Bill Bradley editorial, NYT--how Dems need to restructure

[ginnyinWI]

This is what I've been saying--the Dems need to strengthen our party so that each candidate doesn't need to carry the whole party on his/her back! This is what was so unfair for Kerry. Worth reading the whole article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30bradley.html

"FIVE months after the presidential election Democrats are still pointing fingers at one another and trying to figure out why Republicans won. Was the problem the party's position on social issues or taxes or defense or what? Were there tactical errors made in the conduct of the campaign? Were the right advisers heard? Was the candidate flawed?

Before deciding what Democrats should do now, it's important to see what Republicans have done right over many years. When the Goldwater Republicans lost in 1964, they didn't try to become Democrats. They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters.

(snip)

At the very top of the pyramid you'll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine.

It is not quite the "right wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton described, but it is an impressive organization built consciously, carefully and single-mindedly. The Ann Coulters and Grover Norquists don't want to be candidates for anything or cabinet officers for anyone. They know their roles and execute them because they're paid well and believe, I think, in what they're saying. True, there's lots of money involved, but the money makes a difference because it goes toward reinforcing a structure that is already stable."

[JI7]

1. yes, they are one huge organization, like a corporation

they have the same goals and do their part based on whatever position they have.

they repeat the same talking points and that's where the strength actually lies, not just or even in what they say, but how they say it. they keep repeating the same thing. while Democrats are all over the place. you might get 5 different segments on a show with different pairs of dems and republicans debating each other. the democrats might win each one of them but the republicans win overall because the republicans all said the same thing and stayed on message while the democrats had their own message and style.

for a good comparison lets look at the issue of Bush's national guard service and the attacks on Kerry's military service. for those who paid attention Bush and the Republicans never answered or even attempted to answer the charges against him going awol. they would blow it off as campaign attacks or just say he did his service and got an honorable discharge.

but with democrats where were many who got hysterical with the "OMG , why wont Kerry answer this" and many of them posted the swift boat lies on DU and wanted others to refute the charges point by point.even when they were shown to have lied about one thing these people would still bring up the other lies and want an explanation and refutation of that.

what should have happened is everyone in the party said how they were part of negative campaign attacks on Kerry's service. but people couldn't stay on message about anything. everyone feels they know best and refuses to go along unless it's their advice which is taken.

[whometense]

10. On that subject,

great blog post here: http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=3357377&postID=111098888203873089 "Buy Bushwood".

It's been a while since we've said this, so we'll repeat it: the way to understand what's going on is to realize that the GOP in general--and the Bush administration in particular--are business, not state organizations, and that they operate according to the rules of business, not those of public service.

Which in turn boils down to one simple rule: what the boss (or in this case, the boss's son) says is right, and everyone is expected to go along with it. Get it?

Our national media are not a free press so much as a public relations department. Their job is to disseminate the company line. We the people aren't "citizens", we're "employees"--or as "Hardball" host Chris Matthews once described us, "peasants under glass." The bottom line is: management owns the place, and we're all just lucky to be here.

See? Doesn't it all make more sense now?

To make sure you keep a firm understanding, just remember the words of that great former VP of Public Relations for the Executive Branch, Ari Fleischer: everyone needs to watch what they say.

[TayTay]

2. Excellent catch Ginny!

(And do read the other OpEd by former Sen. Danforth about the problems in the Rethug structure. It is a companion piece. Think about it. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html)

Also, if you want to see a demonstration of "what went wrong" and exactly what Bradley is talking about check out an old article in the NYTimes Magazine from last fall. (It is no longer free. PM me for a solution.) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE1DC113EF936A35751C1A9629C8B63 This article is called "Who Lost Ohio" and details exactly why the Dems can't outsource their voter outreach anymore. (Cuz it's dumb and it doesn't work.)

This is vital stuff. Absolutely vital. It is THE discussion that needs to happen.

[Pirate Smile]

4. It also shows what JK was up against and why the Party as a whole

doesn't have a more effective message.

I just read Danforth's piece and it is very good also. Who would be better to go after the RW Fundie Christian take-over of the Republicans then a Minister? Nobody.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Would you guys go recommend this for the Greatest page at this

link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=296x3695 because I think everyone needs to read it.

It so clearly demonstrates the difference structurally between the Democrats and Republicans which we MUST change.

[TayTay]

5. Done!

I couldn't agree more. This is vital. It is also why Kerry said we don't start working on 2008 in 2007, we start now. We have systemic problems in how we go about electing people to national office. This is so vital.

Also check out this link to find other folks who think like Bradley on this: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/

[ginnyinWI]

6. done also

I'm glad someone posted in a main forum, too. And I hope those-who-need-not-be-mentioned over there listen up, get a clue and stop whining!

edit: And this election proves Bradley's point without question. They had a lousy candidate and good structure, and were able to pull off a win. We had a wonderful candidate and lousy structure, and it wasn't enough.

[Pirate Smile]

7. The point about their pyramid being able to change the top (Prez)

easily but ours having everything balanced on top of the Presidential candidate (the inverted pyramid) is a perfect visual to illustrate the problem with the current Democratic structure.

[ginnyinWI]

8. Yes, and exactly why we need to watch out in 2008.

All they need to do is change "heads" and let everything else stay the same. :(

[TayTay]

13. This explains the 'circular firing squad'

If you have everything balanced on the back of the Dem nominee, then it becomes their fault when the enterprise is not successful. There is no inherent and permanent organization that can take and absorb some of the heat for losing races. Sigh! We need to work on this. It is insane to do this to people and expect it to work.

[whometense]

9. Great find, Ginny!

I love this part:

A party based on charisma has no long-term impact. Think of our last charismatic leader, Bill Clinton. He was president for eight years. He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. He was smart, skilled and possessed great energy. But what happened? At the end of his tenure in the most powerful office in the world, there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt. The president did well. The party did not. Charisma didn't translate into structure.

Democratic Party=The Hummingbird Party, flitting from flower to flower

[Withywindle]

11. So, so true!

Just look at those tiresome arguments in GDP about who the next flower ought to be.

The problem with the candidate-based "strategy" (using the term loosely) is that even if you find your perfect charismatic guy and he wins, there's not enough stable political infrastructure to back him up. Maybe you can win an election on charisma, but you can't govern on it. That's why Clinton was vulnerable; he just didn't have enough allies willing to throw their own clout around.

[JI7]

12. and even Clinton didn't win by much

he got under 50 percent both times he ran. and it was after the cold war which allowed the focus to be on domestic issues.

[politicasista]

14. Interesting.

I thought he won in a landslide in 92.

[JI7]

15. not even close

he only got 43 percent in 1992