Democrats use wrong tactic again ! We are strategy deficient !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Form over substance, again. Democrats need an effective strategy, again.

Democrats should focus on the nominees not on the filabuster process. Tell the country, over and over, what these nominees have said and ruled on. Pick the most extreme views and repeat them over and over until people can care about this whole issue. A few examples:

Janice Rogers Bown wants to invalidate California's Anti-Discrimination statute

William Pryor challenged the Violence Against Women Act.

Pricilla Owens refused to recuse herself, accepted contributions from Halliburton and Enron and then ruled in their favor !

http://www.independentjudiciary.com

[still_one]

1. they should do both

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. I agree, but all everyone hears about is the filabuster - you have

to give the public the reason why it is so important - what the outcome will be if they get in.

[GoBlue]

10. And that's exactly what Karl wants you to do...

because it puts the Democrats on the defensive and he knows that's their weakness. The Dems need an offense.

[Pryderi]

2. I'm ready to join another party

Dems are gutless wonders.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. welcome to DU. I feel the same way, many times. But it's really

all we have. Any other choice has little chance of winning, unfortunately. I think the ones with real guts are rising to the top, now. I will absolutely never support a candidate who was and is pro-Iraq war though.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Re. Iraq: personally, I'll forgive "was"; but not "is".

[mmonk]

4. They also need to emphasize

the republicans will have to BREAK the rules of the Senate (it takes 67 votes to change the rules) in order to change the rules of the Senate. Most of their brainwashed followers don't know.

[slor]

6. I agree...

they are letting the "these judges are mainstream" argument lead the day. These people are "mainstream" alright, in a Mussolini era Italy!
Also, I remember reading that owen's ruled against a woman that sued a company, after being raped by an employee, because of their lack of due diligence in looking into his record. I cannot now find it, but if it is true, this is clearly the example to cite, when pointing out her poor record!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Yes, On-the-job rape! Vacumn Cleaner salesman

No background check, woman gets raped by him. She ruled that the company not liable.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/Priscilla%20Owen%20One-Pager.pdf

[slor]

15. Thanks for posting...

I will print and pass it around. Hopefully, many here will do the same. We also need to get our Dem leaders to start talking about this. I know if I was on the Hill, I would cite this case, over and over again. What defense would even the christian taliban have, to offer against this? If they want to go "nuclear", we need to strike hard first!

[Just Me]

8. Save Democracy, Reject Extremism!!!!

Brown is so extreme that she challenges Anti-Discrimination.
Pryor is so extreme that he challenged preventing violence against women.
Owens is so extreme she refused to recuse herself from a case where the defendant contributed to her campaign; then, ruled in favor of the defendant.

Save Democracy!!! Reject Extremism!!! Preserve the Filibuster!!!

You mean something like that? Yep. I agree. Democrats should be more clear and concise.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. you rock!

[Just Me]

12. Naw. I just GET the fact that Republicans are an enemy to democracy.

Their bully tactics are anti-democracy behavior.

Their service to corporate profiteers rather than "the people" is anti-democracy behavior.

Their deception and betrayal of the American people is anti-democracy behavior.

Their religiosity is anti-democracy behavior.

Everything they do proves they are an enemy to democracy.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Yes. But what irritates me just as much is how we can't wage an

effective strategy. We fall into their trap every freakin time. Just like Newsweek issue. They chastise Newsweek and then effectively squelch any further investigation since no publication in their right mind who do any expose. I would have liked Newsweek to immediately demand an answer from the White House. Yea or Nay. Are we using the Qu'ran to intimidate? What do you say to the world about the countless reports this occured. Are you denying them? Get them on the record and not let them use the 'turn the tables trick'

[Just Me]

16. Intentionally concealing the truth is also anti-democracy!

They conceal costs of programs, flag-draped bodies, real motivations pertaining to war, real motivations pertaining to social security, real motivations behind "secret" energy policy, what's really happening to the economy, what's happening on the ground in Iraq, BILLIONS of dollars "disappearing", US corporations' role in oil-for-food scandal, etc. etc. etc.

Intent on squashing or controlling the flow of information is anti-democracy, and certainly pro-tyranny. There is no doubt whatsoever that this neoCON leadership's objective is to destroy or control the flow of information.

It is time to take bold and daring offensive measures in characterizing the actions of these neo-tyrants! Hell, the facts dictate that these people are destroyers of democracy. We have every right to take a stand against those who would destroy democracy on behalf of unprincipled profitteers!!!!

Good lawd! I'm sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of these barbaric human predators engaging in such ethical/economic/political cannibalism. They don't give a damn about values or human life.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. Do you think it has gotten to the point that the is just TOO much

shit to deal with? There are so many crimes there are no crimes. I have even lost count of all of them. And then an issue, like the pollution of our rivers and streams, which gets no coverage, does not even surface. Dean seems like the closest to wading through the bullshit. He even said today that he had to write everything down there was so much. I loved that he brought up the mercurcy issue.

I agree with you 100%

[Just Me]

23. No. I think their crimes are getting too wieldy for them to hide.

I believe their mastery at concealment has limits and their corruption will be revealed by their own actions. Moreover, I just know that their extremism will ultimately take down the Republican party for decades!!!

However, I dread the all the potential damage, the aftermath,...ya' know,...that they may very well succeed in imposing upon our people. I have no doubt that they are going to forge forward in expanding their own power 'cause they are obviously American DICTATORS.

[meow2u3]

19. Republicans are not only the domestic enemies the oath of office refers to

but also they go even further, twisting their anti-democracy lies:

They spin their bully tactics as 'mental toughness'

They spin their anti-democracy kowtowing to corporate profiteers as 'service to the people'--they think corporate profiteers are people but the masses are not.

They spin their anti-democracy deception and betrayal of the American people as 'spreading freedom, democracy, and the right to privacy.'

They spin their religious fanaticism and hypocrisy as a defense against secular fundamentalism.


They spin their anti-democratic (small 'd') hypocrisy as 'spreading freedom and democracy.' How many more lies, bully-boy tactics, and crimes will the American public tolerate before they exercise their Second Amendment right to take up arms?

[MadHound]

14. Study your parlimentary procedure,

Study how the rights of the minority are preserved in this country.

The Senate, with the power of the filibuster, is the mechanism whereby minority rights are secured. By the fact it you need a super majority to force cloture, it has and does force the president to nominate more moderate candidates.

Without the power of the filibuster, Bush could nominate Ashcoft for instance, and while the Dems will scream and point out how radical the man is, while the 'Pugs simply ignore these powerless mouthings and pass Ashcroft through on a simple majority.

Yes, Dems should point out the glaring faults of Brown and Owens. But they should also fight like hell to preserve the filibuster. Otherwise, there will be no checks on the 'Pugs, and they will have the ability to destroy much more of this country than they already are.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Thanks, however, I understand about the filibuster and what it

means. My point is that you have to translate what the loss of this means into something that means something to people. What the judges will do.

It was interesting, however, that Slate said to forget about the filibuster - let them get rid of it. when we get the power back they will use it against us.

[Raksha]

28. That's exactly what I said when I signed a petition

to preserve the filibuster.

>>It was interesting, however, that Slate said to forget about the filibuster - let them get rid of it. when we get the power back they will use it against us.<<

I said that I would do this ONCE, and only once. That if they eliminate the filibuster anyway, I will not petition to restore it once the Democrats are in the majority again. They can shoot themselves in the foot all they want, but it doesn't mean we have to do the same thing.

[gizmo1979]

17. Duh Why didn't they think of that!

Wow so simple yet so effective.Of course I'm not so sure they want to win this battle.A loss on this issue could be a win in the long run.When you get congress back you can pay back in spades.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Yes - Slate made your good point too.

[Armstead]

18. I agree.....Dems should be clearer on the real stakes here

[radfringe]

24. what I've noticed

is that the dems allow the repugs to "re-frame" the issue time and time again and end up on the defensive instead of the offensive

[Cha]

26. So what happened to

Lakoff!?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[Gloria]

25. Yeah, they get as far as talking about wrecking the Constitution and other

abstract ideas that most "reality-based" TV watchers don't give a damn about.

I've been waiting for the concrete attacks on the records of these people---tell people WHY they are so bad as you bemoan the Constitution.

I'm pretty disappointed about this whole thing.

If their "strategy" is to wait until each one come up to present their objections, it will go nowhere because the press won't really cover them and the votes will take place up or down and that will be it.

It's pathetic.

Esp. since a few of these clods have been beaten back before based on their positions......

[cloudythescribbler]

27. Doncha know that at the top levels of US politics, the fix is in?

People GET to be leading liberals and Democrats, especially in the last 30 years, either because they will act as shills for the right (like Clinton) or dutifully "blow it" like Dukakis, Gore and John 'reporting for duty' Kerry. Read Walter Karp's classic INDISPENSABLE ENEMIES. And the function of the media? Justifying the lying. So even if Dean would likely lose to Bush, or at least be 'torpedo-able', it isn't agenda-compatible to have as clear an antiwar voice as he get the nomination. So what happens? Sniping from ostensibly progressive quarters (that's one place all the copperheads and creeps WITHIN the movement, as well as trolls, come in, but not the only one.) A progressive politics must be built on the idea, not of withdrawing from the system, but of participating with our eyes open, and organizing specifically in defiance of a fully understood agenda.

One example I have been advocating -- a no-brainer for the peace movement that CLEARLY is not what the powers that pee want to see OR PERMIT (underground). That's a national scope peace movement organization that canvasses door to door like Greenpeace or PIRG for donations and members, opposing the Iraq War and militarism (eg Star Wars). But anything that troublesome needs to be PUSHED by a lot of people vocally and hard, where INTERNATIONAL press see and hear it unmistakeably, and print how these efforts are being thwarted. If you're not willing to engage in that kind of 'white collar militancy' and really recognize and oppose the agenda, then you're throwing in the towel. And throwing in the towel is what the elite of the Democratic Party are PAID to do, on power if possible, and on the platform of the Party when necessary.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. I love your idea. What worries me is that so many democrats do

not believe we should pull out. If you don't think we should pull out, then you lose that deep passion against the whole thing. I mean you know it was wrong and you hate it but staying weakens the argument. To me, it is hard to protest a war when you don't want to end it immediately.

[Raksha]

30. Excellent post, cloudy.

Sadly, I do understand that the fix is in. That's the only possible conclusion I can come to explain the self-destructive behavior of the Democratic Party. A few days ago, a DU poster commented: "Right now we have two corporate parties. One is paid to do the dirty work and the other is paid to keep silent." I forget what the context was, but I thought this was such an astute observation that I quoted it on another forum.

I feel the same way about your statement: "And throwing in the towel is what the elite of the Democratic Party are PAID to do, on power if possible, and on the platform of the Party when necessary."

I can come to no other conclusion when even ostensibly "progressive" grassroots organizations like MoveOn refuse to make an issue out of the stolen election. I was at one of their house parties right after the election, and even though it was a top priority for the rank-and-file (including me) I haven't seen MoveOn doing anything about it in the months since then.

So I can only conclude that the fix is in, probably to a greater extent than most of us realize.

So what do we do about it?