So now DU is hating on Emanuel? Its time to get an F'ing grip people!

[wndycty]

So from what I'm reading on DU this morning it appears Congressman Emanuel bombed on Meet the Press this morning? And thus he is now Democratic enemy #1. Oh the horror!

I did not see this morning's appearance so I'm not going defend that, but I will respond to is just the sickening tendacy of DUers to dump on otherwise good Democrats and call them GOP Lite, Dino's et al because of a weak TV performance, pragmatism, diplomacy and just not being anti Bush enough.

This shit has got to stop. If we keep this up the GOP will not have to work all that hard in 2006 or 2008 because we are eating our own. In addition to jumping on Emanuel today, the Obama bashing of the last 2 months (the man has been a Senator for less than an F'ing month!) is just plain stupid and it says a lot more about the bashers than those being bashed.

I have had the pleasure recently to witness first hand Congressman Emanuel as he has taken on the drug industry, GOP, FDA and White House on the issue of drug importation and this man is no GOP lite, he is no Dino, he is no wimp. He has taken the fight to them, but I guess because some DUers only consume what is fed to them they would not know that. In Congressman Emanual the DCCC has got a man who is ready to beat the shit out of the GOP!

I will not not make excuses for his performance on MTP today (didn't Howard Dean have a bad one once?). All of our leaders are doing their best, but they are not always their best. Before we just go dumping on these guys lets just look at their whole record and contributions.

[madfloridian]

1. Maybe holding accountable? Being concerned?

Why did you mention Dean?

[wndycty]

8. Why not mention Dean, he went on MTP and sucked. . .

. . .so that is a good comparison the draw. You do know just because certain people worship him and drink the Kool Aid does not mean he we cannot bring him as necessary.

[madfloridian]

11. Why not mention Dean? The kool aid again? OMG This was about Emanuel

?

[wndycty]

14. You are right it was about Emanuel. . .

. . .but when you took issue with my passing mention of Dean (which was relevant) you made it about Dean. Even though some DUers are sensitive and immature when it comes to pragmatic converstations in which their candidate is mentioned in unflattering terms, I'm not going to avoid the issue.

I repeat it was relevant. Emanuel had a bad performance on MTP today and it to put things in perspective it was relevant to bring up another Democrat who had a bad MTP appearance, Howard Dean. Dean's supporters did not abandon him because of his poor MTP performance and he rose above it, give Emanuel the same chance.

[madfloridian]

15. When I took issue of your mention of Dean..then I made it about him?

LOL LOL

[wndycty]

20. Yes. . .tell me . . .

. . .what is wrong with bringing up another Democrat who had a bad performance on MTP. Should I avoid bringing him up, because certain DUers will get their feelings hurt?

[tjdee]

24. Actually since so many DUers like Dean, it's a good comparison I thought.

But then, I don't particularly like Dean, so I guess I'm playing games or eating baloney or whatever.

:shrug:

[cali]

37. I like Dean and I agree with you

and the OP, whose comparison was completely innocuous and accurate. And bravo to the OP on his main topic; the idiotic mass condemnation of any dem who doesn't meet all liberal litmus tests. Well said.

[wndycty]

40. Thanks. . .

. . .and I am not going to defend Emanuel's performance, if he sucked, he sucked. . .but I just hope everyone just looks at the big picture before they condemn him. Criticize his performance today, but take a big look at his record before condeming him.

[dsc]

22. as I pointed out below there is a pretty big difference here

Dean, for bettor or worse, was representing himself and only himself on MTP. Any good or bad will generated by that performance rebounded only to him. Emanuel was representing the whole party and thus his bad performance rebounded to the whole party.

[wndycty]

25. So we are not allowed to bring up Howard Dean?

Huh?

[dsc]

30. No that isn't what I said

did you bother to read what I wrote? But there is an immense difference between what these people were doing. Emanuel, presumedly voluntarily, went on MTP to discuss Social Security ON BEHALF OF THE WHOLE PARTY. He then, IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE PARTY, endorsed private accounts. You can't do that. You should be prepared to STATE THE PARTY'S positions on the issues of the day when you volunarily DECIDE TO REPRESENT THE PARTY on MTP. Dean was representing HIMSELF.

[dogman]

35. Did you see this or are you repeating someone else's spin.

He endorsed private accounts in addition to SS. This was a carry over from the Clinton administration which was representing the Dem Party.

[dsc]

36. The Clinton adminstration

supported investing money as a whole in the stock market but not private accounts with there administrative costs. No I didn't see his performance but the current party position is no private accounts.

[dogman]

41. He was a prominent member of the Clinton administration.

That's why he knows what he was talking about. I would suggest you read what was said instead of reading the misinterpretations that have been posted. russert was trying to trap him into refuting the Clinton policy. He knew better.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6832586/

[KoKo]

42. Dean is not the Head of the Democratic Congressional Committee....

and he didn't serve in the Clinton Administrations which he refused to defend when Russert kept trying to say Clinton said SS was in "crisis."
Clinton made "SS" solvent but it get's lost in the RW Talking Points.

To compare Howard Dean's performance on MTP with Emanuel's is apples and oranges. However, if Dean was the head of the DCC, you would have heard
a quote from Krugman's articles about the scare tactics GOP is using to frighten Americans and he would not have backed down about Iraq saying he supported it and just thought Bush was not going about it the correct way.

What we heard from Emanuel on MTP today was non answers when asked over and over again "What is the Democrat's plan for SS." Waffling on Iraq and no chastisement of Bush for taking us to war over WMD, "Imminent Threat" and all the rest. Isn't it time for our Dem Leadership to hold Bush's feet to the fires over Iraq?

[wndycty]

43. You really don't know what Dean would have said. . .

. . .do you. Its great to always speculate what the man who currently does not hold a position of power would say.

[umtalal]

86. Can we Calm Down People? This is not the time to go stir crazy.

It is time to focus and send a message to our party leaders that we need them to talk about OUR POINTS AND ISSUES. How can we do this?

[Cocoa]

2. especially when there were fine appearances by other Dems

Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Carl Levin were solid. Reid called Bush "Orwellian," Kennedy called Bush "ridiculous," both of which were understatements but which are good to hear said on TV.

Emanuel had a weak appearance today, and overall I think he's a second-rate dem, and not the future of the party, but the piling on doesn't do any good.

*And regarding his appearance compared to Dean's first one on MTP, Emanuel was weak today, but he was about ten times better than Dean was.

[dsc]

3. There is a huge difference between going on MTP to promote

one's self and going on to promote one's party. Dean hurt only himself with his performance on MTP. If Emmanuel was as bad as advertised here (and the concensus is pretty bad) then he hurt the party as a whole. It was inexcusable to go on MTP this week without clear answers on Social Security.

[Rowdyboy]

4. Its sick. There must be some masochistic pleasure in tearing apart

our best representatives. He had an off-day on Russert and now he's Zell Miller-lite and a worthless piece of dreck. I have limited patience for fools and have so far stayed away from those threads.

[Mojambo]

7. our best representatives??

That's just it, he's not one of our best repersentatives and he shouldn't be on TV talking about something that he's not up to speed on.

Keep him back in Congress pushing fucking papers around.

[Rowdyboy]

17. We have a difference of opinion

I've seen Rahm Emanuel speak on any number of occasions and he is eloquent, quick on his feet, keen witted and has no qualms about going for his enemies balls. He's smart and will be a major player in the future of the party. I expect he'll join Obama in the senate when Durbin retires.

He had a bad day today. It probably won't be his last, but in no way does it diminish his voice as a spokesman.

You think differently. Okay...

[Mojambo]

32. Fair enough. Perhaps he's not ready for primetime

I'm not saying he's a terrible Congressman, but the Democrats need to be very careful about who they pick to speak for them on Social Security. This is going to be a HUGE PR battle and they can't afford to lose it now, cause they can't win it in Congress.

He dropped the ball today and that was a VERY important game. I think it is entirely reasonable that he be criticized for it.

He showed none of the qualities you described today, didn't come close actually. I think it's quite natural that people would be concerned about placing him in more situations like that.

Send him back to the minors for some seasoning I guess...

[Rowdyboy]

39. Oh I saw his performance and I agree...he stank

Believe me, I wouldn't try to defend his performance today. I'm just saying its only one bad performance.

He is very young and it is early in his career but I really believe he has enormous potential. Everybody stumbles once in awhile, especially at first.

[Mojambo]

44. I just wish the stumbling could come

on a less visable stage. The last thing we need right now is for people to get the idea that Democrats don't have Social Security DOWN.

It's the one issue where we still have some pull and the Bush administration is about to launch one of the biggest political wars we've ever seen to take it away.

I saw a Democrat up there today that didn't look ready for the fight.

Scary.

[Rowdyboy]

59. Agreed

Sadly

[Tinoire]

69. No more "bad hair day" excuses!!!

MR. RUSSERT: How do you think President Bush has handled the situation in Iraq?

REP. EMANUEL: Well, Tim, we have a situation in Iraq. You know, there was basic presumptions made that--I think--and, you know, as Dan said earlier, Dan Bartlett, that, you know, plans go awry. I don't think we had a plan for when after the statue of Saddam Hussein came down. There was not a plan. We thought we were going to go in there, and, you know, on this show, Vice President Cheney said we're going to be greeted as liberators. Well, let me just say this: Iraqis have a very funny way of greeting liberators.

They said it was going to be easy and quick. It's turned out to be long and hard. There was not a plan for the occupation. There was not a plan for an exit strategy. And so at every step of the way, the United States Congress has provided the president the resources he's asked for, the resolution he's asked for. I think the one thing we've asked for back, and one thing the American people deserve, is a modicum of competency in the management of this war. None of the things that we face today in Iraq had to be this way. It's because of the way this has been managed at the Defense Department, in my view.

MR. RUSSERT: You voted--you said you would have voted for the war if you had been in Congress.

REP. EMANUEL: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, knowing that are no weapons of mass destruction, would you still have cast that vote?

REP. EMANUEL: Yes. Well, you could have done--well, as you know, I didn't vote for it. I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, OK? But how you go about it and how you execute that war is the problems we face today.

MR. RUSSERT: So even knowing there are no weapons of mass destruction, you would still vote to go into Iraq?

REP. EMANUEL: You can make--you could have made a case that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and what you could have done also, Tim, is worked with other countries, go through the U.N., take the time to do it. Again, the problems with our troops and the country today faces in Iraq isn't about whether we should or should not have gone to war, whether we should or should not have removed Saddam Hussein, it's how they have pursued this war, the lack of planning, the lack of processing, thinking about there was no plan, as you know, for after we removed Saddam Hussein, what would you do. There was no plan for--as you know, before war, you had to have an exit strategy. One has not even been annunciated. There's been a presumption that we were going to be greeted as liberators. There was a presumption this would be quick and easy, and then we can turn the country over. None of that has been laid out, and that has to do with the competency and the planning that goes in, and they did not have a plan for the day after "hostilities ended."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6832586

NO MORE WAR SUPPORTERS!!!

NO MORE!

[PassingFair]

71. It's not my fault, Judge!

If she woulda laid still while I RAPED her, she wouldn't have gotten hurt! I wouldn't have had to hurt her. She BIT me! I had to beat her.

Our representation in Washington is LAME! Who gave them this "I would have done it differently" line, anyway?

I agree with you, Tinoire:

NO MORE WAR SUPPORTERS!!
NO MORE!

[gulfcoastliberal]

74. What an empty-headed boor.

What a POS to say he'd still send our troops to their doom for nothing. He must have been thoroughly vetted by NDN or DLC.

[candy331]

85. So he sees this as how the war has been pursued, sad, sad

Again, the problems with our troops and the country today faces in Iraq isn't about whether we should or should not have gone to war, whether we should or should not have removed Saddam Hussein, it's how they have pursued this war,

[autorank]

79. Rowdyboy, I totally agree. Russert's show causes brain damage.

Don't watch it.

[itzamirakul]

5. He is an extremely poor public speaker.....

He needs to take lessons or join Toastmasters or something.

He is too far centrist for my taste.

He did not take advantage of the opportunity to call the Republicans on any of their recent lies and scandals.

Another jelly-fish in a leadershit position.

I would like to know his position on the Iraq-Palestinian problem also.

[Skittles]

6. I don't know, did not see it

but I swear any Democrat who would "dance around" the question of whether or not Social Security is in crisis NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE because that is nothing but SUCKING UP TO RNC PROPAGANDA.

[dogman]

9. I'd suggest reading the transcript.

It wasn't a great performance but it might have been the best he could do at this point. He was in the Clinton administration and couldn't have answered most of the questions differently. It might have been better to have had a different spokesperson on these issues. Russert was clearly out to trap him with his own and Clinton's words. Once again Dems are forced to deal with the Clinton admin, instead of what B$$$ is doing now. Maybe if we purge the Party so that only perfect Dems are left, those ten or less people can hold the next Dem convention in a hotel room and save their thousand strong membership money.

[sunnystarr]

58. Just once ... please once ....

when is a Dem gonna throw the Repug talking points back in their lap. Every Repug plugging SS talked about what Clinton said in '98. When Russert threw it at Emanuel why didn't just say

"Tim, you must be receiving the GOP talking points! Clinton has nothing to do with the current situation, unless you want to point out that it was Clinton that returned solvency to SS and Bush that spent it through his tax cuts for the wealthy. But that would be a Dem talking point. We can send you ours and help you out."

[dmkinsey]

10. We should try to understand that

our elected officials have to co-exist with members from the other party and must work with SOMEONE to get legislation passed or prevent bad legislation being passed.

Bright-line partisanship is OUR job. We're the ones responsible for electing Dems to public office.
Let's try to cut some slack for our friends and save our venom for the other party.

[dvaravati]

12. nice jab at Dean

says a lot.

[wndycty]

16. If all you take out of this is a jab at Dean then. . .

. . .that is your problem, not mine and it says more about you than it does me. If I use Dean as god damned example of another Democrat who had a poor MTP performance its not about Dean, its about f'ing perspective.

[madfloridian]

26. You excused Emanuel because of a Dean MTP in 2003.

You did, you really really did. It was really obvious.

He is a leader of our party. I am scared if he approves of private accounts for Social Security.

[dogman]

33. Here is what was said about private accounts.

snip>"I've laid out here just briefly some of the things we are going to deal with helping people establish a retirement plan for themselves in addition to Social Security." Reading is fundamental.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6832586/

[Tigress DEM]

56. I don't see SELLOUT

I see a man talking about "in addition to" in order to help people get with the fact that social security is not going away, but can be augmented with other options.

THE PRESS - if they framed Clinton remarks out there to make it seem like "instead of" vs "in addition to" then it's more of the same 'ol same 'ol.

Every article that I read about some Republican doing something wrong in the mainstream press has this format.

1st - Don't disclose the fact that the politician is a Republican, only state his name and the "alleged wrong doing."

2nd - Find a Democrat whose done the same thing or "worse" and list him as a comparison AND make sure everyone knows it was a Democrat.

3rd - Find a Deomcrat that maybe thinks along the same lines and accuse them of collusion.

The mainstream Press/Media is no longer a FREE PRESS - It's BOUGHT AND PAID FOR Republican PR material.

[wndycty]

34. It was not an excuse it was perspective. . .

. . .if people say Emanuel sucked (I did not see it, but I will take others word for it) then he sucked, but what does that mean to the big picture.

[madfloridian]

13. Repubs blame Clinton for everything...DU Dems blame Howard Dean.

for what they say and what they vote for.....that means lets go after Howard Dean.....it is so obvious.

Emanuel called for private accounts today for Social Security. Blame Howard Dean.

I could make a list of our Democrats who have publicly said they would vote for the war all over again....and you would blame Howard Dean.

Or you would blame his supporters for not being nice little laid back Democrats who take all the crap the party wants to dish out.

This is so obvious. If you have a scapegoat like Howard Dean, you don't have to take responsibility for your actions or your votes....you can just blame Howard Dean. Just for being alive and breathing.

Time to grow up.

[dogman]

18. You see things differently than I do.

Emanuel clearly said he supported private accounts in addition to SS. Citing Dean as having had a bad day strikes me as someone saying even a great Dem can have a bad day. I guess we all see and hear what we want.

[madfloridian]

21. Oh, stop the baloney.

First, I would not have mentioned Emanuel. I would have just realized that we were screwed about Social Security.

But come on, the mention of Dean in that post was so unnecessary and so obvious.

Now, I will back off before I get notes in my box.

[dogman]

27. Make sense.

You misrepresented what Emanuel said about private accounts. That has nothing to do with Dean. Secondly when someone uses Dean as an example of another good Dem having a bad day your reaction is absurd.

[Tigress DEM]

49. Here Here!

We can't lead the world back from darkness if we're being petty.

[wndycty]

29. Why was it unnecessary?

Did he not bomb on MTP? Why can no one bring up Howard Dean in an unflattering light without being crucified?

[wndycty]

23. Please tell me. . .

. . .what is wrong with acknowledging that other Dems (Howard Dean being the most notable) have had bad days on MTP? Please tell me, what is wrong with that?

[madfloridian]

28. It was about Emanuel....it was your post. I did not start it.

You excused it on the grounds of Dean in 2003.

[wndycty]

31. Uh ok. . .

. . .I guess I am DLC, GOP Lite Dino. LOL C'mon lets grow up.

[Tigress DEM]

47. Reading difficulties or comprehension problem?

Look, people, sort through the crap and come up with the truth.

We are all trained in that now, aren't we?

If Emanuel is a good Democrat other than being blown away on one interview, get in his face and tell him to suck it up and do better, but don't throw him out.

We don't have the time or energy to search for "perfect" candidates. They don't exist, but people who are out there wearing our colors should be supported, coached to do better and held accountable for messing up WITHOUT being written off as a lost cause.

It seems like the contemporary Democratic attention span is moving down toward a "sound bite" and you know where that leads.

Debate safely folks, stay away from the "sound bite zone"

[Tigress DEM]

51. WAS it a bad day or a sellout?

Again, I think we Dems should get all the facts before we string someone up, but if the guy actually SUPPORTED dismantling SS because it's the only way he can move forward politically, then he's probably one in a long line of turncoats. Those people are dangerous.

[dogman]

54. Read the transcript and you decide.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6832586/
I think his words are being misrepresented.

[noiretextatique]

73. your response is way out of line

to what was written. no where is the original post did wyndycty "blame" howard dean for anything.

[tjdee]

19. They need to get their shit together, this isn't nicey nicey town.

I like Rahm. My own sweet John Edwards bombed on MTP, and I don't believe in crucifying someone based on one, or even two, performances.

But you know what? The Democrats need to get their heads out of their asses, or their penthouses, or wherever they are, and HANDLE THE MEDIA.

I don't know how they do invites at MTP, but Dems should take care to present the most articulate and charismatic of the party on television. Period. They need to realize, like any DUer does, that the media isn't fair to Democrats, and they need to minimize fuckups.

I'm so sick of blaming the media too. Part of the problem IS the Democrats--not in what they believe and work for, but in their inability to understand THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE DOES NOT PLAY NICE OR FAIR.

[creeksneakers2]

38. Emanuel didn't bomb, he hid.

He ran the same Kerry lines that the war in Iraq was an OK idea but it was handled wrong.

Worst of all, Emanuel let them get away with using a Clinton quote to frame SS as a crisis. Once again, the wingers are pulling a fast one by changing the debate from whether there is a crisis or not to a debate over whether Bill Clinton told the truth when he called it a crisis. We don't have an SS crisis coming. We have a budget crisis coming. The next generation could easily pay off the bonds if they weren't being buried by all this debt. Bill Clinton was paying down that debt, to make PAYING for SS less difficult down the road. Of course, if Emanuel says that, he has to say what to do about it. Once again, the Dems hide.

[Tigress DEM]

45. Carter didn't get a 2nd term partly due to poor speaches

Some people are better at doing than talking about it.

AND we the watchers when we jump in on a Democrat and rip them apart without looking fully into the situation are just as bad as people who voted for Bush because they thought FOX or CNN reports the truth.

Democrats will never be the power they should be if they don't quit fighting among themselves.

[Mojambo]

46. No offense but I get SO sick of this line

"Democrats will never be the power they should be if they don't quit fighting among themselves"

Democrats will be the power they should be when they return to their roots (Economic Populism) and boot from the party ANY corporate candidate who doesn't want to get on board with it.

[Tigress DEM]

48. They aren't mutually exclusive actions

If you have the greatest agenda in the world, but everyone at the table is bickering and pulling one another's hair, it's still nothing more than a corporate brawl at a round table.

If people can talk about the issues and get behind something together, they can move forward.

So educate me. Economic Populism?? - other than the opposite of supply side / trickle down ecomonics (that doesn't work) - what is it?

[Mojambo]

57. See Roosevelt, Franklin Delano

Take REAL steps to curb corporate power and influence, return to a more progressive tax structure, re-shape the free-trade nightmare, support labor laws, and in general look to fix things from the bottom up instead of the top only.

I think the DLC and progressive Democrats hold irreconcilable economic positions. We could come together again under a charismatic centrist like Obama but I want real progressive policies not the weak water treading that comes with trying to fold conservative economics into our party.

We don't need another Clinton, we don't need another centrist.

JMHO though.

[dolstein]

50. I like Rahm, but let's be honest -- he was lousy on MTP

One of the big reasons why the Bush administration has been kicking our asses the past four years is because they are much more effective at crafting a message and in sending out disciplined surrogrates who deliver that message.

Right now, the Democrats really don't seem to have a message on social security, other than that they aren't supporting the president. But unless the Democrats can communicate in a clear and concise fashion precisely WHY they aren't supporting the president, and what exactly THEY would do instead, Bush will continue to have the upper hand.

If the Democrats can't win the PR battle on Social Security, where the facts are OVERWHELMINGLY in our favor, then we deserve to get our asses kicked.

By all appearances, Rahm went onto MTP without having thought about what exactly he was going to say in response to Tim Russert's predictable questions regarding social security. He didn't have a message. His answers were evasive, rambling and often incoherent. And this is someone who, by virtue of his position in charge of the DCCC, is likely to be called upon regularly to make television appearnces. He needs to improve, and fast.

[wndycty]

52. No one is saying he was not lousy. . .however. . .

. . .he is undeserving of all of the bashing he is receiving.

[dogman]

53. Not a good performance.

Russert was loaded for bear but Rahm did not fall into his trap. It would have been worse if he had fallen for the Clinton statement and condemned it only to have it thrown in his face that it was Clinton. I believe it caught him offguard and instead of ignoring the question asked as the Rethugs do and staying on message he tryed to recover. His stand on Iraq came back to haunt him just as it has the majority of Dems who made the mistake of believing outdated intel and not wanting to appear weak on national security. When Kerry/edwards tryed that they were successfully labeled as flip-flop. The GOp has a definite advantage in staying on message along with a complicit MSM that will not hold their feet to the fire so as not to offend the powers that be.

[KittyWampus]

64. Thanks For A Nice, Even-Keeled Response.

I am getting more and more disgusted with what's going on here on DU.

[wndycty]

65. Same here. . .I will never abandon the DU, but it has abandon me. . .

. . .however I aint going nowhere.

[Tweed]

55. It's not often that Emanuel bombs

What bullshit people.

[okieinpain]

60. he sucked. watched 2 minutes of it and thought that's why liberals

have a bad name.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Just cuz he voted for the war and still supports it? How dare we?

C'mon folks tow the party line..the DLC/Republican party line.

[moggie12]

62. I was one who bashed him on those posts

My bashing was driven by anguish more than anything else. These weekend TV appearances get a lot of press & set the tone for discussion in DC and elsewhere. As a Democrat who desperately wants to turn the tide against all the Bush malarky, I thought he did a terrible job, especially on Social Security (contrast his comments with Debbie Stabenow's statement this weekend -- which somebody just posted in this category -- which I thought was a fantastic PR-savvy shot across the Republican bow).

Dems need to go on the offensive, in my opinion, and make America WAKE UP! Emanuel's appearance (again, in my opinion) did nothing on the WAKE UP front: He had no "fire in his belly" and sounded, on the whole, pretty defensive. I thought there was no "take-away" from Emanuel's appearance today and that's why I "bashed" him. In hindsight, maybe it's not his fault: He's a spokesman for the Democrats and the Democrats don't have a "ten-point" agenda that they can go on TV and talk about. My husband (who votes Dem or Rep based on the candidate) watched Emanuel and said, "But what are they going to do?"

Okay, now not only am I bashing Emanuel for that particular appearance, but the whole Dem Party! I'm sorry if you think that is wrong but the Dems drive me crazy these days. I should note that I'm a more moderate, centrist Dem (and thus get flamed every time I post on DU), but I'm extremely frustrated by Dem inability to articulate not just a case AGAINST Bush, but a case FOR the Democratic position. I think this is a critical point and is something I always argue with people on DU about. Some see a "MSM conspiracy" (i.e., that all MSM outlets are corporate-owned and purposely lie on behalf of Bush and prevent Dems from speaking the truth) whereas I think MSM just goes along with the flow, parroting whatever seems to be the consensus (yep, like bleeting sheep...). I think we're not being heard in large part because we're not saying anything that grabs attention. We criticize Bush but don't offer concrete, specific alternatives. And it's like the Dems are living in another decade when it comes to the PR war: They haven't figured out how to deal with a 24/7 news cycle, haven't realized that we need to strike back hard and not let Repub "sound-bites" rule the news, haven't figured out we need some "sound bites" of our own, etc. How's the country supposed to figure out that Bush is a maniac if we Dems don't grab the bull by the horns and tell them?? I'm nowhere close to being a "liberal" or "progressive" or whatever it's called these days but I just sent some $ to Barbara Boxer: Heck, at least she's got some balls!! (I can't believe I just wrote that.)

Sorry to ramble on, but I feel really strongly about this!!


Edited to add a link to DU post with Stabenow's SS statement:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1499479

[sendero]

75. I agree with...

.... everything you just said, I've been saying it here since I got here.

Dems are losing because they will not take a stand and say, without equivocation, without apology, and with passion and conviction, what needs to be said.

They blame the media for not covering them, but the media doesn't cover them because they never say anything worthy of coverage. They bitch about "talking points" without creating talking points of their own.

If we don't learn this game soon it is all over.

And the reason Congressmen go on MTP without being able to articulate a position is that they are going for publicity for themselves, not for the furtherance of the party's goals. Assuming that there really IS a party any more and that it even HAS common goals.

Yes, it is that bad.

[IronLionZion]

63. Rahm Emanuel is a good guy

I'd like to see some of the whiners around here step to the plate, run for office, and go on MTP.

yeah that's what I thought...:eyes:

[Q]

67. Those Dems who think that their leadership should never be criticized...

...for their failings seem to want the party to be more like the Republicans.

GOPers never criticise their own and walk in lockstep on very issue...even if it's wrong or harmful to America.

Get used to the fact that Democrats demand accountability and true representation from their leadership.

[IronLionZion]

70. read my post again

then run for office :eyes:

[KoKo]

81. And what's your last position in the Democratic Party...your title?

:-)'s

[IronLionZion]

83. What makes you think I'm even a member?

:P

I just want some of the whiners to do less whining and take a more active role in solving the problems.

Emanuel is a good guy who has served his constituents well and even has progressive views. It's shameful to see so much bullshit flung at him from the peanut gallery just because he didn't say what you want him to say on MTP. Especially when the critical ones won't run for office. Talk is easy, action is not.

Cheers,
ILZ
:toast:

[KoKo]

87. I did run for an office. And, I've always like Rahm but he shouldn't have

gone on Russert so unprepared about Iraq and Social Security. If you watched it or saw the video link from MSNBC...you have to say he didn't present the Democratic Party well. He hemmed and hawed and got himself caught up in convoluted arguments in answer to Russert's pointed questions.

We are coming off another lost election here agains a very weak President who lied us into a war FGS! I would think all of our Dems should have "prepped" answers by now. :shrug: Being a nice guy or thoughtful, doesn't cut it when you've been kicked around like our party has.

[wndycty]

82. Criticize all you want, but to trash a guy based upon a kneejerk reaction

. . .to a poort MTP performance is another thing.

[Zen Democrat]

66. I'm an old-time Dem ... and it sickened me. Harry Reid, too.

I think it's time to face reality. The Democratic Party has been infiltrated with a bunch of jellyfish -- who may be closet Republicans for all I know.

But I do know that when Democrats cannot stand up and draw the line at equivocating on social security, something is terribly wrong. And Emanuel and Reid are all still saying it was right to invade Iraq! WTF???

There are those who want to leave the party -- I want to take it back. Real Democrats need to run in primary challenges against these entrenched mealy-mouths, including Dianne Feinstein.

A Democrat without the convictions to stand up for basic human rights, social security, health care, and an honest voting process is no better than a damned Republican.

[Dr Fate]

68. We should red-ass all DEMs who cant fight Bush/media...

...they need a clue, not us.

[Walt Starr]

72. I voted for him once

but not in the primary. I think he's just another tool and is worthless, IMO. I formed that opinion long before this morning, which I didn;t even see.

[kodi]

76. i guess he thought he was going on crossfire and was unprepared.

he articulated democratic positions about as well as my left nut.

and what is it with congressional democratic leaders when asked about the iraq war? none seem capable of stating that bushevik exaggerations and lies caused the atmosphere in congress to support invasion, and now in the fullness of time and executive branch disclosures in the press such an invasion was ill-considered and wrong.

how hard is it to state that going into iraq was wrong?

instead the dems, and rahm emmanuel too shuffled around the topic without saying anything. it made him look bad, "kerryesque" one might say.

it was painful to watch. it was one of those..."I voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it" moments.

[dogman]

80. The problem is most elected Dems did give B$$$ the OK.

How do they get around that? They made that decision because we are told that is where the majority of US citizens were at that time. A majority against the War did not show until after "Mission Accomplished" was declared. Rahm represents a community that in general was ready to remove Saddam because he paid rewards to Palestinian suicide bomber's families. Their definition of terrorism is broader than others. He looks Kerryesque because that is where the majority of Dem pols were. I don't have a solution to this question and all of Kerry's advisors couldn't come up with one either. I don't forsee our Party having a complete face change any time soon. I think we'll have to go forward from where we are.

[QC]

77. He's a witch! Burn him! Burn him! n/t

[autorank]

78. GIVE THE GUY A BREAK. HE WAS AWSOME FOR CLINTON.

That's right, he took on the Repukes and hammered back like a Spartan!

He gets to make a mistake. We want him out there getting in shape because he has the House Campaign chair next year.

I'm pulling for him all the way and I appreciate all your great work fot the Big Dog!

[ClarkUSA]

84. Cut Rahm the same amount of slack we would give to our own candidates

of choice, because nobody I know has ever NOT made some really bad performances when it really counted.

I like Rahm and I've seen him make GOP attack dogs look stupid. It sounds
like he had a bad media day. Haven't any of our favs had one of those
days when they should have known better?

I hope Rahm appreciates the grassroots mail he receives tomorrow as a sign that he's ARRIVED.

[KittyWampus]

88. Yeah, Maybe I Should Send Him A Fan Letter. Rahm Kicks ASS!