DAS Blog

Rachel Madow (sp?) pointed out something interesting -- last night GW Bush was channeling Jimmy Carter. I don't mind Republicans sounding like Democrats, but

(1) when Republicans do this, how come high profile Democrats aren't pointing this out? why doesn't the Democratic response go something like:

We are happy to hear that, like Nixon going to China, former oil-man GW Bush is concerned about our dependence on oil. Of course, we were concerned about this 30 years ago, but when Jimmy Carter said as much, he was widely ridiculed. Anyway, we'll let by-gones be by-gones if the Republicans are now willing to put something behind the President's wonderful rhetoric -- we have proposed an alternative energy plan that has bipartisan support but which the President is currently blocking. If the President is so concerned about our addiction to oil, he should work with us on promoting alternative energy rather than to work against us.

(2) if it's good politics for Republicans to sound like Democrats, why, according to the "conventional wisdom" is it not good politics for Democrats to sound like Democrats?

Why does the Pres. use Dem. rhetoric? Because, as much as people have been convinced that liberals are evil and Democrats, being liberals, are evil, most people agree with at least some of the liberal agenda.

If Dems. would stop trying to run away from being evil liberals (and every Dem. to the left of Zig-Zag-Zell, even Joe Lieberman, is considered a liberal by most Americans) and would just clearly lay out our liberal ideology, maybe they would get more public support.

In spite of occassional Republican aping of Democratic talking points (and Clinton's aping of the Republicans was successful, it must be said -- and look at how angry the Republicans were about him), the Republicans did not get to where they were by pandering to the mainstream of public opinion (indeed, Dems. should take pains to point out such pandering and declare it a victory for them -- as people want to support winners and hate to support panderers) but rather by declaring that the mainstream supported their positions and the mainstream followed (with the help of a media, whose refs were so worked that they were afraid to voice any opinion except those to the right of Atilla the Hun, but who's perceived as so liberal that any criticism by them of Republicans is ignored while criticism of Democrats gets traction in the public's perceptions). Democrats should, no matter what the media says, take the same tack -- act as if the mainstream is liberal and the mainstream will eventually be more liberal!