Random comment from the Nebraska Democratic Party Blog 3

At 12/21/2004 02:17:10 AM, Kyle Michaelis said...

I generally think the labeling of other Democrats as "Republican-lite" or "Democrat in Name Only" is a poor subsitute for thinking that completely disregards the role of the individual in any functioning democracy and any responsive political body. Still, there's a lot to be said for the related thinking that what our candidates really need is some fight in them.

Grit is the thing we lack most. We might have principles, but we don't show a whole lot of willingness to stake our careers on them. No more mincing words. If a candidate with a D by his or her name can't "Say it loud and say it proud" they have very little place leading us, no matter their position on an individual issue.

Candidates shouldn't move in any one direction to be something they're not, but they should be honest and forthright with voters about where exactly they do stand. That means being able to let go of the nuance sometimes and deliver a one sentence answer straight from the gut (or heart, if you prefer).

While railing against the government in the early 90s and dismantling its most sacred institutions ever since, the Republican party has been the one with "balls". We've had a couple of voices in the wilderness types, but they've been unable to form a concerted bloc that could make people stand up and take notice. So, we remain the "tax and spend" party in the eyes of the common (red-state?) voter, while being convictionless opportunists to boot. That's not a recipe for success.

Maybe a nation-wide "watch-party" of HIGH NOON with Gary Cooper is in order. Lord knows, we've got to do something - draw a line in the sand, plant our boots, and mark a couple of territories as our own.

If "red state mania" exists, it's only as a byproduct of the recent politicization of religion. I remain unconvinced. Until we've got a message with a chance of resonating with "values voters" (or whatever you want to call them), we won't have any clue just what kind of damage has been done by this trend. Right now, we're too all over the place to have any perspective whatsoever.

As for Mr. Powers' New Hampshire concerns, they're certainly legitimate, though I'm far more troubled by any state's receiving such priority than I am with their individual histories of electing Dems to the Senate. What's to stop New Hamshire from countering with John Kerry's victory there this year to shut our complaints up mighty fast? I'd prefer a more principled stance that calls for a rotating (mixed-region) schedule in the name of fairness and equality rather than an all-out assault on a "cherished" institution of questionable value that is nevertheless well-engrained in the American political scene.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Future of the Democratic Party, Part II