Everyone get their flaming fingers ready: Who does this hurt? Will the ban actually pass? Probably not. Sure, it doesn't jive with my interpretation of free speech, but she's doing what every 2008 hopeful is doing right now. Nobody was complaining when Bayh or Biden moved to the left. This isn't going to pass, and it helps her in red areas of swing states should she be the nominee. I don't like her, wouldn't vote for her in the primary, but if she's nominated, I want her to win. If it helps her stake out the middle, I say go for it. It's better than gay-bashing or compromising on Roe.
This is what Dems need. We have to be able to point to some kind of strategy, or voters won't feel safe with us. The frame for it should be: "Bush says stay the course. We've tried his course, and no thank you." If we look like the only alternative, we win. The idea is to paint the GOP as the party of no ideas, and the Dems as the party of new ideas.
I think we can all agree, there are races that should be higher on the progressive priority list: Ohio, Montana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Tennessee, etc. Beating Joe-mentum would be a rebuke of the Bush doctrine, but our best chance for a strong rebuke of these thugs is to knock out as many Repugs as possible.
I don't have a dog in this fight...yet. I keep hearing about this guns thing, but I'm not sure this will be an issue. If it is, we need someone who can win the NRA endorsement (Hackett?). Hackett, however, suffers from foot-in-mouth disease sometimes (calling Bush "the biggest threat" to America"?). I'm inclined to go with Brown, just cause he's paid his dues and fought well in the House, but we need to beat Dewine, and that comes first in my mind. So, someone tell me why I should be for Hackett/Brown.
Lieberman has one of the most liberal records on the environment in the Senate, and he has consistently voted pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights....I hate his cowardice on the war as much as anyone, but we should be concentrating our resources on picking up Republican seats instead of picking off ideologically impure Democrats....
Seems to me like a lot of this stuff is red meat the GOP can use to convince its base to go out and vote for these losers. It won't work, because they won't be able to get any of it done. Personally, I hope they make immigration an issue for 06. They've spent the last ten years trying to woo Hispanic voters, and they'll blow the whole thing with one campaign. How's that for an 08 scenario: GOP alienates Latino voters, then the Dems run Richardson for President? Hell, we'd have the Latino vote locked up for at least a generation.
It's gonna be awful hard to hit the Republicans as corrupt politicians if the voters think we're just playing politics, too. The way I see it, Bush's gravest sin has been playing politics with the war, which should be non-partisan. If folks think we're just as bad, we haven't really gained anything. I'm all for calling these SOBs out for their lies, but we should also be careful to present ourselves as real reformers with ideas. Tax reform? Sure, the GOP has invented it as a trojan horse for their reckless tax policies. But the fact is, if we don't get out ahead of them, they'll use it against us. So, we need to be more than the "bad policy is bad" party and show why we're the "good policy is good" party.
I like the "do-nothing" line, but we should be on our guard for that old "obstructionist" label. While Americans theoretically want Democrats to stand up for their beliefs, when it comes to real situations, they sometimes don't like this whole gridlock image. The GOP will try to do to us what they did to Daschle in 04: Talk about everything we opposed and stopped, without talking about why we stopped them. Also, tax simplification shouldn't be a partisan issue: we can't let the GOP take the issue. Reid, Dean, and everyone at the DNC should be working on a Democratic plan to simplify taxes, so we don't get pegged as the party of confusing forms and bureaucracy.
This is a perfect example of that CW that Democrats eat their own. We tend to be harder on Dems than Reps because we expect more of them, but the reality is that a Clinton presidency would be ten times better than McCain. Sure, she's political and opportunist, but don't you think McCain is just as bad? He started his Senate career off on the right, then moved back in to the middle, and is now moving back out to the right. Why? He's a politician, just like any of them. We're voting for someone to lead the country and stand at the bully pulpit. I'll take someone like Clinton, who has fought for health care reform and abortion rights, over McCain, who will have to rely on Dobson, the Christian Coalition, and the NRA to win the election.
This is a good point. If we're going to win this thing, we have to appeal to the ambivalent as well as the anti-war. I opposed the war, but I'm also not sure there's an easy answer to the current situation. Yeah, we need to be talking about Iraq, but it should be dialogue, not a monologue.