Just Say No

[bryant69]

I usually don't link to specific articles at my website, but in my latest ( http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/archives/2005_06_12_politicalcomment_archive.html#111910999486442203 )I looked at two articles (one at Salon and one at the Economist) which deal with the Democratic Parties current reelection strategy of opposing President Bush. The Economist is opposed to the strategy, Salon tacitly supports it. Conservative Columnists and politicians are going crazy suggesting we need to put forward a positive program or else we are doomed (which begs the question; why then would Conservatives try to get us to do something. Don't they like have a negatie attitude towards us?)

Anyway what do you think?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bryant69]

1. Kick

I would like to see if anybody has any thoughts on this issue

[sweetheart]

2. I read the economist article

and i found it's criticism fair. It basically said that the dems have
not coalesced around a coherent economic position. Is this not true?
Rather the position, which i wholly respect, is to just say no(to
criminal graft).

I've attempted to discuss this issue here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3858536

The thread evidences that DU is extreme left, that there is a vacuum
for a coherent centrist economic position for the dems, and that rather
the party is basing its economics solely on personality politics.
That whomever turns out to be 2008's contender will define the party's
economics and until then the policy will remain: "no".

I just went and found the article... it ends with "Tax reform, where
Democratic ideas are starting to bud, could be a good place to begin
(with economic policy). George Bush's tax-reform panel represents its
own plans this summer. Can the Democrats come up with an alternative,
beyond just saying no?"

I'd LOVE to discuss a foward thinking policy that would be akido to
the republicans... out-reform them... but as well, it seems political
expediency is that the republicans are not discussing at all, but
rather are ramming down more bullshit, and in that sense, public
policy for the dems probably should stay 2 letters until 2008, "no".

That said, there is a taboo on considering negotiating positions,
possible bipartisan solution thinking and such, especially on DU.
This is unfortunate.

[bryant69]

3. Well I think that is earned, after a fashion

In the first place Democrats have tried compromising with Republicans. They tried it throughout the first term. And they consistantly got screwed by it. If, for example, No Child Left Behind, had performed as was advertised, we'd be having a much different conversation - but it didn't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bryant69]

5. The problem is it is easier to attack than to create

for both sides. The moment we put up, say, a plan to fix our broken health care system, that's the cue for them to say, about a million times, socialized medicine. It's sad, but it works.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[nonconformist]

9. We put forth alternatives and strategies in 2004

We had plans and goals.

The problem was nobody would fucking LISTEN.

Besides, when your running around trying to put out fires, it's hard to put total focus on the future remodeling plans. You have to put out the fires before you can start making it pretty again. We're too busy trying to stop all the crap they keep trying to do. Do you want them to spend their time destroying Bush's SS plans, or spend their time talking about future goals and let that type of crap slip through under the radar?

It's a balancing act. But we most CERTAINLY were vocal about our plans in 2004. I'm not saying there wasn't flaws with the campaign, there were, but we weren't only opposing. That was a RW talking point, repeated by the media who found it easier to report RW talking points than to report on our plans and goals.

[Pockets]

6. Plurality Dammit

It's not like we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think opposing Bush is a good strategy. It will drive Repugs nuts since it will make no sense to them. However it is logically poigniant because only Repugs would elect someone like Bush. We need to make a point to note that Bush represents all Repugs. If you vote Repug, you must like Bush, and so on....

Repugs will be tossing Bush aside since he's a lame duck now, so they won't be defending him, making it easier to spread this message.

In addition, Dems need simple messages that everyone can understand. Repugs have been good at collecting up these primal elements for themselves. Someone mentioned Dems being known as the "Bring them home party". I like that.

Whoever runs should convey an image as someone who will work hard as a public servant, in stark contract to what the U.S. has seen in Bush.

But again, the Dems need more primal messages. That's the main thing.

[YankeyMCC]

7. Of course we must stand in opposition

But that is only status quo, the real issue is showing what Democrats would do if they were in charge, and getting a clearer message out there about what it means to be a democrat.

That means getting a positive agenda out there and accomplishing whatever we can where ever we can.

[Ksec]

8. Are you reading this Congressman?

Do not back up an inch. Do not allow them to make you apologise for the truth. Do not let a weak administration bully you around. Their numbers are pathetic, they have become toothless. They are not the powerhouse anymore. Take advantage of the weakness.

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Reps are just depressed they don't have anything solid to attack

They know they can only look good by distorted comparison. Nothing to distort? The American people get a very clear look at the heart and soul of the Republican party, which is nauseating.

[Pockets]

11. Generally that's doesn't hurt them

The fact that Reps are evil depressing monsters itself won't cost them many votes, but I think it will prevent them from running an effective bandwagon campaign. Who wants to jump on a bandwagon with the likes of them??? Therefore the dems have a good shot at gaining the upper hand on a bandwagon campaign if they go about it the right way. Again, politicians must appeal to our most primal instincts.