Is the party over?

Things we need to do before 2008

We had a pretty good chance to beat GW in this years elections. His approval rating was low, people thought the war in Iraq was going badly, that the economy was going badly and that the country needed to go in a new direction. But somehow we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. So he are my thoughts on what we need to do before 2008 to have a chance:

1) Disown Michael Moore - Too many people hate the man. You know how we feel about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, take that and double it. And it definitely doesn't help when he goes to France and bashes us. If you really feel the need to own a copy of Farenhiet 9/11, hide it with your porn or somewhere else it can't be found. Don't flaunt something that pisses people off so much.

2) Quit getting out the Hollywood stars - It just goes to further the idea that we're elitist and out of touch. Barbra Striesand knows about as much about the middle class as a bunch of things I know nothing about. When you've spent most of your adult life being pampered and having your ass kissed it's kind of hard to relate to regular people.

3) Pick a candidate with some charisma - Kerry was monotone, unemotional, rambled to the point he was hard to follow and except for the constant hand gesturing was like a piece of cardboard. It was like being lectured in college. I WANTED to hear what he had to say and I found him boring. About the only good thing you can say is he had more charisma than Gore. Remember Clinton, how he connected and "felt your pain", we need some of that.(Though not from Hillary)

4)Don't take the high road - In this election the campaign says they decided to try and keep Kerry "above the fray and try to let Edwards do the dirty work. A campaign is a fray. It's a knock down, drag ouy, bitch-slappin' cat fight and you aren't ready for that you're gonna get hurt. By the time the Democrats started agressively responding to the Swiftboat Vets it was too late, you woulda thought Kerry was in the back of his boat mapping out some sinister 30 year plan to be President.

5) Don't ignore states - We pretty much always win California and New York. That's nice, but you still have 184 electoral votes to go The campaign wrote off the South (except for Florida) and most of the Midwest. You know there are people there too, right? They're not all Republican robots. If you give them a candidate and issues they can get behind it could just happen. And as a side note don't take minority groups for granted and assume they're going to vote for you.

6)Stand for something - "Bush Sucks" isn't a platform. Example - Bush screwed up Iraq? Fine, how are YOU going to fix it? "I'll bring in help from other nations". France and Germany won't magically change their minds. Republicans had tax cuts, terrorism and "morals", we had "I'm a veteran" and "Bush Sucks". What was up with Kerry's Healhcare plan? I never understood it, It sounded like Universal Health Care whether it was or not. People don't want to pay for that. Why didn't we talk about Social Security? Bush is going to do some damage more than likely. Why didn't we mention Bush is considering a National Sales Tax? It will be a tax that affects the poor who don't have to pay taxes now.

In conclusion, this campaign couldn't have gone worse unless we nominated Alan Keyes or something. The leadership of the party needs to take a long look at the country and within the party, decide on a course of action, begin working on the 2006 races and find appealing candidates or we may be doomed to repeat our mistakes."
22,153 views 35 replies
Reply #1 Top
I agree with all your points, especially point 1. Ive seen alot of people (especially here) that think every liberal shares the views of Michael Moore and other extremists. Sometimes it feels like the democrats need to publicly disown Michael Moore or people will keep associating him with us. Anyway, great article, have my "Insightful," and if we follow those points, a democratic president in '08 is nearly a sure thing!
Reply #2 Top
Thanks for the insightful NJ, nice to have someone appreciate what I write
Reply #3 Top
No no no no no. You guys should consider running someone like Ramsey Clark.
Reply #4 Top
Ummmm - who is Ramsey Clark?
Reply #5 Top
Ramsey Clark worked for Bubba. He's a good man, but i think Wesley Clark is a better choice
Reply #6 Top
Ramsey Clark is a good man??? I was being sarcastic before. Ramsey Clark is the head of IAC which, together with the Stalinist Workers World Party, is behind the organziation called International A.N.S.W.E.R. They border on treasonous. Clark used to be LBJ's attorney general.
Reply #7 Top
Psikotik:

First, the Democratic Party doesn't sponsor or control Michael Moore.

Second, the election was not about Kerry, it was about Bush. 78% of the voters decided before the debates whom they would vote for so everything done in the debates was essentially ignored. This was an election where the voter said either "I love" or "I hate" the President and whomever the Democratic Party ran would be villified as immoral and mean-spirited by the Republicans for even having the audacity to run against the President.

What should the party do? Well, I agree with you in part. (Points 3,4,and 6) But an even bigger part is learning to manipulate the media in the future so that the issues are framed in a Democratic fashion. Notice I didn't say liberal fashion, but rather with an emphasis to what the Party wants to do with an issue.

For example, Democrats shouldn't allow the Republicans to frame abortion arguments as pro-life versus baby killers, but rather, pro-individual responsibility versus government interference with our freedoms. See the difference?
Reply #8 Top
Have to look into this Ramsey Clark guy. two VERY different opinions on him.

CrispE - The Michael Moore part was mostly sarcasm, but I do believe that he hurt the party by inflaming some people. I kind of agree on the "I love or I hate" Bush factor in the vote. Problem was Kerry came across as almost patrician, while a lot of people consider Bush a good ole guy they could drink a beer with (I'm sure they'll be waiting awhile). I mentioned in a post in another thread about the media. You're totally right there. How long has Limbaugh been on the air? And we're just starting to get into that kind of thing. Hell, Fox News is basically a subsidiary of the Republican party. As for framing arguments, I remember in the debates when Kerry said "Labels shouldn't matter", well I hate to tell him, they do. Flip-flopper stuck even after people pointed out that Bush changed opinions on several important issues.
Democrats really need to , as you said, become Democrats again, not be pigeon-holed as liberals.

Thanks for making a good contribution to my article.
Reply #9 Top
What is wrong with Alan Keyes? I have voted for him every time his name has come up on a ballot in Maryland. I wrote him in for president this year. I know he will never win, for the very reason that I vote for him. He tells it like it is and does not try to be all things to all people.
Reply #10 Top
What is wrong with Alan Keyes? For starters the fact that he condemns everyone who doesn't agree with his Christian views as "those who are destroying the moral fabric of the country". I may disagree with him, but I haven't destroyed any moral fabric I'm aware of.
Reply #11 Top
In other words, a Republican? just a joke in case anyone was thinking of jumping down my throat
Reply #12 Top
Psikotik:

Actually, it was an interesting problem for the Democrats what Moore had done. If you "disown" the film, then you deny the base because Flint, Michigan is a very real problem and Kerry won Michigan. I think that they should have done MORE (pun intended) by showing footage of Flint, Gary, Indiana, etc. and asked the question: Better off now than 4 years ago? That would have made the point. The truth is, IMO, Democrats were too nice, too easily embarassed, ultimately not tough enough to do what had to be done.

I don't think that is a problem Dems will have next time.
Reply #13 Top
There are some good points here.

#2 really highlights an issue that seemed to resonate with a lot of people. I'm talking about the "These people represent the heart and soul of America" quote Kerry made concerning the Hollywood people that were being a little vulgar with their jokes. Not to say they don't have the right to make a joke or feel the way they do, but I think that statement made a lot of people run the opposite way, figuratively speaking.

And #6 especially. One thing that seems to stand out is that it's harder to sustain a movement without a clearly defined position. CrispE is right; the election was about Bush, mainly because Kerry made it so by focusing more on Bush than on himself. Personally, I think he would have still had a hard time winning due to other factors, though.

A lot of it really boils down to having a firmly defined position that people can really relate to and believe in. I guess that would pretty much be the definition of 'morals'.
Reply #14 Top
Good post, Psikotik. Insightful to you & I'm a Repub.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #15 Top
I am a die-hard Republican, but I think this article hits the nail on the head. Basically what Psikotik is alleging is a more centrist approach. That is exactly what Bill Clinton went for and won overwhelmingly. I hate to give good advice to the opponent, but you have got it right. Even as a Republican, if the Democratic party ran someone like Joe Lieberman, I would have to think twice before casting my ballot.

What the Dems shouldn't do is exactly what CrispE said ( i.e. what they did this election cycle)

On second thought, CrispEis right...follow exactly what he says...
Reply #16 Top
iamheather:

They certainly couldn't have done worse... Personally, I think Kerry tried to do what Clinton did in many ways. You might think that was a problem also in that Kerry is no Clinton. But it wouldn't have made a difference who the candidate was. It was ABB and NBB from the beginning.
Reply #17 Top
Thanks for the insighful Daiwa - especially from a Republican !!! And thanks to you iamheather for you kind words also. Being new here it's nice to be appreciated
Pictoratus - are you the same as on Wincustomize? If so, good work !!!
Reply #18 Top
Pictoratus - are you the same as on Wincustomize? If so, good work !!!


That's me. Thanks for the compliment!
Reply #19 Top
Psikotik:

First, the Democratic Party doesn't sponsor or control Michael Moore.


No, they don't. But the facts that the Democratic establishment praised Moore and used his movie as factual reference to attack Bush's policy and the washington hill democrats gathered and showed up to the premier of Fahrenheit 9/11 (in supporting the movie), is pretty much a sponsorship. What would you call that?
Reply #20 Top
It is unfortunate for the republicans that there are many democrats out there that will try to do exactly as you state. If the leadership of the democrat party were to actually do some introspection, it would mean that they have an excellant shot in 08. But as several liberals have done in the comment section, they will continue to deny the obvious. You get an insightful form me as well, and a hope that more will read your thoughts and take them to heart. A true choice would be a welcome break from the last couple of elections.
Reply #21 Top
Chemicalkinteics:

I would call it the same kind of support as the right saying they thought the Swift Boat Vets had a right to say Kerry was a traitor who never was wounded in battle and got 3 purple hearts for nothing.

The key to that however is that no Dem money went to the making of Fahrenheit. Now, the Swift Boat ads........
Reply #22 Top
A true choice would be a welcome break from the last couple of elections.


Dr. Guy:

I think the next 4 years are going to be the worst in the country's history because both Democrats and Republicans feel like they are under attack. When we finally do get to the election in 2008, there will more than enough bitterness and distrust to fuel 5 elections.
Reply #23 Top

Reply #24 By: Helix the II - 11/12/2004 11:38:04 AM
CripE, do you think that there would be just as much animosity in 2008 if Kerry had won?
Ugh, I don't want a repeat in 08'..this was demeaning enough this election. However aren't tensions and animosity high every election?


Usually they are high. However I think this election set a new high-water mark.
Reply #24 Top
I absolutely agree with you. As someone who very much dislikes Bush and his policies, I watched the debates and so forth actively *looking* for reasons to like Kerry. What was his message? What could I tell my Republican friends about his good points? What was "his plan" for America? All I really heard from him, though, was a lot of "Bush sucks" and "I could do it better". He didn't even promise to be a different president from Bush, he just promised to "do it better". Whatever that means. And as much as I personally dislike Bush, I think he did better by far in the debates, in campaign strategy, in *not* being condescending, and in getting out his message. He didn't even have to spend too much time slamming Kerry in the debates, because he actually had something to say. If Kerry had some kind of message, any kind of message, I might've been able to relate. I hope the Democrats pick up on this--or better yet, I hope some third parties pick up on this and put up more viable candidates that have a chance of shifting the balance of power. Anyway, sorry for the ramble--here's an "Insightful" from me!
Reply #25 Top
I would call it the same kind of support as the right saying they thought the Swift Boat Vets had a right to say Kerry was a traitor who never was wounded in battle and got 3 purple hearts for nothing.


Bush called for an end of all 527 advertising though. Iirc the swift vets didn't get any support from the RNC.

Democrats are going to have to decide if they want to nominate Hillary in 08. If not they need to find a strong alternative early on, as there will be powerful pro-Hillary forces.