A New Minority Party Strategy for Congressional Democrats

[Walt Starr]

The Democratic Party has several steps that must be taken over the course of the next year or two.

1) The Democratic PArty has no choice but to elect a minority leader of the Senate from a strong blue state. This keeps that position safe while allowing a more liberal minority leader to be in place to fight the administration. Harry Reid is an idiotic idea and should be fought tooth and nail. He's a good Democrat, but putting him in the position is political suicide for the Demcrats. Failure to abide by this absolute could result in the demise of the Democratic Party as a serious political influence in this nation. I'm sorry, this is tough love, but it's an absolute. We cannot afford another Daschle term.

2) The Democratic Party cannot filibuster appointments for the next year. Any and all court nominations cannot be opposed openly. Some Demcorats can openly support nominations if necessary. Rather than vote against a court nominee for the next year, any Democrat that cannot give their seal of approval to a court nominee for the next year should answer the roll call vote as, "in the interest of national unity I abstain."

3) Any opposition to Republican legislation should be open and the debate should be vigorous. The Democratic Party cannot yield on the debate. When the vote comes, if the Democrats have opposed and the numbers indicate the legislation will pass, all Democrats in the legislative body should "abstain in the interest of national Unity.

Abstention for the next year gives the Democrats a powerful weapon in 2006. The Republicans will own it all. They cannot claim that Democrats opposed them or stopped legislation from passing. There will be negative consequences to this legislation, and the Republicans will be 100% responsible. If we fight everything and every nomination over the next year, the Republicans will be running against the Democratic obsstructionism in 2006. By abstaining in the actual votes there is no opportunity to actually win, we defang the Republican attacks on the Democrats and hand them 100% accountability on everything. Since the margin for a filibuster is so small, it should be used sparingly.

The Democrats need to learn to take minority status to a new level. Give the Republicans enough rope and they are going to shoot themselves in the foot. Strategy is a key, becase we are on the verge of a Republican supermajority in the Senate. We cannot allow them to run against Democratic obstructionism in 2006, therefore we must simultaneously defang that attack mode for them while piling the responsibility for everything negative in the next two years on the Republican Party.

Problem is, I doubt the Democrats have the spine for such a radical minority party strategy. It WILL get ugly in this nation to allow a Republican Senate to run unfettered for the next two years. The good news is, when the people complain, the Democrats can legitimately claim that there simply are not enough Democrats in the Senate to mount an effective offense against the Republican legislation and nominations.

[ibegurpard]

1. That would require UNITY

and a steadfastness or purpose that I am not confident ALL of our elected Democratic officials possess. That ones that NOT ONE OF THEM can crack.

[Walt Starr]

3. Yep, but failure to unite as a minority party will result in obsolesence

Sorry, but it's a hard fact. Unity is how the Republicans climbed out of minority status to be on the verge of a supermajority in the Senate. If the Democrats fail us here, then the Republicans will have the votes to alter the constitution at will within 8 years.

It's up to this Sneate session to stop this now, otherwise, in 12 years the nation will be unrecognizable.

[ComerPerro]

2. I think you have hit on a really good idea there

Who would you think could be a suitible choice to lead the Democrats in this manner?

[Walt Starr]

5. Dick Durbin or Chris Dodd

IMO, Durbin is the ideal choice, but ego will probably get in the way.

Keep in mind that ego in this Senate session could result in a Republican supermajority that will be able to amend the constitution at will.

[WI_DEM]

11. Dodd lost by only one vote last time

[Walt Starr]

12. Dodd fits the criteria

but Durbin comes off as "Joe Sixpack in the Senate" and that image would work highly in our favor, especially as the Democratic Senators start "abstaining in the interest of national unity".

[WI_DEM]

4. I agree

I think that Sen. Durbin or Sen. Harkin would be great minority leaders, I probably lean towards Harkin and while apparently Iowa went to Bush narrowly, I still see it fundamentally as a BLUE state.

[LTRS]

6. I really don't think we lost because of #2

-- obstructing judges. We MUST continue to do that. We have to force the rethugs to make more moderate choices or face a fillibuster. That is job one as far as I am concerned. The movable voters just don't pay enough attention at that level of detail for "going along" with radical judges to help us more than hurt us.

[Walt Starr]

7. We have to accept, the judges are a loss now

Sorry, that's the fact. To speed things along quickly enough for a changeup in 2006, we have to let every last judical nomination go through for at least the next year.

This is tough and as I said, it will get ugly. Check the egos at the door this year, though, because we have to absolutely and irrevocably turn over ownership of "Judical Activism" to the Republican PArty.

This defangs the issue of "judicial activism". When the GOP attempts to trot it out, we simply say, "we gave you every last nomination you wanted, so YOUR judges are the activists?"

We have to be about defanging their favorite whipping boy points. It will get ugly, but anything else will result in a Republican supermajority that can amend the constitution at will.

I say this looking at the map and the results of the past three elections. Turn over ownership of these things to the Republicans. The elctorate will be begging the Democrats to turn things back in 2 years.

[Lugnut]

8. Sounds good to me.

I have my doubts as to whether or not the Democrats would actually do it. As it is they will be spinning their wheels. It will be pretty tough to pin the rap on the Democrats with their current numbers. If we thought the past four years were ugly we have barely scratched the surface of what's ahead.

[Walt Starr]

9. Yep, but we have to accelerate the ugliness

Give them everything they want without actually voting for it. There's an elegant beauty in it.

[Neshanic]

10. You are right. This will work. We need to get this done.

[Walt Starr]

13. Yes, but how?

I'm sorry, but I doubt that any Democratic muckety mucks are readin DU now that th election is over.

[Walt Starr]

14. I'm giving this a kick

I believe in this strongly.

[Walt Starr]

15. One more time and then I let it sink

I;m fearful of a REpublican supermajority that can amend the constitution at will. If we continue as we did the past two years, this will become a reality.