Toward 2008 Elections

2006 Election Results – 11/10/06

Fueled by anger at the Iraq War, ‘War on Terrorism’, New Republican economic policies (inequality, debt and stagnation) and corruption, mainstream American Democrats have regained control of our congress – both house and senate, winning 32 additional house seats, 6 additional senate seats, and many additional governors and state legislators. Our sweeping victory (which I thought wouldn’t occur until 2008) may be the beginning of the largest liberal period in American History. The American people are more liberal than ever before. Democrats will be united (with very few conservatives among them) and Republicans divided. We have paid an enormous price for giving power to Bush and his New Republican Colleagues, but they have succeeded in wrecking the traditional Republican Party. (See attached Time for a Change #30 and #31 for more analysis of our victory.)

Understanding Our 2006 Election Results – 11/17/06

Who Voted For Democratic Winners?

Nationally, voters voted 53% for Democrats to 45% for Republicans. Democrats gained among virtually all types of voters. Republicans even lost ground among white men, married people and religious voters.

Voters every income level up to $100,000 a year voted for Democrats. Women voted Democratic 55% to Republican 43%, the highest margin since 1988. Men voted Democratic 50% to Republican 47%,

Whites voted more for Democrats than they had since 1992, 47% to 51%. Latinos voted Democratic 69% to 30%, increasing their Democratic vote by 14% since 2004. Asians voted for Democrats 62% to Republicans 37%. Democrats won in cities and split even in suburbs, small towns and rural areas.

Catholics voted for Democrats 10% more than in 2000. White evangelicals (born again Christians) voted Democratic 28% to Republican 70%

.

Self-identified Democrats voted 13 to 1 for Democrats. Liberals voted 8 to 1 Democratic. Independents voted Democratic 57% to Republican 39%, a margin of 18 points, the largest margin in house races in 25 years. Moderates gave Democrats a margin of 23 points respectively. 20 % of self-identified Republicans voted for Democrats.

Our conventional wisdom often suggests that Independents are some type of moderate Liberal-Conservative mixture. Two thirds of Independents are Liberals, many more consistently liberal that the Democrats (who sometimes simply want to win regardless of ideology). A high percentage of Independents voted and most voted for Democrats.

When asked whether they are Liberal, Moderate or Conservative, many voters say they are moderate. But when these moderates are asked about their value and policy preferences, they show that they are liberals. They have simply been misled by the Conservative demonization of the term, ‘liberal’.

A Republican pollster was right when he said that there are few Independents and Moderates by who aren’t Liberals or Conservatives. But not realizing that a majority of self-described Independents and Moderates are Liberals, he thought that Conservatives could be successful by simply appealing to the Conservative base of the Republican Party.

Support for Bush and his New Republican congressional colleagues among Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians and even Christian Conservatives eroded due to the New Republicans failure to remain true to traditional Conservative values and their inability to deliver for Christian Conservatives. This reduced their votes for Republican candidates for federal, state and local offices. Newly elected Ohio Governor Ted Strickland won 30%, Ohio Senatorial candidate Sherrod Brown won 20% and Montana Senatorial candidate Jon Testor won 18% of 2004 Bush voters.

Voters favored Democrats in all these categories except whites (especially white men, white evangelicals and voters having incomes over $100,000. Even in these categories, voters favored Republicans less that in recent elections. Voters gave Democrats a sweeping victory.

Why did Voters Vote Democratic? Why did Republicans Lose?

Iraq is now disintegrating similarly to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Increased religious cleansing between Sunnis and Shiites and increased casualties among both Iraqis and Americans made it obvious that we are losing the Iraq War. Democratic candidates challenged Bush’s lack of an exit strategy and argued that Republican house and senate candidates must be defeated to check Bush’s attempts to stay the course. Bush continued to argue that the Democrats are soft on terrorism, which directed voters’ attention to the Iraq War which Bush had long identified as part of the ‘War on Terror’. Republican candidates failed in their attempts to distance themselves from Bush.

Exit polls indicate voters reacted strongly against Republican incompetence (Iraq, Katrina and highly partisan do-nothing Congress), corruption, and the economy. Although they couldn’t vote directly against President Bush, he caused this reaction by allowing Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Delay to lead his highly partisan and corrupt administration in its ‘War on Terrorism’, entry into Iraq and promotion of an ‘Opportunity Society’ which benefits the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the safety net for the rest of us. Voters finally noticed that we are losing the war in Iraq, the many Republicans charged with corruption, and their own increased economic insecurity. They realized that their ability to pursue the American Dream is diminishing.

Potential supporters are not enough to win, they must be identified and stimulated to vote. Howard Dean’s 50-State Strategy, assisted by Ralm Emanual’s successful recruitment of tough candidates running on mainstream issues, appears to have paid off big time for winning both national and local contests in both blue and some red states. Democratic candidates not only won most races in blue states, they won races in various red states, in the upper South, Midwest and Mountain states. Even when they only threatened to win, they diverted Republican resources from other races. Bush spent the last several weeks of the campaign in threatened Southern, Midwestern and Mountain states.

Who are The Democratic Winners?

Democrats regained control of both the house and the Senate, winning 29 additional house seats, 6 additional senate seats, and many additional governors and state legislators. Democrats will now have a margin in the house equaling the largest that Republicans have had recently. This might not have happened until 2008, except for a series of bad news about the Iraq War which even Bush could not explain away, and late breaking news concerning Republican corruption.

Contrary to the Conservative pundits, our newly elected Democrats are as liberal as our long term Democratic legislators and their leaders. Many have run what are called populist campaigns, against unfair taxation, corruption by powerful business interests, decline of our middle class, increased collapse of our safety net, etc. Only on social issues are they conservative or perhaps only cautious, waiting until the time is right.

A group of house Democrats who are Conservative on social issues, known as Blue Dogs claim the addition of 9 newly elected congress members to bring their total to 44. The other 20 newly elected congress members are supposedly Liberal.

For evidence, read the following by our most prominent blogger Kos published on Wed Nov 08, 2006 [before the election results were fully known].

---------------------------------

“These new Dems sure are conservative! One of the most moronic media lines last night, and continuing through today, is how "conservative" these newly elected Democrats are. Except, that they're not. In the Senate:

Bernie Sanders, VT: So conservative that he's a "socialist". His National Journal "liberal" rating is 89.7 (out of 100).

Sherrod Brown, OH: NJ liberal rating is 84.2. For comparison's sake, Harold Ford -- a real conservative Democrat -- had a 58.3 rating.

Sheldon Whitehouse, RI: An unabashed liberal in every definition of the word. I mean, he defeated a liberal Republican.

Claire McCaskill, MO: She's a progressive on every major issue. In fact, it was one of the GOP's lines of attacks against her. As the conservative Real Clear Politics wrote in its race summary. “State Auditor Claire McCaskill lost a close governor's race two years ago to Gov. Matt Blunt 51% - 48% and thus starts out of the gate with a high level of name recognition and a solid base of support. However, McCaskill lost 90 out of 97 counties statewide and has a problem of being perceived as too liberal outside of metro St. Louis and Kansas City. Missouri is a relatively, culturally conservative state that President Bush won by 3% in 2000 and 7% in 2004 and running the standard Republican playbook hitting McCaskill as too liberal on judges, the war, and taxes should be enough for Talent to carry the day.”

Amy Klobuchar, MN: There's nothing "conservative" about our newest senator from one of the bluest states in the union.

Jon Tester, MT: One of the people accused of being a "conservative" Dem, yet he's against flag burning amendment, against an amendment banning gay marriage, against the Patriot Act, and against the war. He's an economic populist, social libertarian, pro-choice Democrat. He may be one of the very few senators who actually lives paycheck to paycheck. He's an organic farmer. He's not Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, but a "conservative" Dem? Ridiculous.

Jim Webb, VA: Politically very similar to Tester. He's libertarian on social issues, an economic populist. He wants out of Iraq and he has a personal stake in the war -- his son is actually deployed to Iraq. Sure, he served in the Reagan Administration, and sure, he can be classified as a "moderate" (whatever that means), but he's no "conservative".

In the House: Yarmuth in KY-03? An unabashed liberal. The kind, in fact, that Rahm said couldn't win in the South.

We picked up two seats in blue country in Connecticut, four in Pennsylvania (two in blue territory, and the other two not "conservative" by any real definition of the word). KS-02? Boyda is no conservative. The two Florida seats (16, 22)? Not conservative. The three New York seats? Not conservatives. The two in New Hampshire? True progressives.

I mean, going down the list, the only Democrats out of 28 officially confirmed
victories that could be called "conservative" are Shuler in NC-08, Lampson in TX-22, and the three Indiana Dems. That's it.

Are there moderates? Yes. Is the country moving to the center? Of course. The Democrats will push it there from the far right. If you define the "center" by where the American people reside, we are the center party.

But the notion that it's "conservative" Democrats who won last night is utter hogwash, a desperate gambit by Republicans to try and spin something good from the election.

But they're wrong. What we saw last night is that despite the institutional advantages the GOP had -- more money, incumbency, redistricting, the VRWC, and the bully pulpit of the White House, the Speaker's gavel, and the Senate Majority Leader's office -- Republicans still suffered epic loses. This was a progressive victory.

Update: Ezra Klein has more: The ideological spectrum is a tricky thing. Take Heath Schuler, exhibit A in the rightwing Democrats meme. He's a cultural conservative, no doubt. But however far right he drifts on those issues -- which, under a Democratic Congress, he won't be voting on because they won't be brought to floor -- he's notably left on economic issues. Today, for instance, he's giving a press conference under the auspices of the United Steelworkers with Great Liberal Hope Sherrod Brown, where they'll discuss the need for new trade policies and their success in making active opposition to NAFTA a winning issue. That's not centrist Democrat. It's not moderate liberal. That's populism, kids, and it's leftier than polite company has allowed for quite some time.

So is Shuler right-wing? Seems like a tough case to me. Sherrod Brown? Liberal as they come. Defeating South Dakota's abortion ban initiative? Passing Missouri's stem cell initiative? All those progressives who toppled liberal Republicans in the Northeast? Somebody think they won in the blue bastions with roaring conservatism? Meanwhile, the most conservative of the serious Democratic challengers this cycle, Harold Ford, went down to defeat. Bravely fought race, tough environs, etc. But with an out-and-out liberal winning Ohio and a right-of-center Democrat losing Tennessee, we're really going to call this election for conservatism?

Update II: And let's not forget that during the campaign, every single one of these Democrats was accused by their Republican opponents of being "too liberal". Every single one of them. So now they're going to turn around and claim that they didn't mean all of that? Idiots. And not just the Republicans who spin those lines, but the reporters and media blowhards repeating that mantra.”

Republicans Respond to Election Results

Before the election, Republicans argued that Democrats didn’t have a plan. They also argued that Democrats would cut and run from Iraq and raise taxes. Since the election, Republicans have argued that Democrats don’t have a plan, will be too liberal and that the newly elected Democrats are conservatives. So do Democrats have a plan and if so, is it Liberal or Conservative? We are probably better off if the Republican and media pundits just keep on being confused, so they can’t stay on message to mislead the American public.

Republicans are also finger pointing among themselves. Some say they were oriented too much to their Republican, especially religious conservative base (especially their reaction to Schiavo). Others say they didn’t try hard enough to pass laws wanted by Religious Conservatives. Some say they strayed from their conservative values with their increase in corrupt spending, increased government programs (particularly Medicare drug program) and large deficits. Others say these were necessary to Republican success. Republicans are splintered and may find it difficult to reassemble their message machine.

What Will Democrats Do this Fall?

Immediately after the election, President Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld to be replaced by Robert Gates. Our great decider also indicated that a decision whether to increase the number of troops in Iraq, hold them at the same level or reduce them will await the recommendations of the bi-partisan Baker Commission, which was appointed by the congress with Bush’s reluctant acceptance. Hopefully these recommendations can gain acceptance by most Republicans and Democrats, leading to withdrawal before 2008, so attention can turn to other issues.

Democratic house leader Nancy Pelosi has urged senior Democrats to emphasize restoring civility, integrity and fiscal responsibility in Congress. She has opposed talk of impeaching President Bush. President Bush, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pledged to act in a more bi-partisan fashion.

Bush’s bi-partisanship appears to have been stillborn. Bush called on Congress to pass bills to make his tax cuts permanent, authorize warrantless surveillance, and expand drilling for offshore oil and gas. He also urged the Senate to ratify his recess appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. These are all strongly opposed by Democrats. Bush will have to decide whether and how much to compromise with Democrats. Congressional Republicans will have to decide whether to finish the appropriations bills this session or leave it to the Democratically controlled congress to deal with them next year.

What Will Democrats do Next Winter When They Take Control?

Bush will remain in the white house; but the Democrats will control the house and the senate, as well as many more governorships and state houses. Following the Republican example, Democrats will form legislative strategies and priorities concerning which they agree. It helps that many of these will be popular with mainstream Americans.

A Dramatic Beginning

The Democratic agenda for the first 100 hours includes raising the minimum wage, increasing financial aid for college students, authorizing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients, easing restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research, and repealing oil company tax breaks. These are all popular measures.

Legislative Process Reforms

An early priority will be ethics reform, including treating the minority Republicans fairly, seeking bipartisan solutions without sacrificing Liberal values, and reduction of lobbyist influence. Hopefully many other electoral, campaign and legislative process reforms will follow.

Legislative Fairness and Bi-Partisanship

Democrats can give Republicans more opportunity to participate than Republicans have given them, without losing control of key decisions. Democrats can seek to obtain Republican support for many popular bills, such as the ones to be acted on in the first 100 hours. Republicans can also be allowed to make amendments. Democrats will likely vote for various mainstream liberal laws, forcing the Republicans to vote against them in full view of mainstream voters, or vote for them in full view of their conservative supporters.

Congressional Investigations and Impeachment

Some congressional investigations will certainly be initiated with an emphasis upon improving performance, including implementing the 9/11 commission’s homeland security recommendations and reducing incompetence and corruption in Iraq and Katrina. But investigations may be avoided which would appear as simply partisan revenge. They will likely fall far short of impeachable offenses, since this would be viewed as extremely partisan, and only leave Cheney as president.

Ethics Reform

Some rules (concerning gifts, earmarks, secretive subsidy riders, etc.) will certainly be changed to reduce the rampant corruption which has been prevalent. But ethics reform may be limited since Democrats as well as Republicans are susceptible to corporate influence.

Corporate influence must be viewed as the reason many Democratic legislators voted for the repressive bankruptcy legislation. No major extension of health coverage is possible without eliminating the enormously costly employer – private insurance company financing. But Democrats have continually attempted to compromise with private insurers and failed. Obtaining significant ethics reforms such as public campaign financing will be difficult or impossible, especially before the Democrats obtain greater control majorities in 2008..

Fiscal Responsibility

Democrats have pledged to restore spending caps which require that additional expenditures be matched by reducing other expenditures or raising revenues. Funds for needed safety net programs, investments to increase our productivity and jobs, and provide energy independence can be raised through:

· Fair taxation which yields federal revenue equal to the traditional 20% of gross national product through progressive tax rates on both wage and investment income.

· Elimination of corrupt subsidies for wealthy and powerful corporations, including those in oil, other resource, drug, insurance, agro-business, media and other industries.

· Elimination of no-bid contracts without performance requirements, auditing and enforcement.

· Elimination of ineffective government programs, such as the missile defense program and Iraq war.

· Elimination of pork projects, instigated to win votes rather than through competitive cost-benefit analysis.

Some of these reforms can be quickly initiated. Others depend upon reducing the influence of powerful and wealthy corporations and curbing the vote-buying tendencies of our congress members. These latter will take longer to initiate, requiring first that we curb private campaign financing and stealthy earmarks.

There are many non-beneficial expenditures, subsidies, and tax breaks which should be cut. Some will be popular, such as the subsidies for oil and drug companies. Cutting others such as farm subsidies will be more difficult.

Even with appropriate expenditure cuts, restoring government revenue to a traditional level of 20% of our gross product will require tax increases. Fairness can be restored by making our income tax more progressive to increase rates for our very wealthy. But this will not be easy, almost certainly impossible until Bush leaves office. Hopefully (when Bush is replaced by a Liberal in 2008), our taxes will be made much more progressive

In addition, it will be necessary to place cost controls on Medicare, which means excluding much expensive end-of-life treatment. Additional cost reductions must occur through substituting Medicare-for-all in place of employer-paid provision of private insurance. These reforms will be very difficult and depend upon first reducing undue corporate influence.

Economic Fairness and Safety Net

Economic fairness includes repealing the huge subsidies for oil companies, bargaining with pharmaceutical companies to lower the price of Medicare medicines, lowering the interest rates that banks can charge for student loans, raising the minimum wage, etc.

It will take awhile, but escalating medical care expenditures with more patients left behind will require basic health care reforms. Democrats may also provide legal status for immigrants needed for our workforce. Democrats should also legislate to enhance employees’ rights to unionize, including forcing companies to recognize unions if a majority of workers sign authorization forms and tough penalties for companies which harass or fire employees for attempting to organize unions.

Because they are both popular and necessary, many of the issues scheduled for the first 100 hours are safety net issues. For the same reasons, these may be the focus of most of the next several years. But compassionate liberalism may be limited by the extent to which revenues can be increased and other expenditures reduced. See above

.

Democrats will replace ideology with science, support stem cell research, take steps to reduce global warming, and mandate less use of carbon-produced energy and protecting our eco-systems. As with safety net programs, many of these programs will depend upon obtaining sufficient revenues.

Committee Fragmentation

Another obstacle to rational legislation oriented to the public good is the existence of numerous congressional committees and sub-committees, each serving as a little empire for their leading members. Thus many safety net programs (such as training and other assistance for those who lose jobs under various circumstances) are fragmented, leaving vacuums and duplications. Like ethics reform, reducing committee empire-building may be difficult.

Bi-Partisan Foreign Policy

Democrats will attempt to restore a bi-partisan foreign policy. We will quickly begin removing our troops from Iraq. We will increase our cooperation with the intelligence and police agencies of foreign countries to prevent terrorism and pursue terrorists. We will begin to lead other countries to remake our international institutions to control environmental degradation, globalization, tyranny and ethnic and religious strife. With these efforts, we will regain our favorable international reputation.

It will continue to be politically impossible for our United States to act as a neutral broker of the Israeli struggle with her neighbors. But hopefully, we will allow the international community to play a larger role.

Unfortunately our hysteria over terrorism may produce enormously expensive surveillance measures and increases in unnecessary military spending. Similarly, we may fruitlessly spend excessive funds to prevent immigration as we do to prevent the import of drugs.

Social Legislation

The growing strategic consensus is that liberals should attempt to stimulate mainstream grassroots support for social legislation instead of trying to pass such legislation before our public is ready. Both long term and newly elected Democrats may place a low priority upon legislation concerning gun control, gay marriage and eliminating restrictions on women’s reproductive choice. This does not mean that these issues as unimportant, but only that any legislation costs more effort than the relief it would provide.

Civil Liberties

Another area of liberal concern is the greatest assault upon our civil liberties (by the Patriot acts and other legislative and administrative acts) since our Republic was founded. As with previous periods of hysteria about threats to our country following World Wars I and II, we may simply have to wait until the hysteria abates. Hopefully as occurred with previous repressive legislation, very few people will be harassed by the Patriot act. We will not become like the Soviet Union.

Deferred Until 2009

It may be impossible to meet some difficult challenges before winning the presidency and increasing Democratic majorities in 2008. These include reducing corporate influence, instituting cost controls upon Medicare and other programs, restoring our civil liberties through repealing the Patriot Act, giving equal rights to same gender couples, providing legal status to immigrants and dealing with various social issues. Unfortunately, many of these deferred challenges concern basic civil liberties. Others such as reducing corporate influence and instituting cost controls are prerequisites to raising and freeing funds for safety net and public investment programs.

State and Local Leadership

Under Democratic control, more states may move on global warming, health care and other safety net issues neglected by Bush. When Bush is gone in 2008, Democrats will be ready to implement nationally what various states have already done.

Barack Obama – 12/1/06

In his just published The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama explains today’s bitter partisanship; discusses values that might be a basis for a new consensus; explores our constitution as a means for organizing a Democratic conversation about our future; examines institutional forces (money, media, interest groups and our legislative process) which stifle even the best intentioned politician; and suggests how we might work together to deal with our growing personal economic insecurity, racial and religious tensions and transnational threats.

Like his earlier autobiography, this book is also autobiographical, continually presenting his personal experiences with respect to the various issues he examines. This is my favorite political autobiography followed by Jesse Ventura’s and Colin Powell’s books (see recommended books below) – all extremely candid reflections by very sensitive men. I also find myself agreeing whole heartedly with Barack Obama’s political strategies, which are unabashedly liberal like Gary Hart’s and Bill Scher’s (see last week’s newsletter); but presented in more nuanced detail.

I believe this book reveals that Barack Obama has enough expertise concerning both foreign and domestic issues to be an excellent president. But being president requires more than personal expertise, it is necessary to assemble an excellent governing team. Not having assembled an adequate network of supporters and colleagues, I hope Obama won’t run for president in 2008. I would be glad to see him run and serve as vice president with whoever becomes the Democratic presidential candidate. Hopefully he could maintain his integrity while assembling a team for a later presidency.

New Conservatives Were Stretched Too Thin – 12/8/06

New Conservatives Barely Obtained Control

Using all of the above resources, New Conservatives (based largely upon Homelander support) gained control of the house in 1994, the presidency in 2000 and senate in 2002. But they were maximally stretched thin. Their control of the senate was not enough to stop filibusters. They barely controlled the house, such that they had to hold votes open to cajole enough members to pass some legislation. Bush received only a minority of votes in 2000 and barely obtained enough electoral votes in both 2000 and 2004 to prevail.

How the Homelander Minority Lost Political Control

In our recent 2006 elections, after controlling the presidency and both houses of government for only 4 years, the New Republicans lost both houses of congress. Democrats beat many Republican moderates in the north and some more conservative Republicans elsewhere. Democrats barely won control of the senate, won control of the house by as large a margin as Republicans have recently had, elected 6 additional governors and took control or increased their control of many state legislatures.

The Republican deception, incompetence and corruption (all three manifested in the Iraq War and Katrina) could no longer be hidden as casualties were reported daily. Having tied the Iraq War to the ‘War on Terror’, Bush’s attempt to rally voters to his leadership in the latter, only reminded them of his failure on the former. Democrats successfully related national and state Republican candidates to Bush’s failures.

With Democrats in control of both congressional houses, Republicans can no longer escape congressional oversight, or set legislative agendas. Nor use congressional rules to their advantage. Nor provide so much pork to their Homelander base. Republicans are divided between who realize that big government, deficits, subsidies for campaign contributors and pork for constituents are necessary for maintaining their base and those who think they should go back to conservative principles of small government and balanced budgets.

Having already maximized their election of Homelander candidates, Republicans can elect no more of them. Without moderate Republicans, they cannot obtain majorities. The Republican Party will likely become more Conservative, not less. Unless Democrats pursue legislation for which mainstream America is not ready, Democrats will win again in 2008 and 2010 at all levels of government. They will then dominate the redistricting to follow the 2010 census

Conservative Homelander Hypocrisy – 12/15/06

Time magazine reports on December 18 (page 20) that all of the healthiest (low infant mortality and 11 other indicators) states are in the North and California, while the unhealthiest states are in the South. Other reports indicate that the highest crime rates, abortion rates and divorce rates are in the South. So much for Red State family values. In addition, while railing against large government, the Red States receive much more federal largess than they pay in taxes, while the reverse is true for Blue States.

Toward Our 2008 Elections – 2/23/07

We have paid an enormous price for giving power to Bush and his New Republican Colleagues. But through their excessive deception, incompetence and corruption, they have succeeded in wrecking the traditional Republican Party. 48% of Americans say they prefer to see a Democrat elected president in 2008. 28% prefer a Republican. 20% don’t know yet. Already the various types of Conservatives are blaming each other for their losses. This should help Democrats to elect our president and even more legislators in 2008.

A New Liberal Era

Our sweeping victory may be the beginning of the largest liberal period in American History. Our American mainstream is more liberal than ever before. With urbanization, immigration and changes in household composition, we have become more tolerant of diversity. Unfortunately our diversity may have lessened our sense of community. With a loss of oneness, we may be less compassionate. But as our personal insecurity has increased, we are more concerned with strengthening our safety net.

United Democrats should focus upon passing popular safety net and other legislation. For long term liberalization, Liberals (including Democrats and Independents) should focus upon liberalizing public opinion to reverse the Conservatives’ partially successful (but mostly unsuccessful) attempts to make public opinion more conservative. While Conservatives have successfully reframed and demonized various Liberal concepts, most of this reframing has been only skin deep and can be easily reframed in accordance with reality.

Democratic Strategies

Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004 have aroused Democrats to review and revise their strategies toward winning in 2008. Our major strategies are:

· Clearly express our liberal values (which closely match our mainstream American dream) and a narrative which distinguishes our values from those of our conservative opposition.

· Our political strategy must include both offense and defense, including reframing terms misleadingly framed by Conservatives.

· Realistically promote winning liberal policies, without being sidetracked by special interests of groups within and without our Democratic Party.

· Devote ourselves to both creating a strong majority liberal climate of opinion in the long-term and winning elections in the short-term.

· Implement a 50 state, 12 months every year strategy to mobilize liberals, using the both the internet and grass roots organization.

The following books express these strategies in more detail:

· Gary Hart, 2006, The Courage of Our Convictions, A Manifesto for Democrats

· Bill Scher, 2006, Wait! Don’t Move to Canada! A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America

· Matthew Kerbel (ed.), 2006, Get This Party Started, How Progressives Can Fight Back and Win

· James Carville and Paul Begala, 2006, Take It Back, Our Party, Our Country, Our Future)

· Paul Waldman, 2006, Being Right Is Not Enough, What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success

· Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, 2006, Crashing the Gate, Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Centered Politics

Democratic Prospects for 2008 Elections

Presidential Election

In their book The Way to Win, Taking the White House in 2008, Mark Halperin and John F. Lewis relate how the Bush and Clinton families have occupied the White House since 1988 and speculate how their strategies for obtaining office will be used in the 2008 campaigns.

Among potential Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton has big advantages including name recognition, fund raising ability, a widespread network of supporters, and her husband’s campaign advice. Her only weakness is a fuzziness concerning many liberal issues. Her most likely competitors are ones who are more clearly liberal: John Edwards and Al Gore (who has indicated he won’t run). Senators John Kerry and Joe Biden loose mouths have done them in. Various former Democratic governors are also potentially successful candidates. Warner has removed himself from the race, but Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Bill Richardson of New Mexico are running. Pundits are currently promoting Barack Obama, but he would likely make a better vice presidential candidate running with either Clinton or one of the other presidential candidates.

John McCain leads among Republican presidential candidates. Although very conservative, many New Republicans, including Christian Conservatives, are concerned about his promotion of campaign reform and opposition to excessive federal spending. More liberal candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Milt Romney will have difficulty getting support from Christian Conservatives. Christian Conservative candidates like Senator Sam Brownbeck will have difficulty obtaining support from Traditional Conservatives and Libertarians. The splintered Republican party may be unable to wholeheartedly support any candidate.

Congressional, State and Local Elections

Assuming our Democratically controlled congress acts fairly, delivers safety net and other popular legislation, avoids less popular legislation until after the 2008 elections, while giving Republicans choices which divide them from each other, their base and the American public, Democrats will greatly increase their control.

After 2008

Assuming Democrats greatly increase their control, they will be able to pass much liberal legislation, similar to what occurred under Roosevelt in the 1930’s and Johnson in the 1960’s. A major impediment will be the extent to which Democrats come under corrupt corporate influence. Another impediment will be the extent to which they insist upon maintaining various incumbent protection systems, such as gerrymandered districts, discrimination against of third parties, excessive committee chairman capacity to stop legislation, committee chairman empire-building, earmarked pork, etc. Sooner or later, they are likely to succumb to these temptations. Let’s hope it is later. Dave Thomas

Where Will Democrats Win in 2008? – 5/25/07

Democrats are expected to continue to gain congressional seats everywhere but in the south, although the gerrymandered districts in the Midwest may slow the process. With only extremely conservative congresspersons from conservative districts remaining, Republicans will become less competitive nationally. They may be reduced to a southern regional party, with little hope of regaining national strength.

Our presidential candidate’s best chance to pick up more electoral seats may be in the mountain states, especially Arizona and Colorado. This may be due to increasing populations

Forgotten Liberal Victories: Aged, Disabled, Children – 6/1/07

We remember many of our liberal victories: freeing the colonists, freeing the slaves, protecting our environment, consumers, small business people and farmers, giving women the right to vote and own property, decreasing poverty, ending legal discrimination against Blacks, granting more equal rights to gays and lesbians. We continue to struggle to grant equal rights to gays and lesbians and begin the struggle to provide legal protection to our new immigrants. We are also struggling to treat our veterans fairly.

But several other victories are less remembered. We have greatly assisted our aged, not just to escape poverty and secure medical care, but also to gain respect and freedoms concerning their work and other activities and their dying. We have also assisted our disabled, making it easier for them to navigate public places and giving them the extra assistance and protection they need in education and work. As with our other victories, these have been opposed by conservatives. They remain incomplete. But we should remember the progress we have made.

Another group which is drawing increasing attention is our children. We are becoming aware of the necessity of early intervention to assist those with socially inadequate environments to join our mainstream. In the Island Packet Blog and the Christian Science Monitor, Roger Hull suggests that Bill Gate’s attempts to reform high schools would be better directed to the third grade and earlier schooling. For more.

Note that nearly 3000 children are killed by firearms in the United States each year. This more than the number of law enforcement officers who were killed. It is three times greater than the number of our military personnel killed each year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military conflict abroad is one of the major killers of children. Both as direct casualties and as indirect ones who can’t obtain needed health care. We have a long way to go to protect our children at home and abroad. If you go abroad, especially to a less developed country, you will quickly see that the villagers treat their children with much more love than we do here in the United States. Unfortunately, their love for their children often does not inspire them to create better communities for them, nor to discipline their children to prepare themselves to become competent adults.

The Repugnant Party – 6/1/07

They delight in referring to our Democrat Party. I don’t think much of their Repugnant Party either. The Repugnants have no manners and worse. Yuk! Or maybe it is the Repulsive Party. The Repulsives are just as bad as the Repugnants. A plague on them, whichever it is.

As reported next week, I dream of the elimination of the Repugnant Party. As reported in our May 11^th Issue (# 69), they oppose everything we value. I fail to find any positive contribution they make. A few Repugnants may inconsistently join Democrats in struggling to realize some liberal values, but their contribution is outweighed by their support of their more consistent Repugnant colleagues. Any Repugnants who inconsistently support many of our values should consider converting to our Democratic Party.

Internet Activists and Democratic Candidates – 6/1/07

The internet may be the most significant tool for building democracy since the printing press. The internet is empowering people politically through enabling them to communicate, associate and cooperate. Large numbers of voters can easily support their candidates through using the internet to volunteer and donate to their campaigns. Political candidates who can stimulate this grass roots activity reap large benefits.

In 2006, 22 Democratic candidates won in ‘red districts’ due largely to internet assisted grassroots organization. Senator Jim Webb won in the primary due to anti-war activists. He won the general election due to the use of YouTube to publicize his opponent’s ethnic insult.

Campaigns use the internet to manage grassroots events, phone banks, canvassing, raise funds and more. They listen to people online and provide accessible information about their campaigns, often interactively such that supporters become more involved in campaign decisions and activity. However due to up-down and horizontal conversation, internet users maintain their independence. To obtain their support, candidates must respond to their wishes. Candidates, who only maintain top-down communication with their internet supporters, do so to the detriment of their campaign.

Net activists are more consistently liberal than Democratic office holders who in running for election have compromised. But net activists are only a small proportion of Democratic voters. To have maximum effect, net activists must learn to stimulate less active Democratic voters to vote, which requires first stimulating canvassers to identify these less active Democratic voters.

All three of the major Democratic candidates and some of the others have hired internet experts. As reported before, it appears that Barack Obama has best been able to use the internet to gain large numbers of grassroots supporters, as evidenced by the crowds that turn out for his appearances and the number of his campaign contributors.

It’s Time to Attack Potential Republican Candidates – 9/21/07

Democrats can’t win by only playing defense. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and others have proven, we must also play offense. But looking toward our 2008 governor’s and other Washington races, Democrats seem to be only playing defense. Both our governor and legislature has cautiously attempted to avoid Republican attacks that Democrats are election-cheating, big-spending supporters of immoral lifestyles.

What is being done to define potential Republican candidates as anti-diversity Christian conservative, corrupt, enemies of investment? I don’t know who the potential Republican candidates will be, but likely suspects might include Dino Rossi, Republican Legislative leaders like Pam Roach and up-and-coming Republicans in local government like Reagan Dunn. Potential Republican candidates should be identified now Their politics should be defined and attacked, before they can define themselves and attack Democrats. They should be forced to play defense.

Attacks should center on Republican policies which are incompatible with our Washington mainstream. For example, Christian conservatism, enemies of diversity, opposition to investing in our physical and social infrastructure and homeland security, and corruption. Our attacks should be based on truths, not lies. They should not include attacks on appearance and personal behavior, unless it reveals hypocrisy of the person condemning his or her own behavior in others.

Christian Conservatives Opposed to Diversity

Christian Conservatives are prevalent in the South, but are a small minority here in Washington. We are much more religiously liberal and secular than most states. We are also becoming increasingly diverse, both ethnically and in our lifestyles. Even in our eastern rural sections, farmers are dependent upon our newly arrived immigrant labor force.

Yet our Washington Republican party is dominated by Christian Conservatives and opponents of immigration and lifestyle freedoms. They should be continually attacked for their intolerance, prejudice, discrimination and attempt to restrict our freedoms. So-called moderate Republicans should be forced to reject Christian Conservatives, or bear responsibility for empowering them.

Opposition to Investing in Our Physical and Social Infrastructure and Homeland Security

Washington voters are quite willing to invest in cost-beneficial investments to maintain and improve our transportation, energy production, health, education, homeland security and other infrastructure. And we would be even more willing if we didn’t have a tax system in which most of us pay more than our fair share.

Washington Republicans often say they support improving our infrastructure. But they oppose all attempts to fund them, rendering their supposed support a lie. They oppose creating a fair tax system which produces sufficient revenue and oppose spending even the revenue we now obtain. They oppose improvements which require more money, which means they oppose virtually all improvements. They should be painted the anti-transportation, anti-health care, anti-education, anti-energy, anti homeland security politicians that they are. If they want to pretend to support improvements, they should be forced to say how and at what cost they would do this.

Corruption

Washington Republicans fund their election campaigns disproportionately through receiving contributions from private special interests. As a result they disproportionately vote for subsidies for private interests. And they vote disproportionately against health care and other improvements which would compete with and limit inordinately expensive private services. This attack would be more effective if some Democrats were not also feeding on private campaign contributions, even if to a lesser extent. The costs which private interests are imposing on our state government and our consuming public should be totaled and publicized.

Other Issues

Republicans can be attacked for other behaviors which limit our freedoms and opportunities. But too many issues will weaken our attacks. We should use these three issues to personally attack the entire Republican farm team, especially the inconsistently conservative so-called moderates. Washington is not Alabama and we should not tolerate ‘Alabama’ politicians. Republicans will try to counter-attack and change the subject. But we can keep the discussion on our track and win our battle, because our Washington voters oppose religious and other prejudice, allowing the stagnation of our infrastructure and corruption.

We must not wait for Republicans to begin attacking us as they surely will if left alone. We must throw them on the defensive, so they have less energy for attacking us. Some will say, let’s don’t attack. Let’s just get along. Huh! When have Conservatives just tried to get along. Certainly not in recent memory. And they won’t now if left alone.

Hit them hard and hit them early. To paraphrase Harry Truman, “We won’t give them hell, we will give them the truth, and they will think it’s hell.” Let’s be happy warriors, leaving Republicans the role of whiney victims. No more, Mr. Nice Guy or Gal. Politics is a contact sport. Any Democratic politician who isn’t participating in this offensive isn’t doing their job.

Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party? – 9/21/07

Do you remember when Howard Dean referred to himself representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party? Who represents it now? Does Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Mike Gravel? Or all of the Democratic presidential candidates except Hillary Clinton? Or all of them, including Clinton? Or none of the presidential candidates, only the netroots? It’s interesting that no one seems to claim that they represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Who represents the Republican Wing of the Republican Party? This question may be asked more frequently than the one about the Democrats. While all the Republican presidential candidates profess that they do, some of the leading candidates like Rudolph Giuliani and Milt Romney appear to be recent converts. Ron Paul is a pure Libertarian, but Libertarians have never dominated the Republican Party. John McCain is a maverick. Fred Thompson has only a few blemishes. Maybe Newt Gingrich, who probably won’t run. No wonder the Republican base is split.

Pity Our Frustrated Conservatives – 10/5/07

We Liberals have certainly been frustrated by seven years of our National Nightmare, with a year to go. But our Conservatives have been almost continually frustrated since the end of World War II. They have traditionally argued for limited government, but have had limited success in limiting it and in recent years have presided over record increases in government spending. No wonder they are so angry.

Against all expectations, Truman won in 1948. Eisenhower won in 1952, but governed as an inconsistent liberal, accepting the New Deal and investing in our infrastructure, including our freeway system and extending the G. I. Benefits to Korean War veterans. He also expressed concern about the expansion of our military-industrial complex.

Most conservatives changed from isolationists to cold warriors and embraced military spending. Kennedy barely beat Nixon, perhaps due to election fraud in Illinois. Trouncing Goldwater, Johnson implemented his Great Society, a liberal effort on a par with Roosevelt’s New Deal. In 1868, the failing Vietnam War propelled Nixon to win, who then presided over the passage of environmental legislation and grants to states, and considered enacting a minimum income. He reconciled with China and negotiated arms agreements with the Soviet Union. Then came threats of impeachment, resignation and the election of President Carter.

Finally in 1980, Libertarians and Christian Conservatives joined with Traditional Conservatives to elect consistently conservative Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut taxes, but increased government spending, although he slowed the increase discretionary spending. Then faced with huge deficits, Reagan increased taxes several times, although nearly to previous levels. He gave lip service to the Christian Conservatives, but nothing more. The first President Bush broke his promise to not raise taxes.

Then Clinton was elected and increased taxation of our wealthy. Conservatives defeated Clinton’s health care coverage bill and obtained control of the house in 1994. They passed virtually all of their Contract with America, but most measures never passed the senate. They influenced the reduction in growth of government spending, but Democrats obtained popular credit for balancing the budget.

Finally our second President Bush took office, but instead of limiting government, he expanded it enormously: defense; the Iraq War; homeland security, No Child Left Behind; Medicare prescription drug coverage; Katrina recovery; subsidies for agro-business; oil companies and others; and unmonitored no-bid contracts for services at home and abroad. Big government big time. Despite largely symbolic gestures, such as trying to maintain Terri Schiavo alive, stem cell research, and little funded faith initiatives, Christian Conservative legislation was not passed. Instead, we got deception, incompetence and corruption as Conservative principles were abandoned in an attempt to build and maintain Republican political power.

We Liberals have been frustrated off and on since 1968 and especially the last seven years. But Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians and Christian Conservatives have been almost continuously frustrated since Roosevelt’s New Deal. The few exceptions were the early Reagan years and the several years after 1994 Gingrich’s Contract with America. It is no wonder that there is such an outpouring of books by frustrated conservatives. One of the best histories of their frustration is Ryan Sager’s The Elephant in the Room. Also see the 5 books reviewed in last week’s newsletter (9/28/07).

We Liberals have been frustrated for 7 years; our opponents have been frustrated for most of the last 75 years. And the future looks bleak for them. No wonder they’re so fearful and angry. For peace of mind, they should become liberal and join mainstream America.