• on a comment on The Need for Upheaval over 8 years ago

    One more thing: I have personally done all of the above and done them successfully, I might add. It is very, very hard work.

  • comment on a post The Need for Upheaval over 8 years ago

    If you want political power, ultimately you have to win elections. There are very few elections that the "netroots" has won, hence it does not yet have any power. Winning elections means building coalitions unless you are lucky enough to live in an area where everyone thinks like you do. Very few of us, Republican or Democrat, live in such an area.

    Republicans may be better at building coalitions such as pairing up white working class voters with financial interest Repubicans. You may say it is because of lying or dishonesty, but whatever the reason, it is working.

    I will ask the question I ask a lot on these blogs. How many people posting here have (a). ran for office; (b). managed a political campaign; (c). worked for a political campaign, and/or (d) contributed to a political campaign. If you have not done any of the above, then it is hard to take you seriously as being a person who wants to bring about political change. If you have, then you know that winning political power takes more than writing clever postings on a blog.

  • Two points: one is that since supposedly customers won't be paying, AOL probably won't see a loss of customers, at least not for awhile. Two is that RSS feeds be a way to avoid this problem because with RSS feeds you wouldn't have to use email at all.

  • But did she push it out to all media, or just the media in Washington, D.C.?  What I was suggesting is pushing it out to media outside of the beltway.

  • No, you don't send out the reaction to Pelosi, you send out the report itself.

  • comment on a post Pelosi Disincentivizes Aggressive Behavior over 8 years ago

    Here's a question: have you sent this report out to individual media members by email? I bet you could get some stories going in local newspapers across the United States if you downloaded and then sent out this report and encouraged other Dems who read this site to do the same. It would be a better use of your limited time than worrying about Nancy Pelosi, who you really can't control.

  • comment on a post Taking Back The States over 8 years ago

    I am wondering if state races are going to be easier for Dem candidates because there is no national security issue involved in such races? I live in Ohio, so my experience may not be typical, but while the media will talk about national security issues in our senatorial race, it never comes up in our race for governor. If this is true nationally, then it may be easier for us to pick up seats at the state level. Much harder for Republicans to attack our candidates at the state level using scare tactics.

    I have wondered for years what would have happened if Clinton, instead of trying to develop his own national health care plan, would have announced a plan that would give states incentives to develop universal health coverage, but leaving the details for the states to work out. It seems that such an approach would have resulted in several states developing such plans and then pressure would have been on others states to get on board, using models that were already in place. Such incentives could have included tax rate cuts to make up for the additional tax hikes that might have been needed at the state level.

    I believe that it was Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, who once called the states "the laboratories of democracy." I think that we may need to go back to that idea. Perhaps decentralizing the power of the national government would be a good thing.

  • What about the argument that people can be against murder, but condone killing someone in self-defense or defense of others, or, for that matter, condone going to war?

    The abortion debate has actually two components. One is whether and when abortions should be allowed and the other is whether the Supreme Court of the United States should have used the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to strike down laws prohibiting abortion. The two issues are not the same, although they are often confused.

  • comment on a post EJ Dionne Goes Off the Rails a Bit over 8 years ago

    The whole issue is when does life begin, and there is no way to avoid that issue when talking about abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you are going, in most cases, to oppose abortion, but if you don't believe that life begins at conception, then you are much more willing to allow abortions.

    I read E.J. Dionne's comments that he can sympathize with some of those who are "pro-life" because he truly believes that most of people who are "pro-life" are well intentioned. Since you cannot know who he is referring to, your bringing up quotes from Pat Robertson and others is not fair. Just like it is not fair for people to ascribe every belief of certain pro-choice advocates to those who are queasy about abortion but, in general, support pro-choice positions. .

    The American public is deeply ambivalent about abortion, which is why polls are all over the place on this issue. While it is pretty clear that a large majority of people reject the concept of outlawing all abortions, there are restrictions that people are willing to tolerate, such as parental notification for minors, etc. There are a lot of people who are like a woman I once dated who described herself as "personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice." What she meant was that she would never have an abortion or counsel someone to have an abortion, but she felt like the state shouldn't be making that decision for other women.

    What is puzzling to me is how some "pro-choice" advocates act like it is crystal clear that the due process clause of the 14th amendment allows state laws on abortion to be struck down. It is obviously not as plainly stated as freedom of speech, of press, of worship, of peaceful assembly, to name just a few of the rights expressly set forth in the Constitution.

    When a non-elected Court strikes down state laws on any subject, there is going to be a negative reaction from certain people. When that Court strikes down states law using a "right" that is not expressly set forth in the Constitution, the reaction is going to be even more intense.

    To lump everyone who disagrees with Roe and its progeny in with Robertson and his ilk is just bad politics. That is the point that Dionne is trying to make.

  • It is not an excuse, but another explanation of the statistics that you mentioned. I am aware of a group of Dems in a GOP district that tried to get a challenger to a GOP representative. They were not able to do so because of the belief among potential Dem candidates that the district is not winnable against a GOP incumbent, given the boundaries of the district. I do know that in that district there have been attempts by the DCCC to find a candidate. Based on that experience, I am not convinced that it is the "fault" of Dem leadership.

    Running for office is a tremendous undertaking. I have both won and lost races and both take tremendous dedication and investment of time and money. It is not surprising that boundaries drawn by Republicans lead to lack of Dem challengers.

  • comment on a post Building a House Landslide, Part II over 8 years ago

    There is another explanation for the problems Dems have had fielding candidates since 1994 and that is the success Republicans had in redistricting in several states during the 1990s. One of those states includes Ohio.

    Ohio has six Democratic representatives and 13 Republican representatives, yet Dem candidates get far more than one third of the total vote. This is because in 1990 Republicans grabbed control of the reapportionment board and kept control in 1998 and 2002.

    The GOP has been on a program of concentrating Dem votes, especially minority votes, in Dem superdistricts and thereby creating more Republican districts in surrounding areas. I expect that far more than timidity of Dem national leadership this has led to the results you found.

    Also, how many of these districts are in the 11 states of the Old Confederacy? This diary is, though, a very good one.  

  • comment on a post Paul Hackett Needs To Step Up over 8 years ago

    I wonder how many of the people who post on the Brown v. Hackett race are Ohio Democratic voters? As one such voter, this is how I see it: one will win the primary and one won't. I like both candidates, but Brown seems to have a much superior organization and has more political savvy. That being said, however, in the final analysis this primary won't be won on the internet, it will be won in the voting booth in May.

  • Ask them how much money they estimate they have saved as a result of the Bush's tax cuts. It is probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If they refuse to answer, ask them whether journalists should tell their readers how the policies of an administration or a party has benefited them personally so that the public can evaluate their commentary.

  • comment on a post Jerry Springer Not Running for Ohio Governor over 8 years ago
    In 2004 Kerry carried Franklin, Cuyahoga, Lucas, Summit, Lorain, and I believe Hamilton, but lost Ohio because of counties around the metropolitan areas. We need to be competitive in those counties. Strickland can be competitive in those counties, Fingerhut cannot.
  • comment on a post OH SENATE: UAW Endorses Hackett over 8 years ago
    The bitterness that is developing on this website and others over the Brown/Hackett race is why party professionals hate primaries. All too often contested primaries lead to ill will that means that the loser's supporters either stay home or lukewarmedly support the winner. Keep your eye on the ball, people, the trick here is to beat DeWine.


Advertise Blogads