WSJ: Democrats Weigh Two Strategies For a Comeback in Four Years

[question everything]

Democrats Weigh Two Strategies For a Comeback in Four Years

By JEANNE CUMMINGS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 20, 2005

(snip)

Democrats are plotting the best way to prevent another Republican victory party in four years. In doing so, they face a fundamental choice: Is the party best served by waging what one party strategist terms "total war" against the president and his party? Or, fearing such an approach would turn off more voters than it would energize, should Democrats pick their fights more selectively?

The appeal of the war option is obvious. It energizes activists and appeals to their anger at losing two close presidential races in a row. On Friday, one upstart group, making the point that it wants the party to stand up to President Bush, plans to deliver a 70-foot puppet of a backbone to the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Another is organizing an inaugural protest with participants literally turning their backs on the parade and, symbolically, the president. Stanley B. Greenberg, a well-respected polling expert, is drafting a book analyzing the 2004 elections that includes a chapter titled "Toward Total War." In it, he concludes: "For the Democrats, the path to the future begins with a reckoning: there is no alternative to total war, indeed to a total campaign as well."

But there are obvious risks to this game plan. Republicans will be quick to paste the obstructionist label on their opponents if given the chance. In addition, a shift leftward -- as is advocated by some party insiders -- could backfire by making it easier for Republicans to argue that the Democrats don't share the same values as ordinary Americans, which was an effective line of attack for Mr. Bush against Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential candidate.

(snip)

The Democrats' alternative to war would be to scour the legislative agenda and pick fights on issues they believe will help them sharpen their image and message with voters. The Social Security overhaul already is emerging as one of those fights, and Democrats are certain to clash with the White House if there is an opening on the Supreme Court because such debates revolve around the party's commitment to the environment, women and minorities.

While a moderated approach would rankle some of the party's impatient base, it is less likely to put off the public and could help Democrats to accomplish one of the key fixes party officials deem vital: reconnecting with voters on values and moral issues. According to the Democrats' postelection analysis, Mr. Bush's emphasis on social issues, such as opposing gay marriage, eroded the Democrats' support among rural voters and Catholics. Now, party elders and activists are retooling their messages to strike at the Republicans and win back those voters. About 30 progressive religious leaders are considering creating a resource center that would develop the faith-based arguments for government activism. Departing DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has set aside funding for developing a religious outreach program inside the party apparatus.

(snip)

Write to Jeanne Cummings at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110618529557430953,00.html

[aldian159]

1. I want to win

If someone could give me arguments as to what side would help us win, other than these snips from the WSJ, I'll listen.

I personally think we gotta pick out battles, but I'm willing to listen to people who think "total war" is the way to go.

[uberotto]

7. The negatives associated with total war are the same...

as associated with a "surgical strike".

First, if the democrats only fight for the big issues, such as Social Security, they will still be labeled Obstructionist. These are the issues that will get the majority of the press coverage and most voters will see the democrats getting in the way of the "will of the people" (that's how it will be spun by the republicans and the media).

Secondly, all those issues that the democrats decide aren't worth fighting over will give the republicans a long list of "achievements" to brag about next election.

for a really crude analogy, a series of "surgical strikes" by the democrats trying to avoid the obstructionist label, is like a guy sucking penis only occasionally, because he doesn't want to be labeled as gay.

[hellbound-liberal]

9. How do we decide which battles to pick? The party is

supposed to represent ALL of it's members. Are we supposed to let some things go through , like drilling in ANWR, but stand and fight for Social Security? Are we going to continue to play this game of pissing off part of our base in order to try to broaden our appeal to others? What the hell kind of sense does that make? Do you honestly think that people are going to be attracted to a political party that chooses not to stand and fight for those who have joined it in the past? This is exactly the type of "thinking" and "strategery" that hive gotten us in the mess we are in. Many people support Bush only because they know where he stands, not because they agree with all of his positions. Democrats need to learn this lesson REAL QUICK! I agree with Frederick the Great:
"In victory, magnanimity; In defeat, DEFIANCE!"

[IndianaGreen]

2. Total war worked very well for Newt Gingrich when he was in the minority

and we must wage the same unrelenting war against the GOP and against those among us that counsel defeatism under the guise of pragmatism and caution. In short, we must adopt the same tactics the rightwing did in taking over the Republican Party and the country.

[question everything]

12. A recent oped in the NYT claims that we are not "Gingrich Democrats"

I don't know if was posted here - did not find it with a simple search, so here are some paragraphs (very depressing, the whole piece):

The New York Times
January 18, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Gingrich Democrats
By DAVID BROOKS

(snip)

Clintonites like Gene Sperling or Representative Rahm Emanuel still tend to have a governing mentality - even in the minority, they are always proposing things, rarely just opposing.

The Democratic Gingrichians are different. They feel that Social Security is to Bush what health care reform was to Clinton - the big overreach that will allow the opposing party to deliver a devastating blow to the president, and maybe even regain control of Congress.

Their core belief is that Republicans have won of late because they have been ruthless and disciplined while Democrats have been responsible and wimpy. It is time, the neo-Gingrichians say, to scorch the earth. "I believe that the Republican majority has acted in such a dictatorial fashion that a full-scale revolt is the only solution," the Democratic consultant Howard Wolfson told Michael Crowley of The New Republic.

(snip)

The problem with the neo-Gingrichians is that they have their history backward. Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 with only 43 percent of the vote. When Gingrich began his assault, there already was a potential conservative majority in the country; it's just that many of these conservatives, for historical reasons, tended to vote Democratic in Congressional races.

(snip)

The Democrats today are in a very different position. They already have all the liberals. What they lack is support from middle-class white families in fast-growing suburbs. But by copying the Gingrich tactics - or what they think of as the Gingrich tactics - of hyperpartisanship and ruthless oppositionalism, they will only alienate those voters even more.

(snip)

There is an essential asymmetry in American politics today. There are three conservatives in this country for every two liberals. A Republican can be quite conservative - like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush - and still win the White House. But only one Democratic presidential candidate has won over 50 percent of the vote in the past 40 years (Jimmy Carter got 50.1 percent in 1976).

That means Republicans can rely on their core instincts and still win, while Democrats cannot. If you look at the race for Democratic Party chairman, you get the impression this is a party that understands this and will seek out people who see the world differently.

(snip)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/opinion/18brooks.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brainshrub]

3. With the BBV machines in place it doesn't matter.

First things first. Repeat after me:

"I want a verifiable paper ballot."

[John_H]

4. Welp, we know what the WSJ's opinion is. LOL!

[shraby]

5. I want paper ballots and pen....period.

Until the machines are done away with, even the Democrats grandest plans will be for naught. THE REPUBLICANS COUNT THE VOTE!!

[roguevalley]

6. Total war. Doing nothing or 'picking battles' has won us zip. The

next time it won't be * and his nice guy bullshit. It'll be someone equally as bad but different. Fight them to the floor on every issue because every issue is going to hurt someone bad.

[killbotfactory]

8. Did they learn nothing from the past four years?

It's like some democratic leaders want to destroy the party.

TOTAL WAR

[CWebster]

10. "Obstructionist"

Well, I should hope so!

They say it like it is a bad thing.

Like Class war.

Damn fucking straight.

I actually heard that asshole on Russert suggest that Social Security benefits cuts for women and minorities should be considered. I heard Dick Armey suggest slashing programs like Americorps and Council for the Arts to bolster SS (which Krugman rightly countered were mere "nickles and dimes") would be preferable to tax cuts for the Ruling class.

[woo me with science]

11. False Choice

This is the WSJ attempt to paint Dems as only interested in getting power back, however it's done.

The real answer, friends, is to fight based on enduring Democratic principles. Where these are at stake, there must be no capitulation. We bend where it is possible to bend without crushing our own ideals. Dems need to show the people that this is a party based on true, American ideals.

[Moderator]

14. question everything

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator