November 14th, 2006
Unfortunately we’ll not have the opportunity to vote for Sen. Feingold for president, since he’s decided to drop out of the 2008 nomination race. Fortunately, however, the senator remains in congress, where he can and will contribute as Dems reclaim control of the House and Senate following the 2006 mid-term elections. And the good senator is not wasting any time in reminding us, the public, what’s at stake during the next three months of a Republican controlled lame duck session in Congress. Senator Feingold writes:
In January, we will be looking at a new Congress, and with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, we will be looking at a new national policy agenda. I know that I am looking forward to moving the progressive agenda forward in the next Congress. But Democrats can’t just kick back and take it easy for the next few weeks.
It would be a huge mistake to overlook the potential for damage in the lame duck session. A lame duck session doesn’t sound like anything to worry about, but this lame duck may be a lot more dangerous than people think. We can expect Republicans to try to jam through as much of their agenda as they can while they have the chance.
Democrats have to stick together and show Republicans – and the country – that we have what it takes to stop them.
[...]
There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram through, but here’s the worst of the worst – a bill to legalize the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant.
Other measures on the White House wish list that are likely to surface during the lame duck session include a number of unfunded tax cuts and questionable trade measures.
[...]
Republicans would love to extend a bunch of tax breaks during the lame duck – without paying for them, of course.
[...]
There will be a lot of pressure on the current Democratic congressional leadership to give in to the Republican agenda. And Democratic enablers are well placed to help Republicans advance their agenda, while many other Democrats will just want to go home for the holidays. But too much is at stake for us to let that happen.
[...]
After the gains we made on November 7, it would be easy to just relax and bask in the victory – but it would also be a big mistake. The lame duck is the Republicans’ last chance to pass bills on the White House’s wish list, and we shouldn’t let them get away with it. It is the Democrats’ turn to lead Congress, and we can start strong by rejecting the Republicans’ last ditch efforts in the lame duck session.
Of course, the Senator is right.
It’s too bad that we won’t have the opportunity to support this man in 2008 for US president.
April 13th, 2006
There’s some talk around the liberal, Democratic leaning blogsphere about what it is that the Democratic party can do to energize and motivate the base, given the apparent grassroots passivity that some observe. The apparent grassroots passivity seems counter intuitive, given how poll after poll shows that Democrats are preferred over republicans to take control of Congress after the November elections; and, yet, Democratic voters do not appear to have turned out in large numbers in the recent CA-50 special election for. Understandably, one wonders, What can the Democratic party do to motivate the grassroots and the general public?
Here are my suggestions:
1. For better or worse, all movements need a leader… a central voice that crystallizes the aspirations and motivations of the countless of faceless, and voiceless masses. Elected Dems have not provided that single voice/leader that crystallizes our hopes and frustrations. The 2006 elections, even though they are “just” a midterm election, should be approached by the Democratic party as if the elections were a presidential election — even going so far as to hold a national convention to present a New Democratic Deal for America (think of it as a New Deal 2.0) to the country.
Dems must capitalize on the “perfect political storm” that exists at the moment. But to do so, the Democratic party must designate one person to be the voice of the party, and then the party must make sure not to undermine that voice by keeping saboteurs from running to FauxNews and/or the Hannity radio program. For my money, I’d love to see either Dean and/or Feingold as the voice of the party that crystallizes my aspirations and motivations. Unfortunately, the inner circle of the Democratic party establishment would never allow Dean nor Feingold to be the voice and face of the party; nonetheless, although I will not get my ideal Democratic representative to speak for me, Dems should consider designating one person to be the voice and face of the party because it’ll facilitate communication with the public. (Please note that, even though I’ve suggest the designation of a single voice, I understand that this is unworkable; accordingly, the next best thing is to designate a handful of representatives (2-3) to be the voices of the party — that is, select 2-3 voices that can speak to different audiences (clearly, centrist/corporatist Dems would think it intolerable if they don’t have a seat at the table)).
2. Though some elected Dems have moved closer towards a draw down/pull back position on Iraq, more Democratic representatives must come out in favor of a pull back from Iraq; moreover, elected Dems need to speak with one voice on this issue. We, the American public, are disillusioned with Bush’s Iraq invasion and are actively looking for alternatives to simply “staying the course” and other such lame slogans as “A Plan for Victory.” It’s clear that elected Dems are split on this issue on policy grounds, and not merely on the politics of the situation — that is, some elected Dems do fear that a precipitous pull back down of troops from Iraq would create even worse repercussions over the long term; however, the Democrat hawks are not presenting an alternative to the current course, which simply unacceptable, because the public craves something different, period. I, along with the vast majority of the Democratic grassroots, and an ever increasing number of the John Q public support immediate pull back from Iraq. The bottom line is that Americans want to be presented with an alternative plan on Iraq, because we know that simply staying the course is, in fact, a plan for failure; unfortunately, Democrats have not coordinated the formulation of an alternative plan, even though they have at their disposal an imminently credibly, digestible and workable Democratic response to the quagmire in Iraq. That plan, of course, is the Murtha Plan — which: Every. Single. Democrat. Should. Support. It’s good politics and good policy.
3. Follow the Ross Perot model. Perot spent millions of dollars on long-form infomercials during his ’92 bid for the presidency; an act that, to my mind, was the biggest single factor to propel his insurgent candidacy in that election. Dems need to do the same thing. Create half-hour or hour-long infomercials wherein the designated voice(s) of the party intimately walk the American public through a narrative presenting, in stark contrast, what the Democratic Party stands for and, too, how the New Democratic Deal for America will touch and improve our lives. The key of these long-form infomercials is that Dems would control the message and presentation, with no moderator to interrupt with some pretension at objectivity. Moreover, the long-form infomercial would allow for an adult conversation, on a myriad of issues, with the American public.
