Ask yourself this.....

I had a long conversation with my old man the other day.  We were talking about how nowadays the GOP talks pretty openly about wanting to strike back the New Deal and how much they truly enjoy chipping away at liberal and progressive institutions.

The evidence shines brighter every year, especially in the one we just finished.

Bankruptcy Bill
Social Security attack.
Gay rights.
Living wages.
Unhealthy Forests, Unclean Air
Corporate accountability/tort reform.
Social services cuts recently passed.
Voter's rights (see front page diary for recent southern chippeage).
And the forthcoming revelations that "Big Brother" is a lot bigger than anyone thought, the list goes on and on.

So me and pop were talking about some of the better things Clinton did as president, but hardly any of them involved going after republican institutions and values.  For every health care attempt, there was an abominable Media Consolidation Bill.  For every assitance he gave to single mothers, there was a Defense Of Marraige Act.  If anything, Clinton caved and/or backtracked on many of his bolder progressive promises like gays in the military, and even health care for 100% of the country when it was close to dying.  

Pop summarized it well for me: For the last couple of decades, the republicans have been on the attack against our core democratic values, but we haven't been after theirs.

Why?
Worst case scenario, we might have only had a few windows of congressional and/or presidential opportunities to do so (given the out-of-powerness the party is so adept at showing).  But even when we had the congress or even one house, more often than not, it seemed we coddled up to the GOP, limited our liberal vision of the future and just rolled with their lead.

But, as Pappy Loomis would say "On the highway of life, you can look in the rearview mirror all you want, but there ain't no reverse gear. Best to look forward to keep from hitting a ditch." So in that spirit, I would like you to ask yourself a basic question about our possible 2008 hopefuls:  Which candidate would not only stand up and forward our own party and values, but who would also aggressively chip away at republican institutions and behaviors that have so damaged our progress in recent years?

Would it be Hillary?  Warner?   Bayh or Kerry?  How about Richardson or The Gen'ral?
Who would work with the emerging VLWC to plot the tamping down, if not beating down, of the VRWC?  If her husband is any clue, it wouldn't be Hillary.  Or would it?
What would Clark really offer in terms of growing the power and numbers within the Democratic Party?  How would Kerry embolden a new generation of democrats to keep up the good fight long after he is gone, much like Regan inspired the young GOP?

I am interested in your thoughts and opinions on this.  Please feel free to bloviate about who has shown the most gusto interms of taking on and taking out republican power.  As for me, I have seen more energy and policy proposals out of John Edwards in this area, than any other contender.

Trial Lawyer, excellent speaker, newly officlal anti-poverty spokesperson....I first started to believe that Edwards (despite some not so good senate votes) was interested in this when I saw him talk to a town hall about lobby reform in DC.  His eyes seemed to light on fire when he spoke of "shining a bright ray of sunlight on all these shady lobbyists" and "forcing them" to be more transparent and public.  Some of his recent talks about poverty fit into the category of bold initiatives that will not only embolden our values, but would chip away at the corporatist control the GOP loves to wield.

There are other examples from him, but the point is, ask yourself which primary contender will actively and aggressively seek a long-term plan to undermine and chip away at republican institutions and policies?
I am interested in your thoughts about this.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Right now, I see mroe evidence of this
with recent Edwards behavior, but I am open to being swayed by others.
by Sam Loomis 2005-12-26 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Right now, I see mroe evidence of this
I have to agree.  There is no Democrat "contender" that has ever struck a "liberal" or "progressive" overall stand and doggedly stuck with it.  Neither have any taken the fight to the Republicans in any coordinated way.  By that I mean a sustained and organized message.  A few good press days and it's on to reacting to the daily talking points of our opposition.  Well, forget them and stay your own course and force them to react.

Today, only Edwards and perhap Obama seem to elude the character I'm looking for, but it is so early.  What I'm looking for is an honest "Kingfisher".

by ddrich 2005-12-26 06:07PM | 0 recs
Yeah
Honeslty there is no perfect candidate, but we really need a leader in the WH who is actually interested in growing our party and shrinking theirs.
by Sam Loomis 2005-12-26 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah
A leader in the WH would be nice.  My opinion is that where Democrats really need a dynamic leader is in the Congress.  Hopefully, this would happen with a majority, but a working majority of America minded men & women would do.  Congress is where our government is at it's organizational best.  The WH is important, don't get me wrong, but to be in the WH only would lead to the wishy-washy whims of the squeaky wheels we saw under Clinton.
by ddrich 2005-12-26 08:25PM | 0 recs
There's this guy named Russ
You know. Jewish guy from Wisconsin. Senator or something I think. The only Senator who voted against Bush's Gulf War resolution and who led the filibuster against renewing the Patriot Act.

Edwards and Clark are the only other two candidates that I consider good VP material for Russ.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-26 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: There's this guy named Russ
That recent "I don't care" diary really hit it on the head for Russ.  It's that type of gutsy attitude that regular folks find refreshing in a politician.  That type of attitude could help him overcome a lot of obstacles he'd have, but I really am liking that guy.  He obviously has principles and isn't afraid to stand up for what he thinks is right even when (John Roberts) his party base doesn't agree with him.
by Sam Loomis 2005-12-27 02:48AM | 0 recs
Re: There's this guy named Russ
That "I don't care" attitude may also be why he is twice-divorced.  ;)
by Curt Matlock 2005-12-27 05:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads