Democratic Party BBQ

[John_Mace]

@Cervaise

One of the interesting things in considering possible Democratic nominees in 08 is that no clear Republican counterpart has emerged. Bush can’t run and Cheney says he doesn’t want it, so it’ll be a wide open field. There are a lot of people who want to be considered the heir apparent but none of them has separated himself from the crowd.

Personally, I think a Gore-Obama ticket would be pretty damn strong, but you can’t do the political calculus in a vacuum; it really depends on the competition. Right now, that’s a giant unknown, so this kind of predictive theorizing strikes me, frankly, as pretty empty.

I think Gore has sunk his chances with his Global Warming initiative. And now he is cavorting with (gasp!) Europeans on the subject. Don’t get me wrong-- I think Global Warming could be made into a real issue in '08, but not the way Gore is doing it. It might even take a Republican to tackle that issue-- in an “only Nixon could go to China” kind of way. But whoever does tackle it will have to do so in what is seen as an American way, not one that can be seen as caving into those lily-livered Europeans.

[scr4]

@John Mace

I think Global Warming could be made into a real issue in '08, but not the way Gore is doing it.

What exactly is wrong with the way he’s doing it, and what would you suggest is an “American way” to do it?

[elucidator]

Global Warming Lite

[John_Mace]

@scr4

What exactly is wrong with the way he’s doing it, and what would you suggest is an “American way” to do it?

I don’t presonally think what he’s doing is wrong, but he could easily be painted as an environmental extremist, hanging out with the tree-hugging Hollywood crowd. Not to mention Europeans. Like most things in politics, it’ll have to be marketed properly. I’m not sure I know the right to do it, but I’m pretty sure Gore is doing it the wrong way (from the standpoint of American politics).

[The_Octagon]

2008… Obama vs. Clinton… are you serious? Neither is electable.
There will not be a black man, or a woman winning in 2008. Either could be veep, opening up things down the road. But not President in '08. No way.

I am not Obama or Clinton. I didn’t choose them. They haven’t been chosen yet. It’s two years to the next election and the media is already reporting on the race. The campaign hasn’t yet begun, and basing a loss on sexism or racism is a joke. If the bigots who don’t vote come out of their holes just to vote against a woman or a black man, the country deserves what it gets. For the record I find Hillary Clinton a despicable pandering centrist (moreso than McCain’s latest incarnation) and I’d love to see Joe Biden over either of them.

Democrats need to wipe the sleep out of their eyes.
They need a strong, clear direction.

This is one of those popular memes I just can’t get my head around, like “Bush is doing a great job because America hasn’t been attacked since 9/11/01.” Is this why insurance is such a profitable business? Should I start selling the magic feathers I invented that protect folks from terrorism?

I keep hearing that Democrats “don’t have a message,” and Republicans are this one-note party, and that is their strength. What is that one item platform? Jesus? Guns? War? Business?

The one I would name is propaganda. Lies. The one they would name is anti-terrorism. How many lies did it take to convince people Democratic politicians are pro-terror? This is like the anti-fetucide (“pro-life”) movement saying the opposite side is anti-life. It’s a war on words and it’s bullshit. As long as you subscribe to these fallacious arguments and fall victim to the Republicans winning the war on words with memes and soundbites you’re better off not saying anything.

[scr4]

@John Mace

I don’t presonally think what he’s doing is wrong, but [Gore] could easily be painted as an environmental extremist, …

But that’s what’s wrong with Democrats today - they let Republicans get away with their propaganda by working around the ideas and impressions they create, instead of confronting them. “Global warming = treehugger” is one of those Republican talking points, but we should be confronting this very idea, not finding ways around it.

[BrainGlutton]

@rjung

You mean like Nancy Pelosi’s First 100 Hours plan? The one that’s been all but ignored by the “liberal” media?

But the DNC might have put that into some ads, and they haven’t. Why not?

[GIGObuster]

@BrainGlutton

But the DNC might have put that into some ads, and they haven’t. Why not?

See post #42

[John_Mace]

@scr4

But that’s what’s wrong with Democrats today - they let Republicans get away with their propaganda by working around the ideas and impressions they create, instead of confronting them. “Global warming = treehugger” is one of those Republican talking points, but we should be confronting this very idea, not finding ways around it.

I think you’re mising the point. It’s not “Global warming = tree hugger”, but “Al Gore = tree hugger”, among many other things. Yes, Democrats should not let Republicans frame the debate, but in Al Gore’s case, I think it’s too late. He’s just got too many things against him, and the Democrats need a fresh face. I hope the Democratic primary voters are smart enough to ditch Gore and Kerry early on. Those guys had their chance and lost. Not to mention the fact that Gore has been out of government for 8 years (or he will be by the time the next election rolls around).

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@GIGObuster

See post #42

I saw it. It was nonsense. I was well aware of the CwA before the election, as were most folks who were politically active. POlls showing most folks weren’t aware of the formal contract don’t reflect the contract’s effects on the party faithful, on organizing, and on trickle-down awareness of Republican priorities via the media, ads, etc. The TPM article citted is, frankly, stupid and misleading.

Daniel

[GIGObuster]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I saw it. It was nonsense. I was well aware of the CwA before the election, as were most folks who were politically active. POlls showing most folks weren’t aware of the formal contract don’t reflect the contract’s effects on the party faithful, on organizing, and on trickle-down awareness of Republican priorities via the media, ads, etc. The TPM article citted is, frankly, stupid and misleading.

Daniel

Not sure I follow, the way I see it, also now democratic party faithful are aware already of the Democratic plans.

[GIGObuster]

I need to add too that what you said does not contradict the main point: this is a strategy based on history, it is not directed to party faithful, but to the independent voter and moderate Republicans, It does not mean I approve of this tactic, but I don’t think it is smart to ignore history.

(Specially now that thanks to the Internet one can see what a load of BS the Republicans have in saying Democrats have no plan).

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@GIGObuster

Not sure I follow, the way I see it, also now democratic party faithful are aware already of the Democratic plans.

The Republicans, as I recall, made a major push to build awareness of the CwA; they put it in ads, they issued all sorts of press releases and held all sorts of press conferences about it, they billed themselves at campaign appearances as signing a, well, Contract with America and told voters to fire them if they didn’t uphold their contract. [url=http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=1281\It was a major campaign schtick.

The contract, more than one panelist noted, functioned as a script for inexperienced candidates. It also got the campaign message directly to voters without any filtering by an unsympathetic media. Gingrich returned more than once to the difference between a platform and a contract. The former, he said, is a group of policies supported by a candidate, while a contract is an agreement to carry out certain actions in exchange for voters’ support.
…
The contract’s populist character was underlined by its marketing, including a national ad-buy in TV Guide, which set a record for “the most expensive political ad,” Gingrich noted.

Totally different from what Pelosi is doing. I was really excited when Pelosi announced her 100 hours, and I started a thread in GD (something I almost never do) congratulating the Dems for the pleasant surprise. It didn’t last.

Daniel

[rjung]

@John Mace

It’s not “Global warming = tree hugger”, but “Al Gore = tree hugger”, among many other things. Yes, Democrats should not let Republicans frame the debate, but in Al Gore’s case, I think it’s too late.

Maybe the guy is simply genuinely concerned about the environment?

I mean, chee, first people complain that politicians look “fake” and don’t show their “true selves,” then when one of them shows some genuine concern, they get slapped with a derogatory label for their trouble…

[GIGObuster]

I still see no big contradiction Left Hand of Dorkness. Really, when polls show most folks weren’t aware of the contract what you are saying here is important, but not in the way you want it, I would predict many Republicans would tell you they conveniently forgot about the “firing us if we do not fulfill the contact” part.

And because it was Newt’s say so, and I can not find sites that do not refer to his say so, I would like to see confirmation about the expense of the campaign on the CwA.

In those days the Republican negative campaigns were the ones that were more noticeable:

1994, the Election to Embrace (and Avoid) (Published 2006)

The CwA was a factor, but even though (surprise) the Democrats have also talked about their plans (6 on 06) the overall view is that going Negative, more seats in contest (100 then as opposed to 40 today) and turning the race into a referendum on then president Clinton, is what made the difference then.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@GIGObuster

In those days the Republican negative campaigns were the ones that were more noticeable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/weekinreview/24nagourney.html?ex=1316750400&en=04e942c19c146d76&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

From your link:

One of the few things that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dean agree on, it seems, is that Republicans won in 1994 in no small part because they laid out an agenda, the Contract With America.

“The contract really mattered for a wide range of reasons,” said Mr. Gingrich, who was the Republican leader in the House at the time. “It said to every Republican candidate, you can be confident, you can be positive. If we had run a negative campaign, if we had run a hate-Clinton campaign, we would not have gotten control of the House.”
…
And some political analysts argue that the Contract With America’s impact on the election was overstated: most voters didn’t even know about it. But by now, most Democrats agree that part of the 1994 strategy was what the party needs in in 2006: Mr. Dean said he was convinced Republicans took over because “they were clear that they were unified and they wanted a new direction.”

Democrats have released their own six-point agenda — “Six for ’06” — but it doesn’t seem to have made much of a splash yet. In a New York Times/CBS News Poll released last week, just 38 percent of those surveyed said Democrats had offered a clear idea of what they would do if they won the White House. That may be because the 2006 Democrats have not been able to match the unity of the 1994 Republicans.

That, and the fact that republicans in 1994 really trumpeted the contract, and I’ve hardly heard anyone in the Dems talking about the 100 hours plan (and this is the first I’ve heard of 6 in '06, despite paying a lot of attention to politics).

Daniel

[GIGObuster]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

From your link:

That, and the fact that republicans in 1994 really trumpeted the contract, and I’ve hardly heard anyone in the Dems talking about the 100 hours plan (and this is the first I’ve heard of 6 in '06, despite paying a lot of attention to politics).

Daniel

:rolleyes:

I did notice that already, what you did not notice is that the positive spin on the CwA influence in that report was Newt once again. Dean only mentions the unity republicans showed (A “new direction” does refer not only to the contract but to the overrall campaign of running against the president and going negative, an item that you should notice Newt is denying here, making him once again an unreliable person.

The Newt and Dean “agree” on the CwA part on that news bit is not supported much by the piece.

And some political analysts argue that the Contract With America’s impact on the election was overstated: most voters didn’t even know about it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@GIGObuster

:rolleyes:

I did notice that already, what you did not notice is that the positive spin on the CwA influence in that report was Newt once again. Dean only mentions the unity republicans showed (A “new direction” does refer not only to the contract but to the overrall campaign of running against the president and going negative, an item that you should notice Newt is denying here, making him once again an unreliable person.

:rolleyes: yourself, friend. I remember the 1994 election quite well, and I remember the prevalence of the CwA. I’m only referring to websites to provide hard evidence of this, but you’re not going to convince me I didn’t see what I saw (e.g., leftist rallies organized to fight against the CwA, Republican ads touting their signatures on the CwA, etc.).

Daniel

[GIGObuster]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

:rolleyes: yourself, friend. I remember the 1994 election quite well, and I remember the prevalence of the CwA. I’m only referring to websites to provide hard evidence of this, but you’re not going to convince me I didn’t see what I saw (e.g., leftist rallies organized to fight against the CwA, Republican ads touting their signatures on the CwA, etc.).

Daniel

The contract was only offered 6 weeks before the elections, it was prevalent in some areas and not others, polls showing most of the electorate did not look at the contract.

I still wonder why you think your view trumps what the polls said, and there is no problem in saying your view was affected by the local race, In any case even from an anecdotal side, I do remember hearing about the contract in California back then, but in the San Fransisco bay area I remember it was not prevalent.

Back then talk radio was just constantly reminding us that America was held hostage by Clinton, you tell me if that was “confident, and positive” like Newt said.

[GIGObuster]

@GIGObuster

I still wonder why you think your view trumps what the polls said, and there is no problem in saying your view was affected by the local race, In any case even from an anecdotal side, I do remember hearing about the contract in California back then, but in the San Fransisco bay area I remember it was not prevalent.

Back then talk radio was just constantly reminding us that America was held hostage by Clinton, you tell me if that was “confident, and positive” like Newt said.

One clarification, you seem to be moving the goalposts, of course the left did mention and criticized the CwA, but the original point was how it influenced the Republicans in the election. Overall I see the CwA was influential, but not by much, negating Clinton was the order of the day among Republicans.