"Ryan wants to privatize Social Security and turn Medicaid into a block grant program."

[No Elephants]

I have been hearing this from Democratic spokespersons on TV, including the Sunday morning talk shows.

This is a perfect example of why Democrats often fail to get their messages across.

Sometimes, I wonder if their bad messaging isn't deliberate. I mean, they are at least as smart as Republicans; and smart people don't fail by accident 96% of the time. However, this is not one of those times: I think they are really trying hard with this one.

Often, their messaging is too wordy and/or convoluted. That is not the problem here.

Often, their messaging is too nuanced. That is not the problem here.

The problem here is the assumption that every voter in American will understand the language of the beltway and the political junkie. It ain't necessarily so.

I bet a lot of voters do not know exactly what privatization is or why it is bad. And, if you don't know those things, "private" does not sound like a bad thing. Ditto "block grant program."


I don't know why Democrats don't find phrases that are brief, memorable AND easily understood by most third graders. Examples from the other side would be "tax and spend" and "death panels."

Democrats must pay a buncle to folks with p.r. and advertising savvy and Frank Luntz can't be one of a kind. I guess Democrats just pick the wrong ones, when it comes to language? Maybe they need to hire some junior high English teachers to help them figure this out? Or beta test their slogans and talking points?

[Enthusiast]

1. I agree.

I think the problem lies in the fact that those in charge of the messaging are, in fact, ideologically GOPsters.

[No Elephants]

2. So, they are too conflicted to come up with brief, pithy catchphrases?

Could be. But, as I said, I think they are genuinely against Ryan on these two things.

I don't know if they are against him because they disagree with him ideologically or whether they need Social Security to get votes.

When my older sister was something like a high school freshman, she thought the Republican Presidential candidate was more good-looking than the Democratic candidate. So, she tried to persuade my parents, aunts and uncles to vote Republican.

They were all living the American Dream, even the unmarried ones, working their tails off in factory jobs and menial jobs and pinching pennies so that they could give their kids a better life than they had had and, hopefully, even a college education, which was, in their minds, the be all and end all.

They looked at her as though she had just landed from Mars.

"Vote Republican? No, we don't vote Republican. Social Security, union."

That was it. End of discussion. For those two things, every member of my family, grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins vote Democratic.

(inasmuch as my family's sweat gave me the American Dream, I got to go to college, where I picked up a few more reasons to vote Democratic, like civil rights.)

However, we've observed what has been happening with unions.

A lot of police and firefighters turned Republican, even though their leadership continued supporting Democrats.

Obama campaigned on having a pair of comfortable shoes for union picket lines, but I guess they are no longer fashionable enough for POTUS use.

Even though unions are still big supporters of the Democratic party, the Democratic National Convention is being held in a right to work state because NC, like many right to work states, is a purple state. (And the rest of the right to work states are red. No sense spending your political capituhl in a blue state.)

Democratic surrogates have been on TV recently, yapping about how Obama should not have to defend the indefensible--namely, public union pensions. (When he was campaigning, what did he think pubic and private unions picket for usually, if not economic benefits to put food on the table and send their kids to college?)

Trumka, for one, has begun warning that union support for Democrats is not a given. It must be earned.

So, if Social Security goes...what's left for the average worker, like my family members?

Gay marriage and choice, both of which their church or temple or mosque probably has opposed every Sunday (or Saturday or Friday) every week of their lives?

Yet, President-Elect started talking about "reforming" "entitlements" being his priority before he even took the oath of office.

Here's a clue. You don't get victory over Republicans by morphing into them because you think that is how you win elections. At least, not in my family.

[Enthusiast]

3. If the president voiced a solid position

on social security and medicare he would win the election in a landslide. But he cannot take a solid position on these issues that are favorable to the American working masses. I believe He can't because his first mission is to dismantle these programs. And this will rightly be the death knell of the Democratic Party.

I know my position isn't popular on DU3, not sure about DU2. But that's just the way I feel. There are several ways to show that you have an unwavering support for social security and medicare. The President won't say it, or won't do it. All I hear is weasel words.

[No Elephants]

4. In an interview he gave shortly before his inauguration, Obama said

reforming "entitlements" was a priority or a necessity (or words to that effect0.

And, almost as soon as he got into the Oval Office, he appointed the cat food commission headed by Simpson. I poked around the DLC website and the framework for that commission and any number of things Obama has done and talked about doing were right there.



Have you seen the Carroll Quigley video? It goes a long way toward explaining what has been happening.

Basically, it says that world markets need the two parties to be very similar so there are not abrupt changes when one Party replaces the other (in the WH or Congress or both.) Makes sense, because all you hear the Wall Street types talking about is certainty, as if they were somehow entitled to certainty in this very uncertain life.

Anyhoo, Quigley was a prof of Clinton's. IIRC, Clinton said Quigley and Kennedy were his two biggest influences. I could easily be misremembering that, but Quigley certainly was one of Clinton's heroes.

The video is not really a video, just an excerpt from one of Quigley's books, with some music in the background that is really badly done. I just muted it and read the excerpt on the screen. Kind of made my blood run cold.

I learned about the video when a DUer (before DU3) posted a link to it without further comment. Wish I could remember his name.

Anyway, if you are interested, there are a bunch of Quigley-related videos on you tube.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Carroll+Quigley+you+Tube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

As far as the view being popular here, I think we have a mix of views here. Or maybe it is not so much a mix of views as a feeling on the part of some that they should never badmouth their candidate. And I can respect that. However, that is not how I feel.

Oddly enough, if this were a board where Republicans posted, I would probably zip my keyboard's lip and defend Obama to the death against every attack I saw.

It's like, I can find fault with my sister, but, if you try the same, I am going to do my best to shut you up ASAP.

Not rational, I know, but, I've never claimed to be rational.

I did see Skinner say over on DU3 that criticizing Obama's performance as President is okay, as long as you don't advocate voting for someone else or not voting at all. And, I am guessing you can't say that you don't plan to vote for him.

In the end, if I got banned, I would really miss hanging out with my fellow DU2ers, of whom I am very fond. But, i have to be able to have my say. If I try to obey the rules and still get banned, so be it.

I cannot deal with the DU3 penchant for conformity, which is why I have not made any posts there.

[Divine Discontent]

5. yes, I think Obama is open for reforming entitlements, but I prefer he get the majority's desire

that he continue pushing for raising taxes on the wealthy, as most Americans want done! I'm sure multi-millionaires and billionaires are majorly against it, but they only get one vote in actuality, so he needs to listen to the people. One of the driving messages to him during these remaining months of the election, from folks going to see him, should be that we want taxes raised on the wealthy, and hands off our SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc...



Get it now, or one of a million other designs! http://www.zazzle.com/worst_congress_ever_do_nothing_republicans_have_bumper_sticker-128285616900051283?rf=238107662556833486

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. They said public union pensions were indefensible? n/t