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

[Semanticleo]

Work calls....gotta book.

Y'all come back now, hear?

[kim]

You missed it. Planks. Agreement. Consensus. Do you see it? Or do you lack vision?
=====================================

[paul]

Worth taking a trip to the John Birch Society.

'No matter what the actual membership, the JBS pioneered grassroots lobbying, combining educational meetings, petition drives, and letter writing campaigns.'

'In a 1966 speech, Welch coined the name "The Insiders" to describe the leaders of the conspiracy. '

'Birch Society influence on US politics hit its high point in the years around the failed 1964 presidential campaign of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater who lost to incumbent President Lyndon Johnson.'

http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html

Worth noting that they also believe that they were the driving force behind the Clinton impeachment.

The parallels between Atrios and Bircher's is worth noting. The JBS had a larger membership, but the themes are the same. Conspiracies and impeachment. Also worth noting that JBS peaked under Goldwater, much as the 'netroots' peaked under the Dean nomination and Chairmanship.

His departure from his current post will create a schism that will leave the 'Digital Lynch Mob' on the curb, waiting for the ANSWER bus to pick them up.

[kim]

What's all this yap about fences. I count 30 million untouchable souls and only 12 million susceptible illegal aliens. At least 18 million short. Open the gates; Hell hath no liebens room like demographics.
=======================================

[kim]

And a short ANSWER, at that.
==================

[noah]

Yup, read the thread Semanticleo...missed the refutation. Go ahead duck. I know you are a fraud anyway.

[paul]

NYT/CBS to the rescue.

"The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics."

(Would you believe this was the last words of the article?)

For extra credit, see if you can find the actual democratic approval numbers...the gop numbers just jump out at you. You think the democratic numbers would be included.

Also-
miltary defense GOP55%, Dems 29%.
Dealing with terrorism? GOP 45%, Dems 35%.

06 is like watching the 04 election spread out over months. The fixation on exit polls versus the actual results.

[noah]

If I were to be polled, I would be an "independent", I would disapprove of both parties, Senate democrats most profoundly, and lastly I would have to disapprove of Bush if I were honest with the pollster (Rove and Bush or maybe just Bush don't seem to understand how pissed most people are about the immigration stalemate).

Is there any chance I would vote for any democrat? Hell will freeze over first.

[Les Nessman]

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

Republicans are divided on immigration? Perhaps, but it's more like a 90/10 split amongst the electorate.

[paul]

Same here.

Lesser of two evils, here we go again.

(I still like Bush, and will judge him on his body of work-he still has time. Despite his low approval numbers, he remains the more popular than his opposition. In the politics of attrition, he is holding his own.)

[Dwilkers]

It was the Myers thing that shook me. This Goss thing hasn't helped either.

[Gary Maxwell]

So Sematicleo demonstrated another of his party's guiding philopsophy, "cut and run." Toss a few ad homs from a safe distance safely over the horizon and boogie when you are asked politely to support your position or STFU.

[paul]

Some polls from pollingreport.com:

http://pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

GOP congressional approval numbers:
Fox-5/06-35%
LAT-4/06-37%
Pew-3/06-32%
Harris-3/06-27%

http://pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

Dem congressional approval numbers:
Fox-5/06-36%
LAT-4/06-41%
Pew-3/06-34%
Harris-3/06-24%.

To borrow from the NYT coverage of the recent poll-

Do you think the Country would be better of with a Democratic Congress? Question #18-
39%. (Notice how consistent the number is with actual democratic demo...) I'm not seeing any movement/defections from independent voters.

Looking at the internals, I simply can't find a groundswell of support for Dems. In a cursory exam of the NYT poll, they seemed afraid to ask what the actual approval number for dems is...I never found the question asked.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Well I'm voting for Mitt Romney for Prez. and there is no way, no matter how mad at Repubs I might be over any one specific issue that I'd be dumb enough to let democrats have control and trust our national security to those bunch of cowards and losers. I live in a Boxer/Pelosi state ... GAG!

[JM Hanes]

Dwilkers

"Have we said we want to raise taxes?"

Hard to type for laughing! In fact, I'm going back to read your post again and laugh some more. Then I'm going to save it for a rainy day when I could use a lift. The "curl" of truth, as a child once called it, is what makes it seriously funny, of course. Thanks, needed that!

[clarice]

Dwikers entire post is a keeper,JMH. And a good explanation of why the Dems have lost the middle class. It is now the party of rich elitists, working with the loony left to cater to the losers at the cost of the middle class.

[JM Hanes]

Oh Lordy! I just surfed by C-Span to hear Jim McDermott claiming that Republicans deliberately made enrolling for the drug benefit super complicated in order to keep the needy from signing up. If you follow the debate on the floor though, it looks like only Democrats are having trouble understanding the instructions. McDermott's final flourish is worth noting: We'll all probably vote for it, but this is a baaaaad bill!

Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) was pretty persuasive though. Don't know a thing about him, but it wouldn't hurt if the Dems gave him Pelosi's job.

[richard mcenroe]

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

And that differs from being Atrios' vison exactly how?"

Charlie (Colorado) -- because Atrios is just the messenger; he doesn't believe in the message. Hell, he's a Democrat. He doesn't believe in anything beyond the politics of the next five minutes...

[clarice]

Hee hee:
"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and the leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have clashed angrily in recent days in a dispute about how the party should spend its money in advance of this fall's midterm elections.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who is leading the party's effort to regain majority status in the House, stormed out of Dean's office several days ago leaving a trail of expletives, according to Democrats familiar with the session.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean advocates a "50-state strategy." (Toby Talbot - AP)

Campaign 2006: Key Races

The Key Races Map provides Washington Post analysis and candidate profiles for the most important races of Campaign 2006.

• Interactive Map: Key Races

• Calendar: 2006 Primaries

• Party Control & Trends:
House & Senate | Governorships

• Key Congressional Votes:
House | Senate

» Full Coverage: 2006 Elections

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Brett Deimler. president of Deimler International, Inc. :: Main Page

Full List of Blogs (1 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share
Tag This Article

Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline

2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb

3. Tag This Article

The blowup highlights a long-standing tension that has pitted Democratic congressional leaders, who are focused on their best opportunities for electoral gains this fall, against Dean and many state party chairmen, who believe that the party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up -- even in states that have traditionally been Republican strongholds.

Emanuel's fury, Democratic officials said, was over his concern that Dean's DNC is spending its money too freely and too early in the election cycle -- a "burn rate" that some strategists fear will leave the party unable to help candidates compete on equal terms with Republicans this fall"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001927.html

[JM Hanes]

Rahm Emanuel has got to be one of the brightest cookies in the Democratic jar. Back in his days as a talking head, he was one of those guys you ended up respecting even though he was as partisan as they come. The sorry state of politics would be much improved if the Dems had more Emanuels and less Pelosis.

As I recall Dean's "burn rate" as a candidate was an off the charts disaster, but I do think he's right about the need to rebuild from the ground up. Unfortunately, with his usual strategic flare, he's trying to implement his idea of reconstruction from the top down. Of course, he wrested control of the DNC from the Clintonistas by promising to pass out megabucks to state committees, so I suspect he's not about to start looking like he's playing favorites now, no matter how it affects election results.

[clarice]

I read that Rahm had targetted 22 tough Congressional races where he intended to pump in money and at this moment 6 of those candidates got bupkis from the DNC. I don't think they have the money. Would you give it to Dean?The 527 loophole looked like a boon for the Dems but I think it is working against them, as so much money is pumped by Soros and Bing and Burkle et all to the kooks and away from the party.

[Mark Coffey]

Another typically excellent post. I only comment to say: yay! More traction for Nutroots!...

[JM Hanes]

On the Republican side, I think the biggest problem with conservative disaffection is a potential financial one. I don't think they'll actually vote for Democratic candidates (in the Senate anyway; House races may depend more on the local reputations of the candidates) and I think conservatives are generally too politically engaged to stay away from the polls. But there's a lot of "not one dime to centrists" sentiment out there, and I'd be curious to know just how big a hit losing that financial support might actually represent.

[kim]

You'd think Soros himself would understand how big money warps fundamentally the one man one vote foundation of democracy.
========================================