Americans think conservatively, i.e. they dislike big government.  Americans, on the other hand, want the government to act liberally, i.e. help for Katrina victims, social security, medicare...Is it possible to wrap the two in a coherent package that will deliver a cogent message? 

1.The political press already knows its coming. The longer the wait, the more this becomes a "process" story rather than a vehicle to express a set of beliefs. Not only do the Democrats need to explain what their beliefs are to the vast number of voters who are unaware of them, they need to show that they HAVE beliefs. The image of conservative "strength" is rooted, in part, in the perception that agree with them or not, conservatives have beliefs and will fight for them. Democrats an only look strong if they have and look like they have strong beliefs.

As you're a member of the punditcracy Danny, any real, substantive discussion of the problems that exist within the political press as you phrase it, are long over due. In fact, I think you'll find that there exists a huge percentage of us out here in the real world who have been demanding such discussion take place. For example, since when does the press, political or otherwise treat democrats with anything other than contempt, and cast everything as their being "political" or as being mere process? Instead of chastising democrats to jump through a set of hoops, why not get started on dealing with the problems that prevent any substantive discussion they try and have about the very real problems with the Bush administration, the republican majority in Congress, from even being covered accurately by the press/media?

When one considers that whether on network or cable news networks news and/or political programs, there is a significant republican bias, they are given carte blanche, and every word, policy, et al, is given a wink and a nod. Democrats are not given equal opportunities on news/political programming. They are given very little beyond the ability to defend their policies, et al, in soundbytes. Their dissent, their words and actions on the floors of the house and senate aren't reported, their press conferences, etc... aren't reported. Republican pundits, members of the media are given majority representation on news discussion panels. I'm not advocating coddling bad or weak democrats, but instead demanding fair and equal coverage of what the majority of democrats are actually doing, advocating, the fact that they do have plans for the various issues. There's little to no coverage of them. It's not just FOX news, it's across the board at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS... Chris Matthews supported the right going after Clinton, but he says there's no legal grounds for going after Bush, during the '04 presidential campaign Kerry was pilloried for "not having a plan", despite the fact that his plans for many of the issues were more than readily available for all to see. He was nitpicked at by right wing pundits like Kate O'Bierne (here's a story from Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/items/200503140008) attempting to paint Kerry as weak or cowardly on issues important to people, like the minimum wage. Norah O'Donnell of NBC puts a sugary spin on everything for the administration, John Edwards was painted as attempting to foement class warfare when he campaigned on there being two Americas, plus much more across the board.

Again, it's not that they're dragging their feet, from what little I manage to see (and even that involves spending serious time looking for coverage of it.) they just aren't getting coverage. That is something we could all be activist together and probably achieve something positive from.

Why don't you and others seem to perceive this as a problem that could and should be taken on seriously by all of us? Why not provide democrats adequate time on AAR to discuss their plans, agenda? Devote serious air time to attacking media bias? The vast majority of the public do, they started mistrusting the media more than 20 years ago, and that distrust has only grown. Why is there no discussion about the problems that have come about since media deregulation, with the Fairness Doctrine was gutted? Air America as I recall based itself, in it's inception as something that was going to counter that. With very few exceptions it's failing to do so. For the most part the radio network focuses substantively on fewer and fewer issues as time has gone on. If it wasn't for Al Franken's show, I'd cancel my XM subscription.

I'm serious... even here and on some other blogs/forums whose constituencies are supposed to be comprised of "the left", it's appalling to anyone who feels commitment to all the issues to find so many in the constituency either out of touch or ambivalent on the most pressing issues. Before they attempt to infer that I don't know what I'm talking about.. why else do so many on the far left rabidly regurgitate right wing spin/memes as fact? If they claim that they aren't deliberately lying, then one must accept that they are uninformed (whether willingly or not).

2.Comparisons to the timing of the Gingrich 1994 "Contract with America" are not relevant. The Gingrich’s platform came fourteen years after Ronald Reagan had clearly laid out conservative Republican beliefs . Democrats and liberals have only recently been articulating and re-articulating their values and do not yet have the media infrastructure that conservatives and Republicans had .(Rush Limbaugh had been on the air for seven years in 1994).

Not relevant? I think democrats connecting the dots for people to see why they opposed what not only Reagan/Bush I, Gingrich's Contract With America and the who neo-con agenda, is helpful and important. Democrats have been slandered, smeared and painted as socialist, tax and spenders, wasteful, etc... all those years for opposing what was presented as being examples of common sense conservatism over the years. They are entitled to make the case that they were correct over the years, to underscore the soundness of their policies and what they're advocating now to make a strong a case as possible to assure success in the election. The neo-conservatives have played divide and conquer against the people, we need to once and for all put an end to their divisiveness to unite the people against an agenda that only serves to drag us all down. Again, re: media infrastructure, what's passing itself off as opposition media for the so called "left" isn't failing because it hasn't had as much time to develop, it's only seeking to alienate anyone who isn't rabid neo-left. There was such a hunger for it initially, and over the past year or so it's starting to lose credibility with those who had such high hopes for it.

3.The media is less valuable as a megaphone to Democrats in 2006 than it was to Republicans in 1994. The only way to get ideas across to a mass audience is constant repetition and the more fragmented and limited the media, the more repetition is needed. Sorry, but reducing democrats message to soundbytes, and constant repitition is ridiculous.

As any kid around here would say, no duh... the media has been controlled and manipulated by the republicans since the 1980s, it hasn't been "valuable" to anyone other than those who exploit it for an agenda that profits it's republican financing ownership. Perhaps the neo-left, like their kissing cousins, the neo-cons have little respect for the intelligence of the American people, but merely because the neo-cons pulled it off by reducing things to the lowest common denominator, doesn't mean that is a successful strategy. I know it was a common practice, by some on the left to denigrate democrats who sought to explain their plains, provide details, in favor of catchy slogans and soundbytes, by the campaigned that employed such strategy didn't win votes among average Americans... not only that, it alienated Americans because it was so plastic and shallow. It might work for selling throwaway concepts, but it doesn't work for what is life or death for most people.

4.Democrats should assume that Republicans already know their talking points and have responses to them. The earlier that Democrats can start the argument about the best future direction of the United States, the sooner they can draw Republicans out on their counter- arguments and thus reinforce Democratic positions. If Democrats wait until the last minute, they run the risk of Republicans getting in the last word. Moreover it is bad to convey the sense that Democrats do not have confidence they can win the argument. Democrats are on the right side of all major issues—and the longer and more detailed the argument-the better for Democrats. The shorter the argument—the better chance the Republicans have of blurring distinctions and confusing voters.

Democrats started discussing the best future direction for the United States immediately after the last election, though unless you catch what little coverage there is on C-SPAN or search it out online, one wouldn't know that they had. They were also discussing that during that election, which is why I get angry at those on the left who parrot right wing memes that they don't have plans. Perhaps you just don't agree with that direction? How can they effectively draw out/counter the republicans when the media isn't covering the discussion, reducing what they say into soundbytes? Where is the movement to demand better media coverage? Where is the movement decrying the lousy, soviet style controlled media, and the republican drive that reduced our formally respected, ethical press into nothing more than lip service??? You blame democrats for waiting 'til the last minute, when in actuality they only get what coverage they do during campaigns, and even then it's not on par with what republicans receive. Glad to read that you agree about the longer more detailed the better, but it does need coverage to get out there to the public. There has to be something done to reverse that, shame the media into being more equitable.

5.It is naïve to think that Republicans will be defeated soley on the grounds of "incompetence" and "corruption". It is relatively easy to find examples of Democratic incompetence and corruption and the public and media usually buy into the "plague on both their houses" argument that blunts these advantages.

I haven't gotten the opinion that is what democrats believe, more that that is what the pundits seem to focus on, as though that is the only legitimate arguement democrats have. The media is propigating the meme of "plague on both their houses".

Republican fealty to mega-business at the expense of American interests is wrong and unpopular even if implemented competently and without corruption. Privitizing social security, gutting environmental laws, policies which make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else, torture, lack of national health care, etc are all bad for America even if pursued with bribe-free competence.

If the Democrats want an issue that Republicans can’t blur —they can also focus on the perils of one party government.

If Democrats are nervous about their internal differences on foreign policy they should say that they are the party that permits dissent and discussion, Republicans are the party that fires or marginalizes people for failing to tow the party line. Democrats can be honest about the various foreign policy views but they need to stress that unlike Republicans, Democrats respect the patriotism, intelligence and good faith of people who disagree with conventional wisdom.

I agree with the rest of your statements, but I think the neo-left needs to be educated (since they love to use that term so very much) on how anti-democratic their desire to stifle dissent from their narrow world is, their desire to control and manipulate discussion, their desire to marginalize people for towing their particularly narrow line, is. Seriously, all the neo-left, for all their whinging has achieved is facilitating one party rule, by their triangulating with the republicans.. their folly has to be addressed substantively.

I think it is time for the Democratic leadership to clearly announce their core beliefs because if they don't do it soon they are going to become irrelevant with their "followers."  From where I stand the people are way out in front of the leaders.  They need to run and run now to catch up.  If they don't they will be replaced. 

As to the rest, Americans are ready for straight talk on the issues.  They are ready for clear declarative sentences.   

Ron Byers

Mary

I am not attacking Democrats--Im urging them to get their message out sooner rather than later. There is disagreement among Cognressional Democrats on wheher to come with a national message sooner or later. I'm for sooner.

Of course I share your views about the bias of the mainstream media. That's why I work for Air America. But Democrats need to take into account the playing field. Complaining about media bias is good. I love what David Brock and FAIR do because it noodges the mainstream media away from intimidation by the right.

But to be effective Democrats have ot take into account the flawed media as part of the plaing field they are actually on in 2006.

Re Air America--Democrats are welcome on almost all of our shows. This is why both the House and Senate Democratic leadership recently had a reception for us to encourage the growth of the network. Of course its not perfect--its a new independent company trying to do something that's never been done before and its not for everybody.But millions of people a week are hearing views otherwise unavailable via electronic media.

Danny,

Obviously, you are not aware that Mary from RI(diculous Land) is not rational. Don't waste your energy responding.

Tom

Or better yet, don't talk about the issues anymore.  We do that here every day, and we do it quite effectively.  Dems do it every minute of every day.  This fight is about politics, not issues.  And politics dictate that the Dems need to put their dukes up, even if they get their ass wiped all over the floor.

 
If Democrats are nervous about their internal differences on foreign policy they should say that they are the party that permits dissent and discussion

I agree with this statement. It's like herding cats, so let's just face it straight on.

And less important than talking points is action. If Dems continue to refuse to take on the Republicans, they'll never get over the weak on everything image.

Finally, I agree with ron above -- the public, and certainly the Democratic rank and file, is way out in front of most Dems in office. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

David Rabbin

Mr. Goldberg,

I think were both on the same page whereas most of our elected officials seem to keep turning pages, as a way to find the right word or words to say to the voters and their party!

To me it seems like that's the problem for what is good for the party isn't always!  And what's good for the nation seems to get lost in the complexities of party.  The Democrats need to take action now not only to show the errors of the ways of the direction of this nation, but step up with some good ideas of how to get us out of the mess were now in, due to directions of Bush and the GOP!

1. I'm not sure belief's are  important as solutions!

2. Yet the philosphy of the GOP is evident that its not working

EXAMPLE  A. The economy is good if your in a fiscal postion for it to be good for you.  The Middle classes and the poor cannot make it at the inflationary rises in the currrent cost of living!

                     B. Trickle down economic is still the aim of the GOP The problem with trickle down economics is that it never trickles to far down from the top! 

                      C. Unemployment numbers looks good however when you see that illegals are only taking jobs Americans won't you have to wonder why?  Answer is Mexican and other illeagal workers are hired by industries who know they can get labor from them for far less than American workers can afford to work for them!  Good for individual profit margins but not good for Amercans or the nation.  For social services become filled with both tax paying citizens and illegal workers who need additonal help for healthcare, housing ect. ect.

2. Then there are the Bush decisions on healthcare, the war, and tax cuts designed to assist the wealthest of the land and give a few hundred dollars to the poorest that is no help when you must pay for 3.00 gas and pay for the prices imposed on the public for other utilites, housing, and local taxes that are rising to pick up the differences of what they don't get from Federal resouces anymore! 

3. Then their is a war in Iraq the wrong target from those who attacked us who are still probably hiding in the mountains of Afganistan!  Now that we hear that the Talaban is moving back into Afganistan and set up new offensives that region of those mountains as reported on CNN 3/17!

The Democrats need to come out now with sound good solutions even it means telling us were going to have to go back to the tax rates used when Clinton was in office!  Dems have to realize in the pocket for most of the Middle Class the cuts added a few hundred or thousands to individuals but the what they gained they lost in what they are paying for in local taxes and increases in other needs!

Now is the time to hit hard against those who put us in this mess and realize that the American People are not stupid we may have a greedy side to us but we are not stupid!  For a nation that goes into debt to save the strongest and lest the weakest of our society fall is not a very wise nation.  A naton that goes to war for the wrong reasons in Iraq and without the logic of endangerment from those we fight is not very wise!

Sir your absolutely right incompetence of this President is obvious and directions of the GOP is also obvioius and that direction is only making America weaker both domesticly and in the world!

The mis-information given out by the White House and the GOP and being spread by those citizens who refuse to look at the evidence that is before all of us and the world!  It totally  baffels me as to why the Democrats run from it and don't make a stand!   Maybe Finegold is correct and drastic steps should be taken to go against the President and Democrats need the courage to stand up side by side rather then sitting still????

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

 Maybe Finegold is correct and drastic steps should be taken to go against the President and Democrats need the courage to stand up side by side rather then sitting still????

TOM OLIPHANT: Yes, but a little polling data to end.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, my goodness.

TOM OLIPHANT: For censure or against it, American Research Group last week: for, 48, against, 43 -- impeachment: against, 50, for, 43. There is...

JIM LEHRER: You mean this is a national poll?

TOM OLIPHANT: That's right, 1,100 cases last week.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

TOM OLIPHANT: This -- there are emotions out there in the country. Feingold did not make this up.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Thank you both very much.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

 Maybe Finegold is correct and drastic steps should be taken to go against the President and Democrats need the courage to stand up side by side rather then sitting still????

TOM OLIPHANT: Yes, but a little polling data to end.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, my goodness.

TOM OLIPHANT: For censure or against it, American Research Group last week: for, 48, against, 43 -- impeachment: against, 50, for, 43. There is...

JIM LEHRER: You mean this is a national poll?

TOM OLIPHANT: That's right, 1,100 cases last week.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

TOM OLIPHANT: This -- there are emotions out there in the country. Feingold did not make this up.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Thank you both very much.

What you said, Danny.  Here's an idea:

Let's lose some elections.  The Republicans didn't get where they are now by crafting a one-election strategy.  They decided what they stood for, suffered the slings and arrows of the commentariat and demonstrated they had the character to deserve the people's votes. That took years. Anything we do now that's only meant to 'connect' to middle America is going to come across as craven ass-kissing.  Let's lose a few battles in the name of righteousness, instead.

Here's where we stand: The people are the government.  When we can't solve problems on our own, we send our representatives to solve them as a group.   People who don't believe in government aren't going to run the government any better than a vegetarian is going to run a meat-packing plant. Government is what keeps the will of the people in the rule of law.

You want talking points?  Here's talking points. Democrats stand for something already:

 Religious freedom - you can worship as you want. It isn't the government's business to tell you what to believe.

 An even playing field - If the big guys has $500 per hour attorneys, the government can supply some laws to back up the little guys

Companies have to be as ethical as ordinary people.  When it's SOP for the small investor to take it up the tailpipe, that isn't a free market any longer.

 Fiscal responsibility - Social spending is good. Reducing the deficit and the national debt comes first.

 Fighting smart - Our enemies think in terms of centuries and epochs. America isn't going to be safe if we don't think long-term the way they do. Instant-gratification invasions and bombings make us weaker.

Abortion?  A crying shame.  Let's reduce it by pushing birth control.  Let's keep also keep it legal - we aren't the "let the mommies die" party, after all.

Didja follow the backlash against Blair invoking God to justify the war in Iraq?  Opposing Brits were fearless in saying that the Almighty had nothing to do with thewar.  People vote for courage, not policies. It doesn't accomplish much to regain Congress if we don't show why we deserve it.  

Danny

While there is a split between liberal Democrats and more leftwing Democrats over particular policies it is true that Americans have an idea what the Democratic Party stands for.  The bigger problem is that Democrats won't fight for those ideas or for each other.  If Democrats won't take the fight to the people who will?  If they won't fight to protect Clelland and Daschle why should anyone believe Democrats will fight to protect America?

If they put out their positions soon, good, but it is not enough.  They need to be everywhere, townshalls, schools, churchs on TV and defend the positions and not fold up when someone goes boo.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Survey of 1,000 Adults

March 15-16, 2006

Censure President Bush

RasmussenReports.com

Russell Feingold

RasmussenReports.com

Russell Feingold

(knowing he advocates censure)

RasmussenReports.com

March 17, 2006--Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe President Bush should be censured for approving the NSA wiretapping program. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 45% are opposed to the proposal advocated by Senator Russell Feingold.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who believes it is important to censure or impeach the President. Forty-two percent (42%) are less likely to vote for such a candidate.

When we initially asked if people had a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of Feingold, his name recognition was very low--15% favorable and 23% unfavorable. After asking questions about censure and informing respondents that Feingold was the advocate, his numbers jumped to 32% favorable and 41% unfavorable.

Advocating censure does offer a boost for Feingold within the Democratic Party. Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable.

The flip side is that Republicans have an overwhelming negative opinion of the maverick Senator--9% favorable and 74% unfavorable.

Thats from Rasmussen

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Kumbahya

Dem Activists, Politicos Must Work Together to Stop GOP

Amid the oceans of ink on the Feingold censure proposal dust-up, WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. nails the heart of the dilemma facing Dems in creating a unified strategy. As Dionne says in his most recent column:

Democrats, unlike Republicans, have yet to develop a healthy relationship between activists willing to test and expand the conventional limits on political debate and the politicians who have to calculate what works in creating an electoral majority.

For two decades, Republicans have used their idealists, their ideologues and their loudmouths to push the boundaries of discussion to the right. In the best of all worlds, Feingold's strong stand would redefine what's "moderate" and make clear that those challenging the legality of the wiretapping are neither extreme nor soft on terrorism.

That would demand coordination, trust and, yes, calculation involving both the vote-counting politicians and the guardians of principle among the activists. Republicans have mastered this art. Democrats haven't.

 

And then the nut question that requires a thoughtful answer from from all Dems who prefer winning to endless factional disputes:

Turning a minority into a majority requires both passion and discipline. Bringing the two together requires effective leadership. Does anybody out there know how to play this game?

Dionne is right. Surely there is some way that reasonable Dems can debate this issue and other questions of strategy and timing in a way that doesn't fracture their shared oppostion to GOP domination. We're not asking for a kumbaya love-in between Dem elected/party officials on the one hand and blogosphere/grassroots activists on the other. But it's time for a mutual recognition that the circular firing squad has not served Dems well in the past, and better coordination on matters of timing and strategy would add some much-needed tensile strength to the greater Democratic coalition.

Doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

Posted by EDM staff at 09:15 AM | link