In 24 hours, I have seen a bunch of articles complaining that the Dems are going nowhere. We have seen this before. Bush's numbers drop, the Dems get upbeat and then their numbers are just as bad, if not worse, than the president's. In baseball terms, the Democrats have a LOB problem, too many men left on base and no one can deliver the clutch hit!
Despite Republican concerns, there are many, if not more, among Democrats.
Molly Ivins fired this shot:
"I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because:
a) she has no clear stand on the war and
b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater." (http://progressive.org/mag_ivins0306)
Michael Goodwin comments on the Democrats' lack of an electoral strategy:
"Not to worry, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told the paper: "By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand." That's a relief. Mark your calendars, ladies and gentlemen. Only seven months to go until we learn what the party believes in." (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/v-pfriendly/story/397614p-336965c.html)
Again, Goodwin and Ivins are liberals.
My favorite is "The Three Stooges". It is written by Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and co-author, with Robert E. Rubin, of In an Uncertain World. Weisberg is frustrated with Pelosi, Dean and Reid, the three faces of today's Democrat Party:
"But more important than what the three stooges do wrong is what they can't seem to do at all, namely articulate a positive agenda for reform and change. Voters have grown disenchanted with Bush's mishandling of the war in Iraq and the country's finances, and with the evangelical tilt of many of his policies. But there remains a baseline mistrust of Democrats on security, the economy, and values issues. For a sweep big enough to recover both houses of Congress, the party will almost certainly need an affirmative message as well as a negative one. Democrats need to demonstrate they won't just cut and run from Iraq, that they see security as more than a civil liberties issue, and that their alternative to tax cuts isn't just more spending on flawed social programs and unchallenged growth in entitlements. Thus far, Pelosi, Reid, and Dean have been literally unable to develop such a national message for the party's congressional candidates. (http://www.slate.com/id/2137731/)
The party's problem is not Bush or his approval ratings. The problem is that you can not beat something
The Dems are not a national party anymore. They are a collection of special interests, such as public unions and single issue groups. They have lost the middle class (values) and the small businesses (taxes), two of the largest voting blocs! In the past, the middle class and the small businesses were the backbone of the FDR coalition. In other words, these folks used to vote for men like FDR and Truman. Today, they vote for Reagan and Bush.
The upcoming civil war won't be in Iraq. It will be within the Dem party. The state parties want policies that will win back the middle class and attract employers. The national party is too far to the left. The collision is inevitable!