Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Reply #10: The Election was about one thing. That one thing is a person. Bush [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec-06-06 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Election was about one thing. That one thing is a person. Bush
The Election was about One Thing

That one thing is a Person.

Bush.

He wasn't on the ballot, but had he been, voters would have sent Bush Co. packing with a resounding vote of "No Confidence." At least that's what the real excerpts tell us:

Curtis Gans
Director
Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
November 10th
MP3--Interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .


It is the nation's outrage at what Bush has done to our country that drove Democrats to victory on Nov. 7th.

As a general proposition, Americans want the ideal of a bipartisan Congress in which reasonable people on "both sides" work together to find reasonable solutions. But on Nov. 7th, the voice of the people declared that the most essential ingredient of that ideal -- reasonable people on "both sides" -- doesn't exist in Bush World.

When they rejected Bush and his rubber stamp Congress as intolerably incompetent/corrupt/extreme they were not calling for "bipartisanship" with Bush at the helm.

Their message was loud and clear: "We want out of Bush-World!"

Apparently DC Dems didn't get the message that was delivered. If they had, they'd be implementing strategies that tap into the power of the outrage that drove the "wave," instead of doing their best to suppress it.

The "conventional wisdom" and exhortations we've heard since the election -- "impeachment is off limits," "it's about issues, issue, issues," "suppress anger," "don't overreach," etc. -- aren't new. We heard them last month. We heard them last year. We have been hearing similar admonitions to be "pragmatic" and "tactical" or to "keep our powder dry" for decades because such admonitions are grounded in assumptions and patterns of thought that have resisted change for decades.

For the sake our national soul, the best thing the drivers of Democratic strategy could do would be to Get Out of Town, reconnect with reality, and listen to people like Curtis Gans and others who are calling on them to take a step back from tactical politics and get clear about the principles they are committed to and the goals they are passionate about:

Gans: Traditionally, at least for the last 30 years, they have essentially been very tactical; very programmatic. I don't think either one of those works. I think they have to have an articulation of Central American principles and what that means within a progressive Party.

. . .You know, what is a Democratic definition of liberty? What is Democratic definition of the common welfare? Etc.

Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's
. . .


It will always come back to the same bottom line. The Constitution is under attack; Congress is sworn to defend it, impeachment is the weapon be gave them. Bush and Cheney are committing their war crimes and conducting their criminal domestic surveillance program in plain sight. We are long past the need for "investigation." It is time for Members of Congress to draft Articles of Impeachment and make the case. It has been "time" for years. Continued and unnecessary delay is dereliction.

With great crises come great opportunities. Their failure of our Democratic leaders to stand up and fulfill their oath is deplorable, but what makes it so heartbreaking is that they are failing to seize an unprecedented opportunity. Impeachment is not just the right thing to, it is the winning thing to do.

Democratic leaders may never have a greater opportunity to engage and inspire the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  The Bipartisan Myth: Democrats Won 35-0 Bob Geiger  Dec-06-06 01:21 PM   #0 
   These are the same morons who thought  Lowell   Dec-06-06 01:31 PM   #1 
   Hey....if 51% was a mandate ...think about what 55% must mean!  queenbdem87   Dec-06-06 02:02 PM   #6 
      It was more than 50% if the exit polls are to be believed.  Stevepol   Dec-06-06 06:25 PM   #8 
   But....but...but  kegler14   Dec-06-06 01:32 PM   #2 
   counter that with "it was a republican stronghold"  melissinha   Dec-06-06 01:39 PM   #4 
   I guess the GOP didn't cheat hard enough.  formercia   Dec-06-06 01:44 PM   #5 
      Stealing about 6% seems to be their upper limit.  pat_k   Dec-06-06 07:37 PM   #11 
         Phantom Registered Republicans  formercia   Dec-06-06 08:33 PM   #12 
            Absolutely. Inflating Repub registration #s is a must to cover the fraudulent votes (nt)  pat_k   Dec-06-06 09:30 PM   #14 
               To deny someone the right to an honest vote  formercia   Dec-07-06 10:32 AM   #16 
   Geez, how many articles were there  Nite Owl   Dec-06-06 01:36 PM   #3 
   arguments like this really are sort of silly  onenote   Dec-06-06 02:07 PM   #7 
   Amen.  Infinite Hope   Dec-06-06 06:57 PM   #9 
      IMHO, yours is the definitive observation...  guruoo   Dec-06-06 09:05 PM   #13 
   The Election was about one thing. That one thing is a person. Bush  pat_k   Dec-06-06 07:32 PM   #10 
   It wasn't 35-0, it was 41-0  Jim Lane   Dec-06-06 11:10 PM   #15 
   a "mandate" is usually something you don't have to claim  hijinx87   Dec-07-06 10:58 AM   #17 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC