What are our winning issues in 2006 again?

[Neecy]

I know that Democrats can triumph merely by their winsome smiles and sparkling personalities, but what big-issue items can we prevail with in the midterms?

Iraq: There's no united front here, unless you consider overwhelmingly authorizing billions upon billions of dollars to fund the war without demanding one shred of accountability of the administration, from how the funding is spent to what his exact future plans are for our operations there, to be a united front. Yes, some House Democrats tried to get that accountability, but Democrats also voted in large numbers against the measure. Most leading Democrats subscribe to the Pottery Barn theory - so this issue is a big scratch, unfortunately.

Environmental Issues: Yes, we squeak about these on occasion, but when push comes to shove, it was the Democrats in the Senate who finally allowed our overlords to begin drilling in ANWR. This might have been a win, and an important one, but it was pissed away and dead as a campaign issue forever.

Populism: This might have been promising, given the falling living standards of the middle class. Yet, in this session, the Democrats have openly shared the credit for passing some of the most vicious anti-consumer, pro-business legislation in my lifetime - tort reform and the bankruptcy bill. We can no longer use the message of how big business has become very relevant in our daily lives, like it or not, over the last four and a half years - because our hands are just as dirty. Hell, we're proud of our participation.

The Judiciary: Another potentially fertile issue that's been pissed into the wind. Whatever you think of the compromise, the fact remains that three of the most poisonous nominees for lifetime appointments have been handed over, carte blanche, after excellent cases had been made NOT to confirm these nominees. We can hardly use the issue of ensuring moderation on the federal bench when Owen and Brown were given a free pass. If the Republicans had gone nuclear, this again would have been a short-term disadvantage for long-term gain. Gone.

Economic Policy: Granted, Democrats have been shut out of most economic policy, but one area where we could have had an impact was the endless stream of treasury funds being poured down the Iraq rathole as noted above. We passed this funding - money we don't have - without a whimper, or at least making a public issue over the missing funds that have already melted away into the desert because we're afraid of not being 'supportive of the troops', even when the majority of Americans question this entire misadventure and politically it's not nearly as unsafe as it was even two years ago to start taking a stand. Nope, too afraid, so the huge blank checks to Bush will continue to sap our economy for the rest of our lifetimes. We also are unwilling to be truthful to the American people about the danger of foreign investment floating our debt - can't rock the boat.

So, it's back to:

Our winsome smiles and sparkling personalities: We aren't Republicans and we dislike Bush. We know how far this got us in 2004.

And the final kicker:

Social Security The only issue we have left, diluted somewhat since we helped Bush pass his fiscally irresponsible (ref: Economic Policy) and pro-business (ref: populism) Medicare drug bill. All it's going to take is another Gang of 14, or 10, or 6, to piss this advantage away, also. And it's a potent one - again, the public is on our side overwhelmingly, and it's always been a Democratic strength. If we compromise this, we're finished.

Did I miss anything? I suppose I could discuss how we're becoming a big-tent on reproductive rights now, but I'm too depressed at the moment.

[Cocoa]

1. Bush Fatigue

like "Clinton Fatigue" but real, not a figment of the elites' imagination.

[ChiciB1]

66. And Bush Will Never Get The Accolades The Clinton Has

when we RUN HIM OUT OF OFFICE!!

I M P E A C H....IMPEACH The Boy King Wonder... El-SmirkleRoy!

[redstateblues]

2. Stem Cells- Favoring terminally ill over blastocysts

[Poiuyt]

14. Stem cells can be a big wedge issue

[dogday]

3. Better Add Paper Ballots To That List Because Without Them

we have no real way of knowing what is true. I still think about those polls and the Las Vegas Odds Makers who were wrong.

[EFerrari]

19. Now, there's a value: transparent elections.

:eyes:

[Doctor_J]

4. Sadly, we will be playing D again,

due mostly to the fact that the MSM campaign relentlessly for the repubs.

[Vyan]

5. Only one issue needed : Tom Delay - Tom Delay and Tom Delay!

All but five members of the Republican Congressional Caucus have not received money from Delay's ARMPAC, or given to his criminal defense fund. The first and foremost issue needs to be Ethics in Government.

Everything else is irrelevant if you can't trust the people you're electing.

But to be fair, we also need to have a specific strategy to counter their secondary attacks.

Dems need to stop being afraid of the abortion issue and start hammering home the fact that more women are alive and healthy today than would have been if Roe v. Wade hadn't been passed, yet the number of abortions has infact stayed nearly the same since 1973 and today (1.2 Million to 1.3 Million). Don't the lives of future Mother's Count?

We need to address the values issues - and point out that Democrats not only value life, they value a life of quality. They value jobs, they value health-care and child-care for working families. They value commitment and privacy between consenting adults.

Dems value Freedom - Freedom to keep your personal business, personal - rather than part of a corporate or governmental database.

Dems value our Troops - by protecting veterans benefits, and bankrupcy protection when members of the national guard they can't afford to pay their bills because they've been stopped-lossed on extended leave from their jobs and families.

But the main issue is Delay and Abramoff. We take them down, and we take back the Congress in 06.

Vyan

[meppie-meppie not]

11. I think this is Brilliant!! Freedom to live, free to decide.

[Vyan]

45. Thanks - take two and pass it on. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

6. We need to begin with VALUES, not issues.

Read "Don't Think of an Elephant." Progressive values are the best of American values. Caring. Responsibility. Fairness. We properly articulate our values, we win.

NGU.

[Neecy]

8. yes, we can talk about values...

But what have we done to actually demonstrate these values? What proof, other than good intentions, do we have to offer the voters?

That's why I think the populism issue was, by far, the biggest loss to us. It would have been an excellent vehicle to prove our values, by defending the rights of the average Joe over the powerful.

I'd love to be optimistic about 2006 - in fact, I think the survival of our very institutions of government depends on our victory. That's why it infuriates me to see us throw away so many strategic advantages in order to reap corporate money. It's a whirlwind we'll regret.

[ClassWarrior]

35. I'm not reaping any corporate money.

We can be the change we want to be. And we're just the ones to demonstrate our values. As long as we're willing to get involved in the Party and stick to it.

NGU.

[Vyan]

46. We don't have to show what we've done...

(particularly since we haven't had the power to really do anything)

But we can show that we stand against what the Repubs and failed to do.

Dem are against:

.. Rampant Lobbyist Influence

.. Rampant Corporate Corruption ala Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, Worldcom.

.. Unlimited Defecits

.. Unprovoked War

.. Unsecured Borders and Ports

.. Rampant environmental exploitation

Dems are for:

.. Protecting Personal Privacy

.. Protecting Pension Funds and Social Security

.. Lowering Energy Cost and fostering alternative and hybrid sources

.. Global Cooperation in a Global "War on Terror".

The big area that Dems lose on is taxes. Right now, we can't beat the "It's Your Money - you know better what to do with it" argument. So we need a new approach to taxation and government expenditures, I support the idea of letting enough of the Bush tax cuts naturally sunset to cover the deficit - but instead of taking the remainder and simply raising taxes, we should offer an alternative of tax credits and deductions which specifically offset mandatory government spending requirements.

For example if a company gives an American a job, instead of shipping a job overseas, that saves the government money it would spend on unemployment benefits and Medicare - so the company should *keep* that portion of it's current tax cut and have it rolled over into a tax credit or deduction. The tax effect on the company, minus the deficit gap, is essentially the same (assuming they don't continue shipping jobs overseas), but the net result for the government is less spending on support services for out of work people without reducing service quality, (John Kerry proposed a tax-credit of this type during his Presidential Campaign)

During the Clinton Presidency, he proposed a environmental tax credit that would lower taxes for companies that implemented enviromentally friendly processes - this tax cut was blocked by Newt Gingrich. So it appears that there IS a tax cut that Republicans don't like after all.

We need to hammer them with this stuff, and take back the high-ground on taxation and deficit spending. A Democratic President with a Democratic Congress (in 1993) was the only combination that hasn't wasted taxpayer money by the billions and heaped mountains of debt on our children.

Yes, It's Americans' money - and when Americans spend it in a way that HELPS America, and makes government spending unnecessary, we'll make sure they get to keep as much of it as possible - now, and in the future.

Vyan

[EVDebs]

7. Impeachment ! It can't be done unless Dems take the House !

[necso]

9. I think that you are ignoring some

important context.

First, we need to replace pugs with Dems. These (new) Dem candidates will be (relatively) free to take (public) positions that can get them elected. And running Dems (for federal offices) without a "history" (on the federal level) may be wise.

Second, currently elected Dems can "color" themselves by votes on "flagship" or "hot-button" issues. A "no" vote on CAFTA will be a lot more understandable to the American people than votes (of any sort) on many other issues. Moreover, (some) other issues can be dodged (to some degree, anyway) by treating these issues as state or local issues (when running for a federal office, obviously).

Third, the Party itself can be influenced in one direction or the other. And I believe that this is taking place in a small way now. -- Throw in a crop of new legislators (holding, say, populist economic positions) and the effect could be greatly magnified.

But we also have to be a little more sophisticated in our understanding of politics. We are never going to achieve the unity that the pugs have. (And one main reason for this is simple: we cannot use fear like they do, as we have scruples -- and we are not (all) "bought men" (just rented for a time) .) So we must be tolerant of some positions in some Dems that we do not like.

And let's face it, there are places in this country where certain issues are radioactive. And if we force Dems to take on (publicly) the unpopular side of these issues, we are effectively dooming them to failure (in these places). Besides, what matters is what actions are taken on these issues; with majority positions there are all sorts of ways to ensure that undesirable actions are prevented.

And we cannot afford to get hung up on language. A "pro-life" Dem who will not vote for an anti-abortion judge (or legislation -- or get a chance to) is better than a pug (of any variety) who will.

If our idea of a strategy for winning is that all our candidates support every (progressive -- or whatever) activist position -- and in the precise language that every activist likes, then we don't have a strategy for winning... we have a recipe for (further) disaster.

Of course, there are core issues (civil rights, the availability of (something approaching) equal opportunity, the rule of law, etc) that we must demand of all Dems. But to insist that Dems be of some uniform sort pleasing to all those (progressives -- or whatever) who would set policy (and who can and do disagree among themselves) is not consistent with the nature of our Party. (This is a neocon characteristic, not a Democratic one.) We really are a big-tent party; we just need to be a little more thoughtful about what the dividing lines should be at any one point in time. A great deal of politics (and history) revolves around changing the direction of the pendulum -- and slowing down and changing the course of that pendulum involves a great deal of barely perceivable change, while accelerating the pendulum rapidly requires considerable existing momentum (in the right direction). So it is important to realize where we are in a historical cycle and take appropriate actions. (About the only hope for accelerating the process is to wish for some disaster (like the great depression) that swings people around rapidly. But, unfortunately, given the abysmal ignorance of the majority of people, disaster may be more likely to swing us in the wrong direction.)

Myself, I would rather have a Dem Senator who is "pro-life", "pro-gun" (here I am largely guilty of pre-existing support for the position) and against same-sex marriage -- and who never gets to have any real say on these policies -- than a pug of any sort who will go along with the neocon agenda (which is becoming inseparable from the fundie agenda). Such a Dem can play an important role in helping to stop the pendulum and turning it about. Later, (to be frank) he or she can be discarded on the ash-heap of history and more progressive types put in power -- when the circumstances are more favorable.

But then, I am a person who is obsessed with what can be done now -- not with what should be done in some ideal universe. We are a long way from being in ideal circumstances, and we had better come to terms with this -- or we are liable to make it worse -- much worse.

And yeah, it's possible... And we may be lucky if it isn't probable.

[nickshepDEM]

10. Populism, Populism, Populism...

Look no further than Montana.

Bob Brigham wrote an excellent Diary the other day ay MyDD regarding Democrats and Populism. Check it out...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/30/155253/983

This weekend, there has been an important online discussion of economic populism and the future of the Democratic Party.

Paperwight started the discussion with a precinct-by-precinct examination of how Congressman Bernie Sanders out performs Republicans in the reddest areas of Vermont. David Sirota had more to say and then linked it back to the Montana miracle of Democrats winning in the west.

With all eyes on Montana Senator Conrad Burns re-election campaign, let's look back at the roll populism has played in Big Sky elections since Burns was elected in 1988.

In American politics -- and especially in the Senate -- incumbents have a huge advantage over challengers. It is difficult for a senator seeking re-election to lose. Absent a major scandal, the most vulnerable election for an incumbent is the first re-election campaign.

For Conrad Burns, that campaign was his 1994 re-election. In that race, Montana Democrats fielded Jack Mudd, a Missoula attorney and Dean of the Law School to challenge the newbie senator. Mudd was what we now refer to as a DLC Democrat, he focused on following polls to try to find a way to not anger voters while avoiding a message of economic populism. Mudd lost.

In 2000, Burns was much stronger of a candidate and had the luxury of being on the same ticket as George Bush after eight years of a Democratic White House (as an aside, Clinton visited and won Montana in 1992). The insiders said Burns would cruise to an easy re-election and not a single Democratic elected official challenged him, instead three statewide officials chose to fight it out in the gubernatorial primary rather than take on Burns. But an unknown farmer named Brian Schweitzer decided to take on Burns -- with little institutional support -- running on a message of economic populism.

Comparing the 1994 and 2000 outcomes shows the power -- especially in the "red states" -- of running a man of the people with a message of economic populism.

Here are the 1994 and 2000 results (PDFs):


1994
Burns:
218,542 Votes (62%)
Mudd:
131,845 Votes (38%)
2000
Burns:
208,082 Votes (52%)
Schweitzer:
194,430 Votes (48%)

That is an astonishing difference in outcomes that can be attributed 100% to running a candidate who is a farmer -- not a city lawyer -- with a message of economic populism.

As everyone knows, Schweitzer went on to be elected Governor of Montana during the 2004 "Montana Miracle" sweep that voters allowed as Democrats stood proud and promised to fight as populists. Governor Schweitzer now enjoys a 57% approval rating, four points higher than President Bush.

Montana Democrats are now faced with deciding between keeping the populist winning streak alive or returning to the DLC message that has wrought nothing but heartache and failure.

Democrat state Senate President Jon Tester is another fiery farmer with a bread-and-butter message of economic populism, while State Auditor John Morrison is another city lawyer on track to suffer the same fate as Jack Mudd and Dusty Deschamps (1998 Montana congressional candidate who was stomped).

There is a Da Vinci code for Democrats and that involves fighting as a populist. There is no reason why the 2004 sweep can't carry over to 2006, all that is necessary is a will to stand strong for the people and ditch the DLC, polled-based, boring campaigns of old.

That is why I'm proud that the Swing State Project is supporting Jon Tester. I expect Tester to beat Burns and in the process, continue Schweitzer's trail-blazing of a message that resonates in the heartland, in rural areas, in red states.

Join us with a contribution:

www.actblue.com/list/ssp

[Singular73]

12. Social Security will win it...

But if we are smart, we won't expose our strategy until closer to the elections, as not to give the Refucks time to tear them down.

[iwantmycountryback]

16. Your picture is great

Which is why you should support Senator Russell Feingold from Wisconsin for President in 2008, the lone Senator to vote against the Unconstitutional Patriot Act.

[Lexingtonian]

13. nah, play on their field

It's not worth explaining and arguing what our side thinks in too much detail. Just keep putting hardline Republican policy on trial and point to the obvious alternatives. But the emphasis needs to be on the failure of hardline Republican policy.

There are only six hardline Republican policies, to my analysis.

Domestic policy:
1. Lower taxes regardless of social costs. (economic policy)
2. Get corporations cash, then take your cut. (political 'ethics')
3. The 14th Amendment doesn't actually exist. (social policy)
Foreign policy:
4. Topple any Stalinist regime. Call any replacement "freedom" and "democracy",
5. Lock up all "terrorists" and throw away the key. Close your ears to the screams.
6. Ally up with all feudal and colonial regimes and interests. Plunder the weak.

[iwantmycountryback]

15. The Corruption of Tom Delay and Stem-Cell Research

Also not being fucking insane.

[KnaveRupe]

17. Religion.

Religion.

Religion, religion, religion.

The "Lordy Minority" and the Inquisition Catholics (and to a lesser extend the Medved/Lieberman Jews) are scaring the crap out of a lot of very devout mainline Xtians and Jews, as well as the Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't handle snakes as part of their worship ceremonies.

The time is right for a religious coup - we can snatch religion right out from under them.

Memes to repeat:
"How would Jesus vote?"
"Jesus was a Liberal Reform Jew"
Anything from the Sermon on the Mount

Seriously. Most religious people are NOT the bigots that the right wing wackos hold out there as "American Values". We can win this by showing how their sincere faith has been exploited and how they've been played for "suckahs".

[Radical Activist]

18. Playing it safe all the time is bad politics.

People need to get that. A man with conviction will always be more popular than a man who calculates.

[mark11727]

44. This partially explains *'s supposed popularity...

...he hasn't a freaking clue, but he's very certain he's right.

That, and his followers are complete idiots.

[Radical Activist]

49. Right. He plays the conviction theme.

Its a fake act but people are so hungry for that it works.

[EFerrari]

20. Neecy, how do you/we expect to win elections when our process

is compromised?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

At this point, they could run on grandma murder and high cholesterol and win.

And make up stories about how we're losing the Latino vote, the women's vote, the Black vote, the Union vote, the values vote, the youth vote --- just like they tried to do last time.

But it doesn't mean a thing unless we have VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS.

[drdtroit]

26. Absolutely!

without election reform and standardization (VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS), it won't matter.
We could clone Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln and still lose!

[yebrent]

21. Keep It Simple

Especially if the candidate is challenging a Rethuge, and has no Senate or House record to defend.

Washington is out of touch with average Americans. "I'm going to clean up Washington."

The rich are getting richer and the middle class and poor are getting poorer, while working longer hours. The tax cut for the rich really only helped the rich. Our jobs are going overseas.

Run against the war if you didn't vote for it. It will be one of the best ways to pick up the independents.

Is America better off since the Rethugs took over the House and Senate? Our image abroad is in tatters and our military is stretched thin. Our husbands...wives...mothers...fathers...sons...and daughters are dying.

stem cells

Terri Schiavo

social security

Tom Delay

George Bush

Republican's drive for absolute power and control of our personal lives.

There is a lot to run on. Those already in Washington may have a harder time, but the vast majority of them aren't in much danger.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Don't forget

education and health care.

[GettysbergII]

40. Absolutely and let me add Labor (or Jobs)

Universal Health Care
Good-bye NCLB

[bonzotex]

24. Real ID Act

If everyone in Uhmurrika knew what this abomination really is going to mean for them they would stay home or vote for anybody but the Republicans that stuffed it in the Emergency Defense appropriations bill. There should be a whole campaign meme devoted to pointing out the anti-freedom un-American Police State the Republicans are building.

Just one example.

Most voters don't really need ten issues they like or hate to decide their vote. Sadly it really comes down to which party they think will screw them worse and they'll vote for the other one. There's a hard core right wing base that won't give up on the repugs no matter what. Trying to appeal to them is pointless. We only need the sane people and a honest polling system.

There's plenty of winning issues Democrats can run on and plenty of losing issue that can be pinned on the repugs. We'll see if Dean can pull it together into a real platform. I have to agree with you that tactically the Democrats have fumbled many of the key opportunities to come out strong against the worst of the Republican agenda.

[googly]

25. To be BLUNT, there is but only ONE issue on which we can win

and that is creating envy of the rich. Every message in 2006
should exploit how the Richpublicans are only for the Rich!!!

Since the majority of Americans earn less than $50,000/year,
that could win us easily in 2006 and beyond.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. All Jesus, all the time. Oh, and more Tax Cuts.

Did I mention loosening those pesky environmental regulations that hamstring free enterprise?

:eyes:

[Awsi Dooger]

28. The issue is to emphasize governorships and field our best candidates

Almost everything in these posts relates to federal offices. We're stuck in a down period there and nothing points to any type of change. As someone posted, we're still on defense and that's a tread water likelihood at best. When I talk to typical apolotical tourists here in Las Vegas, it's amazing how predominant national security fears continue to be. That's the GOP's trump card now and foreseeable.

I hope we plunge the bulk of our cash and energy into the winnable governors races in 2006 and build a foundation there. The key, as always, is not to let garbage candidates enter the race for the basic reason they often prevail in primaries. Our handicapping royally sucks as witnessed by the necessity of a great war hero to oust Bush. If we continue to allow open fields in senate and gov races and lower, instead of a mighty instinctive party chief who dictates who our nominee will be, we'll earn minority status on all levels. The one thing I admire about Rove is how he handicaps every statewide race based on the individual realities of that state and race, and all but mandates who the GOP nominee will be. I'm sure he's chortling like hell at our reluctance/ignorance at not following suit.

[Gronk Groks]

59. You're in Las Vegas???? I'm in Las Vegas!!!

We need to get together for a meeting of the minds.:hi:

I sell show tickets down on the strip and you're right. The Americans only hear how dangerous the world is from the RW propaganda machine. However the tourists from overseas see our foreign policy and they are aghast at our naked imperialism. Very strange how they are two sides of the same coin.

As for the Democratic Party; to paraphrase Mark Twin "I belong to no organized political party - I'm a Democrat". The Republicans' greatest strength is their lockstep(goose-stepping?) organization.

Do we need more caucuses and less primaries? Hate to think so but it might be necessary. :shrug:

[ncrainbowgrrl]

62. Welcome to DU, Gronk Groks!

:hi: Glad you're here!

[slor]

29. No mention of renewable energy?

Which, if we choose the right sources, will go a long way towards correcting the environmental and economic problems we have too!

[BlueManDude]

30. immigration is the issue

[Six Feet Underground]

31. Why did Democrats cave on all of those issues? Somebody explain, plz...

Why did they cave in? No, really... why? What's the leverage? Are they all so cowardly as to fear the Rove Church Machine as to fear non-election?

[Demrock6]

37. ANWAR.....

Was part of a budget resolution. It could only be amended but not filibustered.

Maria Cantwell of Washington tossed out an amendment to prevent drilling, it lost by one vote.

[Olney Blue]

57. Welcome to DU!

:hi:


Great name!

[spooked911]

32. How about the real truth on 9/11

the thing that brought the Bush nightmare to its full strength

[kentuck]

33. Minimize the "social" issues and exploit the disastrous economic ....

policies of this Administration. Are you better off now than when Bill Clinton was in office? Do you feel more secure? Do you think the country is better off? Isn't it time to vote your interests rather than the interests of George Bush and his wealthy friends. Who are you gonna believe, the Republicans or your own lying eyes?

[sarahlee]

34. Heads up

If any of you are reading this at work or if you want to be able to continue to promote your candidates here at DU - or try to raise money for them . . . then you should read my completely ignored message at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1826107

Today is the last day for citizens to tell the FEC to keep their hands off the net.

[jvdassam]

36. There is Only One Issue in Politics, Now and Forever

Everything else is window dressing. It is the ECONOMY. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. We must come up with a viable, workable plan to create hope and opportunity for middle America, and we must have the discipline to make sure every office seeker signs on to it. At this point, I haven't seen any such plan.

[Writer]

38. As much as we don't like it, it's not going to be an impeachment.

If we start down that road, even with the "evidence" at hand, then I believe we might as well kiss our '06 chances goodbye.

The American people would hate us, much as they hated the Repubs in 1998.

[LSK]

39. bankruptcy bill, right wing judges, real ID, threaten of filibuster

Just watch the news for the past 6 months. It shouldnt be that hard. Just go out there and EDUCATE PEOPLE.

[GettysbergII]

41. Great post and great focus, Neecy!

[truth_is_extreme]

42. we had winning issues in 2000 and 2004 too

but FRAUD won. Can someone tell me why this is not being addressed by Democrats more aggressively?

[theboss]

43. Privacy and Immigration

That Republicans have fucked up both these issues and it's time to take them to task on it.

The Terri Schiavo case showed everyone that the Republicans are not about getting government out of our lives. They are about getting government in more sacred parts of our lives.

And the Immigration debate is just waiting to be exploited. The Republican base is pissed. If nothing else, it can be used to keep Republican voters at home.

[Mr.Green93]

47. It is time for a change

Always works.

[chomskysright]

48. U missed big one: PRIVACY: remember Shiavo BACKFIRE

[OzarkDem]

50. Health care

One of the biggest issues for aging baby boomers, uninsured and even businesses who can no longer afford it.

[memory]

51. If the election process is not altered and taken away from Diebold,

I don't think anything that we do will matter. This is what keeps me up at night, because very little is said about this and trying to discuss it get you labeled a whiner, a poor loser or a tin foil hat.

I'm just very scared.:hide:

[NAO]

52. Stronger America, Better Future, Broad Prosperity, Effective Government,

Mutual Responsibility

George Lakoff's "10 word progressive statement of values"

Stronger America
Better Future
Broad Prosperity
Effective Government
Mutual Responsibility

It's not wonky - it's frames - better politics thru cognitive science.

[JackDragna]

53. None of this means a damned thing.

Our elected representatives have no interest in being anything more than a speedbump for the Republican agenda. Our focus should be to not only elect Democrats, but to get the capitulators with the Republicans (the Lieberman types out there) out of office.

[nonono]

54. Republican lites

The New Democratshave Lieberman and Hilary, Harold Ford and many others listed.

At least some of them always help push the republican agenda by voting with the Republicans. Hilary hasn't been voting lately.

Suddenly, there are polls popping up (Zogby and The Pew Research Poll) that shows majorities think Social Security needs reformed. They have been having committee meetings this week with both parties attending. The Senate finance committee is part of the meetings.

Pew Research is supported by Sun Oil I have heard. I don't know anything about Zogby.

You don't suppose they would load the polls then ram through a bill to ruin Social Security? With the help of the New Democrats?

[hoosierblue]

55. No offense but...

What a load of crap. A few vote for these things and we're to throw all Dems out on these issues? Yes, they got through, but what do you want them to do--filibuster everything? They're in the minority. They have to pick their battles.

You think they're not allowed to use the Bankruptcy Bill at all? Just because a few Dems voted for it?

Again, What a load of crap. I can't believe this garbage made the front page.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Health Care, Health Care, and Health Care again

In the past two years, everyone I've talked to, and that means doctors, nurses, and all sorts of miscellaneous people, has hated the current non-system.

If the Dems could come up with a program that could be described in three sentences and would get the blood-sucking insurance companies out of the loop, and if they could get all the Congresscritters and local Dems behind it to push, push, and push some more when they go home (thus doing an end run around the corporate contributors and the Republican spin machine), it would win.

The problem with the Dems on health care is that they are too timid to promote national single payer and the halfway measures they propose are too complicated and too deferential toward the insurance companies.

If the Dems blasted the insurance companies, everyone would shout "Amen!" with the possible exception of people who work for insurance companies, and even some of them aren't too crazy about their employers.

[kodi]

61. indeed, repeat it constantly. an idea whose time has come.

actually, it came in the Truman administration, but who's counting?

the cost to insuring the private sector worker is so high that it has begun to strangle economic growth, only the government has the resources to solve this problem.

it is not only current insured (and uninsured) workers who are affected, those who have lost pension/health plans due to corporate bankruptcy are also hurting, and as bankruptcy rises in the private corporate sector, so too does the misery for those who can least afford it.

the propaganda that has to be employed is simply to tell the truth; overall, the private sector health care provider system has overhead/administrative costs in the range of 15-18% for each dollar spent. the public sector has overhead/administrative costs of less than 5%.

its the increased efficiency of moving to a single payer system that is the critical reason to do so.

it is in the national interest to enact fiscal policies that are efficient over those that are inefficient.

it would be "American" to do otherwise, and in other words, a single payer system IS patriotic.

unfortunately, and quite candidly, we should expect opponents of such a system to refer to it as "National Socialism," with all its taints.

[suegeo]

58. Until the rigged voting machines are fixed

Until the rigged voting machines are fixed, none of this matters.
Oh, and the republican-fascist whores in the media need to be driven into the sea.

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. Out sourcing-Universal Health Care--Out Sourcing-Universal Health Care-

:bounce:

When are Democrats going to realize that these are the issues as well as the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor--that the vast majority of Americans really care about??--Okay--I suppose this does fit under "populism". But it does have to carry some specifics with it for it to mean anything and to resonate with voters.:dem: Just take a look at Bernie Sanders in Vermont. Bernie carries staunchly Republican counties by landslide proportions--most of the time. These are our wedges issues that can have the Republicans on the run

[dave51]

63. truth and honesty

Of all these great issues, the one that is greatest of all is truth and honesty!! The democrats need to regain the lost art of truth and honesty. Straight talking and washing their hands of corruption will do much towards regaining the trust of the American people.
How about a new ethics pledge to the American people from the dems that repudiates the practices of selling access, lying, taking "gifts", etc. Start representing the truth to the people and repudiate their role in "Washington accepted corrupt practices". All of us know that both parties have sold this country out! Her people, her principles,her wealth, and her constitution have been sold for a "campaign contribution". We can be a party that will change the status quo.

[Asgaya Dihi]

64. Freedom

How about a little subject like freedom? We all know the media has failed us badly, but they aren't alone. So has the Democratic party in the drug war and the treatment of minorities in particular and the poor in general. Before you judge that comment, let me remind you of some facts that qualify the statement.

For over 30 years everyone has told us that victory in the drug war was just around the corner, and in the Clinton Administration rather then checking our progress or anything sensible like that they handed us 3 consecutive years of record numbers of marijuana arrests and increased police powers. So, what justified it? Let's look.

They tell us that drug use has been reduced in one way or another, but it's a lie. What's happened is they went from crack to X to meth in a normal shift of styles and tastes as the generations passed, just like the kids do with everything else. Drug use in itself has remained almost flat throughout the war on drugs, and that's a demonstrable fact making use of the US Governments own records. Here's a page that shows the same info the drug czar uses, but stripped of the propaganda.

Homepage of truth: the Anti-drugwar by Brian C. Bennett
http://www.briancbennett.com/

Ok, if you guys have covered that, let's look at the results of the policy itself. If it hasn't reduced drug use, what has it done?

The single most notable result of the drug war has been to take us from being an average nation to in terms of our own people the most imprisoned nation on the face of the earth, bar none. That's not opinion, it's a demonstrable fact. Here's a link to an article that was first printed in the Baltimore Sun about the situation in Maryland in particular, it describes the situation as it stood a couple of years ago.

Locked Up in Land of the Free
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-01.htm

And the situation as it now stands with solid records of the science proving most of what we've done to be a lie can be found at the first link below, a link to a group of law enforcement professionals who would be glad to confirm everything I've said follows that.

Drug War Facts
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/

LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc/

So what's your cause? How about something we used to consider to be American, such as human dignity, honesty, and freedom?

[carpetbagger]

65. Throw the corrupt bums out.

There's no fixing Iraq without controlling the executive branch, so the best we can do is to promise that we'll go after the bums who rip off the troops.

The rest of it requires at the very least control of the House of Representatives.

The republicans run the country right now. We need to accept it. And we need to make sure everyone knows which party is responsible for the mess.

[anderbre]

67. The negative is not working - lets try something new...

I think the DNC needs to shift focus off of GWB and Co. and put it back on all of the great things we have accomplished (AND KEEP IT THERE).

We could start with a national advertising campaign with each individual ad focused on a single Democrat President, from Jackson through Clinton.

This kind of campaign would get attention from the media (free advertising) as something unique, and we could use the spot-light to really focus on all of the great things the DNC has done for America.

For all of the voters that assume that the RNC is the party of the military, another idea would be to highlight all of the current Democrats who have served in the military. Mention nothing about republicans who haven't. Again, the media should pick this up and question why there aren't more republicans. Check out Ed Schultz as he has a nice list to work from.

[FDR33]

68. We are for responsible scientific progress

I could be wrong, but I believe that most Americans think that using frozen embryos that would otherwise be thrown away for stem cell research is not only responsible, but necessary. Bush uses this issue to shore up his religious fundamentalist support and we should use this against him.

[Asgaya Dihi]

69. The most imprisoned nation on the face of the earth

I'm so disappointed. I was really hoping that at least some Democrats actually cared about the issue just because it was a horrendous abuse against our own people, but given that there's little apparent concern based simply on the fact that it's unjustified and wrong I'll try self interest. If you won't help change the drug war just because it's yet to reduce use and we can't even keep it out of our own prisons, maybe this will explain why the party has found itself where it is.

There's a couple of things about the failure of the Democratic party that bother me, but I've never in my life seen anyone else even mention the link, certainly nobody in power. I'm not sure the party can recover till they do. In effect they committed suicide, this'll take a little to explain so please be patient.

First we have to go back to the baby boom Generation that came of age in the 60's and the 70's, and rethink them a bit. In every generation that's ever existed they've rebelled, and if a person is going to make a mistake or commit a crime it'll likely first be as a youth. Many or most as they mature will simply stop.

Now look at the start of the drug war, and the reasons for it. We had a lot of young rebels that grew up with the lies and deceit of Nam, and they acted like young rebels. We had a spike in the crime rates for the very simple reason that we had a spike in the population that tends to commit them.

Some genius in the Republican party came up with a plan, and you guys went along with it. The plan involved attacking your own voter base, the hippies and free thinkers, the minorities, the rebels. And the Democratic party jumped in with both feet.

As the baby boomers matured and invested in stocks instead of in rebellion, the Republicans took credit for falling crime rates so you guys decided to prove you were just as tough. When Clinton came into office instead of showing some restraint or even doing a study to see if any of it is working we saw three consecutive years of record numbers of marijuana arrests, growth in the powers of the police to search, seize, and confiscate, and the loss of many rights to privacy. There's been another side effect as well, a big one.

The laws tend to actually target minorities, consider the safe school zones for instance. In a crowed urban area most people are near a school, daycare center, or something of the sort all the time just by force of how crowded it is, so they do a mandatory minimum. The same crime in a suburban area draws little notice, treatment perhaps. DA'a bargain charges down to get them to turn on others or to get them to give up property without protest, but for those with nothing to offer they get the maximum and no judge can say it's unfair. That leaves punishment mostly on the shoulders of the poor and the unconnected who just got into a bad situation, and leaves those we intended to target all too often untouched.

And the result of all of this? A growth in about 30 years from roughly 300,000 in our jails and prisons to over 2,100,000, mostly minorities, the poor, and the hippies. Voter disenfranchisement running over 4.7 million, in a nation where elections are decided by hundreds or thousands. And none of it has been needed, as far back as Nixon our own commissions told us it didn't work. Heck, back in the 1940's the LaGuardia report told us it didn't. It still doesn't.

The Democratic party committed suicide, and unless and until they reverse course they don't deserve to recover. If it wasn't for the damage they've helped do to this nation they'd by all rights be controlling it right now.

You might want to go back a few posts and fact check what I said before, it is easily proven to have not only been an abject failure in all terms and an abuse of our own people, it's also responsible for you being where you are today. We can't even keep drugs out of our own prisons let alone reduce use on the streets, if that doesn't scream failed policy what does?