Nice theory, but problematic in practice for several reasons:

1. These Democrats, like Biden, Lieberman, and Clinton, will sell out the party whenever convenient for their perceived advantage. Their defection on certain key bills can spell doom for the party during the next election cycle.
2. Working hard to elect "contrarian conservative Democrats" means that we're then depending on those same "contrarian conservative Democrats" to hold on to power. Since, by working to make them acceptable, we've moved the public debate to the right, and we depend on them to maintain our majority. This means they get to call all the shots because, by defecting to the Republicans, they can put them back in power.

In short, "ideological purity" - having a party that actually stands for something, and can articulate a coherent set of core principles that its politicians will not violate - has to come first. This is how Alexa McDonough rebuilt the national NDP here in Canada from total irrelevancy. She didn't go hunting for conservatives to help bolster her ranks. She (and Layton after her) have focused on having a cohesive, progressive policy. And while they may not be the government, they're the power in the current Parliament, and stand to gain seats during the next election because they've stuck to their guns.

Pragmatism Doesn't Work.

Sorry... but isn't this the same thing that Kos and Co have been advocating... get any ole Dem elected then figure the rest out later...

Is there a reason why taking back the COngress Dems can not chew and walk at the same time.

I had yet to see where being a true Democrat has hurt a candidate... that was not first damaged by the backbiting of the DLC/NDN types frist ie Dean.

In fact Hackett just proved that even in the reddest area running against the local anti-abortion president a REAL Dem could make headway...

What you and Kos are advocating is exactly "What's the matter with Kansas"... there is no putting thing son the back burner and coming back later... because as you see with the Dems "keeping their powder dry" there is no going back on a lifetime appoint as Chief Justice to the Supreme court... sorry but I am not buying this...

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

The Democratic Party has become a creaky old tub taking on water for years. The heart and soul of the party has already been thrown overboard in favor of corporate cash. Look around, as long as the Democratic Party is seen as just as bad as the Republican Party - and if you can't draw a bright line of contrast with this set of mo fo's, God help us all, we are adding to the problem, not solving it. If we put people over party, people over power for the sake of power, we can and will make a difference.

The current state of Republican vs. Democrat is a distinction without a difference. Why not stand together as Americans to force our government to actually represent us, regardless of their political affiliation? Do you think most Americans want corruption, abuse of power, woefully inadequate government response to loss of life?  Hell no. But instead of debating the real issues, we're all too willing to toe the party line, be a good Democrat, a good Republican, while the country plunges further into decay.

Nothing worse than losing everything for a subset of jingoism.

It seems likely that dread pirate Roberts will be on the Supreme Court, Bush will nominate an even more puritanical O'Connor replacement and women everywhere will be completely hosed.  This makes the state positions even more critical.

I am actively writing the party heads to let them know I won't vote for such a candidate, and to get themselves in order NOW.

In many ways this feels like being told to marry a dud of a boyfriend and change him after the wedding.  Some of us are old and wise enough to know that ain't going to happen.  So if the Democratic party wants my votes, and those I bring to the polls through canvassing, then it better start listening pronto.

Either way, there's regret.

Party members have become a mere mercenary army, aiming their votes in return for spoils.

It is possible to have strong principles AND be open to compromise AND win elections. I offer Russ Feingold, who wins by good majorities even in very conservative rural WI, and the badly missed Paul Wellstone as examples.

The ward heelers at the dailyKaukus are just wrong on this. Wrong, wrong and more wrong. Their NDN "strategy" of a warmed over, net-savvy reborn DLC will only result in more erosion of our liberties to the corporations and the religious right. This relentless Siren call to the "center" will only continue to smash us all on the rocks.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

It's the pasturized, hollowed-out passivity to it - or what passes for it - that makes me scrunch up my lips and shake my head Hell no. It's the same idle dream that tricksters and daemons, both human and other than human, have encouraged us to entertain for millenia. It's Maitreya; it's Hillary in '08; it's our benevolent Space Brothers; it's Disclosure; it's the lottery; it's the Rapture. It's the pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die, or when a Democrat is returned to the White House. It's even the fatalistic anticipation of Doom, and the Final Release.

However it's tarted up, the message is always the same: Just wait. Just a little bit longer."

Jeff Wells
Rigorous Intuition

This is not the time to be insisting on perfect candidates or narrow special interest issues.  In light of the last five years, I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind could think differently.

Onward...

So I've got it turned on, and Diddy (formerly P Diddy) is her special guest, and they just did a rap together to open the show.  Pretty cute.

back to politics ... :)


Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

First, the Democracy Alliance has stated that its fundraising goals will "inevitably come in part at the expense of more traditional Democratic groups, although alliance officials say donors have committed to maintaining past contribution levels."

I think that it is fair to say that when it comes to contributing, many of us have been put in an "either/or" position, that is, "Grand Strategy vs Special Interests". We do not have infinitely deep pockets. Below, I will return and comment on why I think the entire "Grand Strategy vs Special Interests" debate is poorly positioned for Democratic success.

Second, the various proposals that have been killed in the House/Senate are a direct result of the 2002/2004 elections. The Democrats have failed in presenting  substantive programs that attract the American voter.

In fact, the GOP has been more successful in convincing voters to abandon traditional/special interests in favor of party. Using the '2% shift' in the black vote as an example, I will paraphrase some of the comments in More young blacks ready to embrace the GOP. The youth of today are focused on building wealth and some are ready to abandon the historical/traditional ties to a civil rights legacy in favor of the GOP planks of entrepreneurship and opportunity.

 There is a bottom line. People get involved in politics to improve their standing. While the general betterment of society is a laudable goal, it falls by the wayside, realistically speaking, when individuals start to worry about their standing, financially and politically, particularly during less generous times.

In my area, the middle class (hardly a left-wing fringe) is talking about outsourcing, a policy that has been supported by both GOP/Dem politicians. My Democratic senators are on board with the India Caucus, as well as potential Democratic presidential candidate Clinton, etc, etc. Sirota has identified this as a key issue for winning support for a Democratic economic populist campaign. However, it isn't enough to shout "outsourcing is bad for America" from rooftops.

I have not seen a position paper that outlines how Democrats/Democratic candidates will work to balance the interests of American workers vs the interests of corporations. This is an example of how speaking in only the most general tones without any substance will fail to attract voters. In fact, in the absence of any realistic discussion, I see a continued migration to policies that emphasize individual wealth-building to leverage a rapidly-changing dynamic. It makes no difference whether the message is realistic or not -- increasingly, people will choose self-preservation over "getting left behind with the suckers."  

Another aspect of the Grand Strategy is the advisability of contributing money/time/resources to non-local political campaigns. Again, assuming that one's pockets are not infinitely deep, this necessarily comes at the expense of supporting local issues. The Democrats as a whole have not presented any substantive or compelling reason for me to support, say Jon Tester in MT, over another $50 to my local fire department. In fact, recent events have deepened my commitment to local infrastructure in terms of my money; my time; my efforts in hosting informal meetups to discuss issues of importance. Again, this is just another variant on Grand Strategy vs Special Interests. My Special Interests are regional and local.

It goes without saying that my vote(s) in 2006 will be regional/local. This is the cornerstone of representative democracy. This is why Melissa Bean only answers email from her constituents, much to the consternation of some online donors questioning her CAFTA vote.

The Art of Politics at its core is necessarily an appeal to voter self-interest. At a time when I was a 'solid, team Democrat', Democrat was synonymous with pro-choice, pro-civil rights, which in turn speaks to me about economic fairness and liberty in the marketplace. Take that away, and I am left with two parties that compete for my time, money and vote on a more primitive level, one where the Democrats are doomed to fail because the GOP does it so much better .