Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Let's talk, fellow Democrats

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Let's talk, fellow Democrats (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/39632-lets-talk-fellow-democrats.html)

Let's talk, fellow Democrats

Alright, this is directed at my fellow Democrats, but I'm sure some independents and Republicans won't be able to resist giving their opinions as well. :D Anyway, I really enjoyed this editorial, it gave me a different perspective on our current situation. Let me know what you all think...

Quote:

A Present for Democrats, If They Can Accept It

By Bruce Reed
Sunday, December 21, 2003; Page B01

As you take pity on the less fortunate this holiday season, you might add Democratic presidential candidates to your list. Over the past month, they have watched George W. Bush bask in the reflected glory of 8.2 percent economic growth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back above 10,000, a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, a surprise Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Iraq and the capture of one of history's most wanted villains. At first glance, the nomination that 10 candidates have chased so hard in 2003 hardly seems worth having in 2004. I heard some of my fellow Democrats moaning last week that if Bush gets to campaign on peace and prosperity, what's left for us to run on? Gay marriage?

But before we Democrats curl up in the fetal position, we might consider a heretical thought: Amid all this good news for Bush and for America, there might be some good news for us, too. In fact, if Bush's uptick in December 2003 forces us to focus the election on what Democrats can do better, instead of just what Republicans have done wrong, we will have a stronger, more durable case to take to the voters in November 2004.

There's no reason Democrats should be crying in their chardonnay over Bush's run of good fortune. To begin with, much of what looks like bad news for Democrats isn't bad news at all. Take Medicare. Democrats are right to be dismayed by what's in the new Medicare law and how the Republicans ramrodded it through Congress, but wrong to worry that the president has stolen our issue. In each of the last three elections, prescription drugs was supposed to be the Democrats' silver bullet, yet we came up short every time. The new benefit doesn't even take effect until 2006, and polls show it's already unpopular. Maybe it's Republicans' turn to lose an election on that issue.

Saddam Hussein's capture is an even clearer example of how Democrats don't always know what's good for them. Former governor Howard Dean got himself in trouble for saying that Saddam's capture didn't make America safer. Not only is such a statement silly, it's against our interests. Most Americans feel safer having Saddam in custody and guess what? That's good for Democrats. Bush's reelection campaign is predicated on scaring people into thinking the world is so dangerous we need him to keep us safe. The safer Americans feel, the less they'll think they need a guy like Bush to defend them.

Yet within hours of Saddam's capture, Democrats had moved onto the next talking point -- "But what about bin Laden?" -- while privately dreading the headlines Bush will get if he tracks down Osama, too. The great irony is that every Democrat ought to be praying that our troops do find Osama bin Laden -- the sooner, the better. Our country and the world will be safer for it, and Americans will have room for other worries.

In fact, Democrats can only hope the Bush White House will make this a December to remember. Any president who runs for reelection on his record might as well hang a banner on the White House that says, "Mission Accomplished." That's bound to backfire. Voters who still have problems they want their president to solve will resent hearing about all he has done -- or worse, voters might agree and decide to give the president a gold watch, the way Britons retired Winston Churchill after he won them World War II. Crowing is a particularly dangerous blind spot for the Bush team, which seems to think hubris is the state flower in Texas.

The truth is, presidential elections are never an up-or-down vote on the incumbent's record, unless a president fails beyond hope of redemption (like Herbert Hoover) or succeeds beyond dispute (like Franklin D. Roosevelt). The record is usually mixed, and heavily discounted by Election Day. Most voters are less interested in what the incumbent has done for them lately than in what either party's candidate pledges to do for them next. When I worked on Bill Clinton's reelection in 1996, few voters knew that he had expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit or signed a law to put 100,000 extra police on the streets. They voted for Clinton because they liked the direction he wanted to take the country -- building that "Bridge to the 21st Century" -- better than Bob Dole's attempt to recapture the good old days.

I've heard Clinton say it a hundred times: "Elections are about the future, not the past." That's a battle Democrats can win, even against a popular incumbent, because Bush's best days may be behind him. This White House believes timing is everything. The trouble is, sacrificing its ability to solve tomorrow's problems to gain today's headlines will leave it worse off over the long haul. Bush paid a heavy price for three years of tax cuts and one strong quarter of economic growth that may well be forgotten next November. Now the country is too broke to afford him a second-term agenda. With record deficits instead of a surplus, he has no money to propose a new round of tax cuts or a serious plan to strengthen Social Security. Bush is like the baseball team he once owned, the Texas Rangers, who spent too much on a long-term contract for Alex Rodriguez and now can't afford the new stars they need to win. As The Post recently reported, the Bush White House is desperately looking for a cheap second-term vision, and considering ideas like a return to the Moon that will leave beleaguered middle-class voters wondering whether to laugh or cry.

The country's future, even more than its present condition, is Bush's greatest weakness and Democrats' best chance in 2004. A somewhat better economy and a safer world won't be enough for Bush if he lacks good answers to the other problems on Americans' minds.

Nothing in the past month has shored up that fundamental chink in Bush's armor: In the everyday lives of most Americans, more problems cry out for help than when Bush took office. Middle-class families face the sharpest increase in college tuition in a quarter-century. Health care costs are soaring for businesses and workers, with no end in sight. Incomes are flat and the job outlook is uncertain. Most people have bigger mortgages and smaller nest eggs. Even seniors, supposed beneficiaries of the Medicare bill, are more worried about how they will pay for prescription drugs than they were three years ago. Democrats have better answers than Bush -- or should be embarrassed if they don't -- to all those questions. Of course, none of these problems will elect a Democrat until we make solving them our central mission in 2004. But don't count on it. The reason some Democrats are moping so much about Bush's good news is that it blunts their whole strategy of turning 2004 into an unpopularity contest and hoping events go from bad to worse.

When will we ever learn? Republicans at least have an excuse for not running on a coherent domestic vision: They don't really believe the purpose of government is to solve problems. Democrats have no such excuse. Solving problems is our reason for existence. It's what we do.

Bush's good month should be a slap across the party's face to make us remember why we became Democrats in the first place. It wasn't to feed off Republicans' troubles or hope for the worst for America. Most of us chose the Democratic Party because we wanted to roll up our sleeves and get to work trying to give every American the opportunity to build a better life. Unless we campaign for our best ideas now, we'll never find our way back to power, and we wouldn't do the country much good even if we got there.

If Democrats sit around pining for bad things to happen, they will -- to us. So cheer up, Democrats! The bad news is, thanks to George W. Bush, America still has plenty of problems. The good news is, the country is ready to get behind a political party that spends its time worrying how to solve them.

Author's e-mail:breed@dlcppi.org

Bruce Reed is president of the Democratic Leadership Council and editor of its magazine, Blueprint. He worked on domestic policy for President Bill Clinton.

This really ought to do what you're wanting - play the Clinton card! He is such a loved and respected politician I'm really sure he can help bail out their floundering efforts!!!

Dean, Kerry Want Clinton to Broker Mideast Peace

Friday, December 19, 2003
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106158,00.html
WASHINGTON — Bill Clinton could pose a striking — and promising — contrast to President Bush's efforts if he accepts the mission proposed by two would-be Democratic presidents to pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, say some foreign policy analysts.

Those supporters add that considering the former president for the job helps Democrats John Kerry and Howard Dean send the right message about their visions for peace in the Middle East.

"Clinton would be a formidable negotiator. He has plausibility with both sides in the region, he knows the players and he knows the issues, probably better than any president — probably better than this president," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic think tank built around Clinton's political philosophies. "It would be hard to pick a better representative of American interests."

Quote:

When will we ever learn? Republicans at least have an excuse for not running on a coherent domestic vision: They don't really believe the purpose of government is to solve problems. Democrats have no such excuse. Solving problems is our reason for existence. It's what we do.

Solving, causing, its all good. :)

You are right I couldn't resist because this piece is a pathetic cry for help. I give him credit for figuring out what Rush Limbaugh has said about the democrats for the last 3 years, which is they are running on hate and offer no vision of the future, maybe this guy is a closet ditto head (:)). But perhaps what I find disturbing is this idea that party comes before country. Bush is doing well, therefore we need another way to beat him. Christ if he is doing well, leave him in place.

You have to look at the 2004 race in terms of electoral allocation to get a clear picture.

Presently, Bush's approval ratings are between 50-60 percent, and, as is usual, his re-elects are lower. Now, obviously the landscape could be vastly different come November, but if the Iraqi resistance continues at its current pace, given demographic trends over the past four years, the election should be somewhat of a rehash of 2000.

Obviously, the advantage of incumbency now belongs to the GOP, but it should still be incredibly close. Al Gore ran a pretty uninspiring (to democrats + swing voters) campaign in 2000. If someone in the Dean mold could employ more effective rhetoric, he could appeal to a greater cross section of those groups.

But Dean's electibility is a topic for another thread. What's at issue here is the fact that, with only I believe 9 electoral votes (based on 2000) changing on account of the census, a Democrat winning Al Gore's states + one or two others would win.

And Al Gore did horribly in the South (he lost his home state) perhaps due to his inept campaign, something a Clark or Edwards on the ticket could remedy.

That said, Bush has the bully pulpit and he will be able to define the debate. It all comes down to (in large part) who has the more effective economic stump speech - no matter how well the economy performs, deficits and massive debt will remain for the foreseeable future. If the Democrat can use these unfortunate facts effectively, he's got a shot.

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesS
And Al Gore did horribly in the South (he lost his home state) perhaps due to his inept campaign, something a Clark or Edwards on the ticket could remedy.

Yes, that's what we need, a candidate with a personality! I really think that's why Gore lost. While some accuse Bush of being "stupid" and "uneducated," the fact is that showing a couple of flaws like fumbling words or mispronouncing "nuclear" helps to put him more in touch with the common man. Gore was too uptight. If he had taken the stick out of his ass, he might have swung enough people to his side to make the Florida incident irrelevant, or less damaging.

An interesting statistic:

The Republican Party hasn't won a plurality of the vote for President since 1988. That's quite a long time in politics. I think the outlook starts looking even better when you consider the 3 million Nader voters in 2000. He'll be making an announcement in the next month whether he's running or not, but even if he does, I highly doubt he is going to be able to generate the amount of support he did last term.

Actually, Nader has decided not to run if Dean runs. Which is a huge boon to Dean if he does get the nomination.

Think of where democrats will be in many swing states with that extra 3% of to vote to count on.

I saw this in the Post this weekend. I think it's a well written article, and makes some good points. I would like to see the Democratic Party pull together more and run on substantive issues. American politics was never intended to be a one-party system.

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Actually, Nader has decided not to run if Dean runs. Which is a huge boon to Dean if he does get the nomination.

Think of where democrats will be in many swing states with that extra 3% of to vote to count on.

Do you mean if Dean wins the nomination, Nader won't run? I haven't seen any articles about it, just a quick blurb on cnn this weekend saying nader will decide sometime in january...

Al Hunt's Campaign Journal:

Quote:

Nader the Spoiler? Unlikely If Dean Wins the Nomination
For all the gloominess Democrats may harbor about Howard Dean's chances in the general election, here's a bit of good news: Ralph Nader, whose third-party candidacy cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000, seems unlikely to mount a run against the former Vermont governor.

Mr. Nader says he will decide in the next few weeks whether to run. But in the meantime, his praise of Mr. Dean undercuts any rationale for another independent candidacy.

"Reading his position papers sounds eerily similar to what we've been saying," the longtime consumer advocate notes in an interview with the Online Journal this week. "He speaks clearly ... not in Senate-ese ... and projects vigor. We need a macho Democrat." The front-running Democratic candidate, Mr. Nader says, has an impressive "rope-a-dope ability."

There are caveats. "Dean's record as governor is nothing to shout about," Mr. Nader says, noting that his preference would be Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

But Mr. Nader waxes on about how preferable Mr. Dean is to President Bush. In 2000 the consumer advocate suggested there was little difference between candidates Al Gore and Mr. Bush.

"Unlike most of the other candidates," Mr. Nader says, the Vermont governor "is not compromised by votes for the Patriot Act or for the Iraqi war resolution."

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Al Hunt's Campaign Journal:

I like how things seem to be shaping up. Even if Dems don't win in 2004, the liberal faction may be able to reshape the platform if Dean garners enough excitement and support.

While I understand he will have to return more to the center of the platform, at least he will have given legitimacy to many of the more left's issues. Not only that, but I think that our party has been slipping due to the proliferation of Republican-lite candidates rather than the their inability to speak to some ephemereal indecisive population.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Do you mean if Dean wins the nomination, Nader won't run? I haven't seen any articles about it, just a quick blurb on cnn this weekend saying nader will decide sometime in january...

Now you know that Gore "might" have won if Nader hadn't pulled away votes away from him.
The vote was that close.
Nader and the green party screwed themselves over in the long run.
(at least as far as their viewpoint is concerned)

The Dems need a clear, strong theme
The need a "face"
The need to make GW and his administration into the bad guy,
despite any news on the war or the economy.

And GW needs to stick his foot in it more often.
That's the only way they will win.

But you never know, a year is a long time in politics.
It's all about, "what have you done for me lately?"

Democrats have been running around like Chickens without heads for the past 3 years. I only hope that they get their shit together this year, or it's 4 more years of Dubya, and a country of broke, pissed off people

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue49
The Dems need a clear, strong theme
The need a "face"
The need to make GW and his administration into the bad guy,
despite any news on the war or the economy.

So why is having a democrat in office so important if you need to lie to make Bush a bad guy? They need to make Bush the "bad guy" despite the news on the war or the economy? So what you are saying is this: even though things are good, we have to make up stuff so we get our guy in office, even if its not best for america.

Is this what the Democrates have to offer?

I will pass.

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
Democrats have been running around like Chickens without heads for the past 3 years. I only hope that they get their shit together this year, or it's 4 more years of Dubya, and a country of broke, pissed off people

Why broke? Isnt eight quaters of ecomomic growth, at phenominal rates goint to make well off, non pissed people?

<blockquote>"Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent wants to lead this country into the 20th century. He says he'll leave no child behind! I, on the otherhand, believe that most of you can count, and realize we're in a new century, where we need new solutions, not some cowboys and Indians swagger. John Wayne is dead! God rest his soul. What do we need a bad impression of him for?

"My opponent tarred one of my colleagues with a broad brush of dishonesty, saying he claimed to have 'created the internet'. I'll tell you who created the internet: people who weren't afraid to invest in the future of this country! Democrats! Sure, we cost a little more, but we're worth it!

"And, really, do we actually cost any more? The economy is sure going gangbusters right now, but are you better off than you were four years ago? I asked a waiter the other day what he thought about the 150,000 jobs that this economy created last month. He thought they were great! He had three of them. Folks, we don't cost you any more. We are experiencing the bugs bunny effect right now, where we ran out of ladder $500 billion dollars ago, and yet we rise. I watched my cartoons. I know what happens after that. We are going to make an America shaped hole in the groud unless we take back those handouts to the super rich and start using them to make the ladder longer."</blockquote>
OK, I've run down. And that wasn't really what you were talking about anyway. Absolutely we need a candidate with a face and a personality. That means Dean or Sharpton or Edwards, and maybe Clark. Absolutely we need to start looking ahead to the future and getting folks to start seeing the Shrub as the Past (though I would argue that it ould never hurt to let people know just what a lousy human being he is and what a wretched thing this administration has been for the country.)

We need to talk about a Prescription Drug plan that works. We need to lay out a plan to make sure that, when we make sure no child is left behind, the damn schoolhouse doesn't fall down behind them. We need to remind people that industrial pollution is just murder in slow motion, and have an idea to do something about it. We need to talk about raising the standard of living for the bottom 99% of Americans who really only got a loan from Bush. We need to talk about how not to live in fear, but how to live secure in a world community. School costs more. College costs more. Energy, water, the drugs that keep our seniors healthy all cost more. It's still the economy, and he's still stupid!

Guess I hadn't run down all the way.