MyDD :: Against 'Moderation'--Marketing vs Positions

Against 'Moderation'--Marketing vs Positions

by Paul Rosenberg, Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 11:52:45 PM EST

We've just been subjected to another wave of so-called "moderate" chest-beating here at MyDD. And seeking relief, I found myself wandering the corridors, when what did I spy but this totally brilliant diary at Corrente: "Right Wing Target Marketing". This is how they win elections, folks, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with our "taking positions that are too liberal" for the voters in East Runamuck, Georgia.

Go read it NOW! We'll talk below the fold.

Okay, now, is there really any question that all this foolishness about the need for "moderate" policy positions is pure hokum? It's not that I'm against moderate policy positions on principle. It's that the people pushing "moderate" policy positions are inevitably pushing selling out some key part of the Democratic Party base. And that's what's really criminal.

Taking a pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts approach like Montana's Governor Schweitzer is not what I'm talking about. In fact, what he's doing is precisely the opposite--using problem-solving to bring folks together and create new configurations for the Democratic base in Montana. That's sheer genius in my book & I'm behind it 100%.

But what do we do about this target marketing approach that shystee has so brilliantly laid out?

I don't have a silver bullet answer. I'm not a silver bullet kind of guy. I think that virtually every problem we face requires a multifacted approach, and this is no exception.

But the beginning of wisdom is to realize what not to do. You know the old story about the guy looking for his keys under the street lamp, because the light was so much better there? Or the US attacking Iraq, because there better targets to blow up there? Well, the beginning of wisdom is to stop doing that.

And that means stop agonizing over all these foolish issue arguments, when that's not what's going to reach these people in the first place.

Now, I'm not saying that issues aren't important. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about developing messages that resonate. But just look at how the GOP approach is set up to sell contradictory messages to different audiences that palpably despise one another.

Surely that tells us that we ought to be thinking about our messages in contrast to theirs, rather than thinking about them in a bubble, where we only compare different alternatives to each other. And what, exactly are their messages?

IMHO, two things from shystee's post are paramount:

Target Marketing allows marketers to speak to an audience "like they know them", like they're "one of them".

And:

Political consultant Frank Luntz has built his career on a simple idea: It doesn't matter what you want to tell the public -- it's about what they want to hear.

Put them both together and you have: Speak to them like we're "one of them" and tell them what they want to hear: that they are the best sorts of people, that government should work for them, and that by God, we'll make damn sure that it does!

Can we do that? I think we can.

I think there's a whole lot of work to be done in the building infrastructure department, and all that. I think we can be a whole lot more awesome in 10 years than we will be in six months.

But I think we can make enormous strides in a very short time, if we just stop looking for our keys where the light is good.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 76 Comments :: Post a Comment

Yeah, they market (none / 0)

Political consultant Frank Luntz has built his career on a simple idea: It doesn't matter what you want to tell the public -- it's about what they want to hear.

It's more complicated than that.

After acquisition of power and "comforting the comfortable", they don't have much. Their basic agenda in achieving Grover Norquist's Nirvana is at odds with the views of most of the public. They test ways to resolve that conflict, then they market it.

They work very hard to keep anyone from pulling back the curtain:

1997

...Frank Luntz, upon whose surveys the Republicans based their ``Contract with America'' in 1994, was censured by his peers last month. The American Association of Public Opinion Research criticized Luntz for failing to make public the wording of his questions and other information, which it regards as a violation of polling ethics.

Luntz and the Republicans in Congress claimed that each of the 10 Contract items had at least 60 percent public support. That may have been so, but because the phrasing of questions can affect the response and methodology can alter the results, pollsters who publicize their findings are expected to provide basic information so that others can make their own judgments.

Luntz, who is not a member of the AAPOR, said that his first obligation was to his client, and that he was merely abiding by their wishes....

There are clues to their market segmentation approach.

Years ago I read an experimental study (not a survey) on partisan voting behavior (I keep rummaging around for it, to no avail). The gist of it was that negative campaigning works for republicans because it polarizes the electorate, it turns out their partisans in stronger numbers, and it suppresses the turnout of so-called independents (who, based on issues would have an affinity for our party). If you villify the Democratic party, those independents aren't going to vote for its candidates, are they?

They have unlimited resources. Though, if marketing were everything they'd blow us out all of the time, wouldn't they? And Ishthar (1987) would have been a Hollywood blockbuster.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:31:22 AM EST

Re: Yeah, they market (3.00 / 1)

(1) Not sure what your point about Luntz is, but it's always good to be reminded of this little episode. They have contempt for every professional code under the sun. Why should public opinion research be any different?

(2) Negative campaigning also works in two other ways: (A) It depress participation by potential progressive voters who aren't engaged in the political process--such as young people, low-income and naturalized citizens. They are more succeptible precisely because they have less developed networks of communication based on actors they trust which can counter the effects. (B) It distracts the conservative base from the fact that the folks they are voting for don't really represent them--witness PIPA's findings on how misinformed Bush voters were about his foreign policy positions, not just about WMDs and 9/11.

(3) Sure marketing isn't everything. But it's huge. Without it, we'd blow them out every time.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, they market (none / 0)

...Not sure what your point about Luntz is, but it's always good to be reminded of this little episode. They have contempt for every professional code under the sun. Why should public opinion research be any different?...

The "Contract on America" and dubya's claim to an "overwhelming" mandate after the 2004 election (echoed by his sychophants and media enablers) are just two examples of their techniques in manufacturing artificial consent - this with no basis in reality. They just create this stuff out of whole cloth and their Mighty Wurlitzer distributes it to the masses.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:34:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, Got It! (none / 0)

But, then, the better point to make would be that very few voters knew what was in the Contract. (The LA Times had the best polling on this.)

It was marketed to target the punditocracy, rather than the populace at large. Pretty interesting choice for a supposedly populist document, don'tcha think?

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:44:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, Got It! (none / 0)

...Consider the following, drawn from an almost endless number of examples that political scientists have turned up over the years: One month after the Republican revolution in 1994, in which conservatives, led by Newt Gingrich, finally took control of the House of Representatives, 57 percent of the electorate did not know who Gingrich was. Despite massive coverage in every newspaper in the country, and on every news program, the vast majority had never heard of the Contract with America....

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2 different actors in your analysis (none / 0)

Your point about marketing and moderation is a good one, but I found it striking that you chart presents media outlets while you analysis deals with the 2 major parties, for the most part. I think you pointed up a fundamental problem on our side, the lack of a media/messaging infrastructure. Democratic candidates, especially presidental candidates, start with a big disadvantage because the other side has its media infrastructure and celebrity mercenaries (O'Reilly, Limbaugh etc.) in place.

Even if Democrats start winning more and more elections, the imbalance in the media will shift the political debate to the right. (Think health care, circa 1994). Democrats (of the left if you prefer) need media muscle in addition to strong candidates.

by KDMfromPhila on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:43:23 AM EST

I Agree 100% Re Longterm Insfrastructure Building (none / 0)

I just don't want people taking the attitude that there's nothing we can do right now, absent that.

The pressure we are putting on folks like the Washington Post and the NY Times is important, too.

We have to get more sophisticated in our analysis in order to get more sophisticated in our actions.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:55:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The West has it going on (none / 0)

Don't forget about our friends at Frontier Pac. They haven't visited us in a while, but as far as I can tell, they are on exactly the same page Schweitzer is:

using problem-solving to bring folks together and create new configurations for the Democratic base in Montana. That's sheer genius in my book & I'm behind it 100%.

I love their Red Meat issues section:

Red-Meat Issues

* Energy Independence
* Abortion: Ideology or Results?
* Wal Mart and The Living Wage
* Civil Liberties and the Individual

And on Energy Independence:

The Republicans Won't Set a Sound Energy Policy...

And we're going to elect candidates who will make that stop. There's a reason why consumers see gas and utility prices go up year after year, while energy companies post record profits. It's the same reason why we let Saudi oil kingpins influence our foreign policy, while at the same time looking for ways to drill in our own wildlife preserves. The same reason we see market-rigging like the Enron scandal followed up by additonal deregulation.

... and the Oil Companies Own the Republicans.

I certainly hope that the DNC, DSCC and DCCC can all agree and help Frontier Pac fill up this page Candidates (Endorsed) with a full slate of fighting Democrats who stand up to the RWNM, instead of pandering to it.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:20:50 AM EST

Democrats (none / 0)

The Republicans are better at marketing because they are better able to emotionally distance themselves from the methods they use. They don't care how they win elections. And I don't mean that in the typical "they'll cheat and steal to win" way. I mean that they don't feel embarassed to advance phony arguments if it will achieve the objective.

Too many Democrats simply cannot let go emotionally. They believe they are right on an issue and they refuse to concede a point -- even if it will achieve their ostensible political objective.

Take Iraq, for instance. How many people who were opposed to invading Iraq refuse to attack Bush on his post-invasion planning and execution because they believe it would undermine their argument that the war was wrong in the first place? They would rather have troops stay in Iraq than have them pull out for the wrong reason.

What would the Republicans do? They would decide that withdrawal is the goal. Then they would put their personal feelings aside and send out targeted messages. To those who opposed the war from the beginning, they would argue it was illegal and withdrawal was morally necessary. To those who thought it was moral but poorly conducted, they would argue that Bush blew it. To those who believe that the war can still be won, they would argue that Murtha's plan is not to concede and leave, but to win through non-military means, supported by a more efficient military presence.

Which leads to the point that a lot of Democrats idiotically reject marketing tactics simply because the Republicans use them. Republicans use them because they work. If Democrats want to win, they must learn to use the tools. There is nothing evil about targeted messaging.

by space on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:27:37 AM EST

True, True... (3.00 / 2)

Just to reiterate--the GOP's ruthlessness is not an insurmountable obstacle.

Lakoff, for example, points to how we can frame our policies in terms of values and connect with large majorities of voters. So we don't have to match them in the cynical detachment department. (A point that Booman, for example, just can't get through his thick skull, which is why I haven't even visited Booman Tribune in a month or more.)

This is the insurmountable obstacle:

We don't think we have to compromise our values to target and modulate our message. There's a big difference between strategic compromise and compromising your values. We should be very willing to make strategic compromises that are actually effective. Just as we should be totally unwilling to make ones that aren't. (That's the friggin' meaning of "strategic," remember?)

Moral compromises are a totally different thing. Which is why Gary, for example, is so adamant in smacking down the parade of "moderate" trolls who keep insisting on the need to sell out our principles.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Adamant is good (none / 0)

I think I prefer "boldly shrill."

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:03:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, True... (none / 0)

This may be an overly reductive way to reduce your diary into a one-sentence soundbite, but what I think I'm hearing from you is that we need to find a way to frame our messages so that they sound "moderate" (which is where the Lakoff comes in), while at the same time remaining truer than ever to our liberal convictions. We need to engage in the same (let's call it) "stealth liberalism" as the "stealth conservatism" of the Luntz-led GOP marketing machine. (Not that there's anything truly "conservative" about the GOP any more, who've just become wastrels on the economic front and religious activists on the social front, but that's another topic).

Or maybe not that our messages need to be "moderate" per se, which kind of implies a squishy middle-of-the-road Liebermanness, but framed our liberal goals in more of a robust "maverick," "straight-talk," "common-sense" way. That's what people respond to. It's why a lot of people on the left like or tolerate the very conservative John McCain, and conversely unrepentant liberals like Feingold and Sanders and Schweitzer get a lot of crossover GOP voters... because they've successfully framed themselves that way.

So if we frame various liberal projects that way, they'll take off. People are at least somewhat rational... they understand concepts like staying within a budget, planning for the future, the value of buying instead renting, the advantages of paying more up-front to save money in the long-term... essentially the importance of being the ant and not the grasshopper (which, come to think of it, is totally what the GOP has become). I think people think of those as fundamentally "moderate," if not "conservative," values. Take that frame, claim the optimistic high ground, wrap it up with a lot of flag imagery and smiling children, and we're all set to start selling a domestic policy built around universal health care, energy independence, rebuilding our infrastructure, and deficit reduction.

by Crazy Vaclav on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sensible, Not Moderate (none / 0)

I'd agree pretty much, except I'd use the term "sensible" instead of moderate.

And I don't see anything stealthy about it. Quite the opposite. By trying to react to conservative attacks, or anticipate them, or innoculate ourselves against them, we've gotten less and less clear about what we believe and why. It's precisely by becoming clearer, pro-active and more direct about it that we'll win people over. This is how Bernie Sanders--a self-described socialist--manages to win even in the red portions of Vermont.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sensible (none / 0)

Another very good word. Bernie Sanders is very sensible. Howard Dean is very sensible. That is why they give Hannity and Limbaugh conniption fits. They are far too sensible, which wrongnuts interpret as being too liberal.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, For Once They're Right! (none / 0)

Sensible=liberal turns out to be true in a large number of cases. Once you stop stovepipping disinformation, it becomes painfully obvious.

Well, painfully for them that is.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One other thing... (none / 0)

Shystee wrote: Target audiences are not supposed to be aware of the messaging that targets groups on the opposite extreme of the Socio-Economic spectrum. The only problem with the Robertson/Chavez incident was that this compartmentalization was momentarily broken.

This is exactly right. Which means that the obvious (at least to me) way to destroy the effectiveness of the targeted messenging is to force each segment to recognize other segments and either approve or disapprove of the others.

Once again, Republicans understand this. They understand that "the Left", if defined as everyone from Joe Lieberman to the Green Party, is larger than they are. Therefore they cannot allow the Democrats to use targeted messaging to capture this entire market.

So, what do they do? Call out Michael Moore. Force Democrats to either support him (and risk offending the so-called moderates) or distance themselves from him (and appear cowardly and alienating fringe constituents).

For some reason that utterly escapes me, Democrats are deathly afraid of this tactic ("But Republicans will say...") and yet are completely inept at employing it themselves.

If you look at Shystee's chart, you will see that Limbaugh's reach extends from the uneducated hicks, who love gutter attacks, up into the more sophisticated audiences (I would argue that he reaches nearly as high as Faux News). But why do Democrats tolerate this?

When Limbaugh uses gutter attacks (like calling N.O. mayor Ray Nagin "Ray Nay-gar"). You should hear outrage beyond the blogosphere. The "Limbaugh Wing" of the Republican Party should be every bit as effective an insult as the "Michael Moore Wing" has become. Make Dick Cheney decide between slumming with wackos or pissing off the blue-collar bigots.

Instead, Democrats let opportunities to call out the nutcases wither on the vine. They allow Republicans to maintain the fiction that one hand has no idea what the other is doing.

by space on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:54:48 AM EST

Absolutely! (none / 0)

I didn't want to cannablize shystee's whole post, otherwise I would have written about this at length. but I'm very glad you brought it up for discussion.

We should be doing this every day--forcing the GOP (especially the would-be-warm-and-fuzzy John McCain and those similarly inclined) to either condemn or defend the substantial portion of wignut activity that keeps their base stoked up.

See, for example, the ongoing coverage of rightwing terrorism, eliminationist rhetoric, and the mainstreaming of extremist memes at Orcinus. Every member of the DNC should be checking Orcinus on a daily basis, looking for things to pounce on.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem with many "moderates" (3.00 / 3)

again, isn't their policy positions. It is their temptation to deny the Michael Moore's in their own party, on their own side.

It is their habit of clarifying once again their I'm-not-a-liberal credentials, that leads to so much of the criticism directed their way. Most liberals don't care if moderates are in agreement with them on everything, but when they seem to be cooperating with the Republican mandate to divide and conquer themselves, it's a very different matter.

Most moderates would be shocked at the support they would receive from liberals if they would simply quit cooperating with conservative demands to condemn anyone to their left.

This is not to call for an end to criticism of liberals by moderates, it's to say, pay attention to where you get your talking points and don't repeat those coming from the VRWC.

This administration sucks.

by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great, But (3.00 / 0)

I gave a "3," but I have one big point of disagreement:

This is not to call for an end to criticism of liberals by moderates,

Well, it should be. Criticize policies. Don't criticize liberals.

I can't emphasize this too often: when you look at people's attitudes on a wide range of issues, there is tremendous overlap between liberals and moderates--even between liberals and conservtives. The use of political labels is almost always a form of obfuscation and distraction from discussion of the underlying issues.

We have to attack the conservative brand, because building it up and demonizing liberals has been a cornerstone of GOP politics for decade after decade. But we don't have to get into intramural battles that do far more to obscure than to clarify.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great, But (none / 0)

Good point.

Enough with the divisive labels on our own side.

Let the moratorium on infighting start...now.

This administration sucks.

by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great, But (none / 0)

Thank you! I'm a moderate Dem who is pissed off by the DLC's constant attacks on Moore and Dean. The Sister Souljah stuff doesn't work anymore. What we need to do is develop an infrastructure capable of targeting our different groups, just like the GOP. We're a natural majority, we just have to find a way to get the right messages to the right people. We can't get elected by saying the same things to college students that we're saying to soccer moms....

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with many "moderates" (3.00 / 2)

again, isn't their policy positions. It is their temptation to deny the Michael Moore's in their own party, on their own side.

Hell, they deny that Howard Dean is on their own side. DLC Dems talk about Howard Dean like he's a left wing looney who should just STFU, but Sen. Sessions and Sen. Brownback are allowed to act like they are the "mainstream centrists." Has Blueprint Magazine or any DLC Democrat ever criticized Sessions or Brownback for being out of the mainstream?

How insane is that?

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with many "moderates" (none / 0)

It's Pat Robertson level insane.

This administration sucks.

by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with many "moderates" (none / 0)

The DLC does go after extremists, though perhaps not as aggressively as Dean does. They're targeting folks in the middle who get frustrated with "partisan bickering", so they stay away from attacks unless it helps them with the middle (e.g. going after the Religious Right)

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Polling (none / 0)

The demographics and crosstabulations from this: Polling on the Absolute Power Presidency, will provide some possible message targetting information for market segments. Still, without an equivalent "Mighty Wurlitzer" it'll take unity and discipline to successfully spread the memes. That takes a measure of trust from all of us, and precludes openly sharing the results with anyone (I refer to the crosstabs, not so much the "top line" numbers), otherwise the opposition will know exactly how to counter the targetted message.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:35:57 PM EST

Thanks for the Brilliant Comments (3.00 / 2)

And thanks for linking, Paul.

Space sez:
Which leads to the point that a lot of Democrats idiotically reject marketing tactics simply because the Republicans use them. Republicans use them because they work. If Democrats want to win, they must learn to use the tools. There is nothing evil about targeted messaging.

It may be because I work in marketing, but I agree completely. Marketing is a tool that works for communicating a message to a large number of people. The tool can be used for good and for evil. If the Democrats adopt smart marketing techniques it does NOT mean they have to lie, mislead and distort like the Rethugs do.

This may be the subject of a future colorful chart, but I think of the Democratic and Republican Parties as two products competing for market share.

Of course, liberals and lefties believe the Democratic product is by far superior and most beneficial to the customers (voters). But if our Republican competitors have an overwhelming edge in the amount and sophistication of their marketing, it doesn't matter how awesome our product is.

It makes no sense to sit back and rely on the quality of our product to sell itself when a lot of people haven't heard what we have to offer and while the competition is out there relentlessly trashing our product. Our message will never get through to people if it is drowned out, or if we refuse to "push" it out there.

The product with the superior marketing, not the superior value wins. As an example think of... I don't know... Microsoft?

Paul sez:
It's that the people pushing "moderate" policy positions are inevitably pushing selling out some key part of the Democratic Party base. And that's what's really criminal.

I totally agree with this also. It's criminally stupid. The chart shows that the Rethugs market to every segment of the socio-economic spectrum. Because they want to win. And to win you want to have MORE people voting for you rather than LESS.

The Dem "moderates" always seem to refer to various segments of the population (radical lefties, Southerners, Christians) as being unworthy of inclusion in the Democratic voter rolls. So there is no reason for Dems to "speak to them like they know them" because they're icky and embarrassing. They frighten the nebulous beings of centerland.

Anyway, stop on by the Mighty Corrente Building any time. We don't do moderate. Or I don't, at least. Plus we've got interviews with Jesus.

by shystee on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:27:42 PM EST

So, Anyone Who STILL Hasn't Checked Out The Source (none / 0)

Post By Shystee, Now's The Time!

[Link]

The pleasure was all mine!

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boldly Shrill (none / 0)

I love it.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:58:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But Who? (none / 0)

As mentioned, the Right has a huge network of folks spouting their talking points to various audiences. Who do the Dems have? Begala and Franken? Pressure on the NY Times and WaPo are nice, but fewer and fewer people are reading the paper. Dems need talking heads on the airwaves that know what they're doing and are all pointed in the same direction. We need more leftwing versions of Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the like.

I don't know, maybe people can tell me- is it that radio and cable/network news folks aren't offering up equal time, or is it that the Dems can't come up with people to compentently take the job? Or something else?

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:34:30 PM EST

Re: But Who? (none / 0)

I think the reason for this is that we suck. We're getting better, but message discipline is not the strength of the left. On the intellectual side, we have some good columnists and thinkers, though we could use better think tanks. The real gap is in cable news, which is where the middle class and lower class get the majority of their news. We have to get stronger voices that stick to their talking points and come across as ordinary folks. The internet is a huge opportunity to market our message, but, again, discipline is lacking. Folks like Kos can play a huge role in building our own noise machine, but the key is understanding who we're talking to and what they want to hear.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:40:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (3.00 / 1)

I think, and I want to get into this in depth sometime soon, the problem is that the various pieces of the left don't trust each other. On the Right, you may have a bunch of different people with different priorities, but for the most part, they have faith that the leadership knows what everyone wants and as long as they have the power, they're gonna get to everything eventually. The Left (and I think that there's tons of evidence just on this site) tends to feel as though there's only room for one or two priorities at the top of the Democratic Party and that getting the Dems into power is secondary to getting the RIGHT Dems into power who will champion the RIGHT couple of issues. Because of this, you have every small corner of the Left championing their own cause at the expense of an overarching, cohesive message.

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (none / 0)

I don't think it is trust. Or not just that. It's a fundamental flaw in how the left approaches issues and values that has been discussed else where. When faced for example with issues of environmental issues, I believe someone had a front page diary on here about how the issue is splintered into a thousand smaller organizations because that is perceived of as "better" and more effective, when in fact, it maybe less effective toward the greater goal. It's similar to the discussions I used to have back in college where people would talk endlessly about such assorted topics whether to call people black or African American, and I was recently attacked for referring to myself as a minority (I'm black) by another black person because of the way the left wants to play identity politics which eventually leads to balkanization and an inability I would argue to just get to the point. That's at least I think a part of this. it's not the whole thing. there are other factors- such as what has been referred to as the battered spouse syndrome. Haven't been hit so many time, the knee jerk response is to be so risk adverse that people have know idea what we are saying even when we are at a strategic advantage. Everyone here does it- we feel we must back up everything we say because we are so used to people telling us that we are wrong, and this results in us sounding like we swallow a dictionary of phrases and political lingo. There are yet other reasons- a lack of training and cross agendas- ie, the DLC mentality which is left over of prior loses. The idea is that if you say you aren't one of the bad left, then the rest of the country which is really right will accept us. That's the argument at least. There is also the play on the the American people's ignorance which is a factor. ie, We have a hard time when where the facts change week to week, day to day, to suit the Republican goal of the moment, and the press which should be the truth keeper isn't and we are left looking partisan for calling them on what has happened. The problem of course is that the American peopel being clueless of the history will tune this part out of treat us like a teacher from Charlie brown.

by bruh21 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:38:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (none / 0)

I think you're right on with the lack of trust. The left wing of the party doesn't trust the DLC and the right wing, and the right wing doesn't trust the left wing. In reality, we're all progressives and we want the same basic things. This also extends to issue groups: the environmental groups don't want to lose their audience, so they don't cooperate with the labor groups and the gun groups and the choice groups and vice versa. We're going to have to learn to work together better if we're going to beat these thugs.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 04:56:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The DLC Is NOT Progressive (none / 0)

The left wing of the party doesn't trust the DLC and the right wing, and the right wing doesn't trust the left wing. In reality, we're all progressives and we want the same basic things.

They're pro-war and pro-corporate, and spend more time bashing the Democratic base than doing anything else.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:27:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC Is NOT Progressive (none / 0)

The DLC is pro-business but I don't think that's a bad thing. If we're ever going to build the kind of meaningful coalition we had during the New Deal years, we have to bring business into the party, especially small businesses. The fact if the matter is that businesses=jobs and cultivating a favorable business climate is important. What separates us from Republicans is the fact that we understand that a strong middle class is part of a favorable business climate. As far as the war goes, yeah the DLC leadership is wrong about that, but they do understand something the left-wingers don't: that a muscular (but wise) foreign policy is one of the principles of our party. It's really counterproductive for Democrats to have a pissing contest to see who's a better liberal.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 05:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC Is NOT Progressive (none / 0)

But similarly, letting the "moderates" have a pissing contest to see who is the most pro-military is also stupid. AND it allows them to joing the right wing echo chamber criticising them.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 07:47:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pro-Corporate <> Pro-Business (none / 0)

The DLC isn't pro-business. They're pro-corporate. There's a big difference.

If you look at just about any economic indicator, you'll discover that the economy does better under Democrats than it does under Republicans. The only folks who do better under Republicans are the top 1% or so. (I haven't cranked the numbers carefully enough to know, it may be as much as the top 5%, but I doubt it.)

The point is, the average businessperson, whose income is substantially less than $200K/yr, does not do better under Republicans than Democrats. Hence, there's not even a reason to be more "business-friendly", much less corporate-friendly. It's all just more illusion, that's all. More of the targetted marketing that shystee wrote about to kick this whole thing off in the first place.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't think of things to do that are business-friendly that don't hurt people in our base. But we shouldn't delude ourselves that these sorts of things will bring us business support.

The key to that will be breaking through the kool-aid curtain.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate <> Pro-Business (none / 0)

I would argue that most of the "differences" between the party's moderates and its left wing really are just language. What is it about the DLC's economic policy that's not Democratic? The EITC? Taxing carbon emissions? New Democrats are trying to bring corporate America into the fold by reframing some of the traditional debates. This helps them to understand that progressive values are mainstream values. The reality is, the welfare state is gone, and its not coming back. Like it or not, it's up to us to look for new ways to ensure real opportunity. Lord knows the Republicans won't do it.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where Have You Been??? (none / 0)

The reality is, the welfare state is gone, and its not coming back.

Have you been asleep for the past 12 months?

GW tried to get rid of Social Security, failed spectacularly, and the rest of his year has been one disaster after another ever since.

The death of the welfare state has been repeatedly announced for the last 25 years. A lot of the people who've announed it are dead themselves. The welfare state is still here.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where Have You Been??? (1.00 / 1)

The 1990s saw essentially the end of welfare as we knew it. Medicare and Medicaid are in need of serious reforms if they are to survive. Social Security is being raided for stupid supply-side tax cuts. Our economy is a different animal these days, and we have to be prepared to make some changes. By all means, protect S.S. But we have to find a stable way of funding it and addressing the gaps. Medicare and Medicaid should be defended, but they're not going to be enough. We have to cover everyone, but single-payer isn't going to work, at least not politically. Democrats can preserve social programs, but we have to start figuring out how to work with small businesses. This isn't the 40s anymore. Labor is on the decline, corporate America is homogenizing, and innovators are struggling to make their own path. The GOP has its ideas: every man for himself. Our ideas should be about rebuilding community and encouraging initiative.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where Have You Been??? (3.00 / 1)

You've been watching way too much Faux News and should immediately stop listening to talk radio. These are the only accurate statments you made:

Our economy is a different animal these days, and we have to be prepared to make some changes.

This isn't the 40s anymore.

The GOP has its ideas: every man for himself. Our ideas should be about rebuilding community

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where Have You Been??? (none / 0)

Your post reads like platitutdes. What does it mean in practical real world terms that is different from what the left already has been saying for decades.

by bruh21 on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 02:33:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate (none / 0)

corporate american isn't interested in coming into the "fold" it's interested in using people who think they can be brought into the fold to get what it wants. if you think you can control corporate american then you don't understand the pull of what's happening- i am curious do you work in a large company or are you strictly someone with a political background?

by bruh21 on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate (none / 0)

ps

i come from corp background and always am interested when people link corp to govt. corp's have one function under the law- and one fuction only- to make money for their investors. that's it. everything they do- including good will is designed to maximaze that proof motive.

by bruh21 on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate (1.00 / 1)

I have no corporate background, though I wouldn't have had nearly the comfortable middle class life i've enjoyed if it weren't for the large energy company that employs my father....i agree and understand that corporate america is interested only in profit...that's their job....but that doesn't mean that they're inherently acting against the larger community interests.....our goal should be to build an economy in which being a profitable company entails strengthening your community....ex: pollution is anti-capitalist in that it is wasteful and inefficient; things ought to be such that polluting the environment is dumb business.....this requires give and take, though....i'm willing to allow corporate america to chase profits, so long as morality is profitable

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate (3.00 / 2)

actually- it means exactly that they dont care about the community interest. in fact, they under corp law can't care about community interest- their fiduiary duties even before the crony capitalism we see today was to their shareholders- not to the community at large. croyism adds the extra element of self interest in achieving incredible personal wealth by manipultation of the rules (see enron which even before the scandals manipulated the rules out in CAL and helped force through legislation that aided in its proof motive). i think sadly you represent a lot of misguided understanding of entities amongst americans. the only entity that functions with multiple and can function with multiple interests are public orgs like the govt. does what i say mean that corps will always act against community interest. no. it means that the only time they will work in favor of those moral things you mention is when it will promote the bottom line. if it does not- they will seek to change the laws regardless of effect to achieve their underlying economic interests. it's share fantasy when looking at actual actions to believe otherwise. one of the reason i am in the private sector is that i accept as a competitor that it means there is the possibility of failure, but also the greater chance for reward. i also realize that i dont have to consider anyone's interest outside my own. your version of reality sounds nice, but no business that wants to survive can live by it.

by bruh21 on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:50:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate (1.00 / 1)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not suggesting that corporate America could undergo a Scrooge-like transformation and suddenly become altruistic. I was arguing that, as Democrats, our goal should be to change the rules so that destroying communities (see Wal-Mart) is unprofitable. We've done it to a certain degree with environmental regulations and anti-trust laws. By seriously penalizing companies that hurt our country's moral fabric, you make social values profitable. This doesn't mean that we should engage in all-out war against the status quo. We can't regulate ourselves out of this jam. What's needed is a partership, trade-offs that allow government to do what is must while asking business to do what it can. Raising wages should be profitable, for instance.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:02:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate (3.00 / 1)

That is an anti-corporate position, really. In essence, it would be passing laws penalizing corporations for operating according to what are, right now, standard operating practices.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Corporate (3.00 / 1)

This:

I was arguing that, as Democrats, our goal should be to change the rules so that destroying communities (see Wal-Mart) is unprofitable.

Directly contradicts this:

We can't regulate ourselves out of this jam.

I think Gary's right. Too much Faux News and talk radio. You can see what's needed--sort of--but you reject it by name, because you've absorbed rightwing demonization, even without realzing it.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (none / 0)

I finally made a clumsy attempt at fully explaining what I mean on this point here. So much of this is about salesmanship and avoiding the unproductively divisive issues becoming what the Dems stand for.

by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (none / 0)

Grilling every prospective candidate on every issue under the liberal sun isn't always the best idea.

Nobody does that. The only people who even label issues "liberal" are GOPERS and DLC Dems. As Paul said, Bernie Sanders is sensible, not liberal.

The persecution of both wings of the Democratic Party is coming from GOPERS, with the exception of a very few key issues.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (none / 0)

I disagree to some extent. I think a significant amount of Dems have one or two issues that are personal to them and are litmus test issues for candidates. In order to gain support for a candidate, particularly early on, a general policy seems to be to insist that they make promises to all parts of the liberal diaspora in order to get the time and money that they offer. Much like has been discussed around here from time to time, we generally are only interested in supporting candidates who respect and embrace the netroots. This isn't nearly as controversial as many other issues, but it's part of our nature as a party that, in many instances, has largely been thrown together by a common enemy.

by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hello! Where Have You Been??? (3.00 / 1)

A far more common scenario is what we're seeing play out in IL-06, where a hard-working grassroots candidate--Christine Cegelis--takes on a thankless task, brings a wide range of people together, runs a far stronger campaign than anyone imagines, and gets rewarded the next time out by the party establishment hunting around for someone else to replace her--or, because she's not the wimp they expect her to be, to run against her.

Thus, it's not the librul activists causing the party so much pain. It's inside-the-Beltway party establishment, which is where the DLC has the vast majority of its influence.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (none / 0)

promises to all parts of the liberal diaspora in order to get the time and money that they offer.

Who is this liberal diaspora in exile? What do they want? The only liberal groups that I am aware of that have any relevance support gay rights, freedom of choice and unions. I'm not even certain that freedom of choice and union issues qualify as anything except mainstream populist positions.

Aside from gay rights, what liberal groups need to be addressed by political campaigns?

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Who? (1.00 / 1)

Bob Casey and Langevin have both tussled with abortion-rights activists because of litmus tests.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Freedom of choice is non-negotiable (none / 0)

That is understandable, but it is hardly a "diaspora" of hard core left wing issue groups.

Why on earth would any Democratic candidate expect woman's rights groups to compromise on their core issue? I don't know anything about Langevin, but Casey is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Democratic Party.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:05:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Freedom of choice is non-negotiable (1.00 / 1)

Casey is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Democratic Party.

he's also the only candidate who can beat santorum....i certainly wouldn't expect naral to cave on choice, and i wouldn't want them to....still, these groups do often inadvertantly cause some of the trust issues that we have in our party.....the point is simply that these competing interest groups sometimes pit democrats against each other, when we could be focusing on beating the bad guys

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Freedom of choice is non-negotiable (none / 0)

And also, few candidates are the anti-abortion respondant in the second most famous abortion-related supreme court case. Half of what we are pissed off at Alito is his decision in a case that wouldn't even have come to him if it weren't for Bob Casey, Jr. If NARAL doesn't hate him, then it should just decide to merge with the DNC.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:21:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

Bob Casey Sr. was the Casey in planned parenthood v. casey. But still...

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:27:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Junior may be worse than Pappy Casey (none / 0)

Understandable. Junior is at least as ideologically offensive as his old man was. Maybe worse.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Freedom of choice is non-negotiable (none / 0)

he's also the only candidate who can beat santorum

That is ridiculous. As dissatisfied as PA voters are with Republicans in general and Santorum specifically, a dead dog could probably beat Santorum. The fact is that Casey may be one of the very few Democrats who could actually lose to Santorum. The DSCC is going to have to spend millions of dollars propping up Casey, because he is such a poor choice and such a poor campaigner.

We can only hope that Pennsylvania voters see through the DLC hype about another Kerryesque Democrat being "electable" and vote for the genuine article.

I defy anyone tell me that Pennacchio doesn't have the best issues page in politics. Nobody in Pennsylvania will have to guess where Chuck stands on any issue or scratch their head trying to figure out what the differences are between the candidates.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:43:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The lower class can't justify $40 a month on cable (none / 0)

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 07:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Something else (none / 0)

I don't know, maybe people can tell me- is it that radio and cable/network news folks aren't offering up equal time, or is it that the Dems can't come up with people to compentently take the job? Or something else?

The Democratic party leadership is not on the side of the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party cooperates with the RWNM and is on the same side as their grassroots. I don't know if the Republican Party or the RWNM is the chicken or the egg, but both factions are on the same side.

The Democratic Party refuses to cooperate with the netroots and grassroots. The Democratic party leadership refuses to take a stand or adopt a message. The only consistent message out of the Democratic leadership is that the Democratic Party is too liberal.

Even if the Democratic Party had a noise machine and their own cable network, what would they have to say? Absolutely nothing that anyone cares about.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 11:49:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK. This is all common sense (none / 0)

I can't even imagine how anyone can disagree with shystee's post or Paul's analysis. What I've been trying to figure out is why any of this is even slightly arguable.

Even DLC Dems have to be smart enough to see how obvious this all is. Don't they?

Is this one of those linear thinking things Paul? Is that what we're dealing with in the Democratic Party? Are the divisions simply ideological or is the failure to communicate between the blocs a result of fundamentally different ways of looking at and interpreting the world we live in?

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:27:34 AM EST

I Think It IS Related To Cognition Levels (none / 0)

The sequential/linear/systemic thinking schema is just one way of approaching the study of levels of cognitive development. But they all involve greater degrees of ability to stand back, see things in greater perspective, and see more complex patterns of causation.

This, in turn, makes for less of reflexive identification with one's immediate clan or others that "look like" you. From a more advanced perspective, one can see how those from very different backgrounds may have a very similar outlook, despite surface differences, while those form your own family may have a very different outlook, despite sharing so much common experience.

When you break things down to basics, the message that shystee is talking about, that the conservatives send in different forms through their various channels is "We are you. Liberals are your enemy." It is a basic us/them identity message. It's part of what I refer to as "conservative identity politics."

The DLC response is basically that the conservatives are right. They are slightly more advanced in their thinking. They can see that some of the conservative "policies" are utter hogwash. They do have some ability to think things through, at least in a simple cause-and-effect manner. But they lack the courage--and/or insight--to stand up to the conservative demonization, except on rare instances when it goes so far overboard that some of them (DLCers), at least, are driven to the point of outrage.

And they lack the sort of systematic thinking consciousness that would make it impossible for them to believe in the simplistic analysis they press forward (sometimes topped off with rather complex policy perscriptions--such as Hillary's health care task force, but founded on relatively simplistic assumptions).

Combating Conservative Identity Politics

The challenge facing liberal and progressive Dems is to combat conservative identity politics in a two-fold manner.

First, for our own people, our activist base that understands things in a more sophisticated manner, we have to develop messages that reflect Lakoff's lessons, and find expression in narrative forms as well. And we have to do this in a collaborative fashion. The more activists we have who can frame things consciously for themselves--rather than just following a script--the better off we will be.

Second, we have to reach out beyond our base with an identity message of our own. But it can't just be a mirror image of the conservative message. We can't tell them, "Hey, we're white just like you!" or, ala any of their "minority" leaders, "Hey, I'm black/Latino/Asian just like you!"

Our identity message must be one of becoming, a dynamic vision that's based on self-creation--which encompasses everything from education, to making work pay, to stressing a commonality of all people dedicated to the common principles of America. Our message is actually much more American than their's is, since America is all about self-invention. (Heck, just look at GW and his "ranch"!) It's more complicated than their message, true. But not unreasonably so, given how ubiquitous self-invention is in our culture.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Think It IS Related To Cognition Levels (none / 0)

So we take Newt's idea of the Contract With America and repackage FDR's program as new ideas, which is basically all that Newt did with the same old conservative shit that has been around since Edmund Burke. I haven't looked at it lately, but I would be very surprised if there was anything in the Contract With America that was new even in 1900. As I recall, it was for the most part all recycled 19th century conservative talking points.

Health Care for All
Jobs with Justice
One woman, one vote.

All Democrats really have to do is pretend that nobody has ever thought of any of those things before and introduce them as NEW IDEAS.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Learning to accept ourselves (none / 0)

Thanks for this post. I find it,and the conversation that followed, very interesting.

The conversation raised a number of points that I have seen in other blogs throughout the last year: the left lacks party discipline, the left lacks infrastructure, the left lacks media outlets. Some of these things can change, some will not.

Many of us on the left must learn to accept ourselves. I have come to the conclusion that the left, in America or in any other country, will never have a united voice the way conservatives have. We are just too intellectually independent to do so.

We will not stop criticizing each other either. Criticism is at the heart of our value of independent thinking. Voicing different opinions is our living proof of how much we value the democratic process.

And at some point in the future, Democrats will have the infrastructure and effective media outlets that it needs to effectively spread its message.

Now, once we accept our cultural values and limitations, we can start thinking about what we can actually do today, taking advantage of our strengths.

Once we think in these terms, we see that we are able to use target marketing for 2006 campaigns. How? I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

by Hugo Estrada on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:17:30 AM EST

Are Moderate Democrats Good For Anything? (none / 0)

Cross-posted from Seeing the Forest, Can Democrats Capitalize On Anything?: (click through for links)

The Left Coaster has gathered a series of linked quotes which can be used as a primer of the Abramoff case. Abramoff is an out-and-out crook at the center of the Republican graft-and-vote-buying machine, and he's connected to a lot of people at the highest levels.

The Pew Center has posted a list of the top ten opinion trends of 2005. Of these, seven work directly against Bush, and three are more neutral but don't help him at all (except in the sense that cynicism is always good for the Republicans.)

Would Joe Lieberman and Al From finally find something to complain about if Bush butchered and ate a baby seal on national television?

Is there anything that can get Harry Reid pissed off? Is he even human? For God's Sake People! What the fuck does it take to get a god damned moderate Democrat pissed of at a fucking Republican?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:37:48 AM EST

Lieberman And From Would Applaud (3.00 / 1)

The DLC is pro-butchering & eating baby seals on national TV. They think it's essential to show that Democrats, too, are stong on butchering helpless baby mammals.

Of course, a baby seal would propably get the better of Lieberman, which would be a fitting way to end his career.

Reid, however, is a slightly different critter. While I've been disappointed with his behavior on numerous occassions, there have been significant moments when he's been magnificent. He does show that centrist Dems can still be strong partisans. But with Vichey Dems like Lieberman and Biden getting way too much face time for their unrepresentative stands, Reid has done far too little to instill public discipline.

I am so looking forward to a primary fight against Lieberman.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:56:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fighting Moderate Democrats (none / 0)

We wouldn't want voters to get the idea that Democrats are too weak to butcher helpless baby seals to protect America.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't Have That! (3.00 / 1)

Problem is, even if Lieberman could get the best of a baby seal, he couldn't stomach eating it raw. So Bush would still win on points.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't forget the Congeniality Award (none / 0)

Joe Biden keeps saying Bush is such a nice guy and the M$M insists that everyone wants to have a beer with him, so Bush would be a lock for Mr. Congeniality.

Even historians will probably agree that Bush was America's most congenial fascist, corrupt, live baby seal butchering and warmongering President ever. Nobody's perfect.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 01:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

EXACTLY what I'm talking about (none / 0)

I've speculated for a long time that the DLC would rather lose with a cautious centrist than win with an aggressive leftist or even an aggressive centrist. The mercenaries get paid and rehired whether they win or lose, and some of them are taking money from both sides. So yeah, I've become paranoid about this.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:40:11 AM EST

And another thing (none / 0)

I've floated this idea before, and the conventional Democratic wisdom is that there's no use bothering. Sometimes it seems that the Democratic party is predefeated the way the jeans you buy are preshrunk. Do we really need to have elections any more?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.