Don't Read This Book

Oh my, Emanuel, and I had been complementing you a lot recently too. Naively, I had thought that the new book by Emanuel and Reed would just be a list of wonky policy details, and would restrain itself from attacking Democrats. Wrongo--I should have know there was no way Reed could restrain himself from doing that. Here is most of excerpt from the prologue the new book by Bruce Reed and Rahm Emanuel:
We're both dyed-in-the-wool, lifelong Democrats, but
I always dread the end of any sentence that starts that way, wondering what anti-Democratic narrative is about to be reified by our "leadership." In this case, it was virtually every major anti-Democratic narrative in the country.
we can't help but notice that in recent years, both parties in Washington lost their way.
Message to voters: don't vote, we both suck. Democrats are no better than Republicans.
Americans scratch their heads in wonder that Republicans and Democrats can't find common purpose.
Message to voters: Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for a polarized Washington, even though Republicans are in charge during this period of increased polarization..
But the challenge is deeper: Each party needs to be clearer in its own purpose.
Message to voters: Republicans are correct when they say Democrats really don't stand for anything.
How could conservatism--which even with its many shortcomings was once a rigorous doctrine--have come to such a small-minded, unsatisfying demise? Republicans who rode to power on conservative ideals turned them into a hollow faith. Conservatism became a strategy for winning elections, not leading a nation--for staying in power, not respecting its limits. Conservative leaders forgot what made them conservatives in the first place: a recognition that rigid ideology has always been the God That Failed, and that no idea is good if it doesn't work.
Message to voters: The Club for Growth is right. Conservatism is the best and only ideological doctrine in this country, it just needs to be done right.
Ironically, conservatives made government bigger, not smaller. In Senator John McCain's phrase, Washington Republicans spent like drunken sailors--a conservative administration leading the biggest domestic spending spree since Lyndon Johnson.
Message to voters: John McCain for President, because Democratic Presidents are bad and spend too much
No wonder Republicans are confused of late: They say their purpose is to get government off our backs, but they have little interest in or intention of doing so, and years of conclusive proof show that left to their own devices, they'll do just the opposite.
Message to voters: Republicans are right in what they say, so we are just going actually follow through on it.
With Republicans confused and corrupted by being in power, Democrats became so desperate to stop the damage that we often forgot to show where we'd like to lead the country instead.
Message to voters: Republicans are right when they say Democrats have no ideas.
In the 1990s, Democrats began to define a new mission for the country and the party, with impressive results. But in recent years, our anger and frustration with the other side steered us away from our real strength: America hires Democrats to help solve problems, not to listen to us whine about them.
Message to voters: Republicans are right when they say Democrats have been taken over by the angry left.
If all this were just about politics--one confused party somehow outmaneuvering the other--it might not matter that so many Republicans and some Democrats lost their way.
Message to voters: it does not matter who is in charge.

Wow. In just a few paragraphs, Reed and Emanuel manage to reinforce virtually every anti-Democratic narrative in existence. We have no new ideas, we don't stand for anything, we are equally to blame for polarized politics, we have been taken over by the angry left, conservatism is the only good ideology, Democrats won't do any better, our predecessors expanded government too much, and maverick John McCain is the only hope for unifying this country. And so our national image as a party is completely destroyed.

Don't read this book. Stay as far away form it as you can. It may very well succeed in wiping out any and all progress we have tried to make on anti-Democratic media narratives for the past couple years. This book closes Daou's triangle on us so many times in such a short stretch that even Joe Lieberman would be stunned. I don't know how they "plan" to triangulate themselves against their entire party and then still see that party take power, but hey, if that is their "plan," then I have a "plan" too.

Here is my "plan": someone, for the love of God, invent a time machine so Bruce Reed and Rahm Emanuel can just go and live in the 1990's forever, pretending that the messages that worked then will work even unto the ending of the world. They can also pretend that their 1990's strategy of reifying every negative about Demcorats that Republicans spin played absolutely no role in Republicans dominating electoral politics of the last several cycles. I'll come back and go to a few concerts with them, but I won't stay. I always regretted that I couldn't go see the Red Hot Chili Peppers on tour with Pearl Jam and the Smashing Pumpkins, since the New York State public high school cross country championships were the next day. That was in late-1991 before any of those bands were "cool," and when Emanuel and Reed could still justifiably claim that repeating the same things about Democrats that Republicans say didn't lead to a massive deterioration in our national image as a party. Then, I suppose, we will all be happy.



Display:


Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

How any ordinary Democrat can not already know that the DLC is a cancer on the Democractic Party and its principles is beyond me.

But keep spreading the word. Everyone's bound to get it eventually.

DLC Update: Landrieu and Nelson (NE) have joined Pryor, Carper, and Salazar against the Democratic Party in support of the loser of CT's Democratic primary.

At least this is forcing the most faux-Democrats to shed their masks and expose themselves as the de facto Republicans they've always been.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:21:18 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I think it is Emanuel rather than Emmanuel.


by herodotus on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:21:37 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (2.00 / 3)

Okay, so let's accept that you are right about this book, which, by the way, I don't plan to read because most books by politicians are ghost-written bs. The question then becomes what do we do about it? I don't think that either Senator Reed or Representative Emmanuel are going to now publish a book that renounces this one. I don't live in either their state or congressional district. What do you want me to do, be outraged?

I don't have the time to be outraged. Why? Because I help my wife put out a Democratic newspaper, a Democratic newsletter, and a Democratic blog. All of this I personally find more fulfilling than being outraged at things that I can't control.

Which brings me to another point. Many of the postings on this site, and others, are rantings and ravings of people who are justifiably pissed off at Republicans and turncoat Dems. Being pissed off, however, is not enough. Just ranting and raving is not enough. Being mad is not enough.

It's not enough because ultimately in a democratic society you have to translate being pissed off into political action. Political action means not just talking to those who agree with you, but talking and persauding those who don't necessarily agree with you.

Here's what I would recommend. Start a list of email addresses of people who are willing to devote eight hours to campaign work this fall. This list would be people who are not right now working for a candidate. Appoint state chairs for each state that these people can report to and have that state chair then interact with campaigns to make sure volunteers link up with campaigns. That would be a very productive use of people's time and emotion.


by mrgavel on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:24:08 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

Many of the postings on this site, and others, are rantings and ravings of people who are justifiably pissed off at Republicans and turncoat Dems. Being pissed off, however, is not enough. Just ranting and raving is not enough. Being mad is not enough.

And many of the postings on this site are organizational in nature, and focused on creating more power for progressives.


by Matt Stoller on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

     It's not Senator Reed, it's Bruce Reed.


by Ron Thompson on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (3.00 / 1)

Identifying the people who have a soapbox and use it to be counterproductive, and understanding the ways in which they go about it, is directly applicable to crafting counter-arguments and competing memes that will most effectively bring about change within the party and country.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 02:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

Not to mention, putting pressure on them and people similarly situated to quit doing it.

It's one thing when Rove, Norquist, and others who are clearly on the other side of the political divide propogate slanderous memes about the Dems.  People expect the Roves of the world to say nasty shit about us.

But it's much stronger ammunition for them to use when people who are theoretically on our side do the same thing.  Hence the importance of pointing out the game Lieberman, the DLC, Peretz and most of his TNR people, etc. are playing.

It's very disturbing that Rahm Emanuel, who is after all chair of the DCCC, has lent his name to memes such as these.  It doesn't exactly help the DCCC's purpose of electing Democrats to the House.


by RT on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 02:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

     Well, what are we going to do about Rahm Emanuel? He has a vision for the Democratic Party that is obviously much different than the one held by the progressive netroots, and there's even talk that he could fail upwards to Minority Leader if he doesn't accomplish his current job of electing a Democratic majority.
     What can we do to sideline this guy? First, the disparate acts of disloyalty and selfishness have to be strung together as a narrative, which only happened with Lieberman after he'd been at it for a decade. Second, no one should donate anything to the DCCC--give to individual candidates and state and loical organizations. Third, we need one or two or three progressive activist House members to emerge and win the leadership positions to which Emanuel aspires--Speaker, Majority Leader, and Majority Whip. People like Mike Thompson of California and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida, who were featured just yesterday for their outstanding efforts in electing Democrats to Republican-held seats.
     What else can we do?
by Ron Thompson on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:34:08 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

It's fine for Dems to have differing visions for the party.  That's why we prefer democracy to being part of a hive mind.

What's NOT fine is when Dem leaders say and do things that undermine the party and its message to the benefit of the GOP in the process of disagreeing over our visions.


by RT on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 02:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

why is that his vision for the party props him up at the expense of others? this is a faux statement you are making- a vision is how you will lead and move things- not making the same arguments that you think will win for you personally each time. It is the lack of vision that can show any sense of character that is the problem.


by bruh21 on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

what are we going to do about Rahm Emanuel? He has a vision for the Democratic Party that is obviously much different than the one held by the progressive netroots

I think it's a stretch to characterize what Rahm and his fellow DLCers have as a vision -- unless taking corporate bribes in exchange for legislation is visionary.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:59:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (3.00 / 1)

Being pissed off, however, is not enough. Just ranting and raving is not enough. Being mad is not enough.

That's right.....but people being pissed off and "ranting and raving" (as you so Republicanly put it) is what got Lieberscum whipped in his primary.

In the case of the DLC, repeatedly pointing what a bunch of anti-Democrats they are will erode their support from among the RealDems they've been duping for the past couple of decades.

When the DLC and its members lose the respect and support of ordinary Democrats, the members will begin to abandon it. And when that happens the corporate bribes which fund the DLC will dry up and the Democratic Party will be a giant step closer to becoming democratic in deed as well as name.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:38:31 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

Why is it Republicanly, interesting word by the way, to point out that just being pissed off doesn't cut it? How many people who post on this site actually work for a candidate or work on issues? To suggest that I am somehow a Republican for even raising this question is incredibly stupid.


by mrgavel on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 02:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

Republicanly, I think, has more to do with your tone, which is rather smug and thus, Republican like.


by Henk on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 04:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

woah, no one called you a republican.  

re-read the comment:
>> That's right.....but people being pissed off and "ranting and raving"
>> (as you so Republicanly put it) is what got Lieberscum whipped in his primary.

the use of "Republicanly" was very specifically referring to the words "ranting and raving".  

You're asking good questions and getting good answers, and sitkah is agreeing with you on the importance of organizing ground work, only pointing out that being pissed off or mad is one of the fuels that motivate people to action, and that online debate is complimentary to that ground work, not mutually exclusive.  The online discussions lead to a better understanding of the playing field and the players.  This post for instance might help people decide not to donate to the DCCC, but instead to give, and volunteer for candidates directly.  

As I've watched MyDD over the last couple years, there has been an increasing amount of attention paid to the necessity of offline actions and participation in the political process at all levels (Chris who wrote this post has been a leader in getting directly involved in local party politics and now holds a position on the PA state democratic committee).  There are a lot of posts every day though, and following each with a call to offline action is not necessary to keeping this community energized and active.


by jeko on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 04:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

I occassionly post on blogs like the NYTimes and the "ranting and raving" liberal is one their favorite memes. Unfortunately, it's also a meme of DLCers too.

So.....I didn't suggest that you are "somehow a Republican". By using the term "Republicanly" I merely pointed out that you used a talking point of theirs. Please try to be more careful about doing it in the future.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 05:54:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

I occassionly post on blogs like the NYTimes and the "ranting and raving" liberal is one the favorite memes of Bushistas. Unfortunately, it's also a meme of DLCers too.

So.....I didn't suggest that you are "somehow a Republican". By using the term "Republicanly" I merely pointed out that you used a talking point of theirs. Please try to be more careful about doing it in the future.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 05:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

One day, I'd like a party run by politicians who don't think cynicism is valuable in the electorate.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:51:38 PM EST

With leaders like these (none / 0)

who needs Republicans. After all, if they guy who's heading up the organization that is recruiting candidates to run for Democratic office thinks his own party has lost its way and doesn't stand for anything anymore and is a bunch of whiners, that speaks volumes.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:57:46 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

Time for the "five year plan" of retaking the party.

I've been (still am) a huge Lamont supporter through act blue and still do not see a clear path for us. Is it possible that Joe and his back channel supporters are trying to triangulate against us and re-enforcing the Democratic meme to ensure a status quo of incumbency? Goddamit I'm f*cking one pissed off "radical moderate" that is trying but losing patience with my party's power structure.


by Citizen80203 on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 02:22:47 PM EST

The sad thing is (none / 0)

that Reed and Emanuel probably think that those are their own ideas, rather than the effects of being saturated in a bunch of phony political marketing for years.  

Either that or it's in the water.
.


by Grand Moff Texan on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 02:47:22 PM EST

Obama too (none / 0)

This is from an article today, where Obama continues his disturbing trend of beating up "straw Democrats"

"Obama also criticized Democrats who are always opposed to war, even when force is necessary. In cases like World War II and, more recently, removing the Taliban government of Afghanistan, war can be the only option."

Nothing like tarnishing the movement for your own gain. Senate Mentor Joe Lieberman must be smiling.


by Benstrader on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 02:54:44 PM EST

Re: Obama too (3.00 / 0)

Here's a link to an article about that speech:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/ 7004556169

However, Obama did not limit his criticism towards Republicans, and instead chastised Democrats who are always opposed to war, even when force is necessary. In cases like World War II and, more recently, removing the Taliban government of Afghanistan, war can be the only option, with Obama saying, "There are real enemies out there and we have to face them." <

And exactly how many Democrats holding high office were opposed to the Afghan war?  Practically none.  And given that that's the case, it's silly to position oneself against that nearly nonexistent group.  

All it does is suggest to voters that Dems like these are a significant faction within the party, since he presumably wouldn't be talking about them if they weren't.  And that makes those who hear his message more reluctant to vote Democratic.

Why must our party keep scoring own goals?  They're as bad at politics as the Bush Administration is at fighting terrorism.


by RT on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama too (none / 0)

I love this line: "Why must our party keep scoring own goals?  They're as bad at politics as the Bush Administration is at fighting terrorism."  I agree with both sentiments completely.


Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama too (none / 0)

Even worse then the Afghanistan example is the mentioning of WWII.  To imply that there were Democrats who opposed WWII is the most stupid thing I have ever read from an intelligent human being.  At this moment, I can not think of any attack by any Republican that is as wrong as this.  I doubt if there were 10 Democrats in the entire country, not leaders but individual Democrats, who opposed WWII after Pearl Harbor.  Moreover, if you compare who were the interventionists and isolationists before PH, the Democrats were controlled by the former and the Republicans by the latter.  Roosevelt's leadership both before and during WWII is a shining example of the Democratic Party's ability to protect our national security and Obama's bashing of this is just asinine.


Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama too (none / 0)

Be careful. That part of the story is not a direct quote. It could be what the writer threw in on her own. Wouldn't be the first time.
by Chris Bowers on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 05:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

Emanuel and Reed:  The world's best paid concern trolls.


by jsw on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:14:09 PM EST

Don't Be Upset: Tell a New Story (none / 0)

The only thing surprising here is you're surprised. Emmanuel, like Hillary Clinton, is an Anti-Thesis politician.

This means they lean against the Nixon-Reagan-Bush Thesis of how the world works. When that wall falls (and it's falling) they fall, too.

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/08/t he_need_for_a_.html

What sites like this should be on about is creating a new Thesis. That is, a new story of how things got this way, the values it will take to make things right, and the power needed to set the course.

Best of all, IMO, you're soaking in it. The values and myths of this medium, the Internet, are unconsciously guiding you. Openness, transparency, connectivity, science -- these are touchstones to everything I read about here and elsewhere.

All we need do is embrace it.


by Dana Blankenhorn on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:14:39 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

I agree almost entirely with the criticisms that Chris and others have made against Democratic triangulators, and if the comment citing Obama above (12:54) is accurate, then that's exactly the sort of framing that hurts Democratic causes.  (What gives with him, anyway?)

But I do want to suggest one wrinkle in the rhetoric of political discussion that needs pointing out, and more attention than I've seen to date.  What Reed and Emanuel are doing in the prologue to their book is perhaps wrong-headed, but there's some value to a technique of this sort, when done carefully and with Chris' worries in mind.  That technique is called "mirroring," and it's essential for establishing credibility and rapport with one's intended audience, at least if that audience is made up of people not already committed, in their own minds, to voting for Democrats.  What Reed and Emanuel think they're doing, I'll wager, is trying to win over an audience of independents, moderates, and disaffected democrats who have already bought into the position that Chris suggests is the take-away message from this book.  That is, Reed and Emanuel think they are speaking to the uncommitted but persuadeable middle, and trying to do so in a language that they understand, and more or less accept.

If one is trying to convince an apostate Democrat to come back to the fold, which will work better:  suggesting that the apostate is wrong, and that the Deomcrats are and have always been right about what the country needs?  Or suggesting that the apostate has a legitimate beef, that said beef has been heard, and that the Democrats are attempting to do better by the apostate's lights?  I suspect that the mirroring technique used by Reed and Emanuel is meant to reach such uncommitted people where they live, and to establish the authors' bona fides with them, so to speak.  And (if Reed and Emanuel are skillful), they will then go on to try to move such voters into seeing that in fact they have genuine affinity with the central tenets of the Democratic party.  That is, the apostate was wrong, and the Democratic party was in essence right all along.  But in a rhetorically palatable way.

At least, this is where the argument ought to go.  That is to say, it's less important where a book starts rhertorically, than where it finishes, especially if its goal is to reach out to those who are already dubious about the merits of Democrats.  

So I have great respect for the criticism made against DLC-sorts of Democrats for framing issues in ways that benefit republicans.  But I have heard much less about how to speak the right sorts of "codes" to the moderates and independents that show how they too can identify with core Democratic values, without simply implying (or worse) that they are stupid and/or unprincipled.   From Chris's description of the Reed/Emanuel book, I don't suggest that they are succeeding in pulling off a tricky maneuver.  But it is a tricky rhetorical game, and so one must make allowances for attempts to reach the middle where it lives.  What's key is that, at the end of the day, Democrats enunciate clearly what they do in fact believe in, and show why it's right.  The "meta" has to stop sooner, rather than later, and the important persuasive claims on behalf of Democrats need to be prominent, unmistakeable, and well defended.

So sez me.

Ump


by Umpteenth on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:21:08 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

You wrote: " But I have heard much less about how to speak the right sorts of "codes" to the moderates and independents that show how they too can identify with core Democratic values, without simply implying (or worse) that they are stupid and/or unprincipled."

I think you are over analyzing it. There are no codes or techniques that are as useful as the truth as one sees and presents it. Codes and techniques are transparent, leaving the message diluted at best and disregarded at worst. What the soft middle third is looking for at this point in time is truth and accountability. We have been living a nightmare of cockups for six years with no progress on any front (domestic or foreign). The public wants the democratic party to step into the breach and tell them "we will lead" not "well, if some of us in the party get a backbone, we might be able too..." A simple unified message with no room for "yes, but..." Kerry lost the election using technique, had he walked across the street and confronted the "swift" fuckers in no uncertain terms; he would have won the election.


by Citizen80203 on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 04:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

There is a difference between writing wonky punditry of the sort that makes a party platform or a policy/strategy book, on the one hand, and portraying oneself (e.g., as John Kerry tried to do) as a political leader, on the other.  Reed/Emanuel are doing the former, and so the rhetoric and target audience are different than what is appropriate for John Kerry or others who are trying to get voters to vote for them.  

Consider:  If your neighbor was a skeptic about the Democrats, and came to you and asked what you think about which party to elect, do you think you'd do better by:

(A) "confront[ing] the 'swift' fuckers in no uncertain terms" (or the subject-appropriate equivalent -- such as "The Democrats are the party of freedom, equality, prosperity... always have been, always will be..."); or

(B) "I see why you might worry about the Democrats.  They have had trouble keeping in line with the values (or whatever) you accept, and this seems to have cost them.  But they've learned their mistakes, and now you should see that their policies align with your interests, and those that are fundamental principles of the Republic, and so..."

I think the latter rough strategy is, as rhetoric, more likely to convince the skeptic, especially when one is playing the role of pundit/theorist, rather than leader.

Best,

Ump


by Umpteenth on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 07:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democratic Party (none / 0)

Bruce Reed and Rahm Emanuel can just go and live in the 1990's forever

And thus we have the present Democratic party comprised of people who think it's either the 30s, 60s, or 90s, phew, not much hope for the future. But I'll say this, at least the 30s and 60s were much more than whores and shysters.


by brutus1 on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:44:37 PM EST

Great article, Chris Bowers. (none / 0)

NT


by EricJaffa on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:50:53 PM EST

Disagree, somewhat and will likely read the book (none / 0)

I have read "A National Party No More", I have read "winning the future" by newt gingrich, and also "the right nation" by I forget who, but they can write. I have read - with Great Enjoyment - Kevin Philips "Theocracy" and his book on the Bush Dynasty. I have read "Crashing the Gates"  By Armstrong.  And I have read "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore - which, though not political is inherently relevant to the politics of economy as we enter a new era of consequence.

All of these books are political , all are taken with a grain of salt.

If you want a bible, read "50 ways to love your country" by moveon.org. It is the only book out there that simply tells you what to do.

Ideally , however, you can read Chris Bonington's "Quest for Adventure". It looks like a Coffee Table book , but its a fantastic read.

America is essentially apolitical. Nobody needs to underscore the fact that partisanship exists, or needs to be dictated to the masses.

The Democrats haven't yet stepped up to the plate in my book - they inhabit a corrupt infrastructure that in my mind, they seem to wish to inherit - and will be summarily blocked by the republicans. A deadlocked, do nothing congress allows election of do nothing , corrupt congressmen.  Surely if control of the house passes to the democrats, we will not have passed that torch because of the new and viable alternatives proposed. Healthcare is horribly broken, there are nothing but platitudes on either side.

I guess I sort of see things like Michael Moore in some sense. I really am tired of dog and pony shows. Partisanship just allows everyone to get away with murder.  

Read books that challenge you.


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:54:13 PM EST

Re: Disagree, (none / 0)

i guess the question is whether this book which i also haven't read isn't more of the dog and pony show. or as I like to say why don't most politicans just 'cut the shit.'


by bruh21 on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 04:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

I don't care what's in the book, I'm just tired of seeing you guys beat each other up.


by spirowasright on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 03:57:36 PM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

Here is the email I sent to ol Rahmie boy, enjoy--

Congratulations on your new book. I am always impressed by Democrats who can spend so much time reinforcing the Republican/Rove narrative about the Democratic Party. It makes it especially impressive that you also have time to work towards electing Democrats to Congress as the Chair of the DCCC.

One has to marvel at your ability to at once be in charge of retaking the House for the Democratic Party, while at the same time openly bashing the Party. It's a wonder that this much contortionism has not resulted in paralysis.

What I really found amazing was your complete lack of historical perspective when you write that, "both parties have lost their way... Americans scratch their heads in wonder that Republicans and Democrats can't find common purpose." Perhaps that lack of common purpose results from an increasingly partisan and undemocratic GOP leadership? I am amazed that someone who claims to be as astute as yourself fails to grasp just what has happened in DC over the past five years. The GOP has locked Democrats out of the entire legislative process, and has pushed the country's political dialog so far to the Right that Nixon would be viewed as part of the Crazy Left.

But, of course, the GOP could not do this all on its own. It had, and continues to have, many willing accomplices such as yourself, Senator Lieberman, Al From et al. so, congratulations on triangulating your way to a permanent Republican majority. I am quite sure Lee Atwater would be proud.


by muscleheadblog on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 05:38:32 PM EST

Good News, Bad News . . . (none / 0)

The Good News is -- this book was written before Ned Lamont crushed the DLC dream boat, Joey 'short ride' Lieberman. Since then, Rahm has taken Hillary's cue, and gotten the Progressive Netroots religion.

The Bad News is, that 3 months ago -- any Democrat, DLC or otherwise, could think that any of this bullshit was part of a winning formula.


by ck on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 11:29:09 PM EST

Even More Impressive (none / 0)

Would be a recommendation on what book to read instead, to compare and contrast the concern trolls with, well, concerned activists.  Some of the comments have suggested good reads, and that's great.


by Crablaw on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 10:26:43 AM EST

Re: Don't Read This Book (none / 0)

I'm an ex-Democrat. I have to say my jaw dropped to the floor at seeing the huge extent to which you've projected your own ideas about what Republicans think onto fellow Democrats who've said nothing of the sort.

"Don't read this book. Stay as far away form it as you can. It may very well succeed in wiping out any and all progress we have tried to make on anti-Democratic media narratives for the past couple years."

Message I'm getting: You must not expose yourself in the slightest way to ideas that deviate in the smallest amount from our narrative. We're terrified that even the tiniest bit of doubt will destroy everything.

Sounds like Great (not Smashing) Pumpkinism. Or a very close-minded religion.


by zgystardst on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:50:18 PM 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.