Crazed For Victory

Richard Cohen of the WaPo and John Dickerson of Slate, neither of whom will be mistaken for member so the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, strike related notes in assessing the Democratic prospects in 2006.

Mr. Cohen provides "The Digital Lynch Mob" (not my metaphor of choice), describing the response of the Angry Left to his column criticizing Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner.  His point:

But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations.

Mr. Dickerson presented a different view of the same symptoms with "Nancy Pelosi, Super-Genius":

In a Washington Post interview, Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls. It was Contract With America lite—a point-by-point articulation meant to show what the party stands for and demonstrate that she and other Democratic leaders were actual adults. Then, as if to kill her plans in the same interview in which she was hatching them, Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure.

So why was she so foolish?

Pelosi's defenders, and I am sure there are a few out there, will argue that her comments were smart, because off-year elections are about motivating the base and the base wants investigations.

Kevin Drum took note of yet another manifestation of the Angry Left in action, this time launched by Jon Chait's comments about Joe Lieberman at TNR.  And Mr. Drum attempts to paint a Dem agenda for us:

Now, there's no question that the left blogosphere is vaguely in favor of all the usual liberal goals: progressive taxation, decent healthcare for everyone, tolerance for minorities, and so forth. And, yes, they're loudly in favor of these things. But let's face it: with occasional exceptions here and there, these aren't the things that consistently get their blood boiling. What does is two things: the war in Iraq and the almost criminal negligence and incompetence of the Bush administration.

Not a bad point - they're not radical, just angry.  In a follow-up, we learn the Atrios vision [of points on which the Dem bloggers agree] for the Dem platform, which does not seem to include any thoughts about immigration - wasn't it Krugman who pointed out that de facto open borders and a generous social safety net don't mesh well?

Let's wrap it all up with a great headline from the Times: "Optimistic, Democrats Debate the Party's Vision".  Oh, they're not angry!  OK, the optimism relates to their prospects in 2006, but still.  Let's snip away:

With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections and the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation.

...But some of these analysts argue that the party needs something more than a pastiche of policy proposals. It needs a broader vision, a narrative, they say, to return to power and govern effectively — what some describe as an unapologetic appeal to the "common good," to big goals like expanding affordable health coverage and to occasional sacrifice for the sake of the nation as a whole.

Until a Democratic call for "sacrifice" means something other than higher taxes on "the rich", color me skeptical.  Just for example, show me some sacrifice by the NEA as we reform public education.

A broader vision, many of these analysts say, will help the Democratic Party counter the charge, so often advanced by Republicans, that the Democrats are merely a collection of interest groups — labor, civil rights, abortion rights and the like — each consumed with their own agenda, rather than the nation's.

It may help them counter the charge, but wouldn't it be even better if the charge weren't true?

MORE:  Orrin Judd is very funny on this.

UPDATE:  But Did She Laugh At Stephen Colbert?

Hillary makes the sort of noises that in any normal political season would be considered shrewd:

Asked to say one nice thing about President Bush, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went one better: She named two things.

"He is someone who has a lot of charm and charisma, and I think in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was very grateful to him for his support for New York," Clinton said Tuesday night during a talk at the National Archives about her life in politics.

Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said that despite their "many disagreements about many, many issues," she has always had a good personal relationship with the president.

"He's been very willing to talk. He's been affable. He's been good company," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

Let's see if the NutRoots remain true to form by going, well, nuts over this.  Since the Kos himself recently took a swipe at Hillary in a WaPo editorial (link?), the odds are good.

Comments

[Jim Miller]

Well, I must say I take some pleasure in seeing Richard Cohen on the receiving end. He is, after all, the man who once called President Bush, "American's own Ayatollah".

[Semanticleo]

TM;

In your predictably even-handed manner, you
omitted the radical left-wing bullets from
Duncan's post. Here are the harbingers of the
next 'moderate' Red Scare-mongering that
you are so nostalgic for since you lost
that pet hate in 1989.

Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration

Repeal the estate tax repeal

Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI

Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)

Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation

Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.

Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code

Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.

Reduce corporate giveaways

Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan

Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.

Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.

Paper ballots

Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.

Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.

Marriage rights for all, which includes "gay marriage" and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.

[clarice]

All right, the responses are funny, but, let's be honest, the satire writes itself.

[paul]

The greatest hope for the GOP is Nancy Pelosi.

Surprising that Dickerson, in his critique of Pelosi, failed to comment on the malpractice committed on her face in the form of botux.

No need for a caricature, her face is already there.

Has the MSM started naming the actual seats the Dems will take?
That would be 15, assuming that no dem loses his/hers.

[paul]

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_house_comp_apr29.pdf

The cook report has 10 republicans in competitive races. (9 dems appear to be in competitive races as well.)

Interesting that the majority of seats are in red states, which can boast a homefield advantage.

[clarice]

Kick me. I still remember Terrible Terry bragging how with the infusion of tons of dough, the DNC was going to punch Bush in the nose by defeating his brother, Jeb.

Pelosi made a terrible blunder--which would appeal only to the loony left--but I think we should shut up about it. R/S/S put her in her leadership position for a damned good reason.

[Sue]

I sure hope they run on those bullet points. The same points have lost them elections in the last 12 years.

[Sue]

That's what I love about democrats. They recycle the same talking points because they continue to believe they just failed to get their message out there. ::grin:: We go the message...we don't like the message.

[Dwilkers]

...getting rid of abstinence-only education...

This is one of my favorites.

I was talking to a guy online about this I think back in the 2002 election run up and he said something about right wing lunatics and abstinence education, blah blah.

So anyway, I googled up some stuff on it because I was sure Pew or someone had to have done some polling on the subject. I ran into this public opinion survey done by the University of Maryland (sorry, I can't find it now) with the result being that 95% of people questioned thought abstinence education was either "important" or "very important".

Ninety-five percent. But in this guy's mind, if you thought abstinence education was important you were a right wing lunatic.

Now, I am aware that there's a difference between "abstinence education" and "absinence only education", OK? That isn't my point.

What I'm getting at is I think this is the sort of thing that gets Libs in trouble. Its the same thing that happens when they argue that children should be able to get abortions without their parents being notified (or heaven help us, give their permission), or that condoms should be handed at out public schools, or that "tolerance of different sexual orientation" should be taught in schools as early as the first grade, as I read is being proposed in CA schools last week.

People want their kids left out of this stuff.

[Dwilkers]

Er...sorry for the digression off topic there.

FWIW I'm beginning to think maybe it would be good for the country to have a little experience with Dem control of congress again prior to the 2008 election.

Just to sort of remind everyone concerned (Republicans included) what's at stake, and what the Dems think is just incredibly important for the Federal Government to be doing.

[Bruce Hayden]

The threat is real, and I suspect it will be sufficient. Imagine the Democrats sliding into a majority in the House by a seat or two, and then trying to impeach the President for his various "crimes" consisting primarily of getting us into war in Iraq. All these newly elected Red State Democrats would be in an extreme bind, plus any number of other Democrats from marginal districts. Here in CO, the Democrats picked up one swing district recently, and two more are in play this time. Any who vote for impeachment are almost guaranteed a one way ticket back to CO after the next election. So, all would be faced with a choice of bucking party discipline, or getting reelected, and you can pretty well guarantee that Pelosi, et al., would do anything in their power to get impeachment. There would be blood in the isles.

But I don't think that Red State swing voters really want to see the President impeached over Iraq, nor, really for Congress to spend all of next term trying to make a case for it. So, I do think that Pelosi is effectively making sure that she isn't Speaker then, or, maybe even, ever.

[Tom Maguire]

FWIW I'm beginning to think maybe it would be good for the country to have a little experience with Dem control of congress again prior to the 2008 election.

I sort of agree, sort of. *IF* the Dems take the House, I think that two years of screaming and rage will help the Rep's keep the White House in 2008. 'Sort of' like Clinton's win in 1992 led to the Dem loss of the Congress in 1994 - Dems look better out of power.

Conversely, if the Reps keep the Congress, Dems have a better shot at the WH in 2008.

[clarice]

Don't even go there. Can you imagine who will be chairing the Dem committees? Forget about it.

Bill Clinton will sabotage Hillary's chances (that is their dynamic)and Gore and Kerry et al will attack eachother..Concentrate on 2006 and the rest will take care of itself.

[Foo Bar]

we learn the Atrios vision for the Dem platform, which does not seem to include any thoughts about immigration

No, that list is not the "Atrios vision". It's what Atrios says there's a pretty good consensus on in the liberal blogosphere. He prefaces his list with:

I think the "liberal netroots" does have a fairly clear consensus on a number of issues

Dems are divided on immigration, as are Republicans, so of course he left immigration off of his list of what there's consensus on.

[Dwilkers]

What would really be "fun" between 06 and 08 would be watching them either decide to impeach Bush or, more likely IMO, watching them explain to the DUers and KoS why they're not going to do so.

And yeah, 2008 is a way bigger deal than 2006.

[paul]

Pelosi provides little support for the seats the dems need-the contested ones will be red states.

The 'get Bush' plan is great for fundraising in Blue States, but detrimental to the actual seats in play.

Steny Hoyer would have been a far more difficult/substantial leader. The dems, as a party, are incapable of working the margins, which is what has been working for the GOP. Bush's victory in 04 was characterized by a substantial turnout AND defections in the minority base of the dems-African Amercians and Hispanics. (The latter causing the wierd WH traingulation of illegal immigration.)

Consider the vote swings that exist.

A 55-45 split of 100 million voters is a difference of 10 million.

A 90-10 split of 20 million is 16 million.

The long term trend will be for the dems to decline in their advantages, with race baiting an unsustainable tactic.

[Granddaddy]

Dwilkers:

"What I'm getting at is I think this is the sort of thing that gets Libs in trouble. Its the same thing that happens when they argue that children should be able to get abortions without their parents being notified"

The ridiculous thing is that they reject parental notification for minors when it comes to abortion, but many liberals have argued for mandatory parental notification for minors (and non-minors who are still in high school) before a military recruiter can talk to them.

They can't have it both ways. I think voters notice and remember that kind of hypocrisy.

[BlaBlaBla]

I love how Moonbattia has gone into attack mode agianst Hillary. However - I worry that Hillary being opposed by these dipshits would be a good thing for her canidacy in the eyes of the resposible part of the electorate who actually elect our presidents. It's almost like a Rovian plot - get the vultures to scream as loud as possible and Hillary all of a sudden looks reasonable in comaparison.

[Eric]

Until the Democrats unshackle themselves from Multiculturalism and it's highest moral principle of Diveristy, they will continue to lose.

[paul]

The ONLY way Clinton gets in:

She draws 40%, consistent with the democratic base.

A third party candidate runs on a strong 'protect the borders' platform, and (as Perot did in 92) draws off 20% for the independents and conservatives.

(If HRC is smart, she'd be privately seeking to fund such a candidate, or use a proxy in Hollywood, to make sure such a candidate materializes.)

Rove knows this, and he will be working for McCain (barring a Jeb entry) and seek to have an extremely strong set of enforcement laws laid down in 07. It will help Bush's approval numbers, and thin the field for 08.

[clarice]

Thw Wash Star reports today that the only reason Kavanaugh was downgraded is because a CLintonite (Marna Tucker) interviewed him for the ABA..If you recall HC blocked him solely beacuse he was on Starr's Watergate team.

This is a ruthless player with a deep bench everywhere.

[Javani]

Semanticleo:

Interesting ideas, but many of them are not Democratic values as determined by the industries who control the Democratic party. Pelosi has to walk the line of helping her corporate benefactors and maintaining the semblance that the Dem establishment cares for the little guy and not just the overclass.

It's simple. Come out strong against illegal immigration and pro-enforcement, Senate and House majorities for the Dems.

Here's what Pelosi offers,

"vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage,"

Good.

"roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law,"

To vague, it was A Kennedy co-sponsored bill, easy Pelosi lies for the Repubs to pluck.

"implement homeland security measures,"

These will be, as before, money scams for funding local law enforcement so other local money controlled by Dems can be played with.

"and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls."

That's good.

Basically the Dems will run on their brand name, an identity-left strategy. The internet crazies should be ignored, but the Dems will carry on with their elitist, self-praising stances until the unions threaten a pull out.

[Lew Clark]

I cringe when I hear, let the Democrats have the Congress for two years. Then the voters will be sorry and vote Republican in 2008. That's like saying, open the gates and let the Mongol hoards in. After they've killed all the men, raped the women, and enslaved the children, the people will see the mistake and get out there and fight the Mongols.
I should have written down this guys name, but he does the election race by race. What he notes is that the Democrats are so sure they can take the congress because they're thinking macro when they should be thinking micro. Like the ballot says House of Representatives, check one Republican or Democrat. Same with Senate. Then if they get more votes nationwide they get control. But the elections are local. It's who gets the most votes in the Congressional district/State. You look at it that way, and there is no way the Democrats win. "It's the economy stupid". National defense, budget deficit, civil rights, immigration, etc. are national issues. Locally it's the economy. The incumbent in either party and especially the majority party just doesn't get thrown out when their constituency feels they are doing ok economically. "Your doing ok in your personal finances, but I can make it better" is not a winning platform. Especially when Pelosi comes out and says "Our plan is to implement government programs that are guaranteed to tank the economy. Higher taxes and more government control of the economy."
What does aggravate me is that Tom Coburn has the ultimate winning ticket for the Republicans. "Get rid of the pork, get rid of it now." The Dems would not have a chance in 2006 or 2008 with a Republican fiscal responsibility platform. And why key Republicans still play like kids in a candy store when that is the one thing that will lose them their power, I still don't understand.

[Javani]

"What he notes is that the Democrats are so sure they can take the congress because they're thinking macro when they should be thinking micro."

It's a matter of entitlement to their brand name. And more and more the aides around the Dem leaders don't come from the unions, business, or such. They're upper-middle class brats who get off on those screedy chatboards like apostate Marxists without an ideology to guide them. Thatt's why Pelosi, Feingold, etc. sound more and more like them. The type of people who can't understand why the Wellstone Funeral was a disaster.

[paul]

The fiscal responsiblity thing is a dead issue.

When the time came, the Republicans porked up.

The belief of the dems that they now represent sane economic theory is not going to gain them a single vote.

The best issue that the local reps can run on:

Strong immigration policies(the lack of one now, leaves it as a meaty issue for 06). IT is rather consistent with the bill they want to pass.

Dead issues that waste campaign money? Iraq.

Republicans gain 2 seats.

[clarice]

Lew, I think that's Jay Cost, who best predicted the 2004 race.

[maryrose]

Paul:
Agreed.. I actually see repubs gaining because they are stronger on the economy and don't want to tax people to death. The dems-distribution of income is a non-starter with people who work hard for their money.

[maryrose]

Michael Barone is also a definite cut above the rest in election analysis and Rasmussen has the most accurate polls.

[paul]

MR-

You're dead on about Barone and Rassmussen. Both are invaluable to following elections, along with RCP.

[Semanticleo]

Javani;

"Pelosi has to walk the line of helping her corporate benefactors"

"These will be, as before, money scams for funding local law enforcement so other local money controlled by Dems can be played with."

Add to Duncan's list; (which I'm sure was
an oversight)PUBLICLY FUNDED CAMPAIGNS.

I know. I can already hear the echo rebounding off every blockhead here.
"What about the abridgement of Free Speech?"

Simple. Pay snake-oil merchants like Maguire to carnival bark your wares for you.

So far, the internet is a 'freedom' zone.

[paul]

Semanticleo-

English must be a second language to you, but nice try at coherency...

[kim]

Parseltonguer.
===========

[Lew Clark]

You are correct Clarice, I did write it down this time. How could I forget his name. Rove says he retires with Bush, and Jay is my pick for the next "evil genius" to replace Rove! I'm even starting to practice writing C/S/S.
I've been so busy with my plot to replace Gonzalez with Feldman as AG, I've had to put the Cost coop on the back burner for now.

[Tomf]

Lew:

Republicans "play like kids in a candy store" because when they bring the candy back to their home districts they get great press - and re-elected.

Oh, you bet!

[clarice]

Thanks but no thanks. Cost is the next political genius..It is not worth anyone's time to read any polls--just go to Cost and Barone..And for God sake don't bother with hamburger helper phony polls run by the nets and press--waste of time.

[Patton]

I think the best one can say for the Liberals is that old SNL skit of a Joan Baez song:

Unilateral Disarmament,
Abortion on Demand
Take everybodies guns away, and toss them in the sand
Free needles for the addicts,
Free condoms for the kids,
We'll not blame the criminal for anything he did..
For who's to say what's right of wrong
Is their such a thing as sin?

NOW WHY DON'T THEY JUST RUN ON THAT PLATFORM, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO MAKE STUFF UP!

[Semanticleo]

NOW WHY DON'T THEY JUST RUN ON THAT PLATFORM, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO MAKE STUFF UP!

I think YOUR needle is stuck at 33rpm

[kim]

And your vinyl hasn't weathered well with age.
===========================

[kim]

There's a neocon born every minute, because the old fools believed that reproducing enslaved them.
========================================

[noah]

Hillary will never win...all the Republican nominee has to do is play videos of her screeching and that speech from several weeks ago..."The faces of the people that (wipe my ass?)..."

People just gonna say I don't want to listen to this for four years much less eight.

[paul]

You fail to take into account the left's desire to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

Heck, they think its a platform.

[Foo Bar]

So you're not going to correct that "Atrios vision" sentence? As it stands right now, that sentence misrepresents Atrios as having wussed out in his post by failing to offer his own thoughts on immigration as part of his vision for the Democratic party, when in fact he was merely listing the issues where there's a good consensus among the liberal netroots.

Atrios' post was descriptive, not prescriptive. What did you want him to do- claim a consensus opinion on immigration exists within that community when in fact it does not?

This from someone who gets so many great blog posts out of skewering other people for failing to read carefully?

Cmon, TM, you're better than this.

[Dwilkers]

I think you're getting a little bit overwrought there foobar.

[kim]

Well, Foo Bar, look at his references to Stoller and Drum, and the context is certainly a platform for the democrats. Not so much as overwrought, as overimpressed with your own small point.
======================================

[Cecil Turner]

So you're not going to correct that "Atrios vision" sentence?

You're absolutely right, Foo Bar. That "wasn't if" bit is quite distracting.

As it stands right now, that sentence misrepresents Atrios as having wussed out . . .

What? Oh no, that part is fine. There's plenty of lefty spin in the blogosphere without Tom having to provide more of it.

[boris]

Perhaps my irony detector needs recalibration. The Atrios vision remark reeked of sarcasm to me. As in ...

"ooops forgot immigration there sport ... OH THATS R I I I I GHT (there is no popular Democrat consensus on immigration)

[kim]

Dammit, you will read this the way I do. It's the only thing to cling to around here. I will insist you must admit he was talking about 'consensus' not 'planks', you know those things a campaign 'agrees' on.
=========================================

[kim]

You want reading comprehension, go listen to the forlorn howling. You want heartbreaking dismay at the quality of discourse and discussion among the left, I refer you to the estimable and 'formerly reliable' Bob Somerby.
=================================

[Semanticleo]

Gee. Sorry I spoiled everyones fun

[kim]

Dammit, I will have fun.
=============