Beyond opposing Trump, Democrats keep searching for a message
by Dan Balz
The loss in last weeks special congressional election in Georgia produced predictable hand-wringing and finger-pointing inside the Democratic Party. It also raised anew a question that has troubled the party through a period in which they have lost ground political. Simply put: Do Democrats have a message?
Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next years midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it. Whats needed is a message that attracts voters beyond the blue-state base of the party.
The defeat in Georgia came in a district that was always extremely challenging. Nonetheless, the loss touched off a hunt for scapegoats. Some Democrats, predictably, blamed the candidate, Jon Ossoff, for failing to capitalize on a flood of money and energy among party activists motivated to send a message of opposition to the president. He may have had flaws, but he and the Democrats turned out lots of voters. There just werent enough of them.
Other critics went up the chain of command and leveled their criticism at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She has held her party together in the House through many difficult fights ask veterans of the Obama administration but she also has become a prime target for GOP ad makers as a symbol of the Democrats liberal and bicoastal leanings. Pelosi, a fighter, has brushed aside the criticism...
I think he is right on the money. We need to talk about Trump less, and we are going to do more.
On Edit: People don't seem to understand what I mean by messaging. For information on that, see the video of George Lakoff with Tavis Smiley or read some of Lakoff's work online. It's not enough to have a policy paper or a bunch of positions you talk about, it's about what you say most often and what aspects of a person's brain are being activitation. Conservatives activate the authoritarian brain. Liberals need to activate the nurturing brain, and we haven't down a very good job of it.
What comes through again and again is that the Obama administration was terrified of looking partisan or doing anything that might seem like it was putting a thumb on the scale of the election, and the result was paralysis. This is a manifestation of what some years ago I began calling the Audacity Gap.
Democrats are forever worried about whether they might be criticized, whether Republicans will be mean to them, whether they might look as though theyre being partisan, and whether they might be subjected to a round of stern editorials. Republicans, on the other hand, just dont care. What theyre worried about is winning, and they dont let the kinds of criticism that frightens Democrats impede them. It makes Republicans the party of Yes we can, while Democrats are the party of Maybe we shouldnt.
Somebody who knows more about this district than, please tell me. I took a look at the Sec of State site. Right now it says
Parnell - 16,531
Norman - 16,198
Ballots cast - 34,409
So with only 1800 votes left to count, Parnell has a lead of 330 votes. Could he really win this sleeper? Am I missing something?
The (News Outlet) has learned from (number) sources that (Title) (name) is under investigation for (Crime). (Name) has retained (Bad Lawyer) to represent him. (Name) will meet with Robert Mueller next (Time Frame). At (Time) Donald Trump tweeted (Accusation) against (Enemy) for not doing (Something about Someone Else) which he said was (Adjective). Trump then threatened to fire (Name). (Republican Congressmember)(Name) expressed concern and said the (Committee Name) would investigate after (Trump Administration Member) said (Lie).
Since we have so much breaking news about investigations these days, I thought I'd help you all save time by giving you this handy template to report the news faster. Hope it helps. Feel free to modify my template as you wish.
To remind people that right wing lunatics shoot politicians too.
I distinctly remember when Lynch recused herslef, she said DOJ would follow whatever recommendation the FBI made about prosecution. Anybody else remember this?
This all came from Christopher Ruddy, who's exact words were:
"I think hes considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. I think hes weighing that option, Ruddy said when asked by Woodruff whether the president was prepared to let the special counsel pursue the Russia investigation. I think its pretty clear by what one of his lawyers said on television recently.
I personally think it would be a very significant mistake, Ruddy added.
He only speculated and didn't say he spoke to 45. And even if he did speak to him, it appears he advised against it. This is speculation that is no more than what DUer's have been speculating about since Mueller was hired. Nothing has changed. Maybe he will do it. Maybe he won't. Or maybe he'll start WWIII. You just never know with Trump. And he likes it that way. Don't give him what he wants.
Just look at the headlines, he's trapped
TRUMP '100 PERCENT' WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH: President says Comey lied, is coy on tapes
Trump bets there's no smoking gun in Comey case
Profile InformationMember since: Tue Nov 8, 2016, 02:02 PM
Number of posts: 12,344
- 2021 (1)
- January (1)
- 2019 (10)
- 2018 (49)
- 2017 (36)
- 2016 (7)