[rhombus]

Another liberal op-ed with "new ideas" about spinning the old ideas.

[AmericanMade1776]

After reading this article...I am thoroughly convinced, that Democrats are without a message and do not know where to get one.

[CBart95]

Tragic in that they slavishly pursue "style" and unerringly eschew "truth" in their myopia...a self-fulfilling "Death-Spiral".

[tje]

One day the light may come on and they'll realize the populace just isn't all that into the democrats.

But this whole concept of 'framing' is important to them cause they know that what they're selling is a load of crap.. And they KNOW it!

[OESY]

ANOTHER GEM:

Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for-as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.

* * *

NOTE the emphasis on words, not beliefs or actions.

[OESY]

To be specific, I [Wallis] offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.

1. Somebody must lead on the issue of poverty, and right now neither party is doing so. The Democrats assume the poverty issue belongs to them....

Prosperity helps alleviate poverty, but I wonder if Wallis understands the poverty-of-ideas irony.

2. Democrats... must insist that private interests should never obstruct our country's path to a cleaner and more efficient energy future....

Antibusiness (read, anti-jobs) Dems always elevate the appeasement of the environmentalist lobby over fueling a healthy economy. Further, their recent argument that clean air contributes to global warming seems to be splitting their ranks.

3. Democrats will win back "values voters" only with fresh ideas. Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose"....

Now there's a fresh idea.

4. As for "family values," the Democrats can become the truly pro-family party by supporting parents in doing the most important and difficult job in America: raising children.

Does this mean Dems are going to rush out to buy Sen. Santorum's book "It Takes a Family." I thought they believed it took a village (read, government) to raise a familiy, mainly by giving children the right to sue their parents over issues of education, discipline, etc. Are Dems about to throw Hillary overboard in an attempt to jettison their balast?

5. Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases...

Maybe Dems could gain credibility by supporting democratic efforts in Iraq and not trying to undercut America's policies at every opportunity?

* * *

[OESY]

The Democratic Party's Cycle Of Failure


"Democratic Party pollster Stan Greenberg said Wednesday that "one of the biggest doubts about Democrats is that they don't stand for anything." -- Newsmax

The Democratic Party's liberal base wants them to take unpopular positions that will alienate much of the rest of the country. So faced with a choice between angering their base and turning off the moderates they need to win, the Democrats have chosen to obscure what they believe in hopes of not offending anyone. But, many of the moderates have caught on to the game and are getting down on the Democratic Party because they refuse to take a stand on so many issues.

This is the feedback loop the Democratic Party is stuck in and the only true way to get out of it long-term is to disappoint either the base or the people in the middle the Dems need to win. Logically when you're in that situation, you have to stick it to your base and hope that they're loyal enough to stand by you even though they're unhappy with you.

But, in the case of the Democratic Party, the liberal ideologues have such a lock on the levers of power and influence in the Party, that thus far, the politically savvy crowd -- like the people who run the DLC -- have been unable to put them in check.

Until the Democratic Party gets their liberal base under control, they may make gains in certain elections, but they're doomed to continue a long-term slide into political oblivion.

-- John Hawkins, http://rightwingnews.com/

[RepublicMan4U]

I think this article is being mis-read.

"Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging."

I think what Jim Wallis is saying here is that more than just the words need to change. The message (ie, the content) needs to change. The article seems to be basically saying that the Democrats need to move right (in substance, not just rhetoric) if they want to get anywhere in a nation that has become more conservative.

The problem is that you need to read the whole article to get the context. I think by "messaging" he means spin, but by "message" he means content. He's saying that the Democrats need to change what they're about, not just how they phrase it.

[IamConservative]

They have no principles from which to draw ideas and inspiration. It's all about "feelings" for them.

[goldstategop]

Keep on fooling the people and spinning defeats as victories... I'm happy to see liberals still in denial about last November - no, make that the past five years.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)