Hard rock miners? Did he really say that? Sexy. I’m sure it played well in the Castro District…

“She proved that she can read a TelePrompTer without blinking or changing her facial expression.”

You know what I love about Nancy Pelosi? She reminds you of that line in that Tom Waits song “Frank’s Wild Years” about Frank’s wife the spent piece of used jet trash. Now I like Pelosi, but she has that kind of permanent glaze of a woman who downs a half-dozen gin and tonics before noon (Jane Harman is even more tragic in this regard by the way), and quite possibly consumed enough coke in the 70s to kill all the livestock in a twelve square mile radius.

Maybe it’s because I’m from MA but why can’t the Democrats find themselves another Tip O’Neill? First Tom Daschle and now Harry Reid?!? Wormtongues, both of them.

The Dems are missing more than O’neill, though that would be a help. They’re missing the radical vision, which seems to have been co-opted by the Repubs. How times change in a generation!

However, instead of cynically attacking the Dems with no alternatives aside from attacking, here’s something positive to look at:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-24.htm

Tip O’Neill was a loud, brash, expert political operative who knew how to get what he wanted and who stood on priciple - even if it was unpopular. And I think he’s the guy who first coined the phrase “all politics is local”. Over the past twenty years the Republicans have taken that admonition seriously.

Harry Reid speaks in hushed tones about some fantasy kid who hopes some day to be a Senator. His plan amounts to nothing more than being a wrench in the plans of the leading party.

Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Charlie Rangel? Julian Bond? They are the future for the Democrats? Call again when you’re serious.

Tip O’Neill was a loud, brash, expert political operative who knew how to get what he wanted and who stood on priciple - even if it was unpopular. And I think he’s the guy who first coined the phrase “all politics is local”. Over the past twenty years the Republicans have taken that admonition seriously.

Harry Reid speaks in hushed tones about some fantasy kid who hopes some day to be a Senator. His plan amounts to nothing more than being a wrench in the plans of the leading party.

Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Charlie Rangel? Julian Bond? They are the future for the Democrats? Call again when you’re serious.

Unlikely that Iraqis would see it as having their bravery exploited by such a gesture. More likely they saw this for what it was: a gesture of respect.

And it was open to any Democrat congress member to make the same gesture…

“Jackson tapped into a growing anger and

frustration arising on the US political scene among both historically and

newly disenfranchised populations. He spoke to issues of economic injustice

without abandoning the question of race, thus avoiding the classic error of

white populists who attempt to build unity by addressing economic issues

only. Jackson linked these issues. His appearances before white farmers and

workers brought forth a response that previously had been unimaginable.”

If you read the article to mean that one or another leader is the solution for the Dems, you misunderstood it.

To tell the story of…”

Nah, I won’t go there! Marc writes, “Shame on any Republican partisan who even attempts to justify that sickening gesture. Have the honesty to denounce it as the arrogant, self-serving hoax that it was.”

Can’t let that stand, because it’s not a statement designed to foster debate or look at differing opinions. It’s a statement designed to make one look bad if one disagrees with Marc.

First, if one disagrees with Marc, that person behaves in a “Shameful” way; if it is not seen as a “self-serving hoax” then one is automatically dishonest.

In one of my rehabilitation counseling classes that I teach a number of students were wearing pink ribbons to express support of the anti-breast cancer meme. I asked how many had breast cancer, knew someone with breast cancer or had a family member with breast cancer. None did, so, were they being shameful for supporting an idea when they had not suffered because of breast cancer. Do the folk who sport yellow ribbons get labled self serving because they support “the troops?” Of course, I suspect that Marc and anyone else would answer “No, of course not.”

This is a measure of symbolism. And, in David Corn’s article (which was quite good by the way, and though I disagree with many of his inferences, I absolutely agree that Bush I’s not backing up the Shia in 91 was absolutely a shameful act.) he made the statement “But she scored no points. In this arena, delivery counts as much as–no, make that more than–substance.” Which is of course what Republicans and even some Democrats have complained about: that it is more important to have “style” than “substance.” That belief, I would argue, is more shameful.

Which of course, brings us back to Marc’s original charge. That showing visual support is a shameful, hoaxfilled dishonest act! But why, is showing visual support for those who braved death and dismemberment to vote shameful and self serving? There is absolutely no difference in showing support for one meme/idea/cause vs showing support for a different meme/idea/cause.

Perhaps the answer lies in whose ox is being gored. Showing the purple/blue finger in the SOTU shows support for the election process in Iraq, something Marc has already done here: http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2005/01/fear_and_pollin.html.

By posting this article (which I substantially agree with) show support for the Iraqi people voting, or is it a shamefull act when he had absolutely nothing to risk by noting the Iraqi courage and determination? I suspect that it was true support for the Iraqi people. So too was the “symbolism” of holding up a purple/blue finger.

There, that’s my first post, though I doubt if I have changed any minds. As Mr. Corn noted discussing Pelosi: “it was hard to imagine her swaying anyone who wasn’t already a Bush-basher.” It is hard to imagine me swaying anyone who is already a Bush-basher.

Pro-Iraq Democracy WON — and anti-Iraqi death squads LOST. You really SHOULD be very happy about it. And unless you, and other Dems, can be HAPPY when goodness triumphs, you, like The Dems are really in danger of losing all vital signs.

The biggest dishonesty of the Dems and excessive Bush-hate is the inability to conceive of any good results from Bush’s actions.

Afghanistan - good. Ukraine - good. Iraq - good. Really.

Bush can STILL be a lying, smirking, corporate toady, who used his slightly-higher than Kerry’s IQ to go to Flight school instead of “safe” boats (*I* don’t think so, but there is some evidence for these views) — yet he DID get Iraq an excellent democratic election.

At a cost of less than 2500 American lives. (Did it cost too much? Can’t really ask that question in America, unless there is agreement it was good.)

It was good, good, good. And why a LOT of voters supported Bush. If you, Marc, can’t separate good results from the leader who gets them, you’re only going to follow/ lead the Dems into their next 2006 loss…

Your skewering of the Dems, which I loved of course, is another reason for me to be here. But you can’t honestly beat Bush about his support for the Saudis, or Mubarak in Egypt, while not accepting Iraqi elections as good. And if they ARE good, it’s fine for Reps to stain their fingers. It’s even good.

Of course, YOUR overly partisan criticism above will be forgotten far sooner than Bush’s speech; and I’m sure you’ll (not fully honestly) be complaining he’s not pushing other death squad dictators around enough.

(I hope you don’t consider me too blunt to visit your living room.)

In fact, let’s start with a construction metaphor. If you own a home that needs repairs you have two choices (not counting doing nothing): repair it in place or tear it down. Sometimes the decision comes down to simple short term math in that repairing the home often is cheaper, at least in the short term, than a tear down and replace. But I think we could agree that there is a point whereby if money were no object you would tear it down and start fresh. I think the Democrats have reached that point.

In my line of work I am constantly competing with other potential suppliers for a specific customer’s business. I have learned over the years that a very effective method of improving my success rate is to understand two fundamental things: when I lose, what did my competition do correctly and what did I do incorrectly; and when I win, what did I do correctly and what did my competition do incorrectly. They aren’t always the same thing, so understanding the impact of those dynamics makes me a better competitor.

Aside from some notable exceptions (Bill Clinton as President), the Democrats have been perennial election day losers since 1980. That’s twenty-five years. They have been consistently out hustled and out maneuvered where it counts most: at the local level. On any given day the Democrats can put more people in the street to shout about this or that issue, but come election day the Republicans get it done where it counts most, at the ballot box.

So, should the Democrats tweak the system that they have been using for the last 25 years or is a tear down and replace needed? I would argue that a tear down and replace is needed. They should lose their current cadre of out-front spokesmen (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Byrd, Rangel, Schumer) and allow younger more thoughtful people to take the stage – as was done with Jesse Jackson in the early 1980’s. They also need to re-establish preeminence in grassroots organization building and campaigning. Howard Dean strikes me as a very good choice in that regard.

To do this earnestly, thoughtfully, and well, they likely would be conceding to lose the 2008 election, but I believe that is a small price to pay for the long term goal of becoming relevant and powerful and an opposition to the Republicans that can be taken seriously. That goal is in their best interest and would be a positive development for our country.

Ok, that’s three and so I’ll be lurking from here on in.

What low class and bad manners for the Democrats to boo during the speech. That side of the aisle brought a new low to the normal courtesy and decorum of the occasion. You would have thought that Bush was addressing the opposition party in the House of Commons.

The Democrats cannot stand to be out of power, so they hate and blame Bush for that and look for any occasion to express that hate. And, don’t tell me the Republicans booed Clinton. They didn’t unless you believe everything you read on the DemocraticUndergound.

ISSUE 2 - Social Security:

The Democrats booed when Bush brought up Social Security reform. The Democrats know full well that FDR started that program as an unfunded program, which he said would change within ten years. Well, it didn’t, and it doesn’t take an actuary to figure that it will break the financial backs of our kids if they have to pay for all the baby boomers.

The Democrats just want to continue scaring the pants off of senior citizens with lies that Bush wants to take their retirement. We surely cannot expect that party to cooperate on this issue (like they do on anything.) Of course, Harry Reid said that the Democrats would not be obstructionists except on issues where the administration is wrong–which they think is all of the time.

In Gallup polls before and after the talk, Americans were asked if Bush made a convincing case on Social Security. Before the speech, 67% thought so. After the speech, 74% did. But, in true form of leftist thought, the Democrats probably think that government knows what is best and that those 74% are just stupid and can be ignored.

Based upon their stances now, two years from now when Howard Dean is shouting all the states that the Democrats are going to take back, his list will be very short.

ISSUE 3 - BLUE FINGERS:

I agree with GMRoper’s post above on this. It came to my mind, too, that this is like various ribbons that people wear. The Democrats would have done the same thing, probably worse, if they had achieved a victory of this sort. At least the Republicans had the class not to dye the middle finger and display that digit to the Democrats.

ISSUE 4 - SUBSTANCE

The style was nice–and unrehearsed, like when the Iraqi woman hugged the mother of the fallen soldier. Bush trying to hold his emotions was real. But, to deal with the substance, Bush outlined things that have to be done–and, all of that may not be popular and may require temporary sacrifices. The line that I liked was when Bush said, “The principle here is clear: taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all.” That line is the bottom line, and that’s not too much to ask of both Republicans and Democrats.

–

End of Post #1

Woody — “Well, it didn’t, and it doesn’t take an actuary to figure that it will break the financial backs of our kids if they have to pay for all the baby boomers.”

In fact the SS trust fund actuaries themselves dispute the numbers that you’re relying on.

Social Security is completely solvent until at least 2042 and after that will pay indefinitely at least 70% of benefits and this with no change whatsoever. Small incremental changes costing as little as 1/4 of the tax cuts given to the wealthiest in the last round of tax cuts will solve any shortfall.

Sorry. Facts aren’t dependent on poll results. Where are yours?

Oh wait, that didn’t happen?

Then maybe they were trying to show solidarity, like wearing an orange tie during the Ukraine elections.

The purple finger was childish stunt. It was done for cheap political gain and not at all comparable to raising awareness for various diseases.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6861528/#050131

“You do not own their courage.

The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don’t own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don’t own their courage, Judith Miller. …

You do not own their courage. “