Before I start, I just want to say that I have utmost respect for Norm Coleman. I don't want this thread to turn into a Coleman-bashing exercise. Although I disagree with damn near everything he says, I wish him all the best in his new position...

Anyway, today is a sad, sad day for Minnesota liberal traditions.

Share your grief here. Please, no flaming or nastiness.

KingSausage said:

Are you ok Sausage?


PS: love your profile pic!

KingSausage said:

I agree. I think Coleman has done some good things for St Paul-getting the Xcel Center, NHL hockey-, and likely will for the state. But you are correct. It starting to sound like rhetoric, but with the loss of Paul Wellstone, it may not be the same for a long time. The younger generation of Democrats-the Mondales, the Humprey's, even the Wellstone sons have a long journey to make before they can reach people the way Paul did. He got many people i know energized in politics when most had really given up on them.
Now, I'm more concerned about the next 2-4 years with a Republican controlled Congress and Presidency-and even more concerned for any appointments to the US Supreme Court, a possible war on Iraq, an endless war on terrorism.

Democrats have to re-evaluate what they mean to government...there are two types: Clinton Democrats and Humphrey/Wellstone Democrats, and they are as different as night and day.
They have to do some real soul searching and go with one, not both.

Non-voters have to do the same. If they are going to allow people to decide their course for them, they will always be the wrong decisions. People have to wake up, turn their TV off, put away their nintendo, and check out what's going on. Politicians always pander to voters: Seniors always vote, Jews always vote, Republicans almost always vote. Who do you think politicians will pander to?
The baby boomer generation of 45 million+ voters median age is about 52 yrs old. As they get older and most likely more conservative not only will school referendums will be voted down more and more, our laws will become more conservative. You do the math.

mrchristian said:

Did i ever tell you that I really like you ??

Well, if not... I really like you.

I am sad about the turnout as well. I had a really fucked up experience at the poll where I voted. They didnt have the Senate part blocked off on the big ballots where I was voting. I got on the bus after voting, and heard people who were also voting at my same poll talking. They were saying..."I really hope that my vote for Wellstone, gets counted towards Mondale." I asked them, "Didnt you vote on the supplemental ballot???" They looked at me like this I got to work, and ( after coersion from freinds, and a phone # given to me by endorphin74 TY D !!) decided that I was going to complain about it. I spent an hour on the phone, and finally got through to a person at the Hennepin County Voters Regestration office. I explained that people were unaware of the supplemental ballots, and that the Senate Section on the big ballots were not crossed off. They said they would take it into consideration, and look into it while hand counting the votes.
So many things are running through my mind right now...
anyways. thats my story.

[This message was edited Wed Nov 6 12:56:52 PST 2002 by violett]

i almost called in *disgusted* to tell my boss i simply couldn't make it to work this morning because the results made me so ill

we can kiss the concept of civil liberty goodbye
personal freedom likewise
and brace ourselves for WWIII

betcha our tax dollars will be flying outta our pockets, our national reserves and being spent on all-out warfare against iraq before we can say 'happy new year'

Thank you all for the great comments so far...we are looking towards a very dark, gloomy two years ahead of us. Civil liberties will suffer. Economic prosperity will suffer. Justice will suffer. Our freedom WILL suffer. Who will there be now to voice dissent against our pseudo-President? Who will stand up to him and his fellow Cold Warrior cronies?

On a smaller scale, what will happen to our Minnesota liberal tradition? Think about it: Minnesotans in record numbers came out to support Republicans.

It makes me want to eat my own shit, shit out my shit, and then eat my own shit again. Shit.

PS...thanks for the compliments regarding my new profile pic, Carrie!

2day is a sad day in Minnesota. When will it get better? I don't think in 2004. By then the "intervention" in Iraq will be going strong, or, as I think of it now...may be completed, causing one of two things. Either "We can't switch leaders (i.e. Bush) during this critical time", or George Bush "saved us from terrorism by dethroning Hussein!" As for our "progressive" state...I fear that if Minnesota becomes a republican stronghold...which it has, anywhere can become a republican stronghold. (See the Northeast of U.S.) Working for a university, I have seen, first hand the damage done to our higher educational system due to budget cuts and tuition increases. There are plenty more of both to come with the new Palenty regime...who, in one of his ads stood in front of a school, because he is a "product", of the public school system. Oh great, "he supports education" Sarcasm intended. I hope things do not turn out as bad as the naysayers, such as myself, predict. Time will tell. Peace!

We need 2 come 2gether, come 2gether as one

If it's any consolation...and i know i'm reaching here...Republicans now have a majority control in the House/Senate/White House, so if nothing goes right with the economy, corporate scandals, Iraq, or crime rates in the next 2-4 years they only have themselves to blame, and voters will make that known.

I can't think of a better time for dem's to come together and plan out their approach to 2004.

(thanx Vi, i like you too ...sorry about your voting exp. I knew something like that would happen.)

KingSausage said:[quote]. . .
It makes me want to eat my own shit, shit out my shit, and then eat my own shit again. Shit.

okay. that did it. NOW i'm REALLY disgusted!!!

KingSausage said:

see, I knew you couldn't be all that nice on a thread...

Democrats need to start being liberal. They can't keep shifting to the right...trying to be more moderate than Bush...falling to their knees to suck his ignorant cock...giving him a blank check for US imperialism...

The DFL needs to start supporting candidates who will actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Seniors will vote. And chances are they will vote the same goddamn way they have for decades...the DFL needs to start courting the youth of this nation...securing the student and young intellectual vote...they need to start getting in the GOP's face, challenging them about REAL issues. Fuck your prescription drug bickering! Toss the gloves off and ENGAGE the Republicans on issues like Iraq...civil liberties..."homeland security"...the failed War on Terrorism...the bullshitedness of "compassionate conservatism"...right-wing judicial nominees who have no respect for women's rights...outdated foreign policy...dangerous unilateralism...our crippled economy...the list goes on and on. This is easily one of the most incompetent administrations in US history. I believe you'd have to go back to the 19th century to find a dumber groups of dipshits. They are practically HANDING source material to the Democrats, and the DFL is wasting it!

Follow liberal beliefs into the future...what do you get? Peace. Prosperity. Justice. Freedom. Follow the GOP's "vision" and what do you get? The fucking 1950s all over again. That may be all well and good for Tom and Judy down the block, but Tom and Judy are doing well anyway. They don't need someone to fight for them.

(Ever notice how all great Sci-Fi depictions - like the future worlds of Star Trek, etc - are essentially summaries of liberal beliefs? And how many dystopian nightmares are pretty much Dick Cheney's wet dream? These are commonly accepted visions of a prosperous future...based upon liberal ideals! Even fucking Star Trek proves liberals right! )

Liberals and progressives need to organize. We need to get the word out that Bush's policies are wrong. Corrupt. Simplistic. Naive. And foolish. He, along with his right-wing GOP cronies, are rolling the clock back on human progress. Is anyone else not going to take this shit sitting down???

Hides in shame...

U go KingSausage!

KingSausage said:

on the other hand, would it really be so bad if the human race extincts itself? could be the biggest favor we could do this planet, not to mention the rest of the universe. . . .

grrr!

KingSausage said:

Not "grrr!" to you, XxAxX, but to the GOP!

KingSausage said:

You are so right. Even though you guys had Clinton, the 90's were an era when "liberal" was such a dirty word in the US. In fact, being a "liberal" today is almost like being centre-right two decades ago. It's funny (and terrifying) that the Big Government that intrudes in your life is being built to the max by conservatives themselves.

KingSausage said:

I whole-heartedly agree. With every sentiment. At this point I'm kicking myself feeling like I just didn't do enough.
I feel like I've sheltered myself in my own little world that agrees with me, with my beliefs, my political views, the values I hold dear. I walked into the polling place yesterday and saw nothing but Mondale buttons. I saw Mondale signs all yesterday morning and throughout the day. I felt unified with my neighborhood, my city, my state.
It didn't even occur to me that all of this could happen!
My first thoughts this morning were that I should pack up my stuff and all my loved ones and defect to Canada! But then I changed my mind.

And frankly, I'm mad. I'm angered. Damn if I'm gonna sit on my ass and only worry about getting myself to the polls next time around. I need to wake the fuck up and remember not everyone agrees with me.

We have a truly terrifying future ahead of us. And we cannot take it lying down.

CarrieMpls said:

I loved this post. Loved it, loved it, loved it. All is not lost. We need to motivate those who need their voices heard the most...

CarrieMpls said:

You go gyrl !!

I have nothing to say that hasn't been said in here already...so...

CO-SIGN

(ps...my work is very liberal and political and we mourned all the livelong day, I have to take a break from it for a few hours...)

endorphin74 said:

My office, as well...it's a sad day for all of us who still believe in "fighting the good fight." But, I must say that it is very comforting to converse with online relative-strangers about all of this, and see that others feel the same way. Working together, we can still make progress on these issues -- no matter WHO is in Washington!

From http://www.alternet.org/s...ryID=14480

Time For Dems To Clean House

By Stephen Pizzo, AlterNet
November 6, 2002

As I watched the election results roll in last night and it became clear that Republicans were on their way to an historic win, it occurred to me that America was joining a worldwide political trend. From Israel to Palestine to Russia to Turkey, voters are casting their ballots for candidates who talk loudly and carry big sticks. While electing such leaders makes them feel more secure in the short term, history teaches us that such nationalistic trends usually end badly -- very badly.

But clearly, such a trend is underway and Democrats must now figure out how to move their agenda back to mainstream acceptance. I don't believe anyone in the Democratic Party is going to argue this election was anything but a massive defeat. Some will try to rationalize it by saying the races were close, but politics isn't horseshoes and close just doesn't cut it.

When Jack Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard Nixon, an aide asked if he thought they could govern without a strong mandate from the voters. Karl Rove would agree with Kennedy's reply: "We don't need a mandate. We have the White House." Rove can add, "And we have the House, the Senate, and a growing chunk of the federal judiciary."

So, where do we go from here? First, it might be useful to consider whether the traditional two-party lock on politics is going to continue. So far, third parties have failed. They lack money, a national infrastructure and seem to attract more colorful wingnuts per capita than the two main parties.

Even in those rare cases when third-party candidates prevail, it's not clear what it means. When voters turn to third-party candidates like Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura I suspect they are not saying "That's my kind of candidate." Instead I believe they are simply sending a big "screw you" to Democrats for failing to offer them any real alternative. If Democrats continue to play policy pandering, eventually a viable third-party alternative will emerge because politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

What do Democrats need to do between now and 2004 to convince voters they are worthy of their support? They can begin by cleaning house at the top of the party. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe needs to be shown the door. Besides failing to deliver in this election, McAuliffe is the DNC's own Harvey Pitt, having come from the same corporate swamp that produced Kenneth Lay, Andy Fastow and Gary Winnick. Like Pitt, McAuliffe is the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time.

McAuliffe's defense on Wednesday? "We raised a record amount of money for this election." Voters sent a different message: "It's not about the money, Terry, it's about the message."

After a house cleaning the party needs to clearly define what it stands for. To justify its existence, a political party must first articulate a set of principles and policies its candidates are willing to die for, politically speaking. What did Democrats fight for in this election? Well, I can't say; and that's the problem, neither could anyone else.

How about the Bush tax cuts? Well, Democrats could have made real hay on that issue, but they didn't. Why? Because some Democrats got tangled in their own Machiavellian maneuvering. Some Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts hoping that doing so would prove to voters back home that they were not one of those "tax and spend liberals."

After those tax cuts began ballooning the federal deficit, Democrats -- even those who voted against the cuts -- were too timid to suggest postponing some of those cuts, at least until the national checkbook is back in balance. Again, they were terrified that Republicans would use their comments to paint them as old-fashioned "tax and spend liberals."

Well, there's always the war, right? Forget about it. Historically polls have shown that voters consider Republicans stronger on defense than Democrats. So Democrats transfixed by Bush's poll numbers rushed to enlist. The more Bush rattled his saber, the higher his poll numbers went. Instead of engaging the nation in a lively dialogue about war, Democrats instead straddled the fence. They insinuated that, while they personally might have some misgivings about an unprovoked attack on another country, they felt it was important the nation be unified behind the President.

Who needs principles when you can have it both ways. Right?

Well, voters didn't see it that way.

Agree with them or not, at least Republicans had a message. Republicans were saying, "When you vote for me you are voting for this, this and this." Democrats were saying only, "Vote for me."

This is not to say that the Democrat party is devoid of strong honorable men and women. They're around but they were muzzled by those within their party who believed they could prevail with realpolitik -- a cautious strategy of delay, avoidance and harassment rather than direct confrontation.

I hope this election helps those real Democrats rediscover their voices. America is always at its best when public policy is first subjected to the white-hot cauldron of partisan debate.

Stephen Pizzo is a freelance writer and Democratic political analyst.

Joe Conason's Journal
Democrats have only themselves to blame.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.salon.com/poli...index.html




Nov. 6, 2002 | No excuses
Whatever eventually happens in Louisiana, the Democrats have lost control of the Senate. The nation will return almost immediately to the Republican domination of the executive, legislative and judicial branches that existed before Vermont's Jim Jeffords turned independent last year. Now the Democratic voters who chose not to show up Tuesday are going to find out what their decision meant, in a country ruled by President Bush, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay. From drilling in Alaska to regressive taxation to unilateral war, the agenda of the corporate and religious right will shape our future.

In this historic election, Bush overcame his weaknesses as a statesman with his skills as a politician. While I dislike what he represents and what he does, I can't deny his determination and enterprise. Against a drifting, disorganized Democratic Party, he hustled the money, the issues and the voters. He saw the opportunity and embraced the risk, big time. He fully exploited the advantages of his office, including his ability as commander in chief to foment an atmosphere of war. In several contests he made an important difference, creating the conditions for his party's momentum. So the president's supporters will insist again, as they did in the wake of Sept. 11, that he has achieved the mandate that eluded him two years ago.


Unlike the debacle in 2000, the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this defeat. The Republicans had much more money, but they always do. Their schemes to intimidate voters were appalling, but didn't provide the margin of victory in places like Florida and Texas. The Green Party had a will to spoil, but lacked the capacity to make any real difference. Across the country, from California to New York, bland and compromised Democratic candidates were unable to motivate their own base, let alone attract the independents required to win close races. Only where the issues were predominantly local, as in the campaigns for governor, could the Democrats prevail consistently.

There were moments during the midterm campaign when it seemed that the Democrats were nothing greater than the prescription-drugs party. It was a safe issue, or so the party leaders in Washington believed, and therefore became the phrase that they and their candidates repeated like a mindless mantra. Medicare coverage of prescription drugs is a worthy goal, and the Democratic plan is far better than the Republican proposal. But that issue isn't enough to nationalize a midterm election, and certainly not enough to persuade voters uneasy about war and the economy. Those voters were listening for a powerful Democratic message about global security, the faltering economy, employment, education and healthcare. All they heard was "prescription drugs."


A party that will not criticize the incumbent president cannot defeat him, now or two years from now. A party that has nothing to say about unfair tax breaks, a vanishing surplus and a looted economy cannot expect anyone to listen when it asks for votes. A party without passion or vision is hardly a political party at all. Even in their righteous defense of Social Security, Democrats too often sounded as if their chief concern was to preserve their own institutional position. Today the future looks grim for them because they blurred the purposes of their partisanship.

As for the Republicans, they will exaggerate the meaning of this election in their usual triumphal style. Their gloating may not last long, however. Leading a one-party government, they will no longer be able to evade responsibility for whatever comes next. Their ideas and ideology are no more plausible than they were yesterday. They have divided rather than united the country, and their worst initiatives will still meet resistance from the many principled Democrats who were returned to office Tuesday night. Even at this low ebb, progressive revival remains a possibility, although much damage will be done during the next two years.

Moving forward onto this hostile political terrain, the Democrats would do well to recall the combative stance adopted by the Republicans after losing both houses of Congress and the presidency in 1992. They can begin by examining the real reasons for this narrow but awful defeat, without flinching.

KingSausage said:

Perfect article!! I hope the Congressional Democrats get a chance to read it.They seriously need to do some soul-searching,clean house,and figure out exactly what they stand for these days.Ever since Clinton left office,the Democrats have had no real agenda,no message and no focus.

On the plus side,the Dems can now blame the Republicans for every bad thing that is gonna happen these next two years...higher unemployment,a damaged economy,costly,un-finished wars,the disappearance of our surplus,the collapse of Social Security,etc.In 2004,Bush will have to address all these problems for his re-elction.

"I hope this election helps those real Democrats rediscover their voices. America is always at its best when public policy is first subjected to the white-hot cauldron of partisan debate. "

Take note, Icenine.

Centrists just keep fuckin' it up for all the real liberals...

I'm not very fond of the Green Party, either. Look at all the comments that Nader has made since the 2000 election; he's clearly motivated by some perverse need to personally ruin the DFL. If a third party ever wants to take off, they need to focus on smaller, local elections...community actions and that sort of shit. People need to know WHEN to pick their battles. Remember G.I.Joe? Fighting against the Democrats right now in big-time national elections, especially presidential elections, will accomplish nothing other than hurt the DFL & usher in the GOP. I think the answer is to reform the DFL from WITHIN the party. Anyone who doesn't stand in line with the GOP's particularly nasty brand of hypocritical horseshit needs to unify NOW and start working on taking this country back in two years.