Dems debate message delay

February 6, 2006

The debate over whether the Dems would unveil a policy agenda in advance of the 2006 elections has been frustrating, but we seem to be making progress.

At first, there was considerable debate among congressional Dems about whether to craft a national agenda at all. Some insisted we unveil a Contract with America-like document to help nationalize the elections, while others saw no benefit in giving the Republicans a new target.

Eventually, Dems agreed to produce a proactive agenda for the election year. They then debated what policies should be included in this agenda. They eventually worked this out, too. Now, however, as subscription-only Roll Call noted today, the party is divided as to when to show this product to the electorate.

National Democratic leaders remain engaged in strategic talks over how and when to unveil their 2006 campaign platform, with recent discussions focused on laying out the party agenda in installments rather than all at once.

Democratic sources said the party leadership, while largely united on the substance of the agenda, has not yet signed off on the timing and packaging of the ideas they will present to the electorate. Sources said some in leadership are still inclined to roll out the agenda in one package amid much fanfare, while others believe it best to outline Democratic initiatives in waves over the next 10 months.

“I think we are recalibrating,” said one senior House Democratic staffer. “We are reconsidering the strategy. It’s not clear that we have to go out with a bold, comprehensive package.”

In a sense, this is real progress. Congressional Dems have a theme (“Together, America can do better”), specific policy ideas, and broad agreement within the diverse caucus about the need to show voters that Dems have a specific direction in mind for the country. Now all they need to do is agree on the rollout. (For what it’s worth, I’m for a one-time unveiling in the fall, maybe September. A piecemeal rollout strikes me as making an organized effort seem more unorganized.)

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he’s in “no hurry” but said it’ll be worth the wait. “On every issue and every topic, we have an alternative,” Emanuel said, adding, “There’s been a lot done to date by Democrats to offer an alternative vision of the future.”

I’m cautiously optimistic. Stay tuned.

I think the Democrats ought to hold a brief, mid-term, mini-convention, and roll out the whole thing during an hour or two of paid-for, non-commercial prime time sometime just after (or preferably on) labor day.

  • Note that the Contract With America wasn’t unveiled until six weeks before the 1994 election and was apparently preceded by a long period of media carping about Republicans having no ideas.

  • At first, there was considerable debate among congressional Dems about whether to craft a national agenda at all. Some insisted we unveil a Contract with America-like document to help nationalize the elections, while others saw no benefit in giving the Republicans a new target.

    If the Democrat’s Contract With America is composed of GOP-wedge issues, such as national health care, raising the minimum wage, and expecting government to follow rule of law (ie don’t violate FISA, don’t hold midnight votes and other procedural shenanigans in Congress,) issues that enjoy broad national support, even among Republicans, just not many Republican lawmakers, then the document should be of great benefit, ESPECIALLY by allowing Republican lawmakers and pundits to attack it, dividing them from a sizable chunk of their supporters.

    I’m cautiously optimistic.

    Arrgh! Don’t say that!

  • Note that the Contract With America wasn’t unveiled until six weeks before the 1994 election and was apparently preceded by a long period of media carping about Republicans having no ideas.

    Absolutely right, KCinDC. It’s one reason I’d like to see Dems wait until about six weeks before Election Day and have one big event.

    I think the Democrats ought to hold a brief, mid-term, mini-convention, and roll out the whole thing during an hour or two of paid-for, non-commercial prime time sometime just after (or preferably on) labor day.

    Ed, for what it’s worth, I know for a fact that was under consideration. Unfortunately, party leaders decided against it.

    Arrgh! Don’t say that!

    Sorry, Rian, I know I should be more careful.

  • The only slogan democrats need in 2006 is:

    HERE’S WHAT THOSE REPUBLICAN BASTARDS HAVE DONE !! (to you and to our country)

    americans do NOT vote for somebody or some policy; they vote AGAINSt somebody or some policy.

    can’t the democratic startegiests get it thru their thick heads that the issue in this coming congressional election rightfully should be

    george bush’s policies and conduct,

    and

    the republican congress’ conduct and legislation.

    HERE’S WHAT HAVE THE BASTARDS DONE WRONG!!!

    that’s what people care about.

    that’s what they are receptive to hearing.

    the appropriate political analogy for democratic strategy in 2006 is harry truman’s “do nothing” congress,

    not

    newt gingrich’s “contract with america”.

    the problem is not what the democratic party stands for;

    it is

    when will the democratic party fight for whatever it is that it stands for.

    anything that smacks of another “contract with america” is more democratic consultant folly — another bob schrum moment in democratic history.

    the republican “contract” of 1994 was a p.r. sham; it will be the same for democrats.

    furthermore, it will prove a taget for radical right (aka republican) sophistry and ridicule ( have you heard? the democrats finally came up with a “contract” 12 years later).

    if tom delay loses in his texas district this fall, it will be because voters got tired of his behavior, not because his democrtic opponent had a “contract” to use as talking points.

    there is another way.

    i have posted at various places in the web log world the following prescription for a democratic victory:

    i think it is time to begin cataloging, with concise detail, specific acts of mismanagement, misconduct, and public lying that bush, his administration, and the republican congress have engaged in over the last five years.

    i have referred elsewhere to the entirety of this effort as “nailing the 91 theses to the whitehouse door”.

    #1 could easily be:

    president bush does not function as we have reason to expect a president to function,

    other examples:

    the failure to protect the u.s. from the world trade center attack,

    the enormous deficit and the unnecessary tax cuts,

    lying about the need to go to war with iraq

    the extrordinary incompetence of FEMA during hurricane katrina .

    the social security privatization nonesense,

    the prescription medicare fiasco,

    attacking american science and technology where it is politically beneficial to the president.

    add to the list.

    there must be dozens of other examples.

    anybody can play.

    the final product would be a fairly comprehensive list of mismanagement, etc., with concise, accurate descriptions of the details of each act of mismanagement, misconduct, or dishonesty.

    once this “bill of indictment”, “91 theses”, call it what you will, has been constructed,

    — it could be used by democratic candidates around the country to educate voters, especially where a republican opponent may have been involved, or where the republican congress failed to act appropriately.

    and

    — it would serve to allow democrats to control the national “debate” that rove will try to control with fear or “values” — remember that election we had, not so long ago, where, in the midst of an incompetently administaered was our national “debate” was over gay marriage.

    and

    — it would be a good document to deploy against the main stream media where they have fallen into the habit of following republican talking points.

    and, best of all,

    — it would be a very, very good document to post on a web site for any and all to read and download and send to friends and fellow concerned cittizens.

  • correction:

    third full paragraph up from the bottom should read:

    “incompetently administered war”

    • Comments are closed.