Kate Zernick has an article about the longstanding friendship between California Reps Nancy Pelosi and George Miller. It has some interesting facts, but that is not what concerns me. I am getting extremely tired of the New York Times, Washington Post, and every other cocktail frankfurter eating pundit warning the nation about the left-wing of the Democratic Party. I never, ever, ever remember reading columns lamenting how far to the right Tom DeLay governed. Why do we have to put up with this shit from our purportedly liberal press?
In a friendship stretching over 30 years and many plane trips to Washington from their neighboring California districts, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and George Miller have become so close that, as colleagues say, they finish each others’ sentences.
So it was not surprising that, when Mrs. Pelosi faced the first test of her role as speaker-elect of the House of Representatives, Mr. Miller was in the background, pushing her to back Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania to replace her as Democratic leader over the more centrist candidate, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who had been her No. 2 for four years.
In the week since Mr. Hoyer won the position, Democratic leaders have played down any disharmony created by the leadership struggle. But Mr. Miller’s role raised fears that after carefully nudging her party to the center, which many say helped the Democrats retake the majority, Mrs. Pelosi would let her liberal allies have too much influence.
In the concerns of some Democrats — and the I-told-you-so’s of some Republicans — Mr. Miller represents Mrs. Pelosi’s true liberal soul, and his pushing for Mr. Murtha a sign that the far left would dominate and destabilize the Democrats, after they have emerged from 12 years in the minority.
In what fucking world is Jack Murtha considered a liberal? Seriously. In what fucking world is anti-choice, gung-ho Marine, master of military appropriations, Jack Murtha considered a liberal? It is truly insane for him to be categorized that way.
Moreover, in what universe did the Democrats win election by nudging towards the center? The Dems ran on universal health care, fair-trade agreements, closing the Medicare D donut hole, standing up to the pharmaceutical and energy industries, and ending the war in Iraq. Of all the planks of the winning Democratic campaign platform, about the only centrist things they ran on were cutting interest rates on student loans and raising the minimum wage. Those aren’t really centrist planks, they are more like consensus planks that have the potential to gain Republican support.
So now people like George Miller, John Conyers, Barney Frank, et al., are going to ‘destabilize’ the Democratic Party? We just had 12 years in the wilderness running on centrist crap like school uniforms, experimenting with school vouchers, mending affirmative action, punitive welfare reform, ending bankruptcy protections, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, the effing lockbox, etc. What did it get us but 12 years in the wilderness?
You’d think we spent all that time in the minority because Clinton tried to get health care for everyone and stop bigotry against gays in the military. It’s like triangulation never happened. We lost in 1994 because of what we were before 1994, not because of what we were after it. And we lost after 1994 because of what we were after it, not because of what we were before it.
Bill Clinton wanted to save his own ass, that is why he ran to the center. The party followed him into the abyss, abandoning populist politics and with it, any appeal to the lower middle class.
Clinton’s centrism left the south free of Democrats. We have made up for it in some of the northern suburbs, but that has been greatly aided by the fundamentalist lurch of the GOP.
Jim Webb and Jon Tester ran populist campaigns and won. Harold Ford ran a centrist campaign and lost. That’s the lesson folks. Who do you think Jon Tester has more in common with? Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford or George Miller and Russ Feingold?
Idiots.
They want to discredit the left wing of the party because they know Conyers, Waxman, etc, etc are going to force them to cover the stuff they should have been covering for years, and the public is going to start to wonder WTF the press has been doing all this time.
Reads like this are why I’m a fan.
I’ve known too who understands how pissed of the Southern Dems are/were about Clinton’s centrist governing. I didn’t understand that until I moved here. They are flaming hot mad as hell defecting to to to to not voting period I guess.
Why did anyone think that the media’s attitude would change? They are still owned, edited, and written primarily for the interests with power and influence. That automatically excludes most of the rest of us.
They are still hearing an unbroken message from the right, whatever the news stories about cracks in the seamless facade of the Right Wing. The leadership of Rove, Weyrich, Scaife, the Club for Growth, etc. has not broken down. Now, in fact, they have a distinct target, and that’s what we are going to see, daily.
Clinton’s centrism left the south free of Democrats.
The South is not free of Democrats. Tell Governor Mike Easley (D-NC) that. Tell the majority Democratic legislators in several Southern states that. Tell the Democratic Members of Congress from the South that.
Please qualify what you mean by this. I believe you are talking about the failure of Southern states to vote a majority for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last 30 years. Or the failure of Southern Democrats to preserve a presence in the US Senate.
The problem isn’t that Clinton ran to the center (he did that to save his neck outside the South, such as in the midwest). The problem is that Southern politicians took Clinton to be “liberal” and ran to the right of him, or even more accurately, ran away from him.
The failure of Southern Democratic politicians to embrace and campaign for the Democratic Presidential candidate for the last 34 years is the reason for the state of the South with regard to presidential campaigns. They even ran away from one of their own, Jimmy Carter. But that is the past.
The situation now is that a strong populist, progressive Democratic candidate can be very popular among the same folks that voted for Jesse Helms. Not being mealy-mouthed helps. We definitely need more Jon Testers and Jim Webbs, and I hope that Larry Kissell runs again. These indeed are the type of Democrats who can win in the South.
But it is not exclusively Bill Clinton’s fault that the South became irrelevant or the South’s fault for driving Clinton to the center. The midwest was probably more important in driving Clinton’s strategy of triangulation.
How many Democratic Senators are there in the south today? How many were there in 1994? Or 1992?
First of all, how many Democratic Senators were there from Pennsylvania in 1992, 1996, 2006, and taking office in 2007? Just for perspective.
Anyhow, here is the data:
In 1980, the Senate had 58 Democrats. The Democrats from the South were (24%) :
Dale Bumpers, AR
Lawton Chiles, FL
Howell Heflin, AL
Fritz Hollings, SC
Bennett Johnston, LA
Russell Long, LA
Robert Morgan, NC
Sam Nunn, GA
David Pryor, AR
James Saser, TN
John Stennis, MS
Donald Stewart, AL
Richard Stone, FL
Eugene Talmadge, GA
In 1992, the Senate had 56 Democrats. The Democrats from the South were (25%):
Lloyd Bentsen, TX
John Breaux, LA
Dale Bumpers, AR
Wyche Fowler, GA
Al Gore, TN
Bob Graham, FL
Howell Heflin, AL
Fritz Hollings, SC
Bennett Johnston, LA
Sam Nunn, GA
David Pryor, AR
Terry Sanford, NC
James Sasser, TN
Richard Shelby, AL (now a Republican)
In 1996, the Senate had 48 Democrats. The Democrats from the South were (19%):
John Breaux, LA
Dale Bumpers, AR
Bob Graham, FL
Howell Heflin, AL
Fritz Hollings, SC
Bennett Johnston, LA
Sam Nunn, GA
David Pryor, AR
Charles Robb, VA
In 1998, the Senate had 45 Democrats. The Democrats from the South were (16%):
John Breaux, LA
Dale Bumpers, AR
Max Cleland, GA
Bob Graham, FL
Fritz Hollings, SC
Mary Landrieu, LA
Charles Rob, VA
In 2000, the Senate had 45 Democrats. The Democrats from the South were (20%):
John Breaux, LA
Max Cleland, GA
John Edwards, NC
Bob Graham, FL
Fritz Hollings, SC
Blanche Lambert, AR
Mary Landrieu, LA
Zell Miller, GA (turncoat)
Charles Robb, VA
In 2002, the Senate had 50 Democrats. The Democrats from the South were (16%):
John Breaux, LA
Max Cleland, GA
John Edwards, NC
Fritz Hollings, SC
Blanche Lambert, AR
Mary Landrieu, LA
Zell Miller, GA (turncoat)
Bill Nelson, FL
In 2004, the Senate had 48 Democrats. The Democrats from the South were (19%):
John Breaux, LA
John Edwards, NC
Bob Graham, FL
Fritz Hollings, SC
Blanche Lambert, AR
Mary Landrieu, LA
Zell Miller, GA (turncoat)
Bill Nelson, FL
Mark Pryor, AR
In 2006, the Senate had 44 Democrats, The Democrats from the South were (9%):
Mary Landrieu, LA
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Bill Nelson, FL
Mark Pryor, AR
In 2008, the Senate will have 51 Democrats. The Democrats from the South will be (10%):
Mary Landrieu, LA
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Bill Nelson, FL
Mark Pryor, AR
Jim Webb, VA
In the 2008 election, the following Senators are up for re-election in the South:
John Cornyn (R), TX
Mary Landrieu (D), LA
Mark Pryor, AR (D), (already has D primary opponent)
Lamar Alexander, TN (R)
Thad Cochran, MS (R)
Jeff Sessions, AL (R) (Rep. Artur Davis-D has announced)
Saxby Chambliss, GA (R)
Lindsay Graham, SC (R) (already has R primary opponent in Thomas Ravenel, State Treasurer)
Elizabeth Dole, NC (R)
John Warner, VA (R) (can we suggest Mark Warner for this?)
I see two, maybe three definite pickups in this and a couple of good long shots to draw Republican money from elsewhere. If two and we hold Southern Democrats, that will give 7 from the South and if the rest of the country breaks even the percent increases to 13%.
So, it doesn’t look like the Clinton years had much effect, but 2004 savaged Democratic Senators in the South. We didn’t replace Edwards, Hollings, Breaux, Graham, or Miller. Not Clinton, but Iraq, decimated the Democratic ranks.
And the Democrats that we are likely to move forward with will be more progressive and not in the mold of John Stennis or Zell Miller.
Interesting read on history there. The second biggest drop off was from 1992 to 1996. Right when I pegged it. You forgot Graham in 2002 for some reason, but the next big drop off did coincide with mass retirements combined with the war. We’d also have to look at what kind of Democrats we sought to replace our southern senators with in 2004. Erskine Bowles? Get my point?
I get your point about the move to the center, but that was driven by the Southern politicos, not Clinton. I mean look at that list before Clinton took office. Howell Heflin, Bennett Johnston, Charles Robb; those guys were playing to the center before Clinton arrived on the scene. And look who Lott and Cochran replaced–two Democrats who had it not been for their seniority in a Democratic majority would have become Republicans. There are few folks like those left in the Democratic Party.
Bowles ran because no one else wanted to in a year that politicos were running away from John Kerry.
The Southern disease is not centrism, it’s running away from the national candidates. If Mike Easley had put his weight behind John Kerry, we might be talking about a different President. But Easley was nowhere to be seen. Edwards had to do the heavy lifting with the help of a few council of state officers and a few legislators. In fact, the Democratic scuttlebutt was that Edwards ran for President because he knew he was unlikely to be re-elected to the Senate. That’s not to criticize Edwards but to show how the local politicos behaved in 2004. Hopefully they have learned their lesson.
We really need to start looking at what kind of Democrats to challenge the Southern Republican Senators in 2008. We need some populists to run.
Then Southern Democrats have not found a way to mobilize their respective bases. Perhaps running strong campaigns instead of trying to dupe people with DLC rhetoric may actually make these races competitive. Yes, the South has Democrats, but those Democrats are for some reason not voting or voting incorrectly. I can only blame this on local parties and local organizations.
A lot of the local party structures have dried up in Southern states. That is what the 50-state strategy is intended to address. If you don’t have a good state chair, some field staff, and a good fundraising operation as was the case in MS until recently, you are not going to get anybody out to vote. If you don’t have a motivated county organization, you won’t turn out the volunteers to canvass. If you’ve got folks hiding the fact that they are Democrats, you’re not going to get a motivated county organization. If you lose too frequently, folks are going to start hiding the fact that they are Democrats from their friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers.
Local organizations like so many Democratic organizations nationally went to sleep when Reagan won and have not awakened until this year.
In this year, we were slow in North Carolina believing that we could actually get pickups. We got one. The other one is probably lost by 300 votes or so (it’s still in recount). We hopped on the campaign of a third candidate (NC-05) that had we spotted sooner and provided volunteer and financial support might have turned out to be a pickup. One Republican Congressman is extremely to the right of his moderate right-wing district (Sam Ervin’s old stomping grounds). With a strong candidate, he could be vulnerable.
There is a lot of bench-building at the local level that must go on.
I am advocating running a strong campaign and not playing the DLC game as the only strategy that is likely to work.
Conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. Because soundbites are easy to promulgate, and inexpensive to use, for the media, deferring to the CW is the rule. CW is “Democrats can only win by compromising”. Had the Dems opposed the war more strongly 2004 would have worked out better. Had they rejected the tax cuts for the rich, in lieu of the middle class cuts….they may have won.
The only way to communicate with the largest mass of voters is to make common sense and tell the truth about the big issues. The voters will come around…..
Booman you are right…!!!
these are not attacks from the center – they are attacks from a portion of the right pretending to be the center just because they are not as far right as the batshit insane rest of the Republicans.
The DLC and the NDC have claimed victory for the “vital center,” reifying the claims made by CNN and others. So yes, the right that poses as the center, or the DLC and the NDC, are claiming victory.
for righties claiming they were center and they have cost the dems more votes than any Rovian ploy. But the DNC, as I understand it, is Dean. And he HAS been successful with his 50 state strategy and he HAS been riding the wave successfully because of that strategy. Of course the alphabet soup occasionally trips me up.
There really hasn’t been much of an organized left that would be recognizable as such anywhere outside of the US – we can call it the fruits of two “red scares” plus COINTELPRO. What we get are two gargantuan parties, one of which would be roughly equivalent to what would be e.g., England’s National Front (our GOP klan) and Tories (what we call the Democrats). Those of our Tories who have bought into neoliberal econ theory and practice hook line and sinker call themselves the “vital center.” Our remaining Tories who show mildly populist sentiments get labeled as “leftists” in the mass media. The rest of us, well, as far as those above are concerned either don’t exist or if our existence is acknowledged it’s in terms of mental instability.
Well said, Boo. I’m sick of these DC blabberers telling us what “many” and “some” fear for the Dems. Could it be that fearful Dems can speak for themselves and be quoted? Apparently not. So morons like Zernick can just make up whatever they want and attribute it to the Somes and the Manys. I guess the NTY standard of alleged journalism is that if you make up interviews with poor kids and street people you get fired, but if you make up deep concerns for unnamed, perhaps nonexistent DC pols, you get to be a pundit.
And as far as Clinton goes, he succeeded because of his freakish charisma, not because the “moved to the center”. He had every opportunity to move America toward being a more just, happy, and productive society but chose for unfathomable reasons of his own to pander to the ones who hated him and still do.
The only real information to be gleaned from Zernick’s new word turd is that Carville and the gang still have their contact lists and money and are making good use of them. Many important people say so.
YeeeeeeeeeeeeHaw Boo! You gots it in one. The elite of this nation….
The leaders…
Their flunkies in the press…
Their fluffers on cable news…
Their butlers in the think tanks…
Their buttboys in Congrass….
Are…
Every. Fucking. One.
Idiots!
Prime candidates for Darwinism. And we in the netroots are gonna cull the turkey herd.
Yer stupid as shit? We gonna vote you out. Or…
Stop reading you.
Stop watching you.
Stop listening to you.
But most importantly…
Get on with the nation’s reconstruction without you!
Money talks. Ownership of the media amplifies the voice of money. The function of the rest of us without big money is to listen and nod in agreement. Money does not tolerate backtalk.
and netroots! We are holding them accountable, we are giving them a new mirror to look at. We are still pissed!
The problem is, “centrism” is not some point on the traditional right-left or liberal-conservative axis. “Centrism” is corporatism; based in the belief that what’s good for Glaxo-SwissRe-Samsung is good for the world.
Naturally “centrists” are more antagonistic to the “left” with its emphasis on regulation and personal rights than they are to the “right” who generally avoid confrontation with corporate interests. However, you have noticed something important- the opposite of “centrist” is populist.
Populism, like “centrism”, does not fit on the left-right axis and it is directly antagonistic to corporate interests. We here are progressive populists (for the most part) the key to the future, unless Rollerball’s corporate dystopia is your idea of fun, is to create alliances with the other fragments of the populist movement. Unfortunately those other strains of populism are often typified by racist, nativist movements (the minutemen are no friends of CAFTA) and religious fundamentalism (check out the story of the populist Gov. Riley of Alabama and his failed tax reform plan).
But the shakeout is coming, the religious right is cracking under struggle between “centrist” fundamentalists who adhere to the “wealth” gospel and more traditional Christians who are moved by Jesus’ call to the poor and helpless.
The traditional Democratic coalition included and tolerated these nativist and religious groups, leaders like Huey Long, FDR and George Wallace. Can we tolerate these coalition partners again? Can economic justice and reform of the corporate welfare state be achieved without them?
It’s a hell of a question.
Amen!
What is particularly appalling to me is that the Democratic Party does not seem to have learned something critically important that the Republicans have used to their favor over the past ten years:
Overall, this nation’s journalists are lazy and love to be spoon-fed angles and spin, because then they don’t have to do the hard work of digging up the truth themselves. There are exceptions, of course. But, the Republican Party seems to have put into place an ongoing, orchestrated jounralistic babysitting (i.e. spoon-feeding) operation that almost always ensures that their perverse viewpoint on things predominates the news.
Granted, they have the added advantage that most owners of news media organizations tend to be Republican and, in many cases, right-wing whack-jobs who are all-to-willing to encourage this type of Republican journalistic spoon-feeding machine.
Why is the Democratic Party so far behind the eight-ball of the simple, cost-effective premise that they, too, need some top-notch public relations gurus to try to feed national media outlets and contacts their viewpoint?
Granted, we may never achieve parity, but if the Democratic Party at least started an orchestrated attempt to get their side of the story out, it could at least help to prevent the mass media from always looking at he world through Republican-colored glasses.
We need a comparable effort as the Republicans to start to aggressively getting out key progressive
messages on an ongoing basis, not in reaction to to the Republicans and not on an issue by issue basis
either. A sustained, ongoing communications initiative to ensure that at least the progressive message and agenda wont’ be overlooked by the national media for the lack of their trying at least.
From day one after this year’s elections, the spoon-fed national media bought into the Republicans’ number one talking point: that the election results were a dramatic indication of a thirst for a more moderate
national agenda.
It was the Republicans’ best-case scenario coming out of the elections and they were prepared to begin their propaganda machine on day one, and have had a fair amount of success.
In my humble opinion, this past election was not what the news media has framed it as…a thirst for moderate to conservative Democratic influence…but a blatant rebuke of Bush’s radical right-wing agenda and
the election of the largest number of real progressives to Congress in American history.
(Of course, the Republican propaganda machine would nevera allow such an obvious truth as that to be reported).
“You’re so cute when you’re angry.”
…….Mainstream Media
The Post, NY Times and other media aren’t liberal. They are conservative. They are afraid of anyone who would try to govern by creating policies that benefit the whole of society not just their part which they equate of the good of the whole. They are more afraid of the left because the left actually thinks about the whole of society whereas the right, no matter how lunatic, is in favor policies that benefit them…like no regulation of ownership of media.