How You Could Have Had My Vote
POSTED BY: Jasonzzz
UPDATED: Thursday, November 18, 2004 03:26
VIEWED: 5131
PAGE 5 of 5
Anything I might say on the topic would be wildly inflammatory (so to speak). I'll let someone else light the match!!!! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I'm not even trying to be inflamatory at all. I'm just curious to know if you have any ideas for winning the 2008 election other than hoping things get so bad that many of the people who voted for Bush will turn on him and vote Democrat. That seems to be the only strategy I've seen so far from the liberal/progressive side here.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And I'm not even trying to be inflamatory at all. I'm just curious to know if you have any ideas for winning the 2008 election other than hoping things get so bad that many of the people who voted for Bush will turn on him and vote Democrat. That seems to be the only strategy I've seen so far from the liberal/progressive side here.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I'm pretty disappointed with the so-called left as well. So-called because a "left" is supposed to present an alternative to a "right" and looking back, they really didn't present a positive alternative, the Kerry campaign was fundamentally "negative" in that the main thrust of the message, the underlying theme was "Look, Bush is bad and I'm not Bush." Except when it came to terrorism where the theme was "I'm just as much of a badass as Bush." Now, I'm not talking about Kerry's "plan" which had some ideas lurking about, but the campaign. The whole campaign, seems to me, was Bush-centered and Bush-defined.
This started with 9/11 and the "war on terror" hype. As long as America continues shaking in her boots over "the terrorists" and this "post-9/11 world," the next president will be a republican. A fear dominated nation will always, always elect right-wing candidates. Americans were so paralyzed by fear after 9/11 that it looked like liberalism was dead. The idea of giving to others because we have so much was impossible for people in deep grief over the losses of 9/11 to get their heads around, and the Bush campaign milked that grief for all it was worth.
Seems to me, the only way for a democrat to launch a successful, positive campaign in 2008, a campaign that isn't just a rehash of "Can't you see how effed up Bush is?" is to reframe 9/11 as the biggest security glitch in history instead of this "world-altering" event. We all read about the memos and briefs that got lost on the desks of this administration. That's where the problem lies. There have always been forces out there that "hate America," that's nothing new, what's new is that we let them get all the way to the WTC in stollen aircraft without even scrambling a few jets to intercept them. The hijackers used freaking box cutters! 6 months of martial arts training will give you what you need to handle freaking box cutters! America has been lazy, asleep at the wheel. We've believed that our vast military superiority across the globe made us invincible. But as we are relearning in Iraq, not all global problems can be solved with superior fire-power.
That's all I have time for now, gotta go to work. Have a good day everybody! Keep flying!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think more than reframing 9-11 is needed. The OTHER requirement for a successful movement is a coherent and straighforward mission. The left, such as it is, tries to cover dozens of single-focus movements: gender and "racial" equality, environmental protection, pacifism, etc. There IS a unified motivation, but it seems hard to wrap up and is easily protrayed as "pandering" to "special interests" (even if those "special interests represent 99% of the population)
I think the left needs a powerful theme. But the left has a special problem, it tends to encourage ppl asking questions and taking individual stances which makes decision-making and internal discipline difficult. (Have you ever attended an "organizing" meeting? It's like riding a herd of cats. ) This is unlike the religious right, which has an authoritarian basis ("God said so") and can more successfully apply internal discipline.
Given that inherent problem, a 48% vote for Kerry wasn't a defeat, it was an indication that almost half of the voters had their heads screwed on tight enough to see reality despite the right-wing/ big business control of the major media and the fear pumped at Americans day and night by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld fear-factory
That is really quite an individual and organizational accomplishment!
While the left and the Democratic Party need to make some strategic decisions, I find much to be encouraged about in this last vote.
PS- I'm keeping my "Nothing Accomplished" bumper sticker on my car for the forseebale future. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hope the Democrats are smart enough to take advantage of a position where THEY CAN'T LOSE.
If they fight a principled fight for their values, even if they 'lose', which if course they will, they will have established themselves as credible. If they do it in such a way as to NOT alienate moderate replublicans (tho 'moderate replublican' seems like an oxymoron) then they will have potential allies when each republican interest comes to that thing it cannot condone.
And then there is a nascent alternative path, which is not quite ready for discussion ...
PS I got two notions from the BBC which seem to be political truisms. The first is that in times of trouble, Americans prefer their presidents to be stong, even if they are wrong (they put it 'wrong but strong'). The other is that with an incumbent, the election is always a referendum on the incumbent. Kerry could not have set the campaign agenda, IMHO. And I think he tried to do that but failed, and it was a mistake. He kept bringing up items - the war, the economy, etc - but every time he did, the admin, with its power to move the media just by making announcements, would direct attention elsewhere.
Sometimes a challenge works - Clinton v Bush I - but a lot has to be working in favor of the challenger.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME