To Be Respected in the World

[Dr Ron]

From The Democratic Daily--see original post for links:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2065


Every day seems to bring more evidence that John Kerry got it, but was a year or two ahead of his time. Recall the title of his plan published during the campaign, Our Plan for America : Stronger at Home, Respected in the World.

The public just wasn’t ready to understand this in 2004, but perhaps they are now. A new Gallup Poll finds that only 33% of Americans believe leaders of other countries respect Bush, the lowest percentage to date. “Further indicating America’s negative image in the world is the fact that only 43% of respondents are satisfied with the position of the United States in the world today, while 54% are dissatisfied. These numbers are worse than those seen in 1966 when America was at the height of the Cold War.”

BBC News notes that “President Bush’s popularity ratings have plummeted,” but questions why “the opposition, the Democrats, are not surfing the opinion polls, capitalising on the Republicans’ misfortunes and preparing to take over Congress when the election comes in the autumn?” While there are many faults in the author’s analysis, he argues that “Democrats do not have a message on the key issues of our time. Or, more precisely, they have several mutually exclusive messages.”

One problem is that John Kerry had the right message, but it takes longer than one political campaign to disseminate the message over the interference of the right wing noise machine. Republicans spent years spreading misinformation and building support before they took control. Our goals are not helped when many Democrats, for a variety of reasons, are working at cross purposes by repeating right wing talking points and smears about Kerry rather than spreading Kerry’s message. Nor are our chances for victory helped when Democrats continue to spread the untrue claim that Kerry supported the war, or the totally misinformed and irrational argument that Kerry conceded in Ohio before all the votes were counted.

There is still considerable hope for 2006 (and even more for 2008 where the numbers are better for Democrats in the Senate). In addition to the Republican collapse in public support, we must keep in mind that few predicted the Republican take over of Congress before the vote in 1994. Those who question the Democrats’ success this year are being rather premature in doing so before anyone has even gone out to vote.

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Exactly

The article said the Democrats don't have a message, which is false - the Democrats DO have a message, and people like the author consistently fail to print it. It's just so much easier to parrot "Dems don't have a message" than actually write a decent article outlining what John Kerry would do, step by step.

It's convenient how the media just ignores John Kerry's existence in articles such as this.

[ProSense]

3. It's really

hard work for the Repub shills to go to Kerry's senate site and do a little research. Oh, my bad, their tiny brains might explode.

[Dr Ron]

7. There is absolutley no need for them to do research

Research on Kerry's positions and record is of absolutely no benefit for Republicans.

They know they can't successfully attack him on these. They do much better politically when they just make stuff up about him. This is both a more successful strategy (look at how well it worked for Bush in 2004) and is so easy to do.

If only Democrats would do some research on Kerry before repeating what they hear.

[ProSense]

9. Isn't this about the media?

Repub shills was a reference to the media, so I expect (still breathing) that they would do some research.

On Republicans, I agree.

[Dr Ron]

10. Yes, media must research

Obviously I was speaking of Republicans, but we should expect more from the media, and from Democrats.

[ProSense]

2. Excellent rebuttal. n/t

[Mass]

4. Because you need to have those Democrats that are known enough to be

listened to and who have the answers out all the time. Reed is great, but he does not have the presence Kerry would have on Iraq, for example (or even Biden). Durbin should be out more often too, so should Clinton if she is ready to play the game. And get people like Schumer out of the media. Each time I see him, I think he is looking for votes, not stating a policy, same thing for Reid.

When it comes to the UAE deal, for example, I heard Schumer talking in a way that was borderline racist and that did not even address the true questions, then I read Kerry's letter and heard at last Feinstein this morning on Late Edition.

Kerry and Feinstein were ready to address the true issues (port security, the way the deal was made, who benefits from it, ...). Schumer seemed only ready to make a political point (and to think that the only issue was that an Arab country was taking the ports). Where are the people who really argued for solutions for port security these last few years? Why were there absent from the media and not making the point that needed to be made (that the Republicans have never taken the issue seriously, ...).

We know that the media will not do their jobs seriously, but why don't the Democrats do theirs more seriously.

[sandnsea]

5. Yes

What she said. Particularly Schumer. And the inability of Democrats to say anything with commitment because who knows what some other faction of the party is going to say the day after.

[karynnj]

6. So true -

My question is why is the media whispering (rather loudly) that KERRY is hurting the party and freelancing, not listening to the "leaders" of the party.

It seems to me that Shumer's comments will backfire as they are borderline racist. I agree that Feinstein and Kerry are far better on this issue.

[wisteria]

8. Now, I see Schumer as just wanting to raise money and than votes.

I don't care for him either, especially the more I see him. He certainly does come off as opportunistic.

[TayTay]

11. Schumer has the politics part down

I mean, that guy is pure 100% pol, but he doens't have the 'visoin' thing down at all. (And letting all that Paul Hackett stuff out in public was dumb. Who airs their grievances so publicly?)

Kerry should be point on port security. It was something he said and said and said in '04. I can repeat his remarks on it almost verbatim, I heard them so much. I don't know if the Dems are waiting a week to see how this plays out or just trying to let Sens. Clinton, Schumer and Menendez talk because they represent states hurt by 9/11. (Well, that's not bad politics, come to think of it.) Anyway, the Dems should show some clips of the past debates, ahm, Kerry was right about this issue and closer to what Americans want than Bush was and is. (This proves it.)

[wisteria]

12. I agree, Kerry was the first to bring this issue to my attention. The

Dem's should show clips, it would counter the media's spin that we are only untested in capitalizing on this for no other reason than palatial gain. As for Hillary, I wonder if she has been handed this as a showcase situation. This plays into security issues very nicely. It is also likely that she does happen to be a senator from NY and the situation fell right into her lap along with Schumer. Like you, Kerry should also be herd on way or the other on this matter. Schumer should step back now. Actually,IMO he gets way to much press. To listen to him, you might think he was an expert on everything. Why do they go to him? Or does he seek them out?