Why posts about the failed Democratic Leadership aren't on rightwing sites

[Walt Starr]

It's simple, really. The rightwingnuts are terrified that the grassroots activists will either get the leadership to evolve a spine, force the assholes out in favor of leadership who have a spine, or will go off on their own to start a third party movement that makes an end run around both parties.

Whatever their reasons, they're terrified of us being pissed off at our ineffectual asshole leadership.

That alone should tell DUers about how we handle the treasonous bastards in the DLC and the assholes "leading" the party today.

[donco6]

1. I dunno.

I think they just realize we're all irrelevant now. Why would they care about our leadership one way or another?

On edit:

Hell, I don't even care about our leadership now.

[Walt Starr]

2. Because taking care of the leadership issue right the fuck now

could spell the difference between winning and losing in two and four years.

[donco6]

3. Why?

I mean, really - why? What in your opinion will make the difference for us in 2008 - turn us losers into winners?

[Walt Starr]

4. Stop playing to the right wing talking points for one

framing the debate on our terms instead of reacting to the terms of the debate as framed by the right for another.

[donco6]

5. And people will flock to our cause?

You really think that? Sorry to be such a downer, but as a gay man who can hear the brownshirts in Colorado Springs filing their teeth at night just waiting for the advent of Kristallnacht, I'm a little doubtful.

We gave it our best shot. Gave more money. Got more people to vote than ever. Killed 'em in the debates. None of it mattered. People don't vote on intelligent issues anymore. They vote on three things: Gays, God and Guns. The RW has the market cornered on all three. I don't think our "selection of leadership" will make any difference whatsoever in 2008 or even 2012. I don't know what will, frankly.

[Walt Starr]

7. Sorry, but you're wrong

The single biggest reason we lost this year is the Democratic Party did not give a clear differencec on the national security issue. God, guns, and gays only got the GOP base breathing heavy. National security made the difference and frankly, voting for the $87 billion before voting against it did more to lose the election than any gay marriage ever did!

[donco6]

9. I truly hope so.

I just guess I can't be as optimistic as you quite yet. I can't even watch the national news much anymore. Watching that idiot get inaugurated again will just about push me over the edge.

[villager]

10. "Screw the rhetoric, dig the numbers"

From Michael Ventura's recent column in the Austin Chronicle:


Letters at 3AM
Screw the rhetoric, dig the numbers
BY MICHAEL VENTURA

The gab doesn't jibe with the numbers. The numbers don't say, "Democrats lost on moral values." The numbers say, "Democrats were out-organized and didn't play hard enough to their base – yet still almost won."

Scan the results and imagine the possibilities (stats are from Nov. 7's New York Times unless otherwise noted):

# Moral values and the religious right? The Christian Science Monitor (Nov. 15) reported that 16% of Americans want to ban all abortions, and yet 22% of them voted for Kerry. A hefty number. If Democrats would talk to these people, instead of dissing and/or talking down to them, the number could have been heftier. (We must never go soft on choice. But we must recognize that we have anti-choice constituents, then find out why they voted for Kerry, then use that information to reach out for more.) In 2000 and 2004, Democrats won 39% of people who attend church at least once a week. Republicans won 59% in 2000, 61% in 2004 – their mere 2% rise did not account for the election. In fact, Democrats won 40% of all Protestants in 2000 and 2004; Republicans won 58% in 2000, 59% in 2004. A piddling 1% rise. It wasn't the religious right that won this election for George W. Bush.

# Gay marriage. Sixty percent of Americans say they support either gay marriage (25%) or civil unions (35%). Those numbers didn't lose the election.

# Red states and counties – the rural vote. Not much change. Republicans won 59% in 2000 and 59% in 2004. They played to their base and held it, but didn't gain. Democrats won 37% in 2000 and 40% in 2004, actually increasing rurally. Again: If Democrats would talk to these people, instead of dissing and/or talking down to them, the numbers would have been better.

Since the election I've heard a lot of Democrats spew a lot of whiney, simplistic nonsense about "the red states" – ignoring that in those states millions voted their way. (Stats are from CNN.com.) Texas: 4,519,023 for Bush – 2,827,756 for Kerry. Do we just write off nearly 3 million Texans? Mississippi: 671,027 for Bush – 445,596 for Kerry. Do we just forget nearly half a million Mississippians? Kansas: 717,507 for Bush – 420,846 for Kerry. Alabama: 1,174,348 for Bush – 691,993 for Kerry. Virginia: 1,662,484 for Bush – 1,396,269 for Kerry. Georgia: 1,889,832 for Bush – 1,345,198 for Kerry. Wyoming, Dick Cheney's state: 167,127 for Bush – 70,620 for Kerry (nearly one out of three). About the same percentage for Nebraska: 485,766 for Bush – 234,236 for Kerry. These are states that Democrats, and their oh-so-bourgeois helpers (MoveOn.org, etc.), utterly ignored. If we hadn't, the numbers would be better.

In smaller cities and towns (population 10,000 to 50,000) Republicans went down a whopping 9% of the vote, from 59% in 2000 to 50% in 2004. Democrats increased 10% – 38% in 2000, 48% in 2004. We came within 3% of winning these areas, and might have won more if we hadn't all but ignored them. Again, we shouldn't soften our positions; but we need to communicate more widely, more directly, and in terms these areas relate to.

You might say, "What's the point of playing to the red states; we still wouldn't have won them?" Two reasons: Our general vote total would have increased – instead of losing the popular vote by 3% we might have lost by 2% or less. Which might mean that elected Democrats would be a little less timid. But more important: Red state Democrats would have felt supported instead of isolated; might have felt inspired instead of ignored; and they might now feel more reason to organize and fight for next time. Instead, most feel lost and mocked. Surrounded, without help.

To discount them is to desert them. You can't build a grassroots base by ignoring people who agree with you. This country is seriously divided, but the numbers prove the divide isn't as bad as the talking heads would have us believe. And the numbers prove something more: The divide is not irreversible. But it will be, if Democrats don't take all their constituents seriously.

<snip>

the rest of the story at:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-11-26/cols_ventura.html

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Here, here, here, HERE, here, here!

That's the key. Frame our OWN agenda and our OWN debate.

We have far too long been far too willing to think our intellect and reason and debate skills (?) would win over their zeal and one note message.

And that's a segue into a whole other topic .... as is discussed in DU's own Frame the Debate Group.

[the_outsider]

6. Rush was talking about it yesterday in some detail. He said..

that there is a high chance that there will be an internal revolt in the democratic party and the grass root leaders becoming stronger, more vocal and demanding. He also mentioned that the DNC leadership struggle will be the first indicator of where the party was heading.

There is no doubt that the power of whom he is a mouthpiece is carefully monitoring the situation. They would rather tone down their rhetorics, even lose a few elections from time to time and maintain the status quo rather than risk fundamental changes in the democratic party and consequently national politics.

[Walt Starr]

8. Precisely! What we did online terrifies the fuckers!

and if we win the leadership of the DNC, they know they are fucked!

[punpirate]

11. I don't think they're terrified...

... so much as happy that the Democrats have devolved into an entity which can be consistently beaten by the minority party. Why would they stick their noses into something that, in their view, is working to their advantage?

They've used their tremendous cache of right-wing money to buy off a significant portion of the party leadership through the DLC (how many Democrats know what Democrats are members of the DLC, or that the DLC takes money from adjuncts of the Heritage Foundation, which is, in turn, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, maybe the worst of the right-wingers?).

Were those facts much better known by the Democratic base, they might be storming a good deal more than they are. It's in the interest of the right wing not to rock that boat, especially when it's sailing right into their harbor.

[madrchsod]

12. assholes

gee that`s what i told the dnc they were in my e-mail to them this week. i think i unsubscribed to the dlc the day kerry kissed bush`s ass