The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Terry Ott:

Paula Lieberman:
Thanks for reading my post, but I regret I was unable to explain myself well enough.

Respectfully as possible, I will point something: my post said to think about the power of a succinct but sweeping document (as the Contract With America certainly was), and imagine that the Democrats would do something comparable to it IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THEY WOULD GOVERN. e.g., A PLEDGE THEY WOULD SIGN ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT (enumerate those things) COMPARED TO THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS, AND A COMMITMENT TO TAKE ACTION ON VARIOUS "GOVERNANCE MODEL" TACTICS (enumerate them).

Your reply was to attack with vengeance the contents/substance of the Contract With America , and then go from there off into the standard diatribe filled with your own vituperous lingo about Bush and the right wing and theocracry and all the rest of it. Your knee actually jerked, I think.

The document I was thinking of would resemble (remind people of) the Gingrich Contract ONLY in that it would be clear, short, "un-nuanced", bold, forward looking, and binding. It would be the common launching pad for party candidates. And if the party cannot come up with a collection of principles around governance and then expect its candidates to get behind them --- well, I'm afraid that in and of itself is very telling.

If you think the Democrats collectively would commit to a common high-level set of themes about energy, retirement income security, health care, national security, etc --- fine, add that. But that is not so important right now. The fundamental "contract" I want to see from the party is "here is how WE will govern once in power" with the appropriate subpoints made very clearly.

I believe that if the governance processes are "right" (which they are not), and the few overarching "agenda items" are right (which the are not), and we have people in office we can trust to do the best they can for the whole country, all the rest will sort itself out. I'd like to hear the Democrats say that kind of thing forcefully and repeatedly and make a pledge to live by the principles that flow from it. That's not too constraining for your "ethnically, socially, religiously, economically, and world-outlook pluralistic constituency" is it?

Paula: "Initiatives the Democrats are pushing..." is not what I am talking about. At all.

I am talking about a pledge that "Governance will be different and better when the Democrats are in majority control of the executive and legislative branches. The American people have our iron-clad pledge that these things will be done: (1) ...(2) ... (3) ... (4) immediately and then consistently carried out, and our solemn assurance that the following will be the 7 most important principles for governance in the Neo-Progressive era: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7).

Take a look at the Contract With America. If this kind of document were produced and disseminated, now, by Democrats (unitied) what chance is there that it would not be front and center in all political discussions, Fox News included, and editorials and op-ed columns, etc.? Not that it would be uniformly hailed as "the right answer", but it would not be pushed aside as minutia and policy details. No --- it would put the contest for minds and votes on another level altogether.

That's what I'm talking about. Not "we're trying our best to get some traction on this and that", but rather "You deserve better government, and we promise you that will happen and here is how....."

And if the Party cannot muster the will and intellect to get this kind of message out, then the party does not deserve to lead the political agenda of the nation --- and in fact one would have to wonder if it is ever destined to be a viable force again.

Take a look, not for a debate on the contents, but for a lesson in how to take charge:
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

The beauty of this is that the Bush administration could never come up with anything like this. It's way too "cards on the table and dealing from the top of the deck".

To me this seems so obviously needed, and so powerful. What am I missing?

OK, about the "wandering in the wilderness" (I guess that's what was taken for back patting myself), NO candidate I have ever backed with energy or money has come out of the primaries with the nomination, since my first POTUS vote for JFK. So that's MY wilderness. I'd like for that to change some day.

My argument is not about capitulation, it is about WINNING for crying out loud. You might see filibustering as a step forward in battle; I see it as a step over the cliff (for the reasons I mentioned). My suggestion for winning is to make all the points that Lizzie L wants made, and more, but I simply do not think a filibuster (by definition, a defensive and obstructionist tactic) is the venue. I want the Democrats to start dazzling the country with their equivalent of the Contract With America --- not the content, of course, but the boldness, the sweep, the grandeur of it. If you think this can be done in the context of a filibuster, which features every windbag politician (articulate or not, smart or dumb) making his/her repetitious and somewhat mean-spirited 20-minute speech for the benefit of his/her base, then I missed something in Marketing 101.

I'd like the Democrats to appear as something other than the beseiged victims. It's not a "leadership image". Isn't that obvious? One more spasm of fury (filibuster bluster), followed by the inevitable put down is not going to move the cause forward. They need to get their act together (key word is "together"), their version of what governance SHOULD be and start blasting it in every local election venue, state election, and the upcoming election for seats in Washington, consistently --- not in the Senate chambers with all the world waiting to see how they will be checked and countered by the defending champions.

I understand the frustration; it is palpable. But the filibuster would be like a snort of cocaine; feels good, gets you nowhere, except further behind the eight-ball.

And as for the comment that "The argument Terry Ott puts forth has been tried and tried again and yielded nothing", tell me WHEN the Democrats have tried to put a sweeping, positive, populist message out there in a coordinated way and it has not worked. What hasn't worked is the message of gloom and the politics of ABB, and that's what a filibuster is bound to sound like, 2006 style.

It's easy to write and deliver alarmist "sky is falling" speeches; Gore did a nice job of it the other day. Then they fade away because most people don't want to believe it's "that bad". But right now they DO want to hear how things CAN be better in terms of a governance model. Bush has succeeded in putting them (read: many of us) in exactly that frame of mind. It's hard work to put togther the winning proposition of hope and opportunity, and then stick to it for a couple of years until people "get it". But that has to start happening now, I believe. A filibuster against someone that lots of people think is a genuinely "acceptable" nominee to the SC is not the way to kick it off.

We need to see something special and exceptional coming from the Democrats, not "politics as usual".

Independent, anti-Bush, split my time between a Red and Blue state; very much hoping the Democrats give me a reason to vote for them in upcoming elections.

Filibuster is a losing proposition.

Wanna turn Alito into a sympathetic figure? Stone him some more.

Wanna make Democrat party leaders look childish and petulent and have viewers critique their "encore performances" (Confirmation Hearings Redux)? Put the TV lights on them again.

Wanna burn up some more time being reactionary instead of devoting that effort to building a positive brand image for mid-term elections 2006? Yak yak yak ... right up to the elections.

Wanna put some more logs on the polarization fire, the one that keeps Rove and Co. warm at night when they deserve to be left out in the cold? Play their "in your face" game, which is one they always win at.

Wanna have people like me, seeking a good governance theme that speaks to solving problems and serving the general good, finally decide that a third party is the only way --- even if it is a pipe dream?

As a strategist, we saw Kerry in operation not so long ago. Now he has added that to his repetoire somehow, at this stage in his career? Sure....

Go ahead. Blow me off. I'm pretty much resigned to wandering in the wilderness anyway. Do the filibuster. It will be kind of a nostalgic thing as you fade off into the foggy night. I'll meet you at the Lost Cause Pub for a friendly drink and another round of complaining.

Comment statistics for Terry Ott on the Making Light blog

Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.