Among voters aged 18-24, more now identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats. Overwhelming majorities of them support school choice and Social Security choice. As a group, they don't turn out at the polls in big numbers yet, but their time is only a few elections away.

There's more, a good deal more. Democrats (like the folks over at The New Republic) have been smugly assuming for some time that the increasing minority population will swing the country back toward Democrats within a few election cycles at most. The astonishing racial condescension that such an assumption carries with it, along with the implicit endorsement of racial balkanization, says something about where so-called "progressives" really are these days.

But as it happens, black voters are increasingly "conservative" on a host of issues, and young blacks especially are increasingly expressing skepticism and criticism of today's Democratic Party. Look for that to increase as young blacks become steadily more affluent and suburb-bound. Few vote Republican now, but given current trends, Democrats would be fools to continue to assume that they own this group of voters.

The Republicans are starting to make key inroads into the hispanic vote, too; although it remains largely Democratic, this group has a strong work ethic. Like black voters, they are more generally pro-life and religious than the wealthy white elites who run today's Democratic Party. Hispanics also don't have a background that leads them to look to government to handouts--that's what many of them fled in Mexico.

While Hispanics still went overwhelmingly Democratic this year at the national level, Florida is proof that this can no longer be assumed as a given. This year, Jeb Bush got about half the Hispanic vote if you don't count Cubans. If you count the cubanos, he got 60% of hispanics.

Here are some other articles worth reading on this topic:

The Washington Post's Thomas B. Edsall on Democrats' long-term problems.

UPI's Horace Cooper on the Emerging Democratic Minority.

The Christian Science Monitor's Liz Marlantes on the Republicans' future.

Democrats, as a party, don't stand for anything, and don't have a coherent agenda. Serious Democrats who aren't still infected with the vision of themselves as saviors of the world's oppressed should read these articles and think about what they really need to do to become something more than the racially balkanizing, elitist mess they've become.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. The Republican victory this year was more than a few seats in the House and Senate, and a few state legislatures. It means that, unless Republicans screw up very badly, all the fearmongering they've been spreading for the last three decades will never come to pass--and their favorite campaign tactic will be gone.

Still, there's no shortage of opportunities here, if Democrats are smart enough to take advantage of them. But it will require them to grow and change. I wonder if they're ready to do that?

Alas, this is a pipedream. For the New Democrat thing to come true, the people currently in power have to step down. But these are the very same people who will do almost anything to acquire and stay in power---in fact, for many of them, there is no "almost".

Good stuff Gary.

I think your analysis of Nixon's role in the downfall of the Dems is especially intriguing. I am only a few years younger than you and remember first-hand what it was like in those days (1960-1980)

I might argue with your insistence that only the Dems are the party of win-at-any-cost. I think both parties realize that to do anything in politics you have to win first.

This ain't exactly a news flash.

It also strains credulity to say that one party has a lock on electoral morality. Sorry.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, you know?

I do agree that the GOP has a philosophical base that is considerably more .... robust....than the Dems. Most of what the Dems fought for has already been achieved and now they are at a loss.

Now what? You have to have more than tactics. Or even strategy. You have to have vision.

Speaking as a Dem on the topic of national security and the war on terror, my touchstone is the Middle East and Israel specifically.

Readers of E Pluribus Unum and Dean's World know that I carp on this all the time: If you want to see what the REAL war on terror looks like, go to Israel. They're on the front line of the same war we're fighting. It isn't a different war, it isn't a blood feud between Sharon and Arafat. There is no moral equivalency between the IDF and the al-Aksa Martyr's Brigade. Anyone who says that is soft on terror.

Clearly, what Sharon is doing ain't pretty. But I recognize and respect his action. He's basically saying, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

So...as a Democrat I am not impressed with my party. It bespeaks a wobbly weakness in the face of unspeakable evil. Oh, did I mention it? I'm Jewish.

I'm not overly impressed with POTUS' record either here. Yeah, I know he's more pro-Israel than the rest. He talks a good game. But, you know, Israel hangs by a thread: 90% measures don't cut it. One false move, and Israel ceases to exist. Believe it.

Clinton learned the hard way that you can't trust Arafat and his gang of enablers. The past ten years have shown that Oslo was, at best, a noble gamble that failed.

So, ironically, my national security platform is this: Support those who implement the Bush Doctrine. And dump those who don't, including POTUS if need be.

It's time to raise the bar.

I mean really: Do you think that POTUS support for "homeland security" is properly going to be implemented by his support for "Homeland Security"? Where's the funding? Why aren't we checking more than 2-freaking-percent of the cargo containers entering the docks in New Jersey, for starters?

I spoke to a life-long resident of NYC last night and he feels like a sitting duck, MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER 9/11.

What's up with that?

Clearly the Dems and the GOP both suck at this. The Dems for being mealy mouthed weasels and the GOP for being self-aggrandizing liars.

Course, that's just my opinion, I might be wrong.

So the good news is that GOP has the opportunity and the authority and responsibility now to set it straight.

Can they do it? Can they appropriate the necessary funds to make it real? Will POTUS spend the necessary political capital to get it done? Or is he hoarding it all for his re-election run in 2004?

And we haven't even gotten to the part about the economy.

The next two years will tell the tale.

My vote in 2004 is up for grabs.

"If you are not a liberal by the time you are twenty you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you are forty you have no brain."

---Winston Churchill

There just might be hope for you yet Gary.

I could send this to my liberal Democrat Clinton-loving friends. I honestly hope for a recovery of a viable, contributing Democrat party instead of the party that is as Gary has described it.

I won't send it to them, however. I'm tired of the "get thee behind me, Satan!" and "Oh, yeah! The Republicans are just as bad!" and "You'd *like* us to believe that, wouldn't you! Shuttup! Everything's JUST FINE with the Democrats, thanks!" that inevitably results.

Everybody here makes it sound as if the Democratic Party is going through a quite healthy nervous breakdown.

Ara,

1. My opinion, MOST Republicans have a line they won't cross to get elected. MOST Democrats don't. Certainly neither party is perfect, or even necessarily "good", but the Republicans are currently (and that word is significant) much better than the Democrats in terms of respectability.

2. The purpose of this peice was not to boost Republicans, but to point out that the time is ripe for an alternative to spring up. Later tonight (after I get home from work at midnight) I'll post some suggestions that might contain those "new ideas" everyone says the Democrats need. (New ideas that the current Democratic party cannot possibly support.)

Fred,

>>"Alas, this is a pipedream. For the New Democrat thing to come true, the people currently in power have to step down."

Not so. A significant number of elected officials from ALL parties ned to join the New Democrats to make the party viable. But no one has to "step down".

Look back through the history of this country, it has happened before, more than once. The time is ripe for it to happen again.

I’ve got some issues for the New Democratic party to espouse, things that neither the Republicans or Democrats will ever dare to go near.

Item One: The US Government should be run on sound accounting principles.

The US Government uses even more irresponsible accounting standards than Enron. Budget deficits happen because the budgets are totally unrealistic in the first place. Billions and billions of dollars go missing every year, and not only does no one in government know where they went, they often don’t even know they are gone (until the GAO finds them missing years later).

Item Two: The Federal Tax Code should be entirely scrapped.

First of all, absolutely no one completely understands the tax code. It has so many contradictions that people are being fined or even jailed for things which are illegal in one section of the law and permitted in another. Interpretation is arbitrary on the part of the IRS.

Secondly, and probably most important, the tax code is full of loopholes that have been installed by “bought and paid for” politicians for the direct and specific benefit of the “special interests” that own them. These loopholes are not only unfair, but leave other taxpayers holding the bag for the money that should be coming from the special interests.

A new tax code could be something radical, like a flat tax, or something more traditional, like a code rewritten to eliminate loopholes that go back 100 years (tax breaks for helium producers were very important in the days when airships were military weapons) and serve no current purpose.]

Item Three: The INS should be disbanded and replaced with an entirely new beauracracy operating under a set of immigration rules that reflect the realities of the 21st century.

Item Four: The terms under which abortion can be performed should be debated, agreed upon, and written into a Constitutional Amendment.

Item Five: A new Constitutional Amendment should be written to forbid the Death Penalty.

Item Six: A new Constitutional Amendment should be written which says “The Second Amendment means that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. Case Closed.”

Item Seven: A new Constitutional Amendment should be written which says “No Federal Law shall be passed which makes illegal an action which is already illegal under an existing law.”

Item Eight: Call this one the Balanced Budget Amendment—No Federal bill shall be passed into law if it does not contain explicit details of what it will cost and where the funding will come from. No Federal Regulation shall be passed by any regulatory agency that does not meet the same standard.

Item Nine: A new Constitutional Amendment should be written which defines “the general welfare” specifically to apply to US Citizens and Residents only.

Item Ten: A new Constitutional Amendment should be written which defines the obligation of the Federal Government (and ONLY the Federal Government) to provide “Health and Human Services” to the population of the United States.

(Of course, new Amendments will pass or not pass pretty much depending on the will of the American People.)

Enough. You can come up with ideas of your own, and I wish you would, This is an idea which might even be made to take off if enough people get behind it.

I like the format. Kind of like a Contract.

;^)

You've thought about this at great length and I am impressed and appreciative.

In fact the best thing about the list is that it would stimulate a healthy debate and may even bring some new people out to vote.

That said, allow me to pontificate in response to your very well thought out analysis. And I beg your indulgence as I recognize that it is always easier to knock something down than it is to build it in the first place.

Items 1 & 2 will never happen. Why? Because, as bad as the system is now, it's better than anything else. Seriously. Why? Let's just say that no voter will vote for a Congressman who will willingly give up tax breaks currently in effect for that voter.

Simply put: "I love my Congressman. It's YOUR Congressman who's a jerk." Others have called this the NIMBY principle: "Not in my back yard."

The INS proposal is good on the surface, but needs more specifics.

Items 4-10 are long shots at best, as are most attempts at amending the Constitution. I won't handicap the chances ("He who looks into the crystal ball ends up eating broken glass.")

But here's my thought about each one:

Four: I favor a more incremental approach. There doesn't seem to be a majority in favor of scrapping Roe v. Wade. Instead, we all seem to be intent on defining the context and circumstances surrounding the performing of an abortion. When can it be performed? Who gets a say in the matter? What specific medical procedures can be used or banned? Etc.

Five: The crux of the matter now seems not to be the death penalty but how it is applied given new technologies for proving culpability. Search Google for pages with the keywords "Barry Sheck" for more info on this.

Six: What are you talking about? The Second Amendment is a done deal. We can have guns. Period. Personally, I think a debate on Item Six would be dangerous and foolish.

Seven: Sounds simple, but you know how lawyers are.

Eight: Nah. Why? Because we're all still arguing about the wisdom or foolishness of deficits. First the Dems loved em. Then they got rid of them. Then the GOP got nostalgic for them and now argue that they aren't so bad after all (See Bartley in the pages of the WSJ and OpinionJournal.com just yesterday.) Conclusion? Deficits are bad. Or not.

Nine: Interesting but goes against the grain of the existing Constitution (not to mention the Declaration). Much of the language in the Constitution was written in a universal way: no mention that the right denoted therein were only to be granted to US citizens. They were inalienable, i.e., you were born having them. No one could take them away. They were not granted to you by virtue of the particular piece of real estate you happened to occupy. Obviously, implemetation of that ideal falls short of the vision. However, you'll get an argument at least on this item. And I'm not sure we want to go there. At least, not with an amendment.

Ten: I see it as an extension of Nine.

There you have it. Those are just my opinions, I could be wrong. I look forward to these issues being raised between now and the next Democratic National Convention (and beyond).

And like I said, I am impressed and appreciative that you have kicked off a lively debate that will no doubt put this thread into the "Best Discussions" archive if nothing else.

Gary,

>>Item Two: The Federal Tax Code should be entirely scrapped…A new tax code could be something radical, like a flat tax, or something more traditional,

This sounds like a capital idea; but I see only one problem. Remember, the original income tax implemented in 1913 was also a flat tax. It got so unflat that Ronald Wilson Reagan had to reduce the number of marginal tax rates from 14 to 3 in 1987. By the time Clinton left office, we were back up to eight. In other words, a flat tax will not stay flat for long.

The only reasonable alternative I see is to totally scrap the income tax as you said; but do so by abolishing the eighteenth amendment that crated it. That way we can never have an income tax again.

I instead propose we replace the current income tax with a retail sales tax. This will not require an intrusive IRS; states can collect the tax the exact same way 48 states already do. It will be cheaper and easier to administer than an income tax. And, I doubt we will have the same $63 billion in uncollected taxes we currently have with the income tax.

>>1. My opinion, MOST Republicans have a line they won't cross to get elected. MOST Democrats don't. Certainly neither party is perfect, or even necessarily "good", but the Republicans are currently (and that word is significant) much better than the Democrats in terms of respectability.

Gary,

I agree with your assessment. Furthermore, I personally believe that is a major reason Democrats lost nationwide as they did November 8. I hope Americans finally have seen the Democrats as the mean-spirited people Ann Coulter describes in “Slander.” If they do then perhaps, they will make the changes necessary to become a healthy opposition party again. If not, then they stand to be a minority party for a very long time to come.

>>1. My opinion, MOST Republicans have a line they won't cross to get elected. MOST Democrats don't. Certainly neither party is perfect, or even necessarily "good", but the Republicans are currently (and that word is significant) much better than the Democrats in terms of respectability.

Gary,

I agree with your assessment. Furthermore, I personally believe that is a major reason Democrats lost nationwide as they did November 8. I hope Americans finally have seen the Democrats as the mean-spirited people Ann Coulter describes in “Slander.” If they do then perhaps, they will make the changes necessary to become a healthy opposition party again. If not, then they stand to be a minority party for a very long time to come.

If the New Democratic Party is to take the best of the Democratic party platform and the best of the Republican party platform, why would it be called the New Democratic Party? Perhaps New Republican Party would be more appropriate. ;)

More seriously, it really sounds more like a Centrist Party.

My impression, by the way, is that while many Democrats do have a "get elected at any cost" mentality, this is simply because they have to. The Republicans are so much better than the Democrats at playing the political game that the Democrats can't believe they're mostly winning without cheating. After all, the Democrats know their ideas are better, so they reason that since the GOP is obviously cheating, it's okay for the Dems to cheat too; it's the end that matters, not the means. But the public sees that both the goal and the conduct of the quest for it are important.

Jerry:

It's more likely that the GOP skill at playing the political game might be part and parcel of its skill at playing the money game.

In no particular order...

You wanna talk about the Republicans skill at playing the political game? Take a look at the 1998 election, and the '96 and '92 elections.

They won big THIS time because the Dems went too far, and because the Dems positioned themselves as an antiwar party during a war that most of the populace supports.

The current White House contains some master class politicians, but it virtually always does. (Clintons crew were certainly masters.)

The Stupid Party will find a way to screw this up, and the see-saw will swing the other way.

Jerry,

>>"ore seriously, it really sounds more like a Centrist Party."

The purpose of a party is not to hew to the left OR to the right, but to express the will of the people. The party that does that best wins. The Republicans and the Democrats have each pushed themselves to an extreme and have come to be defined by the end of the policital spectrum towards which they most lean.

It is now at the point that Democrat and Leftist are equivalent terms (unless you are a Democrat) and Republican and Right Wing Extremist are also equivalent terms unless you are a Republican.

A new party can pick its issues without having to pick a direction. If you want to call it Centrist, that's okay with me, but I don't like the name.

I like the name New Democrats because the Dems are weak right now, and our new party can steal the best of them and leave the idiots behind. Also, I feel that New Democrats is the party name that will have the most appeal to the uncommitted citizen. It has some meaning that can be easily understood.

Meanwhile, for a really interesting discussion of a plan to change the income tax, and why, go to jane Galts page

http://www.janegalt.net/MT/mt-tb.cgi/1502

I saw this after I had already written and posted my stuff, her explanation is much better than anything I could have come up with. :)

Ara,

>>"Items 1 & 2 will never happen."

Uhhh, item 1 has no relationship to item 2, it simply calls for REAL accounting instead of Arther Anderson accounting on the pat of the Federal government.

>>"There doesn't seem to be a majority in favor of scrapping Roe v. Wade"

Roe v. Wade says nothing about abortion, per se. It ruled one particular law against abortion to be unconstituional on the grounds that it violated "Roe"s "right to privacy" a right that, in my opinion, does not exist in the Constitution.

The goal of this amendment is simply to end the debate. (It won't happen, I agree.)

>>"The crux of the matter now seems not to be the death penalty but how it is applied given new technologies for proving culpability."

I have no problem with the death penalty, but it's useless as it stands. The ONLY approved method of execution should be imprisonment until the convicted party ceases to live. No parole, ever. (It costs more to put a man to death than it does to house him for the rest of his life, a LOT more. And it is all taxpayer dollars. Let him live out his life in a cell and be done with it.)

>>"The Second Amendment is a done deal. We can have guns. Period. "

A lot of people don't think so, and keep trying to find a way around it. I don't like that, i want it stopped.

>>"we're all still arguing about the wisdom or foolishness of deficits."

Pish tush. We don't even know if there IS a deficit. Our budget projections are written in fairy dust. We have no real idea how much we are going to take in, and the ammount we are "budgeted" to spend is a fantasy number. See Item One. :)

>>"Much of the language in the Constitution was written in a universal way: no mention that the right denoted therein were only to be granted to US citizens."

Right, no arguement. I am talking about the clause which says "to provide for the general welfare". I am pretty confident that the Founding Fathers did not envision that the United States should be concerned with the welfare of , sayyyy, Palestinians. I think the "general welfare" clause should specifiy that it only applies within our borders.

As for Item 10, the Feds mandate that the states spend $X per head on welfare via some complex formula. I think the Feds should get thier damned sticky fingers out of state revenues. Welfare is a Federal program, let the Federal government pay for it.

(Here's a dirty little secret, a large portion of your STATE taxes goes to pay for FEDERAL programs. Programs the Feds REQUIRE of your state government. This is the Feds way of shifting the blame. New York State has one of the highest state income tax burdens in the country because we have one of the largest populations of welfare clients. )

(And every goddamned one of them voted for Hilary, she would be living in a trailer in Arkansas without them.)

Gary, very interesting and very carefully thought out! I'd love to see any reasonable portion of your list of proposals embraced by a New Democratic Party. A New Democratic Party which left the mean-spiritedness behind. Then, with a sigh of relief, I could stop voting a straight Republican ticket.

Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I always found myself voting for a few Democrats whom I agreed with on something, or whose character I admired. Indeed I used to look askance at people who always voted a straight party ticket.

Until, that is, some time into the Clinton regime, when my disgust with him and her and their have-no-shame apologists rose to such a level that, for the first time in my life, I began voting straight Republican. And in the wake of Gore's attempted Florida putsch, I continue my straight-ticket GOP habit.

By the way, radical tax reform? Good idea. I'd be all for a national sales tax. But only if the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed, and an oak stake driven through its heart.

Oh, Ara. Money, money, money. Give me a break. No amount of advertising is going to make voters buy a message they don't believe in. And Democrats are hardly incapable of raising money.

Indeed, it seems to me that the better Democrats have gotten at the fundraising game, the worst they've done at the polls.

The voters are not a bunch of mindless zombies who rise and pull the lever because they saw more advertising for one candidate than another. Money can make an obscure candidate high-profile. But that's all it can do.

It's the message that counts.

Nice dream, Gary, but there is only one little bitty problem here. No party can achieve massive support unless it is much more generalized and vague. For instance, you lose (or gain) half of everybody with the death penalty nonesense. Like abortion, we should agree to disagree on these type issues and revert to state's rights on these personal issues. Forcing a statist, federally enforced solution on these personal issues would define your new party, IMHO, and the particular side you land on in regard to each one would divide, rather than coalesce, your support.

Many other Americans who agree with you ideologically will bail on your movement simply because you espouse constitutional amendments, which many of us view as anathema. Even if you achieve power all those amendments are bound to fail. (It may even be impossible to garner the supermajorities needed to pass ANY more amendments in the modern U.S.A.) When your plan thus fails to get these measures passed, you become the next loser party.

In short, as you add items to any manifesto, you lose some support. Your manifesto simply has too many items to acquire mass appeal.

Maybe what we need is a mass of new parties, thus overcoming the current gridlock of two almost identical parties, squabbling tactically to each retain around half of the voters, while protecting its incumbents. I for one have always been more happy voting for people, rather than parties.

But the enormous amount of power that is the prize in national elections in the U.S.A. will cause the two parties in complete power to squash any upstarts that show signs of vitality. You start to succeed, the donks and packs will just coopt your issues, and blow you away with cash and organization.

IMHO. Good luck anyway.

Michael,

>>" No party can achieve massive support unless it is much more generalized and vague. For instance, you lose (or gain) half of everybody with the death penalty nonesense."

I suspect that a lot more than half of everybody just doesn't give a damn about the death penalty, and would be happy to have the wrangling over.

And a new party doesn't NEED massive support, it only needs a majority to win, and that would be 34%. To just stay in the game and be a serious player, a new party needs maybe 10%. From 10% you can swing a great deal of influence. You can also grow. :)

>>"Many other Americans who agree with you ideologically will bail on your movement simply because you espouse constitutional amendments, which many of us view as anathema. "

It doesn't HAVE to be Constitutional Amendments, I just tossed that in because that's what I think it will take to resolve some of these issues. (Like abortion and the death penalty.)

>>"Your manifesto simply has too many items to acquire mass appeal."

But it's not a manifesto, and none of those items depends on any other. It's merely a list of potential issues that a new party might choose to stand behind to differentiate itself from the "same old same old".

>>"But the enormous amount of power that is the prize in national elections in the U.S.A. will cause the two parties in complete power to squash any upstarts that show signs of vitality."

Unless the new party can steal strength and support from the old party. What makes this a good time for it is that the Democrats are so WEAK right now. If a new party "converts" sayyyy, 20% of the Democrats and 10% of the Republicans (don't say it couldn't happen), the new party would be as big as the old ones in terms of overall power.

I'm confident that at least 20% of current Democratic politicians would LEAP at a viable alternative party. (Which, by the way, means I don't consider any of the current alternative parties viable as major parties.)

>>Oh, Ara. Money, money, money. Give me a break. No amount of advertising is going to make voters buy a message they don't believe in. And Democrats are hardly incapable of raising money.
>>Indeed, it seems to me that the better Democrats have gotten at the fundraising game, the worst they've done at the polls.
Dean,

Please remember that Democrats were the champion fundraisers up to the 1994 elections. The majority party usually is. The Republicans may be the champion fundraisers now; but that is a function of being the majority party, not because of “BIG BUSINESS” as Democrats like to make you think. Democrats got the majority of BIG BUSINESS money before 1995 when they were the majority party.
>>Pish tush. We don't even know if there IS a deficit. Our budget projections are written in fairy dust. We have no real idea how much we are going to take in, and the amount we are "budgeted" to spend is a fantasy number. See Item One. :)
Gary,

This problem would be less pronounce if we funded our federal government using a consumption tax than it presently is using an income tax. The reason is amplitude of volatility. The amplitudes of volatility in tax revenues are greater using an income tax since revenues are dependent on income. Income tax revenues go up when the economy expands. This yields greater revenues. Income tax revenues decline when our economy declines (shrinks).

Income revenues will be more constant using a consumption based tax system since everybody must buy a minimum amount of consumption. This includes things such as gasoline, food, soaps, shaving cream, etc. This will make budgeting easier since you can more reliably predict your future tax revenues.

Presently, government bases its budget on this year’s income tax revenue. This year’s tax revenue is not next year’s tax revenue. The economy can expand or contract; it can expand a little or a lot. All this makes budgeting less precise than with a consumption based tax system.

Dean, you said:

No amount of advertising is going to make voters buy a message they don't believe in....It's the message that counts.

Then, according to you, the voters of Georgia were already pre-disposed to believe Saxby Chambliss when his TV ads implied quite plainly that Max Clelland was a traitor and a coward.

Chambliss: You are a great patriot who has served your country honorably. But your priorities are out of whack.

Cleland: Don't question my patriotism, you sumbitch!

-=-

It's nice to know you have so much respect for the intelligence of Georgia voters, Ara.

Let's say you disagree with my vote on Homeland security. How would you point that out - you know to emphasize our differences - without sounding like you are questioning my patriotism?

>>"Then, according to you, the voters of Georgia were already pre-disposed to believe Saxby Chambliss when his TV ads implied quite plainly that Max Clelland was a traitor and a coward. "

I dunno about Dean, but I am pretty confident that the Georgia voters were predisposed to believe exactly that.

Don't go whining about how he proved his patriotism. Getting your ass shot off does not mean that your priorities are automatically correct for the rest of your life. Priorities and patriotism are not in any way related. (Yes, patriotism can affect your prioritys, but so can greed. The equivalency is just not there.)

Also, I can tell you for a fact that being a coward will not keep you safe, and being brave does not make you a patriot. I'm a veteran too, and I claim superior knowledge on this point. :)

I have to distance myself from Gary's comments on this one. I do not believe for one second that Georgia voters thought that Cleland was either a coward or a traitor.

Nor do I believe that a billion dollars worth of advertising would have convinced them that it was so.

I've seen the notorious commerical that ran in Georgia. At least, I saw the one they were showing on the cable news networks. The commercial emphasized that the world is dangerous and suggested that Cleland wasn't taking the issue seriously enough, and that his priorities were out of whack.

The message resonated. They also saw Chambliss mop the floor up with Cleland in the debates. Cleland seemed out of touch and confused and tended to claim that his opponent was questioning his patriotism even when people could clearly see that Chambliss wasn't doing that.

Cleland did that an awful lot.

As Rosemary said: if I think you've made the wrong choices and that your priorities are out of kilter, how do I say that to you without wounding your sense of patriotism? Either way, does it make me wrong?

Dean:

Yes, you're wrong. Sorry. Here's why:

Chambliss spent the money on TV ads implying that Clelland was a coward and a traitor.

By the way, the ad you saw -- was it this one?:

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators," the announcer said as images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein appear on screen, "Max Clelland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead."

Or maybe you saw the version without the pictures, run after the ensuing uproar.

Why'd he yank the pictures? I don't know or care. It doesn't matter. The people of Georgia got the idea. Without too much prompting I might add.

Dean, I mean no disrespect to the people of Georgia. It was their election. They knew the issues and the personalities better than I.

But let's not pretend Chambliss didn't cross the line in the first place. And let's not pretend that it wasn't effective.

Unlike the Wall Street Journal, Jay Nordlinger, et. al., let's agree to face facts and not spin them instead.

That's all I'm saying.

Rosemary:

How would I have communicated that Clelland was on the wrong side of the issues? By saying so.

I would NOT have issued (as Chambliss did) a press release accusing Clelleand of

"breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

This claim is WORSE than accusing him of being unpatriotic. It comes close to accusing him of treason.

After all the rest of the oath says that those who swear to it must also defend the Constitution

"against all enemies foreign and domestic."

So what does Chambliss do next? He runs the ad mentioned above (chock full of pictures of foreign enemies, thank you).

Chambliss had crossed the line. The message was unmistakable. Clelland was a coward and a traitor.

[BTW, what was Chambliss' point in the original press release? That Clelland voted for a successful 1997 amendment to the chemical weapons treaty that removed language barring inspectors from certain countries from being part of United Nations inspection teams in Iraq. BTW, several prominent Republicans voted for this too.]

The voters of Georgia got "the message" loud and clear.

I would NOT have done that. Would you?

P.S. Does this qualify as an example of a Republican that will do anything to win an election? Maybe so, maybe not. I don't care. But let's not pretend that it isn't (at least) debatable, OK?

Peace.

Yes, Ara, I saw the version with the pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That's the ad I'm talking about.

Putting Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in an ad talking about national security seems perfectly reasonable to me. Since the ads never implied that Cleland was afraid of those men, or that he was giving them aid and comfort, I don't see how either "coward" or "traitor" apply here.

I see no treason. I see no cowardice. I see attempts to spin it that way as being a transparent attempt to run away from the issue.

"Don't question my patriotism" is a red herring. It lets you act pompous and self-righteous without actually answering the question.

Gary,

Just when I was feeling apathetic and unimpressed with modern/future politics, I read your post. I'm back baby!!!! Not that I entirely agree with all your points, nonetheless, you have truly inspired me.

One of my concerns is that in order for a New Democratic Party to emerge, the will of party members and followers must exist. I fear that apathy reigns supreme in a majority of eligible voters. Not that this is necessarily all negative.

Are they apathetic because they live a modest/comfortable life? Are they intellectually lazy? Are they digusted with ugly campaigns?
Neither party is forging through with significant changes in the way we govern our nation because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And, while we may require an occassional tune-up and oil change, the engine and transmission are in fine working order. Most Americans don't mind change as long as it is gradual.

Making the call now: John Edwards will either be the President or Vice-President in 2008. (Yes, I know the swearing-in isn't until January, but you get the point.) Not that this is exactly going out on a limb.

The New Democratic Party will be lead by John McCain and Colin Powell. (I'm on the limb, sawing it off - me: on the wrong side.)

Oh, by the way...

"My opinion, MOST Republicans have a line they won't cross to get elected. MOST Democrats don't. Certainly neither party is perfect, or even necessarily "good", but the Republicans are currently (and that word is significant) much better than the Democrats in terms of respectability."

Obviously you didn't witness the campaign in Texas this past year. While I normally respect the GOP campaign style in most of the nation, they reached an all-time low in Texas this year. I haven't been that disgusted since I can't honestly remember.

These pretzels are making me thirsty!!

Tim Snyder

Dean:

Putting Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in an ad talking about national security seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Since the ads never implied that Cleland was afraid of those men, or that he was giving them aid and comfort, I don't see how either "coward" or "traitor" apply here.

Whew! You are deconstructing like mad, baby!

Read my lips:

When Chambliss accuses him of breaking his oath of office, he's accusing him of treason, i.e, not defending the Constitution against foreign enemies.

Then to drive the point home, the TV ad shows pictures of foreign enemies and virtually drips sarcasm, mentioning Clelland's name and the word "courage" in the same sentence.

The implication is clear: Clelland is a coward (and maybe even a liar too) as well as a traitor.

That's OK with you?

Chambliss was right. Cleland did break his oath. He is there to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. HE VOTED AGAINST HOMELAND SECURITY because of special interests. The only interests he should have been worrying about was protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He didn't do it and HE LOST. Too bad.

Democrats invented this method of campaigning. Remember Michael Dukakis? It was Al Gore who first brought up Willie Horton. He used in the primaries.

Does anyone remember ads that ran against Bush in 2000? You know the ones that showed a truck dragging chains behind it with a voiceover by the daughter of a black man that was dragged to death in Texas. She was implying that Bush was responsible for his death and that by not enacting Hate Crimes legislation he was killing him all over again. Remember that?

Where was the outrage? That ad directly "blamed" Bush for James Byrd's death. Didn't mention that 2 of the 3 guys was sentenced to death and the third got life without parole. Implied that somehow the Hate Crime law would have punished them more severely than DEATH.

Ara: Cleland's no coward, and accusing him of not taking his oath of office seriously enough is not an accusation of treason.

Peddle it somewhere else. I'm not buying. I don't think voters did, either.

"Ann":

Fact is, Gore never mentioned Willie Horton (or Horton's race; or Horton's crime; or anyone's race) during the 88 primaries. You're confusing him with George H.W. Bush who did all of those things. Check it out. You'll find I'm correct.

Dean:

You're still not getting it? Jeez.

One more time:

The Chambliss campaign accused Clelland of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

"Breaking. His. Oath." NOT "being unserious about his oath."

Breaking. His. Oath.

Here's the thing: If you are not serious about the law that's one thing. But BREAKING THE LAW is wholly different.

And that's what Saxby Chambliss accused Max Clelland of doing.

You say Clelland is no coward? Nice of you to say so, but wholly irrelevant, especially now.

You say the good people of Georgia weren't buying it anyway? Make up your mind.

Do you notice how you went from "he didn't say it" to "he didn't mean it" to "they didn't buy it."

What's next? "He didn't win it?"

When I read debates like this, or participate in them, I become depressed.

I flat-out do not see "you broke your oath of office" as being an accusation of treason, or an accusation of cowardice.

I further think that Cleland's insistence on interpreting it this way cost him his election. It made him look like he was running away from a serious accusation that he was not taking national security seriously enough, and was putting partisanship above national security.

I fully and wholly believe that voters, by and large, saw it the same way I did. I believe that if voters had seen it Ara's way, the reaction against Chambliss would have been fiercely negative, and he would have been destroyed.

Ara takes exactly the opposite interpretation. I find his interpretation not just unreasonable, but just flat-out weird. And strangely evasive, on an intellectual level.

Your oath is to pretect and defend the united states. With these votes, we feel you failed to do that. We're in very serious times when evil people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein threaten us all. Do we really want to vote for someone who doesn't seem to be taking this seriously enough? Who appears to feel that unions and partisan spin are more important than these questions?

That's all I see when I see those ads with Osama bin Laden. That's all I see when I see those ads with Saddam Hussein. That's all I see when they remind people of a Senator's oaths, duty, and obligation. I see absolutely nothing implying cowardice in that, and "treason" to be a horrific exaggeration at best. And I see Cleland's continued claims otherwise as indicative of fear: a man raising a red herring so he won't have to answer for his choices more directly.

And that's all I see, and no amount of browbeating me is going to make me see it otherwise. I don't buy the "Chambliss says Cleland's a coward and a traitor" interpretation. And I believe that efforts to sell that interpretation failed with voters.

That's all. It may be indicative of a vast chasm between world views that can never be bridged. God knows I've tried, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

That's politics I guess. Too bad.

Dean:

I know you're depressed. Maybe that's causing all the confusion, too. Try to stay focussed on the issue here, I know it's tough. But once we've agreed on what happened we can move on.

Chambliss' specific accusation of oath-breaking was in response to a specific vote that Clelland made: Clelland voted for a successful 1997 amendment to the chemical weapons treaty that removed language barring inspectors from certain countries from being part of United Nations inspection teams in Iraq. BTW, several prominent Republicans voted for this too.

OK. That's all.

But then (co-incidently?) he followed it with the "foreign enemies" ad. Then he yanked the ad after the uproar.

Damage done. Feelings hurt. Campaign lost by Clelland.

Was it because of the accusations? The ads? You seem to imply that it was Clelland's overwrought reaction to the ads ("red herring").

But here's the thing: if a red herring is the thing that fleeing convicts would throw out to confuse and decieve the bloodhounds that were trailing in hot pursuit....

....if that is true, then you're implying that Clelland was being pursued by the bloodhounds, right?

What was he fleeing from? Chambliss seemed to imply it was charges of cowardice and treason.

BTW, with the hounds in hot pursuit, I would have thrown a few red herrings out there myself. When you're in a tight spot, you don't pause to appeal to a higher authority. You freaking haul ass through the woods, doing whatever it takes to get the hell out of there.

Is that so hard to understand?

I think the good people of Georgia understood it, thank you. And, hounds leading the way, they caught Clelland and brought him down.

Ahhhh, but were the initial charges true? Who the hell cares at this point, eh? Our man goes to Washington. End of game.

Before I forget, you said:

I believe that if voters had seen it Ara's way, the reaction against Chambliss would have been fiercely negative, and he would have been destroyed.

Why do you conclude this ? Nordlinger said the same thing:

[T]he idea that Chambliss attacked Clelland's patriotism is not only false but nutty. To have done so would have been catastrophic and suicidal.

Logical fallacy: Chambliss is most definitely not suicidal therefore he must not have attacked Clelland's patriotism.

No wait. That's not only a logical fallacy, it's...naive.

Why? 'Cause he did it (see above) and he succeeded.

Here's how I see it: Chambliss did what he had to do to win. Can't we agree on that?

After all, like you said, it's politics.

And, yes my good friend, it is very sad.

"Ara"

Listen Buddy, I know who started it with the Willie Horton business. AL GORE. He didn't mention his name or race BUT he described his CRIME with such specificity that a 5 year old chimp could have figured out who it was.

Racial politics not my point, here. My point is that Democrats will do whatever it takes to win.They will stoop to no level too low. I notice that you didn't want to address what was done to President Bush during the 2000 campaign. Found that acceptable, did you?

"Ann":

Well, er, no I didn't find the Byrd ad to be acceptable. I don't recall ever saying I did. It was pretty bad. Worse than the Willie Horton ads in some ways.

What made you think I endorsed the message of that ad?

But getting back to my original point, I think you should check your facts about Gore's involvement in the so-called "Willie Horton story."

Here's the thing: Gore merely raised the furlough program as an example of Dukakis’ fuzzy headedness. Fair enough. It was fuzzy headed.

Wouldn't you agree?

"Ann":

Oh, one other thing. You said:

[Gore] didn't mention [Horton's] name or race BUT he described his CRIME with such specificity that a 5 year old chimp could have figured out who it was.

During the primaries no one (outside of Massachusetts, if that) knew the name "Willie Horton".

The name became famous later, when a group allied with Roger Ailes engineered an ad on behalf of George Bush 41's campaign.

Ara:

I think that you made your point clearly. It's true that Willie Horton became famous because of ads done by the Bush campaign. Nasty ones. I remember them well and they ticked me off. But, those primaries were the start of my dislike of Al Gore. I liked Dukakis and I personally think that Gore "gave" the Willie Horton ammunition to the Bush campaign and he was really pretty nasty to Dukakis.

Ann:
I understand what your point is too. We get it. Nasty campaigning isn't isolated to Republicans alone.

I think that the negative campaign issue is taking Gary's original thread too far out. Can we stick to the subject? If needed we can create the proper forum for this topic.

Well, we do seem to have pretty much ruined this thread.

But anyway: Facts stupulated. Interpretation strained at best, daft at worst. Maybe it's just a necessary salve for the wounded pride.

I guess we'll all look forward to seeing this used in a "so's your old man" fashion to justify the next round of Democratic viciousness. Even if it isn't true.

This gulf between Americans is unbridgeable, I fear.

>>>Democrats invented this method of campaigning. Remember Michael Dukakis? It was Al Gore who first brought up Willie Horton. He used in the primaries.
Does anyone remember ads that ran against Bush in 2000? You know the ones that showed a truck dragging chains behind it with a voiceover

Ann,

Do not forget negative campaigning first originated with the LBJ campaign against Barry Goldwater in 1964. Remember the television advertisement that ran only once during that campaign showing a schoolgirl counting the flower petals that ended in a nuclear explosion? This ad was run more times since 1964 that it did that year.

It clearly serves as the example Democrats followed ever since. Implying that President Barry Goldwater would initiate a nuclear war was without foundation. The Bush ad you sight is only the latest example. I hope voters finally got the true Democrat’s message in 2000, and 2002; and that the Democrats have not.

>>Still, there's no shortage of opportunities here, if Democrats are smart enough to take advantage of them. But it will require them to grow and change. I wonder if they're ready to do that?
Dean,

Does this mean that Dems must cooperate with Bush on defense? I always believed Democrats were only a domestic party anyway. I do not believe they have any business at all doing foreign policy. They have some good office holders on defense and foreign policy such as Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson. But, these Democrats never lead their party. The furthest they go is to a committee chairmanship. That’s it.

Democrats do attract some good talent. They just do not utilize it very well. They always choose some socialist candidate such as Gephardt, Pelosi, Davis or Dukakis as their leader. For this reason, I believe they will be wandering in the desert for a long time.

They will have to fundamentally reconstitute their party to overcome this. This will take a long time.

>>The Republican victory this year was more than a few seats in the House and Senate, and a few state legislatures. It means that, unless Republicans screw up very badly, all the fear mongering they've been spreading for the last three decades will never come to pass--and their favorite campaign tactic will be gone.

Dean,

Democrats are a true minority at every level of government nationwide for the first time since 1932. This includes governorships, state legislators and legislatures, mayroships and township supervisorships. Some Democrats, such as Peter Beinart, are seriously debating what they must do to reverse this. Dashell and others still have not figured this out.

If Pelosi does not come around on national defense then Democrats will become a minority party for a long, long time.

>>My point is that Democrats will do whatever it takes to win. They will stoop to no level too low. I notice that you didn't want to address what was done to President Bush during the 2000 campaign.

Ann,

You document this well in your book "Slander." I worked extensively with the Republican Party in GA. Democrats will do anything in GA to win an election; and they will do anything to get their way in the state legislatures, too. I guess Roy Barnes went too far this time and helped his own party lose the governorship and the state senate for the first time in 132 years.

To understand the magnitude of this earthquake you must learn that Democrats in GA WERE the longest serving majority party for any jurisdiction in the entire western hemisphere. This just goes to show that you cannot punish your opponents forever in politics without hurting yourself in the end. I believe Republicans can best keep their newly won majority status by simply governing more fairly than the Democrats governed.

One aspect you did not cover much in “Slander” was the way Democrats incompetently run elections. Have you noticed that Democrats always run all the reported counties who have trouble running competent (fair?) elections?

This goes for Bernalillo County, NM, St. Louis, MO, and four counties in FL. Cook County, IL is legendary. If the Election Day mistakes these counties made were truly random mistakes, I think you would see them making at least one mistake in favor of Republicans. They don’t. Their mistakes always favor one party only, the Democratic Party. Is that a coincidence?

>>Chambliss was right. Cleland did break his oath. He is there to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. HE VOTED AGAINST HOMELAND SECURITY because of special interests. The only interests he should have been worrying about was protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He didn't do it and HE LOST. Too bad.

Ann,

Does this mean that any U.S. Senator who voted even once against the Homeland Security bill broke his oath?

I for one would not say that voting against a certain bill is an abrogation of your oath of office.

However, I would not consider such an insinuation to be beyond the pale. I would not equate it to calling someone a traitor or a coward.

You want to make the argument, "You promised to protect us, you didn't when you voted against this bill," I say go for it. There's nothing wrong with such an argument. Basically, when you say something like that, you're saying "you haven't done what we elected you for." I just don't have a problem with that, and I wouldn't flip out if a Republican primary challenger said that to a fellow Republican, or a Democrat said it about a Republican, or whatever.

It's harsh, but I'd never put it on the level of treason. Indeed, if someone accused a polician of treason, I'd consider that grounds for a lawsuit, even though it's hard to sue an opponent for something said in a political campaign. To me it would be the equivalent of calling someone a child molester or a rapist or a murderer.

I just hear "you broke your oath of office" and pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in a campaign ad as not all that upsetting. Maybe it's me. I dunno. It' s just not how I see it.