Fractious Dems in search of a message missing chance to exploit GOP troubles

PHILADELPHIA — At a time President Bush's popularity is in the tank and his fellow Republicans are being hammered in the polls at the start of a big election year, there is one shiny silver lining for the governing party:

The Democrats are a mess.

They seem ill-poised to score major gains at Bush's expense for several fundamental reasons: They can't agree on what to stand for and what issues to fight for. They seem most adept at fighting each other, with grass-roots liberals savaging Washington moderates — and vice versa. Nor do they have a clue about who should lead.

That downbeat assessment is endemic even among Democrats.

As Washington strategist Jenny Backus said: "Right now we're only playing defense. We wince too much when the Republicans punch us. We don't seem to have a strategy for going on offense, can't agree on what fights to pick. There's nothing wrong with having a good food fight [within the party], but at some point, you can't just keep eating your own."

Dan Gerstein, a political consultant and former Democratic Senate aide, said: "Our internal divisions are making us look weak, ineffectual and unable to lead. At some point, this behavior becomes destructive. We've got to stop if we want to have a chance to win."

Consider the mixed messages and ill will of recent days:

Roughly half of Senate Democrats tried to derail the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito by launching a filibuster; the other half stayed away. When Gerstein argued publicly that a filibuster was a bad idea, he promptly was assailed on one prominent liberal blog as a "clown."

Some Democrats want to fight Bush over warrantless eavesdropping by standing up for the Constitution and contending that Bush is running amok, but others think Republicans will tag them successfully as unpatriotic softies. (Sure enough, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said last Thursday: "They believe the greatest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden ... but rather the president of the United States.")

Some Democrats want to paint Republicans as the corrupt pals of special-interest lobbyists — Democratic Chairman Howard Dean likes this tactic — but others think the issue is a yawner for most Americans, who recognize that Democrats aren't pure, either.

Some Democrats want U.S. troops to exit Iraq with all deliberate speed, but others don't. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California thinks the former, while her chief deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, thinks the latter. During the State of the Union speech, when Bush said the United States was in Iraq to win, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California stood and clapped while Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stayed in his seat.

Liberal bloggers, alarmed that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine would deliver the party's rebuttal to the State of the Union, attacked the guy for his large eyebrows, his public religiosity and his opposition to gay marriage (Philadelphia blogger Chris Bowers called him a "newly minted homophobe").

All told, as political analyst (and fervent Bush critic) David Corn noted the other day, "a party that keeps splitting on critical issues has a tough time producing an effective meta-message that — theoretically, at least — can bolster its chances of making national gains in an election. ... While Bush and the GOPers have screwed up on many fronts, the Democrats have not yet figured out how to shine on their own."

Voters are well aware. A new Democratic survey, sponsored by party pollster Stan Greenberg and party personality James Carville, queried a cross section of 1,005 voters Jan. 22-25. Result: Asked to identify the party most adept at knowing what it stands for, 51 percent picked the Republicans and 30 percent the Democrats.

Another complication: More than a dozen people are vying to lead the party, and, in some cases, position themselves for the 2008 presidential race. How can voters find clarity of vision amid a cacophony of voices?

The glut was glaringly obvious after the State of the Union. In speeches and statements, in e-mail and on the air, nearly everyone got into the act, including Sens. Reid, John Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; former Vice President Al Gore; Dean; and even former Senate leader Tom Daschle (who says he's not eyeing 2008 even though he spoke the other day in Iowa, the '08 starting gate).

But liberal strategist David Sirota, who writes one of the more fiery blogs, said what Democrats need most is a consensus, a left-leaning message.

"We keep hoping every four years that a leader will come along and dictate a message," he said. "But look at what the Republicans do. They have a platform and message that every Republican runs on, from dogcatcher to president of the United States. They have a formula that voters identify as 'Republican.' So they can nominate a dolt like Bush and put him out there to convey the message and ideology."

Sirota, like others in the liberal blogosphere (home to many activists and money donors), wants a clear party message on Iraq: Bring the troops home. As for Democrats who disagree, "if you can't get them to go along, then screw 'em."

This is the key fault line, because plenty of Democrats think that the troops-out stance is irresponsible and that it's fueled by an irrational hatred of Bush that is not shared by independent swing voters.

"I wish we could put smelling salts under the noses of the activists, and shake them out of their anger," Gerstein said. "They're so angry at Bush that they can't focus on ways that can help us reach a majority of the voters. They have gained so much influence in the party that, with our current leadership vacuum, the tail is now wagging the dog."

So here's a potential danger for the party in the 2006 congressional elections: Many Democrats are determined not to let Bush paint them, again, as soft on national security. (Bayh, a presidential aspirant, said last week that Democrats must "show the American people that we are tough enough and smart enough to protect this country.")

But if die-hard liberals come to believe their party is fixated on trying to outmacho Bush — at the expense of standing up for civil liberties and core domestic values — they may stay home Election Day.

It's a widely whispered concern, but at least one nonpartisan analyst, Thomas Mann, is urging Democrats to calm down.

"The 2006 election is a referendum on the party in power," he said recently. "The Democrats don't need to have a coherent message. The deficits are huge, Iraq is a mess; I think the Democrats are in excellent shape to make gains."