Democrats

Senate Democrats would do well to listen to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell:

“My message to those Democrats is don’t be afraid,” Rendell told ABC News. “Listen, you got elected because you wanted to do something to change the quality of people’s lives -- here we have a chance to do something historic and if it means some of us are going to lose because of that so be it. At least you will have lost your office fighting for something and accomplishing something.”

He tells his fellow Democrats in Washington, DC, to “get that best bill as strong and as tight as you can then send it back to the Senate and let’s see if they (Republicans) are going to filibuster.”

“Make them filibuster,” he told ABC News in an interview for Good Morning America this morning. “Make them go before America people.  Make the American people look at a modern day spectacle of what a filibuster would entail. I think it’s time to call their bluff. I think it is too easy to throw up your hands and say, ‘We don’t have 60 votes.’ Remember its 51 votes for passage, they have to filibuster. Make them filibuster.”

Yes – make them filibuster! The media loves a good filibuster. The camera shots of the bunks being rolled out and moved and views of twilight floor speeches. We haven’t had that. Instead the media has started using the new meme that all legislation takes 60 votes to pass. They very seldom use the F word.

The Democrats need to learn how to play the media like the Republicans do. Consider it part of the communication problem they are suffering from.

At the annual Democratic Party meeting there should be a mandatory seminar on communication. Not properly communicating has cost the Democrats dearly. It was a big nail in the coffin on health care. People couldn’t understand things like “health exchanges” or “public option”. Even the one simple word left a bad feeling with voters - “mandates”. Democrats tried to make mandates sound like a good thing, but you can’t change how people feel when hearing that word.

Now we are seeing the failures of communication spread beyond healthcare:

Nearly three out of four Americans think that at least half of the money spent in the federal stimulus plan has been wasted, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday morning also indicates that 63 percent of the public feels that projects in the plan were included for purely political reasons and will have no economic benefit, with 36 percent saying those projects will benefit the economy.

Twenty-one percent of people questioned in the poll say nearly all the money in the stimulus has been wasted, with 24 percent feeling that most money has been wasted and another 29 percent saying that about half has been wasted. Twenty-one percent say that only a little has been wasted and 4 percent feel that no stimulus dollars have been wasted.

Again the Republicans took advantage here. They used key phrases like “government welfare” and that strikes anger in voters, while Democrats go out and get to technical trying to defend the stimulus.

American’s understand catch phrases better than anything. Look at “death panels”. It was a flat out lie, but because it was such a small and catchy phrase, it ended up causing damage.

Here’s a good example of a “what should have been”. Take the Bush tax cuts. Republicans sold them as just “tax cuts”. Ohhh that leaves a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Democrats referred to them as “the Bush tax cuts”. Oh – Bush gave us that warm fuzzy feeling. Instead Democrats should have come up with a catchy phrase like “millionaire welfare”. Now you are throwing that evil “welfare” term in there and associating it with the rich. Talk about sparking outrage.

Or how about using the stimulus example. Democrats are guilty of trying to over explain it. Dumb it down some. Call it the “economy safety net”. Yeah the economy is going to continue to fall, but this safety net is the difference between a light bounce at the bottom or a fatal splat into the hard, concrete floor below.

For Democrats to lead successfully they have to learn how to dumb things down so Americans can understand them. I’m not saying Americans are dumb in nature, but in our very busy lives we just don’t have time to investigate everything and figure out what the meaning of that word or phrase really is when put in context. Democrats really need to find their own Frank Luntz.

As  I mentioned earlier, a major contributing factor to the huge loss Creigh Deeds suffered last night was from the fact that he ended up running against the Democratic agenda. Markos gives some needed warning to the Democrats on what happened last night:

Giving Republicans cover by stymying the reform agenda that won Democrats the 2006 and 2008 elections won't win them any conservative votes. In a base election, and 2010 will certainly be one, the party that better rallies its base will win. And abandoning the promises that got Democrats elected is a sure fire way to make sure that the activist base stays home and refuses to do the heavy lifting every campaign needs to win, and makes sure that less committed Democrats say "fuck it" and stay home on election night.

This is exactly what the Democrats have been doing this year, and healthcare is a shining example. Instead of starting out with a package that the left would have loved, something like universal coverage, the Democrats immediately started bowing to the Republicans and making healthcare less liberal. That was before the rightwing attacks could even start. Once they did then Democrats took even more out of the reform.

The Democrats need to remember who their base is, the people who will go out and knock on doors, man phone banks and most importantly – vote. The whole notion of bipartisanship gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, like saying “a world without war”, but in reality it is just a fantasy. As soon as Democrats and the White House recognize this and stop bowing down to the party of 20%, then they will see their odds greatly improve in 2010 and beyond. Run like you did in 2008 and deliver on what you promise, then see what happens. I guarantee the results will be very pleasant to our side.

What does it say about the quality of our leaders in Congress when they need the President to function as their whip?

The Washington Post is reporting that it is:

Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.

The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.

There very well could be some frustration by Democratic donors that they feel “left out” in Washington. We worked to bring our party back to power, only to see them bow to the very people we worked to defeat.

Speaking for a personal point, I used to be one to donate. I haven’t done that in awhile, and have no plans to. I feel like the Democrats are snubbing their noses at their base for one, but another big reason is the economic down turn. I don’t have that additional $25 or $50 laying around to give. That alone could be another reason for the downturn.

Overall I highly doubt that fundraising will be what it was a couple of years ago, but I also believe that the Democrats will have to work a lot harder to sell themselves to their donors and attempt to regain some trust that has been lost lately.

Health care should have been a huge rallying point for Democratic donors and the base, instead the Democratic leaders in Congress have alienated that base by giving in to the right and their lies/smears. This is the poorest performance indicator in politics, and if the Democrats become a minority in 2011 then so be it – they made their own grave. That is a sentiment not unique to me, but one I hear more and more every day.

This is why I always say we need two parties in government – it helps level things out. Now that the Democrats are in charge, they are going overboard on regulation:

The panics over salmonella, E. Coli and unsafe foodstuffs from China have heightened the prospects that Congress will enact a measure known as H.R. 875, the “Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009?.  Should the measure in its current form become law, “food establishments”, which to quote Patrick at Popehat “means anyone selling or storing food of any type for transmission to third parties via the act of commerce”*, will have to register with a new federal regulatory agency, submit to federal inspections, and, perhaps most significant, keep “copious records of sales and shipment by lot and label”. Penalties for infractions will be very, very steep.

I live in farm land. One of the things I love about it is being able to go down to the local farmers markets on the weekend and get fresh produce. This bill could put an end to all that.

What has happened during the Bush years in regards to regulation was sickening, but the Democrats answer is to do the complete opposite – over regulate. It’s not the small farmers causing the problems – it’s the large scale, corporate farms. Why not take us back to the same kind of regulation we had prior to Bush? We didn’t suffer the recalls then like we do now. This “panic legislation” is not the answer at all and it needs to be stopped.

The media is in a frenzy about the Democrats getting ready to “fight” President Obama on his Iraq plan. Of course they are – the media loves anything that might have to do with Democratic infighting.

Personally, I support Obama’s plan. Would I like to see all troops out next year? Of course. But I trust Obama. As matter of fact Obama has given us more reason to trust him than any other politician in history. In his first 40 days he has worked to deliver on an unprecedented amount of campaign promises. So since Obama hasn’t given me any reason to not trust him, I am going to take him for his word and judgment. If he really believes that we need 50,000 troops to remain, then we need that. I want what’s best for my country, not what best aligns with my own political belief.

Also just think back to Bush. Constantly Bush said he would listen to his commanders. For years now the commanders in Afghanistan have been yelling for more troops as that region continues to deteriorate. Bush ignored them, and now we got a bigger mess there then when we first entered that war. So the fact that Obama is proving that he is willing to listen and learn from our military leaders is a big bonus, and something we didn’t see in the past eight years.

But I also agree with the Democrats who are against this plan, and would rather see all our troops pulled out. It also makes me proud to be a Democrat.

Let’s compare this to the recent stimulus battle. Three Republican senators broke with their party to vote for the bill. Were they commended on serving their constituents or personal beliefs that got them elected? No. Instead they are facing punishment from their party.

So this goes back to my post earlier this week, where I talked about how the Republicans tent seems to be shrinking while the Democrats is getting bigger. The Republicans got into the boat they are in because of their refusal to break with Bush. It wasn’t until they started losing elections that they would let some light shine between them and the White House.

Democrats aren’t risking that. Instead they are allowing their own members to do what members of Congress should do – vote for their constituents, not their party.

So I welcome the fact that their might be a little bit of a rift between Democrats and the White House. It shows we have a party of individuals able to make their own decisions and stand on their own beliefs, and the party accepts that.

The Republicans have been going on for too long about “sticking together” and “party allegiance”. No matter what you consider the main factor in the Republicans’ recent losses at the polls, one thing is for certain – if the Republicans didn’t stick together so much they would be in a better place today. If the Republicans broke with Bush, instead of this faux allegiance to the man, they might even still control Congress, or at least be a much strong minority.

Our country is too diverse to divide into only two strict political beliefs. The Republicans just don’t get that.

It seems like I am just doing one really long post today, but broken up. I can’t help it, my mind is really going on this and I want to touch on something else from my on going posts about the RNC and Bobby Jindal.

I said in my previous post that Bobby Jindal shouldn’t be given all the blame for the Republican response, but the Republican’s should be given just as much, if not more. After all, Jindal was just the messenger boy for the Republican beliefs. Yet the media and Republicans have successfully painted Jindal as the fall guy on this. The left wing blogs and even talking heads have also followed suit. Well this is wrong.

When it comes to message control, the Republicans have constantly beat the Democrats hands down. It’s happening again. What the Democrats, politicians, pundits and blogs, all need to do is hammer the message home that what Bobby Jindal said wasn’t only what Bobby Jindal believes, but rather what the GOP believes.

Imagine for a minute that the Democrats picked Mike Gravel to give a response to one of Bush’s state of the union addresses. Would we be hearing and reading how “that Mike Gravel has some really wonky ideas”? No. Instead we would be hearing such things as “wow the Democrats have really became a fringe party”. This bias in media analysis has been proven time and time again. So we need our side of the blogosphere and aisle to start hammering that the message given Tuesday night wasn’t Bobby Jindal’s message, but rather the GOP’s message.

Remember – it was the Republican response, not Bobby Jindal’s response.

The liberal House Democrats have laid out their plan for getting us out of Iraq. Instead of defunding the war, they want to earmark all new funds to be used only for the purpose of safe withdrawal. Election Central has the text and details.

Yesterday Bush said he was seeing "remarkable progress" in Iraq because of his surge. Yeah - remarkable progress on the day 9 U.S. soldiers were killed along, with over 140 Iraqi's. So if things are going so well then why are we increasing the surge by 33%?

The number of U.S. troops needed to carry out President George W. Bush's Iraq security plan could approach 30,000, significantly more than he projected in January, a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday.

In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said U.S. military commanders in Iraq were requesting varying numbers of support troops to augment the additional 21,500 soldiers Bush has ordered into combat.

"At this point, our expectation is the number of ... troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000," England said.

There are nearly 140,000 U.S. troops already fighting in Iraq, where sectarian violence has thwarted American efforts to bring the 4-year-old war to a close.

Now why are we sending 7,000 more troops when the U.K. is pulling their troops out and trying to say "mission accomplished"? It appears as though the administration is furthering their lies about what is happening in Iraq.

It needs to stop now! Are you listening Democrats? It is time to stop being a bunch of pussies worrying about what might happen in 2008 if you take action now. People are dying and our countries defenses are weakening by the day. You have more than enough stuff to go after Bush on. When we got people like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan saying it is time for serious talks like impeachment, then you need to rethink this position you are taking. You already have the blogosphere frustrated with your inactions. Remember Joe Lieberman's campaign? You really want to piss off this part of your base? You really want to go to the voters in 2008 and say "Hey - we know you gave us a mandate in 2006. We ignored it, but trust us again"? If you continue to play politics with Iraq, you are no better than the man who lied us into this war!