"The conservative wing of the Democratic Party just drove it over a cliff." Eskow takes on Matt Bai

[madfloridian]

and his defense of centrism in the NYT about the election.

I agree with R. J. Eskow up to a point. I believe we lost because we failed to recognize the extremism of our opponents, and we failed in pointing out what they would do to this country in a very short time.

There should have been talking points sent out to the Democratic spokespersons, to the media...just like the Republicans do. We should have told the inattentive voters just who these people are, that they are being funded by corporate money...that there is nothing grassroots about them.

I think we feared the backlash, and that was our downfall. Being fearful.

Sit! Stay! A New York Times Chew Toy for Blue Dogs

The conservative wing of the Democratic Party just drove it over a cliff, but you'd never know if from reading Matt Bai's latest New York Times piece. It's the latest in a series of Bai paeans to that odd mix of ideologies and opportunism that Washington types persist in calling "centrism," despite its ever-increasing distance from the real center of American opinion.

..."People like Matt Bai are the ones caught in old paradigms. Bai's so anxious to put old hippies out to pasture that he never stops to consider what might have happened if Democrats had enacted more of the policies the "liberals" advocated. Instead he devotes altogether too much attention to exorcising the ghosts of the sixties and their contemporary signifiers. The word "liberal" appears 16 times in Bai's 938-word piece, while the name "Pelosi" appears 6 times and the name "Dean" 4 times.Voters don't think the way journalists and politicians do. They don't share Washington's obsession with labels, groups, and personalities. Instead they're drawn to those parties, ideologies, and people who get things done the way they want them done. One poll after another has shown that voters are furious at big banks, would like to see the wealthy carry more of the tax burden, and want to protect Social Security. If Democrats had acted more decisively to reflect those positions, they would have done far better last week. It wouldn't have mattered which personalities in Congress had prevailed, or what label they had given to their policies. The voters couldn't care less.

And he points out the homage Bai pays to Rahm, the very one who encouraged us to move right on immigration to win and dare not speak about the Iraq invasion because we might lose.

Eskow gets just exactly what happened to people like Grayson in Florida and others elsewhere.

Bai's piece also includes the obligatory homage to Rahm Emanuel. He argues that progressives who criticize the the Blue Dogs today are, in effect, ungrateful hypocrites who kick somebody when they're down. Bai claims that progressives applauded Emanuel when he recruited the same pups in 2006. Bai, who not unreasonably claims some familiarity with the progressive movement, gets this one flat-out wrong. Progressives objected forcefully to Emanuel's approach in 2006, especially since Emanuel occasionally forced less popular Blue Dogs on districts where a progressive was more popular and cost the Dems some seats. And while Bai implies that Howard Dean has reversed himself - that in 2006 he wanted to "find candidates that could win everywhere" - that's not true. Dean always felt that candidates could win in Red districts by clearly articulating Democratic positions, much as Alan Grayson in Florida and Tom Perriello in Virginia eventually did.

Unfortunately Grayson, Perriello, and many other Democrats were burdened with the wreckage of too-timid policies that had been diluted by the influence of the Blue Dogs. These dogs have fleas, but there's always somebody ready to throw them a bone.

Did you get that? Eskow is correct. "And while Bai implies that Howard Dean has reversed himself - that in 2006 he wanted to "find candidates that could win everywhere" - that's not true. Dean always felt that candidates could win in Red districts by clearly articulating Democratic positions."

I have said that here over and over.

There was a day several years ago when Al From spoke as head of the DLC and said they were doing away with any stances that would keep people from voting for Democrats.

That in effect neutered the party, and we are paying a price now.

[ProSense]

1. One thing is certain

most of the blue dogs elected over the last couple of elections lost.

[Raster]

2. And I hope that is more than just a trend. Most of the blue dogs were DINOs, willing to

schill for the GOP at the drop of a dollar. The blue dogs polluted our message and our ideology. Most should have been muzzled from the git-go.

[mr_liberal]

3. They lost in swing districts

where liberals would have lost worse, where liberals wouldn't have had any chance of winning in the first place.

[madfloridian]

4. Not a convincing argument.

I don't believe that anymore. I think people are desperate to hear the truth, and I think they will accept truth from us if we provide it.

In Florida we had Grayson and Kosmas both lose....one pretty liberal, one very conservative. Didn't matter.

[saracat]

5. You are correct. In AZ CD5 we lost Harry Mitchell, who some called a "Blue Dog" for his Defense

support, for being too liberal and voting for the HCR. Harry was a genuine moderate who supported all the core values of the Democratic party but he tried to steer a moderate course. He supported the President and Pelosi and was destroyed for it. They elected an insane teabagger.

Harry had beaten JD Hayworth and the nutcase Schweikert previously.Harry was a former teacher, professor, Mayor, State senator and incumbant congressperson.They replaced him with an immoral felon and thug who has pledged to dismantle the Dept. of Education. Schweikert's mantra was "if you support education, do not vote for me" Not all alleged "Blue Dogs" are equal.

Harry didn't want to vote for HCR. He said it didn't go far enoygh. He should have stuck with that.If he had, they coudn't have hung the albratross around his neck.The irony of all this is despite the teachers last ditch effort to save harry, the voters rejected the GOP Proos to grab education money.But they elected those that sponsored the legislationand the idiots who would destroy the issue they felt was important. The voters are just nuts!

[Jackpine Radical]

19. The true liberals who lost--like Grayson & Feingold--

were pulled down by their association with the Democrats' global failure to deliver the goods. I phone banked for Russ & I know what I was hearing. It waswn't about Russ. It was about Obama.

It was the Gomer Pyle vote: "Fool me once…"

[jeff47]

8. Perhaps you should review the recent election results in VA first, before making that assertion

Because the liberal ran as a liberal and lost...by 3%.

The Blue Dog ran as the mythical centrist and lost...by 10%.

So....your argument is the only way we can win in places like VA is to follow the strategy that does worse on election day.

[Jamastiene]

30. That tired meme needs to be put to rest.

If the leadership in the party put resources and effort behind electing liberal Democrats in red states instead of always shoving blue dogs off on us, there are several red states that could easily go blue.

Liberals who stand the fuck up and also get a little backup (through good advertising and fund-raising efforts made by the party), CAN be elected in red states.

[hfojvt]

7. not true from the little slice I saw

Stephanie Herseth of SD lost and she was elected first in 2004. Ike Skelton of Missouri lost and he was first elected in 412 B.C. or something like that. Dennis Moore retired and his wife ran for that seat, and lost. Dennis was first elected in 1998. All three of those Blue Dogs were not from the class of 2006, and there are perhaps more examples.

And I think it is absurd to claim that voters in those conservative districts wanted those incumbents to be more liberal, or would have been happier with a public option.

[jeff47]

9. Well, the PO itself was very popular

Even among conservatives. It had >50% support among Republicans, for example.

And there's plenty of other "liberal" things that would have garnered more support, such as "sticking it to the banks", or providing a larger stimulus so that the economy was doing better.

That would make them more 'liberal', but it would also have made them more popular. Heck, even the Teabag nutjobs are pissed about the bankers. That's why they keep bashing TARP.

We're far to quick to assign labels to districts and states that never completely fit, because politics is not linear. Virtually all "conservative" districts are only conservative on certain issues. Virtually all "liberal" districts are liberal on certain issues. You'll never get a evangelical fundie elected Governor of CA, because the state is socially liberal. But it is economically conservative. That's why the R's have been able to win statewide office over the last 40 years. If it was the liberal bastion that everyone claims, no R would ever win.

But the most important thing is to give the voters an actual choice, which means not pretending to be a Republican. Truman's famous quote about that is definitely true.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. They would have been happier with a health care reform

that actually increased their access to health care.

[Major Hogwash]

6. Yeah, there's that, plus the fact the President is a black man.

And I don't see too many of these know-it-all pundits willing to deal with the fact that this is a racist nation.

Obama is the first black President.
And the Tea Party revelled in their hatred of a black President - questioned his religion, his birthplace, and his heritage.
I saw some of those signs they made of him, ugly, repulsive, and disgusting.
They made me sick to my stomach.

Gingrich was even using the code word "colonialism" last month, for crying out loud.
Call what it is - backlash for the Democrats making history and putting the first black man in the White House.

And I'd do it over again tomorrow.
In a heartbeat.
We paid the price to make this gain in civil rights and racial equality and I will not step back one half-step, not one foot, not one inch!!

If I die tomorrow, I will NEVER regret living up to MLK's dream.
We will pay the price, we will be whipped at the polls this one time, but they can't keep up the level of hatred they have been expressing and solve any of the problems we face in this country at the same time. It's too much of an expenditure in energy.

We need to dust off our shoulders, just like Obama did during the campaign, hold our head high, and move into the future.
We are making history every single day of our lives.
For our children, and their children, and their children.

I've been beaten.
But, I got back up.
I'll be beat again.
I'll get back up.

Hold on to the dream, and hold on to your hopes and dreams.
That is what got us to where we are today!

[herbm]

13. It had absolutely nothing to do with his being black, the GOP could have probably ran Powell in the

ninties and got him elected. It had to do with the fact that the President was and is the best person for the job. I'm a progressive GOP and I voted for Kerry and the President because they represented a clear superior choice each time. Look how the teabaggers got hoodwinked into supporting tax breaks they'd never ever get to use themselves. And they pay the bulk of taxes in this country and fight the wars. How many Cheneys, Bushes, Bachmans are in uniform, in the enlisted ranks and in the 'shit'? I can at least respect Gov Palin's son for a two out of three all the while loathing Ms Palin.

[Major Hogwash]

25. Hahahahahaha -- I'm laughing at your response.

"nothing to do with his being black" -- I hope they put that on your headstone.

[herbm]

34. President Obama was the clearcut best person. Sen Kerry was the clearcut best person.

Gen Powell would have won and he would have been voted for by a lot of the same people who don't like Pres Obama's race. Race has nothing to with it for me. I would again for all three men. What don't you understand? Powell is a progressive.

[Catherina]

16. Sing that same tune when the Republicans run Condi Rice n/t

[Major Hogwash]

26. So, you think you can predict what the GOP is going to do?

Really?

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Moonbat2]

27. A fitting name

[blackspade]

10. Al From is an idiot

What Al and the rest of the 'New Democrats' of the DLC did was do away with any stances that would keep people voting for Democratic Party candidates.

[madfloridian]

18. Yes, I think it was their purpose....to be "post partisan"...

which in effect means one party.

[herbm]

11. Nixon, Reagan, Bush could NEVER had won without Democrat's votes. Hard hats for Nixon ring a bell?

[Wounded Bear]

12. Republicans lose and they move farther right.

Democrats lose and they move farther right.

We're fucked.

Double dip recession, here we come.

[madfloridian]

14. That makes two parties fighting to see who can go farthest right.

And right now I can tell you we will lose more in 2010 if we don't take a stand on preserving Social Security and Medicare.

The worst thing Obama has done, even worse than Arne at DOE, is to appoint Simpson and Bowles to the deficit commission.

It scares me to death that no party leader is speaking out on the latest from that commission.

[Overseas]

15. K&R ! Great article. /nt

[creon]

17. essentially, yes

Congress and the WH did not do what needed to be done.
If those people had done with was right, the election result would have been OK.

[fascisthunter]

21. yes, and their idiot followers are helping them even now

[Better Believe It]

22. Repubs "are being funded by corporate money" The problem is, so are many Democratic politicians!

And they don't want to sound like "populists" promoting "class warfare" thereby biting the hand the feeds them.

They don't do that.

They are trying to enrich themselves!

And they are doing a mighty fine job at that.

[saras]

23. What happened?

This thread started by deconstructing an article in the American Pravda, and ends in a dogfight - blue dogs vs. red dogs, with no elephants in sight.

My university has free NY times, and I've been reading it recently. It's not as OVERTLY irrational as your typical teabagger, but it has little or nothing to do with reality - it's mind-bogglingly stupid. Having a rather rewarding life, I guess I've been out of touch. You mean the American mainstream actually takes that crap seriously? No wonder progressives have such a hard time winning elections. It's one thing to try and tell people the truth, it's another to remove the yards-thick layer of BS burying their homes and streets so that they can hear you.

I'd love to see more deconstruction of NYT silliness, and fewer "Democrats" who would be right-wing republicans if they time-traveled back even ten years without changing their views.

[madfloridian]

24. I don't think you understood my post.

And I don't think we should dismiss all writers at Huff Post so lightly. Every time here when a media source is critical, we dismiss it out of hand.

Pretty soon none will be acceptable.

[amborin]

28. Bai has a shaky grasp of history

i remember his ny times magazine article about some situation and politician (can't remember the specifics now); a famed U.S. labor historian subsequently wrote a letter to the editor lamenting Bai's total lack of historical knowledge;

[readmoreoften]

29. I wish! (...oh, you meant figuratively.)

Rats.

[BrklynLiberal]

31. Messaging. Messaging. Messaging.

For the most part, the Dems sat around with their thumbs up their butts..and the repukes were using brilliant strategy.
They listen to, and apply Frank Luntz's advice, while the Dems totally ignore George Lakoff.

the repukes control most of the MSM, and what they do not control, they artfully feed the message they want spread around

The only outlet I have any faith in is Pacifica Radio...and much of the evening lineup at MSNBC

[madfloridian]

32. Rahm's book even tried to hurt Lakoff immensely.

The Plan ridiculed him.

Yes, it is true we don't know how to message.

[BrklynLiberal]

33. Well, we now know where listening to Rahm gets us....