Right before the Wisconsin Primary debate, I posted about how I thought Howard Dean could dramatically re-shape the race with his own Sistah Souljah moment...

I wanted him to use a big news story, Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl, to get Howard some headlines and I thought I found an intellectually consistent way to do it.

Everyone here thought I was crazy...

I wanted him to link the view by some in this society that there has been a downward spiral of violence and vulgarity in popular culture to the view by others that the media had been letting us down in their reporting of the news...

I wanted him to tag John Kerry (who was getting big support from Sumner Redstone owner of Viacom and CBS) as the candidate of Big Media -- and to tag Bush with this in the general election, too).

The Right and Left come together in their concern about Big Media Corporate Consolidation. It is something that, for different reasons, social conservatives, media critics, and anti-corporate populists can all agree...

Joe Klein was saying on Air America yesterday that Middle America is working long hours and is forced to leave their kids in front of the TV and that they feel powerless against "Liberal Hollywood" and their ability to influence their children's morals and values in the current climate.

But who's really responsible?

Corporations like FOX networks, who on the one hand preach RNC talking points, but who have been the chief architects of the dumbing down of American culture.

And corporate execs like Sumner Redstone, who owns Viacom and CBS, supported Kerry in the Primaries and then switched to endorse Bush in the general.

It is not the liberal Hollywood elite -- it is unrestrained corporate profiteering...

It is not liberals, but Republican supporting corporations.

I'm not saying this as eloquently as I would like, and I apparently didn't in February since nobody wanted to discuss it...

But if we want to start peeling some support away from the Republican corporate power structure in this country, and we want to stop having elections on God, guns, and gays... And we want to start appealing to families with confederate flags on their cars who don't have jobs or healthcare...

Then I think this is a solid place to start.

Still sound crazy?

I'd like to see a to-do list get written up. We can post it, see who agrees, who disagrees, but it should b a consensus opinion of the blogging community here, after the debate had died down. But it seems like we've already come to a consensus about many of these issues, I have to say.

I ought to note that I've actually been visiting here for the past 6 months, just never posted. :) I liked reading the viewpoints between doing undergrad work and going to work.

Once we get that done, we deliver our suggestions to the party leadership. Some of the great suggestions I've heard so far;

1. REMARKET OUR IMAGE. Lots of great ideas on this. Most contentious seems to be, are we the party of liberty and personal freedoms, or are we the party of greater inclusiveness, that is, moving further center (which I, um, really don't like)?

2. Aggressively and stridently remarket the Republican image, specifically the Radical Right, without stooping to their level. That is, make them look bad to the working class. But without the lying they do.

3. Pick off some vulnerable senators, that is, aggressively work to get them to switch affiliation. Quickly work to recognize our weak points and bolter them.

4. Boycott Red businesses and corporations, particularly the media and their sponsors. Obviously, that's an activist thing; I doubt the party would endorse THAT. But I thought it was a pretty good idea. Hit 'em in their pocketbooks, and THEN let them pick on liberals! We're customers, friends.

5. Work more closely with liberal parties outside the country. That's an idea of mine, don't know how popular that will be. I don't know; we could compare notes, try to work harder to block the global radical right agenda. Put more pressure on the extremists at home and abroad, that sort of thing.

6. Reach out to 3rd parties who closely share our ideals. That would require a lot more examination and thought, I guess.

It's also a way to build infrastructure for GOTV in big, important elections. Not to mention, vetting and seasoning candidates who can eventually become winners.

Should there be any success on the part of the Bush Administration in stripping us of federal rights and protections, and in forcing actions from mandatory prayer to lawsuit limitations, the dirty work of enforcement will fall to the states, and their religious right-controlled state GOP organizations. When Roe is overturned, for example, each state will be permitted to write and enforce its own laws. Focus on retaking the House in 2 years or 4 years will not at all affect what happens in the next 24 months (the traditional 2nd term action period before lame duck status takes over in the next midterm election).

In my state (CT), 50% of the GOP held seats in the House and Senate have run consistently without opposition, and we're a relatively progressive state. In my district, a Democrat hasn't run for either chamber in 10 years. I suspect that in other places, its worse. Each Republican, regardless of their stated personal ideology, represents their national party interests and by extension everything that I think is going to take this country down a desperate road. Each one must be challenged vigorously. There are no uncontestables, because the difference in one seat in New Jersey, for example, is the difference between that state's right wing enforcing Bush dogma, versus maintenence of one of the most progressive state laws and agendas in the nation.

When it all comes down in a few years, the beacons of hope will be the individual states that kept freedom and liberty alight, while the others descend into theocracy and paranoia. Only they will we be able to begin the cleanup work in the places where our ideas still set the agenda.

Go local, get involved. Hell, I'll put my money where my mouth is and run in my district next year if that's what it takes, however that works.

The last time anyone ran unopposed for a House seat in Canada was almost 50 years ago, in a 1957 by-election. I don't think there's been an uncontested seat in a general election since 1953.

One of the most frustrating things about this election is how we wrote off so many states and seats.  We basically stacked the deck against ourselves before we started.  We assured that we would need an "inside straight"  not just for the presidency, but for the legislative branches.  This can't ever be allowed to happen again.

Where was the help from the party?  

I can tell you....NOWHERE.

I spoke with Democrats from a neighboring safe Democratic District about our campaign.  The only thing they cared about was whether it was a "targeted" district.

Well, of course not you idiot!  This is part of the problem. The Dem Congressman there spoke of building coalitions and such, then when I spoke of how we could help each other, I was laughed at.

I'm convinced that the PTB want to continue to be the PTB.  In essense, Dems and Reps alike seem content in staying in power just as long as they don't have their seats threatened.

Dean is right:  run for office, even if you "can't" win.  Winning isn't the only goal.  Who knows, maybe next time David runs again with his name recognition and we scare Steve Buyer a bit.

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. If they are ignorant, they will vote for ignorance. Democracy depends on a certain level of intellect in the populous.

I live in a county where Democrats dominate.  In the last three elections, I don't think I've seen more than one or two Republicans running for local office.  They know how difficult (or impossible) it would be to win.  However, they're still trying to build the party.

Despite this, the county Republican group just opened an office in my town (people moving from a bordering state are making this area more friendly for them).  The office was vandalized almost immediately, but they haven't given up.  They show up at the local farmer's market, community festivals, and anywhere else where they can be visible.  They aren't aggressive about their message -- they're just making their presence known.  They sell cookies and offer literature.  That's what we need to do in the heavily  Republican areas.  Even if a candidate only runs to pin down a Republican incumbent, it's still worth it.  

Here's another (Republican) example:  the Illinois Republican Party had an opportunity to showcase one of their up and coming people in the recent Senate race.  They could have had someone run a clean, positive campaign.  Their candidate wouldn't have won, but could have built name recognition and a reputation for being a decent person worthy of a vote in the future.  They would also have pinned Barak Obama in Illinois.  Of course, they didn't do that, and so Illinois ended up with Alan Keys (snicker).  They could have started rebuilding the party, but they missed their chance.

Democrats can learn from these examples:  start thinking beyond the next election, to laying the foundations for future growth.  Contesting every election (even if it's hopeless) is one way to do this.

You're absolutely right though about not fielding any sort of legitimate candidate.  How could we not run someone against Jim Walsh? I'm surprised the Club for Growth didn't pull an Arlen Specter and run a koolaid drinker against him in the primary.  It's inexcusable to have the only opposition to Jim Walsh be someone from the Peace and Freedom party!

Whether or not NY-25 is ready for T-Mac, I'm not sure.  I'll bet Bush ran very strongly there, and wouldn't be suprised if Shumer's opponent did well there, too.  The former head of the DNC won't be an easy sell in Wayne County, but if he could get a big share in Syracuse and the 'burbs, he'd have at least a 50/50 chance.

Here in Australia it is unheard of to not contest any district (except in the occasional by election (special election).

I was stunned that the Dems did not contest districts in states like CA, NY, GA, FL, GA, OK, PA, SC ETC. These are all states that are swing states, have compettive senate races or are safe dem and worth a go as a result. Would contesting KY 5 have made a difference in the Senate race or would contesting those districts in Texas have made a difference in the texas 5 races? How could the texas dems give a free pass to 4! texas goppers who could then fundraise etc against the texas five.