Van Hollen: Democrats to Once Again Run As Party of Change

[cinyc]

Van Hollen: Democrats to Once Again Run As Party of Change

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good luck with that strategy.  Blaming George Bush will ring hollow 2 years after he left office.  What Obama and the Democrats have done to/for us lately is much more relevant.

If the Democrats run on change, I'd expect Republicans to call it change we don't need at a price we can't afford.

[nhmagic]

All we need to do is call their change socialism and run against that.  Dems are pathetic and deserve to lose for tearing our country apart.  I hate them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

-Run ads with Nancy Pelosi promising the most honest and ethical congress ever and then switch to images of Rengell, The backroom deals, etc etc.

-Ads with Obama promising to get  the lobbyist out of Washington and then mention all the sellouts and special deals. Ads with his promise to put it on C-Span.

-Ads of Dems promising paygo, then list all the times they have waived it.

-We can turn Obama, Reid, and Pelosi into symbols for broken promises and coruption.

-Attack individual members records of broken promises and lies

-Let our candidates run ads describing themselves and what they would do.

-Come out with and ajenda of 10 items max that have widespread support in late Sept..

[Marokai Backbeat]

All we need to do is call their change socialism and run against that.  Dems are pathetic and deserve to lose for tearing our country apart.  I hate them.

You are why political discourse sucks. You have no idea what "socialism" is and you have a downright immature attitude on how to treat the other party. Seriously, you need to grow up a little. I wouldn't even be responding to this if this sort of immature illogical sentiment wasn't widely shared by the right.

-Ads of Dems promising paygo, then list all the times they have waived it.

Two problems. First:



Second: Republicans would make efforts to pay for things procedural hell. They know this and you know this. I have no problems with paying for everything brought up, but Democrats made a tactical mistake by bringing up PAYGO while at the same time knowing Republicans would obstruct efforts to actually do it.

Deep in these political issues (or talking points, if you prefer) lay complicated and wonky behind-the-scenes details that are omitted for the sake of good attack ads. Political operatives can get away with that sort of nonsense, but this site is supposed to be, or at least it should be, much more mature about discussing the reality.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All we need to do is call their change socialism and run against that.  Dems are pathetic and deserve to lose for tearing our country apart.  I hate them.

You are why political discourse sucks. You have no idea what "socialism" is and you have a downright immature attitude on how to treat the other party. Seriously, you need to grow up a little. I wouldn't even be responding to this if this sort of immature illogical sentiment wasn't widely shared by the right.

-Ads of Dems promising paygo, then list all the times they have waived it.

Two problems. First:



Second: Republicans would make efforts to pay for things procedural hell. They know this and you know this. I have no problems with paying for everything brought up, but Democrats made a tactical mistake by bringing up PAYGO while at the same time knowing Republicans would obstruct efforts to actually do it.

Deep in these political issues (or talking points, if you prefer) lay complicated and wonky behind-the-scenes details that are omitted for the sake of good attack ads. Political operatives can get away with that sort of nonsense, but this site is supposed to be, or at least it should be, much more mature about discussing the reality.

The point is to prove Democrat hypocracy. It doesn't matter that the GOP voted against it. They had a good reason to.

Don't forget that Paygo was put into effect as a House rule in 2007 and it took only six months to waive it. - broken promise

They passed Statutory Paygo this congress, then waived it several times. - another broken promise.

Marokai, its an election year, so you better get used to talking points and attack ads. Thats what will dominate the next year, not the boring specifics of some policy or issue.

[Holmes]

The Republicans have already reached out to the lesbian bondage demographic, and they already have support from the gay pedophile demographic (which Massa tried to steal from them!)... they just gotta energize that base more and they'll be fine!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Whether talking points or slogans will dominate the political cycle is not at question and is something I can't help. However, that doesn't mean individuals have to act like campaign ads when you should be far more mature and realistic about any given scenario. You are far more intelligent than this (despite what others may say) and you should act it.

Even if PAYGO had been waived, Republicans had nothing to lose by voting for it. They tried to kill it procedurally and in the final vote, repeatedly. Republicans also killed the idea of a deficit commission. They also proposed a number of irresponsible measures (such as privatizing medicare and social security, which, in base dollar terms for the economy in general, is actually more expensive by Paul Ryan's own admission, a package consisting of 900 billion in tax cuts as a "stimulus alternative" that would've cost us inconceivably more than the actual stimulus which actually has reasonable multipliers, and the House GOP's healthcare proposal, which left just as many people out of insurance and reduced the deficit by less) that, realistically, should destroy any credibility they have on this issue.

If they voted for it, they could've worked with Democrats when it came to passing things that needed to be paid for to find ways to pay for them. Their absolute refusal to participate in the government process has turned off probably upwards of 5 conservative democrats who would normally be swayed to work with more moderate Republican proposals. It's because of that outright refusal that Democrats are left with little options. Republicans have demonstrated they will vote against their own ideas, so even spending cuts to pay for something still wouldn't get any Republican support, since they would vote against what we were spending money on anyway, and would only turn off Democrats, and Democrats would never get sensible tax changes through on their own as well.

There is little explanation as to why Republicans would oppose PAYGO or a Deficit Commission except that they want to ensure no actual progress is made on the debt&deficit front as long as Democrats have the power. This is not something that should be dismissed as politics, as it is dangerous and irresponsible, and it is not something that should be rewarded.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whether talking points or slogans will dominate the political cycle is not at question and is something I can't help. However, that doesn't mean individuals have to act like campaign ads when you should be far more mature and realistic about any given scenario. You are far more intelligent than this (despite what others may say) and you should act it.

Even if PAYGO had been waived, Republicans had nothing to lose by voting for it. They tried to kill it procedurally and in the final vote, repeatedly. Republicans also killed the idea of a deficit commission. They also proposed a number of irresponsible measures (such as privatizing medicare and social security, which, in base dollar terms for the economy in general, is actually more expensive by Paul Ryan's own admission, a package consisting of 900 billion in tax cuts as a "stimulus alternative" that would've cost us inconceivably more than the actual stimulus which actually has reasonable multipliers, and the House GOP's healthcare proposal, which left just as many people out of insurance and reduced the deficit by less) that, realistically, should destroy any credibility they have on this issue.

If they voted for it, they could've worked with Democrats when it came to passing things that needed to be paid for to find ways to pay for them. Their absolute refusal to participate in the government process has turned off probably upwards of 5 conservative democrats who would normally be swayed to work with more moderate Republican proposals. It's because of that outright refusal that Democrats are left with little options. Republicans have demonstrated they will vote against their own ideas, so even spending cuts to pay for something still wouldn't get any Republican support, since they would vote against what we were spending money on anyway, and would only turn off Democrats, and Democrats would never get sensible tax changes through on their own as well.

There is little explanation as to why Republicans would oppose PAYGO or a Deficit Commission except that they want to ensure no actual progress is made on the debt&deficit front as long as Democrats have the power. This is not something that should be dismissed as politics, as it is dangerous and irresponsible, and it is not something that should be rewarded.

What are you talking about? The thread is about the Democrats political strategy in response to I laid out what the GOP should do in response. And you keep harassing me about not being mature or something. WTF is your problem, Can you not read?

The GOP opposed Paygo and the Deficit commisions because they know where it will lead. A VAT tax.

You are now making the claim like most liberals that because they don't support your ideas, they don't have any.

[TheGlobalizer]

No matter what the Dems run on, it's going to be a total frickin' bloodbath.  Their record over the past 2-4 years -- 50% change that didn't happen, and 50% change that significant majorities do not want.

It's only going to get worse, as it seems most world leaders are starting to get in on the "manipulate Obama" sweepstakes, and Obama is still trundling ahead with his attempts to redefine America in a way that runs counter to the vast majority of US history.  Obama's election wasn't built on a whole lot of substance, so this sort of thing has an amplified effect on his and his party's popularity and electability.

I'll be utterly shocked if the GOP doesn't win the House, but even the Senate is in play.

[memphis]

All we need to do is call their change socialism and run against that. 

That worked great for you in 2008. Please try it again.
Not that definitions will mean anything to you, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All we need to do is call their change socialism and run against that. 

That worked great for you in 2008. Please try it again.
Not that definitions will mean anything to you, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Actually it did work to some extent and help improve the numbers in certain states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and probably decided Missouri.