Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There is much speculation about an "enthusiasm gap" among Democrats in the 2010 midterm election. The corporate media's use of narrative polling and the conservative media's echo chamber is used to great effect by the corporate media to create a "conventional wisdom" that portrays its narrative as a foregone conclusion, a self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. Luckily, the conventional wisdom (sic) of the corporate media is almost always wrong because they are marketing a product, not simply reporting observable facts.

The netroots liberal blogosphere has not been immune from this speculation about the "enthusiasm gap" among Democrats as well. There are any number of liberals who routinely complain that the Obama administration is not going "big and bold" enough or fast enough like the "first 100 days" of the New Deal, and that the administration has settled for half measures and compromised with Republicans, which has demoralized the Democratic base. As I have said before, we live in a dangerous age of instant gratification that makes governance nearly impossible when people demand "I want it all, and I want it now" like an impulsive three year old. Such expectations are unrealistic.

If Democrats are demoralized because they somehow believe that FDR enacted his New Deal in the "first 100 days" in office and Obama is "taking too long" for them, they are badly misinformed. It took FDR two terms in office to enact the New Deal, which was always innovating and evolving.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's grandson, Curtis Roosevelt, recently gave a speech comparing FDR's first midterm election in 1934 to president Obama's first midterm election. Curtis Roosevelt speech on FDR vs. Obama:

This evening I would like to have as much time for discussion as we can. I want only to set the stage, pointing to the contrast — the similarities and differences — between what Franklin Roosevelt faced in the first two years of his Administration and what Barrack Obama has been experiencing in the first year and a half of his. Needless to say, looming in the background for both Presidents were and are the mid-term elections. Both — 1934 and 2010 — were and are predicted to be resounding defeats for the Democrats.

Writes one columnist recently: "Democratic strategists are beginning to accept the inevitability of big losses and a sort of gallows humour has settled over Congressional and political aides."

So let us review, just sketchily, the events leading up to Franklin Roosevelt's first mid-term election — November of 1934. There are some striking similarities between then and now. In 1934's mid-term election, presidential leadership was central, indeed decisive. And note: FDR had as much hanging on that election as President Obama has with next November's vote.

Looming over Roosevelt's head was the Great Depression, already entrenched for several years when he became president.

* * *

When Franklin Roosevelt took the oath of office on the 4th March 1933, there was a huge cry across America — from the most down-and-out of Americans to the moguls of Wall Street — Do something!!! FDR had a mandate unlike any of his predecessors.

The first task facing Roosevelt when he moved into the White House was indeed the banking crises. State and national banks were clamoring for action. The banking community would have given their new president dictatorial powers if he had asked for them. Wall Street figures sometimes mentioned Mussolini's name as a role model for the new man in the White House. Even they wanted the president to "Do Something!"

He did. With everyone working non-stop, the emergency banking bills were drafted in four days, New Deal appointees often working with their Hoover counterparts still in place. (The new Secretary of the Treasury, William Wooden, sat across the desk from his predecessor, Ogden Mills; they worked together.) The Congress acted with legendary haste. The final bill wasn't even printed when the Speaker waved a sheaf of papers at our representatives and they responded with a roaring "Aye!" Crowed Ray Moley from the White House, "We saved capitalism in six days!"

The New Deal was underway. I won't detail the legendary amount of legislation in the First Hundred Days. A great many of our nation's problems were addressed. That Roosevelt and his new administration cared about people — were concerned with where they were hurting — was apparent. By the summer unemployment had dropped. But it is true, even at FDR's Inauguration address at the beginning of his second term, he spoke plainly about "one third of the nation ill housed, ill clad, ill nourished." And, statistically speaking, we may not have been fully out of the Great Depression until rearmament put everybody to work preparing for WW II. But the Administration's bringing unemployment down substantially in its first year, by more than 10% — a 6 million drop — was a major achievement.

Throughout this flood of legislation, both in those first hundred days and subsequently in FDR's first term, the Republican Party played their proper role as the party in opposition. As far as I can read of the scene there was little of the anti-government attitude that dominates the Republican leadership today.

Every New Deal bill was amended, and in spite of the large Democratic majority, just as it is today. There were close votes in the Congress. Compromises were often very substantial. Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor, remarked mournfully that the Social Security bill passed in 1935 was only about half of what had been submitted to the Congress. (Just in passing I should mention (déjà vu) the American Medical Association had quickly stepped in to quash its health care component.)

But except for the far right, the reactionaries who cried "socialism" (déjà vu again), there was general recognition in Congress — by both parties — of the need to focus on the nation's problems. That was not only Roosevelt's mandate from the 1932 election, it was a mandate for the Congress as well. As far as I can read the scene today, comparing the two time periods, there was little of the "anti-government" attitude that dominates the Republican leadership currently.

As one might expect in politics, the euphoria surrounding the legendary First Hundred Days diminished, supplanted in the autumn of 1933 by the hard slog of getting the rest of the New Deal program passed. It produced a new mood in the White House.

Criticism had steadily mounted, so much so that by winter Roosevelt and his advisors knew his legislative program had to change. The New Deal desperately needed to adjust its direction. In effect, the initial enthusiasm for the New Deal had run out of steam — less than a year into FDR's first term.

Just as President Obama has been confronted in his first eighteen months, Roosevelt's administration had come under strong attacks, cries of outrage from both the left and the right. From the right it's not very interesting; mainly a brick labeled "socialism" — heaved through a window while marching through the streets. As one could expect, the financial community fought banking reform legislation every inch of the way — as we see today with the Administration's proposals — but eventually the FDIC emerged, to be followed by the Security and Exchange Commission and then the Glass-Steagall bill.

by David Safier

In a Star article I linked to yesterday about the domination of the far right in the Arizona Republican Party, Wade McLean, who came in third in the LD26 Republican primary, said he was shut out at many Republican events he attended.

"There was no voice for the moderate," McLean said. "My biggest hurdle was I was not conservative enough for the Republican Party."

Yes Wade, there is a voice for moderate Republican.

And, to be more inclusive: Yes, Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns and others who feel their party has taken leave of its senses, there is a voice for moderate Republicans. It is to speak the truth, out loud.

Here are two statements you might make, one careful, one bolder:

1. As a proud Republican, I cannot endorse and will not vote for candidates such as [fill in the blank] because of their extreme right wing, anti-education agenda [etc.].
2. As a proud Republican, I will not vote for [fill in the blank] because of their extreme right wing, anti-education agenda [etc.]. Instead I will be voting for [fill in the Democratic candidates].

Pete Hershberger was called all kinds of names publicly by Vic Williams for supporting Wade McLean. Why should Hershberger feel he has to bite his fist and remain silent? Burns and McLean have also earned the scorn of their party. Why reward Russell Pearce and his minions by sitting on the sidelines during this election?

The extreme right wing has gained power by being fearless, while others, moderate Republicans as well as Democrats, have been cautious. If moderates want to have a place in their party, they have to be leaders who say, "If I don't fit your version of Republican, I'll rally my supporters to deny you their votes." If the right wing loses a few elections because of your brave stands, you may gain standing in your party once again.

Being moderate means you don't lean left or right. It doesn't mean you have to moderate your voice when feel strongly on an issue — or an election.

In a very real sense, the future of Arizona is in your hands. If you sit quietly by, you have to share the blame for the results.

I understand Jim Kolbe is retired and has nothing to lose right now, so you don't have to go Full Kolbe, but he just wrote an email for Andrei Cherny which begins,

I served as a Republican in Congress representing Arizona for over 22 years, as a Republican in the Arizona state legislature for 6 before that, and I’m still a proud Republican.  I’ve never endorsed a Democrat for any office other than local ones.  But as we find ourselves in a worsening fiscal crisis, we need to have the most qualified people in leadership positions and there is no doubt in my mind that Andrei Cherny is the right person for State Treasurer.

Without any hesitation, I not only endorse Andrei, but am joining his campaign as its Chair.

You can read the whole email below the fold.