Friday Talking Points [100] -- Whigging Out

I will explain that silly subtitle in a moment, but first we've got to delve even deeper into rampant silliness. If such silliness and unseriousness does not appeal to you, then I strongly suggest you skip down and begin reading with this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Consider yourselves warned.

This column today celebrates a milestone -- triple digits on the odometer! That's right, as hard as it may seem to believe, this is the one hundredth volume of your weekly Friday Talking Points column. For a little over two years now, we've brought you our thoughts on "the week that was in politics," and for a little less time than that, we've announced our weekly winners of both the aforementioned MIDOTW as well as the ignominious Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And we wrap it all up with some practical, good old-fashioned, home-brewed Democratic spin, our Talking Points for the week ahead.

Initially, this concept met with some scorn. To some, "spin" and "talking points" are ugly words, which proper ladies and gentlemen don't use. My feeling, however, is that Democrats are so woefully bad at getting their own message out -- especially in the short, easy-to-digest soundbites to which the mainstream media is addicted -- that I certainly couldn't do any harm by making such suggestions, and indeed might do some good. It's been enough to keep me going for 100 columns, and I see no sign of Democrats mastering the art of "framing" their subjects, so another 100 columns being necessary isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility.

But enough back-patting and self-congratulating. Oh, wait, one more -- if you'd like to hear what I sound like trying to talk politics at 8:30 in the morning, there's a program note at the end of this with a link to a podcast interview I did today. If that sort of thing interests you, then check it out.

But I promised you some silliness, so silliness I will now provide. Whenever "100 episodes" comes to my mind, I can't help but think of South Park. The war in Iraq began about three weeks before the 100th episode of South Park aired, and at the time there was virtually nothing but jingoistic pro-war opinions being voiced on television. South Park, known mostly for lowbrow (and, some say, conservative) political views, put their finger on the pulse of both the anti-war and pro-war positions at the time, and came up with a summation that seemed downright brilliant at the time, and still does.

I won't go into too much detail of the plotline of this episode (you can read a transcript of it, if you'd like). Suffice it to say it had half the town protesting against the war, and half the town protesting in favor of the war. The kids were assigned a report on how the Founding Fathers themselves would view the Iraq war, which Eric Cartman tried to weasel out of by attempting to send himself into a "flashback" to the past. He finally succeeds, and is on hand for the Founding Fathers debating the Declaration of Independence in the Continental Congress, and the question of whether to go to war with England or not. Here's the South Park take on how this debate went:

HANCOCK:  Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

FRANKLIN:  I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both?

JEFFERSON:  Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

DICKINSON:  Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.

FRANKLIN:  And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.

ADAMS:  [Holding a slice of chocolate cake] It's like having your cake, and eating it, too.

CONGRESSMAN 2:  Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

HANCOCK:  And we will call that country the United States of America.

Cartman returns from his flashback to find the town killing each other in a riot which happened because the mayor told the anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters that they'd have to share the town park on the same day. Cartman, uncharacteristically, is the voice of reason which ends the town's fighting, as he gives his report from the stage:

I learned something today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft [expletive deleted] protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the Founding Fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."

But the true silliness is at the very end, when the two groups embrace each other and start singing Donny And Marie's "Little Bit of Country/Little Bit of Rock and Roll," and then get completely surreal. Which is a good way for us to open our column today.

EVERYBODY:  We're a little bit country, and we're a little bit rock-n-roll!

STUART:  We can be a nation that believe in war...

MR. MACKEY:  And still tells the world that we don't.

EVERYBODY:  Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole! We're a little bit country, and we're a little bit rock-n-roll!

RANDY:  Well, goodnight everybody. It sure has been great bringing you a hundred episodes.

SKEETER:  We want to thank our guests, the pro-war people. [Applause] And the anti-war people. [Applause]

STAN:  [Mystified] What the Hell are they doing now?

KYLE:  [Covers his nose and shuts his eyes tight] Ah, I don't know.

EVERYBODY:  For the war, against, the war, WHO CARES?? One hundred episodes!

KYLE:  I hate this town. Ah, I really, really do.

 

Now that we've got the silly and surreal out of our system, let's just move on, shall we?

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi certainly made a bid for winning the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week by scheduling a debate on the healthcare reform bill in the House, she has not yet delivered. She did try an interesting tactic to try to speed things up, though. After getting her bill "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office, she posted it online for 72 hours, making good on an earlier promise to do so (which, it should be noted, the Republicans never bothered to do when they were in charge). But that meant the debate and vote was pushed out to Saturday. Congress in session on a weekend! You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that.

But Pelosi accomplished this by being crafty. Next week, the House was planning to take half the week off for Veterans' Day -- so Pelosi told everyone that they could have the full week off if they voted on the healthcare reform bill first. This is why our legislators will be in the chambers this weekend -- to get extra vacation time next week! Which is fine, since (for once) they'll actually deserve a few days off. But this maneuver flew under most people's radar, which is also why it was a brilliant political tactic for Pelosi to employ. Now, rumors are flying today (including one which says the vote's not going to happen until next week), so we'll see what happens next week.

For this week, however, we've got to at least give Speaker Pelosi an Honorable Mention for moving things forward on healthcare reform.

But this week's uncontested Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is newly-minted Representative Bill Owens, of the twenty-third House district in the great state of New York. Owens captured NY-23 this Tuesday, winning a very strange race which was really an intra-Republican donnybrook. A moderate Republican was on the ticket, but so was an ultra-conservative backed by Sarah Palin and the rest of the usual suspects from the "Small Tent" faction of the Republican Party. The Republican dropped out of the race, and actually endorsed the Democrat, strangely enough. Who actually won -- even stranger.

Now, the mainstream media mostly ignored this race, because it didn't easily fit in their storyline of "Republican Revival!" But this district going Democratic is simply stunning. It also presages some interesting struggles for the direction of the Republican Party in next year's primaries, which I wrote about yesterday.

But the truly jaw-dropping part of the story is that over a third of the district (with reapportionment, the district has changed boundaries over the years) has been represented by a Republican in the House of Representatives since before the Civil War. Part of the district has had a Republican representative since 1856 -- when the Republican Party began. And in Franklin Country, the last non-Republican representing them in the House was named George Simmons... who was a member of the Whig Party.

The Swing State Project website has more details, if you're interested. There are no districts which have remained Democratic (even partially) since the Civil War -- there used to be a few in Texas, but Tom DeLay took care of that. There is still one district in Pennsylvania with as long a pedigree for the Republicans, but the news of NY-23 switching parties is truly groundshaking, one would think.

Unless one got their news from the mainstream media, of course. Sigh.

Anyway, we simply can't think of a more impressive Democrat this week, or indeed a more impressive Democratic feat in quite a while. So this week's MIDOTW voting wasn't even close. Our hands-down Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Bill Owens. Well done!

[Unfortunately, Representative-Elect Bill Owens does not have an official House webpage yet, so you'll have to wait a week or so to congratulate him.]

 

But enough of Republicans "Whigging out," as it were (see, I told you I'd work that in...). Sadly, we must turn to our own disappointments this week. While the Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia were disappointing, this week we unfortunately have to return to an old standard for our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really has got to go. I have said it before and I doubtlessly will say it again, but it is time for Senate Democrats to wake up and realize that the only thing Harry is "leading" them to is a possible disaster at the polls next year.

While activity and hopefulness was emanating from the House, with Pelosi moving healthcare reform one more step forward, Harry Reid may have killed the entire effort for the year over in the Senate. No, that's not an exaggeration. Harry seems to think he's got all the time in the world to get this done. In the summer, he attempted to talk tough about deadlines for Max Baucus, and deadlines for introducing the bill under budget reconciliation rules which only need 50 votes (instead of 60) -- but such talk has apparently been long forgotten by Reid.

Reid's office leaked this week that the Senate may not even bring a bill to the floor until December... or maybe not even this year. Perhaps next year, if they can find the time, who knows?

Reid clumsily attempted to walk this back later, by saying he shares Obama's goal of getting it done this year, but it was pretty weak medicine indeed after his earlier statements.

Somebody please tie Harry to a chair so I can throw this bucket of cold water in his face: "Harry -- if it doesn't get done this year, it is not going to get done in an election year. And Harry, you don't get the whole calendar to play around with. You have to schedule in some time for a conference committee between the houses after the Senate votes, or there will not be time to finish the bill."

December, I would like to strongly remind Democrats, is the traditional month when the caucus votes on their leadership. This is the month when they replace people in positions like... oh, I don't know... Senate Majority Leader, for instance. And any Senate Democrats frustrated by the pace of their leadership (which includes, by the way, committee chairs -- I'm just saying...) need to start a whispering campaign in the cloakrooms of the Capitol that if healthcare reform fails by this December, then they will be voting some new leaders in for next year. Because, at this point, we simply don't have time for the Nevada voters to chuck Reid out next year.

Maybe that'll wake Harry up. It's certainly worth a try.

For the record-shattering thirteenth time, we sadly must award Harry Reid the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Harry Reid on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Volume 100 (11/6/09)

One hundred epsiodes! Woo hoo!

Sorry, I apologize, I dealt with that silliness earlier and it won't happen again, I promise. Ahem.

We now turn to our Friday Talking Points for this week. I had notions of digging through the last 99 columns and presenting some sort of "best of" section here today, but sadly, it has been too busy a week politically, so we must forego such pleasures and offer up some commonsensical ways for Democrats to speak of what's been going on of late. As always, the full archive of all 100 of these columns is available at fridaytalkingpoints.com (which I registered for those people who find it easier to spell than chrisweigant.com).

For those of you who are newcomers to this column and were drawn in by the number 100 beckoning you from the headline, welcome! The core of this column is presented weekly (some would say "weakly," but we cheerfully ignore them, as always) in the hopes of providing some snappy one-liners to Democrats for the upcoming week.

Originally, this was solely for the purposes of Democratic officeholders who are scheduled to appear on Sunday chat shows, but I have found over the months that they work just as well talking to your strange cousin or uncle, or to the conservative you have to share an office with.

In other words, anyone can use them! Feel free! Try it today!

 

   Dachau? Really?

This one is just odious, I have to admit. Because this sort of thing shows up at political demonstrations more and more, but this wasn't a rally or a demonstration, officially it was a "press conference" hosted by Representative Michele Bachmann, complete with lots and lots of Republicans standing on the stage and speaking from the podium. A photo of what I'm talking about is available at ThinkProgress, I should add. This should be used by any Democrat debating healthcare reform this weekend with any Republican, since even if they weren't there, it is just as useful.

"Before we begin, I would like to denounce -- and invite my colleague to equally denounce -- whoever it was at the Republican 'press conference' earlier this week who saw fit to wave giant signs equating our efforts to provide affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans with a photograph of a pile of naked, dead bodies taken at the Dachau concentration camp. I think this sort of thing is despicable, I think it is a slap in the face to all Jewish people in America, and I think it deserves the strongest sort of condemnation, no matter what party you are from. I noticed that while this enormous sign was fully visible from the stage, not one of the speakers addressed it in any way whatsoever. I think that is shameful, and I invite my colleague to join me in denouncing such tactics." (Turn to Republican you're being interviewed with, at this point, and watch them squirm....)

 

   Good thing there was government healthcare available....

This one is a tightrope to walk, so as not to fall into a pit of glee over someone's misfortune -- but that should not stop anyone from pointing out the thick, thick irony of it all.

"You know, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had a very interesting article the other day, where he pointed out the fact that during the Republican anti-government-healthcare rally someone suffered a heart attack and, quote, Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip, unquote. Now, if this crowd was so morally against the concept of government healthcare, then by all rights they should have waited for a private-sector ambulance to arrive, and let the victim die in the meantime. But I noticed -- just as I notice many in these crowds who seem to be Medicare-eligible -- that they're just fine with government healthcare for themselves, it is merely others they do not wish to extend the privilege to. I find this ironic, personally."

 

   We need some stronger candidates

This week's election results are going to be a major subject this weekend. So Democrats have got to be ready to talk about the lessons learned.

"I think that what New Jersey and Virginia tell us is that Democrats simply have to do a better job at recruiting good candidates. Deeds, in Virginia, by all accounts didn't run a very good campaign, and Corzine was the wrong man at the wrong time, since Wall Street experience isn't exactly what people are looking for these days in their politicians. But I'm confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that know their districts and have a good chance at winning."

 

   Poll the stay-at-homes

If I was in charge of the Democratic National Committee, I would hastily be putting a poll out in the field in New Jersey and Virginia with some seriously open-ended questions. Due to micro-targeting, I would aim this poll at two groups: registered Democrats who previously voted (including new voters from 2008), but didn't in this election; and independents who fit the same criteria. The single-most important question I would ask: "Why did you stay home this time around?" Followed up by the equally-important: "What could we do in the next year to get you back to the polls?"

"Democrats need to take one big lesson away from this week's results in New Jersey and Virginia -- the Republicans were more motivated. They had the momentum. And if we don't regain that momentum on our side, then 2010 is going to be pretty grim for Democrats. So I would tell my party's leaders to ask the citizens of Virginia and New Jersey who didn't vote this time around 'why did you stay home?' I would examine their answers very closely, and I would put out a memo to each and every Democratic member of Congress stating exactly where we are falling short in our voters' eyes. Because if we don't turn this around, next year is going to be devastating for us come election day."

 

   Put up, or shut up

No matter what the answers are to the poll just mentioned, the follow-through is just as important. Democrats need to produce. Now. If they have any hope of holding on to their congressional majorities next year, they need to get busy and convince the voters they know what they're doing.

"I suspect if you did poll the stay-at-home voters, that they would tell you in various ways that they are disappointed with the Democratic Party. They expected some big changes, and all they've seen so far is smaller changes and a lot of arguing. On issue after issue, Democratic voters are becoming dispirited and disillusioned with the progress made so far. Now is not the time for the normal timidity of a midterm election year, now is the time to get some things done. Now is the time to produce. Now is the time to put up, or shut up. Because if we can't manage to do so in the next year, last week's election is going to look like a picnic to Democrats by comparison."

 

   The Republicans splinter

However, those last few were pretty sobering, so let's end here with a gratuitous slap to the face of the Republicans, and then finally with the one thing Democrats can brag about from last week. This first one should send some chills down a few Republican spines, I would warrant.

"For all the talk of how the Democrats did last week, the media seems to be largely ignoring the absolute cage match happening over in Republicanland. Two party factions -- one who wants to get back to a 'big tent' concept, and one who wants only the purest of the pure -- are heading for some epic collisions next year. And the thing the Republicans should really worry about -- the thing that would keep me awake nights if I were a Republican -- is the specter of a third-party challenge from the right in next year's general elections. I see a real possibility of the Republican Party splintering off into two mutually-antagonistic sides over the question of 'party purity' next year. Which, I have to admit, fills me with delight as a Democrat."

 

   Flip my Whig

OK, this one is just rubbing their faces in it, but since it was the only happy result from Tuesday, it should be kept handy if needed.

"For all this talk of a Republican Renaissance, did anybody notice that Democrats took a House seat last week in upstate New York? In some parts of this district, they have been represented by a Republican since before Abraham Lincoln was elected president. In particular, the last non-Republican to represent Franklin County was from the Whig Party. That seems like it's worth a mention, if we're talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from last week. Republicans lost a district they've held for over 150 years -- that doesn't happen every day in American politics, does it?"

 

[Program Note: Back in FTP [75] I was interviewed by "TJ and The Tux" for their podcast program on EastVillageRadio.com, to talk about Obama's first 100 days. Since then, they've renamed their program "Shock and Awesome," and they graciously had me back on again today to talk about Obama's "first year" and the recent elections. So if you'd like to hear me sipping caffeine and attempting to talk about politics (and my cat) at 8:30 in the morning, check it out. Click on the "Listen" button for Nov. 06, 2009 -- it's at about an hour-and-a-half in to the show.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

 

Comments

[ChampLessFuzzy]

I agree, Chris, I've never wanted to say the words out loud, but something's amiss with Harry Reid. It's odd, but it sometimes feels as though Reid is taking a dive. Tough words, I know, but I've reached my point of patience with him. It doesn't feel comfortable to say, but I agree with you; Mr. Reid must go. Sad.

Thanks for a wonderfully witty post, Mr. Weigant. Tears and smiles, you hit all the right chords. South Park...Really? LOL! Most excellent.

[Doofus]

A couple of Repo strategies for next year.

1) Choose a 'former' Repo to run as a 'moderate' Demo. There's an example
of that now in MA with a millionaire Romney-pal running for the Senate
seat left vacant by the revered Ted Kennedy. A long shot, with a lot of cash.
(Not to disparage VA's admirable Sen Jim Webb, by the way.)

2) Choose a pair of Repo candidates to run against a 'liberal' Demo.
Run one as a Conservative, the other as a 'moderate', with the idea
that the the Moderate Repo & the Liberal Demo will split the vote,
leaving the Conservative with a plurality. As in NY 23rd.
.

[Doofus]

1) The reality of the Demo primary in MA is, however: 1 female who holds
state-wide office (attorney general) is running against 3 males who haven't,
for the privilege of then running a month later against a little-known Repo state
senator. The point is: the best way to run as a Repo in MA is to get on the Demo ballot.

2) See also "Informed Sources": What Really Happened When Rush
Limbaugh and Sarah Palin Got Into Upstate New York Politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/informed-sources-what-rea_b_347523.html

The Conservative in the coming Senate race is likely to be former Gov Geo Pataki.

[TommyMcCarthy]

To all,

I should issue a disclaimer here....
If I seem uncharacte­ristically expansive, even congratulatory,.... towards my beknighted Democrats..
.it is because I am posting just after watching the house passage of the health care bill.
I have been SHARPLY critical of the process, the President, and the bill itself in the past (often right here at FTP)
While not willing to "take it all back' ...I wiil say cautiously, The Prez, and the house Democrats, shone marvelously today. With no sarcasm at all, I'd like to stal a line from Craig Ferguson and say:

"It's a grreet deey forr America everrryone,...a grreet deey, indeed! ............And it really is.

I found particularly moving the sight of John Dingell (D. Mich) struggling to the well..... 1st to issue his impassioned plea for passage during debate, and then...tri­umphantly,­......to gavel the measure as adopted.
Political junkies around here will remember that Dingell has introduced comprehensive, single-payer, national heath insurance every year he has been in Congress......all 52 of them!! Beautiful moment, that.

I venture to say, even Harry Reed (incorrect spelling deliberate­..heh)....­can't blow this.

Speaking of waxing expansive&­congratula­tory......­.ONE HUNDRED FTP's!!!! What a milestone!
HEARTFELT congratulations to Chris Weigant!
I know I speak for many poli/junkies:
FTP provides a VALUABLE public service, (and a helluvan entertaining read) here....
week after week....and on a hard, fixed deadline too!
NOT that easy to do.

The very HIGHEST regards
WARNED ya I was feelling "mushy"
tm

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

TommyMcCarthy -

Aha! A Ferguson fan! I was so blown away by his "go vote!" rant last year that I had to transcribe it as a public service:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/09/11/craig-fergusons-excellent-rant-if-you-dont-vote-youre-a-moron/

And thanks for the kind words. Fridays are always something of a marathon to put these together, so it's good to hear people actually read it!

-CW

[ChampLessFuzzy]

*applauds* Chris Weigant! We forget sometimes how much time and effort you put into these posts consisting of numerous individuals and topics. Outstanding job as always. Thanks to TommyM for jolting us awake to the fact.

[Doofus]

One might reflect that the New York North Country of the 23rd district is
where abolitionist John Brown came from, and where he is buried.

The Republican party, which morphed out of the Whigs, was a radical
abolitionist party originally. If the NY North Country stayed with the GOP,
it may be in some sense out of a connection to those earlier sentiments.

The GOP deserted such beliefs long ago, and the 23rd district finally caught up.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Doofus -

That's an excellent point. I had no idea this was where John Brown's body lies a-mouldrin'...

But it's kind of the opposite of what happened in Texas, sadly. What I think is that we are seeing the tail end of the shift LBJ projected when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Northern "moderate" Republicans are a dying breed, but then so are Southern "Yellow Dog" Democrats. The South used to be just as much a stronghold for the Dems as New England (parts of it) was for the GOP.

The pendulum shifts....

-CW

[Doofus]

It's possible to frame post-Civil War US history in terms of 'reaction to
Abe Lincoln'. The GOP worshipped & respected him as their Founder,
just as the Demos (basically a 'Southern' party) reviled him. As times
changed, the former became a party of the upperclass & the latter of the
underclass, by FDR arguably. Ironically, the GOP came to revile Lincoln,
perhaps around the time Eleanor Roosevelt brought Marian Anderson to
sing at steps of the Lincoln Memorial, or when ML King said 'I Have a Dream'.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Excellent point by "doofus"

Just as people today can find it difficult to imagine that the pre-civil rights South...
of George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and Sherriff Bull Connor...was solidly Democratic.

I grew up in the North country, just on the line of what is now N.Y. 23.
In my lifetime, our three major products were snow, snow, and resentment of NY city.

If a politician had nothing else to credibly sell to North Country voters (the norm)
he could always run AGAINST........... "dem bastids down in de City"
As New York City has ALWAYS been overwhelmingly Democratic......it was always easy to paint Democratic challegers as in league with Albany and especially NYC Democrats,....
Both of whom were seen (rightly) as taking "our" resourses, our taxes and returning nothing.

One other factor has been underreported IMO.
While north country New Yorkers are "conservat­ive"....it is in the older sense of the word.
Wedded to traditional values? you betchum! Slow to change? GLACIALLY so.

But they are NOT by and large "haters"...and would be suspicious of outsiders......
even one as famous as Sarah Palin.....
telling them that they should vote in what is, to them, is an emphatically LOCAL election
in such a way as to align themselves with some radical "movememt" from the faraway sunbelt.
One thing the sly yankees I know (who don't care for "radical" ANYTHING)....
would pride themselves on ...is their ability to see a "snow job" coming... a mile away.

Regards
tm

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

TommyMcCarthy -

I had to laugh at your "three products"...

I wrote about the "outsider" effect Thursday:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/11/05/reading-the-2009-election/

"His candidacy was a bit unusual as well, starting very late and getting a massive amount of attention from big-name Republicans and right-wing commentators on the national scene. This is something Republicans are mostly ignoring at their peril in their understanding of the NY-23 race. Locals sometimes resent the heck out of people from out of town coming in to their turf and telling them what to think and how to vote. This backlash, against all the bigtime Republican glitterati who overwhelmed this race in rural, upstate New York, probably will not be measured by the pollsters, so the lesson may be lost on Republicans."

In hearty agreement...

-CW

[BillZBubb]

#4 is the key. But will our spineless Democrats even bother? They've been working feverishly to totally turn off their base. At that, at least, they are succeeding. From Obama on down it has been a relentless withdrawal from any principle that differentiates us from the Republicans.

There is also the perpertual problem of the lack of an enforcer of party discipline. They even let Lieberman keep his position although he is not a Democrat and attempts to scuttle any serious progressive move. Sad really.

[SilviaMaria]

Chris,

You forgot John Garimendi in District 10 in California as well. He run as a liberal, against the wars, in favor of health care reform, etc.

Lesson learned: Don't compromise your principles.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

SilviaMaria -

That's true, but nobody really expected that district to switch -- it's been pretty solidly Democratic, hasn't it?

But you do raise a good point about his stances, and the lesson learned. I should have at least mentioned it, you're right.

Wonder who Arnie's going to pick to replace him? Garamandi was Lt. Gov., and I've heard Abel Moldanado's name tossed around, who is a fairly centrist and moderate Republican.

-CW

[Mildmannered]

"But I'm confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that know their districts and have a good chance at winning."

Why are you so confident, Chris?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Mildmannered -

To tell you the truth, that one was stretching it a bit...

Heh heh. Gotta remain optimistic, though!

:-)

-CW

[standard]

"But I'm confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that . . . have a good chance at winning."

Apart from the confidence part--which you've addressed for Mildmannered--this should be considered the MITPOTW. Only, it has to extend to the national ticket and be a continuing task--not just a sporadic one. In 2008 our Party achieved a nominally "safe" majority in both houses of Congress and took the White House, but there were too many Blue Dogs in the mix and a President who "negotiated against himself" as far as health care reform is concerned--and, rather than "restore habeas corpus" (as he campaigned to do), has ratified several of the ways in which the Bush/Cheney crowd undermined the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

You make an excellent point: we need more good candidates with a good chance of winning--the key words being "good candidates" (for our Party and for our country, at large). Adequacy is no longer good enough, as Messrs. Reid's, Lieberman's, Baucus' and others' presence in our caucuses have proven to our chagrin on a daily basis all year.

[BLBass]

I second, third, fourth, and beyond your suggestion at #4!

That polling is exactly what we need (I must say I've suggested similar ideas, though not as thoroughly) and any Democrat unwilling to listen to the results needs to be tied down Clockwork Orange-style.

In a similar vein, the Plouffe crew needs to do some polling of Obama voters to find out *why* disappointment in his agenda is spreading, because they clearly don't get it. They think it's about impatience -- I can't deny that's an element, but it's not the most important one. If they need hard data to prove that, at least they're in the best position to go gather that data. So the White House PR/political people need to get on that this week, if they're going to have a prayer at addressing our complaints at the shameful way they've handled health and financial reforms.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

BLBass -

While I agree with you in principle, I must say the Ludovico Technique is a little harsh, don't you think?

But then I guess I did kind of describe waterboarding Reid this week, so who am I to point fingers?

"Stop it, please! I beg you! This is sin!... Using Ludwig van like that! He did no harm to anyone. Beethoven just wrote music!"

Horrorshow, one might say...

-CW

[Oldwave]

Horrorshow indeed...

[jbl inAZ]

Now I hate to be disgustingly pedantic, sometimes, especially because without the given context, "Horrorshow" is a most apt commentary. Nevertheless, since you are quoting from Alex's story, Alex used that word completely differently, as it was a corruption from the Russian "хорошо" ("khorosho") meaning fine, well, good (mostly as an adverb).

Sorry about that. Really.