Dem "Strategists" differ over offering a detailed agenda versus

[Laura PourMeADrink]

relying on voter unhappiness with Republicans.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems31may31,1,5145210.story?ctrack=1&cset=true\\

Democrats Weigh Risks of Caution
Strategists differ over offering a detailed agenda versus relying on voters' unhappiness with Republicans.
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006


WASHINGTON — Are the Democrats ready for their close-up?

With President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress facing bleak approval ratings, many Democrats are increasingly confident that the public is ready to hear the party's alternative policy ideas as the 2006 campaign heats up.

Party leaders have provided some specifics about how they would deal with national security, energy issues and ethics reform if they recapture one or both chambers of Congress in November. But on many topics, they have provided only broad hints about their direction. This cautious strategy is generating intensifying debate within the party.

On one side are those who believe the Democrats must present a sharp alternative to Bush's direction — as Republicans did with their "Contract with America" before sweeping into control of Congress in 1994.

"It is a time to move toward offense and toward talking about the big things that we stand for," said Eli Pariser, executive director of the political action committee associated with liberal MoveOn.org.

snip

[mmonk]

1. We should let the voters be dissatisfied

with republicans and keep the "strategists" from screwing it up and end up with another Nader like run from somebody.

[H2O Man]

5. I agree. n/t

[displacedtexan]

2. If I read one more version of this same stupid story...

I'm going to scream.

This seems to be the only story about Dems that anyone can write.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. one way to solve that would be to actually come up with a plan

and market the hell out of it. IMHO, some simple, basic, positive ideas about what we stand for, that are repeated over and over at every opportunity, could do nothing but help.

[Minnesota Libra]

3. While I pretty much agree with going on the offense with the liberal......

....message I think timing is everything. I think that message should begin in earnest November 8th - the day after the November elections. Why wait until after the November elections? As we all know neocons/fundies don't think very well and we don't want to overwhelm those unused brains of theirs.

[1932]

4. Since the article doesn't name a single source arguing Dems shouldn't run

on ideas, I'm not sure how seriously readers can take the reporter's claim that there is a division. There are only two quotes from people arguing that Democrats should go light on the ideas, and they're both from (the same?) anonymous source -- a senate aide (which could be anyone, including the Republican who makes coffee for the most conservative Democrat in the senate).

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. good point. Repigs are grasping at straws, trying to make this

an issue. Just think, this is probably their ammunition list.

1. Dems will raise taxes
2. Dems have no ideas

Traditionally, they can say that Dems are spendthrifts - oops can't use that one.

[1932]

9. Furthermore, I suspect that there cant' be but 10 Democrats who

haven't read Lakoff, or haven't been influenced by Lakoff and who, therefore, still believe the Democrats can win by not talking about what the believe in.

And I bet there aren't but 10 Republicans in any position of influence who aren't afraid that the Democrats will do that. Therefore, I suspect Republicans are trying to come up with ways to undermine this inevitability, such as the one revealed in this article which is trying to pretend that there's an internal rift over this inevitable strategy.

[Scoody Boo]

8. They need to get a clue...

The Democrats ran a Presidential Campaign relying on voter satisfaction and that was not so sound a strategy, was it?

"Hate the other guy!" is a losing proposition.