Frontpage Articles on DU: Time To Change The Focus?

[stopbush]

Maybe it's just me, but at this point, I know all too well that a bunch of lying, cheating scumballs makes up the repig party. I know that because every day at DU I get to read a couple of articles or op-ed pieces that tell me so.

OK, I get it...and I agree.

The election is now less than a year away. I know that bush and company will continue to trash all that's good in this world, and I also know that as they realize their little coup is coming to a close - with possible jail terms looming in the near future - that it's going to get quite ugly. And, as much as I appreciate the fab writers at DU and their abilities to dissect the knuckle draggers and expose them for what they are, I'm wondering if it's time for the worm to turn.

By that, I mean that additional pieces slamming the bushistas aren't going to do much to sate or add to my loathing of them. Ergo, I'd love to see the DU frontpage become a place where Dem issues are raised, where Dem candidates are dissected, and where Dem ideas are freely espoused, debated and considered. After all, we need to have our platform as clearly defined by next Spring as our loathing for bush is defined now.

It's just a hope I have, but I can dream, can't I?

On edit: fixed a few typos

[JackSwift]

1. Our message needs to emphasize openly

our criticism of economic and war policy, and the background motif has to be cowardice, laziness and incompetence.

[Gore1FL]

2. I think being strident is a base-enabling tool

but it does little to attract votes. Mostly the articles are a rev-up for the party faithful.

Its fun to be strident, but I agree, perhaps we'd be better with a "bring in the vote strategy" than a "make fun of the right" one

Of course the simple solution is to write articles that follow the trend you desire. I imagine if you write it, they will run it.

I don't think the content of the articles is so much an inherent DU strategy or policy, but rather a population sample of the article that they get mailed.

In other words, you are right, but I am not sure as to the solution other than to submit articles that correspond to the strategy you suggest.

[JackSwift]

3. The only thing that we should openly talk about

is war and the economy. The rest has to be hinted at subtly in the words used. Oh, all right, and example:


Our economy has been managed poorly because the administration does not have anyone focusing on how to pay for the trillions being borrowed for new non-military spending. (That emphasizes laziness and incompetence.)

The Bush war plan was put together by and is being operated by people who have no war experience: they didn't plan, they didn't anticipate, and they seem to deliberately avoid the consequences because of this obliviousness as to the nature of war. Remember, these are people who can't stomach a funeral. (Again, subtext is laziness, incompetence and cowardice.)

That's done in a minute. It's more subtle if more time is spent on it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. And was vetted by the very companies that profitted from it

repeat it early and often

The Bush war plan was put together by and is being operated by people who have no war experience: they didn't plan, they didn't anticipate, and they seem to deliberately avoid the consequences because of this obliviousness as to the nature of war. Remember, these are people who can't stomach a funeral. (Again, subtext is laziness, incompetence and cowardice.)

[Mr. Brown of MD]

5. So write one

I'm happy enough to see the state of DU articles being discussed on the message board. Lately, it has seemed to me like nobody reads the articles beyond checking out the Top Ten Conservatives and Bob Boudelang. Several people who I consider friends here on DU have told me that they don't even read the front page every day.

I think that kind of sucks. It's kind of disheartening to write something and have nobody responding about it - or worse, like the last article I had on the front page, I got more responses from dittoheads than I did from DUers.

If you want to see a change, start that change! There has been a bit of discussion of the candidates via DU articles, but I think it's hard to have honest discussions about them in a single article, because many of the article-writers have their own biases. And I doubt we want to see the candidate wars take over the front page. If you think you have a better idea, though, go for it.

Once people see a new formula that works, then maybe you'll see more articles written that follow that formula.

-CollegeDude
Infrequent contributor to the front page

[stopbush]

10. I agree that many just skip over the articles,

but why is that? Maybe it's because they're usually little more than statistically supported examples of bush bashing, and the really GOOD bush bashing happens in the message boards! :)

I always check out the Top 10, but it's usually because it's more repig bashing...which I enjoy. I'm not advocating us not venting anger at repigs; I'm not advocating ignoring their latest outrage against humanity; I'm just saying that we do that on a realtime basis ad naseum in the message boards. Seems like a duplication of effort. While the articles shouldn't conciously avoid bush bashing, I'd like to see more of a balance between bush bashing and Dem-oriented articles. In fact, my original post came about because I have, for the past two months, made a concerted effort to read each and every DU article each and every day. That's when I noticed the pattern, and that's why I made the post.

As far as setting an example, I've done a lot of writing in my day and had LTTEs published a few times, but I've never tried writing an article for DU. Maybe I'll try.

In the meanwhile, here's a few articles I'd like to see written (none of which I have answers for!):

• Three things you can do TODAY to promote your Dem candidate
• Three things you can tell your republican friends that will get them to abandon bush in '04
• Seeing through the media fog - what Dems need to focus on to win in '04
• Killing them with kindness - how to win repigs over and influence people
• How Dems can make inroads in the Xtian conservative base
• Just the facts, ma'am - why Democrats are the true fiscal conservatives
• Just the facts, ma'am - how Democrats are historically stronger on defense than repugs
• Building a party of, for and by the people - the 2004 Dems
• Do the bush tax cuts help you? Yes, but only if you make $350,000 (or whatever $ amount works) a year
• Nip it in the bud - three soundbites that demolish the repugs on the economy, defense and moral character

Any takers?

[Zuni]

6. we also have to point out

How we are going to get the country moving in the right direction. We have to point out economics, fiscal sanity, breaking up super-trusts, fixing the Iraq situation, provide better security at less cost, get back on the good side of our important allies, fix the prescription drug costs and the healthcare problems.

We need a positive message, one that people will say 'Hey, thats a good idea!".
Negative campaigning on a Hate-Bush ticket will only make us look bitter. Bashing Bush will not win over people who do not hate Bush but nevertheless want better prescription drug prices or higher minimum wages.

[Zuni]

7. Two words--Prescription Drugs

There are ALOT of people fed up with the sky high cost of Prescription Drugs. If our candidate has a real plan to fix that and will work to fix it, that is millions and millions of votes.

I need lower prescription drug prices. They are bleeding my bank account. I will vote for whoever can fix the problem the best, unless it is Bush.

[punpirate]

8. Want to change the focus?

Sharpen your electronic pencil and get to work.

Cheers.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. Yes, but also remember this is the nature of the Democratic

Party, and for that matter, the nature of democracy itself. When you have, what, 8, 10, 14 people running for President all with the same good intentions, but differing in some critical areas, it causes division which has to be healed.
The only thing on which we all agree is utter contempt for the current administration.
Yes, I get your point. Perhaps when editing the articles, there should be a sentance put after a strong negative such as:
For months, we've been hearing from Bush that the economy is turning around, that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy are creating jobs, that the recession was all the fault of Clinton and then Sept. 11, 2001.
Could be followed with, for instance:
Any of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls' economic policies will return real growth and stability to the nation's economy, removing the politics of greed and corruption. In addition, cadidate X, candidate Y, and candidate Z have all announced that their administrations would take responsibility for their actions, not blaming downturns on events or retired chief executives.

I dunno, something like that. Off the top of my head before coffee and shower.
Is this what you mean?