Democrats & Liberals: Archives

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Henry V at Agincourt

Versus

Most of us will probably get killed, but those that don’t will be able to get everyone to buy us drinks once a year.

It is all in how you frame issues. Repbulicans do it well. It is a sign of intelligence and will power. Winners deserve to win. If Democrats can’t do it, they deserve to lose from this day to the ending of the world.

Henry won against the steep odds, by the way.

Jack, thanks for validating that it’s our message, not our agenda, that’s the problem. We’re working on it. ;)

And where is Honor. That most of feared quality
in a person. That never spoken word by a politician.
The quality that grants immunity from politician and
priest. It is repressed in each person by the words
God and Country. It detracts from the message,
mission, and misrepresentation of the leaders.
Honor, the quality that lets the child look no
further than the head of house, male or female,
for a role model. Where is honor?

Jack,

It is all in how you frame issues. Repbulicans do it well. It is a sign of intelligence and will power. Winners deserve to win. If Democrats can’t do it, they deserve to lose from this day to the ending of the world.

So if you can make your policies sound good (whatever their merit), you not only will win, but deserve to win? I heard a woman on NPR complaining that “the Left” sees politics as a sport. Sounds more like the philosophy you laid out.

The fact that Republican politicians are good at manipulating their flock doesn’t make Republican voters intelligent.

By the way, I didn’t know that Bill Shakespeare was a Republican.

AP,

Jack, thanks for validating that it’s our message, not our agenda, that’s the problem. We’re working on it. ;)

I always found it funny after the 2000 to hear Republicans say that Gore was a lousy candidate (and he still won the popular vote). Now people are arguing that Kerry was a lousy candidate. I guess there’s hope.

In light of the discussion on the Right column, I was just thinking that if we really want to introduce the Iraqis to democracy, we should ask Frank Luntz to write a manual for them. I can just imagine his advice:

-Don’t confuse people with facts and figures. Just show a picture of a woman in a burkha and say “Allah wills it”.

-Don’t use words like “submission” in regard to women. Say “traditional values”. (Actually, they don’t need to modify the GOP strategy that much.)

-Get you picture taken a lot standing at a falafel stand. Say that your opponent loves luxury.

(Remember, I’m not picking on the Iraqis. I’m making a point about Luntz and American democracy.)

Oh, and how could I forget…

-If someone asks why you are doing something, you can always say that you consulted Allah.

It works here.

Jack-
I write fiction when I’m not writing politics, so I know better than anybody the power of a well arranged but utterly false story. The danger comes when people rewrite reality in their public relations and work to obscure the truth. There eloquence, which you so ably demonstrated contributes power to a message, can be a evil.

It’s instructive to have experience with science fiction and fantasy. There, you not only confront the reality of the characters, but also of the environment and everything around the character. What that’s taught me is that subtext, what is implied but not explicitly said, is as much a part of the truth in a story as the literal facts themselves.

What the report above is symptomatic of, is an excessive desire to control the presentations and implication of facts, in the absence of real and positive control of them on the real world end of things. We don’t find a threat to our country in Iraq, so we shift our mission over to the democratization of the country and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a man with no sympathy on either side of the aisle. It’s a wonderful story, problem is, at the end of the day, it was the belief that there was a threat to our national security that compelled the average American to support the war.

Now, the false story has been made true in the most counterproductive way, and we’re having to fight terrorists because our invasion let them in, not because they were there in mass to begin with. This is representative of the dangers of action taken under color of deception.

When you react to a lie, or a bad theory, your reaction will be not to the intended target, but the truths that really were in the way. In this case, the sadly ironic truth was that Saddam’s regime was better at excluding the terrorists than our occupational forces.

Also, our actions did little to hurt al-Qaeda, and nothing to prevent them from attaining or creating weapons of mass destruction. It created a opening for the terrorists to do their foul worked, and traded our legitimacy for theirs. This fight only became part of the War on Terrorism because we chose to invade. We chose to invade because we thought we were doing it as part of the War on Terrorism. This is what we call in the fiction business a reversal.

We need these kinds of reversals like we need a hole in the head. We don’t need to be fighting the results of our own ignorance. We must take the risk of waiting until our evidence is solid and our analysis is valid, or else we will take the greater risk of ending up wrong on a consistent basis. Much as I love fiction, I understand the danger of trying to write and rewrite history to suit one’s agenda.

Kudos, Stephen. I thought the danger of the confidence man believing his own con (or the drug dealer using his own product) was self-evident, but clearly it isn’t.

It must be hard writing fiction this days, with the real world getting so bizarre. If someone wrote about the real Dubya ten years ago, people would think it was a silly liberal caricature of a Republican. “So then God tells him to invade Iraq. Haha, very funny.”

I just don’t understand how liberals and Democrats can be shocked – shocked – to find that phrases and framing makes a difference.

Persuasion is a complicated business. You can’t sell something people really don’t want. The failures of the Edsel and New Coke, despite the formidable marketing muscle behind them are examples. But it is very possible for a bad campaign to destroy a good product and a good and consistent message can be the difference between success and failure.

Cause and effect relationships between message, messenger and the underlying realities are blurred. Did Lincoln write his speech at Gettysburg to widen his goals to include a greater emphasis on equality, or did the speech and reaction to it push him and his party in that direction? In politics, the message can create realities and alter policies and ideas.

So when Franklin Roosevelt framed Social Security as a contribution program, he altered how people thought about old age insurance. When he likened lend lease to letting your neighbor borrow your garden hose to use on his burning house, he made intervention in the war against Hitler possible.

To the second subject, Kerry lost because of wrong message, wrong messenger and a poor execution. But he really lost simply because he faced a better-organized opponent. On Election Day, Republicans got more of their faithful to the polls than Democrats did.

Republicans internalized the lessons of the 2000 Election, where Dems out organized them in the last three weeks of the campaign. Democrats fell victim to their own propaganda. They believed that everyone thought George Bush was illegitimate and hated him and that that would be enough to play on that. They were wrong and paid the price. They should learn from this, change their habit and speak of stolen elections no more. That is the Edsel of today’s politics. You can’t sell it.

They believed that everyone thought George Bush was illegitimate and hated him and that that would be enough to play on that. They were wrong and paid the price.

First of all, you would have to be amazingly naive to think that “everyone hates” George Bush. The Dems may have been outfoxed (not to mention outFoxed), but they aren’t morons.

Even the rank-and-file Dems — why would they give so such money to Kerry if they thought Bush was “hated”? It isn’t hard to convince someone to reject a president they hate.

The other side of the coin is that Bush’s own campaign was overwhelmingly negative. I’m not talking about the Swiftvets, etc. I mean his own campaign ads. The GOP convention was, to my eye, much more negative than the Democratic convention. The Dems were actually removing negative Bush references from speeches.

So yes, the Dems lost. The idea that they lost because people don’t like meanies is a childish, rosy-eyed Republican fantasy.

I just don?t understand how liberals and Democrats can be shocked ? shocked ? to find that phrases and framing makes a difference.

Are we shocked? I don’t believe so. Just dismayed that the Republicans have decided to rely on it, and that unfortunately people can’t see through it. It’s not that people aren’t rational. They are. But rationality is a funny thing. It works along right angles and layers. One can say that one’s rational. Question is, by what rationale. The Republicans have mastered telling the stories, but the thing about stories is that storytelling is an adaptation to having limited information to impart and limited means to impart it with. By its nature, that means reconstruction.

What Republicans have taken advantage of are some of the prides and vanities of our all too human nation. Sure that brings with it power, but the power to frame the story brings with it a risk, and Iraq is a perfect example of that risk- in fact, risks, being two fold. The first risk is letting your ignorance and your imagination run away with you, creating illusions for yourself and others, or allowing the same to be done to others. The second risk is what you take when you or others act according your misleading story, and actions don’t meet the realities one intend to act against.

The power to persuade must be matched with the responsibility to be accurate, precise, and true to the essence of the situation one describes. Otherwise, you are just laying down the cobblestones of good intentions on the road to hell.

If were just in our heads, anything we could imagine as good would become so, but we do not live in our own creation but in God’s. In God’s creation much is hidden from us, and much works beneath the surface, and there can be great distance between what we believe to be true, and how things actually are.

Kerry lost I believe, because the fear from their ignorance (the common condition of all, including myself and yourself), outweighed their fear from knowledge. Given what people didn’t know or didn’t want to know about their president, I think its fair to say that it was only so close for this man who so inspired people after 9/11, because he lost the faith of so many. He lost that faith because he had too much faith in his own knowledge and understanding. Were he more humble, in an ontological sense, people could trust him easier. We instinctively distrust those who claim absolute knowledge, as we know it to be distinctly unnatural for our kind.

I just don?t understand how liberals and Democrats can be shocked ? shocked ? to find that phrases and framing makes a difference.

I’m not shocked, and I never pretended to be. I’ve long known that the GOP uses symbols and emotions to get people to disregard boring ol’ “facts and figures”. It actually kind of satisfying to see a nice summary of the BS I don’t buy into.

As for why I am writing the post — it’s always good document something, even if you know it to be true. And supposedly, propaganda doesn’t work if people realize that it is propaganda.

Democrats clearly believed that most Americans disliked Bush. You could feel that on the pages of this blog and it contributed to their disbelief that he won the election even after the numbers were in.

The other interesting thing seems to be that you think that only Republicans use the arts of persuasion do it. You underestimate yourselves.

That Dems didn’t go negative is just not true. Their attempted frame was that they were only positive and the principals would stick to this mostly. Meanwhile, Kerry would say off the record but loud enough to be picked up by the microphones that the Bush team were dirty and dishonest. They also knew that their surrogates and 527s would carry their water. . Some of the surrogates went too far. Michael Moore’s fictional tale (coupled with his personal style) and Whoopi Goldberg’s lack of style probably pushed a few fence sitters into the Republican camp.

Bill Clinton was the master story framer. You had to respect his ability. His best line was “save social security first” back in 1998 when he claimed that the system was soon headed for bankruptcy and before it became the Dem story that the system was sound if left alone.

The trouble was for Kerry is that his stories were sometimes wrong. His trip to Cambodia on Christmas in 1968, for example, fell to its own chronological problem when he made the mistake of saving that Nixon denied sending him there. I remember Gore’s tales of clearing land in Tennessee with a double handled axe. Gore grew up in luxurious NW Washington. He visited the farm back home I suppose.

I don’t hold this against them. Even Lincoln didn’t really split many rails and he wasn’t the country bumpkin he made out by the time he ran for president. That’s politics.

That Dems didn’t go negative is just not true.

Yes, they did. I don’t deny it. The premise that they were more negative is also wrong, however.

I don’t think Whoopi’s juvenile jokes were a strategic decision. It was not a public event, as I recall.

The story about Gore clearing brush is interesting, since you seem to acknowledge that it might be true. Your premise seems to be that since it might be false, it may as well actually be false. The whole “Gore is a serial liar” bit is a great example of how the GOP manipulates public opinion. It was a classic “big lie”. If you are persistent enough and have a big enough megaphone, they work.

Democrats clearly believed that most Americans disliked Bush.

I don’t have the numbers at hand, but I think I could come close to demonstrating that this is untrue. I remember looking at polls asking Democrats and Republicans whether they thought their candidate was going to win. Democrats were always less confident. I don’t see how Democrats could think everyone hates Bush, and yet think he was going to win.

If by “Democrats” you mean bloggers, well that’s another matter.

“Persuasion is a complicated business. You can’t sell something people really don?t want.”

Jack,
That statement is only mostly true. A good salesman would be able to make the sale, however, if the object isn’t something the customer truely wanted, they will never trust that salesman ever again.

Woody

I don’t doubt that Gore went to the farm sometimes and probably swung an axe once or twice, but it clearly was not an important part of his life. I didn’t disbelieve the facts of his story, but I did discount that this inveterate city slicker was trying to create artificial rural pioneer roots.

Take the counter examples of Reagan and GW Bush. Neither of them had real cowboy roots or made their living from the soil, but the persona fit because it was clearly reflected in the life they had chosen to live.

The problem for Gore wasn’t that he was a serial liar. It was that he couldn’t settle on a personality. He must have one, but we still know what it is. We saw several during the campaign. Kerry had a similar problem, although not as bad.

Clinton must have annoyed both Gore and Kerry. Everything about Clinton’s public persona was his creation and everybody knew it, but they thought this was okay. Even people who didn’t like Clinton liked Clinton. Much of it depends on the delivery.

There’s a story about a new guy in prison. Most of the others have been there many years. His first night somebody yells out “35”. Everybody laughs. Another calls out “5”. Same reaction. The new guy can’t understand this. His cellmate explains that the prison library has only one book and that is a joke book. Everybody has read it and they all know all the jokes. So they don’t bother telling the jokes anymore. They just call out the number and everyone knows it is funny. The new guy gets the book. He likes number 7, so later that night he yells, “7”. Nobody laughs. Finally his cellmate says, “some people just can’t tell a joke.” That’s Al Gore & John Kerry.

Rocky

Depends on what you call “good salesman” A good salesman thinks of the sale after next. The guy that sells through deception is a confidence man, not a salesman.

Democrats clearly believed that most Americans disliked Bush. You could feel that on the pages of this blog and it contributed to their disbelief that he won the election even after the numbers were in.

You’re missing important words there: Democrats clearly believe that most Americans should dislike bush. They fought and worked to get Bush taken from office. If you put yourself through so much, and things seem to have come so close, and you nonetheless loss, wouldn’t it hit you kind of hard. You don’t understand just how deep the resentment Bush created was. Your people joke about it, denigrate and discredit us for it, but you don’t understand just how bad Bush looks to the people who no long buy his spiel, and no longer see his boosterism as honest work.

Michael Moore’s tale was not fictional. That’s a thirdhand smearing of his obviously propagandistic approach. He’s called a liar by your side because he is outspoken, willing to leap to conclusions about the character of the people on the other side, and has a broad public forum.

I won’t tell you we’re not interested in picking up the tricks of narrative framing, nor that Democrats aren’t going negative. You can talk about our 527s, when your side forgoes it’s network of talking point recipients, closes down its cadre of think tanks, and tells the Fox Network to go take a flying leap. You guys can carp and complain about some outspoken celebrities.

As for Kerry? One, nobody’s memory is perfect, and people can believe strongly in memories that are composites of other recollections. Kerry’s conflation of Cambodia and Christmas Eve (or whatever) is nowhere near as implausible as you would imply. Hell, you can make people believe they were kidnapped by Aliens, tortured by Satanist in obscene ceremonies, and horrors of horrors, lost in the mall when you were a kid, just by suggestive questioning. People can conflate things themselves.

Now, the notion that nobody went into Cambodia is pretty much B.S. John O’Neill, Kerry’s nemesis now and thirty four years ago, admitted on the Nixon tapes that he was in Cambodia some time before, when he denied such charges on Television. Truth is, much of the controversy is centered on nitpicking on little details people don’t tend to get right in eyewitness accounts anyways.

If you can tell me that Kerry’s imperfect, I don’t have a problem. But if you’re saying the SwiftVets have it right, there are serious issues with their accounts, and the bulk of the accounts back Kerry.

“Depends on what you call “good salesman” A good salesman thinks of the sale after next. The guy that sells through deception is a confidence man, not a salesman.”

Jack,

I worked at one those outlet electronics/computer/appliance stores and that is how we were trained to sell. That was the eighties though. A different time and a different place.

Once again, I am surprised at your reaction.

I fully expect both sides to deploy all the persuasion techniques at its disposal. I respect the other side more when they do a good job. There are some rules I think we should live by. I don’t think we should attack family. We shouldn’t say things we know are not true. I don’t think we should go after anything someone did more than ten years ago, unless he brings it up (as in John Kerry’s Vietnam) or it has bearing on a current issue. Personally, I don’t go after personality issues unless it directly impacts character.

When I give a speech on a contentious issue, I start with the following disclaimer.

“I am an advocate. What I will tell you will be the truth as I see it, but it will not be the whole truth. You come to me for my side and that is what you will get. I am not the public library. I will answer any question you ask, but I am under no obligation to accept the preamble or premises. With all this in mind, we can have a fair and open exchange.”

I don’t add, but it is true that I intend to use my position as speaker to ensure that I win any exchange and if I don’t convince you, I will affect the opinions of those around you. If I didn’t think I had a reasonably good chance of doing this, I wouldn’t be here.

That is what I expect of myself and of my competent opponents. I don’t take insults personally and usually enjoy my good opponents company. During the Cold War, I was sometimes assigned to debate Soviets. I hate Communism with a passion and their evil policies I attacked vigorously, but after the debate we usually enjoyed drinks together. The only people who get on my nerves consistently are the emotional types who cry, scream or try to hit me with righteous indignation. I have learned some humorous tricks to deal with such like that leaves them sputtering. Do you guys find this nefarious? I don’t.

There is a difference between persuasion and outright lying. The Republicans last election were the most misinformed people ever. Up to the Election, they still believed that Iraq did 9/11, that Iraq had WMDs, that Al Queda existed in Iraq and that Iraq would pay for itself. I suppose being lied to doesn’t bother you but it does me. Now we hear of Extraordinary Rendition going on. Where will it end?

At the time of the election I didn’t believe Iraq had a direct role in 9/11. As for the question of Iraq WMD, it depends on when. Iraq had them definitely in 1998. By the time of the war they were gone. We still don’t know where or when. Iraq and Al Qaida didn’t share operational links, but Saddam was a terror sponsor. I remain happy the regime is gone. By the time of the election, nobody believed Iraq could pay for itself. In fact, I used the counter argument almost a year before. When people would claim that the war was about oil, I would always point out that Iraq produces about 20 billion in oil a year, so that it would be impossible for the U.S. to recoup its losses even if we got all the oil. If you want to talk about stupid ideas, how many people still believe the war was fought to give Iraqi wealth to American companies, despite the simple math problem.

So maybe those things as you mentioned are what you think Republicans thought, but it is not what informed Republicans thought. You can always find the misinformed on both sides. We all have a selective memory and more easily recall our opponents’ mistakes than our own.

Take the counter examples of Reagan and GW Bush. Neither of them had real cowboy roots or made their living from the soil, but the persona fit because it was clearly reflected in the life they had chosen to live.

I think you mean chosen to pretend to live. Of course, accusing RR of being a phony is like accusing Yao Ming of being tall.

If you want to talk about stupid ideas, how many people still believe the war was fought to give Iraqi wealth to American companies, despite the simple math problem.

The war wasn’t paid for by oil companies. It was paid for by the taxpayers. That’s the problem with corruption. It would be a lot cheaper for corrupt politicians to hand out money, but that’s illegal.

I am torn on the “war for oil” argument myself. I wouldn’t give it any credence, but it is a matter of historical record that when Cheney’s energy commision met before 9/11 they were looking at maps of oil fields in Iraq.

Jack-
I don’t expect people not to use persuasive techniques. I can’t say my view of human nature is sunny enough for me to say people won’t misuse them. What I would say, though, is that there is often a temptation for decent people to try and persuade people by emotion and deceptively selective presentation of the facts. I would say it’s best to resist this impulse in debates and discussions, because one is essentially leaving a hole in one’s argument that one must defend by further manipulation.

I think issues concerning a person’s life should be measured not by the years, but by the relevance. Because of this, the Vietnam experience of both candidates is under scrutiny, because it is relevant to issues today. To me, the time limit is arbitrary. Unless the pattern of the facts indicate resolved bad habits and sin, I tend to believe that character before indicates character after. That said, examination of that character should be done with as much calm as possible.

For me, it’s about mutual exclusivities and the spectrum of possibilities between them. In essence, the question is what things can’t be true at the same time.

As for your questions about profiteering and whatnot I’d say this: people can make lousy estimates of opportunities. Maybe corporate cronyism was a factor. It’s just that some corporations didn’t anticipate the kind of crap the invasion would stir up.

We can’t always measure the benefits people sought from what they got. For my money, though, I’d say that foreign policy was a stronger motivation than energy policy.

“On Election Day, Republicans got more of their faithful to the polls than Democrats did.”

Pure speculation. Since there were no verifiable paper trails on many of the electronic voting machines, we will never whether this is a true statement or not. I don’t think I have to repeat all the problems that occurred during the past election, I’ve told you all about them numerous times - but there were more than enough angry people and suspicious circumstances to call the outcome of the Ohio and Florida votes into question.

“The problem for Gore wasn’t that he was a serial liar.”

Gore won in 2000. I have shown you all the government documents that prove this fact beyond any doubt. His only problem was the fact that Katherine Harris and Brother Jeb rigged the vote in Florida and stole his presidency from him.

“Kerry had a similar problem,”

Yes, he did. But this time we will never know the full extent of the situation - due to that paper trail problem, the ability of the computer voting machines to be easily hacked, and issues like the fact that not enough voting machines were sent to the most populous, but predominantly Democratic districts, etc., etc.

“Bill Clinton was the master story framer. You had to respect his ability. His best line was “save social security first” back in 1998”

Clinton was only able to mention fixing Social Security because of the surplus he created. He was leaving all that up to Al Gore to do. Gore told us he was going to put our money in a lock box, so that Congress wouldn’t be able to keep robbing the program blind. That was a fantastic idea, and would no doubt have happened had the election not been stolen away from him by a tax-cut-and-spend Neocon.

But you’re wrong about that being his best line. The most effective thing Clinton ever said was:

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

It worked during the first election because no one but the wealthiest of people actually were better off. And he brought it back to make it work for him a second time because indeed, he had made things a whole lot better for the majority of Americans.
I think its the kind of line that Democrat’s could use over and over again - because it is perennially True.
And that is always what people want most. Rather than be constantly baited and switched, or sold a bill of worthlessly shoddy goods by some phony Shyster, people will always come back to the kind of Salesman who first and foremost, put their reputations behind something of Value, and who respects them enough to tell the Truth.

That is why it is such a good thing for the Dems that Howard Dean is the head of the DNC now - he was the kind of guy who did away with the BS and talked honestly.

The first time I heard the “are you better off today than you were four years ago” line was when Reagan used it against Carter.

It seems to me that I have a fundamental disagreement with the other writers on this thread, but it is not partisan or political. I think it is a good thing to use symbols and language to lead public opinion. I know this might be considered cynical, but what I am about to say is just true. Half of the population has a below average IQ (a tautology) Many others don’t have the time or inclination to study the issues. Beyond that, television and modern advertising has numbed the general population’s sense of valid argument. This is not good, but it is true. The only way to reach large audiences is with symbols. Symbols are prepackaged ideas. A picture of an eagle, for example, brings with it thousands of nuances. Think of the symbol as a super word.

You don’t have complete control over the symbols you use. Some particular candidates can’t use. For example, Democrats are better served to stay away from bald eagles. When the Dems ran a commercial showing a soaring eagle and an ostrich with its head in the sand, the voice over explained that the ostrich was the Republicans and the eagle was the Democrats. But many of the people watching thought the eagle was George Bush, despite the words.

All great leaders are master manipulators of symbols. You can go back to ancient times and you will see the same principles at work. I don’t think Republicans are better users of symbols and frames than Democrats. Bill Clinton was the best manipulator of them that I have ever seen. His problem was that he lacked the underlying consistency. Ronald Reagan was more effective than Clinton because he had consistently held his core convictions for a half-century and everybody knew it.

The Democratic problem has been a question of character. I know you don’t like to hear that, but character in the public sense may not be the same symbol you think it is. Character in public means a consistent set of beliefs and a predictable behavior over a long period of time. Republicans run on character. Democrats run on programs or resume. Character is more important. It is impossible to know what program will work in next year’s conditions and a person of the right character can adapt programs.

Liberals (which is not all Democrats) have a problem with the concept of character. They think you should judge a candidate by his qualifications. If you are looking for someone to fix your car, you want qualifications. If you are looking for a partner or a spouse you want character. A president is more like the latter.

I personally don’t think modern PC liberals (it would take many words to define what I mean, but think Michael Moore, Henry Waxman or Barbara Boxer and you will get an idea) can adapt to this and I am not unhappy about that. They have caused significant harm to the U.S. character and I am glad to see thier time is over. I think Democrats can as soon as they jettison some of the old baggage. It is really getting old and heavy.

Jack,

I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t think that Republican politicians have better character than Democratic politicians. Bush’s lapses in character, for example, have been documented by many, many people, so I won’t go into them in detail. I will say that someone who can condone sending to other countries to be tortured does not have good character. I’ll let Christians judge how that fits with the teachings of their faith.

I can’t deny that the GOP is good at EXHIBITING character. Think of character like sex appeal: most GOP politicians are like bosomy blondes; their apparent “character” comes across easily. The “blonde” may be a cold fish in a real relationship, but she looks like a smouldering sexpot. On the other hand, many left-leaning politicians are like quiet, restrained beauties. Sometimes they get themselves in trouble by imitating the sexpots, going out with the equivalent of a plunging neckline. This often backfires and they look ridiculous, but that doesn’t mean that they are lacking character. They just aren’t natural exhibitionists. Reagan, of course, was the all-time champion. He was Marilyn Monroe, Madonna, and Rita Hayworth rolled into one.

Woody

I didn’t make my point well, but you got it anyway.

Public character is not necessarily the same are private character. Public character is the ability to project a consistent persona over a reasonably long period of time. Take again the example of Ronald Reagan. His personal life (i.e. his divorce, relationships with his children etc.) were less important to his public character than his consistent public identification with values of family, loyalty and country.

“The Democratic problem has been a question of character. I know you don’t like to hear that, but character in the public sense may not be the same symbol you think it is. Character in public means a consistent set of beliefs and a predictable behavior over a long period of time.”

If this is true, then John Kerry should have been the winner of the last election. He has been a guy who has been upstanding ALL his life - rather than just after the age of forty. And his many years in the Senate constitutes a solid record of what he considers important.

“They think you should judge a candidate by his qualifications.”

I think Dems look for both character and qualifications. As the leader of a superpower, a US president should certainly be in posession of both.
BTW, a long string of failed businesses, owning a ball team, and running Texas into the ground as governor, doesn’t count IMO.
Some Washington Post articles highlighting themes from the Texas Years we’ve unfortunately become all too familiar with:
Corruption and Inefficiency:
Texas Housing Agency Falls Short of Bush ‘Dream’ - Allegations of Corruption, Inefficiency Dog Agency - an agency under his direct control.
Tort Reform:
Texas ‘Tort Reform’ Aided Business - and Bush
Ignoring the Health Care Crisis:
Fact Check: On HMOs, Bush a Reluctant Reformer - Bush Now Touting Measures He Had Vetoed, Left Unsigned
A terrible environmental record:
Texas Environment Could Work Against Bush
A lack of conscience:
In Texas, Defense Lapses Fail to Halt Executions - Attorneys’ Ineptitude Doesn’t Halt Executions
Tearing down the Wall of Separation between Church and State - in fact, in the first article they claim that in an interview he said that imposing religion upon government was one of the PRIMARY reasons he wanted to be president:
Texas Prison Uses ‘Christ-Centered’ Agenda
Bush Puts Faith in a Social Service Role - Church-Based Providers Freed From Many Rules

I guess he has shown some consistency after all…

“It is impossible to know what program will work in next year’s conditions and a person of the right character can adapt programs.”

The Neocons by their very nature do not adapt - they impose ideology come hell or high water.

“It is really getting old and heavy.”

The lies are getting old and the price is getting heavier all the time. Insane Deficit. Pre-Emptive War, and War without End. Bleak future for our children. Polluted Air, Water and Soil. Sickness without Healthcare. Old age and retirement without an emergency pension. No redress of grievances against Big Business. The Rich getting Richer, the Middle Class disappearing, the Poor getting far poorer.
Asking the question “Are you better off now?” is once more definitely in order.

…And that didn’t work as well for Clinton. This mainly because Reagon got divorced before he came to office; Clinton’s sex scandal happened while he was in the Oval Office, and thus there grew a perceived link extending from his private to public character. This worked against Al Gore because he was unable to take credit for Clinton’s successes in the 2000 debates.

Adrienne

I am telling you what the public perceives to be true. I am making no judgment whether or not it is true in an objective case. You are arguing with me about the underlying truth. What you and I think is true is not important in the image of character. Whether you like him or not, Ronald Reagan projected an image of good character to a large number of Americans. John Kerry, Al Gore and even Bill Clinton did not. And whether or not you think it is right, many Bush supporters mentioned character as a reason they voted for him. If John Kerry was a man of superior character, he did not do a good job of projecting it or his opponents did a better job of obscuring it. In either case, it was a problem for Democrats, not Republicans.

“I am telling you what the public perceives to be true. I am making no judgment whether or not it is true in an objective case. You are arguing with me about the underlying truth.”

No. I agree that the persona that Bush put out there resonated with a lot of people (why, I couldn’t guess because he has always appeared to me as a man who displayed zero visible intelligence, a distinct lack of creative thinking, and a glaringly obvious inability to think on his feet).
But I think you’re missing the point that I’m trying to make, which is: when what the majority of people get is Republican rhetoric that has no basis in reality, and when they begin to be personally affected by policies that are either ineffective or harmful to their quality of life, they will swing in the other direction and vote in the Democrats.
I believe that this is what gave Clinton his first term after twelve years of Republican leadership that cut needed programs and gave us enormous deficits. Clinton then earned his second term by following through and making the average person prosper.
If not for the Monica Witch Hunt, I think Gore’s win would have been a landslide, rather than a tight race (and I think the GOP knew this, which is exactly why they set out to sabotage Clinton’s second term).
So, to sum up, what I am saying is that all the charisma in the world won’t get a party elected if the average person isn’t getting any actual benefits out the policies that are currently going forward.
I’m almost certain that the day is fast approaching when people are going to realize that, to paraphrase Clinton, if people want to live like those on the Right, they’d better start thinking and voting like those on the Left.

Henry won against the steep odds, by the way.

Quoting Henry V is fairly lame, Jack. Especially when you argue the English won against steep odds.
The French didn’t have the Welsh Longbow. Perhaps more men, and certainly more knights, but they were outclassed in terms of armament and strategy - they choose bad ground and were fighting against a technologically superior force.
The odds weren’t as long as you make them out. The reason why it’s portrayed as such in the play has to do with Shakespeare writing for the pleasure of the court and not historical accuracy.

Brico

Think of the context of this post.

My point was that the phrasing and framing counts in persuasion. That Shakespeare put his formidable talents to work on the propaganda and that we are still talking about a man who died young well before our country was founded shows only how well it worked. You seem to have studied the actual battle, but for most people who have heard about Agincourt, the only reality they know comes from Shakespeare. Perhaps even more interesting, even among those who know something about the real story, and know that warlike Hal was not the cool guy portrayed in the play, the illusion still trumps reality when we try to conjure up an image.

Besides, I just like the words.

Adrienne

I don’t think the people who voted for Bush were fooled. I voted for him for reasons I still consider valid and I am firmer in my belief that I made the right choice today than I was on November 2. Assuming Bush did manage to trick the other 60 million people who voted for him, if Republicans can sell such a bill of goods in the time of war, right after a recession, with economic uncertainty in the face of fierce opposition from media personalities loved by the people, if Republicans can manage to pull this off under those conditions, I wouldn’t hold out much hope that the people will come to their senses any time soon.

More likely, the Dems will have to come up with a better candidate and a better message. I have no doubt this will happen. Politics swings back and forth. But I don’t think people were fooled. Ronald Reagan won by a true landslide in 1984. Twenty years later he was even more popular.

Jack

To equate eloquence with mendacity is, in itself, a mendacious act (“lying,” in other words). Still worse, your Shakespeare example took eloquence and reduced it to a statement that distorted Shakespeare’s original meaning, whereas the initial post showed the opposite, wherein a Republican takes straightforward words and uses misleading terminology to confuse the listener into not noticing the substance. Quite different, and I know you know it. But it is this mendacity that is the problem, not GWB’s Shakespearean eloquence, with which we are all familiar.

Either own it, or drop out of this discussion. I don’t appreciate you practicing this very perversion in support of it.

Jack:
“I wouldn’t hold out much hope that the people will come to their senses any time soon.”

And if I were you, I wouldn’t be counting those chickens.

“More likely, the Dems will have to come up with a better candidate and a better message.”

Well, now that they’ve got a chairman who represents the Democratic Wing of the Democratic party, they’ll no doubt do much better. People don’t want Republican Lite, they like a clear and obvious difference, as well as the kind of creative solutions the Dem’s have historically represented.

“Politics swings back and forth.”

Which I consider a good thing - unless were talking about the Neocon’s, of course.

“But I don’t think people were fooled.”

I do - but the lies are catching up to the Neocon’s as we speak. And I believe people were also very afraid - because the GOP wanted them that way. But people can’t stay scared forever. After a while, they get tired of feeling afraid, and disgusted with themselves for not being braver. I think it just takes some longer than others to get over the Chicken Little stage.
Me, I forced myself to get on the subway and go to San Francisco 45 minutes after 9/11 took place. I was really afraid, sure, and I was almost certain that a very old and close friend of mine had just perished in that inferno (which he did), but I’d be damned if I was going to let terrorists or anybody else dictate my actions through fear, and so I screwed up my courage and went. I figured, at least I’d die actually doing something rather than stay holed up in my house like a scared little mouse.

Re:Ronald Raygun:
“Twenty years later he was even more popular.”

Not with some people - me, for instance. I still clearly remembered his years in office.
IMO, Bush Sr. was a far better president than The Old Gipper.

Wimp

I honestly don’t know what you mean. In this post I have been very open and said exactly what I believe to be true. I have disagreed with other posters and they have disagreed with me. I guess I am the only contributor to this thread who doesn’t buy the line that Republicans have somehow tricked the electorate, that Democrats do not engage in the same sorts of manipulations or that using words, symbols and frames is bad.

I have been trying to talk about things as they are, and everyone else is telling how they wish they would be or think they should be. Wishful thinking and living in denial doesn’t help win elections.

Shakespeare is actually a good example of manipulation. The history plays were quite obviously designed to support the existing political structure.

Adrienne

I didn’t expect you to like Ronald Reagan, but polls show that most American (in some polls as many as 80%) consider him a good president. What is interesting is that his reputation has improved since he left office, even though he left with a very high (68%) approval rating. You may not understand why or agree, but it is true.

Jack,

Just as an example of a good sales job.

How much of the “Contract with America”, that the Republicans have touted so highly, has actually been enacted in the last ten years?

Speaking of Reagan’s legacy, y’all may find this poll interesting:

Gallup Poll. Feb. 7-10, 2005. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?”

Ronald Reagan 20
Bill Clinton 15
Abraham Lincoln 14
Franklin Roosevelt 12
John Kennedy 12
George W. Bush 5
George Washington 5

Jack,

It looks like we largely agree about the facts, and largely disagree about their moral significance. I don’t doubt that the Democrats have their own tricks, but I do think that they tend to rely more on rational persuasion, “facts and figures”. A cynic might say that is their problem.

Since they don’t control any branch of government right now, they don’t really have a bully pulpit to work from, anyway. If they get back in power then someone on the Right column can warn your below-average masses about their tricks.

The main question I have is “Do the Dems have anything remotely close to this - that is, a well thought out, clear plan to win back seats?”

If not, that is the biggest problem I see. Forget the content, the framing, what this shows is the Repubs have a plan, and they communicate it to their people. Dems have what?

“Dems have what?”

A liberal agenda that has cost them the last two presidential elections.

I don’t believe it’s the packaging. It IS the content and so far, the majority dont like it.
But dont worry liberals, everyday more and more people become dependent on the govt, then it will be your turn to ruin our REPUBLIC.

Jack:
“You may not understand why or agree, but it is true.”

You’re right, I don’t understand why.
A quick overview of exactly why I didn’t like Reagan:

He subsidized the Contra guerrillas while they terrorized the population in Nicaragua and killed thousands of civilians, as he referred to them as “freedom fighters”. He used money from the U.S. Treasury and gave it to the anti-Soviet mujahadeen – calling them “freedom fighters” too. (It was they who later evolved into groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.)
He gave large-scale support to governments aligned with death squads who murdered thousands in El Salvador and Guatemala. He supported the policies of Unita in Angola. He said nothing about apartheid in South Africa, and pretended as though widespread human rights violations by U.S. backed regimes didn’t exist.
Here in America, he dismissed the idea of environmental degradation, denigrated low-income and gay people, didn’t support basic civil rights legislation, promoted tax breaks for multimillionaires and large corporations, spearheaded anti-union measures at home - while supporting regimes that repressed workers in other parts of the world, and appointed federal judges who enlarged the intrusive powers of the government.
Before 1987, he couldn’t bring himself to publicly mention the word AIDS, even though the disease had been discovered in 1981. His silence on that issue cost many thousands of people (some of whom were friends of mine) their lives.
I thought he was one lousy president and I didn’t mourn his passing.

Adrienne

Again the point is that 80% of the people don’t believe these things or don’t care or thought the good things he did were more important. In my own case it is a combination of all three.

I don’t believe it’s the packaging. It IS the content

kctim, here’s the content. While I’m sure one or two things might offend your libertarian sensitivities, I don’t see anything that wouldn’t appeal to most Americans.

And as much as I despise the practice, Jack is absolutely correct. Perception is everything. The Bush campaign knew that full well - in 2000 AND 2004. They effectively used the media to sell the idea that both Gore and Kerry were untrustworthy - liars and wafflers.

After that perception was established, it didn’t matter if they had better ideas or a better grasp of the issues. You just didn’t feel like you could trust ‘em.

All through the campaign here, we’d point out that Kerry had the better platform, and many times we’d get the response, “Sure. That’s what Kerry says, but he won’t do it. I don’t trust him. He’s a waffler.”

Democrats got played. Americans got played. Jack understands that, especially since it sounds like he does that kind of thing for a living.

“Forget the content, the framing, what this shows is the Repubs have a plan, and they communicate it to their people.”

Sorry, Rooster,

All this shows is that the Republicans are capable of piling the bullshit higher and making it smell just a little nicer.

AP
I’ve read the dems agenda over and over and it sounds nice. You can read the reps agenda and get that feel good feeling also. They promise everything and give no answer on how to pay for it. Higher taxes is the only answer and most people know that and don’t like it.
If this is not the answer, please let us know and don’t bother with the class warfare rant because it doesn’t work anymore.
Nobody has anything against free healthcare for all, the problem is, it isn’t free it is payed for with taxes which means higher taxes. People are not as dumb as dems want them to be.

People did not vote for Bush because he seemed like a more regular guy than the pompous kerry or gore.
The republicans do not control all three parts of govt because they are the better liars.
The people know that the Dem agenda is now a liberal agenda and they do not like it, for whatever reason they may have.

kctim-
You talk about a liberal agenda costing us the last two elections. But you neglect one important fact: democrats are more centrist now. They go right, they’ll run into Republican territory, and have to compete with them on those terms.

The way I see it, the average American has been ill-informed by their government and media, and sunk into a culture that prefers to dance around problems and issues rather than take the risks inherent in solving them.

The Republicans are more the beneficiary of the decay of the old order than the Democrats are the victims of it. They promise they will do something about the disorder eating away at the standards and institutions of our country, and instead go about the work of dismantling it. Because that dismantling is politically influenced, the government retains power, but no necessarily the staffing, the funding, or the attitude to use it properly.

Frankly, too much of conservative and libertarian thought is about getting something from nothing by deregulation. It’s no more about competing to do the best job. It’s about creating loopholes in the rules to get money by other means, without much regards for the real world consequences. Where moderate regulations and substantial financial over sight kept companies lean and competitive, these lax regulations reward impulsive, dishonest behavior. Ayn Rand would be proud.

I really don’t think the anger on the left is about President Bush, Its more about the liberal platform being rejected by todays voters.

I agree that a good salesman can sell most anything to someone that isn’t sure if they want/need it, but if they already HATE that item you’ll make no sale.

I disagree with everyone about what Clinton’s best line was, it was ; “I’m better off today because of Ross Perot”, however he said that off the record.

Stephen
“democrats are more centrist now”

To liberals, this may be true. But to those of us who primarily vote Dem in local elections but can’t when it comes to national elections, it is the exact opposite.
Instead we vote for the Rep’s.
Why?
Because the all or nothing liberal agenda with certain issues now dominates the party.
Common sense tells our local Dems that this is Missouri and the east coast or the country of california.
Most Dems here support the 2nd Amendment and they don’t have a “our way is the only way” attitude about abortion. They know its ok to say “under god” and to love America first.
There are many other examples that show that the national Dems do not understand the average American.
If they did understand, they would know that there is a big difference between the govt slaves and those of us who prefer to take care of ourselves.
If they did understand, they would know that just because people in blue states arent responsible enough to own guns doesnt mean that those of us who are should be penalized.

Forcing a liberal agenda based on california beachhouse views or cape cod estate views will not get our votes.
Understanding there is a difference and that we cherish our rights will though.

PS
I only use the gun issue because it is one in which I am most knowledgeable and it is one that I believe has contributed greatly to the Democrats fall.

Sorry, it should read:

“Common sense tells our local Dems that this is Missouri and NOT the east coast or the country of california.”

And I only chose Missouri because that is where I am at. You can use whichever state you want.

Kctim,

You speak the truth, the problem is those in control of the Dem party nolonger want to hear us.

If the voice of voters that left the party gets in the way of the new “platform”, wer’e just radicals to be swept under the rug and discounted.

It don’t matter how many ribbons they try to put on the new progressive “package”, I still know whats in the box and wont open it.

I hear ya Beagle, thanks.

Its also good to see that at least a few people still read and respond to my posts on here.

Most Dems here support the 2nd Amendment and they don’t have a “our way is the only way” attitude about abortion. They know its ok to say “under god” and to love America first.

Dude, where do you get all that crap? I never heard any Democrat at the national level say anything like that. Kerry’s been a hunter for years. Both Boxer and Feinstein like their hand guns (I’m also a Californian beach house hand gunner). I don’t think you even know what the Democrat’s “way” on abortion is (hint: there’s no one “way” except that a woman’s freedom to choose shouldn’t be outlawed). And I’ve never heard any Democrat come down on God and the USA.

But of course it’s easier to kick the Dems when you only have to defend vague generalities like “the all or nothing liberal agenda.” Please.

You’ve got a point with the taxes, though. But Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility. Try us and see. You were around for the Golden Age of Clinton. You’re now living in a nightmare of GOP fiscal irresponsibility.

One of the coolest things Kerry said during the campaign was that he’d ditch his social agenda if it interfered with balancing the budget. That’s the same philosophy Clinton had, and the country was far better off for it. It could be again, someday…

AP
The 2nd Amendment stuff you wrote is funny. You and I both know liberals are totally for extreme gun control, especially handguns. Hell, the country of california has even banned 50 cals, clear violations of the 2nd Amendment.
Registration, banning certain types, anti-CC and excessive paperwork all “infringe” on our right to keep and bear arms.

“there’s no one “way” except that a woman’s freedom to choose shouldn’t be outlawed”

Add govt supported and that IS the only “way” that is accepted by liberals.
I support abortion just not govt involvement. Take away govt involvement and every liberal will scream that the lady no longer has a choice.

On a personal level: I WAS around during clinton. I am ten times better off today than I was then.
On a national level: Other than the war and 9-11, the country is doing about the same as it was when clinton was pres.
The shifting numbers to create a surplus by clinton and Bush’s overspending haven’t had the dire effects that the left wants so badly to happen.
I work security in downtown Kansas City. My only friends at 2am are the bums, druggies and partyers. The only difference between the 90s and now that people see is the music.

“It could be again, someday…”

Only when both, Dems and Reps, start realizing that the average American is moderate.

You and I both know liberals are totally for extreme gun control, especially handguns.

I said Democrats, not liberals. I couldn’t care less what the tiny lunatic fringe does - except when they’re the President and the GOP leadership.

Hell, the country of california has even banned 50 cals, clear violations of the 2nd Amendment.

kctim, the .50 cal Desert Eagle has been available in the gun shop at my shooting range for a couple of years that I know of, so I have no idea what your talking about. I think someone’s trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

I support abortion just not govt involvement.

HELLO! Democrats are trying to keep the government from legislating away woman’s freedoms. From our point of view, Roe v Wade is the only thing keeping the government out of it.

On a personal level: I WAS around during clinton. I am ten times better off today than I was then.

I started the 90’s making 28k/year and ended ‘em making over $100k. It was the Golden Age of Clinton. Over the last four years I’ve seen a drastic decline in my salary and investments.

On a national level: Other than the war and 9-11, the country is doing about the same as it was when clinton was pres.

Uh… Right…

…the dire effects that the left wants so badly to happen.

The left thinks things are bad enough already. Dude, we’re pissed off ‘cause we know things would be way better without the wacko fiscal policy and the crackpot foreign adventures.

Only when both, Dems and Reps, start realizing that the average American is moderate.

Democrats are right in the middle. I’ve heard a lot of talk, but never seen any evidence produced to show that the Dems are too liberal. You yourself said the Democratic agenda looked fine. And BTW, that’s not just rhetoric, that’s actual legislation. That’s what Democrats are all about.

For contrast, you can see the extreme wacko GOP agenda in action every day.

I totally agree that the majority of Americans are moderate, but it’s the Reps that are way out of the mainstream.

You should check out Christine Todd Whitman’s book, “It’s My Party Too”. It’s one thing to have Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough (he never did explain the dead body in his district office, did he?) lay the smackdown on Republican Party leaders, but Whitman’s not a wacko. She’s a moderate.

AP
“I couldn’t care less what the tiny lunatic fringe does”

This explains our differences then. You see it as a fringe while the moderates see it as THE Democratic party.

50 cal link: http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0%2C2061%2C575554%2C00.html

Abortion: Yes, you are right, it is from YOUR point of view. The average person doesnt look at “legislation” they look at who it costs, the taxpayers, themselves. You take ALL govt monies out of every aspect of abortion and a lot less people would be against it.

“Uh… Right”
AP, walk around any city, town or community and tell me what is different now than it was in the 90s. Other than the fact that more Americans are buying new homes.
Not statistics, that both sides skew, but actual real person experience.
The same bums, same stores and same new businesses going up and coming down. It is the same atmosphere as the 90s.

“The left thinks things are bad enough already. Dude, we’re pissed off ‘cause we know things would be way better without the wacko fiscal policy and the crackpot foreign adventures”

This fiscal policy IS whacko and crackpot foreign adventures occur with all administrations.
But what would be way better to the average person? Right now we get more money back in taxes but I’m told health insurance has went up about $8 to $20 per month.
“Average person” AP, not Pundits who are informed.

I also said the Rep agenda looked fine also.

Whitman? ok. Good ole Zell too, right?

I am now making about 8 grand more than I did during my best times in the 90s. Your not doing as well as you want and I’m doing better than I thought I would be.
Life has not changed all that much for the Average American.

The Dems ARE to liberal right now AP and you guys fail to acknowledge it. If they weren’t, they would have won the last two elections.
Instead of always looking outwards to find the problems, look inwards. Fix those and you may get more votes.

“We all think it’s the first step toward banning sniper rifles,” said Michael Fournier, owner of the Gun Exchange, a shop in San Jose.

Bastards! I can’t believe Republicans would want to ban sniper rifles California. Now I hate Schwarzenegger even more. :/

BTW, I’ve been to both the gun shops mentioned in the NYT article. Wacky coincidence.

AP, walk around any city, town or community and tell me what is different now

I know several people that have had to sell their homes and move to less expensive places because they lost their jobs or took pay cuts to keep ‘em. Congrats on doing better. Many of us who worked our asses off, aren’t anymore.

I also said the Rep agenda looked fine also… This fiscal policy IS whacko and crackpot foreign adventures…

Listen to yourself. You don’t believe the Reps agenda is fine.

But what would be way better to the average person? Right now we get more money back in taxes but I’m told health insurance has went up

We (the middle class) would have gotten more tax money back under Gore or Kerry’s tax plan. The upper class would have had to make do with a smaller tax cut that was proportional with everyone else’s. It’s called “fair”, or something like that. And Kerry had an excellent plan for bringing down health care costs. California brought down it’s healthcare costs by doing the same types of thing (back when we had a Dem governor). And look at this administration’s tort reform laws. Good luck getting a hearing if you or your family are injured or killed by some company’s defective product. Kerry and Edwards had a great program for addressing frivolous claims while preserving our right to make legitimate claims. Bush & Co. threw the baby out with the bath water.

The Dems ARE to liberal right now AP and you guys fail to acknowledge it. If they weren’t, they would have won the last two elections.

That’s it? That’s your PROOF that Dems are too liberal? Seriously, Democrats have a lot of good moderate legislation pending. We fail to acknowledge your charge because it’s just not true.

You see it as a fringe while the moderates see it as THE Democratic party.

If that’s true - and I don’t think it is, since Kerry only lost by 118,000 votes in one state and 5 of the 7 seats picked up in the House were due to DeLay’s illegal redistricting scheme in Texas - then moderates are misinformed. We’re reorganizing to enlighten them.

[BTW kctim, you’re not a moderate just because you have a problem with both Reps and Dems. You have views on gun control and other social issues that moderates find extreme.]

The current Republican leadership has wacko liberal spending and government growth legislation, a wacko liberal human rights agenda to free everybody everywhere whether they want it or not, and enough wacko social fundamentalist legislation that even moderate Republicans are speaking out against their party.

Watch what they do, not what they say. Here’s what Democrats are doing.