Excellent analysis: "Character issue puts Dems on the defensive"

[Tom Rinaldo]

You don't have to agree with every word, but a lot of this story in USA Today rings true to me.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=6&u=/usatoday/20050110/ts_usatoday/characterissueputsdemsonthedefensive

"Character issue puts Dems on the defensive

Mon Jan 10, 8:39 AM ET
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

Imagine a Democratic presidential candidate and his allies assailing the character of the Republican nominee in ads and speeches every day for eight months.

Having trouble? That's because Democrats generally don't have the stomach or the discipline to do it. Often they don't even effectively fight back when under attack themselves...

... In the past five presidential races, the only Democrat to win was the one who avoided the draft and admitted on TV to "causing pain" in his marriage. The other three nominees were military veterans with solid marriages and public records. Yet their opponents - George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush - managed to brand them as unpatriotic (Michael Dukakis, the "card-carrying" member of the ACLU), untruthful (Al Gore (news - web sites), the "serial exaggerator") and unprincipled and weak (Kerry, the "flip-flopper" who couldn't be trusted to keep the nation safe). All are variations on a theme: These men have character flaws that disqualify them for the White House.


'We were caught off guard by this perennial Republican attack-dog mentality,' says Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a potential 2008 presidential candidate, reflecting on 2004. 'We've got to find ways to develop our own.'


Some analysts wonder how a party and its top strategists can be caught off-guard by a recurring tactic. 'It is stunning, the extent to which Democrats keep repeating their errors over time,' says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in Providence..."

[dbt]

1. Another question, please.

All this emphasis on fielding "electable" candidates, yet most of them don't get elected:

:wtf:
dbt

[montana500]

2. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

This is not "excellent" analysis. It's not even the NEWS. Dude, dont you see what is going on here?

They are putting us down for the count. There is a concentrated effort today to end the last bastion of neutral news media, and to finish the dems off for good. You are falling for it hook line and sinker.

The gop is just as wishy washy as the dems. The differnece is THEY GET AWAY WITH IT because they own most of the tv and radio stations across the country, LOL!!!!

Yo uare falling for the crap. The only thing the dems need is to pick a wise candidate and media reform.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Did you read it?

When I first saw the headline I assumed that it was saying that Democrats have "character issues", No, it was saying we have issues dealing with false attacks on our character. Big difference. Most of the media is complicit in circulating those attacks, and making no effort to fact check (in large part because for the corporate media it is not in their interest to "fact check").

The GOP in my opinion is not as wishy washy as the Dems, maybe that is our disagreement. Bush talked about unifying America and then repeatedly used Massachusetts as a curse word, because it got laughs and because he didn't care about slandering anyone who didn't agree with him.

[NYCGirl]

3. They hit the nail right on its little flat head. Can't believe that's from

USA Today.

We can't let them get away with that kind of crap again!

[montana500]

4. they hit the nail on the head?

"" In the past five presidential races, the only Democrat to win was the one who avoided the draft and admitted on TV to "causing pain" in his marriage. The other three nominees were military veterans with solid marriages and public records. Yet their opponents - George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush - managed to brand them as unpatriotic (Michael Dukakis, the "card-carrying" member of the ACLU), untruthful (Al Gore (news - web sites), the "serial exaggerator") and unprincipled and weak (Kerry, the "flip-flopper" who couldn't be trusted to keep the nation safe). All are variations on a theme: These men have character flaws that disqualify them for the White House.""


DUH!!!

It sure isnt hard to define someone WHEN YOU OWN THE ENTIRE MEDIA SYSTEM FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!

ROFTLMAO!!!!

Damn I am pissed today.

[NYCGirl]

7. Yes, they did. You know what really drives the media?

Money, which comes from ratings. If there's something really compelling to cover, they'll be there.

Remember when Kerry accidentally (on purpose) let is slip to an open mike that the Republicans were "crooks and liars"? That drew the most publicity he had received in the entire campaign. The newspeople were tripping over themselves to cover it. Doesn't that tell you something?

[sendero]

23. I've been trying to get..

... that idea across here but it gets little traction.

For example - all the hue and cry last week about 1 women who had the guts to stand up (Boxer). The media ridiculed it or ignored it altoether.

But what if THEY ENTIRE DEM SENATE voted no? You think the media could ignore that? THAT IS NEWS, THAT IS DRAMA, that is what gets ratings and that is what the media wants.

Dems are too boring and passionless to give it to them, but the Repugs are masters at it. They don't mind making an inflammatory statement, even if they know full well it is not true.

Dems better learn these simple rules quick or there will be no Dems.

[NYCGirl]

32. Very, very good points. NT

[leyton]

26. That was probably one of his better moves.

I didn't understand why he didn't try it again - not necessarily another open mike slip but something along the same lines. Dick Cheney used it effectively too, and he didn't even pretend that it was an accident, when he said electing Kerry would cause an attack.

[NYCGirl]

33. So true. The Republicans have no shame about saying the most outrageous

things. And the press laps it up. And, unfortunately, it works.

[Leilani]

35. Great point!

Make the news & they'll cover it.

[coloradodem2005]

5. Well. This is true.

The only real character issue in my mind is that when the Republicans go after them that the Democrats don't come back and smack that shit down.

[montana500]

6. ?

"The only real character issue in my mind is that when the Republicans go after them that the Democrats don't come back and smack that shit down. "

It hard to come back and "smack the shit down" when you have NO ONE in the media and across the nations airwaves to back up your case, LOL!!!!!

Doh!

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Of course media control stacks the deck against us.

OK? No argument there. No argument about how deadly that is. No argument about absolutely needing to do something about it.

But Democrats get to produce our own ads and air them. Democrats get the same amount of minutes in the Debates. Democrats print flyers and are interviewed on radio shows (not as much as Republicans, granted). This piece speaks about what we do or don't do on our own dime.

[montana500]

12. ok well...

""But Democrats get to produce our own ads and air them. Democrats get the same amount of minutes in the Debates. Democrats print flyers and are interviewed on radio shows (not as much as Republicans, granted). This piece speaks about what we do or don't do on our own dime.""

These are good points.

Kerry won all three debates, but the media chose to focus not on Bush's lies about his timber company and Bin laden, but on Kerry's remark about their daughter.

Kerry did everything perfect from October to November. It didn't matter. Bill Clinton would not have won.

Dems may be on radio shows but they are made to look like bufoons. What good is it when all the hosts are die hard right wingers? They jus get the last words and make dems look worse.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. "All in all it's just another brick in the Wall"

We really are in pretty full agreement about monopoly corporate media, and that (with the possible exception of touch screen etc. voting) is the greatest barrier we face to winning. The dynamic being discussed is a part of our overall problem also though. We may not have access to the same tools to shape and frame debate, but when this type of attack approach against us is as predictable as darkness at night (in the winter for those in Alaska lol) we can't afford to be caught flat footed when it is inevitably thrown at us.

[DaedelusNemo]

38. The press loves drama and the dems don't give it.

The dems seem to have this silly idea that strongly countering any attacks is not the way to go. The try to do this polite understated someone-connected-to-the-campaign-says. No, the candidate (themself!) needs to come out, make the lie absolutely plain, and cast aspersions on those who would tell it, in biting terms that the press wants to cover. (The press LOVES a good fight, but it's only the repubs who deliver on that one.)

[Missy Vixen]

20. Well, NOW WE DO. What will we do with it?

>It hard to come back and "smack the shit down" when you have NO ONE in the media and across the nations airwaves to back up your case, LOL!!!!!<

Sorry for yelling, but frankly, what's it going to take?

The DNC is doing their usual same shit, different day with a chairman. I can't believe that any Democrat in their right mind would ever think that Terry McAwful should have five more minutes, let alone another term in that office, but hell, I'm just the little people.

Air America is fighting the good fight. They're also successful as hell, considering that they have been adding affiliates at an amazing pace. Journalists like Molly Ivins, Joe Conason, Paul Krugman and many others are also fighting the good fight. If you'll look at the bestseller list, liberals are stomping the right wing in a big way. Ask Michael Moore what kind of year he had last year. While you're at it, be sure to check out "Control Room" "Going Upriver" and scores of other lib-friendly documentaries. To quote another oft-used cliche, money talks and BS walks. If you're pissed off about right wing wacko radio, equally wack news "providers," and righty TV and movie crap, TURN THEM OFF. Don't shop at their sponsors, don't visit their websites. I have no idea of the political leaning of DISH Network's owners, for instance, but they carry FSTV, and I'd rather give them my money than DirecTV.

I'm amazed that the above article appeared in USA Today, especially on the heels of the shitstorm that erupted over the editorial that we should pull out of Iraq. We need to get some folks that aren't afraid of the smackdown, aren't afraid of running a good soundbite into the ground, and are ON MESSAGE. Terry McAwful isn't going to do it for us. Mr. Roemer won't do it for us. Let's get a meat-eater. I have my wish list, and I'm sure that you have yours, but above all, let's get in there, in the mud and the blood and the beer, and FIGHT BACK.

Julie

[gratuitous]

8. I'll decline to read the USA Today story

But tell me (as if I don't know the answer already), does USA Today acknowledge its own culpability or that of the larger mainstream media family, in falling for the same line of Republican nonsense over and over again, trumpeting fake charges they know aren't true and demanding responses from the candidate whose character has been assassinated? Do they mention that bogus charges by Republicans are put out for days, weeks and months at a time before a meek correction is ever made, or balance is brought to the situation?

Think, think. Did that media behavior make it into USA Today's analysis at all? Hmmmmm.

[robbedvoter]

11. It is one of the hoops they make dems jump through.

And the usual answer is: "I like W, he is a very nice man"
The result of this is - W gets praised by everyone, dem gets attacked from everyone (his vase included).
here's a smarter approach (called "damning with faint praise")

"I'm not running to bash George Bush. A lot of Americans really love him. They love what he represents, a man who has overcome adversity in his life from alcoholism and pulled his marriage back together and moved forward."
NY Post headline generated by an outsmarted Murdoch:
WES DIGS UP BUSH'S BATTLE WITH BOTTLE

[Sparkly]

14. I remember that -- it was brilliant. n/t

[Sparkly]

13. This is a familiar stereotype we have to overcome

The rightwing has successfully portrayed Democrats as "weak" in character.

They've also portrayed Democrats for decades as "weak" on national security.

These are two notions we need to fight and erase. It won't be easy, but I think the right candidate can do it, especially with a biography that makes it difficult for either or both of those to "stick."

[montana500]

22. you can overcome it

you just need some people in the media telling the truth. We dont have thousands of radio stations spouting across America boosting up our candiadate and putting down theirs.

[Leilani]

36. Constantly blaming the media does no good.

Being on the defensive, & being weak does no good.

Kerry ran a safe & uninspiring campaign.

He refused to go on the attack, & was put on the defensive.

If you can't stand up to your opponent, people won't vote for you.

I don't remember 1 Kerry ad, but I remember a bunch of Bush ads.

The Swiftboats, the Windsurfer, etc.

I really think people need to own up to the failure of his campaign, & stop finding 1000 excuses for why he lost, or that he "really won."

[forgethell]

16. Proper Prior Preparation Prevents

Piss Poor Performance.

We knew they would try to attack our character. What did we do about it??

We knew they would attempt to steal the vote in Ohio and elsewhere, and had legions of lawyers ready. Why didn't they do anything?

We know that they are going to try to pack the Supreme Court, loot Social Security, roll back civil rights to the Bull Conner era, force back alley abortions, wage war in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia before they are done, if they are not stopped.

Do you suppose the Democratic Party in the Congress can hold together as well as they did in the election challenge, or will there be a sudden blossoming of spines among our elected leaders?

[RafterMan]

17. This line cracked me up

'We were caught off guard by this perennial Republican attack-dog mentality,'

Caught off guard? What?

[montana500]

19. WE COULDNT ATTACK BACK

""
We knew they would try to attack our character. What did we do about it??""


HOW? By having Kerry stark raving mad in a press conference and pulling a DEAN?


WE CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. The GOP attacks Kerry through Drudge, and thousands of corporate owned radio stations and tv stations all controlled by the GOP.

Their attacks dont demean their candidate. There are thousands of henchmen that do it foir them (swift boats).

John KErry didnt have every single radio station in america echoing his talking points 24/7.


YOU Cant FIGHTBACK when the media wont cover you.

I agree, the dems, especially the DNC FAILE dto innoculate voters from the GOP attempt to turn nov 2004 into the fear environment of the 2002 elections.

BUt how do you do it *successfullly* when no one, and I mean NO ONE is broadcasting your talking points?



"""Do you suppose the Democratic Party in the Congress can hold together as well as they did in the election challenge, or will there be a sudden blossoming of spines among our elected leaders?""

the emdia has you hook line and sinker, buddy.

We have just as much spine as the GOP. The difference is we dont own the media. We cant hide it.

[forgethell]

24. Yeah, I loved how

all the Democratic senoators stood with Johns Conyers and Sen. Boxer when push came to shove. Either our leadership is incompetent fools, or they don't have a spine. The media would have had to cover it.

If we don't have the major media with us, then we each have to individually do what we can. DU is a good example. Talk to your friends, co-workers, etc. Letters to the editors. These guys ARE corporate, and as Lenin said, they will sell you the rope you hange them with. Make enough fuss, they'll cover it.

[DaedelusNemo]

39. DONT TRY TO FIGHT IT

Look, it's abundantly clear that there's a republican majority in the media and that this is a crucial problem that deserves our highest priority.

But your constant refrain of 'don't try anything because it's all impossible' accomplishes nothing worth accomplishing.

Your understanding of the media is simplistic. Stop trying to convince people to lose hope.

You claim just as much spine as the repubs? I haven't seen it. Did they stand against proven election fraud (many precincts recorded more votes for Bush than they had registered voters!)? Did they stand against a war that many of us knew from the start was a lie? Did they stand against the Medicare prescription drugs boondoggle? Are they standing against SS privatization? They have not shown spine and they have not shown balls. If they did, they would be better TV.

[rniel]

18. They should've went after the bush bastards

and not hold back one little bit. Go after everyone in his family going back 4 generations. The alcoholic daughters, the pot dealing, chain smoking wife, the crooked murdering daddy, the nazi supporting grandfather, the brother having sex with thai hookers. They should've brought every burnout that ever did a line with George the cokehead and his old girlfriend that had an abortion. They should've brought out every little tiny skeleton bone in their closet. Just my opinion, but I'm not as nice as most of you.

[PATRICK]

21. No offense

but the Dems have a knack for EVERY issue putting them on the defensive. The current whip du jour is lazily taken off the rack by the usual RW sadists and applied pretty much liberally with similar results, the same pleasing outcries of pain.

Worthless story, worthless Dem response. Bother to look at the utter gilded trash infesting the entire top structure of the GOP? No. THEY hold the whip. They only need the discipline and will too use it. It's a sick sick political scene and concentrating on victim bashing makes the media willing participants on the predictable side though they take some lashings of their own with glad whimpers.

Real pols from a real party could wipe this sorry lot from the American scene in one election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. OK, I held back this long because I too think Kerry ran pretty well

starting in October, and I know that the media is NOT an echo chamber for our talking points like it is for theirs. But I also remember how at the Democratic Convention, the biggest free Democratic infomercial of the year, hell make that 4 years, that a scripted effort was made to NOT mention George Bush by name, let alone attack him directly on anything. Prior to Al Sharpton, the only strong case against Bush's personal leadership came from Jimmy Carter, and that was only because he refused to have his comments edited and as an ex-President no one could make him rewrite them. And this was before the awkward silence from our side that hung in the air for a week after the swiftboat assassins went to work. This was by our own strategic choice.

[janx]

28. Yes, they could, and easily.

Part of it requires only the refusal to be constantly reactionary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. One way we are certainly disadvantaged

When Republicans make unfair snide and denigrating comments about us, the media covers it, and repeats it, then talks about the fall out against us as a result, while repeating it. When a Democrat tries the same, well that is simply outrageous and shows our desperation etc. I see that.

One thing I always admired about Wesley Clark though, is he would take whatever negative news that was out there at the time that made Republicans uneasy, and he would pin it on George Bush. Not Donald Rumsfeld, not John Ashcroft (though they got whacked too), not some prison guard in Iraq or some FBI bureau chief somewhere who didn't connect the right dots before 9/11, but always George Bush. Bush set the tone. Bush is accountable for what happens in his administration, the Buck stopped with Bush and Clark never let him wriggle off that hook. He got it into every media interview he did. Sometimes they tried to use it against Clark; "Are you saying Bush is to blame for the terrorist attacks?", but he never blinked. He came back with details about what Bush should have been doing but wasn't.

We are always playing "an away game". The political battle never seems to be played on our home field, but that doesn't mean we can't show up prepared.

[pdxmom]

29. This is part of the problem

"'We were caught off guard by this perennial Republican attack-dog mentality,' says Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a potential 2008 presidential candidate, reflecting on 2004. 'We've got to find ways to develop our own.'"

How do you get caught off guard by something that happens perennially? Do they think that maybe, just this one time, the Republicans won't go on the attack? They need to stop trying to play nice in the sandbox.

[marcologico]

30. Great, Rove mud recycled as Dean mud. Pretty sad. (n/t)

[Leilani]

37. It's pretty sad when people can't face the truth.

And what does it have to do with Dean?

The article was right on every point, IMO.

[Leilani]

31. That's an excellent article, Tom.

And I thing it's completely accurate.

Dems run on issues & don't pay enough attention to the character issue. As seen here at DU, everyone wants a riveting policy paper & position on every single issue.

Except for activists, that's not what people use to determine their vote. People vote on who do they trust to take the helm, & someone who can't or won't defend himself is seen as too weak to be Prez.

Kerry thought that by talking about his service in Vietnam, as a contrast to Bush, that would show him to be stronger. But it was ineffective, because Kerry was on the defensive the entire time.

Kerry should have been on the offense, attacking, but he didn't do it.
And the real shame is that he watched the 2000 campaign, as Bush consistently painted Gore as a liar, etc. Kerry had a perfect roadmap for the race, but he didn't use it.

Finally, Richardson's comment about being caught off guard, is probably the biggest indicator that they still "don't get it."

[David Zephyr]

34. Interesting Read, Tom.

Thanks for pointing it out.