Here's a stab at Democratic branding:

"Democrats stand for democracy and the ideals of America’s founding fathers. Democrats do not believe America should be a dictatorship, nor should she be ruled by the privileged alone. Democrats believe in neighborly community and envision a government that stands up for the common good. Democrats believe that good government results from accountability, openness, and a well-educated and engaged citizenry."

It would be easier to make this brand stick if more Democratic politicians started consistently standing up for the ideals of the founding fathers. Democrats can start by filibustering Judge Alito on the grounds that he holds the radical belief that the Constitution grants the President unlimited executive power.

Sorry Robin....but that filibuster ain't going to happen. Because of the negative reaction across the heartland to Teddy K's performance during the hearings....most Dems in congress view a filibuster as political suicide for the upcoming election. I can't say as I disagree with them. Our representatives on the judiciary committee bungled the deal.....so the Alioto confirmation, sadly, is a done deal.

Time to fish and cut bait....and get to work on a victory in 2006.

Skip:

For about 15 seconds, I was trying to figure out what Ted Kulongoski had to do with this.

This is something I've thought about as well. I believe Dems should take a page from the Republican playbook circa 1994 and come up with ten things they're gonna campaign on. "Vote for us in 2008 and we'll do these ten things." It's workable. It can be printed on a 3x5 card. And it can be easily repeated. "These are the ten things we believe in".

Then go grab Mike Easley and make him tell you all he knows about the elusive Hank Hill Democrat. Do those two things, and success is assured in 2008. It's too late, I'm afraid, for 2006.

Someone asked me this during the last presidential election, and I found myself saying that Democrats believe we should take care of each other. I believe that. We should educate our and each others' children. We should make sure no one goes hungry or stays sick for lack of food or health care. We should seek to give everyone an equal chance, no matter where they came from. We believe that caring for each other is more important than gaining or preserving power and money.

We should take care of each other.

Hope this isn't too off topic, but here is my Independent's elevator speech as to why I'm neither a D or a R:

The D's never met a tax they didn't like, the R's never met a tax they did. The R's never met a regulation they liked, the D's never met a regulation they didn't like. The R's are for too much God, the D's are for too little. The D's are against any regulation on abortion, no matter how reasonable, while the R's are against any regulation on guns, no matter how reasonable. The D's are beholden to special interest groups, the R's are beholden to...different special interest groups. The R's think they can win votes by moving further to the right, the D's think they can win votes by moving further to the left. The D's ran a terrible candidate in the last presidential election...the R's ran a terrible candidate in the last presidential election. The R's tend to demonize people who disagree with them...the D's tend to demonize people who disagree with them The D's tend to say they're tolerant, but usually act intolerant. The R's tend to say they're compassionate, but usually act greedy.

By the way Jeff, this was a really good post. I like the topic. The D's need a new approach to win voters like me. Or really bad candidates on the R side...like Kevin Mannix. Thanks for the thoughtful column.

John Calhoun wrote:

"The Democratic party is the party of social justice."

That is a scary statement. Every dictatorship in the 20th century used social justice as its rally cry.

What does the word "social" add as modifier to the word "justice?" Why isn't it enough to stand for justice? Social justice means re-shaping society according to the outcomes the ruling elite wants, and is inherently totalitarian.

If a Democrat and a Republican were on a plane that was going down and there was only one parachute, the Republican would grab the parachute and jump with it. The Dem would take a scissors and cut the chute in half, rendering it ineffectual and both of them would die. The moral of the story? If you get on a plane with a Republican and/or a Democrat, take your own parachute.

Here's my stab at it:

Democrats are the party of equal opportuniy -- opportunity to get an education, work toward one's own definition of successs, and participate in a democratic government, without regard to race, religion, gender, or economic background. Democrats believe in an efficient, transparent, and sustainable government that ensures liberty and opportunity for ourselves and future generations.

The Democratic Party stands for good stewardship and protection of our people; our land; our ideals; and our Constitution. A Democrat believes in paying as you go and caring for the least among us. A Democrat believes in the nation and its people and not just the party.

Great posts Suzanne, Paul, Ray.

I think "the party which cares about the common good" might also be the elevator pitch, unless you get someone who is a righty who echoes Sizemore's comment that "the common good" is some kind of socialist plot.

In looking at my old emails, I found that a friend had sent me what he'd sent to the Oregonian when they asked for 100 words on the subject of why it is so hard these days to find anyone like Stafford Hansel. If you want a one liner, it is hard to beat my friend's line "government has a legitimate role in helping solve civic problems".

There needs to be a debate about what Democrats SHOULD BE, rather than what they necessarily are. I say that because there are people talking about certain Republican politicians doing individual good things regardless of what you think of their total voting record:

• Ben Westlund cutting throught he noise with clear statements (my favorite was during the 5th special session whatever year that was--Ben said problems passing a budget came from the fact that "Barbara Roberts was right about Measure 5 in everything but the timing". It is hard to think of anyone in politics who has gotten such substance into 12 words recently).

*Jackie Winters was right and the 3 women State Sen. were wrong about Neil Bryant's juvenile remark: white male being a disability. As Molly Ivins said in another context (not an exact quote but close) "Breathes there a Democrat with soul so dead that they don't recognize an issue when it jumps up and bites them?". That was one of Ted Kulongoski's politically tin ear appointments, and we need to speak up when someone does/ says something stupid, no matter who it is.

• Ted Ferrioli, whatever you think of his voting record, was able to engage in dialogue with ordinary folks who live outside his district; defeat a nomination he opposed without getting nasty; clearly state what he stands for; accept a compliment and admit a mistake. Some would call that the definition of a leader.

I got an email today from a friend who said " we need vision and leadership on health care, education, the environment and a myriad of isses that Oregonians care about" and expressed a concern about "Democrats standing around scratching their heads wondering what happened" if things don't shape up soon.

I couldn't come up with something (other than my friend's one-liner) to be an elevator pitch, but instead of pitching someone to support a party (knowing parties are diverse) this is the pitch for a dream candidate. It isn't as short and pithy as it should be, but maybe someone can come up with a better one.

The dream candidate knows who he / she is, why they are running, why someone should vote for them--because they are clear about what they stand for. They have the courage of their convictions to state what they stand for and why--and are not afraid to stand up for something unpopular in the realm of health care, education, public safety funding or anything else.

Let me say right out that I heard John Edwards on the radio today talking about poverty, and Democrats could do a lot worse than the Edwards message in both 2006 and 2008. When people are talking approvingly about someone being an old fashioned Humphrey Democrat, in some ways they are talking about the Edwards message of concern for those who are needy and not able to afford a lobbyist.

A candidate at the legislative level or above should have previous civic experience as a member of a school board or city council, youth and families commission or scout troop or other work with young people, civic group, neighborhood group, library board, or as someone at the Legislative Commission said, even someone who has served on a church board. That way they have experience in working with others to solve problems. Such a candidate should propose workable solutions rather than just attacking opponents. They should be liked/admired by those who know the person--inspiring remarks like "she did such a good job", grinning from ear to ear when the name is mentioned, "he's a sweetheart", praise for an accomplishment (helped get the local park or a stop sign at a dangerous intersection, etc).

One more thing: knowledge of reality of everyday life. In the current economy, there are college graduates working in retail or other positions because that is the only work they could find. There are people working / have worked in customer contact situations who are required to be polite at all times and answer a wide variety of questions at work. Such hard working people have the right to say they have no patience with anyone in politics who doesn't do the same.

Any politician of any party who says "The economy is rebounding--look at the number of jobs created" is not going to impress that college grad working in retail or that person working multiple part time jobs and looking for one full time job.

Just a thought, while we discuss how best to express our support for a fair economy, a healthy environment, and personal freedoms - how do we include foreign policy/national security? I would say that we believe in using all available tools to defend American security and values?

However we phrase it, we can't ignore this part of a party identity, or leave it to the Rs to define us on it.

"A Democrat believes in the nation and its people and not just the party"

Ray, I wish I could believe that last line of yours. And the teachers unions' first concern is the students right? Right.

Actually, I think your post was very good, except that I don't find the last line very credible. Leave that off and I think you may have it.

Judah, here is one answer

http://securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/3

General Clark has some very interesting ideas.

Sure, those are fine ideas from Wes Clark, but what's the elevator pitch?

JB-

Of all the people to come up with an elevator speech... your blog entries both here and at your own blog are always two miles long.

;-)

"Democrats: we take from the rich and give to the poor."

Nothing wrong with a little truth in advertising. Besides, the poor outnumber the rich, right?

<h1></h1>

You and your spouse on a barge lost at sea, with another couple, and enough provisions on board to last one couple in moderate comfort (food, clothing, shelter) until a baby is raised to productive age, (the next generation). Or the provisions can last supporting two couples, twice as many people the same future years at a more modest comfort. But more people can cooperate to catch fish, and each work less than fishing alone.

The Republican couple is the pair who shove the other couple overboard, to have all the provisions and do all the work themself.

The Democrat couple is the pair who count every person on board and then divide the provisions and work by that number. To each according as is available, from each according as is available.

So choose your ethic. I tried to devise it so -- and if you can better word it to get at this, then do it -- that in the main regard it is choosing between holding the energy supply constant and reducing the people demand - versus - holding the people constant placing demand on the system, while reducing each their future provisions (lasting less time, or longer on trimmed rations) and raising each their manual labor at food-gathering.

In the main regard. Then notice the subtlety that if one couple kills the other couple the survivors' children have no one to marry and crossbreed.

Supply is finite (oil in the earth) and demand is flexed (humankind murdered,.or not) -- the Republican. Supply is finite and held by all, to regulate it all, (takes a vote of all earthlings to pump any oil unit), and demand is flexed slower in generational winnowing down and energy supply augmented up (in cooperated labors) -- the Democrat.

That's the problem the political science methods lack formulations for: Human life is real life, and it only lives through generations, not in the individual (citizen, state, nation, sect, party).

Human survival needs food, clothing, shelter, and social relations. Republicans tend to forget the last one. In a barge at sea or other closed system they cannot forget, or it cannot be 'forgotten about.' They gotta get along with everyone else on board. Period. No isolation. No gated communities. No supremacy. All humans get equal proportion, the rightist's socialism hell.

To get human life to a steady-state future earth system, start with sufficient humankind and let it seek (reducing) its level of population over a century. Instead of reducing human population severely at the start, to let it seek (increasing) its level of population, as supremacists 'cultivate' slave humans; if ever. Too much killing of population initial conditions can fall short of population-pumping replacement energy needs, and the last enclave of humankind -- an island of 'self' rightists !, dies off from in-breeding.

I know the religiositootsies all want drama-God and dark clouds and lightning and stairways to heaven and rapturous apocalypse to come and make the death decisions for them, their own and others'. Ain't gonna happen. What happens is starvation.

Democrat or Republican essentially is whether a human can imagine and understand human life going on after their own, and the behavior in their own life -- forced -- by that understanding.

Or not.

And that diametric is the same as extant or extinct humankind.

(Lest it seems 'dramaticized' to frame earth as a closed system of finite oil, and without ANY replacement fuel equal to oil -- just as a mother's milk is never equaled, in ease and nourishment, in the food after infancy -- I emphasize it cannot be over-emphasized and the dramatics already burn brightly in all political motives and official acts. If you look at the so-called well-informed world leaders's visibly inhuman behaviors as from a frame of mind in which they are supreme-ier and busy murdering other couples dead off the earth. No way it's not dramatic, and the emphatic in it is your life.)

<h1></h1>

There is a parable for our lives and future life in the world situation today where people believe a promised new land is ahead of us. For any who take comfort in venerable texts and scripturals, this from the Old Testament Torah. People say it says that Moses led his people out of bondage and wandered forty years in scarcity and then marched into Canaan, the promised land, the land of milk and honey, going over the river Jordan. That's not what it says. It says Moses led a tribe into exile dedicated to not return except in its posterity.

The group left camp saying they would come back to camp after the last one had died, and the only returnees would be group-descendant children born on the trail, who had never been in camp before. It turned out to take about forty years. Duh.

Moses led a self-sacrificing suicidal group into oblivion in order to breed slavery out from the birthright knowledge of their succeeding generations; (self-eugenics ?). The Prescott family-bush in today's Evil Office at The Fright House by that patriarchy abhors self-sacrifice and so intends to breed slavery in to those they enculturate to serve them.

We face in our life today making the personal decision to start marching to a future promised world of human comfort, for our children, and the decision knows it is not for our 'self' life ever to reach it.

That's some elevator ride...

Democrats are the Party of economic and social justice and champions of Civil Liberties.

Really, despite the occasional stumbles and hijackings by the fearful.

Who are the FEARFUL? Take a look at the votes that impacted the 4th & 2nd pre-GWB, he's not the only one who's played the "are ya skeered yet" card.

<h1></h1>

In retrospect. I like the parachute pitch. The selfish rightist looks out only for number one, greed-grabs and goes. But the Democract collective leftist kuumbayah's big hugs and both jump and survive together.

Because parachute-manufacture regulations require performance four times spec. Thank god for regulations. Republican manufacturers ply the least parachute profitable. Democrat manufacturers ply the most parachute reasonable.

And it is the distinction of a Republican to define the Dem first wrongly -- "The Dem would take a scissors and cut the chute in half, rendering it ineffectual and both of them would die" -- since the rightie lacks a Dem's creativity in the situation or ethic. Dem doesn't 'split the chute,' rather, 'shares the chute.' (Anyway, despite the side-slander along the way, the comment got the moral of the story, truly: Provide for yourself, stand to your duties, plan ahead and put by, think of others as they'll think of you -- and they don't have your back if you don't have theirs, so join in touch ... 'when they came for me there was no one left to counter them.')

And it is the distinction of a Dem-witted to react so slowly the R gets away with first defining wrongly. Not by creativity would the Dem think to share the chute and save the other, rather by instinct.

<h1></h1>

I'd be punching the button to get off at the next floor if subjected to such speechifying!

Democrats are practitioners and defenders of grass-roots democracy.

We are the community of free citizens banding together to promote the general welfare of humanity, and to protect ourselves from the tyranny always sought by the powerful and amoral, be they from within or without our community.

We are united by our common self-interest, not by the campaign of some demagogue like the dearly-departed Ray-gun. (Zap! goes the middle class!) That makes it difficult to be concise and succinct but does not relieve us of the responsibility of communicating our mission so, when necessary.

We just don't need a 'laundry list' of political tenets to define ourselves. We Democrats are the constituency, whatever our politcal opinions, because we recognize that we must find common ground on which to make our stand against tyranny. It is the real and powerful and merciless enemy we face, not some nebulous terrorist conspiracy.

From the platform of the Democratic Party of Lane County:

The Democratic Party of Lane County is commmitted to building a just, prosperous, and responsible society:

Where hard work is rewarded and generosity valued.

Where every community supports the success of all its children.

Where public and private investment builds healthy families and safe and strong communities.

Where the worth, dignity, rights, and opinions of every person are respected.

Where public and private instituions are accountable, efficient, and effective.

All summed up in three words: Community Equality Opportunity

You can't cut a parachute in half; it would just be useless material with a few dangling lines attached, an analogy (at least in my mind) for some of the good-hearted but ineffectual taxing and spending on the part of the Dems. You could, however, tie yourselves together somehow and go tandem, pulling both the main and the reserve to put more fabric over a higher wingloading (and pray the chutes don't downplane, tangle or otherwise malfunction). It would be one hell of a ride but you both might live. Or you could just bring your own chute and strap it on your back before you get in the plane. IE: you could be Independent of either party and follow your own set of values and principles...

I don't think Democrats need some overarching mission statement. What they need to do is go win some issues.

They have better ideas than the Republicans on health care. That should be issue #1.

What are some other issues where Democrats do not simply have a diametrically opposed position, but a position that wins the majority?

Probably not trade, foreign policy, immigration, or education (for different reasons)

Maybe retirement, spying, and corruption (currently, anyway).

There are some issues that are tough to win on right now. Environment (excluding global warming) seems pretty lackluster. Global warming seperately might have the potential. Gay marriage still has tough battles before it's a winner. Civil unions are probably closer but still tough to win on. Trust me, it is difficult to not focus on some of these issues because all have great value.

What are our top 3 issues? What do you think of focusing on winning issues rather than mission statements?

Hey...someone changed my headline...

That's actually a funny thing because, as Sid Leader points out somewhere up the thread, I'm embarrrasingly verbose. Too right, Sid. I wish I knew where the off-switch was. On the other hand, that's why I'm asking others for the elevator pitch; that (and headlines) aren't my forte.

Still, I came up with something. Here goes:

"Democrats believe in effective, accountable government that promotes an economy that is free and fair, a foreign policy that speaks our values, and equal rights for all citizens."

Ta-da. For once, I'm brief.

JB-

fyi, Sid Leader is a differnt Sid. He always puts his last name. I just go by "Sid", aka Sid Anderson. Also, I'm a female.

JB-

Oh, and, I forgot to mention, I like your elevator speech.

Check. Got it (and I'm blushing - whoops). And thanks on the pitch.

Dems elevator pitch: If we had some real campaign finance reform, we'd actually stand up for the little guy.

"Democrats are the heirs of Jefferson, believing long-term that a strong social foundation (including informed stewardship of our physical world, and the courage to compromise honestly with competitors) is essential to a vibrant economy and to international leadership."

Skip from Gresham:

So you really think that folks in the "heartland" care more about Ted Kennedy going a little over the top in the hearings than George Bush sending G-men to go through their trash? It seems that Bush and Alito's brand of big-brother style big government would concern folks in the "heartland" even more than those of us on the left coast. Dems need to play the libertarian card more often. A LOT MORE OFTEN.

I don't know about an eleveator message, but a short elevator comparison could be....

Democrats want to take away some of my property for their definition of the public good. Republicans want to take away some of my rights for their definition of the public good. I'm OK with the former, and won't stand for the latter.

Robert Harris,

Since any government action that does not rely on voluntary citizen cooperation could be described as "taking away rights", your comment is nothing but a recognition of government's use of compulsion. From what you wrote, one might conclude that all governments of all times have been equally worthy.

Dems = fair + share

GOP= mine, all mine! Especially the illegal narcotics!

Dems = fair + share

GOP= mine, all mine! Especially the illegal narcotics!

Robin, Good point about the Libertarian card. It is wildly apparent that Republicans don't care about personal freedoms at all.

Maybe "Democrats: The Party of Freedom"? No, not quite.

"Democrats believe you should live by your own rules, not someone else's, so long as you don't hurt anyone else. Democrats believe the wealthiest citizens, who have reaped the most benefits of being American, should support the government finanically. Democrats believe the poorest should be offered educational and financial assistance so they can become the wealthiest someday."

Or, even simpler: "Destroy the World. Vote Republican."

Democrats ask not what their country can do for them... but what they can do for their country.

Just a thought.

Back a little over 200 years ago, after our country was independant, after we had a constitution, there was a major disagreement about what those documents meant.

One group of people, long used to power, felt that "We the people" meant them - those born to wealth and power. Those people certainly didn't think "We the people" included folks who needed to work for a living!

The other group, led by Thomas Jefferson, felt that "We the people" meant everyone, whether you had money or not, whether you had land or not.

This argument continues today. Democrats believe "We the people" means all of us. Democrats resist the constant pull of the wealthy and of corporations to run the world for their own benefit. Democrats insist on making sure everyone - everyone - has a good shot at a good life.

(OK, you have to go up or down several floors.)

obama's comment that he "doesn't care about the means" is very revealing. the Reagan elevator speech almost entirely consists of what some might consider means- small government, low taxes, forcefullness. I mean, does anyone besides Grover Norquist actually value these things in themselves? Showing what our means are is important, they need to be a part of any elevator speech, because that's mostly how we distinguish ourselves from Republicans. After all, that's how they distinguished themselves from us.

i don't have any silver bullet here, but i do think that some good old fashioned populism might be in order, something like, "we're the party of an active government that fights for working folks," or whatever. something a little snappier. enough of the civil liberties, anti-establishment crap. nobody besides bloggers and hippies care about that stuff- for good reason.

Matt:

What's wrong with populism aimed at hippies and bloggers? You don't like Howard Dean, do you?

I usually don't jump on a comment after it's been so long since I posted the original, but feel compelled to respond to Matt's.

God bless ya, son. I may not agree with your comment (for one, I care about the "civil liberties, anti-establishment crap"), but thought it was frickin' super.

<h2>Substantively, I'd only argue that "small government, low taxes" are more ends than means. And it's precisely their association with government that serves as one of the biggest obstacles for Democrats in the current climate. They're rowing against the notion that government, if not serving as the problem, isn't much of a solution. In other words, for not a few people "active government" is exactly the problem. That's why I went with "effective."</h2>