Dear Democrats…
by matt at 6:00 am on September 18th, 2006 in Bad Dems, Congressional Man Date, Obama Uber Alles…purchase a damn calendar.
The date today is September 18, and unless my math skills fail me, this is an even year. That means an election is less than two months away. Please start acting like it.
Earlier last week, we had Barack Obama calling his fellow Democrats “confused,” and now it’s another Presidential hopeful doing the same:
“I’m concerned that we not come across as whiners and that kind of thing, like a bunch of wimps who say mean old Karl Rove is on us again,” said [Evan] Bayh. “We’ve got to say look, we’re speaking out because we’re concerned the administration is undermining our security, their competence and their priorities have been wrong.”
There are two huge problems with garbage like this. The first is purely temporal. There was a time shortly after the 2004 election, but before the inauguration, when Democrats surveyed the wreckage. Not only did they fail to unseat a President whose approval rating was below 50% for most of the campaign, they lost ground in both houses of Congress. After the shock wore off a bit, many started looking for answers. With the next election two years away, it was a safe time to examine what went wrong and come up with a list of lessons that could be carried forward. That not much was learned (including a serious misreading of exit polls that prompted a round of pandering to the part of the country that thinks that the bible should replace the Constitution) is beside my point (for today.) At least there was some thought put into it, and at an appropriate time.
Fast forward to last week, and we have examples from two sitting Senators - future candidates for President - of post-huge-loss introspection just two months prior to an election that has consistently shown Democrats with double-digit generic ballot leads. Their timing, in a word, sucks. But it’s their message that is truly damaging both to their party and their country.
Obama, I fear, is a lost cause. His ambition has repeatedly trumped the interests of his party, and it is becoming clear that his model is based on the Saint McCain theory of media as constituency. It’s Bayh (and others) that need to pay attention. In the above-quoted story, Bayh actually said many things that made sense. He defended his party against charges of patriotism deficit, slammed the President on his sorry excuse for a War on Terror™, and even predicted that Americans would see through the whole charade. But he just couldn’t avoid the trap of calling his own party “whiners” and “wimps.” And when Democrats do that, it doesn’t matter that their quotes are 95% good, because it’s the 5% that fits into the so-called librul media narrative, and results in headlines like this:
Remember Evan, the headline goes in the big letters and comes up top. The part where you make your point comes later, and in much smaller type. Media Matters spends all their time tracking dishonest and biased coverage in the corporate media. They do terrific work, but it’s mostly subjective. Where they are at their best is comparing ratios of partisan guests on news programs. One recent example is this analysis of 9/11 coverage. Republican guests outnumbered Democratic guests 26-8. Another example is CBS News’s “Free Speech” segment in which no Democrats have appeared. Keeping in mind the disparity in visibility, people like Bayh who manage to get access to the mainstream media megaphone should use it wisely. Any time spent criticizing one’s own party is time not spent explaining to the American people how this Congress and this President has weakened our country, and how Democrats would do better.
There is an election in less than two months. We’ll have plenty of time then to examine why we lost once again.
sac wrote:
This is what I’m talking about.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 7:51 am ¶
matt wrote:
it might be what you think you’re talking about. it’s certainly not what you talk about.
this is a communication critique. you make nebulous claims about “weakness” in Democratic policy.
if you think these are the same things, that’s unfortunate. if you recognize them as separate things, you should be much more precise with your language.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 8:14 am ¶
sac wrote:
Part of policy is communicating it effectively to the public, because then the public can vote for it, thereby putting them in office so they can enact said policy. Because until then, it’s not policy, it’s rhetoric.
But you’re right, I’m mostly conernced with the Dems weakness on Iraq, vis a vis not opposing the Bush plan from the beginning. That is a weakness in pure policy, in my opinion. This latest example of weakness, namely worrying (in PUBLIC) about how people will perceive them is just more of the same from a party in decline. Of course, there is no viable alternative right now, and since I’m a pragmatist, I’m not voting Green or whatever, I will hold my nose and vote Dem.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 8:39 am ¶
sac wrote:
btw, are you or are you not voting for Angelides? Your post a few days ago made it seem like maybe you weren’t. If that is true, then who’s really betraying the Dems?
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 8:42 am ¶
matt wrote:
no, it isn’t. that’s conflation.
i’m not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. you are mad at them now for not doing something four years ago, fine. they all pretty much oppose the “plan” now, and the election is now, but you have to “hold your nose” now?
again, no matter how much you want it to be the same thing, communication and policy are not the same thing. need i direct you to “compassionate conservatism” or “restoring honor and dignity?”
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 8:45 am ¶
matt wrote:
i haven’t made up my mind, but if the election were today, i probably wouldn’t. i’m not sure what betrayal has to do with anything. he ran a dirty, negative primary campaign, and is now resorting to dirty tricks in the general. i don’t like that from either party.
in case i haven’t mentioned it, though i still consider myself a democrat, i’m no longer a registered democrat. i switched to “decline to state” after the alito confirmation cock-up.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 8:53 am ¶
sac wrote:
I get ya, and 10 years ago, I’d be on board with your separation of “policy” and “communication.” But effectively, they are both the same thing, part of an overall strategy to get fucking elected. A strategy committe should be asking “what is our policy in communicating this or that to the press?”
And that’s what’s turning a lot of people off. You can’t unring a bell, and while I agree they should be against Bush’s Iraq policy now, the fact that they weren’t back then is hurting them NOW. They are coming off as reactionary because, hey, that’s exactly what they are.
You need not, I’m familiar with both of those brilliant soundbites. The Dems need to come up with something like that. I’m not being cynical when I say that the gaping chasm between “compassionate conservatism” and the actual policy of the Republican party does not matter one bit. It’s highly effective.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 8:58 am ¶
sac wrote:
Boo hoo. Seriously, boo fucking hoo. Who do you agree with more, Arnold or Angelides? Those are the only two people with a chance to win. Sitting this one out is childish.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:00 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Even if you were a registered Democrat, voting against a given Democratic candidate because you think he stinks constitutes “Betraying the Democrats” only by the standards of the Bush-men (unthinking blind heel-clicking loyalty).
If a registered Republican in Florida votes against Katharine Harris in the Senate race, is that betraying the Republican party?
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:08 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
…oh, and by the standards of sac, evidently…
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:09 am ¶
sac wrote:
Also, this is where my theory about process- vs. results-oriented people, and the political party that is associated with each, comes into play. It’s mainly a self-critical theory, as I am a process-oriented person and it bugs the crap out of me most of the time. The process must have MEANING, man, or the whole thing is useless. That kind of thing.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:09 am ¶
matt wrote:
you don’t get me. and you can repeat your point about how they are the same thing to infinity, but it’s still going to be wrong.
sac, listen very carefully: communications and policy are the two main parts of a politician’s job. the sum of the two equals their effectiveness. hopefully that’s what you mean. or at least the obvious “without good communications, policy is moot.” but this isn’t what you are saying.
they certainly should. but you’re using the word policy where you should be using the word strategy. just because you call it a “communications policy” doesn’t make it a policy discussion. it’s still about communications.
so what? what else can they do? they can’t travel back in time four years. they can only oppose now, which is what the majority of them are doing. i’m not sure how this is an argument against democrats. it feels like petulance from the squishy middle, “republicans are 51% to blame / democrats 49% and i may go with the lesser of two evils but don’t ask me to like it.” this isn’t binary, there are varying levels of blame, and it’s not even close.
would that be policy or communications?
i believe that’s the textbook definition of cynical.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:12 am ¶
sac wrote:
Sarabeth, that is a good point, as long as you vote for someone. I’ve voted Republican before, in local elections, because I thought that person would do a better job than the Dem counterpart. But not voting for someone whose policies you mostly agree with and, more importantly, favor over the other guy’s policies, because you disagree with the way they campaigned, seems to me a rather counterproductive and self-defeating thing to do.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:13 am ¶
matt wrote:
i’m not sure that a governor angelides would be a good thing. i do admit that the race being a blowout and arnold’s tack left play into my decision.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:15 am ¶
sac wrote:
I DO get you. And perhaps I am being cynical. But I don’t want to argue semantics. Let’s just group “policy” and “communications” (and there is such a thing as a communications policy) under the umbrella of “strategy.” I think the Democratic STRATEGY, the goal of which is to get elected, is weak, and has been for years now. The strategy back then should have been to oppose the Bush policy on Iraq, even if their minority status in both houses would have made that vote symbolic. The strategy now should be unity. A unified message that the Bush white house has been a disaster on almost every front, and that the differences within the Dem party are minor and WILL NOT be discussed in public. But the usual fractious mess is what we get. Stupid.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:21 am ¶
sac wrote:
IT DOESN’T MATTER!! The fact that you’re splitting hairs on this is exactly my point. Squabbling about process is the whole fucking problem.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:23 am ¶
sac wrote:
That’s a losing outlook, every time.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:29 am ¶
sac wrote:
btw, I did say that almost exactly when I typed “Part of policy is communicating it effectively to the public, because then the public can vote for it, thereby putting them in office so they can enact said policy. Because until then, it’s not policy, it’s rhetoric.”
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:35 am ¶
matt tobey wrote:
the gop communicates to the public that they don’t favor fucking babies, yet it’s their policy to fuck babies. how can you fit that shit under an umbrella?
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
matt wrote:
no, you didn’t. at all. not even close. if you can’t see the difference between “without good communications, policy is moot” and “Part of policy is communicating it effectively to the public” then i suggest reading comprehension classes.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:42 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Even if this were true, isn’t counterproductive and self-defeating a long way from “betrayal”?
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:42 am ¶
sac wrote:
It’s right here: “Because until then, it’s not policy, it’s rhetoric.” Ignore it if you want.
Are we being serious or just fellating ourselves and calling it good? “Compassionate conservatism” is brilliant and it worked. Hell, it’s even alliterative.
More semantical hair-splitting. So fucking what? It’s a losing outlook. And yeah, I see it as a betrayal, more of a self-betrayal, actually, as in betraying one’s own political position by not voting for it (or for the closest facsimile).
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 9:56 am ¶
matt wrote:
now you are just trying to argue both sides. or can’t tell the difference.
are you saying that we can safely ditch actual policy concerns and just go for empty rhetoric? i want to see dems win, but not like that, and especially when it isn’t necessary.
that’s rich.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 10:16 am ¶
sac wrote:
No. I’m saying the Dems have to come up with a more effective strategy and one of the main components of such a strategy would be a savvier media campaign. The gap between rhetoric and policy doesn’t have to exist, it just happens to exist with the Republicans. Soundbites are fine if they are effective and somewhat resemble the policy they are encapsulating. They are also fine if they don’t resemble policy, unfortunately, but I would hope the Dems would not have to resort to that. Remember Clinton’s (or most likely Carville’s) saying that if we stick to the issues, we win? Well, let’s see some savvy positioning of Democratic issues, for chrissakes, and a unified platform for delivering them.
Not sure what you mean. Do you disagree with my statement or not?
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 10:32 am ¶
sac wrote:
This is brilliant. The Dem challenger wears his son’s combat boots. His son was killed in Iraq. Symbolism matched with rhetoric. Very sad, but perfect. Perhaps the Dems that do get elected in Nov. will be made of stronger stuff, if only because of their very personal reasons for running.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 10:48 am ¶
matt wrote:
this is quite a ways from where this argument started.
of course i do. i’ll vote or not vote for whoever i damn please. it’s no more self-betrayal than i am a self-hater for not blindly supporting israel. i don’t like Angelides and can’t support hacking ergo i don’t plan to vote for him.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 10:51 am ¶
matt wrote:
there are a dozen iraq war vets running as democrats this cycle. plus webb, a former navy admiral and the usual vietnam vets. this isn’t new.
kerry ran with his war buddies? was that a good strategy?
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 10:55 am ¶
sac wrote:
It is new, actually, because the war that these people are veterans of is still going on. And you have to admit, the combat boots thing is powerful and also, direct. It’s the embracing of such unabashed symbolism that struck me, because the Dems usually are loathe to be so straightforward.
That’s valid, but I disagree. I suppose I’m more of a pragmatist than you are. And it wasn’t hacking, they just deleted a layer from the URL field in the browser and found more stuff that wasn’t linked to publicly. But it was publicly accessible. The term hacking implies that they tampered with passwords or something. But yeah, it was crass and I don’t necessarily support it, but I’m also not that bothered by it.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 11:05 am ¶
matt wrote:
webb fought in vietnam.
i’m sure you like to think of yourself that way. from your comments here, i would describe you as a charter member of the squishy center, willing to listen to both sides (good) and give equal weight to their arguments no matter how absurd (bad) and often end up viewing them through the prism of the so called librul media (unacceptable)
that’s about as out of touch with how normal people would see this as is humanly possible. past that, it was just so unnecessary.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 12:08 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Oh come on, I was referring to the “dozen iraq war vets” (your words) that are running.
Yeah, but it wasn’t hacking, nor was it illegal. Shouldn’t the press be mentioning that?
And exactly what part of my comments on this thread could be characterized as “squishy?” I’m arguing for a clearer and more muscular strategy for the Dems. What’s squishy about that? I’m a pragmatist in that I realize that compromise is usually the best we can hope for.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 12:30 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you’re the one that brought up webb.
they probably should. but as you have consistently failed to notice, the media doesn’t do what it should. they don’t “split hairs” about whether something shady was “hacking” or something underhanded was “illegal.”
the media should do lots of things. Read this MyDD post about the AP ignoring a dem press conference on Iraq to cover the torture kabuki in which they also ignored dems. you don’t know it, but this is why you think dems are weak. often when they do the right thing they are completely ignored. must be the catchphrases, can’t make policy without them, right?
it’s not just today, it’s all the time. fumbling around looking for the middle ground when the two sides are not of equal merit. you do it all the time.
if one side wants a huge tax cut with unlimited spending and one side wants to repeals that tax cut and balance the budget, the answer isn’t “cut taxes a little and spend almost as much.” not accusing you necessarily of that thinking on that specific issue, but that’s where being a “pragmatic centrist” gets you.
how you can have read this site for as long as you have and still think that compromise is even possible doesn’t speak very well of either you or Me+Jason+Sarabeth.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 3:13 pm ¶
sac wrote:
But Webb’s son fought and died in Iraq, that’s the personal link I was referring to.
I agree that the media doesn’t do its job, but I don’t agree that it’s the media’s fault that the Dems aren’t as successful in elections as the Repubs.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 4:00 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Sorry, Webb’s son is currently in Iraq and alive.
Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 4:03 pm ¶