N.M Gov. Richardson: Dems Must Connect with Values

[ProgressiveDepot.com]

Nothing earthshaking, but good to see this message is being repeated by Bill Richardson. Being only dissenters isn't going to get Dems elected...

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=696&e=2&u=/ap/20050419/ap_on_re_us/ap_bill_richardson>

[bushisanidiot]

1. Gov. Richardson is right. Jesus was a pacifist and a liberal..

the conservatives need to be reminded of that. he accepted everyone and showed true love for His fellow man. something unheard of in the repuke party where you are expected to hate certain americans and tow the line as told or you're the enemy.

[katsy]

2. Richardson should shut up.

The fact is that the gop does control the executive and legislative branches of government. As a result, they control the dialogue and passing legislation that suits their agenda to a large degree. Democrats MUST communicate their dissent to the gop agenda.

Point 1: Both parties are heard on the floor of both houses making their arguments for or against legislative issues. I have never seen a Democratic Rep walk up to the podium and just say no to a legislative bill. Their arguments usually reflect their opinions based upon facts or studies.

Point 2: By stating preemptively they will oppose certain legislation introduced or confirmation of judges or bush's appointees, the Dems are objecting to, or disagreeing with, the gop's agenda. Is that not their duty to Democratic principles? Does that not reflect their values as well? Just look at bush's SS scam. The Dems are very clear about their position and clearly put forth their rationale for objecting to the SS scheme.

Point 3: The term "dissenter" is something rove must have put forth. Somewhere in his twisted pea brain, he has manipulated the term "dissent" and redefined it for gop sheep as being something that is negative. No Democrat should answer charges of being dissenters except to ridicule the accuser's usage of the term. For instance... "if anyone thinks that dissent is unacceptable, they'd be happier living in a fascist society".

My suggestion to Richardson is to kindly SHUT THE FUCK UP. By legitimizing this rovian definition of dissent, he is doing Democrats and Americans a great disservice. Richardson's statements are labeling the Democrats as whiners, and coming from our own ranks is rove's wet dream come true.

YES... Democrats must oppose bush at every turn. Would we rather allow the privatization of SS as well as every social program in America? NAME ONE ISSUE presented by bush that we can mostly agree has helped America.

If anything, Dems should be louder and get more air time to explain their dissent. As the matter of fact, maybe they should begin every sentence with: "Every patriotic American should DISSENT because....".

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

5. Richardson won as governor...

in a state that went for Bush in 2004.

Perhaps WE should shut up and listen to a guy who clearly knows a thing or two about winning elections. Learn from history. The Republicans were the minority party for more than a generation (whining the whole time) until Newt Gingrich and Co. came up with the "Contract with America." It was crap, pure crap. But it struck at several middle class core values and the Republicans rode that pony to majority status in Congress.

The fact that they never enacted a fraction of their so-called agenda was beside the point. They siezed power and haven't given it up yet. For the Democrats to retake Congress, being the Naysayers Party simply won't be good enough. We need to clearly articulate a positive message, not simply point out that the other guys are wrong.

[katsy]

6. Democratic candidates won...

6 of the 11 state gubernatorial races in 2004. I thought Richardson last won in 2002.

Democrats DO articulate their values AND oppose/dissent against the gop agenda. They do that well and should continue to do so. I'm more aware of that by watching cspan where you get to watch them in action.

I'm not aware of any SPECIFIC examples where a Democrat was a naysayer just for the sake of opposing an opponent. Please cite the instances where this was the case! It must be MANY instances to amount to the threshold of being labeled as being a Naysayers Party!

Richardson wasn't addressing FACTS in that article. He was responding to accusations set forth by the gop smearing Democrats as "negative" and "dissenters". Richardson's statements serve only to legitimize the neocon's definition of the Democratic party.

That, IMO, does not serve our Democratic Party well. It is self-serving on his part and if he wants to distance himself from the party of "dissenters" he is free to cut loose.

Maybe his constituents don't care about reforming the tax code or judicial appointments... BUT he should speak for himself and his constituents NOT paint other Representative's positions on those matters as DISSIDENT. Those Representatives have their own constituencies to answer to just as his job is to represent his state.

Democrats have dissented/opposed/cried bloody murder about the other issues he mentioned like: healthcare, education, crime rates, rising college costs as well as a host of other issues. So what is his problem... SPECIFICALLY.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

11. I don't think you read this article...

The word "dissent" doesn't appear at all, so I'm not certain how Richardson smeared Democrats as dissenters.

What he's saying is that we can't simply define the Democratic Party as the "Opposite of the Republican Party." We have to stand for something positive -- like the issues you mentioned. What we learned is that ABB (Anybody But Bush) makes an effective rallying cry, but it doesn't necessarily win an election.

Democrats need to spend more time talking about the type of country we'd like to create, rather than complain about the type of country the Republicans are trying to create. Do we dissent? Absolutely. Loudly and at every turn. But we need to push a positive agenda in contrast to what the Republicans are offering.

[katsy]

13. I read the article.

He stated: "We just can't be negative. We can't just attack the president at every turn," he said. "We have got to stand for something."

I wasn't aware that the only thing Democrats do is attack bush or being negative... or for that matter, stand for nothing. If he wants to make accusations like that, he needs to be specific instead of accusing all Democratic leaders of those charges.

I take exception to Richardson painting the party in such a disparaging manner and in the public arena.

These are the same tactics used by the gop to attack Dems... unsubstantiated attacks.

When the gop attacks, people can choose to ignore such as partisan politics. When one of our own is saying the Party has to "stand for something" AS IF WE DON'T, it sets off warning bells in people's minds.

If Richardson really believed what he said, his concerns should have been taken to the party leaders, not the public arena.

In public, Richardson should act like the Democratic leader he says he is, not a back-stabbing politician eating his own for the sake of some publicity.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

16. That's the general perception...

and you really can't blame Richardson for that.

The fact is that a prime motivating factor for many Democrats last year was getting rid of Bush, and that leads to having policy discussions almost entirely in the negative (Bush is wrong about THIS, Bush is wrong about THAT). When you have that kind of a message, it tends to crowd out the message of the Democratic Alternative.

We need to talk about job creation in ways that aren't just a litany of the things we aren't going to do. We need to talk about the future of Social Security in terms of the positive changes Democrats will make to protect the system. We need to talk about justice in terms of the type of society we're going to create, not just offer a list of grievances.

There's a big difference between offering a strong defense and being on the offensive. My daughter's soccer team last year lost every game they played because they simply had no offense. Their defense was very good and they lost a lot of 1-0 and 2-0 games. But they simply couldn't get the ball across midfield and played defense the entire season. We've been playing defense against Team Bush long enough. Time to play some offense.

Not all Democrats do that. And to be sure, the mainstream media is more willing to follow the "Anti-Bush Story Line" rather than spend any significant amount of time talking about the Democratic alternative. It's a subtle shift in the Demcoratic message. It's the basic difference between "YOU'RE WRONG and i'm right" and "I'M RIGHT and you're wrong."

I'll agree with you on this much. Democrats, including the rank-and-file and not just the party leadership, need to stop whining in public and in private about what w're lacking -- that's been done to death.

[katsy]

17. Good point.

Other Democratic leaders have made statements much like Richardson. I believe their actions, including Richardson's, amount to foolishness.

I never subscribed to the characterization that the Democrats' prime motivation was to get rid of bush this past election. Kerry spoke to issues and his convictions. The massive smear campaign to obscure these issues by the gop was successful thanks to the 24/7 coverage by MSM.

The gop manipulated MSM to avoid a fundamental debate on issues by feeding 24/7 coverage of the swift boat liars, the parading of gop wearing little purple Band-Aids at their convention, withholding damaging reports and statistics of this administration's policies, labeling Kerry as a flip-flopper and painting the Democratic Party as morally bankrupt.

Your example regarding your daughter's soccer team's losses supports my point. Richardson should be speaking to the Democratic Party's strengths, not responding to gop chicanery. That is a very defensive tactic and tends to validate gop characterizations of the Democratic Party.

I supported Kerry and agreed with him on many issues and disagreed with others. I found myself more aligned with his vision of America than bush's.

In other words, I'm opposed to bush's domestic and foreign policies and yes, as a voter, I would have LOVED to have gotten rid of him. That's a given in politics and with policies that do not align with one's interests. It does NOT warrant a mea culpa from any Democrat. It does NOT answer the question I still ask myself every day... "how could we have lost?" IMO, Richardson's comments add very little to this debate except to hand the gop more ammunition to attack us with.

I agree with your assessment of shifting the Democratic message. I hope you've communicated this to your Representatives. Excellent point.

:thumbsup:

[Al-CIAda]

3. Why did Richarson sabotage and shut down efforts to expose the election

fraud in his state? Thats a 'value' -honest elections.

I guess we should all just pray to God and beg for mercy from the religious Dominionists who control the voting process... well them, and the DLC of course.

[ProgressiveDepot.com]

4. Hmmm... Richardson not popular here? n/t

[Q]

7. Are you tired of being told to shut up and move on?

This is getting embarrassing. And now Gov. Richardson is chiming in with his 'must get in touch with values' rhetoric:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, often mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, said Monday the Democratic Party must reconnect with voters' core values if it hopes to regain congressional seats and perhaps even the presidency. "We just can't be negative. We can't just attack the president at every turn," he said. "We have got to stand for something." --- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=696&e=2&u=/ap/20050419/ap_on_re_us/ap_bill_richardson

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

Just what 'values' are we supposed to 'connect' with? That of the opposition? Is he suggesting that OUR values aren't good enough? Perhaps HE is the one that needs to connect with Democratic values?

And what's this bullshit about not 'attacking the president at every turn'? Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to the most corrupt executive branch in the history of this country so that certain Democratic politicians can gain a few votes from the right? Are we supposed to ignore the corruption, scandals and attacks on our Constitution and social safety net?

Richardson is just another chickenshit sellout that would rather ignore this fascist government than defend the people and their Constitution. What happened to the 'values' of government accountability and equal justice?

[borg5575]

8. Yes, Governor Richardson will get no sympathy in this forum.

But this forum does NOT represent mainstream Democrat thought. Governor Richardson and Senator Clinton are in the mainstream. Most people in this forum are not. We might very well see a Clinton/Richardson ticket in 2008, and if we do, it will have my enthusiastic support.

But then I'm a Democrat in the tradition of Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson and John Kennedy. Oh, and BTW, back in those days, even though Stevenson lost to a popular war hero, in general Democrats WON elections.

[cajones_II]

10. I beg to differ

NEITHER you nor DU represents "mainstream" Democrats.
But if I had to pick, I'd say DU is a LOT closer to that stream than either Richardson or Hillary.

And this cognitive dissonance is one reason we are where we are today.

[LandOLincoln]

15. It's "cojones," not "cajones" (although here in NM people

often say huevos--which literally means "eggs"--but you get the idea).

Anyway, thought you'd like to know so you can catch it early.

And welcome to the DU! :hi: :toast: :hi:

[otohara]

14. Bush Gives Good Reasons Every Damn Day

to attack at every turn! I wish he'd do something that I could say, Okay he's right on this one. This administration just keeps getting worse.

[AlCzervik]

9. Send it in a memo or a closed door meeting, stop givng the RW

ammo to use against us.

[blindpig]

12. whose values? n/t