Dems seek new tough-guy image - The Hill 5/17/05

[Adelante]

Dems seek new tough-guy image
By Alexander Bolton

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are working behind the scenes to bolster their party’s national-security credentials, planning to pose a stronger challenge in a policy area that Republicans have dominated in recent years.

Polls last year showed that, while Democrats equaled or surpassed Republicans in public approval in a number of policy areas, more Americans trusted President Bush and Republicans to manage the war on terrorism competently. Their perceived supremacy on national security emerged a week after Election Day as a principal reason for Bush’s victory, according to pollsters and political scientists who met at Stanford University last November to parse data.

Democrats realize that, if they are to be more competitive at the polls in 2006 and 2008, they will have to be more credible in voters’ eyes on security issues. That is the political context for the ramping-up of Democratic activity, led by Reid and Pelosi, in the traditionally GOP-dominated policy area.

Reid and Pelosi’s national-security staffs are in touch with each other several times a week. Reid and Pelosi aides describe it as “a joint operation.”

-snip-

On the staff level, Reid’s aides have organized several meetings between about 50 Democratic aides and a group of national-security experts. The experts who have met with staff members include retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme allied commander; Rand Beers, who served as foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential campaign; and Brookings Institution scholars Susan Rice and James Steinberg. Three or four more of these meetings are expected to take place in the next 10 weeks, Democratic aides said.

more ... The Hill 5/17/05

[FrenchieCat]

1. With all of the wars I see in the making.....

Democrats better start looking a little bit more tough. However, I suggest that the tough act starts in the hall of congress. No more tu-tus would be a good start.

And yes, Wes Clark should teach them a thing or two...and I hope he does. Cause the next time our VP nominee says...."We'll hunt them down and destroy them"....we don't want to have to hear muffled giggles right after.

I'm just sayin'.

[FreedomAngel82]

28. Yes

Hopefully Clark can help them get better at fighting not only on the floor but in general. Good for them. Clark is one of the best's I think.

[cestpaspossible]

2. I guess actually being tough guys is not enough.

We need a 'tough guy image' just like the chickenhawks on the other side.

[FrenchieCat]

4. If we want to win....guess we'll need that too.

We'll need the whole package to reverse the image that the Dems currently have. Hard to swallow, but Dems and National Security just don't quite "mesh" in the eyes of many voters.

So yes, we'll have to change the perception and take the edge away from the warmongers by being tough guys with brains and know how.

[Adelante]

5. That's right

Voters trust Dems on the economy; they trust Bush on national security.

If we put them together, we win elections.

[LittleClarkie]

7. Let me get the oil so we can grease up their man tits

How do you think Harry would look without his shirt off. Maybe we better donate for some tanning time.

(ewww... I think I just grossed myself out)

[FreedomAngel82]

29. Yes I agree

We have to stop playing nice and pussyfooting around with them and compromising.

[dogman]

8. We don't need image, we need the real thing.

And we can do it without chickenhawks. We have it, let's use it.

[Clarkie1]

30. We need both! n/t

[kwolf68]

3. Is there something wrong

When a "Christian Nation" chooses its leaders for the fortitude and willingness to wage war as opposed to the desire to wage peace?

Dennis Kucinich's ideas really are DOA in this nation of jingoistic twits.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Yes....because we have been sold a bunch of "goods"....

We have to reverse that trend....and have those speaking for us be able to convince many in our nation that we can wage peace and still be tough guys. We have to put warmongering out of its misery and make it appear totally "out of style" and not the way to go.

[kwolf68]

11. War-mongering is fun

For the average weekend warrior who can slap a decal on his truck, ride off to his kids little league game, and boast and "what he'd do" if he got his hands on a terrorist war is fun stuff. So long he is out of the fray. It gives us a chance to refuel America's declining pride.

[dogman]

10. Dennis' ideas aren't DOA but they definitely need better packaging.

Americans are not the most astute consumers.

[kwolf68]

12. No argument there

I get so much more listening to DJK talk about the possibilities of humanity...and our greatness as a people is never wrapped around a decal, a gun, or killing.

[ulysses]

9. great.

Wonder how many get to die so that we can get our war on.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I don't think that it's an either/or proposition

I don't think it has to be our wars vs. their wars unless you're predisposed to think that way.

I think that Democrats who react as though we should just continue on our merry way and hope that all is well in time for 2006 or 2008 are only fooling themselves...but not really coming up with any solutions to the "perception" image problem that we, the Dems, suffer.

It's easy enough to say...why look like those bad guys. That's a bumper sticker logic, right there.

I think that Democrats are smart enough to understand that they must counter the image that has been building over time.

The facts are these: 9/11 did happen. Ever since Vietnam, Dems have been made to look like they choose peace over war....even if attacked. Its' complex....but can be fixed.

[ulysses]

16. so, what *is* the solution to the perception problem?

Is it a matter of simply being more bloodthirsty in our pronouncements and our actions?

[FrenchieCat]

20. Nope

If it was that simple....Dems would be doing it already.

It has to do with our history....really starting with the Vietnam war...when many Democrats started hating all things military...and many confused the soldiers with the civilian policy makers. The perceptions that it is the GOP that somehow respects and protects our troups came from a defacto situation...the Dems don't, so the GOP must.

One of the things to do is to start accepting that soldiers are not the civilian policy makers and saying so. Next, Democrats need to recognize those Dems that have military backgrounds and national security expertise...and stop lumping them in as quasi Republicans. Next, like Clark, those who have expertise in National Security must be highlighted, i.e., when a talk show wants the DNC to provide a mouthpiece for Dems' view on security, etc. Also, Dems cannot shy away from that topic of discussion...and in fact must meet it head on...and even, yes, bring it up themselves.

When one hears supporters of certain former candidates stating that we must highlight our domestic policies and stay away from NS/FP....you know we have a long way to go. We are already strong in domestic policies.

[ulysses]

21. so, is this basically a Clark infomercial?

:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

32. It's a shame if you would dismiss the article based on your prejudices

I suggest you read the article if you have not done so already, and then decide for yourself what it means.

[CWebster]

43. You mean like Kerry saluting for duty

The one moment he will spend the reat of his life living down.

It is unbelievable the Dems are so cowed by the Neo-cons that they feel they must immatate them. What do you suppose the world thinks of that? Who would the world rather deal with or negotiate with? The Republicans have succeeded in making it us vs the world. Is that the path the Dems feel they need to follow?

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Actually I share part of your concern. Images are just two dimensional

I have no doubt that there will be some elected Democrats who will concentrate on polishing up a tough guy image at the expense of actually developing sensible proposals and priorities. All too often PR stands in for actual content in politics. And Democrats get into trouble when they try to mimic Republicans, and that is exactly what some Democrats do when they try to look tough on National Security issues.

What Democrats need is real competency in foreign affairs and National Security, the type of competency that radiates assurance that these people know what they are doing and can be trusted to do what is needed when it is needed, while keeping us out of all but unavoidable trouble. Democrats need to be tough when tough is called for and soft when soft is possible.

You made some reference to this thread being a Clark infomercial, which seemed a little dismissive of a real larger topic for discussion. But you know, to me at least, Clark doesn't project a tough guy image. He projects strength certainly, but that is not the same thing in my mind. It is possible for Democrats to be strong without a lot of needless macho posturing or worse, engaging in needless macho behavior. Women have always known that real strength isn't macho. Part of the problem with our national government is that there aren't enough women in it.

As for Clark, did you see the 60 minutes interview Dan Rather did with him prior to the Primaries on 60 minutes II? He did anything but project a macho image while talking about the use of force. Here is a key part, discussing Kosovo:

"GEN. WESLEY CLARK: In the summer of 1998, while I was in command, another round of ethnic cleansing started. And I was warning the Pentagon about it and trying to mobilize U.S. opinion and U.S. leadership to take action to prevent it.

Well, we did take some action. We tried to undertake diplomacy. There was a lot of discussion. And meanwhile the Serbs were moving some 300 to 400,000 Kosovar Albanians -- were driven from their homes. They fled to the mountains because they had to get away from the Serb military.

And in the mountains, this is what you saw. This is a five-week-old baby who's died of exposure. And the family's preparing him for burial. When you can stop something like this, you should.

DAN RATHER: ...Hearing you speak of this is the first time I've seen you speak with real emotion.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah.

DAN RATHER: Deep-seated emotion. Tell me why that is?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Why? Because you're dealing with people's lives when you're dealing with things like this, Dan. This is about life and death. It's about the difference between academic theories and discussions of deterrence and prevention and preemption, and what the real impact is on the ground of U.S. actions...

You know, there were people in this case who said, "We don't have any interest here. I mean there's no oil. If there were oil here, we'd stop this." So we'd rather fight for oil than to save lives. I don't think so. I don't think that's what this country really believes or what we stand for. So I do get emotional about this. Because when you can do good, you should."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main5845...

[Adelante]

13. Read it and weep

CNN exit polls last November showed clearly that Democrats already are trusted on economic issues. (Bush 18%; Kerry 80%.)

We tanked on national security. (Bush 86%; Kerry 14%.)

See, almost exactly reversed.

We don't have much of a choice in the matter, unless we want Republican wins in 2006 and 2008.

My personal opinion: I'm glad their finally getting their heads out of their asses on this.

[ulysses]

15. the perception is there because the media and the wingnuts

spin it that way.

Kerry voted FOR the IWR and still polled 14%. How "tough guy" are the party poobahs planning to get?

[Adelante]

24. The perception is there. Period.

Re the Pew Beyond Red & Blue study

The top line contains good news for Republicans: The national security theme that shot to the fore on Sept. 11, 2001, and has remained there since, significantly altered the 2005 typology from its predecessors, to President Bush's advantage last November.

"Foreign-affairs assertiveness now almost completely distinguishes Republican-oriented voters from Democratic-oriented voters," the Pew report states. It later adds: "In contrast, attitudes relating to religion and social issues are not nearly as important in determining party affiliation."

Furthermore, while the last election was widely seen as a "battle of the bases" - with each party working hard to turn out its core, natural constituencies, while paying less attention to the groups in the middle - in fact, the swing voters held the key. Each party claims equal numbers of adherents, and it was those middle groups, including some conservative Democrats, that reelected Bush.

"The Democrats have a double problem," says John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "How do they compete on these foreign-policy issues for the people in the middle? But also, how do they get ready to do that, given they have these big internal fissures?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0513/p03s01-uspo.html

It was there in the exit polling and it's still there. I can grant you the spin, but I doubt very seriously that's all of it. Since 9/11, this country wants a leader strong on national security. Why that would be Bush is something I will never understand. But the country wants it. The Democrats didn't have the goods, as far as the voters were concerned.

I think John Kerry would have made a fine president, and I think he would have proven as strong a national security president as anybody could have wanted, but he didn't convince the voting public on this issue. I don't even think it was Kerry, actually, but the poor reputation the party has on national defense overall that did Kerry in.

[ulysses]

25. ok then - again...

How should we address that poor reputation? I'm told it's not via sabre-rattling.

[Adelante]

27. not via sabre-rattling

Absolutely not via sabre-rattling.

As it's been, or so the perception goes, and I think there's something to this perception, the Dems react to short term political goals, to something happening on the day, instead of having a fully articulated defense policy of their own that they can be pro-active about and control. That they're looking for expert guidance means they see this shortcoming plays into the horrendously false image that Republicans keep America and Americans safe from harm.

A lot of it has to be calling Bushco on its failings to keep America secure, but the Dems have to be able to have informed opinions and analysis on the tip of the tongue, to be able to get their faces on TV and in communities and roll it all out, and without this fully articulated program or platform plank, they're bound to stumble.

As far as that goes, it is an "image" problem.

Democrats just aren't at ease with the subject, they're not used to it, because the base has never wanted it after Vietnam. But the base just isn't big enough anymore and the swing sector are security-minded and want a muscular security policy. This doesn't mean they want to go to war on the world; just when absolutely necessary, we be able take care of ourselves.

The Democrats do have a better, more responsible sense of what it would take, obviously, but they need to become fluent about it.

[Gloria]

17. Frankly, they have to counter Bushco crap on EVERY issue...

I've been fuming all day about how wimpy they really are, to the point where Clinton has to tell them to play a little dirtier. And this is years after he told them that it's better to be strong and wrong than weak and right.

Let's look at some of the "heavyweights" on some of these key committees...Levin, Biden, for example. When Biden isn't ass kissing Bushco, he occasionally can nail them good. Levin has experience and can speak... For Christ's sake....we don't have anyone going after Condi for that crap about how the Iraq war "came our way and not the other way around?" And when they do come out, how about staying on the same message--that means you, Joementum.

Shit, if they started to counter this nonesense, maybe the media would start covering it. Why should they lift a finger if our "experts" in the Senate won't bother. This should be a CONSTANT campaign, every day. Get a couple of people from the House and Senate and get it going.

Same thing with this judges. Start tearing them down. Owens and Enron.
Get out there and play the game!!

This was going to be a separate rant until I saw this thread. I think I still want to rant elsewhere....

[Clark2008]

18. Let's put it this way, if I was ever in a dark alley with some Rethugs,

it's Wes Clark I'd want there to protect me.

Interesting article. Thanks.

[Selatius]

19. All we need is common sense with foreign policy

Instead of blowing $300,000,000,000 on Iraq and wasting 1600+ American lives and an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians, that money could've been used to invest in better airport security, border security, port security, more policemen/firemen, etc.

But this is not to be. We're cutting veterans' benefits instead and laying off firemen and police officers. On top of that, we're just making things in the Middle East worse.

If you want to act tough, then take this information and hammer it away over and over again like a broken record. Consistency, conviction of message--that's what is needed, not just the appearance of being tough.

[FrenchieCat]

22. capeesh....

You've got it. It's the total package. Having conviction, staying on message, telling it like it is and not mincing words.

Tough doesn't have to equal Bad...

[Adelante]

23. Consistency, conviction of message

I think this is what they actually mean. Not just the appearance, the image, although the title of the piece automatically leads to that idea.

I think the Dems are looking to have a comprehensive program that includes national security yet takes nothing away from the traditional Democratic domestic agenda. They're adding something that's been lacking. I think they are right to do so.

That does not mean that everything you say in your post isn't absolutely true. And nothing in the article says they disagree with you, either.

[Clarkie1]

26. Thanks for this post and the link!

More highlights from article:

"Clark has spoken to the Democratic caucus about how to communicate national-security policies effectively."

“If the Democrats have a principled foreign policy in support of advancement of democracy, promotion of our values and strong action to prevent genocide, then they will succeed,” said Lee Feinstein, a former Clinton administration Defense and State Department official now with the Council on Foreign Relations. “If they are tactical, they will find themselves in a reactive position, which might on occasion produce results but which will not over the long term produce a foundation for the future.”

I am sure Clark is pushing for a strong, united voice on stopping the genocide in Darfur behind the scenes, as he has done publicly. I hope the party takes a strong stance on this. It's the morally right thing to do. Dems must speak proactively on foreign policy, instead of just reacting to Bush's ineptitude. America needs to know what we believe in...it's all about "values," right?

[Mythsaje]

31. They're looking in the wrong direction

Not to say that concerns about American security aren't important, but they need to bolster their "tough guy" image by going after the Repugnicans, no holds barred, not trying to out-hawk the hawks on their own territory, using language the RW coined and marketed for their own benefit.

They need to talk about why emergency services have been severely underfunded, and why port security hasn't been upgraded...are the Repugs HOPING for another 9/11? They're sure setting the stage for it.

Imagine anthrax spreading through NY, or SF, or Seattle through contact with a shipping container filled with spoors. We're spending billions of dollars "fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here" while leaving a nation sized hole you can fly a 747 through. If the terrorists had the imagination of even a mediocre gamer, we'd all be screwed six ways from sunday.

They need to go on the attack and stop pussy-footing around.

[Clarkie1]

34. I agree with you on the underfunding of emergency services.

But I disagree on ceding any "territory" to the Republicans. It's not about being hawkish, it's about being tougher and stronger in advancing our own foreign policy framework.

[Adelante]

35. Yes

That's all part of what they are talking about. National security in all of its aspects, not simply war. Pulling national security into the framework of Democratic values, so that Dems are viewed as strong enough and willing enough to do what it takes to *truly* secure the homeland and show that the Repugs have NOT done so in the very ways you mention.

[tishaLA]

33. "image" thing is something we have alter...

message is not.

One of the reasons Dems succeeded in '92 was because Bush 41 became a "wimp" in the MSM and he had to consistently fight it. And he never did. It allowed Democrats to focus attention on the economy and traditionally strong Democratic issues.

So we need a two-pronged attack here: one that shows we are strong enough and/or Republicans are weak enough to handle national security, not from the standpoint of reality, but from the standpoint of image; another that offers a response to the domestic malaise that has characterized the last 4 1/2 years. Moves like this--with help from unexpected folks with non-tough guy images like Pelosi and Reid--move us half way to our goal.

[AP]

37. Another way to phrase this: in '92, the Democrats had strengths and

weaknesses, and the Republicans had strengths and weaknesses. Clinton was able to convince a lot of people to order their priorities in a way that made them go with Democrats. in 2004, Kerry did not get people to order their priorities in a way that played to Democrats strenghts.

A two-pronged attack means not only addressing your weaknesses, but also convincing people that your world-view -- your order of priorities -- is the correct world view.

Clinton didn't think FP was inconsequential -- in fact, if you read his biography, it's clear that his undergraduate degree in Georgetown's FP school informed his policy greatly and, in his book, he writes about FP with so much more sophistication, depth and intelligence than he does about anything. It's like night and day when you hit the chapters about FP. Yet, you wouldn't know this by looking at the '92 campaign. In '92 he made it clear that everything flowed down from the idea that America is strong when you put people first. He's right about that, just as FDR was right about that.

In the context of today -- Democrats don't need to say, "Oh, FP -- that's our weakness -- how can we look like hardasses on FP?" They need to look back particularly at FDR and figure out what a progressive framework is for FP and fit FP into their larger unified theory of what it means to be a liberal.

[AP]

36. George Lakoff says that Democrats should talk about foreign policy...

...within the framework of progressive values -- ie, building up overseas middle classes rather than dropping bombs on overseas lower classes is a surer route to more wealth for everyone and to global security. Level out the huge differences, end the imperialism, and be about lifting everyone up, and you'll do better.

He had some compelling statistics and arguments about aid, and causes of poverty, and some other stuff, which I forgot. I hope he writes a longer argument about this.

[Clarkie1]

38. Lakoff is great.

Where did he write about that? Do you have a link? Reminds me of this:

"Today, vast segments of the developing world's population are struggling, desperate for America's engagement, understanding and assistance. Right now, more than half the world's population is struggling to survive on less than $2 a day, and nearly 1 billion live in chronic hunger. More than one billion of the world's adults cannot read, three-quarters of them women. And half the children in the poorest countries are not in school. Malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea alone kill 8 million people a year under the age of 15. And already in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, half of all the 15-year-olds are expected to die of AIDS. We cannot - we must not - allow this to go on.

But that's just what we're doing. For too long now, America has failed to live up to its awesome responsibilities on the world stage. We are the richest nation in education, health care, science, and bottom line dollar wealth. Yet, more often than not, we turn a blind eye to developing nations around the world, those which desperately need our help. More often than not we put the bottom line first.

America's wealth, strength, and character provides us with great power -- but they also confer great obligations. And we must fulfill them in ways that build converging interests and create shared values in an ever shrinking world. This begins with communications and commerce, with cultural exchanges and exchange students. It leads to trade and investments, the creation of capital, the promotion of development, the emergence of human rights and democracy. And it is up to us to begin this process -- to live up to our obligations as a world leader - not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's the smart thing to do.

We can drive out HIV-AIDS and malaria, reduce the incidence of poverty, spread knowledge, and, through technology, spread real human understanding.

We'll still need our armed forces and we'll take every necessary action to make America safe - but we'll gain that safety not by force of arms, but by who we are and what we represent. For we should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity. We must make sure that globalization helps people around the world, raising living standards and improving the environment everywhere - rather than leading a race to the bottom.

Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law - not the rule of force - governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again."

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=speeches/2004-01-10

[Adelante]

41. I was too tired last night to get into it

But you and I had the same reaction. No surprise, I guess. :)

[CarolNYC]

45. that's a great passage

Thanks for posting it, Clarkie1. I was up in NH when he gave this speech. Wes converted one of my cousins and his college student girlfriend that day. :) I just love his vision of the world and what it can and should be and what our role in it should be.

[snowbear]

39. Tough guy image, huh?

I know a couple guys available to help.. if you don't mind a few missing front teeth ;)

[CWebster]

42. "...more Americans trusted President Bush and Republicans

to manage the war on terrorism competently."

Even though the entire Invasion of Iraq was, in essence, a war crime, the Dems would rather compete for the US-as-bully image than challenge it?

Yeah, that strategy has been working real good.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Some Democrats undoubtedly will compete based on images

I think that is a grave mistake. The issue is competency to keep America safe, and that involves a whole lot more than shouting while swinging a very large stick, which ultimately accomplishes the opposite, making us and our children less not more secure.

But Democrats must be competent to steer America through an increasingly international world with a clear vision, sound judgment, and firm hand. That is our challenge, most Americans currently don't see Democrats up to it, and that is dangerous to us as a Party.

[CWebster]

46. Considering the enthusiasm was never really there

in supporting the trumped-up Invasion of Iraq without conditions and now, more than ever--even with biased polling and spun "news reporting", the majority doesn't see Iraq as worth it, we still see the gulf between public perception and political posturing.

The Democrats are compromised by their own efforts to compete on the bigger dick contest--the blowback will be they will be viewed as enablers--incompetent in standing up to the Junta.

That is why they are perceived of as weak.

[welshTerrier2]

47. we don't need to be tougher; we need to be smarter ...

let's see ... bush has killed more than 100,000 Iraqis ... maybe the Dems could come up with a plan to kill more than 200,000 ... what better proof of toughness is there than kill counts???

how about being tougher by standing up for the truth about the corruption of US foreign policy ??

how about being tougher by fighting for peace and standing up for principles instead of wimping out by trying to out-republican the republicans ??

how many more must die so that Democrats can "look tough" ??