December 10, 2004

• Bitches, leave.
• MoveOn.org: "We just need to tell them they're stupid a little bit louder, then they'll vote for us." DNC: "If we just wait long enough, sooner or later we're bound to get elected by default." RNC: "Ha ha ha ha ha." Nader: "Look at me! Look at meeee!"
• Konnichiwa, bitches!
• They criticize Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe for being "a tool of corporate donors." Then they announce that they have bought the Democratic Party. Am I the only one who sees some inconsistency?
• Also: salon bitchslapped me when I tried to read the article, which caused me to go totally bitchcakes.
• DNC: "If we just wait long enough, sooner or later we're bound to get elected by default." RNC: "Ha ha ha ha ha." CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
• HOW ARE YOU GENTLEBITCHES
• The price is wrong, bitch!
• I'm the Salon cookie bitches! Bookmark my ass!
• Or you can just sit through the ultramercial. ULTRAMERCIAL, BEEYOTCHIZZ!! And flashboy wins. He made us all his bitches.
• "Call me crazy, but I think the fact that for the first time in party history we outraised the Republicans, and did so primarily through grass-roots fund raising is something to be proud of," (DNC spokesman Jano) Cabrera said. THEN HOW COME WE DIDN'T WIN, BEEYATCH?!!!
• Hee hee hee... I love you guys....
• Nice to see the wingnuts trying to assume complete control of the Democratic party.
• we don' need no steenkin wingnuts.
• I signed on with MoveOn.org right about when it was formed. As quaint as it sounds, the purpose of the organization was to communicate a bipartisan belief that most people just wanted to "move on" from BlowJobGate. It's shocking to me that MoveOn.org evolved from that humble beginning to a place where it has the hubris to say to the Democratic Party, "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back." Whether or not the Democratic Party is broken, it's amazingly arrogant for MoveOn to presume that it knows what's best for the party. [bitches.]
• I don't understand what MoveOn bought. The DNC website?
• I think Bob Strum (who ran Kerry's campaign) is a perfect example of the DNC culture. He told Kerry not to respond to the Swift Boat Vets. When Kerry finally blew his top he ignored Strum and fought back. Strum is 0-8 in presidential elections. The Democratic Party is Moveon.org's bitch. The Republican Party controls K Street. The GOP out fundraised the Donkeys 2 to 1 on K Street. Tom Delay and Grover Norquist have been filling K Street with loyalists. The Dems are fucked there. Clinton was able to raise money on K Street, but that's Clinton. He's the exception, not the rule.
• What's K street?
• Well, since you've given me an opening Behemoth, I can't resist telling this story. It's great. K Street is the Washington boulevard where the various lobbyists and trade groups traditionally have their offices, and from which they lobby the US Congress. For the last few years, ever since they took control of the US Congress, the Republican Party has been running a program to institutionalize their control by controlling the K Street lobbying money. Every week Republican operatives hold a meeting where K Street lobbyists tell them what jobs are available on K Street. The Republicans in turn tell the lobbyists which Republican loyalists the lobbyists can hire to fill those jobs. The lobbying firms go along because the GOP Congressional leadership has made it clear that lobbyists will not find a friendly ear, or even get past a Congressional office door, unless the person doing the lobbying is a known Republican. This program has worked very well for the GOP. It has given them a lucrative place to park loyal operatives until they are next needed for a party job. Since the lobbyists are all Republicans, those attitudes of course shape their lobbying efforts and feed back into the attitudes of the trade groups they represent. And of course, since lobbying is essentially a quid pro quo arrangement, when it comes time for the Republican lobbyists to decide where their clients will make political donations, the only candidates and causes in the running are Republican ones. It is, frankly, a rather bold and gutsy program. Unfortunately it lends itself admirably to institutionalized corruption.
• Four legs good, two legs better!
• YOU ARE ALL MY BITCHES
• *burns offerings at the altar of petebest* Salon is now my bitch. Though I usually do the click-through ads, as they're faster. stopping the talking now.
• Wingnut vs. wingnut. If the Dems can't win by apppealing to the spineless center, then why not appeal to the rabid left? I think Moveon probably has a point. Yeeaagh!
• i've given it an assload of thought and concluded the problem is this: Kerry, like most non-Clinton modern democrats, ran being ashamed of who he was, apolgizing for his very existence, trying to be all things to all people. People keep saying "red staters" or "rednecks" are stupid. Guess what- they ain't. Much like kids and other people who are habitually condescended to, they can smell it out like bloodhounds. Kerry going on hunting trips and all that shit was just patronizing, and they knew it. We keep saying "why do they vote against their own best interests" on jobs etc. I think they know Bush is going to fuck them. But hey, he's their guy and he's up front about who he is. Even if your guy fucks you over sometimes, at the end of the day he's your guy and not some wannabe poser. I seriously wonder if Dean would've done as well or better than Kerry (assuming no scream had happened). Everyone said "too liberal, too liberal!" Well he still woulda won CA, NY, etc. And he couldnt have done any worse in red states. I think he would've gotten more votes by having the balls to be himself then kerry every did with his hunting and his gay-marriage-waffling.
• The next demo. candidate needs to stand up and say "I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it. This country was founded by liberals on liberal values." The fact that they have let the Repub's corrupt the word to the point where it's a slur has left them with no identity. If you play by the other guy's rules you will lose every time.
• Amen, Mr. Jim. The entire campaign was controlled by the Repubs and the Dems were in reaction mode the whole time. They looked foolish and unprepared. But the real reason the Dems lost is this: The majority of American people aren't ready for gay marriage. They're just not comfortable with the idea. They're not outright homophobes or anything...if congress quietly passed a bill allowing gay marriage they'd live with it. But ask them directly...make them mark it on a ballot...and they'll say 'no', because deep down in their gut it just doesn't sit right with them. Same goes for the liberal movements to remove 'God' references from the Pledge of Allegiance and the currency. They don't want that change...even the most liberal Christians don't want that change. The Democratic party needs to move away from the radical left fringe, not toward it. Stop picking ultra-liberals as candidates, and go for the centrists. MoveOn and their ilk are unelectable. The Dems need to get back their base of unionized factory workers, liberal Southern Baptists, and 'regular' Americans. The NASCAR lovin', Walmart shoppin' masses aren't traditional Republican voters. They only voted that way in the last two elections because they didn't like the alternative. Get them back. Stop calling them stupid rednecks and mocking them for having faith in a creator. If you don't, you'll be watching from the sidelines while NeoCons and fundies destroy your country.
• Yes, unfortunately you can't under-rate the dividing power of gay marriage. All the campaigning info out of middle America from late in the campaign indicated a strong opposition to gay marriage cutting across all ethnic and socio-economic boundaries. It also brought religious bodies to the GOP campaign who otherwise would likely have been very wary of Republicans. My only concrete hope on this score is that another decade of 'Will and Grace' and other cultural acclimation will further erode homophobia to the point where it's no longer a winning strategy in elections. After all, it was only about 20 years ago that almost no one was openly gay outside of the ghettos.
• I think they know Bush is going to fuck them. But hey, he's their guy and he's up front about who he is. Even if your guy fucks you over sometimes, at the end of the day he's your guy and not some wannabe poser. I also don't believe that all redstaters are stupid. However, people who think the way you just described ARE stupid.
• Stop picking ultra-liberals as candidates, and go for the centrists. How the heck would you describe Kerry as ultra-liberal? He was about as centrist as you could get and still be called a Democrat.
• Why not just run a campaign about how the Republicans of power today are just dangerous people? I never really felt like Kerry made that point strong enough, partly because he couldn't because of his past and partly because he wouldn't stand up against it. We don't necessarily need someone to represent a more severe liberalism, but rather someone who can see the immediate dangers of the Republican party and talk about that and not talk about it as if Republicans are really all that conservative or christian for that matter. We need someone who can say something people don't necessarily want to hear. We shouldn't have pandered to people about the tax issue. At least there Kerry could have shown he was capable of taking a chance and has some beliefs of his own. And yes, more support for the lower classes, not all this "we'll keep the middle class warm for ya" crap. How about, "you won't have to work three jobs and your kids will be able to get a fucking education." Partly how you do that is extending affirmative action to all of the lower class so you won't devide them against themselves. I would love to see some wealthy independant run, because frankly, I don't think you can seriously expect to do a complete job of fumigating the Democratic party. I thinks its important we scrap the fuckers. I say we use this momentum of apparent rejuvination of interest in politics to reasses some American values and realize the basic problems with a system that supports a party system. But perhaps. Maybe it's too early for that, but I don't know if just elevating this battle of opposites is what we need in our surrent situation.
• current*
• Nal's comment is correct. The fact is the Democrats need to do what Roosevelt did and sell programs that American people will support. Quick, think of a popular Bush program. See, they are none. Social Security should be something that the Dems should be able to beat Bush to death with. Bush wants to borrow money to change a program that the GAO states is solvent until 2053. This should be easy. Instead, the Dems go to the center with (pro-life) Harry Reid and he's gets bashed as a liberal. Elections can only be won at the center when the country is there. Rove took a hard right during the election and he was smart for doing so.
• Actually, what I'd like to see is a move away from traditional campaigning, and toward a brand-loyal exercize. Instead of commercials that deal with whether the swift boats are bullshit, just have Kerry's face and The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" blaring in the background. Democrats are Target shoppers, and we need to work at branding them with the same savvy that Madison avenue uses to move widgets without substance. Despite the lip-service in pols, we've seen through this election that issues don't really matter to people at all. What matters is appearence, and that's one place where the Dems can take over. We get called elitist? Fine. Let's brand Dems as something "elite" yet something that everyone feels like they're a part of (the "false elitism" campaign). Let's start running ads now that are graphic heavy and substance thin. Don't bother attacking, bother with building a brand. We need to sell Democrats, not get them elected. People will vote for the brand if we define it and run with it. And frankly, for some reason the Republicans ended up with better logos and design, despite the fact that young people, hip people, informed people are more likely to be Dems. Branding Dems, combined with wedge issues that shear off moderates from Republicans, is the way to get back in the game. (For an example of a wedge issue, most people favor a right to privacy. Let's push that as a ballot initative, making anti-abortion and pro-Patriot Act Repubs. stand against privacy. Most people favor a woman's right to choose, so let's get that in the state constitutions, making Republicans take unpopular positions or support things that we want.) This is a fight, folks. And one we can win. But the gloves have to come off.
• Oh, and we need to be doing this now, to win in '08 (and in '06, the next important election).
• I think they know Bush is going to fuck them. But hey, he's their guy and he's up front about who he is. Even if your guy fucks you over sometimes, at the end of the day he's your guy and not some wannabe poser. I also don't believe that all redstaters are stupid. However, people who think the way you just described ARE stupid. Not stupid, just human. We can hope for an ideal world where everyone goes to the library for 14 hours and researches and decides that way, or face the reality: we are comfortable in our lives no matter what. Politics really doesnt change most people's day to day existence in this country. Thus, most people go off a gut level impression of the candidate- the man whose face they see on TV for 18 months-- people vote for a man, not a platform. People have a visceral reaction to the candidate and that is how they vote. And I just think a lot of people looked at Kerry and felt in their gut: "condescending phony." Kerry was just as much a centrist as Bill Clinton, but Bill Clinton was a great politician who people loved. And to try to take away people's right to decide based on their gut and tell them "you must do your homework or you're an idiot who shouldn't even be allowed to vote" -- what's that but more condescension and more confirmation that democrats are elitest assholes?
• The Democratic party just needs more understanding.
• drjimmy11 -- I agree that people tend to vote on their gut reaction to a candidate, but I don't agree that politics don't affect people's day to day lives. I think this is a myth propagated by politicians (or by others who want to keep people uninvolved). Eleven states that told certain kinds of people they couldn't marry their partners this year; their day to day lives were certainly affected. Granted, that's a small percentage of the population. When you get into the idea of who pays what taxes, who goes to war (and why), what we're allowed to watch on TV (a la Saving Private Ryan), our lives are certainly affected by the government. We just choose to believe that it's not, because we're consistently told so.
• drjimmy - OK, if you say so, those voters aren't stupid. They do seem to have unfathomable criteria for making the choices they do. How can they see GW Bullsh as like them, unless they were born rich, went to blueblood prep school, then Ivy League college? Kerry is no "ultra liberal." Neither were Clinton or Gore. The Democratic Party loses because its message (such as it is) is so nebulous. If they intend to win ever again, they have to dump the "We're the nice guys" approach and start telling the truth about our Corporatocracy. Don't hold your breath waiting for that; they're not going to do it. Dean got marginalized by the Dem establishment and pounded by the corporate media for threatening the status quo. Now it's back to business as usual.
• To your point erebus, what's a "Democrat" to do if they don't want to go with the centrists or the radicals? Abandon all ships and just vote (literally) independently, without the cohesive power an organization gives? Or to transform the Democratic party? If it's the latter - how? I like MoveOn, but the press release or whatever it was was pretty assholic. It wasn't positive, let's say.
• The Democratic Party loses because its message (such as it is) is so nebulous. Ahh...here we have it. Right there. That's the key, if you ask me. I liked Kerry. Liked him quite a bit. I think he would have made a better-than-decent president. But that's the problem. Yes, gay marriage was a kick to the party's nuts. Stroke of genius, that was, getting far-righters to the polls in DROVES. But the party lacked definite, specific vision. Much of Kerry's campaign was "Bush fucked this up, Bush fucked that up, the economy's crap, the job market sucks, Ashcroft's a walking fucking horror show," etc., followed with "I have a plan" without details. Worked for those of us who already agreed with him. But not for those who were on the fence. I can't tell you how many interviews with fence-sitters I heard during the campaign, most of whom overwhelmingly agreed with Kerry's policies, didn't want to see Roe overturned, hated the quagmire in Iraq, on and on, but they actually couldn't make up their minds. Personally, I think that's astonishing. But the reality is that the Democratic Party has offered nothing of vision, nothing specific, to the voters. And that's why so many decided to go with the devil they knew rather than the devil they didn't, even though they mostly disagreed with him.
• And no, going to the "center" fixes nothing. We do that, they pull further to the right, and the center shifts. You hold your ground. Most of the country's further left than it's willing to admit, largely because the GOP has done a good job making "liberal" a dirty word.
• To address the earlier discussion about whether politics affect our lives- of course they do, but not directly enough for most people to make the connection. I was depressed as hell for about 2 days after the election- but then, frankly, I got over it. I still had the same job, same apartment, same right to talk all the shit about Bush I wanted... there are places in the world where if your guy loses, men in jackboots kick down your door soon after. Thankfully we do not live in one of them. And then today i saw this - looks like Hillary is gearing up to lose the 2008 election by alienating liberals and fooling a grand total of zero conservatives into believing she's suddenly one of them. If you thought nader took a lot of votes from Gore, wait to see how many liberals go for him or his equivalent when Hillary tries to run on this bullshit...
• Merry Christmas, bitches!