For the over a decade that the Democratic Party has turned message control over to the think tanks like DLC, PPI, and Third Way...all interconnected....they have been taught to think one way. Article after op ed after article from these groups have a common theme about the "grassroots", or whatever name they call them.
They have been teaching the mindset that anyone other than the leaders of the party who make the decisions are not especially worthy to be involved in the planning. They use various names for us...netroots, nutroots, grassroots, bloggers, liberals, activists.
The alarming part is that until 2002 when we were unbelieving that our party would go along with the invasion of Iraq....my husband and I were not really that much of any of the above. I was raised in the fundamentalist culture here, never really questioned it that much until then. It was just part of who I was, who my family had been for decades. I guess before then you could have applied the words centrist or conservative to me.
That is why I am so worried about what our party is doing in going along with so much instead of standing up and fighting back. I would think it would concern them that many other people like me here are questioning their decisions.
I have gathered several examples of what we are facing in trying to be relevant in a party that decided the direction years ago. It will be an unhill battle.
This following statement is absolutely the clearest evidence ever of the role that a corporate party thinks that the liberals, activists, grassroots, netroots should have in the party, the place that should be consigned to them. It is perfectly and succinctly said by a Democratic lobbyist in 2006.
Steve Elmendorf
"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
"The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."Blogs attack as party reaches for center Alarming, isn't it? At least he admits they need our money if not our loyalty and our votes....
doesn't that scare you though that he doesn't think we are "representative" and that we are not part of who they need to win? It scares me.
Simon Rosenberg who helped found the Democratic Leadership Council left little doubt about the purpose of their founding. He has distanced himself somewhat from the leadership such as Al From, but still calls his group the NDN..the New Democrat Network.
Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says,
"We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."How the DLC Does It He is right. They do not need our money, thus they do not need to stand with us.
More about their opinions of us:
"My liberal friends are quick to point out that the left's chief grievance is with the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. But what does it do for the image of the Democratic Party -- not to mention the thinking of rank and file Democrats -- when some of our most skilled commentators use a moment of unambiguous terror to first find fault with an American policy (unseating Saddam Hussein) rather than first condemning the terrorists? It's both morally wrong and politically dumb.
These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party. They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror."Liberals' warNo, you got it wrong. We recognize that the terrorist alarmists are pushing for war. We see that some in our own party are equally guilty of trying to play the fear factor.
And there is the old "there are not enough liberals" theme which is used by the groups that control Democratic policy.
"Since the 2004 election, wealthy liberals, lefty bloggers, and interest groups have been demanding that Democrats reciprocate their opponents' belligerent partisanship.
Only by standing up for core liberal convictions, they argue, can Democrats galvanize a new progressive majority and "take America back." It sounds stirring, but there are three problems with that theory.
First, most 2006 voters expressed a strong preference for cooperation over partisan confrontation between Bush and the Democratic Congress.
Second, in moderate America, there simply aren't enough liberals to get Democrats anywhere near a majority. Third, liberal and centrist Democrats sometimes interpret their party's core principles differently, especially on such important issues as the use of force, the benefits of trade, the role of government, and questions about religion and morality."
Polarize ThisYes, we do interpret those things quite differently. We are in the majority on the issues. There are a whole lot of liberals around.
In a low point in Democratic Party history, Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention for being opposed to abortion rights. This year, his son, Bob Casey Jr., who holds the same views, was actively recruited by that same Democratic Party and unseated Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
"This was a welcome move in a party that is home to vocal and organized far-left activists and bloggers who have grown increasingly shrill and threatening toward moderate and conservative Democrats. They also have excoriated former president Bill Clinton's brand of centrist politics.
They argue for "party discipline," best exemplified by their jihad against Connecticut's Sen. Joe Lieberman for deviating from the party line on the Iraq war. During the past election for Democratic National Committee chair, delegates booed former congressman Tim Roemer of Indiana because he, too, opposes abortion rights."
Election Signals Decline of Old School LiberalismNo, it does not do that. It signals the willingness of the centrists in the party to give up the rights of women to win elections more easily. More of the giving up of the "traditional" interest groups.
And they invariably bring up the Lieberman case to prove the grassroots were wrong. They never point out that Lieberman became the Republican's poster child...they took up his cause because of the Iraq war. That is called dishonesty.
The Democrats in this camp have been radicalized by their anger at President Bush's policies and leadership, which they tend to view as venal and illegitimate. They believe that the Democratic leadership in Washington has been far too accommodating -- some would say feeble -- in its opposition and that the only way to win electorally and legislatively is to fight ire with ire.
These polarized Democrats, who fueled the rise of Lamont's candidacy, have gone past disagreeing with the Republicans, to despising them.
They no longer see Republicans as the opposition, but as the enemy. And they believe that the end of defeating this enemy justifies just about any means. On the other side stands the school of problem-solving"
Lieberman Comes BackThe spin put on the most obvious things is amazing. Problem solving is one thing. Capitulating for the sake of bipartisanship is wrong.
And one of the most blatant outright insults ever printed, a clear sign of how so many of us are viewed. It did not have to posted at the DLC website with only these 3 paragraphs left unsnipped. It should not have been put there at all during these fretful times for our party, but to do it in this way is almost unforgiveable.
Now it's evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the "netroots." You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups -- high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.
....
"The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don't blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses."David Brooks insults the left, and the DLC posts it prominentlyEven our most outspoken Democrats have learned, are learning, that you simply hush if you want to get along. Unfortunately one I greatly respect is becoming that way now. Maybe he is justifying his silence with the thought that his job of rebuilding is not yet finished, and that he needs to win the next election. If that is it, he may be right. Trust me, if he speaks out too much not a single party leader will stand with him.
A conversation today with Mr. Dean is a study in discipline compared with his offhand remarks that were prone to generate headlines four years ago. He doesn’t disagree with the assessment, saying he is “unlike the old me.” Why such caution? “You live and you learn, right?” he replies.Quiet Dean leads party The party's congressional leaders have two directions in which to go. They may assume that the activists, grassroots, netroots, liberals are not their enemy after all, that many of us actually have good ideas, intelligence, and common sense....or they will continue to relegate us to the status of
fringe The consequences of that will be a one-party country with no opposition party that is powerful enough to matter.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
