The issue that should be nationalized next year isn't the war.

[Walt Starr]

Oh yes, it's out there and it's a big issue that can be used to win. But there's a much bigger issue that has, at its root, been associated with the Republicans for decades that the Democrats can easily take away from the Republicans if they act quickly, and it's one that resonates across idealogies.

Fiscal responsibility.

The beauty of nationalizing this issue is that it can also be tied to the Republican handling of the war, and thus nationalize that issue as well, but under the auspices of being responsibile with the tax payer's money, thus resonating with the voters in those districts where a majority of the voters will support the effort in Iraq but disagree with how it's been handled.

Fiscal responsibility can be nationalized, but it resonates beautifully at a local level, thus it's a winning issue for Democrats in all districts and states. The reddest of red districts can still be won with more moderate or even conservative Democrats running on this issue. And yes, I would prefer progressive Democrats from all districts in office, but realistically speaking, it's more important that we win the numbers than having idealogical purity from all elected Democrats.

You can't set the agenda if you don't have the majority. That's what I'm after in 2006. The coup de grace would be taking Hastert's seat.

[0rganism]

1. Responsibility? Hell, what about BASIC COMPETENCE?

We need to challenge the notion that the party which brags about dismantling the federal government can be trusted to control it for the benefit of the people.

[Walt Starr]

3. Framing the issue on our side under the terminology of responsibility

infers automatically that the other side is being irresponsible.

[JohnnyBoots]

2. kick

[wellstone_democrat]

4. Yes, for a couple of reasons this is *it*

Those who rationalize their continued allegiance to the Rep party on the issue of "fiscal conservatism" despite all evidence to the contrary would have to think of it overtly if it is brought up repeatedly. Their discomfort would be challenged and many would meet that challenge with a full conversion to anger over the issue.

The issue is to address the erosion of the central issue upon which Republicans are able to claim support by literally pointing out that in effect "the emperor has no (fiscal) clothes" and hasn't for some time. There are many in my own "red" state who are uncomfortable with the social stands of the Republicans but still hang on to the notion of Republicans as "basically" fiscal conservatives. They are starting to wonder. Its our job to push them the rest of the way.

Only with a majority in office can we look to broader reforms

[The Magistrate]

5. An Excellent Analysis, Mr. Starr!

The cost of the war is one of the best means of attacking it, and doubly so now in a period of natural disasters afflciting our land. "We could fix up everything at home for what they're pissin' away on them goddam Iraqis!" is a line that, though perhaps unsavory, would be wickedly effective on a great proportion of our people. We are nativists and isolationists at heart, here....

[Walt Starr]

9. Thank you, Sir

I am always trying to incite thoughtful reflection on various issues around here. It sometimes results in troll or freeper accusations directed at me, but I can usually count on you to comment positively when I make a valid assertion!

[Cary]

6. I think that there is plenty of discontent about that.

However I don't think that it is sufficient to drive Republicans to vote Democratic.

There is something that they find repulsive about us. Of course it all comes down to marketing. If logic had anything to do with it they would never win.

[Salviati]

7. One thing to do when talking about this issue:

Is never let the words "Fiscally conservative" come out of your mouth. I cringe every time I hear a democrat say those two words. It should be "Fiscally responsible" or even "fiscally competent", but to use the phrase "fiscally conservative" conceeds the debate before it's even begun.

[Walt Starr]

8. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!

Framing it that way plays right into their hands.

Responsible is the term for us to use. It implies that if you don't support our plans for fiscal responsibility, you're being irresponsible. The autmoatic negative connotations associated with opposing what we propose would be devestating.

[antigop]

11. One other thing

When you refer to the GOP, call them the "red ink Republicans" or the "borrow and spend Republicans" or the "credit card Republicans".

[Walt Starr]

12. Yep, framing in those terms would automatically ifer irresponsibility

by Republicans.

And being irresponsible with money is a sin in this society.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. Since when did the public care about deficit spending?

Particularly when the public is getting stuff from pork-barrel programs.

The issues are, and will be: Gay people getting married, threats about taking guns away from red necks, government paid for abortions, taxes.

Address any other issue, or take a opposing view on these at your own peril.

[mccoyn]

13. I worry that they will outplay us on this issue.

Which sounds better, claims of fiscal responsibility and tax cuts or claims of fiscal responsibility and negative comments about other plans? We have to go negative to win on this issue because they will lie to claim this issue. As a matter of fact we have been negative. While Bush was claiming fiscal responsibility and giving tax cuts, Kerry was also claiming fiscal responisbility and "going negative" against Bush's claims. The electorate chose the former.

[Walt Starr]

14. Fiscal responsibility was never played as an issue by the Dems in 2004

It simply was not used.

It can be used most effectively in 2006, but only if the Democrats start using it right now.