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

Great Debates
21

Yeah, that’s gonna happen. :rolleyes:

And when Kerry campaigned on his war record, he got smeared, and when he campaigned on anything positive the Republican spin machine made it look like Kerry was a Bolshevik. Feeding the spin machine trolls is not a wise idea.

I’m afraid this is where the Republican echo chamber/marching in lockstep stuff is gonna hurt a lot of potential candidates. They will all have a history of having said nice things about the Republican agenda and the Bushies. Those quotes will be used against them. I’m afraid Bush is gonna be a rather large albatross for the Pubbies.

Ah, but this is where the Dems will be VERY VERY strong. They can say, 'We won’t invade countries that do not present a clear and present danger to us. No lying about it to the Aemrican people. This will be EASY to do, it is an ASSURED improvement over the Pubbies.

Same with most other things on the list. “We will appoint qualified candidates to important agencies like FEMA.” That will be EASY to do. There will be payoffs in terms of plum posts, to be sure, but not to agencies where expertise is critical, like FEMA. A slam-dunk the Dems can do the job there.

In all these cases, the Dems can point to simple, strong things they can do to improve over Bush … like appoint actual environmentalists to supervise EPA rather than forest industry advocates and such. It’s gonna be EASY.

Even on the economy, Dems can promise they won’t have any maniacs running around building bridges to nowhere …

If the Pubbies want to run agaisnt their own party and policies they can, but I don’t know how much cred anyone but John McCain will have.

22

I think the Dems can and should nationalize the eleciton in 06 to pick up ground in the Senate. The culture of corruption thing can also go national at the state lavel in some places … like Ohio, for example. I’m sure there’ll be more.

You are aware that the Dems are building an agenda even now, aren’t you? I find it kinda bland … Howard Dean summarized it recently … but there will be a set of goals. I think mine work better for electability though.

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
[/QUOTE]

23

You realize that it’s going to be winter, when heating demand and costs go up, right? It’s not the price of gas at the pump, but it’s a related issue I expect people will be unhappy about.

Anyway, I’m not a big fan of this theme either. It sounds like an attack ad, and the Democrats have been defining themselves in terms of what Republicans do wrong for too long as it is. I’ve said many times that they need a competing vision and a real plan.
There are also some larger issues for the Democrats that are not being addressed. Some of their constituencies don’t make sense. I think they image they control a number of demographics that they actually don’t. For example, the DNC seems to feel that the party has a vicegrip on votes from: organized labor, women, gays, racial minorities, and the poor. They often take these groups for granted. Yes, they still get the black vote, but they don’t get as many women voters as they used to. The Republicans are getting more Latino/Hispanic votes, and organized labor doesn’t deliver for the Democratic Party like it used to, it seems to me that gay voters are thinking of themselves more as voters first and gays second, and so on and so on. If the idea is holding onto all of these groups instead of presenting a real vision, it’s not going to work because that strategy is inherently defensive. (PS: Acting more religious won’t fix it.)
I think Howard Dean has made some good progress toward getting Democrats elected to lower levels of government, and I think he’s right to emphasize that. We’ll see where it goes.

24

Reagan campaigned for Nixon, and George H.W. Bush worked for the Nixon administration in a number of roles.

Were they forever damaged by their association with that administration?

Likewise, a lot of Democrats from now on will have some connection to the Clinton administration, which did have its share of problems. Does anyone expect that this will be an indelible mark an any of those politicians? Hillary got elected in New York, after all, and Rahm Emmanuel got elected to the House.

There ain’t but two parties that matter, and one of the downsides of that is that scandals in either one aren’t terribly sticky. Since you have to join a political party to get ahead in politics, it comes down to choosing one scandal ridden party over the other one.

25

Here’s the problem: The American people do not vote based on policy, they vote based on personality. The general public just votes for the guy they would rather have a beer with, than the guy they would rather run the country. How else can you explain that Kerry won all of the debates, was a military member, had popular policy ideas, but still lost? Kerry was stiff, standoffish, and folks didn’t like him. It was the same thing with Gore, and the same with Bush Sr.

However, that said, I do like the weasely position of the OP. It’s a lot like what the Right wing pundits have been doing for years. That is, “We don’t particularly stand for anything, we just stand against them!”

26

If “forever” equalled one year or three years, that point might mean something.

The Dem scandals were superficial, manufactured products of the Republican spin machine. The hottest scandal they ever had was a blowjob. Whoo-hoo! Not much sticking power there. Whereas with Bush we got treason, lying about WMD to get us into an illegal war, incompetent cronies blowing a major disaster relief effort … oh, nice long list of nasty scandals of a real nature.

27

Well, it might have been (vaguely) funny…if I could spell english words that sound the same to me. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, I suppose we’ll see soon then. If the Dems make a major move in '06 and make up a lot of ground on the 'Pubs then you will be right and I’ll be wrong. And I’ll happily admit that you are right and I’m wrong. With my track record at prediction (I thought Bush would lose for instance) perhaps you are onto something here.

Certainly. I find it more than bland…basically just a re-re-re-packaging of the same old stuff they have been using for, well, ever. Reguardless my points were more to address the OP proposal, not what the Dems are actually doing. I think both are losing strategies, but then what I think the Dems should do is…well, never mind what I think. I’ve said it before and I’m sure you are aware of what I think (wish) the Dems would do.

-XT

28

Well, yeah, it could be a governor and it wouldn’t even have to be a young one. Just because the guy’s running his own state doesn’t mean he can have any real input on Washington politics. I think you could only eliminate three Republican governors quickly–Schwarzenegger, because he isn’t eligible, Perry (rightly or wrongly), and Bush (obvious.) True, those are three big states. But how about Pataki? He’d be an interesting candidate. The last time New York went Republican was in 1984, but swinging New York could be big. Concentrating on swing states, how about Taft of Ohio? Or since Missouri is reliably a swing state, Blunt? Or for an interesting option, how about Romney? Now, I’d want to put far more research into any of them before I throw someone out as a serious option, but can you really say that any of the ones I listed could credibly be connected to Bush?

29

I think you could rule Taft out.

George Allen might be a strong candidate. Though he is a senator, before that he was a pretty successful Virginia governor.

30

Yes, and I predicted on this board that I thought Bush would win and that the election would come down to one or two hotly contested swing states. I hated it, and kept trying to think of strategies for the Dems to win, but it didn’t happen.

I know what you think but there’s no way the Dems are going to succed as Republcian Lite.

31

On NPR this morning I heard a pollster saying that Taft is down to a 15 percent approval rating. Thats the third-lowest approval rating for ANY politician EVER, since they began taking approval ratings. Goodbye, Taft, and hopefully, goodbye Ohio for the GOP. Culture of corruption donchaknow.

32

Well, it’s not like I was doing any research. I just pulled up a list of the Republican governors and picked a few from states that could be important or interesting in 2008. The two that I would actually take seriously as suggestions would be Pataki and Romney.

33

Too liberal to get support in the South and mountain West, and isn’t all that warmly thought of in the Northeast for that matter.

Got his own corruption scandal burning bright, just pled Nolo to a related charge but hasn’t resigned, has in-state approval ratings down in the teens.

What would be his platform nationally? Any credentials, accomplishments?

Same comments as for Pataki, but with what can be portrayed as a mean streak. His early speeches have concentrated on what those Taxachusetts libruls have done to thwart him. A Mormon is going to have trouble getting fundie Southern votes anyway.

No, we actually agree. I wouldn’t limit the discussion to big state pols either - a governor of any-sized state can get the nomination, even from Georgia or Arkansas.

While we’re discussing respected Bush-buckers, there’s Voinovich from the Senate. He did fine as Governor, and has some votes in favor of fiscal responsibility he can play up.

34

If you predicted Bush would win then you are obviously better at predicting than I am so I’ll conceed the point provisionally and just wait to see what happens in '06. Start a thread if you are right after the election results come in and I’ll humbly come in and tell everyone you were right and I was wrong. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, I’m sure you’ll get your way so its probably a moot point. Not like the Dems (especially those on this board) are likely to listen to me after all. :wink: Personally I don’t see how capturing a larger percentage of the center while giving up some (very few…where would they go?) of the left is a losing strategy, but I’m tired of fighting that fight.

-XT

35

More than anything else, I think Dems need a CEO-type candidate whose most obvious quality is gravitas.

Think of how many basic institutions we’ve seen compromised or staggered over the past five years - CIA, Enron, UN, FEMA, the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, the military chain of command, the Vice-President’s Office, the New York Times, CBS News, and I’m sure others.

We’ve endured a dizzying rate of change in the last five years - geopolitical, religious, technological, sociological, macroeconomic change. We are desperately trying to not be overwhelmed, and we are looking for someone to explain it to us and tell us we will be OK, that we can succeed as Americans in the next 20 years, and here’s what we have to do.

Which leads me to:

2. What LHoD said in his first post on this thread.

We must define ourselves by what we are for, not what we are against. Who are we, what do we believe, how do we envision our nation. We must somehow author a narrative, but it must be something that can be described in one sentence.

Lastly:

3. Keep a tight leash on the Evil Captor types. They’re like the SA for Hitler in 1934 - necessary to have, but only unleashed in small spurts. They are needed to agitate, organize and mobilize, but we cannot let our candidate be defined or tainted by them. We have to grab a bigger bite of the center - and I think this time, the center will be far more willing to listen than they were in 2004.

Nothing personal, Evil Captor, it’s just business.

36

I like combinations of ECs and LHODs ideas. The OP is good, actually - we have to keep all these disasters visible, and keep repeating them. But we also have to say how we’d do it better - not the wonky details, but high level, high quality sound bites. (The response to attacks from the right has to be that they had eight years to do better, and didn’t).

For example:

We will rebuild our army, and we will meet any threat with the greatest force. We will not shed American blood for fantasies of changing cultures without approval from the American people after an honest discussion. No more lies to get us into war.

We vow not to do anything that will make good, moral, god-fearing Americans ashamed of our leaders. We will make it clear to all Americans and all the world that torture is no longer acceptable.

We will reverse the trend of giving the rich giant tax breaks and the majority of Americans little or nothing. We will not let Americans go hungry, or even hard working Americans not be able to afford medical care so that millionaires can have an ever bigger part of the pie.

We’ll go back to the last Democratic administration, where people were appointed based on what they knew, not who they knew. And we will make sure that all appointees can do their jobs. If they can’t, we will replace them with someone who can.

etc. Nixon did well with saying that he would fire the unpopular Johnson AG, Ramsay Clark - no matter that it was obvious that even a great AG wouldn’t stay over. I think we should also call attention to Rummy and the other chumps with low approval ratings.

37

How are Sec. Rumsfeld’s approval ratings important? He is not an elected official, and serves soley at the pleasure of the president. The President’s Cabinet is not a popularity contest, and never has been, under any President.

38

Like I said, Nixon did it successfully with Clark. You energize the base, and perhaps cast some doubts for those on the fence who might wonder why Bush kept such a person on despite failure after failure. Works with the whole competence angle quite well.

And presidents have fired cabinet secretarys who cause popularity problems (like Earl the Pearl Butts) all the time. You have to make the secretary’s unpopularity reflect on the president and other members of his party.

39

Tell the truth, Evil Captor. You’re not really a democrat, are you? I get it now. You’ve just been stringing us along so you can make fun of them like in this thread.

At least I’m guessing that’s what’s going on, because I can’t think of a worse possible strategy. (but, being a republican, I’d love to see them go with it).
Did you pay any attention at all during the debates for the last election? Lehrer asked Kerry questions like “what would you do about __?” Kerry would respond “I wouldn’t do __ like Bush has.” That’s great…but what *would * you do? Those types of responses were harder to find in any of the debates.

Bush might not be an eloquent speaker, but he did hit the nail on the head with his comment “a plan is not a litany of complaints.” If you want to win, the** last** thing you should do is repeatedly say “we can do better.” That’s nice and vague. Say instead “We can do better, by doing ___, ___, and ___” and give voters a damn clue as to what you intend to do besides “better.” I know that requires taking a stand that might not please all-comers, and current dems aren’t used to doing that, but they should try it out some time. I’m no fan of Clinton, but as I recall he actually gave some ideas of what he intended to do, and what do you know, he won twice.

40

Works for me. We can throw in something like, "We will insist that all American servicemen and their officers abide by the Geneva Convention – we will dismiss from office any individual who describes it as “quaint.”

I think if you mention “millionaires” you will run afoul of the lottery-brained types who believe they are going to be millionaires tomorrow. Just going with “the rich” or the “wealthy” is better because it describes a nebulous group whom most don’t identify with.

Exactly. I’ve no problem with general suggestions as to how the problems would be fixed. Get too specific though and the spin machine starts to whirl. As it is, it’ll start on some of the stuff you mentioned, but there shouldn’t be much traction.