Thursday, July 07, 2005
Revolting Populists
It's the math, stupid!
It's all about Bush's base against the rest of the population - either you're with the Haves and the Have Mores or you're with the other 98% of the US population. You would think that something so painfully obvious should be an easy sell to the general public, yet around half of the votes cast in the 2004 election were in support of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. If politics is truly about who gets what and when - the allocation of scarce resources - then it would stand to reason that 98% of the population would vote for what is in their best interests. You shouldn't lose too many elections when 98% of the population supports your party's position on an issue. That, naturally, requires one of the parties to actually represent the interests of 98% of the population, and that is exactly what the Democratic Party is beginning to do under Howard Dean - and that is why the Washington insiders are doing everything that they can to muzzle Howard Dean.
Whether or not Howard Dean is successfully muzzled, we the people have to speak up and agitate on our own behalf. We the people have to rise up and declare that we will not be divided by arbitrary state color codes. We the people have to decide that we will truly have a government of, by, and for the people. And you know what? "Us folks" have the biggest mouths of all of the people - the conscious of America as we've been called - and we have to get on our j-o-b. We have to declare that we the people want no parts of Bush's iTunes. We have to prod Republicans about what ever happened to their Balanced Budget Amendment. We have to demand truly worthwhile judicial nominees in the upcoming nomination battle. And we still have to ask the Republicans WHERE IS OSAMA BIN FORGOTTEN?.
We have the power, and we have a lot of work to do with that power.
Read or Post a Comment
You can be sure that Bush will leave No Nominee Left Behind...
Hi Oscar. cChalfonte here.
So your theory is that the Democratic leadership muzzled Governor Dean, keeping him from giving them the message that their economic best interests lie with the Democrats?
1. I see John Edwards'campaign as being the one that was focussed on that, *the two Americas* and all.
2. We lost middle-income Americans by the widest margin, 23% in 04.
3. In throwing his support to John Kerry Governor Dean had a steep climb convincing HIS OWN SUPPORTERS that supporting Kerry/Democrats was the best thing to do.
4. As Chair of our Party, come 08, Governor Dean AGAIN will be trying to convince most Americans that their economic best interests lie with the Democratic Party. I predict that the most resistance he'll meet will come from BFA on supporting a Democratic candidate.
I support the Governor and believe that his forward-looking hard work in rebuilding the state parties will pay off for us and if and when he is the Democratic candidate for President, I'll support him, but I don't think it's Dems muzzling Dean that lost us that 23% last election.
We're going to have to work harder to win back those who, as you point out, SHOULD be our natural consituency.
Here is an article discussing that. Wouldn't mind hearing what you think of it:
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/rose/rose.html
fwiw, I miss your toons and your voice over there.
Don't usually agree with you as we're divided by social
conservatism, but I always respect your pov and the way
you express it.
Actually, my theory is that the Democratic & Republican leadership gang-banged Dean leading up to Iowa. That coupled with DFA's ineptitude on the ground in Iowa doomed the caucuses to failure - and the Canadian video didn't help either. My theory is that after Kerry's miserable failure of a campaign the last person that the Democratic leadership wanted heading the DNC was Howard Dean, and now that he is the DNC chair they want him to be dependent upon them and their patrons. My theory is that they will ultimately fail and Howard Dean will successfully wean the Democratic Party of corporate cash. To the points:
1. Edwards did indeed emphasize a populist message, but he was not himself believable - he came across as disingenuous to many people, especially those of us who had been exposed to the real Real Deal.
2. John Kerry did not emphasize a populist message. What was Kerry's message? "At least I would have kissed the Iraqis afterward." Bush had a message, Kerry didn't, so folks voted for that which was known over an unknown.
3. First of all, come 2008 (assuming things don't change, and that seems to be the case) the 50 or so votes of BFA bloggers won't make much of a dent in the national election. That said, have you ever tried to convince someone who has grown accustomed to drinking Chardonnay to toss back an Old Milwaukee? Try to convince a regular at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse to slide down a sack of White Castles? Ever try to get a Lakers fan to root for the Clippers? Dean's supporters enthusiastically support those who have the courage of their convictions, people like Howard Dean. There would have been no problem getting Deaniacs to support Lt. Kerry, but Senator Kerry showed himself to be nothing more than a politician when the nation needed a leader, and Deaniacs could in no ways get excited about that candidacy. Think about it: upon what issue would Kerry stand and fight even if it would seriously wound him politically? Everything is negotiable with Kerry, and that's the problem. The truth is that that problem is not limited to Kerry - most politicans have that problem - and it was Dean's bold honesty that attracted folks from every corner of the political spectrum. Feminists and Pro Lifers. Atheists and Evangelicals. Blacks and Whites. Rednecks and Damn Yankees. Union members and business executives. Deaniacs are drawn to public servants who stand up for what they believe without wavering under pressure. Most voted for Senator Milquetoast, but very few were anything close to enthusiastic about his candidacy - and with good reason. It goes deeper than that but the fact of the matter is that Howard Dean himself said that Kerry and Edwards were two of the worst choices for the Democrats - Deaniacs agreed...
4. Here's the problem - once your expectations have been raised it is next to impossible to settle for less, kind of like shoveling manure back into the cow. Howard Dean has set the bar as far as straight-shooting men of integrity go as politicans, so anything short of that will indeed be met with a lack of enthusiasm by Deaniacs. When's the last time you had a SPAM sandwich? Care for a regular diet of SPAM? In a crunch it'll get the job done, but given other choices SPAM isn't going to get much play. We weren't enthusiastic about Senator Spamwich in 2004 and we won't be enthusiastic about getting Spammed in 2008. Hopefully we'll get a better batch of candidates in 2008, but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Like I said, that lost 23% falls squarely on the shoulders of Senator "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry. A pox on his political house. As for o'er yonder, I'm not fond of watching a cancer patient die - especially when it refuses to expel the cancer itself - so I'll move on. Thanks and take care - BTW, I'm including the 'toons in my posts here now if you follow the links.