“I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.”

[whometense]

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9713

The Death and Life of American Liberalism
The right has shown that conviction beats vacillation. Can liberals acquire some spine?
By Robert Kuttner
Issue Date: 06.06.05

“I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.”
-- Jon Lovitz playing Michael Dukakis, Saturday Night Live, October 1988

Why are we losing to these guys? On nearly every major issue, public-opinion polls show that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress are well to the right of the country. Yet George W. Bush got himself re-elected, with an enlarged majority in both chambers of Congress.

Let’s cut to the chase. The big reason is that the right is a movement, 30 years in the making. And a movement culture is a habitat that allows grass-roots activists, party professionals, and conviction politicians to function strategically as a smooth machine joined by a common ideology. “I knocked on a lot of doors in 2004,” says Steve Rosenthal, who headed America Coming Together, the largest liberal voter-mobilization group. “If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times: ‘You may not agree with George Bush, but you know where he stands.’” Conviction evidently trumps vacillation, even when voters are skeptical of particular convictions. One of John Kerry’s pollsters says, “People looked at Bush and concluded that he’d shoot first and ask questions later. They concluded that Kerry would ask questions first. They voted for Bush.”

Discuss?? :banghead:

[ginnyinWI]

1. lol--I share your headbang

It goes back to the need for a clear Dem identity, doesn't it. People didn't know where JK stood not because he wasn't talking himself hoarse every day on the campaign trail, but because people didn't have any jumping off point: they didn't know what Democrats in general stood for. We need that first, then put a good candidate on the top of that pyramid and go from there. All they knew about Dems was negative spin from the other side. I don't know why Clinton's success didn't translate to other Dems--even his own VP couldn't get the message across effectively. By rights Gore should have gotten over 60% of the vote in 2000.

[whometense]

3. Great point.

Goes back to the way it seemed all last year that Kerry was out there all by himself, putting forth his ideas, putting out fires, and trying to break through the media blackout. It's truly amazing he was able to do as well as he did. (and, in fact, win. I still believe that he did.)

[politicasista]

5. I agree

I think it all comes down to the party as a whole. I agree with Ginny, the Democratic party lacked a clear, strong, and unified message. During the campaign, when asked who were peeps voting for, the answer: the lesser of two evils. The Dems should not be identified as "the lesser of two evils," it should lay out everything and spread the word on the street, not through the media.

[Mass]

2. Well I prefer asking question first.

I guess Kuttner has not exhausted his ability for handwringing, unfortunately.

I think that one of the problem is what Kerry, Dean, and others are trying to address now. The right wing activists are united by 30 years of common cause, whether they agree with one another or not, and are doing a great job getting the vote out at the local level.

The Democrats seem to be absent from entire areas, and need to bring people from the outside to GOTV. in Ohio, our neighbour or the guy you go to church with telling you that Bush is great is a lot more convincing than a guy (or girl) from MA, CA, or TX telling you that Kerry is great. They know what is important to you and can talk about more than talking points.

In addition, it is time for the Democrats to define the issues that unite them and campaign on them. We are still hearing people saying that Kerry should have talked more about the war, or more about the economy, ... Which is it? What is the defining question?

In fact, I thought that at some point, Kerry had a great them : security in all its aspects (not only terrorism, but jobs, healthcare, ...). I never totally understood why they dropped it.

[sandnsea]

4. Iowa should have taught that

"in Ohio, our neighbour or the guy you go to church with telling you that Bush is great is a lot more convincing than a guy (or girl) from MA, CA, or TX telling you that Kerry is great."

I thought the campaign learned that from Iowa. People from out of state need to support the local people who go face to face. We still need Bradley's block captain approach. We have precinct captains in my little town and it isn't near enough organization. It sure doesn't beat out people talking at church either. The progressive groups that are supposed to counter that have been vilified and marginalized too.

I think there was a conflict on whether to keep the debate on the economy only; or talk security too. I would like to know exactly who was involved in some of these decisions myself.

[elshiva]

6. "I can't believe I am losing to this idiot." Kerry actually said that!

[CBHagman]

7. The media plays a role.

I can't help but notice how tenderly the Bush administration and the Republican leadership is treated by the press, including the most mainstream of the bunch, like The Washington Post. Harry Reid says harsh words, and it's regarded as a gaffe. Dean says harsh words, and the reporting has a negative tone. The press bought the "Al Gore invented the Internet" meme and loves it so much they won't stop it, and everyone picked it up, even my late friend the New Dealer WWII Vet. :-(

"Everyone loves" Laura Bush, but Teresa Heinz Kerry is a loose cannon, or controversial. Bill Frist is "patrician," but Kerry is aloof, etc.

Judging by press conferences and reporting, there's no one in Congress ruder and more ruthless than Tom DeLay, yet the media hasn't landed on him like a 800-pound weight. But we all saw the Dean Scream and the Lewinsky hug.

I am also convinced that if Al Gore had become president in 2001, there would have been no GOP or press backing of him come 9/11. They'd have scrutinized him to within an inch of his life.

I'm not saying that the Democrats shouldn't look very, very carefully at how they present our identity or frame the debate, but rule number one is that the media is not your friend.

[ginnyinWI]

8. yeah well, for the record--

I hate Laura Bush! :grr:

We need to improve our image so that whatever they throw at us won't stick. But it's hard when we don't have the bully pulpit, and media interests lie with the other side. :(

[whometense]

10. For the record,

I hate her too. She's a younger version of Babs, in my opinion, and not one tiny whit nicer.

[LittleClarkie]

9. They would have said that Gore was a continuation of Clinton

and it was Clinton and Gore's fault that 9/11 happened because we all know that, according to Rush at least, only Republicans have balls. Of course, in Rush's case, that assertion is purely academic.

[whometense]

11. Good rule.

Briefly watched Hardball tonight. I loathe the way Matthews tries to turn the most serious and important political questions into a tennis match, with him as scorekeeper AND line judge.