Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Democrats Should Be Saying

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Democrats Should Be Saying

    What Democrats Should Be Saying

    By David Ignatius

    Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A21

    This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief of staff is facing a grand jury probe. Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.

    So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems. Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Rather than address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, they have decided to play politics and let President Bush squirm on the hook of his unpopular plan to create private Social Security accounts.


    Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.

    The Democrats' problem is partly a lack of strong leadership. Its main spokesman on foreign policy has become Sen. Joseph Biden, a man who -- how to put this politely? -- seems more impressed with the force of his own intellect than an objective evaluation would warrant. Listening to Biden, you sense how hungry he is to be president, but you have little idea what he would do, other than talk . . . and talk.

    The same failing is evident among Democratic spokesmen on economic issues. Name a tough problem -- such as energy independence or reform of Medicare and Social Security -- and the Democrats are ducking the hard choices. That may be understandable as a short-term political strategy: Why screw up your chances in the 2006 congressional elections by telling people they must make sacrifices? But this approach keeps the Democrats part of politics-as-usual, a game the GOP plays better.

    Howard Dean is a breath of air as chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- but unfortunately a lot of it is hot air. Dean is admirably combative, and in that he reflects a party that is tired of being mauled by Karl Rove's divisive campaigning. The problem with Dean is that, like his party, he doesn't have much to say about solving problems. Pressed about Iraq last Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," Dean passed the buck: "What we need is a plan from the president of the United States." Rather than condemn a NARAL Pro-Choice America ad against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts that was so outrageous it was pulled from the air, Dean averred: "I'm not even going to get into that."

    Today's Democrats have trouble expressing the most basic theme of American politics: "We, the people." Rather than a governing party with a clear ideology, they are a collection of interest groups. For a simple demonstration, go to the DNC's Web site and pull down the menu for "People." What you will find is the following shopping list: "African American, Asian Amer./Pacific Islanders, Disability Community, Farmers and Ranchers, Hispanics, GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) Community, Native Americans, Religious Communities, Seniors & Retirees, Small Business Community, Union Members & Families, Veterans & Military Families, Women, Young People & Students." That's most of the threads in the national quilt, but disassembled.

    What can the Democrats do to seize the opportunities of the moment? I suggest they take a leaf from Newt Gingrich's GOP playbook and develop a new "Contract With America." The Democrats should put together a clear and coherent list of measures they would implement if they could regain control of Congress and the White House. If the Democrats are serious, some of these measures -- dealing with economics and energy -- will be unpopular because they will call for sacrifice. But precisely for that reason, they will show that the Democrats can transcend interest-group America and unite the country.

    America doesn't need more of the angry, embittered shouting matches that take place on talk radio and in the blogosphere. It needs a real opposition party that will lay out new strategies: How to withdraw from Iraq without creating even more instability? How to engage a world that mistrusts and often hates America? How to rebuild global institutions and contain Islamic extremism? How to put the U.S. economy back into balance? A Democratic Party that could begin to answer these questions would deserve a chance to govern.

    [email protected]
    His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
    Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

  • #2
    Idiot column.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/19/12433/8404

    Two things. First, you dimwit Ignatius, Newt Gingrich rolled out the Contract with America in 1994. During the ELECTION campaign!

    Second, what exactly is your advice genius? Have a platform? Well glory be! Can we write that down? Are you kidding me? The secret, Ignatius, is to write down the right policies in that platform and to sell them well in the Election CAMPAIGN! That would be, let's see, why next year! Your policy ideas are . . . well you don't have any! Well thanks for that too.

    Sorry if I am little shrill Ignatius, but the last time you were giving Dems advice you were telling them to vote for the Iraq War. And we know how well that turned out for Dems and the country.
    Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

    "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

    Comment


    • #3
      Best political article posted in a LONG time.
      Go Cards ...12 in 13.


      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by kah@Aug 19 2005, 01:12 PM
        Idiot column.

        http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/19/12433/8404

        Two things. First, you dimwit Ignatius, Newt Gingrich rolled out the Contract with America in 1994. During the ELECTION campaign!

        Second, what exactly is your advice genius? Have a platform? Well glory be! Can we write that down? Are you kidding me? The secret, Ignatius, is to write down the right policies in that platform and to sell them well in the Election CAMPAIGN! That would be, let's see, why next year! Your policy ideas are . . . well you don't have any! Well thanks for that too.

        Sorry if I am little shrill Ignatius, but the last time you were giving Dems advice you were telling them to vote for the Iraq War. And we know how well that turned out for Dems and the country.
        What's the problem with the article? He's pointing out that the only 'platform' the democrats seem to currently have is that they're not Republicans, and they hate Bush. Not much of a platform.

        He siad they need to form a 'real' platform. Maybe that's just common sense, but the dems don't seem to be governed by that as of late.
        Official sponsor of: Pepsi Zero Sugar and Jordan Almonds.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think there's anything idiotic about it.

          It hits the mark center mass.
          His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
          Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ChiTownBluesFan@Aug 19 2005, 11:15 AM
            What's the problem with the article? He's pointing out that the only 'platform' the democrats seem to currently have is that they're not Republicans, and they hate Bush. Not much of a platform.

            He siad they need to form a 'real' platform. Maybe that's just common sense, but the dems don't seem to be governed by that as of late.
            Platforms are for election campaigns. Is there an election in 2005? There was a Democratic platform last year and there will be one next year. And, as pointed out in the Kos quote I excerpted above, Mr. Ignatius also fails to provide any plan. I am at a loss as to why Democrats must have a "plan" in 2005 when we are completely out of power and have no ability to influence the policy of the United States. And this,

            especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.
            given how GWB's approval ratings have absolutely collapsed, is stupid enough by itself to just about invalidate the entire column.
            Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

            "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

            Comment


            • #7
              Idiot column.
              Of course you found it idiotic. It wasn't mouth-foaming.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am at a loss as to why Democrats must have a "plan" in 2005 when we are completely out of power and have no ability to influence the policy of the United States.
                As long as you think this way, you'll stay out of power.

                You need to provide an alternative. Your alternative in 2004 was "We're not Bush." You saw how far that got you. Any other ideas? Anything?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Reggie Cleveland@Aug 19 2005, 11:21 AM
                  Idiot column.
                  Of course you found it idiotic. It wasn't mouth-foaming.

                  Uh, OK.

                  A better question might be where is the Republican plan for Iraq, since the GOP are the folks in total control of the government, and the ones that sent us there. Still waiting on the exit strategy from Dubya and co. Providing there is an exit strategy, and we aren't really intent on a permanent military presence. Let's here that, instead of bleating nonsense about Democratic plans that we have no power to implement.
                  Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                  "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Reggie Cleveland@Aug 19 2005, 11:23 AM
                    I am at a loss as to why Democrats must have a "plan" in 2005 when we are completely out of power and have no ability to influence the policy of the United States.
                    As long as you think this way, you'll stay out of power.

                    You need to provide an alternative. Your alternative in 2004 was "We're not Bush." You saw how far that got you. Any other ideas? Anything?

                    You're cranking out the Republican plan as we speak, right?
                    Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                    "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kah+Aug 19 2005, 01:19 PM-->
                      QUOTE(kah @ Aug 19 2005, 01:19 PM)

                    • #12
                      I'm glad to see you're not getting the point, Kah. If you're not, maybe Democratic leadership won't, too (and they certainly haven't so far).

                      Look at what you just wrote: As long as you allow everything to be about the GOP, you can only win if the party totally explodes. That's not much of a strategy, and it sure as hell isn't a way to govern.

                      Keep up the good work. Please!

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        You're cranking out the Republican plan as we speak, right?
                        Good. Good. Keep it all about us.

                        A half-assed, lame plan is better than NO plan. Don't you see that?

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by Reggie Cleveland@Aug 19 2005, 11:28 AM
                          I'm glad to see you're not getting the point, Kah.

                          Writing that post probably slowed you down on the effort to generate the Republican plan. Recommend you cut back on the Lounge browsing until the plan is ready.

                          (Hint: "Stay the course" is not a plan, and neither is "Bring 'em on.")
                          Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                          "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            So, let's see...

                            It's the Democrats fault for not coming up with a plan, as the minority in the house and senate, for fixing everything that GWB and his right wing band of idiots screwed up over the last 5 years?...

                            Are you kidding me?...that's the most contrived story that I've read in a while...

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X