Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities

[jlmadyson]

Text

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 ? Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities. In interviews, senior Democrats said they were optimistic about significant gains in Congressional elections this fall, calling this the best political environment they have faced since President Bush took office. But Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president's approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November. Asked to describe the health of the Democratic Party, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: "A lot worse than it should be. This has not been a very good two months." "We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about," Mr. Dodd said.Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy ? should they settle on one ? were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall. As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power."I think that two-thirds of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction," " said Senator Barack Obama, the first-term Illinois Democrat who is widely viewed as one of the party's promising stars. "They're not sure yet whether Democrats can move it in the right direction." Mr. Obama said the Democratic Party had not seized the moment, adding: "We have been in a reactive posture for too long. I think we have been very good at saying no, but not good enough at saying yes."Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry. And some said there was still time for the party to get its act together. But many others said the party needed to move quickly to offer a comprehensive governing agenda, even as they expressed concern about who could make the case. Their concern was aggravated by the image of high-profile Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenging the legality of Mr. Bush's secret surveillance program this week at a time when the White House has sought to portray Democrats as weak on security."We're selling our party short; you've got to stand for a lot more than just blasting the other side," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. "The country is wide open to hear some alternatives, but I don't think it's wide open to all these criticisms. I am sitting here and getting all my e-mail about the things we are supposed to say about the president's speech, but it's extremely light on ideas. It's like, 'We're for jobs and we're for America.' "To a certain extent, the frustrations afflicting Democrats are typical for a party out of power. In Congress, the Democrats have become largely marginalized by the Republican majority, depriving them of a ready platform either to make attacks or offer their own ideas. Presidential campaigns typically produce prominent party leaders, followed around the country by a cluster of reporters and television crews, but that is at least two years away.Yet in many ways, the Democratic Party's problems seem particularly tangled today, a source of frustration to Democratic leaders as they have watched opinion polls indicating that the public is souring on the Republican Party and receptive to Democratic leadership. And the problems are besetting Democrats at a pivotal moment, as they struggle to adapt to a shifting American political landscape, and a concerted effort by this White House to make permanent inroads among once traditional Democratic voters. Since Mr. Bush's re-election, Democrats have been divided over whether to take on the Republicans in a more confrontational manner, ideologically and politically, or to move more forcefully to stake out the center on social and national security issues. They are being pushed, from the left wing of the party, to stand for what they say are the party's historical liberal values. But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders ? among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries ? may be flawed messengers. In this view, the most visible Democrats are vulnerable to Republican attacks portraying them as out of the mainstream on issues including security and budget-cutting.One of the party's most prominent members, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has been relatively absent for much of this debate, a characteristic display of public caution that her aides say reflects her concern for keeping focused on her re-election bid. Mrs. Clinton, who has only nominal opposition, declined requests for an interview to discuss her views of the party.Mr. Kerry said the party's authority had been diluted because of the absence of one or two obvious leaders, though he expressed confidence that would change."We are fighting to find a voice under difficult circumstances, and I'm confident, over the next few months, you are going to see that happen," Mr. Kerry said in an interview. "Our megaphone is just not as large as their megaphone, and we have a harder time getting that message out, even when people are on the same page."Beyond that, while there is a surfeit of issues for Democrats to use against Republicans ? including corruption, the war in Iraq, energy prices and health care ? party leaders are divided about what Democrats should be talking about and about how soon they should engage in the debate.In a speech last week in Washington and in an interview, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who is considering a run for president in 2008, sharply criticized fellow Democrats who were arguing that the party should focus only on domestic issues and turn away from national security, since that has been the strong suit for this White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11."I think the Republicans are ripe for the taking on this issue," Mr. Bayh said in the interview, "but not until we rehabilitate our own image. I think there's a certain element of denial about how we are viewed, perhaps incorrectly but viewed nonetheless, by many Americans as being deficient on national security."In his speech, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Bayh said: "As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our fellow citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do."Some Democrats argued that the party had time to put up its ideas, and that it would be smarter to wait until later, when voters would be paying attention."When you bring it out early, you are going to leave it open for the spinmeisters in Rove's machine, the Republican side, to tear it to pieces," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. But former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the party's 2004 vice-presidential nominee and a prospective presidential candidate for 2008, said he thought Americans were eager to hear the contrasting case."What the American people are hungry to hear from us is, what is the difference?" Mr. Edwards said in an interview. "What will we do? How will we deal with the corruption issue in Washington? How will we deal with the huge moral issues that we have at home? This is a huge opportunity for our party to show what we are made of." Historically at least, Democrats should be in a strong position. The out-of-power party typically gains seats in the midterm elections of a president's second term. And Democrats said they had a particularly compelling case for voting out the party in power this year because of investigations centered on the White House and Congress, including the influence-peddling case involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff."We're going to keep hammering this," said Mr. Dean, the party chairman, referring to the scandals. "One thing the Republicans have taught us is that values and character matter."Yet some Democrats warned that it would be a mistake to talk only about ethics."It's absolutely required that the party talk about things in addition to the Abramoff scandal," said Martin Frost, former leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I think the climate is absolutely right to take back the House or the Senate or both. But you can't do it without a program."And Mr. Bayh said, "I don't believe we will win by just not being them."Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush."People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. "I feel very confident about where we are."And Senator Barbara Boxer, also a California Democrat, said: "We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what's happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change."

I'm trying to figure out what the Democrat party message is these days. The aftermath of the Alito debacle has once again left the party weakened. You know after all this talk about lies of WMDs, the Ambramoff scandal and the Libby trial you would think that GWB would be doing as bad in public opinion polls as the Democrat party measured with Congress, but in fact he isn't. His numbers are in the low to mid 40s while the Dems sustain low to mid 30s. Trying to frame the debate around the NSA wiretappings is yet another failure. Where did the hearings go, nowhere, as I predicted, although there is still the closed door hearings with the intelligence committee, but then what? I think Jonathan Gurwitz puts it best with his piece this week:

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll asked, " In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that the government is suspicious of?" The results: 68 percent willing, 29 percent not willing. As I frequently note, polls are fickle. But in this case, the poll question actually understates the government's case, since the surveillance is of communications from the United States ? not necessarily from Americans ? to individuals abroad with a known connection to terrorism. And these percentages conform to polls in 2005 and 2003 that asked the same question and showed similarly lopsided results. Americans are duly suspicious of President Bush's assertion of a vague, reasonable basis for warrantless surveillance. Astute Democrats might capitalize on this suspicion by sensibly revising FISA and recasting the debate as one of security and civil liberties rather than security or civil liberties. Because of internal party dynamics and the imperative to appease anti-Bush extremists, they won't. Which is why, despite scandalous Republican control of Congress, the 2006 elections are not likely to be much different from those in 2004 or 2002.

GOP tosses one to Demos, and they fumble

Thus, how is it the dems will take back the House and Senate in 06? They're not going to, that is how.

Also, on a side note what will be the Democrat response to the Iran Dilemma? As Mathew Yglesias correctly points out, ?Democrats will need more than just the ostrich strategy when it comes to Iran.?

 

[Rainsford]

I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans. A perfect example is this warrantless spying debate. The Dems are taking a mostly well reasoned approach (for politics at least) in figuring out the legality and ethics of the program. They have even made it pretty clear that they would have agreed to change the law if Bush had asked. There are some "extremists" in the debate, but for such a highly charged political issue, the Dems are keeping it pretty tame. What should be a hot button issue for the Dems, and a sure winner for them among many Americans, both on the left and the right, is turning into sissy theater. It is a PERFECT opportunity for winning over libertarians, a group that normally leans towards the Republicans, such as those represented by the Cato Institute, which has come out against Bush's actions. This is a group that is not traditionally Democrat, and represents exactly the kind of silent majority group the Dems want to court, and they could do that without hurting their base at all, the people for this program seem to be mostly from the hardcore Republican side of things. But by taking such a weak stance on the issue, relativly speaking, they probably aren't going to attract the same kind of support.

I kept saying "relativly" because the "strength" of the Republicans is how they exploit issue like this. If the roles were reversed, it would have taken the Republicans a total of 5 minutes to make the issue into a bat to beat the Democrats to death with. Little phrases, taken out of context, (think "global test") have been fashioned into far better anti-Democrat ammunition by the Repubs than the Dems have done with this issue. Their right-wing media friends would have been all over the issue, 24/7. I can just hear Bill O'Reilly asking why the President hates civil liberties.

It's not the issue, it's how you use it. The way the Republicans exploit even the smallest issue is not exactly admirable, but it's rather impressive. And the Dems wouldn't even have to go that far, as long as they get past this wimpy stance they take against the Republicans. The author is exceptionally wrong, and the poll actually proves it. People are willing to accept monitoring (no mention of warrantless) in order to reduce the threat of terrorism by "only" 70% to 30%. Keep hammering the idea that wiretapping is not the same thing as WARRANTLESS wiretapping, point out that the latter is not necessary to do most of what the Republicans keep blabbing about, and point out that the warrantless part does very little to make us safer. The Dems aren't doing enough to frame the issue on their own terms, and that's something the Republicans are great at. That's why the issue of Vietnam service in the 2004 election, an issue that Kerry should have crushed Bush on, became a liability for Kerry. Didn't the Dems learn anything from that?

 

[Bowfinger]

Here it is with the paragraphs intact:

Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities.

In interviews, senior Democrats said they were optimistic about significant gains in Congressional elections this fall, calling this the best political environment they have faced since President Bush took office.

But Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president's approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November.

Asked to describe the health of the Democratic Party, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: "A lot worse than it should be. This has not been a very good two months."

"We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about," Mr. Dodd said.

Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy ? should they settle on one ? were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.

As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power.

"I think that two-thirds of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction," " said Senator Barack Obama, the first-term Illinois Democrat who is widely viewed as one of the party's promising stars. "They're not sure yet whether Democrats can move it in the right direction."

Mr. Obama said the Democratic Party had not seized the moment, adding: "We have been in a reactive posture for too long. I think we have been very good at saying no, but not good enough at saying yes."

Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry. And some said there was still time for the party to get its act together. But many others said the party needed to move quickly to offer a comprehensive governing agenda, even as they expressed concern about who could make the case.

Their concern was aggravated by the image of high-profile Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenging the legality of Mr. Bush's secret surveillance program this week at a time when the White House has sought to portray Democrats as weak on security.

"We're selling our party short; you've got to stand for a lot more than just blasting the other side," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. "The country is wide open to hear some alternatives, but I don't think it's wide open to all these criticisms. I am sitting here and getting all my e-mail about the things we are supposed to say about the president's speech, but it's extremely light on ideas. It's like, 'We're for jobs and we're for America.' "

To a certain extent, the frustrations afflicting Democrats are typical for a party out of power. In Congress, the Democrats have become largely marginalized by the Republican majority, depriving them of a ready platform either to make attacks or offer their own ideas. Presidential campaigns typically produce prominent party leaders, followed around the country by a cluster of reporters and television crews, but that is at least two years away.

Yet in many ways, the Democratic Party's problems seem particularly tangled today, a source of frustration to Democratic leaders as they have watched opinion polls indicating that the public is souring on the Republican Party and receptive to Democratic leadership.

And the problems are besetting Democrats at a pivotal moment, as they struggle to adapt to a shifting American political landscape, and a concerted effort by this White House to make permanent inroads among once traditional Democratic voters.

Since Mr. Bush's re-election, Democrats have been divided over whether to take on the Republicans in a more confrontational manner, ideologically and politically, or to move more forcefully to stake out the center on social and national security issues. They are being pushed, from the left wing of the party, to stand for what they say are the party's historical liberal values.

But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders ? among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries ? may be flawed messengers.

In this view, the most visible Democrats are vulnerable to Republican attacks portraying them as out of the mainstream on issues including security and budget-cutting.

One of the party's most prominent members, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has been relatively absent for much of this debate, a characteristic display of public caution that her aides say reflects her concern for keeping focused on her re-election bid. Mrs. Clinton, who has only nominal opposition, declined requests for an interview to discuss her views of the party.

Mr. Kerry said the party's authority had been diluted because of the absence of one or two obvious leaders, though he expressed confidence that would change.

"We are fighting to find a voice under difficult circumstances, and I'm confident, over the next few months, you are going to see that happen," Mr. Kerry said in an interview. "Our megaphone is just not as large as their megaphone, and we have a harder time getting that message out, even when people are on the same page."

Beyond that, while there is a surfeit of issues for Democrats to use against Republicans ? including corruption, the war in Iraq, energy prices and health care ? party leaders are divided about what Democrats should be talking about and about how soon they should engage in the debate.

In a speech last week in Washington and in an interview, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who is considering a run for president in 2008, sharply criticized fellow Democrats who were arguing that the party should focus only on domestic issues and turn away from national security, since that has been the strong suit for this White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

"I think the Republicans are ripe for the taking on this issue," Mr. Bayh said in the interview, "but not until we rehabilitate our own image. I think there's a certain element of denial about how we are viewed, perhaps incorrectly but viewed nonetheless, by many Americans as being deficient on national security."

In his speech, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Bayh said: "As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our fellow citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do."

Some Democrats argued that the party had time to put up its ideas, and that it would be smarter to wait until later, when voters would be paying attention.

"When you bring it out early, you are going to leave it open for the spinmeisters in Rove's machine, the Republican side, to tear it to pieces," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.

But former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the party's 2004 vice-presidential nominee and a prospective presidential candidate for 2008, said he thought Americans were eager to hear the contrasting case.

"What the American people are hungry to hear from us is, what is the difference?" Mr. Edwards said in an interview. "What will we do? How will we deal with the corruption issue in Washington? How will we deal with the huge moral issues that we have at home? This is a huge opportunity for our party to show what we are made of."

Historically at least, Democrats should be in a strong position. The out-of-power party typically gains seats in the midterm elections of a president's second term. And Democrats said they had a particularly compelling case for voting out the party in power this year because of investigations centered on the White House and Congress, including the influence-peddling case involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"We're going to keep hammering this," said Mr. Dean, the party chairman, referring to the scandals. "One thing the Republicans have taught us is that values and character matter."

Yet some Democrats warned that it would be a mistake to talk only about ethics.

"It's absolutely required that the party talk about things in addition to the Abramoff scandal," said Martin Frost, former leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I think the climate is absolutely right to take back the House or the Senate or both. But you can't do it without a program."

And Mr. Bayh said, "I don't believe we will win by just not being them."

Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush.

"People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. "I feel very confident about where we are."

And Senator Barbara Boxer, also a California Democrat, said: "We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what's happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change."

Paragraphs are a goodness.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans. A perfect example is this warrantless spying debate. The Dems are taking a mostly well reasoned approach (for politics at least) in figuring out the legality and ethics of the program. They have even made it pretty clear that they would have agreed to change the law if Bush had asked. There are some "extremists" in the debate, but for such a highly charged political issue, the Dems are keeping it pretty tame. What should be a hot button issue for the Dems, and a sure winner for them among many Americans, both on the left and the right, is turning into sissy theater. It is a PERFECT opportunity for winning over libertarians, a group that normally leans towards the Republicans, such as those represented by the Cato Institute, which has come out against Bush's actions. This is a group that is not traditionally Democrat, and represents exactly the kind of silent majority group the Dems want to court, and they could do that without hurting their base at all, the people for this program seem to be mostly from the hardcore Republican side of things. But by taking such a weak stance on the issue, relativly speaking, they probably aren't going to attract the same kind of support.

I kept saying "relativly" because the "strength" of the Republicans is how they exploit issue like this. If the roles were reversed, it would have taken the Republicans a total of 5 minutes to make the issue into a bat to beat the Democrats to death with. Little phrases, taken out of context, (think "global test") have been fashioned into far better anti-Democrat ammunition by the Repubs than the Dems have done with this issue. Their right-wing media friends would have been all over the issue, 24/7. I can just hear Bill O'Reilly asking why the President hates civil liberties.

It's not the issue, it's how you use it. The way the Republicans exploit even the smallest issue is not exactly admirable, but it's rather impressive. And the Dems wouldn't even have to go that far, as long as they get past this wimpy stance they take against the Republicans. The author is exceptionally wrong, and the poll actually proves it. People are willing to accept monitoring (no mention of warrantless) in order to reduce the threat of terrorism by "only" 70% to 30%. Keep hammering the idea that wiretapping is not the same thing as WARRANTLESS wiretapping, point out that the latter is not necessary to do most of what the Republicans keep blabbing about, and point out that the warrantless part does very little to make us safer. The Dems aren't doing enough to frame the issue on their own terms, and that's something the Republicans are great at. That's why the issue of Vietnam service in the 2004 election, an issue that Kerry should have crushed Bush on, became a liability for Kerry. Didn't the Dems learn anything from that?

No, pretty certain they haven't.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans. A perfect example is this warrantless spying debate. The Dems are taking a mostly well reasoned approach (for politics at least) in figuring out the legality and ethics of the program. They have even made it pretty clear that they would have agreed to change the law if Bush had asked. There are some "extremists" in the debate, but for such a highly charged political issue, the Dems are keeping it pretty tame. What should be a hot button issue for the Dems, and a sure winner for them among many Americans, both on the left and the right, is turning into sissy theater. It is a PERFECT opportunity for winning over libertarians, a group that normally leans towards the Republicans, such as those represented by the Cato Institute, which has come out against Bush's actions. This is a group that is not traditionally Democrat, and represents exactly the kind of silent majority group the Dems want to court, and they could do that without hurting their base at all, the people for this program seem to be mostly from the hardcore Republican side of things. But by taking such a weak stance on the issue, relativly speaking, they probably aren't going to attract the same kind of support.

I kept saying "relativly" because the "strength" of the Republicans is how they exploit issue like this. If the roles were reversed, it would have taken the Republicans a total of 5 minutes to make the issue into a bat to beat the Democrats to death with. Little phrases, taken out of context, (think "global test") have been fashioned into far better anti-Democrat ammunition by the Repubs than the Dems have done with this issue. Their right-wing media friends would have been all over the issue, 24/7. I can just hear Bill O'Reilly asking why the President hates civil liberties.

It's not the issue, it's how you use it. The way the Republicans exploit even the smallest issue is not exactly admirable, but it's rather impressive. And the Dems wouldn't even have to go that far, as long as they get past this wimpy stance they take against the Republicans. The author is exceptionally wrong, and the poll actually proves it. People are willing to accept monitoring (no mention of warrantless) in order to reduce the threat of terrorism by "only" 70% to 30%. Keep hammering the idea that wiretapping is not the same thing as WARRANTLESS wiretapping, point out that the latter is not necessary to do most of what the Republicans keep blabbing about, and point out that the warrantless part does very little to make us safer. The Dems aren't doing enough to frame the issue on their own terms, and that's something the Republicans are great at. That's why the issue of Vietnam service in the 2004 election, an issue that Kerry should have crushed Bush on, became a liability for Kerry. Didn't the Dems learn anything from that?

No, pretty certain they haven't.

I'll agree with you there, the Dems are trying too hard to be the nice guy party. And while that may attract those of us who aren't big fans of jackasses, I think America is still too much about truck driving, tough guy, macho assholes to really respect the Dems approach to things.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans. A perfect example is this warrantless spying debate. The Dems are taking a mostly well reasoned approach (for politics at least) in figuring out the legality and ethics of the program. They have even made it pretty clear that they would have agreed to change the law if Bush had asked. There are some "extremists" in the debate, but for such a highly charged political issue, the Dems are keeping it pretty tame. What should be a hot button issue for the Dems, and a sure winner for them among many Americans, both on the left and the right, is turning into sissy theater. It is a PERFECT opportunity for winning over libertarians, a group that normally leans towards the Republicans, such as those represented by the Cato Institute, which has come out against Bush's actions. This is a group that is not traditionally Democrat, and represents exactly the kind of silent majority group the Dems want to court, and they could do that without hurting their base at all, the people for this program seem to be mostly from the hardcore Republican side of things. But by taking such a weak stance on the issue, relativly speaking, they probably aren't going to attract the same kind of support.

I kept saying "relativly" because the "strength" of the Republicans is how they exploit issue like this. If the roles were reversed, it would have taken the Republicans a total of 5 minutes to make the issue into a bat to beat the Democrats to death with. Little phrases, taken out of context, (think "global test") have been fashioned into far better anti-Democrat ammunition by the Repubs than the Dems have done with this issue. Their right-wing media friends would have been all over the issue, 24/7. I can just hear Bill O'Reilly asking why the President hates civil liberties.

It's not the issue, it's how you use it. The way the Republicans exploit even the smallest issue is not exactly admirable, but it's rather impressive. And the Dems wouldn't even have to go that far, as long as they get past this wimpy stance they take against the Republicans. The author is exceptionally wrong, and the poll actually proves it. People are willing to accept monitoring (no mention of warrantless) in order to reduce the threat of terrorism by "only" 70% to 30%. Keep hammering the idea that wiretapping is not the same thing as WARRANTLESS wiretapping, point out that the latter is not necessary to do most of what the Republicans keep blabbing about, and point out that the warrantless part does very little to make us safer. The Dems aren't doing enough to frame the issue on their own terms, and that's something the Republicans are great at. That's why the issue of Vietnam service in the 2004 election, an issue that Kerry should have crushed Bush on, became a liability for Kerry. Didn't the Dems learn anything from that?

No, pretty certain they haven't.

I'll agree with you there, the Dems are trying too hard to be the nice guy party. And while that may attract those of us who aren't big fans of jackasses, I think America is still too much about truck driving, tough guy, macho assholes to really respect the Dems approach to things.

I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I think the Bush administration has conclusively proved substance is irrelevant to duping American voters. The entire campaign was based on innuendo, character assassination, empty rhetoric, blatant fear-mongering, and outright disinformation. I don't remember who coined the word "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert?), but he nailed it right on the head. The Bush administration has developed truthiness to a highly-refined science of manipulation.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

That's because you're not listening.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I think the Bush administration has conclusively proved substance is irrelevant to duping American voters. The entire campaign was based on innuendo, character assassination, empty rhetoric, blatant fear-mongering, and outright disinformation. I don't remember who coined the word "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert?), but he nailed it right on the head. The Bush administration has developed truthiness to a highly-refined science of manipulation.

That is the whole thing. I think this is where I believe the American people called BS in 2004, but yet we have these same old arguments.

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

Point, in case. Now, as I asked what will be the Democrat message on the issue of Iran or say SS as jrenz points out. Do nothing with our hands up in the air?

There is a clear reason why some Democrats feel they are losing, it is because they have lost and they are in fact losing once again.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I think the Bush administration has conclusively proved substance is irrelevant to duping American voters.

The entire campaign was based on innuendo, character assassination, empty rhetoric, blatant fear-mongering, and outright disinformation.

I don't remember who coined the word "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert?), but he nailed it right on the head.

The Bush administration has developed truthiness to a highly-refined science of manipulation.

BFT, but it is ironic since they do not believe in Science since Science undermines their deception.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I think the Bush administration has conclusively proved substance is irrelevant to duping American voters. The entire campaign was based on innuendo, character assassination, empty rhetoric, blatant fear-mongering, and outright disinformation. I don't remember who coined the word "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert?), but he nailed it right on the head. The Bush administration has developed truthiness to a highly-refined science of manipulation.

That is the whole thing. I think this is where I believe the American people called BS in 2004, but yet we have these same old arguments.

Huh? My point is that the American people did not require substance to be duped into supporting Bush. Your "rebuttal" is they weren't duped because they said they weren't duped? Aside from diverting from my point, that's circular reasoning.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I think the Bush administration has conclusively proved substance is irrelevant to duping American voters.

The entire campaign was based on innuendo, character assassination, empty rhetoric, blatant fear-mongering, and outright disinformation.

I don't remember who coined the word "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert?), but he nailed it right on the head.

The Bush administration has developed truthiness to a highly-refined science of manipulation.

BFT, but it is ironic since they do not believe in Science since Science undermines their deception.

Can't really paint that picture there are plenty of republicans who believe science provides clear answers to complex problems. Point in case, myself, hence, soon to be political scientist.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I think the Bush administration has conclusively proved substance is irrelevant to duping American voters.

The entire campaign was based on innuendo, character assassination, empty rhetoric, blatant fear-mongering, and outright disinformation.

I don't remember who coined the word "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert?), but he nailed it right on the head.

The Bush administration has developed truthiness to a highly-refined science of manipulation.

BFT, but it is ironic since they do not believe in Science since Science undermines their deception.

One small correction: The BushCo machine understands science very well, and use it to their advantage whenever they can. They do not want the sheeple to believe in science since it undermines their deception. The fact that BushCo traffics in wholesale fantasy and delusion does not mean they believe their own product. They are among the best in the world when it comes to the science of manipulating perceptions. They are the ultimate snake oil salesmen, con-men extraordinaire.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

That's because you're not listening.

Or maybe the Democrats either aren't loud enough, or their solutions are muddled with constant dirt slinging, so nobody wants to listen. I'm not against sound solutions to problems, but I haven't heard any yet.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

That's because you're not listening.

It's more likely because jrenz has no interest in what democrats actually have to say, and only hears it second-hand through Republicans and right-wing media spin centers.

This 'I know what yer against, but what are yer fer?' idea is a Republican favorite that has been around a long time. It isn't accurate, it isn't legitimate, but it's a great thing to get your base support to believe if you want to make sure they never ever think about what your opponents are actually saying or suggesting. Which you do, because what is good for any one party is blind loyalty, even though that's the worst possible thing for a free country.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I think the Bush administration has conclusively proved substance is irrelevant to duping American voters. The entire campaign was based on innuendo, character assassination, empty rhetoric, blatant fear-mongering, and outright disinformation. I don't remember who coined the word "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert?), but he nailed it right on the head. The Bush administration has developed truthiness to a highly-refined science of manipulation.

That is the whole thing. I think this is where I believe the American people called BS in 2004, but yet we have these same old arguments.

Huh? My point is that the American people did not require substance to be duped into supporting Bush. Your "rebuttal" is they weren't duped because they said they weren't duped? Aside from diverting from my point, that's circular reasoning.

No, what I am saying though is that we have heard from the Democrat side of the aisle that we were all lied to time and time again, but yet why is that a majority of voters didn?t buy into this argument about lies in 2004? Because they were duped by the BushCos? They didn't buy it then and they are not going to buy into in November. They haven't been duped at all by the Democrat party they can see right through it.

Once again what are the real answers that the Democrats are proposing? What is their message on Iran going to be? Still haven't heard any real substance just "lies". Consequently, this is the very reason why Democrats have fumbled and the very reason they will be the minority party again come November.

As jrenz points out where are the solutions? I have yet to hear any.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

That's because you're not listening.

It's more likely because jrenz has no interest in what democrats actually have to say, and only hears it second-hand through Republicans and right-wing media spin centers.

This 'I know what yer against, but what are yer fer?' idea is a Republican favorite that has been around a long time. It isn't accurate, it isn't legitimate, but it's a great thing to get your base support to believe if you want to make sure they never ever think about what your opponents are actually saying or suggesting. Which you do, because what is good for any one party is blind loyalty, even though that's the worst possible thing for a free country.

Keep blaming the individual instead of the circumstances. You're only making my point more valid.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It's more likely because jrenz has no interest in what democrats actually have to say, and only hears it second-hand through Republicans and right-wing media spin centers.

This 'I know what yer against, but what are yer fer?' idea is a Republican favorite that has been around a long time. It isn't accurate, it isn't legitimate, but it's a great thing to get your base support to believe if you want to make sure they never ever think about what your opponents are actually saying or suggesting. Which you do, because what is good for any one party is blind loyalty, even though that's the worst possible thing for a free country.

Keep blaming the individual instead of the circumstances. You're only making my point more valid.

I'm not 'blaming you'.

But you wouldn't come up with the evaluation of the democratic position that you tried to pass off unless your source is 'what the Republicans say is the Democratic position'. I mean have a look at your last reply here - and then let's talk about who isn't saying anything. I mean seriously, I don't think you even know what your last post means, because it doesn't mean anything! It probably would sound good if Rush was screaming it at someone though

The fact that most of your answers consist of 1-2 sentence soundbites, and yet you give the impression of thinking you 'win' arguments speaks volumes.

FTR I'm Canadian, and I think both of your parties suck

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

That's because you're not listening.

Or maybe the Democrats either aren't loud enough, or their solutions are muddled with constant dirt slinging, so nobody wants to listen. I'm not against sound solutions to problems, but I haven't heard any yet.

I actually agree with you....to a point JRenz. The message is there, if you do the legwork to find it. However, it isn't at the one place where it should be. I went to DNC.org so that I could just link you to their platform stances/talking points on topics and lo and behold, their "Agenda" page sux. It was a paragraph or two blurb on each hot-button topic, which isn't exactly a bad thing, with a "Read more about this topic" link at the end of each section.

I clicked the links and all there was, were press releases and stories that generally related to the topics. Now, I would have liked (and actually expected) to either have a .pdf open up or be taken to a page that elaborated on the "teaser". This was not the case. I know, being a left-leaning independant for 15+ years what the agenda is. Someone like you, however, that is out there researching, arguing a point or just trying to find which of the two major parties that they more closely can associate with, would have very little clue except what they get from the media. Which isn't very flattering, IMHO.

I went to the RNC.org site and checked the same info and it was arranged so that any dunce could see what the talking points or stances on the issues were. They did it the right way.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans. A perfect example is this warrantless spying debate. The Dems are taking a mostly well reasoned approach (for politics at least) in figuring out the legality and ethics of the program. They have even made it pretty clear that they would have agreed to change the law if Bush had asked. There are some "extremists" in the debate, but for such a highly charged political issue, the Dems are keeping it pretty tame. What should be a hot button issue for the Dems, and a sure winner for them among many Americans, both on the left and the right, is turning into sissy theater. It is a PERFECT opportunity for winning over libertarians, a group that normally leans towards the Republicans, such as those represented by the Cato Institute, which has come out against Bush's actions. This is a group that is not traditionally Democrat, and represents exactly the kind of silent majority group the Dems want to court, and they could do that without hurting their base at all, the people for this program seem to be mostly from the hardcore Republican side of things. But by taking such a weak stance on the issue, relativly speaking, they probably aren't going to attract the same kind of support.

I kept saying "relativly" because the "strength" of the Republicans is how they exploit issue like this. If the roles were reversed, it would have taken the Republicans a total of 5 minutes to make the issue into a bat to beat the Democrats to death with. Little phrases, taken out of context, (think "global test") have been fashioned into far better anti-Democrat ammunition by the Repubs than the Dems have done with this issue. Their right-wing media friends would have been all over the issue, 24/7. I can just hear Bill O'Reilly asking why the President hates civil liberties.

It's not the issue, it's how you use it. The way the Republicans exploit even the smallest issue is not exactly admirable, but it's rather impressive. And the Dems wouldn't even have to go that far, as long as they get past this wimpy stance they take against the Republicans. The author is exceptionally wrong, and the poll actually proves it. People are willing to accept monitoring (no mention of warrantless) in order to reduce the threat of terrorism by "only" 70% to 30%. Keep hammering the idea that wiretapping is not the same thing as WARRANTLESS wiretapping, point out that the latter is not necessary to do most of what the Republicans keep blabbing about, and point out that the warrantless part does very little to make us safer. The Dems aren't doing enough to frame the issue on their own terms, and that's something the Republicans are great at. That's why the issue of Vietnam service in the 2004 election, an issue that Kerry should have crushed Bush on, became a liability for Kerry. Didn't the Dems learn anything from that?

No, pretty certain they haven't.

I'll agree with you there, the Dems are trying too hard to be the nice guy party. And while that may attract those of us who aren't big fans of jackasses, I think America is still too much about truck driving, tough guy, macho assholes to really respect the Dems approach to things.

I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I might agree, if I thought the Republicans offered any more substance. But they don't, not really. Sure, they have "solutions" to issues, but their solutions are terrible ideas, and I don't consider throwing out BAD ideas any better than throwing out NO ideas. This isn't grade school, you don't get points for effort.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans.

I think you're wrong on this point. All that I hear from the Democrats is how terrible the administration is, but no possible solutions to our major problems, such as SS. If they have solutions, then I haven't heard about them.

Assuming SS is really a "major problem", and assuming the Dems have proposed no possible solutions, how is what the Republicans want to do about it any better than the Dems? The Republicans may have proposed something, but it's terrible, it's not a solution to our problem at all. BAD ideas doesn't seem like an improvement over NO ideas to me.

Of course that's just the punchline of a joke, in real life, the Dems actually do have ideas. The thing is, since they are in the minority right now, you hardly ever HEAR their ideas in a meaningful way. Unless you are some sort of political junkie, following everything every politico says, you aren't going to hear squat. Even, for example, on the SS issue, there have been several comments made by Dems that don't involve scrapping the whole system. But because the Republicans wed themselves to the private accounts idea, there is never any real debate on those solutions.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that analysis is way off base. It's not a question of "message", it's a question of how they use the strengths they have against the Republicans. A perfect example is this warrantless spying debate. The Dems are taking a mostly well reasoned approach (for politics at least) in figuring out the legality and ethics of the program. They have even made it pretty clear that they would have agreed to change the law if Bush had asked. There are some "extremists" in the debate, but for such a highly charged political issue, the Dems are keeping it pretty tame. What should be a hot button issue for the Dems, and a sure winner for them among many Americans, both on the left and the right, is turning into sissy theater. It is a PERFECT opportunity for winning over libertarians, a group that normally leans towards the Republicans, such as those represented by the Cato Institute, which has come out against Bush's actions. This is a group that is not traditionally Democrat, and represents exactly the kind of silent majority group the Dems want to court, and they could do that without hurting their base at all, the people for this program seem to be mostly from the hardcore Republican side of things. But by taking such a weak stance on the issue, relativly speaking, they probably aren't going to attract the same kind of support.

I kept saying "relativly" because the "strength" of the Republicans is how they exploit issue like this. If the roles were reversed, it would have taken the Republicans a total of 5 minutes to make the issue into a bat to beat the Democrats to death with. Little phrases, taken out of context, (think "global test") have been fashioned into far better anti-Democrat ammunition by the Repubs than the Dems have done with this issue. Their right-wing media friends would have been all over the issue, 24/7. I can just hear Bill O'Reilly asking why the President hates civil liberties.

It's not the issue, it's how you use it. The way the Republicans exploit even the smallest issue is not exactly admirable, but it's rather impressive. And the Dems wouldn't even have to go that far, as long as they get past this wimpy stance they take against the Republicans. The author is exceptionally wrong, and the poll actually proves it. People are willing to accept monitoring (no mention of warrantless) in order to reduce the threat of terrorism by "only" 70% to 30%. Keep hammering the idea that wiretapping is not the same thing as WARRANTLESS wiretapping, point out that the latter is not necessary to do most of what the Republicans keep blabbing about, and point out that the warrantless part does very little to make us safer. The Dems aren't doing enough to frame the issue on their own terms, and that's something the Republicans are great at. That's why the issue of Vietnam service in the 2004 election, an issue that Kerry should have crushed Bush on, became a liability for Kerry. Didn't the Dems learn anything from that?

No, pretty certain they haven't.

I'll agree with you there, the Dems are trying too hard to be the nice guy party. And while that may attract those of us who aren't big fans of jackasses, I think America is still too much about truck driving, tough guy, macho assholes to really respect the Dems approach to things.

I don't think it is a question of respect, but a question of substance or lack thereof.

I might agree, if I thought the Republicans offered any more substance. But they don't, not really. Sure, they have "solutions" to issues, but their solutions are terrible ideas, and I don't consider throwing out BAD ideas any better than throwing out NO ideas. This isn't grade school, you don't get points for effort.

Certainly not, but you do ultimately want the majority of voters to endorse that message and thus vote the party back into office.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Certainly not, but you do ultimately want the majority of voters to endorse that message and thus vote the party back into office.

While every countrie's parties try to make politics work this way (because it's easier than constantly trying to educate, in form, discuss, consult, etc with the public), two-party systems really seem to lend themselves to a 'team-sport' mentality, where seeing 'your side' win, or 'betting on the winner' somehow gives people a sense of satisfaction which of course is completely disconnected from reality.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Assuming SS is really a "major problem"

You don't think it is?