Auntie's Advice to Democratic Candidates

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I watched a Democratic candidate for Congress get interviewed on television last night and although I agreed with him, I was very disappointed by the wishy-washy way he answered the hostile questions from the wingnut interviewer. I hate to say it, but it seems there is something to the righties’ contention that Democrats just don’t seem to have a message to get across, or a solution to offer to the problems of Iraq and the economy. The Dems I’ve heard take these things on so far are all very vague and unsatisfying.

Auntie, what would your advice to Democratic candidates be, especially on answering questions like “what is your plan for Iraq?”

Chris T.
Alliance, NE


Dear Chris,

My number one piece of advice to candidates is to remain polite, and not lose your cool. Anger is a powerful spice and should be used where really needed — but sparingly. A simple, calm “I’m angry about (subject)” with a sober expression has more power than a raised voice or intemperate language. But I do believe candidates should express their anger with one or two things that really matter to them the most. Not a laundry list, (although lord knows Mr. Bush and his Administration have provided enough material for a long one) but a highlighting of one or two things that the candidate feels really strongly about.

No matter how tempting it is, never let an interviewer or an opponent in debate or questioner(s) at a town forum get you riled up. Don’t interrupt or try to drown them out, even if they are talking loudly and interrupting you. Simply stop talking and watch them with an expression of patient, polite, clinical interest until they’re finished, and then return to whatever it was you were saying. It wouldn’t hurt to add “I guess you didn’t really want to hear my answer/remark, but there may be others listening who would like to hear it.” If they are making outrageous assumptions, false statements, or deliberate misconstructions of your remarks, patiently clarify, or simply say “I don’t think the facts agree with that interpretation” and move on to something important.

As far as “What is your plan for Iraq?” goes, there are many possible answers, but I would think that those Democrats who are challenging incumbent Republicans might respond something like this: “Just a minute. Did you, personally, vote in favor of this war?” To an affirmative, the Democrat can then ask, “Why, when so many people, including our own military leadership, expressed doubts about the necessity of this war and the possibilities for a successful outcome, did you feel comfortable voting for it?” The answer is likely to be one of two things.

One possible response will be that as a member of Congress, the Republican had access to information that was not released to the general public for security reasons, and that information appeared to justify the war. In that case, a good response from a Democratic challenger might be, “I oppose the war and want to end our military involvement there, but I have to defer offering a more specific plan until I, too, have access to information not released to the general public that might give me a better idea of how to achieve that goal. However, I can certainly pledge that I will review all such information from the standpoint of bringing our troops home and assisting the Iraqi people to resolve their problems through diplomatic and economic means in cooperation with the UN and other nations.”

Another possible response from the Republican incumbent would be to proudly insist that she or he supported the noble goal of ending a dangerous tyrant’s regime and bringing democracy to the Iraqi people, or some similar verbiage. In that case, the Democratic challenger can ask “And are you pleased with what has been achieved thus far and the current state of affairs in Iraq?” To a “yes” response, you can say “Well, I’m not happy with it, and as your Representative (or Senator) I will demand that our military and diplomatic resources be applied to developing a strategy that will bring our troops home and work cooperatively with the UN and other nations to assist the Iraqi people.” If the Republican admits that he or she is not happy with the current state of affairs, the Democratic challenger can ask them for their plan to change things.

I think it’s very important for a Democratic candidate to offer some concrete ideas for how they will represent their constituency and address the problems that concern the voters. Pick two or three key areas where you have expertise and develop some specific ideas like modifying (or implementing) regulations, allocating funding, enacting or changing a law to make a particular difference, and show clearly and succinctly how your idea(s) will result in that improvement, without getting into too much technical detail. Know the subject clearly enough to go into a little more detail if needed, but don’t get into the micro level of detail. Refer people to your website or a position paper for more information.

Answer personal attacks immediately, truthfully, and firmly, even forcefully, presenting clear facts in refutation of any potentially damaging allegations or implications. Then leave the subject alone and don’t respond in kind, other than to note “Having clarified that, I’d like to move on. I don’t think negative campaigning is fair to the voters who need real information on real issues that concern them, like (segue into an issue.)” Keep these principles in mind and take a leaf from the Republicans’ book: Stay on message.

Your “message” should have two components: First, the positive difference you’ll make for your constituents— two or three really important things you can speak to in depth and compellingly. Second, some one thing about your opponent that has resulted in a problem or problems for your constituents, a vulnerable point you can continually bring to their attention. Decide early what those messages are, and stick with them, changing only after they’ve had a real effect on the voters.

I can’t really give more specific advice than that, Chris, because each Democratic candidate is facing a different Republican opponent with a different record, in a different district, region, or state with different voters who have different priorities. Candidates need to address the priorities that will best meet the needs of their voters, and do so in a way that will feel natural and comfortable to those voters. So it’s hard to be more particular, but thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[deacon]

1. I know one thing, that all questions asked should bring out past

misdeeds and important issues that are widely given scant attention. In the debates ahead, dem candidates should include specifics of topics not fully addressed in the MSM. For instance, ask a question about net neutrality but include how this would affect an individual-ask a question in a way that it educates to make up for poor news coverage. On torture, use the word torture and frame questions that educate and reveal and hit them with 'how do you stand on this', on military tribunals, domestic spying, saddam/al qa eda link ( where it is reiterated that this was shown to be a falsehood). Use the forums and debates where the dem candidates expose, educate and REMIND when forming questions, fighting back against the memory hole and curtain the GOP loves. It will keep all serious issues and hot topics on the table.

[dkblogger]

2. I knew you meant Hardball !

We saw that interview, Chris asked him two seperate times "do you think bush has done a good job of steering the topic away from Iraq?" The guy refused to answer ! We were screaming at him to just say "Yes, he sure is !"

[Malidictus Maximus]

3. The great Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neal said

"All politics is local". Sure Iraq is important, as is national security. But keeping on target about the policies espoused by the Republicans as they relate to degrading the quality of life in ones' own community, on what the tax breaks for the rich could have accomplished in terms of improving the LOCAL infrastructure and economy, of hammering at how the NAFTA based outsourcing and downsizing hurts the LOCAL people will usually be more effective. Most people care a lot more about keeping their job than about the deaths of 30,000 Iraqis.

Quite frankly, anyone who doesn't have a plan for Iraq and is unable to articulate it, at this stage of the game, is unworthy to hold any national post; if the candidate is true to their own beliefs they will be better served, and serve their constituents better, than by trying to find some magic formula, IMHO.

[VeggieTart]

4. Seeking signs of intelligent debate in the universe

Of course, the only problem with Auntie's approach is our idiot nation with the 15-second attention span. In theory, her idea rocks, but in practice, I don't know how viable it is. I like the idea of a challenger saying that s/he needs classified information before deciding on the best way to bring our troops home, but how well would that play to voters.

I also think Dems need to take back the word values and turn it back on the religious nutjobs. Our values are (in no particular order): good jobs for Americans, good schools for their children, access to health care, safe neighborhoods, clean air, safe food and water, and freedom from religious intrusion (i.e., someone else's religious views will not impinge on yours or lack thereof).