MyDD :: Legislative Decapitation Strategy

Legislative Decapitation Strategy

by Chris Bowers, Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:11:52 PM EST

OK, so after putting up a good fight on Social Security, the budget, Stem Cells, Bolton and a few other things (CAFTA and the filibuster get "sort of" rankings), the Democratic leadership in Congress has once again proved its worth through its total capitulation to just on Roberts, but on all potential Bush Supreme Court nominees. Maybe, however, there is a different way we can approach this--a way that uses electoral fundraising as a form of direct action to stall the Republican legislative agenda in Washington, D.C.

This is an idea I have been kicking around in my head for about a week or so: a decapitation strategy against Republicans is the House. The plan would be to raise significant seed money ($50-$60K) for challengers against Hastert, DeLay, the majority whip, and the twenty-one Republican chairs of non-joint committees in the House. The goal would not be to defeat these members (although picking off a few would be nice), but instead to stall Republican legislation in the House by forcing these key twenty-four Republicans to spend a lot more time fundraising, and a lot more time in their home districts. It would be an attempt to decapitate Republican legislative efforts, and cause business in the House to grind to as much of a halt as possible.

This is the sort of national targeting plan that the netroots could engage in after we have managed to field candidates in all 232 Republican held seats, thus guaranteeing we have a challenger to each of these twenty-four Republicans. In conjunction with Project 90, it would be a full-frontal assault on the Republicans back-line, draining as much time and resources away from the swing seats as possible. This would in turn put a lot more pressure on Republicans in swing seats to abandon the agenda of Tom DeLay's House, thus potentially causing a fissure within the Republican Party in addition to slowing its legislative goals. The money could be sent to the candidates via Act Blue.

Cut off the head of the legislative chicken. Doing this well would require only about one-tenth or two-tenths of one percent of the annual donations to progressive campaigns and groups. Considering that around 99% of that money, which is theoretically being used to stop the theo- and neo-con agenda, doesn't seem to accomplish much of anything these days, I think a little more direct action is in order.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

An Indepedent Analysis (none / 0)

Mr. Bowers states here a tactic that closes off access to politicians and statesman. It is a money / advertising tactic that lines the pockets of advertisers ( one can only envision the TV stations of these constituencies reaping the benefits of bloody battles on TV, the "spending" Mr. Bowers implicitly advises..).

We have seen the ill effect of massive, saturation level advertising and of money on the political process - including the vault to power of Karl Rove, the current master of such a strategy -

Mr. Rove in fact, only recently helped advise a do-nothing Republican in ohio to smear and make Hackett spend money. We must realize that the Ohio election was Hackett's to lose, and not a republican to win.

We must realize the hunger people have for real change.

What of this strategy? In a word, it is a lobbyist strategem. Make them spend more money.

Not for infrastructure, not for better government - but for a group of people to gain access to lawmakers, for political capital outside of the party -

Mr. Bowers has been soundly defeated in his tactic to unseat Roberts from nomination. Now Mr. Bowers, in an alarmist fashion, seeks to paint the remainder of the appointments due (currently one additional) as non contested, when in fact not a single candidate has been proposed.

Mr. Reid spoke for me yesterday when he said he can understand the issues surrounding this current appt. to the SC and will not attempt to leverage the position of the partisan unity over the decisions of individual senators. Mr. Reid spoke against the nomination on personal grounds, almost.

Mr. Bowers, on the other hand, seems to attempt to speak for me, and others, when he says that we need to fight this nomination and all future ones regardless of the merits of the indvidual.

Does mr. Bowers also seek to appoint someone who will politicize the merits of each case, on the basis of its right or left qualities? Does he seek to , in essence, politicize the judiciary?

I believe with all my heart that the correct analysis of this strategy is that it is deeply misguided. Mr. Bowers should not attempt, by money, what he cannot gain with constituency.

We must remember the genius of Bill Clinton, who, in a moment of political brilliance - parked himself in a public place and started shaking hands with everyone he saw. He clawed his way to the presidency from humble surroundings, and positively influenced the course of American history by being able to see both sides of the picture. He was conservative at times, and at others, liberal.

It is this quality the strategy most lacks - it is a decision made by a partisan, full of sound and fury - signifying nothing.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:24:48 PM EST

Re: An Indepedent Analysis (none / 0)

I agree with your call for independent thinking vs blind partisanship, and I respect your arguement that knee-jerk opposition to all things Republican may not be a virtuous or sound strategy.

However, I like Chris' idea of diverting a small amount of progressive money to challengers of the Republican leadership - just enough to make them sweat. Stalling the Republican agenda is going to get easier as the President loses further political capital and more pressure is put on Republicans.

Stalling the negative Republican agenda is a form of "harm reduction", and is the best we can do legislatively. Politically, there is much more that can be done - specifically, communicate what we stand for and why, in as many ways as seem possible and effective.

Check out Future Roots, for rootsrockreggaegrass from the heart of Oregon's beautiful Willamatte Valley!

by robin oz on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Indepedent Analysis (none / 0)

You accuse Chris Bowers of trying to speak for too many, when you say that Hackett's election was his to lose because "the people" want change? Get the stick out of your eye before you start lecturing people.

Bleeding Heartland - Iowa's Progressive Community-oriented blog

by ItsDrewMiller on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Indepedent Analysis (none / 0)

Stick out of your eye? What the hell does that mean?

by yitbos96bb on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Independent Analysis (none / 0)

I think it refers to a quote from that Jesus dude. Something like "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

by Blank Frank on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Independent Analysis (none / 0)

Oh Matthew 7:2-5... "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I never would have gotten that from his comment. I guess I was on a more Literal thinking.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:13:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Indepedent Analysis (3.00 / 1)

" We must realize that the Ohio election was Hackett's to lose, and not a republican to win."

WTF are you talking about? Bush won that district by 30 points, and it was Hackett's to lose?

That is such a specious statement that it calls everything else you have said into question.

And I do not make any pretention to speak for you. You are a self-proclaimed independent. I am a self-proclaimed partisan Dem. I don't even know here you get the idea that I am somehow trying to speak for you.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:46:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmm (none / 0)

Previous comment smacks a bit too much of righteous indignation, but I agree with prettymuch buried general point--this doesn't promise to be an effective strategy, with the added downer that it treats the netroots as an inexhaustable ATM machine. I mean, we give to these low margin races, some of us won't have it left to give in crunch time next fall. And that figure you cite as "significant seed money ($50-$60)" per Congresscritter is practically unraisable when you're also trying to raise it for 20-some others.

But I like the idea of a decapitation/distraction strategy. Maybe instead of focusing on fundraising it would be more instructive to mobilize the left blogosphere as a gigantic war-room focused on the individuals Chris cited. Create or piggyback on existing "so-and-sowatch" blogs, create DKosepedia entries, coordinate among communities--harness the power of the Internet(s) dig up every last ounce of garbage in these critters' pasts (and presents). Run it all up the flagpole, and bang the drum loudly.

Eventually, some tip of this iceberg spills over in to the third leg of the pyramid and you get some MSM attention, maybe even a legit full blown scandal.

I mean, no guarantees here either, but it beats throwing money at the problem.

by KevStar on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:34:18 PM EST

Re: hmm (3.00 / 1)

Add to that LTE banks for every issue that people from these districts can mine. A constant barrage of negative LTEs could do a lot to keep these people on their toes.

Also, what about paid visits by prominent leftists? There is a way that bloggers could have their money go to causes other than radio and TV ads. Maybe pay for Chris, Jerome, Kos, and others to show up in these districts on rotation. Each time they show up, the candidate would be forced home on damage control.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmm (none / 0)

LTE would actually be a good idea. We should recruit lefties in every leadership district to start writing LTE to the big papers in the area. If we get 50 people to write a letter a week and it is COORDINATED, it could be effective. Target, target, target.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0)

Interesting Idea. But if you can't get a Dem who is going to pull 40% in a district, will it force Delay, Hastert, Et al. to actually get out and work. My guess is those guys are not breaking a sweat over anything under 40. However, if the correct candidates could be persuaded... people with High name ID, then it might make things interesting.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:58:34 PM EST

Re: Interesting (none / 0)

Hastert will sleep-walk his way to vicotry, believe me, I live in downstate Illinois. But DeLay is going to face a very, very tough challange. His opponent, former Congressman Lampson is a very good candidate, DeLay isnt as popular as you'd think (then again, with all his corruption I guess you would think that he isnt all that popular), and his mid-decade re-districting actually made his seat more vulnerable. I would be very surprised if "The Hammer" broke the 60% barrior. In fact I'm going to say definitively that wont happen.

by AC4508 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting (none / 0)

Um, What would being from downstate Illinois give any credence to your statement? I guess being downstate means you know know the area much better... even though Hastert's Cd isn't in downstate Illinois (Hastert's CD is in the Far West Chicago Suburbs and continues West , not Downstate) and I live right on the border of 14, 13 and 6 (in 13). It sucks having to pass their stupid DENNIS HASTERT, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE sign every time I want to go to my Chiropractor.

http://www.illinoisatlas.com/illinois/political/political.htm#

Yes you are probably right that Hastert is safe... Unless embroiled in scandal, most places seldom replace people in powerful places who bring lots of money to the area.

However, Kendall and Kane counties are Starting to grow, and given the cheap housing, they are attracting a lot of younger, moderate families. This district is going to be like Hyde's soon in that it will trend to the center (probably never to the left). While we might not beat him, a good candidate would force him to spend time and money in the area. He pulled 69% against a no name candidate in 2004. While a very safe number, it isn't a spectacular result for a guy who is two heart beats away from the Presidency and a long term incumbent. A good candidate could mount a challenge... maybe not win, but I would love to see an attempt like what happened in CD 6. No one thought Delay was in Danger in 2004, but they forced him to actually open an office and pay attention. We need to do the same to the GOP leadership.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:52:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Creating an Information Infrastructure (3.00 / 2)

I wish the talk was less about money and more about information and attack. There should be a minimal amount of accountability that every member of Congress has to be held up to. That's a job for infrastructure instead of fund raising.

What did your Representative do today?
What did he vote on?
What did he say?
Who did he take money from?
What did their leaders do?
What issues are happening that they are directly responsible for? (Committees)
What have been the effects of their past actions?
What contrasting opinions are out there on their actions?
Where can I find their past actions?
Who is running against them?
What events are there?
How can I get involved?
How can I easily voice my opinion?

These are basic tasks that should be easy to do for every American citizen. While it's real easy to find this stuff out on the President you really have to dig to get it on your Congressman. This was my goal in creating the Ohio 2nd Blog. While it is not complete, it is an example of what this sort of focused topical blog can do.

Much of the tasks that I am doing by hand are repetitive and could be easily duplicated for every member of Congress. Instead of spending $10,000 x all of the Republicans how about spending a fixed amount of money on creating an information infrastructure?

Congressmen are like cockroaches. They hate light. The more light we shine on their actions the better our country will be.

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog

by ignatzmouse on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:33:43 PM EST

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (none / 0)

Right on. To quote Lisa Simpson, this is the "wave of the future!"

by KevStar on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (3.00 / 0)

"That's a job for infrastructure instead of fund raising."

Um, yeah, but Republicans raised # billion dollars to build infrastructure to spread their message. Ours won't exactly be free either.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (none / 0)

yeah but the money you're suggesting raising is directly for candidates correct? that's not going to do much for infrastructure either.

by KevStar on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0)

running election campaigns every two years is a great way to build and sustain a network of donors and activists in an area. The money does need to go into the right sort of campaigning, though -- recruiting and organizing, not advertising.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 06:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (none / 0)

If the money is raised early, between now and, say, June or July of next year, it can be used to set up the infrastructure. Giving late in the races means it will all go for TV. I have vowed to stop all giving on 9/30 of next year, but I will be generous between now and then. I kind of like this strategy, and would say that these guys' opponents are on our "challenge" list in the three tier CONTEST every race with a candidate and some seed money; CHALLENGE the best 100 or so of these and TARGET about 50 races nad the vulnerable Dems system I have been advocating. The seed money should come from the DNC. The CHALLENGE races would be primarily the blogosphere's project and TARGET races would be the DCCC. We could move some of our favorite races up to TARGET with fundraising and campaign help.

by Mimikatz on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (none / 0)

No, but it will be a lot cheaper, since we have the advantage of the internet age to leverage. It should also start paying for itself after a while.

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog

by ignatzmouse on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (none / 0)

I agree information is important. But you need money to get the message out, and lots of it. The Internet is only one medium and still does not have much power, no matter how much we want it to have.

The Republicans have gotten where they are by spending billions on building a media empire. That is what we will have to do.

by Eric11 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 08:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (3.00 / 1)

I'd recommend reading up on social networking theory. Even though only a small fraction of the electorate was reading my blog I know that the people who were were connectors. Candidates, reporters, activists, national bloggers, etc... It's was like I had a bat phone to the most influential players in the race, and as the days went by you could see the information resonating out in waves. The power was not in how many people I reached, but in who I reached. Since I was writing about something that no one else was writing about much at all, I virtually owned the space. For a small investiment in time and a miniscule investment in money I was able to have a major impact on events.

Now that the dust as settled and the candidates have moved on to bigger and better things, I'm still there, plugging away waiting for the next challenger, keeping people on their toes. Whomever decides to challenge Jean Schmidt will have a free opposition research file waiting for them.

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog

by ignatzmouse on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 10:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating an Information Infrastructure (none / 0)

Its all a moot point until the party leadership gets on board. Many don't seem to have the balls to take a chance on something... they are too ingrained in their comfortable seats of powers. Hopefully, Dean will continue to give the status quo a kick in the ass. I don't think we could raise the money on our own to create said infrastructure. Although if we could coordinate it well enough on line, it would be a good start. The Blogs are a great tool, but the narrow focused organization isn't there... The roberts nomination made that apparent. We need to organize on line, creating a site Independent of the Blogs (so not a blog site... although a message board would be cool) BUT constantly supported by them, that will give out the assignments... LTE about this issue, fund raising about that. The passion of the grassroots is amazing... if we could organize we can do the start of an infrastructure much much cheaper. It will take time to equal the GOP, but it will be a start.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Roberts, Chief Umpire? (none / 0)

This is off-topic. Don't do that.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:49:28 PM EST

Will we scare away republican voters? (none / 0)

Saying that we want to decapitate the republican party could scare away republican voters who are open to the idea of progressive candidates. I think this is what happened to the Lib. Dems. in Britian. They actually lost ground to the conservatives. I think this is a really good strategy, so long as we sound a little less militant about the elections.

by swimmercrat on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:07:40 PM EST

Re: Will we scare away republican voters? (none / 0)

How does do you supposse Grover Nordquist and his ilk have managed to be so successful, by sounding "moderate" enough to attract Democratic voters? Or do you supposse Nordquist et al have won by sounding and acting with conviction in their cause?

Jeesh, I still can't belive how many people on our own side just don't get that the rules of the game have really changed, especially for Dems.

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will we scare away republican voters? (none / 0)

I'm saying I agree with the policy. We just can't say we want to decapitate the republican party, although I'd love for it, in some respects, to become a political nonentity. We need to sound like a cooperative opposition. We want to get the nation's business done but we have a better more efficient way of doing it. We need to say here's what we're going to do, here's what these policies are going to do for you, and here's how the other guys have failed you.

In the process targeting senior members of the GOP is a great idea, but how are we going to win UT-02, MS-04, TX-17, or OH-02, when we say we want to decapitate the republican party. There are many people in these districts who like their democratic rep., but love their other republican elected officials. I fear we will lose these people.

I'd rather expand the party because we spread ideas, not because we breed resentment.

by swimmercrat on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 10:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will we scare away republican voters? (none / 0)

Clearly the platform is not going to be, We'll Decapitate Your Party. Rather, the platform would have to be composed of, yes, positive "offerings"; however, such "offerings" must be founded in "Democratic Party/Progressive principles" that must be presented with force and conviction.

I understand what you're saying, I'm simply tired of so-called "moderate" Democrats that essentially run away from core Progressive values and, too, are afraid of offending so-called moderate/undecided voters. Again, Republicans have showed us that in the "new" way of playing politics, they have successfully managed to present their platform with force and conviction and, in turn, they've been rewarded -- yes, I know those SOBs have cheated in various electoral ways -- with complete control of the federal government. Again, let's not be afraid of being forceful and of speaking with conviction -- that's all am saying.

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:08:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will we scare away republican voters? (none / 0)

Republican Moderation:

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right on (none / 0)

However I don't want money in to unwinable races if, the candidates are duds. We need live ones.

by Democraticavenger on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:49:23 PM EST

Re: Right on (none / 0)

Well there are some races in very red districts that we definitely can win in 2006.

For example... Ahem! (allergies or something) ...

http://www.carneyforcongress.com/

by Chris Carney for Congress on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good idea (none / 0)

I'd like to get rid of a few DINOs in the process, but anythign that weakens the Right Wing is a good idea.

by KDMfromPhila on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:58:07 PM EST

Running against Hastert (none / 0)

The only declared candidate, to my knowledge, against Speaker Dennis Hastert is Ruben Zamora. Our local Illinois/Chicago blog, Soapblox/Chicago, has set up a kind of ongoing wiki-style diary devoted to IL-14. Ruben Zamora has even stopped by our little corner of the blog to answer some questions that we posed to him.

Zamora ran against Hastert last cycle and was only able to achieve 31% of the vote. Not particularly good, but still better than Lawrence Quick's 26% of the vote in 2002 or Vern DelJohnson's 26% in 2000. I don't claim to know if this seat is winnable, but Zamora is an honest-to-goodness progressive and a candidate that the blogosphere can be proud of.

PrairieStateBlue - Open Source Politics (formerly SoapBlox/Chicago)

by ltsply2 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:24:33 PM EST

Great idea! (none / 0)

.

by Dmitri in San Diego on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:38:43 PM EST

Statistics (3.00 / 2)

Position           Republican         Dist.  '04  Bush   CPVI  Notes

Speaker            Dennis Hastert     IL-14  69%   55%   R+05

Maj. Lead.         Tom DeLay          TX-22  55%   64%   R+15

Maj. Whip          Roy Blunt          MO-07  70%   67%   R+14

Agri. Cmte         Bob Goodlatte      VA-06  97%   63%   R+11  No Dem since 1998 (69%)

App. Cmte          Jerry Lewis        CA-41  83%   62%   R+09  No Dem since 2002 (67%)

Arm. Ser. Cmte     Duncan Hunter      CA-52  69%   61%   R+09

Budget Cmte        Jim Nussle         IA-01  55%   46%   D+05  Term-limited as Chairman

Ed/Work Cmte       John Boehner       OH-08  69%   64%   R+12  Term-limited as Chairman

Energy/Comm. Cmte  Joe Barton         TX-06  66%   66%   R+15

Fin. Ser. Cmte     Michael Oxley      OH-04  59%   65%   R+14  Term-limited as Chairman

Govt. Reform Cmte  Tom Davis          VA-11  60%   53%   R+01

Home. Sec. Cmte    Peter King         NY-03  63%   52%   D+02

House Admin. Cmte  Bob Ney            OH-18  66%   57%   R+06  Term-limited as Chairman

Intelligence Cmte  Pete Hoekstra      MI-02  69%   60%   R+09

Intl. Rel. Cmte    Henry Hyde         IL-06  56%   53%   R+03  Retiring

Judiciary Cmte     Jim Sensenbrenner  WI-05  67%   63%   R+12  Term-limited as Chairman

Resources Cmte     Richard Pombo      CA-11  61%   54%   R+03

Rules Cmte         David Dreier       CA-26  54%   55%   R+04  My district

Science Cmte       Sherwood Boehlert  NY-24  57%   53%   R+01  Term-limited as Chairman

Small Biz. Cmte    Don Manzullo       IL-16  69%   55%   R+04  Term-limited as Chairman

SoOC (Ethics) Cmte Doc Hastings       WA-04  63%   63%   R+13

Transp./Inf. Cmte  Don Young          AK-AL  71%   61%   R+12  Term-limited as Chairman

Vet. Aff. Cmte     Steve Buyer        IN-04  69%   69%   R+17

Ways & Means Cmte  Bill Thomas        CA-22 100%   68%   R+16

--Goobergunch

by Goobergunch on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:40:58 PM EST

Re: Statistics (none / 0)

TX-22 -- DeLay's toast. That'll help. There's also a chance of winning TX-21. Courage is #1 with the DFA.

IL-06 -- Peter Roskam's Hyde's heir apparent & getting financed with DeLay & Norquist money. Christine Cegelis is nationally popular & has that level of support as the DFA voting proves. I don't see Roskam winning.

IL-14 -- Zamora's running against Hastert for the 2nd time. I don't see the other Dem winning the March Primary.

IL-16 -- We need someone to challenge Manzullo since no one's come forward.

We also need to lose Shimkus (IL-19), Johnson (IL-15), LaHood (IL-18), & Biggert (IL-13). Only IL-15 has a challenger with David Gill.

by Philosophe Forum on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 09:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hastert's comment concerning Katrina (none / 0)

Perhaps may spark anger amongst Democrats inciting them to all vote en masse, and perhaps swinging a few middleground voters. A large money-based smear campaign, linking him to Delay, perhaps saying that he is "No better than Delay" probably would work well (especially since it's true).

by KainIIIC on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 11:37:45 PM EST

tactics v strategy (3.00 / 1)

clever election campaigns will not yield long range results. plus, the tactics suggested play to the public perception (revulsion) that Washington is all about insincere gamesmanship.

we need a message for ordinary folks in the South and West (mostly rural areas) that vote Republican, but whose economic interests align them with the Democrats. We need to break down the cultural suspicions. The tactics suggested will do nothing to address that fundamental problem.

At the moment, the people of the South need adult, competent, problem solving. What is our plan? Who is making it?

The answer, probably, is no one. No organization, no group of experts, no professional staff, is in charge of vetting a party position. This is a mistake. Instead, there are ad hoc discussions in response to the buffeting winds of chance publicity/propaganda initiatives from the Rove machine. A pitiful sight, mercifully out of sight to most. In short, the only solace in the current situation is that the Democrats are so pitifully disorganized that they are almost completely invisible.

That bloggers should try to organize -- at least to the extent of publicizing the obscure but perhaps meritorious specific policy ideas of polciy wonds somewhere (where are they, by the way) -- is a feeble hope. But at the moment, the only obvious one available.

We need to organize ourselves to develop specific, practical ideas about how to help people. We cannot do that if the most talented among us, as a matter of blogger routine, devote nearly all the time to responding to our pitiful "news." There is another, greater reality of everyday life, and we need to address that.

If we do, we will win elections.

by jwp26 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:56:01 AM EST

Just for the record, (none / 0)

a lot of us Dems who focus on the judiciary don't agree with Armando's post that is linked above (as well as with the rest of what he's said about this nomination). He sees voting for Roberts as total capitulation. I, for one, do not, though I do think that by letting everyone vote their conscience instead of looking for some party unity the Dems may have squandered a real opportunity to stake out some ground for the next nominee - the one that really matters. Nonetheless, I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Dems won't vigorously oppose, to the point of filibustering, an "unacceptable" nominee to replace O'Connor. Remember, they were willing to go to the mat on filibusters for the Appeals Courts, and this matters a lot more. John Roberts is unique - the next one almost certainly has to either have a clearer track record, or less good qualifications, or most likely both.

by david blue on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:58:29 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.