GOOD GOD I SWEAR THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS

What Democrats Should Be Saying
By David Ignatius

Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A21

This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief of staff is facing a grand jury probe. Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.

So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems. Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Rather than address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, they have decided to play politics and let President Bush squirm on the hook of his unpopular plan to create private Social Security accounts.

Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.

The Democrats' problem is partly a lack of strong leadership. Its main spokesman on foreign policy has become Sen. Joseph Biden, a man who -- how to put this politely? -- seems more impressed with the force of his own intellect than an objective evaluation would warrant. Listening to Biden, you sense how hungry he is to be president, but you have little idea what he would do, other than talk . . . and talk.

The same failing is evident among Democratic spokesmen on economic issues. Name a tough problem -- such as energy independence or reform of Medicare and Social Security -- and the Democrats are ducking the hard choices. That may be understandable as a short-term political strategy: Why screw up your chances in the 2006 congressional elections by telling people they must make sacrifices? But this approach keeps the Democrats part of politics-as-usual, a game the GOP plays better.

Howard Dean is a breath of air as chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- but unfortunately a lot of it is hot air. Dean is admirably combative, and in that he reflects a party that is tired of being mauled by Karl Rove's divisive campaigning. The problem with Dean is that, like his party, he doesn't have much to say about solving problems. Pressed about Iraq last Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," Dean passed the buck: "What we need is a plan from the president of the United States." Rather than condemn a NARAL Pro-Choice America ad against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts that was so outrageous it was pulled from the air, Dean averred: "I'm not even going to get into that."

Today's Democrats have trouble expressing the most basic theme of American politics: "We, the people." Rather than a governing party with a clear ideology, they are a collection of interest groups. For a simple demonstration, go to the DNC's Web site and pull down the menu for "People." What you will find is the following shopping list: "African American, Asian Amer./Pacific Islanders, Disability Community, Farmers and Ranchers, Hispanics, GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) Community, Native Americans, Religious Communities, Seniors & Retirees, Small Business Community, Union Members & Families, Veterans & Military Families, Women, Young People & Students." That's most of the threads in the national quilt, but disassembled.

What can the Democrats do to seize the opportunities of the moment? I suggest they take a leaf from Newt Gingrich's GOP playbook and develop a new "Contract With America." The Democrats should put together a clear and coherent list of measures they would implement if they could regain control of Congress and the White House. If the Democrats are serious, some of these measures -- dealing with economics and energy -- will be unpopular because they will call for sacrifice. But precisely for that reason, they will show that the Democrats can transcend interest-group America and unite the country.

America doesn't need more of the angry, embittered shouting matches that take place on talk radio and in the blogosphere. It needs a real opposition party that will lay out new strategies: How to withdraw from Iraq without creating even more instability? How to engage a world that mistrusts and often hates America? How to rebuild global institutions and contain Islamic extremism? How to put the U.S. economy back into balance? A Democratic Party that could begin to answer these questions would deserve a chance to govern.[/url]

I thought you hated politics.

Well, for one thing, congress is in recess so not much of anything is going on. But Joe Biden has been yelling these very same sentiments to anyone who will listen. I think it's a bit unfair to bash the Democrats for not having an alternative plan when they don't control the committees (thus the agenda) in congress. Politicians talk all the time, it's hard to get any attention if you can't push legislation.

Well, that's where you and I differ. See, LEADERSHIP is having a PLAN. You show people where you are going to take them What the Dems have conveniently forgotten is that 1994 was almost 20 years in the making, and was the culmination of an almost wholesale re arrangement of political affiliation.

But, I think if we just keep crying about everything, people will flock to the Dem message of crying, whining, and more crying.

This is why I support a co-presidency of Kinky Friedman, Fred Thompson, Billy Bob Thorton, Gary Busey and The Kurgan.

Where is this crying? What about the old adage of not committing homicide on a man who's committing suicide? Let the GOP fall apart for a while, they're doing it just fine without a push from the Democrats.

But my point was that the Dems do have alternative plans, you just don't know much about them because they can't translate into legislation if you can't get them on the floor.

I do agree that the Dems should develop a new "Contract with America" type of platform, but let's hope it's not as disasterous as the original. The Dems are less effective with messaging, for sure, but I think the country is getting tired of sloganeering.

And yes, the Republican Revolution was 20-odd years in the making, but it was just three years after 12 years of Republican Presidents, one of whom is now an icon of their ideology (despite implementing nearly none of their cultural standards).

I just think its sad how the left is so comfortable bashing its own side when there's so much to attack on the other side.

You sure about that? Don't throw approval ratings at me either. Do you really believe the Dems are in position to take back the White House and both houses of Congress? Or anything really?

Maybe there's another democratic party that's been out fly fishing for the past five plus years and this one's just a stand-in. Wake me when it shows up.

I think they're in a good position for gains in '06. Since we have no idea who is running for President in '08 it's kinda hard to debate their chances, isn't it?

Not really. The Republicans have a host of potentials, and the dems have Biden and Hilary. If Vegas is taking bets today I'm sure the Republicans would be an easy favorite.

A host of potentials? Who, Frist and McCain?

I must be the only person in America who doesn't think Clinton will run. She has no chance in "Middle America" and I think she knows that. Her political power is in the Senate and then maybe a cabinet post down the line (though I'd stay in the senate).

Dems have Biden, Edwards, Kerry (he's mentioned a possible return), and Bill Richardson right now who have decent chances. Of course, only Biden has said for sure he's interested, so I think it is pretty early to debate any of their chances.

Edwards, Kerry, Richardson have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE IN HELL OF EVER GETTING ELECTED PRESIDENT. EVER. PERIOD.

I like Crazy Joe. He shouldnt have cheated in law school, but that matters less now then it did in 1988.

Hillary is about even money to run. And she would probably win. If you do the numbers, its pretty possible.

Also, Derek, there are a gang of potential Republicans to run. Do Not sleep on Mike Huckabee.

I think Richardson has the best chance of the lot, actually.

And what numbers have Clinton winning and are these poll numbers because we should know by now that polls don't mean shit.

I like Biden too but I still don't like his chances. I give Hilary no chance.

Huh, everyone says there's a whole slate of candidates but nobody names more than one at a time. Is it a secret?

Derek, I like your band, and feel you may a pretty cool dude, but America WIL NEVER TIRE OF SLOGANEERING. Sorry, not happening. as to your first point, unfortunately, I more than most understand the bankruptcy of ideas at the top of this party. It is sad and pathetic.

Well, at least you like my band...

I'm not quoting polls, I'm quoting my knowledge of the electoral college. Hillary can win enough states to get the necessary electoral votes.

Richardson is vice presidential timber at best. Despite their own sloth, Americans hate fat people.

While I agree the Dems don't have much of a voice, it does seem like anytime there is any valid criticism or alternative policy thrown up by the minority party most of the tv news channels bury it underneath stories on Aruba, Terrell Owens and BTK.
Everytime I have seen or read any critical evaluations of the Iraq War, the person responsible for it is raked over the coals by Conservative pundits on all the news shows.
It's hard to have a voice when the media isn't giving you a voice, and it is even harder to gain voter's attention with your voice when they have no interest in politics at this point aside from being loyal americans.
I think the Dems should be focusing on small goals like making gains in the state of Ohio, keeping Katherine Harris from winning in Florida, and taking Lincoln Chafee and Rick Santorum's Senate seats. They also need to protect Ben Nelson in Nebraska and take back California from Arnold.

new sig.

Dammit.

She can't win Ohio or Florida, and I have my doubts about Wisconsin and even Michigan. California and New York will not win her the Presidency, just ask Gore or Kerry.

She can win Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan with relative ease and I would give her decent odds to win FLA as well.

What you may not understand about politics is that elections are won in fundraising. And the Clintons are the best in the business.

Bottom line. The Clintons will raise 20 million dollars out of Texas if they feel like it.

Just ask Phil Gramm