The Democrats' Rove Envy

[robcon]

McAuliffe admits that he was overmatched in the battle against Rove. Do we need any more proof that we need a real player in politics at the head the party?

The Democrats' Rove Envy

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004; Page A27

"Democrats have come down with a serious case of Rove Envy. It is a form of jealousy that could have some useful consequences.

The longing is for the strategic clarity and organizational acumen that Karl Rove, President Bush's political top gun, brought to the 2004 campaign. Put aside the fact that Rove has been mythologized by both his friends and his enemies. Ignore (just for the moment) the fact that Bush's campaign against John Kerry was relentlessly negative. What really irks Democrats is that they did a lot of things right this year and were still out-hustled by the GOP. Figuring out why is -- and should be -- a Democratic obsession.

Last weekend offered important public glimpses of the Rove Envy that runs deep in Democratic ranks. In an unusual speech before a gathering of state Democratic leaders in Florida, outgoing Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe went out of his way to praise the Bush campaign.

"They were smart," McAuliffe said. "They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us."

McAuliffe was much taken with the Republicans' use of consumer marketing techniques to target voters, suggesting that the GOP is at least one technological revolution ahead of the Democrats in figuring out how to turn out loyalists and persuade the persuadable. While Democrats used old-fashioned mobilization techniques -- think of them as Turnout 1.0 -- Republicans were already at Turnout 2.0.

The Republicans, McAuliffe said, "were much more sophisticated in their message delivery," going after a "very specific, targeted niche," which "is what we now need to do as a party." ..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62349-2004Dec13.html

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

1. The Dems need to STOP "talking about what they ought to do"

Simply put, we need a man or woman of ACTION leading the party.

It's OK if we screw up. It's easier to turn left or turn right if you're already on the road, not when you're sitting on your ass writing a term paper on how you were "bested" by Rove.

Any "armchair quarterbacking" about how the party was "overmatched in the battle against Rove" is counterproductive bullshit. Yes, Rove pulled out his dirty little tricks from his dirty little bag. And the bag ain't empty yet, folks, so instead of McAuliffe gazing at his navel and waxing philosophic over "what we now need to do as a party," here's a bold suggestion: shut the hell up and get busy, or step out of the way for someone who WILL. Tell us what he intends to do about it, other than giving it some serious thought. Fish or cut bait.

OR, sit on our ass and do nothing, and savor the deep patriotic splendor of President Bill Frist in 2008. Or President Rudy Giuliani. Or...

:grr:

[John_H]

2. Right terry. So let's depend on the same people who resisted those

ideas (as if nobody knew what the rethugs were doing prior to the election) to move forward.

Yet another example of Rethugs out performing and out classing the underpaid children that run the day to day operations in the democratic party.

[Skidmore]

3. I'm sorry, but does anyone but me think that and

friggin' political science degree or being able to rub elbows with the bubbas of the Beltway at cocktail parties is no substitute for living with the citizenry and a little common sense? You don't need radical political theories to beat this bunch of thugs into the ground; you need street smarts.