Why is pragmatism a dirty word at DU?

[11 Bravo]

I have spent the day reading posts absolutely scorching the choice of Tim Kaine to deliver the Dem response to the SOTUS. Why? Yeah, he's a little to the right of me, but he defeated a RW moonbat who wanted to completely abolish a woman's right to choose, cut taxes to the point where the social safety net would be effectively non-existent, and pretty much execute everyone convicted of a crime. And Kaine did it in a red state. As a Virginian, I witnessed Tim's campaign for Governor and worked on his campaign. He's a decent man who will protect the right to choose, and he cares about the little guy. But, shit, it get worse! I've even heard Kaine linked to the (gasp) DLC. Well, the DLC gave us the Big Dog. Yeah, Clinton was a little to the right of me as well, but he gave us Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Who the fuck might be sitting on the SCOTUS in their places if Poppy had won a second term? (Hint, think Clarence Thomas.) Damn it, until we win elections, the Repukes are going to be allowed to continue to pass regressive legislation and pack the courts, and we aren't going to win elections by nominating bomb-throwers. If we can get behind electable Dems we can: (A) Control the subpoena power and quite possibly send the Chimp and some of his lesser apes to prison; and (B) avoid any more flat-out fascists being appointed to the High Court. If I have to get behind someone with whom I have some ideological differences, I find that preferable to electing yet another half-bright, wingnut, faux-cowboy, bullshit artist (see George Allen).
Flame away.

[SaveElmer]

1. No flames from me....

And I think in reality more agree with you than you think...they just aren't the most vocal.

I too am a Virginian and thought Kaine did an excellent job!

[ulysses]

2. it's not.

It's just that it's usually a cover word for "Hey, maybe we'll win if we act more Republican!"

[spooky3]

3. Well said. I think the fear of some people is that they will get

the worst of both worlds--that even after compromising positions in order to win, Dems will lose.

[Yollam]

4. People are pissed about the CHOICE of Kaine.

Most of us have no beef with Kaine himself. It's just that some of us think that a person of his demeanor was not what was called for last night.

prag·ma·tism P Pronunciation Key (prgm-tzm)
n.
A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.


I fail to see how the choice of a rather conciliatory, right-leaning democrat to give a soft-soap speech is a practical solution to our number one problem, which is an ultra-right-wing government, drunk with power and run amok, or how it addresses the democrats' failure to differentiate themselves from the republicans while showing that we have the guts and gumption to fight back.

Middle-of-the-road people are not voting for dems because they think of us as "weak".

Did Kaine strike you as "strong"?

[SaveElmer]

8. Kaine struck me as a mature adult...

The Bush crowd are raving adolescents, and I think that is what people are sick of. Kaine did not give a weak speech, he gave very pointed criticisms of Bush, while emphasizing the kind of government Democrats would be advocating for. A fire and brimstone speech may have viscerally satisfied rabid partisams, but it would have turned off many more.

I thought Kaine was excellent.

[11 Bravo]

9. He struck me as effective.

He delineated a number of ways in which the Bush administration has been a failure, and he did so in a way that may actually resonate with independents.

[Andromeda]

63. I think Kaine did a good job.

He came across as sincere and kind, representing the positive side of the Democratic party. It was good that they picked a recently elected Democrat from a red state. That must have rankled the Republicans somewhat who I think had some losses in Virginia.

For a rebuttal speech maybe some people thought he was too meek and mild but the Democratic party has a big tent and we need more "grounded" people in our party.

[OzarkDem]

40. Agree, voters like candidates who project a winning image

Average voters want candidates (and parties) who are winners and who project conviction and strength along with their ideas.

A milque-toast, moderate (and boring) image isn't going to win voters regardless of their position on the issues.

I'm sure Kaine is a great guy, he just came off wooden and stilted.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

5. I am left, left of center.

I'm also pragmatic. If Kaine can win in a Red State against a RW nut, then he can speak for me. I thought he did a fine job.

Just railing against dumbya isn't getting the message across. It's perceived as politics as usual or that the Dems have no good ideas we just know how to criticize. Kaine did a good job, IMO, of laying out the choices this country has to make & that there are alternatives to huge tax cuts for the rich & leaving our children to pay for it. There are alternatives to everything dumbya proposed that has left us in such a sorry state.

Also, a lot of people don't realise how hard it is to give a speech before a camera & nothing else. Even Clinton didn't always do such a great job. And dumbya looks exactly like a deer in the headlights.

[rudy23]

6. The Repubs are almost the opposite

They are all about pragmatism, with no regard for the big picture. They'll win the battle and lose the war every time, and fail to see the forest for the trees in the process.

They will go to greater lengths to defend a teammate they disagree with, while Dems try more to distinguish themselves, nobly sticking to their own set of ideals for each issue. Maybe it comes from more of a pack mentality, than sheerly through pragmatism for the R's.

I think the Democrats need to sell this as a strong point--we as a party, don't strongarm our members into following some diabolical, grand plan for domination. We are the party of pluralism, of live and let live. At the same time, we need to realize what the Repubs do--until the rules change, it's a two team game.

[sandnsea]

7. We had several responses

Kaine, Villaragosa, Kerry, Murtha. Looks to me like we're putting out a big net and I wish people would look at the whole picture and just get behind the message and people that speak to them. Be able to speak just as intelligently on immediate withdrawal as on gradual disengagement, using the same basic point for both, our presence is fueling the insurgency. We're all headed for the same goals and we just need to get more people to understand the goals and see the sensibility in them and understand that Republicans don't share those goals.

[OzarkDem]

41. Image and style are important

message and ideas alone won't pick up new voters. A winning Dem messenger needs both substance and style.

[Pirate Smile]

10. The message I caught from the Kaine response was Competence v.

Incompetence.

[11 Bravo]

12. I heard it the same way ...

but Kaine has been absolutely shredded by many DUers today.

[cali]

26. The other side of the coin is that

many of us have been posting about Kaine doing a fine job. You'll always get the DUers who think the only acceptable rhetoric comes from a narrow understanding of liberalism.

[OKNancy]

11. What's pragmatic for one area may not be so for another

As a resident of a very red state, I often get misty when I think how wonderful it would be to have a Senator like, say Dianne Feinstein. I might get pissed at her, but I sure wouldn't work for her defeat.

I used this same thinking when I picked my candidate for the 2004 Presidential primary. Since a President is chosen by electoral votes, I tried to think, " Which Democrat has an actual chance to win MY state. " That is why I chose Clark. Apparently a lot of other Oklahomans felt the same.
That is how I show my pragmatic side.

Also, I think we should have single payer Universal health coverage, but if someone supported lowering the age of Medicare to 55 ( Edwards) I could support that. That is pragmatic. It doesn't make me less liberal, it just makes me realistic and practical.

They call it "the art of politics".

[Andromeda]

61. I agree, Nancy...

CA could do a lot worse than Feinstein. She's not every liberal's dream Senator like Barbara Boxer is, but she's competent and articulates her positions clearly.

In the real world Dianne Feinstein represents CA very well and right now I don't know who would be qualified to take her place.

Sometimes we don't appreciate what we have until we lose it.

I also think that the older you get the more practical you become. At least that's how it is with me.

[Coexist]

13. Mostly because its been a losing proposition for

10 years, with Clinton being the exception, not the rule.

Lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the White House, lost the Supreme Court.

Just my observation.

[jmaier]

45. How far back to we have to look to find

leftish progressives to be a winning ticket in national races? It's fine to castigate more centrist politicians but I can't remember a president who was unabashedly liberal.

[radio4progressives]

14. I'm a Leftist. (some thing of a Socialist Libertarian)

I didn't have a problem with Keine as the responder for the Dems on this one. I don't know much about him, only what i've read here and there. I think what he said was as about as effective as this party seems to be able to muster, and at least he didn't sound like he had a bunch of marbles in his mouth, or the media hadn't interrupted a marsh mallow eating fest. he spoke clearly the pov of the leadership in the party which resides in the Right.

Maybe my expections were so low, that he actually surprised me, dunno.
figured it could have been worse, at least it wasn't Hillary Clinton.

If I had my druthers, i would have selected Bernie Sanders, or Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich or even Howard Dean.

But, if he really is being touted as the party's rising star, then that's a quesiton the rank & file will have to grapple with i guess, or just accept it from their leadership.

I'd be concerned.

[Coexist]

16. I had no problem with what he said - not at all

but I, as much as I was anticipating it, was really let down. It was hard to follow what he was saying because his nervous, odd, half-grin was distracting - and then when he got warmed up = they eyebrow started.

I had high expectations - so I was just setting myself up to be let down I guess. I always do that with movies, too.

[radio4progressives]

20. I was thinking he was a little nervous to be in a national spotlight

I wasn't too affected by the little (nervous) twitches, or slightly halting speaking style. I thought he delivered more effectly than Harry Reid who i have a much harder time listening to or even Nancy Pelosi, drives me nuts a lot of the time.

It was a safe speech, known mostly in the beltway, and the Pentagon (apparently) so the media couldn't slam him, and in fact, the disaffected Republican shill David Gergen gave him fairly positive praises. I don't think the repukes could roast him for content or delivery or personal politics.

This is all a tempest in a teapot bruhaha that is being stirred up, because the real issue is how the DP is positioning the political plumb line center point. Arianna Huffington should have blasted off her gun powerd Alito confirmation capitulation.

Keine is hardly symbolic of the issue of concern. I mean, like show me how Keine is any more of an unprincipled elected official than the 19 or so Democratic Party Senators who voted Yes on Cloture?

That's who Arianna should have gone after. Half of the Party Senate.

Leave the Governor alone.

[rudy23]

15. I had more of a problem with the "There's a better way"

being repeated over and over throughout the speech. I felt talked down to, and it felt too much like a sales pitch. That being said, I'm glad he made a better impression on most people than he did with me. It was a gamble to put an unknown face on for the response, but I thinked it worked pretty well.

[radio4progressives]

22. Well, yeah. The Better Way is this years Party Brand Logo.

Consultants. PR Bullshite.

That's the PROBLEM. It's being run by consultants and pr firms now.

[lastknowngood]

17. Because it is usually an excuse for doing nothing

n/t

[GOPNotForMe]

18. I completely agree with you.

And I'm glad you said it because you're more eloquent than I would have been.

[stevedeshazer]

19. I'm very far left, and I have just one big problem with Kaine's response

My wife and I watched Kaine deliver his response and said to each other that he did a good job. The eyebrow thing really distracted me to be honest.

He delivered his statement too slowly in my opinion, and the background was distracting. Whatever that thing was on the mantle looked like leftover Christmas detritus.

But when I read back what he said, I agree with practically all of it.

But I was very uncomfortable with all the faith-based stuff. I'm sick of that tactic, and I've certainly had enough of it from Republicans lately to last me a lifetime.

Religion doesn't belong in government. And vice-versa.

I'm a hell of a long way from Virginia, and my brief sojourn there was enough to convince me that I don't know enough about that state to comment in an informed way, so take my two bits for what they're worth: I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.

Bottom line is, I think all Democrats have to work together to dig ourselves out of this hole we're in. Once we're back in power, we'll get to have our own pissing match about where we want to go, but first things first; the madness must be stopped.

[Dr Fate]

21. some view it as a synonym for "lets go along with Bush on this one."

Which it often is.

When it is used that way, it is a dirty word- b/c there are no examples of how going along with Bush has helped anything.

[Aaaargh]

23. It's not "pragmatism" to sell out the Democratic electorate

Gov. Kaine's speech was a disgrace, and certainly won't help Democrats get elected in congressional races this November. It served to blur the distinction between the two parties, and would certainly discourage anyone hoping that the Democrats would provide a real alternative.

Kaine not only claimed that 'partisanship' was a terrible problem which we need to rise above -- that is, Democrats need to capitulate even more than they already do to the Repig agenda -- he even said:

"The President called again tonight for our commitment to win the war on terror and to support our troops. All Americans embrace those goals."

In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans think that the Iraq invasion and occupation has been a MISTAKE, and has rendered this country MORE likely to be a target for more terrorist attacks, rather than made it safer. Kaine, in combining his references to 9/11 and the Iraq War, is peddling the same lies as the Bushites about a link between the two, and suggesting that the Iraq mission is a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks.

Sorry, but the public is just not as stupid as the Repigs, the corporate media and the DLC would like them to be. Bringing this unjust, shameful and ultimately hopeless war-for-conquest to an end is a cause which the Democrats should embrace -- not because it happens to offer them an electoral advantage, as it does, but because doing so is RIGHT, and the American people know it.

But the spin offered last night by Gov. Kaine is in keeping with the true DLC agenda: to neutralize the Democratic Party so that it does not represent a real alternative to the Republicans, and voters are left with a choice between corporatist party A and corporatist party B, while third parties are burdened with such an organizational and financial disadvantage that they most likely remain irrelevant. Besides that, the corporatist power elite have the MSM to smear any populist upstarts who might emerge.

If Kaine was a better choice than a wingnut as VA governor, fine. It doesn't follow that he was a fine choice for the task of responding to Bush's SOTU speech, especially when all he offered was DLC-style Repig-lite rhetoric.

As for the DLC having "given us" Clinton, that's another lie. Clinton was associated with the early, less reactionary DLC at a key stage of his career, but the truth is, when he ran for president in '92, From and company accused him of engaging in 'class warfare' when he picked up on the issue of the decline of the middle-class. Later, when Clinton was president, they bashed him for raising taxes for the very rich. Today, of course, they've dropped all that down the memory hole and presume to take total credit for Clinton's achievements.

The bottom line: The heavily-propagated DLC line about most Americans being 'conservative' is shown to be untrue by surveys of what voters expect and desire their government to provide. Democrats should represent the traditional Democratic principles which most Democratic Party members, AND most Americans, relate to and support.

'Pragmatism' has nothing to do with the DLC agenda. It's all about propaganda -- cynical attempts to manipulate and distract public opinion, and reduce voters' choices to a narrow spectrum that the corporate-moneyed elite are content with.

[11 Bravo]

28. Now that you've called me a liar, I suppose I'll respond.

I listened to the same speech that you presumably did. I did not hear Tim Kaine try to conflate Iraq and 9/11 in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps, however, you are calling Kaine a liar in that instance. According to you, I'm a liar for claiming that the DLC gave us Bill Clinton as a candidate. It's difficult to respond to something so demonstrably incorrect. Were it not for the DLC, nobody outside of Arkansas would have ever heard of the Big Dog. Certainly I have issues with several of the so-called "Democratic centrists", but I also have a visceral dislike for being called a liar. By the way, welcome to DU.

[Aaaargh]

31. From Kaine's speech:

"The President called again tonight for our commitment to win the war on terror and to support our troops. All Americans embrace those goals. We can, and we must, defeat those who attack and kill innocent people. While the images of the World Trade Center are seared in the minds of all Americans, so too are the memories of those who died on sacred ground in Virginia in the attack on the Pentagon. Our commitment to winning the war on terrorism compels us to ask this question: Are the President's policies the best way to win this war?

We now know that the American people were given inaccurate information about the reasons for invading Iraq. We now know that our troops in Iraq were not given the best body armor or the best intelligence. We now know that the Administration wants to cut tens of thousands of troops from the Army Reserves and National Guard at the very time America is facing new and dangerous threats. And we now know the Administration wants to further reduce military and veterans' benefits.

There's a better way. Working together, we must give our troops the tools they need to win the war on terror."

So, you're telling me that Gov. Kaine is not referring to troops in Iraq here, as engaged in fighting "the war on terror"?

I'd be interested to see you try to justify your assertion that "were it not for the DLC, nobody outside of Arkansas would have ever heard of the Big Dog." Clinton first gained strong national attention when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic Convention in '88. He spoke for a little too long, and the crowd at the convention hooted at him a bit toward the end of his speech. Soon after that, Clinton appeared on, I think, Johnny Carson's 'Tonight Show' and made self-effacing fun of himself over that faux pas, and came off as an engaging and likable guy, as he so often managed to do.

So it goes with politics in the corporate media age -- but what did the DLC have to do with bringing about any of that? Did Clinton get that gig as convention keynote speaker because the DLC arranged it -- or because he'd impressed party leaders as the governor of Arkansas? Clinton had other contacts besides them, you know. So, please offer some PROOF for your assertion that Clinton was indebted to the DLC for getting noticed outside of his home state.

As for lies: I said the claim about Clinton and the DLC was a lie. It's the DLC's lie. Whether you know you're repeating something that's untrue, I wouldn't know. Let's stick to issues about politics, shall we?

[11 Bravo]

38. Re: Kaine linking Iraq and 9/11, it flat-out didn't happen.

He took pains to avoid doing so. (See post #30, they said it better than I could.) Secondly, is it your claim that Bill Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee in '92 without the backing of the DLC? That was, after all, my point.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DancingBear]

51. Hot damn, another old-timer

So you know the line we all used:

"I can't believe McGovern lost. Everyone I know voted for him." :)

[11 Bravo]

53. At the time I had never even been to Massachusetts, but...

I got a college buddy of mine from Boston to bring me back one of those Massachusetts "We told you so" bumper stickers when it all started to turn to shit for the Trickster.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[11 Bravo]

55. Not for much longer I'll wager.

[Aaaargh]

56. Why, because I'll get banned?

Could well be. That's how it works on this forum. Democrats are just not welcome here, so I've observed.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

30. I never heard Kaine link 9/11 to Iraq.

"The President called again tonight for our commitment to win the war on terror and to support our troops. All Americans embrace those goals." I would think all Americans would embrace those goals.

In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans think that the Iraq invasion and occupation has been a MISTAKE, and has rendered this country MORE likely to be a target for more terrorist attacks, rather than made it safer. Kaine, in combining his references to 9/11 and the Iraq War, is peddling the same lies as the Bushites about a link between the two, and suggesting that the Iraq mission is a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. Where did Kaine link the two? I've heard dumbya & his handlers do that, but I didn't hear Kaine. In fact, I thought Kaine did an excellent job of distinguishing the two. The war on terror (whatever the hell that is) & the invasion of Iraq have nothing to do with each other.

[Heewack]

44. I disagree on two points.

"In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans think that the Iraq invasion and occupation has been a MISTAKE, and has rendered this country MORE likely to be a target for more terrorist attacks, rather than made it safer. "

"for our commitment to win the war on terror and to support our troops. All Americans embrace those goals."


No one could get elected dog catcher without embracing those goals. Supporting the troops and committing to win the war on terror are essential for this party to win back control. Just because the polls show that a simple majority thinking it was a mistake does not mean they do not support the troops or winning the war on terror. To think otherwise os misguided.

"'Pragmatism' has nothing to do with the DLC agenda. It's all about propaganda -- cynical attempts to manipulate and distract public opinion, and reduce voters' choices to a narrow spectrum that the corporate-moneyed elite are content with."

Complete and total bullshit. Pragmatism is based on realizing what is possible GIVEN THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION. I know some like to ignore reality and keep plowing along in la la land thinking that reality doesn't exist, then walk around asking, "why can't we get what we want?"

[Heewack]

46. OMG, that pragmatist President Carter just said

On Larry King that we should stay in Iraq until the government is stable and they are able to defend themselves.

Maybe we should kick him out of the party.

[11 Bravo]

47. Stick around. Somebody will miss the sarcasm and agree with you.

It's only a matter of time.

[Heewack]

48. He must be a rightwing shill

Now he just said that Iran does want nuclear weapons and that they pose a serious threat.

[Aaaargh]

54. As always -- give sources, please

[Heewack]

58. CNN Larry King

I'm sure it will be on transcript tomorrow.

[Aaaargh]

69. OK. it's 'tomorrow.' Where's the transcript?

[Aaaargh]

70. Here: What Carter actually said about the Iraq War

"KING: Do you support the Iraq war?

CARTER: No, I haven't supported it from the very beginning. In fact, I wrote a major, I thought it was a major editorial in "The New York Times" a few months before we invaded Iraq pointing out that it was an unnecessary and unjust war and the editorial was repeated on full page ads in a lot of other newspapers.

So, I've always been against the war. But once we got there, obviously we need to give our young men and women our absolute and full support, so I'm not in favor of an immediate withdrawal. I think we ought to decide as a nation that we will turn over as quickly as possible not only the military responsibilities to the Iraqi people but also let them manage their own economic affairs.

I don't think we have any idea now of turning over their oil supplies and let them handle who gets to manage the oil, like even France and Russia and I hope we'll back off and let them run their own political affairs.

But, what I believe is that there are people in Washington now, some of our top leaders, who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they're looking for ten, 20, 50 years in the future...

KING: Why?

CARTER: ...having major American military board -- well, because that was the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/01/lkl.01.html

But then, the response in this thread to the straight quotation taken from Gov. Kaine's speech Tuesday demonstrates that what is ACTUALLY SAID (as much as what ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE in the real world) doesn't count for much in the usual self-congratulatory 'discussions' among DLCers on DU.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heewack]

57. Polls are fickle things.

"Excuse me -- do you have ANY idea WTF you're talking about? Obviously not. "THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION' is that the American people don't buy the lies about the Iraq mission peddled by the Bush administration, the whore media, and the quisling traitors of the DLC."

They certainly don't buy the lies, but that doesn't mean they automatically agree with you. Americans are very pragmatic as a people. Just a scant few months ago the polls were quite different. Basing your arguments on polls is a fools game.

But let's play along.

"Americans don't believe that the war in Iraq is protecting them from further 9/11 style attacks -- they recognize, as any rational person would, that the war has vastly increased recruitment for the Jihadists."

The latest poll.

""Do you think the war with Iraq has or has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States?"


53% Yes. 45% Has not http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

So, what should we make out of that poll? Remember these are those same Americans that don't believe the lies.




""Continuing to win the war on terror"? When did we START winning it? What bullshit! Where the FUCK do you people come from?"

I come from reality. Where do you come from? If you think any candidate on the state level, much less the national level could make those statements and win a damn thing you are living a delusion.

[Aaaargh]

62. If polls are fickle things...

Then we need to consider the preponderance of recent poll results over a reasonable period of time, to judge what the views of the American public really are. Right?

I believe that your argument makes no sense whatsoever -- though to be fair, that's in keeping with the standard on this supposed 'Democratic Party' forum.

You say:

"I come from reality. Where do you come from? If you think any candidate on the state level, much less the national level could make those statements and win a damn thing you are living a delusion."

So you're claiming that no candidate could win an election anywhere in this country at the state or national level this year if they oppose the Iraq war? OK, fine -- let's see if that's the case in November. I'll consult with you here after the election - if I'm not banned by then for being a Democrat.

[marions ghost]

24. gotta remember this Kaine speech was delivered to the masses

...it was not intended to be a message to fire up the base. Obviously judging by the speech the Dems feel that the masses want to be reassured, to have the oppositional points delivered in soothing tones, & they may even be trying to appeal to Repug supporters nursing their (self-inflicted) wounds. That's who they were playing to. Not us, they think they can count on us, and we probably weren't watching the SOTU in large numbers, were we? It's all Made for TV.

I don't think it's about pragmatism so much as image. And also fall-out from Alito. Having been slapped down hard by our own party, we NEEDED to get a recharge. But I think some around here were looking in the wrong place if they think it was going to come from the Ministry of Propaganda.

Maybe this is taken as a cynical view, but giving up on mainstream media completely I feel liberated in that I don't need to get anything of substance from it.

[DaveinMD]

25. Bravo

Bravo. Great post.

[DancingBear]

27. No flame - just a different perspective on Kaine

I, too, live in Virginia. Kaine's opponent in the election, the dear Mr. Kilgore, ran without question one of the WORST campaigns in history. It was awful. He ran a series of ads that tried to "show" how the anti-death penalty Kaine would probably choose to let Hitler live. You had to see them to believe them. EVERY major newspaper in the state condemned them, they were the talk of the political town, and they were so over the top that fence-sitters stayed away from him in droves.

Tim Kaine is a nice man, but we do not need nice when dealing with evil. We need someone to stand up and say what we all know - Bush lies.

Rove has already shown the '06 and beyond playbook, but we already knew it. We have a BIG issue to address - the fact the we can be perceived as weak on terror.

Wes Clark needed to deliver that response last night. Or John Murtha. Or Paul Hackett.

Not Tim Kaine. If our party thinks Tim Kaine (actually, Mark Warner) can go up against fear and loathing and win, they are, with all due respect, nuts.

This is NOT 1992, it is NOT the economy, stupid, and the sooner we realize that Bill Clinton would get his ass handed to him if he ran as an Arkansas governor this year the better off we all shall be.

[mzmolly]

39. Good points.

;)

[paulk]

29. you don't need to be a pragmatist

when you're an anonymous keyboard warrior

[mzmolly]

32. I don't get the chagrin at having a southern strategy either.

We are spending money in 50 states for a REASON. We HAVE to reach out to southern moderates in order to win. This is why Kaine was chosen.

Edited to add RECOMMENDED.

[DancingBear]

33. Question

You don't think that an ex-Marine like Hackett or Murtha, or a General like Clark wouldn't have had a much bigger effect?

The media would have been all over it - if delivered with the same "go ahead, I dare you" bravado that ChuckleNuts used it could have easily garnered news coverage, TV appearances, etc.

That would be a southern strategy, not having the same old "we're weak on defense so we'll act hopeful" posture that the Dems are constantly being criticized for.

[mzmolly]

35. I would generally agree but because they've been so vocal already

people have formed opinions about them. In other words they've already been "smeared." People who don't like Murtha (for example) won't listen to a rebuttal from him on Iraq. Kaine on the other hand, was a neutral figure and he is a current governor. I believe he was good at responding to the domestic issues.

HOWEVER, I would have liked to see Kaine AND Murtha, or Kaine AND Clark in order to effectively address the national security issues - as I agree much more was needed in that regard.

Thankfully it's early in 2006.

I think what WE need to do is stress that our leadership come up with a formal national security agenda and back John Murtha on Iraq (for starters.)

What say you?

:shrug:

[DancingBear]

43. I think your ideas are spot on

Imagine if we used the triumvirate of Clark, Murtha and Hackett as our Masthead For National Security, or some title to that effect. This was one of the reasons I was so high on Clark during the primaries - I knew the Repubs would play 9/11 like a broken record, and we would need someone with the resume to out them. We still do need that same type of person.

I wouldn't be fearful in the least of any of those guys getting smeared, because they would come back at whomever tried with a vengeance. And after what was done to Kerry, none of them would be foolish enough to think that unwritten rules meant anything.

Can you IMAGINE someone trying to question Hackett's patriotism? Or Murtha's? Hell, he already blasted Cheney with the "five deferments" comment, and he supposedly LIKES him. :)

[mzmolly]

60. I'm game.

I hope we see more of Clark/Murtha in the near future. Murtha did an outstanding job on "Hawdbaw" tonight. I was surprised Matthews gave him air time.

:hi:

[sendero]

34. You think...

... anyone who speaks up is a "bomb thrower", I think you are wrong.

I think America is sick of Bush and his gang of losers but they see nothing on our side that excites them. Know why? It isn't just what you say it is how you say it. These bland ass people never inspire anyone, never give anyone a reason to think that Dems should be in power. People without passion are not looked on as leaders, period. If you don't believe in your own cause enough to stand up and say "hell yeah", why should anyone give a rat's ass?

I get so effing tired of hearing this "bomb thrower" shit when that is ALL THE REPUBLICANS EVER DO. It sure doesn't seem to hurt them that much, last time I looked they owned the Executive, the Senate and the House.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Kaine was a perfectly logical choice

being the most recently elected Democrat in a next to impossible race. Some folks don't understand that Dennis Kucinich types don't play well in red states.

[Armstead]

37. Because pragmatic is too often depicted as the opposite of ideals

The mantra of "centrists" is usually "But we have to get people elected before we could actually even talk about change."

Noooooooo. It is not an either/or proposition that we either are "pregmatic" or we lose. I believe we win by matching our real goals, values and beliefs with our political rhetoric.

Trying to pretend liberalism is not really liberalism is not necessarily a winning strategy. Either we beieve in what we believe or not. By extension, we should also believe that otehrs wouild see things our way if we are straightforward about it.

(BTW that is not a slap at Kaine. In my opinion, he did okay, and is probably great for Virginia.)

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Kaine looked and sounded like a teddy bear

He looked weak compared to shurb and considering how un-impressive shurb is, that's really saying something.

I had no problem with Kaine's substance. It's his style I had a problem with and style counts more than substance in politics. Kaine was a poor choice.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Pragmatism is fine--What I've seen too much of is capitulation, and

rolling over and begging for mercy, acting afraid of the Republicans, undercutting fellow Dems who try to stand up for traditional constituencies, acting as if the most important thing in the world is not to offend the Republicans or big business, being afraid to challenge any Republican-derived conventional wisdom, saying "me too" to the Republicans, not calling the Republicans on their cruelty and greed because "it might alienate the moderates," and so on and so on.

That's not pragmatism. That's moral cowardice. That's an adolescent desire to be just like the popular kids.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. It's not. But the lie that moving to the RIGHT constitutes "pragmatism"

is a tired fucking saw that deserves a decent burial.

All kinds of folks try to peddle amazing, steaming mounds of bullshit -even here- around the notion that "we" need to be "pragmatic" by abandoning our commitments to -- reproductive choice, gay rights, the separation of church and state, fill in the blank. The LIE is that there is this wonderful reservoir of so-called "values voters" in the so-called "heartland" who are just a hair away from voting democratic, if we would just find some candidates who would sprinkle references to Jesus into their speeches, while muzzling those crazy anti-war, free speech, "loony lefties" who supposedly have the great red middle convinced that the Democratic party "hates god".

Folks, it's BULLSHIT. Oh, sure, those people exist- as does the crowd that honestly believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and Dinosaurs ate Chicken McNuggets with Noah on the Ark.. but -NEWS FLASH- those motherfuckers aint votin' for our people, no way, no how. Well, at least not until their increasingly dire personal situation at the hands of the Republican corporatocracy runs smack into a Democratic Party taking some stands on practical, real-world shit that actually matters, like a SPHC system.

In the meantime, millions of people in this country ARE hungry for an opposition party that knows how to STAND UP FOR ITSELF. And millions -upon MILLIONS- more are what I would consider 'urban, socially libertarian minded non-voters' who aren't terribly interested in the political process because they can't figure out which party is more full of control freaks wanting to micro-manage every aspect of their personal lives.

Dig? If we had a party that knew how to fight BACK, was willing to stand up for things like a Single Payer Health Care System, and would take politically unorthodox stands that the 'conventional wisdom' says are a third rail, like a serious and unwavering commitment to the rights of consenting adults to control their own bodies and physical persons, I think we would present the disaffected with a REAL CHOICE and we would not only WIN RESPECT we would WIN ELECTIONS, too.

This triangulation, DLC bullshit is the playbook we've been following, and it hasn't been helping . We've been losing. The answer sure as hell isn't to keep moving right. The answer is to move forward.

[NCarolinawoman]

67. They should have put Kaine on with Wes Clark.

I said on another thread that it could have been a one/two punch on competence: Competence on the domestic front as well as the war/security front.

Many times in the past, TWO individuals have answered the state of the union speech while sitting side by side. I think it is very important we go against what Bush and the Republicans think is their strength. That is how Karl Rove plays the game.

(Kaine and Clark are friends and Clark campaigned for Kaine; so I doubt that the governor would have minded.) I would have loved to have heard about all the wasted money and lives put into this war that we didn't have to fight; and how this money could have been put to better use at home.

[depakid]

68. "Well, the DLC gave us the Big Dog" Yep- sure did

Which is all the more reason NOT to EVER listen to the DLC. Even when a so called Dem gets elected, he does as much harm as a moderate Republican.

Media consolodation- Clinton's baby- cost the Dems the entire broadcast media all over the country.

Nice job, Bill.