How the 'Radicals' Can Save the Democrats - NY Times op-ed

[Cassandra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/opinion/11TANE.html

" A battle for the soul of the Democratic Party has broken out, pitting a predominantly liberal field of presidential hopefuls against moderate party leaders and political strategists. While Howard Dean and John Kerry have been stirring up crowds plainly eager to have at President Bush, Democratic officials have been trying to tamp the fervor down, warning that "extremists" will take the party back to the dark ages of 1972 and 1984.

True, with Mr. Bush looking formidable and the Republicans in control of Congress, the urge toward moderation may seem sensible. But it ignores a glaring fact: Republicans have repeatedly won elections in recent decades largely by taking the opposite approach: giving free rein to their raucous base and choosing candidates who excite the party's rank and file. And isn't that, after all, what political parties are supposed to do?"

I was going to post this in Editorials, but I thought it belonged here. Enjoy.

[NJCher]

1. DLC needs to read this!

This is really something to think about. Well researched and thought through carefully.


Cher

[searchingforlight]

2. I am so glad you posted this. I was considering posting it myself.

I believe this is the crux of the whole problem for the democrats. WE NEED TO LEAD OUR PARTY because they have abdicated the lead to "moderate republicans".

We need to return to our roots.

[ClintonTyree]

3. "The dark ages of 1972 and 1984"?

It can't get much darker than it is at this very moment. All three branches of the government belong to the Republicans, what can there possibly be left to lose by stirring up the Democrats? The DLC needs to be gutted and rebuilt. Our canidates are taking exactly the correct tack here, no more Mr. nice guy. IMO, this is why Lieberman, Gephart and even Kerry (although to a much lesser extent) don't have much of a chance at the nomination. It took Dennis, Howard and Al to energize the Dems again, and to return to a "kinder, gentler" platform would be the kiss of death in 2004.

[searchingforlight]

4. Well said.

I think the fact that we have so many moving to splinter factions is perfect testimony to this.

[pansypoo53219]

6. apparently

lieberputz likes being in the wilderness he is in NOW.

[Shrub Wacker]

5. Selling your soul?

There are major differences between the post-1964 Republican and Democratic parties. The biggest being money. The Republicans have the idealistic wealthy backers, such as Scaife and Coors, to fund "Think Tanks" as well as the Rev. Moon and Rupert Murdoch to fund papers that lose millions while pushing a particular agenda. Where are those people in the Democratic Party? What amnount of damage will be done in the intervening years? The key is to understand what the radicals say and then craft it into a more centrist message. Is suicide a good idea at this time?

[yellowcanine]

7. Republican vs Republican

As Harry Truman said, "Given a choice between a Republican and a Republican, the voters will always choose the Republican." We need someone with the wisdom of HST as the nominee against Bush. Is it Howard Dean? I could be convinced.

[Khephra]

8. Thanks for reminding me of that quote

I need to use that in BN right now.

;-)

[David__77]

9. So, so true...

Without a sense of mission behind it, the Democratic Party cannot hope to regain its glory. All the "media-savvy" in the world won't matter, if it's covering a soulless hull.

[Cassandra]

10. Kicking...

shamelessly. I think this is worth a look for those who missed it.:kick: