This is just one example of what I believe the Dems should do more of. Learn how to play to the media’s need for simplistic stories. Feed the 24-hour news cycle. I’m telling you, “the media” is not left or right. It just gloms on to stories it believes it can sell.

we’ll have a really nice test in a few minutes as the republicans try to blog an iraq resolution.

Of course, the Republicans and possibly the media would trot out the “obstructionist” tag, but so what?

they would and do, like i’ve been saying forever. so what? bye bye tom daschelle and any number of other red state dems. you can keep them, really, but only after we have enough blue staters to make up the difference.

The former I used as just one example and the latter is a strawman.

i think you’d prefer to see it more than not. and the latter is most of what’s left.

i suggest exactly what i did suggest. better backroom dealmaking and less ben nelson running to a microphone the second he’s done chatting with scalito to say how reasonable he finds him.

but filibuster isn’t usually the answer, and jumping up and down rarely is.

The former I used as just one example and the latter is a strawman. But also, what do you suggest?

How to bury those differences and put up a unified front when it matters.

i don’t think the “legalize pot” banner people can be unified, i know ben nelson can’t, and bachus, lieberman, etc aren’t much behind him.

My opinion, and it may be highly idealistic, is that the Dems should adopt a more results-oriented strategy. In the minority? Filibuster, hold hearings, vocally oppose, AS A PARTY, whatever it is they disagree with. Not 100% in agreement with each other on a certain issue? Figure it out, compromise, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, then present a UNIFIED message to the public. Use talking points! Do those make your soul shudder? Too fucking bad, they work. Get over it.

well, we don’t disagree on this. dems need to get used to not “negotiating with themselves” in the press. but filibuster isn’t usually the answer, and jumping up and down rarely is.

At the root of this is the process- vs. results-oriented way of viewing the world. The Dems, and people naturally attracted to that party (myself included) tend to be more concerned with HOW things get done, while the Republicans and those attracted to that party tend to be more concerned with whether those things are actually getting done. My opinion, and it may be highly idealistic, is that the Dems should adopt a more results-oriented strategy. In the minority? Filibuster, hold hearings, vocally oppose, AS A PARTY, whatever it is they disagree with. Not 100% in agreement with each other on a certain issue? Figure it out, compromise, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, then present a UNIFIED message to the public. Use talking points! Do those make your soul shudder? Too fucking bad, they work. Get over it.

That kind of thing.

An exception to the rule, then? That’s kind of a cop out.

not if you can’t find other examples where it could have happened.

But they should try anyway.

who isn’t trying?

i’m starting to get why you are having such a hard time understanding the situation. it’s the homogenization of republicans vs the diversity of democrats. ted kennedy isn’t going to agree with ben nelson much. democrats have to worry about defection on more issues from more members. it certainly makes it incredibly difficult to hold the line on all but the biggest-impact votes, and i can’t really think of any other than social security. medicare/medicaid maybe becaus old people vote, but seriously, find more.

I really don’t see what is so controversial about this stance. It’s what the Republicans did in ‘94. But wait, that was yet another exception the rule, right?

republicans in 94 didn’t do anything as much as the dems did to themselves. not sure what you think went on then, but the contract wouldn’t have happened sans the media’s savage treatment of hillarycare and democratic ethics problems. so yeah, another exception. and when something happens once every 12 years, it can safely be called an exception.