Just curious: did you see Webb's response? If so, what did you think?

I'd respect them a lot more if they'd just come out and admit that they're not willing to see Social Security changed into what the Republicans would like to make it.

I may be mistaken, but I thought that this is exactly what the Democrats did. Didn't they basically say "take privatization off the table, and then we'll talk?" The Republicans were only willing to abandon the word "privatization," not the plans to privatize, so with the Democrats united against them reform went nowhere. A quick google for "social security" + "off the table" reveals a couple articles that support my recollection, although nothing definitive.

I did see it. I wasn't overly impressed, but then, the response is such an odd concept, it's hard to impress anyone with it. To be honest, I really wish the Democrats would stop with the running out of candidates' military service as if that in and of itself somehow could inoculate them from claims of being antimilitary. Just as you correctly noted over at ObWings about Bush, once someone has a reputation, it takes deeds, not words, to overcome that. I realize that, in the Democrats' case, a lot of that is perception rather than reality, but that doesn't change what it will take to fix the problem. I also wasn't particularly fond of the calls to populism that seem to be Webb's stock in trade. I dislike politicians who see their job as a mission to fan the flames of discontent.

On the other hand, he did a good job of zinging the President on his repeated calls for energy independence. And the speech was shorter and more to the point than the SOTU, so I did like that.

Blar,

I'm sure some Democrats have done just that. I should have been more specific in my complaint. In my defense, all I can offer is that it was late and I was trying to get my thoughts down and go to bed. Trust me when I say I need all the beauty sleep I can get.

"Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid".

There are two factual problems with this post.

1. Social security has a small problem, that was mitigated somewhat in the 90's by the productivity increases. So that is a valid reason why "minds have changed". To say "but it's amazing to me how many Democrats who pointed out that Social Security was a problem ten years ago have miraculously changed their tune since President Bush came into office" simply ignores the fact that the situation in the last 10 years HAS changed for social security, because past forecasts were based on smaller productivity increases.

2. Now, Medicare - that IS a problem, and some hard choices will need to be made there. But as a matter of informed knowledge, it would be great if you would drop this "SS and Medicare", as they are DIFFERENT problems, yes? Social security is a very very simple program. Medicare deals with a lot more claims, for varied reasons. You can't deal with Medicare without dealing/referencing a much larger kettle of fish, the health issues around old age, and how those should be dealt with.

And that is DIFFERENT THAN SOCIAL SECURITY.

Repeat it with me - DIFFERENT THAN SOCIAL SECURITY.

Does being rude and obnoxious generally convince people you disagree with to change their minds? Because I'm here to tell you, it's doing nothing for me.

To be honest, I really wish the Democrats would stop with the running out of candidates' military service as if that in and of itself somehow could inoculate them from claims of being antimilitary. Just as you correctly noted over at ObWings about Bush, once someone has a reputation, it takes deeds, not words, to overcome that. I realize that, in the Democrats' case, a lot of that is perception rather than reality, but that doesn't change what it will take to fix the problem.

The thing is, that given the existence of the perception with respect to Democrats generally, identifying those of our spokesmen with military backgrounds is an attempt to short-circuit the perception with respect to what's being said by those spokesmen.

Someone who thinks that Democrats generally are anti-military isn't going to walk away from that perception because Jim Webb was awarded a Navy Cross and has a kid in Iraq, but they still should be able to recognize that what Jim Webb specifically says isn't likely to be motivated by knee-jerk anti-military animus. Again, given that the perception exists and isn't likely to fade overnight, I think the tendency to make use of spokespeople who, as individuals, shouldn't be subject to it is reasonable.

But, and this is strictly my perception and I have an odd perspective on politics, it seems to me to have just the opposite effect. When I see Webb pull out the picture of his father, or Kerry turn the DNC into a military ball, it makes me ask what they're trying to pull. It just feels like they're trying too hard. As you note, the people who are convinced the Democrats are inexorably opposed to the military aren't going to be convinced anyhow.

I should note that I don't mind using Webb as a spokesperson. I just find it grating that he, and other Democrats, seem to feel the need to rub our noses in it. Jim Webb earned a Navy Cross. He shouldn't be required to wave it in everyone's face (figuratively speaking) before he makes his point.

Nice to see you over here, btw. Hope you won't be a stranger.

But, and this is strictly my perception and I have an odd perspective on politics, it seems to me to have just the opposite effect. When I see Webb pull out the picture of his father, or Kerry turn the DNC into a military ball, it makes me ask what they're trying to pull. It just feels like they're trying too hard.

Again, what they're trying to pull is obvious -- as I said, they're trying to brute-force their way past the 'anti-military' perception by putting forth spokespeople who it would be insane to think are individually motivated by an emotional distaste for the military. Of course it's deliberate and conscious, but everything any politician does is deliberate and conscious. That doesn't make it untrue or invalid.

If what bothers you ('you' being a Republican-tending-military-sympathetic voter, rather than 'you' Andrew Olmsted) about Democrats on military policy is a suspicion that their policies are shaped by a tribal distaste for the military rather than by a dispassionate evaluation of good policy (and I think that's what the 'Democrats are anti-military' complaint comes down to) then even though it's conscious and deliberate, Jim Webb as a spokesman for those policies should reassure you on that limited front. His biography and family history doesn't make him necessarily right about anything, but it earns him the right not to be suspected of concealing a desire to spit on soldiers and call them baby-killers.

Again, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him on anything. But it does mean that it doesn't make sense to reject what he says because it's coming from someone you think hates soldiers for being soldiers. Of course, he could still be a knave or a dupe, cynically acting as a front for 'anti-military' policies or having been tricked into thinking they're good on their own merits, and so could all the other Democratic veterans out there. But that's what you have to think of him, to think that the policies he espouses are 'anti-military' in their intent.

You may find it off-putting -- I'm not saying it's a successful tactic. But just because it's a conscious attempt to overcome a negative perception doesn't mean it's dishonest or invalid. If Jim Webb stands up for a policy, and he's not a liar or a fool, that really does mean that it's a policy that can make sense to someone who isn't 'anti-military'.

(And thanks for the welcome. It takes me a bit to bother registering for sites that require it, but once I have I'll probably be around a fair bit.)

I was away for the SOTU address, but your summary sounds much like what I predicted- more of the same. The SOTU, a once important tool, has outlived its usefulness with the advent of 24/7 news. I see LizardBreath's comments above- I just had an opportunity to read her for the first time this week because of a link on "Lawyers Guns & Money". Links are great things.

Andrew,

Don't know if the "obnoxious" comment was directed at me - tell you what, I'll apologize for the style - really, I was simply attempting to emphasize, and I do get annoyed at the sleight of hand that lumps Medicare and Social Security as the same issues, because it is dishonest. I'm commenting here, because I see YOU as above using those types of sleight-of-hands, that propagandist Republicans use.

Still, despite the style I again ask you to separate those two topics - Social Security and Medicare.

I don't think it's fair to call the conflation of Social Security and Medicare "dishonest," unless you have very good reason to assume that the individual in question has thought through both problems carefully, has differentiated them in his/her own mind, and has deliberately chosen to paper over the differences to make a point.

You might well, if you chose, call it "unhelpful" or "misconceived" or "(inexcusably) intellectually sloppy" or any of a number of other terms that focusses on the conceptual (and political) confusion rather than on the integrity of the person perpetrating it.

Otherwise, I have no dog in this fight.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: