"You assume those on Kerry's e-mail list weren't already on on the DNC lists. I for one am on both lists and have been for some time."
But what about all the people who are NOT on both?
"I am most interested in your claim that Kerry was asked to turn over his e-mail list and refused."
One only has to know if he has not handed it over. Obviously DNC would want it, and obviously Kerry would know that.
"IMO, he has been good for the party."
I agree, but wouldn't the list be good for the party as well?
"I would love to see him run and win the Presidency."
So would I, but to do that he would have to know that you have to respond to smears -- in fact be expecting smears from Bushes and therefore be prepared to respond -- as well as not to say things like "I voted for it before I voted against it."
This is right-wing-economics equals religion stuff.
If polar bears had a use the market would find a way to save them, etc...
In fact when actually STUDIED raising the minimum wage usually results in more jobs, from a boost to the economy, because more people with more money to spend results in more business. The more it is redistributive the better -- meaning shifting to the workers instead of accumulating at the top.
Which brings out another problem with right-wing economics. Science looks at what happens and tries to explain it. Right-wing-economics is all about "if only people would do so-and-so, such-and-such would happen."
What happened with Clinton's plan was that first instead of just going for national health insurance he tried to placate the insurance companies by offering a private insurance plan. This led to a complicated hodge-podge that was hard to explain to the public.
Second Clinton didn't understand what the Right was about and thought he could work with them if only he offered a plan that met them half-way. THEY understood that ANY health care plan made Democrats look good so they vowed to block it even before anyone knew what the plan would be.
One good book on the subject is The System by David Broder and Haybes Johnson.
THAT is just as good as what I was saying. YES do that instead!!!! Contribute directly to the campaign. Thanks for your comment about what I said.
I just don't want to let arguments about the DCCC etc. be a reason not to be sending as much money as we all possibly can into Progressive candidates, organizations, etc. to fight the Republicans. It's too important. THAT is what I am trying to say.
My point is we have power in this conversation if they know we really do wield a financial club. Talking about withholding from the DCCC doesn't mean anything if they don't see us as big contributors.
Everyone reading this post has, of course, given $100 to the DCCC. Right? This would, of course, help them to fund many more candidates. If everyone visiting this blog gave $100 to the DCCC it would vastly increase the influence of the netroots AND vastly increase DCCC's ability to get Democrats into the Congress.
I'm not taking sides on the whole DCCC issue. I'm saying it would certainly open up DCCC's ability to fund in non-competitive districts if they had about ten times as much money. It would greatly increase the influence of the small donor interests if DCCC was bringing in a ton of cash $100 at a time.
"Republicans are corrupt" is not enough. Republicans can easily counter this - already are - with "everybody does it" or "all politicians are corrupt" thereby removing a partisan opportunity and advancing their anti-government narrative.
We need to add a "because" that advances a narrative that Progressives offer more benefits for people than right-wingers. ("Benefits" is marketing-speak.) And we need to keep at it.
Something along the lines of "Republicans are corrupt because they're only about selfishness, while Democrats are about all of us - watching out for the interests of regular people." Of course, we want professional wordsmiths to come up with a shorter, crisper version and focus-group test it...
A question that comes out of where I think your thinking is going -- How many of the Republicans elected in the late 80's and into the 90's, especially 94, can credit their election to Gingrich's GOPAC, their money, and his tapes on tactics? He was sending out those tapes for some time, and created a generation of disciples to his methods. That crowd is the core of the House radicals now.
Matt - I think RickD might be on to something in his "All wars the same?" reply. "Anti-war" and "peace" are simplistic ways to look at and define this, evoking Vietnam and the 60's mostly as re-framed by the Right in the decades since. And this "framing" gets us immediately into trouble with much of the voting public.
On the positive side, much of the country is coming to understand and react to the way the Iraq war started. And they are starting to realize that it is a terrible diversion from (and possibly even causing a loss of) the "war" against the people who really attacked us on 9/11.
But taking the "anti-war" framing to the next step that it seems to demand - do we really want to just withdraw our forces from Iraq, as if that fixes everything? I don't think the public thinks it through that far. I think the public is just starting to want to get the horror out of their faces. Great, but then what? We all know the public can be fickle and we should look to where they will go next.
Of course we all want the Iraq war to end. But we need to be ready to state and define what's next. How do we END the Iraq war (which also means preventing civil war, chaos, and a terrorist state allied with Iran?) And how do we pursue the war against those who DID attack us and win that and end that? THAT is what I think the Dems must be ready to explain to the public because that is going to be the issue of the next step in this.
And we need to do that not just for the politics of it but for the policy of it. There is a huge policy vacuum now, and it endangers us and the world. For example, we say that by going into Iraq Bush has made us less safe. But that's also the truth: Bush. Has. Made. Us. Less. Safe. So we have a political opportunity but also a responsibility to clearly state how we will make us safe. The political opportunity comes because people are starting to realize that Bush has not made us more safe, he is NOT protecting the country, instead he has endangered us. The responsibility comes because these are not JUST political slogans but because we ARE in danger, and ARE less safe now.
Getting out of Iraq is great. But then what? I think the party that can go from here and tell the public convincingly how to make the country and the world more secure is the party the public should and will trust.
You wrote about "voting for peace." I don't think that has meaning here. With Vietnam no one attacked us. But we were attacked on 9/11 so there won't be peace if we leave Iraq (which did not attack us), there will be an opportunity to more realistically pursue a solution to the terrorist threat from those who did attack us. So parallels here are a trap. "Peace" and "anti-war" are just the wrong words to be using. Leaving Vietnam didn't threaten the region's security, didn't lead to a potential civil war with hundreds of thousands killed, didn't threaten to leave a terrorist state like Iran in possession of vast oil resources and in a position to threaten Saudi Arabia as well.
That's not on the mind of the public now but it probably will be later. Let's get ahead of things and not just show how Bush is messing all of this up but also start talking how we will fix things is good politics because it is good policy.
Charahus makes some goreat points, but it feels like it's an Adelai Sevenson approach that is very complex for the general public. How can it be expressed as a simple narrative with a very brief sumary?
An historical side-note. Something that we know now (several sources at the link) that we didn't know then: In 1968 Nixon sent an emmisary to the South Vietnamese government telling them that if they didn't sign a peace agreement being worked out by LBJ at the time, Nixon would get them a better deal if elected. So it was Nixon keepig the war going while campaigning that LBJ couldn't end the war.
Then, once in office Nixon kept the war going until 1972 so he could "end it" to help get re-elected. (Sources here, here, here) In October, 1972, just before the election, with Nixon running against an anti-war candidate, Kissinger announced a breakthrough in the peace talks, saying "Peace is at hand." Never mind that it wasn't - after the election came the "Christmas bombing" campaign.
To be fair, the Guardian wrote, "In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution." They know there is little security in Iraq and they can be killed just as easily as Saddam's lawyers.
I think we really need to think through where Iraq goes from here. Just leaving is not an answer, it's a way to get the horrow of this out of our faces - for a while. You can't start a war and expect that it ends if you decide you're tired of it - that's not how wars end. Wars end with terms and retributions. But this war can't even end that way.
What am I saying we should do? Actually you and I can't do anything. We need to understand just how big a mess Bush has created. Simple calls for "withdrawal" do not recognize how serious this is for the country and the world. We have to understand that we - WE - wrongly invaded a country, killed hundreds of thousands, and destabilized the region. "Withdrawal" doesn't bring those people back and certainly doesn't REstabilize the region.
I think the right answer is for the UN to step in, for us to leave, and then the UN brings in sufficient peacekeepers to keep the lid on while Iraq builds institutions of justice that mitigate the tensions currently pushing them toward civil war. Meanwhile we need to pay to rebuild the country, AND pay for those forces the UN brings in. What's the fat chance of that? And if you think we're in debt now...
What I think WILL happen is Bush pulls out, there will or won't be a horrendous civil war. For sure the Shiites take over and merge with Iran, making Iran the superpower of the Middle East with the resources of Iran AND Iraq's oil fields. Will that Iran be a terrorist state? Who knows.
After Bush withdraws will the Republican Party launch an all-out effort to paint the Democrats as the people who betrayed America? You bet. Will it be like Germany after WW1? We need to think that through.