This article on the Democratic Party website shows that Howard Dean is staging a full frontal attack on the Republican party. Recent evidence, however, suggests that Democratic lawmakers are not following his lead.
During the 2004 race Dean proved that he was more in tune with the base of Dems, and this is how he was chosen to head the party. However, the cats with the real power, those in Congress, have been slow to challenge their rivals across the aisle. Perhaps because they are guilty of the same corruption. But that's a different story altogether.
The 2006 election is more important than the 2008 presidential race. This November will set the direction that the country will take for the next six years. Why aren't the Democrats attacking when their opponent is down? Why did Kerry fail to do the same thing in '04? Why did Gore fail to use a similar tact in 2000, choosing instead to go after a weaker Ralph Nader when Bush was the real threat?
I accuse the conservative punks in the DLC of sabotaging the Democratic party and America's
hope for a future free of neoconservative hegemony. Bill Clinton was their only real star. He was someone who (as Tom thoughtfully observed) could sell Reagan-esque policy to the left and make them think it was the best thing since sliced bread. The party has no one else with that type of "lie in your face" charisma.
So what is going to happen over the next six months if the Democratic leadership doesn't pull together with a cohesive message that succeeds in energizing an already united base? They are going to phuk around and lose the whole kit and kaboodle.
Mao said "Politics is war without bloodshed." American Democrats don't seem to realize they are in a fight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nadir: Before you or Tom get too excited about Clinton's success, remember that:
1) He only won both times because Ross Perot split the right.
2) He talked lots of rightist jive, as you acknowledge; "He sold Reagan-esque policy to the left."
Thus, although he won two elections, his victories seem to have required a third party splitting the right, and he himself advancing policies more appealing to the right than the left. Do you guys really think that a straight-up leftist like Howard Dean can win a national election?
I believe that the values of the right have a slightly greater popularity in the overall American public. For this reason rightist candidates can be somewhat more forthcoming and direct in their appeal to the voters.
I am not suggesting that Howard Dean could win a national election. What I am saying is that Dean is more attuned to the base of the Democratic party than the lawmakers in Washington.
The Democratic leadership fails to present a cohesive agenda, but their base is unified on many issues. They just need someone to give them some direction.
Nadir: My comments address the possibility that the democrat's base is slightly (though appreciably) smaller than that of the repos, and thus wonders if by appealing to their base, the demos might reduce the number of people voting for them.
Post a Comment