So what do the Democrats need to do?

In these days post-election, I've been doing a lot of reading of op-ed pages and politically-leaning blogs trying to get a bead on the opinions of others about what those of us that didn't re-elect Bush should do about "the problem," which is, the consensus seems to be, that the Democrats need a new platform.
Most of us in the "minority" are out of synch with the red states and will continue our downward slide if we don't very soon learn to relate to them and most imporantly, have them relate to us and support our platform.

One good reason to do this is because GWB says he's  "earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now (he intends) to spend it."

Asshat.

Ahem. I know, we must make nice with the GOP if we want a chance at wrestling control back of any piece of our Executive and Legislative Branches. Right now I am open to listening to just about any opinion about how we are going to do this...so here's an opinion that I found thought-provoking. It includes another endorsement for John Edwards (and Evan Bayh, son of Birch, who I've thought for years would suffice nicely enough to get the job done).

Time to Get Religion
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: November 6, 2004
If Democrats want to know how to win again, they have a model. It's the British Labor Party.

When I studied in England in the early 1980's, the British Labor Party seemed as quaint and eccentric as Oxford itself, where we wore gowns for exams and some dons addressed the rare female student as  "sir."  Labor was caught in its own echo chamber of militant unions and anti-American activists, and it so repulsed voters that it seemed it might wither away entirely.

Then Tony Blair and another M.P., Gordon Brown, dragged the party away from socialism, unions, nuclear disarmament and anti-Americanism. Together they created New Labor,
which aimed for the center and aggressively courted Middle Britain instead of trying to scare it. The result is that since 1997, Mr. Blair and Labor have utterly dominated Britain.

The Democrats need a similar rebranding. But the risk is that the party will blame others
for its failures - or, worse, blame the American people for their
stupidity (as London's Daily Mirror screamed in a Page 1 headline this
week: How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?.

As moderates from the heartland, like Tom Daschle, are picked off by the Republicans, the
party's image risks being defined even more by bicoastal, tree-hugging, gun-banning, French-speaking, Bordeau-sipping, Times-toting liberals, whose solution is to veer left and galvanize the base.

But firing up the base means turning off swing voters. Gov. Mike Johanns, a NebraskaRepublican, told me that each time Michael Moore spoke up for  John Kerry, Mr. Kerry's support in Nebraska took a dive.

Mobilizing the base would mean nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 and losing yet again. (Mrs. Clinton has actually undertaken just the kind of makeover that I'm talking about: in the Senate, she's been cooperative, mellow and moderate, winning over upstate New Yorkers. She could do the same in the heartland ... if she had 50 years.)

So Democrats need to give a more prominent voice to Middle American,
wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting centrists. (They can tote The Times, too, in a plain brown wrapper.) For a nominee who could lead the Democrats to victory, think John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh, or anyone who knows the difference between straw and hay.

I wish that winning were just a matter of presentation. But it's not. It involves compromising on principles. Bill Clinton won his credibility in the heartland partly by going home to Little Rock during the 1992 campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally disabled convict named Ricky Ray Rector.

There was a moral ambiguity about Mr. Clinton's clambering to power over Mr. Rector's corpse. But unless Democrats compromise, they'll be proud and true and losers.

So what do the Democrats need to do?
Here are four suggestions:

• Don't be afraid of religion. Offer government support for faith-based
programs to aid the homeless, prisoners and AIDS victims. And argue
theology with Republicans: there's much more biblical ammunition to
support liberals than conservatives.

• Pick battles of substance, not symbolism. The battle over Georgia's Confederate flag
cost Roy Barnes his governorship and perhaps Max Cleland his Senate
seat, but didn't help one working mother or jobless worker. It was a gift to Republicans.

• Accept that today, gun control is a nonstarter. Instead of trying to curb guns, try to reduce gun deaths through better rules on licensing and storage, and on safety devices like trigger locks.

. Hold your nose and work with President Bush  as much as you can, because it's lethal to be portrayed as obstructionists. Sure, block another Clarence Thomas, but here's a rule
of thumb: if an otherwise qualified Supreme Court nominee would turn the clock back 10 years, approve; back 25 years, vote no; back a half-century, filibuster.

The first thing we have to do is "shake the image of us as the obstructionist party," notes
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who manages to thrive as a Democrat in the red sea. He says Democrats must show a willingness to compromise, to get things done, to defer to local sensibilities. We have to show the American people he says, that Democrats aren't going to take
away your guns, aren't going to take away your flags.

Rethinking the Democratic Party will be wrenching. But just ask Tony Blair - it's
not as wrenching as sliding into irrelevance.

Comments

[crockett]

You are so right on many of your points.

Being a southerner, 9th generation East Tennessean, I can tell you that the moral issues were of great importance.

Look, Christians who voted for Bush WILL NOT budge on the questions of abortion and same-sex marriage or civil-unions. How do you compromise here? We know where Hillary and Edwards stand on these issues. How can they win or appeal to us? Talking about the book of Mathew or Mark now is too late. Christianity is not something you take on or off or leave at home when you get elected. For so many people throughout this Republic God comes first over everything else. Party doesn't or shouldn't matter. God doesn't have a "party." He does have rules for us to live by. Helping others is a biggy. Forcing me to give to others should be a crime and is not in the Bible nor is it a function of government. We will not compromise here.

Taxes. I won't budge here and most fiscal conservatives feel the same way. I strongly feel that we are overtaxed and even feel more strongly that my tax dollars are being used to fund unconstitutional programs, agencies, art, etc., etc. I will vote for the person who mirrors this opinion. I voted for Peroutka of the Constitution Party by the way. How do we compromise here? I know we need to fund projects dealing with infrastructre and the military. That's it though.

Then there's the problem with wars and the military. Though I want our boys home, I will not speak out or lend any support to those who criicize Bush on the war. My full support and prayers, daily and early and often, go out to our boys. In the south we have a strong military heritage. We understand that sometimes you have to fight and defeat those who wish to harm you. I want the terrorists killed....period...before they kill us. How do we compormise here? More talk with the U.N.?

My message to liberals is just move or seceed. We don't cotton to socialism or liberalism down here. Don't try to win us over. We both would have to compromise our beliefs and that ain't happening. My message to Democrats? As we would say down here, you need to be shed of those damn liberals that are ruining your party and listen to Zell Miller. Then you will see some compromising.