Did we miss the memo? Not the one on how Diane Feinstein's so worried that criticism of Harriet Miers might be "sexist." Not the one on how Democrats playing up Tom DeLay's arrest will hurt them in the 2006 election (as one Republican wag told The New York Times which was eager to put it into print on Friday).
We're talking about the roll over memo? Now granted, the confirmation vote, the bankruptcy bill vote, practically any piece of legisilation has played out as though the majority of Dems in Congress were reading from a memo entitled "Democrats Determined To Roll Over In 2005."
But usually we get a little trace of spunk into the leadup to the vote.
Not now. Now Diane Feinstein, fresh from her hat and gloves performance at the Roberts confirmation hearings, is weighing in on "poor Harriet."
Did we miss it? Did Old Man Hatch make some ludicrous crack about "a woman's place is in . . ."
Not only is a woman's place in the House, it's also in the Senate, and as Justices Ginsberg and O'Conner have demonstrated, it's also on the bench.
But Harrie seems determined to play the gender card (aided and abetted by Sister In Arms Laura Bush) and Dems are biting their tongues to avoid looking like a bunch of meanines who want to set the cause of women's rights back a few hundred years.
How stupid is the Democratic Party leadership? Or is that the they think the voters are that stupid? What's a consistent core of support for Dems? Women. Who is one of the first groups they take for granted in most presidential elections? Women.
The only thing that saves them in most elections is the image of the Republican Party as being slightly to right of the ruling class in Margaret Atwood's A Handmaiden's Tale. Now Bully Boy nominates a woman and Dems can't find their voice because to criticize her lack of record, her lack of experience, her lack of knowledge might apear "sexist"?
If there's a gender card to play right now, it's only because the Dems are dealing it to the Republicans by staying silent on this nonsense that criticism of Harriet Miers might be sexist.
You know what might be sexist? Tempering your arguments and biting your tongue on a nominee who has no qualifications out of some misguided fear that you'd appear sexist.
And as if it's not bad enough that one word from Laura Bush can make grown Dems quake in their shoes, along comes the DeLaysters to advise that it would be a big mistake, big, huge, to make an issue of Tom DeLay in the 2006 elections.
Maybe we missed it, but we're not remembering the Republican Party as ever wanting to give helpful advice on how to win to the Democratic Party? What we are remembering is negative ads on Tom Daschle, negative ads about Bill Clinton, the infamous "democRATS" ad, on and on.
Now come on. Do you really think the DeLaysters are saying, "This could hurt you!" because they're afraid Democrats might not pick up seats if they ran negative ads on DeLay?
If so, you've got some serious problems.
What's going on here, in both cases, is the Republicans are once again screaming, "Red sky, blue sun!" and Dems are letting them set the terms.
If Nancy Pelosi were sitting in a jailhouse right now, there's not one Republican in the House that would say they felt sorry for her family, nor would any Republican be saying, "Hey guys, this is a golden photo op/ad campaign, but let's sit on it."
The Democrats are the most naive party in the world. They truly belive that when a Republican offers "advice" it's with the best of intentions.
The Republicans don't want an issue made of DeLay in 2006 because he has become their worst nightmare. But they don't say that. They don't say, "Look, you'll really hurt us if you run this campaign, so please don't." Instead, like some looney version of I Love Lucy, they attempt to use reverse psychology. "Go ahead and run it, it will help us win!"
Instead of questioning the statement, Dems start murmuring amongst themselves, "Oh my God! Did you hear that! A Republican staffer just said if we run ads against DeLay in 2006, we'll tank at the polling booths!"
Apparently, when they sold their spines, they also hocked their common sense because they seem to truly believe that Republicans offer genuine and helpful advice to them. Little Red Riding Hood had more sense than the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Instead of spending four more years whining about framing, how about rejecting the terms the Republicans are setting right now? Kent Conrad was highly effective in an appearance on The NewsHour back in 2003. He didn't need to pull out his framing playbook. Instead he just said, "No." 'No, that's not true. No, that's not right. You can say that over and over thirty times but you'll still be wrong. ' Plain spoken, Conrad was effective.
The Democrats need to revisit that moment because there haven't been a lot of them since.
And instead of leaping every time a Republican screams "Jump!" the thing to do might be to stop being so foolish as to think the opposition party actually wants you to run effective races in 2006.
Miers isn't qualified, DeLay got booked and finger printed. There's no framing needed. There's no need to figure out the big message. These are simple facts that Democrats should be able to express plainly and in basic terms.
[The Harriet Miers illustration is from Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts found here. The Tom DeLay illustration is from Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts found here. This editorial was written by Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review', Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Wally of The Daily Jot and C.I. of both The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review.]
the new york times
harriet miers
tom delay