned on a radical platform to overthrouw the New Deal regime. It was a premature strategy and Johnson flattened Goldwater like a pancake in one of the biggest Democratic victories of all time. The genius of the New Right was to reject conventional wisdom about Goldwater's humiliating defeat, refusing to skulk back to normal politics. Instead, they embraced this big loser as a hero and saw in his candidacy the route to regime change in the decade to come. Democrats, take note!

The Goldwater loyalists, sensing the vulnerabilities of the New Deal regime, saw that Goldwater had aroused a constituency in the Bible Belt that could revolutionize the country. Though Goldwater suffered a catastrophic national defeat, he had won the South and thereby created a situation ripe for a major political realignment.<skip>

The New Righters did not accept the rule of normal politics to shun the radical candidate and his ideas. Had they done so, they would have moved the republican party back to the center and put forward an Eisenhower candidate. Instead, they shifted to "regime change politics" and built the insurgent party that led to the reagan revolution and today's "regime". In the process, they created a historic political realignment that we desperately need today.

to let the right hang themselves on the issue, while reiterating the bad republican legislation that shows they're hypocrites when it comes to health care.
The democratic party should be cautious, to do otherwise would kill the entire party. They should be choosy about which fights they want to be involved with.

They voted on the measure instead of calling the neocon tactic for what it was and walking out.

Every day I hear some neocon say... it was a bipartisan vote and many Dems voted with us.

this woman to death. Thanks a lot. Is that guy on Roves payroll or something?

Is this guy also promoting the idea that it would be great for the Dems to run Hillary?

I think it was wise of the Dems to let the Rethugs do all the screaming and hang themselves on this one. Think how the Pukes' behavior here is going to affect perception of them on things like the nuclear option. The are now forever tarred as ruthlessly, shamelessly political and mercenary. I hope the Dems used that time to strategize and plan how to fight them on upcoming crucial issues. I took heart in yesterday's swift response to the Soc. Sec. Trusteees and on the bringing forth of the insolvency of Medicare, which * is doing squat about. I think the Schiavo case is a situation where discretion is the better part of valor. If anything, the Dems looked more respectful of the situation and more dignified than the Rethug vultures making political hay out of a horrible family crisis.

but you are wrong. The courts can handle the case just fine, it is not a political issue except in how it highlights the GOP's desire to insert the government into everyone's personal and family life.

November 7, 2006: Terry who?

Let the Rethugs own this one. One more thing: vast majorities of people in every poll see the Repukes as playing politics with a very serious personal matter. Smart of the Dems not to put themselves in the same league.
IMHO, this is where the tide turned. The Rethugs' crdibility took the hit it couldn't take here. When you play politics with a vegetative-state woman, anything you do afterwards looks suspect.

I agree with Sirota that you have to stand up for what you believe in and articulate that clearly, and that sometimes the Dems have been too reluctant--although with the MSM media against them I can see why they see a lose-lose situation. But I think he's wrong about the Dems.' hesitation to act at other times, such as this one. Sometimes I think Dems are shell-shocked at the depths to which their opposition is willing to sink, and that they have moral qualms about sinking to the same depths. How do you fight when there is no referee (e.g., no MSM doing its job?) and your opponent is willing to do anything to win, but you want to respect yourself and you want to fight fairly? I don't know what the right place is to be on this issue, but I think that it is more of a factor than being unwilling to stand up.

In general, Democrats do seem to be "pleasers" to much, appealing to nobody because they try to appeal to everybody.

But Democrats have spoken out about what an abuse of power this is, although, not perhaps as strongly as they could.

"You may not agree with me but at least you know where I stand".

Yes, the Dems could have stood up in the Schiavo affair and said any of a few things:

SEPARATION OF POWERS!
RULE OF LAW!
MEDICAL PRIVACY!

But they didn't. You get a random voice here and there, on a random issue here and there, which just dissipates in the vast silence of Democratic timidity. We are supposed to congratulate them on their shrewd use of tactics and parliamentary strategy, when what we desperately need & want is a PARTY THAT STANDS FOR SOMETHING.

when so many are willing to gouge out their eyes and eek out the most tortured excuses for their ongoing incompetence?

we will hold their feet to the fire.....so went the refrain...

for something than stand for nothing"

How can you get dedication and passion for a party that doesn't stand for anything other than "Anybody but Bush" (or any other Republican).

The Republicans aren't worried about "alienating" people with their platforms, they are what they are (even though they aren't), the key is that they APPEAR to be standing for things while they actually work against them.

Democrats appear to be anemic.

Democrats have to state THEIR position and stick to it AS A WHOLE!

If they can't do that they will continue losing elections because elections will continue to be close enough to fix.

He couldn't get elected dogcatcher with that logic.

There is absolutely, absolutely nothing to gain to from injecting the party into this mess. All that would happen is that the blame for politicizing a private affair would shift to the Democrats.

Americans do love people who stand up for principles, but they despise obvious opportunists even more.

who has a piece in today's Post attacking the Dems on this issue.

WOW! This is great news--for the Republicans.

The Dems attack the Dems.

The Republicans attack the Dems.

The Republicans WIN AGAIN!

Just for once, I'd like to see Dems stay focused on the really bad guys: W and Jeb and DeLay and Frist!

Or is it just more fun to attack Dems?

1) Barbara Boxer
2) Russ Feingold (his voting record is hardcore non-repuke)
3) Eliot Spitzer
4) Howard Dean for the most part

gets an anthrax letter. Remember? Or a plane crash.

Bill

and make room for others who may have bigger balls.

In life, crossing the street is a risk. Are the Dems going to stay one side of that street indefinitely? It's the difference between having courage to do what's right for our country, or doing what "safest" for personal safety. Heroes do not spring forth from being "safe". Being scared is not an excuse.

Or at least that he means well, or at least has an opinion.