For the sake of America, I hope the Democrats win. In the 5+ years of solid Republican rule, the congress has abdicated its constitutional role as a watchdog. It has become just another cheerleading section for the Republican party and has overseen fraud, waste, criminal activity and the abdication of American values and the abolition of precious liberties. A Democratic congress would at least restore checks and balances and throw a well-deserving butt or two in jail.
For the sake of the Democratic party, the party’s long-term viability, and America’s long term existence I sort of hope the Democrats lose this November. A win this Fall would be an endorsement of the party’s ridiculously idiotic posture and would reward its sniveling cowardice with power. A Democratic win would put a rubber stamp on the feckless leadership and push the party to keep it going into 2008, where we would lose yet again for the third time out of the last four elections.
The Democratic Party apparently has no clue. It seems to believe that 1994-present is just a temporal hiccup, and all they have to do is wait for the Republicans to self-destruct and naturally inherit the earth and the congress. The party is like the child who refuses to learn its lesson, even though the results of 2000, 2002, and 2004 show us that simply wishing is not a good enough strategy for winning.
I thought they would learn. I thought they would learn to keep the message simple, repeat it often and repeat it wherever the media was. The Republicans have mastered this. The phrases they come up with are not magic (as folks like George Lakoff would have you believe) but appeal to people’s gut instincts, especially with their repetition (“Head On, Apply Directly To The Forehead” is just the latest iteration of “Flip Flopper”). Democrats refuse to aim for the gut and the heart and prefer to aim for the head. So many Democrats and progressives think simply dropping a mountain of “facts” to “refute” Republican arguments will work in the public’s eyes. But if you’re responding, you are already losing.
Ever since I’ve been able to vote, the Democrats have been in response mode. Since 1994 they have steadily tried the same old, same old stodgy techniques, acting as if still in power while the Republicans have adapted and are beating the hell out of the Dems. The Republicans identified a way to get the vote out by sending a consistent message to their base and getting the base to share that message with their friends. Democrats outsource the jobs to the unions and pray that black voters turn out to vote. One of those two strategies is viable in the long term. It’s not ours.
The Clinton folks innovated with the war room concept, responding and also introducing new media stories throughout the whole media cycle. They did this in an environment dominated by the three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a handful of papers (NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post, etc.). Yet, even this concept is not being used by today’s Democrats and we face a significantly faster and news hungry media environment that encompasses 24-hour blogs, cable news, newspapers, magazines, radio and the like. This is not a question of having a progressive or conservative media, or a question of financial assets. The tools are all there and they don’t cost a lot. Democrats are just not willing to do this. Republicans regularly flood the media with new initiatives, attacks on the left, and propaganda in favor of their party and the conservative movement. If you’re lucky, sometime in the cycle a Democrat will drop off a press release or someone will say something on the floor of the House or Senate that nobody ever sees. The idea of using friendly contacts in the blogosphere and pushing the media to include a Democratic response or initiative just seems like its too much hard work.
None of this is hard to do, it certainly is not rocket science. The strategy of “hoping” has led to losing, why would it be any different this year? The President is one of the most unpopular in history, while the GOP-dominated congress is at all-time lows. Yet, the Democrats are not benefiting from this. Like the Kerry campaign not capitalizing on a President with middling approval ratings, Democrats are not presenting themselves as the alternative to the Republican brand. People are tired of Brand GOP but Brand Democrat isn’t even handing out free samples. You can’t blame the consumer for not choosing you if aren’t getting in their faces, can you? No.
The Democrats don’t deserve to win this election or the next one until they begin to show that they are willing to fight for it. They need to show that they want to fight hard and aren’t just going to sit back and relax. They need to show that they believe in their guts on the issues we hold dear (Defending America, Improving America, Uniting America) and aren’t so damn scared that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh might say something mean about them, and choose to be so damn vanilla nobody gives a damn. America needs a strong Democratic party, but aren’t getting it. In the absence of that, Republicans will rule. Because for all their innate evil, racism, classism and cronyism – their is no denying Republicans lust for the role of leaders while Democrats barely seem to want to show up.
Do better, damn it.
“So many Democrats and progressives think simply dropping a mountain of “facts” to “refute” Republican arguments will work in the public’s eyes. But if you’re responding, you are already losing.”
Agreed. The other thing they seem to be missing time and time again is how the Republicans gain momentum by appealing to their base and not trying to appease a non-existing center.
I’m not convinced that a Democratic win in November will change things that much. Geurge Bush Jr. and cronies openly ignore Congress when it does things they don’t like and pass bills constraining them a little. Unless the Democrats are willing to play the impeachment card, I doubt anything will change.
The Democrats should be focusing on state governments — legislatures, governorships, attornies general, secretaries of state, state auditorships. There they can do some good.
“mountain of facts”?
Well, haven’t seen that.
Maybe as a starter they could just come up with a position on foreign policy other than ‘we hate Bush’ and a policy on domestic matters other than ‘we hate Bush.’
While I don’t really believe that the 1994 Contract With America had as much to do with the Republicans’ victory as some people, it did at least have the value of setting defined goals of the GOP for the voters to see, in a form they could easily find and appreciate.
Where, I wonder, would I find such a unified statement by the Democrats this year, telling us what they intend to do, not just what they oppose?
Our esteemed host wrote:
Odd, but I didn’t think that the Congress had the authority to throw anyone in jail. Bills of attainder are specifically prohibited, as I’m sure you will recall.
Dugger, maybe as a starter you could just come up with anything better to say than “Democrats exist solely to hate Bush” over and over and over and over as though it were anything close to true. The 2004 Dem Convention Bush was hardly even mentioned, by comparison the 2004 Rep Convention was entirely about how John Kerry wants to kill your mother and rape your father. The blind frothing hatred is only really coming from the one side of the aisle, dugger, but then being a part of it yourself, you cant be blamed for not having an objective view of it.
Damn right. And first up … William Jefferson!
Great post, Oliver. I’m linking up.
I gotta disagree Oliver, Democrats don’t need to fight, they need to coordinate an effective marketing campaign. Look at the last two Presidential elections, Bush failed to win a debate, had a crappy economy, a disaster on his hands in Iraq and had failed to catch Osama bin Laden, but all you ever heard was John Kerry is a flip flopper.
Look at Dugger with his Democrats have no foreign policy crap. Maybe he could lay out what the Bush policy is for us, because all I see is a bunch of invasions with deteriorating occupations, deteriorating relationships with our traditional allies, and countries lining up to oppose us.
Pick any issue and you get two or three sound bites repeated endlessly with no variation and it tends to dominate the political landscape and frame the debate.
Last presidential election Kerry could have won in a landslide if he focused on simple points with little nuance, and painted Bush with simple characterizations like: No ObL, No WMDs, no Credibility. And continued to hammer it in. People don’t want nuance, aren’t generally informed enough to understand it, and want simple solutions or sound bites to reassure them. Trying to prove yourself to be better informed than everyone just doesn’t work.
I feel much the same ambivelance– the only reason I want the democrats to win is because the republicans are so horrible. I think a big part of the reason the dems still suck so bad is the general unwillingness of the party’s elite, like HRC and Biden, et al, to address their support for the war in the fall of 2002. (Edwards, with his 2005 Washington Post op-ed apologizing for his previous support, is the exception, and a model for the rest.)
As far as I can see, the party will remain ineffectual until those that supported the war in 2002 start to deal with their having supported the war, rather than behaving as if it’s somehow ill-mannered to bring it up.
I know this sounds like pop psychology, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
It’s all about branding in a climate where a 10-second sound bite is too long. Look at the mind-numbing repetitiveness of dugger and Farris’ posts.
“Head-on; Apply directly to the forehead” is right.
The Democrats will have to dumb it down as the Regressives have done so successfully in order to get their message to stick.
Corrupticans, Rubberstamp Republicans, Torturepublicans. Brand em.
From my angle, it seems as if the Dems are becoming ever more willing to court the Chamber of Commerce and the Real Estate people, at the local and at the national levels. The ones who are not willing to do this lose elections.
Rex
“maybe as a starter you could just come up with anything better to say than “Democrats exist solely to hate Bush”"
Maybe as a starter you could go to the trouble of quoting me correctly. But be that as it may, what is the Democratic policy on Iraq, then? Stay the course? Surrender now? Surrender next Tuesday? (please forego the Orwellian phrase “strategic redeployment” – leaving the battlefield to the enmy is surrender). All I hear is how horrible Bush is – not why what we are doing is wrong and what would be better to do. Same with domestic policies. And which of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies that have, COINCIDENTALLY, coincided with no successful attacks on US soil since 9-11, do you guys plan on ditching? No matter what you do, you want make us any safer at home – no matter what. But you are still going to scr*w with it?
With no techno-bubble, yet a very good, low unemployment rate, which of his economic polices will you ditch? How many new taxes will you levy upon labor and business?
I don’t hear these issues being addressed. I hear every sort of imaginable evil about Bush being promulgated (oh, he went down to Texas and cooked up this war with his oil buddies, etc etc, he had knowledge of 9-11) – but no substance. And yes I fully understand that Democrats want to put Republicans (John Kerrys ‘liars and crooks’) in jail. Maybe thats your policy.
I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s one reason why I’m registered as a non-partisan voter (Independent) in California. Jerry Brown is the only Democrat fighting for his electoral life. He’s got four separate ads in which he talks about his opponent’s stance on certain issues. If only more Democrats would follow his lead and go on the offensive.
“Maybe as a starter you could go to the trouble of quoting me correctly.”
OMG, that’s the funniest fucking thing I’ve read all week.
From
Dugger:
What I actually wrote:
Another case in point, by your own standards, based on the MIPT database, this statement of yours:
Is demonstrably
false. Any reasonable comparison between the Bush administration record post 9-11 and the Clinton administration record post the WTC bombing would show remarkably similar results, with the exception of higher US casualties on Bush’s watch because of the sheer magnitude of 9-11.
The Democrats sadly remained on the sidelines in the recent torture debates but many are on record opposing torture, illegal warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, kangaroo courts for detainees etc. etc. None of which make us safer, all of which hurt our moral standing in the world, not to mention fly in the face of the Constitution and our founding principles.
So before you start getting all huffy why don’t you try not being a lying sack of shit yourself.
Dugger, first of all you sort of arent allowed to gripe to me about “misquoting” you when you quote your unspecified “democrats” entire foreign and domestic policy as “we hate bush”, since I seriously doubt and prominent politician has put forth that as the title of a policy initiative.
Secondly, the reason why I put my bit in quotes there is because I was, it turns out mistakenly, under the impression that you were intentilnally and perhaps satirically trying to bolster a weak argument with a known logical fallacy, The Argument from Ignorance, which simply put goes along the lines of “I have not been shown or do not acknowledge proof of Not-A, Therefore A.” Or, to place it in the form you apply it “I don’t hear these issues being addressed.” and “All I hear is how horrible Bush is” therefore that is all they have to say on anything. Since it turns out you actually were trying to use an obvious logical fallacy to support your argument, I withdraw my comment and apologize for going over your head.
Thirdly, “coincidentally coincided” is just fucking stupid of you.
Fourth, as you in fact acknowledge it is a coincidence that these two things occurred simultaneously, but a demonstrable correlation cannot be shown. Correlation without causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is another logical fallacy, but you seem to be fond of those.
Fifth, lets actually examine that for a sec, okay? Ignoring Anthrax, yes, there have been no US attacks since 9/11. However, worldwide terrorist attacks have gone up basically every year since. 2004 was the highest on record (after they had announced that it was in fact the lowest, but realized they forgot to count like two months out of the year) and 2005 was even higher. And yet, the US hasnt really been affected. It is possible this is because they are fended off by Bush’s awe inspiring brush-clearing powers, or its possible that Bin Laden sees no net benefit in attacking. He wants a war, we have given him one. If he attacks, we’re likely to remove bush from power, do you agree? and if that happens, likely get someone in who would end the war, so therefore Bin Laden loses. Just a possibility to consider.
Lastly, it is telling that the only defense of domestic economically seems to be the lowering of the unemployment rate, a number known to be a poor indicator of job strength, much less economic strength.
“And which of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies that have, COINCIDENTALLY, coincided with no successful attacks on US soil since 9-11″
Anthrax attacks?
poor Rex, If you are gonna go ballistic again if I show you wrong, read no further.
I quoted no one (”you quote your unspecified “democrats” entire foreign and domestic policy as “we hate bush”, ). Read it again if you doubt.
And do you need me to point out the error in this?
“Fourth, as you in fact acknowledge it is a coincidence that these two things occurred simultaneously, but a demonstrable correlation cannot be shown. Correlation without causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is another logical fallacy, but you seem to be fond of those.”
If so, let me know (I’m thinking its a typo and I have no moral authority to criticize typing skills).
I would and do accept that no one has proved ‘causation’ – but the correlation (complementary correspondence) is certainly there. If the person responsible for keeping us safe, takes announced steps to keep us safe, and we, in fact, are safer (after 9-11), that man gets the credit – even though causation is not technically proven. Same with Bubba’s economy (God, I’ve said this before. I think he rode the Internet Bubble, but it don’t matter. He was in charge – he gets the credit. Likewise Bush.)
And more.
You said ‘attacks’. I said ’successful attacks’. There is a difference. No president, no leader, ever, will be able to stop all terrorist ‘attacks’.
And do you really, really believe Bin Laden COULD successfully attack us now (its possible that Bin Laden sees no net benefit in attacking) and is not choosing to? OBL?? Come now.
Dugger
“You said ‘attacks’. I said ’successful attacks’. There is a difference. No president, no leader, ever, will be able to stop all terrorist ‘attacks’.”
Oh stop it Dugger, you sack of successful shit. From the MITP:
According the MIPT there have been successful terrorists attacks on US soil since 9-11.
If you want to argue otherwise you’ll have to explain to us all why the MIPT is no longer a valid source for such information, or why, it is a valid source of such information for the Clinton years but not the Bush years. http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp
Being a successful sack of shit I doubt you will even address the question.
You said the democrat policy was “We hate Bush.” You did, in fact, put those three words in quotes. To correctly use quotes, you have to be actually, you know, QUOTING something. Part of my point was that you were using quotes and not quoting anything, intentionally suggesting that somehow “we hate bush” is actually incorporated in that form in some relevant democratic strategy memorandum or policy initiative or something.
…oh actually, the only other way you could have legally used the quotes like that is if you were being ironic, and given that your suggestion that democrats have nothing but bush hate to offer is patently false, it is possible that is the case.
Actually I appreciate you pointing it out, should have said “a demonstrable causation cannot be shown,” a point you actually seem to agree with. Thank you for catching my mistake, will remind myself to proofread before hitting submit next time.
…so wait I dont get it… are you saying that the coincidental correlation is proof that Bush has kept us safer? Or are you saying he’s getting credit for something he’s not necessarily done?
But hey, heres a thing, for as long as Ive been eating at the Chick-Fil-A at least five times a week, I havent gotten gonorrhea. Since I am the one principally responsible for my not getting gonorrhea, I can state unequivocally that my Chick-Fil-A diet protects me from it. Do you not agree?
Um, yes basically. Biding his time, as it were. See, he’s not interested solely in causing any american casualties he can, he wants to use what casualties he can cause to terror-ify us into giving him what he wants, which in this case is a war he cant lose due to the very nature of it that he can use to recruit a larger and larger army in the name of spreading his own twisty brand of evil. What do you find so hard to believe about this?
“Or are you saying he’s getting credit for something he’s not necessarily done?
Yeah, mostly. But it happens with all presidents and you can have an endless argument about how much credit an executive should get for what happens on his watch and even indirectly, ‘per’ his decisions. In other words, if we don’t ‘credit’ Bush with keeping the homeland safer (after 9-11), do we give FDR credit for getting us out of the depression, winning WWII, Clinton for his economy, JFK for the moon, etc.
And I completely disagree re OBL. I think if there was any way he could hit us, he would. Hard. But I sure as hell don’t know for sure.
I think he was quoting this guy.
Dugger, bin Laden’s organization successfully attacks us nearly every day.
“…successfully attacks us …”
Dugger doesn’t count US troops as part of ‘us.’
Another thing. You’re not going to get democratically-elected governments with vote machines designed and built by partisan companies with proprietary insecure software.
Here’s Princeton’s demostration of an undetectable hack.
those paper ballot can be easily stuff also and voter fraud is much easier. thats why many minority democrat precincts turn in their ballots late. they watch the returns and stuff the ballot to make up the difference to win the election with fraudulent votes.
mlbfwinyk ltegy wdelancq dosafu wgbx pbyjsr xkptme