Proposed Dem theme for 2006-08: "We can do better than that."

Great Debates
1

Invade Middle Eastern countries that had nothing to do with 9-11?

We can do better than that.

Make torturers out of our American servicemen?

We can do better than that.

Out of control deficit spending on bridges to nowhere and mismanaging the economy?

We can do better than that.

An energy policy that consists of government giveaways to oil companies while they make record profits?

We can do better than that.

Hiring unqualified cronies to head IMPORTANT government agencies like FEMA, leaving Americans without help in the wake of disaster?

We can do better than that.

A culture of corruption that allows any unethical activity for personal or political gain, even treasonous betrayal of covert CIA agents?

We can do better than that.

Political leadership that not only isn’t friendly to the environment, but is actively hostile to it?

We can do better than that.

The list could be longer, but you get the idea. The idea is to attack the excesses and incompetence of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, nationalizing them for the 2006 and keeping the focus of the debate on their inadequacies. The Pubbies will likely respond that this does not constitute an agenda, but the Dems can easily counter that some of the responses do point to an agenda, specifically fiscal responsibility, a pro-active energy policy and strong environmental policy, and that in any event, simply correcting the gross mistakes the Republicans have made will improve the nation’s fortunes so much that it would be an awful mistake to vote Republican again.

Your thoughts?

2

Oh, yes, and the point that should also be made is that the “we” in question is not just the Democratic candidates, but the American people – give people a sense that Democrats know that Americans are better people than their current leadership makes them out to be.

3

We could not do better than that!

4

I’m sorry, but I think this is a terrible idea. The best strategy will be to put forward concrete, specific, and visionary proposals that describe a great country, and forcefully argue that these are practical and wise proposals. Let other folks compare the vision they’re describing to the craphole that we’ve currently got. But if the Democrats are spending all their time bitching about the Republicans, they’re not giving folks a reason to vote for them.

Daniel

5

You’re absolutely wrong. Giving specific proposals would give the Republican spin machine something to focus on, drawing the debate AWAY from the awful job the Pubbies have done and making the election a referendum on those proposals rather than how awful a job the Pubbies have done and how easy it will be for the Dems to improve on it.

The Dems don’t have to come up with any great, new, incredible programs to be a huge improvement over the Pubbies – we just have to promise not to fuck up like they do. We should do that.

6

If only the Democrats had tried this in 2002 or 2004, we’d have an idea of whether this would work.

Daniel

7

Seeing how well the “anybody but Bush” thing worked out for Mr. Kerry, I’d say you’re exactly right. You should do that.

8

We didn’t have all the goodies we have to work with now. All we had was the Iran war, with the populace still in the grip of war fever … in short, we had nothing. Now we have a raft of hot-button issues. Fill yer gas tank lately?

9

Remind me. How badly did we lose? If the election were held today, “anybody but Bush” would win in a landslide.

10

Why wouldn’t it work? Attack works. Unfounded personal attacks work. We could also toss in the ENRON Ken Lay thing, the “attack” on Social Security, erosion of civil rights, Katrina/FEMA/Brown, there’s plenty of grist for the mill. The catch phrase could be:
“They’ve had 8 years. What have they done for you?”

11

Why the focus on the next election? You might win it, sure. But what happens when the Republicans win the one after that, or the one after that?

The Democratic Party isn’t in crisis because they’re losing presidential elections. The Republicans lost two in a row, in the 1990’s, and didn’t go through the kind of crushing crisis the Democrats are undergoing now.

That’s because in that time the party continued to grow and enjoy successes elsewhere, continuing an effort begun decades earlier and centered around policy proposals that you’re trying to avoid now.

Your party is not only losing, it is shrinking. That is the real crisis. And a myopic push to win the next election won’t stop this overall slide.

Vision problem? Yep. And the OP is the clearest illustration of it.

12

I think the Dems who are calling for a well-defined set of Dem policies are doing so because they’d like to see something they can support. I think the Pubbies who are calling for the same are doing so because they’ld like to see something they can attack. Given the power of the Pubbie spin machine and the success of attack ads, guess who’s gonna get more out of Dem policies?

No, it’s the Dems who need to be on the offensive in the next election. We should not just present candidates, we should present candidates armed with knives, clubs and guns.

13

Unfortunately, Bush isn’t running in 2008. You’ll be facing McCain or Guliani or someone else, likely with scant connection to this admin.
LHoD, I have the feeling that were you chairman of the DNC, I would face more difficult decisions at the ballot box. Thankfully, people like the OP are around to make my life easier.

14

That may or rather will happen. political power is like a pendulum. It swings back and forth over time. Each party has a time when it is in control. Then, as they get more complacent (or more scandal ridden) the other party gains ascendancy. So, back and forth they go.

15

Sure have. Gas prices, while up from past years, are significantly lower than several months ago. If they remain steady or fall further, there goes one plank.

Overall, I agree with Updike. John Kerry campaigned on the incompetance of the Bush administration and not on what he would do to fix it. This, in my opinion, is a major reason he lost.

Moreover, furt makes an excellent point in that President Bush, nor likely anyone closely tied to him, will be running in '08. This means that whoever’s on deck MAY be able to admit that mistakes were made, and could possibly run on a platform of how to make it better.

“This is how we will make it better,” vs. “They screwed up, we can (implied: hopefully) do better. . .”

16

Go Whigs! :slight_smile:

17

Amazing, isn’t it. Traditionally, an 8-year administration’s VP is effectively anointed the next candidate. This time around, though, being part of this administration at any senior level will be essentially disqualifying. And that sets the stage for any further discussion of the campaign.

Not without running against his own party, and for that matter, his own credibility. Where will this hypothetical non-fuckup have been for the preceding 8 years? What will he have said or done in that time to protest or even differ from this administration’s actions? What authority has he used, and what accomplishments will he have been able to point to that will have been independent of the Bush Administration he’ll be running away from? Would any plausible Republican candidate who hasn’t been speaking out all along be able to make the case that he and his hypothetical team would be competent administrators? And where would this hypothetical team come from? Bush’s case for himself in 2000 rested largely on the brilliance and competence and experience of the staff that surrounded him, Powell and Cheney most notably - who else can this hypothetical anti-Bush Republican call on for himself?

No, I just don’t see how any major party candidate can effectively campaign against essentially everything his party has done for the last 8 years or more, unless he’s been doing it all along. If it ain’t McCain, it’s gonna have to be a young governor who’s only now gaining enough national prominence to speak out on national issues.

18

Left Hand of Dorkness pretty much nailed it…good thing, as Furt said, that HE’S not running things for the Dems.

Let me put it this way (probably a waste of breath). Lets say that your ‘We can do better than that’ campaign actually works. No new ideas, just the same old tired tripe you’ve been pushing for decades but with a new twist…‘we aren’t Bush!’. Ok, I buy that. Were the elections held today against Bush you may be able to get Kerry elected with room to spare. Great. Problems though come to mind. First off…you won’t be running against Bush, or probably against anyone else close to this administration (well, maybe Condi). Secondly, even if you can associate whoever DOES run with Bush, how does this strategy help you long term? What do you do in the NEXT election? ‘We aren’t Bush!’ will work for you (maybe) once…after that your ‘We can do better than that’ campaign will kind of stall out…especially since you haven’t got anything new to show the folks. Who will have forgotten Bush by then (if they haven’t forgotten him by the next election :stuck_out_tongue: ). Lastly, your strategy, even if it works, will have gotten you the presidency. So what? How will ‘We ain’t Bush!’ help you re-gain (or even make up ground) in the House and Senate? At the local level?

But you know what? Were I a Republican I’d think Evil Captor great plan was the best thing since sliced bread! I’d support him to the hilt…and quietly wack LHoD in some quiet ally. He’s dangerous. :wink:

-XT

19

Your assumptions are unfounded.

They are losing elections by hairsbreadths. (I have my doubts that they are IN FACT losing them, if the voting machines weren’t rigged.) What you portray as disaster is simply pendulum stuff.

Vision problem? Yep. And the OP is the clearest illustration of it.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, please. I have all kinds of visions for America, as do the Dems. But the next election isn’t the place to present them. Bush has given us a number of clubs, guns and knives, and we should use them on all of the Republicans.

20

Thanks…I think. All I know is, I’m staying away from quiet allies.

Daniel