What Doesn’t Kill Ya
Tweet
For a few years now, ever since the 2000 election, there has been no end to the “advice” offered to Democrats by the right. The right continually “advises” the Democrats to not be too liberal, too vitriolic, too this or not enough of that. The latest is this column from the (factually challenged) Michael Barone, exhorting Democrats to not listen to the netroots because according to Barone that path leads to electoral losses.
I really hope nobody is dumb enough to listen to those guys. It’s kind of like a football coach turning to his upcoming opponent and saying “what’s the best way to beat you?” Do you really think the opposing coach is going to tell you about his achilles heel, or will he tell you that you should pass in the direction of his all-pro cornerback?
I don’t know that anyone has the magic bullet for the Democratic party. I happen to think that the winning formula for Dems isn’t a lurch to the left or the right rather than a shift towards confidence. For too long the party has done what is poll-tested consultant-approved and that has led to a loss of the White House, House, and Senate. The advice of Republicans and so many beltway insiders is to continue on that path, even though it leads to even smaller Democratic constituencies across the board. The right and the media has so distorted the positions of Democrats that people like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Al Gore and Mark Warner are parodied as far-left out of the mainstream, when in fact on issue after issue Democrats are with the American consensus. I mean, how’s privatizing social security and letting Louisiana drown sound as party positions to you? Or even worse, engaging in a war with no objective and going in without a strategy resembling any sort of logic? If those are mainstream positions (they aren’t) then I would be glad the Dems aren’t taking them – they’re amazingly stupid.
So yes, right wingers, continue offering “advice” to the Democrats. I just don’t hope any of us are dumb enough to take it, that is, if they want to ever win anything again.
Being Right Is Not Enough : What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success
39 Responses to “What Doesn’t Kill Ya”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
While I can agree that for the prominent republicans there is a sort “lying to make you fight me on my terms so I can write the rules and rule 1 is that I always win” sort of vibe to it, particularly with this “dont listen to people on the internets” garbage, and it makes sense for them to do that because, as prominent figures, they actually stand to gain. I do wonder sometimes though about the lesser pundits with no real sway either way who write for papers wth less circulation or websites with just this side of no readership. They do not gain, yet give this advice anyway, and a few I have read are along the lines of “why the left lost” which makes me wonder if its their saying “look, democrats, I would really like to vote for you, I recognize that the republicans which, as a citizen of Kansas I am legally obligated to vote for, are corrupt and retarded… so, heres what you need to do to change who you are so that I can find it acceptable to vote for you.” sort of thing. They must realize theyre not fooling anyone or anything, but maybe theyre in fact compelled to speak out of shame more than a desire to manipulate.
Then again, I’m probably wrong, maybe its ego or something and they really are dense enough to think theyre tricking us all or something, either way, yeah, the left would have to be stupid to listen people who wouldnt possibly vote for them anyway.
As someone with conservative values, I naturally want a conservative to win. Matters not to me whether that conservative is Democrat or Republican. In days of old, we had a choice in either party – right or left. Now thats pretty much gone away with the ostracization of Lieberman etc. But I sometimes think a conservative Democrat would have a leg up, governance-wise over a conservative Republican. For one thing , he/she would not have to endure as much of the blind hate from the left. having said that, I remember how progressives absolutely reviled and destroyed LBJ. So as long as you have te situation you have today in the Democratic party, with the lunatics running things, I reluctantly support, almosta utomatically, the Republican. But I have an open mind about Hillary.
Having said all this BS, truly hope your advice is followed. Four more years and the judicary will be almost 100% non-progressive.
Dugger, Yeah, you guys go with the extremism and hate of middle America. It’ll work for you. I guarantee it. No wait. I don’t guarantee it.
I do this sort of thing every now and then, and I have a very simple reason for doing so: I live next door to Massachusetts, and I see what can happen when one party so strongly dominates the political scene.
In Massachusetts, the Democrats hold both Senate seats and all the House seats. They hold the state House 138-22, and the Senate 34-6. It’s astonishing that the Republicans have held the governorship since 1990, but I attribute that to 1) the voters having the slightest sense of sanity and self-preservation, and 2) the Democrats keep fielding absolutely unelectable candidates.
In Massachusetts, the Democrats do whatever they please. They can override gubernatorial vetoes at the drop of a hat. They can demand huge concessions from governor Mitt Romney in exchange for crumbs — and can count on getting them. As a result, people are fleeing the state. Massachusetts has steadily LOST population over the last few years. Its economy is sluggish. Jobs are down, housing costs are up. And so on. And so on.
With the Republicans in DC, they don’t have anywhere near the same stranglehold. The Democrats can derail pretty much any action, simply by invoking the media and holding strong. But even with those handicaps, the Republicans still show signs of arrogance and contempt for the people and basic realities (nowhere near as horrid as Massachusetts Democrats, but still in the same vein.)
I believe very strongly in the two-party system. I don’t want either side to grow lazy and complacent, and to take their position for granted. I want real choices at the ballot. I’ve voted for numerous Democrats, and I would like to do so again. I think our current governor in New Hampshire, Democrat Peter Lynch, has done a good job. I’d like to see one of my senators, Judd Gregg (R), bounced out on his ass, but that can’t happen before 2010.
Give me the slightest bone of sanity, of reason, of principle, and I’ll give a Democrat a fair shake. Give me a Democrat worthy of being associated with someone like Harry Truman, and I’ll vote for them gladly.
But keep tossing up the crazies, and I’ll keep away. As will a lot of others.
As proven by election trends. What’s Kos’ record up to now — 0 wins, 20 losses?
J.
Is it simply “confidence”? Or is it “confidence to (vociferously) espouse the hard-left agenda”? After all, Lieberman seems pretty confident in his convictions, however centrist they might be.
I think Democrats have to decide how big a tent they want to be. The “Bible Thumpers” had to swallow their tongues and accept the Fiscal and Hawk Conservatives who might be namby-pamby on social issues because they knew what it would take to win and aligned who they considered to be the lesser of two evils in the hope they’d get thrown a bone every now and again.
If the Left continues to drive out folks like Lieberman in order to attain idealogical purity, they’re going to find themselves staying on the outside looking in. In order to win, you’re going to have to convince folks who go to church, detest tax hikes, and (at the time) thought Iraq was a good idea to vote for Democrats. If Dems can’t pick them up, they have no shot.
First of all, Michael Barone, the compiler of The Almanac of American Politics, is probably the most knowledgeable man on American politics in America. He is the shizizzle.
Secondly, you may or may not believe this, but conservatives are concerned about their country, more than they are about winning elections.
Third, you should have noticed that the advice conservatives give you is not in the form of “Give us what we want (politically),” as liberals often do. It’s in the form of, “You should do what we do (tactically).”
Think of it this way, whay has not following conservative advice done for you lately?
” … and I see what can happen when one party so strongly dominates the political scene.”
Oh this is too fucking funny. Jay, could you please tell us which political party is currently in power in the House, the Senate and the White House? What a doofus.
“With the Republicans in DC, they don t have anywhere near the same stranglehold. ”
Oh please. The dems can invoke the media and hold strong? How far a long are we on getting some kind of accountability on any number of issues from Iraq to the NSA wiretapping?
The idea that you have some kind of insight into what happens when one party dominates because you live near MA is a joke.
Dugger:
Yeah, you guys go with the extremism and hate of middle America. It ll work for you. I guarantee it. No wait. I don t guarantee it.
The so-called “Bush hate” is only a mild reflection of the same venom that democrats received from the right during the Clinton years. It’s unfortunate that some apparently have such a short memories.
Further, frame, the actions you describe are the sorts of things associated with a majority position. The Democrats are in the minority in Congress, and therefore their main efforts are of necessity not constructive, but obstructive. Look at how much of Bush’s agenda has been passed. Even more pointed, look at how much has passed WITHOUT at least some Democratic support.
Tell me, frame, does it take special training to be so loudly ignorant?
J.
“..thought Iraq was a good idea “
Are the republicans now backing away from their leader? Hmmm…
If the republicans try to run on the same garbage they got away with in 2002, by attempting to paint democrats as weak against terrorism if they didnt support Bush’s war in Iraq, we will definitely see a change in the majority party in at least the House. Surely they aren’t stupid enough to try that this time. Or are they?
frame, if this is to be a civil conversation, you must learn basic reading comprehension.
“So strongly dominates.” As in “In Massachusetts, one party holds over 83% of the seats in the legislature.”
If the Republicans held 75 Senate seats and 330 House seats, you MIGHT have an argument. Otherwise, you’re simply gibbering the standard talking points over and over again.
J.
The problem with Barone’s analysis is simply that it’s wrong. The Democrats have already tried what he advocates, and it failed miserably. That would be 2002, when there were no “netroots” to speak of, and the most prominent Democrats and strategists decided that the party should vote for the Iraq war, go along with Bush on foreign policy and security, and concentrate on domestic issues. And it was a disaster, not only for 2002, but for 2004 (the votes for the Iraq war crippled the ability of candidates like Kerry and Edwards to oppose Bush’s foreign policy in a coherent way, and led to the “flip flopper” label).
Barone is simply suffering from “pundit’s fallacy,” the tendency of pundits to believe that their pet issues are the ones that voters respond to. He thinks the Iraq war is wonderful and the bad mean liberals are losing it for him, so that must be the reason Bilbray beat Busby. But he knows perfectly well — because he’s said so himself — that Bilbray beat Busby because of the immigration issue. That means immigration is a problem for Democrats in some places, not that Democrats need to support a ridiculous war.
And of course, the idea that the netroots are extreme lefties isn’t true anyway; most of the leading liberal bloggers are basically middle-of-the-road in their policy positions. They support balanced budgets, a real health-care system like other capitalist countries have, and some wars (like Afghanistan) but not pointless wars that hurt America (like Bush’s Iraq adventure). They want to get rid of Lieberman because he is so far out of the mainstream on Iraq (he believes the extremist, ridiculous idea that Iraq is going well and that we should stay forever), but they support conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson and pro-life Democrats like Harry Reid and pro-gun Democrats like Howard Dean. The idea that the Democrats will be hurt by allying themselves with a bunch of middle-of-the-road liberals who say the f-word sometimes is another example of pundit’s fallacy: if Republicans aren’t hurt by having Ann Coulter speak at CPAC, there’s no way Yearly Kos is going to be a problem for Democrats.
For the ten thousandth time, my – and many others – opposition to Lieberman is not due to his centrism/conservatism. In fact, there are many Dems much more to the right than Sen. Lieberman who enjoy support from Dems like myself. Why? Because they don’t knife the party in the back. Obviously Dems from Maryland, Louisiana, Arkansas and California are going to be across the map idealogically – but all I ask is that they stand up for core Democratic values and they don’t knife Dems in the back at will.
In the case of Michael Barone, the man has been shown time and time again to bend the facts to support his argument. If he’s a self-identified political partisan, okay, but Barone is a conservative in non-aligned clothing.
Historically the role of the minority party is not to simply rubber stamp the majority party’s legislation. Republicans didn’t do that when Dems ran the House and Senate (and certainly not for President Clinton’s eight years in the White House), and that’s why its so mind boggling how the Dems roll over for the GOP majority so often.
Overall, how seriously can I – a centrist Dem – take people who excoriate Bill Clinton and Al Gore as “hardcore leftists” while claiming with a straight face that George Bush is a moderate? I neither support nor believe in far left positions, but I’m somehow supposed to believe that being against social security privatization makes me some form of communist? I’ve supported practically every military action of the last 10 years, but because I’m against the war in Iraq because it doesn’t support the historical strategic mission of our country, all of a sudden the politicians I support are “far out of the mainstream” and golly gee I should just support Republican policies that get people killed? Come on, why can’t you guys start being honest?
Jay,
Excellent and thoughtful post. As a conservative, I hold many of the same thoughts as you.
Frame,
I read your posts and have a hard time understanding why people like you are so angry and hateful. Why can’t you just respond with some sense of civility instead of tearing into dissenters with name calling and vulgarity?
Grow up.
Dugger, what are “conservative values?” Are Constitutional amendments defining marriage conservative ? How about aggressive and expensive foreign entanglements? Government deficits? Elimination of estate taxes? Opposition to Kyoto? Elimination of wetlands? I am not sure that the Republicans have been any more successful defining themselves recently than Democrats have been.
The myth that Kos-endorsed candidates never win needs to be debunked.
Barack Obama, Ken Salazar, and Stephanie Herseth have all won statewide elections (the latter in South Dakota, of all places. Ben Chandler won an election to Congress in an otherwise Red district.
Simple math dictates that 4 > 0.
This isn’t to say that Kos is a magic bullet for the Democratic Party. It’s to correct an obvious falsehood.
As to the myth that the Democratic Party mistreats Lieberman, need it be said that just about all of the Senate Democrats are supporting Lieberman in his primary challenge. Barbara Boxer in particular has come to defend him strongly. Barbara Boxer. That Barbara Boxer.
I’d say,seeing how his censure proposal was ignored, that the Democratic Party treats Russ Feingold much worse then they do Joe Lieberman.
Z
If your point is that conservative values might differ among individuals, I agree. For me, it means less government, lower taxes, somewhat business friendly policies, strong military, personal responsibility and accountability (if you screw up, you screw up, society or ‘the man’ didn’t make it happen), and tough on crime and terrorism.
Now if you are going to tell me, maybe, according to my criteria, Bush is not a conservative, I say yea verily. Have said all along he is a moderate and though their core personal belief systems made be widely divergent, Bush’s ‘reign’ is only marginally different from Clinton’s.
BW, I strongly disagree ‘Democrats” received hate. The Clinton’s and their coterie perhaps so. And the other difference is that heretofore the haters in both parties had neen at the fringes. Bush hate is now mainstream and intellectually acceptable – no de rigueur within the broad left. And it looks to me as exemplified here (“rubes” etc) that hate is quickly tranforming from Bush to middle America.
Dugger, “Chait says. I hate the way he walks, the scribe writes shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. Chait also hates the fact that Bush gives nicknames, and says, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more. “
JayTea,
Don’t know why you would say that. Are you trying to suggest OW may have been a little ” hang him and ask questions later.” ? I’ll do a little Google to prove you wrong. Why just last July OW had a piece entitled “Frog March Watch” in which it was said:
“Short version: In retaliation for Joe Wilson debunking the Bush administration s war claims, an administration official outed his wife s classified position to members of the media. Apparently said official is going to be revealed as Karl Rove, who seems to have sworn under oath that it wasn t him. Also known as perjury.”
Uhh, never mind J.
Dugger
It’s just been announced that Karl Rove will NOT be indicted. Should we start an Oliver Willis Suicide Watch?
J.
BW, I strongly disagree Democrats received hate. The Clinton s and their coterie perhaps so.
I still contend the term hate is mostly relative. It is easy to classify everything the opposition says as hate, whether it is or not. There was also constructive criticism from republicans and conservative democrdats regarding balancing the budget, with which I agree and still do, that actually resulted in a sane physical policy, just there is from many on the left regarding bush’s economic and foreign policies. Classifying everything the opposition says as some sort of hate is only an excuse to ignore it.
C’Mon JayTea. You belive that spin? We all know what’s REALLY going on: Rove cut a deal and next week Cheney will be indicted. After all, CULTURE OF CORRUPTION!!!!
Or at least, that’s what my super-secret source truthout.org said…
Ok, I’ll admit it: we conservatives dropped the ball. Like Oliver & factcheck we should have prepared our Rove Not Indicted Checklist. Oh well, here’s one anyway:
ROVE NON-INDICTMENT SPIN CHECKLIST.
Pick one or more:
The news that Karl Rove will not be indicted over Plameapalooza is really not important because
1.________ Rove will be the star witness against Cheney.
2.________ Bush informed Fitzgerald that Rove would be pardoned anyway, so Fitz is saving taxpayers money.
3_________ Have you seen Rove on the campaign trail recently? He’s actually been serving a double-secret 5 month sentence at Gitmo.
4.________ The [SEALED] vs. [SEALED] document reported by Jason Leopold. Keep Hope Alive!!!!
5.________ Karl Rove was behind his own investigation. That way, when he was cleared, he could spin it as an Administration victory.
6.________ Valerie Plame is still out of work. Won’t someone think of the children?!?
7.________ Jack Abramoff just cut a check to Fitgzerald, post-dated to January 2009.
8.________ Rove is still a chickenhawk.
9.________ The media is lying. Rove actually was indicted today. But noone in the MSM has the guts to tell the truth.
10._______ Rove rolled over on Bush. How else to explain that, on the same day, Bush flies to a non-extradition country?!?
11._______ Fitzgerald is a stooge.
You’re a football fan, Oliver, so I shouldn’t be surprised at your deftness at moving the goalposts.
How long have you been touting the imminent indictment of Karl Rove? How many of your arguments, harangues, and insinuations have been built on that? How much mileage have you gotten out of the whole “Republican culture of corruption” BS? And what happens to those points now?
This is not a great victory for anyone. But it is a crushing defeat for those partisan hacks and shills who have been celebrating Rove’s “impending indictment” for months.
Sometimes you don’t have to beat your opponent. Sometimes, you can just sit back and watch them defeat themselves. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.”
J.
That the top aide to the president is NOT indicted is somehow a win for you guys? Wonder why we may not want to take strategic advice?
frame, when did I EVER say that only the Democrats are bad when they gain near-absolute power? I said that is the case in Massachusetts, and the whole POINT of this thread is that I did NOT want to see the Republicans to do the same thing on the federal level.
The Republicans have passed their agenda? Tell that to Social Security reform. Or immigration reform. Or judicial nominees. Or… well, three concrete examples ought to be more than enough for you, considering you don’t bother to cite any.
I’ve always stated that I established myself as a moderate, middle-of-the-roader decades ago, and haven’t moved. The problem is, the left side of the road has moved so far over, the “middle” is now considerably to the left of me. And it’s folks like frame that make me grateful for the distance.
J.
Oliver : When are you, and the rest of your brethren, going to acknowledge how brain-poundingly wrong you were about Rove’s impending indictment ?
“Further, frame, the actions you describe are the sorts of things associated with a majority position.”
Ah, yes, because a party in the majority should never, ever want to exercise its Constitutional responsibility for oversight or defend its own legislation against the encroachments of the executive branch. God forbid the Republicans in power should actually do their fucking jobs.
We’ve been living under a Republican dominated federal government for six years now but somehow or other Jay finds a way to paint the Democrats as the true face of one-party tyranny. The Republicans have passed exactly the agenda that the Republicans have wanted to pass and they’ve broken any number of procedural rules to do it from extending votes to rewriting legislation wholecloth in committee. They’ve ridden roughshod over the entire process while the President simply ignores those portions of laws he doesn’t like. So much for the fucking Constitution. But this is all okay dokey with you morons because Jesus God the liberals run Massachusetts.
And Jay, don’t even start lecturing me about civil debate. You’re a hack who can’t get his facts right three quarters of the time you open your mouth and when you get called on it you simply run and hide. Idiot.
Save,
Good. Spewed on this one:
“Valerie Plame is still out of work. Won t someone think of the children?!?”
Dugger “Rove (and, though we’re not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done. ” Josh Marshall
No, fact, there is no victory to rejoice here. Just a defeat — an entirely self-inflicted one. Those touting the Karl Rove Frog March as an inevitable validation of their “Republican culture of corruption” thesis tied all their hopes to a lead balloon.
The Right didn’t have to do a damned thing here, just sit back and watch the Left talk itself right off a cliff.
J.
Wow. An administration official is NOT indicted and they spin it as a victory. How far this country has fallen.
By the way, since not being indicted exonerates one from a crime, which one of you cons will be the first to admit that Clinton was not guilty of any crime?
Wow. An administration official somewhere leaks the name of a US spy, and avoids prosecution. Hurray for America!
factcheck : Your position would be an interesting one to consider, except for those inconvenient things otherwise known as facts, that seem to derail your meme, ie. the fact that Rove dd not out or leak the name of a US spy.
Continue on.
Actually, I’ve never used Rove’s activities as the be-all end-all of the Republican culture of corruption. I’ve got the indictments of Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, David Safavian, Jack Abramoff, and Duke Cunningham as evidence enough not to mention the no-bid Halliburton contracts and the deception that led to the Iraq war. Would I have liked Rove to be indicted? Yes. But it would simply be a cherry on top.
“… I did NOT want to see the Republicans to do the same thing on the federal level.”
Um, Jay, they already have. THAT is the whole point. Republicans in Congress have abused the system and outright broken it throughout their majority tenure. Here’s a recent example:
The House is expected to vote today on a supplemental spending bill for the war in Iraq, but it will not include a section barring the government from spending money to create permanent military bases there.
That is because the amendment, approved without opposition in House and Senate floor votes, was stripped from the $94.5 billion bill in a late-night session last week by the conference committee reconciling the House and Senate versions.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who authored the amendment’s House version, said Monday that Republicans’ support for it in floor votes but opposition to it behind closed doors is the same sort of deceit in which the GOP has engaged since the war’s start: “When we talk about the abuse of power and the lack of democracy, this is a clear example.”
http://www.orovillemr.com/news/bayarea/ci_3931082
This is the kind of shit they’ve been doing since they got in. This is an eggregious abuse of procedural power but, who cares, fuck it. The liberals control Massachusetts.
So Fitzgerald has concluded his investigation and dismissed the grand jury, right?
And the Halliburton contracts were the products of career, non political, civil servants. Find another smear tactic.
Dugger
Ollie, what is amazing is all of these indictments of cons have come with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government. There is so much stench coming from the RNC even total power can’t cover the smell.
And that’s not true either. The most likely source was Richard Armitage, Dept. Sec. at State. Who, as GWB would say, “no longer works in my Administration”.
Actually, buma, the rights orgasms (their first in years, evidently) come from a statement from Rove’s lawyer. We still haven’t heard from Fitzgerald, and Luskin won’t produce the letter.
So we know about as much about the situation than we did yesterday, yes.
Someone in the White House leaked the name of a covert CIA officer, this is what we know. That thusfar the targets have been slimy enough and have lied enough to escape prosecution, that is unfortunate.
Someone in the White House leaked Valerie Plame’s name. We may never get a conviction, but it is not in dispute that she was covert before her husband aroused the ire of the neocons.