Can we win on just our hatred of Bush and Company?

[The Lone Liberal]

Or is it required that our party offer the country a plan?

If so, what are the specific problems that the party must address?

If a plan is necessary, what are the principles on which that plan is to be built?

What are the outcomes that we want to achieve if the country allows our party to govern?

What is the number one problem that needs to be addressed today and that the country will agree with the party that it is a problem?

What is the second problem that needs to be addressed today and that the country will agree with the party that it is a problem?

What plan must the party develop to address the number one problem?

What plan must the party develop to address the second problem?


It scares me that I don’t think any of these questions can be answered and no strategy is being developed other than Bush is a fool, evil and greedy. That will not win the Presidency or Congress.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[wontmoveon]

15. Better question: "If we 'WIN,' what do we win?"

I fear the answer...and I do not wish the Presidency on any of the Dems at a time like this.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

2. Love the post . . . we gotta give people a reason to vote for our man.

We are going to lose if we think we can win on an anti-Bush platform. We better come up with some things that America wants. The anti-Bush mood helps but it won't give us a victory. We need programs that America will vote FOR.

[whathappened]

3. i hope you are wrong

i find more and more people saying they have has enought of this fool and his hell brnt mission of wrecking this country one day at a time

[The Lone Liberal]

9. Don't you have faith that we can offer better policies?

If we cannot offer better programs this country is in a bad way. Plus, if we cannot state what our vision is and how we will accomplish that vision, then we do not deserve to govern.

[bloom]

4. what bothers me is that

Republicans (and independents) dismiss our anger over Bush as simply partisan politics AND DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG with him!

[mbee]

8. I love how the liberals have to abide by whatever the thug

freepers think we must abide by. All the while they can win with election fraud or any other way they deem fit. What we need to do is whatever the heck we wish to do starting with telling the criminals in the words of Ricky Ricardo you've got some splaining to do! No, it's when we think we have to do this or that which gets us into trouble because we think we have to be above board. Guess who wasn't above board and is squatting in the White House right now? We could have avoided possibly thousands of deaths, 11% or so unemployment, energy price fixing, huge deficits, etc if only we only hadn't played by the book! The DNC needs to play their tape early and often and make multiple others. It's time to get down and dirty. Regarding policy, the liberals have the correct policy for the country. We want to protect the health and welfare of our citizens. We want prescription drugs, health care, etc. We had a balanced budged under Clinton Gore. We need to keep articulating the proper messages about that, but we must no longer play by the rules. We are dealing with slime and we must act accordingly! End of rant!

[RobinA]

27. This is What I Hear, Too

Any criticism of Bush is simply a result of "the liberals" irrational hatred of Bush, who is a good man devoted to fighting off tyrants.

It seems the lying about nukes, WMD and what have you is OK, but lying about a ditzy girlfriend is not. I don't even try to get it anymore. Stay fit, keep a stock of canned goods, stay out of airplanes and if possible move a safe distance from all centers of American civilzation likely to be on the map of any of the increasing number of desperados with reason to be pissed off at America.

[antineocon1]

5. This is a great topic...

We need to have a platform on the economy and national security: Two things Bush and Co are poor at.

[poskonig]

6. TWO issues: Economy and Security

Supporting the Iraq War may be a liability by next summer. Positioning oneself as a competent public servant that can win the peace should be easy for any Democrat to do.

"Fiscal responsibility," i.e. the Bush tax cuts, are an issue that can be used to hammer Bush's economy and his special interests simultaneously.

Unless the Bushies turn it around, I'm *very* optimistic about our chances in 2004.

[The Lone Liberal]

7. Must we rely on Bush failing to win?

Can we not and should we not come up with an agenda that the country will support and allow us to govern?

[JJ]

10. Uh, "It's the economy,stupid!"

That's not directed at you. Just a general statement. It's not a hatred of Bush, at least not for me, it's a hatred of his policies and implementation.

This admin lied about WMD, lied about Iraq and al Queda, lied about their budget, lied about the tax cuts, lied about Social Security and Medicare, the environment and on and on and on.

The economic problems are the #1 priority for most Americans, we need "to put food on our families" every day, and that's getting harder and harder. Running on a platform of fiscal common sense should win. The country has learned the hard way that we can't have our cake and eat it too, as Bush promised.

#2 is Homeland Security. Demonstrate how it has been paid lip-service, but been short changed by the Bush admin.

You need a positive message for your base, and those who are aware and informed, but showing how bad the other guy's policies are works very well at getting the rest, unfortunate but true. Attacking policy is not attacking the person, though the 'pukes will try(and already are trying) to characterize it that way.

[The Lone Liberal]

11. Granted any policy is better than the republican policies.

But we must articulate a vision and I don't hear that certainly not in here and if most are like me, we are hard core Democrats. It bothers me that we cannot put forth a plan to provide health care and how to pay for it. That was an example. The economy is the problem, but what do we do, I do not want to simply have a lessor republican plan. I think we can do better, we must of the country is in trouble, time has run out.

[mot78]

17. Don't Be So Sure

Campaigning on "It's the Economy Stupid" as our main issue isn't going to happen, because Rove will just spin the election into one about National Security. I thought people would have learned that from 2002. You can't beat something with nothing.

[rucky]

21. NOT adressing National Security

Is like not talking about that elephant in the living room. We don't have to be weak on this issue.

[quilp]

12. Even if theparty had all you wanted. How would we get the message out?

All the plans in the world will do nothing without a forum in which to air and discuss them. That is what is missing. Most of the small amount of good being done in the country is by the Dems. Most of what is rotten is being fought against by the Dems. But who knows about it? We need a megaphone. Note that most negative media commentary is against "Washington" or "Congress" with no mention of which party is running the country. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a full 20% of the voting population believe the Democrats are in charge. Look at California? Whose blaming the Republican budget blockers?

[TankLV]

13. It's a good foundation for me!

The rest is just icing on the cake.

But seriously, one usually hates bushco because of what they've DONE - REPEATEDLY - FOR A LONG TIME!

They make it so gosh darn EASY for those with over one cell in their brain cavity!

[UTUSN]

23. It's a Start--------- (answer to original thread question)

You beat me to the answer.

[QC]

33. We all remember how well the

"Clinton is Satan" platform worked for the Republicans in the 1998 elections.

It was the first time the opposition party lost seats during a second term off-year election in almost 170 years. They were pretty stunned, as I recall.

[UTUSN]

38. It's a Start n/t

[Cocoa]

14. Every candidate has articulated substantive ideas

The ideas can be found on their websites and by checking them out on C-Span.

the party as a whole is limited by the fact that the nominee has not been chosen yet.

We're hearing a lot about Bush because it's the one thing they all can agree on, and because his failures are so glaring it's just impossible to ignore them.

[sandnsea]

16. American values

100 years of Democratic progress that respects labor and a society that levels the playing field so that opportunity is available to everybody. Education, food, housing, health care.

Applying those traditional American principles to trade agreements. Insisting U.S. corporate entities share their burden of U.S. responsibilities and pay taxes and follow the law. Recognizing homeland security is important because of foreign and domestic terrorism, attacking only Muslim terrorists does not address homegrown terrorists or the roots of terrorism. Rejoining the international community because we need cooperation to investigate terrorist cells, arrest terrorists and stop future acts.

We can attack Bush and absolutely should. In so many areas. We can also offer alternatives to his horrible policies and not even have to think hard.

[burr]

18. Healthcare, consequences of deficit spending, shrub weak on defense.

With the babyboomers getting older and more workers becoming uninsured healthcare will become a critical issue in this campaign. If we fight for universal coverage and a standard benefits package, Democrats will hold the high ground on an issue that could be at the top of voters' concerns next year. To reach out to the younger voters who either vote Republican or don't care, we must give them a reason to care. And the problems resulting from deficit spending will bring many back into our fold. Finally, shrub did nothing to avert what happened on 9/11. In 1980 Jimmy Carter was seen as being weak on defense just because of the Iran Hostage Crisis. 9/11 makes this look like a walk in the park. Shrub has done nothing but sabotage our National Security and the safety of our freedom, and it is time for our party to make this case. Most importantly, Clinton reacted instantly to threats of terrorists in Afghanistan when these threats arose. But the Republicans in Congress made it into a partisan issue. Now the time has come for them to suffer for their treason and sabotage.

There is nothing that will destroy the GOP faster than a Commander and Chief who has failed to defend our nation and to protect our borders!

[rucky]

19. National Security

...is the only concievable reason that Bush has so much support. My hunch is that there is a core group who thinks Bush is doing the right thing fo-po-wise, but a majority of Bush supporters just feel better that he is doing something.

What I've said since 9/11 rings true more than ever right now: for awhile after 9/11, we had the support of the world - even Iran came down on our side before the "axis of evil" crack. Then came the UN bully-bash and that's when I lost hope.

If the Democrats hammer the need for a strong UN, so the world can come together and combat terrorism, we can present a better alternative to unilateralism. The infrastructure is already in place: between the Security Council, Interpol and the Hague to police and punish terrorists, countries harboring terrorists, and war criminals. With the US support, we can strengthen these Worldwide organizations and get a true international coalition committed to combating terrorism.

The main thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth about our currnet foreign policy is that we failed to work with the UN. We can make a solid case re: Iraq, that if we had honored the request of the Security council - to keep the inspectors in longer, before rushing to war, it would not have been a threat to our security. If it still came down to war after exhausting all possiblities, Iraq would have been handled far more effectively and humanely with UN forces - especially reconstruction. Not to mention how many conflicts could be prevented if the voice of the world spoke resoundingly against them.

This is more than just monday-morning quarterbacking, it's mathematical - the US is stronger when it works with the rest of the world. Positive messages make people feel safe :)

[never cry wolf]

26. you are all over it rucky

for the sake of 8 f'in weeks of more inspection we threw away the good will of the world. personally, i think bushco (PNAC) was in such a hurry because a) they were afraid the UN would find WMD and destroy them or b) would not find WMD and thus remove their excuse for invading, which was preplanned for years. (not sure if this link is still active: http://www.rense.com/general33/pearl.htm). in either case, we would have had the world community with us.

so, the result of bushco policy is that the world will help only hesitantly, we are bogged down in a quagmire with no end in sight, we have lost over 200 brave men and counting, we are spending 1 bill a week, for months our intelligence was focused away from the real terrorists, police and firemen were serving in the guard and funds are being cut locally nationwide for these and other vital homeland security needs. all for the sake of 8 weeks.

now, this is not putting forth a solution but i do believe that by pointing out the myriad problems the bad guys have brought upon us most will agree change is necessary and carry the day, especially when you top it off by conspiritorial lying and secrecy.

(edited for grammar, again. sigh...)

[unfrigginreal]

20. No and our candidates have not taken that approach.

Or is it required that our party offer the country a plan?

We absolutely have to have a plan.

If so, what are the specific problems that the party must address?
The economy and national security.

If a plan is necessary, what are the principles on which that plan is to be built?

Equitability and support for local Emergency Services.

What are the outcomes that we want to achieve if the country allows our party to govern?

Job growth and confidence in the economy...a feeling of well being by beefing up local protections and eliminating the phony terror threats.

What is the number one problem that needs to be addressed today and that the country will agree with the party that it is a problem?
Economy

What is the second problem that needs to be addressed today and that the country will agree with the party that it is a problem?

Security

What plan must the party develop to address the number one problem?

A jobs program...the last tax cut fiasco must be modified to get more of the money back into the hands of the spending public...but leave enough to fund emergency services on the local level.

What is the second problem that needs to be addressed today and that the country will agree with the party that it is a problem?

Security...we've got to fund the local services as recommended by Hart-Rudman.

-----------

I'm of the opinion that most of our candidates have been addressing these problems. I don't think any of them are running on an "I hate Bush" platform. That sounds more like a description of their platform that can be expected from CNN, MSGOP, FAUX, ABC, NBC and CBS.

[never cry wolf]

22. excellent post

and it raises many questions. you are correct, on this site you do not find many specific answers to your questions and lots of hate for the boy king. however our nine candidates are forming their policies and they will be presented. personally, i think that security and the economy are numbers 1 and 1a, nearly interchangable.

however, did * get sElected based upon his policies and stance on the issues?? no, i think not, it was the repug's witch hunt of clinton that made the soccer moms look for an "honest and moral" president, someone to bring "dignity" back to the white house. if *ush and his cronies could be exposed for who they truly are they would not stand a chance in hell. if he did get a large number of votes based upon his campaign stated policies those also have turned out to be lies and should also be exposed. (humble nation, compassionate conservative, no child left behind, uniter not a divider, etc., etc, ad nauseum...)

therefore, i believe that while we certainly do need solid policies directed towards what voters are concerned about and for the good of the nation and these need to be clearly articulated i also feel that it is of utter importance to set the table by taking away his main strength in the last election, that being as somebody many thought they could trust. due to the trust and support placed in him after the daze of 9-11, we also need to hammer hard on security issues as we all know iraq was a canard and really placed us in more danger than if we had not taken this course. that we need money for our first line of defense here at home as well as cooperation with the world community to shut the bad guys down. we need to work both sides of the street, hard!!

(edited for grammatics, doh!)

[burr]

24. Great response!

"therefore, i believe that while we certainly do need solid policies directed towards what voters are concerned about and for the good of the nation and these need to be clearly articulated i also feel that it is of utter importance to set the table by taking away his main strength in the last election, that being as somebody many thought they could trust."

Strength in the last election? What strength was that? Losing the national popular vote to Gore, winning the hanging chad vote in Florida?

Polls have shown his popularity is now where it was before 9/11. This is probably why he is pressing for a another useless war in Iran or Syria before the next election!

[never cry wolf]

28. Strength in the last election? What strength was that?

forgive me for i am new to this site. i agree, the sElection was stolen and gore won the popular vote. but how the hell did this doofus ever get close enough to allow them the opportunity?? in my mind, of the half of the country that voted for him most of those felt he was of a high moral character and just months before they went through a (trumped up)impeachment of a great dem prez on charges of lying under oath. moreso than any policy and certainly not for his intelligence or articulation, he got those votes beacuse he was presented as a straight-up guy and many still believe that.

should he drag us into another conflict in order to prop up his ratings (and i do not put that past him in the least) it would probably work. in times of war so many rational people get brain cramps and fly the flag believing that he IS the flag and all it represents. he MUST be exposed before he can pull this stunt.

[burr]

31. Or maybe the two parties were running sorry candidates!

Pick the one who will do the less damage I said to myself. Bush wants huge tax cuts, huge spending increases on starwars, and a medicare prescription drug program. Gore wanted a modest tax cut, ground based missle defense, and a medicare prescription drug benefit. Add to this to the fact that you had an out of control GOP Congress. The people picked their poison and the poison was Gore, but the electoral college mailed the poison and the poison was shrub!

[never cry wolf]

34. touche

i cannot disagree with anything you said. but i do know that of the people i know that voted for shrub, a big factor was his (false) image as clean, moral, honest straight shooter and most still believe that. i agree with your earlier post headline "what strength?" he does not have any redeeming qualities in my mind but those that support him feel the way i described, what the hell else is there?? that is what needs to be attacked.

[burr]

36. Really?

Most of the people I know who voted for shrub just wanted the higher tax brackets cut, have a personal hatred of liberals, or were just sick of a Democrat standing in the way of the radical Republicans in Congress.

It has nothing to do with trust, hell if Clinton had been a Republican, they would of supported him 110%!

Can you say this about shrub and the Democrats?...hmmm, bad question.

[never cry wolf]

44. yes, really

yes, i agree that the upper income brackets wanted their taxes cut and therefore voted for the boy king, but i think that they were a minority of * voters. after all, as a percentage of the population how large is this group of elites?? granted, many middle and upper middle thought they would get equitable tax breaks as well but that does not account for the majority of his supporters, imho.

for a little support of my position on this, take a gander at todays chicago tribune "voice of the people" letters to the editor section. it's enough to make you lose faith in americans. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/

[indigo32]

25. I agree we need to present a plan

But I beg to differ that our candidates haven't offered some ideas.

An example: Healthcare... Gephart, Dean, and Kucinich each have plans (forgive me if I'm leaving anything out).

A number of candidates... Graham for one, Dean for another (though I think very different ideas) regarding security and foreign policy


We have a media that feeds the partisanship, and the interparty squabbles over talking policy... everyday.
Ask them why we aren't being heard.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Can we win on just our hatred of Bush and Company?

No. But it is a good place to start.

Don

[w4rma]

30. Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

[ewagner]

32. Oldie but goodie on Neocon talking points

"All the liberals can do is criticize because they don't have a plan"

We don't actually need a plan but a clearly articulatedVISION of the country!

That's something they can never offer. (every man for himself doesn't make a good soundbite)

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Trajan]

35. Isnt there SOME REASON we are Democrats and NOT Republicans ?

DONT we already possess a strong identification with the Democratic Party philosophy as defined in successive party platforms over the many years ? .....

DOESNT the Democratic party promote policies that aid the COMMON MAN, whereas the GOP promote policies that aid their own moneyed special interests AT THE EXPENSE of the common man ? .....

Isnt this why we are Democrats in the first place ? ...

CMON .........

This isnt all new: .... we have been here before .....

Clinton RAISED taxes on the rich in 93, as he reduced taxes on middle class families, and the GOP HOWLED that the economy would sink like a brick ......

We then enjoyed the greatest peace time economic expansion of all time ....

Bush I come home to ticker tape parades after Gulf War I, a 'true american hero' .... and then went on to ignominious defeat .....

We, as Democrats, can be proud of the agenda that has promoted the interests of the common citizens since FDR .. and we can be proud of the policies that have raised the dignity of the people beyond all historical precedent ......

ARENT you proud of that agenda ? ....

Isnt that why YOU are a Democrat even now ? .....

We need to do nothing more (or less) than what we have always done ......

We ONLY need to better defend that record of success ....

Let's start now .....

[Boreas]

39. Right on Trajan! You gotta read this one.

http://www.reckonings.net/this_is_your_story.htm

[The Lone Liberal]

40. We cannot win by looking to the past

Time moves on, what Clinton did was good, but it was in the past. The times have changed. That is one thing that is wrong with the republican policies, they are looking backwards to a time that does not exist anymore. They long to return to the age of moneyed interested. The only thing is they are presenting this as something new. They have repackaged an old idea. IMHO we need to do the same, restate our principles, it is also important because IMHO I think we have lost sight of those things for which we stand.

The question is can we annunciate the principles that the country will join in with us to allow us to govern. If pressed I am unsure that many of us could tell the country what those principles are and that is not a good thing.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[The Lone Liberal]

41. Your response is filled with some profound thoughts.

I have copied and am analyzing so that I do not miss some salient point. It is a most thoughtful post.

[ReadTomPaine]

43. I've reformatted it and started a new thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=87138&mesg_id=87138&page=

[kentuck]

42. Important post for today....

I was going to post a similar idea. But, I wonder if "hatred" of Bush will have a negative impact on our Party or will it be an incentive for people to vote. I am not comfortable with "hatred" as a political motive. I sense that it will backfire. (Maybe it already has in the 2002 election?) It is not an easy issue to address.

I dislike Bush intently but I don't hate him. I cannot permit myself to hate anyone because it is not healthy, mentally or physically, in my opinion. But I do sense there is hatred of Bush and many do not hesitate to tell you so. I simply question the value in the long run.