whether it's true or not, the Democratic Party is portrayed by the media as not having a consistent message ... and, whether misled by the media or not and whether they agree with the message or not, the public sees the republican party as having a strong, consistent message and sees a Democratic Party that does not have one ...
there are a number of reasons for this ... first, as stated above, the media loves to highlight controversies within the Democratic Party ... second, controlling the WH makes it much easier to speak with one voice ... when the WH speaks, it makes front page news almost everytime ... but perhaps most importantly, Democrats really do NOT have a single, consistent message on many policy issues ... and politically, the Party lacks "message discipline" ... "big tent" has come to mean that we are a loose affiliation of individuals with a generally consistent political philosophy but we often are highly diverse on policy details ...
for example, some in the Democratic Party, especially within the ranks of the DLC, have argued that we have to "win" in Iraq because the Democratic Party cannot afford to be seen as weak on defense ... they've hosted articles on their website by prominent DLC'ers that showed nothing but disdain for the Party's left wing ... the political strategy sends the message that if Americans don't see Democrats as "tough", we will never regain our majority status ...
so, the question is then asked "Do Americans see Democrats as 'tough'??"
having a "big tent" that tolerates a diversity of views certainly seems vastly superior to rigidly demanding that each and every party member walks in lockstep ... HOWEVER, broad diversity on key issues is NOT necessarily politically effective ... starting with divergent views is fine as long as a process exists to work toward a more inclusive, unified position ...
Democrats span the spectrum on Iraq ... we have the "we have to succeed" Democrats; we have the "we can withdraw as successes occur" Democrats; we have the "we can't succeed until we withdraw" Democrats ... does this send a message of clarity to American voters???
and now the Democratic Party is muddling its message on abortion ... it's one thing to tolerate candidates who are personally opposed to abortion; it's something entirely different to endorse candidates who would overturn Roe v. Wade ... calling for a rolling back of women's reproductive freedoms imposes one's personal views on others ... i have NO issue with any candidate who personally thinks abortion is wrong as long as they recognize the Constitutional right to privacy and a woman's right to choose ... in other words, the outlawing of abortions should not be the government's decision to make ... those who believe it is should not be endorsed by leading Democrats ...
so where is the Democratic Party on sending a clear, forceful message to the American people on protecting this Constitutional freedom? you guessed it; muddled again ... several prominent Democrats have endorsed Bob Casey's Senate campaign in Pennsylvania ... some have argued that he's the only one who can defeat the hideous Santorum ... they argue that supporting Casey makes political sense ... but does it?
protecting the Party's national message and conveying a sense of message clarity are critically important ... muddled messages portray the Party as weak ... it says to Americans: "we have lots of ideas although many of us don't agree with them." ... the problem goes beyond merely alienating our base ... many MAY not vote for Democrats if certain core ideals are violated ... i will not ever again be voting for anyone who supports continued occupation in Iraq ... and i would never vote for anyone who opposes a woman's right to choose ... but the problem goes beyond some relatively small percentage of voters who will vote for a third Party candidate ... this small percentage is not unimportant btw; it could potentially tip the election ... but the greater problem is the sending of a fuzzy message to the American people ... something close to half of Americans don't vote at all ... many of them believe politicians will say or do anything to get elected ... they don't respect political parties that have no consistent message ...
in the end, muddled messages convey weakness ... at a time when some are emphasizing the importance of conveying strength, muddled messages seem highly counter-productive ...
oh, and what does all this have to do with the subject line of the thread?
source:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13431238.htmIt would seem obvious: Democratic Senate candidate Robert P. Casey Jr., who opposes abortion, believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
"You can't say you have the position I have and not believe that," Casey said in a recent interview about the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made legal abortions available nationwide.
But some antiabortion Democrats - including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Ron Klink, the party's nominee in the 2000 Pennsylvania Senate race - have parsed their position when confronted with the question: Do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
Yes, they say, they oppose abortion; but no, the ruling should stand as settled law.
Casey's position, as consistent and straightforward as it is, highlights the complexities of running as an antiabortion candidate in a party dominated by abortion-rights advocates. As the nuances of his beliefs become better known, he risks alienating an influential slice of the Democratic base that raises money and turns out voters.
"It speaks to a lack of fundamental understanding of what Roe represents," Kate Michelman, a former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said of Casey's position on Roe. "It is not just the right to choose an abortion; it goes to the heart of reproductive choice."
Casey, who made the comments at last weekend's Pennsylvania Society gathering in New York, said he is consistent.
"You can't have it both ways and say, 'I am pro-choice but,' or 'I am pro-life but,' " said Casey, the state treasurer. <skip>
But a Quinnipiac University survey released last week suggests Casey could lose support as his abortion stance draws more attention.
It found almost a third of respondents who identified themselves as pro-Casey and pro-abortion-rights said they would not vote for him after being told he opposes abortion. Sixty-six percent would stay with him, the poll found.
The drop-off might not be so steep in the end, but it suggests that Casey's 12-point lead over Santorum might be much smaller, said Clay Richards, a Quinnipiac pollster. The poll of 1,447 state voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
