Gandelman To Kerry: “If It’s Broke, Do Fix It.”
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General PoliticsJohn Kerry is saying the Democratic party doesn’t need to become a second Republican party. Agreed.
However, The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman correctly points out that John Kerry seems to be missing the point.
Something about the Demcratic party’s pitch or appeal is not working. It isn’t true that the Democrats can just do what they’ve been doing and fight for issues. There has to be a realization that something about the party’s appeal somewhere has not quite worked. And it needs to be corrected.People will differ on the direction â€â€? right or left â€â€? but unless the Democrats want to keep losing the elections some kind of changes need to be made. And if it wasn’t the party’s course, Mr. Kerry, than perhaps the kind of change the Democrats need is not to nominate candidates who use political consultants who have lousy track records in winning national elections. That in itself is a damning statement on the kinds of choices said candidate if he got into office might make.
But just keep fighting for issues the same exact way? Karl Rove would love your idea.
As a Democrat, I feel the need to speak out for my party on this blog and beyond. However, Gandelman is dead solid perfect on this one and all us donkeys need to start wising up.
And as a commenter over at The Moderate Voice points out, the Republicans are going to need to make over their image too.
Imagine if a Democratic candidate could actually attract people to his vision and character instead of JUST standing as the opposition? The Democratic Party needs a lot of work in developing generalized appeal, especially at the slogan level. Now that the Republican mantra “Less government, strong defense and traditional values” has become bigger government, disaster in Iraq and, well, “traditional” values it is clear that they are going to need a makeover sometime soon as well. But as long as they’re in power, they won’t do it.
So is it the perfect time for the Dems to reconnect with their audience in a new, smarter way? I for one hope that my party is starting to realize the answer to that one.
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 20th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Gandelman’s right, Kerry’s wrong. However, Dem insiders are likely to concur with Kerry’s view. Not much will change. (The same is true on the GOP side, in the interest of being fair & balanced.)
August 20th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
It might be me- but I’ve listened lately to Newt Gingrich, and he strikes me as being a terribly innovative thinker, especially when compared to Bush or Kerry. He talks about real issues (health care, immigration, WOT) and actually engages them instead of parroting predictable Party dribble. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to do the same thing. What a concept.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Of course, the Democratic Party should look long and hard at how it’s perceived. But I really don’t think the problem’s as severe as it’s being presented. I think the Republicans have been beating the “Democrats can’t win elections” drum for so long that everyone’s buying into it. Not to rehash old news, but the Dems did get the most votes in 2000 (which I’ll stop mentioning when the Republicans stop talking about Clinton.) And I think 9/11 created a unique situation that caused voters to go for Bush on one issue (which the polls now seem to indicate they see as a mistake. Thanks a lot, guys.) There’s been so much misinformation, like the “values voters” all going for Bush, while meanwhile poll after poll finds the voters turning away from Republican stances on Iraq, Social Security and the economy. I’m not saying the Dems can skate, but all of this “party in crisis” talk is really annoying. I think Paul Hackett was a bellwether, and as long as Democratic candidates can stay on message there’s an excellent chance of regaining at least one house in the Legislature, as well as the White House. The voters aren’t totally stupid, and I think they see the Republicans as abusing their entrenched power, just as they viewed the Democrats in 94.
I do, however, agree that a lot of these beltway consultants have got to go. “May I be the first to call you ‘Mr. President’?” is a phrase that will stick in my craw for a long time.
August 21st, 2005 at 6:19 am
Chris commented: “I think Paul Hackett was a bellwether”
I don’t see how Democrats can think that losing another election is a positive result for the Democratic Party. He LOST!
Claiming victory in only geting beaten a little bit makes me think the Democrats have a lot of ground to make-up before they can seriously challenge Republican incumbents.
I do agree the Republicans are currently doing a fine job of derailing their momentum, but the Democrat’s message must become something a bit broader than – “we are not Republicans.”
August 21st, 2005 at 7:21 am
Chris, re your comment that Gore won more votes in 00 than Bush, we forget that ‘92, ‘96 and ‘00 were exceptional elections in that they focused on domestic policy only. Kerry’s comment glosses over the Dem’s single greatest weakness: foreign policy. Many believed that foreign policy was irrelevant post-1991. Until the Dem Party can articulate a policy of American strength abroad and a willingness to project that strength, it will flounder. In this arena, voters are more confident with GOP strength than Dem ambivalence. I like Joe Biden for just this reason. We’ll see how Hillary handles the issue.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Paul Hackett *was* a bellwether. It’s not about the Democrats being happy with only losing elections by a little bit. The political reality is that some seats are considered rock solid Republican, and some rock solid Democrat. Newt Gingrich said Hackett’s showing was a “wake-up call” for the Republicans. Do you think if Kennedy gets re-elected to his Senate seat by only three percentage points, the only Republican response will be “darn, we lost that election?” I suspect it will be a little more like “The Democrats are on the run, even in liberal Massachusetts!” There is such a thing as a moral victory in politics.
August 21st, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Game. Set. Match. You nailed it kreiz.
I think if you look at Hillary’s record on foreign policy, she’s more hawkish than most of her liberal contemporaries. And if I remember correctly she advised Kerry to vote for the $87 billion (before he voted for it and then against it), and he ignored her.
August 21st, 2005 at 4:41 pm
That’s exactly why I equivocated about Hillary. There’s no doubt she’s as tough as nails as a lawyer- the question is whether that will translate into Amer. foreign policy. Unlike Sen. Kerry, who seemed very uncomfortable with projecting US power, Sen. Clinton might be able to pull it off. If she is, aspiring 08 GOP candidates will have their hands full. If she pulls in FL, CO, NM or IA, as examples, she would have enough strength to win the election.
August 21st, 2005 at 7:35 pm
While your point about the Dems articulating a coherent approach to foreign policy is well taken, I would argue that foreign policy has become the Republicans’ achilles heel. Of course, anything can happen between now and the election (including another attack on American soil, God forbid) but I think a sizable portion of the electorate (not the true believers, who make the most noise) sees the Bush administration as floundering in Iraq, and not being totally honest (that’s an understatement; I’m trying to be fair here.) Republican success will depend to a large part on how successfully Republican candidates can distance themselves from Bush. If a Republican with independent credentials (McCain, of course, maybe Hagel) comes to the forefront, then yes, the onus will be on the Democrats to project a position of strength on foreign policy. Otherwise, I think a Republican candidate will have a lot of ’splainin to do.
I think if you’re going to make the case that 92, 96 and 00 were exceptional (how many elections does it take before they’re the norm?) then I think you’ve got to concede that 04 was equally exceptional. As the memory of 9/11 fades, the electorate may well turn to pocketbook issues, with their only focus on foreign policy being how badly the Republicans have screwed up the war in Iraq. What has Bush done lately that makes him look tough on terrorism?
Admittedly, I’m a partisan, but I think the level of hubris in the Republican party is at an all-time high. They really think this has become a Republican country; I think they could be in for a shock.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:49 pm
I appreciate that fairness Chris, and I think a lot of our readers will too.
Listen, it’s a tough situation with no easy answers, but when Hagel is coming out and saying things about Iraq being like Vietnam, you have to wonder if a lot of moderate voters are thinking the same thing. I’m not saying this is a cause and effect relationship, but it could be a bellwether.
I agree that the Bush conservatives could be in for quite a shock. Whenever any party thinks they have the upperhand and keep pushing right, they get smacked back. If Bush were smart, his second term would be marked by a more moderate agenda. But this “drunk with power” situation happens time and time and time again, and will keep happening because the majority of the population enjoys balance in their politics because they know that extremism breeds an atmosphere they don’t want to live in.
In any event, the midterms next year will be unendingly fascinating. Thanks for the comments.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:46 am
Those 3 elections were exceptions because, prior to 92, foreign policy (the Cold War) was an issue from 1946 through 1989- that’s a heck of a lot more election cycles. Dems used to be Cold Warriors-until 1972 when McGovern’s wing overtook the Party. As for 06 and 08, American strength will still be in play- even if Iraq was misexecuted. The WOT will not disappear even if we withdraw.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:22 am
Moreover, the same arguments (the folly in invading, Bush’s misrepresentations about WMDs) were made in 04 by Kerry. He lost. I don’t see Republicans distancing themselves from Bush on the left in 08, although there is an argument on the right flank that the War should’ve been prosecuted more aggressively. People forget that throughout Vietnam, Americans voted for presidential candidates that supported the War. McGovern was rejected handily in 72 despite substantial war fatigue. Americans want a president who isn’t afraid to defend the country. Bush’s miscue in Iraq won’t change that.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:27 am
There’s an article in today’s WashPo saying that the Dems are split on Iraq- with Biden, Clinton and Reid counseling that pulling out is a mistake while the Dem left wants total withdrawal. Chris claims that Iraq will be an Achille’s heel for the GOP. Apparently, it has created a Dem fissure as well.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:08 am
As I’ve mentioned before, whether it’s fair or not, it’s safe to assume that a susbstantial number of voters will judge the two parties at least in part on the moonbats who support their positions and candidates (or at least oppose the other party’s positions and candidates). Then, in the absence of a preference for either specific candidate, these voters are likely to simply vote for the candidate from the party whose moonbats are least offensive to them.
This, it seems to me, is is a major part of the Dems’ image problem, if not at its heart. To revisit the “drunk with power” meme, the flip side of that, of course, is the quite unpleasant withdrawal that is inevitable when you’re finally forced onto the wagon (i.e. out of power). We’re seeing that in spades from the left now, particularly from their moonbats like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Yes, there are plenty of moonbats and demagogues on the right as well (the Rev. Fred Phelps comes to mind), but at least they, by and large, have just enough sense to stay under the MSM’s radar most of the time. The left’s moonbats, on the other hand, are media darlings who have long since worn out whatever welcome they may once have had with the average voter, and can now be considered more of liabilities than assets to the Democrats.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:42 pm
I used to be more of a middle of the road person until I started paying attention to politics a little more. In my 20’s, I was working, having children and trying to raise them. Reagan was president then, the things that he said made perfect sense to me, they rang true. When Clinton was elected, I was ok with that. I had a few misgivings about the lies that surfaced ref Jennifer Flowers but I figured that he was really backed into a corner. It wasn’t until after the scandals kept reappearing that I started to lose confidence in him. After the umteenth lie that he was caught in, I had had enough. (To be fair, you may believe that Bush ‘lied’ but you certainly haven’t presented any evidence of it… to ‘lie’ you have to know the ‘truth’… on the other hand it pretty much goes without saying that Clinton knew where his wanker was). When I witnessed the systematic character assination of each female that came forward I REALLY had had enough. Why? Because unlike the NOW group, I wasn’t going to make excuses for a MAN in a position of power that then used that power to ATTACK women that spoke the truth about him….. PERIOD!!!! Maybe your politics allowed you to get behind him and support him even when he needed to be tossed out on his ear, but mine didn’t!!!
I was so disgusted by Clinton and the Democrats backing him no matter what he did, that I voted for Bush…. I couldn’t stand the thought of rewarding this type of crap.
After 9/11 happened and that ‘*%^&#*&@*” Micheal Moore made some of his ridiculous comments – I expected that the Democratic party hadn’t lost it’s mind totally, they wouldn’t welcome this kind of lunatic into the fold. But I was mistaken, not only did they welcome him into the fold but they even gave him a place of prominence at the Democratic Convention…. and you wanted people to take you seriously on the security of this country???? After what Moore spouted??? You’ve got to be kidding…. It seemed that every idiot that made a ‘partisan’ comment against Bush was automatically welcomed into the Democratic fold….
It seems that I don’t fit the Democrat mold anymore, I am very serious about the security of this country, I don’t believe that there is an equivilance in Gitmo and the enemy cutting off heads of kidnapped citizens…, I have a problem with doing away with right and wrong just to back the ‘party’ person…
When I listen to the Republicans ideas on the war, Social Security, the economy etc. Some things make sense to me and some of them don’t, but at least they are trying to make some much needed changes….. all I hear from the Democrats is ‘No’….
After listening to the Social Security initiative, I don’t know what is so horrible about having some ownership in your retirement??? Something that you or your family get to keep??? It seems to me that this would be a great way for the working poor to be able to pass something down to their families, which would in turn help elevate them to more property ownership, etc. What is so horrible about this????
I even understand the thinking on Iraq, I also believe that we will be successful as long as we stay united and don’t show weakness. Iraq didn’t operate in a vacuum, they were associated with and sponsered terrorism. There are more than enough links to terrorism to satisfy me on Iraq. There were numerous reasons listed for going into Iraq, just because the media focused on only 1 reason doesn’t mean that they weren’t listed. Even the name of the mission, Operation Iraqi Freedom, shows that freeing Iraq was part of the mission.
I can understand if you have a difference of opinion on how best to conduct the war on terrorism, but to stand there and chant that Bush lied without any proof that he did indeed ‘lie’ is horseshit!!! Where is the proof that we had intelligence/proof that Saddam didn’t have any WMD’s???? I’ve seen lots of intelligence that he did, not just from us but from everybody at the time… Everybody thought so, even the Democrats…. so when we don’t find them, you start saying that Bush lied??? That is so juvenile, that is so partisan, that is so ridiculous… and you want us to vote you into power???? BE SERIOUS!!!
I wasn’t old enough to pay that much attention to politics and the anti-war crowd during the Vietnam war, but some of what I’m seeing now just literally turns my stomach!! I think that I have become a Republican for a long time to come…. at least until the Democrats grow up and start thinking of themselves as Americans first and Democrats second….
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Comparing Fred Phelps to Michael Moore is hardly apt. Phelps is in a league that Moore doesn’t come anywhere close to playing in.
But yes, unfortunately both sides can oftentimes be hijacked by their respective extremists, and when some of the left are decrying the President as a murderer, a thief, etc, you’re bound to lose more swing voters.