Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Thomas Frank criticizes Kerry campaign

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group

paulk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:37 AM
Original message

Thomas Frank criticizes Kerry campaign

"What's the Matter With Liberals" - an essay by Thomas Frank
there's a thread on this over in GDP, and in the thread there's a link to the article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1742490

Now, I'm not sure what to think... I really thought Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas" was THE must read book of last year. But - this essay kind of irks me. I found his analysis shallow and unnecessarily biased against Kerry.

Hmmm...

Anyway - it's worth a read and I'd be interested in hearing what the other members of this forum think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

politicasista

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:44 AM
Response to Original message

1. The more I hear or read all this............

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 12:47 AM by politicasista

the more I feel like this was all a set up. Don't know why I feel that way. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:51 AM
Response to Original message

2. Frank identifies problem but not solution

My impression of this article goes along with what I felt about his book. The book does a good job of identifying some of the problems with the success of the right and is therefore worth reading, but he did a poor job of identifying solutions. Therefore I'm not surprised to see that he did a poor job this article.

His argument (which really didn't follow from the earlier portion of his book) comes down to believing the Democrats should be further to the left economically. Therefore it is not surprising he disapproves of Kerry's campaign which wss more centrist on economic issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlueIris

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. Good point about Frank's book.

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 04:32 AM by BlueIris

Which I really enjoyed for the way it revisited the successes that Progressives had in making their message popular...BETWEEN THE LATE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY. Dr Ron, you totally nailed the major problem I had with it though, which was finishing it and going: Well, now what?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. Now what?

That's the hard question.

I think Frank was wrong when he criticizes Democrats for not being far left enough on economic issues. That's now why people didn't vote for Kerry. Republicans knew it doesn't help Dmeocrats to be considered liberal on economic issues. That's why they repeatedly try to label Democrats as being even more liberal than they are, such as with the claims Kerry was the number one most liberal Senator in the Senate.

I think Democrats need to do more to shake the tax and spend image, making it clear that the old divides on economic issues are no longer accurate. The real division economically is now on GOP support for corporate welfare and irresponsible spending/deficits. Kerry should have done even more to stress his long standing support for small business. Kerry tried to use out sourcing, and this issue may help in the future. I think that this year too many people voted out of fear of terrorism, and the false belief that Bush was keeping us safer. Polls showed that most actually agreed with Kerry on economic issues, and it really isn't necessary to change this message much (other than to do more to get through the GOP spin).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #2

16. Agree on problem, not the solution

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 10:33 AM by karynnj

I found the beginning of the book, where he talks about the problem of the Republicans using cultural issues to win the evangelicals over to vote against their economic good, very insightful. He then described how having pushed these abrasive cultural issues, the RW never delivers on them, instead they cut taxes for the wealthy. My problem is that after clearly explaining the problem his solution appears to be to move to the left economically to make the difference between the parties more apparent. But, the problem he just articulated is that the people are voting their values, not their economic interests - it's not that they don't understand that the Democrats are often better for them economically, it's that they are giving more weight to non-economic issues.

He also ignores the cases on the other side of people voting against their economic interests. As a Jew, I had often heard Jews proudly explain that they vote against their aggregate economic good because of their values. This was often expressed (in a not too PC way) as "Jews earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans". In reality, this can be said for all upper middle class and upper class liberals. If we can feel pride that we vote against our economic interests to help those less fortunate than us, we should be able to see that the evangelicals are knowingly voting against their economic interests to vote for a more moral world.

The Wallis book actually then has a better solution to the problem eloquently presented in What's the matter with Kansas". The Wallis book explains how Democrats can show their moral values. It fits a candidate like Kerry well - because he, more than most candidates, has been driven by doing what he thinks is right, even when it wasn't the easiest or most popular thing to do. (Looking at their lives, Kerry is by far the more moral man running last year.) The real question would be whether those culturally conservative voters are really voting on making our society more moral, in terms of how we treat our citizens and how we act in the world or if they are voting on a couple of narrow issues that are of upmost importance to them.

I would love to believe that it was the former (wanting the US to be a moral nation), but I really fear that it may be the latter. They knew (accurately) that Kerry if elected, would pick judges that would keep Roe vs Wade. They think Bush will do otherwise, although as Frank points out, the Republicans rarely deliver. On gay marriage, Bush said he would back a constitutional amendment, but nothing has been said about this since the election. Bush and Kerry both backed Civil unions, but I think Bush's base assumed that Kerry would really do something while Bush won't. Unfortunately, for people who wanted to vote conservatively based on only these 2 issues, they DID vote logically.

The Republicans may have feared that some of these people may have been looking at a broader agenda as evidenced by their ads that attacked Kerry's character and made ridiculous claims that he would take away their Bibles - ignoring the fact that he reads one himself. (Maybe Kerry should have suggested a debate on the Bible between himself and Bush - he would have won that one too.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #16

19. Just so, just so

But Kerry has made admirable progress in fighting this and should be applauded for this. How many recent speeches have you heard (since the election) where Kerry has quoted St. Paul and said "faith without works is dead." He invariably also states that he should have said this more often in the general election. The guy learned something. Ahm, Bravo anyone? How can you admit you learned something and would have done something differently if you didn't do anything wrong and have no reason to adapt?

Isn't this the reason for the change in language on the pro-choice side. (That will leave Dems open to abandonment charges from the left.) The political positions haven't changed. But the way they are being talked about have. No one is pro-abortion. We believe in 'safe, legal and rare.' Kerry should have said this endlessly last time. He learned something. This is how it will be talked about going forward. (Because it's more accurate, more acessible and more logical. Dems are not the party of abortion. We are the party of finding means of preventing abortion through sane birth control, safe family planning and using abortion as a last resort.)

I don't get the criticism of Frnak. He is not part of the problem for the Dems. He is making good suggestions for getting out of the hole.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #19

23. Compare and contrast

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 12:21 PM by TayTay

I swear, somebody learned something:

Oct 8th, 2004: 2nd Pres Debate:

DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.

BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.

I agree that that was difficult to parse. I understood it, but I come from the same background. The country found it confusing.

April 20th, 2005: Kerry floor speech:

What does it tell you when an embattled majority leader of the House is willing to go on talk radio and attack a Supreme Court Justice, let alone a Supreme Court Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan, confirmed by a nearly unanimous Senate, a Justice who ruled in favor of President Bush in Bush v. Gore? Ronald Reagan's nominee to the highest court in the land cannot even escape Tom DeLay's partisan assaults. Yet here on the floor of the Senate there is no outcry, no moderating Republican voice willing to say this shocking attack has no place in our democracy.

I guess none of this should be a surprise when the majority leader announces what he is going to do on this Sunday. The majority leader plans to headline a religious service devoted to defeating, and I quote, ``a filibuster against people of faith.''

Mr. President, I resent that. I am a person of faith, and I do not believe we should lose our right to have a filibuster to stop things that we disagree with, according to the rules of the Senate. It has nothing to do with faith. And when the leader of the Senate questions how any Senator applies their faith in opposing procedures of the Senate, we are going too far. You go beyond endangering the rules that protect the cherished rights of the majority and the minority; you wind up challenging the foundation of our democracy and of how this Senate is supposed to work.

Make no mistake, this may be an isolated issue, but the rights of the minority are fundamental to our democracy. Many people have written that the real sign of a democracy is not the rights of the majority. It is the rights of the minority that are, in fact, a signal of a truly strong and vibrant democracy, and diluting those rights is a threat to that vibrancy.

Forces outside the mainstream now seem to effortlessly push Republican leaders toward conduct that the American people do not want in their elected leaders--inserting the Government into our private lives, injecting religion into debates about public policy when it does not apply, jumping through hoops to ingratiate themselves to their party's base--while, step by step and day by day, real problems that keep Americans up at night fall by the wayside here in Washington.

We each have to ask ourselves, Who is going to stop it? Who is going to stand up and say: Are we really going to allow this to continue? Are Republicans in the House going to continue spending the people's time defending Tom DeLay, or are they going to defend America and defend our democracy?

Will Republican Senators let their silence endorse Senator Frist's appeal to religious division, or will they put principle ahead of partisanship and refuse to follow him across that line? Will they join in an effort across the aisle to heal the wounds of this institution and begin addressing the countless challenges that face this Nation? It is time to come together to fulfill our fundamental obligations to our soldiers, our military families who have sacrificed so much. It is time to bring down gas prices and to move America toward less dependence on foreign oil. It is time to find common ground to cover the 11 million children in this country who have no health insurance at all. Are we willing to allow Washington to become a place where we can rewrite the ethics rules to protect TOM DELAY but sell out the ethics of the American people by refusing to rewrite a law to provide health care to every child in the country? Are we willing to allow the Senate to fall in line with the majority leader when he invokes faith, all of our faiths over here? JOE LIEBERMAN is a person of faith. HARRY REID is a person of faith. They don't believe we should rewrite the rules of the Senate. And we certainly should not allow this to be an issue of people who believe in the Constitution somehow challenging the faith of others in our Nation.

Are we going to allow the majority leader to invoke faith to rewrite Senate rules to put substandard extremist judges on the bench? Is that where we are now? It is not up to us to tell any one of our colleagues what to believe as a matter of faith.

I can tell you what I do believe though. When you have tens of thousands of innocent souls perished in Darfur, when 11 million children are without health insurance, when our colossal debt subjects our economic future to the whims of Asian bankers, no one can tell me that faith demands all of a sudden that you put the Senate in a position where it is going to pull itself apart over the question of a few judges. No one with those priorities has a right to use faith to intimidate any one of us.

It is time we made it clear that we are not willing to lie down and put this narrow, stubborn agenda ahead of our families, ahead of our Constitution, and ahead of our values. The elected leadership in Washington owes the American people and this institution better than this.

What is at stake is far more than the loss of civility or the sacrifice of bipartisanship. What is at stake is our values, both as a country and an institution, respecting the rights of the minority, separation of church and state, honesty and responsibility.

Compare and contrast. Somebody learned something about making definitive statements that are easy to parse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #23

28. Wow, also he's talking about a broader,

more complicated issue in the Senate speech. The other thing is the noticeable difference in PASSION. I loved his debate answer, but like you I grew up Catholic, so it sounded right. But seeing that abortion was clearly an emotional issue for the woman who answered it, his answer may have seemed to sterile.

I wonder if Kerry's answer may have partially been due to his need to walk a tight rope on this issue between his religion and his political positions. As it was the conservatives in his church were pushing that it was a sin to vote for him and the most ardent feminists felt he didn't defend abortion enough.

The only thing I didn't understand was why the President couldn't decipher the response.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #28

33. Cuz * is an idiot

And it expressed a complex thought. * doesn't like complex thoughts, they give him a headache. They make the brain work and that really, really hurts. (The zombies in 'Night of the Living Dead' who are looking for brains would pass him on by.)

Well, except when he wants to steal other people's ideas, like he did when he was asked what the biggest peril was to the world today and he answered, ah, what Kerry said on loose nukes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ginnyinWI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #28

36. Bush wanted to show he was on the side of the average person

who was also having a hard time understanding.

"That George Bush, he thinks just like me, hyuk, hyuk!" I mean, this underscores Frank's point. Bush knew to always portray Kerry as an elite or a liberal any chance he could. So Kerry giving a complicated answer played into Bush's hands--it was kind of like Reagan's "There you go again!" but not done as effectively, of course.

In a way, you can say that Bush won the debates by losing: he lost the debates on points, but he convinced the average red-state-type voter that he was a regular guy. For every educated person who was very impressed with Kerry in the debates, there was another who was suspicious of intellectuals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #36

53. Comment on the debate was interesting

I don't think Bush won them, because Kerry was pretty far down in late September and it would have been a landslide if the debates were a wash. But I think you do answer a question I've had since the debates which was how anyone who was not an ardent partisan could have voted for Bush after seeing him in the 3 debates.

Imagine you were hiring someone for a job and he acted as vacant as Bush did in the first, or as aggressive as in the second, or he gave completely irrelevant answers as he did in the third, would you have recommended hiring him? I had concluded that maybe the answer was that there were a large number of people who were either ardent partisans or didn't watch any of the debates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #53

58. Brain-washing. Severe brain-washing

Sigh! The debates were nearly enough. But, that brings us back to Thomas FRank and his point that they Rethug voters were innoculated against common sense and voting in their own best interests by all those factors he enumerated.

Ken Mehlman has stated that if the debates were held two weeks later than they were, Kerry would have won. Damn! (Well, that plus the Osama tape.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #19

25. I think Kerry has made progress on this

I liked how in the Senate speech last week, he not only took issue with people trying to use faith to intimidate him, but expanded the definition of values to include those from our constitution. The Republicans have acted as though all values come from the Bible. American values coming from the constitution and everything that grew from it are enourmously attractive in and of themselves. Various other countries from widely different cultures used ideas from our declaration of independence and constitution as models for their own government. As the Republicans have walked away from these concepts, Democrats need to grab them, brand them and claim them - as the Republicans have done with the Bible.

Kerry's speeech was really about American values more than just the narrower religious values. I wish the media would have covered it, but the lack of coverage may be because it really did hit a lot of issues very very well. Kerry seemed to anticipate this by sending the shorter video that talked about some of the same things. I hope he puts out the text of the speech as given. It was cool that TAY TAY's summary of what the MA pols were told showed some of this even earlier. I now understand the comment that Kerry is a person who learns.

If Kerry succeeds in making the Republicans alliance with extremism more obvious, it will fit nicely with his comments on bipartisan government and what American values are. Oddly, it may be to Kerry's advantage that he is not getting the media coverage he deserves, but is still able to get his message out to supporters. Kerry's message seems to be getting progressively better and it's possible that Kerry may for the second time emerge from under the media's radar as a primary victor simply because he is saying things that resonate and don't sound old. I don't see any of the other candidates, including Hillary, who has been trying to re-frame issues, looking at values in such a broad way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #25

27. Exactly

He got better. Way better. The floor speech is clear and full of declarative sentences. "I am a person of faith." I don't love this as a religious statement, but because it's simple, strong and complete. There is a wonderful element of 'don't screw with me' in this as well. Bravo, Bravo!

How does this tie in with Frank? Well, it is stronger and doesn't sound snobby (I hate that phrase) at all. It sounds like a fighter who is angry about a complete injustice. That injustice is perpetrated on the Senate. For now. I can see that type of rhetoric being turned to other issues that more directly involved the people who are actually being screwed around with by the Rethugs. Stay Tuned.

(Am I nutty? Am I seeing things that aren't there? Does anyone else see this progress in speech, outlook and focus? No body died and made me Gawd, so I could be wrong. Anybody?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ginnyinWI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #27

34. injustice is right

I do see a righteous indignation over the injustice he sees all around him. It's what got him going in 1971, and it's what gets him going now. It's so wonderful that he's speaking out like this now, because the Democrats need a strong voice of opposition desperately, and I don't see anyone else doing it. Well maybe Harry Reid, Howard Dean to some extent. But Dems need the American people to know that we have a very strong moral core, and Kerry is the man for it! Because he got all of those votes and has national recognition, and because he's got that deeply ingrained sense of moral principles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #34

37. Ditto.

Exactly so. I was reading Liberal Oasis this morning, and was really distressed to find that the usual suspects - Biden, Dodd, Salazar, and Holy Joe - are talking about finding a compromise on the nuclear/filibuster issue. I wanted to scream NO!!!!!!!!!!! He said even Reid is thinking about compromise (though maybe that's a red herring. I sure hope so.)

When do these idiots realize there is no compromising with these people (and I use that word loosely. Humanoid is probably more accurate). They lie, they cheat, they do whatever the hell they please. John Kerry is among the handful of senators I feel are speaking for me, personally. And I love the passion. Can you tell I feel that way too?

Okay, rant over...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #27

35. I see what you see (though sometimes only after you say it)

It also ties in with some of the people saying they would support the Kerry of 1971. The Kerry of 1971 was driven by outrage at the wrongs being done in our name. In the campaign, I think he was the same person but he was expressing his vision for the country most of the time. The tone was different because the circumstances were different.

I think his outlook and focus if he runs in 2008 will be that of an activist leading people who are determined to take their country back from a narrow group of extremist. From this, the tone and the speeches will be more impassioned, with stronger clearer sentences.

It's way too early, but what's interesting to me is that all the other 2008 people seem to be moving to the center and especially on Iraq are really betting on Iraq getting better. Kerry is, not budging on the political spectrum but is clearly pushing activism, although clearly not the punky Moveon.org activism. His example seems to be the positive, successful activism of the environmental movement. If Kerry is clearly to the left of his main opponents (who are fighting for the center), he might really surprise people in the early primaries. He nearly won last time, so they can't rule him out as to left (like Kuchinich) and the primary voters are more liberal than all Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #35

38. Interesting point.

I've noticed that too. It's interesting positioning, but since it's also where his personal politics really fall, it's probably also comfortable for him. He can speak straight and in his normal voice.

I imagine if he does run again it will only be as his authentic self, free of outside consultants. I imagine he'd only use people he trusts and who know him well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ginnyinWI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #38

44. I don't think he'd do it any other way.

His principles run too deep for him to compromise any of them. Kerry isn't Kerry without them! This is a man motivated primarily by his principles, because he's not in this for personal power or any of the shallower reasons people get into politics.

I love this thread: I keep trying to read through it without posting a response, then cave in and respond, then start all over from the top! :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #38

54. I hope you are right

I would love to see him run like that. He really is the type of leader we would need after Bush. He seems to be speaking so well in the Senate this month and he saying things that are completely different in scope then anyone else.

Even at the Bolton hearings, in addition to making the case that Bolton perjured himself to the committee. He was the one concerned that they need a closed hearing so they don't hurt any of the people speaking out and bemoaning the fact that the committee has lost its longtime spirit of bipartisanship. (He clearly was the most statesman like, which is why I found the comments wishing he would have a Vietnam flashback and would attack Lugar very preposterous, but funny as I couldn't picture it. Something tells me Kerry's strongest weapon is words.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #16

21. Well said!

(and happy passover!) :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #21

22. You too!

Happy Pesach! (Gut Yontiff!)

All the best. Did you have a big Seder?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #22

24. Not really ;-)

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 12:16 PM by whometense

We are ridiculously "alternative" in our observances. In fact, our seder is going to be tonight, as my son will be in town for a rehearsal. Our traditional seder consists of a lot of bad wine, traditional food things, and major hilarity. No haggadah. :blush:

My husband comes from an ultra-orthodox family (and, in fact, went to rabbinical college. It didn't take). Lots of hypocrisy on parade, and so we're the family rebels.

What about you??

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #24

30. Cathojews or Jewolics, I can't decide!

We will celebrate any holiday that centers around food or presents. (And we are thinking of getting heavily into Chrismakah next year!)

We haven't had a Seder yet. My hubby was raised Orthodox and I was a Catholic. And we didn't get invited anywhere this year so I would have had to cook. So we had a Rotisserie Chicken, some wine (but not MadDog, I can't drink MadDog.) And we did variations of the 4 Questions.

We have an interesting life, but not one that is very strictly observant. (No wonder we are Dems!)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #30

32. Truly.

Sometimes I think if I had to name our family religion, it would be "Don't tell me what to do."

Not a favored attitude by the orthodox. But most definitely Dem! :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #24

40. Our Passover was even weirder this year

My middle daughter has been attending an eastern Orthodox church and Saturday was one of the days when converts could be welcomed and baptized in the service. So Friday morning we and many of her friends, teachers, etc attended her baptism and then had everyone back to the house for a vegan lunch. (Vegan because of the Lenten fast - fish would have been OK but my daughter didn't want it.)

Then after everyone left and I cleaned up. Obviously we did even less than usual to make the house kosher for Passover. My youngest daughter and I quickly got out all the stuff for passover and got everything out for a Seder. It was just my immediate family - and other than the fact that my newly Christian daughter thought we should use the old traditional haggadas rather than the inclusive, pluralistic Reconstructionist one that she dislikes - it was fine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #40

41. I think your family wins

the diversity prize! :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #41

43. Hands down!

In June I have a Bat Mitzvah to attend, my nephews are playing in a Christian Rock Band at their Protestant Church and my other neice is being confirmed. Hope I don't mix up the greeting cards.

But you win. That is multiculturalism with a vengeance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #41

48. My parents deserve most of the credit

They raised 9 of us as Catholics; but have accepted all our choices on religion, sexuality, life styles and other things. We are now spread across the country but get together for annual reunions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ginnyinWI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #16

29. I like your logic, Karyn

It's true: how can we win on economic issues if people vote on values issues? Kerry talked himself hoarse about economics, but some people weren't convinced. And you are very right about the liberals who voted against their economics because of the greater importance of values like peace, respect for the elderly, and responsibility to children and the poor.

Bush voters were made to fear what the left would do on those few narrow issues, because they generalized it to a kind of "who knows what they'll do next" kind of thinking. They were continually pounded by the right on the dangers of the "liberal elite". That's how the right got its base out to vote.

Fear is a fantastic motivator! It beats even anger.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #29

45. People don't vote only on values issues

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 01:55 PM by Dr Ron

"It's true: how can we win on economic issues if people vote on values issues?"

The nature of the post election polls made values seem more important by lumping several issues together, while economic issues were separated out more. Besides, if not for the benefits of incumbency and the false belief that he's better at keeping us safe from terrorism, Bush would not have won.

The right wing social values could ultimately be what causes the Republicans to lose. Andrew Sullivan warns about the dangers to Republicans of going in with the religious right in TNR today. These values issues could help the Democrats win in the west. Rather than trying to imitate the Republicans on values, they need to stress values such as individual liberty and opposition to the Republicans' increased intrusion in peoples lives. See the LA Times today which has an editorial on Democratic prospects for taking the west.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #45

50. Definitely Agree

The Republicans tried to make the Democrats seem way out of the mainstream on values last year. But you can get out of the mainstream on either end - in fact, Kerry used the word extremist of extreme in referring to the RW several times in his speech.

I live in an old Republican county, where Kerry did MUCH better than Gore did 4 years before. The reason was that the RW extremist religious values were very scary to many people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:47 AM
Response to Original message

3. They lie

His theories only really work if you ignore the fact that they LIE.
Which Frank ignores better than anybody I've ever seen. Not to mention he appears to not be a fan of the Democratic Party either, as he repeats alot of the tired old Deaniac corporate Dem crap too.

He seems to think these people would have stampeded to Kerry if he'd only run an anti-corporate campaign. I guess he missed it when these same people support, yes support, free trade. I've heard it with my own ears, I bet lots of you have too. The problem is liberal regulation, doncha know. Less taxes and regulation, more trade, that's the answer. They don't connect the outsourcing to the words free trade. They don't connect an improved health system here with better opportunity to compete globally. Or weak treaty enforcement by Bush with increased difficulty in trade.

The one thing he does have right is the angst people have with the Democratic Party. He talks about it as if it's truth instead of something concocted by Republicans though. He talks about Kerry's background and Lowell, without acknowledging that the Lowell Sun was instrumental in spreading that garbage and slamming it into people's heads. If the Lowell Sun had called him the next FDR or Kennedy every single day, that's what the people would have believed. That isn't a Democratic Party problem, that's a media lying problem.

We do have to change that perception because Republican lies have made it a real problem, but I don't think it has been fairly earned. Not completely anyway. This article doesn't do a thing to point us in a new direction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlueIris

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 04:31 AM
Response to Original message

5. Fine. I'll post it. SHUT UP, THOMAS FRANK.

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 04:31 AM by BlueIris

How someone as allegedly perceptive as Frank is could criticize Kerry of all candidates boggles my mind. BOGGLES IT, people.

I...might be able to post more later when my brain isn't so fried. Perhaps I will. But I knew there was a reason that "What's the Matter with Kansas" was holding up my laptop right now and this latest essay is it. Dude...just shut up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #5

9. Frank has his own agenda

I think that Frank wants to push the Democrats more to the left on economic issues. Frank has a lot of interesting things to say, but is also on the wrong on the benefits of moving to the left economically.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #9

10. Maybe, but there are the trade agreements

The approval of NAFTA was the single biggest mistake the Dems made in the last decade and a half. The Dems carried Rethuglican water, took the heat from their working-class base about how this legislation would cost Americans jobs and looked like traitors in the eyes of a lot of lower-class workers. This has been a disaster for the Dem base. (Clinton backed this. He did immeasurable harm to the Dem Party for doing so. He should have been a better politician and figured out a way to make Rethugs carry their own water on trade law. This was a disaster that helped to lead to the Dem election debacle of 1994.)

There are openings in how to get better. Start with the trade protections that Kerry was talking about last week in the USTR hearings. (I know it's complicated, but it is talking about jobs and how we are exporting them with our trade policy, The average voter does get this, when it is translated out of acronym-ville.) Talk about getting some protection for both American jobs and for workers in foreign countries. This is economic talk that resonates with our base.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. Democratic economic issues don't have to mean far left

NAFTA has hurt, but Kerry has addressed looking at the problems there.

There are economic issues which differentiate Democrats from the Republicans, but this doesn't mean a movement to the left as Frank seems to want. (It is hard to say for sure as while he talks about Democrats like Kerry being too similar to Republicans on economic issues, he hasn't been clear in what I've read as to what he actually suggests.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #11

12. Frank has been criticized for not having a solution

But that's not his job. He is a social commentator and is identifying a trend he sees. It's not his academic job to propose the solution.

Frank's argument can also be distilled into an argument that Democrats have become too technocratic in how they play the game. We are so smart and have so many well-developed positions that we can put out so many positions papers on and so forth. It is worthwhile to focus on whether or not we have eliminated the passionate from the political. What does play, honestly and without condescension in West Virgina? Can we engage our own natural base in language that is understood without a dictionary? Can we put some passion back into politics. (I have complete faith that Kerry can. I saw it last week on the floor of the Senate.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #12

13. Can't totally get away saying its not his job

If Frank is going to criticize Democrats by saying they need to move further to the left, this is rather meaningless if he then avoids saying what he means by moving to the left with excuses like this is not his job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #13

14. It's his job to point out the problem

Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 10:13 AM by TayTay

as he sees it. he sees it as Dems abandoning their base in the last 40 years or so in order to rake in the easy cash of big money from Corporate donors. He is pointing out that this has had an effect of distancing the party form it's natural base. The base has gone elsewhere and has found in the Rethugs the soothing language that their troubles are caused by those stuck up, smarty pants people who have abandoned them and secretly make fun of them behind their back.

That is Frank's job to point out the above. That was a big job. He is an academic, not a pol. It is up to pols to think of the solution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #14

15. Can't divorce problem and solution

Trying to separate looking at solutions from identifying the problem might be the reason he has been incorrect in his recommendations.

He goes claim to have a solutoin when he says Democrats have to move to the left on economics. The problem is that this this is only a partioal answer when he does not be more specific. It is a lot easier to say to move to the left in generalities. The problem with this recommendation becomes clearer when you look for specifics. That's when you see where he is wrong. Kerry didn't lose because people didn't see him as not liberal enough on economics. The Republicans tried to paint him as being even more liberal than he is, knowing that this is what woud hurt hm.

Much of this is really irrelevant as the problem wasn't Kerry's position on economics. Kerry's economic positions did much better than Bush's in the polls. Changing his economic positions wouldn't have made those who disagreed on "moral issues" any more likely to vote for him. Plus the more important issue was terrorism, which was far more important than either economics or the so called moral issues. If Bush hadn't conned people into thinking he would do a better job in protecting them against terrorism, he would have lost badly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #15

17. Maybe, maybe not

There was a lot to be said on the terrorism as cause side. This is the side the New Yorker came down on in Dec of last year. I think this is part of the problem.

I already think Kerry is left on economics. (He has waxed and waned on this over the years, it's mostly a matter of emphasis.) I do think we have to reemphasize leftist stuff. Leftist stuff includes addressing the diminishing state of job benefits, the cost of health care and outsourcing. Whether or not your kid will have a job and where is a lefty issue. So is the cost of college and where the Pell Grants are. This is leftist stuff. I do think we need to go there. I also think we need to ween the party from corporate money. That is also lefty in nature. We also need to reinvigorate the grassroots and take the Dem Party back to it's roots. Those roots are lefty.

Centrism has run out of gas. This is normal. What are the centrist ideas that are out there that can lead the way because I sure don't see them. This certainly in no way means I have turned commie, but I see the reinvigorating ideas as being basically lefty in nature, not centrist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #17

18. Kerry more centrist on economics

Obviously these terms are pretty vague, allowing for disagreement as to how to label someone. Frank's criticism of Kerry and Democrats also is from the perspective of considering Kerry a centrist, believing the Democrats should be further to the left of where he is

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #18

59. I read his testimony on Portman

to be US Trade Representative. It was very interesting stuff. Kerry specifically stated that he is not inclined to vote for CAFTA at this point. (And he has voted for every trae agreement before him in the Senate, at least I think he said this.) The reason is that the economic safeguards are eroding. The people in Mexico, for example, are not better off after NAFTA than before it. And China and other Asian nations are not doing anything to make the trade agreements better. I think this is lefty-ish stuff. And a departure for Kerry.

I have the transcript of that hearing. It is long. Let me know if you want it. The best thing about transcripts are that they are searchable, so it doesn't take that long to find what you want to read.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #59

61. it makes sense, it's not all black/white

politics involves having policies that don't always turn out as intended. now that we know what has happened Kerry is the type that would look at those things and work on fixing it.

it's kind of like the don't ask don't tell policy concerning gays in the military. while intended to help gays in the military it has had the opposite results.

that's one of the things i like about Kerry. he is willing to learn and look at things to actually try to make things better and improve on things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ginnyinWI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:03 AM
Response to Original message

6. needs concrete solutions

When I read the article last night on AngryDem's site, I commented positively about it. But it left me depressed because it didn't offer much in the way of solutions.

They demonize our candidates, identifying them with "scary" social changes, while distracting them from the GOP agenda, which hurts them economically. We need to find a way to get this message out. It's got to be more than just putting out good candidates, because they will demonize them anyway!

John Kerry had nothing real they could hit him with, so they made up lies about him, attacking his military record and identified him with the "scary" social left--Michal Moore and Hollywood. Which he isn't. These tactics need to be neutralized, because they will be able to use them to damage anyone, no matter who we put up. Just being an honest candidate isn't enough, in this political climate. We need to do something more than criticize their policies.

I don't think we should return the same in kind and start lying about them. I do think we should expose their lying tactics. People who pay attention know a smear when they see one, but most people don't realize what's happening. They need to be shown clearly how they are being lied to by the right. And we should tell the truth about how damaging their policies are to middle class people--something Kerry has always done, and seems to be doing even more of now.

During the campaign Bill Clinton did a little of this, and I was glad to see it. In New Mexico he told the crowd, "They are trying to scare you..." We need to hear a lot more of this. When I would go out last year and try to tell people that the GOP was lying about Kerry, they just didn't accept it. We need to expose and neutralize these liars!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #6

47. That was their biggest mistake

Kerry need to make Bush's lying THE issue.

One theory is that it is bad to reply to lies because the response only gives the lie more coverage, and people often remember the lie and not hte response. This traditional wisdom is no longer valid. The right wing noise machine plays up their lies so well that any lie not responded to is widely considered trugh within 24 hours.

This leaves no choice but to respond--and respond ealry. In 2008 I'd even suggest monitoring the conservative blogs, message boards, and talk radio shows. Try to anticipate their lies even before they become part of the mainstream reports and refute them.

In 2000 the Republicans painted Gore as a lier with far less to use against him than there was against Bush. You can't win by being too polite to call a liar a liar. Kerry should have responded to every lie, and made a point of showing how lying is a major part of the Bush strategy--both in the election campaign and in pushing their policies from Iraq to Medicare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ginnyinWI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #47

49. yup

The sooner we can make the Republican campaign machine the "party that lies" or words to that effect, the better. We don't need to lie to the people to get their votes, but they do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #49

52. Plenty to tie that into

Besides their lies on policies and in the campagin, also tie this into DeLay's ethics, corporate welfare, government secrecy, and abuses of power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #47

55. I agree = from the story re the Iraq funding,

they had people monitoring all coverage of Kerry. The on;y thing I would disagree with is that for the most part, it would have been better to have someone other than the Presidential candidate always saying it was a lie - at least until it was accepted that Bush was lying. I don't know if it was lack of coverage, but Edwards would have been the logical one to do it. His pleasant personality and his ability to speak would have helped. This would keep Kerry somewhat above the fray.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #55

56. The important thing is getting out the message

The question is whether someone else could have received enough coverage beyond the candidate. Possibly the VP candidate, but Edwards was not the right person for tihs.

It might be possible for the candidate to do this without outright calling Bush a liar, such as when Reagan would use expressions like "there he goes again."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #56

60. Another instance of 'can't agree with you more'

The Dems need a version of the NewsHounds site: http://www.newshounds.us/ This was the website set up to monitor Fox News for the 'Outfoxed' movie that has been kept up and running. They need to start thinking about offense, not just defense. I would love to see that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:05 AM
Response to Original message

7. This is not going to make me Ms Popularity here but

Frank makes a number of compelling points. (We lost West Virgina. The Dems should not have lost WV. That is just flat-out crazy.)

Of course the Rethugs lie. They have always lied, that's Frank's point. But we know they are going to lie, what are we going to do to innoculate ourselves against the lie?

John Kerry's speeches lately have shown that he has read Jim Wallis' book 'God's Politics.' I think it's because there is some genuine wisdom in that book that will help Dems to get over the religious war that is being waged against them. It is not unreasonable to think that Kerry would look at what Frank has to say and see if there are any pearls of wisdom in it that might help in going to places like West Virginia and running a better campaign. (It was just too easy to pick Kerry off in WV. This has bothered me ever since. Again, we have no business losing WV. Those are our people.)

Frank's intention is to point out to Dems where they have blindspots and need to develop a better strategy. It's not personal. (It sounds personal because it sounds like Frank is attacking Kery for his personality and personal habits. It's not personal, it's just politics.) There is some genuine wisdom here. Don't be so leery of criticism that you throw out the advice of people who want to help you. They just might know something you don't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

europegirl4jfk

(734 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #7

20. I agree...

Reading the article I didn't see a personal attack on Kerry but a sharp and very depressing analysis of the situation on the ground. Whoever runs the propaganda war for the Republicans, is very, very good at it and knows exactly what a lot of people want to hear.

I just saw a report on TV the other day about Hitler, and the British author of a new book on him was sure that Hitler would have been considered a great Statesman and leader, had he been put out of power (killed or however) before he started WWII. That's the same situation with Bush. Unfortunately, it will take the Americans and in some kind the whole world a long time to realize how bad this really is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #7

26. Misinterpreting the problem

You live with rural people, alot of us do. I've lived in rural Montana & Oregon my whole adult life, with family in Arkansas. Most of what Frank says is nothing new to me at all.

Here's what gets me. I don't know anything about Frank, but I read an awful lot of news reports from the so-called "liberal elite". Reports that called windsurfing, skiing and snowboarding "elite". Frank buys into that same notion, seems to me. A liberal elite writer telling other liberals that the hicks think windsurfing, skiing and snowboarding are elite. What hogwash. These people who supposedly can't afford to ski or snowboard, CAN afford to snowmobile??? It's illogical. Playing in the snow, in a variety of ways, is as common a western activity as there is. I suspect the same is true in W Virginia and a host of other places. BUT the Republicans are masters at getting people to sneer at the "liberal elite" engaging in activities that those same people actually believe in.

Guns. Sure, there are militia types who think people should be able to have any gun they want. But most people, even in rural areas, think there should be sensible gun regulation. They tout conceal and carry laws, but all those laws have MORE regulation in them than there was previously. Frank takes these people at their word during a hyped up election season. You don't know what they really think unless you talk to them outside an election season, and talk to them as a local.

Yes, the Democratic Party has a perception problem. But people like Frank, and even Dean, look at that perception problem on the surface. They think the surface is the complete picture. It's not. Dean seems to think you have to convince people to vote on economics instead of religious values. Not going to happen. Trying to "triangulate" on abortion and gay marriage isn't going to work either. Because it's not about those issues anyway. It's about disrespecting traditional rural values; family, work, community. And when somebody like Frank says it's about things like whether or not a Presidential candidate skis, it's just further proof the liberals don't get it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #26

31. I actually agree on the skiing thing

I saw an interview between the Prince of Darkness (Novak) and some other talking head in New Hampshire last year before the DNC. The PofD asked a regular NH rube whether or not he thought Sen. Kerry was out-of-touch because he windsurfed. The regular NH voter gave him a funny look and said, "I make my living on a boat taking folks out to do these types of sports. I don't actually give a damn what sports he chooses to do. What does that have to do with anything." The PofD was kind of put out by that answer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #31

39. ha!

I know. I learned to windsurf in Montana. Nothing weird about it at all!

If a stranger shows up and asks somebody what they think of Democrats and guns, they'll get a canned response. I had that conversation with my b-i-l in Sept actually. I think it was those parents that had their kid playing with a gun that was on the news. He said those parents were at fault because they should have had their gun locked up. I know he expected me to go off on an anti-gun tirade. He was rather shocked when I agreed and said those are the kinds of gun regulations we should be talking about. He agreed. I've had that happen time and again. Sensible people who vote Republican don't have a problem with sensible gun regulation. But people like Frank and Dean only hear the canned response, so that's what they're basing their gun statements on. So we're going backwards on gun safety when we don't need to. We need to change the perception of Dems & guns; AND confront the Republicans, NRA lobby and their lies. Because if we go backwards on guns, then they'll just move in and create another wedge issue and tell more lies. That's what they do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #26

46. Work

I'm just taking from one of your list of rural values, but that is one which the Democrats could use to their advantage. By this I mean being rewarded for one's work. Show how the Republoicans are using political power to transfer money to the wealthy, while Democrats want to ensure that those who work hard are fairly rewarded for their work.

I'm not sur ehow much the wind surfing played into things. I bet that it was largely people who were already anti-Kerry who used that against him. Democrats might have done a better job showing how wealthy Bush and Cheney are. First try to negate Kerry's wealth as a disadvantage--both should start out more equal as both are affluent. Once you start out even, then you can point out how Bush's policies help the wealthy while Kerry's help virtually everyone but hte ultra-wealthy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #46

51. work hard, play by the rules

Edwards has that right. As I said in that other thread, that's what I liked about Kerry connecting service to his programs. Service builds communities too, which should have gone over well. But I think that got lost because some Dem somewhere cowered when it was called a liberal tax and spend program.

I was just using that windsurfing as an example of how easily people like Frank are duped into buying into stereotypes themselves. Republicans threw that out there and I heard plenty of Dems repeat it. I heard alot of people on DU getting into a tizz about Kerry skiing and windsurfing too. A virile outdoorsmen should have helped, but some of our own Dem consultants allowed themselves to get intimidated by the elite label. So we saw less of Kerry outdoors and stupid gun photo ops instead. Certainly it was used by anti-Kerry people, that's a big part of how they win. Having humiliating little jabs for people to throw around, to intimidate Democrats into silence.

Kerry's on now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #51

57. putting a positive/negative spin on what candidates do

one thing Republicans are good at is putting a positive spin on anything their candidates do. take Bush's ignorance of the issues and they turn that into "he is a regular guy" crap.

and with Dick Cheney who can easily be criticized for having no humour , being unattractive etc. they turn that into " at least he understands the job and the issues".

with Kerry , when he shows his knowledge concerning issues they say he is being elitist. and when he gets involved in sports they say he is a joke and not a serious candidate to deal with the issues affecting us. he just wants to go out and have fun and play around. never mind that these things contradict each other. just repeat the negative spin.

the problem is the Democrats repeat the right wing spin. the Republicans don't get hung up on the negatives, they emphasize the positives .

this is why a Republican who is part of "hollyweird" can do well such as Reagan against someone like Carter who pretty much had everything that people are now saying Democrats need.

Democrats always get the "OH MY GOD, they just said this about candidate x, what are we going to DOOOOOO" ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #57

62. Yep

And bringing us down into arguing about the mud slinging is exactly what they want. Keeps us off drumming the good points into people's heads. So we have campaigns about windsurfing or aloofness and they have campaigns about being tough on terrorism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #57

63. Terrific analysis.

the problem is the Democrats repeat the right wing spin. the Republicans don't get hung up on the negatives, they emphasize the positives.

Just so. Dems fight among themselves. Repugs march in lockstep.

One point I have to hand it to the repugs on - they don't waste precious time and energy waiting for the perfect candidate. They just spin the hell out of whoever they have. I wish the dems would learn from that. Pick the best person, and then act as though (s)he is perfect.

I still think Kerry got way less than stellar support from the Party. The whole campaign it just felt like he was out there all by himself. I still haven't forgiven Richardson either for his abandonment of the New Mexico recount effort or for his punditry that seemed to hurt a lot more than it helped.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-26-05 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #63

64. I so agree with you on this

The Republicans got behind Bush 100% in 2000, despite his many deficiencies and the nastiness with which he went after McCain. Last year, the Democrats were pathetic in getting behind Kerry. Kerry was a strong, intelligent, clean candidate who any Democrat could have been proud of, even if he was not their favorite.

The Democrats who continued to equate Bush and Kerry on Iraq, when it was very clear that Kerry absolutely would not have gone to war only helped Rove with the message that there was little difference on Iraq between Bush and Kerry. Even some of the surrogates seemed more concerned with themselves than supporting Kerry. (Biden, often a good surrogate, answered the $87 billion by saying that he (Biden) voted for it which was the right thing to do. This was not helpful. He could have clearly laid out Kerry's objections - He was asked about Kerry, not himself.)

Even now, listening to Air America, there is the view that we needed to be louder and listen more to the Michael Moores of the world. There is absolutely no sense of history - the Democrats were punished for years after 1968 because the Republicans tied the hippies to them. They ignore that after at least six years of wide spread protests on Vietnam, Nixon beat McGovern in a landslide.

Kerry's ability to seem polite while articulating major problems with Bush policies is probably what kept the election close. Even with this, more people thought Kerry was attacking than thought Bush was attacking. People who argue that Kerry should have spent his time yelling that Bush was a liar are ignoring the fact that he had to look Presidential.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-26-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #64

67. i agree, the debates helped a lot

it helped to put a lie to the crap about how Kerry did nothing other than attack Bush or that Kerry would rather be out windsurfing then deal with a serious job and helping fight terrorism.

it showed him as having a good understanding of the issues and as someone who could do the job. and polls showed people said he was more likable than Bush also.

but the thing is you need to reinforce these things. just as it wasn't just Bush saying he was tough on terrorism, it was the entire party on the same page with the same message. they didn't even try to compassionate conservative thing this time. it was just that bush is tough on terror. in 2000 it was compassionate conservative. never mind that these are mostly empty statements which tell nothing about specific policy.

they are just feel good sounding statements. i mean, who wouldn't want to be tough on terror?, or who would have a problem with compassionate conservative? of course the actual policies behind these things are anything but what they are desribed as. but it just shows the effectiveness of their strategy despite their actual policies being crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-26-05 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #51

65. My husband, seeing the picture of Kerry at the Hockey

Edited on Tue Apr-26-05 08:21 AM by karynnj

charity event in NH thought they should have used that. Ice hockey couldn't be seen as either elitist or weird and Kerry played well in the clip from New Hampshire. But, in reality if the Democrats were less defensive, they would have realized that what sports a candidate plays is irrelevant - they could have responded with information on how hard he worked in the Senate and said that he is a very athletic guy, who played 4 sports in college.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-26-05 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #65

66. i think it helped him with younger voters

he got a large majority of the younger voters. and younger voters are the least wealthy. i know many people who go on vacations , especially during spring , winter breaks to the mountains or beach and take part in these activities. it surprised me that it was even considered elitist. i mean, what the fuck?

in fact it's probably a lot more expensive and restrictive at many of the golf clubs politicians are a part of.

i always considered snow and water sports to be more open in terms of women participating also.

i do agree that it's the part where people get defensive that ends up hurting. you can easily reply by connecting his outdoors activities to his record on the environment and talking about how he just loves nature.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-26-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #66

68. Great Point

Edited on Tue Apr-26-05 10:19 AM by karynnj

There was a nice except of a letter that Kerry wrote in Vietnam (to David Thorne) talking about how he used the remembered beauty of the Swiss Alps for inspiration when he grew depressed. (from Tour of Duty) Then in the wind surfer article posted here some time ago, it was clear Kerry loves the sea and being outdoors.

You're right that golf is probably a more expensive, restrictive sport than most of Kerry's. Also, golf is played in a very artificial, manicured environment, usually involving lots of pesticide and fertilizer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-26-05 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #66

69. yeah.

in fact it's probably a lot more expensive and restrictive at many of the golf clubs politicians are a part of.

And besides, they're jealous. ;-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LittleClarkie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-25-05 01:38 PM
Response to Original message

42. I remember hearing him on one of the radio shows

I found his theories interesting, but his comments on Kerry's campaign left me cold. As you say, he shows his bias.

I know that it would be false to line up behind a candidate like the Repubs do, but I still don't understand why we seem to eat our own so often. How can a person be so critical of Bush, and yet look at our own candidate and whine that he isn't perfect. Hell, he's a damn sight better than Bush is. What purpose was ever served by indicating a lack of enthusiasm of Kerry. If some of us don't want him, how can we expect the undecides or crossover voters to get excited either.

So annoying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 02:04 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC