HAs Russ shown DEMs running against Repub incumbants, how to win?

I wont use the DUers name, but some interesting comments are copied here.



I wouldn't use the word grandstanding. But I think this statement is basically correct.

This is where I disagree.



McCain says censure will galvanize Repubs. He has it backwards. Some Repubs need to run against Bush in '06. Russ has shown DEMS they will get respect and a bump in the polls by taking a stand and taking your case to the people. This is the Mantra of the late Paul Wellstone. And a proven way to win in electorial politics.

Dems running against incumbant Repubs need to take the Feingold lead in '06. Make your stand and take your case to the people, they will respect you for it.



There is another reason the above statement is a bit off target. The '08 season dosen't really start untill the midterms are over. And we haven't even gotten to the '06 primary's. IS Russ setting an example? I think so.

Let me reiterate: Dems running against incumbant Repubs need to win. How to win? Take your case to the people. Make that connection. That and some fundraising, maybe we can take the House back in '06. Maybe the Senate too.

SO yeah, maybe Russ was grandstanding. But if he was doing it for himself, he should have saved it for the '08 season. Election day '08 is 2 1/2 years out. Was Russ actually thinking of '06? I think so.

Am I right? Only time will tell.

you're smart too ! :toast:

It may be that Russ wanted to teach some jello spine DEMS a leason on how to win, before its too late. Plus its just too early for presidential politics. The idea that Russ did this for himself just doesn't sit right with me, at this time.

Russ got a huge bump in the national polls. DEMs running against incumbant Repubs can do the same.

It doesn't matter if it passes or not, it gets people talking about Bush's illegal wiretapping, and their constitutional rights.

Hell, you could even argue that the censure resolution getting defeated, could be good for Dems (if Dems are smart enough to support it). Because Dems could campaign on a platform that Repubs are not protecting Americans' constitutional rights.

If Dems solidly support censure, it's a no-lose situation for them.

is a Repug tactic!

take a stand, and make your case to the people. Its way too early for Russ to be doing this as a grandstand move, as Russ runs for the White House. Its about the rule of law, that Bush Broke.

And its the perfect lesson for DEMs running in '06. Using Russ's example, DEMs could win big, not just win, but big in '06.

AS this whole censure thing works its way thru -- Russ is looking very smart, and demonstating how to beat Repubs. Wanna win, just watch Russ. I thik DEMs aught to take good look at Russ and what he just did.

AS another poster cited-- sometimes a hand full of nuthin--is a pretty cool hand.

I am listening to Laura FLanders, she was just cheering Russ-- LOL-- go figure.

on Charlie Rose. I came away with the impression the man is seriously concerned for this country and has the courage of his convictions to speak out; I imagine he might have figured out what kind of reception he'd get, but if he converts more Dems, I'm all for it. We have to start somewhere. And I honestly didn't get the impression he was grandstanding. IMO obviously. :)

see here:

http://www.woodcodems.blogspot.com/

There IS a method to the madness....

Gee this just might dovetail with my OP. Is Russ showing the way to win in '06? I think so.

The only trouble is that dems might not have the balls to do what is right and what is politically sound in the long run.

then that is a grandstand I will proudly sit in!!!!

1) Speak the plain truth as honestly and as unambiguously as possible.
2) Keep it short and simple( "Bush broke the LAW")
3) Go ON THE RECORD
4) Offer a simple plan
5) Let everyone else worry about the focus groups, polls, and the beltway elites.

Yes, that is how to win.

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. Over 65% of all Americans believe that the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

yes

:dem:

Sir i take issue with your choice of terms to define that party who now currently has control over 2/3 of our government. You refered to them as Repubs... I believe the correct term is repukes :silly:

:woohoo:

Feingold limited himself to spending a certain amount of money in the 1992 and 1998 campaigns. He also stood up for ethical government by promising not to accept any pay raises. Not enough politicians are willing these days to take a stand for ethics like Feingold.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "Make your stand and take your case to the people, they will respect you for it."

Russ is speaking to the people and speaking up for the people. I hear him and he's connected with me at least. I fully support him.

Sonia

http://vichydems.blogspot.com/
http://makethemaccountable.com/alito/

Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

http://www.thehungersite.com

http://www.one.org/ Live 8 Concerts

"WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs - education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans - would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all."

Thank you for taking action with ONE: The Campaign to Make Poverty History!

http://www.one.org/dia/organizationsONE/one/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=99

Connecting with the people is exactly what hasn't been done by other dem candidates of late. Regan new how to do that and look where it got him. Russ is right on.

Every day we do not stand up to what is happening in our name is another day we take collective guilt for the crimes committed in our name.

.....yeah, I think that would be exactly what he was doing. But since presidential counts aren't until 2008, and Bush can't run again anyway, then maybe going after his Republican counterparts in the Senate for not STOPPING, OR EVEN QUESTIONING, Bush's abuses of power, might be a better example for him to set.

But thats just me.

He wants to get the Republicans on record about censuring Bush. Don't you see? By dragging this out for as long as possible, he will make them vote in committee and then the full Senate.

He has put them between a rock and a hard place. Either the Repubs vote for the pres and show voters they won't STOP OR EVEN QUESTION Bush or they vote against the pres and confirm that they have been wrong about Bush the whole time.

He has set them up.

This is all about 2006, not 2008.

...and then when we keep pushing, we look like our priorities are out of whack. I dunno. I can see positives AND negatives from both sides....that makes me wishy washy...or so says my wife.

Its kinda like a "flea-flicker" in the NFL when you are down by 5 points with 1 minute to play and it is fourth down and one. If it works and you score, you are a genius. If the ball hits the ground...your the goat! You know? Feingold may not be as old as me, but I have to believe that his experience makes him more capable of making this decision than me. I just hope he's right.

I have been watching a game where Democrats punt on first down in the first, second, and third quarters to let the Republicans "make mistakes of their own" in order to win the game.

We can't win without taking some risks.

...thats for sure.

Impeachment: A Campaign's Tactical Nuke

Of course, it doesn't actually matter if demanding impeachment helps or hurts a campaign. From To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question:



-pat_k
(and a big Hi FogerRox!)

My attention hasn't been focused on him until the past 6 months or so, but he strikes me as a man of principles, one that is not politics first, what is right a weak second. I see him as an example of what a true representative of the people should be. I don't see him as the (sadly) typical politician. I get really good vibes from him.
I don't have a problem with a representative who doesn't always vote the way I'd like them to, if I trust them. But... I'm pretty cynical about that trust factor. I think this guy might be one I'd be willing to put a lot of faith in. The crony factor in him is not apparent, he certainly has courage, and he obviously doesn't speak out until he's certain that what he thinks needs to be said, and he can be comfortable and confident about what he has to say.
Yeah, I think this guy is a "keeper"!
A Sunday morning "Woot!" for Russ!

in electorial politics, just might be a good thing. DOnt ya think?

. . .But the pund-idiots have been exclusively focused on the "game" for so long that reality completely escapes them.

Americans respect strength. Americans respect leaders who act on principle regardless of risk or benefit. That's a measurable and consistent reality.

The media story arc is not just devoid of reality. Whatever the members of the Democratic caucus do, the pund-idiots exclusively spout their baseless predictions to design and promote a story arc that is critical of the action. Furthermore, the story arc usually reflects an obsession with what the Limbaugh, O'Riley, and Hannity cultists (who constitute only 20%-30%) are gonna "think" (people who would be completely irrelevant if their "thinking" were dismissed with derision it deserves).

When principle demands action and our leaders fail to act, the pund-idiots yatter on about how acting would be political suicide, and then they couple their fabricated speculation of dire consequences with the failure to act and spout the "bunch of cowards" story arc.

When principle demands action and our leaders act, the pund-idiots yatter on about how the action is a transparent attempt to pander to voters, and then they couple their fabricated speculation to conclude that the action is "grandstanding" or some such.

They fail to see the lunacy inherent in their irreconcilable prognosticating. The absurdity would be laughable if it did not have such devastating consequences on the public's view of events.

Too often, rank and file Dems pick up and echo the irrelevant and phony "debates" (e.g., endless speculation about Hilary's chances when events are likely to radically change the dynamics). It's time for us to ignore the pund-idiots and the 20-30% of the public they are obsessed with. We can't afford to keep getting lost in beltway malarkey. We can't rescue them if we keep falling into the same traps.

After six years of living under the rule of murderous thieves, thugs, liars, arrogant and incompetent fascist despots who have been occupying the white house and in control every single branch of our government; and after six long years of death destruction torture abuse and the complete decimation of our Bill of Rights, and a despot who thumbs his nose at our Constitution, uses it to wipe his ass, and after six long years of watching our party leaders cower and run for cover on every single issue of major significance, watching our party leaders acting like anything but the opposition party, we now have one brave courageous Senator willing to stand up to the Powers That Be, willing to speak truth to power, even at the risk of being Wellstoned, by the very powers this brave Senator is addressing, we now see and hear members of our party and their functionaries here on DU actually accusing this brave Senator, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, of “Grandstanding” .

I am disgusted of the hypocrisy and depth of dishonesty required to promulgate such tripe. Shame!! Shame!! Shame!!

The problem is that many members of DU have already chosen their 2008 Presidential Candidate, and have already invested EGO in staking out their positions. They have become nothing more than camp followers. They have chosen screen names and designed avatars featuring their preferred candidate. They have begun to actively campaign for their candidate. They have already spammed numerous threads at DU with their campaign nonsense, and automatically attack anyone they perceive as a threat to their candidate (and their EGO). They are effectively blind to the possibility that a charismatic populist candidate will arise to unite our Party, and lead a movement to reform and victory.
Feingold may or may not be this man.
I have not chosen my candidate yet, and feel it is foolish to do so.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

"But what if we make the Republicans defend the President's actions? There's an old axiom in politics that says "if you're explaining, you're losing. Maybe that's Russ's master strategy. Make the Republicans explain. Maybe they can only explain by using nuance god forbid!"

Censure forces Republicans to go on the defensive, and they have to decide between two losing choices:

Defend the President instead of the Constitution
Defend the Constitution instead of the President

Either option is a big loser for the GOP.

I really like Russ, but I have not chosen my candidate for '08. '06 comes 1st.

For me this excludes Zell Miller and Lieberman both of whom still claim to be Democrats.

on DU, no less!! When we have been begging the Dems to stand up for us. Hours emailing, writing and calling and STILL they pass the treasonous Patriot Act with no modifications to protect SOME of our rights and the Dems allow Alito to be confirmed... Words fail me, I'm glad they didn't fail you and am keeping your excellent slap down to this Vichy Dem meme.

Russ is a real patriot who is not going to take it any more!

:kick:

:thumbsup:

against the Patriot Act when it was first foisted upon Congress?

I think that another dimension here is that the Democrats have been given a second chance to make up for their past collusion with the White House here.

In any event, if the Democrats will not stand up to a President who has clearly broken the law that he was sworn to uphold and to defend the Constitution of the United States which has been clearly violated then who needs them?