Feinstein's movement toward her base rather than to the right and I'm not so sure what he concluded is entirely valid.

Tell me what you think of my conclusions:

I put this hypothesis to myself:  "If our business was in the States and we moved there, would our lifestyle change?"

I'm not trying to be a troll, but I believe it would if we were interested in having our business succeed.

As a model new immigrant:

1. We'd go to church at least a couple of times a month.  
   
   
2. We wouldn't buy foreign-made cars, or RV's, they would be domestics.
   
   
3. One day a week would be devoted to charity work.
   
   
4. My speech would have to become more guarded and private.

In other words, I'd have to move a lot more to the right than what I'd be comfortable with, so I think I'd better stay where I am.  :)

The entire population just is more conservative than liberal.  Realistically, what does that mean for the Democratic Party if they want to get elected?

At least you senators are elected.

Alito is a puppet of GWB and the Democratic party rolled over and whimpered. SHAME on you.

We here in Canada do not have a choice and you Democrats have let the same happen there!

You have to have someone who a)protects the country(not some multicultural fool who bows to all non-American diversity), b)who values labor, like Roosevelt and Altman(Neoconomy), c)who can be tough, without puking in Duchamp's urinal, d) who can do finance(not federal deficit/credit subterfuge), and e)like (hate to say it) Bush,  cares neither a whit about 'Shampoo'  or 'Brokeback'; i.e., sees them as equal.

Otherwise, there is no opposition that will get a vote.

I was hoping Richardson might be a shade of this. But the press has taken care of him.

the one he gave at the DNC Convention was ispirational.  I'd put my money on him for lack of other candidates.  

He doesn't appear  to have any dirty laundry and he didn't betray this party by voting with the republicans.  He just needs more seasoning and he'd be ideal.  

as you said....

the 1919 white sox is the better comparison...they threw the Series.

I'm proud of my Senators, regardless of my disagreements with other issues they champion.

Seems teh Republicans know all the Dems' buttons....they can play them like an accordion, and get 'em too busy chewing on themselves to be effective as opposition.

Hope your trip to Persia isn't for too long...you'll be needed to help mobilise the troops to change the guard.....

rebuilding the Democratic party?  Since the blogsphere seems to be where most American 'liberals' now live, why not collaborate?

Atrios, Agonist, Josh Marshall, DailyKos, et al.

Start to rebuild from the bottom to the top.  Betcha a team approach would have contacts that reliably identify candidates that 'are' liberals.  

It isn't plausible to start a new party.  Just remake what you have into being what it is that is representative.  Purge where necessary.      

If you don't like the track record don't re-elect them. I think it's apparent that the vote to authorize military force against Iraq and today's vote on Alito were very important issues for the current Senate. In both cases liberals/progressives in this country wanted their Senators to vote no.

13 of 38 dems voted no and 11 of 38 dems voted yes on both counts. The current crop of Democratic Senators are not voting liberal/progressive.

--Senator--                 --Iraq--  --Alito--

Akaka, Daniel (HI)            no        yes

Baucus, Max (MT)              yes       yes

Bayh, Evan (IN)               yes       no

Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (DE)    yes       no

Bingaman, Jeff (NM)           no        yes

Boxer, Barbara (CA)           no        no

Byrd, Robert (WV)             no        yes

Cantwell (WA)                 yes       yes

Carper, Thomas (DE)           yes       yes

Clinton, Hillary Rodham (NY)  yes       no

Dayton, Mark (MN)             no        no

Dodd, Christopher J. (CT)     yes       no

Dorgan, Byron (ND)            yes       yes

Durbin, Richard (IL)          no        no

Feingold, Russell D. (WI)     no        no

Feinstein, Dianne (CA)        yes       no

Inouye, Daniel (HI)           no        yes

Johnson, Tim (SD)             yes       yes

Kennedy, Edward M. (MA)       no        no

Kerry, John F. (MA)           yes       no

Kohl, Herb (WI)               yes       yes

Landrieu, Mary (LA)           yes       yes

Lautenberg, Frank R. (NJ)     n/a       no

Leahy, Patrick J. (VT)        no        no

Levin, Carl (MI)              no        no

Lieberman, Joseph (CT)        yes       yes

Lincoln, Blanche (AR)         yes       yes

Menendez, Robert (NJ)         n/a       no

Mikulski, Barbara A. (MD)     no        no

Murray, Patty (WA)            no        no

Nelson, Bill (FL)             yes       yes

Nelson, Benjamin (NE)         yes       yes

Obama, Barack (IL)            n/a       no

Pryor, Mark (AR)              n/a       yes

Reed, Jack (RI)               no        no

Reid, Harry (NV)              yes       no

Rockefeller, John (WV)        yes       yes

Salazar, Ken (CO)             n/a       yes

Sarbanes, Paul S. (MD)        no        no

Schumer, Charles E. (NY)      yes       no

Stabenow, Debbie (MI)         no        no

Wyden, Ron (OR)               no        no

there are other bears in the woods

Single-minded fury at nitwit Dem senators is not the best use of our energy.  And 3rd party efforts are counter-productive.  See Ralph, 2000.

News flash:  pols follow public opinion, do not lead.

Why judges matter is VERY hard to explain to people who are not regularly in court.  And the hypocrisy of the PR efforts to promote the "decent family men with humble philosophies" is hard to puncture because the pulblic lacks the life experience to see through the slogans.

Iraq.  Health care.  An ecomomy headed in the wrong direction.  Domestic surveillance directed by a self-righteous and ruthless political clique.

Keep your powder dry.

and I agree, it's better to purge the Democratic Party.  The infrastructure is in place, many of the true democrats have their reputations built with the party and a lot of liberals and progressives identify with the democratic party.  

I thanked both Senator Levin and Senator Stanebow for their strong stand and I also shared this with them.  

"In response to the democratic senators that chose to abandon the democratic party and instead chose to support the republican party's shift to the far right, I will not be contributing to the DNC for 2006.  

I will continue to support you, Senator Stanenbow and the democratic senators, individually, that stood up for the Democratic party's view of government and defending the freedoms of all the American people.

You have my permission to inform your collegues that supported the cloture of my response to their lack of support on this issue.  "

Much of what has been said, I could resonate with.

On the third party, I think recapturing the Democratic party is much more viable than building a new third party.

The laws are stacked against a third party -- nationally, at the state level and below -- from local primary rules, to media access, it's more uphill than rebuilding a party.  

Certainly we can learn from the Republicans, or more specifically the neo-con Republicans who leveraged mass communcation, while using wedge issues and exploiting Democratic weakness to hold to core values.

result.  Please explain this vote to me?  Have your leaders moved more to the right than the population?  

Wow ... I thought my country was complicated, but at least when I vote for the various representatives, I know they are liberals, conservatives, NDP, or bloc.

Stunning result that boggles my brain.  

Strikes me in American politics, the politicians say one thing and do the complete opposite???

Sorry, but I just can't make head nor tails of it.  Liberman I understood, he's always been a conservative in liberal clothing, but for such an overwhelming upset as this, there has to be something else going on.      

is not a viable choice for liberals (or anyone for that matter) in the u.s.a.  i have been saying this here for quite a while now on this site since before they put the feeble john kerry up as a candidate.  

this is a bankrupt party.

sorry...

And I'm proud to have you on our side along with the others you named, Sean-Paul.  Thanks for blogging this.  

But now is definitely the time to clean out the human garbage.  

Any senator who voted for cloture should consider their political carreer over, dead, kaput.  Might as well declare yourself a Republican now, because you sure as shit ain't getting back into office as a Democrat.

We've got our list.  Hang it prominently on the wall until the next round of elections.  No matter what they do from now until then, these traitors have allowed Samuel Alito--a racist, fascist, theocratic corporate shill--to attain the highest judicial office in the land.  His decisions over the next few months will merely confirm what we already knew about him, and nobody who voted for him can claim they were surprised.  They knew.  They KNEW.

Never again should these Democratic traitors make it through a primary.  They have declared themselves enemies of democracy.  Our party can do better than garbage.

...is that we, the "liberals," represent less than one fifth of the electorate.  That means that for every person you meet that agrees with you, you'll find at least four that disagree.  We are not a minority, we're an afterthought.

So, those "Vichy Dems" were voting out of practical concerns.  Their votes were cowardly, but pragmatic.

We are not going to build a winning coalition based on our beliefs.  We should be what we are best at: a conscience, a reminder to what is just and beautiful about this country.  Our best weapon is to advocate those principles to the average, usually quite conservative, American.  Wilson understood this, FDR understood this, Truman understood this.  Afterwards, the Left got arrogant and began trusting their own advertising copy.  Their beliefs were not universal, nor were their policies self-explanitory.  All liberal leaders afterward came off as haughty.  Bush, like it or not comes of as a man who has worked hard all his life,and people trust him.  He plays to their baser instincts, just a Newt did, and Reagan did, and Nixon did.  These types of leaders will always be the rule rather than the exception.  People do not always listen to their conscience, especially when they believe it's a matter of survival.  But at least we still have a conscience, as this community attests, for a sociopathic country will not long endure.

to big sack John?

No, Kerry, John F. (D-MA)

What a pity Ted can't be a leading contender because of his previous history.  He's passionate and undoubtedly is a Liberal.  

John Boy, I don't trust...he bends with the wind and is probably collecting addresses.  John Dean too isn't viable because he's too emotional.  So where to get a candidate for the Democratic party?  

Hillary certainly isn't it...she has too much baggage and she is as opportunistic as Kerry.  

I'm not as familiar with the rest of the party that voated "No" for cloture...but there has to be one there.  Obama is looking good right about now.    

That is exactly what Hillary Clinton is doing.  She is making the Democratic platform palatable for Republicans.  

So couldn't the Democratic party platform be modified just a little more so it retains appeal for Democrats?

WSWS.org

Whoot!  Whoot!  They were both willing to filibuster!  

mirroring the views of the majority of WA voters...Maria Cantwell, on the other hand, decided to duck the issue, perhaps thinking that a NO vote would be thrown back at her during her re-election campaign by her as-yet unknown Republican (though McGavick is talking the talk) challenger.  I mean, for God's sake, she took on Ted Stevens over ANWR, who more could she have offended by supporting a filibuster over the arch-Federalist, Alito?

purging with the exception of members who are so far to the right that there is no way you can appeal to them.  The extreme right wing of the right will always belong to the Republicans.  Get the Republicans that are center right...you already have the far left as part of your base. Concentrate on building a platform that draws the centre right into your party and you'll have enough seats to be the next governing party.

Isn't this what you're saying mauberly?  I do concur.  

You all are making too big an issue over Alito.  I too am horrified that he will now be on the Supreme Court.  But remember this:

All agree that Bush can appoint whomever he wishes. Why should a Senator vote for the extreme measure of a filibuster when any replacement for Alito would be as bad or worse?  

Anyway there is no way that a filibuster could succeed in this Senate.  So each Senator chose to vote for political effect, without any hope to eliminate Alito.  If there was such a chance, most of those Democrats would have voted for the filibuster.

but you really do need to get rid of any Senator who is too far right.  Senators who are too far right would make a better fit as Republicans.

Democrats are never going to take those voters away from Republicans.  Senators who are too far to the right contribute nothing to the party.  There is no Democratic platform that would include them.  Better to have a senator that is able to garner votes for the Democratic party.  It's the number of seats in the senate that are important.  

Everyone talks about the "extereme left".   Who exactly are they and which issues of theirs are considered "extereme left"?  

Cantwell is a disgrace to us.  Her vote for cloture not a terribly surprising vote from the woman who voted for the Iraq war authorization when phone calls from constituents were running 20 to 1 against it.  But it is disappointing.  I just wrote her to say that I held my nose after her Iraq war vote, but after this I'd sooner vote for Nixon's corpse than for her again.  

It's hard to imagine the weenie Liberals of this state developing enough resolve to get rid of her, though.  

Chalo

...are up for re-election this year (33% of the senate is up every 2 years), and are from states that are either Red, or too close to call, so they're trying to straddle the fence, and get re-elected.

Others, I'd have to rely on those from their states to comment, since I also can't understand why they voted as they did.  Some have started calling them 'Vichy Dems'....I think the comparison apt, with the good Marshall channeled by Sen. Lieberman....

It's dumbfounding!  Man would I be ticked!  

is a dead man walking.

The democrats have been floundering for quite a while on where they stand on most issues.

I've said in the past, we liberals and progressives need to ditch the democrats.  This just makes it even more obvious that democrats have no intention of adequately respresenting us.  

Two words: Fusion Voting.

NY State has the Working families party and they are able to hold liberals accountable to sore issues by having a separate line. Without that line, the candidate may lose to the Conservative/Republican/Right to Life Lines.

Most states have banned it. I think we should start fighting for this everywhere.

an endangered species!  No wonder they call all of us tree huggers.  :)

Did you ever think up the dream team from pulling from both parties moderates to form a third one?

Are actually Pseudo-Con agents posing as Dem's to steal liberal/centrist votes only to turn around and support the base that pays better.  

I just received a request for money from the DNC. Funny, I received on Thursday and there was a survey that HAD to be mailed in within 72 hrs to be counted. And today this... No way in hell I'm giving to the Democratic party after this pathetic show...

but where the hell have the dems been on this?  do they lack the balls to have been screaming this from the roof tops since west texas intermediate crude took da fuck off over 2 years ago?  they should have been talking about this every day.  every damn day on every news channel but they do not because they lack even one iota of vision and now bush will use his pulpit to try to capture the cause and despite that being the greatest irony since jesus was a shvatza he deserves any wind it brings to the pubs back because southpaw was sleeping on his fat drunk asss...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/state_of_union_15;_ylt=Akedm_dn_KF.WMdJGfetErlqP0
AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

even one from either party....  

the u.s. requires a great man to be thrown by fortuna and setting into politics from some other vocation and to rise to the occasion as great men sometimes do in order to restore reason and dignity into u.s. politics.  

it is a long shot but not unheard of.  walesa was an electrician...  unfortunately, we likely have significantly more deterioration before the climate for such an opportunity might arise...

of behind the scene deals. It has to be that or they were all castrated simultaneously. ;)

wit, charm and team building skills to create a true liberal party?  LOL!  

Ironically enough, the DNC called me about a contribution.  I told them, call me after I see what happens with Alito and you'll get my answer.  

I received a survey with request for a contribution to the DNC last Thursday. Ahahaha! They really blew it...

...going on between the parties.

Unbeknownst to most voters, the Oregon Legislature passed a cute little law last term saying that if you've voted in a primary, you're not allowed to sign a petition for a write-in candidate:

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/01/30/ed.edit.independents.0130.p1.php?section=opinion

Drafted and passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Democratic governor.  Makes me sick to think that they'd even thought about doing this.

Time to ditch these losers, methinks.

payment pledge came in the mail yesterday, I think instead I will mail it back with a note from me instead.

piece of legislature.   Any feedback yet from the people in Oregon?  

That's not democracy.

to establish a liberal party.  It's long over due, in my opinion.  Sure it will take time, but purging the democratic party will take much longer and be less effective.  Hell, we've got just as many democrats supporting republicans as we do opposing.   Why give money to those odds?  Seems a waste to me.  

I'm more inclined to support a new party and convince the actual liberal democrats to swith parties.  

to come to the aid of their party.  In addition to being a typing exercise there is some ruth to it. We now know who the the good guys and the bad guys are and can vote and contrbute accordingly. My folks, in NJ did just fine. I called them both as did my wife.  Forget the urge to go for a third party.  That's what got us where we are today.  Get more rather than less behind the Dems, clean the deadwood who voted against the filibuster and move on  Don't succumb to this third party bullshit. That's defeatest. The Nader bid in 2000 is all you need to know about that.

Republican narrative you'll hear any night on Hardball. This is the kind of 'Democrat' think that is killing us. Go read the results of MyDD's poll, or any recent poll for that matter. The public, the entire public is against Bush's spying program. They are pissed they were lied into the war. The list goes on and on. You're simply repeating the RNC talkings points narrative. And it's not because you believe it, it's because that is all you hear on the 'Liberal' media. Believe me, having done time in talk radio and seen the response me, as liberal as they come, has gotten here in Red San Antonio, I disagree with you. You are completely wrong. ANd the reason is that we are mischaracterized, we don't have a voice. Believe what you want, Steve, but I'm fighting in the trenches. I've had soccer moms tell me things like, 'well, I never heard that on Fox News." And they are blown away when I tell them the OBJECTIVE truth.

Our ideas are better than Republican ideas. They poll better. And they are better for the country. But until Democrats start standing up for our ideas we will never get a fair hearing. That's what this whole Alito fight was about.

And I don't agree with the list of Vichy's. While Kennedy and Kerry knuckled under over the war, Senator Byrd was the only one with balls to say what needed saying.

It was Kennedy and Kerry that united to kill Howard Dean's canidacy, the one potential Democractic presidential nominee with courage enough to say what needed said (aside from Kucinich). Dean couldn't win with Democrat liberals--but he could have won with the general public.

Alito was the wrong fight. Not that Alito is a good guy, because he probably isn't. He just pales by comparison to the real criminals. He was a tool, a distraction that diverted attention away from the fact that we have a president that used phony evidence to send us to war, ignored evidence to the contrary, and even went to far as to punish those that tried to tell the truth.

bush has mismanaged the economy, set up his cronies to make them rich beyond belief and in the process will destroy the middle class. He is bankrupting our country.

He is fostering ill will around the world for the United States and throwing gasoline on fires of hatred that have simmered for centuries.

He has made us less safe and done more to promote the causes of terrorists than anyone in their own ranks could have possibly hoped for.

In our own hemisphere one country after another is falling for leftist leaders who run on anti-American platforms. Why? Because they now hate us, thanks to the escalation of interventionist polices of the bush administration.

Most of the people on the vichy list will vote against Alito. Most of them realized this was a lost cause. Had they been successful they would have gotten another Alito, another distraction and wasted more time and energy that should rightfully be spent taking down bush.

Here's my abbreviated vichy list:

Kennedy

Kerry

Biden

Clinton

Liebermann

he was fucking and then attempted to cover it up to salvage his own reputation yet he gets reelected as a democrat to the senate every six years.  

more evidence of a party rotted to the core...

you thought he was after that convention speech. I don't trust him after this one.

...we're going to put Tim Kaine on TV tomorrow night, whose response will be "Ditto on two-thirds of it, now here's where I disagree..."  Tim Kaine is  my governor, and I have hopes for him, but I know what he is.  Hardly the person to put out as the national face of the party.  Lieberman would be more honest.

Basically, there is no "star" Democrat that we can turn to.  We have to start building now.  

quickly, at least until we see how he does.  He really might do very well.

someone?  Look beyond who is currently a senator.  What about Conners from the House of Representatives?  

Strikes me he is above reproach vis-a-vis principles.  Isn't he leading the charge for federal elections using a paper ballot?  

If not Conners, there has to be someone who isn't dirty.  

I think Kaine will at worst be a decent governor.  But he is a southern "blue-dog," not a national moderate or progressive.  His views on the issues are far from typical of the party.

He is a horrible horrible person. I think that the other side refers to him as "The Swimmer" among other things. All he does is make us look like assholes. It matters not what words are spewing out of his mouth.

response.  At this point, we can only hope that he will do great.  And I really think he will do great.

and if you mean give the rebuttal to the SOTU I'd love that.

...why do people keep voting for "Republican Ideas" each November?

Could it be they are more easily explained?  

Or they seem more common sensical?

The point is that while our ideas fit people's native fairness and compassion, that's not what people vote on.

People vote with themselves and their families in mind, and darnit, tax cuts and moralizing seem pretty good from that perspective.

We lost our ability to communicate with people in that regard, and we sure as shellac better get it back, or it's going to be a long, cold Republican winter.

...his diary on Kos.  Some of the most mealy-mouthed

drivel I ever read.  The man is definately not a fighter.

democrat somewhere.  If not as a senator, then the House of Representatives or a Governor of one of the States, carrying the lantern of Diogenes.  

there are lots of Governors to chose from, Who claim to be running on a platform of honest Democrats

Aren't there any in that batch who don't have baggage?  :)      

suggesting a lesson in seeing who others see as good guys from both parties. As much as I love the idea of a third  party, I'm aware it just isn't possible at this time. Everyone can dream.

I'm still not sending them any money, especially Dayton.

is to start lobbying the good dems to take a closer look at some of the progressive defense and foreign policy think tank ideas. That's going to be this blogs focus for the next few months.

tell the "good Dems" to keep an eye on what happens to the Vichies.  Every liberal blog on the net should make a point of reminding everybody who the Vichies are, and what Alito's appointment means to America's future...if any.

Folks, it's clobberin' time.  Any Democrat that knuckled under to the Republican Crime Syndicate should be voted out of office at the next election.  They are now pariah.

If it was their careers that the Vichy Dems feared for, let them be assured that they are all lame ducks now.  We must see to it that letting Alito onto the Court costs every traitorous Dem their Senate seat.  I say we torpedo every one of them.  For too long the Democratic Party has been wallowing in a philosophical limbo, trying to be all things to all people.  Fact is, some things go too far, like caving to economic royalists.  The Party must get back to its roots, back to FDR, where it belongs.  Democratic politicians should serve the people, not the corporations.

If we don't stand for something we can be proud of, then we have lost the battle even before it begins.  Republicans have completely forgotten that our Constitution was written in part to establish a system that would "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."  Republican policies have been tearing down those parts of the government that promoted the general welfare, even while they have sought to remove blessings of liberty such as our right to privacy and our right to protest the misdeeds of the current corrupt administration.  

We need leaders who understand that the general welfare and the blessings of liberty are not optional items; they are integral to the very purpose of our government's existence, every bit as much as providing for the common defense.  The fatal flaw in current Republican philosophy goes to the very core of why this nation was established, right there in the Preamble.  "General welfare" does not imply corporate welfare, and "the blessings of liberty" does not imply a right to impose your religion on others.  No Democratic politician should ever forget that distinction.

after the 2000  election talk of third parties is a hot button for me.  Some irony in that the removal from the senate of the VP candidate for the Dems in 2000 is now my pet project.

OK, we know that having a third choice in a presidential election is not going to work. However, why couldn't there be senators and representatives from a thrid party? If there were a dozen or so then wouldn't they then hold the balance of power in the houses?

Carib

That's a very disturbing list.

...but what are you talking about?

There are lots of diaires at KOS.

...Barack Obama's, posted late last year, got something like several thousand comments and a handful of response diaries.

take to make a credible party, was the subject. No party is standing up for the middle class, which as far back as Aristotle, was seen as the bulwark of a state.

The Republicans are ripping the middle class apart, as article after article on this board has shown. Even yesterday it was noted that we have the worst saving rate since 1933.

A credible opposition party, which the Democrats are no longer, does not fall to the confusions of multiculturalism at the expense of the middle class. It has a strong defense policy. It promotes, through tax and other policies, the formation of labor-friendly capital in the country(read Neoconomy).

It counters the Republicans with something demonstrable. It takes time to build this. It has to be done with think tanks, policy institutes and so on. A coherent stand then needs to be advocated by credible politicians.

Reagan started with very little in the 70s. The Republicans are living off the work that was done at that time, because it formed a basis to which they could consistently refer.

The basis was ideological but positive. It was sold to Democrats, even in the rust belt.

The country is slipping to the right because Democrats are not credible. They represent no up-and-coming thought. There is little of fascination in what they speak. At best there is armchair wiggling.

I talk too much, but I fear for my country.

there isn't a thing we can do about Alito. Its time to bring back the news that matters to the public - Corruption, fuel, money, Iraq, Katrina, and our miserable foeign policy. Bush's speech is tonight and I hope the blogs spend the day bringing those subjects back to the forefront  and what a liar Bush is instead of crying over the spilt milk.

I think maybe building up and supporting independent candidates might be a good start.

We don't have vitrolic AM radio where I live, but when I'm so inclined I can listen 760AM (Detroit).  Limbaugh comes on from 1-3 every day, 5 days a week.  About all I can stand is about 15 minutes, then I change the channel.  When we come to the States, one after another Limbaugh, Hannity et al.  It's insane! 24/7/365 ... and  that doesn't include the spinmeisters on cable TV.  

What is it with American politics and I do see it here at Agonist, but much less so...at least we don't attack each other, but criticism of the republican party is vilified.  I'd have to put my tongue in a pencil sharper if I lived there.

And what you say is so reasonable.  Study what the platform needs to be, think it through, implement it.  Make your platform stand for something.  How do you sell it so anyone will listen?    

I.e, how does a candidate get his/her points across when everyone has the volume cranked up so high that no one can hear anything other than the blows that are landed?  When you're opponent is speaking, you just go to your corner, so you can have your laces tightened up so you can then spring out of your corner to lay your next 'blow'.    

The dems can't win, because no one is listening, because they don't get an opportunity to express their views. There are so very 'few' places where anyone hears what anyone is saying.  

And it has been my experience that Libs don't read the same newspapers that Cons do?  Each trashes the other's source of news.

The Internet is the same.  Cons seldom come here and wouldn't last 2 minutes at KOS.  I assume it's the same for a Liberal at a Conservative board?   do remember once ventururing into Captain's Quarters...but absolutely no one took me seriously because I wasn't one of THEM!  

How do you overcome that? You could have 'the' very best platform and no one would know it.  

Not really, when you think about it.  If I am MegaCorp Inc, I don't really care which party gets in.  I only care that my global corporate interests are well served by the party in power.  In other words, my profits depend on my being on the winning team.  Given the enormous influence of big business in US politics, it would be very prudent to have MegaCorp Subsidiary A pour dollars into a Democrat's campaign while Subsidiary B pours dollars into the Republican's campaign.  You know, there is one way to absolutely insure you win the horse race.  And that is to own every single horse in it.

Captain's Quarters, Canuck!  I'll bet it was priceless!

It's not just control of the media by the right that is a problem--it's the tactics they use.  I saw a dialogue between a Democratic and Republican strategist recently and it was the same old hype:  "Democrats have no plan, Demoocrats are angry and floundering, Americans know that Bush's policies are what are best for them."  It was all meaningless generalities, but repeated over and over, these generalities hurt the Democratic party as they begin to reinforce negative beliefs.  

Democratic strategists need to come up with a plan to deal with these attacks.  I wonder if a repeated talking point should be one strategy--something really shocking to grab attention.  One might be, "Republicans think that bombing and killing innocent Iraqi civilians makes America safer.  Democrats don't think so.  Each of these dead have families who will live on, creating even more hate against America."

I saw Bob Beckel, a Democratic strategist, on the Fox business block this weekend.  He shocked everyone when he said that the U.S. has a moral obligation to militarily strike Iran's nuclear facilities.  He added, "This [Iranian] guy is serious, folks."  I think others were shocked because such a strong stand shook their notion that Democrats are weak kneed.

and Caddell are on Fox from time to time. Both are basically sensible.

If you had a strong Democratic voice that focused on middle class issues and was for a strong defense, you'd start making some inroads. You have to leave the "liberal whining" in the caucuses; it's not doing you any good. You drive a wedge in the middle, not from the left. Once you get the wedge(that won't be any time soon), you can move back to the left.

To Canuck: I live with these right-wingers; with them you have to take a very deep breath and bite your tongue. But with the left you have to do the same. What you can say in Austin, or on a college campus in Houston, is diametrically opposed to what you can say on Houston talk radio.

Right now, good ideas are with the Angels on St. Thomas's pin.

and being for a strong defense are two winning issues for Democrats.  The way to go is to keep with winning issues that most Americans are united over.  Clinton was really good at keeping his dialogue focused on middle class issues.  When he said he was for or against a policy, he would add, where applicable, "I am for it because it is good for the middle class, or I am against it because it would hurt the middle class."  This approach made Americans feel good because it made them feel that he was in their corner.

won't appeal to Republicans until they find a middle  ground where there is 'possible' concensus?  I.e. everyone wants to be employed with some type of security for their future?  

Prime Minister, elect, Harper did exactly that in our election, he moved from the far right into the centre.  Using that technique, he captured  voters from the far right, who were part of his base to voters from the centre left who normally would have voted  Liberal.    About the only ones his platform didn't appeal to was the far left.  His platform didn't give a lot of details about how he would accomplish it.  Many voters were suspect because there weren't enough details, but mostly what they wanted was an acceptable alternative.  It didn't have to be perfect--the platform just needed to fit within the expectations of a broader base.            

That's how Harper won.  He moved to the middle, taking his Conservative base with him, picked up centrist Liberals who were disgusted with Martin, and the only ones left to complain were the far left Liberals and the NDP.  Of course the situation isn't so bad for Canada in that Harper only has a minority government.  Harper is on probation, so to speak, until the electorate gets a better feel for how he will govern.  But if Canadians, especially the Bloc, like how he does over the next year or so, it will be tough for the Liberals to retake even a minority government.  This will take a lot of thought for the Liberals to work through.

The left-wing stuff has to go. I used to like it, but it's politically useless in these times.(Your view of Harper is a good example of a candidate moving from the right)

If the Dems could get some traction on the Abramoff corruption and at the same time show they have credible and evolving plans for the war on terror and for the middle class, they have a chance to make some gains.

The plan for the former cannot be to surrender. The plan for the latter cannot be some hackneyed targeted job tax credit. Somebody, somewhere, has think of something new.

And the old left-wing ideology has to go. It's killing the party.

terror, and middle class issues are the way to go.  I've always wondered why Democrats never made much of how Bush ran up the price of oil by insisting on filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even though the price of oil was skyrocketing, and the increase in energy costs were killing the middle class.  It was so obvious that Bush's constituency could afford the increase in energy prices, but at what cost?  We have a nice bulky Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but the energy costs attributed to it have broken the backs of the middle class, the back bone of our economy.    

3 part retirment plan:

1)  No more cuts in taxes for social security.  Everyone receives them when they turn 65 regardless of income.  Clawbacks when earnings are really high can be invoked.  Something modest like $400 or $500/month.  

2_Put a plan such as Canada has for a US Pension Plan.  Everyone working person pays into the new US Pension Plan.  Contributions would be matched by employers which would eliminate the need for companies to have private insurers which tend to be expensive for the employer.  (Surely that would appeal to employers and it isn't a freebie for those who work.  If you don't work, you don't get to pay into it.  

A suitable premium could be worked out.  Starts the day you work and premiums don't stop until age 60 or 65.  It's a compulsory plan for both employee and employer.  If you work you have to contribute and employers have to participate.  

3) An optional private Pension Plan that is sheilded from tax'til your 65.   Or such time as you cash one of those protected 401K's.  Maximums are dependent on earnings.   You can hold them yourself and if you have the skill, you can dabble in the market to increase them.  They are transferable from one company to another because they are the property of the individual.  All the employer does is take voluntary contributions if that is the wish of the employee.  Otherwise the employee doesn't have any taken from his pay--he invests it himself and has total control over it.

The 3 part plan, gives the average citizen a safety net and has the flexibility of allowing him to make his own decisions regarding how successful his portfolio will be.

that's suicide.  The republican base is the extreme right wing fundies.  No way would the republicans disown them, they just keep them under control by tossing a bone out once in a while to keep them.

Democrats can do the same with their extreme left wingers.  Give them just enough to keep them in the party, but not enough so they are high profile and detract from the more middle positions.  

All votes count.  Why toss what you have?  

If the votes aren't there for a filibuster, what's the point?  Senators like Nelson of Florida made it clear that they would vote against Alito (Nelson voted in favor of Roberts) but not in favor of the filibuster because there was no way to succeed.

Elections have consequences.  As hard as it is to accept, the Democrats have lost too many of them to have had much of a voice with respect to Alito.

If it makes anyone feel better, I read on a conservative blog (Captain's Quarters) that Republicans have a whole list of names in their pockets for judicial appointments who would oppose overruling Roe v. Wade.  The conservative blogger added that the GOP really doesn't want Roe v. Wade over turned because it may mean their constituents of faith going to the Democrats asking for handouts for all of these unwanted babies.  Isn't that horrible?  I only believed the comments because they were so horrible.

senators are way too far to the left.  Hopefully, it all balances out in the long run.  Before we talk about getting rid of this long list of Democratic senators, maybe we need to remember how hard it will be to build the Democratic party up, even from where it is now, to where the Democrats are in any position of leadership.  Starting with the idea of throwing out the Democratic senators we have now seems to be very counter productive.

By the time Clinton was elected, the Democrats had aleady forsaken the ability to reach the political Left.  

Lefties will still vote Democratic for lack of a better option, or when there's a close contest between a lame Centrist and a scary Fascist, but there's no real support there.  Their political energy remains basically unharnessed for lack of an outlet.  

I think this is the untold story that will cause surprise upsets as actual Leftist politicians appear, and as the two parties' economic promises to the people become more and more conspicuously broken.  Behold Latin America.  As the middle class here get pinched that hard, they too are going to discover their inner Socialists.  

Chalo

- eom

Real Leftists (in places where Leftists are allowed to participate in the government) espouse things like nationalizing industries, providing their people universal free college education/medical care/public utilities, offering a safe and dignified living to people who can't make their own, and making the rich pay proportionally more than others for the social order that benefits them.  

I can't recall any US politician of either party earnestly suggesting any of these things during my adult life.  

Chalo

The only one addicted to oil, or who wants America to be addicted to oil, is Bush.  His policies are so easy to predict--will they benefit the oil and gas industry?  Now, as far as Bush is concerned, America's oil addiction is an issue as big as substance abuse.  I predict that Bush's lines tonight are going to be as memorable as his line, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Aside:  Too funny!  Keith Olbermann (MSNBC Countdown) just described how hilarious Bush's line will be when his man from Haliburton (Cheney) stands up to applaud!