political thoughts
Jul. 20th, 2005 10:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerI was replying to something ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
motherwell posted in mazzie's journal, and it sort of got to be bigger than a response.
Bush doesn't want judges and justices to "legislate from the bench" (neither do I; I just want them to put a progressive interpretation on existing law :-). So let's take Bush at his word and start electing progressive legislators. After all, our system is supposed to be tilted (somewhat) towards legislative power: Congress makes the law--the executive only implements it and the courts only interpret it. SO we need to get cracking and get some sensible, moderate, pragmatic (hopefully at least slightly progressive) people into Congress, instead of zealots and ideologues.
And the first thing that the Democratic Party needs to do to push that along, IMO, is to agree on a leader and a *postive* platform. It can't wait until the last minute to pick a leader, the way it did in the last presidential cycle; there needs to be someone out there speaking for the party *now*. And they need to be saying what *should* be getting done, what solutions to our problems there *are*, instead of simply carping about Bush's (admittedly) bad ideas and pointing out what isn't working.
That leader probably isn't John Kerry, and I really don't think it's Howard Dean. But whoever it is needs to step up, and step up now (or at least within the next 12 months). After the next congressional cycle, we'll be into the beginnings of the 2008 presidential race. And that will be way too late for the only viable opposition to be mounting a focused campaign. I don't think even Bush can get the 22nd Amendment repealed, but the Republicans will still have apotent and well-oiled machine; throwing sand in the gears is not a sufficient response--the Democrats have to also propose a viable, positive alternative. And that alternative has to include a slate of electable but progressive legislators. We need to control Congress, not just squeak a Clintonesque "who knows what he really beleives" presidential candidate past the post.
motherwell posted in mazzie's journal, and it sort of got to be bigger than a response.Bush doesn't want judges and justices to "legislate from the bench" (neither do I; I just want them to put a progressive interpretation on existing law :-). So let's take Bush at his word and start electing progressive legislators. After all, our system is supposed to be tilted (somewhat) towards legislative power: Congress makes the law--the executive only implements it and the courts only interpret it. SO we need to get cracking and get some sensible, moderate, pragmatic (hopefully at least slightly progressive) people into Congress, instead of zealots and ideologues.
And the first thing that the Democratic Party needs to do to push that along, IMO, is to agree on a leader and a *postive* platform. It can't wait until the last minute to pick a leader, the way it did in the last presidential cycle; there needs to be someone out there speaking for the party *now*. And they need to be saying what *should* be getting done, what solutions to our problems there *are*, instead of simply carping about Bush's (admittedly) bad ideas and pointing out what isn't working.
That leader probably isn't John Kerry, and I really don't think it's Howard Dean. But whoever it is needs to step up, and step up now (or at least within the next 12 months). After the next congressional cycle, we'll be into the beginnings of the 2008 presidential race. And that will be way too late for the only viable opposition to be mounting a focused campaign. I don't think even Bush can get the 22nd Amendment repealed, but the Republicans will still have apotent and well-oiled machine; throwing sand in the gears is not a sufficient response--the Democrats have to also propose a viable, positive alternative. And that alternative has to include a slate of electable but progressive legislators. We need to control Congress, not just squeak a Clintonesque "who knows what he really beleives" presidential candidate past the post.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 04:13 pm (UTC)EDITORIAL DESK | March 30, 2005, Wednesday
A Party Inverted
By BILL BRADLEY (NYT) Op-Ed 1010 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 17 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by former Sen Bill Bradley describes problems besetting Democratic Party, problems that have led to defeat in presidential race and congressional and gubernatorial races as well; suggests that Democrats study success of Republicans, noting that their party is structured like pyramid, with financial support at base, providing resources for intellect, ideology and research in middle level, and then having ideas these organizations develop pushing up to third level of pyramid--the political level; contends Democrats do not have such a comprehensive structure, and have relied on hope that a charismatic political leader will bring them success at polls; warns those days are over (M)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 06:14 pm (UTC)