Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Politix |
Dems Conflicted on 'Message' |
2006-03-07 |
Oh, that I had more time to comment this morning! News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own. Democratic leaders had set a goal of issuing their legislative manifesto by November 2005 to give voters a full year to digest their proposals. But some Democrats protested that the release date was too early, so they put it off until January. The new date slipped twice again, and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) says the document will be unveiled in "a matter of weeks." Some Democrats fear that the hesitant handling is symbolic of larger problems facing the party in trying to seize control of the House and Senate after more than a decade of almost unbroken minority status. Lawmakers and strategists have complained about erratic or uncertain leadership and repeated delays in resolving important issues. The conflict goes well beyond Capitol Hill. The failure of congressional leaders to deliver a clear message has left some Democratic governors deeply frustrated and at odds with Washington Democrats over strategy. Party leaders, for example, have yet to decide whether Democrats should focus on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush and the Republicans, by jumping on debacles such as the administration's handling of the Dubai port deal -- or stress their own priorities and values. There is no agreement on whether to try to nationalize the congressional campaign with a blueprint or "contract" with voters, as the Republicans did successfully in 1994, or to keep the races more local in tone. And the party is still divided over the war in Iraq: Some Democrats, including Pelosi, call for a phased withdrawal; many others back a longer-term military and economic commitment. "It could be a great year for Democrats," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), but the party must present a more moderate face and distinguish itself more clearly from the GOP on issues such as ethics. "The comment I hear is 'I'd really like to vote for you guys, but I can't stand the folks I see on TV,' " Cooper said in a telephone interview from Nashville. On issues such as explaining that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's work "was a 110 percent Republican operation," Cooper said, "we're not making nearly as much headway as we should." Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a corruption scandal. The Democratic leaders in Congress -- Pelosi and Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) -- are the party's chief strategists and architects of the agenda, which they view as a way to market party ideas on energy, health care, education and other issues. They have held countless meetings to construct the right list, consulting with governors, mayors and just about every Democratic adviser in town. "By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand," Reid said. But many in the party have their doubts. On Feb. 27, Reid and Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association. At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states? According to multiple accounts from those in the room, Reid said they had narrowed the list to six and proceeded to talk about them. Pelosi then offered her six -- not all the same as Reid's. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said later: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' " Others, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) -- who head the Senate and House campaign efforts -- believe the November election will turn mainly on how voters view Republicans. Schumer is leading the Democratic attack on the port deal, excoriating the administration for jeopardizing national security -- a realm in which Republicans have held the advantage with voters. He and Emanuel have sought to delay the agenda's release to allow Democratic attacks to hold the stage with minimum distraction. "When you're in the opposition, you both propose and oppose," Emanuel said. "But fundamentally, this is going to be a referendum on [Republican] stewardship." Also dividing Democratic strategists is the question of what lessons to take from the Republican landslide of 1994, when the GOP won the Senate and picked up 54 House seats, wiping out 40 years of Democratic rule. Some Democrats associate that breakthrough with the House Republicans' "Contract With America," a list of proposals on policy and government. "We should take a page from their book" and have "an overarching theme" similar to the 1994 contract, said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.). Many of his colleagues agree, but not Reid. "We're not going to do a 'Contract With America,' " Reid said in an interview. He noted that the GOP document received scant attention when it was presented a few weeks before the 1994 election, and political historians say it played a minor role in the outcome. "There's a great mythology about the contract," Reid said. Even the party's five-word 2006 motto has preoccupied congressional Democrats for months. "We had meetings where senators offered suggestions," Reid said. "We had focus groups. We worked hard on that. . . . It's a long, slow, arduous process." That slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect. Governors privately scoff at the slogan. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. "They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That's all good," said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. "The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we're against but what we're for. That's the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level." Reid spokesman Jim Manley said congressional Democrats have spent the past year redefining the debates over terrorism and Iraq and have prepared the ground for a shift to a more positive message that will focus on energy, health care and homeland security, all areas in which the governors would concur, he predicted. "We've had an unprecedented level of cooperation," he said. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly added: "At the end of the day, I think everyone will be on board." Perhaps the Democrats' greatest dilemma is how to respond to the Iraq war. It looms as the biggest question mark over Bush's administration and the Republican lawmakers who have backed him on the conflict almost without question. Congressional Democrats have been split over the war since 2002, when many voted to authorize military action. The ground shifted last November when Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), a leading Democratic voice on military matters, called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn as soon as possible. Two weeks later, Pelosi endorsed his stance. Although Pelosi said she was not speaking for her caucus, some colleagues complained that she was handing Republicans a gift by enabling them to tag Democrats as soft on terrorism and forcing Democratic candidates to explain whether they agreed with their House leader. There is little question that the political landscape looks promising for Democrats. A Feb. 9 poll by the Pew Research Center found that Democrats lead Republicans 50 to 41 percent in a generic ballot. But congressional Democrats have some key deficiencies. For instance, they lack the hard-charging, charismatic figurehead that Gingrich represented for the House GOP in 1994. But the Democrats have an abundance of presidential hopefuls, and their agendas sometimes differ from those of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and Emanuel. For instance, Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) tried to filibuster the renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a move opposed by most of his Senate colleagues, including Reid. Kerry (Mass.) led an unsuccessful filibuster attempt against Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. The best-known Democrat is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), whose plans for a 2008 presidential bid leave many of her colleagues wary of how her famous but divisive presence might affect them. "There are lots of skeptics," Schumer conceded. But the polls look better and better, he stressed. "There may be some inside-the-Beltway babble, but it's not affecting the voters," said Schumer, who wants the agenda delayed again -- until summer. |
Posted by:Bobby |
#19 "WISHY WASHY" - yep, and ergo which is why they believe any and all US Lefties will automat have a place on the future USSA Amerikan Politburo and Presidium, as opposed to the more realistic and HISTORICALLT CORRECT being gulagged iff not exterminated wid all the rest of the American people iff America loses the GWOT. "Wishy Washy" means the Nazis-for-Stalinism Russians and tradit Stalinist/Maoist Chicoms will want them on their team. |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-07 22:46 |
#18 They have their message, they just can't tell it to the voters, they'll never see power for decades. |
Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-03-07 21:29 |
#17 'I'd really like to vote for you guys, but I can't stand the folks I see on TV, There is the problem. I'd be happy to vote for them if they weren't mostly all insane and apparently willing to sacrifice the security of my country for political advantage. The Democratic problem is not staying on message, it is making sense. |
Posted by: SteveS 2006-03-07 20:22 |
#16 I read on a liberal blog how the Dems wonÂ’t roll out their message too early because the bushhitlerrovecheney cabal will undermine it before the elections. If their message is so fragile that it canÂ’t stand criticism then they are doomed by November. But then their MO lately has been the ole bait and switch. They voted for the war but sorry they had to depose a tyrant like Saddam. They are for ending dependency of foreign oil, but they are against drilling at ANWR. They want to punish terrorists, but lets extend civil right to them, make sure we only ask them questions nicely, and make there stay in prison as comfortable as possible. They are against those people running ports but we are not profiling like the mean spirited GOPBUSHHITLER crowd. I wonder how they can make their contract appealing to middle America and their LLL moonbat fringe element? Maybe they will send them to the closet until after election like the gays? |
Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-07 17:56 |
#15 #13 Frank G: "The GOP is truly lucky their opponents are Democrats. God forbid they were faced with a serious political party." ROFL, Frank! Truer words were never spoken. I have a modest proposal to solve our energy problems, at least in the electricity department: 1. Require the Dems to keep acting like they are (which they will, since it's natural for them). 2. Figure out how to hook up dynamos to Harry Truman's, Hubert Humphrey's, and JFK's graves, and their grave-spinning will power the entire country for years to come. |
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-03-07 14:33 |
#14 No prob - just dust off the ol' Communist Manifesto and use that. The Dems have no message or imagination beyond Marx. |
Posted by: macofromoc 2006-03-07 14:27 |
#13 Schumer as national security pointman? Must be a TV camera nearby. The GOP is truly lucky their opponents are Democrats. God forbid they were faced with a serious political party. Gonna get those platform planks out a week or two before the election, Chuck? |
Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-07 13:38 |
#12 It’s a riot to watch them in ?action?. They can’t decide to be anti-Bush or pro something else (whatever that might be). IMHO the Dems are too wishy-washy to write anything down in stone and stick to it. Doing so would not allow them any wiggle room if circumstances change. As such they are not about to commit on removing troops from Iraq if there is a chance that democracy, they don’t want to be pro Gay marriage if the country clearly isn’t, and they don’t want to be anti business while the economy is humming along. In essence the Dems have painted themselves in a corner as only the “Not Bush” party but few doubt that will be enough to nationalize the congressional elections. They have to: “Show Us the Money” or the midterms will simply be an arranging of deck chairs with no power changing hands. |
Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-07 13:02 |
#11 The call to arms for today's Democratic Party: "Ask not what you can do for your country; demand that your country do more for you!" |
Posted by: Elmater Angoger6598 2006-03-07 13:00 |
#10 No, the gays are supposed to put a sock in it. That's why Tim Caine was the spokesaphobe for the Dems following the State of the Union address. No, the real answer is "we'll figure out what's best for everyone once we regain the power again. Until then, remember Bush is bad." |
Posted by: Bobby 2006-03-07 12:50 |
#9 Appeasement, abortion, high taxes, homosexuality. That's what some at Bros. Judd came up with. Does that cover it? |
Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-03-07 12:36 |
#8 I'm still waiting for Kos' manifesto, too. Maybe I'm just missing the nuances, but I don't understand how recycling a loser's Presidential campaign slogan is such a bright idea, either. More and more, life imitates The Onion. |
Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-03-07 11:42 |
#7 "We will be issuing a comprehensive statement of our beliefs just as soon as we have the focus group results telling us what polls well." |
Posted by: Mike 2006-03-07 11:08 |
#6 If these dingalings actually believed in anything-- other than wanting to be back in power, that is-- they wouldn't have to hold all these strategy meetings to decide what they should pretend to believe in. |
Posted by: Uleck Whavirt8388 2006-03-07 09:56 |
#5 "By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand."
We can only hope. Of course, it's too much to ask that that awareness will lead to treason trials, isn't it? |
Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-07 09:34 |
#4 News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own. But wait, this is the Democrats message and their agenda- get the press to ignore Dem failures and lay all blame for everything, every storm, every death, every single person who hasn't got a jet in their garage, on the GOP. They just don't understand why it isn't working. |
Posted by: 2b 2006-03-07 09:23 |
#3 "By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand." Reid neglected to clarify that he was referring to the 2012 election. |
Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-03-07 09:14 |
#2 PIMF = Pelosi is my friend. |
Posted by: Matt 2006-03-07 08:58 |
#1 On issues such as explaining that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's work "was a 110 percent Republican operation," Cooper said, "we're not making nearly as much headway as we should." Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a corruption scandal. Hard to do that when 50% of the senators involved were Democrats, including Reid himself. |
Posted by: Ptah 2006-03-07 08:38 |