January 26, 2006
Dean's 'elevator pitch'
I didn't see the interview, but Howard Dean was on NBC's Today Show this morning and was asked to describe what the Dem Party stands for in 30 seconds. I'd say he has a pretty damn good response.
"One: American jobs that will stay in America, using energy independence to generate those jobs. Two: a strong national defense based on telling the truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies. Three: Honesty and integrity to be restored to government. Four: A health care system that works for everybody just like they have in 36 other countries. Five: a strong public education system so we can optimism and opportunity back in America."
Katie Couric responded, "Thank you for staying in the 30 second time frame."
I'd also thank him for having such a solid answer on tap.
I'd also like to mention that, yet again, Dean hit the Abramoff question out of the park. When Couric said Democrats were given money by Abramoff, Dean basically said, "Nop they didn't."
All Couric could do was basically say she'd check with her Republican sources for her response to that.
What does it take to get Couric to read the script we provide for her?
Comment by Memekiller — 1/26/2006 @ 4:59 pm
Perfect. Thank you Howard. Now let's contrast that with the current GOP kleptocratic dead enders and pound it into the national narrative til November. Then when we take back Congress make it more than a soundbite. Make America worth it again.
Comment by Grim — 1/26/2006 @ 5:04 pm
Yep.
We have to get it through our thick skulls that we're not talking to ourselves. WE appreciate nuance, and thorough answers. WE know the answers aren't simple. But the people we need to convince do not like nuance, they like certainty and simplicity
Dean is the man. If he hadn't tipped his hand about smashing the media giants, they might have let him live. But he did, and they didn't.
Comment by Racerx — 1/26/2006 @ 5:09 pm
The man and the organization have been doing their homework. With responses like this and Harry Reid's pre-response to the usual State of the Union pablum to come, it's starting to look like a real horse race out there.
Comment by Curmudgeon — 1/26/2006 @ 5:23 pm
Two through five are great. One has me scratching my head - does he mean a carbon tax that goes for training programs? Also, doesn't a balanced budget appeal to anyone? I seem to recall that Ross Perot got lots of mileage out of it despite being a certified lunatic. And if there's a starker contrast between Clinton and Bush than their budget record I can't think of it. You can say something like "Balance the budget so we can meet our obligations to seniors fully and without gimmicks".
Comment by BC — 1/26/2006 @ 5:31 pm
Dean's response is wonderful, but I remember the '04 Dem Convention, listening to Kerry take the high road on health care, education, a strong defense, integrity, and jobs. Kerry decided he was going to accentuate the positive and talk about the America we could become. But he also decided not to attack Bush, and the media never let his positive message get out. It all became Swift-Boat this and flip-flop that. Take a look at CB's post from 9:10 this morning, "The Netroots Work the Ref," with its link to Peter Daou's article, in which Daou talks about the way in which the major media continually frame and refresh the background narrative and context of their stories to help Bush and the GOP — and how Democrats, no matter how hard they try, can't get their message out. I agree with Daou's view. And if Dean's comments get any traction (which they probably won't), they'll get sliced and diced by the media for not being firm/resolute/strong/sexy enough…and if necessary, they'll show his "scream" again.
Comment by JohnnyB — 1/26/2006 @ 5:44 pm
Beautiful. I would add only two words:
.
One: (Good) American jobs
.
Three: Honesty, integrity and (competence) to be restored to government.
.
All 5 of the points in Dean’s answer highlight the various abject failures of our current Republican leadership. Mentioning good jobs can be used to highlight the stagnation of the middle class, even in an economy that has some good overall numbers (e.g., no minimum wage increase, middle class spending cuts, as contrasted to corporate giveaways and tax cuts for the wealthy). Adding competence will tie into a focus on the mismanagement and cronyism infecting the Bush administration.
.
I think privacy rights and civil liberties are also a core Democratic value. Does anyone think that’s an important point to include, or would adding it feed into the Republican narrative (soft on terrorism, against religion/family values) and distract from a simpler and more focused message for this election?
Comment by Common Knowledge — 1/26/2006 @ 5:49 pm
BC, I'd guess that Dean was speaking on his feet and tried to get too much in at once. Because I can't figure out how energy independence relates to jobs either.
Does the DNC site say anything about that policy initiative?
Comment by Rian Mueller — 1/26/2006 @ 5:57 pm
"One has me scratching my head - does he mean a carbon tax that goes for training programs?" BC
I think what he means is that by placing proper emphasis on energy independence i.e. making it one of the country's top priorities and backing it up accordingly with appropriate funding, that this effort will create jobs. When all sorts of money and effort was thrown at getting to the moon in the 60s, there was a constant development of new technologies that grew out of that effort and which created various industries and employment. If the US Government were to now throw, over the next 10 years, something like $200 billion towards developing technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, this will createsignificant activity, employment, and new discoveries and technologies, and this builds on itself, having a multiplier effect.
Comment by bubba — 1/26/2006 @ 5:58 pm
Dean just inspired me to donate $50 to the DNC. Go Dems!
Comment by David — 1/26/2006 @ 6:17 pm
Dean's energy independence to create jobs comment:
Yes, putting energy alternatives in place does create jobs, bring down the price of alternatives, and lessen pollution. It's a win-win-win.
California is once again going to lead the way. It is a big issue, and a study cited (in the SF Chronicle?) pointed out the savings, and Ahnold is trying to get out in front of it.
Comment by pogo — 1/26/2006 @ 6:45 pm
Was Dean talking about the "New Apollo Initiative"? This would take $30 billion dollars a year, the amount spent in subsidies to support the coal and gas industries, and put it into alternative energy development.
As outlined in Lakoff's book, this would:
create 2-4 million jobs
better health: less pollution, less asthma
cleaner air & water
help endangered species by cleaning up habitat
lowering greenhouse gases, less global warming
help foreign policy - we would be less dependent on foreign oil
(we could) help third world countries develop their own alternative energy - strengthening their economies, cleaning up their environment, etc.
Of course, the bushies hate this because it doesn't keep us dependent on their product (oil).
Anyway, I loved Dean's answer - short and to the point, and pointed out our differences with the Rs.
Comment by Hannah — 1/26/2006 @ 7:05 pm
That whole interview was phenomenal. Dean stayed on message and batted every question out of the park.
Couric's shilling for the GOP was just sad. As I said over at my place, "For someone who showed video of her own colonoscopy on the 'Today' show, Couric is surprisingly unable to probe the assholes at the center of this scandal."
Comment by Otto Man — 1/26/2006 @ 8:22 pm
Next time they'll give him 20 seconds. Good for
Dean, but they won't let that happen again. Maybe
15 seconds, tops. If that doesn't work, he'll go
in four. Where have I heard that before?
Comment by hark — 1/26/2006 @ 8:23 pm
Count me as thinking the latter.
On a tangential note, I'm wondering what people think of Dems taking a page from Mr. Rove's book by adding a "tax relief" plank to their message. Yep, you heard that right. Lets talk about reducing taxes. Of course, I'm talking about middle class tax cuts, reform to the alternative minimum taxes and the earned income tax credits. That's right. Reduce taxes (on the middle class and lower incomes).
Why do we let them own that montra? We all know that they really mean "tax relief" for the wealthy. If we assume it as well, everyone will know we really mean "tax relief" for the impoverished.
What am I missing?
Comment by Edo — 1/26/2006 @ 8:52 pm
One of the coolest, (and most productive), things this country could do would be to have a Manhatten Project for creating and implementing energy alternatives. Educators, engineers, techies, manufacturers, installers, sales, farmers, recyclers, analysts. Technology export. And then there is energy independence. And environmental improvement.
The money, resources and lives being spent on keeping oil pimps bloated and grasping for more is a total waste. It's doing nothing to secure the future of America. Or the world.
Legalize industrial hemp!
Comment by burro — 1/26/2006 @ 9:35 pm
If Dean keeps firing off like this…
The dimocrats are suddenly going to be relevant again.
Comment by koreyel — 1/26/2006 @ 10:00 pm
Common Knowledge (& Edo),
I actually agree with your parenthetical self-refutation, that trumpeting civil liberties (assuming you are referring to warrantless search controversy) is going to say to the conservative point of view that Dems are against the war on terrorism. While Bush's "mandate" from the 2004 election has certainly evaporated, I think it would still be smart for Dems to assume that they need to reclaim some voters that went conservative in 2004. And I think that means treading softly on issues that might portray them as anti-homeland security.
Similarly, with privacy rights (which most conservatives will take as meaning abortion)…I don't think emphasizing that as a core value will help reclaim voters who went conservative because of "values"-related issues (as some polls indicated after the 2004 election). I think showing how they will do better than the Bush administration where it has blatantly failed is the right way to go. (keep in mind, however, that no matter how blatant their failures may appear, that there are many people who remain unconvinced of this fact).
Comment by Addison — 1/26/2006 @ 11:05 pm
Dean's message plays well with the Dems…as it should.
But how to reach out to those who voted for Bush.
How about an alternative message?.
For some reason, jobs, energy independence, strong military, health care, education , and honesty won't do it.
I suggest something glittery and soothing from a fairy tale or a children's t.v. commercial.
Being truthful and relevant is a turn off with such folk because it must frighten them so. It is hard enough for the true believers to hold on to their Republican delusions with everyday news such as it is.
Comment by kali — 1/27/2006 @ 12:14 am
Makes me wish I had TV, if only for 30 seconds!
What's fascinating about the media and Dean is their dislike — what looks like fear — of the man. He really is threatening to them. It would be well worth our time to explore this chink in their armor.
A good Democratic leader like Dean doesn't need to persuade Republicans. The doubters among them are persuading themselves, dropping away from a corrupt Republican Congress and the madness of King George. What Dean needs to do — he's capable of doing it — is to create cohesion and energy among Democrats, bring back those of us who've left the party. There are more than enough votes on the left to throw the bums out if we all vote and if, of course, the elections are clean. That issue alone is enough to keep us out of power for a long time.
Often here in blogland I notice that "Independents" are considered to be Democrats wobbling towards Republicanism. Not really. "Independents" range widely between those who are somewhat to the right of the current Democratic leadership and those of us who are to the left of current Democratic leaders and who (like me) are disgusted by the stranglehold on the party by the DLC and by the feeble Democratic opposition in Congress during the past five years.
Comment by PW — 1/27/2006 @ 8:51 am