The Dems REAL Problem is MESSAGE not Infrastructure

[ZombieGak]

Kos was on NPR the other day. His position was that the Dems had a great message but lacked the infrastructure to sell it. He thought it might take 10 years or longer for the Dems to compete with the Right. That their best hope now was that the GOP might implode.

I think this position is dangerous if not delusional.

What the Dems lack is any deep conviction for their beliefs and the common political sense to realize if they refuse to challenge the Right's ideological framework, they strengthen it.

Take for instance the Right's major strategic thrusts...

When it comes to tax cuts... the Right has been making Orwellian claims about the benefits of tax cuts since the days of Voodoo Economics. Yet Dems can never come right out and expose these falsehoods. They never say economic recoveries occur all the time usually without tax cuts. Clinton proved that we could have a recovery WITH a tax hike. Dems refuse to expose the Right's true intent to sabotage federal revenues with the hope of starving safety net programs. So what impression is left in the public's mind?

The Right makes Orwellian claims that government is always inefficient while the market can solve any problem efficiently. The Dems refuse to challenge this claim on principle... beyond a few peeps that Medicare administrative costs are low. So what impression is left in the public's mind?

When it comes to defending the federal courts, the Right makes bold claims about Original Intent while the Dems refuse to expose the Right's game plan to undermine the legal basis of the New Deal. Dems don't challenge the radical beliefs of Scalia and Thomas. They pick weak arguments like stare decisis to defend the right of privacy and the right to choose while IGNORING the strongest argument: that the ninth amendment already protects unenumerated rights. So what impression is left in the public's mind?

While building up the infrastructure of the Democratic Party might help in certain circumstances, it will be of little value if it just distracts the Party from its real problems... its inability to provide a clear philosphical foundation for their beliefs.

[papau]

1. I agree n/t

n/t

[ecoalex]

2. The Dems are infiltrated by corporates who place themselves over country

The spineless Dems are infiltrated by the DLC Dems, who conflict the party to a point of ineffectuality. There can be no consensus in the party with the likes of H. Clinton Lieberman, Dodd, Biden et al who are cancelling out any concensus in the party.A party divided will fail always.The Democratic party must purge these infiltrators, who are traitors to the party.Make no mistake, the corporate juaggernaut is the enemy, and the enemy resides within the Democratic party.No palitable Democratic populist will ever have a chance, as we saw with Dean, as the corporate wing of the party kills off these people politically who wish to return the power to the people.The enemy is within us.It is up to us to purge these nefarious traitors of the people.

[ZombieGak]

7. I could not agree more!

I dread 2008 thinking that Hillary will run and win in the primaries.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

52. much of that OP is blatent lies

DEAN SAYS:

BOOM: We are going to give America REAL security!

BOOM: We are going to end the Republican Culture of Corruption!

BOOM: We are going to bring EVERY American good health care!

CHING: We are going to withdraw from Iraq, gradually to keep our troops out of harm's way!

CHING: We are going to balance the budget, just like Clinton did, without raising taxes!


Howard Dean: "It's certainly not true. I can tell you what our agenda is for the '06 elections.
One, we want honesty and openness back in government again. Two, we want a strong national defense, first of all, based on telling the truth to our citizens and our soldiers before we send troops abroad to defend America. Three, we want American jobs that will stay in America using energy independence as a new industry to create millions of construction and manufacturing jobs. Four, we want a health-care system that works for everybody, just like 36 other countries have in the world. And, five, we want a strong public education system so we can have optimism and opportunity back in America. I think that's a pretty good agenda, and I think it's one that can win it for us in '06."

Next they will ask is Howard Dean running again? Even if he doesn't, all Republicans who believe in the old-fashioned fiscally conservative GOP, must make a political statement with their votes in November, if they want their party to return to traditional ideals, which once made it great.

[davikim]

3. I was reading

the newsletter from Democracy for America this a.m. and realized all the things that we are discussing are things Republicans have done. For instance, we are celebrating DeLay's withdrawal from the senate race. Well, that is wonderful, but I would like a chance to celebrate something good a democrat has done, not rejoice over another screw up from the republicans. We need to have something to brag about that WE have done, not gloat over the corruption of the other party....no wonder we aren't framing the debate.........

[mrgorth]

4. I'd say it's a bit of both.

[ZombieGak]

5. what infrastructure can't do is make up for a lack of principle

In fact having a bigger infrastructure may only highlight this core problem with the Dems.

[rudy23]

6. I think it's a matter of branding

I think the nature of modern American politics is more like the Cola wars than a Lincoln-Douglas debate. The Repubs have consistently stayed on message for years, branding themselves as bold, strong, realistic, moral, proactive, and having strong convictions.

They've painted the Dems as weak, amoral, elitist, reactionary, flip-flopping poll-watchers. When you repeat these terms for a couple of decades, they start to sink into the collective unconcious.

The Democrats are too idealistic to play the game, but I think we can play with integrity if we use our heads. If each party's image were manifested in cola commercials, the Repubs would have superstar endorsements, and Michael Jordan highlights over top 40 music. The Democrats would march out a guy in a white lab coat to explain the refining process, and make a case for their cola being healthier, and more pure.

Most people want to vote for the party with the characteristics they want to identify with. For many men, being Republican is a sign of strength, for women, a sign of morality. We have to take this back, and maybe brand ourselves as the "smart" party---not in an offputting, ivory tower way, but in a cool, assertive way. Russ Feingold embodies these characteristics perfectly. Howard Dean is doing a good job. I think Kerry and Gore are learning. Let's keep it up!

[ZombieGak]

9. the Right's message sticks because there's some truth to it.....

In many way the Dems do lack strong convictions.

As for Dems being "too idealistic" to play the game? I think you're way off. This thread was not about some cynical policy to sabotage the Right... but how the Dems lack of a clear message undercuts the Dems themselves... and how it helps the Right make its case.

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. LOL! You are funny!

Your post is nonsense and your proposition that Democrats lack conviction is BS. You also claim that the right may have points that resonate because they are true is fantasy. The GOP message resonates if you happen to be a racist, xenophobic, Christian fundamentalist whacko! Which are you?

[ZombieGak]

19. all fluff no substance

I gave three concrete examples... and all you can do is spout some inane generalities.

What I said resonates are the Right's criticism of the Dems. But I also believe that unless the Right's basic claims are challenged, the Dems are surrendering the field without a fight. It's an argument that was clear to anyone who looked even before Lakoff started writing about framing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. Yeah, and I asked you if you were a Dem and had no convictions!

eom

[ZombieGak]

28. looks like you are incapable of defending your own position...

but damn you're good and accusing anyone that disagrees with you of being a right winger.

Now I've asked you to address my three points I made in my first post. You've refused.

Obviously you're one of those Dems who has deluded himself the Party is perfect despite losing elections and need not seriously reexamine its core values and strategies.

[Vinnie From Indy]

33. Here ya go!

Firstly, you write,
"What the Dems lack is any deep conviction for their beliefs... "

Are you a Democrat and do you have convictions? If the answer is yes to both, then your initial premise is incorrect. If the answer is no to either or both questions, what can I say except stick around and learn why both are important.

You write,
"When it comes to tax cuts... the Right has been making Orwellian claims about the benefits of tax cuts since the days of Voodoo Economics. Yet Dems can never come right out and expose these falsehoods."

There are legions of Democrats and many Republicans that have called "Reaganomics" a disaster, ill-conceived and fraudulent. Further, the term "voo doo" economics was coined by none other than GHW Bush. Dems can and have spoken out very vigorously against Ronnie's economic policies. In addition, the economy was the issue that won Bill Clinton the White House and was Kerry's number one campaign issue. Here is a link to several bits of information.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=reagan+economic+policies+disaster

You write,
"Dems refuse to expose the Right's true intent to sabotage federal revenues with the hope of starving safety net programs. So what impression is left in the public's mind?"

My first rebuttal to this point can be found all around you on DU. There have been thousands of posts that mention Grover Norquist and his philosophy of shrinking Federal spending so he can "drown it in a bathtub". In addition, you can find several current members of Congress that have addressed this very issue. If the message isn't being heard, then that proves my point that building a media infrastructure is critically important if Democrats have any chance of being heard. Here is another link:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=Democrats+bush+economy

You write,
The Right makes Orwellian claims that government is always inefficient while the market can solve any problem efficiently. The Dems refuse to challenge this claim on principle... beyond a few peeps that Medicare administrative costs are low. So what impression is left in the public's mind?

I actually kind of agree with you on this point.


You write,
"When it comes to defending the federal courts, the Right makes bold claims about Original Intent while the Dems refuse to expose the Right's game plan to undermine the legal basis of the New Deal. Dems don't challenge the radical beliefs of Scalia and Thomas. They pick weak arguments like stare decisis to defend the right of privacy and the right to choose while IGNORING the strongest argument: that the ninth amendment already protects unenumerated rights. So what impression is left in the public's mind?"

I kind of agree with you here as well. The funny thing is that this court has decided cases in the past using anything but an originalist approach. The fact is Scalia and the rest of the
so-called "originalists" only act as originalists when it benefits a certain ideology.

You write,
"While building up the infrastructure of the Democratic Party might help in certain circumstances, it will be of little value if it just distracts the Party from its real problems... its inability to provide a clear philosphical foundation for their beliefs."

I would offer that the issues of regaining and unifying around a coherent philosophical foundation AND media infrastructure AND honest elections all have to be strategic goals for the party. It cannot be a first this and then that approach.

I did not mean to be so gruff. I offer my apology.

[ZombieGak]

44. thanks for responding

VINNIE: Are you a Democrat and do you have convictions? If the answer is yes to both, then your initial premise is incorrect. If the answer is no to either or both questions, what can I say except stick around and learn why both are important.

Whether I'm a Democrat or not is irrelevant to my observations. In fact some partisans Dems might be unable to see any faults in their Party.

VINNIE: There are legions of Democrats and many Republicans that have called "Reaganomics" a disaster, ill-conceived and fraudulent.

Reaganomics was 25 YEARS AGO. There's been no consistent effort on the part of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to expose this fraud. What do I mean by that? That Dems may stand against tax cuts for the rich but have no public policy of exposing the Right's game plan. At times they act irresponsibly. In 2000 before even the tiniest dent was made in the paying down the federal debt, and based on rosy forecasts, the Dems had their own huge tax cut plan. A few leaders have had some things to say about Bush2's tax cuts... but the reason they can't push the fiscal is because they are of two minds. They can't become the true party of fiscal honesty until they give up wasteful earmarks... and expose the smoke & mirrors federal budget process. Dems don't even use the correct deficit numbers preferring the unified budget numbers that understate the true deficit by some 300 billion. Kerry's a perfect example. His 04 deficit reduction plan concealed about a trillion in borrowing over 5 years. So the Dems may be fighting GOP fiscal irresponsibility I see no concerted effort as a PARTY to educate the public and inoculate it against right wing bull shit. They should have been doing this starting in 1980. So I think your point here is moot.

VINNIE: In addition, the economy was the issue that won Bill Clinton the White House and was Kerry's number one campaign issue. Here is a link to several bits of information.

Clinton didn't run against a tax cutter. Bush1 RAISED taxes. So this point is moot.

ZG: "Dems refuse to expose the Right's true intent to sabotage federal revenues with the hope of starving safety net programs. So what impression is left in the public's mind?"

VINNIE: My first rebuttal to this point can be found all around you on DU.

True... but DU is not the PARTY. What happens in this little forum has little to do with policies of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. There's just no evidence the Dems are doing what needs to be done to not just fight irresponsible tax cuts but educate the public.

VINNIE: In addition, you can find several current members of Congress that have addressed this very issue. If the message isn't being heard, then that proves my point that building a media infrastructure is critically important if Democrats have any chance of being heard.

Wow... "several" current members? That hardly sounds like an official PARTY position or strategy. You mean it's on the scale of those Dems who are running from Russ Feingold? Or are you suggesting they are lone voices like Feingold? My point is when the Dems who DO have plenty of access to the media don't press these points or try to expose the Right's game plan here or in the other areas I mentioned.


ZG: The Right makes Orwellian claims that government is always inefficient while the market can solve any problem efficiently. The Dems refuse to challenge this claim on principle... beyond a few peeps that Medicare administrative costs are low. So what impression is left in the public's mind?

VINNIE: I actually kind of agree with you on this point.

ZG: "When it comes to defending the federal courts, the Right makes bold claims about Original Intent while the Dems refuse to expose the Right's game plan to undermine the legal basis of the New Deal. Dems don't challenge the radical beliefs of Scalia and Thomas. They pick weak arguments like stare decisis to defend the right of privacy and the right to choose while IGNORING the strongest argument: that the ninth amendment already protects unenumerated rights. So what impression is left in the public's mind?"

VINNIE: I kind of agree with you here as well. The funny thing is that this court has decided cases in the past using anything but an originalist approach. The fact is Scalia and the rest of the
so-called "originalists" only act as originalists when it benefits a certain ideology.

Originalism is a fig leaf. In the name of originalism Scalia is bastardizing the Constitution. But the Dems are doing nothing to expose this doctrine.

ZG: "While building up the infrastructure of the Democratic Party might help in certain circumstances, it will be of little value if it just distracts the Party from its real problems... its inability to provide a clear philosophical foundation for their beliefs."

VINNIE: I would offer that the issues of regaining and unifying around a coherent philosophical foundation AND media infrastructure AND honest elections all have to be strategic goals for the party. It cannot be a first this and then that approach. I did not mean to be so gruff. I offer my apology.

Apology accepted. I agree with your points. I just don't see that coherent philosophical foundation anytime soon. I think there's some inherent defects in the Party that interfere with the Progressive mission. One is that regardless how dysfunctional our political system is... with a voting rate 143 of 160 nations, their ideological blinders are such that they would rather game that system than reform it. This forces the Party into its own Orwellian contradictions such as how it claims it values democracy when in reality it supports our anti-democratic system.

[AtomicKitten]

58. The GOP's message sticks because it's harvested from

careful deliberate focus group simplistic jingo-rhetoric buzzwords.

I think the Dems have a message, a message that's 12 pages long, a message that doesn't resonate with John Q. Public that has the attention span of a gnat.

[CornField]

8. It is very difficult to compete with a tax-free, networked sound system...

complete with laser light shows, which can be found in any number of American megachurches across the nation. It is also very difficult to compete when the leadership of most American organized religion is willing to sell out the very livelihood of their congregants (wages, roads, security, et al) in order to force-feed them only 2-3 issues and steer them toward the Republican party (based only on those 2-3 issues).

The Republican party isn't going about the nation launching discussions on their philosophy of government. Know why? They'd lose. The Republican party doesn't even preach fiscal conservatism anymore. Outside of convincing the general public that the Democratic candidates want to 1) take their guns, 2) abort all their children/grandchildren, 3) attack the foundations of their religious beliefs, and 4) bring about an end to traditional, religious marriage the GOP really doesn't do much stumping at all. They don't have to.

While Democratic leaders rely on a soundbite here and a soundbite there to get their messages out, the GOP has a captive audience of roughly half our nation's population each Sunday morning.

The vast majority of Americans are completely disenchanted with Bush and with the GOP in general. Even with that discontent, however, they are finding it difficult to migrate to the Democratic Party and our candidates. Why? Because everything they have been *taught* has led them to believe that we are one step short of the anti-Christ and that voting for us is not only a mistake but a moral sin which might very well jeopardize their eternal existance.

During the 2004, do you remember the ad ran by the GOP which said, "Once you enter that voting booth, only you know who you voted for"? The talking heads were all over it, but they missed the point. Evangelicals are taught from birth that you are never alone. That is, no matter what horrible, evil thing you've done, God is going to see it. That ad was simply a reminder to those of faith that even if their congregation never found out what they did in the voting booth, God was going to know about it.

It isn't our message. It isn't our values. It is our inability to nurture the non-party networks we have and expand them as forces for the people.

[ellenfl]

10. i'm getting tired of hearing that dems have no ideas.

we have plenty of them and we should be talking them up every chance we get. defeatism is NOT helpful. markos' (and every other 'progressive's') negativity is just feeding the rw.

ellen fl

[ZombieGak]

14. I gave three examples.........

Claiming the Dems have "ideas" is easy. In fact I believe that attitude is a big part of the problem since people like you lack any insight into why the Dem are losing ground.

So show me where the Dems have an effective response to the three examples I gave. The Dem's best hope is not that they stand for much... it that the Right is imploding.

[blm]

21. You fail to note the GOP attained their message control by GAINING control

of most broadcast media and by concentrating on their INFRASTRUCTURE at every level.

Controlling most broadcast media means you get to control the volume knob when you or your opponent speaks.

The Dem party needs to work at exposing the GOP control over most broadcast media.

[Vinnie From Indy]

23. Amen!

There seems to be a coordinated effort on this thread to throw bombs and spew Limbaughian nonsense! Good for you for not buying it!

[blm]

25. Thanks - still waiting for reply from OP.

.

[ZombieGak]

26. to concentrate on the media is to miss the bigger picture

The Right has made gains because they have had a master strategy... only a part of which was building up their media presence. Your argument doesn't cut mustard because even when there were presidential debates and confirmation hearings... the Dems did NOT have effective arguments. They lack an effective strategy to put the Right on the defensive. Here's one example I gave from another post:

If the Right Doesn't Like the Right to Privacy.... Let THEM Repeal the 9th

In a recent web discussion about strategies to protect unenumerated constitutional rights such as privacy and the right to choose, someone suggested the Democrats should advocate amendments to guarantee these rights.

I could not disagree more.

Even if some amendments managed to be ratified, there will be an endless list of other rights the radical Right would try to restrict. Even the concept of one person/one vote is under attack!

As if the current Democratic strategy isn't already on shaky ground, this amendment proposal perpetuates a defensive posture and dooms the Democrats to endlessly pursue amendment after amendment. If they don't... and if Griswold or Roe are overturned... what's the fallback position to guarantee these rights on the FEDERAL level? There is none. The issues will revert to the states resulting in a patchwork of conflicting laws.

Democrats are making a strategic blunder of monumental proportions by basing their arguments on stare decisis... previous court rulings. They need to aggressively reframe the debate and this requires going on the offense to find in the Constitution a broader source of rights as the REAL legal basis for the right to privacy and the right to choose.

I believe the Democrats and their political allies should dust off that long-ignored, but all important, ninth amendment which says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Rightly the 9th is the REAL basis for such basic but unenumerated rights as privacy and the right to choose. This should NOT be that difficult a case to make given what James Madison wrote about the intent of this amendment.

Yes these unenumerated rights are largely in the minds of the beholder which may be why the Democrats historically have avoided the 9th. But given how our system delegates powers from the People to the states and federal governments... and how the 9th guarantees rights are retained by the People... then it's clear Original Intent placed the burden of proof on GOVERNMENT to find a legal justification to restrict rights... not for the PEOPLE to constantly fight for rights that government never should have restricted in the first place.

In politics conceiving a good offense is just the start. The Right MUST be effectively put on the defensive. My suggestion... by insisting the right to privacy or to the right to chose are already protected not by court rulings but by the Bill of Rights itself, Democrats should stake out a position and coordinate talking points that if the Right opposes these unenumerated rights, their ONLY constitutional option is to repeal the 9th amendment.

[blm]

27. You can't put the right into a corner when they control what gets heard.

They worked FORTY YEARS on their infrastructure and on gaining control of the media for the last twenty years. Now you say Dems shouldn't work on their infrastructure and should try to back the GOP into a corner on an issue?

Look at Downing Street Memos - Dems can't cut past the media protection of Bush to make those an issue - the media is even twisting Bush's leak into the muddled issue of whether he declassified it when he leaked it.

It's absurd to try to define ONE issue - the ONLY ISSUES Dems need to correct is the GOP control of most media and most voting machines.

Every OTHER issue and the perception of those issues is controlled by media and the outcome of the votes.

[ZombieGak]

29. Stop Misrepesenting My Position......

I did NOT say Dems should not work on that infrastructure... here's what I said:

"While building up the infrastructure of the Democratic Party might help in certain circumstances, it will be of little value if it just distracts the Party from its real problems... its inability to provide a clear philosophical foundation for their beliefs."

For example the presidential debates, the Roberts/Alito hearings, and all the Sunday talk shows, prove Dems had no effective position/strategy for defending the federal courts.

That's NOT going to change if they have MORE access to the media and spout the same pap.

[blm]

30. The Dems have great policy platforms with no discussion of the actual

policies on ANY of the news shows who downplay every Dem initiative. For ex: Kerry specifically talked about port security in almost every speech for two years, and including the debates - yet when the Dubai issue came up, almost every media person said Dems had never bothered to mention port security before. Completely ignoring the detailed plans Kerry had about port security because they NEVER REALLY LISTENED to what was being said, including at the debates.

The RW doesn't get their message out because it's more developed and clear - they get it out because they control the amount of airtime any issue gets - all you need to do is look at the studies conducted by Madia Matters and FAIR.

[ZombieGak]

48. partisans ALWAYS love their party platform

There's a difference between A Dem or SEVERAL Dems having a clear position on X, Y and Z... and the PARTY having clear position on X, Y, and Z. Unless you're claiming that there's no difference between a Russ Feingold and the Party RUNNING from his censure motion because they are all Dems.

My point here has consistently been that even when Dems DO have free access to the media... they don't have deep enough core beliefs they can articulate, a good enough understanding of the Right's gameplan, and a failure to put the Right on the defensive.
Their incompetence in keeping radical right wing judges off the USSC is a perfect example. They thought they had a comprehensive strategy... concentrating on the right to choose and the right of privacy. Yet their plan was weak. They COULD have dug their heels and developed the 9th amendment arguments back in the 80's but they stuck with a weaker stare decisis argument which acknowledged the Right's contention that the courts COULD overturn these rights. It was stupid in the extreme. Now 20 years have gone by when they COULD have been educating/inoculating the public, attacking the credibility of Originalism, putting forth their own comprehensive constitutional philosophy... but they didn't. So now the court is packed with right-wing Neanderthals giving the Right one of it's key strategic goals.

And even when there are clear positions they have to be consistent with some coherent philosophical foundation. TheObscure posted what was supposed to be the Dem platform for this year and it's all feel good fluff. I fully expect partisans will be happy with it... just as they are with all the Democratic platforms. But those partisan blinders are what blinds them to why the Dems are losing. Since they can't believe there's anything fundamentally wrong with the Party... they forever look for other explanations.

[theobscure]

53. to clear my name...I am not the one that posted the supposed

Democratic Party agenda. I posted a response to that person that was along the same counter lines as your posts.

[ZombieGak]

54. I offer my humble apology

I'm such a scatterbrain I can't remember a name 2 minutes after I read a post. In fact it was ellenfl who posted that list.

[theobscure]

55. no problem...knew it was honest mistake..just wanted to clarify n/t

[Doctor_J]

46. No, it's having no media access

If every radio station and every cabal "news" outlet was, truthfully, calling Smirk a liar and a hypocrite 24/7, this thing would be over in 3 weeks. If they invited 6 dems on the air for every one Repub, instead of the other way around. If they gushed over every word uttered by Howard Dean and John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. If they relentlessly played Smirk's Leak Lies over and over for a few days. You get th epicture. The problem right now is the media monopoly - period.

[ellenfl]

36. MY POINT IS, the rw bashes dems enough. we

shouldn't self-bash. what little air time we get should be positive and not about dems being clueless. we will not convince any independents or repugs that we are right, if we continue to agree with the rw about our ideas or lack thereof. let's not do the rw talking heads' jobs for them.

i know what my stand is on many issues and it is the same as other dems/progressives. please don't tell me i have no ideas. as someone else said here, the dems are the party of community . . . and every dem knows that.

WE CANNOT PREVAIL IF WE EAT OUR OWN. any dem, like markos, that's gets a media outlet and says that dems have no policies is doing us the greatest dis-service.

ellen fl

[theobscure]

38. would you mind naming a few?

And opposition to a Republican view doesn't count. Also it would be helpful if you could name any original ideas they've had since Medicare/Medicaid that they've done more than pay passing lip service to. There is a reason why Republicans have driven the debate, shaped the agenda, and charted the direction of this country for the last 40 years or so.

Democrats have vacillated between "me too", devil's advocate, and varying degrees of opposition based on whatever is politically expedient at the time for nearly four decades. How long do we have to wait to have a real alternative choice to the status quo in this country?

[ellenfl]

41. sure

1. affordable healthcare for all americans
2. support for our public schools and giving all americans the opportunity for higher education
3. responsible social security reform
4. social and environmental accountablility of industry
5. support for energy independence (including using bio-fuel which will pay farmers to grow soybeans)
6. environmental responsibility by government
7. border and port security
8. equal rights for all citizens
9. strengthen social safety nets
10. increase minimum wage

would anyone like to add to the list of what dems stand for? what have i left out?

ellen fl

[theobscure]

43. and exactly what proposals have they made to do any of this?

You see, people tend to not take you seriously when you talk about alot of stuff in general terms but don't actually do or plan anything specifically. Where are the details? Where is the vision for a better U.S. and world? Republicans talk about stuff; and then they do it. They don't worry about the polls or fear not looking Democratic enough for general elections.

Throwing broad generalizations out to see if any of them stick right away is hardly leadership. You have to make the case. Another reason why your list is indicative of why Democrats have been the submissive party for so long is not only is it ambiguous; it is not nearly bold enough to capture the attention of the apathetic or to starkly differentiate themselves from the Republicans.

What about a non-agressive, non-interventionist foreign policy? What about ending the insane war on drugs? What about an overhaul of our federal election laws? What about paying teachers more AND demanding they be accountable for their performance? What about taking the bully pulpit on universal health care and try to persuade Americans by disabusing their silly, misinformed notions about socialism and Canadians streaming across our border and Western Europeans dying in the streets?

[ZombieGak]

47. it's all feel good fluff... there's nothing really there

1: Is anyone AGAINST affordable health care? The Right will just claim the market can do it best. So what are Dems proposing? Are Dems going to take on the health/insurance/pharmaceutical industries to bring us a single payer universal health?
2: What does it mean to give Americans the opportunity for higher ed? More community colleges? Paid tuition?
3: No one wants irresponsible SS reform. "Responsible" is a buzz word both sides claim.
4: I don't think the GOP wants this one. But what do the Dems propose? Revoking corporate personhood? Repealing NAFTA and GATT?
5: Of all the examples they can give... soy farmers? What about screw what the energy companies want... Dems will propose a Manhattan Project crash program for energy independence?
6: So what's their plan?
7: Sounds good. But what's their plan?
8: Equal rights? ROTF... You mean the Dems want to abolish all the anti-democratic provisions in the Constitution so every citizen has the right to a vote that does NOT weigh less than other citizens? How about moving to proportional representation so all citizens have an equal right to vote their conscience and receive representation. Didn't think so.
9: So what is their proposal?
10: Increase minimum wage? Why not INDEX the minimum wage so it retains it's current value... then try to make up for all the value lost over the years?

[creeksneakers2]

11. They forever run from gripes heard in focus groups

The Republicans push negative ideas about Democrats. People hear those ideas. Then the ideas come out in focus groups. Then the Dems concentrate on trying to change into something so they won't look the way they were portrayed by the negative ideas. The Republicans know how this works and they use the system to lead Democrats around by the nose.

An example is the notion that Democrats have no solutions. The Democratic response to this is to come up with some kind of solutions. Next, the GOP will attack the Democratic proposals as socialist or extremist or something like that. Then the Democrats will disavow their proposals. It never stops.

The Democratic answer to the talk about having no solutions should be to say the GOP has no solutions. I could write a great list of talking points.

The public believes the Democrats have no values and are weak on defense. The Democratic response has been to talk about values and come out with a proposal for defense. They've done that instead of sticking to their values and defending themselves. The public sees that. That's why the public believes Democrats have no values and are weak on defense.

I can E-mail them in advance and tell the Democrats what will happen before a move is made. What I wouldn't give to have somebody there keep my E-mails to read 30 days later.

[Nashyra]

16. The diversity of the Dem party

The repukes do not have a diverse party, they have a radical core base whose only goal is to retain power. The Dems are always going to seem less organized becuse the party embraces so many. When you have a party of inclusion instead of exclusion it is hard not to piss some members off on any given day. I just continue to embrace the ideals of the Democratic Party. The party for all persons.

When someone criticizes the Dem party and being the Co-County Chair of the Dems where I live quite few people think they can express their opinions freely, in addition being the local school board rep I would prefer to shop at midnight. That being said I embrace being a Dem and answer their criticism with "we have many solutions and many messages, Democrats are about doing right for the majority of the people not just soundbites for corporate America" Then we usually go on to have a
good conversation about our views.

I live in one of the most Republican Counties in Nevada, my banker is a staunch Republican who is going to attend a Dem fund raiser, my business partner's husband is a Repub who is gong to attend a Dem fundrasier, I have had many house parties for candidates and issues, the majority of the time their are quite a few Repubs. To gain my commuty's trust and respect enough to get elected in a Repub county I spend as much time as I can working for our kids and whatever we can do to promote higher and better education, also promoting Vocatonal Ed. People tease me and cover their eyes when they see me because they know that I will be asking for money for one cause or another the majority of the time being for scholarships.

GRASSROOTS starts by getting involved in your community, concentrate on issues that 80% of Americans are affected by, Healthcare, Pensions, the Deficit, The war in Iraq and the Environment(Global Warming) and our security and how dismal it seems to be. Leave the wedge issues alone, they will be addressed when we win. When abortion, gay marriage, religion, etc creeps in I diffuse it with "personally I think those are private issues for everyone to decide for themselves" and go back to discussing main stream issues.

It is always easy to find something wrong, we only need to get off our collective asses and educate our own small group of friends, support our communities, get involved if possible and time permits. Word of mouth and example by each one of us is a real grassroot efort. Don't forget about GOTV and getting folks to register. Hard work you bet, rewarding even better. (IMHO)

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. I disagree

you write,
"What the Dems lack is any deep conviction for their beliefs and the common political sense to realize if they refuse to challenge the Right's ideological framework, they strengthen it."

I disgaree strongly with this generalization. It is not MESSAGE that Democrats lack, it is MICROPHONES. You completely miss the fact that the vast majority of media in this country have been consolidated to the point of massive corruption.

Corporate money has polluted all of American politics and Dems are not immune to it's effects, but to say the Democrats have no "conviction" for their beliefs is just silly, untrue and, in my opinion, designed by the GOP to distract from their lack of moral decency.

Are you a Democrat? Do you lack conviction?

Freepers believe this kind of BS.

[ZombieGak]

17. I gave three examples.......

The Dems HAVE had the mics during all the USSC confirmation hearings the past 25 years. Have you yet heard them come up with an effective attack on Originalism? Have you ever heard them highlight the ninth amendment in trying to pin down Roberts or Alito? Did Kerry ever bring up the ninth in the presidential debates? The Dem's strategy has lost ground these past 25 years since they don't try to expose the Right's Big Fig Leaf: that they have a monopoly on original intent.

All the mics in the world won't make up for a lack of a coherent philosophy or strategy.

[welshTerrier2]

13. "if they refuse to challenge the Right's ideological framework ..."

"they strengthen it"

i've written those very words many times ...

take the issue of Iraq as an example ... Democrats have been rightly critical of bush's incredible bungling in Iraq ... i support them on this ...

but by voting more and more funding for war, by focusing only on tactics, by setting goals to achieve before we leave, Democrats are reinforcing the idea that we are in Iraq for justifiable reasons ... never has the Party's core questioned bush's MOTIVES for being in Iraq ...

they haven't disagreed with bush's contention that "we're the good guys" ... and that's the whole problem ... we are there for illegitimate reasons and Democrats by their silence have done little to educate Americans on this point ...

if they're not part of the solution ... you know the rest ...

[rudy23]

18. Clinton signed the 1996 telecommunications act that consolidated the media

Why? There used to be a law saying you could only own 1 tv station, 1 radio station, and 1 newspaper in any given market. This law changed that, and paved the way for the right wing to dominate the media.

I was doing college radio at the time, and this was a really big deal to us. At the time we were concerned that it wasn't a good thing for music, and it wasn't a good thing for anyone who liked to hear from various perspectives. Little did we know how rapidly the right would buy up media outlets, and use them to con the nation into supporting a bs corporate war.

So every time you get upset about the right wing media, and how the Democrats never get their message out, thank Bubba for making it all possible.

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. Man things must be getting really bad at Free Republic

Your Limabughian argument ain't flying with me cupcake!

[ZombieGak]

24. can you even DEFEND your position? Or can just just ......

accuse everyone of being right wingers?

[rudy23]

31. This Limbaugh argument?

"Little did we know how rapidly the right would buy up media outlets, and use them to con the nation into supporting a bs corporate war."

I thought only Freepers accused people of being on the other side when they disagreed with their leader.

In case you didn't know, Clinton did some questionable things while he was in office--and he hangs out with Bush Sr! His wife agrees with Freepers on some things too.

That 1996 act is what lead to our media being broken, and he deserves to be called out on it.

[ZombieGak]

32. Here's the Show With Kos and Donna Brazile

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/04/20060405_a_main.asp

What I find shocking is that as many times as the host asks Markos and Donna just what the Democratic message is... he never gets a clear answer beyond opportunity, fairness etc.

[Neil Lisst]

34. we must have a message that sells, with positive elements

We've become America's mother.

DON'T EAT THAT, IT'S BAD FOR YOU!

WATCH OUT, YOU'LL PUT YOUR EYE OUT WITH THAT!

DON'T SAY THAT! IT'S (RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, JINGOISTIC, CORPORATIST!)

We need to have a punchlist of 5 things we are selling, easy to say.

[ZombieGak]

45. I think identity politics distracts from class politics

While I can see how historically oppressed groups may want to band together for support and to push for their rights. But I see the Dems as being a collection of too many single issue groups. Instead of the Party standing for some core values, it tries to contort its philosophy/message to suit those groups. I believe we see perfect example of this in how Dems fight for the USSC. They COULD use their strongest argument for rights... the ninth amendment. But they totally ignore it and harp on stare decisis and talk of Roe and Griswold because they know this motivates the single interest groups and brings in the cash.

[neoblues]

35. Not So Much Message but Lack of Strategy, Agressiveness

and Infrastructure (and not necessarily in that order).

It seems to me the majority of problems Democrats are facing aren't to be found in
it's message. However, while infrastructure is arguably our biggest problem, we do
have a serious lack of leadership and political strategy. A kind of timidity has set in;
a sort of "learned helplessness"
which precludes taking an aggressive stance. Still, even if our leaders did decide to stand up
and be counted and they did deliver our positive, clearly defined message (which actually is philosophically sound; see the DNC)(recognize the DLC is counterproductive and not considered here),
nothing would happen as... almost no one who's undecided would ever hear it. Without
access to the media and without a balanced message being delivered all the time through
the mass media to the public... which is an infrastructure problem, a default public
image develops. That image is that Democrats lack a clear message and vision for the
future.

You're arguments refer not to Democrat's lack of ideas for governing policies but rather
to their incoherent political strategies and ineffective to non-existent tactics.

Tax cuts have been hyped by Republicans for years; mostly they've been extremely effective
in convincing the average Joe that taxes are bad, taxes are money out of their own pockets
that would better serve the country if they kept the money and spent it on themselves. It's a wonderfully greedy, selfish notion that is extremely difficult to counter among those who are relatively ignorant/uneducated or Republican-inclined. The simple truth is that in order for the goverment to exist and to provide all the services we've come to
appreciate (for those of us who think goverment regulation and social services ARE a good and even necessary thing), we have to pay for it--that's what taxes are. It's your social and civic duty to pay your fair share of taxes. If the goverment has trimmed it's expenses as much as reasonably possible and it's still running a deficit, taxes simply need to be increased. Alas, apparently that isn't something that politicians (of either stripe; though one stripe doesn't have to) are willing to say; as in they'd probably find it difficult to get re-elected. Your point that the economy can indeed recover from recessions without tax cuts is true; tax cuts are merely a very modest (even small) and temporary stimulus. Still, explaining that in a way that half the voters out there could understand and agree with or even believe is anything but easy; in fact, short of months of mandatory education in Economics, it's probably not possible. Just the nature of the beast; a large number of people are selfish, greedy and easily misled.

Again, not that Democrats don't have good or even excellent plans for the economy and taxes. However, their plans do include increasing federal revenues (ie. the taboo words "raise taxes"). The biggest reason the Republicans are so successful in their efforts to program the minds of the public to believe "taxes=bad" is that they control the media. The typical viewer tunes in and every news program, every political pundit, every analysis they see strongly favors and enforces the message that taxes are bad, harmful and examples of goverment waste and greed. Democrats, having no such media control have no countermeasure. Does a Democrat in the forest loudly proclaiming revenue enhancment is sorely needed make a sound?

The Right does make Orwellian claims that government is inherently inefficient while the
market is the only way to achieve real efficiency. It's a lie, and the educated among us know it. As you say, Democrats 'refuse' to challenge this notion. Once again, Republicans
have been extremely efficient in conditioning the public into believing that markets are more or less the most profoundly perfect solution to all economic problems. Once again, everywhere you turn in the media, whether in print or on television or radio, the message is repeated again and again. It's taught in schools. The failure of the Soviet Union is supposedly real proof that markets are the way to go. Nevermind that we ourselves scarcely have a free market in anything, anywhere, anytime and that monopolistic or oligarchic tendencies tend to be the rule rather than the exception (and that "in the name" of free markets, Republicans are removing the very regulations that help to maintain the freedom in markets and allow for actual competition). Since "Free Markets" have achieved such revered status as to be considered more American than "baseball, apple pie and chevrolet", Democrats would come of being accused of Communism (or it's big brother Socialism) if they dared to express the weaknesses of the system. All, once again, attributable to the "infrastructure" of the Republicans.

As to the Courts. Yes, the Republicans do ignore reality and history to impose their own fantasies while calling them the "Original Intent" of the founders of this nation. It's simultaneously sickening and effective. Once again, their targets are the uneducated who simply don't know any better. These are the people who believe what they see and hear in the media (especially on TV) and there, the message is clear, the Founding Fathers were devout pro-Free Market, Small Government (Low Taxes/Low Regulation) Christians--when they were anything but. Their efforts to stack the courts with Right-Wingers/Conservatives stems from the fact that they want Judges who won't interpret the law the way it was written. It's a stance that demands pro-Business, anti-Individual rights and Puritan
Christian values. It is much more than just weakening any "legal basis" for the New Deal
(they're dealing with that by means of "Starving the Beast", lowering taxes, running up the debt and eventually the government's ability to provide New Deal type services and assistance will collapse). It will ensure that Corporations win against it's consumers or small competitors and come out on top in environmental disputes. Goverment regulations on business will be... history. The people will suffer the loss of civil rights, labor rights, privacy and/or any capacity to compete with or apply pressure to the government regardless of existing law. Republicans will enjoy greater immunity against any legal suit (an example might be that vote recount demands will be dismissed out of hand when it suits the Republicans).

Still, your point is taken. Democrats are not competing with Republicans on this issue.
Of course, it is because Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress, a Republican President and a majority in the Supreme Court... Duh. As for challenging the radical beliefs of Scalia and Thomas or defending rights to privacy or choice; these are really legal discussions the final answers to which the SCOTUS will decide--and the particulars of the arguments used by the few remaining liberals has to rely upon their legal scholarship. I don't know how effective they are in defending their (our?) positions in their difficult situation. Alas. However, beyond setting a few positional goals based on liberal ideology, given that they are not elected, their ideas or lack of them doesn't really bear on whether the Democratic Party suffers from a general lack of ideas. Insofar as Democrats aren't exposing the Right's attempts to repeal the New Deal, it seems to me they have exposed it (though they haven't characterized their efforts with anywhere near the malice intended by the Republicans). Anyway, enough people heard the message and understood the Republican effort to destroy Social Security to reject their direct assault. Of course, overall, given the disasterous prescription drug bill and the deconstruction of many other federal assistance programs, there's much more to be done.

Even so, none of this has any bearing on the "ideas" of the Democratic Party. We have many good, well-documented ideas and plans. Alas, being unable to actually reach people with the message in such volume as to make the ideas sound appealing (which, except for greedy, selfish, instant-gratification type ideas, does require an enormous volume of media hype--at least the same volume as has been and continues to be applied by Republicans). We are constrained, bound and made oppressively ineffective by this absence of reach. It is an infrastructure problem; where infrastructure is defined as media access/control, expert "think tanks" (focused on strategy, framing, advertising, linguistics etc), ubiquitous organizations and social groups. We would probably be at a disadvantage even if we had most of these things since we don't have anything to compete with the massive social and organizational structure of the church (which effects partisan unity even when it doesn't directly engage in politics). In the long run, we need to ensure above all things, that all Americans are given a quality education as this leads to greater enlightement (as well as improved economics) and in a way improves the natural infrastructure of the party.

In the end, though, I don't disagree with much of anything you've said except that I think you're referring to the behavior of the party leadership (elected leaders, DLC and the like) which includes the passive, enfeebled and cowardly qualities, and to the party's disorganized, incoherent and apparently non-existent ability to effectively rebut, counter and debate the Republican's main frames. We're locked into their framing of the issues and even if our ideas are fully formed, intelligent and would be fantastic solutions; we come of sounding like "anything but the Republican choice". It's an illusion but it works effectively against us. That is, the "political strategies" are ineffective if and when they exist rather than the basic political positions. Even so, it always comes back to the fact that no matter what our answer--even if we had some "killer frames" with which to destroy the Republican arguments (unless they were simply more fantastic than is realistically possible--so much so that they would delight the listener and motivate every person to rush out to tell others the good news (simply unrealistic)), we couldn't reach more than the fraction that uses the internet and chooses to follow liberal, Democratic/Progressive issues.

[Amaryllis]

37. What the Dems lack that the republicans have

is control of Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia. If they don't deal with this, neither their infrastructure or their message matters at all. What on earth are we doing letting private corporations with blatant ties to the republican party count our votes on trade secret software than not even our election officials can acccess, and if one of them gets brave enough to have a computer security expert come in and expose the hackability, like Ion Sancho in FL or Bruck Funk in UT, they are harrassed out of their jobs!

[ZombieGak]

50. I agree that we need secure voting........ but

If tamperproof voting was available tomorrow... the problems with the Dems would still be there.

It's a mistake of historic proportions to think that blackbox voting is the only problem. As long as you have a single variable analysis... you'll forever blind yourself to the deficiencies in the Dem's message/strategy.

[Amaryllis]

51. True, but if the black box voting issue isn't corrected, all the rest

won't change election outcomes. Not saying the rest isn't important but I see the Dem leadership ignoring the electronic voting issue and not realizing that they won't win no matter what else they do if they don't deal with that.

[BootinUp]

39. I agree on economics and healthcare

but there is greater division in the country on certain controversial civil rights and certain social programs. We need to allow for some State determination on those issues.

[radio4progressives]

40. ZombieGak you and i are always on the same page..

I really wish DU would get it. If it did, it would make such an effective impact right this moment when it really really matters.

a political strategy around the notion that the GOP will implode as a result of the mountains of corruption and low polling numbers is delusional at best, and it's a sure loser. On every front, including the recent "revelations" on the leak scandal, the Repukes have a machine that makes Orwell's Ministry of Truth look like the boy scouts - Today Karl Rove (who should have been frogged marched with cuffs on months ago) addressed the Republicans Lawyer Association on safe guarding elections from fraud and theft - my gawwd - even had the adacity to claim the Dems stole elections in precincts in Florida, Michigan, St Louis Mo., and somewhere in Texas in 2000.

Suddenly our claims of Election fraud and stolen elections is now Karl Rove's meme, as with policie issues concerning Iraq and tax cuts. That was a sneak peak as to what the Rovian machine is up to, and the Dems are acting clueless.

its inability to provide a clear philosphical foundation for their beliefs.

That's an issue - that can be taken up right now, not in campaign speeches but on the array of illegal activities this president and his Veep has been doing and continues to do to Americans and our democracy - they all have to be Feingold clones - yet he is all alone.

and apparently the Dems have left Washington for two weeks while this president contiunues to shit on America and Americans.

[sandnsea]

42. It's about half and half

I've heard Democrats challenge the examples you gave, including mainstream Dems like Hillary and Kerry and Edwards. The problem is generally the rural state Dems, who don't see as much a benefit from government so naturally aren't inclined to want to pay for it. When you feel like you've got your land, and you can pretty much feed yourself if it comes down to it, the benefit of all those programs become less attractive. People come from different social places. The Dems in those states aren't delivering the message you speak of, causing more disconnect between rural and national, and a shrinking infrastructure. I don't think the answer is all infrastructure either, but it's also not the lack of a message. It's city Dems not listening to rural Dems, and if they do, not being willing to validate rural concerns or compromise.

[ZombieGak]

49. there's a difference between a few Dems and the PARTY

As we see with Russ Feingold... there's a difference between a Dem or several Dems taking a position... and the PARTY taking a position. If you have any examples of the LATTER... please post.

As for rural states, they benefit from physical/social infrastructure that they could never pay for by themselves. Look at maps of what states are taxed and what they get back in federal spending... and the rural states always make out best. If they don't understand this... then the Dems aren't doing a very effective job at education, are they?

[sandnsea]

57. Gee, isn't that what I said

Rural state Dems aren't doing a very effective job at educating their own constituents, that's what I said. They run away from the national party. They also make it difficult for the national party to take unified positions. But the party does anyway. Against vouchers. For Pell Grants. For roadless areas. For stronger air and water regulations. For universal health care. For legalization process for immigrants, against a fence. For the UN. For diplomacy to resolve world problems. Lots and lots of things the party are united on.

Where was Russ when Senator Kerry needed his DSM inquiry letter signed?? Nowhere, not even saying anything in support, that's where.

[enough already]

56. Agreed 100%

Our "leaders" seem to think that puke-Lite is the right message and we just need to deliver it better. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If that's true, then this party is truly insane. This party needs a hard shove to the left. We need to truly distinguish ourselves from the failed crap put forth by the nazis. We're standing in the middle of the road right now and getting run over by traffic.