Re: "The American People Put Their Trust In The Democratic Party"

1

Ssshhhhh, LB, you're totally jinxing us.


Posted by: susan | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
2

Speaking as someone who voted a straight-dem ticket, it is lesser of two evils. The current administration and Congress are appalling, but the Nancy & Harry duo doesn't make me think "oh, now the government will be in good hands."


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
3

Yeah, I should link to Ezra Klein on this one. He was wondering why everyone was being so quiet about the election, and I read the post and thought "Because I'm chicken." And decided not to be. And to berate the Democratic party leadership for chickendom. (Unless of course they're saying what I want them to and I just haven't seen it.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
4

I was unlikely to describe myself as "putting my trust in the government" when in the nineties I started voting, and after the past six years, I'm unlikely to trust the government, broadly described, for at least a decade.

The journalist/pundits can write your story and it won't really bother me, though, LB; I trust them even less.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
5

2: Yeah, but you're a political junkie posting on a politicalish blog, you're guaranteed to be dissatisfied with any actual politician (not that there's anything wrong with that, it certainly describes me too). I'm talking about the way we've been hearing about the deep conservativism of the American people, and their instinctive distrust of latte-sipping liberals, as demonstrated by the razor-thin majorities Republicans have been eking out for the last decade and a half. If that makes sense, then the reverse does too.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
6

Well, realistically, Democratic policies aren't going anywhere in the next two years. Even assuming we take both houses, the majorities are only going to be big enough to stop legislation, not push it through. Come 2008, there will be a chance to change that.

I take your point about the rhetoric, though.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
7

That's most of what I'm saying. I just want Democratic politicians out there saying that they're going to win because ordinary Americans love and trust them, and believe in the ideals they stand for. We'll see what we can actually do when we see how many seats we win.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
8

Given that we can expect Bush to start wielding his veto stamp with abandon if the Dems regain control of Congress, the best use of the next two years will be to propose mountains of legislature just to get the GOP to vote against it, in preparation for '08 ad campaigns.

Like, say, a constitutional right to privacy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
9

In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

and:


If Democrats gain the 15 seats they need to win control of the House -- and most analysts think they will -- one of the first things the new House will do is restrict or end outright a slew of lobbying practices.

People will vote the democrats into office because they like the democrats policies.


Posted by: joeo | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
10

a constitutional right to privacy

Goddamn straight right yeah.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
11

Also, I'd council running the House every bit as dictatorially toward the minority as the GOP has run it during the past decade. I think that might be good for an extra dozen or so GOP retirements in '08.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
12

counsel


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
13

11: Mmm. That one I may not be on board with. A lot of the shit the Republicans have been doing, like not releasing the text of several hundred page bills to be voted on until hours before the vote, isn't just bad to the opposition party but really terrible practice in itself.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
14

9: The legislation in the first link is all dead in the water, but good as campaign ad fodder. The lobbyist stuff, though, would make me happy as a clam.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
15

re 15

Some of those things would pass. Republicans can cave too.


Posted by: joeo | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
16

13: Hopefully they can screw the minority without screwing the public?


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
17

I just don't know enough about Congressional procedure. I'd prefer 'firm but fair' to 'treat those shitheads as badly as they treated us', but it comes down to fine points and I don't know what they are.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
18

Some of those things would pass.

And get vetoed.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
19

Student loan funding could conceivably pass.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
20

Has Bush exercised a veto yet? Did he use one on the stem cell bill?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
21

I'm talking about the way we've been hearing about the deep conservativism of the American people, and their instinctive distrust of latte-sipping liberals, as demonstrated by the razor-thin majorities Republicans have been eking out for the last decade and a half. If that makes sense, then the reverse does too.

But haven't we been hearing about this for the past thirty -plus years - ever since Nixon's Moral Majority? I see your point, but the Dems haven't really put forward an alternative beyond "not being Bush" (which is good enough for me this election). That isn't exactly an organized platform for the American people to get behind. To be honest (and these are my DLC sympathies showing), I'm not sure how much of whatever platform the Dems have put together represents what I want.

And I exiled myself from DC to get away from the political junkies. This is me strictly falling off the wagon.


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
22

20: Yes and yes. AFAIK that's still his only one.


Posted by: DaveL | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
23

Student loan funding could conceivably pass.

If it's accompanied by a constitutional amendment banning affirmative action.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
24

Like, say, a constitutional right to privacy.

This has always seemed like an tactical no-brainer to me. Force Republicans to explain why they oppose it.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
25

Is there anybody on "our" side writing such a Consitutional amendment? I get the sense that this is something you, apostropher, Kevin Drum, and I want but that the DLC is running away from in a Porsche. The reproductive rights groups should be on top of this, but probably shouldn't take the lead. What about the consumer rights groups? Can somebody kick Ralph Nader until he makes this his next crusade?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
26

And force them to oppose it every single session of Congress.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
27

13: Agreed that late-night text switches, etc. are bad policy (if good politics) -- I'd actually be on board with the Dems instituting a rule about releasing the full text of a bill two business days before a vote or such or something. But a lot of what the Republicans did is really classic, petty stuff; the minority party has fewer staffers, that's how it works, but the Republicans took away their parking spots, shuffled their offices to take away windows, gave them outdated Blackberries. It's just malicious, and there's no way to complain about it without seeming like a big whiny baby. So that's where you hit the GOP. Cut their coffee service. Dump their staffers in the basement, three to a room.


Posted by: Steve | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
28

I'm all for a constitutional right to privacy but I don't think this is the no-brainer others seem to think it is. I mean, this will be spun as the "Abortion Amendment" or "Baby Killing Amendment" within 5 minutes of being proposed and end up dead in the water.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
29

That's going to be a hard spin to perform ("please point out where the amendment even mentions abortion") outside of the rabid anti-abortion lobby. Anyhow, the point isn't passing it, any more than the flag burning amendments are. It's about having to make them explain why they don't believe in a right to privacy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
30

The response would be "Look, those people think everything is about abortion. You know how they are. But privacy is under attack all over the place: your medical records, your financial records, your internet activity, your phone calls, [blah, blah, blah]. The Republicans want to maintain their ability to spy on American citizens. We think that's just wrong."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
31

apo's right, I think. It's too big a leap. First of all, most Americans already think we have a right to privacy. Second, most Americans don't have a clue that right to privacy = abortion. That link will just sound plain weird. Third, the privacy argument in favor of choice is the one that Americans feel most comfortable with (decision between me and my doctor, not me and my doctor and the federal government, etc.).


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
32

And yes, Dems would always talk about it in terms of apo's 30.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
33

The Republicans want to maintain their ability to spy on American citizens

...and make sure their corporate fatcat donors are able to get your personal information so they can telemarket to you over dinner.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
34

THe other thing that the Democrats can do is investigate, investigate, investigate. Just absolutely poison the well for the Republicans, synonymize them with corruption.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
35

The Republicans want to protect identity thieves!


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
36

This so-called "privacy amendment" is a sneaky way for the Democrats to write their extremist liberal views into our Holy Constitution. It will prevent us from gathering the information on terrorists that we need to prevent another attack on our country, burden businesses with new regulations that will cause prices to skyrocket, and allow them to kill innocent unborn babies.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
37

"They're hiding dead babies in the penumbras! PANIC!"


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
38

36 just sounds like crazy talk! It really does.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
39

36: If all goes well, yes.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
40

36: They already say that about everything. It shouldn't be a disincentive.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
41

Seriously, every criticism should just be answered, ad nauseum, with "Democrats believe in a right to privacy. Republicans don't."


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
42

The problem with this advice is swing voters are moving to the Democrats because they don't like the way the Republicans have been running things. They aren't going to vote for Democrats because they are liberals and if you make the election a referendum on the liberal agenda instead of the Republican administration you are likely to lose.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
43

When Gingrich was out of power (or in power when Clinton was president) he used losing votes on bills to set up the next confrontation. A vote can force the other side to go on the record. People should study Gingrich.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
44

Seriously, you think that a voter who's disillusioned with the Republican party is going to look at Democratic politicians saying "Americans trust Democrats," and out of spite flip back to the GOP? I can't make that work psychologically.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
45

No, he's suggesting that the Democrats take their rare electoral victory as a fluke and govern from the center-right. Or at least that's what I understand him as saying.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
46

Oh. Well, screw that.

That's exactly the sort of talk I want people to stop. The national mood has a huge "Clap if you believe in fairies" component -- Republicans have been doing well for so long, despite all of those polls showing that the electorate likes an awful lot of liberal positions on the issues, partially because everyone's convinced that Average Joe Voter just feels good about conservatives and icky about liberals. Well, Average Joe is voting for us this time around, and it behooves us to be out there saying that it's because he wants us to govern the country.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
47

44, many voters who are disillusioned with the Republicans nevertheless are looking for an excuse to stick with them because it is psychologically painful to switch sides. Reminding them of all the reasons they hate Democrats is not necessarily a good idea.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
48

If they can't vote for the Dems this time, come hell or high water, they hate something deep about America, James. We were never going to get those people, anyway. They need to move.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 6:43 PM
horizontal rule
49

45, no that's not what I am saying at all. After the election if you win you can claim the victory was a sweeping mandate for your liberal agenda and try to govern from the left if you want (although I don't see how you can do much with Bush still President). Of course this is more credible if you have actually run on a liberal platform however this is also riskier. In this election I think the Democrats are best off trying to make it a referendum on Republican performance in power rather than as a choice between Republican and Democratic policy going forward.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
50

48, that is the sort of comment that causes people to stick with the Republicans out of spite.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 6:50 PM
horizontal rule
51

50: As I said, if you vote against your country out of spite, you weren't going to vote for us anyway.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
52

51, that's a convenient way of looking at things. It doesn't matter how many people you alienate by being a jerk, they were never on your side anyway.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
53

I don't know that that's fair. Worrying about antagonizing voters by being hostile or unpleasant is reasonable. I think worrying about antagonizing voters who are planning to vote for us because the don't like the other guys by saying that Americans are voting for us because they actively approve of us is foolishly overcautious. Making that sort of claim isn't being jerkish.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
54

But, and I think this is the key issue here, what's the evidence that all these people who are switching sides are doing so because they actively approve of Democratic policy positions?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
55

My point is that if we start saying they all are, who's to say we're wrong? Any individual voter knows their own motives, but doesn't have any particular reason to doubt what's said about voters generally.

And there are enough polls out there to choke a horse (elephant?) on the broad approval of lots of Democratic policies, like universal health care, and keeping Social Security from being privatized. If they're voting for us, and they approve of our policies, they like us. We should be saying that.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
56

Any individual voter knows their own motives, but doesn't have any particular reason to doubt what's said about voters generally.

Sure they do. If they hear "voters are increasingly enamored of the Democratic party and its liberal policies" but they don't think of themselves as being enamored of liberal policies and know lots of people who feel the same way, I'd expect them to be skeptical of news reports and less enthusiastic about voting Democratic.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
57

If they hear "voters are increasingly enamored of the Democratic party and its liberal policies" but they don't think of themselves as being enamored of liberal policies and know lots of people who feel the same way, I'd expect them to be skeptical of news reports and less enthusiastic about voting Democratic.

Or maybe they will feel like Democrats might be more in step with the country as a whole than the out-of-touch Republicans they've been hanging out with. You know, the way all of us have felt for the last 5 years, living in our non-heartland enclaves. Our feeling isn't accurate.

Particularly if the Democrats are actually winning in the polls.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
58

I'm just saying that I think most of this support for Dems in the polls is primarily opposition to Republicans, and isn't very firm. I think the second paragraph of LB's post is fine, but I'm a bit uneasy about the third. Can't stuff like that wait until after the election?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
59

I have to admit that I'm leery of using the word "liberal" and of claiming too much of an agenda. I want to cement in place the idea that the Democratic Party is the natural home of moderation, because I think it's true, because I think it's electorally useful, and (admittedly) because I'm pretty moderate.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
60

Yeah, I don't so much care about reclaiming the word "liberal"; I just want to rebrand Republican to mean "religious fanatics and neo-Confederates" in the public consciousness. Running against that is easy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
61

TAP had an article recently about Dems using the tools the Repubs have created in Congress. Definitely worth a read:

The Way of the Hammer


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
62

Bad link.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
63

Yes indeed, a very bad link. Try this:

The Way of the Hammer


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 10-31-06 9:19 PM
horizontal rule