Cocktail Party Conventional Wisdom, Des Moines-Style by Scott Shields, Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 12:55:02 PM EST
You know, perhaps I've been unfair to the Washington, DC cocktail party circuit. Maybe stupid talking points aren't just the domain of cocktail parties in Washington. After all, they sure seem to have taken hold among the cocktail party set in Des Moines, Iowa as well. Reading The Des Moines Register,
I learned this morning that Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack thinks Democrats ought to pipe down about illegal activities in the White House. That's cocktail party conventional wisdom if I've ever heard it. (Via Political Wire.) "If the president broke the law, that's unacceptable. But I think it's debateable whether he did," Vilsack told Des Moines Register editors and reporters. "And I think Democrats are falling into a very, very large political trap," he said. "Democrats are not going to win elections until they can reassure people they are going to keep them safe."
I can't begin to describe how irritating that is.
My message to Vilsack? Stop reinforcing rightist talking points. It's just that simple. If you want to criticize the Democratic Party, that's fine. Lord knows I'm not above it myself. But there is absolutely no reason to paraphrase RNC memos to do so. It would be quite simple for Vilsack to criticize Bush from a "centrist" perspective without tearing down other Democrats. All he needs to say is that the Democratic Party doesn't object to eavesdropping on terrorists, but it does object to breaking the law to do so. And if the law needs to be changed, it can be changed without making vital information public. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the Democratic position. And reviewing the polls, I know that's a popular position. Vilsack's statement implies a few things. First, it implies that Democrats don't want to wiretap terrorists. That's not true. Second, it implies that Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping is necessary to keep people safe. That's not true, either. And third, it implies that the "very, very large political trap" being set by Bush and the GOP is legitimate. On that point, he could just as easily have said that 'Republicans are trying to set a political trap for Democrats, but the American people can see through that.' Flip the script. Work to change the conventional wisdom. Reject their premise and refuse to fight on their terms. Apparently, that's beyond Vilsack's political capabilities.
This is all about Vilsack building himself up at the expense of the larger Democratic Party brand. Notice, as Matt did at Breaking Blue, that Vilsack refers to "Democrats" in the third person. This is something we've grown accustomed to from politicians aligned with the Democratic Leadership Council. And that habit, more than anything else, is why I think the DLC is harmful to the party. I don't mind centrism. I don't mind moderation. I don't mind non-adherence to certain Democratic principles as long as the big picture is progressive.
But Democrats like Vilsack and Lieberman love telling the world how "moderate" they are, that they're not at all like the rest of us extremist radicals in the party. Never do they give any thought to what this kind of behavior might mean for elections other than their own. And if guys like this really want to remain Democrats, they ought to knock it off.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/31/122012/569Vilsack talks about indexing Social Security to prices. This would pretty much kill Social Security as a retirement program. He'll never get my vote.
Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack takes the stage third, jokes about the fact that he's supposed to talk about AFSCME, Reid, etc. "but I won't". Instead leaves his opening to talk about Iraq, in relation to a recent conversation with a young boy in Seattle and his concerns about Iraq. Asks the crowd, "What have you done... to end the war in Iraq?" Stephanopoulos asks that exact question first. Vilsack lays out his plan to end the war now, additionally stating that he believes the troops should be moved to Afghanistan. The second question covers healthcare, specifically the John Edwards plan, to which Vilsack responds, "We absolutely do need universal coverage," though not necessarily by increasing taxes. But he also talks about dealing with wellness, pointing to curing polio, etc.
Final question covers Social Security and Medicare. Vilsack talks about balancing the budget of these programs by reindexing the program to prices, not prices and wages. Closes his appearance talking about his own personal story.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/21/14555/2059also:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/02/insider_intervi.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601137.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
