the Reid/Pelosi "shakeup" of political consultants is a smokescreen...

[mike_c]

To everyone who's rejoiced at the news that Reid and Pelosi want to reinvigorate the Democratic Party political consultants with new blood-- while I'd be the first to agree that the dems need to replace the cohort of consultants with consistently losing track records, the consultants are not the real problem. The real problem is that the Democratic Party has chased the republicans to the right and in so doing has abandoned most real opposition to republican positions. They have become the shadow of the republican party.

Suggesting that political consultants are the heart of the problem is tantamount to saying that the real problem with the Democratic Party is simply one of marketing, that all dems really need to do is design some flashier packaging, but that the message contained within the package is just fine as it is. I disagree. The Democratic message needs to change fundamentally. Pelosi herself epitomized this in her response to Bush's SOTU speech, in which she avoided anything more radical than trying to repolish Bush's apples (I didn't catch Reid's response, so I'm not exonerating him, merely not commenting). War on terror? Hey, we can do it better. Occupation of Iraq? Ditto. Fiscal policy? We got yer back, George! Christian values? Check, that's us.

Until the democratic party articulates a genuine alternate message, all the marketing in the world won't be able to sell rehashed moderate republicanism dressed up in new clothes. Yes, dems need new blood in the political consultant spots, but they also need new issues and real alternatives to right wing positions for those consultants to sell. Dems need more than new tactics-- they need better substance.

[KittyWampus]

1. Democrats Are Damned If They Do & Damned If They Don't

again, some DU'ers are like parents who'd smack their infant for taking a first step because the poor thing didn't immediately get up and run a marathon.

[mike_c]

4. bad analogy IMO, because toddlers WILL eventually run...

...but expecting new consultants to substitute for real opposition party leadership is not the same as having the courage to call bad government bad and demand substantive change.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Bad analogy IMO, because apple... but orange...

<LOL>

NGU.

[rox63]

2. But it's a start...

I also think the message has to change. But getting rid of the consultants also needs to be done. I don't think they're saying this is the biggest problem.

Dean becoming DNC Chair is going to mean a big change in message. He just started this week. It all has to start somewhere. Give them a chance to articulate their plan, and put it in motion.

[mike_c]

5. oh, Im not disputing that the political consultants are a gray lot...

...with hardly any new ideas among them, but replacing them is not a panacea. Only a first step on the road to reinvigorating the party. Ultimately, I think what the dems need is new blood in the house and senate.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Hmmm... everyone on this thread who has said this is a great first step...

...is wrong because it's only a first step??

:silly:

Whatever.

NGU.

[Skidmore]

11. Either new blood or the old entrenched guard there needs to

start walking the walk and not just talking the talk. I'm willing to give the Dems a chance a little longer, but if some real change doesn't occur before the 06 mid-term elections, I will be the one walking. The donation I made on the day Dean assumed the DNC Chair will be my last.

[ClassWarrior]

12. I posted this in another thread in response to someone who...

...threatened to "leave the party" - as if any of us can do anything about it:

I'm just sick of certain posters who run around whining about all of our defeats, and whining even louder about all of our victories. And thanks to these disruptors, it really gets my hackles up every time I hear someone threaten to "leave the party."

On top of the fact that leaving the party - and forfeiting whatever control you may have to make things better - is the worst possible thing you could do if you truly hold Progressive values and want to make a Progressive future happen for America.

Rather, our rage and frustration should compel us to burrow further into our party and destroy the rot from the inside. The only player who never scores is the one who refuses to step up to the plate.

NGU.

[Skidmore]

19. You know to a certain extent you are correct. But frankly, I don't

see us having much time to pull this party and the nation out of the conflagration and if I can find another group willing to take on the task, I will. If you want to use a carrot, fine. I choose a stick and I will slap that donkey. The only thing that has gotten the attention of the established leadership was when some of us started smacking the donkey with the stick. Ooops, what? The possibility of no fat coffers for campaigns? Wow!! That was a shocker! No, I will NOT stand for the same lame excuses and condescending platitudes from these elected officials and their toadies any longer. Not when it's my kid who is draft age. When they stand up and stand for something honorable, I will stand with them. If not, I will turn my back. That, too, is stepping up to the plate.

[ClassWarrior]

21. We don't have enough time to fix this party, but we have the time...

...to build a whole new one from scratch?? :silly:

I think that's foolishness.

But I do applaud your use of the stick. We SHOULD be smacking the jackasses who sell us out. But NOT at the expense of the good people in the party - and there are MANY of them. What's more, if you bail on the party, how do you expect to get close enough to reach the jackasses' asses with your stick?

<LOL>

NGU.

[Skidmore]

23. I think what you do not understand is that those of us who don't

have megabucks to be large financial contributors rarely get heard or acknowledged. Not only that, party leadership has ignored creating viable organizations in rural areas and in states that weren't identified as important to the electoral college vote. So the leverage we have is to vote with our feet. You have yet to explain to me how standing up and giving feedback that the behavior, vote, or words of an elected official is hurting the party. The reason we have some of these problems today is that everyone was too busy making nice to power. You need to speak truth to power. Then when those in power are unresponsive, take power away from them. There is power in my vote. I will exercise it. You want our votes, you hear us out and act in response to our collective voices if you purport to represent us. If you don't represent us, we will find someone else to take your place. Plain and simple.

[ClassWarrior]

24. You need to speak truth to power?? LOL

I don't see the OP speaking ANYTHING to power. I see him/her speaking TRASH to the very people you maintain are powerless. If he/she was "speaking truth to power," he'd be addressing it to Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, not us. I'd rather see the OP calling on ALL OF US to address the Senator and Rep, instead of levelling the bizarre accusation that all they're doing is attempting to deceive him and us.

As for needing megabucks to get heard or acknowledged, you need to read "What's the Matter with Kansas," by Thomas Frank. He shows how a bunch of so-called "powerless," Joe Lunchbucket, blue-collar Radical RWers were able to overtaken the RepubliCON party - without any megabucks, but with plenty of will and message discipline.

NGU.

[Skidmore]

25. Who the heck is the OP? Please define your jargon.

And I do believe that we at the grassroots are very busy right now exercising our will to develop the message and the face of the party, and that includes calling on others like us to step forward. Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the stable of jackasses currently in power. We're trying to clean the stable. Thus, my vote and how I intend to use it still gives me some power.

Are you always so arrogant and snide?

[ClassWarrior]

26. OP is "original poster." That's DU jargon, not mine.

And how can you be "very busy right now exercising our will to develop the message and the face of the party, and that includes calling on others like us to step forward" if you're threatening to leave the party - which was your original point?? I don't get it.

Arrogant and snide? <LOL> Harry Truman once said something to the effect of, "I don't give 'em hell. I just speak the truth and they think it's hell." I don't mean to offend. My sincere apologies if I did.

:toast:

NGU.

[Skidmore]

28. What is so hard about understanding

that the power we have at this end is the choice of how we will exercise our vote in the end. We can work to that end and then if the system remains unresponsive only throw support behind those who do respond and act accordingly or those whose actions match their rhetoric, something which has only been happening sporadically in the Democratic party for some time now. We plenty of rhetoric when our votes are being courted but no follow through later. Paying attention to that history and withdrawing support in the voting booth is theoretically one of the pillars of democratic process.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Nothing. What's so hard about understanding that...

...if we withdraw our votes and other support from the Dems, we surrender any and all ability to change the grand national debate, since that debate is controlled by a retarded two-party system, at least for now - and we become willing accomplices to the Radical RW's master plan for permanently dividing Progressives? Like sheep to the slaughter.

NGU.

[Skidmore]

31. Why do you presume that other possible candidates IN the party

will not be available for us to throw support behind? It does not follow that because there is an incumbent, that I need to vote for him/her. Perhaps the new person on the ticket is a better alternative. How is that hurting the party? Why should I continue to vote for an incumbent who doesn't represent me as a constituent or the platform of the party just because he/she has a D behind his/her name. Perhaps it is time for that person to go and someone else to have a turn. We do have primaries and caucuses in the the presidential election process and in many states more than one member of a party can run for the same state office or congress. Isn't that shaping the party also?

[ClassWarrior]

36. I presume nothing of the sort. You threatened to leave the party...

That's all I'm addressing. OF COURSE we should work to replace the DINOs with true Progressives.

Hell, my political hero is Russ Feingold. If you think I don't want a clone of him to replace Herb Kohl, you're nuts! BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IF I LEAVE THE PARTY.

I do think it'd be strategically useful to threaten to leave the party - TO SEN. KOHL. And trust me, I have. But to threaten it on DU does nothing except depress morale amongst the troops even more. And that's the LAST thing we need right now.

NGU.

[w4rma]

3. I disagree. I think that the policy that Sen. Kerry ran on is almost

where Dems need to be and is what this country needs.

[mike_c]

6. then I presume you're fairly satisfied with the current administration...

...since Kerry's policies were little different.

[cestpaspossible]

9. LOL

I doubt that most of the 59 million people who voted for Kerry agree with you.

[mike_c]

10. care to elaborate...?

Kerry:

supported tax cuts for the rich
supported the USA PATRIOT ACT
supported the No Child Left Behind Act
supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq
supported U.S. imperialism in the Middle East (or more generally, a foreign policy based on U.S. hegemony)
supported the bogus War on Terror
supported corporatist control of government
supported the Likudist oppression of Palestinians
was lukewarm on abortion rights
refused to make environmental protection a major issue
refused to take a stand for marriage rights for all Americans

Should we go on? How do ANY of these positions distinguish Kerry from the Bush administration? He supported all these Bush policies, just wanted to dress them up a bit differently? Is nuance all the democratic party has to offer?

[ClassWarrior]

13. Waitaminnit - I thought this was a thread to bash Reid/Pelosi...

...not a thread to bash Kerry!! Criminey! Get your Dem-bashing straight!!

<LOL>

NGU.

[mike_c]

17. do you have anything substantive to say in this thread...

...or is derision all you have to offer? I didn't start this thread to "bash" anyone-- I started it to solicit discussion about what I suspect is more political smoke and mirrors from the dem leadership. The post about Kerry is simply a response to another post and has little to do with the OP, although now that I think about it, I suppose it does indeed have a lot to do with the OP.

[ClassWarrior]

22. Do YOU have anything substantive to say in this thread...

...or is suspicion all you have to offer?

NGU.

[DrGonzoLives]

35. See, this is why I can't stay in GD

I never know if we're bashing Obama, or Reid, or Pelosi, or Kerry, or what anymore. We really need memos from the Drama Queen Contingent to help us keep things straight.

[ClassWarrior]

37. LOL

~bowing for Gonzo~

NGU.

[BeFree]

14. Support of what degree

You say he supported all these things. Surely you must ask yourself what level of support did he give each issue?

Most of the "Support" was merely political posturing with the intent of being positioned to get the American Sheeple to vote for Kerry. Yeah, I know I'm out pretty far on a limb with that idea, but have you factored any of that into your equation?

Kerry, had he been elected (he was, it was stolen), would have begun to turn the tide of insanity sweeping the nation. As it is, we are being swept away by that insanity. You can't talk reason to insanity, you must fool it into following, and that, I contend, was all Kerry was doing.

Peace

[mike_c]

20. ok, but even ambivalent support is not opposition....

eom

[DrGonzoLives]

41. Something tells me

that you won't be voting for a Democrat anyway. If you're looking for a cnadidate thatis going to agree with you 100% of the time, your only choice is to run yourself.

[mike_c]

42. I voted for democrats for 30 years, but I'm Green now....

Frankly, my sense of political identity is firmly liberal dem, but you're right, I won't be voting for democrats again until the democratic party and it's national candidates stop parroting the republican party on issues like the war in Iraq, WOT, etc.

[cestpaspossible]

27. Your first point is an utter falsehood. I didn't read any further

There's no point in debating someone who feels no obligation towards veracity.

[mike_c]

40. of course you didn't read any further....

That is so much more comfortable than facing unpleasant truths.

[mike_c]

43. I stand corrected re: HR 1836...

...Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. My mistake. I mis-remembered that Kerry voted in favor of it, when in fact he voted against it. I believe the other assertions in my comment are correct.

[IrateCitizen]

15. I respectfully disagree with that, Rick

Especially in the realm of foreign policy, which is still largely a bipartisan consensus.

The consensus is in the fact that the primary aim of both parties in foreign policy is not establishing peace, or spreading justice -- but maintaining and perpetuating hegemony. Sure, the two parties may disagree on means, but their ends are largely the same.

And the corollary to that foreign policy consensus is the embrace of militarism, which remains a cancer on the body politic to this day. It is only through the exercise of this demon that we will really be on the "right path". Sadly, this demon will not be exercised until much damage has been done, as is common with declining empires in history.

Furthermore, we need to move away from the idea of continually "growing the economy". We need to remove the word "more" from our national vocabulary, and instead learn the meaning of "enough". Kerry's primary thrust wasn't that different from Bush's in this regard. More consumption. More household spending. And the unspoken corollary, more gobbling up disproportionate amounts of natural resources and spoiling of our environment.

Once again, sadly, there will not be a shift in this shortsighted policy (which dates back to the Gilded Age) until it is too late.

[Emboldened Chimp]

16. Where do you think they got the idea to go right in the first place?

Consultants!

[mike_c]

18. point taken...

...although I suspect it's a chicken or egg sort of equation.

on edit: that's actually important to the current discussion, because if dems were originally guilty of hiring consultants who simply reinforced their existing biases against articulating real opposition policies, who's to say that a new crop hired with the same self-serving predispositions will really make much difference?

[Radical Activist]

29. Political consultants make an easy scapegoat

In the end it is the leaders who make the final decisions, including decisions about which consultants to hire. They should have the balls to take responsibility for their own decisions and not deflect the blame to the people they hire.

The being said, I think they should stop hiring anyone who has never lived in the South or Midwest. The viewpoint and conventional wisdom is seriously warped in DC. We need to get away from the New York and DC mindset. They don't know how to win elections or appeal to voters in the rest of America.

[welshTerrier2]

32. you need one more piece

i agree with your call for clear message definition ... and i agree with you that we need to be more than repackaged republican-lite ... we should present bold alternatives to the republicans, not policy tweaks ...

but i think you should take your argument one step further ... who should define the message ???

so, hiring new consultants to work on the packaging is all well and good ... but not only shouldn't the message come from the old consultants, it shouldn't come from the new consultants either ... and it shouldn't come only from elected Democrats either ... it should come from ALL Democrats ...

there are millions of Americans who don't vote at all because they don't believe anyone represents them ... keep defining the Party's message without talking to the common man and we will never get their support ... the process of message definition begins with questions, not with answers ...

[Skidmore]

34. You have it!!!

Preach it!!

[welshTerrier2]

38. OK, here goes !!

trust me, i'm preaching away ...

i started a thread earlier today about Kerry's disgusting statement saying he would vote for the $81.9 billion in addtional funding for the Iraq war ... the thread became a battle over the war with almost no focus on the closing paragraph i wrote in the base post:

where is the anti-war movement in the Democratic Party and what is it doing to have its voice heard?? it is time to call for Democratic Party town meetings all over the country so that we, each and every Democrat, can "have this out" ... ALL Democrats should be heard on this issue ... i am sick and tired of pro-war Democrats doing whatever the hell they want ... i suspect if ALL Democrats had a say on bush's war budget, the majority would be voting "NO FUCKING WAY" ... if Dr. Dean is truly the man of the grassroots, he'll put an end to this unrepresentative bullshit ... give the people a voice !!! let's make these war hawks toe the line or get them the hell out of office ...

as i approach my 5000th post, i can think of no issue more important than giving ALL Democrats a voice starting with the Party's position on the war in Iraq ...

if elected Democrats do and say whatever the hell they want, and if the Democratic Party has no consistent position, and if our elected representatives are not "representative", we will continue to grow weaker and weaker ... I hope Dean will seek a new bottom up mechanism for policy definition ... and i hope elected Democrats realize that top down, i.e. dictating policy from the top without grassroots participation, is a major part of what got us in the mess we're in ...

[Skidmore]

39. Hallelujah!!! Praise be!! Glory!!!

Bless you, welsh.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.