It's wrong for Demcrats to presume that if they prevent Bush from enacting his plan, they've won.  Bush may very well consider a political victory secondary.  This effort may simply be a way to motivate radical conservatives to go to the polls in 2006.  

Look at Bamboozlepalooza.  Like the 2004 campaign, it's not designed to motivate everyday Americans.  It's designed to motivate loyal Republicans.  I've no doubt that it's successful in that respect.  The question is, how can Democrats do the same with their base?

I don't think that an alternative on Social Security is the answer, given that the Democrats seem to have successfully shown the public that there is no crisis.  But something must be done to counter the effect Bush's plan is having among the Republican faithful.

On what planet do they think they can win a Democratic primary?

However, the Greenburg memo made sense to me.  Maybe because I am desperate for my party to define itself beyond just opposition.  Maybe the art of opposition combined with reinventing ourselves requires this ongoing internal strife.  

Personally I crave unification on liberal anti-Bush policy--I hate the bickering amongst the faithful.  

Every year of the Bush Presidency, the trust  fund's collect a lot more money than they spend.  Over the first four years of the W Presidency the amount has been about $1 trillion.  Twenty-five or thirty years from now, we'll need some of that money back.  But W has spent it on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and an unbudgeted war in Iraq.

Want to see the big threat to collecting your Social Security?  (Show a picture of W and De Lay and Frist)

If Bush has proved anything, it is that plans don't mean a thing to the average voter. Everytime a Democrat says they have a plan, a Pavlovian response is triggered in voters...ding tax increase. That is because we have allowed ourselves to be framed in that way.

The bottom line is that to succeed we need to present our vision for the country as an overview that sells in a few simple phrases. Bush knows that. Which is why he is out there repeating "crisis", bankrupt" "your money"..etc.
Those are the images in broad strokes they want to present.  They realize the devil is in the details, so to speak.

We are succeeding so far in beating back those claims. We must continue that fight. As long as the polls continue to show that Americans are not falling for the crisis spin, we need not present a specific proposal, at least not until Bush has formalized one.  

Bush loves to boast of the "ownership" society - so make him accountable for his OWN plan and present it.  Chris Matthews on Hardball is trying to get the democrats to present a plan as well - but let Matthews "twist in the wind" with Bush because they're all Corporate bubbleheads anyway!

A Democratic plan would preserve the promise of social security for our children and grandchildren.

A Democratic plan would protect the social security trust fund from corporate greed.

A Democratic plan would allow each generation to fairly and equitably contribute to the social trust we have established for our seniors, our own family, parents and grandparents.

If the Republicans howl to see such a plan, politely point out that as the majority party that is pushing policy changes, they should put their plan on the table first.  When, and if, they do, proceed to focus on their plan, pick it apart if need be, hold it up to scrutiny.  Once an actual Republican plan is on the table, there is no need to go back and define the details of the Democratic plan.

What is important is what values a Democratic plan would stand for.  What is NOT important is the details of how it would be achieved.  It is not even important that every one of the values be different or in opposition to a Republican value, but some will be in opposition, and they must be specifically enough defined to not be used as levers to take apart any unacceptable parts of a Republican plan.

Finally, someone in the Democratic party needs to start tying this to the national debt in a more aggressive way.  The press is laying the foundations already, but the party needs to build the bridge.  Again, no need to offer specifics, Democrats already demonstrated how they handle budgets in the 90's.

"Kerry was unhappy with the posture of the Democrats and told Reid that they needed to be far more aggressive in fighting President Bush, needed to set up what amounted to a perpetual campaign and needed a plan to prevent Bush from seizing the middle ground in the Social Security fight."

So, I don't get why anyone's upset. In fact, his idea of a perpetual campaign kind of netroots-inspired.

Dated Dean
Married Kerry
Woke up with Bush

Who was it who said John Kerry couldn't lead ants to a picnic?  (He was right.)

But I am impressed with his Kids First Campaign. A few weeks ago, he rolled out the legislation and directed an email to have people sign on in support. It helped educate and activate online supporters. But it also provided "offline" action, and had people call in to a phone line to leave their stories. Now, a few weeks later, a follow-up email (timed with a live press event where he rolled out national organizations endorsing his plan) provides an update, action plan, and interactive map to let people "hear" the stories people left off line by state.

I think this is a brilliant strategy. Granted, this legislation isn't going anywhere. But from a strategy and execution stand point, where was this kind of coordination and on-message directives during the campaign? It's clear, concise, with specific action items to take. The strategy then checks back in with supporters to show progress, and provide another action step.

I'm just impressed and wish we'd seen this type of action last fall.

If not a single Democratic Senator abandons ship, Bush's Social Security plan is toast. If Lieberman or any other Democrat jumps ship, it's a whole new ball game. The second that Rush Limbaugh or Sam Donaldson scare a single Democrat into the Bush/Rove fold with the lame accusation that they are "obstructionists", the odds change.

The main focus of the Democratic party right now should be attacking Bush for not putting a plan of his own on the table. If you don't like Where's the fucking Beef? then there should be plenty of other options. Why would any Democrat worth his or her salt have a problem with asking that simple question?

Let us hear a united chorus of Where's the Beef? from the Senate caucus and see what Bush's response is. Just one god damn fucking time, leave the ball in Bush's court instead of trying to be a ball hog. This is his hot potato and Democrats should not try to pick his pocket.

(Anybody want to try counting how many metaphors I mixed in that fruit cocktail?)

Kerry could not defeat a president weakened by job losses, a bad economy, a failed war, lies by same president, torture, scandals....and there are people that are actually considering supporting this guy again......ARE YOU FRICKING nuts......?

Reid was right to do a smackdown on Kerry and I hope  he will perform same smackdown on all those traitors who supported that horrid bankruptcy bill.

I dont know at this moment who i will support for 2008. I dont like Hillary and my guy is now the DNC chairman. I don't want someone who will mention the "center" or "triangulation". We need a leader with Balls....the ability to tell Bush and the repugs to F*** off. Americans will support a leader with conviction and a SPINE. Bush has one and he is totally wrong ...but he got stupid people to vote for him ....

I want to win in 2008 and Kerry is NOT the answer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/

SEN. KERRY:  Precisely what I said in 1996 is "We should consider" a number of these things.  We did consider them.  I considered them.  Others did.  I rejected them.  And I have said again and again throughout the campaign this last year, I do not believe we have to raise the retirement age.  I'm not in favor of it.  I am absolutely opposed to cutting benefits, and I believe we can save Social Security in any number of ways, Tim, other than what President Bush wants to do.

President Bush is hyping a phony crisis.  The crisis in America today is 45 million Americans who don't have health care.  The crisis are 11 million children that I just talked about that we ought to be covering with health care.  You know, Social Security does not run out as the president says and become bankrupt in 2018.  It can pay 100 percent of the benefits until 2042, and after 2042, it can pay 80 percent of the benefits.  And all you need to do to move Social Security into safety, well into the 22nd century, into the next century, is to roll back part of George Bush's tax cut today.  His tax cut takes three times the deficit of what is contained in Social Security.

Now, there are any number of other things that you could do to try to fix it smart.  What President Bush wants to do is put at risk something that has stood up not as an investment program but an insurance program, an insurance against poverty.  Without Social Security, 50 percent of seniors would be in poverty.  Without Social Security, people with disabilities, widows, orphans, children would not get help.  And the president is willing to put that at risk so that you have $940 billion in fees that go to Wall Street and a whole bunch of young people get to invest money in who knows what, and there's no guarantee that money will be there for them in their lifetime.

So when Kerry talks about a plan it could mean:

Roll Back the Tax Cuts for >$300,000
Put SS Trust Fund in a Lock BOX
The issue of Personal Account should be a seperate issue

If this is what Kerry wants the Dems Plan to be then it is a GREAT PLAN.

That BushCo believes this to be a sound way of protecting workers' retirement security should not come as a surprise to anyone who believes the president is a dumb as a brick.

Dems should go one-up on these idiots.  Lets have the treasury print off $20,000 for every non-aborted fetus and buy every American child an nvestment portfolio that can be cashed in at age 50.

I've been saying this for YEARS everywhere I post on the net...ss reform will never happen! SS is the sacred cow, the holy grail! You just can't convince the ordinary American that taking away his benefits is possibly a good thing. Americans are infamously tightfisted when it comes to investing in the future, no matter how you frame it! 99% of Americans out there don't read blogs and don't have political meetings...they just don't believe in cutting benefits, raising taxes, or any other solution that could possibly "fix" SS. Not that they even care what happens in 2035 or 2055 or whatever -- and neither do I! Who knows if I even live that long. Wake us up on SS 20 or 30 years from now and maybe I'll think about it!

SS was a dead issue from the beginning and for the life of me, I can't help but think your dems and reps are completely bonkers. For the dems even thinking bush had a chance here, and for the reps even thinking it was possible for them to convince the invincible youth to care about their retirement, and the elderly who won't let anyone touch what will continue to work fine until they are dead and buried!

All Kerry said was we needed a better plan, which in the context of the original article more likely meant he wanted to step up attacks.

And by the way, who do you think is working to defeat Bush's SS plan. This loyal Kerry supporter got two letters to the editor against privatization published in national magazines.

It's disingenuous to make it seem like there's an us and them within the Dem Party. That's how Republicans win every time. They demonize the "them".

Thanks for doing the GOP's job. Karl Rove must shake his head. It's too easy.