Where we fail...

[Perky]

1)We allow the GOP to do what they do very well which is make elections about us and not about them. We allow the GOP to paint us as being for special interest and thus against the middle class. We fail because we allow the republicans to paint us as being anti-wealth and therefore somehow against the American Dream.

2) We fail because we have not come up with a meaningful response to the moral decay in this country, other than lumping Republicans and Christians into one big pile we call hypocrites without offering an attractive positions on that front. Republicans respect Lieberman because he challenges Hollywood.

Flame me if you must, but liberal rhetoric which opposes the accumulation of wealth/ getting ahead / entrepreneurship / on the one hand and effectively supporting Hedonism and rampant crime on the other, is a real problem for us.

It lacks Populist appeal among the voting majority. I am not saying bend over frontwards on any issue or sell-out idealism...The problem is that we are not perceived as the party that protects the American Dream or gives America hope of achieving it.

The right equation would seem to included being ruthlessly tough on Crime; Pro-family and pro-wealth. I think we have our head in the sand on all three.

If we solve those issues with ideas... we win.

[DeepGreen]

1. I don't know if I agree with what they call the American Dream

I dream of peace, caring, sharing, health, the environment, the animals, clean air, understanding, freedom of religion. The dream of wealth is not in my list. I dream of enough money to live and help my children when they need it. I don't need any more than that.

[Perky]

6. OK

That is not out of line with most thinking:

The point it is the Americanc Dream is not about extravegance (yachts and Rolex's)...its about reward for hard work, and personal peace and security that comes from that.

These are touchstone issue for most Americans. I don't think we are in touch with those sentiments...at least in a way that translates well to the middle class.

Big Dawg whatever you may think of him....had an inate sense of what that looked like about what thas is. I do not see a candidate, nor do I see rhetoric that touches that vibe on the Democratic horizon.

I thoink that is the huge challenge for us.

[egodust]

11. i agree with your disagreement

what you've outlined is all anyone should need.  

the one thing we must bear in mind, though (and i'm sure
you'll agree), is that we can't expect a utopia.  

the problem, especially of late, is that the people of
america--controlled by the rich, who are falling ever depper
into the runaway train of lust for greed and power--have
bought into their elaborately organized and widely
disseminated propaganda.  

[newyawker99]

52. Hi egodust!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[auburngrad82]

76. You have a progressive's view of the American Dream

Conservatives see the American Dream as climbing the ladder and, through self-reliance, becoming a self-made man. And to them it usually centers around wealth. I couldn't care less about wealth. As long as I can pay my bills and enjoy life, I'm happy. That's a progressive's view.

Everyone really needs to read George Lakoff's books Moral Politics and Don't Think of an Elephant. They do a very good job of explaining why progressives and conservatives see things differently. There has to be a reason that we as progressives see Dubya as a complete idiot and conservatives see him as a man of honesty and integrity. I didn't really understand how people "could be so stupid" until I read Lakoff's books.

Progressives are more nurturing and care about the things that you listed in your post. Conservatives are more "Strict Father" and reallly believe that reward and punishment are the way to make the world a better place. That's why they want to bomb everyone who doesn't see things their way. That's also why they're against education programs and social security. They see it as rewarding people for doing nothing, and they see that as immoral.

We see it as taking care of people and allowing them to live better lives.

There's a real difference in the way progressives and conservatives see things.

[Laelth]

2. Luke Skywalker: "I don't believe it."

"That is why you fail."

We must continue to believe that we can make a difference, that we can change our world, that our values are worth fighting for.

just Yoda's 2 cents ...

-Laelth

[MatrixEscape]

3. Supporting rampant crime?

How is that? Crime has been going down statistically while more prisons are built to house non-violent offenders, (read: drug users).

Supporting hedonism? How can you be liberal if you don't tolerate other people's enjoyment when it does not harm others? Remember life, liberty, and the persuit of HAPPINESS?

How can we be "pro-wealth" when there is a growing inequity here, and even across the globe? People are not restricted from accumulating wealth here. There are more millionares than ever and luxery items like cars, land, etc., are selling like hot cakes. The wealthy are buying lots of expensive items now. Yet, homeless people and poverty are rising.

Pro-family? I think, statistically, the number of traditional families is not as large as you might think compared to singles and alternative lifestyles. Besides, A fifty-percent divorce rate does not sound very indicative of wholesome goodness to me.

Why should we frame our arguments as responses to Republican rhetoric and manipulations? The media is owned and that is a major issue in our plight. The GOP has targeted people who "believe" more than they "think". How is that our failure and why should we attempt to become like the opposition when we KNOW our platform and values are worthy and represent MORE liberty and rights for all?

[Sugarbleus]

26. Your reply sums up my feelings on this pretty well...

It's like the RW and the Neo Liberals want to dismiss the facts you've pointed out. "Hide" the reality of stuggling people in favor of the Bright and Shiny ideology of GATHERING WEALTH. Fergetabowdit...

To be fair, I can compromise on one or two points the Right is up in arms about: 1.. Decency standards in movies, music, gaming et al.. NOT censor them out completely but relagate them to Adults only places, make these types of venues inaccessible to the very young etc.

2.) Stop trying to remove the word "GOD" out of every document, song, and holiday...more people believe in "GOD" in this country than do not.

Beyond these, I give no more ground. I don't buy the "Pull yourself up by bootstraps" model--that creates inequity and slavery. I subscribe to the "We are our brother's keeper" model. Yes, we will work hard, but the playing field has to be evened. We have to STOP shipping jobs overseas so we HAVE A PLACE TO WORK. We HAVE to provide affordable healthcare..it's in EVERYONE'S best interest. We MUST be tolerant of others, including our GL friends and citizens (who work HARD too). ... and so forth..

[nickzen]

71. Crime is going down?

What from world record highs? Have you ever seen a sentencing curve going back to say, 1950? Recidivism trends are going up or down? Got any jobs for these young 1st time offenders, that aren't in Mexico? We take a step back from utter madness, and it's high 5's all around.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "do their job" is committing atrocities.

Whether some lone marine shoots an unarmed and defenseless prisoner or a pilot drops a "smart" bomb that kills civilians, or some sniper makes a "mistake", or some artillerist blows up a house, they're all atrocities.

Unless you believe that murder committed at a distance is not murder.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Sorry, but no matter how you spin it, it's murder.

Do you really think that beheading somebody kills them any deader than dismembering with a bomb?

I don't "support the troops" - any troops. As for "premeditation". Do you believe that our troops were sent to Iraq to plant flowers and put on comedy shows?

As for "mistakes" on the news. Would you consider it a "mistake" if the cops shot up your house because there was a burgler in it, killing your kid? Whoops! Our troops are shooting up Iraq, allegedly to kill "terrorists". In the course of which, they've managed 30-100,000 Whoops!

Troops murder people. That's what they get trained and paid to do. That's why they carry guns and all the rest of the toys the capitalist bosses profit by.

I'm not an America Hater, neither am I an America lover. I'm not a "lover" of any piece of turf.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Ahhh, those fringies never win elections.

Gandhi never won an election.

Martin Luther King never won an election.

Leo Tolstoy never won an election.

But they all thought that soldiers are murderers. Buying into the madness for the sake of "winning" only makes sense to those who share the insanity. But, you are in the majority.

[1stadmendmentguy]

30. What brought me here to this site was---

This kind of rhetoric. I have seen postings of this site published on Other sites. So I thought I would come on here and try to moderate the fringe voice with more moderate voices like myself. I agree with the other poster, when people call our troops murderers you only deem your voice as unreasonable/vitriolic. I pre-suppose that there will always be a voice such as this, however the problem with the Democratic party is that "this" sort of voice has and "is" the Voice of the Democratic party. Just look no further than Michael Moore sitting by the "Ole Curmudgeon Jimmy" at the DNC convention. That one thing sealed the loss for the Dems. And if this sort of voice resides supreme in the next election then the Dems will loose yet again.

..1stamendmentguy..

[newyawker99]

53. Hi 1stadmendmentguy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[priscilla_asagiri]

81. I'm new too

And I tend to agree with you... I don't think our troops murder. Thanks 1stamendmentguy!

[Perky]

28. Agreed...

Its no more murder than bandying about the term terrorists when talking about the insurgency.

For those who cal it murder....consider the 1,000+ murdered by the insurgency......the 20+ begheaded by the terrorist. We are there...It is a huge collosal failure but we are ther....we must have the right to defend ourselves.

There are of course lines we should not cross....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. So, we should lie?

The "American Dream" of wealth and consumerism to fatten the capitalists is desirable? Pro-family? What in the hell does that mean?

BTW Hitler was a "populist". Roosevelt wasn't.

[DrGonzoLives]

25. Actually,

both Roosevelts were populists. Try reading history rather than just making Hitler and Nazi comparisons to try and make yourself look smart.

[crasmane]

8. No, I'm not going to flame you at all.

quote:
1)We allow the GOP to do what they do very well which is make elections about us and not about them. We allow the GOP to paint us as being for special interest and thus against the middle class. We fail because we allow the republicans to paint us as being anti-wealth and therefore somehow against the American Dream. end quote.

I agree with the first statement. The GOP has decided that perception is more important than thinking, it is the wellspring of their manipulation. It was in the Gilded Age as well.
Are the poor a special interest?
Are the medically indigent a special interest?
Yes it can be argued that these are special interests.
What kind of special interests are they? People in need; those who can simply do no better given the circumstances.
Does need serve this country? Does their suffering do us any good at all?
No. Work days are lost, people die prematurely, suffer disabling conditions unnecessarily. Social neglect has a price.
So to serve the indigent, to do something to ameliorate their suffering by addressing their needs ultimately serves all of us by covering the costs of social neglect.
At the time of the revolution, people were actually considering government measures to contain the wealthy-- measures that would restrict the amount of property one person or family could hold. Ultimately, these measures were not implemented because we decided to trust our elites. Methinks the trust has grown too much, costs too much. I'm not advocating measures to restrict the amount of wealth a person may hold, but I don't believe elites, bloodless or otherwise, have any business speaking for the people.
Aristocracy used to mean wisdom. Look at the foolishness, intellectual mediocrity, irresponsibility, and mean-spiritedness of the homegrown aristocracy. Wise, the aristocrats are not. They are even less trustworthy than they are wise.

quote: 2) We fail because we have not come up with a meaningful response to the moral decay in this country, other than lumping Republicans and Christians into one big pile we call hypocrites without offering an attractive positions on that front. Republicans respect Lieberman because he challenges Hollywood. end quote.

The perception of moral decay has also been co-opted by the GOP.
I believe that the moral decay of this nation was made manifest in the campaign to destroy the presidency of William Clinton.
I believe it was made manifest in George H. Bush's ban on media coverage of homecomings at Dover Air Force Base. This 13-year-old policy is the reason we hear about the price of the war constantly, and yet never, never see its costs.
I believe that the moral decay of this nation was made manifest when, as the result of blatant conflicts of interest, slipshod lawyering, and sheep-like submission in the Congress, a usurper took the presidency in 2000.
I believe the moral decay of this nation was sharply and vividly manifest when we gave in to fear after 9/11, and decided to hate the rest of the world and take wholesale vengeance on the Middle East from Iraq clear to the Hindu Kush.
I believe the moral decay of this nation was most clearly manifest in the war crimes we committed and continue to commit in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and throughout the world.
I believe the moral decay of this nation is manifest in our returning to work on 11/3/04 instead of striking generally over an election that appears to have been rigged.
If we pay our taxes, we are even more immoral.

The GOP has manipulated the perception of moral decay, turning it to video games, tv programs, gays, and an unChristian Christianity. They want you to look around you instead of thinking about the meaning and ramifications of what the status quo is doing. The very last thing they want from you is reflection.
Don't satisfy them.
Reflect often. Encourage others to do so.

And as for Mr. Lieberman. He should have changed his party affiliation more than a decade ago.

[karlrschneider]

10. Well said, and welcome to DU

:toast:

[The Crazy Canadian]

9. People voted Republican for 2 reasons:

Tax cuts and killing some rag heads in the Middle East.

I just don't buy this moral values crap.

John Kerry during the campaign promised more tax cuts and winning the war in Iraq. Pretty much what Bush was saying, why not vote for the real thing.

The people have spoken, so let them get their way - more wars in the Middle East and economic bankruptcy at home. Then maybe they'll learn their lesson.

[pauliedangerously]

46. I Agree with you, my northern friend...

I think the "moral values crap" was a smokesreen to blur the election fraud. Still, even if Kerry truly did win, which we'll never know, there is an alarming number of idiots in this country.

I'm eager to witness the suffering in this country...I've been joked and teased most of my life for my ideals, lifestyle, etc. I have no sympathy for my compatriots anymore. If they want social Darwinism, I say, "Bring it on."

[karlrschneider]

12. I suspect that my perception of "moral decay" differs radically from yours

...

[1stadmendmentguy]

13. What is SO wrong with Miller/Liberman ?

This country would be better served with more debate/discussion. What is SO Wrong with the Lieberman's, Zell Millers and when they speak their minds. I for one am a sort of independent that thinks that both parties have forgotten about true America and what we stand for. The Republicans are in-bed big business and they always have been. The Democrats have so many problems, but mainly they have no CORE message. It's as if they are so all over the map, trying to get everything all at once. That is why they Lost big time in this election. If the Democrats would consider carefully their priorities then the American public would be willing to listen to them more than they did in this past election. John Kerry stood for Nothing, but ran Against Bush. Now what kind of platform is that. Did any of you hear the daily "Bush did this wrong and I am going to change it" routine of Kerry? If the Democrats were to stand for something rather than constantly bash the Republicans then they would gather more moderate support. I look at most of the threads on here and I see a constant voice of complaining about the Republicans. You know this goes back to early childhood development. When children constantly complain about Johnny did this to me, the children give credence to the notion of unreason-ability. Take for instance your office situation when a co-worker(and there is always 1 person) that disrupts the office work flow with their constant complaints. This complainer Begs to be heard, resulting in a poor co-cohesiveness with the whole of the office. Everyone is feed-up with this person. Hence the public's lack of support for some key issues that the Democrats wish to debate. Don't complain about what Johnny did, just tell us what YOU would do. Forget about the Other guy/party tell the public what matters most to you/party.

..1stamendmentguy..

[American Tragedy]

33. Zell Miller is a traitor. That's what is wrong with him.

It is one thing to dissent from one's party based on a few issues or in reaction to partisan excesses. This is totally different. Zell Miller fiercely endorsed the most right-wing president in history and assaulted John Kerry with too many vicious lies and distortions for me to possibly list.

He voted more consistently with the Bush administration than almost half of the Senate Republicans. His only reason for remaining a Democrat is so that he can juxtapose himself as the rational Dem for Bush, so he can attack our party more effectively. I don't know how I could hate somebody more.

As for Lieberman, he's just painfully uninspiring and frequently fails to differentiate himself from the other side. What he calls a moderate often seems to manifest itself as a premeditated capitulation to Republican Senators.

[Dark]

63. John Kerry's mistake was he seemed to vacillate and didn't go after

the swift boat guys. THAT's why he lost. The republicans didn't win as much as they have led people to believe.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. The only "liberal rhetoric" that I hear

which "opposes the accumulation of wealth/ getting ahead / entrepreneurship / on the one hand and effectively supporting Hedonism and rampant crime" is that which is described by Rush Limbaugh and Faux News. Let's not make the mistake of confusing our enemies caricatures of us for what it is that we really stand for.

I also hardly think that Hollywood is the major area of moral decay in our country. I sort of think that things like unprovoked war, allowing millions of people to fall into poverty, letting children go without health care, and destruction of the environment, are also moral issues. As are things like the bigotry and hatred that the GOP is so good at running on.

As far a Lieberman goes, if the Republicans respect him so much, they can have him. He's the one Democratic candidate that I would not have voted for, had he won the nomination.

I think the right equation is to try to combat the roots of crime, and focus on prevention as well as punishment. I think that we should be pro-family by supporting families through job creation, improvement of education, expansion of healthcare access, better access to quality childcare, and support for family units that don't meet the traditional definitions of "family", but nevertheless are] families. We should not embrace bigotry and hate, and call it "family values".

This is not a flame, merely an expression of strong disagreement.

[Perky]

18. Umm I think that is my point

"...is that which is described by Rush Limbaugh and Faux News. Let's not make the mistake of confusing our enemies caricatures of us for what it is that we really stand for."

The problem is th that this is the argument they make and we do not hve a coherant response, let alone one that appeals to the voting middle of this country.

We respond with "Bush is for the Rich" which means in soundbite shorthand: We are for the poor...but at the sufferance of everyone else.

When are thickskulled liberals going to understand that ther are more people making over $75k a year who always vote then those making under $35k. You can't win unless you appeal to the self-interest of the middle class.

[Neshanic]

15. What is this "why we fail?" We have not failed.

The times we live in and the nation has failed US.

There was a wave coming. It started at the end of the Carter years. It was a ripple of religious-neocon fascism that started when Reagan was elected. While everyone one not looking or was tied up with the S&L scandals, the wave got stronger. They got people into politics, people that believed the same as them.

The wave got bigger and bigger. During the properous 90's, no one watched as they made inroads. All it would take is one thing to set the wave to crash on shore.

The rest we all know. The best part is that this wave has already hit shore. It has destroyed everything. We are in the stage as a country were people are still coming out of their safe places to see the damage that was done by the wave that just hit.

We are still checking for damage as a country, and now the realization will begin. Some people thought that someone would come and help. They are starting to realize they are on their own.

Of course we know that there was no help coming, it was up to us. the others, the rest of the nation that is still waiting for the help, the check in the mail, the war that will end, the economy that will be a boom, the president that is what they desperately want to believe, but is nothing but a sham; they are the ones that failed.

They failed our country. They failed our founding fathers. They failed their religion.

[fugue]

16. I disagree too

You are talking about selling out my values. You want me to endorse a value system I find horrific.

I believe that if one person lives in luxury and another in poverty, the first owes the second something.

I believe that those whom the system fails as children and who then take a wrong path (most of the addicts I know, and I do know a few, became addicted to at least alcohol before the age of fifteen) are owed something by the rest of us.

I believe that the single most important moral value is compassion. Every single one of the large religions has a variant of what Christians call the Golden Rule. I did comparative religion when I was younger, and everyone but Satanism has it. In Christianity's case, in the biblical account of Judgment Day, Jesus cites not belief in him but compassion as the deciding factor in whether you get into heaven ("I was hungry, and you did not feed me; I was naked and you did not clothe me . . . whatsoever you have done to the least of my children, you have done to me").

I think we fail because we let them devalue our values; we let them argue that they have values and we don't. I am not amoral; I am differently moraled. If they want me to respect their beliefs as "values," they'll have to start respecting mine as such. I'm getting really tired of being told that I don't have genuine values because I'm an agnostic who is for gay marriage but strongly against violence and for ending poverty. Thanks, but just because there's no supernatural boogey man handing out my values doesn't make them inferior. I would argue that I hold them the more deeply for having chosen them myself.

[TnDem]

34. No way

This quote by you I disagree with so strongly:

I believe that if one person lives in luxury and another in poverty, the first owes the second something

Why in Lord's name does that person owe the other person something? Are you telling me that if one person works very hard and long hours, saves his/her money, starts their own business and is successful, then that successful person then somehow owes the lazy sloth that laid on the couch, did drugs or collected SSI part of what they worked very hard to achieve? Tell me you are joking?

That is abject and utter communism.

As a small businessman and a faithful member of the Democratic party, I can assure you that if this is the REMOTE goal of most board readers, then get ready for a smaller and smaller part of the electoral pie.

[Perky]

35. TNDEM has it right

Yes we need a safety net...but we also need to kick some people in the ass.

I make $120k a year as an entreprenuer but I got there by working 60 hours a week.... I have sacrificed a lot to get there and while I am happy to pay my fair share of taxes....I don't want the super rich getting a tax cut at my expense nor do I want the poor being given a free ride on my dime.

While many issues of parity need to be addressed, the poor among us, need to take responsibility as well.

[Neshanic]

37. Well, an ass kicking. That's the solution.

Perky and pals think the ass kicking should begin. Why should WE pay for anything when they slovenly lounge about?

"WE", Perky and TnDem pay no matter what.

What, you think that you two are the only ones that write checks?

Riddle me this one. Would it not be better to make sure that the poor are clothed, fed, helped with jobs, than you two writing your checks to to pay for the massive amount of people to use emergency rooms as primary care? What would the savings be on that? Just that alone?

This is not about the facts of people who cannot take care of themselves being lavished with money, or you channeling Reagans ghost with the welfare queen/cadillac crap. This is about what WE are as a society and who will make it possible, and who has no desire to. That's what its all about.

[Perky]

39. Did Iso much as hint at any of this?

No....I never said forget about them, I never said anything close to that...buyt I am more concerned about breaking the cycle of poverty and despair then I am about feeding it...I spent two years working with Habitat for Humanity and I have seen the tranformation ownership can bring. Its those that expect a handout rather than those who need support that I have a' problem with. We are hardly the only one writing checks.

I certainly feel that the poor need better solutions for healthcare. It confounds me that on that issue and on K-12 education we can't seem to string two coherant sentence together on what is essentially an economics issue.

[fugue]

36. You're assuming the sloth on the part of the person in poverty

In my experience, most people in poverty are working very hard or they are suffering from a disability (which, I can tell you, is very hard work in and of itself) or they are suffering the aftereffects of being abandoned by their society (the addicts I know, all of whom where addicted to at least alcohol by the age of fifteen). Before you dismiss the addicts as "undeserving," you should see them try to escape addiction. There's a reason so few succeed. It's nigh near impossible to do.

This notion of the "deserving" versus the "undeserving" poor is a myth that came into being during the nineteenth century and it should have been retired with it. If you don't agree, that means you haven't had enough exposure to the poor. Come live with them and get to know them.

Give a person real alternatives in life, a way to succeed within the system, and they'll take it. Sure, there will always be a criminal element, too, but they will be a very small minority. Most criminal behavior is born of desperation, and of seeing desirable things dangled forever beyond your reach because you don't belong to a wealthy enough to class to ever attain those things even by hard work. We're not talking yachts here. We're talking basic comforts in life.

I'm sorry, but I think you don't know whereof you speak. You've only looked at one side of the coin and are assuming what's on the other.

[NaturalHigh]

44. Yeah, let's go with that.

I believe that if one person lives in luxury and another in poverty, the first owes the second something.



That will make a great campaign slogan in '08. (dripping with sarcasm) I'm not sure I can think of a better way to alienate Americans than to tell them what "they" owe us.

[sangh0]

17. I agree

Well said Perky

[Perky]

19. The turth of the matter is:

The majority of Americans are not liberals. The vast majority belive in helping the underprivielged but do it right! Don't overburden me in the middle and don't give them a free ride.

If you fix the education system you are on the way to regaining the center.

[union_maid]

20. You mean where we fail is in not being Republicans

If our issues lack populist appeal it's more a failure of marketing than failure of the message itself.

IMHO, our failures fall into two broad areas:

Too much in-fighting. Republicans disagree with each other, even vehemently so, but when push comes to shove they get back into lockstep. That has proved very effective. We need to understand that they're the enemy, not any real Democrat or progressive and that includes anyone who'll vote with us and for us on the majority of issues. It basically has to include anyone to the left of Zell. We need to focus like a laser on the goal of defeating the takeover of our country by the extremists and everything we do should be to further that goal.

Overestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum said "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.", and it's true. Our problem is that we don't know how to play that game and we need to learn. The recent CBS survey that showed that the majority doesn't believe in evolution should be a primer for the party. We need to attack, but we need to do it smarter and of course, in very simple language. You can't be nuanced when most of your audience doesn't even know what "nuance" means.

[Perky]

27. If we believe the center of american politicsis owned by the GOP

then we are doomed to sit on the sidelines. Look you seem to believe that the middle class suburbanite is a) dumb (which is the very elitism we are decried for) and not important to electability of our candidates which is naive at best.

I think it is stunning when we decry, on the one-hand, that the Rebublicans are trying to gut the middle class when we ourselve want to sacrifice them on the altar of our "ideals" Suvh a view relegates us to anachronistic status in the eyes of those we should be trying to steal away from the GOP

I choose to be relevant rather than joust at windmills. I choose approachability of new ideals over the Phyrric foolisheness of old school liberalism which is repeatedly rejected by manstream voters.

Our ideals are not, can not be driven by archaic politics of the past. if we do not win the hearts and minds of the middle class by appealing to their basic political instincts then shame on us for rejecting them.

[Dr Fate]

29. "We" dont fail. Our "leaders" fail b/c they refuse to tell the truth....

...about Bush's lying & criminal activity.

DEMS "leaders" also refuse to tell the truth about the biased media.

I'm realizing that there is no "we"- there is the DEmocratic base, who works its heart & soul out for "leaders" who ignore us time & time again.

ITS THE LIES STUPID.

ITS THE MEDIA STUPID.

When DEM leaders listen to the people who volunteer & give money, they will know this and they will WIN.

[Perky]

31. Could not disagree more

What drives you to that conclusion?



How many individual contributors did JFK have? Would you say that he got more financial support from liberals then moderates?

Would you say that the small minority of those who contribute are more important to honing the message then are the large majority who don't contrubute at all but are just as likely to vote?

Are you suggesting that money buys access or worse..should drive message?

[Dr Fate]

32. I'm a moderate for one thing.

I'm suggesting that the Democrats on the ground, doing the WORK and talking to people everyday know more than the idiots who head the DNC.

YES-we ARE more important in honing the message b/c we are the heart & soul of the party- not Donna fucking Brazile who cant seem to win an election- and who writes off everything the base says.

I dont know why so many Democrats are opposed to the leaders calling it like they see it.

Its not about Liberal v. moderate- its about exposing Bush as a lying criminal and taking away his political capital.

DEM leaders are too scared of the media to do that.

[bhikkhu]

38. Limbaugh could have penned this

Sorry, but its baloney. And you won't get anywhere by confessing guilt to what the victors have accused you of.

1) this is about the details of campaigning and how our message is perceived. I don't buy the conclusions as to how we were "painted", and have no trust in the "marketing" of politics.

2) What moral decay? You may be watching too much TV. Crime is also a virtual non-issue since the 80's. Hedonism? Who worries about hedonism when they can't find a job, can't finance an education, struggle to make the mortgage. All these are irrelevant. If I were a gloating repug schooling a downtrodden dem as to what was done wrong, this is the sort of dated and useless stuff I might come up with.

How about read the definition of "liberal". Nobody will ever convince me that liberal values are not American values, and "rhetoric" is a derisive label you can attach to any statement you have failed to understand. One thing we did wrong was we allowed the "L" word to become a cutting rebuke. It should be a compliment.

[Perky]

40. Oh really?

How d you thing the Solid South is now solidly red. Do you think the the politics of an entire region changed? No it did not change at all...what happened is that the GOP hijecked the enire region by saying we wer all a bunch of tax and spend liberals and theat the GOP and the Moral Majority can do a much better job at looking out for their interest.

They painted us and we allowed them to. Crime is not an 80s issue at all... not in the rural areas of the country.

I am not sure how to respond to you hedomism issue...since it was not on point.

[bhikkhu]

41. Well enough...

perhaps my two cents on the points here are worth a little less.

If I say Limbaugh could have penned it, what I mean is this is the type of misdirected soul searching that makes his heart (such as it is) glad. Perhaps it is not misdirected simply because it is easily criticized.

And I don't know what happened to the South, that was before my time and I haven't educated myself sufficiently in political history there. Consider, though, are not the older generation more inclined to conservatism, and the younger to liberal values? It would be a masterstroke of the conservatives to convince a new generation that they are in fact conservatives too, assuring the repug future. Your argument seems generally to capitulate the point, and to plan the next battle before the first has been truly engaged.

[m berst]

42. maybe it is simpler than that

The South is more rural than the North. Rural counties North and South are conservative. Take Detroit out of Michigan and you have Mississippi.

The second factor is that the Republicans shamelessly pander to people's fears and prejudices.

The third factor is that the Democrats abandon their own message to worry about what the Republicans are doing, and wind up reacting to them all the time.

That's how I see it.

[welshTerrier2]

43. totally disagree ...

liberal rhetoric which opposes the accumulation of wealth/ getting ahead / entrepreneurship / on the one hand and effectively supporting Hedonism and rampant crime on the other, is a real problem for us.

you've been listening to right wing propaganda just a little too long ... you think the left is opposed to wealth and entrepreneurship ??? well, i consider myself "the left" and this statement does not represent me ... it's total nonsense ... what i do oppose is the accumulation of so much wealth that our democracy gets sold to the highest bidder ... i oppose an amount of wealth that enables the wealthy to have a greater influence on public policy than any other citizen ... and entrepreneurship ?? why would you think i oppose that ?? what i do oppose is the kind of entrepreneurship that spends millions on lobbying lawmakers to effect policy ... where i come from, we call that bribery ... and i oppose entrepreneurs who would like to intentionally produce unsafe products and then get laws passed to limit their liability from lawsuits ... what too many mean by "free enterprise" is free from regulation ...

effectively supporting Hedonism and rampant crime on the other

where do you get this stuff ... while democrats are out at their friday night orgies, republicans are all down at the local library reading up on history ... is that what you believe ??? and rampant crime ??? Kerry was a prosecutor ... crime plummeted during Clinton's term in office ... it's on the rise again under bush ... know why ?? i do ... it's because of the loss of jobs and the horrible economy ...

and i assume that when you say democrats should be tough on crime, you of course include in that the hideous crimes committed by all those "entrepreneurs" at companies like Enron and Halliburton ... could those be crimes committed by republicans ... i'm confident democrats would be much tougher on those crimes than the "let 'em off the hook" republicans have been ...

of yes ... i see you also are pushing for a pro family agenda ... i assume you mean like creating jobs instead of losing jobs ... i assume you mean supporting families with kids in college instead of cutting aid to more than a million kids as bush is doing ... i assume you mean doing something about the devastation faced by families that cannot afford healthcare ... i assume you mean not having families face the horror of losing a kid in Iraq ... perhaps, just perhaps, you're mixing up which party is pro family and which is anti-family ...

[I_Love_Oregon]

45. rebuttal

snip
you've been listening to right wing propaganda just a little too long ... you think the left is opposed to wealth and entrepreneurship ??? well, i consider myself "the left" and this statement does not represent me ... it's total nonsense ... what i do oppose is the accumulation of so much wealth that our democracy gets sold to the highest bidder
snip

I agree with you that most Liberals think as you do, and very much support the accumulation of wealth as long as it's not on the backs of others. But I think the point he is making, and I think it's valid, concerns the emphasis of our rhetoric. That is, what messages are consistently voiced by our side? Ask the average person on the street what they heard this past election cycle. Ask them which party represents "wealth building", and entrepreneurship, and surely, it will not be the Democrats.

The question is not whether we believe in wealth creation, small business, and the like. Of course we do. The real question is what messages are getting out. Ask yourself, what endearing image will you remember in terms of our side's message? My image is that of Michael Moore. What does he represent? Perhaps to you, and many at DU, he is a hero and represents the unvarnished truth. Even if that is correct, when you are trying to win general elections, and you need every possible vote, you are inevitably going to have to mold your message and image to fit the non-political junkies diet. And far too much energy was spent pointing out the flaws of the other side, and far too little time spent promoting a positive, pro-growth agenda.

[Perky]

48. Precisely

It is not so much that we hold liberal values to the exclusion of all others...I is that we, in our wordes,, and oftern in our dedsm come across as anti-wealth and as such we give give the GOP the paintbrush by which they tar and feather us.

For instance...Capital Gains reform so long as it is reinvested to stimulate growth, Inheritance Tax reform? why not les if it is revenue nuetra?. Social Security reform. If it is going broke and we effectively fight foe privatization that is revenue neutral and in the mean time allowing younger voters to to invest....why not lead the the reform effort rather than fight it tooth and nail....

We oppose thes on principle becuase???? A trubute to FDR? By saying now way no how....all we suceed in doing is rallying a very small portion of our base and at the same time rightfullybeing viewed as the party that simpluy does not believe in Tax Cuts.

[welshTerrier2]

50. could it be primarily a problem with the corporate controlled media ??

rightfullybeing viewed as the party that simpluy does not believe in Tax Cuts.

rightfully ???

you believe it is RIGHT to believe democrats don't believe in tax cuts ???

what was Kerry's position on tax cuts ?? i believe he said he fully agreed with bush's tax cuts except for a rollback to the tax rates under Clinton (you remember Clinton, he had the healthy economy) for those making over $200K per year ... i suppose you also want to argue that people see the democrats as "the big spenders" ... again, the problem is the media and the democrats inability to overcome this perception ... but there is nothing wrong with the democrats' position on these issues ...

most democrats are appalled at how the republican controlled government is bankrupting this country ... you tell me who the big spenders are ... if you're not sure, lookup the size of the surplus Clinton had when he left office ... then go look at the record budget deficits the republicans keep voting for ... their goal, btw, is to bankrupt the U.S. ... and they're doing a very good job at it ...

[Perky]

55. I was obviously speaking generically about Taxes

The record will not that Kerry never proposed tax cuts just maintaining those already in place.

It is a perception issue to be sure. Is it the media? perhaps. It is certainly the GOP...but it is also our inability to produce a record which say we favor tax cut that is the bigger problem.

Whatever the case... when our only response to GOP calling for Tax cut is to say it favors the rich and therefore we are against it, I think at a point the middle just rolls their eyes.

Our Rhetoric, howver correct simply fuels the perception.

[welshTerrier2]

56. so what's your solution then ??

should democrats support tax cuts larger than the ones Kerry supported? to say that we get beaten up on the issue of taxes is all well and good, but what's the solution?

the republicans are spending like there's no tomorrow ... and there may not be the way this is going ...

should democrats back a tax cut while these record deficits are being run up by the republican controlled government?

bush's large tax cuts have been an economic disaster ... what's worse, the tax cuts really did go to the very wealthiest ... the rest got nothing but table scraps ... the tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible ... do you recommend ignoring that reality to fix an image problem?

what's your solution to this based on the situation we have today ?? the truth is most Americans cherish many expensive federal programs but complain about having to pay for them ... it's not the policy that's causing the problems; it's our failure to effectively communicate and educate why they're worth paying for ...

[Perky]

59. What did Bill Clinton do?

We had record surpluses and he gave none of it back... I think there is room to play in this ball park

1) has to be revenue neutral
2) has to spur economic growth

Reduce Capital gains for individuals and get rid of the inheritance tax. Pay for it by Closing the corporate loopholes for outsourcing and fix the special treatment given to large corporate bonuses.

Support the Line Item Veto.

Simplify the Tax Code.

Agree to adjustments to SSI in exchange for a requiremnt for a balance budget in ten years.

Provide amnesty for illegal aliens, but penalize companies that fail to pay payroll taxes on guest workers. Use the revenue to fund health care services for anyone less than 10.

[welshTerrier2]

61. we call them republicans ...

we already have a party that offers reduced capital gains ... we call them republicans ...

here are my views on the capital gains issue ... first, we should value a dollar of worker's pay more than a dollar of investor income ... discounts on income from investments should not be available to the super wealthy ... in fact, capital gains rates on high income earners should be higher than the tax rate on their wages ...

if that's not agreeable to you, and i'm sure it isn't, i would go along with taxing capital gains for high income earners at the same rate as their wages are taxed ... the bottom line is that the wealthy are not paying taxes based on their ability to pay ...

now, if you want to have special tax treatments for low and middle income investors, fine ... but i am not going to support turning the investor class into a bunch of sacred cows ... i value a hard earned dollar more than an invested dollar ...

and as for the inheritance tax, no dice ... we have created an inter-generational ruling class but allowing such massive transfers of wealth through inheritance ... if we could truly get the big money abuses out of our democracy, i would be open to considering eliminating the inheritance tax ... but i see the accumulation of massive wealth as an obstacle to democracy ... apparently you don't or have chosen not to even comment on the problem ...

i would immediately tax 100% of all estates over some amount ... that amount would likely be in the $1 to $2 million area ... allowing the ruling class to retain massive wealth from one generation to another gives a small minority a disproportionate influence over government policies ... republicans have made arguments about the "death tax" destroying family farming ... first of all, get real ... mega-sized agri-business has destroyed the family farm ... i don't see republicans shedding too many tears about that ... and secondly, i would be more than happy to study possible hardship exemptions from my inheritance tax proposal ...

as for simplifying the tax code, i couldn't agree more ... many years ago, i used to do tax work ... and i can't figure out what to do half the time ... our tax laws, while often well meaning, are absurd ...

the bottom line here is that it is unhealthy for a democracy for the rich to keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer ... i'm not for "taking away everyone's hard earned income" to support a massive government bureaucracy ... but i do believe in making significant transfers of wealth to create a healthier society ... and when 45 million Americans can't afford such a fundamental need as health insurance, we do not have a healthy society ... when kids can't afford to go to college and school budgets are pinched beyond the breaking point, we do not have a healthy society ... and when massive multi-national corporations push for self-serving Medicare bills and others push for eternal war, we do not have a healthy society ... while i agree with your call for closing corporate tax loopholes, it won't happen in a country that caters to the wealthiest of its citizens ... the investor class that has bought and paid for far too many elected officials is not about to support that proposal ... it's a good one; but it won't happen until we level the playing field a bit ...

big money has polluted our government and given the common man the shaft ... the problem i see is not that democrats have the wrong policies; it's that we've failed to educate the American people on just how corrupting big money has become in our American institutions ... money is power; programs that seek to leave even more money in the hands of the wealthy are dead on arrival as far as i'm concerned ...

[Perky]

65. wow

"i would immediately tax 100% of all estates over some amount ... that amount would likely be in the $1 to $2 million area ... allowing the ruling class to retain massive wealth from one generation to another gives a small minority a disproportionate influence over government policies"

I don't necessarily buy the argument that wealth = political influence. Were that true athletes and celebrities would wield as much political clout as the great granchildren of Mr. Vanderbilt or Sam Walton

I am not sure any of these groups even care to wield political clout if they had it...

Nonetheless to effectively decimate the accumulation of wealth as a penalty for sucess hardly incents anyone to invest in new ideas..I would suggest that the investment class be it ine the form of simple IRAs or large inheritance is a significant part of the job creation engine.

If you can show me how...specifically and historically the accumulualtion of wealth translated into invest dollars has been detrimental to the country's development I will listen. This is not money simply squirrles away in diamonds and yachrts and cottages in Newport, much of it used repeatedly to create new business to creat jobs..

Do you honestly believe that the Government could do a better job with that money? And if so...what is the basis for such a conclusion.

[welshTerrier2]

67. the dark clouds

do you understand the role big corporations are playing in Washington? are you aware of the billions of dollars being spent on lobbyists? do you think they're lobbying to serve the interests of those who pay their salaries or on behalf of the best interests of all Americans? Do you understand what Eisenhower meant when he said "beware the military-industrial complex"?

is it just possible that wars, fear of wars, allegations against foreign governments are all part of a plan to induce the federal government to spend your tax dollars on businesses that support the defense establishment?

so, if you ask me whether I think the government is doing a good job with the revenue it raises, the answer is "No !!!" ... but a major cause of inappropriate spending is disproportionate wealth ... it's sort of a Catch 22, isn't it? the solution to make the government do a "better job with that money" is not to give the lion's share of it back to those already in control; the solution is to make at least some effort to level the playing field.

If you want to understand how massive wealth controls the U.S. government, you only need to look at how expensive it is to run for Federal office ... do you think many "commoners" are likely to win a seat in the Senate? If you look at the recently passed Medicate catatrophe, you'll see billions of dollars in windfall profits for both the pharmaceutical industry and the HMO industry. Do you think you might also find that mega-corporations in these industries gave something like 90% of their political contributions to the republican party? And what about big oil? Do you think they're solidly behind the Democratic Party? Do you think their major stockholders are evenly divided between Democrats and republicans? Do you think issues like Iraq and drilling in the ANWR might just be something these wealthy stockholders are pushing for?

In an ideal world, I would strongly support the unlimited accumulation of wealth. Why would anyone want to impose any restrictions on the freedom of Americans to achieve as much material wealth as they want to have? My political and economic model starts with a belief that we should strive for as much liberty for every individual as we can possibly allow. But I also believe that limits must exist when the broader values of our people are abused by those exploiting these liberties. And in the sphere of this discussion, that includes a rather harsh restriction on the accumulation of massive wealth. Unfortunately, I'm afraid money is power and power corrupts. When our system of democracy requires big money to get elected, we need to vigorously protect our democratic institutions. When we see decades of bad government policy that sells out our system of American values to the highest bidder, we must become even more vigilant and unfortunately even more restrictive.

Please be clear that I am not suggesting that every wealthy person has a political agenda. Nor am I suggesting that there are no wealthy people who oppose the corporatising of America. There are a few wealthy heroes fighting with us. But they too are unable to hold back the tide that washes over us all.

Things will continue to get worse, much worse, until mainstream Democrats begin to speak the truth. And I see very few signs they most of them ever will. I believe the final days of the great American experiment in democracy are upon us. And we sit quietly by conducting business as usual. The storm is upon us; the dark clouds are no longer just rumored; our government and the freedoms we all cherish are slipping away. And still many of those who might fight back if they understood, still do not understand. And we don't know what else we can do to awaken them.

[Perky]

75. Ah yes and there is a Spectre over America.....

Ya know...all due respect....The Democratic tent is big and broad and able to accomodate a great wealth of ideas.... the massive redistribrution of wealth you propose is likely Marcist and I do not think our tent is that broad.

Ease up on the ad hominem and the slippery slopes and give me facts: You still have not shown empirically how taking the dollars away from the the wealthy and having the governement redistrubute is viable or smart for aither an economic or political perspoective as Democrats.

ANd in terms of neding Ealth to run for federal office... I offerer three examples: Bill Clinton; Paul Wellston; Salazar in Colorado...any number of Republican Sentors int he SOuth...And perhaps the best republica example od ascendency abasent wealth...Newt Gingrich....a lowly connunity college teacher who lost three times (I think) before he won.

[welshTerrier2]

77. your tent ??

the massive redistribrution of wealth you propose is likely Marcist and I do not think our tent is that broad.

OK ... you've convinced me ... i'll leave the party ... or perhaps you would feel more at home in the republican party which already espouses many of the tax ideas you've proposed ...

additional capital gains tax discounts, undermining Social Security, and more inheritance tax giveaways don't belong in our big tent ... there's already a party pushing a rich get richer agenda ... the tent down the road to the right might be the one you're looking for ...

[Perky]

78. Ha ha that will never happen

but that is precisely the issue which started this thread. I freely confess that I am a moderate Democrat. Which in an evenly divided country means that my vote is somewhat in play.

If, as a pro-business democrat --who does not want to pay high taxes but also believes that its critically important that we broaden the investor class so that more ships may rise, more that more high-wage jobs can be created and people can live out their dreams and at the same time protect those less fortunate -- I am being told by the Democratic party that there is no place for moderates and that I should join the republicans...I truly fear for the party.

You seem to want to pull it farther to the left to highlight the difference... I understand the logic...but the proble is that it will appear as abandoment to those in the middle and as importantly...I do not see candidates out there who would have whatit takes to convince Moderates to jump on board.

[welshTerrier2]

79. "more ships may rise ..."

you argue that you want "more ships to rise" and that you want "more high wage jobs" ...

i hope you'll acknowledge that your call for lower capital gains rates and a reduction in the inheritance tax have been pushed by the republican party for years ... if you like those policies so much and consider them so important, perhaps you could explain why you prefer the Democratic Party which historically has not supported these positions ...

republicans engineer higher rates of unemployment to oppress the working classes ... workers are less able to negotiate on their own behalf because they would be more vulnerable in a weak job market ... this cedes more power to corporations and their wealthiest shareholders ... in times where the unemployment rate is very low, the power (it's a simple supply and demand market concept that should appeal to republicans) shifts back to the workers ...

so, what effect has republican economic policy had on the job market?

well, we had the great Reagan recession of 1981 ... we had the great bush I recession of 1991 and now we're enjoying the great bush II recession ... which party is the one that really helps "all ships rise" ??? i don't see the policies you're calling for as pro business; i see them as yet another giveaway to the wealthy, ruling class ...

[Perky]

84. I use those as examples

I am not a supply-sider at all... I think history shows that that cutting taxes has not provided substantial economic stimulus in and of itself

My point, which is admittedly difficult to communicate at some levels, is that we tend in the Democratic party to view tax cuts as a class warfare issue. It seems we oppose capital gains tax cuts solely because we see it as favoring monied/republican interests at the expense of the poor...


It is partly language...but it is also tactics. A lot of capital gains comes from sale of primary residence which is a middle class issue. If it benefits the middle, does not injure the impoverished, is revenue Neutral....why not support it?

We ought to be leading the charge on behalf of the Middle class...Instead we oppose it on the principle that it favors the rich. but the impact of our language alienates the middle class and the GOP is more than happy to paint us as "against the accumulation of wealth.


I apply the same rule to SSI reform and Inheritance task. I don't care if it helps the rich.... I want it to help me!

[priscilla_asagiri]

82. He praised Bush at his Library, thats what....

So, I'm not particularly thrilled with the guy

[welshTerrier2]

49. a few points

if the key point is that democrats need a clearer definition of their central message and they need to be more effective in communicating that message, I agree ...

but if the point is that democrats should stop talking about the abuse of power by those with great wealth, I disagree ...

Ask them which party represents "wealth building"

the question I would ask would be which party cares about the average American and which party cares primarily about the wealthy? Frankly, I think most Americans are sick and tired of having the "wealthy" trickle down on them ... Your questions are phrased exactly the way republicans want them to be phrased ... they are not the questions democrats should be asking people ... the Democratic Party enjoyed decades of success hanging the "big business, fat cat" label on republicans ... instead of focussing on "wealth building", let's focus on jobs; let's focus on the cost of health insurance and health care that is rapidly becoming too expensive for most Americans; let's focus on financial security for retirement. Most Americans know that the republican party is not going to be doing much to protect Social Security ... if you want to ask the real questions about "wealth building", I'm confident most Americans will choose the Democratic Party ...

As for Michael Moore, he's a free agent ... frankly, I don't see how you can know whether his net impact was positive or negative for democrats ... it seems like total speculation to suggest that Moore's left wing views influenced people who would have voted for Kerry to switch sides and vote for bush ... Kerry didn't go around the country asking Moore to campaign with him ... those who were predisposed to dislike Moore and voted for bush probably never would have voted for Kerry anyway ...

And as far as spending too much time criticizing bush and not putting forward a positive agenda, I pretty much agree ... this gets us back to the first point that says that democrats need to develop a clearer, consistently delivered, message ... i don't know that less time needed to be spent criticizing bush ... elections are usually a vote on the incumbent's record ... but I agree that the Democratic Party does not have its act together and better do so very soon ....

[I_Love_Oregon]

64. great post

WelshTerrier2, I really enjoyed reading this post of yours. It is well thought out, and I agree with most of it. So I'm going to focus on the one area that I agree with the least...

snip
As for Michael Moore, he's a free agent ... frankly, I don't see how you can know whether his net impact was positive or negative for democrats ... it seems like total speculation to suggest that Moore's left wing views influenced people who would have voted for Kerry to switch sides and vote for bush ... Kerry didn't go around the country asking Moore to campaign with him ... those who were predisposed to dislike Moore and voted for bush probably never would have voted for Kerry anyway ...
snip

My primary point is this.. Michael Moore spoke to the base of the party, and most everyone in that base loved what he had to offer. However, IMO, I don't think he brought a net positive of NEW voters to the Democratic side, and probably drove away voters whom might have otherwise voted for Kerry. I base this on conversations with many people in my circle...on all sides of the issue, but especially on those tweeners who don't follow politcs closely. They were not comforted by his movie.

[welshTerrier2]

68. Moore or less ...

i have the following observations on the Michael Moore thing ...

to repeat, I'm not really sure what Democrats could have done about Moore ... I really don't think any national candidates used his material to make a case against bush ... Moore is an independent filmmaker and has a right to do what he did ... personally, i think he's a real patriot ... i also think they need to monitor his meds a little more closely ... he's had a couple of "deep end" incidents unrelated to his films ...

as for the communication of messages and the education of voters, the case for democrats must be made in a logical progression against the backdrop of broader themes ... the democrats historically have been a great "laundry list" party and a poor theme party ... at least that's been the case in the last two elections ... we need to define a set of core values as a starting point ... the laundry list of detailed, wonky, policy specifications needs to logically eminate from our core themes ...

the problem someone like Moore presents for the democrats is not that he's wrong, not that he's off the wall, but that he's "gotten a little too far out in front of the headlights" ... it might be possible (or it might have been possible) for democrats to make a legitimate case that bush a. did a miserable job in response to 9/11 b. knew about 9/11 in advance and did nothing (lihop) or c. was responsible for 9/11 (mihop). but screaming these ideas to cheering crowds at campaign rallies would have lost votes, not gained them. you can't "get out in front of your headlights" without crashing into something ... i believe there is no idea that's too radical if the proper foundations are developed. each and every idea you want the American people to support has to be built via a step-by-step process of education. it's wrong to say "that's too radical; it will hurt the party." ... it's right to say, "that goes too far because we haven't prepared the country to hear that message yet." ...

so the lesson i took away from the "Moore thing" is that his message rallied those who understood but alienated those who did not. Moore's message went too far only because democrats did not support the process of education around bush's 9/11 role. and again, democrats could not control either Moore or his message.

[I_Love_Oregon]

70. a bit naive

The fact no candidate ran on the "Michael Moore" platform, as you say, means little. The point is what theme and messages, in a broader sense, took root during the campaign. Sure, he's got the right to make his movie, as the Swift Boaties had a right to make theirs. The question seems to be, what side was helped (or hurt) more? The Democrats from Moore, or the Republicans by the Swifties?


snip
as for the communication of messages and the education of voters, the case for democrats must be made in a logical progression against the backdrop of broader themes ... the democrats historically have been a great "laundry list" party and a poor theme party ... at least that's been the case in the last two elections ... we need to define a set of core values as a starting point
snip

I couldn't agree more. Let's talk about core values, and let's start that discussion with a clear eyed, unvarnished look at what this party is, and what it is not.

[welshTerrier2]

73. naive ??

just what would you have suggested to the democrats after Moore made his movie ???

i understand that F911 may have had an impact during the campaign but i think you're overstating its importance ... as i said before, it is not at all clear to me whether the film had a net positive or negative effect ... the theme and messages that took root during the campaign had very little to do with Moore's movie in my opinion ...

while i never agreed with the strategy, i think the democrats' message regarding bush's handling of 9/11 was generally complimentary ... I just don't believe that most Americans associated John Kerry with Michael Moore ... i think Moore was seen by most as something of a maverick and not as a Democratic Party insider ... i don't think that was true of the Swifties ... I think most people saw a very close correlation between their agenda and the RNC ...

[I_Love_Oregon]

74. ok..

I guess I'll just respectfully disagree. I don't think most voters pay close enough attention to see a discernable difference between Moore and Democrats in general. I think his effect was far more pronounced than you're letting on to.

[priscilla_asagiri]

83. One slight problem with that

Dick Morris came out with his Farenhype 911 right before the election which further painted moore as a nutcase. The DLC could have done some basic investigative work to see how "pure" Moores message was before commiting to placing him in the spotlight of the DNC.

It would be as if Mel Gibson was found to have beaten his wife or somethign just before the election. Guilt by association, may not make sense in a court of law, but the court of public opinion often obeys no law.

[AndyTiedye]

47. Got it Backwards

> )We allow the GOP to do what they do very well which is make elections
> about us and not about them. We allow the GOP to paint us as being
> for special interest and thus against the middle class.

That's because they own the news. Big problem for us.
Most of the perceptions you cite are actually Rovian talking points
which were endlessly echoed by the ever-compliant media.

Under the Repubs, many have fallen out of the middle class.
The media doesn't talk about that much.

> We fail because we allow the republicans to paint us as being
> anti-wealth and therefore somehow against the American Dream.

We're all for the American Dream. It's the Repubs who are destroying it.

> 2) We fail because we have not come up with a meaningful response
> to the moral decay in this country,

Getting rid of the liars and thieves at the top would be a good start.

> other than lumping Republicans and Christians into one big pile we
> call hypocrites

The pile is only for those who are both Christian and Republican.
It can be rather difficult to reconcile what one reads in the
Bible with what the Republicans are doing.

> Republicans respect Lieberman because he challenges Hollywood.

I wish he would challenge the moral decay in WASHINGTON D.C.!
Like lying about WMDs to get us into war -- Oh, wait, he thinks that was OK.
Halliburton ripping us off for billions while shorting our troops
on essential supplies.
Breaking into the Dems' computer systems.
Blatantly disenfranchising voters.
The list is endless.

Republicans like Lieberman because he caves in to them so much
and never asks any embarassing questions about REAL moral issues.

I take it YOU like Lieberman because you want more censorship than
we have already (which is more than any other Western country).
I do not agree.

> supporting hedonism

Where? They didn't invite me! Damn!

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

51. My guess why the dems fail

They are to cowardly to go to the streets and stay there. They'll be the subjects of Chimperial America until chimpy gets his subterran bunkers in washington done and undusts the nukes. what is left will be some subterran bushcult.

the nutty reps & lazy-coward dems will be sort of vapor. Allthough i second your cause only bitching won't get you anywhere. take it to the streets or get lost.

sorry but i'm pissed and raving needed that rant

[w4rma]

54. We failed in not realizing the power of non-government power centers

such as the media and churches. Liberals have, recently, spent far too much time on trying to uncorrupt the government while ignoring the corruption and conglomeration in the media, while ignoring the power of religion and church, while picking a fight with the NRA.

All this while the small buisnesses get swallowed up by big corporations who have now bought out the media who are now on a rampage against Democrats and everything that Democrats stand for. And they are on a rampage twisting everything that Jesus Christ stood for into a religion of greed, hate and intolerance espoused by the fundamentalists in this country who have not been opposed strongly enough by regular Christians (and similarly for regular Muslims and regular Jews and their own fundamentalist counterparts).

When Dems had control of Congress in 1992, what did they do about the fairness doctrine? Nothing. Even though there were right-wing liars all over the TV and the radio, propagandizing against Dems, the Democratic base did NOTHING to oppose them. Even though there are fundamentalist fanatics all over the country, the Democratic base refused to set up corporations or back churches which oppose them, except by passing laws that made them angrier. Even though the NRA has ALOT of power in America, Democrats chose to pick a fight with them, saying it was courageous. It was stupid.

[Perky]

57. You are spot-on right about the NRA

I think we do damage to ourselve withing the Christian Community by denying that our politcs ahould be influenced by out faith., We have teneded in large measure to treat Chirsitanity as quaint and out of step with Moder Societ.


a Perfce eca,ple was when Kerry say that his Catholic upbringing causeed him to conclude that life begins at conception...but in the next sentence says that those values however near and dear can not and should not effect how he votes or governs. He basically is saying that his faith does not have any impact on his politcs. When the majority of the American people believe in God he basically is saying he approaches the office without a dependence on God.

It is certainly a tough question. There are ways to handle the question that speak to both compassion and pluralism, morality and choice. But to simply say I intend to apply a litmus test to appoint people who believe differently then he does is foolishness and cowardice.


He could have said: "While I am bound my my faith to believe that Life begins at conception, I am not sure I can impose my faith and convictions on others, ultimately this a choice between a woman and her God. The courts have spoken on this. I doubt seriously they would overturn Roe, but they obviously should be guided solely by what the framers intended."

[maxsolomon]

58. WHAT moral decay?

would someone please point out to me where our morals are decaying? where exactly is hollywood decaying our morals? which directors? which movies EXACTLY? shrek? polar express? saving private ryan?

if there is any "decay" going on, the only people decaying our morals are GOP-contributing media conglomerates.

its a red herring. there is no golden age to go back to.

[Perky]

60. I don't disagree it is a red herring

Just like the existence of the liberal elite.

Nonetheless....we have to something about the "shares our values" question.

But just for fun Freddy Vs Jason? ummm Dude where's my car? "desperate Housewives" Any of 10 reality shows about hooking up with the opposite sex or even the same sex. I am far from a puritan, and honestly don't really care about that stuff one way or the other... still at least in religious circles its a rallying point.

And to the extent that we don't complain about gratuitous sex and wanton violence...the GOP paints us as to attached to Hollywood. The issue is not censorship....its about sharing the value that there ought to be restraint on the part of the media.

The issue if we ever care to capture it is simply about protecting Children. But we do not engage on that level. We neither endorse the crap that is out there as a free speech issue or we ignore it when the religious crowds pitches it occasional fit.

We simply do not engage in a discussion on the issue in ways that are constructive or attractive to many many Americans. We give the entire playing field to the GOP and while they do not do crap about it....there is a sense that they are on the side of "less is better"

[eridani]

86. What 'moral decay'?

You mean the stuff that Faux peddles on its network for big bux, and then makes even more big bux paying other people to denounce? Nice work if you can get it, like the taxidermist-veternarian. One way or another, you always get your dog back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/14rich.html?pagewanted=1&th&oref=login

If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.

Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").

None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values."

[Sterling]

62. You have a great plan.

To help us keep losing. Great job!!!!

[Perky]

66. and your strategy is??

Further alienate the middle by moving farther to the left?

[greenohio]

80. I think that is what this dialog is about.

I don't think moving left will help. There have been several related posts (who should we nominate, what issues should we soften, should we run a moderate from the south) asking the same question over and over. Where do we go from here?

I think the posters language is flame bait (hedonism). That said, certain issues are ripe at certain times. Gay marriage is not ripe, as Barny Frank and Sen. Fienstien have said repeatedly. Mass, and San Fran backfired on us, big time, with 11 states passing bans in 2004. He is also right that attacking businesses is not a good plan, as many voters work or contract to business and we can't rely on the public sector on all our votes. Though I don't think that means that we give up on reasonable regulation, and care for the underprivileged.

[sandnsea]

69. You've identified the problem

Your solution sucks ass.

We need to get off the corporate teet and tell the truth about the Republican economic plan. It IS a plan to roll us back to the age of the Robber Barons. Just look at China if you don't get it. If US corporations will treat them like that, there's no reason to think they won't treat us like that. Every time we vote against worker's rights, unions, minimum wage, education assistance; we vote to move towards poverty wages like in China.

We need to promote vibrant communities and service, which builds character and family. If we aren't filling up our children's hearts with the education, the arts, good will; they'll fill it up with the easiest thing available which is usually Hollywood garbage.

And when society completely breaks down because none of the above is present, you get people with no hope, no self-respect, no respect for others; and crime. We voted for a President who put guns on the streets and took cops off the streets and people pretend he's the one who's tough on crime.

We have to stop buying into the Republican fantasyland. It's all phony and designed to keep people fighting each other while the corporations sell us down the drain. We need the entire Democratic Party to tell the truth and as long as half of them believe you can really have unbridled capitalism and rampant consumerism with no consequences, we're likely to never succeed.

[robbedvoter]

72. Uh, we didn't fail. We wuz robbed. Just reminding ya

[cattleman22]

85. Daschle

""Flame me if you must, but liberal rhetoric which opposes the accumulation of wealth/ getting ahead / entrepreneurship /""


I will never forget when Daschle said that America must get rid of all programs that support the accumulation of wealth in his response to the State of the Union Speech. How are Dems supposed to reach out to the middle class when prominent Congressional democrats want to get rid of 401k's, IRAs, and the FDIC. All of these are programs that encourage the accumulation of wealth and yet are very beneficial to the middle class.

[TruthIsAll]

87. Where YOU have failed.

We won the election, so how did we fail? MOst liberal positions are commonplace.

You fail to see that.

Stop the handwringing. If that's what it is.

[Lexingtonian]

88. well, sorta true

What you are saying is that the R's are making us appear responsible for all that's going wrong and themselves for all that's going somewhat right for Middle America.

We allow the GOP to do what they do very well which is make elections about us and not about them. We allow the GOP to paint us as being for special interest and thus against the middle class. We fail because we allow the republicans to paint us as being anti-wealth and therefore somehow against the American Dream.

Well, that's not terribly solvable, because in the end that's an appeal to racial classism that isn't going to die out enough in the next couple of election cycles.

We fail because we have not come up with a meaningful response to the moral decay in this country, other than lumping Republicans and Christians into one big pile we call hypocrites without offering an attractive positions on that front. Republicans respect Lieberman because he challenges Hollywood.

This is more soluble and a thing Democrats have been too wary to touch with anything other than asbestos gloves for short instants at a time. The willingness to even touch it is a remarkable change in Democrats that took place across 2004- too late to affect this election, though.

But this is a Modern/anti-Modern clash, really, in which 'traditional' people are colliding with Modern circumstances and thinking- and they fail (in pretty horrible ways, that's true). The major failure lies in Traditionalism (deliberately) not preparing people for the collision, though. In essence we are being punished for not providing easy bridges from one kind of virtuous and constrained form of life to a virtuous and unconstrained kind of life. Unfortunately, that's the problem that faces every adolescent and no adult has been able come up with a workable genuine solution for it. But yes, try is what we have to, and that's the work only good education and the Christian Left/liberal Christians can do with any kind of group scale success.

Hollywood is the allure of Getting Out of the traditional. Hollywood lives and lives well because conservative America is spiritually parasitic and psychologically terribly needy, needs Hollywood more than Hollywood needs it. 'Hollywood' is the epitome of the American Dream you describe and the thing conservatives must most excoriate, both at the same time. It reflects the unbearable paradox to American conservatism perfectly.

Flame me if you must, but liberal rhetoric which opposes the accumulation of wealth/ getting ahead / entrepreneurship / on the one hand and effectively supporting Hedonism and rampant crime on the other, is a real problem for us.

Well, that's not liberal rhetoric per se. That's the rhetoric, adjusted to seem radical through traditional/conservative assumptions that people don't get out of their heads.

It lacks Populist appeal among the voting majority. I am not saying bend over frontwards on any issue or sell-out idealism...The problem is that we are not perceived as the party that protects the American Dream or gives America hope of achieving it.

The right equation would seem to included being ruthlessly tough on Crime; Pro-family and pro-wealth. I think we have our head in the sand on all three.

If we solve those issues with ideas... we win.

The R's have the corner on that market. Where people think in such narrow terms, where their lives are defined by the terms you describe (between the lines as well as in them), you are talking about a way of life any British colonialist in India, Africa, or Jamaica would recognize as that of their middle class. Money as the primary form of secular ideal, criminals and the wealthy/powerful as set (and absolutely distinct) classes, hedonism and strict moral and political and class codes strictly governing what is possible. That's not actual freedom, that's life as a lifelong mercenary.

You have good ideas. You write in a way that makes me hear and see Mark Shields speaking your very words. But Republicans have achieved a 51% or 55% majority share control of the America that still lives in and obeys the colonial/settlement order of life, that defines itself the way you describe it. And they are the people whose corporations and media and state governments and town councils and school boards and police forces and pastor conventions work hard to keep the game in all things one of exploiting and being exploited, ultimately zero sum for all the players in the middle but excellent for the people at the very top of the pyramid, brutal on those at the very bottom.

We can try catering to the scheme, promising incremental change. That was the only Democratic game in the South and the Midwest into the Nineties. The only effect Democrats seem to have had is to put more money into the system, which of course just trickled to the top, and Republicans have simply continued it. What is actually needed for the game to change- and with it, Republican control- is for one tier or another of the government or voters to balk at maintaining this system and force it into breakdown.

So I don't see it doing any good to try to outcompete Republicans on this, their home turf. I'm sorry, but I think our side is going to have to break this scheme down from above- win elections in the cities and whereever else the American Dream starts with being treated as equal by the government. Then to break down the corporations and designs and rules that cleverly deprive American working people of their money and getting quality for their money.

I'd love to believe that average people would do so, working from below. But voters these days- on both sides- evidently keep on lowering their expectations, complain rather than act, and decide their votes based on fears and private priorities and individual inability to cope with the even the good aspect to the world in Modern times, let alone the complicated aspect.