Carville freaking out over dems' rebirth

First his enemy Howard Dean becomes DNC chair, now the dems are fighting Bush on Soc. Sec., maybe Mary is witholding sex until the dems back down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15356-2005Mar7.html

The opening round of the Social Security debate has played out just the way Democrats had hoped, with President Bush on the defensive, Republicans in Congress divided and Democrats united in their opposition to the centerpiece of Bush's plan, voluntary personal accounts.

But at a time when many Democrats are congratulating one another, others are beginning to worry that their strategy of rigid opposition has not begun to pay any political dividends and that Bush could yet outflank them before this fight is over.

The party's situation was posed most provocatively by two veteran Democratic strategists, Stan Greenberg and James Carville. In a memo issued last week, the two wrote: "We ask progressives to consider, why have the Republicans not crashed and burned?"

"Why has the public not taken out their anger on the congressional Republicans and the president?" they added. "We think the answer lies with voters' deeper feelings about the Democrats who appear to lack direction, conviction, values, advocacy or a larger public purpose."

More…

I thought it was short-sighted, overthought and just plain dumb.

counted - without fraud or "error" - and we get a fairer media

the positions Dem's take will not affect control of the Congress or the Whitehouse. In today's world only in "open seats" are even possible changes in power possible - and with today's media, it is harder for Dems than for the GOP.

I join is your thought that Carville is wrong on this one.

Let's just wait and see what happens in the '06 elections, and then we will see who crashes and burns.
That seems like a totally incoherent statement.

with Clinton. He has no wisdom, no special gifts or talents. Anymore, I find him very boring.

Timing is sure an issue. Remeber during the campaign when the Clinton people were advising Kerry to concentrate on the economy? Bad advice post 9/11. The majority of voters agreed with the Democrats on virtually every issue, but still voted Republican due to a mistaken belief they'd do better on national security.

Figiting over Social Security may help. The more of a difference voters see ecoomic issues, the more they might vote on such issues, but Democrats still need to close the national security gap.

They started advising him in September after the RNC when Bush was for the first time in the 50's and Kerry was in the low 40's. After Clinton's people took over it was back to the even race that it was before the convention season.

after the NYU and Philadelphia speeches in late September on Iraq and Terror and then really went up after the first debate. Clinton mainly advised him to push economic issues.

is Perot split the vote 3 ways so that Clinton could slide in with 43%. Clinton didn't get 50% in his 2nd run, so let's give Carville what he deserves - not much.

And I ask you to point me to a study (other than one conducted by Republicans) that says otherwise. Whether Carville had anything to do with it is another story but Perot was a centrist former who unquestionably took a lot of votes from Clinton as well as Bush.

This idea that Perot took only votes away from conservatives is something fed to us by the elite CONSERVATIVE media to make Clinton look bad. It is pure bullshit, and don't fall for what Falwell would have you believe. We must first look at how different Perot was from Bush. He was more different from Bush than Clinton. He was a PRO CHOICE ACTIVIST. He was also the biggest anti NAFTA crusader, something both Clinton AND Bush AND Dole supported. He is where the nader liberals went before Nader became big, to oppose NAFTA. So liberals and Dems DID vote for him. That is to say yes he did take votes from Bush, but roughly the same as Clinton. Bush's numbers were at all time lows in 1992, so without Perot why would they have voted for him anyway? It was well under fifty, and with 2004 being the abberation with terrorism, so he would have lost. The exit polls showed in 92 that voters for Perot would have split equally between Clinton, Bush and NOT VOTING. For 96, Clinton was above 50 for almost the whole campaign. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/ Read those tracking polls, and http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html read the exit polls. Go to the question "vote if perot was not running" Clinton STILL wins, 50-43, thus translating into 54-46 if 50 divided by 93. Read http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/10.23-11.2.html and go to the question asking Perot voters their second choice, and Clinton wins in a landslide. Conservatives would obviously have you believe that Clinton wasn't really that popular. They are just whiners who cheat to win, and whine like hell if they don't.

he was a very good political strategist. He helped get Clinton through some major crises.

Anyone who thinks Carville doesnt know his stuff go out and rent or buy, "The War Room". It breaks down the 1992 campaign very well and proves how Carvilles leadership and ideas helped lead Bill Clinton to victory in 1992. He helped Bill Clinton overcome the Flowers and Draft scandal. Two issues that would have de-railed any other political campaign.

hell outta me right now!

Carville wrote one of the best popular books defending the Democratic agenda I've ever read: "We're Right, They're Wrong." I would think Social Security would be one issue he thinks it's worth going to the mat on.

I've read his books too, including the one he co-wrote with Mary. Maybe she has finally dug her claws in his brain.

... someone whose time has come and gone.

A bit of advice, Mr. Carville: Try to go out with your reputation intact. Carping, whining and taking pot-shots at fellow Democrats is only going to strip you of any respect you may have earned, and undermine your place in history.

See, James and these other guys have to see that factionalist, NOT necessarily centrism is the reason Dems haven't controlled both houses of congress for 10 years. For example, in 1993 there were 57 dems in the senate, and only 50 voted for the Clinton economic plan. There should have been unanimously 57 voted for it. Gore had to break the tie. The Democrats have to learn to be UNITED. On almost evey issue. And they must all go with the party. They have to see, we are becoming more grassroots, and defined on the issues. It's time to get with the program.

Dems have to be for something instead of always against things. It's not enough to be anti-Bush. We proved that last year.

He's right when he says that the Dem message must be simple, and honest, and positive. He's frequently wrong when he suggests what the message should be, but he's always been dead on regarding how the message should be presented.

And he's right when he says that the Dems will ultimately lose the fight over SS unless they figure out how to carry the message forward from here. Obstructionism only goes so far...

and learned is that the Dems are standing United to protect SS from being turned into private accounts that will be stolen by wall street. Not to mention the trillions of $$$$$ to overhaul it and bust it in the process which is what chimpy and his syndicate want.

as far as it goes. But so long as the argument is just about the private accounts and nothing else, neither side is addressing the long term solvency issue. The solutions for long term solvency are fairly minor in scope, and easily explained, but the Dems aren't pushing them very hard yet.

AARP is hinting at it in their tv ads, but even they don't explicitly address it. Right now the Repubs can say that the Dems have no plan for the future of SS. We both know that's not true, but the more they say it, the more people believe it.

Eventually, we have to shift that around. Put forward the common sense Dem plan for the long haul, and then we can really hammer private accounts for not being a solution to solvency (in fact, they make the problem worse), and slam the Repubs for not having any plan to actually save SS.

and the India's, Brazil's, China's, Russia's are growing like at 5% growth. Wouldn't you want your stocks there? That being said there is no reason to destroy the SS. You just adjust it to that new reality.

That is what Carville means. Greenspan and others will not talk about how low growth will be for the US because talking about it alone may cause a panic and distrust and a recession. So they keep quiet about the low growth all industrial nations (okay Canada may do okay since it is such a resource bitch).

Very frustrating that they are discussing SS - without discussing SS & the growth rates they assume for the future. That USA treasury bonds will be crap or even not issued. And if US treasury sells bonds then it becomes a big ower. And you do not want to be in debt when there is deflation.

So there could be a myriad of reasons why Carville is saying this about SS. Personally - they want to pass new laws based on future predictions about growth inside the USA vs. Outside the USA and they do not want to cause a panic by saying it outright.

why all the ghosty stuff. In that case Carville does have a point that Democrats have to come up with a plan based on Democratic goals (to not gut the idea of shared risk in being an American). Or we are left with Bush & the elites making all the plans for the future. That hasn't worked in the last 20 years. At least not in our favour.

There has been no rebirth. All that has been seen is near-record unanimity in opposing private accounts within the Social Security. While it's nice to see, it reminds me a bit of Churchill's comment on Dunkirk: wars are not won by retreats.

I don't think the sole job of the opposition is opposition. It's just one role. The real business of the Democratic opposition should be to offer a positive program that starts the long, slow haul of reversing the income/wealth inequalities of the last 30 years or so. Maybe the GOP will kill it and maybe not. But advancing, or trying to, legislation through Congress is one way to draw a real distinction for voters and show them real GOP values.

However, he and others did provide some important advise. We as democrats must have a clear direction, we must have conviction in our beliefs and stop pussyfooting around the issues. It is the biggest stick we give our oppoents and they smash us with it at every turn.

and you are exactly right. Hate him or not, Carville ran one hell of a campaign in 1992 and he showed that for Democrats to win, they have to have a message-driven campaign. Even in 1996, when it was a sure bet Clinton would beat Dole, you still had a compelling message. But in 2000, what was Gore's message? Where were the compelling messages in the 2002 mid-terms? And what the hell was Kerry's message (other than I'm an alternative to Bush)?

It's time to stop playing cute with the voters by hiring high-priced consultants (like eight-time loser Shrum) that confuse parroting back voter poll results with a coherent, inspiring campaign message. We Democrats have the advantage here. In poll after poll, voters will support liberal positions if you don't actually use the liberal position. So, they are receptive to our message. We just need to be bold and redefine Democratic to our advantage. It's the Republicans that have to hide their true agenda so all it takes is a concerted effort by the Democrats to expose their true agenda and push the Democratic agenda. :kick:

The man you are speaking of no longer exists.

Whenever the republicans take a step or two backwards, they simply run a fear campaign to suck in more poll numbers. A very high percentage of americans are swayed using simple psychology.

fear of terrorism
fear of North Korea
fear of Iran
fear of Islam
fear of liberalism
fear of homosexuality
etc
etc
etc

According to the Carville quote

"Why has the public not taken out their anger on the congressional Republicans and the president?" they added. "We think the answer lies with voters' deeper feelings about the Democrats who appear to lack direction, conviction, values, advocacy or a larger public purpose."

He's not criticizing the Dems position on SS per se, he's criticizing the fact that their response to R's on the issue has been so tepid and vague. He's saying Dems have no clear concise policy or message to promote right now.

that is broadcast in this country. The media is NOT the same as it was in 1992, James. Wake up and smell the corporatism.

Even his star, Clinton, is now believed to have been derelict of duty regarding Bin Laden, even though he had a book, promotional tour and a 9-11 commission report that proves it was Bush who was negligent.

But, the media portrays Clinton's presidency as frivolous, while portraying Bush's as holy and heroic. If Clinton can't cut through the media spin against him, how is ANY lesser known Democrat supposed to do it?

That is why it is IMPERATIVE for the Dems and the DNC to expose the GOP control over the media and the voting machines.

good let them become republicans - they LOVE the republicans message so much anyway

you asshat! I'll tell ya "why"..because the US mediawhores are excellent whores and a lot of the dems have been following your line of thinking..

It's so bizzare that the repukes kow tow to their base who are idiots and when you have a base that's using logic to save our Country..they're treated as imbeciles!

What more could you ask for than Bush's and republican congress numbers completely in the tank and getting worse every week!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.