President Barack Obama is doing marvelous things. His move on immigration policy was a stroke of genius. He has gotten tough on the economy, and (in spite of the best efforts of the media) the electorate is responding. Elizabeth Warren is working hard to focus the discussion on Wall Street reform specifically and how our government can help get this economy back on track more generally.
While I enjoy bashing the opposition as much as anybody, I must say that I share the sentiment expressed by others here that BMG seems to have gotten more negative than I’m really comfortable with.
Eight of the twelve front-page stories, as I write this, are bashing Scott Brown, Mitt Romney, or the RNC.
I know we’re in “silly season”, but seriously — can we perhaps focus a little more on what our team is doing that we like?
Just a thought.
But I just skip those posts and use the Recent Posts page.
The united front that election season brings about for everyone is always a fun thing, but there is a lot of constructive discussion that needs to happen within our own side to the achieve progressive reform we so desire within the state and the nation.
Talkingpointsmemo.com went completely partisan negative and they’re doing a lot better. People like this stuff for entertainment.
Personally I don’t have a problem with negative posts, I can tell most of this anti-Brown anti-Romney are just for self-pleasuring.
The unfortunate part is when the politicians start reading this and believe their own propaganda (Bush and Iraq war?)
The second problem is that people who claim to seek the truth rationally will then conclude that voters are dumb and so never change their ideas.
But other than that it’s fun for people so who am I as a contrarian to tell BMG how to run its site.
In particular, I think a decent rule of thumb is that whining and sniping about who is ducking debates are the opposite of interesting or entertaining.
What accomplishments over the last two years from “our side” in both the state and the nation makes us happy?
Maybe this isn’t always true, but it does seem easy to make bad news a singular story and soundbite, whereas good news seems somehow more complex. In any case, some things that I’m happy about:
* LGBT issues. Lots of national progress here. Tremendous. Five years ago, the idea of eliminating DADT and DOMA were long term action items.
* Environmental issues. The EPA has promulgated [or plans to implement] a long list of emissions reduction requirements, water regs, and so forth that have health benefits valued at substantially more than the cost of implementation. Americans deserve electricity *and* clean air and water, and we can have it all thanks in a large part to the EPA abiding by the laws Congress has been passing over the past 40 years.
* Health care. Obamacare’s Affordable Care Act has a lot of things to be happy about, involving pre-existing conditions, insurance for those 18-25, gender fairness, requiring insurers to pay 80% towards care, no pre-existing condition rejection for kids, enhanced fraud detection, Medicare D doughnaught hole elimination, Medicare for small rural hospitals and clinics, no co-pays on preventative screening, ladybits coverage, and on and on and on.
* President Obama shot Osama bin Laden in the face.
* Lower interest rates for student loans
* Fair pay for women
* Money spent on rail infrastructure
That’s off of the top of my head, with an effort to not focus too narrowly on the issues for which I hold near and/or dear. Lots of these involved Congress, and there are lots of things Obama would do if Congress would go along. And, of course, there are things Obama has done which I don’t like. Still, this list is a heck of a down payment on a better future for America.
1. The recession was kept from being a calamity. In particular, the auto industry rescue was a huge win.
2. While the public sector has been (unfortunately) shedding jobs, the private sector has added nearly 3 million in the last 21 months.
3. We’re mostly out of Iraq.
Considering negative campaign ads work, why is criticism from BMG about, well, anything, necessarily a bad thing? Reasonable men may disagree, and having the debate is important. That includes defending your ideas and challenging the other side’s.
As far as I can remember, positive campaigns usually flop. Sure, it’s the silly season, but school’s out and likely voters may now begin to pay more attention. After Labor Day, it picks up.
If all I received to my posts here is rah-rah booster-ism, I wouldn’t frequent the site (ok people…there’s your straight line.)
Deval Patrick and Barack Obama each ran positive campaigns and won. In 2006, Kerry Healey ran a nasty negative campaign against Deval Patrick and lost by 21 percent. I think that John McCain attempted to use Sarah Palin to be his attack-dog (similar to Richard Nixon’s use of Spiro Agnew), and I think the voters absolutely rejected her negativity (not to mention the rest of her schtick). I think the voters are tired of the relentlessly negative, histrionic, and strident garbage coming from the GOP and the right. I think the voters are tired of Rush Limbaugh, tired of Glenn Beck, and tired of angry GOP candidates like Newt Gingrich. I therefore think we progressives should “accentuate the positive”.
I have a different perspective than you about positive and negative campaigns. I agree that negative campaign ads are a necessary part of a healthy political system — when they focus on things that matter. Attack ads that say “NAFTA was a disaster and XYZ supported NAFTA” are fair and needed. Attack ads that say “Barack Obama ate dog food and isn’t a citizen” are garbage.
I’m not saying that criticism from BMG is a bad thing, I’m suggesting that we’ve gone a bit too far towards the critical side. I want to learn more about the positive things the men and women of my team are doing.
I think Palin dragged down the ticket because she was a smug idiot not because she was negative. Her speech to the Republican convention, a masterpiece of negativity, earned her some praise.
Today I got yet another email from the Elizabeth Warren campaign telling me about how Elizabeth Warren is celebrating her birthday (“Elizabeth and I took our golden retriever Otis for a walk at Fresh Pond. Now she is out doing the work that is in her heart: talking with people about how we can level the playing field for working families”). Enough, Bruce. I get it. I’m on board. I know she talks to people. I think it’s time to do MORE.
I’m looking for recent positive things to say about the Elizabeth Warren campaign. It is vital that we win this one. I get that she’s building her grassroots organization and meeting people one at a time. This is a nationally visible campaign, and I think the campaign needs more POSITIVE media visibility.
Elizabeth Warren received a historic vote of confidence from the Massachusetts Democratic Party at the convention of June 2, along with a media bump. That was nearly three weeks ago. Whatever media bump came with the convention is fading away now.
I suggest that it’s time for the Elizabeth Warren campaign to step up its media game. Not just ads, but news. I know Doug Rubin is good at this, and he (and the Elizabeth Warren campaign) generally read these pages.
I hope that the campaign hears this is an encouraging cheer from the home-team side — step it up!
So what issues might motivate the Democratic base?
1. The Republican Party favors global warming and is doing everything in its power to exacerbate it.
2. The Republican Party no longer favors any kind of social safety net and wishes to dismantle Medicare, Social Security, and even the Food Stamps program.
3. Unemployment at 8% is too low for the Republican Party and they wish to raise unemployment steeply by firing as many public employees as they can get away with firing.
4. The Republican Party is drifting toward opposition to birth control and public education.
5. The Republican Party is a strong advocate of social stratification and wishes to do everything possible to keep the children of parents without a college education from gaining a college education. They intend to do this by defunding public higher education and eliminating student grants and loans.
I agree with you about all five. I think the public agrees with the Democratic position on all five.
I therefore suggest that our emphasis be on the POSITIVE Democratic response:
1. The Democratic Party strives to make America a global leader in creating sustainable energy sources. The Democratic Party believes this fundamental technology revolution is a historic opportunity for America to revitalize its economy, rebuild its infrastructure, and create a better world for the children and grandchildren of America and the world.
2. The Democratic Party believes that good and healthy government exists to do the things that individuals cannot do for themselves. America led the world in creating a safety net for our elderly and aging, for our poor, and for our disabled. The Democratic Party believes that American, the wealthiest nation in human history, will sustain our prosperity only if we preserve and strengthen those safety nets.
3. The Democratic Party believes that a strong and vibrant private economy demands an equally strong and vibrant government. The Democratic Party believes that the best way to restore full employment is to grow the economy. Strengthening the public sector is one vital aspect of that growth.
4. The Democratic Party is committed to expanding the rights, liberty, and freedom of every American. No American should fear losing their job, their health care benefits, or their prosperity because of their religious or gender preference.
5. The Democratic Party believes that education, including post-secondary education, is a foundation-stone of America’s greatness. The Democratic Party believes that America must, can and will do more to ensure that a world-class post-secondary education is available to every American.
The negative statements are all much more succinct.
What do you want on a boiling hot Friday morning with insufficient caffeine?
đŸ™‚
UMass/Lowell will host one cosponsored by the Boston Herald. David Gregory will moderate, but no date has been set, which I find interesting because it would seem that in order for Mr. Gregory to commit he would have to know what date to put on his calendar. h/t Richard Howe
nt