Democrats are wussies.

By Duke Shepard of Portland, Oregon. Duke is a long-time professional politico. Most recently, he was campaign manager for Peter DeFazio for Congress.

This has been my take for years - Democrats are viewed as wussies, we're soft, too nice. When we're offended, we ask for apologies (i.e. how dare they use fear mongering; they're so mean!). Instead we should challenge them to a street fight.

The Democrats still don't seem to understand that times have changed. We are now at war [with the GOP]. We must take aggressive, yes, at times even pre-emptive action to defend ourselves against the enemies of liberty. If we don't, the Republicans will use our very openness and good nature to defeat us.

Read the rest of the series Why Americans Hate Democrats: A Dialogue.

  • (Show?)

    I'm more concerned that Democrats are wussies when it comes to politics. Somehow, somewhere, at some point, they let themselves be cowed into the submissive and entirely erroneous thinking that hardball politics is necessarily the same as dirty politics.

  • (Show?)

    One doesn't need to go back that far to a time when democrats played their politics hard. LBJ, while enacting civil liberties and the Great Society, was one of the most vicious partisans of the 20th century. Being polite in politcs may be the way to ensure that the people who really need the help won't get it.

  • (Show?)

    I'm sorry - I read Duke's column about Democrats being wussies right after I read Kari's results from the reader survey, where there were at least 10 comments (I presume from conservatives) along the lines of, "progressive commenters are nasty!", "Waaah, I can't handle an honest criticism of my repetition of the talking points!", "Swearing should be banned!" etc.

    And on the TV behind me while I compose this (was) CNN's report on the new power and mindset of evangelical, conservative Christians, which appears to vindicate everything nasty I ever posted about them.

    I guess they're both right, to an extent: for all the verbal 'savagery' that shows up on this and other prog-blogs, the best we can get in the streets is some passive-aggressive march against the War in Iraq, or a letter-writing campaign to stop Alberto Gonzales from making John Ashcroft look like Bill Walton in comparison - oh, the horror!

    At least we never, ever, ever again have to listen to our parents tell us about how rough they had it in comparison.

    Jim Crow has nothing on how the right wing legislates against and otherwise treats African-Americans at the ballot box here and now.

    We're making as much of a clusterfuck in Iraq as ever happened in Vietnam, with a cadre every bit as unprepared as the bodycount-obsessed Westmoreland, and a Defense Department that's more interested in war-profiteering than in anything they professed to be before we hit Baghdad: nation-building, 'saving' the Iraqis from Saddam, etc.

    But still, how fucked up does it have to get in America before we get even a negative ad, much less a general strike?

    Apparently, being nice and arguing on the merits of the issues doesn't work, because even if we're right, we're not Saved.

  • (Show?)

    Apparently, being nice and arguing on the merits of the issues doesn't work ...

    Recently, MSNBC's website ran a little Flash app that let you play campaign manager. Part of it let you design a campaign ad for your candidate using pre-fab video clips with voiceovers.

    I should dig up the one I did, because I'd like to ask people why the Dems never ran anything even remotely as blunt.

  • (Show?)

    Okay, here's my ad, although it looks like even going to that link you then have to click on "produce a TV ad" link, unless that's just something happening here.

    The clips you had to choose from (and their accompanying voiceovers) were pre-made, so all you could do was string clips together. That's why the voiceover copy is a little dorky.

    But here's my question: Why didn't the Dems run anything even close to being that blunt and across-the-board?

  • (Show?)

    As much as I hate's PIRG-by-proxy treatment of my friends who worked for them during the campaign, I have to hand it to them for ad goodness - 'Bush in 30 Seconds' was The Hammer this campaign cycle, if only self-censoring networks would play them.

    Seems to me we have no shortage of talent on that front - what we need is to flex a little bit of editorial control to ensure distribution and fairness among networks. The Sinclair and Fox boycott campaigns were positive steps in this regard.

guest column

connect with blueoregon