Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman

[Dis]

I used to think Dean was a far left nutcase. But I may have been listening to too much Bill O'Reilly a the time.

I actually like the guy now.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Clinton was Clinton -- best campaigner to ever run for president. And even he would have lost if Perot hadn't split the GOP vote. Plus, as Ramo points out, the Dems under Clinton finally completely lost control of Congress, and never got it back. The only lesson to be drawn from Clinton is that teh Dems win when they run Clinton. It's not much of a lesson.

But beyond that, the Dems real problem is that they -- moderates and liberals alike -- only define themselves in terms of the GOP. When the GOP is doing well, the Dems runs as "nicer than the GOP"; when the GOP is screwing up, they run as "not the GOP." But LBJ was probably the last Dem who actually ran as a Democrat, instead of a not-Republican. The Dems can't win if they won't define themselves. Dean gets that. Too few other Dems do.

This is actually points to the fundamental problem of the Democratic Party. In the past thirty years, the Democrats have won some elections, but overall, have been on a downward trend. Republicans like to think that this is the "silent majority" rising up at last against a party not in touch with the country. In reality, this is due to the serious infrastructure advantage that the Republican party has built up.
My main claim is that the Republicans dominate the language of politics. Think about it. Phrases such as the "death tax" and "tax relief" were used frequently in the political debate leading up to the latest election. Now, this is not impartial language. It is language that sets up a right and a wrong side, with the side that eliminates the death tax, and provides the tax relief, as the good guys. But, this language was used by Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Why was that? Why didn't the Democrats counter with their own language? Most importantly, how is it possible that the term "liberal" is an insult?
This language came about because of Republican infrastructure. For the past thirty years, the Republicans have been funding think tanks, and conducting long-term research so that they could dominate the political scene. They have been conducting a unified approach, with weekly meetings between the important think tanks, and have been incorporating the media into their strategy in a fashion that the Democrats have not been emulating. 80% of tv pundits come out of conservative think tanks.
Some people have been asking, "how could the Democrats have lost the last election?" I think that its incredible that we did as well as we did.
So, in response to the topic, moving to the center is pointless. They made liberal into a dirty word, and we are currently responding by calling ourselves progressives. But how long is it going to be before "progressive" becomes just as dirty as liberal is now? Howard Dean, in fact, is the perfect example. He has an A+ rating from the NRA, is a supporter of states over the federal bureaucracy, and probably wouldn't have signed the civil union bill if he was not forced to. He is also a fiscal moderate. And yet people like Lincoln call him a crazy left-wing nutcase. Now, I'd like to just say that Lincoln is an idiot who wouldn't recognize reality if it walked up to him and was like, "yo, i'm reality, go make me a sandwich," but that would be kidding myself. Of course Lincoln believes that. The Republicans just have such an infrastructure/media advantage that they can, right now, define the language.
Really, our only option is to follow suit. We know what the Republicans have done, but right now, there is only one left-wing think-tank actually dealing with the issues of framing the debate, as opposed to a host of conservative groups. In the strictest sense, our positions do not matter, so much as how we frame them, and if our party is to have any success in the future, we will work on the language and media-savviness on a level that we have not yet begun to consider.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dissident
I used to think Dean was a far left nutcase. But I may have been listening to too much Bill O'Reilly a the time.

I actually like the guy now.

Yes, Diss, but you change your mind like some people change their shorts.

Not saying the guy is a far left nut bar, I think the scream was a very unfair adventure in media manipulation, just saying that you have the steadfastness of a limp noodle.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Admiral


This is actually points to the fundamental problem of the Democratic Party. In the past thirty years, the Democrats have won some elections, but overall, have been on a downward trend. Republicans like to think that this is the "silent majority" rising up at last against a party not in touch with the country. In reality, this is due to the serious infrastructure advantage that the Republican party has built up.
My main claim is that the Republicans dominate the language of politics. Think about it. Phrases such as the "death tax" and "tax relief" were used frequently in the political debate leading up to the latest election. Now, this is not impartial language. It is language that sets up a right and a wrong side, with the side that eliminates the death tax, and provides the tax relief, as the good guys. But, this language was used by Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Why was that? Why didn't the Democrats counter with their own language? Most importantly, how is it possible that the term "liberal" is an insult?
This language came about because of Republican infrastructure.

Maybe the language wins because a majority agree with the sentiment?

[Admiral]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Maybe the language wins because a majority agree with the sentiment?

The conservative platform is not a nice platform. It is a platform of greed, of bigotry, and of short-sightedness. The reason that so many people embrace it is because they are kept ignorant about the condition of the world, and the platform itself. For the first, remember how many Bush supporters believe in the connection between Saddam and al Qaida, and the existence of WMD in Iraq, and the like. For the second, the Republicans deliberately mislead. For instance, the "healthy forests" bill allows for basically unhindered clear-cutting by logging companies. The "clear skies act" lowers emissions standards for corporations. But, Bush can say, "I passed the clear skies act," and people will think that he is environmentally friendly. If the two platforms were laid out, side by side, with neutral language, and no posturing on the part of the Republicans, the majority would not agree with that party.

[notyoueither]

Blah, blah, blah. And they eat babies too, yes?

Give your head a shake. What is it that they tap into that your guys do not?

Answer that and win back the Congress and the White House for your party.

Just stop demonising the oppo. All that will will do is convince you that your losing strategies are 'right' even if they lose. Oh, and you'll have a poisoned public discourse.

[DinoDoc]

I look foward to more expressions of Deaniac power as evidenced by their sweeping sucesses in the 04 election.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Blah, blah, blah. And they eat babies too, yes?

They're way too gamey for my tastes.

[Ramo]

I look foward to more expressions of Deaniac power as evidenced by their sweeping sucesses in the 04 election.

Exactly, Dino. Reagan's campaign for the nomination in '76 against Ford showed how totally disastrous his political skills were, and how ineffective grass-roots movements are. If Reagan stayed in a party leadership role after that, the Republicans would be dead as a party today.

[Ramo]

Maybe the language wins because a majority agree with the sentiment?

Or maybe the new language wins because the Republicans have invested billions of dollars into changing it for the past 30 years, while the Democrats haven't?

Check out a linguist George Lakoff, he has very interesting ideas about this sort of thing.

[DinoDoc]

Deaniacs don't vote. I'm not even talking about the primaries here but the general election. Hardly the stuff of major grass roots power.

[Ramo]

Reaganites didn't vote. Ford's loss to Carter demonstrates their impotence. Hardly the stuff of major grass-roots power.

[DinoDoc]

I don't see the basis for the comparison

[Ramo]

I don't say how you can seriously say that Deaniacs "don't vote" given the massive increases in Democratic turnout. The problem was the Kerry failed to harness this energy, and the Republicans did it better.

[Ramo]

I don't see the basis for the comparison

Why? It's 1980, and I'm arguing against Reagan getting the nomination. Using the same arguments you are: his primary loss to Ford, and Ford's loss to Carter.