Might have to watch Meet the Press today...

ylexot

Super Genius
I wonder if Mehlman will mention this at all...

Moments before taping was to begin with host Tim Russert, Mehlman asked Dean outside the NBC studio’s green room: “There’s still time for us to go on together Governor.” Dean declined with a shrug of his shoulders and an uncomfortable cackle and then proceeded to walk away into the green room.
DRUDGE has learned MEET THE PRESS producers have been working to get a head to head Dean/Mehlman appearance on the program since Dean was named chair back in February. Dean and his handlers have repeatedly turned down the request. The former Vermont governor only agreed to do this week’s program if they appeared in back-to-back interviews.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
It was an interesting show though. Dean said flat out that the Democrats have no plans and it is not their job to have plans...their job is to stop the Republicans from doing anything. I wonder if there is a transcript anywhere. He said they will have some plans in 2006 :dork:

It was also interesting because Tim (predictably) brought up Bush's poll numbers and the poll results for the Republican-controlled Congress. Ok, that's been brought up everywhere and with much glee from the Democrats. However, Tim also brought up poll results for the Democrats in COngress...much the same result! I had not seen that before. So, for the Dems, don't get too cocky about Bush's sagging polls because you aren't looking too good either. People pretty much don't like either side.

I thought Mehlman really screwed up one answer though. Tim had a clip of Colin Powell saying something about deliberately misleading intelligence. Tim took that to mean that the administration deliberately mislead, which is not what Colin was saying and Mehlman did not correct Tim. The deliberate misleading was done by Iraq (mis-information). Am I the only one that remembers that coming out in the news shortly after the start of the war?
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!
MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about the Democrats and some of the polling data. Congressional Democrats have the same priorities as you: yes, 26 percent; no, 54 percent. So the Democrats aren't perceived as the answer. And look at this, Chairman Dean. We asked independent voters: Do you believe that Democrats have a clear message, a vision for the future? Fifty-two percent of independent swing voters say no. One in four Democrats say you have no clear vision, no agenda, no clear message. Joe Trippi, your former campaign manager said, "Obviously, the results" from Election Night "are great for us Democrats. But given the GOP's problems, the tightness of the results suggest that people aren't happy with either party right now. Democrats have got to push an alternative agenda."

DR. DEAN: We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that'll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that's a pretty good agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: But those are words that will appeal to people. But when you go behind them, for example, what is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?

DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections.

MR. RUSSERT: But there's no Democratic plan on Social Security. There's no Democratic plan on the deficit problem. There's no specifics. They say, "Well, we want a strong Social Security. We want to reduce the deficit. We want health care for everyone," but there's no plan how to pay for it.

DR. DEAN: Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America. And that's what we're going to do. We're doing our best. Look at the trouble they're having putting together a budget. Why is that? Because there's still a few moderate Republicans left who don't think it's OK to cut school lunch programs, who don't think it's OK to do some of the appalling things that they're doing in their budget. I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school. The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can't go to law school. We're going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.
:lmao: What a maroon!
 

rraley

New Member
Now, I am not sure if this is what Dr. Dean had was going at or not, but this is what I think is going on right now with the Democrats. Remember, each political party has two branches per se...the branch that is actually in government like congressmen, governors, etc. and the other branch which is the strategists, organizers, etc. There is plenty of cross-over and what not, but that is how I would characterize the actual structure of the two parties. Keep this in mind throughout my post.

Congressional Democrats do have absolutely no power to pass their choice legislation. The Republican leadership does not need provide much thought to the advice and concerns of the Democrats (which I can't blame them for; the GOP leadership doesn't need Democratic support in order to pass legislation and it does not need to haggle with a Democratic president). Therefore, Congressional Democrats cannot get what they truly want passed (there are two methods that they can use to influence the agenda: filibuster and the special rule invoked by Senator Reid last week to move the Senate into closed session). The role of the Democratic Pary's governmental members is to oppose the iniatives of the Republicans. For some of these issues, it is necessary for the Democrats to go above and beyond and filibuster; on others this is not the case. In the end, the purpose of the Democrats in Congress is to oppose the controversial iniatives of the Bush Administration (not for the sake of mere opposition, but because the Democrats genuinely disagree).

The strategists/organizers of the party, in conjunction with the governmental members, have the responsibility of packaging what Democrats believe so that the public can buy into it. This, from a conventional political standpoint, should only be done within the election cycle so that it is fresh in the minds of the American voter and so that there is not substantial time for the Republicans to excessively attack the plan. My reasoning here comes from the playbook of none other than Newt Gingrich - the Contract with America was not proposed until September 1994.

Also just for your information, while Democrats are viewed quite poorly...the Democrats are leading generic congressional ballots by about 10 points. This is a significant margin that is comparable to polling done before the 94 elections. At this point, there is a desire for change and a cleaning of house...this could easily change, but we cannot get around this simple fact right now. Nothing can objectively be pointed to as contradicting this.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Well, in that case, the strategists are tards. I guess they never heard the saying "the best defense is a good offense." In other words, opposition to plans works a lot better if you can propose something better. They either can't or won't. Either way is bad for them. And don't tell me that they can't actually do anything because they are not in power. That is utter :bs: Any one of them can go to the press and say that the Republican proposal is bad because of X and here's a better plan. The press runs with it and suddenly it has the backing of the people which, in turn, gains the backing of Congress. That credit can and will be given at election time because politicians will refreshen our memories. If politicians can't do anything because they aren't up for election yet, then we should just f'n pack it in and give up on this government. :burning:

BTW, your writing has gotten sloppy.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I think rr is right in saying that the Dems have no power, but let's look at what the Democrats are for... what would they do if they were in power? Push for gay marriage? That's a loser. Push for higher gas prices to cut back on people driving? That's a loser. Universal healthcare? That's a loser. Pull out of Iraq now? That's a loser. Reenact the AWB? That's likely a loser. Push for unrestricted abortion? That's a loser.

I don't think that the issue is a lack of power as much as they have no planks in the platform that gets broad support.
 

rraley

New Member
ylexot, I don't know about this....Newt didn't do as you suggest and he kicked ass at the polls. Democrats are proposing things in Congress, but why should they focus on them, when the story should be why the current ruling party is failing? Once this is established (polls show that this is indeed being established), then you throw out your plan and engage the debate from there. We are in the first phase of the debate; it would be politically stupid to throw it out all at once.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I'm still waiting for the "pollgate" floodgates to open. These polls that are showing all this bad news for Republicans are being purposefully over-weighed against Republicans. Also, once Alito gets confirmed, and once DeLay and Libby get acquitted (and they will), then all this nonsense goes away.

I agree with ylexot. If I were a Dem strategist I would be spelling out our plans and goals every chance I got. Right now people are forming their opinions for 2006, and the conventional wisdom is that the Democrat idea locker is empty, and all they have is to attack Bush, who might not be doing the best job but at least he's trying to make things better. If the Democrats keep playing the obstructionist card, then they're going to get the obstructionist tail pinned on their donkey in 2006 and it will be their fault.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
But the point is RRaley, the chairman of the party says they have no plan. How can you convince people that you will do any better if you have nothing to offer that might convince them that you will do better? Kerry found that out with his "We'll do it better" plan and zero substance.
 

Pete

Repete
Bruzilla said:
I'm still waiting for the "pollgate" floodgates to open. These polls that are showing all this bad news for Republicans are being purposefully over-weighed against Republicans. Also, once Alito gets confirmed, and once DeLay and Libby get acquitted (and they will), then all this nonsense goes away.

I agree with ylexot. If I were a Dem strategist I would be spelling out our plans and goals every chance I got. Right now people are forming their opinions for 2006, and the conventional wisdom is that the Democrat idea locker is empty, and all they have is to attack Bush, who might not be doing the best job but at least he's trying to make things better. If the Democrats keep playing the obstructionist card, then they're going to get the obstructionist tail pinned on their donkey in 2006 and it will be their fault.
Anything they propose is going to be whacko and riddled with problems because they prey on emotion. If they propose their stuff too soon it will be picked apart before they can whip up a frenzy in the elections.

Typical dem modus operendi as far as I have seen:

1. Personally trash the oposition.

2. Personally trash the oposition.

3. Personally trash the oposition.

4. Scare the bejeebers out of people the evil Republicans are going to :

.....a. Take away their social security.

.....b. Take away medicare.

.....c. Draft their grandbabies into the Army.

....d. Ruin the public school system.

....e. Wreck the economy putting millions out on the street.

....f. Give tax breaks to the evil corporations and hike the taxes on people just above the welfare line to make up the difference.

5. Propose some Cockamammie plan just in time for all the Dem candidates to get on and row like hell hoping to get people to buy it and vote quickly before it is discovered it is stupid.
 
Last edited:

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I can't believe - well, I think I can, actually - that Dean is suggesting that their hands are *TIED* until they can succeed in getting majority power in Congress - that their primary focus is on unseating the Republicans and only THEN will they reveal their plans.

Who in their right mind would do that? Who would opt out of what they currently have, because someone has convinced you it sucks - but won't show you the alternative they propose?

Would you accept a job from someone - NOT KNOWING what it is - *only* on the condition you QUIT, first? Would you ditch your car, or home, strictly on the knowledge that someone plans to offer you something else - but refuses to give you specifics about the replacement?

Ok, the short answer is, hell no, not in a million years.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with proposing good ideas now. Democrats are perfectly capable of passing reasonable programs right now, provided that they find something that can pass the Republicans. Can't do that? Then I don't trust them AT ALL. If you cannot even THINK of proposing a bill that could not be passed without *some* support from across the aisle, I don't want to hear it. Because it's crap, right out of the gate.

Whether or not you agreed with the "Contract With America" back in '94 - it was a prime example of saying to voters THIS IS WHAT WE'LL DO if you elect us. That's actually what Presidents are ALWAYS supposed to do - make campaign promises about what they're going to do (although, as many have mentioned, Kerry's most frequent promise was "we can do better").

Voters are still likely to go with the devil they know - that's why incumbents almost always win. You have to be either REALLY bad, or make a convincing case that what YOU will do will be better.

The Dems have put ALL their money on the first one - and it's gonna tank at the polls, as it has for the last ten years.
 

Dougstermd

ORGASM DONOR
SamSpade said:
Ok, the short answer is, hell no, not in a million years.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with proposing good ideas now. Democrats are perfectly capable of passing reasonable programs right now,
.
:confused:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Dougstermd said:
What's the confusing part? There's nothing stopping them from proposing good ideas, if they so choose. Dean seems to suggest that they can't do that, because they don't have enough votes - meaning, they have no intention of proposing something a single Republican might vote for.

I'm still waiting for their ideas on Iraq, fighting terror, and Social Security. After five years, it STILL looks like their only anwer is, "Bush has it wrong".
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Here's the CRIME of the show...

...my 16 year old caught this:

First off, it's obvious that the 'Bush lied' masterbating is starting to get old and ha to many holes in it to hold water when questions actually get asked.

So, now, Tim asks Dean about the war and Kerry and Hill et al voting for it and W saying that if he knew now what he new then he'd still invade Iraq, then Dean says "Well, of course something had to be done about Saddam...but let's change the subject because no ####ing way I answer that one..."

Russert does NOT ask him; "So, what SHOULD we have done? What would the Democrats have done given the chance?"

16 yer old is like...follow up question, follow up!
 

Dougstermd

ORGASM DONOR
SamSpade said:
What's the confusing part? There's nothing stopping them from proposing good ideas, if they so choose. Dean seems to suggest that they can't do that, because they don't have enough votes - meaning, they have no intention of proposing something a single Republican might vote for.

I'm still waiting for their ideas on Iraq, fighting terror, and Social Security. After five years, it STILL looks like their only anwer is, "Bush has it wrong".
dems with good Ideas? SNL did a skit this weekend about how they could still think etc but since no one would listen they were not going to say a word. It was purdy damn funny.
 
Top