Join 3,425 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Party's Over
November 7, 2002 12:07 AM   Subscribe

The Party's Over What happened on November 5, 2002 was the culmination of a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party that began more than a decade ago under the leadership of a group of conservatives, corporadoes, and con men .... It must find a soul, a passion, and a sense of itself. Most of all, it must get rid of those false prophets and phony friends who have not only done it so much damage but have left the country fully in the hands of the cruel, the selfish, the violent, the dumb, and the anti-democratic.
posted by thedailygrowl (33 comments total)

 
[errr... that page renders nastily in IE5 Mac. Just a heads up.]
posted by nathan_teske at 12:13 AM on November 7, 2002


What is this, a leftist version of the Sierra Times or something?
posted by dagny at 12:26 AM on November 7, 2002


There are few signs the party has figured this out. It still clings to Clinton like a abused spouse in denial

That pretty much describes the Democrats' relationship with Clinton... we can't help but love him, but the more popular he became, the weaker the party got. His continued viability and electability as a president came at the sacrifice of any continued party leadership. No prominent Democratic governors were left, Terry McAuliffe bungled his job, Gephardt's attempt at pretending to be Clinton has caused him to lose his House leadership position and Daschle-- well, Daschle was never really the boogeyman republicans made him out to be, but that's because he was a pretty uninspiring candidate to begin with.

Clinton, popular and as highly esteemed as he is (don't deny it!), left the Democratic party much weaker than when he started. Just look at what's happened after Tuesday-- the only major Democrat left standing Wednesday morning was Gray Davis, a candidate distinctive only for his blandness and a candidate that the entire state of California loathed.
posted by deanc at 1:11 AM on November 7, 2002


Matt has stated many times that "MetaFilter isn't the place to advance your political viewpoint". He recently said in MetaTalk that after several months of trying to solve the problem of political discussion posts, and being ignored by people who continue to make posts like this one, he is beginning to think about more drastic solutions.

This thread might get deleted, but hopefully people will finally start to pay attention to the guidelines, the wishes of our host, and the discussions in MetaTalk about what constitutes an appropriate post.
posted by fuzz at 1:12 AM on November 7, 2002


It must find a soul, a passion, and a sense of itself. Most of all, it must get rid of those false prophets and phony friends who have not only done it so much damage but have left the country fully in the hands of the cruel, the selfish, the violent, the dumb, and the anti-democratic.

You mean oust out The Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and others from the party?
posted by ZupanGOD at 1:36 AM on November 7, 2002


My take: Clinton was a step in the right direction, toward the center, but the old liberal farts in control of the party could not sustain that vector nor would they step aside to let younger liberals navigate that course.

Just as Republican sympathisizers have taken over talk radio to forward their cause, the Democrats should blatantly take over cable and the internet to establish their own rapport with voters. Take a page from the '60s and create some new, young political celebrities.
posted by mischief at 5:03 AM on November 7, 2002


First of all, I think this is a bad post and should be deleted. But, since it's still up, I have to say that I completely agree with mischief. Of course the far left will argue that the answer is to move away from the center. But to my mind that's a recipe for more disaster -- obviously the current mood in the country is for a moderate, middle-of-the-road platform. The Republicans obviously know this. There's nothing wrong with the Democrats targeting the center (since it is, after all, a democracy) -- the problem isn't ideology, it's message. The Democratic leadership has done an awful job of getting out front and appearing to have conviction. For this Democrat, the more mainstream the party, the more likely I am to vote for it.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:09 AM on November 7, 2002


I'm with mischef, the Dems don't even try to win elections. Look at the right, they would do anything for power, and conceive of everything in those terms. They attacked Clinton (often unfairly) from day 1.

The Dems, by contrast, won't attack Bush on any issue with a broad centrist critique of Bush: [spin]he blew the surplus, is botching the war on terror, let his buddies in corporate America loot their employees' 401Ks, [/spin] etc.

The troubles is, these folks lack the cohones to win.
posted by ednopantz at 6:11 AM on November 7, 2002


The Dems won't attack Bush on any issue with a broad centrist critique of Bush

Therein lies the problem; the old liberals simply have no rebellion left in them. They are too damned afraid to stand up and say, "Fuck no, George!"

Where are the young liberal leaders, the ones between 16 and 28? Give them a voice! Now that we have 'soft money' laws limiting what the parties can do, individuals and independent organizations should start investing in other mouthpieces, not just speechmakers. Stir up the young, organize the disenfranchised minorities and new immigrants, buy primetime commercials to spotlight musicians with a message. Think marketing!
posted by mischief at 6:34 AM on November 7, 2002


Geez, the partisan rhetoric is deep and smelly in here...
posted by Plunge at 6:52 AM on November 7, 2002


Just to reiterate:

Matt has stated many times that "MetaFilter isn't the place to advance your political viewpoint". He recently said in MetaTalk that after several months of trying to solve the problem of political discussion posts, and being ignored by people who continue to make posts like this one, he is beginning to think about more drastic solutions.

This thread might get deleted, but hopefully people will finally start to pay attention to the guidelines, the wishes of our host, and the discussions in MetaTalk about what constitutes an appropriate post.

posted by a3matrix at 7:10 AM on November 7, 2002


this is one of the most blatant trolls I've seen in a while.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:22 AM on November 7, 2002


this is one of the most blatant trolls I've seen in a while.

Troll meaning post you don't agree with?
posted by ednopantz at 7:29 AM on November 7, 2002


Troll meaning post you don't agree with?

No, "troll" meaning a one-sided, obnoxious declaration posted with the intent of stirring up crap.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....
posted by oissubke at 7:49 AM on November 7, 2002


Partisan rhetoric? Not from me! I'm a small 'L' libertarian (I've been using that phrase far longer than Paglia, too) who sees political parity as the shortest route to absolute chaos. I'm just offering the underdog a bit of advice. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:12 AM on November 7, 2002


How's this FPP offensive to Republicans, exactly? The post quotes directly from the article, for one thing. Then, the "no soul" argument is one that plenty of Republicans have made during the past couple of days. The only vaguely trollish part, really, is the attack on "conservatives and corporadoes," but that's not a partisan attack, in the sense of "a partisan attack on the competition." It's an intra-party spat we're talking about here. There's room for a good post on these sorts of issues. It's not the best post one could find in the "Democratic catfight/struggle for the party's soul" category, but it's not an zealous attack on the GOP. This post is most definitely partisan and trollish, though.
posted by raysmj at 8:12 AM on November 7, 2002


Interesting, I didn't see this as a "trolling" post at all. I think the article represents a very good analysis of what happened within the Democratic party to lead to the complete sweep by the Republicans that we saw on Tuesday.

Sure you can take the piece as very partisan and very leftest. I took it as more of a critique of the destruction of the left. There is an anti-conservative bent to it, but overall it is more of a criticism of the left than anything. Well written, at that. Flame away, boys!
posted by tgrundke at 8:13 AM on November 7, 2002


I've always wanted to be in a post doomed to be deleted. Only two life goals left remaining....
posted by blogRot at 11:18 AM on November 7, 2002


The only thing I find objectionable about this post is the notion that it shouldn't be posted at all. What a bunch of BS! so we can discuss anything but politics? Since when?
posted by Neologian at 11:25 AM on November 7, 2002


I'm with mischef, the Dems don't even try to win elections. Look at the right, they would do anything for power, and conceive of everything in those terms.

Odd, I see this exactly the opposite. I feel that the Dems behaved in a desperate and stupid manner throughout this campaign cycle. Their ENTIRE focus was on keeping the Senate, on winning elections and on retaining that power. They focused on that issue so hard that they forgot to have any sort of platform or set of issues that they could present to voters - and that is why they lost.

If they made any mention of an issue it was to mention the economy which, whether you like it or not, is not doing that poorly. They did this when all major economic indicators are up and, personally, I've had two days off out of the past month and I'll be lucky to see another day off work before my vacation starts on the 24th when six months ago I was working four day weeks. We just had a huge order from China and our European and US business is way up for us over the beginning of the year. Bad timing!

Does picking Mondale over a Green candidate who would have more closely followed Wellstone's beliefs seem like the actions of a party more interested in the people and less interested in power? What about replacing Torricelli with Lautenberg simply because of the Torch's sagging polls? You'd best look at this issue again...
posted by RevGreg at 12:18 PM on November 7, 2002


Suggestion, thedailygrowl: you might want to use quote marks in a post to show when you're quoting something, so folks won't think the opinioneering is you. It might make for better discussion. Without them, I can see how some might take your post as trolling.

I'm glad I saw this here, btw, but agree we're seeing too many links to op-ed political analysis. I do think Sam Smith's historical analysis - wealthy Democratic Leadership Council hijacks party from rank-and-file during late 1980s, doesn't give it back - fits the facts better than most morning-after analysis I've read.
posted by mediareport at 1:58 PM on November 7, 2002


Here's a good quote from Tom Daschle:

“I can’t think of anything we would have done differently. I wouldn’t change anything,” he said. “We had wonderful candidates, good resources. It just wasn’t our night.”

Clearly, he doesn't get it.

With guys like this running the party they are Doomed with a capital D. They had tons of ammo to fire at Bush (it's the economy, stupid) but amazingly they manage to drop the rifle and shoot themselves in the foot. Don't expect me to have any sympathy for a party run by incompetents.

pardonyou?

There's nothing wrong with the Democrats targeting the center. . .

That's exactly what they tried to do two days ago. Didn't work out too well, did it?
posted by mark13 at 3:06 PM on November 7, 2002


There's nothing wrong with the Democrats targeting the center. . .

That's exactly what they tried to do two days ago. Didn't work out too well, did it?


There's a difference between targeting the center and running the me-too campaign that the Dems seem to have done this year. You can run to the center and still articulate your differences, offer new idea, and give people a reason to vote *for* you as opposed to only giving reasons to voting against your opponent, which seems to be the Dem strategy lately.
posted by gyc at 3:23 PM on November 7, 2002


[ There's nothing wrong with the Democrats targeting the center. . . ]

That's exactly what they tried to do two days ago. Didn't work out too well, did it?


Actually, what the Dems did two days ago would be more accurately termed as tilting at windmills. They had absolutely no focus whatsoever other than to put on the brave faces of their elder warriors and make some lame attempts at using the economy as a crutch, which would have worked fine if the economy were cooperating with them and staying down...
posted by RevGreg at 5:13 PM on November 7, 2002


There's a difference between targeting the center and running the me-too campaign that the Dems seem to have done this year. You can run to the center and still articulate your differences, offer new idea, and give people a reason to vote *for* you as opposed to only giving reasons to voting against your opponent, which seems to be the Dem strategy lately.

Words of wisdom. There's plenty of room in the center for a left-leaning centrist to score points against the Cheneys of the world. There's *no room whatsoever* for a right-leaning centrist to score those points, unless s/he runs solely on sex, charisma or expensive lies.

I consider myself a left-leaning independent with strong anarchist (centralized government is inherently untrustworthy), socialist (national health care now, dammit) *and* free market (competition kept in check by a strong judiciary is a great engine for raising humanity's standard of living) leanings. It's obvious to me that the guy in the race to replace Gephardt (forget his name, but he's currently attacking Nancy Pelosi as "too liberal") is acting like a freaking moron. You cannot *get* any more Republican than Dems have gotten this year, but this shmoe still thinks the party should tilt further to the right. Sam Smith's analysis in the link at the top of the thread strikes me as dead on-target. The wealthy right-wing fools in control of the Democratic Party right now won't give up their power without a fight, and I'm *this* close to changing my registration from "Unaffiliated" back to "Democrat" and giving it to them.
posted by mediareport at 7:54 PM on November 7, 2002


RevGreg: What you're saying would make sense if New Jersey's Senate race wasn't one of the few Democrats won, soundly - in other words, the comment would make sense if you lived in an alternate universe. The Dow also declined 184 points today, even after a half-percentage cut in the discount rate. Just to let you know.
posted by raysmj at 9:53 PM on November 7, 2002


A bit off subject, but if Mefi enforces a "no political discussion" policy, I'll probably stop reading it so often. Then again.....what about PoliMefi?
posted by troutfishing at 6:30 AM on November 8, 2002


What you're saying would make sense if New Jersey's Senate race wasn't one of the few Democrats won, soundly - in other words, the comment would make sense if you lived in an alternate universe.

My words were written in response to someone claiming that the GOP was only concerned about winning. I pointed out the last minute Torch/Lautenberg switch as an example of the Democrats only caring about winning due to the Torch's low polls. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Lautenberg winning, which wasn't even an element of the conversation going on - the results of the race were not mentioned and were not relevent to the issue.

The Dow also declined 184 points today, even after a half-percentage cut in the discount rate. Just to let you know.

Yes I read the news. I even read headlines such as "S&P, Nasdaq End 4-Week Winning Streak." I find it interesting how 4-weeks of growth means nothing to you in the face of a day of minor setbacks (now two days.)
posted by RevGreg at 3:11 PM on November 8, 2002


The discount rate was cut because of fears of a slow recovery. Wall Street was nerved out over the reason for the cut. That's why stocks went down yesterday, and today (even after an election which the Wall Street Journal called good news for business - the conventional wisdom was a GOP win in combo with a rate cut would lead to gains). Four weeks of gains after a horrible year is hardly something to yell about, regardless.

In any case, why isn't your mentioning the one absolutely solid win as an example of being wrongheaded? You implied that the Dems' seeking power instead of having a coherent agenda is why they lost. They won in NJ, big. That doesn't make much of a case for your opinion, at all. You'd have to look at other races to show that, or show what was different about New Jersey from other states. (Yeah, I know it's liberal, but so is Minnesota.)
posted by raysmj at 9:22 PM on November 8, 2002


It just might be that, in New Jersey, Lautenberg's agenda was much less muddled that that of his opponent.
posted by raysmj at 9:38 PM on November 8, 2002


Oh, there should be a "relevant" at the end of the first sentence in the second paragraph up there. Sorry.
posted by raysmj at 10:57 PM on November 8, 2002


Four weeks of gains after a horrible year is hardly something to yell about, regardless.

Nor are two days of losses...which was the whole point that started this little sub-discussion.
posted by RevGreg at 9:53 AM on November 9, 2002


Sheesh. No, it's highly significant for the reasons listed above - by all accounts, gains were supposed to be a virtual certainty if you had the two-fer of a GOP win and rate cut. Didn't happen.
posted by raysmj at 10:23 AM on November 9, 2002


« Older How the world sees Americans....  |  Emergency War Surgery. ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments