Yes We Can

Yes We Can….

 

Things I Wish Democrats Would Say….. about Stem Cell Research in NJ

“Who represents my values?“

We believe that NJ can lead the way on this issue and while we respect those who fundamentally disagree with us on this, we come down on the side of hope, on the side of science, and on the side of cures. We believe in the ingenuity of New Jerseyans and we believe that it is up to us to take care of the sickest among us. We believe that by working together, we can take advantage of this incredible opportunity to help so many people suffering from so many potentially curable diseases. Please join us in passing this important initiative so that New Jersey can be a beacon of hope for the rest of the nation.

New Jersey voters are set to decide whether or not they support state funded stem cell research. With federal funding for stem cell research severely limited because of President Bush’s veto, it is up to private industry and individual states to carry the torch of hope on this issue. NJ is looking to follow in the footsteps of California, and become one of only a few states providing governmental funds for this groundbreaking research.

The referendum is set for
Tuesday, November 6, 2007.

Abortion opponents lost their hail mary shot at stopping the vote when a NJ appeals court threw out their lawsuit claiming the referendum was illegal, “rejecting claims that it improperly failed to explain the money would allegedly fund human cloning and be paid back through property taxes.”

Looks like the activist judges the right decries didn’t feel like being too activist yesterday.

Now is the time for New Jersey Democrats to push this issue. There is no excuse for anything less. Here is how they should do it:

First, an example:

From Drew Westen’s The Political Brain, p. 292, now Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri, debating her rival Senator Talent on Meet the Press:

“My faith directs me to heal the sick. God gave us the miracle of human intelligence to find cures. Our country has never turned its back on medical research and we shouldn’t in Missouri…. I respect people who disagree with me on this issue on principle, I understand there are differences. I come down on the side of hope, hope for cures and supporting science. And I think it’s very important that someone be principled, strong, and not muddled, but very clear and straightforwards about their position on this issue.”

Westen’s analysis:

“Normally Democrats are the ones hedging on “values issues.” But in this case, the shoe was on the other foot. Talent’s moral principle (life begins at birth, so a discarded embryo has the same moral status as a child with diabetes) made clear that he was putting a moral abstraction above the life of a living child. McCaskill artfully contrasted their two opposing moral positions. She appealed to hope and compassion and challenged Talent’s religious position with one of her own. In speaking of the miracle of human intelligence, she used a word that signaled to many conservative Christians that she cared about their values and culture, while enunciating a stance with strong appeal to those in the political center. She acknowledged her respect for people with principled stands other than hers but made clear that her stand was a deeply principled one.”

New Jersey’s Democratic Party should be hitting the airwaves hard this week to increase turnout for this issue. It is pathetic that we haven’t seen any significant advertising yet on this, and that their website doesn’t even have a mention of this important referendum on its front page. This is an issue that will bring voters to the polls and will help turn out the vote for our democratic candidates for local office next week. It will also help to draw a distinction among our democratic challengers of congressional seats in 2008. Chris Smith, the 4th district Republican glorified for his position on “life” issues, needs to be challenged on this publicly. His challenger, Josh Zeitz, needs to go right at him on this.

There needs to be a barrage of discussion and advertising on this issue.

The advertising should target key legislators who oppose the referendum by asking voters to take a closer look at their elected officials and ask themselves: “Who represents my values?“

cross posted at Daily Kos.

 

The start of the narrative….. Iraq

Our narrative needs to embody three big concepts: Ingenuity, Opportunity, and Community. I will return to these repeatedly when discussing any specific issue.

Let’s start fleshing some of this out: (we might as well start with the biggest issue now)

What’s the number one issue on people’s minds today? Iraq. Ask someone what the Republicans want to do. You’ll get a consistent answer: “Stay the course. Stay until Iraq is a stable democracy. Beat the terrorists. Win the war.”

Ask someone what the Democrats want to do. What answer will you get? “End the war? Bring the troops home? Try to have it both ways? Bring the troops out carefully? Go along with Bush” Those are all answers you would hear, none of which is a uniform position.

None of them is a coherent idea that the party can rally around. The country is way ahead of the Democratic party on this one– the election of 2006 was, at least to some extent, about the dissatisfaction with the Iraqi war and the Republican party. But we all know what is likely to happen if the Dems proposed pulling all the troops out now– they would be excoriated by the Republican message machine as defeatist and unpatriotic.

How about a new frame, a new narrative for the Dems to follow? How about this:

As Democrats, we believe the Iraq war was a mistake, and should have never been started the way it was. It was a colossal blunder, but there is no point in focusing on this now. We owe it to our troops, to their families, and to our national security to move forward together. We believe that the chaos in Iraq presents us with an enormous opportunity. We face multiple threats in the middle east, and it is not in our interest to see the region spiral out of control. In the short term, we need to demand from the Iraqi’s that their political leadership begin to show us that they care about their entire community, not just their represented interest. It’s not enough for Sunnis to represent Sunnis, or Shia to represent Shia. We need definitive proof from them that they will begin to reconcile. All future funds for Iraq will include a provision that demands from the Iraqi government that they meet specific goals in the short term to prove they are serious about governing. They must also have a national referendum validating our continuing presence there. Should either of these conditions not be met, we will immediately begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq and shift them towards defending our other interests in the region. We need to make it crystal clear to the Maliki government: Either begin the process of national healing in Iraq or we are leaving.

We will no longer ask American troops and their families to sacrifice without asking for sacrifice from the Iraqis. Should President Bush veto these appropriation bills, we will be clear: these are the only funds he will receive. We will not let him hold our troops hostage in a political fight. They will be supported, and we will help build an Iraqi community politically, not just with our military might. We will not ask our brave men and women to die in a civil war where we aren’t wanted, and when the parties involved want nothing but to fight with each other. We will not ask our brave men and women to give their lives for this without asking for sacrifice from the Iraqi government.

In the long term, the only way to truly change the dynamic in the middle east is to remove oil from the equation. Only by eliminating our dependence on foreign energy sources can we truly protect our national security. We are proposing a Prometheus project on alternative energy. If we can afford upwards of 2 trillion dollars for the war on terror, we can certainly afford 100 billion dollars to invest in American ingenuity, to invest in an American alternative energy strategy. Over 40 years ago, a young American President challenged us to do bold things– to send a man to the moon. We accomplished that faster than expected, and we can accomplish this, and in doing so, we will safeguard our nation, and, more importantly we will preserve our planet for our children and their children.

 

For Al Gore….

This is from Daily Kos:

I know the republicans will eventually get fired up about the race no matter who the candidates are, but after watching some of that debate the other night, there’s no doubt in my mind that they will rally to defeat Hillary more than anyone else. And part of this is because she hasn’t built any significant narrative, nor has she been able to build any sort of positive connection, and the reason for this is because she hasn’t really stood up and said what she stands for. There’s nothing worse to a voter than a politician who looks they are trying to be all things to all people. Rove painted Kerry this way in 2004, and they will do the same thing to Hillary. If Obama or Edwards was smart, they would go after her on this point soon– that she is too calculating, too power hungry, and too wishy washy in her positions to be trusted. Her vote for that non-binding Kyl ammendment on Iran was the perfect example– if that’s not trying to be all things to all people (she votes yes on that then says she’ll bring the troops home, trying to appeal to two different constituencies simultaneously), I don’t know what is.

This is why I want Gore in the race. There is no doubt in my mind that if he entered, he would run on what he really believes– you can see the bold narrative forming without a lot of difficulty: “The last 6 years have been reckless and filled with fear. I believe America is capable of amazing things. I see the chaos on the international arena, the climate crisis we face, and our inability to remove ourselves from external energy sources as an amazing opportunity. I will put American ingenuity and perserverance up against anyone else in the world, and it is my belief that together we can build back our standing in the global community, we can protect our planet for our children and grandchildren, and we can do it together.” Every policy proposal he would come up with would feed back into this narrative of community and ingenuity. An Apollo project for energy independence (how about we call it the Prometheus Project?), extricating ourselves from the civil war in Iraq, asking the nation to sacrifice to combat islamic extremism, paying our own bills so our children won’t have to, making healthcare a right, not a privlige; all of these can be linked back to a narrative of ingenuity, opportunity, and community.

But only if the spokesman at the top of the ticket is genuine, and Gore’s work over the last 7 years makes him the best suited to carry this torch.

Run Al, Run!!!

 

The beginning

This is the beginning of what I hope will be a long conversation. This is a conversation to jointly craft bold narratives that will coherently and cogently tell people what Democrats stand and fight for.

A conversation among those who would like to help craft a bold Democratic narrative that will be useful both in 2008, and going forward. A narrative that can help unite our party around our common progressive ideals, and can move our party towards a coherent and cohesive message from which our policy ideas can be generated.

I look forward to hearing what you feel…..