3 Dem policy think tanks urge more "bipartisanship", say we lost because...

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-12-10 05:30 PM
Original message

3 Dem policy think tanks urge more "bipartisanship", say we lost because...

our party tried to appeal to the liberal wing of the party. Some use the word liberal, some imply...but the meaning is clear.

These three think tanks, the DLC, the Third Way, and PPI, all came out right after the election to point out our party's mistake in not appealing more to the middle, the moderates.

All that right after many of the party's most "bipartisan" members lost their elections, right after some of our best liberals lost their elections. And there was nothing "liberal" about any of it. We lost to a lot of people who were standing up and shouting about things they were not even able to articulate.

We lost because we did not clearly explain to the people what we really stand for as Democrats. We tried to be too much like the other side.

They voted for people who do not care about their best interests. They voted for them because we did not stand up and loudly and clearly point out who these people were that they were electing.

That Rick Scott and Marco Rubio could win in my state without Democrats shouting to the rooftops that they were not worthy of such high office, that Allen West could win here..how did that happen?

Read the policies of these 3 think tanks, our policy setters. Our Democratic leaders, including our president, are following them to a letter.

Let's start with Harold Ford's article for Politico, crossposted at the DLC website. He is chairman of that group. Harold Ford in 2008 said the presidential nominee would use their group as their policy shop. He was right.

What a title he gave his article.

Yes, we can collaborate

The late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a politician and scholar, said a decade ago: �If you want to accomplish something big, you need to compromise big.� Americans are unhappy with politicians who prefer partisan bickering to getting things done. It is time, right now, for both parties to change their approach and work together to look for and achieve constructive solutions.

In that spirit, here are two ideas Democrats and Republicans should reach agreement on immediately to help the economy:

First, cut taxes on businesses and consumers. This can be done immediately by extending all the Bush tax cuts for 24 months � except the inheritance tax, which should be left at its 2009 rate. The corporate tax rate should be slashed in half, to 17.5 percent for two years; and the payroll tax should be suspended for six months for every business and its workers.

That "compromise big" talking point should be tossed. The other side has shown for two years that they will not compromise. Yet our party is letting these two smirking yahoos float their ideas to cut Social Security without a single Democrat saying hell no they will not do that.

Next let's look at the Third Way's idea of how to be more moderate. This is the group the DLC says just sends out memos on how to talk about DLC policy. The Third Way was founded by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair and others in the late 90s.

After Bill Clinton and Tony Blair finish with the elegant dinners and toasts at the G-8 summit this week in England, the real fun begins: the two leaders will lock themselves in a room with a clutch of top officials to talk about government policy for four or five hours. The Sunday meeting at Chequers, the Prime Minister's country mansion north of London, will be the third such bilateral seminar, following one at the White House, when Blair visited in February, and the inaugural 12-hr. "wonkathon" at Chequers in November, when Hillary Clinton sat in for her husband.

The lofty chatfests symbolize the intimate political relationship between Clinton, a "new Democrat," and Blair, creator of new Labour. Each claims to embody a type of politics that is not just a poll-driven centrism but a "third way," a favorite Blair slogan and a phrase that Clinton highlighted in this year's State of the Union message. "Both governments have to react to challenges like globalization and better education for workers, and we have similar perspectives on what's needed," says White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, who organizes the meetings with his British counterpart, David Miliband, Blair's policy chief.

On the agenda for Chequers are social security, welfare, crime, health policy and education, with eight to 10 participants from each side.

Third Way Wonkfest

More who were there for the formation:

In 1998, with First Lady Hillary Clinton, From began a dialogue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other world leaders, and the DLC brand -- known as The Third Way -- became a model for resurgent progressive governments around the globe. In April 1999, he hosted an historic Third Way forum in Washington with President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Prime Ministers Wim Kok of the Netherlands and Massimo D'Alema of Italy.

Here is the Third Way's ideas on how we Democrats can stay relevant. Written right after the election in which we lost our bipartisan asses to a far right screaming crowd that wasn't sure what we stood for at all.

How the Democrats can stay relevant

After sweeping to congressional majorities in 2006 and electing a president in 2008 with the largest Democratic percentage of the popular vote since Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrats are now in danger of becoming an irrelevant party.

With their control of the Senate and White House, of course they�ll remain central to the public debate over the next two years. But the liberal cognoscenti who dominate the Democratic Party have proclaimed that Tuesday�s debacle was caused by President Barack Obama and a Congress that didn�t move far enough left. If this argument prevails, it�s Mondale-vile for Democrats for a long time.

OMG the "liberal cognoscenti"....who let them in the door?

Returns show, once again, that the voters who drive elections are self-identified moderates and independents, and largely middle class. They ran for the hills this cycle.

The stampede was fueled not only by anxieties over a troubled economy but by independents� continued search for a political party that governs from the center. After rejecting Sen. John McCain � and the Bush legacy � as too right wing, and supporting Obama by 8 points, these restless Independents voted against Democratic gubernatorial candidates by more than 30 points in 2009. And they continued to flee from Democrats yesterday.

To woo them back, reclaim the center and assure electoral and governing relevance in 2012 and beyond, Democrats must make a big change: become the economic growth party. They must shift from being a party that seeks an expanded safety net to one obsessed about increasing the economic pie.

The teabaggers were looking for a "political party that governs from the center?"

No, they most assuredly were not.

And do you see that "expanded safety net" talking point? That is exactly what we do need in these perilous times. And these think tanks know it. They are simply espousing the corporate view.

The PPI now presents their opinions on moving right at a blog called The Progressive Fix. They use the word liberal several times, and not in a nice way.

The Geography � and Demography � of Defeat

By who else...that nemesis of liberals everywhere...Will Marshall.

Many liberal commentators, echoing Thomas Frank, have argued that blue collar voters� antipathy to Democrats reflects their cultural conservatism. GOP demagoguery on �values� has blinded these voters to the reality that Democrats are on their side on economic issues. But the conspicuous absence of �God, guns, and gays� from the 2010 elections actually make them a pretty good test of this proposition. This time, there�s no question that blue collar voters rejected Democrats on economics rather than values.

I have to agree that they rejected Democrats, but I disagree with Marshall as to why. We did not speak out clearly enough for the things we believed in, and they were overwhelmed by the shouting from the other side.

The next paragraph shows me how they are going to blame us for wanting regulation restored to big business.

Incredibly, however, some liberals are contemplating a blizzard of new federal regulations with the purported aim of putting Democrats on the side of the middle class by demonizing Wall Street banks and big business. The last thing blue collar Americans need is an economic morality play in which they are cast as victims. What they need, and what progressives owe them, is not a condescending populism, but a practical plan for economic success.

See that? Using the word "condescending" just before the word "populism". They really are very good at this word play stuff.

Howard Dean said the GOP won big this time by using the same tactics he advocated in his 50 state strategy.

I think he is right. He said we had to go to the people in red states who were not used to talking to Democrats, and we needed to tell them what we believed.

If we follow the advice of the "policy shops" we are going to lose again in 2012. And it will be a dangerous thing.