Until liberals understand this...the Democrats will continue to lose elections:

I totally understand what you are saying about Zell, but I hope you don't miss the larger point about what I was saying, because a stronger democratic party is crucial for the Conservative cause to advance. Right now Republicans are like a boxer fighting a soggy paper bag. And it is hurting our nation.

As far as Zell - he was terribly wishy-washy on many aspects of domestic policy. But he did have a ram-rod backbone on some issues. National defense, foreign policy, force projection, trade, etc. I also liked his ability to cut through the partisan crap (on both sides) when it came to procedural stuff like judiciary committee nominations, federal (executive branch) appointments, etc. In fact, I wish that the Republicans had nominated him for Senate Majority leader before the last election cycle, when the margin in the Senate was so narrow. He would have been fair and would have allowed Senate business to proceed without unnecessary delays. He would have managed the committees more adroitly and it would have been beneficial to the country.

Think about how difficult it was for Bush to get his appointments processed during the early part of his administration. That type of turmoil really delayed his ability to govern and had to contribute to the chaos in the NSA, State Department, Pentagon, etc in the lead-up to 9/11. If more senators had been of the mindset of Breaux, Miller, etc - that never would have happened.

I hope that next time Democrats win the presidency that the Senate is not as obstructive to the transition as it was last time. I hope that Republican senators (majority or not) respect the results of the election enough to not hamstring the process.

Guys like Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Moynihan, etc had the best interest of America in mind no matter their idology. Too often that is not the (present) case with senators on both sides of the aisle.

 

You probably wouldn't, that is true. I would like to see the party get more towards achieving more of the Contract with America type goals than see Republicans posturing but not really getting anything done, all while spending like its about to go out of style.

Be honest though, considering all of the external pressures on it, the economy has responded well to the Bush tax policy. Now we need to rein in the spending and continue to create incentives for saving and investment to continue the growth of jobs.

This is probably fair. The other guys sort of ended their senate careers with their dignity intact. Do you agree that there are not very many top-drawer examples along the lines of Moynihan, Breaux and Nunn that are remaining in the Democratic Senate Caucus at this point in time? Robert Byrd is at least as big of a joke as Strom Thurmond was. Ted Kennedy is a parody of himself and Joe Biden (despite the above) is an idiot. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton (in her 'polished' appearances - not her appealing to the bases appearances) are probably the most articulate and balanced senators on the Democratic side of aisle. And both are still rather unproven as effective legislators - at least as far as a record of writing and passing significant legislation goes.

I think the true answer about Zell lies somewhere in between my position and yours. I rather doubt that the phenomenon of Bill Clinton would have ever happened without Zell Miller. Clinton's 'triangulation' was no more sophisticated than Zell's zig-zags. They were just less impressive when Zell was doing them because he was not the president. And Clinton studied Zell's election strategy very closely when he was thinking about how to position himself for a national audience.

 

The Republicans may be a bunch of hypocritical, corrupt, incompetent, lying, baby eating f_ckwits right now, but they sure do know how to win an election. The Democrats, who are only slightly more appealing cannot score in a brothel if they continue to pick big chinned nobodies like John Kerry. They should be brave and pick someone with fire like that Mr. Dean or someone who is not GOP-Lite.

 

I still think it is a mistake to be so personality-driven. Even Reagan, who had a huge personality, had a settled philosophy of governance that was the foundation of his entire administration.

Nixon, Carter (to a lesser extent - he had a body of policy that was more or less rejected), Bush I, Clinton and Bush II (again to a lesser extent - because love him or hate him he has tackled - usually unsuccessfully some huge big idea policy initiatives. At least in his first term (Social Security, Medicare Drug Plan, Taxes, education, etc) have all been guilty of using their personal appeal and personality in place of a bedrock political philosophy to achieve their results.

Democrats need something like the Contract of America in which they establish and articulate their core priorities and allow a groundswell to grow around those ideas rather than around personalities like Howard Dean or John Kerry, who are bound to disappoint or wilt under the pressure of a national election.

As it stands, it is honestly hard to say what Democrat leadership would do in the future. They are going to fight a smarter war and spend less money doing it - but they don't offer any real specifics. They argue that we are losing jobs overseas and that our economy is bad. But they have no realistic tax policy offerings that will help. And virtually every leading economic indicator refutes their contentions about the economy. So they get super-rich, white candidates to fall back on trying to conjure up populist support against The Man.

Unfortunately for them, due to 401ks and IRAs, a huge portion of our population would be directly and negatively affected if the Democrats tried their normal soak-the-rich wealth redistributions. So the Democrats are left unable to do anything more than blabber on against Republicans about things that don't have traction like the minimum wage, racial politics, global warming, etc. It is just no way to win.

The Democratic party is almost bereft of statesmen. And their traditional bases of support are at odds with one another more than ever, making it difficult for them to excite their entire base. The Republican party is also almost bereft of statesmen, but the fumes from statesmen of the past are still providing them with a lot of momentum.

And they also benefit in the short-term from the fact that Bush II is willing to undertake short-term criticism in order to do the difficult (though not always right) thing. He may indeed do this with the immigration problem before all is said and done.

I hope the Democrats get their act together, because a healthy debate of fundamental differences will only lead to a strengthening of both parties and a sharpening of the discourse and policy movement in the legislative branch.

 

the most depressing thing about this country is how so many people say that neither party is wholly appealing, if appealing at all, and yet there is not a god damned thing that can be done about it.

and im sure this is not a new phenomenon, either...

 

i'm a teenager and most of my friends are buying into the right wing... and this is in a first tier suburb of a blue state. Liberals are straying from the ideals that make up the groundwork of this great nation.

 

Really? Care to elaborate?

 

isnt it clear? liberals hate freedom.

 

Of course, you mean the freedom of the Dear Leader to tap domestic phone calls at will, to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges (or lawyers!), to issue "signing statements" that appear to invalidate the very law they are attached to, right?

 

translation: republican areas in a blue state

i guess they really do get it from their mama (and daddy)

 

Don't get me wrong, I want political philosophy as well, in fact I'd like that to be the driving force of the left wing, if there is such a thing in US politics. What I meant was by choosing John Kerry, the Democrats were going up against Bush with a really grey, dull and unimaginative candidate. Bush may be a complete idiot, and his cabinet may all be liars, crooks and hypocrites, but at least they had a character about them that engaged people in some way.

By being the 'down to Earth', anti-intellectual character that he is, Bush got a whole load of votes from the tobacco chewing hillbillies and those who can't stand men in suits talking about politics in a long winded and highbrow manner. John Kerry scared off these people by being a charisma-free zone, and screwing up over Iraq (i.e. voting for it, and then saying it was a bad idea). The Democrats need to pick someone who can stand up and say 'Believe in me, believe in my plans and we will get ourselves out of this mess'. In short, they need another FDR. However, since the Democrats couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo, they'll pick a nobody, or Hillary Clinton who is a devisive figure like Bush.

The Republicans have provided an open goal for a sophisticated left wing candidate to attack. However, I doubt a goal will be scored, since the US left is a mess.

 

so true.

it blows my mind that people have this "well, youre condescending, so im going to go with an even WORSE option, just to spite you" mentality.

its as if a person has two options, one is to shoot themselves in the head, and the other is to stand next to a guy who might be condescending, but he says "hey idiot, dont shoot yourself in the head", and so to avoid the condescencion, the person chooses to shoot themselves in the head.

its stunningly mind blowing. (pun maybe intended)

 

that works too, but my point is that people avoid what they percieve to be condescending even if it means choosing someone or something that is entirely more harmful and in a much more widespread fashion...

 

stuff like degrading this country's moral values, empty promises of free handouts to the less fortunate to try and gain their vote.... instead of promoting hard work and responsibility.

IMO the democratic party is stronger when the republicans are in office because their best line is "we can do better". there will always be fiascos no matter who is in office, this is america we're talking about here.

I'm not a great political mind but thats my take.

 

the democrats always win my county.

 

this mentality says a lot about whats wrong with this country...

firstly, everyone has been force fed since birth the notion that this is america, we are the best. at everything. regardless of who, what, when, where, or why happens.

moreover, there is an even more dangerous mentality, especially when coupled with what i had just mentioned above where mediocrity, or worse, is not only expected, but fully accepted with nothing more than a shrug and "hey, its america, it happens".

this is exactly why things will never, ever, ever, EVER change in this country.

 

I should rephrase...

there will always be fiascos no matter who is in office, this is the world we're talking about here.

 

oh, in that case....