is the Democratic Party getting out the best message?

[welshTerrier2]

i regularly read Common Dreams, a progressive website ...

right now, on their front page are no less than 4 stories about how screwed up the Democratic Party is ... now some of the DU party loyalists will take this opportunity to bash the left and point out all sorts of polls showing how well we're doing ... but getting a reputation, in my view aided by anti-republican journalists, that we don't have a message and that the party's leaders are failing to lead and inspire, can't possibly be a good sign of things to come ... maybe some of these writers are worth listening to instead of criticizing ... just a thought ...

don't get me wrong ... i think Dems are likely to make some strong gains this fall ... and that's great ... but there's a huge difference between winning because Americans can't stomach any more of bush's failed policies and voting for Democrats because they have a powerful vision to make the country better ...

let's face it, IF the Dems have any message, it is NOT resonating with the American people ... we seem to lack the necessary processes in the Party to reach any kind of consensus other than bush sucks ... headlining the Party's problems is its tragic failure to craft a real solution to the war in Iraq ... we're sending mixed messages to the American people and that makes us seem wishy washy and unclear ... diversity is fine to a point; after a while, it conveys weakness and indecision ...

Democrats may well win this fall but without major changes in the Party's muddled message, we will not win as big as we should ...

here are some of the related headlines on Common Dreams ... the authors of these stories are no friends of the republican party ... the link to the main site is: www.commonDreams.org ...

Molly Ivins:
Enough of the D.C. Dems (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-20.htm)

Ari Berman:
The Democrats: Still Ducking (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-30.htm)

Rosa Brooks:
The Democrats: They Can't Even Win a War of Words (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-21.htm)

Ruth Conniff:
Wanted: A Democratic Plan (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0307-21.htm)

[madfloridian]

1. The Nation and Common Dreams appear to be trying for 3rd party.

Thusly there is nothing the Democrats, any of them, can do right.

This appears to be new policy.

[welshTerrier2]

5. this is a very sad response

it's sad because, even if you're right, and i don't think Common Dreams is in any way advocating a third party, the point made in the OP is that we should still consider the issues being raised ...

even if all your opponents are idiots doesn't mean they can't ever make a valid point ... and i certainly don't see Molly Ivins as an enemy or a third party proponent ...

so again, the question is: is the Democratic Party getting out the best possible message?

of course there are those who would love to promote the idea that we have no message or that our message stinks ... that's why i raised the question ... personally, i think the party is suffering from a muddled message ...

[AtomicKitten]

9. that has always been their agenda.

That and denigration of the Democratic Party.

Their mantra is the same as it was in 2000 and 2004: Divide and, well, divide.

[welshTerrier2]

10. is there a difference between ...

denigration and criticism?? ...

they certainly don't seem to be pro-republican ... here's the current top headline on their page: "PLUNGING POLLS, SLEW OF SCANDALS & GROWING CALLS TO IMPEACH"

[AtomicKitten]

11. ironically

it seems like we'd be on the same page, but they have more in common with the Republicans in their shared loathing of the Democratic Party effecting a triangulation of energies.

On edit, I used to write for a Green newspaper and we agreed on everything except how to win an election. Nothing has changed in that regard. Dems may have failed in the last three elections (for a myriad of reasons), but the third party strategy would have yielded even more disastrous results. I know some would disagree with that, but they must acknowledge their efforts in 2000 and 2004 only garnered 3% of the vote tops.

[welshTerrier2]

13. articles by Jimmy Carter and Tom Hayden

no articles promoting third parties ... think you're tilting at windmills here...

do you see Common Dreams as an anti-Democratic Party site? i don't ...

gotta go out now ... back later ...

[AtomicKitten]

17. I honestly believe

that the "third party types" are just as devastated by the GOP regime, but rather than working with the Democrats, they dump on the Democrats out of sheer frustration, which isn't particularly productive. I think that is partly because they are outnumbered and don't feel their voice is heard, and that makes them every more fractious. But I also believe they are for the most part unwilling to compromise and work within a group occupied by Dems of various aspects of the political spectrum. They believe Democrats are unenlightened and/or oblivious to the status quo, not realizing and certainly not respecting people just strongly believe in different ways of reaching what is really, I believe, a mutual goal. It's quite maddening, really. It is truly a dysfunctional relationship and a huge waste of bright minds and energies.

[MrBenchley]

16. What is especially funny

is the Nation and Common Dreams advising ANYONE how to reach most Americans....The Nation has less than 200,000 subscribers.

http://www.direct-com.com/nation.htm

[Telly Savalas]

19. So we should look for political insight in People magazine

because it has a higher subscriber base?

[MrBenchley]

20. I'd take their advice on how to reach most Americans

before I'd take the advice of a magazine that's even marginal in left wing political ciricles....

[Ken Burch]

32. That's as many as The New Republic

Whose advice you probably do think we should take...even though THEIR advice is to do the same things that lost us the last three elections.

[eridani]

26. I think most of us would settle for a real opposition party

And the thing is, 2/3 of the Dems are already there. It's the other third always sniping at Dean and at the Dem base that are the problem. They'd be easier to support if they would just STFU.

[IsItJustMe]

2. I think the Dems would be well advised to listen to people like Molly Ivin

She speaks to my heart. I know the truth when I hear it and most people do.

[radio4progressives]

3. Excellent Post welshTerrier2!

:applause: :kick: :thumbsup: :hi:

[welshTerrier2]

6. thanks, r4p ...

always appreciate your feedback !!

[ulysses]

4. Conniff is right on the mark.

Heck, it would take about five minutes to draft a Democratic version, starting with, well, the Fiscal Responsibility Act to end tax cuts to the very wealthy during times of war . . . you get the idea.

Yup.

[Steely_Dan]

27. Exactly!

I am mystified that putting together a unified message is eluding the Dems. I could name 5 major issues that are all winners. Why is the Dem Party so inept to unify? The American people are waiting for a positive and progressive message.

-P

[madfloridian]

7. Everytime our Dems speak out...there is a post saying they don't.

Way to go. It is pretty obvious this is being done now. I have seen nearly all major Democrats speaking out on this ports issue...and many getting cut off quickly before their statements are finished.

[welshTerrier2]

8. the ports issue

will be seen as yet another bush mess; it will not be seen by the public as a Democratic vision for the future ... if anything, the repukelicans in Congress will get some credit for standing up to bush ...

the ports issue, while i've agreed with the Democrats, will be seen as anti-bush; not pro-Dem ... that's the point of the OP ...

[madfloridian]

12. The agenda is up at the DNC website.

There is an audio and long explanations. Read it if you really care if there are plans.

www.democrats.org

Go to the word Agenda at the top. Scroll down under the audio for the rest.

There is nothing, nothing, that any Democrat can do to please those who want a 3rd party. I am sort of sad to see the CommonDreams and Nation blasting our party as much as they do. They could be more evenhanded and fair.

As I say...there is no pleasing those who want 3rd party. To them people like me are Good Germans...a term for which no one ever apologized...and no one else ever stood up and said I wasn't.

[welshTerrier2]

14. didn't ask it there are "plans"

asked if we're "getting out" the best message ... and asked if the message is consistent ... posting on the DNC website is not what the public sees ...

[madfloridian]

18. No more.

I have spent far too long defending anything and everything with some people. There is no pleasing those who want third party.

I give it to you, not going to try anymore to convince you.

[gulfcoastliberal]

22. Love how they speak up at spending $177 miion/hr on Iraq,

They way they stood united against the patriot act made me happy, oh, and the way the stopped the budget cuts to Medicare, medicaide, and sttudent loans to finance the tax cuts made me really proud. And the way the investigated NSA gate made me so happy to see our consitutional rights being protected. Oh wait. None of that happened.

[Armstead]

29. The p[oblem is Democrats don'tt show specific differences

It's easy to say we want honest competent government. Republicans make the same claim.

It's easy to say we want jobs for Americans and accessible healthcare. So do Republicans.

The problem is that the Democrats don't tie those goals in what what has really happened, which is the frightening and disgusting concentration of power and wealth that has been occurring for the last 30 years.

Everything can be traced back to that, but the Democrats have either ignored or been complicit in it. If it is to regain a position as clear opposition, Democrats MUST STOP echoing the same corporate, elitist economic principles as Republicans.

That IMO is the problem.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. "How well we're doing"

The Democrats may very well hobble their way to November and gain control of the House, if not the Senate.

If they do, their best ally will have to G. W. Bush.

It's like somebody threw a beauty contest and Frankenstein showed up. He was the only contestant and it looked like he was going to win until Phyllis Diller came.

[Comadreja]

21. Too Many Targets

[msgadget]

23. Well, no, because they've decided to take no position on anything until

the fall. Schumer, Pelosi, Reid...all of 'em, just waitin', waitin' while the shit piles up before coming out with an agenda or official position. Saying that doesn't mean I'm pushing for a third party so you third party police move along, nothin' to see here.

Y'know, the number of DU members who accuse dem critics of being third party advocates are scarily like republicans who refuse to believe negative news about their party. Is 'third party' a new dirty thing? Is the intent to smear it just as the right has smeared 'liberal' and 'democrat'?

I'm desperate for a new regime but I'm not putting on blinders to achieve it. I don't want an America different only by the party affiliation of a president slavisly supported by sheeple too afraid of losing an election to demand their due.

[msgadget]

25. There are many democrats I'm proud of

and that's what I meant to say before the 'third party' stuff blinded me. I've seen many individual democrats fight hard again and again and I've also seen a lot of hesitation and not enough follow through from party leaders. Democrats stand a good chance of winning in their states in '06. The party will continue to take a beating but in pockets across the country party power will shift. By '07 party leaders will probably have themes they'll touch on repeatedly and momentum will biuld. I may even be swept up by it enough to forget my fits of disappointment along the way but I'm only supporting those who have been consistent and who have policy reforms I can get behind in good conscience.

[Neil Lisst]

24. No, the party is not getting out its message.

It's getting out as many messages as there are Dems talking.

Who is engaging the issues regularly in some fashion these days?

Feingold
Clinton
Boxer
Gore
Kucinich
Kerry
Clark
Dean
Reid
Pelosi

But what is the message? Besides Bush sucks?

[mmonk]

28. There is a message?

[Daylin Byak]

30. Yeah there's a message....

Stop the cutlure of corruption and an illegal war, vote Democratic in '06

That's not from the DNC but I bet that's what there trying to say without actually saying it.

[Armstead]

31. It is SYSTEMIC corruption that they have to go after..

It's not enough to just try to tar the GOP with that.

The problem is that the whole damn system has been corrupted by the amount of concentration of power and wealth that has been allowed over the last 30 years. That's what the Democrats have to go after. Bush Co. is just a symptom of a problem that is much deeper.


It's only natural that favors will be bought and sold -- and policies go to the highest bider -- if you allow corporations to have unfettered power, and if you guide all policies by what is best for Wall St. instead of Main St. and if you put right wingers like Alan Greenspan in control.

Unless the Democrts honestly address this reality -- which most people recognize on a gut level -- voters will continue to be cynical about them with the attitude "Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss."