I have to admit that I don't really get the whole Lieberman thing. It just doesn't make sense to me from two perspectives. I don't get why he would want to stay in the Democratic caucus and I don't get why the other Democrats would want to let him. Yet, according to CNN's sources, that seems to be what's happening.
First, for Lieberman. He spent the last however many months vigorously campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate. This wasn't an issue of a non-endorsement of Obama. He was out there actively working to elect the other guy. To his credit (or not), I think that Lieberman was doing that because he thought it was the right thing to do. I mean, the signs were pretty clear that the Republicans weren't going to win back a majority of the Senate so it's not like he was seeking out their favor so he could keep his committee posts. He was campaigning for McCain because he honestly thought the Republican nominee would be better than the Democratic nominee. Usually that's a pretty good sign that you're a Republican. So why does he want to stay with the Democrats?
And why would the Democrats want to keep him? Here's a guy who they nominated to be vice president eight years ago now running around campaigning for the other side. I get that you don't want to punish someone for acting in their conscience, but is it really punishment to suggest that someone join the party they should probably belong to? Obama has said that he wants to work with both sides of the aisle. This would be a great opportunity. He can work with Lieberman on the other side of the aisle. Everyone wins. Except Lieberman, that is, who would lose his committee chairmanships. But you've got to figure that's what happens when you lose the election.
I don't think the Democratic caucus should punish people for acting their conscience. I just don't think they should reward party rebellion either.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Divide or Unify
I think I only have one or two more days of election reaction posts. That's the problem with only writing once a day. It was either cram it all into one really long post or stretch it out over a week. So here comes more of the never-ending analysis.
With the Democrats firmly in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency and with a seeming mandate to run with a very progressive agenda, there's been some talk in the press of a major party realignment that marks the start of a liberal Democrat controlled era. If that's true, so much the better. However, I'm not certain. It seems like not too long ago we were hearing about a permanent Republican majority. You can see how that panned out.
It is instructive to notice, though, the differences between the 2004 Bush/Rove realignment and the 2008 Obama/Axelrod version. We know that the 2004 "permanent" realignment lasted for all of two years. So hopefully that's a big difference between the two scenarios.
Another point to consider is how the majorities were created. The Bush/Rove campaign was one of mobilizing the base at the expense of the rest. It was a 50 plus 1 strategy for control. Especially in 2004, there was no great effort to reach out to the middle. Rather, it was an effort to activate the hard core Republicans and get them to the polls.
In contrast, the Obama/Axelrod campaign (which had a large amount of base activating also) wass focused on reaching out to new voters and red states to build a coalition. That's why you saw Bush in 2004 mainly focus on holding the states he'd won four years ago. Obama on the other hand, turned several swing states and several traditionally Republican states (Indiana, North Carolina, almost Montana). The Democratic method for realignment is to bring everyone together. The Republican method was to pick wedge issues (gay marriage ban amendments), mobilize the hardcore base, and work on depressing turnout for the other side.
I'm in no way saying that the only strategy the Republicans can use for building majorities is this divide and conquer strategy. Ronald Reagan is an obvious counter-example in recent memory. However, that was the strategy that the Republicans did use. It's certainly nice to see that the other way works too.
With the Democrats firmly in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency and with a seeming mandate to run with a very progressive agenda, there's been some talk in the press of a major party realignment that marks the start of a liberal Democrat controlled era. If that's true, so much the better. However, I'm not certain. It seems like not too long ago we were hearing about a permanent Republican majority. You can see how that panned out.
It is instructive to notice, though, the differences between the 2004 Bush/Rove realignment and the 2008 Obama/Axelrod version. We know that the 2004 "permanent" realignment lasted for all of two years. So hopefully that's a big difference between the two scenarios.
Another point to consider is how the majorities were created. The Bush/Rove campaign was one of mobilizing the base at the expense of the rest. It was a 50 plus 1 strategy for control. Especially in 2004, there was no great effort to reach out to the middle. Rather, it was an effort to activate the hard core Republicans and get them to the polls.
In contrast, the Obama/Axelrod campaign (which had a large amount of base activating also) wass focused on reaching out to new voters and red states to build a coalition. That's why you saw Bush in 2004 mainly focus on holding the states he'd won four years ago. Obama on the other hand, turned several swing states and several traditionally Republican states (Indiana, North Carolina, almost Montana). The Democratic method for realignment is to bring everyone together. The Republican method was to pick wedge issues (gay marriage ban amendments), mobilize the hardcore base, and work on depressing turnout for the other side.
I'm in no way saying that the only strategy the Republicans can use for building majorities is this divide and conquer strategy. Ronald Reagan is an obvious counter-example in recent memory. However, that was the strategy that the Republicans did use. It's certainly nice to see that the other way works too.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Remember Howard Dean?
Remember when Howard Dean was cool?
It seems like not that long ago Howard Dean was the fiery presidential candidate out of nowhere (Vermont actually) who took the party by storm. He was the one who wanted to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. He was the one who made it okay to run against George Bush in 2004 rather than run as George Bush. He was running more liberal than Clinton, more straight talking than McCain, and more out of the blue than even Obama.
So what happened?
Somewhere along the line there Dean became chair of the Democratic Party. The renegade has not only joined the establishment, he's kind of become the establishment. And so now he's acting like it.
His recent remarks to cool the rhetoric in the Democratic primary are certainly welcome, but is that really the best he can do? The whole appeal of this guy when he ran for president four years ago was the straight talking, no nonsense, down to business, ready to rumble persona that ultimately exploded in his face. Maybe that brought him back to earth. Maybe he's mellowed with age. But what I'm reminded of most right now is a substitute teacher trying meekly to get an unruly class calm by saying, "Come on guys. Be nice."
I agree with him that the primary is not as much of a mess as some pundits are saying it is. I don't think an extended primary is going to kill the Democratic Party. But I do think that if the current climate continues, it's certainly going to hurt. Dean doesn't need to go around busting heads or anything (at least not yet), but he does need to stand up here and get things in control. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party needs something more than, "If you don't mind, please be a little nicer."
It seems like not that long ago Howard Dean was the fiery presidential candidate out of nowhere (Vermont actually) who took the party by storm. He was the one who wanted to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. He was the one who made it okay to run against George Bush in 2004 rather than run as George Bush. He was running more liberal than Clinton, more straight talking than McCain, and more out of the blue than even Obama.
So what happened?
Somewhere along the line there Dean became chair of the Democratic Party. The renegade has not only joined the establishment, he's kind of become the establishment. And so now he's acting like it.
His recent remarks to cool the rhetoric in the Democratic primary are certainly welcome, but is that really the best he can do? The whole appeal of this guy when he ran for president four years ago was the straight talking, no nonsense, down to business, ready to rumble persona that ultimately exploded in his face. Maybe that brought him back to earth. Maybe he's mellowed with age. But what I'm reminded of most right now is a substitute teacher trying meekly to get an unruly class calm by saying, "Come on guys. Be nice."
I agree with him that the primary is not as much of a mess as some pundits are saying it is. I don't think an extended primary is going to kill the Democratic Party. But I do think that if the current climate continues, it's certainly going to hurt. Dean doesn't need to go around busting heads or anything (at least not yet), but he does need to stand up here and get things in control. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party needs something more than, "If you don't mind, please be a little nicer."
Friday, February 22, 2008
Wishful Thinking
After thoroughly screwing up pretty much every prediction they have made about which candidates will win the nominations (remember when Huckabee was going to surge to victory? what about Fred Thompson?), the pundit class is now focusing more and more of their attention on predicting the imminent downfall of the Republican party and conservativism in general. I guess they're trying to hunt after some bigger, slower game than those fleet-footed individual candidates.
The latest example I've found is this article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek. The magazine ran a cover story a few weeks ago about the death of the Republican Party because of the myriad disasters that fall under the heading of the Bush presidency. I guess this column just wasn't finished in time.
The point of all the stories and columns is that conservative ideals have taken such a knocking during the last six years that no one will ever want to vote Republican again.
If only.
The 24 hour news cycle seems to have not only sped up the rate at which we receive news, it also seems to have affected how long the writers remember what they've written. Not that long ago I seem to remember reading about the permanent party realignment that was going to sweep Republicans into power (and Democrats out) for the next 50,000 years or so. I guess time flies when you're having fun because now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's the Democrats coming into their glorious ascendency.
On the one hand, I have to admire the sheer, straight faced nerve of pundits who can turn 180 degrees so quickly without blinking an eye. On the other hand, is there really so little news to report on in the world that we have to fill space with another round of overstated and likely incorrect predictions? Let's let the Democrats win an election or three before we start talking about the end of the Republicans.
The latest example I've found is this article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek. The magazine ran a cover story a few weeks ago about the death of the Republican Party because of the myriad disasters that fall under the heading of the Bush presidency. I guess this column just wasn't finished in time.
The point of all the stories and columns is that conservative ideals have taken such a knocking during the last six years that no one will ever want to vote Republican again.
If only.
The 24 hour news cycle seems to have not only sped up the rate at which we receive news, it also seems to have affected how long the writers remember what they've written. Not that long ago I seem to remember reading about the permanent party realignment that was going to sweep Republicans into power (and Democrats out) for the next 50,000 years or so. I guess time flies when you're having fun because now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's the Democrats coming into their glorious ascendency.
On the one hand, I have to admire the sheer, straight faced nerve of pundits who can turn 180 degrees so quickly without blinking an eye. On the other hand, is there really so little news to report on in the world that we have to fill space with another round of overstated and likely incorrect predictions? Let's let the Democrats win an election or three before we start talking about the end of the Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
