That's Ronald Browntein's analysis, not mine. Brownstein has accurately portrayed the dilemma of both the Democratic party and the DLC. Hopes are high that the Democratic party will be able to deftlly handle the imminent showdown on the filibuster. I have my doubts.
Democrats Are Lost in the Shuffle While GOP Holds All the Card: On almost every major question in Washington today, the choice isn't whether to move in a Republican or Democratic direction, but how far in a Republican direction to move.
More in Extended Entry
Up to this point, whatever strategy Harry Reid and the Democratic party may have has been badly bungled.
This is the grim reality of political life for Democrats at a time when the GOP controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.
This situation creates obvious problems for Democrats. But it's also produced surprising risks for Republicans, measured in skidding approval ratings for President Bush and Congress.
The dynamic is more complex than it might seem.
I agree with Brownstein, that even on their signature issue of Social Security, Democrats have played their hand poorly.
From Social Security, to intervention in the sad case of Terri Schiavo, to the appointment of conservative federal judges, every major debate positions the parties in the same way: Republicans are on offense, Democrats on defense.
. . .
Democrats are furiously laboring to prevent Bush from carving out private investment accounts from Social Security, but even if they succeed -- which increasingly appears likely -- they only will have preserved the status quo.
The same can be said on every single issue. The Democratic party has not even managed to step up to the plate.
t's like watching a baseball game where one team is always at bat, or a basketball game where one team always has the ball. The best Democrats can do is hold down the Republican score; the Democrats have found virtually no opportunities to advance their own ideas or to steer the discussion onto their strongest terrain.
Some of their problems are structural and procedural.
The Democrats' biggest problem is that they don't have a viable means to spotlight or forge a party consensus behind these ideas. Unless they can recruit Republican defectors, Democrats can't force the serious legislative debate on their initiatives that would attract news coverage and public attention.
But the crux of the issue is that Democrats have not managed to define their own values and beliefs in a way that is understandable to the American people and in a way that distinguishes them from the Republican party.
The larger problem is that the Democrats' inability to sustain attention on their ideas encourages a public sense that they have none. In the latest poll from Democracy Corps, a project of leading Democratic consultants, Republicans held a crushing 30-percentage-point advantage when voters were asked which party knows what it stands for.
Frankly, I am not the least bit impressed with the problem of being branded as "obstructionist.
The most immediate political danger is that Republicans can portray Democrats as obstructionists, a dangerous label in the "red" Bush states.
Why do Democrats tremble at the thought of upsetting David Broder, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson? Are Democrats more concerned about sucking up to the D.C. media establishment, than standing up for their core principles?
The Democrats have a tremendous opportunity, if they can respond to the approaching fillibuster "crisis" deftly.
The danger for the GOP is that the political dialogue is being structured less as a choice between Republican and Democratic ideas than as a referendum on Republican ideas alone. And some of those aren't faring so well.
An overwhelming majority of Americans opposed congressional and White House intervention in the Schiavo case; Bush's Social Security plan is lagging in the polls too. And it's difficult to imagine that many Americans outside the GOP's conservative base applauded House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's (R-Texas) fevered rant against the courts last week following Schiavo's death.
. . .
Conversely, Democratic thinkers like veteran pollster Stanley B. Greenberg believe Republicans are planting the seeds for a voter backlash by overreaching. "Democrats have an opportunity in pushing off this agenda, which may seem extreme to many," he says.
Republicans can continue to talk smack about being the party of ideas, only because the Democrats lack the will to define their own brand. Republicans are counting on the week kneed response of the Democrats to continue.
Republican strategists like Stephen Moore, president of the Free Enterprise Fund, believe that even with these near-term reversals, the central focus on Republican ideas will benefit the party over time. "In the long term, this is the way you win in politics," he says. "You plant the seeds of your ideas, and you effectively blockade the other side from advancing any of its ideas."
Brownstein's concluding thought is only accurate if the Democratic party continues to timidly dodge the issues.
Only future elections will settle that debate. But both analyses point to the same conclusion: The fate of both parties hangs mostly on the public's verdict about Republican ideas.
Are the Democrats helpless? Not if they unleash their secret weapon.
I say "Cry havoc! Let loose the Deaniac dogs of war!
As my wiser friend, Paul Rosenberg says, "Let the conversation continue . . .