everyone in the Democratic party is ignoring Kennedy's clarion call

[eg101]

In case you DUers forgot, yesterday Teddy K called for Democrats to not be Republican clones and to support medicare for all Americans and no-tuition college for all qualified students.

And poll after poll show a majority of Americans support these ideas.

But his call to arms has gone almost unheard, it would seem. After the initial reports here on DU, zero discussion of it. Nothing on any of the other major Democratic party blogs, either.

Not a thing in the way of response from any of the other major Democratic party leaders. Silence. Kennedy's call to arms is being treated like a turd in the punch bowl, at least by the party leadership. And the major players in the online community are going along with the party response.

I think this pretty much confirms what I have been saying all along: the Democratic party leadership and the major activists (such as the major blog operators) are actually far more conservative than the Democratic voters and even more conservative than Americans in general, at least it comes to economic issues like welfare state, taxation and trade.

And this is why the party is in decline. The leadership and activists are more in tune with Republican values than with American values, at least when it comes to economic issues.

[imenja]

1. a question?

How do you know that none of them have responded to Kennedy? That it hasn't been covered in the media doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[Ken Burch]

2. OK, does anyone KNOW of any Democratic response

to Teddy's message?

If they haven't responded, my own guess is that the DLC types are perfectly content with the present situation and that their tactic at this stage is to make sure the Dems keep losing until the rest of the Dems unconditionally surrender to the DLC like they all did in '92.

As to non-DLC'ers, they might just be too scared to believe that Teddy's ideas could work.

[imenja]

3. to be fair

It's only been one day and Congress is not in session.
On another thread, some people with inside info into the DNC said Dean is now the leading contender. That suggests to me that at least some Democrats don't see behaving like Republicans as a viable strategy.

[eg101]

4. where is Dean's response to Ted's Clarion Call?

(((crickets chirping)))

[imenja]

6. Who made Ted Kennedy king?

I don't know. They could have had talked for several hours for all you know. Besides, Dean has advocated a true progressive position for quite a while now. He's credited with awakening the Democrat party to the fact that they needed to take a position in the 2004 election.
Additionally, Dean didn't vote to seat the Ohio electors. Why is Ted Kennedy suddenly the only voice in the party that matters? Everyone has to answer to him? What about answering to Conyers and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones?

[Ken Burch]

7. perhaps everybody is overreacting and getting a bit too touchy here.

Maybe reaction and positive response will come. And maybe perhaps Teddy and Dean and others can find a way to work together.

Although, to take a somewhat pro-Teddy and anti-Dean stance, Dean wasn't known as being particularly progressive BEFORE he ran for president. As governor of Vermont, he was often viciously anti-left and hostile when meeting with progressive groups.

Still, there must be some way to find common ground here.

[imenja]

8. the key point is on issues

Not on which politician we esteem above others. I objected to the notion that since Teddy Kennedy has spoken, and the poster hadn't seen something on the news or on a blog within 24 hours, that means every single other Democrat is a sellout. I don't worship any of these characters, and the cult of personality many engage in bothers me. If the point is how we can steer the party in a more progressive direction that serves the interests of the people as a whole, let's have that discussion. But there are various people contributing to that dialog. Kennedy is not the only one, nor is he the first.
By the way, what is a pro-Kennedy, anti-Dean stance?

[Ken Burch]

10. I suppose what I really meant there was

a pro-Kennedy, less pro-Dean viewpoint in the debate over which of them represents the future for progressive politics. Really, the future of it represents finding some kind of fusion between both their analyses.

[Eloriel]

23. That's the MSM line/view/propaganda -- you wanna stick with that

or do you want the truth? Let me know, 'cause I'm too tired of posting it over and over and over again just to have it fall on deaf ears.

But let me just clue you in here: there's no NEED for your worry over "finding common ground" where Dean is concerned. I can't speak for Kennedy -- who the hell knows where he stands?

Edited to add: Although -- Not being Republican Lite is one of Dean's key positions; fully and completely supporting public education and never ever eroding it is one of Dean's key philosophies; healthcare for all children is one of his key accomplishments in Vermont. Just where do you imagine there's no "common ground"?

[msongs]

18. excuse your ignorance but Dean has been saying this for over a year...but

you have obviously NOT been paying any attention.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[eg101]

22. dean says a lot of things

http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1668089.php

[Cocoa]

5. universal Medicare?

is this a new position for him, that would put him with Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun of the dem primary candidates.

Very heartening, thanks for bringing this to our attention, and I agree we should do something with it.

[Geek_Girl]

9. I think Kennedy's speech has more to do

with the direction of the party and where we need to be headed. It's more about the internal struggle within the party itself. As far as I can tell Dean and Kennedy are on the same page because they are both basically saying that the country does not need another Republican party and democrats need to stick up for their core values.

It will be interesting to see if Kennedy endorses Dean.

[Democrat Dragon]

11. It is absolutely nessisary for the party's survival to move to the left

Otherwise it will turn into Repubican party 2 or simply cease to exist. Moving to the left is an important act of rebellion. It states "I'm not not your hooker. I have my own agenda and I'm sticking with it. I am proud of who I am and you cannot change that. And you better watch out.". An act in rebellion will translate into respect and therefore fear. The repukes will then begin FEARING THE DEMS! This is very important, even Niccolo Machiavelli emphasized the importance of fear, by stating in his book, The Prince, that it is better to be feared than loved. For if you are loved you can easily be backstabbed but if you are feared and respected those who seek to betray you know that there are dire consequences for doing so.

[Q]

12. This has been going on for four years now...

...and really kicked in when the 'liberals' (all six of them) and a few others in the party denounced the Iraq invasion from the beginning. Gore, Byrd, Kennedy and a few others I can't remember right now are being shunned by the Dem leadership after it became the 'unofficial' position of the party to support Bush's 'war'.

[trezic]

13. Screw Teddy

It's always possible that, being a Kennedy, Teddy has been, is, and always will be full of shit. Why should people care what Mr. Chappaquiddick has to say?

[mattclearing]

14. Ignorance abounds, even in the DP forum.

Perhaps you're on the wrong board?

Ted Kennedy is a legend. WTF? Perhaps you would like to consider responding with something bordering on the relevance of these words, now spoken nearly 25 years ago?

Something tells me you both won't and can't.

Would you like to be judged on your worst day?

Oh wait, no one knows or cares what your worst day was.

Have a nice day.

"A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. There are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future. But of this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all of our history: Together a President and the people can make a difference. I have found that faith still alive wherever I have traveled across this land. So let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. Let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves."

"There will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead; but I am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us."

"Let this -- Let this be our commitment: Whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. And let this be our confidence: At the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all."

[trezic]

20. Dear old Teddy

1. Don't take my opinion personally. Well, unless you're Ted Kennedy, of course.

2. My problem with Ted is the same as my problem with Kennedys generally. They have exhibited a stunning incompetence when it comes to governing. They're real good at saying the right things and looking pretty, but not so good when it comes time to actually do something.

3. More specifically, my problem with Ted himself is that he represents a side of Democratic politics that is a failure. He is, hopefully, the last of a generation of Democratic politicians who have lost touch with everyone outside the blue states. His extreme dovishness, his dedication to divisive (and dubious) social policies, and his general air of noblesse oblige (in a supposedly meritocratic society) wear on me. Ted Kennedy is the best example of the betrayers of the FDR-Truman-LBJ line of Democrats.

4. There's an old saying in Congress, "You're either a showhorse or a workhorse." Every damn Kennedy has been the former.

[mattclearing]

26. Yeah, you could say I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morn.

Thanks for taking on my somewhat irritatedly issued challenge.

I think I was probably a bit over the line there, so my apologies for that.

If there's a surefire way to get my hair raised it's to disqualify what someone says now for something that happened ages ago.

That said, the Kennedys (and Bill Clinton, for that matter) gave great speeches, but I have to admit that we don't have much to show for it.

I think dovishness is a virtue, and I like to think that the Kennedys have generally seen past their own privilege to help out people less fortunate.

Obviously, though, we haven't had a Democratic President with the kinds of accomplishments that FDR, Truman, or to a lesser extent, LBJ, had since.

What would be a good start?

I believe in a fiscally conservative progressivism, something not too corporate and not too radical. Just good for working people, good for the economy and globally responsible both economically and militarily. I like Howard Dean, accordingly.

What's an ideal presidential candidate who can get that done going to look like?

[trezic]

28. No problem

Here's what I like:

1. Foreign policy. Continue American hegemony indefinitely. American military hegemony is likely to continue into the horizon. The primary danger to it is the continuing desire of the military to refight WW2. Iraq is a good example of the type of conflict that should dominate the next 20-30 years of warfare. It is imperative that, only 45 years late, real counterinsurgency doctrine is forcefed to the military. This is less true of the Marines, who have an institutional memory of nation building throughout the 20th century, than it is of the branches.

As for diplomacy, it's one thing to be pre-eminent, it's another to trumpet it. The Bush Doctrine of unilateral pre-emption logically requires that beaten enemies not be reconstructed. This was a viable strategy in the 19th century, maybe, but it's at odds with the stated goals of removing failed states and sponsors of terrorism. Multilateralism is good in the abstract, but I have doubts about working through the United Nations. The UN is all too often a forum for adversaries of the US to block our goals. A better plan would be an interlocking series of alliances, maybe with NATO as the bedrock. Rather than have our interests be at the mercy of other nations' agendas, it would be better to work within small groups of countries with a few common interests. Such a system is easier to manage and less open to demogogery.

2. Economic policy. I've come to realize that I'm a populist. I would like to see the old belief that poverty in America is not a cost of doing business, but an unreasonable governor on progress. I would to like to see inner cities and Appalachia targeted initially. The goal of the program would be to take people who have been left behind and bring them into the mainstream of American life. For this reason, I am not hostile to Bush's faith-based initiative. My concerns lie more with execution than conception.

How to fix the tax code? Income and wealth taxation are good. I'm not a fan of consumption taxes at all, but I would rather see them lowered to minimal levels rather than abolished. Property taxes I likely would have no trouble with abolishing, primarily because they are the type of tax that breeds the greatest resentment. I would love to see a Democrat attack a Republican on being childish when it comes to taxes. After all the yelling over the entitlement mentality, I want to see the GOP slapped with the word duty.

America needs to regain its manufacturing base. As an example, some 80-90% of microchips are made in Indonesia. It's unlikely (very), but not impossible, that a fundamentalist regime could take over that country. What would happen to our supply? It also helps that increasing the manufacturing base would also go a long way toward wiping out the current accounts deficit. The destruction of American manufacturing is a creation of law, not economics like pundits love to claim. Change the law to make it more favorable to build here and companies will do it.

I have a pathological aversion to debt. I was thrilled in the late 90s when it looked like much of the national debt could be reduced. I was extremely pissed when Bush passed his idiotic tax cuts and broke the bank.

Financial services probably needs to go back to some kind of regulation scheme. If proof were ever needed of the success of Democratic ideas, the last few years have been it. The paper game that was played during the 90s was eerily similar to the same game of the 20s. However, America was not nearly as vulnerable to a burst bubble. Allowing too much freedom to idly trade paper back and forth is inefficient and needs some restriction. Capitalism is not a self-correcting system; that's a saying of the fearful. The truth is that it requires constant correction. It is not socialist to restrict people from trading paper back and forth rather than do something productive with the money.

I'm not much of a green, but I'm not a fan of brown water, either. I've been thrilled to see greens move away from command-and-control approaches over the last few years. Taking the debate from a question of jobs or trees to a question of costs of doing business is brilliant. From the little I've read of emissions trading and the like, it seems decent.

4. Social policy. I'd like to see the public debate on this drop to a murmur. The economic issues are far more pressing. What needs to be done is find acceptable midway positions that people can accept, even if they're not thrilled. Every time the party trumpets social issues, it loses. When we lose, so does most of America.

I think that, for this generation, social policy needs to take a back seat. This includes abortion, gay rights, and the like. Not everything can be done at once. This is something that all of us, probably me especially, need to understand and accept.

[WI_DEM]

15. Not everyone, for instance Howard Dean has been saying this

for over two years about not being republican clones and fighting for democratic principles.

[eg101]

16. howard dean says a lot of things

http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1668089.php

If Dean supports Kennedy's goals, then just let Dean say so. So far, I hear nada from Dean on supporting Kennedy's goals.

BTW, I do not support Kennedy or ANY mainstream politician. They have not earned it. Kennedy and Clinton et al., have helped the GOP RUIN America. They have a lot to make up for. But I am willing to let Teddy redeem himself.

As for Dean, well....it is just sad that so many people will deliberately lie for him. I have to wonder whether they are being paid by him.

[mattclearing]

17. If you can't support a mainstream politician, you shouldn't be surprised..

...if you find yourself locked out of the process.

And that whole bribery thing is nonsense put out to hurt Dean and excuse the Administration for Armstrong Williams. The bloggers involved made it clear that they were working for Dean at the time, as far as I understand it.

Dean has repeatedly denied being a liberal. Everyone knows he was constantly at odds with Vermont progressives. His fiscal restraint trumps his progressive politics.

That's why his liberalism is in many ways superior to the older liberalism that Ted Kennedy has come to represent, often referred to by the other side as "tax and spend."

When the Republican Party has become the party of tax CUT and spend, fiscal sanity is a virtue, not a sin.



edited for typo

[eg101]

19. i got news for you....

...if you find yourself locked out of the process.


You mean I don't get a chance to root for one of our wonderful "mainstream" Democratic politicians?! Oh, the pain!


And that whole bribery thing is nonsense put out to hurt Dean and excuse the Administration for Armstrong Williams. The bloggers involved made it clear that they were working for Dean at the time, as far as I understand it.


I'm so dizzy, my head is spinnin'
Like a whirlpool, it never ends
And it's you, girl, makin' it spin




Dean has repeatedly denied being a liberal. Everyone knows he was constantly at odds with Vermont progressives. His fiscal restraint trumps his progressive politics.

That's why his liberalism is in many ways superior to the older liberalism that Ted Kennedy has come to represent, often referred to by the other side as "tax and spend."



I'm so dizzy, my head is spinnin'
Like a whirlpool, it never ends
And it's you, girl, makin' it spin

[Eloriel]

25. Hah! Is that your version of "La, la, la, I can't hear you" --

with your fingers in your ears?

Good for you. I'm always so pleased when people feel comfortable enough here to act their age.


:puke:

[Eloriel]

24. Well, Dean's only been saying the same things for 3 years now --

that's not fucking enough for you?

Hint: It would be HELPFUL if people who want to bash Dean and demand certain things from him had a fucking clue about who he is and what he actually stands for.

[pinto]

21. well maybe today being Sunday and tomorrow a holiday.....

I understand you want something to happen from the base and the party, now. But, jeez, give it a few days. Suggest emailing/calling/visiting your local party office for a statement about Sen K's remarks. There's a start.

[eg101]

27. Jan 17th, still no followup from prominent Dems on Kennedy's clarion call

NOTHING:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=kennedy+clones&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d

Fellow progressive DUers, isn't it time you face the fact that the leading Democrats in the party are not in the least interested in building a better America, but only interested in maintaining their own power? Wake up, people. The main obstacle to getting better quality of life for all Americans is NOT the GOP. The main obstacle is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and the Democratic party politicians and leaders.

yes, the GOP is the defacto "enemy". But the ENEMY WITHIN is far more insidious and dangerous.

[pinto]

29. I like this snip from the Christian Science Monitor:

“There's no doubt we must do a better job of looking within ourselves and speaking out for the principles we believe in, and for the values that are the foundation of our actions,” the Senator told an audience at the National Press Club. “Americans need to hear more, not less, about those values. We were remiss in not talking more directly about them - about the fundamental ideals that guide our progressive policies.”

Both in his Press Club speech and in a later appearance at a Monitor breakfast, Kennedy stressed that, in response to Senator Kerry’s loss, “we cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose ... the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.”

Stanley Greenberg, who served as pollster for President Clinton and for the Kerry campaign, echoes Kennedy’s assessment about the importance of improving how Democrats communicate about values.

“Values is at the heart of why we lost,” Mr. Greenberg admits. “It is the success of values issues and doubts about Kerry as a social liberal that in the end moved voters away from him, particularly the older blue collar voters .... I think that Democrats have to be more serious about their values - expressive about their values.”

Greenberg and his pollster daughter, Anna, were the guests at a Monitor breakfast on Friday. At the session, Anna was blunt about the pitfalls Democrats face in a renewed focus on values.

“What frustrates me about it is the suggestion that you can just change your language or you can just have a candidate who is more religious and somehow that is going to deal with what are structural differences between the parties on values issues like choice, like gay rights,” she said.

“People who are religious and who care about these issues know there are differences between the parties and changing one’s language about it does not get rid of those big differences,” she cautions.

Still, Ms. Greenberg sees values-related issues where Democrats actually have the upper hand. “There are a lot of places where our values are more mainstream than their values,” she says. Examples she cites include abstinence only education versus comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, stem cell research, and the issue of science and politics.

“There are lots of places where our values are actually in synch with where most Americans are and we have not been, I think, self conscious or bold enough to say hey, this is where we are and we have sort of let define what the values debate should be about.”

http://blogs.csmonitor.com/cooks_capitol/2005/01/

I've emailed my Dem representatives about Senator Kennedy's remarks, asking for a response. I'll post what I get back.

You make a point and I appreciate your passion, yet do you realize your "enemy within" statement carries huge right wing baggage, ie: McCarthyism? Just a note. Thanks.

[Triana]

30. Here's the problem with Dems...they won't stand behind each other...

...I don't get it. WTF?! :grr:

They ignore Kennedy and Kennedy is one of the few who are talking sense these days - truth to power. And they ignore him?

WTF?!?!?! :grr:

DAMN them!