State of the Party (in question), State of the Country (Purple, ask Laura Flanders)

While Democrats sat comfortable in control of the Congress, Republicans were building a "state by state process." The effects can be felt in many states and are "aided" by the immediate gratification impulse that seems to control the Democratic Party with each election cycle.

What happens to the states the Democratic Party refuses to invest in?

"If they ignore states like us they're not going to bring anyone else into the party, into the movement."

Who said that?

Lorna Vogt, speaking of her home state of Utah, from her home state of Utah, to Laura Flanders on Saturday's RadioNation with Laura Flanders.

Vogt added, "If they pull the plug on that, they're pulling the plug on process."

At some point people are going to have to put away their stereotypes, their crayons and the simplistic maps dividing the nation into one of two colors. When that day comes and people are ready to address the basic failure in the state infrastructure that's been allowed to wither and rot in many states, we may be able to come to a place where we're not playing catch up each election cycle.

That means working on the basics at the most basic levels. It's not as "sexy" as big TV ad buys and it may not get whatever "savior" of which ever campaign into a one on one with Adam Nagourney in The New York Times, but it is work that needs to be done. When you write off whole areas of the country, you're taking yourself out of the race. We're not endorsing the likes of Martin Frost who make a point to run for office without noting their party affiliation on their campaign material (Frost is on the record as being a Democrat but some may be confused and not just by his past campaign material lacking a party i.d.) but we are saying that when you leave a state on its own (Frost hails from Texas), you encourage that behavior.

Let's talk about that for a moment because it goes on in many areas of the country. The national party's not providing the support the area needs and, as a result, centerist Dems feel that they can and should break from the party. So the problem multiplies because not only is the area underfunded but, as candidates run from the label of Democrat, the message goes out that Democrat is a dirty word.

Now you're going to hear it used as a dirty word by Fox "News" and every blowhard in the right-wing echo chamber, but we think it's even more damaging when Democrats witness people running in races who make an effort to downplay their party affiliation.

For this community, the topic is one we became familiar with in November of 2004 when members from southern states began sharing their issues at The Common Ills. This went on while "silly" people were "funning" with talk of the so-called "Blue" states breaking free from the other states. Or they circulated "F**k the South" to feel superior.

Hope the jokes were funny. Hope they made you all walk a little taller. Meanwhile, there were, and are, people as committed to breaking through the spin zone. They were trying to their best and maybe if you lived in a home state that many of us live in, New York, it was real easy for you to feel good about yourself and act as though you'd done something amazing. John Kerry carrying a state that Democrats traditionally carry is nothing to bask in. You did what was expected of you, congratulations. In other states, where a Bully Boy victory seemed obvious, people rolled up their sleeves and worked their hardest with little or no support from the national Democratic Party.

Instead of condeming them (and let's not kid, for months following the election, they were condemned and only after they complained loudly did people to start to say "not all people in the state of ___"), you could have been asking why the Democratic Party got away with running a half-assed campaign yet again? You could have asked why some areas never saw John Kerry?
A community member in Texas saw Teresa Heinz Kerry speak shortly before the election. She was a disenchanted Democrat and not sure she'd even vote. Heinz Kerry spoke passionately and got her to the polls. She's now more active than she's been in twenty years. You want to tell us that campaign events don't make a difference? Maybe that week of leisure during the GOP convention could have been used to travel the non-swing states?

Bill Clinton, the last Democrat to hold office, didn't write off geographic areas. The Clinton-Gore bus tour of 1992 reached out to people across the country (mainland). Little bean crunching, pencil pushers want to use their charts and graphs to explain how to run a campaign and how time is used more "effectively" by visiting the swing states and visiting them X number of times and . . .

And? The last time a Democrat was declared the winner of a presidential election was 1996. How's that strategy working out for you?

It's not working out in the long term. It's not building up a failing structure in states that have been left to with few resources. It's "sexier" to focus on those swing states and the press certainly loves the horse jockeying involved. But a nation elects a president (with the exception of when a Supreme Court elects it, most recently in 2000) and you're supposed to be running a national campaign.

The hatred heaped upon the so-called Red states (and some of us involved in this edition heaped on hate in the immediate weeks after the election) strikes us now as blaming the victim.

RadioNation with Laura Flanders is traveling around the country on a Purple Tour to demonstrate that America is not as simplistic as Cokie Roberts swears it is. Yesterday, today and next week they're live from Utah. Future stops include Nevada and Montanna.

Outside of Flanders, we're having a difficult time thinking of many names who've addressed this issue. Howard Dean's been addressing it since the primaries. If you don't compete in states, you don't win them. If you don't take your game there, don't be upset if some get behind a "home team" and others grow disenchanted.

What we do see is some voices attempting to explain, "Okay this looks like a Red state but it's not really and here's why . . ." They do that on a case by case basis. Possibly, they disprove that ___ state is a "red" state but, in the process, they endorse a false reality.

That's not helping the country. It's akin to blaming the victim when serious questions should be asked as to what the DNC's strategy was and what it is now?

Following the election, a number of "leaders" of the Kerry campaign (late comers) sat down for an interview with The New York Times. And when it's time for spin, it's naturally time for Adam Nagourney to pull out the tape recorder. Which he did to record and write up, unquestionally, that these men (yes, they were all men, Nagourney apparently forgot about Mary Beth Cahill) were suddenly full of wisdom. They explained "Kerry"'s mistkae of not crafting the message better. Considering that two of the men involved were hired to craft the message, not noted in the article of course, it read like point-the-finger-to-cover-your-own-ass.

And possibly that same self-preservation quality prevented the then national chair of the DNC from addressing the hate that was being targeted at entire states of people? Possibly, addressing it, defending voters who did turn out despite a lack of national efforts, might bring up the question of why the national effort was so lacking?

We've tried to avoid slamming John Kerry here. There are things we disagreed with him on at the time and, though no site existed in the community then, if you'd asked us, we would have shared our problems. We're fine with doing that today. What we try to avoid is an attempt to turn him into a villain because he lost (if you accept Ohio's "results"). When things don't go the way you wanted, there is a need for fall guys.

We hope the 2006 elections see Democrats increase their numbers in Congress. But if things should turn out differently, we hope that common sense will trump revenge fantasies and that instead of going after easy targets, we'll address the structure itself.

In real time, we argued with friends insisting that John Kerry had no excuse to take a vacation during the GOP convention (and, as some argued, that if he needed a vacation, it should have been a working one that took him to Hawaii so that the state could see a Democratic candidate for president). We faulted him for his use of the term "tea cup" and for the dimissal of concerns over the Patriot Act (concerns that have grown but even then crossed party lines). We faulted him for pulling punches. We faulted him, most of all, for taking the war with Iraq on Republican terms and trying to outflank the Republicans from the right.

We consider the DNC convention in Boston to have been a disaster. From the "protest pens" which ran contrary to everything the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for, to the war-war-war chants featured at the podium. As uncomfortable as it was to watch John Kerry reject his strong anti-war past, it was even more uncomfortable to watch Democrats who hadn't seen combat try to stand on the shoulders of the military. It was shameful to see Medea Benjamin rounded up on the floor for unfurling the same sort of banner (against the war) that we applaud her for when she and others with CODEPINK show up at Bully Boy and adminsitration events.
"Who are these people" running the show, was a question quite a few delegates on the floor were asking. They were the people toying with Howard Dean and other candidates who'd found a way to speak to people, trying to silence them. They were the late comers who glommed onto the Kerry campaign when their first choices didn't pan out. (There was no Joe-mentum, ever.)

It was a convention. It just didn't feel like a Democratic Party one. So we can and will criticize John Kerry. But we won't use him as a scapegoat to cover for the same losers who've been steering the party to one loss after another, election cycle after election cycle.

We're heading into the 2006 elections with a lot of hopes but we're noting that some elements already feel like 2002. The leadership seems to be out of touch with the public. They have ten more months to turn that around.

Part of turning it around requires recognizing that people want leaders. They don't want more of the same or "I'm just like the candidate I'm running against, except for . . ."

We think RadioNation with Laura Flanders is taking on a monumental task that only the strong would even consider. You'd do yourself a huge favor to stop listening to the mindless patter coming out of the Sunday Chat & Chews and the pundits and start listening to the country. So Saturdays and Sundays, try to make a point to join Flanders as she demonstrates genuine interest and hope that Howard Dean hasn't lost his. Otherwise the debacle that was 2002 could fade in memory as 2006 demonstrates how bad it can still get.

[RadioNation with Laura Flanders airs on Air America Radio and combines The Laura Flanders Show with The Nation magazine. If there's not an Air America Radio outlet in your area and you do not have XM satellite radio, remember that you can listen online. Also, if you worked on the 2004 campaign and would like to share your experience, good or bad, Flanders is working on a new book on that topic and would like to hear from you at either lflanders@airamericaradio.com or laura@airamericaradio.com.]