Democrats -- Start thinking 1979-80.....The time is right.

[Armstead]

An energy crisis. Americans trapped in a Middle Eastern Country. Malaise. Economic woes. A political movement that went overboards and overstayed its welcome. A feeling of national impotence and an ineffectual president....

Sound familiar? That was the US in 1979 and 1980. And what happened as a result? A sea change in the political landscape.

IMO it's a big pendulum and we are rapidly reaching the point where the swing to the Right has either reached its' peak, or is about to. And, if the people on the middle-to-left side play cards wisely, it is ready to swing leftward in a mirror image of the last 25 years.

BUT ONLY if the Democrats are as savvy as the GOP was back then. The Republicans did not come up with Liberal Lite. They came up with the Reagan Revolution. A bold break with the previous conventional wisdom, and a "new vision."

The Big Swings of history are in our favor, if we are sharp enough to capitalize on it. But only if we offer a real alternative that's unapolegetically Liberal and progressive, and don't try to "fish in the GOP pond" (as Bill Maher put it the otehr night).

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Hear hear!

If handled right, presented well, the * fiasco could set up progressive government for the next 30 years.

We won't do it by playing to the right.

[Zenlitened]

3. "We won't do it by playing to the right."

Absolutely. We need to be Progressives, loud n' proud. :toast:

[Imagevision]

30. Well how far down the toilet do we have to flushed before a change

in leadership happens? 3 1\2 more years of this maniacal dufuss called the war prez, now this twirp and his buds will be taking more of our freeedoms from us.
Now we can't simply drive our cars/trucks, I went down to trade my SUV in on something more economical and the freegin salesman hits me with; "we can't offer too much on your trade because people are shying away from SUV's -> I Have a 2004 Explorer!

[corkhead]

2. well said and to the point

I've felt this way myself

[ClassWarrior]

4. Nominated. Amazingly astute, Armstead.

NGU.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. energy conservation is the patriotic thing to do

The Dems need to hammer this home. We can use renewable, American resources to help.

[Misskittycat]

6. High gas prices and long lines were a key part of defeating Carter

in 1980. The Republicans used the public anger over this issue to create an aura that Carter was an ineffective President. They were very skillful at exploiting this issue. This was followed by skillful Republican PR about the Iran Hostage Crisis - again, the theme was that Carter was a nice guy but just couldn't get the job done.

However, history judges Carter's actual ability as President is somewhat beside the point, because his perceived weaknesses were very successfully magnified by the Republicans. Looking back on it, it was amazing how easily the American public was "turned" against reelection of Jimmy Carter.

[jbuist]

15. Progressive and more Liberal is not the answer.

The Republicans used the public anger over this issue to create an aura that Carter was an ineffective President. They were very skillful at exploiting this issue. This was followed by skillful Republican PR about the Iran Hostage Crisis - again, the theme was that Carter was a nice guy but just couldn't get the job done.

You're right in this matter when it comes to public perception. In actuality the Republicans were using Bush Sr. in the CIA to convince the Iranians to hold onto the hostages and after Reagan was president they would be released, then we'd send them a bunch of goodies.

Carter might not have been inept -- there were just too many CIA ops getting involved and making deals behind the scenes to allow Carter to do his job.

Reagan got into office, and served two terms. What is he rembered for among conservatives? For lower taxes and for smaller government. Republican conservatives still hold Reagan's quotes about big government being a problem, and not a solution, with high regard.

Bush I gets in... and now things are different. That "No new taxes" thing worked for the election cycle but after raising taxes he's gone. He's not the small-government conservative everybody wanted.

Now, Ross Perot gets into the mix and has his conservative values and I remember him saying that he wouldn't send American soldiers to war unless he would be willing to send his OWN children to war. He's small government, minimal taxes, and isolationist. He helps split the vote and Bush I loses re-election getting Bill Clinton into office.

You can repeat this in 1996, but now Perot's impact is lesser. Bob Dole comes off like a stiff, and the charismatic Bill Clinton goes back into office.

Gore bombs, we're back to Bush II.

Kerry bombs, we're stil stuck with Bush II.

The answer is NOT to go further left.

Find a Ross Perot, slap the Democrat label on them, insure that they are socially liberal (with regards to policy) but fiscally conservative (cut government spending, don't raise taxes), anti-war, and a champion of personal liberty (ie: Fuck the PATRIOT Act).

Oh, and find somebody that'll clamp down on the border.

That'll win my vote, and I think the populace would like to see something like that. Failing that, I go back to Libertarian.

[Armstead]

27. You're too hung up on the word "left"

It's the powerful versus the rest of us.

Perot was against the giceaway of the economy through NAFTA. That's not isolationism -- it's realizing the role of government in protecting the US economy.

People are getting screwed by the corporate oligarchy. The Republicans are the corporate oligarchy. The Democrats have gotten into bed with them.

Being opposed to the elites contrrollingh everything is not a matter of "left" or "right."

[lostinacause]

16. Linking gas prices to Bush would prove risky.

Seeing how gas prices are largely driven by demand Bush only has limited power over them. If they are blamed on Bush it could very easily backfire as the Democrats could be labeled as liars.

[agincourt]

20. Bush has done nothing to reduce fuel prices,

His solution is more tax breaks for energy buddies and drilling for a little dab of oil in the ANWR. They will call us liars no matter how much Dems tell the truth, I say attack Bush on no energy policy 24/7, because we have grounds to do so.

[lostinacause]

43. I question the necessity of tax breaks at this point especially if they

come into effect immediately as the oil companies are making high profits right now and the high prices are already working to increase investment. This policy decision is one that could be questioned. There is little justification given the current outlook for oil production. The "little dab" of oil in ANWR is expected to increase American oil consumption by something like 10%. This is a large amount of oil. While this would not significantly reduce the oil price it would provide America with some security against rising gas prices. Regardless there is very little that Bush can do to reduce the gas prices without serious consequences. Regarding general energy policy there are things that can be done. It would be nice to see good ideas brought to the forefront instead of people complaining about something that isn't true.

[Armstead]

21. There are ways to bring them down

The idea that this is totally beyond our control is one way they get away with it.

If the oil companies were struggling there might be merit to the argument that it's too complicated. But oil companies are making record profits simultaneously with the public getting screwed. That's an element we cdan do something about. Wehave to stop glossing over the role of Big Oil and the impact of consolidation and profiteering.

[omega minimo]

31. SeeeeeeeeEE?

"But oil companies are making record profits simultaneously with the public getting screwed. "

If mass Americans weren't zombified they could recognize/respond/react on their own behalf. It doesn't matter what the truth/facts/storytelling is until that is addressed. Nothing is getting through the veneer of cognitive dissonance except a woman in a baseball cap standing in a ditch.

"Wehave to stop glossing over the role of Big Oil and the impact of consolidation and profiteering."

[Armstead]

34. "It's too complicated"

When Democrats join Republicans in sprading that message, it does zombify the public. Heck, I get zombified wghen I get sucked into that excuse.

But the plain fact is that oil companies are profiteering. Whether it solves the whole problem or not, that's one place to start, if the Democrats want to help lead the US onto the path of clarity again.

I don't disagree with you about the misleading from the otehr side. But I think they would have not gotten away with it if our side had not gone along with phony messages and false values and evasion for so long.

[omega minimo]

36. You said it

"But I think they would have not gotten away with it if our side had not gone along with phony messages and false values and evasion for so long."

What can be done about that.....?

Do folks still think it's about political viability? Does anyone ever ask "What are they afraid of?"?

[lostinacause]

44. What would you suggest as a way to bring them down?

Keep in mind that the cost of production is variable and that production decisions lag prices. Also keep in mind that consumption levels have continued to increase at least partially because of an increase in development from China.

[Armstead]

50. This isn;t possible under Republicans and Status Quo Dems but..

The government should start being more assertive in the energy market. Start by using the oil reserves as leverage. Things like raising the big stick of raising the threat of price controls and/or investigations (real ones) of things like market-rigging and profiteering.

We've got to stop putting our fates so totally in the hands of sleazy corporations and market vultures.

Internationally, we're also cutting off our noses to spite our face with our beligerance.

[omega minimo]

62. Are you sure that's the problem?

"This isn;t possible under Republicans and Status Quo Dems but.."

...isn't possible under an illegally installed oil company cabal?

"The government should start being more assertive in the energy market. Start by using the oil reserves as leverage. Things like raising the big stick of raising the threat of price controls and/or investigations (real ones) of things like market-rigging and profiteering."

Whose government? As if we have one.

"We've got to stop putting our fates so totally in the hands of sleazy corporations and market vultures."

We've got to stop letting our elections and our government be hijacked by global pirates.

You are right about all your solution-building ideas. Which is why I bring up that we are operating inside the bubble of WHO IS IN THE WH AND HOW THEY GOT THERE and then discussing solutions as if the situation is actually rational and legitimate.

This is why some of us questioned the rapid ease with which Americans, and apparently progressives and many on DU, "moved on" after the electoral debacles of Nov. and Jan.

Everything we think and do and say and dream up is under the shadow of the shadow government. They've come out of the shadows and are In The Face of the zombified nation.

Given the magnitude of what has happened to this nation and the imminent dangers we face, it is difficult to understand folks making some comparison to perceived (freep-injected?) "nanny-statism." Unless it is comforting to focus on the up close and personal and not look at the Big Picture.

Take a look behind you.:evilfrown: The nanny is wearing black leather and a pacemaker. It's Dick Cheney holding a mace aimed at your head. His face is splitting open and the lizard head emerges. The reptile mouth opens wide and hisses,

"NO SMOKING."


:hi:

[Armstead]

67. I guess I have a little more faith than you

I think if the Democrats came on strong, and gave more people a real reason to care about the outcome of elections in a positive way, the problem you allude to would be much more difficult for the Repubs to pull off. People would demand more honest electoral system if they feel they have a stake in the outcome.

[omega minimo]

74. Faith in what?

Faith or wishful thinking?

Don't Americans have some responsibility to care about their system of government and the electoral process for their own sake!?!

"...gave more people a real reason to care about the outcome of elections in a positive way, the problem you allude to would be much more difficult for the Repubs to pull off."

Unfortunately, 2+ decades of Repug dirty tricks have created such a complacent populace (of all political groups) that that magic moment when people "think it affects them" never seems to happen.

That's why its so radical that Cindy Sheehan is doing something so simple-- standing up for herself and her son and other victims of this war and saying "This affects me."

"People would demand more honest electoral system if they feel they have a stake in the outcome."

Don't we have a severe problem with education and basic common sense if people don't "feel they have a stake in the outcome"?

It is a dangeous illusion that nothing changed after the second hijacked election. Life goes on and people still don't "feel they have a stake in the outcome"?

IMHO THAT'S INSANE.

:hi:

[Armstead]

76. What's your point, anyway?

Are you saying that until we have a perfect electoral system, there's no point in anything?

or are you saying that the Republicans have so ruined people that there's no point in anything?

I frankly don't see anything constructive in your stance. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

[omega minimo]

77. Was gonna comment on exchange with Leanin Green but

:wow:


didn't mean to irritate you.

"while I understand your frustration, it's not a reason to give up or be fatalistic."

Is it possible that you are projecting the fatalism and not seeing the necessary intersection of our comments? Is it possible that you are thinking in Either/Or terms that no further explanation will soften?

:hug:

[Armstead]

78. If you mean election fraud....

I don't see it as Either/Or.

But I don't think it's the Deus Ex Machina that can be used as an explanation for how f'd up thing have gotten either.

I believe, as I have for about 25 years, that we are capable of doing a lot better as a nation, but we took the wrong turn collectively and have been getting worse instead.

I don't believe that's inevitable. I'm actually hopeful that we can change direction.

But in order to move in a more positive direction, we all need to stop making excuses for why we as a society and been careening down the wrong path. And as librals, progressives and Democrats and Greens or whomever, we have to also "own" our own role in it, instead of blaming it all on the "evilness" of the otehr side, or vote fraud or other externals.

[omega minimo]

79. It's possible

you are hearing "blaming" where others are advocating recognition and correction.

Apparently, "owning our own role in it" (as vital as it is) is in the eye of the beholder AND a bone of contention.

Thank you for the excellent thread. Please consider there is a grey area where Americans have a role in going along with the "evils of the other side" and with 2 cycles of presidential "vote fraud." Accepting and addressing that complicity would be "owning our own role" and not "blaming externals."

[lostinacause]

82. Could you expand on these points a little. It isn't quite clear what you

mean.

So long are no market manipulations price controls will be far more harmful then beneficial especially given amount of oil that America imports. Canada tried something very similar thing with the National Oil Policy and it was a dismal failure. Canada even had the luxury of producing more then in consumed.

Investigations into price fixing would prove useless. American companies don’t need to price fix when OPEC will do it for them without the companies having to reduce production. This is complicated and relies on multiple concepts in economics. The basics behind it are that to increase the price you have to reduce to total amount supplied. It is much better that someone else make the reduction so that you can sell as much at a higher price. OPEC does a good enough job of reducing supply given their high market share so American companies just take advantage of the collusion. Neither OPEC nor American companies are responsible for this price increase because the increases in prices are not associated with production decreases from OPEC.

[Misskittycat]

24. The point of my post was that the Republicans were able to use

the anger over the gasoline situation to their benefit -- whether or not any president can actually affect gas prices or not. They blamed Carter effectively -- and it stuck.

[lostinacause]

45. I have a feeling the Republicans would be able to turn it around

and perhaps even welcome it. People like myself, if other such people exist, would be pushed away by the dishonesty shown. It is also easier to respond to something the second time it happens making it so that the situation is very risky.

[AntiCoup2K4]

29. It's no secret that the Bush family is tied to the oil business

From Texas oil companies, to the Saudis, to Halliburton,to Iraq. Investment in Hitler's Third Reich was their first source of funding. Oil was the second.

Supply and demand is horseshit when it comes to oil. Yes, there's the Peak Oil thing and the reality that the LONG TERM supply is in danger.

But right now, the issue is an oil industry controlled by a handful of huge multi-national corporations, price fixing while their executives and shareholders pocket record profits which increase every time the price does. If it was really a supply issue driving up the price, the extra profit wouldn't be there, as it would cost the company more to keep up with the demand.

[lostinacause]

46. The oil industry is more competitive now then it had been in the past.

The power of the seven sisters was remarkable. There power has since greatly decreased and many analysis model the markets as being reasonably competitive. The major player in price fixing right now is OPEC and given the increase in demand, OPEC's power has diminished. The reason why oil prices have increased is because of an increase in demand. The supply is relatively fixed over the short term (only increased by exploration).

What has essentially happened is that more people are willing to pay more for the same amount of oil. The prices will naturally increase (even without collusion). Thus because of the increase in demand profits are being generated.

(If you want to account for a corresponding increase in production then more oil will only be taken out if it is lower then the current price, and greater then the lower prices. Even still the companies are either making profits or breaking even on their additional production (and still making the same the same profit on their old production.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. Good point. It is profiteering, pure and simple.

As someone upthread mentioned, prices go up when the supply is reduced. But has there really been a reduction in supply? Are there long lines at the pumps, waiting for the tanker trucks to arrive half-full?

No, the prices are going up WITHOUT a commensurate decrease in supply. Whenever the price per barrel goes up, pump prices go up within a day - but when the barrel price goes down it takes two weeks for the market to respond and drop pump prices. How is that possible?

The oil companies know we have already hit peak oil, and they are on the downhill slope, so they are looting the treasury and soaking the public to wring out all the profit they can before the real effects of peak oil are felt by the public.

When the gas lines do come, it will be bad. Real bad. Because there will be no fixing it, this time. But those few will have their billions and their gated communities and private armies to protect themselves from us as we look forward to a lifestyle not unlike a PBS special about families that live off of what they can glean from the garbage dump outside Manila.

[ldf]

80. refresh my memory

what were the gas prices before bush and before the iraq occupation?

what was the cost of a barrel of crude?

EVERYTHING bush has done has insured that energy prices skyrocket.

right now they are saying supply and demand, meaning more is needed than can be supplied.

where are the gas stations with no gas? where are the lines of cars at the remaining open stations?

hype. pure hype.

PLUS, they won't even try to predict how high the prices will go due to instability in the middle east, meaning how many more pipelines will be blown up by the iraqis that are welcoming us with flowers.

meanwhile, the energy companies are making RECORD profits. AND they are building NO new refineries that would insure more "supply" for the "demand".

and what about the defense industry? just how do you think their profit is going? WE CAN NOT BUILD THE BOMBS FAST ENOUGH!

and is not the bush financial empire based on energy and defense profits?

does that not make you want to go hmmmmmm???

if not, you simply are not paying attention.

[lostinacause]

81. It is one thing to state that two events that have at the very least

a situational correlation and another to state a causal relationship. Just because two things happen to coincide doesn't mean one is the cause of the other. Take for example the protests toward the war. They happened about the same time. One could not rightfully blame the high oil prices on the war though the coincide. Beyond the instability of the Middle East (which I will address later) you have not related any of Bush's actions to the price of oil.

You don't quite understand the concepts of supply and demand. Wikipedia has good information on supply and demand though it may be a little complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Most analysts believe that the prices have increased because of an increase in demand. An increase in demand means at any price the amount that the consumer is willing to buy has increased. Thus for the current amount that is on the market the price has to be higher. Because of the high prices more oil will be put on the market but not enough oil will be put on the market to reduce the price back to where it was. Continued growth in demand plus the long lags associated with getting oil to the market has put the prices to where they are. If the gas stations were persistent on buying and selling gas at the old prices there would be no gas at those stations as they would sell out and would not be able to get any new gas without paying a higher price from their supplier.

As far as instability in the Middle East goes; there has been little change in the past year or so. There has, however, been a significant change in oil prices.

It's really no surprise that oil companies are doing so well. Investment decisions that were based on lower expected prices will have large payoffs due to having the better outcome in a risky situation. It is part of doing business. When the prices are higher then expected they do very well. When they are lower then expected firms go out of business and refineries shut down. High profits are constant with economic theory given the situation oil companies are in.

The refineries are not being built as fast as you expect for various reasons. One of the reasons is environmental regulations. Another is that existing refineries have picked up the slack. As with most industries the high land values in America hamper investment. It is also likely more efficient to refine the oil and then ship it. As a result much of the oil is being refined before it is imported and even with the high prices. Keep in mind that investing in refining may prove risky as in the past when prices were low many refineries shut down.

I don't see how defense or the "bush financial empire" is relevant in this discussion. Regardless; check out the link. It is good information to know. (Wikipedia also has good information about a variety of other topics.)

[mrdmk]

83. Maybe yes, maybe no, then again definitely no

This is an older report from over a year ago, but the downward trend of the U.S. Dollar has not changed.

link
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0407/p09s02-coop.html

This is Business Week's take on the situation


link
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_42/c3753049.htm

Mr. Bush Jr. are not doing anything concerning production in this country, just the opposite that is resulting in the falling dollar. If anything, this proves why Mr. Bush Jr. barely made it though college and a failure in the oil business. Him and minions are on a course of destruction, that is what they are good at and we can hold this group to that fact!

edit: dam dyslexia

[lostinacause]

85. That is perhaps the best evidence I have seen linking Bush to oil prices

and the relationship is only weak. The falling dollar is only one part of the picture as demand for oil is also increasing. Furthermore actions by Bush are only part of the reason for the falling dollar. The deficit is the biggest thing that can be directly attributed to Bush. Decreased barriers to trade are also lowering the dollar. Regardless attentions should be focused where it is easiest to create a direct link of a negative side effect. The budget deficit would be something that the democrats would be wise to focus on. As you've mentioned productivity (I assume that is what you mean by production) is also going to start to become critical in the next few years. The Democrats will have a difficult task to convince voters they can do a better job then the republicans on either issue.

Also quoting articles that are as old as the ones you have mentioned is generally not a good practice when discussing economics. Quite a bit can change in a year.

[mrdmk]

86. Here is the problem, Bush Jr.'s policies do not promote manufacturing

So the trade deficit is at a all time high.



link
http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

Bush Jr.'s tax policies are outrages. They have not produced any positive results other than what the free market has produced on its own. Here are some figures of that national debt.


Bush Jr.
08/12/2005 $7,882,473,618,136.70
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

Clinton
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38

Bush Sr.
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

Reagan
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

link
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Yes, you are correct in saying that economic conditions can change quickly. Where you incorrect saying using older information is not good practice. People who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it and the Bush Jr. Administration is doomed, they as a group disregard history.

[lostinacause]

88. The problem with manufacturing is that America doesn't have

a strong competitive advantage to work on. Education for manufacturing jobs is poor. Most Americans don't want to be doing these jobs and if they are doing them they expect to be paid very well. The cost of land is high. There are high legal costs to contend with. There are also high environmental standards. I could go on. The current economic reality makes manufacturing very costly. Some of these things could be improved but many are because of the standard of living that Americans have. America's response to globalization will be a difficult task, regardless of who decides to address it.

I agree; Bush has spent far more then he should have. He has been using the War on Terror as a justification for much of his spending. The War on Terror, in just about everyone's opinion, is expected to go on at least into the next ten years; many would say indefinitely. You cannot justify current deficits on spending behavior that is said to go on for quite some time. The timing for his tax breaks was poor and was not accompanied by any corresponding decrease in net spending.

Your purpose in using the information was to establish a causal relationship based on the current economic conditions. Because of this the information that you provided weakened the agreement you made. It goes without saying that history has its value when combined with proper thought and analysis and can be proved relevant to this situation.

[SeanQ]

7. kick!

[Taverner]

8. "It's Morning in America"

Even tho I don't agree with him eye to eye, and would rather have Dean...Edwards is the man for the job.

One has to be a wide eyed optimist like Reagan was...

[ClassWarrior]

10. That's pretty insightful too.

Handsome and hopeful. Good point.

NGU.

[Armstead]

11. Wide eyed optimist willing to kick ass

Whoever that may be.

[demzilla]

13. But people will also be looking for substance

If it dawns on them that electing an inexperienced person such as Bush can lead to terrible trouble, they may be looking for someone who has the gravitas to lead us out of the mess we're in.

I'm not sure Edwards projects that -- optimism without much experience is not especially compelling. Kerry has some gravitas but may be somewhat damaged goods. Gore has the most gravitas but also some personality issues, unless he's changed. Wes Clark? Who knows?

[omega minimo]

19. He was a crappy opportunistic actor playing a wide-eyed optimist

Morning In America was a load of horse-shit.

Reagan stood at the entrance to the dark tunnel that Bushco. has led us deeper into, as we now look for some light to hint that there is an end.

EVERYTHING ABOUT REAGAN WAS MEDIATED AND MANUFACTURED. Including the revised history.

Without Reagan, Dumbedya as President would be impossible.

[NMDemDist2]

23. so maybe we can get one of the Sheen boys to run

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

26. Andrew McCarthy

Recent appeal with Stephen King fans
and Demi and Ashton could get out the Punk'd voters

Speakin of which, if it's time to go back to 79-80, ya'll better start LISTEN TO THE PUNK ROCKERS. THEY WERE RIGHT AND STILL ARE.

:yourock:

[demzilla]

9. What we need is

a Democratic version of the Contract with America, for next year's Congressional elections, and then a candidate in 2008 who has the qualities for the times.

The more I think about it, the more I think that with his energy and environmental credentials, as well as with his experience, Al Gore may be the man. If the pendulum swings, people may wonder: What if Gore had been allowed to take office? Things might have been better! He did win the popular vote; let's give him a chance.

[novak goes postal]

12. no more GOP LITE or DLC hard,,,, We need and must have progressives....

great article thank you, Armstead

[JDPriestly]

14. Amen. Armstead. we are with you.

[omega minimo]

17. They were savage, not savvy...

"BUT ONLY if the Democrats are as savvy as the GOP was back then."

...and started their dirty tricks early in that campaign. With a compliant media, the GOP manipulated public perception about Carter and told the country they were gonna elect Reagan about 5 months before the election. What happened? MOST EVERYBODY STAYED HOME and Reagan had his "landslide."

Splitscreen during the Inauguration with Reagan on one side taking the oath he intended to abuse, and his pet hostages on the other.

The Big Lie was Reagan's legacy and we are now paying the price.

If "the people on the middle-to-left side play cards wisely" and foster "a sea change in the political landscape," we must not forget the lies and crimes that got us here and the FACT that we cannot depend on the same dirty tricks.

When DU/Dems romanticize what the Repugs did, I often wonder whether people remember Reagan from adulthood or childhood, or learned about these events as history.

"The Republicans did not come up with Liberal Lite. They came up with the Reagan Revolution. A bold break with the previous conventional wisdom, and a "new vision.""

"A bold break the previous converntional wisdom" of the social contract and the American commonwealth (such that now RW boneheads proudly screech "We don't care"!) and a "new vision" of the RW at the top of the pyramid, sucking the blood and treasure from all the duped, drugged dummies down below.

Sound familiar? :evilgrin:

[Armstead]

18. Savagery alone didn't get them there

I'm 53, and I renmember it all as if it were yesterday (or the day before yesterday).

I'm not diminishing the savagery component, but that would not have succeeded if they hadn't also found a way to strike a chord in the zeitgeist.

There is a similar chord waiting to be struck, if we can get our collective acts together, and stop being so namby-pamby. We don't have to be savage and nasty -- frankly, I think the GOP savagery is one things people are going to reject. But we can't be as tepid and jellylike as we've been for the last couple of decades either.

[omega minimo]

22. It's not an argument but if I had to choose sides

Savagery alone DID get them there.

1. They LIED savagely and continuously (to this day, and they got better and better at it)

2. They savagely took advantage of the good will of the American people; of their faith in their system of government and their need to believe in their leaders

3. They savagely groomed an ever greater and more corrupted sense of suspended disbelief at what those leaders would and could do in their name, on behalf of their governement (sound familiar?) to the point that NOW the mass of American people cannot RESPOND, cannot REACT, cannot even REGISTER awareness to reality.

They struck that chord by obliterating the zeitgeist and creating a nation of zombies.

What'd I say?:

"If "the people on the middle-to-left side play cards wisely" and foster "a sea change in the political landscape," we must not forget the lies and crimes that got us here and the FACT that we cannot depend on the same dirty tricks."

That is not a challenge to your point. That is a reminder that we cannot depend on the same dirty tricks.

"There is a similar chord waiting to be struck, if we can get our collective acts together, and stop being so namby-pamby. We don't have to be savage and nasty -- frankly, I think the GOP savagery is one things people are going to reject. But we can't be as tepid and jellylike as we've been for the last couple of decades either."

The problem is not "namby-pamby, tepid and jellylike." The problem is the zombified, disengaged mentality that resulted from #1, #2 and #3. IMHO progressives need to recognize and address those mechanisms and behaviors that are now a generation+ entrenched; and in addressing them, avoid at all costs ANYTHING resembling those mechanisms and behaviors. That is the chord that is waiting to be struck.

But I am a wide-eyed optimist.

[rateyes]

25. "Are you better off than you were 2 years, 6 years ago?"

Why in the hell would a working person EVER vote for a Republican?

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. Seen the Christopher Walken thread yet?

Reagan was an actor. Maybe that's what we need? :shrug:

[omega minimo]

32. We need someone to take the most courageous, effective possible stand:

being a human being.

It's effective up until the point those rare leaders with that courage are assassinated.

[Armstead]

35. John Cusak

I'd rather go with John Cusack if they want an actor.

[omega minimo]

37. I'd support a Cusack/Duchovny ticket

Is America ready for dry wit?

[Neshanic]

33. Very true...the "New American Society"

New technologies to be persued to make us energy indepedent from an old oil based society.

Freedom for all people with equal rights for all

Massive investment in all new technologies for information,education,computers, media, transportation, high speed rails between major metropolitan areas.

The shedding of the turn of the century past. A new future.

The promise of new jobs for all the new recycling, information, and building a new transit infrastructure for power, transportation, and retooling of our factories for making all things new.

[Pepperbelly]

38. We REALLY need to stay away from nanny-statism.

It is the kiss of death.

[omega minimo]

41. ....and inane soundbite cliches

that make no sense

[Pepperbelly]

48. whatever ...

but I am so sick of our side supporting the micromanagement of everyone's lives. Fuck that.

[Armstead]

49. The GOP have become the Nanny Staters

[Pepperbelly]

51. We still have plenty of our own, thank you.

I am amazed at how much control over my life some of the people HERE think the government should exert.

[Armstead]

52. Such as?

Careful....I might agree with you. }(

[Pepperbelly]

53. we've got our movie critics, our video critics, our gun controllers,

our drug warriors, and more. We have food nazis, smoking nazis, and our Party purgers (I decided to cap the 'p' hopefully for clarity), and others who, from time to time, want to poke the state's intrusive snout more intently into child raising and even religous beliefs.

[Armstead]

54. I'll agree with most of that

I owuld add, however, that the Pro-Choice movement is the opposite of the Nanny State. It's more libertarian than the GOP's position.

Gun control -- Except for a few commonsense restrictions, that's a loser.

There's also a difference between "food nazis" and regulation and/or education about the basic quality of the food supply.

Child abuse is a good example of the dilemma about Nanny Statism. Nobody wants the government wanting to micro-manage parenting or intrude on families. But people also don't want to allow child abuse. There's got to be a balance there.

[Pepperbelly]

55. no completely true ...

I have seen it seriously advocated on this very board by some individuals that religious orientation was tantamount to child abuse.

I really have seen this.

BTW, what did I say bad about the pro-choice movement being nanny statist?

[Armstead]

56. You didn;t say anything bad about pro-choice movement

But that's one of those "social issues" that is often tagged with the failings of liberals. Sorry if I overstepped there.

It's not a wise thing for anyone to equate religion with child abuse (unless, of course, it is a religion that practices child abuse). But that is less a political issue than a matter of differences over personal beliefs and values. Not everything is political.

I do agree with you about the Nanny State in general. I don't like it on a personal level, and I think it's politically a loser to support it as policy. Among otehr things it distracts from the legitimate role of liberalism in protecting the public interest.

There is a balance that's necessary between protecting the public interest and protecting individual freedom.

But at the same time, that term gets tossed around too much and inaccurately by conservatives to mischaracterize liberalism. (Especially when Cons are just as Nanny State favoring in their own way.)

[Pepperbelly]

57. I think we should be the MYOB party.

People would flock to it in DROVES. IMHO, of course.

:D

[Armstead]

58. You're right, actually -- MYOB Transcends ideology

The idea that the liberals want to poke their noses into everyone's business was one of the reasons for its decline since the 1970's.

Now we're seeing the right-wing and fundies wanting to poke their nose into everybody's business, both for priggish reasons and (more ominously) for "security" reasons.

Also, I think just as big an intrusion is the Corporate Nanny State, as corporations become just as abusive and intrusive as any government.

So MYOB would be a good message -- as long as it doesn;t extend into the things that legitimately everybody's business (like corporate malfeasance).

[Pepperbelly]

61. if it hurts someone else in a real, concrete way ... safety or property...

it might well be the business of government. If not ...

MYOB.

[wli]

39. don't forget the October Surprise...

And the long-preplanned FEMA "succession exercises" for the day after the assassination attempt on Reagan.

[The Traveler]

40. Yeah! That's what I'm talkin' about!

The Repthugs are WRONG! We can't make progress by emulating their positions.

[KingFlorez]

42. Remember 1992

The Republicans lost the Presidency and Democrats held Congress, people were saying the GOP was dead, but 2 years later they won Congress. We're in the same position now, except we have bigger ammunition going into an election.

[Mr Rabble]

47. Our elected officials- democrats- are mostly useless.

While there are exceptions, most democrats are totally pathetic.

I dont expect that to change.

Shame.

[omega minimo]

59. You must not be one.

[Skidmore]

60. And who do we have that will step up and LEAD on this

in the near future? Most of these people are so hell bent on "me, too" strategies that they REFUSE to listen to the people.

[Armstead]

64. The people have to step up and lead on this

I realize "the people" is an amorphous phrase, but the political pooh bahs won't get our of their little boxes until enough people start pressing for real reform.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

65. I'm not saying he was the primary cause...

He was a scapegoat. But the reemergence of the energy crisis in the late 1970's was one of the big reasons for otehr problems that got dumped onto him and Denmocrats and liberalism in the perceptual sense.

I remember very well the winter of 1979 (or 80) when winter hit and people were building fires and complaining mightly about the difficulty of staying warm.

I hope things are better by this winter (living in New England, I'm being selfgish) but if this crap keeps up, Bush will be a much more logival target for public ire since he is so heavily associated with Big Energy.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

73. I lived through that period too

The last couple of years of the 70's was the culmination of a decade of decline and various morasses.

Anyway, whether Carter was to blame or not is beside the point, which is the parallel between the "malaise" of that period and the growing malaise of today.

[leanin_green]

66. There's one big difference from '79-80.

They didn't have the ability to rig the tallying process like they do now. Why do we continue to forget that fact? Has anything really changed since '04? Any Democrat with a serious chance at winning would have to be a part of the power elite that in effect run election outcomes now. If not a part of it, then if he/she becomes someone to contend with, someone who could be made to buy into the status quo as it stands today.
I admire, truly, the spirit for the desire for change that is displayed here; and I hate to be someone who seems to want to dampen any enthusiasm we all may have to work for a better future. But it wasn't long ago we all were up in arms about the fraud of an election that took place in '04. Has anything changed since then? Has the ability to effect a desired outcome by a small group in the tallying process suddenly vaporized into thin air? Until we realize we no longer have the power to effect change through the electoral process, I'm afraid all of this drumbeating is just so much hopeless noise.:banghead:

[Armstead]

68. As I responded to a similar post above.....

while I understand your frustration, it's not a reason to give up or be fatalistic.

It's a chicken and egg thing, IMO.

If the Democrats came up with strong positions and good candidates to make more people feel like they have more stake in the outcome, it'd be a lot harder for the Repubs to manipulate elections.

[leanin_green]

69. I appreciate that Armstead, but. . .

It's not just Republicans that manage outcomes. And your also right, create better issues and garner vast support and people will still support a better candidate. However, there will come a time in that canditate's run where a choice will have to be made, or rather, a choice will be put to him/her. This is the nature of the power game. A choice to be either the statesman or politician. Become a statesman and possibly lose either your reputation or your life. Become another politican and gain recognition, power, fame and fortune. Anyone who seeks the highest office in this country has to make this choice. "Bow down and worship me and I will give you power over all these nations."

[Armstead]

71. It has to be pressure from the ground up

I don't disagree with some of your conclusions, but I think dead-end fatalism is the sure path to defeat.

The politicians only get power because we give it to them. I know that sounds like a Frank Capra cliche, but it's basically true.

The Republicans fed people what people thought they wanted,and that's how they gained power.

The Democrats have the potential to offer what people really want and need, but only if the corporate Democrats are given a wake-up call and stop trying to futily gain power by offering thin gruel.

[BeFree]

70. Hopeless noise, indeed, leanin_green

Hell, Gore won the presidency in 2000 and what did our Dem leaders do?

I don't trust any of 'em enough to break on through. We need new leaders. Leaders that know what has happened to our democracy. IT WAS STOLEN!

No amount of messaging or strategizing will work as long as they keep allowing elections to be STOLEN.

[omega minimo]

75. HopeFUL noise, but still........

:evilgrin:

[The Blue Knight]

87. Interesting logic, Armstead.

I hope you're my friend!