Let's stop blaming the Media for our weak and ineffective message

[Q]

It's difficult to avoid blaming the bought-off, corporate media for not reporting the Democratic message. I've certainly been guilty of this in the past. But if you take a closer look at recent history...the Democratic party should shoulder part of the blame for not trying very hard to put out a newsworthy message.

In fact...the Party hasn't presented itself in the public forum to state their position on anything since 2000. Democrats don't know their party's official position on many issues because they haven't been made public. Being in the minority shouldn't mean that we can't speak out as a party.

What's the party's official position on the Iraq invasion and occupation?

On the Patriot Act and Homeland Security?

On the 'war on terror'?

On Social Security privatization?

On the Separation of Church and State?

On Choice?

On the 9-11 investigation?

On the Plame scandal?

On corporate corruption and influence buying?

On Healthcare?

On the inability of the Bush White House to capture Bin Laden or the Anthrax Killers?

We'll see a Democrat now and then on the Talking Head Pundit circuit giving their own opinion on certain issues...but we've seen nothing in the form of an official party position coming from the leadership.

Democrats have the right to know where their PARTY stands on the important issues. Perhaps the media isn't reporting what the party has to say because they're not saying anything? The Democratic party needs to go ON THE RECORD with an official statement of where they stand on the issues. An informed citizenry is more likely to vote Democratic if they're made aware in no uncertain terms of where we stand.

The silence is deafening.

[sportndandy]

1. You are mistaken

The liberals and progressives in this country have an excellent message, despite how the democratic party elite may portray themselves. Kerry got 52% of the vote while being trashed by the MSM. If the MSM were to cover liberal messages truthfully and forcefully then the entire country would be liberal. It takes a well organized republican echo machine to drown out the liberal message. The truth is we have an excellent message that we can't get out there by traditional means. When people hear it they are usually convinced. When they hear it.

[Q]

3. Okay...let's have a test...

...can you take ANY of the above issues and tell us where the Democratic party stands on them? Not Kerry...the Democratic party.

I'm talking about an OFFICIAL PARTY POSITION that's spoken in the public forum?

Even an 'excellent' message goes nowhere unless the Party attaches itself to it.

We have individuals going out and mumbling their opinion on Crossfire...but can you point out an official party position on anything?

[Poppyseedman]

16. The entire country???

If the MSM were to cover liberal messages truthfully and forcefully then the entire country would be liberal.

Please let me know what type of drugs you are taking, I would like to live in the same fantasy land you currently reside in.

The truth is our message was filtered by the MSM as well as the repugs.

The difference is simply talk radio. It is a powerful force that needs to be dealt with.

The conservatives know what the GOP position is because Rush / Hannity read their GOP talking points daily.

They occasionally will disagree, but the message gets out to the masses

[jpgray]

2. We have too diverse a party right now for that to work

There are battling factions that want to narrow things the way you want--some would like to endorse almost all of Bush's foreign policy, which would leave dozens of congresspeople in a party whose official stance they abhor; some would like to wholly repudiate Bush's foreign policy, which would still leave dozens of congresspeople in a party whose official stance they abhor. Unfortunately we need to maintain a broad, vague "party" stance on things to maintain our numbers and therefore a competitive voting block in Congress. If I were willing to cede congressional control to the Republicans and abandon "moderates" as non-Democrats, then I could answer all your questions. But as it stands, the party is too diverse and it's too important that we block some things in Congress.

What will work is to change slowly and from within, not with a magic press-all button that someone dreams up on an internet message board. It will take a long time and a lot of people working very hard towards that goal.

[Q]

5. Too 'diverse' to have a official position on anything?

Do we oppose the privatization of Social Security? That should be an easy one. Where is the leadership stepping up to the podium and stating that's the official party position?

I know...it's easier to blame the media if WE don't step forward and define ourselves instead of letting the other side define us.

[jpgray]

8. No, but on some things--yes

Note the Republicans have no "official" position on whether or not Rumsfeld should resign--the party is divided. Their party is also divided over what to do with Iraq, what to do with the 9/11 recommendations, etc. I think you're calling a symptom the disease.

[Q]

10. But Republicans DO have an OFFICIAL postion on...

...Social Security, Iraq war, Healthcare, etc. We know where they stand on abortion and the separation of church and state. The Republican party isn't divided on Iraq....they won on that issue.

But where does our party stand on these issues? We simply don't know because they haven't told us.

[jpgray]

11. Not divided on Iraq?

Hagel, McCain and others are far from where the Bush administration is on Iraq. Ask Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chafee if they agree with privatizing social security or removing separation of church and state. Insofar as they have an official position on those things, so do we. But I would say neither really do. Otherwise several representatives of the party couldn't be properly called Republicans.

[Q]

13. But they have no disagreement on whether...

...it was 'right' to attack Iraq or whether to stay there. The Republican's official position is whatever the leader of their party says it is. Democrats don't seem to have a leader...or not one willing to stand up and speak for the party.

But you're deflecting from the issue. What's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S position on Iraq, social security and church/state? I'll bet that you can't answer it because the party has no official positions on these issues...or at least nothing they've committed themselves to as a party.

[jpgray]

15. You're still saying things that aren't true

"The Republican's official position is whatever the leader of their party says it is."

That simply isn't true. Lots of Republican officials and representatives disagree with Bush in significant ways. The RNC's memos and platforms are just as vague and uninspiring as the DNC's. Even toadies like Hastert and Delay have rebelled against Bush a few times. The Republicans have more media capital and are better at using it.

The Democratic Party's position on Iraq can be described exactly as the Republican's can be. I can tell you what Bush thinks and what various factions of his congresspeople think, just as I can tell you what Kerry thought and what various factions of our congresspeople think. In neither case can you provide an all-encompassing answer for Iraq that perfectly describes each and every significant member of the party's position. You instead would come up with a crappy, vague, general statement.

"you can't answer it because the party has no official positions on these issues...or at least nothing they've committed themselves to as a party."

Name the *official* Republican stances on all those issues you listed in the OP. Not just what Bush says, but what every national-level elected Republican will agree to. Show me how unified they are. And make sure they are committed as a party to them, which I assume means no dissensions or disagreements. It's impossible, because our two parties in this country are too broad to have all the complex issues boiled down into definitive, exclusive stances.

[Q]

17. Of course it's true. The GOP has that luxury because they have the WH...

...and the president is always the leader of his party. When he says that he's going to privatize social security you can be assured that it's the Republican party's official position.

And once again you're trying to deflect and take this argument in your own direction. This isn't about the Republican party. They have no problem getting their message out or showing solidarity with their party leader. This is about the minority party and their inability to offer a unified message on any issue...even traditional issues that they've supported in the past.

[jpgray]

21. Now what you're saying makes no sense

"They have no problem getting their message out or showing solidarity with their party leader."

They have both of those problems. There have been dozens of articles, in fact, which focus on those very two. You have to stop imagining the Republicans as a flawless, monolithic on-message group-mind. They just aren't--they have fractures and splits just like the Democrats. A noteworthy one occurred over the transportation bill, which House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for even in the face of Bush threatening to veto it.

[Q]

22. Are you debating yourself?

You're talking about a party that just 'won' two elections in a row. They did it by being unified in their message...even if some Republicans disagreed behind the scenes.

Dozens of articles? That means absolutely nothing to the majority of people who never read those articles. And I never said the GOP didn't have fractures. But the message they send is quite different. They state their positions in a unified manner as a PARTY. McCain probably hates Bush's guts...but he was there staying on message throughout the entire campaign.

You're simply providing excuses for a party afraid to take a stand on any issue for fear of offending King George and his state church.

[jpgray]

23. Okay, let's play your game

Answer all your questions above as your mythical "party leader" would. Make sure that the positions you provide cover all the viewpoints of at least the major fractious and fiercely independent groups that call themselves Democrats. Note that this includes the DLC, conservative and moderate Democrats or else you aren't really speaking for the party. Note that this includes very conservative senators like Bayh, or those who are very conservative on foreign policy and largely agree with Bush on everything to do with Iraq, like Lieberman. Note that this includes liberal senators like Feingold or Boxer, and also those who disagree vehemently with Bush on everything to do with Iraq, like Kucinich from the House.

So what's your answer on Iraq alone? What covers all these viewpoints? I'm waiting.

[Q]

27. The Democratic party doesn't have a 'leader'...

...unless you think it's Clinton.

It's not a game. And the same standards never apply to the majority and minority parties. Dems had no problem getting out their message when Clinton was president because the media always reports what the WH has to say. But now that the Democrats are in the minority they have to work hard to get their message out so that the electorate can understand what they're voting for and what makes them different from the opposition.

This is basic public relations. It's NEWS when the minority disagrees with the majority over important issues. If Republicans take the position of social security privatization...the Democrats should loudly oppose that postion and use it against them.

The fact that even YOU can't say what the party's position is on any issue should prove my point.

[jpgray]

29. You haven't even read the party platform, have you?

On important issues such as the use of torture and abiding by the Geneva Convention it is very explicit and direct. This is a major difference between the Bush administration and the Democratic Party's "official" position, but despite Democrats saying it and despite it being in the platform, guess what? It never gets highlighted by the media, and never will. This is why in a poll over 70% of Bush voters believed he had several enviromentally-friendly stances he didn't have, for example. Kerry talked about the difference, it just didn't get reported. The Swift Boats got reported, and Bush's "resolve" got reported.

[Q]

45. Yes...I could paste it here for you...

...but it wouldn't help this discussion. Putting words on websites means nothing when these same words aren't used to send a message in the public forum.

I would be willing to bet that 95 percent of Democrats have never visited the DNC website. Many other Dems don't even own a computer or have an internet connection. That's why it's important to get the message out on television and radio.

The public doesn't hear from high profile Dems making a case against torture or even the war itself on a consistent basis. Kerry didn't start talking about many of the issues you mentioned UNITL the campaign started.

Dems have to hit the media with their message ALL YEAR LONG...not just during and leading up to campaigns.

[jpgray]

60. That's fine, but your argument wasn't that we have to go all year long

Your argument was that we need to "stand for something". We have, we do, and we did. It doesn't matter if the media don't want it to. It's fine to complain about the strategic bankruptcy of the DLC, but even when Democrats make a good strategic move, such as painting Bush as an obstacle to energy independence and a stooge of the Saudis in the same line, the media can bury it or distort it at will. Compare the amount of time the two candidates' health care plans were discussed to the amount of time swiftboat nonsense or "personality" were discussed. It isn't all about forming a good position and sticking to it--even when we do that we can still get smeared.

[DaedelusNemo]

72. Stands for something, present strongly & persistently, counter smears /nt

[DaedelusNemo]

69. There's still a difference

A few mavericks aside, you know what the official republican line is on most things. In the democrat party, you don't even know which ones are the mavericks, because you don't know the official democrat line on most things.

[blondeatlast]

65. If Dems universally agree on something, it should be a winner for the nati

Think about it.

[DaedelusNemo]

68. Still agree on something

Try to find out how much we agree on these things. Which of the assumptions that we're working by are different and which are the same? Even people who differ widely on the actual approach to be taken to the war in Iraq at this point are probably working from mostly the same assumptions and opinions. Find those and express them - those are the democrat positions and further than that, you'll have to ask individuals where they'd take it from there. On lots of other issues, quite a lot more is agreed on by Americans in general, much less democrats, that is not agreed on by the republican leadership right now.

It doesn't seem like that work has been done, though, the basic effort of discovering to what extent we can agree and work together.

[Warpy]

4. Blame the media

but also blame the wishy washy, conservative, corporatist DLC for watering down the message to make us look like a blander version of the GOP. Both are guilty.

However, the media bear the brunt of the guilt for their constant underreporting of Kerry's strengths and Bush's weaknesses. People simply didn't know what Kerry stood for (even after the DLC bunglers got done with him) because the corrupt press did not tell them.

[Q]

7. I'll be the first to admit that the corporate media doesn't want...

...Democrats in power. Especially a 'redistributionist' Democrat.

But I'll ask again: do even Democrats know their party's official position on the issues? The only way we know ANYTHING is from 'rumors' in the corporate media.

[sendero]

6. I agree....

... there is no question that the "media" doesn't do us any favors. But it goes well beyond any inherent bias all the way to the fact that Dems tend to not make the sensational dramatic pronouncements that the media wants to air.

The media is about getting listeners and readers. Americans tune in for drama and controversy. That is why the show trials of Peterson, Jackson, etc always get huge ratings.

The Reps are twice as good as the Dems at spouting a message that is concise and attention-getting. Partly it is because our positions are more nuanced and not easily explained in a forceful 6 word statement, and partly because too few of our leaders have any passion and conviction about their own positions.

Everyone keeps saying that Kerry can't talk about election fraud because he will be branded "sore loserman" by the press. That's true, but so what? If he had convincing proof, he can be ALL FREAKING OVER the airwaves and the pundits will have a hell of a time negating his message.

In this country, you really cannot do anything that requires a vote of the public without sticking your neck out on television. As Dems, we just have a total dearth of folks willing to do that, and that is not the media's fault.

[Q]

9. Why couldn't the leadership walk up to the cameras...

...and boldly announce that they're against...the privatization of social security? Or even better...have a hundred Democrats go before the cameras and show their solidarity.

The media WOULD report such a thing. And when the next news cycles comes about...have another hundred Democrats go before the camera and take the high ground on another important issue.

The Democratic party doesn't seem to have an official position on anything. What about Choice? We hear rumors that they're going to soften on this issue...but nothing official about how their going to approach it. We're left to guess and watch RWing pundits spin it any way they desire.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. You raise some important points

Sure, the right wing controls the media, but the Dems could start overcoming this in two ways:

1) Send the best, most forthright speakers on to the talk shows, i.e. people who will actually disagree with the Republicanites instead of saying, "Ditto, only not quite as much." Keep the DINOs as far away from the media as possible. For example, when it comes to discussing the Iraq War, send someone who actually voted against it and is articulate about the reasons for that vote.

2) Give each Dem the "assignment" of speaking to local media and meeting with community groups on every trip home. If Senator X and Congresscritter Y calls up the local TV station and/or newspaper on trips home and says, "Here's what's happening in Congress with issues that are important to this district," they can do an end run around the national media.

[Q]

14. And we need people that can presume to speak FOR the party

It almost seems as if the party leadership is afraid to take a stand on the issues. (obviously advice from the DLCers)

It's more important for the minority party to take a stand because the party in power has the bully pulpit and can get the media's attention just by showing up.

Remember the GOP's 'Contract with America"? It was bullshit but it was a way for them as a minority to directly deliver their message to the people without going through several layers of media filters. They took a stand on certain issues and thus captured the dialogue and framed their own issues.

[quaoar]

19. And that person

is Howard Dean.

[montana500]

18. muhahahahaha

The entire Republican party doesn't know where it stands on half the issues. They just LIE about it. And they can lie about it and act like they are resolute because they own the entire radio dial and they have their own highly popular cable news channel.

It's that simple.



*we need a communications infrastructure or we will be spiting into a fan*

[Q]

20. Of course they lie about it...

...but that's not the point. Time after time we watch as they define us before we can define ourselves. We can only blame the corporate media so much for this. They can define us because we seem afraid to define ourselves.

What is the official party position on the Iraq war? We don't seem to have one beyond supporting 'freedom in Iraq'. We complained that Bush didn't have an 'exit plan'...but neither do we.

We could start with a no-brainer and take the initiative before Bush defines us on the issue of Social Security. This is a safe bet for Democrats. We've always supported and defended Social Security. So why not make anti-privatization an official position of the party?

[DaedelusNemo]

70. But at least they've agreed on the same lie, mostly /nt

[leesa]

24. Disagree. We MUST get control of the media or we will never

win another election no matter what is said. The public will NEVER be given a clear picture of where Dems or any other party stands until this media is overthrown.

[Q]

25. Listen to what you're saying...

...you want to 'control' the media? Isn't that what we're complaining about the other side doing right now? Perhaps you mean that we need a return of an independent media? Neither side should control the free press.

But in the meantime...couldn't we do much more to get out our message by taking a stand on the important issues? Ask any Democrat where they think their party stands on any issue...and you'll get a blank stare from them.

The public isn't getting a 'clear picture' of where we stand because we're not telling them where we stand. Our party leadership is trying to ride the fence and stay in the mushy middle...giving Americans the impression that we stand for nothing.

[jpgray]

26. No, listen to what you're saying

In this mythical world you have created, all the Democrats need to do is say something and the media will cover it fairly. What planet have you been living on this past election year? Remember when Kerry said "global test" in the debates? It had nothing whatever to do with "global" in the sense of international support, but the context had to do with broad *domestic* support. So Kerry provided a clear message in the debate, and this was progressively distorted into something that was exactly the *opposite* of his clear and meaningful statement. Remember Howard Dean, a moderate governor from Vermont who was made into an unstable firebrand liberal loon? He never had a problem with clearly stating his ideas.

Now you were saying the media aren't the problem?

[Q]

28. Well...that post wasn't for you...

...and you missed the context. We can't call for 'control' of the media. Neither party should have control over the media.

And no...I haven't suggested that Democrats need only say 'something' to have it reported. They need to say something IMPORTANT or RELEVANT or DIFFERENT or UNEXPECTED and the media will cover it.

Kerry didn't provide a 'clear' message at all. He was all over the place...trying to please everyone and be a man for all seasons. He gave very shitty answers on the Iraq slaughter and didn't attack Bush on many issues when he had a clear opening.

Neither have I suggested that the corporate media isn't in the pocket of the Republicans or that they don't smear Democrats on a regular basis. Yes...they smeared Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Dean. But then...you have the DLC doing the same thing to other Democrats.

We either come up with a unified, forceful message and DRIVE it through the media...or stay in the minority for decades to come. Stop blaming the media for not reporting what we're not saying.

[jpgray]

30. By that logic, Dean should be president right now

Clear, meaningful, important, relevant? Unexpected? That was him. The media and his opponents destroyed him easily. According to you, he did everything right. And he lost. Why? Moreover, he lost to Kerry, who you say was a vascillating, irrelevant and unimportant panderer. Why?

[Q]

31. Gore. Dean. Kerry. Kucinich....none of them can do it alone...

...and it means nothing when they speak as individuals. They must have the party standing with them before their message will be taken seriously by the media. Republicans have an 'echo chamber' where their message is repeated over and over. Kerry said things that you KNEW didn't have the support of the majority of Democrats. Dean said things that pissed off the corporate Dems and they helped the media smear him.

I get the impression that you don't understand how the party machinery works. The DLC and their corporate lobbyists chose Kerry. Democrats had no say in it expect for being fooled into believing they had to get behind him because HE was the one to beat Bush.

[jpgray]

33. Oh the sweet irony

So DUers are silly for thinking media bias is a serious problem that makes even a good Democratic message ineffective, but you have your own uniquely baseless and paranoid fantasy that the DLC waved its magic "Dean-be-gone" wand to explain how he lost? Did they use a mind control ray on every Iowa caucus-goer? The DLC simply does not have the kind of power you attribute to it--but as many have pointed out, if the bumbling and myopic DLC could destroy Dean, what chance did he have against Bush? If the vascillating, flip-flopping and pandering Kerry beat him, why should he have a chance against Bush? Remember--your argument was that the media will report faithfully on those who are relevant, unexpected and meaningful. Dean was such, and they eviscerated him.

I notice each time your assertions are defeated by real life examples, you retreat and make yet another assertion. I have plenty of time to swat them all down, but if you would start using evidence and facts rather than your own fevered imaginings of how things work, it would speed things up.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. You're not getting it, jp

Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton all said things that needed to be said, but as one who worked on the Kucinich campaign, I couldn't help noticing how little respect DK got from the party. He was given less time to speak during the "debates" than the other candidates and was given less press coverage, even months before the Iowa caucuses. Even though he was given time to speak at the convention, it was BEFORE the nationwide PBS coverage started.

And we've all read what the Dean supporters have to say about how their candidate was treated and how the party establishment seems to be running an "anybody but Dean" campaign for DNC chair.

So first of all, we need the party to stand behind its most outspoken members instead of treating them like the crazy cousin in the attic.

Next, even when radio and TV interviewers are biased, there are politicians who wilt under those circumstances or try to appease their interviewers and there are politicians who call the interviewers on their bullshit and get their own message across. The latter are the ones who need to be pushed forward as spokespersons for the Democratic party.

Just as a for-instance, I'd like to see some of the Dems who voted against the IWR appearing on TV to say "I told you so."

[jpgray]

56. So to change the party, the parts you disagree with have to commit suicide

Or in other words, support powerful individuals that represent an opposing viewpoint. That isn't likely to happen--the DLC will continue to post silly memos attacking what they perceive as threats to their own control. They aren't going to go along willingly. Now if Dean had become the nominee, they would have gone along.

"we need the party to stand behind its most outspoken members instead of treating them like the crazy cousin in the attic."

Unfortunately we have a faction of the party that is determined to do just that for as long as possible to hold on to nominal control of the party. So I guess I don't see how Q's "just stand for stuff" approach is going to make any difference, since it hasn't before. Is his idea "stand for stuff and magically make the factions of the party get along"? Because that is even less workable.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

40. My goodness jp, what an insightful post...

Here's another related point to make: most of the people here complaining about other Democrats here on the D.U. never bother to go down to their party and sign up. That old mantra "Think Global Act Local" never seems to apply to them. They'd rather waste their time telling their fellow Democrats how they're blowing it, rather than actually doing anything positive themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a precinct person (which you can be just by spending one day a month helping out your local county party), you don't have the right to criticize anything or anybody in the Democratic party. If your idea of "activism" is to bitch and moan and spend your time trying to divide Democrats, you're not part of the solution - you're part of the problem.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Q]

53. And speaking of irony...

...here we have a DLC fan lecturing a lifelong Democrat about 'signing up and doing something positive' when it's the DLC who has abandoned the party and were actually arrogant enough to call themselves 'New' Democrats. How is it that THEY support the party by separating themselves from it and trashing anyone that doesn't bow down to their 'third way'?

Why is it okay for the DLCers to 'bitch and moan' about liberals? Why is it okay for THEM to divide the party by accusing fellow Dems on the left of trying to 'undermine' the war on terror because they're against the Iraq war fraud? And why is it okay for the DLC to wage class warfare and divide the party by abandoning the workers and kissing the ass of corporations?

I have a different take on who is 'part of the problem'. Those who accept the status quo and involve themselves in mindless cheerleading are more of a problem to democracy that those who try to make every public servant accountable to the people...whether they're Republican or Democrat.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

66. Yes, irony is the word alright...

The list of inaccuracies in your posts are so long, it's hard listing them all. But here's the major ones.

- Most DLCers are just as much "lifelong Democrat" as you are.
- The DLC hasn't "abandoned the party", only the party's love of losing.
- The DLC doesn't separate themselves any more from the party than Democracy For America, or any other Democratic group.
- That "third way" you hate won the Presidency twice.
- When centrists criticize undermining the war on terror, they're talking about people who opposed the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. (And the "blame the troops first" crowd - always a big vote-getter, believe me).
- The DLC repeatedly and constantly attacks Republicans in a manner that most effectively makes Independents want to vote for us; that's hardly mindless cheerleading.

But as far as irony is concerned, I really can't touch the way you, someone who is obviously so incredibly angry about the direction this country (and presumably the Party) is going, can't bother to get off your lazy ass and volunteer. Which is, by the way, the only way you'll ever actually get to change what you care so deeply about.

Believe it or not, Q, I have tons of Kucinich supporters as friends. They, unlike you, don't just put the tag "lifelong Democrat (voter)" while stating their opinions. They not only talk the talk, they walk the walk.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[jpgray]

61. I disagree--Q has every right to criticize no matter what he's done

I would rather more people volunteer and put in some work, because the more progressives that do that the better, but it's not a necessary factor for having an opinion.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

63. Let's agree to disagree on that one...

Of course he has the legal right to have an opinion. It's a free country, after all.

But a moral one? No. Lump him in with the arm-chair quarterbacks, the chickenhawks, and everyone else who doesn't put his money (or time and effort) where his mouth is.

It's a hell of a lot easier to criticize someone else than to do something constructive yourself. But they get no respect from me.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[jpgray]

64. I'd still much rather have his opinion than not have it

So I don't feel I should devalue his opinions on the party just because he doesn't volunteer or work for the party--they are either valid or invalid to me, regardless of what he has done. And incidentally I have no idea if he has done any of that kind of work or not.

[Q]

47. Hell no...please stop...

...trying to distort what I'm saying. Many of us were trying to get the Dem party leadership off their asses and do something about the media in the 90s when they helped the GOP's witch hunt against Clinton. We begged them to do something when the same media character assassinated Gore. I've ranted against the corporate media and wrote dozens of letters of complaint since 2000...when it was so obvious that they were actually campaigning for Bush.

You could help your own argument by simply answering the question posed about the official position of the Dem party on the aforementioned issues. You can't do it because they won't talk about these issues in the public forum. Yet you continue to be their apologist.

I know one thing for sure: the Dems weak position and reluctance to stand for anything is the direct result of taking the advice of the DLC.

[jpgray]

58. I supported Kucinich in my caucus, friend

The DLC is a misguided organization that has no strategic ability for national races, but even absent the DLC and given strong direct positions, the media have defeated our candidates time and again. The example of Howard Dean still defeats your premise--he was everything you ask for and he lost. He had the support of most power brokers in the party, he was the "straight-talker," he had sound bites the media loved to print, but they also loved to distort them and he lost. If your premise is "stand for stuff and magically get everyone in the party to back one guy and then the media will treat us fairly" I still think you're wrong. Even in those instances where Kerry had a clear position on something and Democrats were remarkably united in supporting him (his position on alternative energy, for example) the media belittled what it could and ignored what it couldn't. You can't get out a message if the media won't report it. It's that simple.

I can answer all your questions above about where the party stands, but you can do so yourself--it's all in there:

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

I can even Google for individual statements over a sustained period on any given issue--note Kerry's position that the US should not have gone to war without allies or without exhausting all peaceful means was constant from the day of his vote to the day of the election. It doesn't matter if you're consistent, it doesn't matter if the party is behind you. It's no secret the Democrats have serious strategic problems, but it isn't so simple as "just stand for something". Even when we do, it is distorted and turned against us.

[DaedelusNemo]

71. They'll show the soundbite if you make it dramatic enough

Dean's clarity is why he got so much press. It's being argued the whole democrat party could catch a clue here.

[Grip]

32. What is the Democratic message?

Once upon a time the Democrats represented the workin' man.

Now they basically represent the same interests the Republicans do.

Normal working people do have a seat at the table.

[Q]

44. You'll find the rhetoric of 'representing the workers...

...and 'civil rights' on the DNC's website...but nothing in their public message or votes in congress reflects anything resembling this message. Trade agreements that trash American jobs and Patriot Acts that take away rights are the reality.

Democrats used to say not to listen to what Republicans say...but to watch what they did. They said their words never matched their actions. Is the Dem party in danger of suffering the same fate?

[outraged2]

34. I agree...

... with most every point you've made in this thread, Q. There is no doubt that the media is a huge problem, but unitl the Dems have something better to say than "We're not Bush" or "We want the same things, only we'll do it better", blaming the media is a dead end.

Dems seem content to accept the definitions put out by the Reps by reacting to them. If they would not react to the nonsense spewed by the Reps and define themselves for a change I think we would see improvement all around. Dems validate the Rep 'framing' by reacting to it. JMHO, but the Dems need to make a stand. The Rep rhetoric makes no sense most of the time but people never hear anything that makes them question the story they are given - on any subject/policy. That is NOT entirely the fault of the media - there are very few Dems I have heard take a clear, definitive stance on any issue and then have the guts to stick with it. (the party itself seems to just float in the tide of Rep rhetoric)

Doing what is right is not always easy or comfortable. When/if the party does take a clear oppositional (not simply reactionary) stand it will be uncomfortable for a while. However, if a mass of Dems (or especially the party leadership) can stay strong and true to the message - whether its social security or the Patriot Act, it will go further than anything else to making things better.

[newportdadde]

35. First off your premise is coming off of the MSM being completely

impartial and lack of coverage being due to our message which I don't believe is the case. If that was the case then the media would be doing a better job of asking tough questions of this administration which it refuses to do.. that tells me its not an impartial MSM press.

Even for the sake of discussion if it was impartial its the nature of our party to have a harder time explaining our position. Its because our positions require nuance and discussion. Take abortion....

Republicans can say "I'm against it", then initiate picking apart opponent.

Democrats however bring up the scenarios... mothers health, rape, what happens to the baby after its born. This isn't as easy to fit into a sound bite and people want sound bites. They attribute a hard nose short response as firm and powerful and the other as weak and wishy washy.

Privatize Social Security?

Republicans "We want you to invest YOUR money yourselves so you can make more money the government doesn't get you any return."

Democrats "Well you see its bad because...

We just aren't as sound bite convenient.

[Supersedeas]

39. when Political Discussion is reduced to check list WITHOUT elaboration

Networks perk up and find time for it.

I would rather have the discussion and dismiss the concerns of networks.

That's not going to stop me from demanding more from Networks who owe full public discussion of public policy when they are using the PUBLIC'S AIRWAYS, IMHO.

[Q]

42. In my first paragraph I explain that the corporate media...

...is neither free or impartial. They are traitors to America and a free people.

That said...this debate has nothing to do with sound bites or slogans. I'm talking about Democrats acting like they care about America and speaking out as a party against illegal wars and tax cuts for the rich during a 'time of war'.

We must find a 'common cause' and be the party that fights for the Bill of Rights instead of voting for the Patriot Act without ever explaining to the voters why it had to be rushed into existance.

This is exactly how the Republicans became a majority. While Democrats were resting on their laurels...the Republicans were taking names and kicking ass and working in concert to win the hearts and minds of their OWN BASE. Our party has arrogantly thrown their base away...not bothering to lead by example or explain their actions.

[DaedelusNemo]

73. Not that far

The media isn't utterly impervious, but there will be resistance to overcome. It's not so much that they're ideologically after you (for the most part) as it is that 1) they are very afraid of offending their audience 2) they are desperate for rating so seek something exciting 3) They live in constant spin and he who rides hardest influences most.

A more effectively expressed message would have a better time getting through the press.

You're right about the deficiency of democratic soundbites, and i think that was part of the point that was being made. We need to be working on those. For SS, how about -

DEMOCRATS: "They're not going to let you invest that money. Their plan is that they will get to play with all that money, and to do that they're going to cut the security out of social security, and pile on a trillion bucks more deficit to boot - when even they admit that the deficit is already a bigger problem than social security."

Isn't that better? and we still have time to work on it.

[David Ippolito]

36. Politics is downstream from culture

...Not the other way around.

Politicians and the media react to the People... to the Voice... to the culture.

Politics is downstream from culture. We have to remember that. The media will try to give us what they think we want. Politicians of every stripe, Republican and Democrat, are basically the same in that regard as well. The People have to raise their voices again. Then Democrats, Republicans, the media... all of them will begin to react to us. It's what the so-called Christian conservative-right wing learned and that's why they have such a loud, dangerous and terrible voice right now.

[blm]

38. The media says the Dems have no message. YOU are parroting the media.

Sorry, but that's for suckers. Even when they KNOW the power of the media, they still fall for their lies.

[Q]

41. I've read through this thread...

...and it seems no one will take the challenge: What IS the official Dem position on any of the above issues? No takers? I don't blame you...the party isn't exactly upfront about their stance on these issues.

I've never heard the 'media' say that the Dems don't have a message. I've heard pundits say it...but they usually have an axe to grind.

But it's not a lie to say that the general public is unaware of Democratic positions on many issues. I've seen no Democrat on this or any other thread able to describe their own party's official position on issues ranging from Iraq to Social Security.

I hope that one day Democrats will stop giving their representatives a free ride by excusing their unwillingness to present a clear message without parsing words and trying to play both sides of the fence.

[VioletLake]

43. This could answer some of your questions:

http://www.democrats.org/platform/index.html

It took me forever to find it. ;)

[DireStrike]

48. OMG, It's a PDF! That explains EVERYTHING!

No wonder nobody's read it! :evilgrin:

[Q]

49. Part of the responsibility of the leadership...

...is to make sure that the Democratic party knows what's in the platform. Did YOU know what was in it before you read it?

I started this thread because of a visit I paid to the DNC website early this morning. The first thing I noticed was that there was nothing concerning Bush's screwed up war on teror or the fact that he lied this nation into war. This is perhaps the most important issue facing this country...and the Democrats have nothing to say about it.This pretty much reflects the way they campaigned in 2004.

[VioletLake]

50. Yes, Q, I knew.

I'm a poet and didn't know it. ;)

Those bad, stupid Democrats - always up to no good. :eyes:

[Q]

51. Your sarcasm doesn't help...

...to recognize what we need to do better...foremost being to work harder to get our message out...a message that is clearly superior to that offered by the Bush fascists.

I'm not calling 'Democrats' bad or stupid. Those are your words. This thread isn't about rank and file Democrats...it's about their leadership...who seem to know nothing about actually leading.

[VioletLake]

54. I wasn't trying to help.

You're doing a good enough job delivering your message.

If you want to get the Democratic Party's message out, start doing it yourself. There are a lot of ways that you can help spread the party's message. If you're so sure that Democrats are unaware of the message, then help spread it.

What are YOU doing to spread the party's message?

As it is, you're not spreading the party's message, you're spreading the message that the party isn't spreading its message. That's your message. You're like the director of message spreading. B-)

[VioletLake]

62. What's the title of this thread?

And you said that Democrats should accept part of the blame for not having a "newsworthy" message.

Now you're saying that the Democratic Party's message is "clearly superior to that offered by the Bush fascists," and worth spreading.

In effect you're saying that we should work harder to spread a weak, ineffective, and not newsworthy message that is clearly superior to fascism (the alternative). Thanks, Q, that's wonderful advice.

It's not that you don't raise legitimate concerns...


Edit: added point in parentheses.

[jpgray]

59. I ask again: read the platform

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

It's all there. Do you want me to type it out for you in this thread? Kerry has hit almost all of the points in various speeches around the country--it isn't just text on a website.

[klyon]

46. You are so right Q

I would like to see some religious leaders speaking out also.
War is NOT the Answer.

KL

[blm]

52. One question, Q: Would Bush be in office if US had a real news media?

Of course, the next question would be, If the country had a real media, would John Kerry have won in a landslide with an American people who were fully informed on the issues represented by the Democratic party?

[robbedvoter]

55. I agree in part, but then there's this:

On January 5th Wes Clark had such a newsbreaking speech on taxes - it got me cheering - never been passionate on the subject. It was the content and even the style:
So if Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear this loud and clear - I'm going to provide tax cuts to ease the burden for 34 million American families and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by raising the taxes on one-tenth of one percent of families in America, those who make more than a million dollars a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it.* And if that makes me an "old style? "Democrat, then, I accept that label with pride and dare you to come after me for it. Because what I am talking about today is in the best tradition of Wilson and Roosevelt; of JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton - and it is in the best interest of the United States of America!
http://clark04.com/speeches/025/
Yet, I only saw it on C-Span. Complete media silence on it. (Same on similarly brilliant speeches on capturing OBL, exiting Iraq, etc)
Some years before that, the Pillsburry report exhonerated the Clintons from the Whitewater BS. Clinton called a press conference, started talking and noticed they weren't taking any notes. "You aren't gonna cover this, are you?" he asked. There was silence. And 95% of Americans don't know Whitewater was a hoax.
So, while I agree woth you about the whishy washy , mealy mouthed democratic voice of late, I propose that a change of tone will be met with the same reaction as the 2 events I described above.

[izzybeans]

57. Sorry first post

so if I'm mucking up any conventions here all ya got to do is let me know.

I agree in part that media is not fully to blame, but I don't think it was the message either. We all, me being a mere "lurker" who "lurks" in good faith, got the message. The message somehow is clear, whether it be on taxes, war, social security. The question is our use of the media, obtaining and maintaining allies, and how that message is presented. I want people to visit the ohio democractic parties website and then visit the ohio republican website. The difference is clear ( a little excercise a prof. had us do). I'm still holding my fingers for an overturned election, but if you want to find out why we lost the election start there. Our message is clear, but its been coopted and put into these wonderfully seductive narratives by the repugs. Check out the two cites and imagine getting outflanked all over the place when it comes to producing a clear message. Our message was clear, it just wasn't getting to the people.

[Q]

67. That's right...

...no one is putting the full blame on the Democratic party. They have to work much harder than the GOP in getting out a message that has to go through several layers of RWing distortions, misdirection and disinformation. But it seems that many Democrats misunderstand WHY the media is blocking their message.

The Democratic party is the last remaining holdout of resistance to the corporate takever of our nation. The wealthy, ruling class already dominates every other aspect of American politics. They realize that when they can finally get rid of the few remaining liberals and progressives in the Democratic party...their takeover will be complete. Once that's accomplished...the Democratic party will be welcome in the fold again and accepted by the corporate media.

The media doesn't distort the message of ALL Democrats...just those who pose a danger to their takeover. Take note that they have nothing bad to say about Lieberman or any of the other 'conservative' Democrats and report every word they have to say without distortion. Why? Because they're ON MESSAGE and say what the ruling class wants to hear.

[NightOwwl]

74. The media is complicit, but they can’t be blamed entirely

for the Dems lack of message. Before Dems can even attempt to cut through the bull they need a voice first, and where that voice is coming from I haven’t got a clue.

It seems to me the Democratic leaders (oxymoron) are willing to stand in the shadows of the Republicans until an “acceptable” issue like filibustering comes along. Thank goodness the party has an opportunity to find it's voice and take a stand on the most important issue facing us today. Election Reform. Huh…you mean no one but Conyers is talking about it…oh…never mind.

I’ve read through this thread and I still can’t tell you what the official party position is on any of the issues Q listed. I shouldn’t have to Google to find answers. I should be able to rattle them off the top of my head so when a person who’s considering voting Democratic for the first time asks me why they should consider switching their vote, I’ll have some solid answers for them.

Begin off topic rant/
Wow, I am so tired of that same old “get off your lazy ass and do something instead of bitching and whining” comeback. I got this a lot when I “bitched and whined” about Kerry staying silent throughout the Swift Boat Liars attack. Funny, I spent 2-3 hours a day donating my time and money to the campaign, but no one ever considered that as a possibility. But silly me, I thought everyone had a right to their opinion, even couch potatoes with low post counts.
/End off topic rant