LAT: Democrats Are Lost in the Shuffle While GOP Holds All the Cards

[DeepModem Mom]

Democrats Are Lost in the Shuffle While GOP Holds All the Cards
Ronald Brownstein


On almost every major question in Washington today, the choice isn't whether to move in a Republican or Democratic direction, but how far in a Republican direction to move.

This is the grim reality of political life for Democrats at a time when the GOP controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.

This situation creates obvious problems for Democrats. But it's also produced surprising risks for Republicans, measured in skidding approval ratings for President Bush and Congress....

***

Democrats are furiously laboring to prevent Bush from carving out private investment accounts from Social Security, but even if they succeed — which increasingly appears likely — they only will have preserved the status quo. Because Republicans embraced the cause of Schiavo's parents, her case commanded public attention for weeks, while hardly anyone suggested the mass school shooting in Red Lake, Minn., deserved a policy response....

***

....The larger problem is that the Democrats' inability to sustain attention on their ideas encourages a public sense that they have none. In the latest poll from Democracy Corps, a project of leading Democratic consultants, Republicans held a crushing 30-percentage-point advantage when voters were asked which party knows what it stands for....The danger for the GOP is that the political dialogue is being structured less as a choice between Republican and Democratic ideas than as a referendum on Republican ideas alone. And some of those aren't faring so well....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook4apr04,0,6341342.column?coll=la-home-nation

[Stuckinthebush]

1. You know what...

I'd agree with the fact that the Republican Party is the party that knows what it stands for and the Democrats don't.

The Republicans have done an excellent job at saying what it is they are and their vision for American and the world.

The Dems, on the other hand, have no unified voice. They simply react to events and that is all the public sees. I sincerely hope Dr. Dean and the Democratic Leadership begin to demand the publics attention in articulating what it is we stand for and how it is so drastically different than the GOP. Now is the time to act in that direction, because the public has a very sour taste in its collective mouth about the GOP theocratic direction.

[Toots]

5. I would say the majority of Democrats in office have abandoned the party

They hold up their thumb and go with which ever way the wind blows and right now it is blowing from the fascist section of our country. I would suggest if we want a Democratic Party we need to start putting up some primary competition. Let them know that it is Democratys they are to represent and not the majority. It used to be that a politician that won would then represent all constituants, but no longer. Bush* has changed that completely what with his Republican only townhall meetings and complete isolation of the Democrats in congress. When was the last time Bush* or anyone from the Administration met with the Democratic leadership? They have successfully marginalized the Democratic Party and Democrats allowed it to happen. It is time to throw all the bums out from both parties and start new. JMHO

[DBoon]

6. If the Dems had a unified voice

do you think it would get reported fairly?

Do you think it would be reported at all?

[peacetalksforall]

10. That is not (should not be) a criticism of the Dem Party...Democrats are

diverse - because THE COUNTRY is diverse. The Dems reflect the country.

Repubs are banking, military brass, corporations, corporate media, politicians and thousands of self-proclaimed born agains. It is very narrow. It has a narrow view of brotherhood. It glorifies killing, snooping, moralizing, and hypocrisy.

It is impossible for Dems to have the single banking, military, corporate, political thieves, and so-called faithful coalition and partnership.


Why do Dems HAVE to be like repubs. Dems are like having a dozen people on a panel who are pro-humans/pro-brotherhood, but have differenct religions.

[Stuckinthebush]

29. No, no, no!

I'm not saying that the Dems need to be like the GOP...gods no!

I am saying that the GOP has done a better job at marketing and has a unified voice. We haven't and don't.

That is what we need now...a unified voice that clearly markets who we are and what we believe.

[callous taoboy]

15. The tattered remains

of what has been good, of what has held us together in the U.S. and has inspired others is all that the Democrats are about. Isn't that enough?

[Lorien]

16. I agree

the party is starving for real leadership. I want someone to say "you're damn right I'm a liberal, and proud of it"! We keep moving rightward, which tells the public that our positions aren't worthwhile and that the right has all the good ideas.

I grew up in the 70s, when being a Democrat meant that you were pro peace, civil and women's rights, environment, education, gun control, worker's rights...that you placed people's needs over those of corporation's and their stockholders; that you "looked out for the little guy". If someone said that they were a democrat, you knew what they stood for. The vast majority of people I meet today who call themselves Dems would have been moderate (and not so moderate) Republicans back then. This "we're a diverse group" meme just means "we're repugs too"!-it's nonsense. We WE"RE unified once-we need to get back to that or we're done as a party.

[zipplewrath]

19. Dems have never been unified

Will Rogers had the old joke; "I don't belong to an organized party. I'm a democrat". We have never been unified, not in ideology anyway. We were always an uncomfortable collection of folks which included Dixiecrats. Our "unity" came from populism in the form of serving, and growing, the middle class. That growth came from many sources, but included expanding civil rights, as well as labor unions and programs such as social security. Sad to say, but our downfall began when we forced the integration of our party. It began the long slow exodus of the southern Dixiecrat. It was exacerbated by our relationship to the environmental movement, which was always couched in terms of "doing good" instead of an economic ideology. Of course we are soon going to look brilliant as that environmental policy now looks desirable in a world of $100 a barrel oil because of Chinese expansion. Don't look now, but the "plug-in hybrid" is coming, and it will probably look more like a Navigator than a Mini.

We can back in favor, but I do tend to agree that we can't do it by this "republican lite" crap we've been sold. We have to get back to serving the middle class. It may take new methods for doing so, ones that are slavishly devoted to collective bargaining models for labor. Honestly, the bread and butter issue that we should be discussing at every turn is health care. It's a rapidly growing problem.

[Lorien]

21. Dems have never been ORGANIZED

yes, I've quoted Rogers many times myself on this board. We WERE once unified in our idealology for a brief period of time; we knew what we stood for, but that shouldn't be confused with acting as an organized party. Leadership has always been an issue.

[dbeach]

2. A one party system means the end of democracy ...

and a real totalitarian state...but I think the Dems {most of em} are enablin these monsters every step of the way..any vote for a bush or repuke agenda is a vote against the middle class and a step closer to the right swingers goal..destroy them librals..

[Solar]

3. Yeah everyone knows what the repukes stand for

War, death, and hypocrisy!

We're winning in the battle over Social Security and the only thing the Schiavo hoopla did was expose the repukes for the ranting lunatics that they really are. They hold the White House, Senate and the House and they still can't get any of their radical agendas passed.

To quote old Dick Gephardt, they're 'miserable failures!'

[Demeter]

4. Talk About Damning with Faint Damns

While the effort to reinstall backbone, purpose and identifiable principles into the Democratic Party is still in its infancy, there has been progress made these last 12 months. We will never get as far as we want as fast as we need, barring a complete meltdown of this Administration and its party (but we're getting awfully close to that, too). So let us thank everyone whose effort to turn this beast around is bearing signs of success. Enough negativity.

[NNguyenMD]

7. I hate to say it, but my hopes are desperately pinned on Howard Dean

he and a few others are the few shimmering lights left for this party.

[Teaser]

8. You hope he raises a lot of money?

Because that's really all his job is now.

[NNguyenMD]

9. pretty much, and that he'll throw it in right direction...we'll see how

well his "reclaim the South" campaign will work.

[Teaser]

11. I have to say that this article is too negative.

The Dems have a lot of work to do, no doubt. But the evidence suggests that they are *starting* to work on these problems. Most political reporters expect political parties to turn on a dime. But this is a massive institution with significan inertia, and change will come slow. But the evidence to date is that change is indeed coming.

I'm very glad you're realistic about what Dean can do, though. Too many people here think Dean's job is to generate a message. That is really the job of our elected officials, and it's their feet that need to be held to the fire on this issue.

[Toots]

13. That is total BS..It is every American's "job" to tell the truth and aid

their country. Dean's job is to inspire. When he inspires successfully money comes in. He will never get much money without stirring people up and explaining how we will win. He shopuld be out in front on every issue. It is deplorable for the DLC to tell Dean to shut up. Just because they are unable to articulate change they want to inhibit any who can. If Dean does not get out in front and bash the Republicans we are lost because the other Democrats have proved they are unable to do so. Dean needs to become more vocal and more proiminant not less.

[Teaser]

14. Dean disagrees with you.

About the nature of his job. He knows the job description. Apparently you do not.

When people wanted Dean to run for DNC chair, too many of them didn't realize that it was going to make him less effective in reforming party message. HE will now be more important, though, at reforming party infrastructure, which is just as important.

[renaissanceguy]

17. Oh does he?

You must not be watching his televised town halls on C-SPAN. He's doing plenty of explaining his vision and strategy for the Dems.

On that same note, it's about f***ing time someone is out there speaking his heart.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[PassingFair]

20. I am banking on the simmering Howard Dean, too, NN

I know he is working hard, planning funding for races, trying to change the party from the bottom, up. Because those compromised dems at the top will not go quietly into the night. We will have to run them out.

[Frances]

12. I have been coming to DU

since Bush "won" in 2000.

Back then many posters were singing the praises of Nader even though Bush was going to the White House.

Now that the 2004 election is over and Bush is still in the White House, when you would think that DU posters would be in a mood to fight Bush, I still hear lots of whining.

The Dems will never be in a majority until ordinary people (like those here at DU) stop whining and blaming and take responsibility for the shape the country is in themselves.

[Dr Fate]

28. Tell me how I can get an interview on CNN or MSNBC tonight.

Until then, I do wonder what keeps Kerry, Hillary & Obama from going on TV and listing every lie & every crime of George Bush. If it really were up to me as tyou suggest, I would be sitting in front of Wolf Blitzer tonight, asking him why he refused to cover gannongate, or the lies that led up to the Iraq war.

I'm tired of some DUers blaming the base- *WE* DO spread the word & we DO call Bush/media on ALL of their B.S.

Bout time Hillary, Obama, Kerry & Dean backed us up on all of these things. ALL of them- not just the issues they think are "safe."

[DemBeans]

30. I wonder that, too

I'm not sure if it's the fault of the Democrats you mentioned, or the media's insistence on dragging out the "moderate" Democrats like Biden and Lieberman and Feinstein every time they need an opposing viewpoint (ha!).

I see these three almost exclusively dragged out to represent the "Democratic" viewpoint. And I think it's deliberate on the part of the corporate media.

[Dr Fate]

35. I don't buy it- Who has ever turned down Hillary, etc for an interview?

Or Obama, Kerry or Dean?

The fact is, they could all be on TV anytime they wanted- and no one is forcing them to omit statements that are damaging to Bush..

[Democat]

34. We need leadership more than ground troops right now

Americans want leadership - until the Democratic Party can provide that, all the "taking responsibility" in the world won't change a thing.

If we had fielded a decent candidate who was willing to not "play safe" and actually lead in 2004, we would have won easily.

The Democratic Party is no lacking voters, we're lacking leadership to get those voters interested.

[AndyTiedye]

18. It's Easy to Hold All the Cards When You Deal off The Bottom of the Deck

We Make Democracy DIE

and it's easy to get your message out when the media repeats it
24/7, and buries anything your opponent has to say.

[MissMarple]

22. However, old style Republicans are worried about THEIR party.

Here is a snip from John Danforth's contribution to Sunday's New York Times. Christie Todd Whitman and John Eisenhower have similar concerns. We are in the midst of a restructuring and a rediscovery of what is really important to America. And it's a messy, nasty, but hopefully, ultimately rewarding business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?

"The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
....
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around."


Now, if these Republicans who still seem to retain their sanity can just get on to the reasons we don't have one party rule in the United States, they will have made some significant progress.

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. As things get worse, people will realize that limbaugh &co

don't have any answers. Unfortunately it will need to get worse before they see it.

[Writer]

24. I wish more would understand...

that there was little Democrats could do to improve their situation after the planes hit the Twin Towers. Republicans took advantage of that politically in such quick time that the best Democrats could do is make sure that they didn't lose more congressional seats than they had.

Americans are scared, and Rove knows how to manipulate people. The guy's no genius, he just doesn't possess the ability to empathize with others and has no scruples about using them. He's really not a guy I'm all that scared about - look at his track record so far as policy advisor <laughs>. Please don't tell me you're scared of a guy who couldn't even spin Bush's lame-brained SS policy!

I recall thinking the week after the attacks that Republicans likely would be in power for the next 25 years. I thought this because I understood just how ruthless the Bush administration was about taking political advantage of the situation, and just how people are after tragedies. It was somewhat like this following the Civil War, too. Republicans accused southern Democrats of being "un-American" and causing the Civil War to erupt. Rutherford B. Hayes won the 1876 election and the (19th Century) Republicans were in power for at least 10 years.

Think of the glass half-full here:
In spite of the terror attacks, we still are extremely close in the Senate.

In spite of the terror attacks, look at how close John Kerry came!

Now think about the impact that stomping our feet and screaming in protest would have had during the era right after the terror attacks? How do you think we would have looked? Bad.

I really wish more would consider that.

Writer.

[DeepModem Mom]

25. Thanks for this post, Writer -- and welcome to DU!

[Democat]

32. The Democrats could have fought back right after 9/11

They could have offered a real alternative to Bush - instead those in our party got on their knees, licked Bush's boots, and proved to the American people that the Democratic Party is the party of wimps with no leadership.

Since that day, we haven't done anything to change that perception.

Look how pathetic the Democrats were when we controled the Senate after Jeffords switched. We could have gone after Bush then, but instead we just kept on kissing Republican ass.

Look at how wimpy Kerry's campaign was - again proving what wimps our party are.

It's not that there's nothing that could have been done, it's that it would have required backbone and a willingness to risk something to make the country better. Our "leadership" was too cowardly to stand up and fight for America, so they let the entire country be hijacked by right wing extremists.

And there is no sign that anything is going to get better anytime soon.

Americans are screwed - not just because of Republicans, but because Democrats are such cowards.

[Writer]

36. Back to the same old damn argument.

Again and again and again. There's nothing about the impact of major historical events, nor Americans emotions, nor any other external factor that impacts elections. It's all about stupid, damn ideology.

Fine. If you don't like the Democrats, go do your thing over in the Green Party. Let the centrists, after we finally ween ourselves of this particularly diseased political era, win votes once again.

Writer.

[MrTriumph]

26. Part of the problem. Pelosi: Congressional Dem.s set party policy

When H. Dean was elected party chairman, Nancy Pelosi was quick to make limits clear to him: For the Democratic Party, Congressional Democrats make policy.

Dean should have pointed out the party has a platform and THAT should be policy. Were the Dem.s in congress presenting a clear, coherent, policy in keeping with the party platform, maybe she'd have a case. But with Senate Dem.s enabling the GOP on bankruptcy legislation and House Dems. keeping mum for GOP efforts to circumvent Florida's state court system, well, if THAT's policy, we don't need congressional Democrats setting it.

[Dr Fate]

27. so the LA TImes admits that Bush asked them not to cover school shootings?

They seem to be blaming the Republicans for the media not covering that story- I think the media needs to point that finger at themsleves, or admit who controls them.

[Democat]

31. The current Dems are reactionary, wimpy, Republican asskissers

Look at the pathetic Kerry campaign. Look at the recent Senate vote on Schiavo, listen for any attacks on Bush over the 9/11 report.

Our party doesn't exist.

[KoKo]

33. Yeah....well if the LAT could site the Cables as the problem and not Dems

it might go a long way to focusing on the REAL PROBLEM of the fact that the DLC/DNC are still in bed with the Repugs and NO ONE wants to talk about the Left Wing of the Dems...Dean and those of us here and on the Liberal Blogs who are fighting against our own Democratic Wing embeds and the Repugs...

It's disgusting to keep reading crap like this about how we Dems just aren't "in the game" and are "shuffling cards" when, in fact, no one wants to talk about the "Angry Wing...the Reform Wing of the Democratic Party whose been locked out and shut out at every turn...

:puke: If the LATimes or WaPo or NYT's writes one more inch about this
"supposed" lack of "agenda or consensus amongst Dems" I'm going to send them a link to the Black Caucus in the House and links to Liberal Web Sites....(but..of course they already know about this..they just are using Rove's Talking Points to wear us down...

:puke: on those who keep saying the Democrats aren't standing up...but of course..it's only the LEFT that is...so in some sense, they are correct, not forgiving their puke reporting.
t