Damning with faint praise? Nelson = Better than Lieberman

Check out the below from one of DailyKos' most trusted contributors. It speaks well to Ben Nelson's crucial role in the Democratic Party. Sometimes, you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. Let's hope, fellow Democrats, that's not our case come Jan '07.

__________________
What Lieberman Can Learn From Ben Nelson
by Armando
Sun Mar 13th, 2005 at 09:02:25 PST

On MTP, I watched Russert interview Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) on the Social Security debate.

Obviously Nelson is not exactly someone I personally see eye to eye with on all the issues. In particular, Nelson's Yes vote for Alberto Gonzales as AG in the face of Gonzales' front and center role in the formulation of the Bush Administration's torture policy takes away any real support I can offer Nelson. It was inexcusable really. There were no compelling political, philosophical or policy reasons for that vote. Frankly, one can only conclude that Nelson doesn't have a problem with torture. And that vote is a moral stain he carries.

But when it comes to being an "independent" Democrat, Nelson's performance on MTP should be a lesson to Sen. Lieberman on how to do it. First and foremost, Nelson passed up every single opportunity, and Russert offered many, to criticize Democrats. Did not even nibble. Not one little bit. Sen. Lieberman, let that also be your prime directive - do NOT criticize your Democratic colleagues.

Nelson also did two other important things I thought. First, he emphasized the fact that he is representing Nebraskans when speaking on the issue, and that he sees himself as responding to their concerns. Thus, when Russert asked him about the letter from the 42 Democratic Senators rejecting Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, Nelson did not speak of what Democrats should do, rather he spoke of what Nebraskans want him to do. I find this an important difference from the Lieberman approach, which seems to require lecturing Democrats on what they should do instead of explaining what he is doing.

Second, while speaking ostensibly of keeping an open mind, Nelson spoke in a singleminded fashion on the need to address the solvency issue, treating Bush's private accounts proposal almost as a strange oddity. While he would not rule them out said Nelson, the plan would have to avoid adding to the solvency issue. Well, as we all know, Bush's privatization plan requires massive borrowing, severely worsening the solvency issue, while deeply cutting benefits. Let's face it, while Nelson mouths the words "keeping an open mind" - his focus on solvency pretty much closes his mind to Bush's proposal. While Nelson pretends not to know this, he of course does.

The most important thing Lieberman can learn from Nelson though is simply this - do NOT criticize Democrats. Do NOT carry water for Republicans. Watching Nelson on MTP provides an object lesson on how to be an "independent" Democrat without being a Republican tool. Please take it to heart Sen. Lieberman.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Permanent Open Thread

A self-rigtheous scolding

At 12:51 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

We can talk all we want about campaigns and candidates, but it's going to take more than that to make us a real force in Nebraska once again.

We need issues and ideas that play at the local level. If candidats are pushing them, that's great but until then someone needs to fill the vacuum. We need an identity make-over or at least a reintroduction to the people of this great state. My great regret is that I don't, at this time, have more to offer as to how we can go about this. It takes good candidates, yes, but it also requires a new idea - a new rallying cry (or several).

We can discuss the merits of individual candidates. We can discuss outreach strategies. We can discuss future elections with any number of hypothetical scenarios of various degrees of preposterousnes and presumptuousness. But, I'd hoped this conversation would become one about the issues, here in Nebraska, that need our attention. About the people, in this state, who most need our voice and our strength.

If that's not a conversation we can have, I fear we might all be as exhausted and devoid of vision as I myself feel, in which case we'll be arguing the same old "blahs" of ineffective leadership and the need for new ideas from here to eternity.

It seems many see the problem(s). Now, can we please start talking about the solution? Please. Can we get back to the issues and back to the work of making peoples' lives better? Where does the progressive spirit guide us in the 21st Century? Where is there a new connection with the people of Nebraska, a new dream for America, to be forged?

Are we so convinced of the infallibility of the Democratic status quo, the old party line? Are we really willing to write all of our failures off on the Republican noise machine and their candidates' blind devotion to the day's talking points? If so, shame on all of us for our ignorance and PRIDE. Perhaps our winter has only just begun.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Permanent Open Thread

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

At 1:52 AM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Discussion about our agenda is always a positive thing, but, in response to JO-R, I don't think the work of crafting talking points and speaking for the party is best left to a committee.

The kind of leadership we need can not come from group consensus. No 10 words, no 2 or 3 initiatives, will ever suffice. Debates of language and semantics, especially in politics, are traps from which little but conflict ever ultimately emerge.

Here's what I think - we have principles. Those are found both in the State Party Platform and in that little hidden corner of the soul that tells each of us we are Democrats. Metaphysics aside, a lot of work goes into that Platform every two years for a reason. It is the road map for the party. What's lacking is someone to show us the way - someone to take all that document's passion and turn it into a winning strategy.

In my mind, this should be the job of the NDP President. Our current constitution seems to leave this task to the State Central Committee, a task which it can not fulfill by the very nature of its girth and sporadic output. The State Central Committee should be a check on the President policy-wise, not a divining rod. The President should be responsive to the SCC rather than beholden to it.

Does this give the President more authority? Damn right it does. Does this raise our expectations of the post? Absolutely. This ship needs a captain. Sure, we've got our map and the State Central Committee can offer further navigation, but one person has to be at the wheel, willing to take a few chances and stake his or her own neck on a course of action. Accountability grows from entrusting capable individuals with responsibility. It can be enforced by committee but is poorly held by such bodies.

None of this is intended as a knock on current leadership. I don't think they've probably felt empowered to do their jobs in the above manner (which is simply "doing their job," in my mind). Maybe they'd even disagree with what I'm saying. I don't know. What we have now maximizes our conforming to democratic ideals, while leaving us crippled by their weaknesses - mainly lack of direction and a pace so slow that it can't possibly respond to the needs of the modern world. We must change to survive.

Note, I am not suggesting any sort of "imperial" presidency. Operations should remain under the guidance of the executive director. Also, the State Central Committee must continue to hold the President's feet to the fire as a governing board overseeing his/her actions and positioning the party on issues between Conventions. But, from there, the President (with the Executive Committee and staff of the NDP) has to take the lead.

Right now, I don't get a sense that anyone's at the helm (see this legislative session). Whether it takes election of new officers, constitutional reform, or simply a stern talking-to, that has to change. We can't exist in the shadows. If we had more candidates in high office, they could be our voice and public face, but that just isn't the case. We've got to have someONE front and center putting the Democratic Agenda out there.

So, yes Heath, by all means let's get a separate discussion about the issues NDP should tackle. But it won't do us much good if we don't have elected leadership both enabled and willing to lead. Something somewhere is going to have to change. Howard Dean can send us more money but he can't make us relevant again to the lives of Nebraska voters. Some things we have to do for ourselves.

PS- Please substitute "State Chair" for "President" throughout the above post.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Nebraska Exiting Polling Data Reveals...

A necessary rant...

At 3:45 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

I don't know what can really be learned from these numbers since no real campaign was waged on Kerry's behalf in Nebraska. Maybe a study of Western Iowa would be more telling.

The scary thing is how closely those registration numbers (24% D, 53% R, 22% I) come to reflecting reality. Also, extend that income gap "a little" further because those earning $30-50K voted against us by the same horrifying margin as $50-75K (-36%). That's depressing as hell on its face, but it also shows we have a world of potential if we can re-emerge as these hard-working peoples' champion.

Where do we start? Nationally, I want to see a united Democratic Party Congressional budget proposal that is HONEST with the American people and tops Bush's defecit reduction plan. Let's show them our priorities by offering an alternative. We also need to have an alternative Social Security proposal ready to blow Bush's destructive "notion" out of the water once a real plan develops.

Here in Nebraska, I'm not seeing much of an agenda at the state level, even with the Unicameral in session. With the supposedly non-partisan nature of the Unicam, the Party has an opportunity to organize around issues and proposals without needing concern ourselves with the support of our every legislator. They have cover as do we because both of our first priorites have to be our constituents (voters) rather than each other. We work through the citizens to whom Senators must respond. Yes, we are thus weakened institutionally (floor fights become difficult), but our potential in principled stands that give voice out of moral obligation as a party is actually much strengthened.

We should have a list of priorities HERE in the state of Nebraska that we talk about at every chance we get. It is the only way we can create an identity out of the compassion and good-naturedness of our people.

Are we out of ideas? Are we biding our time? What's the delay - what is there to lose? When Nebraska voters ask themselves again in 2006 "what has the Democratic Party done for me lately?" we had better have something to show for ourselves, at least a promise of things to come, otherwise we're going to get creamed again and again.

How about a statewide living wage on govt. contracts in conjunction with a new round of extensive business incentives that just happen to require full disclosure? How about vowing to protect I-300 with our dying breath? How about going on the attack against "Conceal & Carry"? How about denouncing legal discrimination against homosexuals? How about going after Regent Drew Miller for his absurd vendetta against financial aid for low-income students based on need?

We need action. We need Democrats standing up as Democrats with some leadership and organization by the state party. We need to pick our horn, then toot it every chance we can get. At the very least, we need to show an interest in having a conversation with the people of this state on who they are, who we are, and the future we can build together.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Nebraska Exiting Polling Data Reveals...

Re: Ben Nelson and "Obstructionism"

At 11:59 AM, Kyle Michaelis said...

I seem to remember us having shared control of the Senate for two years thanks to Ben Nelson's being a Democrat. It sure as hell isn't his fault that the Democrats fell so quickly from there.

Just because Nelson doesn't subscribe to the hyper-partisan notion that a Democrats job is to oppose President Bush hardly classifies him as a traitor. I ask this, where in the Senate has Ben Nelson betrayed the principles by which he governed Nebraska for eight years? It's simple...he hasn't. If he was a Democrat then, he's a Democrat now.

On this issue of Judicial appointees, changing filibuster rules is just a bad idea, but the Democrats' delay tactics are little better. We haven't had enough bark to back-up our legislative manuevering, so we're getting creamed on a losing issue.

As a former Governor, it's understandable that Nelson should think an executive deserves some free hand in his/her appointments. Allowing judicial nominees a vote is the very least that could be expected. It certainly is no betrayal (assuming he's not just a "yes" man on every nominee).

This "obstruction" issue is exactly the DEFENSIVE posturing that has crippled us. Voting proudly against Bush's abominations of justice and letting them hang themselves from the bench is the only way we can win back the people. We are holding desperately onto power as it slips though our fingers rather than letting go and getting back on the offensive where we belong.

In the Clinton years, if we would have been HALF as effective going after the Republican Congress for what they were doing to the courts, we'd probably have majorities in both houses. We missed our chance. Now, they've won and expect only that they be given the rope/noose to which they are entitled.

I say it's time we give in and let them have it. Let the people see the Republicans for what they are and who they put into power.

Ben Nelson is Ben Nelson. You don't have to like it. He's not my ideal Democrat either, but I refuse to insult him for being who he is and who we elected him to be.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread

Response to Brother Kevin's Pessimism

At 2/10/2005 05:44:50 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

It's true Dems are on the defensive and that's not the way to offer true leadership. But our stagnation is the fruit of our success. We are proud of the work of almost 60 years of Democratic Congressional leadership, not to mention the leaps in freedom spear-headed by the Kennedy-Johnson Administrations, and we aren't quite sure where to go from here. Thus, we've become the party of the status quo even when we're out of power because we generally like things the way they are and think Americans feel the same way. We think "the dream" is within reach with minor tweaking here and there if it's even attainable at all.

The American people as a whole have not shown a willingness to embrace bold initiatives from the vantage of comfort and security that is their current state (in theory). The timidness of the restive American populace has resulted in our near-terminal complacency interrupted only by Republican attempts to dismantle the system of which we are so proud - not as the best of all possible worlds but as a pretty good place to be at a pretty good time in history. We're not on the mountaintop but seem to have put our trust in the course of human events (the natural evolution of man) to carry us the rest of the way...if only those nasty Republicans would cease their attempts to restrain enlightenment's progress.

Is this all a bit far-fetched? Absolutely. But it is also illustrative of the (perhaps false) sense of security that surrounds being an American in the 21st Century. Democrats have offered programs aplenty that would make this country a better place to live, from voting rights to TRUE health care reform to plans that extend Social Security indefinitely without violating the sacred trust from which it was born. These just haven't been tied together. They aren't clicking. That's not a reason to give up hope. It's not a reason to seek "greener" pastures under a different label. If we are what we like to think we are, if we deserve the legacy with which we've been entrusted, we'll keep on fighting harder, smarter, with better ideas and stronger initiative until - Damn It - we get it right.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. I've had enough of arm-chair quarterback strategists, talking heads, and would-be revolutionaries (especially myself). Practice what you preach and let's, I believe the saying is, "get'er done."

"Kramer for Senate"...Ha! - keep them fingers crossed E.B.N. I wouldn't mind being able to focus all our energies on the statehouse.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Conservative to Radical?

In the News

At 1/24/2005 12:18:26 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Our State Chair, Steve Achelpohl, on the appointment of Hastings mayor Rick Sheehy as Lieutenant Governor, "I don't know this guy from Adam..."

Of course, our titular head said other things in the LJS article, mainly attacking the appointment as a political ploy and re-emphasizing his "unknown" status, but the above quote really stands out, especially since Mr. Sheehy was a registered Democrat until two years ago. That means he won election in 2000 as Mayor of one of the state's 10 largest cities, in the Third District no less, AS A DEMOCRAT. And we don't know who he is? That's telling in a lot of ways. On a first glance, it says we're REALLY out of touch with Nebraska outside Omaha and Lincoln. It even suggests this guy may have made the right choice switching parties, demographics aside, because we weren't making much of an effort to give he or his constituents a seat at the table.

Of course, this guy did change parties and make a pretty quick leap that could prime him to succeed Coach Osbourne. Surely there's more to the story that may paint Sheehy quite the calculating fellow with who-knows-what king of bargainin chips. But...that's just a mere assumption...what's known is that Sheehy was one of us, in name at least, and now he's playing for the other team. Saying we've never heard of him and attacking him for being from outside the "Nebraska beltway", our non-existent power base, is more an indictment of us than it is anything else.

We need to change our tone. We need to be expressing hope that since this guy WAS a Democrat he'll still have some sympathy for the poor and some remaining remnant of the bond with working peoples' concerns that made him a Democrat originally. Instead of defining ourselves and making this issue work FOR us, we went into tired and obnoxious ATTACK mode, as has been our lame fall-back position for as long as I remember. No wonder we keep losing.

Article to which the above post refers:
Our New Lieutenant Governor


Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread