arguing about syntax when there's a war on... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030102193_2.html -- Democrats Struggle To Seize Opportunity Amid GOP Troubles, No Unified Message By Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own. Democratic leaders had set a goal of issuing their legislative manifesto by November 2005 to give voters a full year to digest their proposals. But some Democrats protested that the release date was too early, so they put it off until January. The new date slipped twice again, and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) says the document will be unveiled in "a matter of weeks." Some Democrats fear that the hesitant handling is symbolic of larger problems facing the party in trying to seize control of the House and Senate after more than a decade of almost unbroken minority status. Lawmakers and strategists have complained about erratic or uncertain leadership and repeated delays in resolving important issues. The conflict goes well beyond Capitol Hill. The failure of congressional leaders to deliver a clear message has left some Democratic governors deeply frustrated and at odds with Washington Democrats over strategy. Party leaders, for example, have yet to decide whether Democrats should focus on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush and the Republicans, by jumping on debacles such as the administration's handling of the Dubai port deal -- or stress their own priorities and values. There is no agreement on whether to try to nationalize the congressional campaign with a blueprint or "contract" with voters, as the Republicans did successfully in 1994, or to keep the races more local in tone. And the party is still divided over the war in Iraq: Some Democrats, including Pelosi, call for a phased withdrawal; many others back a longer-term military and economic commitment. "It could be a great year for Democrats," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), but the party must present a more moderate face and distinguish itself more clearly from the GOP on issues such as ethics. "The comment I hear is 'I'd really like to vote for you guys, but I can't stand the folks I see on TV,' " Cooper said in a telephone interview from Nashville. On issues such as explaining that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's work "was a 110 percent Republican operation," Cooper said, "we're not making nearly as much headway as we should." Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a corruption scandal. The Democratic leaders in Congress -- Pelosi and Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) -- are the party's chief strategists and architects of the agenda, which they view as a way to market party ideas on energy, health care, education and other issues. They have held countless meetings to construct the right list, consulting with governors, mayors and just about every Democratic adviser in town. "By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand," Reid said. But many in the party have their doubts. On Feb. 27, Reid and Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association. At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states? According to multiple accounts from those in the room, Reid said they had narrowed the list to six and proceeded to talk about them. Pelosi then offered her six -- not all the same as Reid's. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said later: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' " Others, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) -- who head the Senate and House campaign efforts -- believe the November election will turn mainly on how voters view Republicans. Schumer is leading the Democratic attack on the port deal, excoriating the administration for jeopardizing national security -- a realm in which Republicans have held the advantage with voters. He and Emanuel have sought to delay the agenda's release to allow Democratic attacks to hold the stage with minimum distraction. "When you're in the opposition, you both propose and oppose," Emanuel said. "But fundamentally, this is going to be a referendum on [Republican] stewardship." Also dividing Democratic strategists is the question of what lessons to take from the Republican landslide of 1994, when the GOP won the Senate and picked up 54 House seats, wiping out 40 years of Democratic rule. Some Democrats associate that breakthrough with the House Republicans' "Contract With America," a list of proposals on policy and government. "We should take a page from their book" and have "an overarching theme" similar to the 1994 contract, said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.). Many of his colleagues agree, but not Reid. "We're not going to do a 'Contract With America,' " Reid said in an interview. He noted that the GOP document received scant attention when it was presented a few weeks before the 1994 election, and political historians say it played a minor role in the outcome. "There's a great mythology about the contract," Reid said. Even the party's five-word 2006 motto has preoccupied congressional Democrats for months. "We had meetings where senators offered suggestions," Reid said. "We had focus groups. We worked hard on that. . . . It's a long, slow, arduous process." That slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect. Governors privately scoff at the slogan. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. "They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That's all good," said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. "The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we're against but what we're for. That's the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level." Reid spokesman Jim Manley said congressional Democrats have spent the past year redefining the debates over terrorism and Iraq and have prepared the ground for a shift to a more positive message that will focus on energy, health care and homeland security, all areas in which the governors would concur, he predicted. "We've had an unprecedented level of cooperation," he said. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly added: "At the end of the day, I think everyone will be on board." Perhaps the Democrats' greatest dilemma is how to respond to the Iraq war. It looms as the biggest question mark over Bush's administration and the Republican lawmakers who have backed him on the conflict almost without question. Congressional Democrats have been split over the war since 2002, when many voted to authorize military action. The ground shifted last November when Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), a leading Democratic voice on military matters, called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn as soon as possible. Two weeks later, Pelosi endorsed his stance. Although Pelosi said she was not speaking for her caucus, some colleagues complained that she was handing Republicans a gift by enabling them to tag Democrats as soft on terrorism and forcing Democratic candidates to explain whether they agreed with their House leader. There is little question that the political landscape looks promising for Democrats. A Feb. 9 poll by the Pew Research Center found that Democrats lead Republicans 50 to 41 percent in a generic ballot. But congressional Democrats have some key deficiencies. For instance, they lack the hard-charging, charismatic figurehead that Gingrich represented for the House GOP in 1994. But the Democrats have an abundance of presidential hopefuls, and their agendas sometimes differ from those of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and Emanuel. For instance, Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) tried to filibuster the renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a move opposed by most of his Senate colleagues, including Reid. Kerry (Mass.) led an unsuccessful filibuster attempt against Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. The best-known Democrat is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), whose plans for a 2008 presidential bid leave many of her colleagues wary of how her famous but divisive presence might affect them. "There are lots of skeptics," Schumer conceded. But the polls look better and better, he stressed. "There may be some inside-the-Beltway babble, but it's not affecting the voters," said Schumer, who wants the agenda delayed again -- until summer.
There's no hurry on getting the platform out. The series of monumnetal goof-ups by the administration is doing more to help the dems cause than any platform. What good is a platform anyway (I seem to remember something about "I'm a uniter not a divider", "compassionate conservatism" and "no nation building").
No There's been enough of that and America has the message that Bush is a failure. It's time to say something! It's time to put up or shut up. Democrats need to start setting the agenda. IMHO
People like to hear proposed solutions as opposed to just criticism. You know, they're crazy like that.
they could do both! but you're right, it's stand to actually stand for something, other than, you know, "bush sucks." the problem is, at least from what i've seen, that's pretty much all ya'll've got.
The Dems are such a wreck; Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are the party's leaders ~ that is pathetic. Give the country more of Joe Biden.
I honestly think the best thing for Democrats (if they hope to retake the White House in 2008) is to lose the next round of midterm elections and keep basically the same makeup. If they take over a majority, they'll be forced to make things happen in 2 years against the Bush White House. They wouldn't be able to get anything done and their presidential hopeful would pay for it. Just my opinion, of course.
All we've got? See an eye specialist!! Come on, basso. It not about, "Bush sucks," it's about Bush's record, corruption in his party, as well as the White House (in my opinion), a failed war, a failed foreign policy, a failed economic policy, government spending up 40% since 2001, record budget deficits, record trade deficits. basso, it's about Bush's failed record as President. The country has, finally, wised up to the act Bush and Rove have been putting on for the American people. Fear is not going to win for the GOP this time around. That dog don't hunt. The Democrats, my party, certainly need to come out with a strong message, but they need something more important than that... they need strong, new leadership. I think we will have that in '08. It all starts this November, when your President's party is going to take a hammering. Keep D&D Civil.
Of course when Murtha actually offered a proposed solution the Republicans turned it into a joke. Meanwhile in Iraq we have no plan, no proposed solution, just a mess that Bush got us into, and has no idea how to get us out of. Kerry had a whol book that was solution when he ran. He didn't articulate it well on the campaign trail, and his solutions were largely ignored. Hillary has no solutions, on equivocating. Howard Dean was a candidate with solutions and action. He was also awkward and that is more important to people so he was out.
WASHINGTON, DC—In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction. "We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul." "We can lose this," Reid added. "All it takes is a little lack of backbone." Despite plummeting poll numbers for the G.O.P nationwide and an upcoming election in which all House seats and 33 Senate seats are up for contention, Democrats pledged to maintain their party's sheepish resignation. "In times like these, when the American public is palpably dismayed with the political status quo, it is crucial that Democrats remain unfocused and defer to the larger, smarter, and better-equipped Republican machine," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said. "If we play our cards right, we will be intimidated to the point of total paralysis." Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) cited the Bush Administration's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina as a model for Democrats. "Grandmothers drowning in nursing homes, families losing everything, communities torn apart—and the ruling party just sat and watched," Lieberman said. "I'm here to promise that we Democrats will find a way to let you down just like that." According to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Democrats are not willing to sacrifice their core values—indecision, incoherence, and disorganization—for the sake of short-term electoral gain. "Don't lose faithlessness, Democrats," Kennedy said. "The next election is ours to lose. To those who say we can't, I say: Remember Michael Dukakis. Remember Al Gore. Remember John Kerry." Kennedy said that, even if the Democrats were to regain the upper hand in the midterm elections, they would still need to agree on a platform and chart a legislative agenda—an obstacle he called "insurmountable." "Universal health care, the war in Iraq, civil liberties, a living wage, gun control—we're not even close to a consensus within our own ranks," Kennedy said. "And even if we were, we wouldn't know how to implement that consensus." "Some rising stars with leadership potential like [Sen. Barack] Obama (D-IL) and [New York State Attorney General Eliot] Spitzer have emerged, but don't worry: We've still got some infight left in us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said. "Over the last decade, we've found a reliably losing formula, and we're sticking with it." Dean reminded Democratic candidates to "stay on our unclear message, maintain a defensive, reactive posture, and keep an elitist distance from voters." Political consultant and Democratic operative James Carville said that, if properly disseminated, the message of hopelessness could be the Democrats' most effective in more than a decade. "For the first time in a long time, we're really connecting with the American people, who are also feeling hopeless," Carville said. "If we can harness that and run on it in '06, I believe we can finish a strong second." The link.
So the fact that there is a war going on means everyone should just curtail any possible disagreements they might have with the current administration, even on issues that have nothing to do with the war?
Interventionist foreign policy, open borders, & massive government spending to name a few. It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
RNC front page: Latest Headlines 03.08.06 - In Case You Missed It: The Three Stooges Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean. From Slate By Jacob Weisberg Op-Ed March 8, 2006 … Since assuming their positions, [Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean] have shown themselves to be somewhere between useless and disastrous as party leaders. Individually, they lack substance and policy smarts (Pelosi); coherence and force (Reid); and steadiness and mainstream appeal (Dean). Collectively, they convey an image of liberal elitism, disarray, and crabbiness. 03.08.06 - Pelosi's PATRIOT Politics House Minority Leader Joins Other Dem Leaders In Attempt To Kill The PATRIOT Act (Talk about the votes against it without discussing it, when they do "discuss" the point ot flowery language used by Department Of Justice Website www.lifeandliberty.gov) 03.07.06 - Remarks By The President And Mrs. Bush For Women's History Month And Celebration Of International Women's Day Fluff piece 03.07.06 - Dem Agenda: Disagree And Delay After Months Of Rehearsals And Internal Debate, "The Party Of No" Still Has No 2006 Agenda Now that's leadership!
And what's wrong with "Bush sucks"? He created all of his problems, so why is it the Democrats' job to fix them? When Bush invades Iraq and ****s it up, the impetus should be on him to fix the country, not on his critics.
News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. That is enough. Corruption and massive screwups in response to the major issues. So what does the GOP do? They revert to well worn generic attacks on the Dems for weakness, or lack of uniformity-- like being uniformly wrong is so great with the GOP! ) Will this work? We see it working with dittos like Basso. I know he allegedly was not one before 9/11 scared him witless.
people say the dems don't stand for something, but dean stood for something at least, so don't be too hard on him. he's one democrat with a spine.
well, i know "We Don't Suck" works for some people, i just question it's effectiveness as a political slogan.
