The supposition that in the last few years the Democratic Party has miraculously lost all ability to fight the Republican Party is one of the most damaging fish stories ever peddled. And sadly, it is one we've come to believe. All one has to do is scratch the surface of what many Democrats stand for and one will find remarkable substance on issues from health care to education to the environment to even Iraq. The trouble is, Democrats ain't the party in power. And the further trouble is that we're so damn angry at the outrageous behavior of the Republican Party, that we start to believe not only Republican canards about Democrats, but our own.

The truth is that the Democratic Party has stood up to Bush and the Republicans on numerous issues. Unfortunately, Democrats happen to be operating in not only one of the greatest climates of fear this country has ever witnessed, but, more importantly, an era where Republican political and intellectual dishonesty has reached mammoth proportions. It is, and always has been, extremely tough to fight an opponent who does not play by your rules of engagement. The Republican Party has gone so far across the line of decency, stitched such a tapestry of lies and defamation, that it may take a bit longer than we hope to overcome it. Hopefully, the avalanche of bad news for Bush and the Republicans will help awaken people to the stink from the GOP's fish cart.

I will certainly not make the argument that the Democratic Party has fought the good fight on every issue. But I will also never make the blanket statement that the Democratic Party has stood by helplessly while being flattened by the Republican steamroller. It is not only self-defeating, it is also patently false. And it is doing greater damage to our cause than we wish to admit.

Rob H., you're right that Democrats haven't completely rolled over on every issue for the last 10 years, nor even for the last 5.

But, while I can't speak for anyone else, I can tell you that I'm sick of the Democrats generally favoring the strategic retreat rather than the bold charge. Given a Republican "Death to All Poor People" bill, the Democrats wno't fight against it to the last man. No, they're much more likely to work to make it the Bi-Partisan "Death to MOST Poor People" bill. Then they'll go on talk shows and tell everyone how it's not really that bad to kill most of the poor people, because the remaining ones will have a lot better chance of getting a job at McDonalds, what with their competition being dead and all. This sort of craven behavior gives their opponents cover and is disgraceful.

I'm also sick of the Democrats putting up Presidential candidates who have been focus-grouped to death and who seem incapable of saying anything in a straight-forward manner. Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis were all smart guys who would have been far, far better than their opponents for 95% of America. Yet, they all lost, and it was at least partially due to their perceived lack of principle, plan, and directness. In fact, I would argue that those three were the main reasons they lost.

So, no, Democrats haven't completely rolled over. They've fought here and there. But for the most part, they've been more of a "go along to get along" type of party than they've been a party of knock-down drag-out, no-holds-barred fights on behalf of the people who put them in office.

LinearBob and pugla46 are exactly right-- can it really matter how anyone votes, if ALL of the votes are not counted? Accurately?

As I had to remind a Philly Inquirer columnist some time ago when he was criticizing the Democrats for losing in 2000... Gore actually did win the election [despite being constantly sabotaged by the MSM], and, given the situation in Florida, probably by a greater margin than the official one.

And-- the truth [sigh] is barely trickling from a hidden stream about 2004. Perhaps the Coingate scandal in Ohio will spill some more, but it likely won't be in time for the next election.

I've been blogging-- and commenting on others' blogs-- about this (non-?)voting issue for some time. Amazingly, so-called progressives don't really seem to get it, but, instead, fall right in line with GOP talking points that label such criticisms as "whining," as if increasing the margin of ACTUAL victory could somehow magically erase a PERCEPTION of defeat resulting from the effects of the black-box voting and the Diebold CEO that enabled the GOP in stealing 2 elections (3 if you count 2002 and Tom DeLay's questionable tactics).

What better plank for the DNC to begin building a platform with than "...making sure that EVERYONE gets to vote and that EVERY VOTE gets counted?" Could there be any plank more (small-d) democratic than that?

All of that being said... I must also agree that the past 5 to 10 years of watching the Democratic Party flounder has been exceedingly painful. But that was under different leadership. Dean is now heading up the DNC, and building the organization up from the grassroots. And those who have been paying attention must notice that Reid and Pelosi have already demonstrated (more than once) that they are neither Daschle nor Gephardt. [Many thanks to the gods!] Both Reid and Pelosi deserve respect and the opportunity to be judged on their own efforts and results, not their predecessors. They are not appeasers of the GOP.

As for message discipline... that can't really work for Democrats the way it does for Republicans. After all, for Republicans (in these times), their game has become mostly about the Loyalty factor, and winning at any cost. Ideally, for Democrats, the message is about the substance of the Policy. Also... being a Democrat, by default, means being more inclusive, and less rigid. A tricky thing-- finding the right balance of consistent message and inclusiveness, but I think Reid & Pelosi are up to the challenge.

[And, a final snarky question for any lurking Greens/Naderites? Still think there's no difference?]