Boiling

[ProSense]

:mad:

Article Launched: 02/03/2006 11:54:00 AM

Wooing the white middle class
By Cokie & Steven Roberts



FT. LAUDERDALE, FLA. -- In a cartoon by Nick Anderson in the Louisville Courier-Journal, two Democratic donkeys are pondering Samuel Alito's elevation to the Supreme Court. "Where did we go wrong?" asks one. "November 2004," answers the second.

Exactly. All the talk that Democratic senators failed to interrogate Alito and reveal his flaws is beside the point. The court has moved to the right because Democrats lost the last presidential election and gave ground in the Senate. The real question now is: Can Democrats reverse that trend in 2006 and 2008?

Sen. John Kerry demonstrated what the Democrats should not be doing: pandering to their own left wing. His last-gasp, half-baked attempt to lead a filibuster against Alito showed again that Kerry is in the grand tradition of Al Gore and Michael Dukakis -- defeated Democrats who fail to grasp a basic truth about modern American politics.

In 2004, only 21 percent of the voters called themselves liberals, while 45 percent said they were moderates. And it was Kerry's failure with white middle-ground middle-class voters in swing states like this one that cost him the election. An analysis by Third Way, a Democratic think tank, concluded that these voters "feel that Democrats are hostile to, not champions of, their interests."


http://lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_3473299

Letter:

You decide to share your opinion about what Democrats should do by insulting the two most recent Democratic candidates for president.

Did you remember Vice President Gore's popular vote win and the Republican judges, as you refer to them, who voted against the public to return George Bush to the presidency?

Did you miss the 2005 election? No you couldn't have, since you mention Governor Kaine. Governor John Corzine beat out Doug Forrestor in New Jersey. Did you notice how well Democrats did?

Did you miss that Kerry dominated the blogosphere (which came alive with energy and hope) and the media (which was beside itself caught in a spin) for more than a week, and still going?

Instead of writing such lame opinions, heed Governor Kaine's words and focus on the Bush administration's domestic and foreign policy failures. Write about Bush's propensity to skirt the law and dance around ethics. Explore the vast landscape of Republican corruption.

While you are at it check out how Kerry and the Democrats are supporting the middle-class, white or otherwise, by opposing Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy by directly voting against it and offering amendments to bring about fair policies that help not hurt the middle class.

Senator Kerry is out there every day fighting for Americans: young and old, veterans and non-veterans, small business owners and workers, people struggling to save their homes and those left homeless. But if you're stuck on ignorance, here is the reality: Senator Kerry ran a great campaign; he received 59 million plus votes in the 2004 presidential election, more than any other Democratic candidate in history.

Our Democratic candidates earned and have our respect and deserve to be treated with respect, not ridiculed unfairly by the likes of you.

So Cokie and Steven, get over yourselves.

-end-

[email protected].



I didn't include these (alluded to in mention):

S.AMDT.2704
Amends: H.R.4297
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara (submitted 2/2/2006)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S516

COSPONSORS(2):

Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/2/2006
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 2/2/2006




S.AMDT.2705
Amends: H.R.4297 , S.AMDT.2707
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert (submitted 2/2/2006) (proposed 2/2/2006)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To express the sense of the Senate that protecting middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax should be a higher priority for Congress in 2006 than extending a tax cut that does not expire until the end of 2008.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S516-517

STATUS:

2/2/2006:
Amendment SA 2705 proposed by Senator Menendez to Amendment SA 2707. (consideration: CR S496-498; text: CR S496)
2/2/2006:
Amendment SA 2705 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 73 - 24. Record Vote Number: 9.
COSPONSORS(6):

Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 2/2/2006
Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/2/2006
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 2/2/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 2/2/2006
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 2/2/2006
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 2/2/2006



S.AMDT.2706
Amends: H.R.4297
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert (submitted 2/2/2006)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S517-530

COSPONSORS(6):

Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/2/2006
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 2/2/2006
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 2/2/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 2/2/2006
Sen Wyden, Ron - 2/2/2006
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 2/2/2006

[Mass]

1. I read it this morning and dismissed it as being the Lowell Sun

but I guess it is even less surprising coming from Cokie Roberts. She would be better to say clearly what it is about: Kerry is a pro-choice catholic.

[TayTay]

2. counter-point from the WSJ (no less)

Sick of Sausage, Today’s Voters Crave Ideology
By Daniel Henninger

Source: The Wall Street Journal
Date: February 03, 2006

The most significant moment in Tuesday evening’s State of the Union speech did not occur while President Bush was speaking. It was just before the speech, when TV cameras caught the two new Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. They are conservatives. They are what the Republican voting base wanted on the court and what George Bush promised he would nominate if elected.

Liberals are appalled. Those who are not appalled are apoplectic, filling Web forums with denunciations of the justices and the president whose election victory entitled him to name them. This is a fight over ideology.

Ideology isn’t popular in Washington. The American press abhors it, going so far as to make “ideologue” a term of political opprobrium, if not suggestive of mental illness. Ronald Reagan, an ideologue, was a “cowboy.” The press prefers “pragmatists,” politicians who win elections then set ideology aside to “get things done.”

Looks to me like the pragmatists are running out of covering shade. Ideology is back at the center of American politics. It is going to stay there through the 2008 presidential election. This is what happens when the reigning political class abandons ideology—as now.
What preoccupies the Beltway’s conventional wisdom today and what interests voters could not be more different.

What matters most to the Beltway is who gets caught by the Abramoff scandals, the legal dicta of al Qaeda surveillance, and who takes the fall for Hurricane Katrina. These things can be fun but alone they reduce politics to an Xbox game.

What interests the most motivated Democratic voters now is “progressive justice,” “our values,” “our rights,” “public needs,” Roe v. Wade. What interests their GOP opponents is “big government,” “spending,” patriotism, the “ethics” of cloning, “activist” judges, Roe v. Wade.
At a time when the Democratic elites no longer have a vibrant ideology and the Republicans in Washington are deserting theirs, the public across the spectrum seems to be screaming for recognizable signposts, shared political principles.

Back in 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a book remembered for its title, “The End of Ideology.” Years later he said in the New York Review of Books that some had missed an important caveat in the book’s last chapter: “I said specifically that there is always an emotional hunger and yearning for ideology and that these impulses are always present among young intellectuals.”
And so today. I don’t know if I would call the people running Democratic Web sites such as MoveOn.org or the Daily Kos “young intellectuals,” but what they’re hungering for can only be called ideology. One might prefer a less fanatic, less foul-mouthed faction than this, and their Democratic principles may seem a tad antique, but the unmistakable fact is that the Web Democrats are ideologues—proudly and defiantly so.

They’re insisting that the party nominate a candidate who’ll run unashamedly on “progressive ideas.” They believe Clintonian triangulation is a sellout. And they matter more than similar ideologues going back to the Trotskyite cells on the Lower East Side because they’ve proven they can use the Web to raise millions to support or punish Democratic politicians. Even ideologues on the left need capital.

This is what John Kerry’s obviously quixotic filibuster was about, not stopping Sam Alito. When Al Gore gives a speech that strikes you as crazy (“How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein’s torture prison”), it’s about this internal ideological competition, not you.

Karl Rove in a speech last month to the Republican National Committee said that “a party’s governing philosophy should be at the heart of our political debates.” The Web Democrats agree with this. The left-wing American Prospect magazine writes in its current issue: “In private conversations, progressives recognize that there is a need to do something about broad social changes that they, too, find objectionable.” That is about the search for a winning ideology, not mere polling tactics. John Boehner’s upset defeat of Roy Blunt in yesterday’s House leadership vote suggests the Shadegg insurgency woke up House Republicans to the fact that their voting base was prepared to abandon them in November after they abandoned their ideological moorings.

The argument of practicing politicians against all this is that politics is ultimately about control by whatever means. You win, you control. This is often true, but now amid Abramoff, “out of control” GOP spending and the Democrats’ 24/7 carping, whatever works is in low esteem in the heartland, if not discredited. In the new media world, the political sausage factory is always on view. Ugh.
Many candidates in the off-year election this November will still try to hide from ideology. That will be hard. In his State of the Union message Mr. Bush said, “We’ve entered a great ideological conflict.” His is unavoidably a wartime presidency, and with no respite from politics. There was a time when politics stopped at the water’s edge. In our time the Web Democrats’ search for an ideology ensures that the president’s every move will be subject to challenge. The fact that they’re fighting the Bush surveillance policy on hapless legal grounds rather than separation of powers suggests it may take until 2008 to make the primal Web scream ideologically coherent.

People who crave the middle are simply going to be disappointed in 2008. The Democrats have abolished the middle, and the Republican middle has discredited itself. There is a reason John McCain markets himself as more right than center; he knows ideology matters just now. So do George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback and the rest.

How Hillary Clinton triangulates in the current atmosphere is the Rubik’s Cube of our time. But for the Web Democrats and GOP refugees from the Congress they thought they controlled, the puzzling is over. They’re looking for candidates “who represent my ideas.” Ideologues.

[jenndar]

3. Hmm!

That was really interesting, and something I feel like I've also been observing, especially over the past few days.

[Blaukraut]

4. agreed

The only thing I disagree with in the article is that the Web Democrats don't have a coherent message yet, and may not until 2008. To me at least, the message is very coherent; Democrats must return to their true values, civil rights, civil liberties, equality, guarding the interests of the many against the interests of the few. What's incoherent about that?

[TayTay]

5. Remember, this was written on the WSJ

Which is not Dem friendly. Their point of view is that of 'how do we stop these guys from getting their act together.' So the WSJ is trying to help Rethugs block Dems from getting their act together and taking it out on the electoral road. That's what makes this so interesting.

[jenndar]

8. I think you're right.

And I also disagree with this idea that another party can benefit from the other party abandoning it's original core values. The fact that Republicans don't act like Republicans anymore makes me feel both betrayed and screwed. and that's because the values they used to espouse were really valid. They weren't my values, which is why I'm not a Republican, but there were/are moments in history where stuff like small government and fiscal responsibility really had the potential and the ability to help a lot of people.

I think the problem with Dem. strategy isn't that it's incoherent, but that being in a small minority doesn't leave a lot of room for strategy. All over DU, people appear to be having this crisis of faith because they've felt loyal to certain Dems who, as it turns out, don't share their ideology. Take the filibuster fight - Democrats only voted on principle when they were at an obvious disadvantage in terms of numbers. So trying to compare why a Democrat feels betrayed by somebody like Bill Nelson to why a Republican feels betrayed by the neocon movement is like trying to compare apples and giraffes.

Other than that, though, he makes really good points.

[ProSense]

6. Thanks. That was really interesting.

I'll also take, can advocate and recognize the value of, weeding out the corruption in the Republican party and impeaching Bush.

[Mass]

7. Excellent, considering this is the WSJ

The following part reflects perfectly what I think.

What matters most to the Beltway is who gets caught by the Abramoff scandals, the legal dicta of al Qaeda surveillance, and who takes the fall for Hurricane Katrina. These things can be fun but alone they reduce politics to an Xbox game.

What interests the most motivated Democratic voters now is “progressive justice,” “our values,” “our rights,” “public needs,” Roe v. Wade. What interests their GOP opponents is “big government,” “spending,” patriotism, the “ethics” of cloning, “activist” judges, Roe v. Wade.

Sometimes, listening to the political classes makes me bang my head. :banghead: :banghead:

[karynnj]

10. What's strange is that his maps perfectly to the filibuster division

Reid supposedly wanted the focus on the Abramoff scandals and the legal dicta of al Qaeda surveillance. Kerry and Kennedy were concerned with “progressive justice,” “our values,” “our rights,” “public needs,” Roe v. Wade.

Kerry has been talking of felt needs, values and rights for a year or so. It seems to say that Kerry likely really learned something after campaigning as long and hard as he did.

[TayTay]

15. Mass this is revealing then on another unthought of level

The quoted text in your post has the first line that says that 'inside the beltway' things are what motivate, ahm, inside the beltway people. (Okay, big duh on my part.) But isn't that what motivated the netroots too? (A lot of them anyway.)

Why did the netroots mobilize on Alito but not on the tax cuts that will affect the poor and marginalized in society more than anyone else. (Isn't that a part of the core Dem agenda, protect the powerless?) Where is :“progressive justice,” “our values,” “our rights,” “public needs,” Roe v. Wade on the netroots sites?

Kos discounts these things and doesn't like 'policy stuff.' Isn't he then becoming an 'inside the beltway guy by just focusing on big national things and the scandal of the week.

Did the Alito filibuster sort of 'thread the needle' a little bit in that the netroots both took it as an 'inside the beltway' thing and as a core Dem value. (Protect Roe v. Wade.) What was that response all about and what does it mean? (Okay, now you know what I think about when I have insomnia. What does it mean?)

[LittleClarkie]

9. Great. They sound like a right wing article I just read

"Is John Kerry the next Gore?"

Manages to insult both of them. Gore doesn't fail to understand a damn thing. And neither does Kerry. I'm proud as all hell of BOTH of them. The one who doesn't understand is this fool.

[rox63]

11. I guess I should do a LTTE

Since I've got the great misfortune of having the Lowell Sun as my hometown newspaper. I hate that right-wing rag, which is why I don't usually read it, unless there's something I specifically want it for.

[wisteria]

12. Well they all seem to be right on que, I read the following in

"First Read" on line at MSN. MSN I have noticed either ignore him when at all possible or print the following negatives and promote someone else instead. Keep in mind this is where our friend E. Clift has a column. I laughed when I read this. Oh, and did you know that Hillary is the leader of the Democratic party- she is the only one speaking out and taking on the President.

Does anyone notice a certain amount of sameness to all of these articles? I have noticed three for starters.

Kerry- Anti-war liberal
Hillary- middle ground
All these articles with the same reoccurring talking points and are appearing at around the same time.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/



prominent faces of the Democratic party, while journalists and other political observers might debate who the actual leader of the party is (Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Howard Dean? John Kerry? Bill Clinton? None of the above?), the public seems to have settled on an answer: Hillary Clinton. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (January 26-29 of 1,011 adults), 31% singled her out as the voice of the Democratic Party -- compared with 15% who picked Ted Kennedy, 13% who cited Bill Clinton, 8% who said Kerry, and 7% who chose Dean.

That also seems to be the conclusion among Democratic voters as we look ahead to 2008. Per the poll's crosstabs, 34% of Democrats named her as the voice of their party, which was more than twice the amount than any other Democrat received. Indeed, pollster Jay Campbell of Peter D. Hart Research Associates (D), which conducted the survey with Public Opinion Strategies (R), says Clinton finished first among all Democratic respondents in the poll -- regardless of gender, age, or location.

We spoke with a couple of these respondents to understand why they picked her. "She seems to be one of the few Democrats who will stand up to Bush and the rest of the Republican Party," said Galo Proano, 54, of Rochester, NY. "I believe she's doing a good job... I would like to see her go further" (i.e., run for president). Added Bianca McKinney, 23, of Birmingham, AL: "I think Hillary Clinton is a positive role model, not only because she's a female... She just speaks her mind and her views." (If Clinton has a weakness among Democrats, it's that many don't think she can win in 2008: Per a recent Marist College poll, 54% of New York Democrats said she isn't likely to be elected president.)

On the flip side, 2004 presidential candidate and possible oh-eighter Kerry didn't fare as well as Clinton on this particular poll question. Just 9% of Democrats said Kerry was the voice of the Democratic party -- down six points from when this question was last asked in December 2004, right after the presidential election. But Campbell points out that Kerry did slightly better on this question among Democrats who see Iraq as the number-one or number-two priority for the nation. "This could be an indication that while most Democrats have moved on and are seeking leadership from individuals other than the 2004 nominee, there is still a hard-line group of anti-war Democrats who believe that John Kerry has some credibility left on this issue," he says.

Kerry has begun posting on the liberal blog DailyKos in an effort to reach grassroots activists, reports the Boston Globe. Kerry has posted at least three entries and has commented on bin Laden and Alito. In the 2004 election, his campaign took issue with DailyKos author Markos Moulitsas for calling four murdered contractors in Iraq "mercenaries." "Kerry's staff declined to comment on why the senator now feels comfortable writing on the blog. But comments posted by DailyKos readers welcomed his apparent change of heart."

[karynnj]

13. The poll was taken Jan 26-29

Th previous week, Hillary made her one controversial plantation remark that got huge press. Kerry's comments, backing Gore and Hillary and attacking the RW media got way less play. Kerry started the filibuster on Jan 26. Kerry was being ridiculed everywhere for his quixotic filibuster (Isn't it odd they are all using the same slightly unusual word.

So Hillary making a controversial comment that leads to nothing... is seen as strong.
Kerry providing what should have been an effective counter to the "democrats sound like Bin Laden" nonsense and leading a filibuster that could have worked and at least was based on deep seated values is seen as not serious.

What's strange is that Hillary rarely is the one speaking out, but she is being voted as the spokesperson - which is weird. What it might mean is that Democrats think they have no spokeperson and HOPE Hillary becomes it.

Note: There's something wrong with the sample. There's NO way these two can both be true.
-Kerry did slightly better for those that said Iraq was #1 or #2.
-Kerry is down 6 points (to 9%) for everyone in the sample.
How many people in the country, regardless of party don't think Iraq is #1 or #2?

(there is some ambiguity on what better than refers to)

[wisteria]

14. I thought the polling was done during the time of her Plantation remark.

Actually, I think the whole poll is all over the place. IMO, Hillary's media polarity,is much larger than in the general public. Marist College is in NY and I often wonder if the polls are conducted on New Yorkers only. Maybe it's me, but I just don't see her as being that popular. And this portion of the "First Read" seems so contrived as to make up for all the press Kerry received last week.

[karynnj]

17. You wonder what the preceding questions were.

This question seemed to be open ended, asking "who is the voice of the Democratic party?" Part of the reason I wonder is "Kennedy" seems (a good) but odd choice. I would almost bet they had a Kennedy question (maybe his questioning). If there were a whole set of questions on Hillary preceding it (Would you vote for her in the Primary, Do you think she's too liberal, whatever), this biases the questions downstream. There are tons of studies that show people try to please the interviewer. Also, for the less political people - it saves them from thinking of a name.

The dates were given in the article (26 - 29). It didn't say where but it's likely nationwide.

[JI7]

16. Cokie Roberts is such a digusting whore

especially if you saw her during the 2004 elections. she was so vile and disgusting. anytime they discussed Kerry she would pop in with some comment attacking him. Sam Donaldson tried to say something once, it wasn't even really a pro Kerry thing but just talking about facts and she kept interrupting him with snide comments.

[wisteria]

18. This is all the more reason for me to write her and tell her I don't fit

her profile of Kerry supporters and I still support him and applaud what he did this past week with the filibuster.