"Liberal" as a dirty word

[thatcrazycajun]

En route to Detroit for a day of corporate training: Leonard Pitts, one of my favorite syndicated columnists, has written an excellent piece that our local paper published today, but apparently has not yet gotten onto its website, on a longstanding pet peeve of mine: the appalling success that conservatives and Republicans have had the last decade and a half or so in turning the once perfectly respectable descriptive "liberal" into a pejorative epithet. His column can be read on the website of its originating paper, the Miami Herald, here.

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Decade and a half? I can remember it as a campaign issue for Dukakis in '88.

[(Anonymous)]

So, a decade and three-fourths? All I know is, it's not two decades until 2008.

Critical quote from the column

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Democrats, meantime, are left looking for ''word magic'' of their own, failing to understand that it's not the words per se that have the power, but the deeper narrative of hopes and fears they represent.

Yup. Which is why all the business of "framing" and trying to create campaigns by focus groups and polling is counter productive. It is about changing the fundamental framework of the debate, not the debate of the moment. It's about proactively targeting people, not just hitting "battleground states." It's why Dean is right and Shummer is wrong.

Re: Critical quote from the column

[(Anonymous)]

Right and wrong about what exactly? I seem to have missed the latest quotes from Schumer and Dean.

Re: Critical quote from the column

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Dean, who heads the DNC, is investing in the "50 State Strategy." It is a long-term plan to create Democratic party infrastructure everywhere working on a full time basis.

Shummer, who heads the Senate re-election committee, wants Dean to reallocate money from the 50 state strategy and direct money to "battleground" states. Shummer argues that longer term benefit must be put on hold to sieze a unique short-term advanatge. Dean argues that is exactly how we got into this mess and that the whole point of the 50 State Strategy was a recognition that the dividends from forgoing short term benefit are huge in the longer run -- like 2008. Also, Dean thinks it is not effective to reallocate money to battleground states, because that strategy failed to work in 2002 and 2004. Finally, the DNC specifically fund raised on 50 State, and reneging on that will allienate the growing "net roots" base. Shummer responds that when we are talking about one or two seats making the difference between a majority R and a majority D Senate, the party needs to reevaluate the cost/benefit.