My humble observations of the status of our party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

This is going to be a rant, and trust me, I don't think what I'm saying is law by any means. It's just a few things that have struck me lately and I want to see if anyone agrees.

Firstly, I like that we're sitting back and letting the Republicans hang themselves right now. There's no need for us to put anything in writing at this point, as far as hard details of what we would do if we were in charge. No one will remember them by 2006, so making a splash by revealing details now is completely worthless.

On a related note, however, outside of Harry Reid (whom I may note has exceeded expectations as Senate Minority Leader), there hasn't been enough hammering of Republican policies by key Democrats. I understand Howard Dean is just getting his bearings, but there are plenty of other Democrats that can get their asses going in dropping the hammer. Everything Republicans do should getting a heavy negative response by us Democrats (things Schiavo related excepted, because that's an issue we shouldn't touch AT ALL).

We, the rank and file of the Democratic Party, have gotten far too antsy with regards to members of our party, however. We expect them to vote rank and file every single time. This is a very unrealistic expectation, however. Especially when the particular Congressman or Senator has local interests that conflict with that of the national party. We must remember that these representatives are first and foremost avatars of the will of the people whom elect them and NOT primarily members of our party. Hanging our own people arbitrarily will not help get things done.

On the opposite end of that spectrum, I fear too many people have become apathetic following the 2004 election. Looking at the way a lot of people have reacted, you would think we were blown out and have no chance for future success. Regardless of how you feel about whether or not the elections were stolen from us, we were not far off in 2004. Yes, we lost some ground, but we didn't lose those elections by wide margins, and a lot of the ground we lost was in states where, by all means, we were lucky to have a Rep or Senator that wound up retiring. Very disappointing, no doubt, but not by any means the armageddon some would have you believe it was. Worse, however, is the loser attitude that I've heard from a lot of people. "Oh, I put in SO MUCH EFFORT and we still lost! I'll never do anything again!" That's a typical comment from a Grade A LOSER who probably never has and never will accomplish anything of substance in their life. Does it hurt to fight hard, give your best, and yet still lose? Absolutely, no one knows that feeling more than me, I can certainly assure you that. But giving up assures a permanent loss instead of a temporary one. We need to get back on our feet and dust ourselves off for round 2 before it's too late. We WILL have a great opportunity in 2006 to make back some ground, but we won't unless we get our back our 2004 level of committment. And for those of you who want to take back your party - here's your chance.

Continuing the concept of the future of our party, I am absolutely distrot over the idea that our party is doing scarcely little to cultivate new candidates. It seems like all we want to do is find the biggest name and grab it instead of farming fresh young faces and building a stable of solid candidates. We should be doing everything we can to get the newly energized young people to not only get involved with our party, but run for office. Instead we have a few people in the back room scratching their asses wondering where the next millionaire candidate will come from. Unfortunately, we have to face the fact that we're Democrats and millionaire candidates are in small order. To combat that, we need to build candidates with name recognition, and it starts on the ground floor. Get men and women in their 20s to run for office, so that by the time they're ready for Capitol Hill, they've already infiltrated the minds of person in the district before they're in their mid-30's.

I've got more on my mind, but I also have a lot of work to get caught up on. Talk amongst yourselves for a little while, let me know what you think, and please, don't get all pissed off because you think what I'm saying is intended to be law or something. Just my humble opinions, and hey, I'm probably wrong.

[opihimoimoi]

1. I think you did a very good job on this rant. Sending wine and roast duck

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Thanks, I think...

Not sure what the wine and roast duck is though. :hi:

[opihimoimoi]

27. Something good to drink/eat......To go with the good life you must enjoy

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Ahh, I see.

Backhanded sarcasm instead of actual, substantial criticism. Was it the "loser" part that did it?

[opihimoimoi]

29. Sorry you seem to think I was being sarcastic or being in a

sneaky attack mode/etc.

I was simply trying to say, I enjoyed your rant so much, I had to compliment you.

My thoughts were: If you were wise enough to post that thread, you must be enjoying a rather good life. I'm sorry if this was an assumption gone wrong.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Oh, I'm sorry, I did take it the wrong way.

I thought you were trying to say it's easy for me to complain about people having a bad attitude because I'm rich and can afford the current conditions. Trust me, it wouldn't have been the first time that's been thrown at me. Still, it's my fault for misinterpreting your comments and I'm deeply sorry.

[opihimoimoi]

31. np, its not a big deal.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. kick

[PATRICK]

4. Worried too by perception

that the party is driven by the Coup and that "losing" is the wrong word when robbed is not only accurate but a required base understanding to get the nation back to democracy as such. If the tanks had rolled over us it would not be apathy but almost relief because for once the chaff of ideas, issues and myths would have been honestly swept away.

The party has been easily sidestepped along with the majority of America and seeks bewildered refuge behind doing what it always has and predictably so because it is good and comforting. If we were rightly treating this humiliating coup as a criminal enterprise- which it is from top to bottom aided by the ignorant, the greedy and by thugs we would be one step closer to acting effectively. Instead we keep bending away to the hope- perhaps vain- that "next time" the rigged system will give us the win and this aberration will... just go away?

The weaknesses of corporate media, parties, and America itself were always there and dangerous. Myths of the past need to be surrendered too because they have been put to a very ugly test and have been made into a mockery, have fallen rock bottom into disgrace. Do we have to call the bad guys geniuses rather than admit pragmatism and soft selling ideals and a weakly informed passive populace IS the danger no matter what current devil is possessing the body? The second last paragraph I hope is being acted on. It won't come easy or perfectly since money weighs against all those ideals. Money is needed to make the great candidate known and money can destroy anyone without the resources or extreme ingenuity to substitute. The chicken and egg lose/lose situation is working against us when the foxes rule. A less pure amalgam of outside the box warfare is needed now and our sight on grassroots reform must control both spirit and the doers.

We need the best leaders and minds, we need to reach the people, we need to win(and I don't mean polls or the contest but the new game). More like an uprising against extremism, plutocracy, crime and tyranny is called for. Instead the Dems have been running away from the real face of the beast for decades- partly because some of the mythical side they desired too for the wide road to political success after WWII.

[CWebster]

5. ...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050411&s=editors1

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Quite frankly, a novice must have written that piece.

The ANWR section is complete bullshit on several levels. Firstly, had those three Dems voted against, I guarantee you enough Repubs would've voted in favor of it to pass it. It's a very common occurrance to make a face saving vote when the outcome has been decided. Further, as I said originally, those three Sens voted their states interests. He habitually forgets that Senators are first and foremost representatives of their states and not of their parties throughout the article. Sorry, but someone with an axe to grind wrote that article.

[CWebster]

9. Yes, I suppose "The Nation" generally upholds up their

noviceness reputation. lol.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Either a novice, or an asshole pushing his own agenda.

Either way, it ignores way too many facts and circumstances for me to take it seriously. Sorry, but it was bullshit.

[CWebster]

11. Well, I guess since you say so.

But really, if you are gonna give 'em the pass when they vote to support the corporate interests of their state, because it fuels their campaigns, over the interests of the voters and the people of the state whose interests are supposed to be represented, well then, all your other points are moot, because you just left them that looming loophole to squeeze through every time.

I guess you aren't at the end of your rope yet.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. If you want to vote out your senator for his or her voting pattern, do it.

I'm certainly not going to stop you.

[katsy]

6. Your rant is thought-provoking.

I understand the problem presented by voters in predominately red districts and the fact that dem politicians must represent their constituency.

However, by electing a dem, why would the voters expect their reps not to adhere to the democratic party platform?

The other thing that troubles me about dems not presenting a unified front in opposition to gop policies are populist in nature.

How are these dems acting in the best interests of their constituency by voting for the bankruptcy bill? Or for the budget that cuts critical funding for social programs? Or for tax cuts? Or for cuts in the budget for 1st responders? Or cuts for veterans programs? Anwar? Or for the Schiavo legislation? Why did dems even vote on this and not walk out en masse? Why did they give the gop an opening to defend themselves by pointing to the FACT that the effort was bipartisan?

If our elected dem reps were truly representing their constituencies, red or blue... why are they consistently supporting some type of amnesty for illegal aliens? Clearly a big majority of Americans are against this. I'm not arguing for or against amnesty here. Merely stating a FACT that the majority is against this and if dems were concerned with actually representing their constituencies, they wouldn't be pro amnesty.

I'm so disillusioned with the dem party. IMO, it's just a notch better than the gop. It's a little bit less of a corporate whore, but not by much. It's better on civil & privacy rights... but no better in abdicating it's duty to preserve congress' war powers. No the dems voted in lockstep with the gop to abdicate that duty to the nutcase in the white house.

I appreciated your thoughts about recruiting new blood on a grass roots level. How does one keep these fresh faces from becoming corporate shills in the present political environment?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. People elect candidates, not parties.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who do vote straight party, but even those people should be aware that it is the candidate and not the party they are voting for. No, they shouldn't expect their candidate to be a straight-line Democrat, because there is nary a person alive that ascribes to every stance the same way the National Party does.

Specific issues: Bankruptcy bill - Delaware and the Dakotas are banking-heavy states with the majority of the citizens employed by banking industry. ANWR - Louisiana is entrenched in the oil industry, and Hawaii has gas prices well over the national average. I won't protect anyone on tax cuts, Schiavo, or any other issue you mention, because you're right, they shouldn't have voted against the party. But that's not what I was talking about at all.

As far as preventing candidates from being corporate shills... well, the only way you do it is to personally hunt down your best and brightest young people and donate to them like there's no tomorrow to prevent them from needing corporate money to compete. Unfortunately, our system currently provides no good way to avoid this. You need money to campaign, get, and maintain your job, and it's gotta come from somewhere. Short of that, push candidates that want to change the system from within.

[katsy]

13. Frustation fuels my anger.

Your points are well made, and had it not for my sheer frustration the past few weeks, I wouldn't be screaming for a lockstep vote in issues like Anwar. The bankruptcy troubles me greatly because child support takes a back seat to creditors. I find that unforgivable (even though I'm not planning or in need of bankruptcy relief).

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. I completely agree with you.

It's absolutely horrible that ANWR and the bankruptcy bill were passed. Further, I certainly will not be supporting anyone that voted for those bills if I am ever given the opportunity to in a national election. However, my anger cannot and should not blind me to the fact that the people who voted for those Senators actually did want those bills passed, and if they didn't, they're the ones who have to raise holy hell to get things changed. It really doesn't do us, not being their constituency, any good bitching and moaning about it. They will not, nor should they, listen to us.

[katsy]

15. Your a good influence.

And definately a uniter.

:pals:

Next time I feel the urge to order up the heads of some in our party... I'm going to search you out first.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Thanks I appreciate that greatly.

:toast:

[CWebster]

17. So, you think that around election time

most politicians actually represent to the voting public, in this case, specifically Democrats, how they intend to vote, say on education and environment, IF their intentions run counter to the public interests?

I don't think so.
That would be naive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Why don't you run for office yourself?

You seem to be the only person you trust in this.

[CWebster]

19. No need to snipe

I am suggesting that we should expect a level of accountability.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Why not? You're sniping at quite literally every elected politician.

Seriously though, you seem to be quite passionate about attaining change in the system and in the party. Why not get involved?

[amjucsc]

21. Please keep writing...

Very good points.

Unfortunately it dosen't qualify as a rant. No one can rant humbly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Well, it's a quickly shifting commentary

I thought that made it qualify as a rant, but I guess not. Either way, thank you for your comments and welcome to DU!! :toast: :hi: :yourock:

[CrispyQ]

23. In reference to your 5th paragraph, about apathy & losing . . .

I've seen a huge amount of apathy in my Dem friends since the election. It really bothers me. Some helped to get out the vote, others were simply excited to be involved in the political process to boot out the most corrupt administration we've seen in our lives, but all have pretty much dropped all interest and pursuit of anything political. My friend who inspired me to get off my butt about a year ago is one of the worst offenders.

You hit the nail on the head with this statement: But giving up assures a permanent loss instead of a temporary one. We need to get back on our feet and dust ourselves off for round 2 before it's too late. We WILL have a great opportunity in 2006 to make back some ground, but we won't unless we get our back our 2004 level of committment. And for those of you who want to take back your party - here's your chance.

I think I will copy that to every Dem I know & set reminders closer to '06 to do it again.

[Lexingtonian]

24. I agree

Firstly, I like that we're sitting back and letting the Republicans hang themselves right now. There's no need for us to put anything in writing at this point, as far as hard details of what we would do if we were in charge. No one will remember them by 2006, so making a splash by revealing details now is completely worthless.

Yep, letting Republicans wear down all the benefit of the doubt they get- which was a lot, because they so determinedly represent The Old Way Of Doing Things- is exactly right. Giving them no foil, no distraction to hold in front of voters for them to 'evaluate' yet, is the right way to go.

there hasn't been enough hammering of Republican policies by key Democrats.

There's a good amount of PR war effort in the pipeline, as I read it. But the timing of it lies a few months out when all the Republican effort to capitalize on what (little) they got out of the '04 elections, i.e. their attempt to go and stay on the political offensive, is is spent and they're back on the defensive.

Continuing the concept of the future of our party, I am absolutely distraught over the idea that our party is doing scarcely little to cultivate new candidates.

Well...that really has to do with the sense among young politicos that things are too locked in combat for real opportunity, from the pragmatic p.o.v. The electorate is not giving anyone new a real chance. Elections these days are not really about reasonable behavior and ablities, they're crude and impersonal and simply about whether the more conservative side and incumbent are obsolete or not yet so in the district or state. The sensible thing for the smarter ones to do is wait in safety rather than be cannon fodder, to try for office only when chances really look good.

Simply put, as a metaphor it's late in this particular civil war redux, really, and the hardened veterans are going to decide the outcome by finishing off each other. It's attrition warfare. The green troops and officers (on both sides) are by and large too shaky and easily damaged in the combat involved, nor do they want to become victims of a war not of their own making or personal history; they're sent off to hold the safer trenches and positions...and happy for it.

For both sides the central issue involved, and for Democrats the answer to it - the central principle that necessarily has to be embraced (for which ideological stances are poor substitutes) - have become sort of obscure and overly fluid. The real need of the Party, at the level involved on DU, is to see through the clutter, contingencies, and partial realizations and get at that. I try to point people back to Barack Obama's convention speech that was such a success and analysis that the enforcement/fulfillment of the letter and spirit of the 14th Amendment could be the heart of the present conflict. So far there has been no coherent response to this idea and evidence, but that's an essential need- to ground the Democratic Party in a superior and serious reading of the Constitution rather than fluffy ideological conceptualisms and desirous well-intended expediences.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Yes and no re: cultivating young candidates

You're right, but I think you are taking my statements to mean throwing rookies into primetime right away. I simply mean getting young people involved as candidates on the local and state levels. We need to build our Federal candidate pool by farming it there. One way or another, there IS a future we need to be prepared for, and it starts here and now with men and women in their 20's. By the time they're in their mid 30's, they WILL be primetime players and we'll have a solid army ready. I think we're letting too many stodgy old folks take the vacant local and state races. Now that I have an established residence somewhere, I won't be just one of those people talking and not doing anything about it - I'm going to dive into our county Democratic Party and get down to business myself.

[Lexingtonian]

26. Sure

I think you'll find that there is a fairly frustrating set of differences between the people under 35 and those between 40 and 55 at the moment. Winning and majorities in '06 or '08 will greatly change it all for the better, of course. It's a wierd sort of chicken and egg problem at the moment.

But I hope you go ahead. Don't forget that politics is not a game of lots of pleasant surprises, though. Gains will always appear to be small, or turn out to be smaller than thought, and people will rarely not disappoint. Still, all that is needed for public life to be a whole tier better, or even two, tends to involve remarkably few real changes in governance and just a few wise, patient, people in positions of power.

I wish you good luck in all you do.