My opinion - the most important point made on MTP today (NOT re Brouss.)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

It was made by David Brooks. As a paraphrase - We cannot base our lives and agenda on hating Bush. It's not enough to hate George Bush and his policies (even though we all clearly do) We (Dems or any other opposition party) has to make clear to the public what exactly you would do differently. Brooks stated that while people are now against the Bush administration - they have not re placed their loyalties - they are "dislodged". The Democratic Party has NOT utilized this unbelieveable opportunity in any way. Sadly, I agree with him.

[ewagner]

1. Yes

I cringed when he said that because I know it's true and we, the Democratic Party, lack the leadership to provide us as well as the rest of the country with a more hopeful, clear and peaceful vision of the future.

sigh.........

[skooooo]

3. Leaders need support...

What are our responsibilities to our potential leadership?

[alfredo]

9. We need to kick our local parties

in the butt, get them out of the executive committee meetings and onto the streets drumming up new voters for your party. Do it now.

Ask them to let you do voter ID in your precinct. Urge them to become visible in your county.

You are the Democratic party.

[ihaveaquestion]

10. Supporters support the message put out by leaders.

First leaders; then supporters. That's the order in which it has to happen.

Dem leaders need to get out there in front with something we can all get behind. It has to be a simple, consistent and coherent message that can be communicated easily to everyone. This is what their analysts and researchers are paid the big bucks for - they need to get it together.

[skooooo]

29. That still doesn't answer the question.

I think we need to look to ourselves for some of these answers. Our lack of leadership reflects, to some degree, on US.

[ihaveaquestion]

49. There is nothing for supporters to support!

The Dem leaders give us nothing that we can use. Even worse, they frequently reject our ideas and input and act like wimps in Congress.

Leaders have to EARN their supporters' respect. It's not given just for the hell of it.

[Fla Dem]

42. Totally agree...that's what turned the repugs around, It was

Gingriches, pledge to America. Whether all Repugs fully supported it or not, it was their rallying point and they stayed on message.

[Toots]

51. If only we had leaders we could support

When all they do is rubber stamp the Bush* agenda why should we support them? The ones that truly stand up and say no more like Howard Dean quickly get marginalized and made out to be a laughing stock. When they control the Media it becomes almost impossible to get out a positive message. There is no Democratic Leadership and that has become obvious to all.

[blm]

37. BALONEY. Both Clark and Kerry have offered similar proposals on Iraq and

NO MEDIA PUNDIT and NO REPUBLICAN will acknowledge their proposals.

Clark and Kerry both know what the UN and NATO require before they will come into Iraq and have submitted ideas accordingly.


Keep letting the media lie to you all. You would think you'd have enough by now.

[Cocoa]

40. Clark is Bill O'Reilly's "military expert"

and Clark was BEGGING to talk about his ideas on Iraq instead of about Sheehan, but Billy insisted on the Sheehan silliness.

Clark did get a great point across to O'Reilly's audience: because of the way Clark struggled against O'Reilly's trivia, everyone watching could see that the last thing O'Reilly wanted to hear was constructive ideas about Iraq.

[Dudley_DUright]

2. He also said that sometimes he thinks that Bush is the

"Manchurian Candidate" since his ineptitude seems to discredit Conservative ideas that Brooks believes in (no David, they suck independent of Bush's incompetence).

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. I know, but I was struck by the fact that you saw three entirely

different columnists:
Maureen Dowd whom I almost always agree with
Thomas Friedman whom I agree with occasionally on limited subjects
David Brooks whom I almost never agree with

And boy, they were all in agreement today about one thing -
George Bush and his administration could not suck more.

That comment about the Manchurian Candidate by Brooks I thought was very clever, insightful and rueful at the same time. W has done more to set back the Republican/Conservative agenda than any man in modern history. We liberals should be almost grateful to him for that. There are many, many Republicans who feel just as betrayed by GWB as us liberals.

[Mr_Spock]

14. That's why this TOON is so hilarious

[Cosmocat]

19. a couple of thtoughts ...

First ...

"W has done more to set back the Republican/Conservative agenda than any man in modern history. We liberals should be almost grateful to him for that. There are many, many Republicans who feel just as betrayed by GWB as us liberals."

The fact is, that Bushco has almost to a T implimented the full conservative agenda ... Massive tax cuts, COMPLETE enabling of the rich and ultra corporations, military aggressiveness, cronyism ...

Bush hasn't "let down" the conservative movement ... He implimented it, and it has been a disaster ... Now, if you add in his base incompetence, it makes it a MASSIVE disaster ...

BUT, this whole he let down the conservative movement is going to be the rallying cry of conservatives who got IT ALL, and their plan failed, and like everything else with these people, they will not want to take responsiblity, and the ONLY way to keep from taking responsibility when they had the full run, is going to be to sell out their propped up dictator ...

Also ... I agree with those who posted later in this string ... This whole blame the democrates equal to the republicans is piling on BS ... Just because the D party does not have the lock and step one mindedness of the R party (which wins elections but is HORRIBLE for running the country), does not equate to the D party somehow being flawed ...

There is a DISTINCT difference between WINNING elections and doing a competent job of running things ... Just because the Ds haven't lied, cheated, stealed their way into power does not mean they are as ruefully incompetent as the Rs have shown themselves to be ...

Do you REALLY think the economy would be so jacked up, or we would be in this Iraq mess if Gore been rightfully made president ??? Do you think things would not look A LOT different if Kerry had won ??? Even with an R dominated congress ...

YES, far too many D senators have sold out, but the D party is NOT in power, and it just is BS to say, "They don't have a plan" when they are not in charge ... That is just piling on BS ...

A plan, jesus, that is R talking points tripe ... IT IS ABOUT COMPETENT LEADERSHIP ...

[Cocoa]

4. but you have to ask yourself

is David Brooks saying this to help you understand the politics better, or to help dems win?

Yes, he at times says things that sound good, that are palatable to liberals' ears, and he's oh so sincere and thoughtful.

But David Brooks has a job, and his job isn't to express honest ideas, and it certainly isn't to help dems win.

[wellstone_democrat]

6. ding ding ding---we have a winner...

that is Brooks' specialty: "the oh so calm voice of reason" while calling for such things as a "strong hand" in N.O. not in the sense of helping but of *controlling* while promoting the lawless Black looter meme....and on and on and on. He's an ideologue who masters the arts of seeming "thoughtful" and "regrets" that he has to come to "hard decisions" or tell "hard truths"

Bush* is the Manchurian Candidate alright but its Brooks' masters as well who trained him and set him loose

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. I don't know or care what his underlying motivation was in making the

statement he did. I am saying that I agree with his statement.

[Cocoa]

13. the statement contains a dirty lie

a lie that has been repeated over and over, that the democratic party strategy relies on "Bush hatred" and that they don't have positive ideas of their own.

The lie especially disgusting coming from Brooks, whose specialty is lending pseudoscientific legitimacy to Rove's brutal wedge politics, with his red vs. blue garbage. THAT is the politics of hatred.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. Who is articulating our positive agenda?

I know what I think our positive agenda is:

Get out of Iraq
End torture and punish the torturers
Restore fiscal sanity
Repeal the tax breaks that went only to the wealthiest anyway
Universal healthcare
Affordable housing
Civil Rights for all regardless of sexual orientation
Separation of Church and State
Environmental responsibility/renewable resources/alternative energy
Restore our image as the moral leader of the world

End corporate welfare and the pigs at the trough mentality of those connected few who loot our treasury like it was their personal cookie jar

Now, why is that so hard to say? Why is having an agenda "rising to the bait"? I know why I believe in all of those things and I could discuss/debate the points with anyone anywhere.

What I am saying is that I agree with David Brooks that the Democrats are not utilizing this moment in the sun where half the country is turning away from the failed policies of the NEO-Cons.
I want those "dis-lodged" voters to lodge with me.

I will be "dislodged" myself if I don't start to hear some Democratic leaders articulating a Democratic agenda.

[Cocoa]

27. very interesting

David Brooks would not agree that the dems should pursue ANY of those things, in fact he would declare that they would be disastrous for the dems.

And yet you believe you agree with Brooks.

Honestly, if someone were to make Brooks get specific about which dems he thinks the party should follow, would it be Dennis Kucinich or Joe Lieberman? Do you even have to think about it?

And once again, you think that you and Brooks are on the same page.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

30. I have made the point several times throughout this thread

that I NEVER agree with David Brooks, but this one time I did about this one point which I will try to say as simply as I possibly can:

The Democrats have not effectively used this moment of massive anti-Bushism from BOTH sides of the political spectrum to pick up the disaffected.

[Tatiana]

26. Why are those Democrats so ANGRY?????

This was part of the RW strategy... to paint Democrats and crazy, out-of-touch Bush-haters because they are such ANGRY PEOPLE!!!!

Would you want people like that running your government?

Cocoa you are dead-on. Brooks is not trying to help us. He is repeating the same mantra of the 04 election. Look at how they portrayed Howard Dean!

Please. The problem isn't that we don't have good ideas, plans, or policies. Instead, the problem is that we lack a central person to espouse these ideas, plans, and policies. People always say, where are the Dems? Where's Hillary? Where's Kerry? Where's Dean? Where's Edwards? Where's Boxer?

Republicans have an advantage in that they own the Presidency. They've got Bush to espouse their ideas and plans. You don't see them looking for Frist or DeLay or Hastert or Cheney. We have to get on point with who our "go-to" guys are.

From the party's standpoint, Dean should be one of those people. He should be articulating our ideas on the issues. However, we need someone else who can score us major points throughout middle-America as well. Will it be Gore? Clark? I'm not sure.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

32. and when are theygoing to start doing that?

It's the end of 05. There are a lot of important races coming up in 06.

[OregonBlue]

8. I think you're absolutely right. The GOP is dying for the Dems to

come up with their position so that they have something to rally against. I think the Dems for now are just so!!! much better off leaving the GOP to twist in the wind. They're about to come out with their "offsets" and it's really ugly. Cuts in education, medicare, medicaid, etc., etc., ect. Polls are telling us the public wants to cut Iraq funding, not social programs. They're just going to keep digging themselves deeper and the public is going to see how really greedy and ugly they are.

We need to keep the pressure on. Don't give them anything to aim at. I think Brooks is just frustrated that the Dems haven't given them a target. Don't fall for the bait.

[Toasted_Halo]

11. "Don't fall for the bait"

Exactly! Let them keep making fools of themselves with the hate...it gets more obvious every day who they care about, and it ain't regular people!

[OregonBlue]

36. Yes, not to say that we shouldn't keep up the pressure. Our

leaders need to constantly point to how greedy and ruthless they are. How they are using our money to pay their own political cronys and to privatize our public services. No point in Dem leaders coming out now with solutions for them to either co-op or tear apart.

[librechik]

12. Except that the idea that we are Bush Haters is a straw dog

Anyone who criticizes the administration's policies gets called a Bush Hater and thus stripped of credibility. Brooks wants to offer me my credibility back as long as I stay in that cute little gilded frame he made for me. Fuck him. He's a liar and an idiot.

[indepat]

15. They know we are locked into a permanent war led by a war president

and don't won't to say or do anything that the Pukes would say is disloyal, treasonous, or not supporting the troops: Dems are f**ked by their own timidity and gutlessness.

[Neshanic]

16. There's nobody home.

The DLC is busy trying to Xerox moderate Republican candidates, and have focus groups on issues that are important to white males and their soccer mom wives.

Kerry is out there saying things, but he's a war supporter as all our current alleged "face" people.

Hillary is obssesed with video games and picking her way though a field as if the cow pies were the real issues.

Dean, Clark and the others are our only hope to get together and make a concerted effort. Of course it will get messy, as the some people will have to be called out a la Cindy.

Everything is changing, and the DLC and usual suspects need to be called out if they can't get behind the wagon and push.

[OregonBlue]

22. I just plain disagree. The GOP is showing their real ugly

underbelly right now. If our leaders start taking a stand, they have something to go after. The mods and right wing of the GOP are about to tear each other apart. I say, sit back and let them do it. Don't get in the middle of their battle. Wait until they've let everyone see just how sick they are, then come out with some real healing strategies for the nation.

[Neshanic]

24. The wait till they eat each other up strategy. Silence from us.

While we do not make a peep, they will hopefully eat eat other, and VIOLA...no more republicans or their talking point lies.

If we have learned ANYTHING from the last five years is that when we think they are in trouble, they recover, when we think the most outrageous lie is told, they recover, when we can't imagine a new depth that they explore, they go there.

So complete silence is good. Quiet everyone.....

[OregonBlue]

34. No, not at all. I don't think we should be quiet. I think our leaders

should come out swinging. Should be pointing out over and over and over what greedy hypocrits these guys are. I just don't think we need to throw out any solutions right now. Bush likes to co-op the good ideas and is really good at making them his own.

We need to just keep pointing out how wrong they are. We need to fillibuster things like them trying to put the military in charge of disasters, we need to fillibuster them trying to cut education, medicare, medicaid, etc., let people see that the Dems are standing up for their interests. Let the Repugs keep throwing their mean, nasty, greedy solutions out there and have the Dems defeat everyone one.

[NancyG]

17. Remember back when with Bush vs Any Dem,

Any Dem would win.

But Bush vs specific dems, Bush would win.

We need a REALLY good leader. I still like Clark. He's spend some time out there now as a politician and perhaps he can be our leader. I'd also support the New Gore, which is the Old Gore without handlers.

[lillilbigone]

18. You have got to be kidding

This disingenuous rehash of the old Republican talking point that we have no agenda by the famously right-wing propagandist Brooks is what you consider the most important point?

[ourbluenation]

20. one democratic nominee with tons of charisma is what we need. eom

[Sparkly]

21. They ALWAYS say that!!!

There are two things the RNC will always criticize Democrats for (in addition to all other evil characteristics of themselves that they ascribe to us):

1. Democrats are too angry, and should be polite and positive.
2. Democrats complain, but have no clear ideas of their own.

Case in point: On issues like taxes, reproductive choice, the environment, veteran's benefits, jobs, etc., John Kerry was quite clear in his stands and their differences with Chimpy's. The keynote of our convention was about UNITY. The RNC, in the other hand, had a screamfest of a convention, red-faced shrieking about how horrible Democrats are -- you'd think WE'd been the ones in power screwing everything up!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

28. But he was AGREEING that we ALL hate Bush

left and right alike. Really, he was ceding that point. I think a lot of people in this thread are missing the point or reading it in a way I did not intend. When actually watching MTP today - it was amazing. Here you have a far-righty, a mid-righty and a far lefty in complete agreement about what a f@#$-up W is.

I was asking - why are we not capitalizing on this moment? Where are our leaders? Why can't we be an effective opposition party? I WANT our leaders to stand up and shout and be noisy. I know about the "give them enough rope" stuff, but after they've effectively hung themselves- someone has to fill the void.I am afraid that we will miss the moment.

The other most amazing TV I heard today was when someone on McLaughlin said that Bush trying to equate Katrina with 9/11 was almost a symptom of mental illness. Might have to put that in a separate thread.

[blm]

35. Point is that Brooks and most media ARE LYING. Both Clark and Kerry have

submitted solid proposals to help in Iraq and in keeping with what they both know is compatible with what the UN and NATO trquire to get more involved.

However NO media discusses their proposals and no Republican acknowledges their submissions, even while at the same time they all LIE and complain that the Dems never offer any solutions.

Dems can and do offer solutions till they are blue in the face and the GOP and the media will never admit it, and Bush will always refuse to listen.

[Jane Austin]

38. I didn't see any "far-lefty" on Meet the Press.

Who did you have in mind?

[FloridaPat]

25. The repubs have come up with reform that don't need reforming &

the Democrats are suppose to come up with their plan. Examples: bankruptcy "reform", social security "reform", the Iraq invasion - how to get out, medicaid the war on terror.

The repubs have used these as excuses to put their agenda forward because they want them changed to help their money supporters. They didn't need reform. They problem with bankruptcy is too many people were finding a way to get out from under 30% interest rates. Now there is where there should be reform - credit card interest rates.

Social security doeesn't need reform

Medicade - the democrats weren't even allowed into the committees to make recommendations.

And no one has an idea about Iraq except just getting out. It's a war based on lies. Put the liars in jail.

And as for the war on terrorism - the repubs created al Qaeda and trained bin Laden. * tried to get pipeline contracts with Afghanistan when he first came in. * has let the Saudis slide on dealing with bin Ladin. * let the bin Ladens out of the country on 9-11. Had he been concered with terrorism like Clinton instead of becoming business associates with them, things probably would be different.

[KnowerOfLogic]

31. Try telling this to the ABB crowd. Just wait until 2008; it is going to

be Anybody But The Republican. This strategy didn't work in 2004; and even with the non-stop disaster wreaked on this country by BushCo since day one, there's a good chance that it won't work in 2008. And sadly, there's also a good chance that it will be tried again in 2008 by spineless dems. By refusing to either have any convictions, or refusing to stand up for them, dems wil only confirm their image of weakness.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. 2006 comes before 2008. Democrats must snatch up the voters in linbo now!

[lillilbigone]

33. More from the disingenuous David Brooks on this

The Kerry-Edwards contrast is characteristic of the argument that now divides the Democratic Party. On one side are those who believe that the party's essential problem is with its political style. The Republicans win because they are simply rougher, so the Democrats must be just as tough in response. They must match Karl Rove blow for blow. Democrats in this camp are voting against John Roberts just to show the world, and their donors above all, that they are willing to give no quarter.

On the other side are those who believe that the Democratic defeats flow from policy problems, not from campaign style or message framing. They don't believe that Democrats can win wrapped in their own rage, or kowtowing endlessly to their psychologically aggrieved donor base. For them, the crucial challenge is to come up with policies more in tune with voters.

Kerry speaks for the first group, which believes in more partisanship, and Edwards for the second, which believes in less.

I have discussions with my Democratic friends over whether the party will snap back to Clintonite centrism after the polarizing Bush leaves town. Some think yes. I suspect no. As Kerry's speech shows, the emotional tenor of the party has changed. The donors are aroused. Bush may end up changing the Democratic Party more than his own.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/09/23/opinions/hjjejahgjjhbjb.txt

What is his real agenda, you have to ask yourself...

[Cocoa]

39. let's take an issue that is dear to Brooks's heart

Social Security.

Clearly this was a major outcome that went our way and not Brooks's way. (I won't call it a dem victory because people will debate how much credit the dems deserve, so let's just leave it at "outcome.")

Was the dems' approach to this debate one of "hating Bush?" Hardly. It was actually substantive: Bush's plan would add to the deficit and undermine the solvency of the SS program. No hatred there.

How did Brooks engage with their substantive approach? He simply ignored what they were saying and pulled a fantasy version straight from his neocon ass:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502020009

The February 1 broadcast of ABC's Nightline, which was devoted entirely to a discussion of the debate over Social Security, included a segment featuring conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, who purported to analyze the political terrain surrounding the issue. During the segment, which featured no progressive viewpoint, Brooks claimed that Democrats oppose President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security not because they fear such a plan would hurt living standards for retirees, but because they fear the plan will endear voters to the Republican Party.

Here's how Brooks explained Democratic opposition to Bush's plan:

BROOKS: The Democrats are all perfectly united. The Democrats all reject private accounts. They reject it, and I should say there's a political element here. Republicans support it because they think private accounts will create Republicans. People will see that private account, and they'll start thinking like a business owner. They'll start thinking more Republican. Democrats oppose private accounts for the same reason Republicans support it: because they think it'll create Republicans.
/BROOKS

Back to MMFA commentary:

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has offered a starkly different reason for Democratic opposition to partial privatization. "Democrats believe that any proposals to reform Social Security must not add to the deficit, must not harm the middle class and must not cut guaranteed benefits," Pelosi said on January 6.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) echoed this objection on February 1, the same day that Brooks appeared on Nightline. "We don't believe there ought to be huge cuts" in benefits, Reid said.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

41. ok- agreed that Brooks is a manipulative lying weasel

but we STILL need to have an articulated agenda to put before the American public at some point in the very near future and we need to sweep up the disaffected voters - that was the whole point of the OP.

If we DO NOT do that - the Republicans will have their very own ABB candidate just by the very fact that it will not be George Bush. And they will go out of their way to find someone who seems " moderate" and "reasonable" who will bring the dislodged voters back into the Republican tent. We will have lost the opportunity because we insist on sitting on our hands and not opening our mouths because we are afraid that we will then offer up "targets" for the Republicans to ping on. How pathetic.

[blm]

43. Check my earlier posts...Dems have outstanding proposals and media won't

allow them to be heard or discussed.

And does anyone think the REpublicans will allow real Dem proposals to get debated on the floor of Congress?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

45. I read your posts and I agree that it is a major problem

but many of the posts in this very thread suggests that there is as much self-censorship as the other kind.

How come Joe Biden seems to be on every talk show every time I turn around? I really haven't seen too much of Kerry or Pelosi or anyone lately on the talking head shows that I force myself to watch.

I hear from Conyers regularly and the Democratic Black Caucus is always out there slugging away. Clark has removed himself from the arena by being a paid Fox commentator for the time being.

Nature abhors a vacuum and the Democrats are not trying hard enough and quick enough to fill the leadership vacuum. Case in point - polls show that EVERYONE wants a true independent Katrina Commission. Why aren't the Dem leaders beating this horse like there's no tomorrow while the momentum is there? Why aren't they rallying the Katrina survivors to insist like the 9/11 survivors on finding out REALLY what went wrong? (We know what went wrong. Bush and everyone under him are unqualified and asleep at the wheel.) This dufus pretend commission that is going on now will rubber stamp a finding that says "mistakes were made at every level." Big surprise.

Why doesn't some Democrat step up and say - "you're damn right we want to play the blame game and we want to play it now. Because lives are at risk.There's plenty of issues that deserve real investigation, real accountability and real changes." Charles Rangel used the I word. Republicans were willing to impeach over consensual adult sex. Democrats won't utter the word even though we have been lied into war and plundered endlessly to feather the nests of the connected.

[Bonhomme Richard]

46. If only the "Leaders" of the party had a spine you.........

couldn't pass your hand through.
If only they stood for something, anything.

[sandnsea]

47. Because we all know...

Dems never introduce legislation or lay out agendas or solutions. That all Dems do is bash Bush, except when they DO bash Bush, the grassroots say "it's about time".

So to all of this I say bullshit. The grassroots don't know what the fuck they want. They don't recognize it when they have it. The most they do is to buy into whatever Dem bashing bullshit that's on the horizon and David Brooks et all know it and feed it.

[electron_blue]

48. Yeah, and even then, that is not enough

Don't just say what Dems would have done differently, say what we're going to do NOW to show leadership.

You know, this all reminds me of someone staying in a long-term abusive relationship where everyone agrees the abused partner is being mistreated, should leave, and everyone agrees that the abusive partner should not be doing what he/she's doing. In the end, though, all that matters is whether the abused partners stand up for themselves, leave or insist the abuser leave. In other words - it's not enough to have sympathy, you may very well be killed as long as you stay. You have to take a stand, finally.

Is it time?

[Stephanie]

50. David Brooks is a propagandist - he says what he WANTS YOU to believe

Not what he himself believes, not the truth, not the facts.

[Kailassa]

52. our "hatred" is their excuse

The Republicans have been sold the ideas that:
1. Everyone who doesn't vote for Bush hates him personally.
2. This hatred drives all Democrats who open their mouths to tell nothing but lies.
3. Therefore everything not complementary towards Bush is a Democrat Lie.

They see this as being proved by the fact that, (as they are all well aware,) the Republicans lie about the Democrats at every opportunity. If even the "good guys" do it, surely those evilDUers would do that and much worse.