Charlie Cook, political analyst, made amazing statement on 'This Week'...

[kentuck]

with Stephanoupoulas. When asked what the Democratic policies should be, he said as a "minority" Party, their job is to "throw rocks" - not make policy proposals. He said Democrats would be foolish to put forth their own proposals to be criticized. They should continue doing what they are doing, he seemed to be saying...

[OKNancy]

1. Meet the Press, right?

Unless he was on both. I saw him say that on MtP. Thought it was an interesting statement.

[kentuck]

6. Sorry...MTP...

They all seem to meld into one on Sunday mornings...

[liveoaktx]

30. VIDEO of that

Cook seems to lean Dem

[TomInTib]

2. I agree, totally. That is why the 'pubs keep going on about the Dems

lack of a "plan" on everything that comes up.

They don't want a plan, they want a plan they can attack

That is all they have left.

Bastards.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. wolfie even repeated this in his wrapup at the end of his show

I was very surprised to hear that

why don't the DEMS give that answer more often?

HOw can you stand up, when you haven't the SPINE?

[Richard D]

8. Very cool image!

[Gabi Hayes]

18. so is yours....when does the swift boating start on him?

guess they're too busy with Hillary for now

when his poll numbers start rising, you can be CERTAIN that they'll turn the eye of Sauron on him, starting with his singular vote against the Enabling, I mean USA PATRIOT Act.

Feingold is apparently the ONLY dem who knows the meaning of this word:

leader

[WestSeattle2]

4. Have to agree....

wait until a few weeks before the November election, then roll out your "to-do" list....the Bushco house of cards is imploding, don't do ANYTHING to interrupt the process. If you roll out your product now, it diverts atttention from the r implosion, and allows others ample time to attack and destroy your ideas.

[Cocoa]

7. I agree with you

recall, the Contract With America was published just six weeks before the 1994 election.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[skyblue]

13. Well Said!

Take that Greenwich village self-absorbed inner circle that wants to ignore POLLS. Some things can look so very simple but have many repercussions.

[grytpype]

15. There is something to be said for not giving them a target to shoot at.

When the election draws near, that's when you roll out the "Here's what we will do for America if you vote in a Democratic Congress."

Remember the "Contract for America?" They whipped that out just a few weeks before the election.

I agree it's too early to do that yet.

[dogday]

5. The Dems plan has been to sit back and let

the right just keep screwing up and come election time call them on it... Do I think that is a good plan? Are the people wanting for the Dems to show some spine?

I don't like total campaigning on how bad the other candidate is, I do like to see what my candidate will do for me... Will this plan work? Only time will tell.....

[The2ndWheel]

9. Gotta love our system

Don't say anything, let the one other party screw up, then win by being all that's left over. Rinse, repeat...over, and over, and over, and over again.

[TahitiNut]

10. I tend to agree to some extent.

With the Republicans controlling all three branches of the Federal government, only the policy positions promulgated by them have any relevance to our "State of the Union." The only time the policy positions of a Democrat has relevance is during an election - when the public can choose between alternatives. So, it's a question of relevance to the REAL issues being discussed - and when the issue being discussed is "how are we doing?" then it's the policies which have resulted in that performance which are relevant.

The GOP will do absolutely anything to change the subject - because an honest discussion of their performance cannot benefit them. One way to change the subject is to point at Democrats who are permitted no role in this regime's policy-making whatsoever.


That said, the alternative proposals and policy suggestions by Democrats get short shrift and disregard from the right. When Congressman Jack Murka proposed a policy position on Iraq, the GOP ran in terror from any honest discussion, even to the point of creating a substitute resolution that was a gross perversion of Murka's proposal in order to mischaracterize and dismiss it without honestly dealing with it.

[KoKo]

14. What if Murtha hadn't spoken out? What could have happened?

Couldn't the Repugs have gone ahead with their pull back (which they are doing silently...allowing the Iraqi Police to die) and declared we had reduced troops just in time for '04 elections. They would get all the credit for "standing down."

So...did Murtha force them into their latest "we will be in Iraq forever" posture ...while in fact our troops are standing on the sidelines of the Civil War, or did Murtha force them into their Iraq past this administrations stance....by speaking out? :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

17. If cows could fly I'd be in the steel umbrella business.

:silly:

To whatever degree the Repukelickers drive their policy choices based on reactionary partisan political postures rather than the 'common good' cannot validly be something that either inhibits or motivates the expression of policy positions felt to be 'best' or 'most effective' by others for everyone. While it's certainly rational to be aware of the most likely reactivity, engaging in the same neuroses creates a political codependency which, like any codependency, is ultimately destructive and unhealthy for all participants.

Jealosy, envy, and sour grapes are poor substitutes for reason and conscience. I personally think Murtha merely had a Keen Sense Of The Obvious ... and personally don't believe even one day of military occupation of Iraq is justified. The thing notable about Murtha's position was that he's a hawkish Democrat who has along history of being the "Pentagon's Congressman." He sure wan't the first calling for an "exit strategy" and, lacking that, the near-term goal of vacating Iraq.

[KoKo]

22. In other words......HE was the ONE that "THEY" would Listen to.....

Yes. Only those with "Proper Credentials" need apply to both parties..

:-(

A "coming together" at the "appropriate time."

[radio4progressives]

25. "political codependency" & "Keen Sense Of The Obvious "...

Absolutely brilliant framing, the former is crippling us, (if not destroying) us as a party, while the latter should be a fundamental mode of operation by at least most if not all of our party officials in Washington or at least by our leaders.

the grass roots certainly have it, but the Tin Ear Brigade seem to be in charge of public relations in Washington appointed to get out the message in the media - i think they all need to be fired, except for Sharpton.

[randr]

11. Repugs took over in 92 because they proposed changes

The "Contract with America" was one of the most effective ad campaigns in political history.
The Dems need to follow suit with a declaration of responsibility outlining Democratic answers to issues affecting Americans.

[msgadget]

19. They can't decide on when to release their version - maybe November

[radio4progressives]

26. November would be the perfect time to unveil their plans,,

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[msgadget]

27. Thank goodness!

I thought I was the only one who found that outrageous! :)

[Gabi Hayes]

20. well, you're off on your calendar, for starters

Clinton had congress for the first two years

the Gingrich smear campaign began as soon as Clinton took office, but culminated in the off year election of 94, with the Contract as its centerpiece. they didn't unveil it til about six weeks before the election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

you're right about 'ad campaign', for sure. that's about the only thing the fascists are good at, besides destroying every good thing built up in 200 years of government

example, Gingrich's "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control"

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276

Since winning control of Congress, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) hasconstantly complained about "destructive" and "negative" coverage from the"liberal elite media."

For example, when asked on Nightline (11/29/94) about his reference to theClintons as "counter-culture McGoverniks," he first insisted that he hadbeen misquoted--"I used the term McGovernite, not McGovernik--it was one ofthose things that the Times picked up and therefore it's now history"(actually, at least four different newspapers--including the New YorkTimes--quoted Gingrich in their November 10 editions as calling theClintons "counter-culture McGoverniks.")--and then blamed the media forselective reporting: "I didn't say that to attack the president, I wasasked an analytic question. But because I am now the next speaker, I amlearning that everything I say has to be worded carefully and thoughtthrough at a level that I've never experienced before in my life."

In fact, the new speaker of the House--who once described his goal as"reshaping the entire nation through the news media" (New York Times,12/14/94)--has given a great deal of thought to the media and how tomanipulate them. One Newtonian axiom is "fights make news." (Boston Globe,11/20/94) Another skill he has taught to Republican candidates through hispolitical organization, GOPAC, is how to create a "shield issue" to deflectcriticism:

"A shield issue is just, you know, your opponent is going to attack you aslacking compassion," a GOPAC training tape advises. "You better find a goodcompassion issue where, you know, you show up in the local paper holding ababy in the neonatal center, and all you're trying to do is shield yourselffrom the inevitable attack."

But the clearest expression of Gingrich's philosophy of media came in aGOPAC memo entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." Distributed toGOP candidates across the country, the memo's list of words for Democratsand words for Republicans was endorsed by Gingrich in a cover letter: "Thewords in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focusgroups where we actually tested ideas and language." Next time you hearGingrich complain about media focusing on the negative, refer back to theselists.

the negative list......

Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimeswe are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helpsyou. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understoodcontrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and theirparty.

decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis...urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie...liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow...traitors... sensationalists...

endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten...devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissiveattitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed...ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child,jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...

stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... statusquo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish(poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse ofpower... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... redtape... patronage

[chaumont58]

12. I think the Dems have focus groups that say the same thing

The repukes are beating themselves. If the Dems present them targets, it will take focus off their own mistakes. And anyway, it isn't so much a national election as a series of local elections. Even the presidential election, with the electoral college becomes 50 state elections.

[aden_nak]

16. The Democrats aren't even throwing rocks.

They're standing around hoping the Republicans accidentally throw rocks at themselves. It's pathetic.

[msgadget]

21. LOL! Throw rocks...

Would the conservatives have continued to rally behind the republicans if all they did was throw rocks?

[KoKo]

23. lol's....true! hiding in the bunker and throwing rocks..more like stones

in my humble opinion...but then I'm one ANGRY DEM these days.

:D

[seaglass]

24. It worked for Social Security, didn't it? But I think that they

should have a national policy on clean government. People don't like to see their money wasted - they should be able to come up with concrete proposals for earmark reform, lobbying reform etc. that will revolutionize the way government is managed in DC. There is no way this is a loser (heck it's the real reason why so many Dems and I's liked McCain in 2000).

They really need to capitalize on this in 2006 - waiting to address corruption, contract abuse etc. until 2008 is too late.

I'm not even saying that most people get the ins and outs of the Abramoff/Cunningham/Delay scandals - they will still buy real Dems making real proposals to clean DC up.

My .02

[AlCzervik]

28. the later they propose big changes and an agenda the better imo, less time

for the GOP to make hay out of it and less time for the gop to try co-op and take over good ideas. Newt Gingriches Contract on America didn't come out until June i think.

[upi402]

29. Wadda we want? -"MODERATION"

Wenda we wannit? -"IN DUE COURSE!"