Session 1. Winning in the Red Regions: Transcript - Wes Clark

General Wesley K. Clark
Chair, WesPAC
Transcription by Kat
We encourage you to listen to the clip.

I'm really grateful for y'all coming. I'm very proud of your support. I just want to introduce you to our three panelists here.

These are my friends. These are the people that drafted me into the race in 2003.

(Applause)

My wife used to.... she always said “You're using that term in a special connection, aren't you, because look what they did to you.”

(Applause and laughter)

It was one of the great experiences in my life and they made it possible for me to have a voice even out of uniform and talk about things of national security and national significance because they were.... these are the people who, in baseball terms, that keep the Yankee box scores.

These are the people who follow politics, they follow world events, they follow what's going on in our nation. They're informed, they're making a difference, they're engaged in local party organizations, some of them have run for school board, some of them have run for state legislatures, and they're very active. Many of them are newcomers to professional politics. They're not your standard... well, some of them are... but most of them are not party regulars who sort of grew up with it, they're people who care about the country and love it and this is their way of offering public service.

So, thank you all very much for being here. We're going to have a great panel this afternoon. We're going to talk about how we can win in Red States. Basically, we've got 3 grat panelists. Congressman Chet Edwards. He's my friend from Texas. When I was a 2 star at Ft. Hood Texas, Chet was a young bachelor congressman who was the rage of Washington and he was one of the people that everybody knew had a great future in American politics and he is the only survivor from the wave of Delay inspired gerrymandering to Texas which cost us so many great representatives. I'm very proud of Congressman Chet Edwards and Chet, thank you very much for being with us today.

(Applause)

Senator Ken Salazar is a fifth.... he's a fifth generation Coloradan, but this is his first term in the United States Senate. I was honored to come out and appear at his fund-raiser out in Denver last fall. We had a star-studded cast with a bunch of movie stars and other people out there. We packed a guy's home and it was wonderful.

I think the Senator got a lot of help from some of WesPAC people also when I dropped out of the race. A lot of folks in Colorado said “Let's get behind Ken Salazar and get him up there.” At least that's what they told me. I hope you know some of these people like Stan Davis and others who pulled very hard on your behalf and they're now, you're one of our team that we're very proud of . A new Democrat in the United States Senate and thank you very much for joining us.

(Applause)

I want to introduce Jim Kessler who's also with us today. He's Vice President of Policy in an organization called Third Way. And this is an organization that Jim and a couple of other people, including Matt Bennett, who worked on my campaign, put together in the wake of the 2004 defeat to craft a stronger, more centrist position in US politics and to try to help Democrats find the answers on some of the tough questions ranging from gun control to a woman's right to choose, and religion in America. So they've done some groundbreaking work in this area. So Jim, we're very happy to have you.

(Applause)

So, I'm going to turn first to Jim. I'm going to ask him to set the stage for us and then turn to Congressman Edwards and Senator Salazar and follow up with some of their comments on this.

Jim, you're welcome to come up to the podium if you'd like. You can see the audience better from up here so you can gauge whether they're in synch or not.

(Applause and laughter)

Session 1. Winning in the Red Regions: Transcript - Jim Kessler

Jim Kessler, Vice President for Policy:
Third Way
Transcription by Kat

We encourage you to listen to the clip.

So far so good. Thank you, General Clark, and thank you for entering Democratic politics. It's a huge and welcome addition to a party that desperately needs leaders and leaders who are (unintelligible due to applause).

I also want to say thank you to Senator Salazar. We started Third Way, the organization I co-founded with a couple of other folks. We worked closely with several Senators, Senator Salazar is one of our honorary Vice-Chairs. I took a chance on a new organization. We really appreciate that.

I also want to say thank you and acknowledge Congressman Chet Edwards. When I first came to Capitol Hill in 1988, I worked for Congressman Chet Atkins and we often got his mail. Atkins was a very liberal, liberal member from Massachusetts and thankfully we did not answer his mail. It's probably why you're here today.

Let me tell you a little bit ...Let me talk a little bit about the electorate, and some recent trends in the electorate and some long term trends that I think help us understand what it will take for Democrats to be successful.

Our methodology at Third Way: You take assumptions and you kind of throw them overboard and do quite a bit of research for this. There's always something that you learn new when don't let your assumptions get in the way.

The first is that Democrats consider themselves the party of the middle class. The middle class do not consider Democrats their party. John Kerry lost the middle class by 6 points, Congressional Democrats lost the Democrats by 3 points. But if you segment the voters and if you look at, say you look at African Americans, well they vote for Democrats no matter what income level they're at. They vote for Democrats by a 10-to-1 margin.

If you look at the white middle class, they went for Republicans, they went for Bush by 22 points in the last election-that's landslide margins and they went for Congressional Republicans by 20 points. These are people between $30-75,000 dollars in household income. There is a tipping point (and economic tipping point) at which a white voter is more likely to vote for a Republican than a Democrat, and that is $23,700 dollars in household income.

So what we think we're doing that works on a national level with middle class voters, it's not really working.

Second is that we have a polarized electorate. It's not just the polarization here in Washington; the electorate is polarized. Blue states are bluer, red states are redder. Red counties are redder, blue counties are bluer. A polarized electorate works to the advantage of Republicans. Why?

Because the electorate is 33% conservative, 21% liberal, 45% moderate and that breakdown of the electorate has not changed since 1972. It has not changed 1/10th. So if more liberals, so for example. John Kerry won 85% of liberal voters and lost. Jimmy Carter won 72% of liberal voters and won. John Kerry would have needed 60% of the moderate vote to win the election. Al Gore needed only 54% to win the election, so a polarized electorate definitely works to the advantage of the Republicans.

A candidacy that is based (especially at the federal level) that is based on domestic programs, on domestic initiatives, economic initiatives, education, heath care, etc. cannot succeed in today's climate. That you have to be credible on national security issues, and you have to be credible on cultural issues. In the last 3 presidential elections that Democrats won, '92, '96, you can argue 2000, if they won the general election, In 1976, national security registered as the top issue by less than 5% of the voters. Today, it's over 30% of the voters. If you don't have a strong national security and strong defense profile, you're not going to win.

The cultural, moral issues, there's been a lot of talk about that. Let me just say that in the 1970's and the 1980's, moral issues were Democrats strengths. If you ask voters “Which party represents your values?” Democrats had a huge advantage. That changed starting in 1992 with Bill Clinton, and it 's gotten worse ever since, and one of the lessons is that while maintaining our principles on choice and other hot button cultural issues, we also have to be open and tolerant of people who do not share those views. Pro-life people still remember in 1992 where Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the Democratic convention, but at the Republican convention in 2004, you had Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Bloomberg, McCain (who's fairly liberal on some cultural issues). They looked like the
Big Tent, we did not look like the Big Tent.

It used to be that you could predict somebody's voting behavior based on their income level and on their religion. If you were Catholic or if you were Jewish, you voted Democratic, if you were Protestant, you voted Republican. If you were low income you voted Democratic, if you were high income you voted Republican, if you were middle, you voted somewhere in between.

There's still a certain amount of truth to that in terms of income levels, but the greatest predictor of whether somebody is going to vote Democrat or Republican is not what religion they hold, but whether they are observant in their religion or not. So if you are an orthodox Jew, you are going to vote Republican. If you are a Catholic who attends Mass often, you are going to vote Republican. If you are a Protestant who goes to church weekly, you're going to vote Republican. If you are a secularist or if church is a relatively minor part of your life - all things being equal-you're going to vote Democratic.

This is a huge change.

Michael Dukakis scored 2 point less among religious voters than he did among non-religions voters, okay, so basically the same. Bill Clinton scored 17 points less. Al Gore 16 points less, John Kerry scored 18 points less. Going back to 1952 (which is as far back as the question was asked), there has never been as huge a gap between religious voters and non-religious voters.

Democrats are not trusted on national security issues. We have to become credible on national security in this environment. We are seen as distrustful of the military. Not believing that we believe that America has a special place in the world, and that American's influence on the world is a positive rather than a negative.

And then, quickly, just some ideas on solutions the Democrats should focus on. One is weak. We do need to have an economic policy that focuses on middle class Americans particularly in this globalized world and not just one we 'think' appeals to middle class Americans.

I'll just give you an example of one thing that Democrats always say about education. They talk about the “crumbling schools”. Well, to middle class people the schools aren't crumbling, they're just mediocre. So on education, we need to have a message in which we are talking about better schools for people where their schools aren't being well run. College affordability is a huge middle class issue that goes beyond Pell Grants and people who are poor. If you're earning $60,000 as a family income, you get basically no help.

Affording a first home is another issue. Saving for retirement. These are economic issues that really do appeal to the middle class.

We need to have a cultural agenda that appeals to the middle. We should be the party that is for reducing the number of abortions, but not through criminalization or coercion, but through other means. We should not let Republicans capture the center on the abortion issue - which they have recently and as I said earlier, we need a national security platform that convinces Americans that we have an idea how to prosecute a complicated world out there, the war on terror and that we believe in the American military and we believe America's preeminence and that America should be the most influential power.

So that is my quick run down of the last 20-30 years, where we stand today and some ideas about what we need to do.

Session 1. Winning in the Red Regions: Transcript - Chet Edwards (TX-17)

Congressman Chet Edwards (TX-17)

U.S. House of Representative
Transcription by Kat

We encourage you to listen to the clip.

Jim, thank you very much and again, my name is Chet Edwards and I happen to represent President Bush in Congress.

But I am thrilled to be with Wes Clark today and with all of you who played such an important role in his presidential campaign.

I watched Wes's service to our country when he was in the military at Ft. Hood as he mentioned. And he had every right (along with Gert) to say, "We've done OUR duty to the country." The fact that when he took his uniform off continued to give back to our country, and continues to do so today, is something for which I have great respect.

And I want to thank all of you for your support of him. Let me tell you, if you ever wonder if you can make a difference, and if you ever wonder about the depth and breadth of Wes Clark's grassroots organization, I'm living proof of the difference you can make, because when Wes put my campaign - one of the top targeted races in the country, because Tom Delay made me #1 or 2 in the redistricting targets in Texas. When Wes put me on his website -- on y'alls website - we raised $45,000.

From that directly in small contributions from all over America from people who had no idea ...(text unintelligible due to applause). So keep up what you're doing. I truly think you can make a difference and that's why I'm here.

I want to try to.... If I can offer anything, try to give you a few insights into the specifics of one race in a very very red district in the heart of red country in the very... literally we call it the heart of Texas... and how we won.

And perhaps there are a few lessons that can be gleaned that can help other Congressional candidates or legislative candidates win. And maybe there are a few lessons for Jim in our race for national Democrats. You'll hear a lot of common themes between what Jim said and what I said.

Let me just say that I am one that believes in the basics. I think that it's the basics that make the difference between a successful company or corporation or a failing one, an effective military organization or an ineffective one, or a winning campaign or not, sometimes.

It's the basics. And there are three basic rules, or 3 basic goals we had in our campaign that were sacrosanct.

1. I would define myself. I wouldn't let others do it, or my opponent do it. We defined ourselves.
2. Secondly, I defined my opponents.
3. And thirdly, we responded immediately if attacked.

Now for you bloggers, immediately is, I think, about a 15-minute time frame. On television, we either had an ad up on the same day they attacked me or we had an ad up within 24 hours. And we didn't just respond to their ad, we counterpunched. Because that's one of the lessons I've learned from Republicans is to always play offense. And watch 'em, if you don't believe that. Tom Delay gets indicted...is the issue about indictment to him? No. It's attacking Ronnie Earle, the district attorney.

Republicans get accused of leaking CIA information and outing the covert agents and they want to somehow turn the issue against us somehow about not being patriotic because President Bush said the other day we're asking questions about the Iraq War and the intelligence information. They always play offense and I think that that's an important lesson.

Let me go back to those first 3 basic rules. I want to show you with real television ads that we made a difference to just put it in context.

I had a district that President Bush carried by 69,000 votes. Charlie Cook, the noted political analyst, said that I have the most Republican district in America represented by a Democrat. In fact, it's even worse than that. He said that based on the last 2 elections for George Bush, there are 200 Republicans in the House of Representatives that have more Democratic districts than I do. I had 2 out of 3 voters in this last election that were new to me because of redistricting and I was either #1 or #2 on Tom Delay's target list in that redistricting. So it was a tough, tough scenario, which I think may allow you to appreciate (hopefully) some value of the lessons we learned from this campaign.

Playing TV Ad "Soldiers" from Chet Edwards 2004 campaign:

ANNOUNCER: "When some in Washington wanted to weaken the Army by slashing forty thousand soldiers, Chet Edwards stood up to them and won and kept our Army strong. It's why the Association of the U. S. Army named Chet Edwards, "Legislator of the Year."

That's what Chet Edwards stands for. The independence to do what's right. The experience to get things done.

Chet Edwards. Our Congressman."

CHET EDWARDS: "I'm Chet Edwards and I approve this message."

End TV Ad

That was our first ad and you know when we ran that? The day after the Republican primary runoff. So that I could start defining myself immediately before my opponent could define me. And I knew that they'd attack me. I voted against the partial-birth abortion bill because it had no health exception for the woman and was unconstitutional. The NRA was against me and I knew they'd say I was more liberal than John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, which is laughable, but they did make that accusation in an attack.

When I said.... Going back to what Jim said, when I showed people I supported a strong national defense, and I've always been active in support of veterans, but that not only said what my values were, it defended me against this attack I'm this liberal Democrat, that somehow didn't care about defending our country.

The second spot, under Rule #1: Define myself.

Playing TV Ad "Balance" from Chet Edwards 2004 campaign:

CHET EDWARDS: Families have to balance their checkbooks every month. Shouldn't the government have to do the same?

I stood up against party politics and sponsored the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.

I voted to hold agencies accountable with audits to help eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.

I'm Chet Edwards and I approve this message because waste and deficits are wrong. They're bad for jobs and our economy and bad for our children's' future.

End TV Ad

The second quick ad run about the second week of the general election. Strong on defense, fiscally responsible. Once I'd established those values in the voter's minds, then I could be very progressive, as I have been, on a lot of social issues but these define me.

Now, on that same point, let me show you what my opponent did. A state representative

Play Wohlmeguth TV Ad:

Announcer: Only candidate to cut government down to size....

State representative Arlene Wohlmeguth wrote the law that saved Texas over $1 Billion, preserved vital social and medical services and reformed our health care system and Arlene Wohlmeguth did that without raising taxes. Arlene Wohlmeguth wants you to keep more of what you earn. That's why she worked with Governor Bush to pass the largest tax cut in Texas history.

Arlene Wohlmeguth: I'm Arlene Wohlmeguth and I authorize this message.

End of TV ad

Less government, cut taxes, heard that message before from Republicans?

The quintessentially definition of the modern day Republican. John, I think... is there one more defining her?

Play Wohlmeguth TV Ad:

Arlene Wohlmeguth: My faith is fundamental to my world-view and how I solve problems and how I enjoy the good times of life. I am a.... I am a pilot and a flight instructor. I did my missionary work. I did missionaries in Mexico. We took down medical teams, we went to orphanages. I remember the faces of the children that we helped, the expressions of gratitude, the values that I've learned, faith and family matches the views and values of this district.

I'm Arlene Wohlmeguth and I have approved this message.

End of TV ad

Ok, less government, lower taxes. Opens up her ad with the bible, clearly sending the message she's the person of faith in this campaign.

Let me get to the final, key thing that allowed us to win. Rule #2, I was going to define my opponent. I wasn't going to let her get away with claiming a monopoly on religious faith or values.

And so, I took a book out of President Bush's, or Karl Rove's book, if you read it "Bush's Brain." The President, you've got to watch him, I've warned Democrats.... You've got to take him seriously. One of the things he's always talked about is political jujitsu. Take your opponent's greatest strength and turn it into their worst negative. They did that incredibly effectively with John Kerry and his Vietnam service. But I did the same thing. She said her greatest achievement in 10 years in the legislature was cutting $1 billion out of spending in health and human services, saving taxpayers $1 billion. She touted it for 5 months. I turned it against her, because in that bill, it could the Children's Health Insurance Program. I'm going to show you 2 ads, the second one is the key,
then I'll wrap up here.

The final one was a home run in our campaign. It absolutely defined her, and convinced people that maybe God wasn't on her side when she was writing the laws that cut children off of Children's Health Insurance Programs.

Playing TV Ad "Bailey" from Chet Edwards 2004 campaign:

I'm Jamie Jones. I'm 28 years old. I live in Teague, Texas. I have a little girl that's 3, Bailey.

Two years ago in March, my husband was killed in a house fire. And she got put on CHIPs. That meant no matter what happened, she was going to be okay. And then about 6 months ago, we were denied.

I haven't changed. I didn't get a raise at work. She was just denied.

You know there are so many people out there that work so hard. I don't want welfare; I just want good insurance for my child.

I'm working hard. I could go quit my job tomorrow and she'd be set. But I'm not going to do that. There are a lot of people out there that aren't going to do that and why that group of us has to get hurt, I don't know.

Look at my little girl, look into her eyes and tell her why she's not good enough to be taken care of.

CHET EDWARDS: "I'm Chet Edwards and I approve this message because there's so much at stake."

End of TV ad

That ad, that was done by Joe Slade White, the General's filmmaker (drowned out by applause)

People didn't care if she talked about lower taxes after that. They didn't believe that God was on her side when she kicked 157,000 children off health care, CHIP Health Insurance Program.

To sum it all up. The key to this, and the lesson to Democrats nationally, whether we're running for the White House, or for Congress or for the state legislature. We've got to define ourselves. We've allowed Republicans to define us as having no values, no religious faith, no commitment to strong national defense. We have not defined them. But this put a human face on what Republicans are all about when they mean they want less government. A woman talked about personal responsibility and conservative values were in this message.

When George Lakoff saw this ad at the Democratic Congressional Retreat, he said, "Save your money, you don't have to buy my book, see that ad. It says what Chet Edwards' values are, and what her values are."

I'm optimistic. I believe the cuts that they're proposing, including $14.3 Billion in college education cuts -- as we're sitting here in this room, they're debating that over at the Capitol this week. If we put a human face on the people they're hurting, we can turn this around, we can win back this country. And I don't care about one person in Congress might not change the world, because this democracy worked well long before I got here, but I care deeply about the kind of world my two little boys grown up in. And I know you do to, about our children's and our grandchildren's generation.

And I'm just grateful that there are people such as yourselves willing to fight along with Wes to present the true image of the Democratic party -the party that believe every child in America ought to have the chance to reach his or her highest God-given potential. And that average working Americans ought to be treated with respect, with decency and given a fair chance for a good job and a decent home, affordable health care and a quality education for their children. To me, those are the values of the Democratic Party. Those are the values of our common bond and when people like yourselves will win back the White House, and the Senate and the House.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Session 1. Winning in the Red Regions: Transcript - Ken Salazar (CO)

Senator Ken Salazar (CO)

U.S. Senate

Transcription by RegNYC

We encourage you to listen to the clip.

I don't represent George Bush. (laughter) [A reference to the preceding speaker, Congressman Chet Edwards, whose district includes Crawford, Texas.]

Chet's doing a wonderful job and really did show us how you can win in a very red part of the country.

Let me, just at the outset, say that there were many people in Colorado who came to me early on in the 2004 election, long before it was decided who was going to be the candidate, and they said that there was this General who could win the election if he was the Democratic nominee, and they were very strong in supporting Wes Clark, including my good friend Stan Davis in the back. And thank you to all of you for having been part of that movement to draft Wes Clark.

Let me also say that I appreciate, not only his leadership, and his service to the country, but his continuing leadership and his support for me in what was a very tough race in Colorado. I could not have won had it not been for thousands of people around this country who supported my effort. But Wes not only came to Colorado and had a very, very huge $150,000 and even a $300,000 fundraiser for me there, but also, I think, through the e-mail network for WesPAC was able, I think, through the click of a button, raise about $160,000 for a very historic campaign in Colorado.

So, thank you to all of you for being part of that effort, and thank you to General Clark. And what I want to say about General Clark is, you know his days in office, whatever they may be, are not yet over.

(vigorous applause)

And though I have half of my colleagues, I think, in the US Senate who are running for office (laughter), I want to say this to General Clark that he is one of those people that I do believe, I do believe can in fact win against whoever the Republicans might put up in 2008. So,-

(more vigorous applause)

Let me, what I would do is spend ten or fifteen minutes just talking to all of you about the Colorado Miracle. It did happen yes, with you, it happened with a lot of people from all over the country that made it happen. When I became involved in this race for the US Senate, it was in March of 2004. So, there was only about seven months to go before the election, and I was facing very much what was an uphill battle.

I was the only Democrat to have won in the state of Colorado, in a state that had been trending increasingly to the right and red over the last ten years, since 1994. I won in 1998 for the office of Attorney General. I won again in 2002, and then I won this last battle in 2004. And so I think most people in those days would have said that it was almost an impossible climb for someone as a Democrat to win in the state of Colorado.

I think they would have said when you're running against somebody who is a household name, by the name of Pete Coors- whose family has been in Colorado for over a hundred years, who has a stadium or some facility named after them in every single community and town in the state of Colorado- how is it that somebody of your background ultimately even has a chance of winning a race that is going to be so nationalized? How is it that you, who comes from a background of having been a farmer and a rancher in Colorado that doesn't have the kind of name recognition that Pete Coors has, how are you going to be able to win? But at the end of the day, we won, and we were the only United States Senate race in the country that went to a Democrat in a state where George Bush won by a significant margin.

Being my freshman class in the US Senate, I should say this, General Clark, I'm at the very end of the totem pole. I'm number 100. There have only been 1,884 Senators to serve in the United States Senate since the beginning of our country. I am number 1884. (laughter)

There's only one way to go. (more laughter)

So, we'll see, we'll see how far we go up that 1884. But you know, I think that there were just a lot of- there was a great sense that this was a race in Colorado which really could not, could not be won.

There were other races in Florida and other places, that at least initially people thought were much more winnable for a Democrat than our race in Colorado. But we worked at it very, very hard, and at the end of the day, what we ended up doing was creating a miracle in Colorado that needs to be replicated across the country.

When all the votes were counted in November of 2004, not only did I become the first United States Senator who was a Democrat in Colorado, who was elected out of that state for more than a decade, but we can also (inaudible) since the time that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President of the United States, we had taken over the Colorado Senate and had a woman as President of the Colorado Senate, and since John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President, this had never happened before, that we ended up taking over the House of Representatives with a five Democrat seat margin, and we have a Speaker of the House who is a Democrat.

And not only did we finish there with that kind of a victory but we went on out on the beautiful mountains of western part of Colorado in San Luis Valley and Pueblo, there's another member of congress by the name of Salazar, my brother John, who was elected to serve in Congress. So, yes it was a Colorado miracle, and something that we're all very, very, very proud of.

Now the question I often get asked is, 'well, how were you able to do this,' and 'how did you do what escaped us all around, all around the country?'

And let me just say that I think these statistics will tell you something about this message.

One: when you compare what happened between my win by about 5% in Colorado against Pete Coors and John Kerry's loss to George Bush by about 5% in that same state, it boils down I think to these three factors. It had to do with- these are just in terms of voters, okay- the independent voters, women and rural voters. The respect of independent voters I was able to win against my opponent by about a 65 to 35 margin. So, it is obvious that I made huge inroads into that independent voter base in the state, and I had to do that, because my state is still very much a Republican state where Democrats are outnumbered by about a 10 percentage point margin. And so I was able to pick up a huge number of independents who came in and voted fro me.

Secondly: in the rural areas of Colorado, the difference between John Kerry's performance and my performance in the rural parts of the state was 22%. 22%. I won many of the counties out in the rural parts of the state of Colorado, one: because I spent a lot of time there, and two: because I think people knew that I cared a lot about their particular issues. But a huge differential in terms of the performance between myself and Senator Kerry out in the rural parts of the state.

And a third with respect to women, I won by about a 60/40 margin against Pete Coors with women voting for me. And so the question- and it wasn't because I'm more handsome than Pete Coors. (laughter) You know, you see his commercials on television. You have this telegenic guy with mountains behind him. He's, he's quite the good-looking guy. But it had to do with the fact that I think people were connected up with the issues that I was advocating throughout my campaign.

Let me just talk to you about what two of those key issues I think were.

One is security. I think a lot about the 2004 election had to do with what was happening with the war on terror, with what had happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. The big debate really was around that issue, and I think that many people in our country ended up casting their vote for George Bush because of the fact that they were concerned about the security issue. Well, for me in Colorado, I came out of a background of having served with 14,000 police officers, of having been the chairman of the Peace Officers Standards of Training Board, having worked on terrorism task forces and the like. And what I did from the very beginning of my campaign was I surrounded myself with that mantle of security, saying that I would do a better job than George Bush had done to make a stronger homeland for all
of us and that I would be strong on defense. And as I did that, usually there were lots of cops around me, in the multiple commercials that were run during that entire timeframe. So, on a substantive issue, I think security was key to our victory. I think that's why, you know we used to call them the 'soccer moms' back in the 2000 Gore/Bush election. Now I think in 2004 they became the 'security moms,' and I think they had more confidence in my ability to push forward with an agenda of security.

Secondly, rural voters: You know I have been a farmer and a rancher for most of my life. I had worked on issues throughout the state of Colorado, and I very much had a rural agenda. Many of our commercials had us on pictures that represented my growing up on a ranch in southern Colorado, but I also was able to connect up to the localized issues of each of the regions of the state, within each of the (inaudible) I had worked many of those issues for a very long time. So, I think that for those reasons we were able to do much better with rural voters, we were able to do much better with women, and we were able to do much better with independent voters.

Let me conclude by saying a couple things about campaign tactics.

First, I think it is important to aggressively organize and aggressively organize everywhere. I had a very fateful conversation with Tom Daschle probably six, seven months ago here in Washington, DC, and we were talking about what happened in South Dakota and how he had lost that heartbreaking election for many of us who are friends of Tom Daschle. And frankly, it was impossible for Tom Daschle to make up that 22% differential that Bush had against John Kerry in South Dakota. He lost by a very, very slim margin.

It was almost a 50/50 tie in South Dakota. We should not have let- we should not have ceded South Dakota to the Republican Party as a national effort, and for my- if you parallel it to what we did in the state of Colorado- my organizing belief in the three campaigns I've won statewide in the last now seven years, is that every single county and every single community is important.

So, there are three counties in my state have less than 500 people out of the 4.3 million people in Colorado. You know, a lot of my political advisors would say, 'stay where the population is, stay in Denver, stay in Colorado Springs, stay in Boulder, stay in Fort Collins. And I disagree with that, and so what I have done is I have spent a very significant amount of my time in every single county and every single community in Colorado.

I created an organization in every one of those counties. (inaudible) that organization help us out, get out the vote and make sure that we had our yard signs out there. We do everything within the state. So, no matter where you went in the state of Colorado, I had a great significant presence. Now the lesson to me for that on a national level and something that I communicated to upward ranks, to Howard Dean and Harry Reid and others in leadership positions is that we need to do the same thing at the national level, because we as the Democratic Party are going to continue to lose our shirt over time unless we start getting some of the ground back that we have lost.

For me, the miracle of Colorado, in large part, was that we did not lose Colorado to that red part of America where Democrats are becoming endangered. We were about at that point before 2004, but I think the 2004 election pushed us back to the point where we are now in the saddle in the state of Colorado with great hopes for what the opportunities are for the future for Governor, for continued successes in building up a greater Democratic delegation out of Colorado (inaudible).

We need to do the same thing on the national level, and even places like Utah, and Wyoming. All these places are places that we cannot forget and they have to be an essential part of a strategy.

As I told Howard Dean time and time again, it's a 50 state strategy. It is not a 20 state strategy.

(enthusiastic applause)

Another quick point I would make here is that ultimately having the resources to be able to get the message out is incredibly important. You know, I am essentially a $33 million man out of Colorado, because that's how much money came into the campaigns on both sides, both for Pete Coors and for me as well as the independent expenditures.

We, in my campaign, were able to raise $9.2 million in the course of seven months, and that amount of money is twice the amount of money that had ever been raised for any US Senate campaign. Essentially allowed us to do what we had to do on television, on radio and the rest of our organizing efforts. Without money it is impossible to win because you can't get your message out, and you can't defend yourself in a way that Chet was describing.

The third point I would make is essentially kind of like what Chet said is that you have to define yourself, but you also have to make sure that you're defining your opponent, and you have to be ready to jump on your opponent's mistakes. And politics is hardball, and you're going to have your neck stepped on unless you step on their neck.

And when you think about somebody like Karl Rove, you have to know that you're looking at somebody who is evil, who is nefarious, who does everything he can to (inaudible over cheering and applause), and what you have to do is you have to know that you're about running for a greater cause, and you have to be able to take them down before they take you down.

Just give you one quick example of that. One of the great contrasts between Pete Coors and myself in this US Senate race in Colorado was I was a common man, a person 12th generation in New Mexico and Colorado, raised in a place that didn't have electricity or telephone, part of eight children who were first generation college graduates, and the son of the proud soldiers and veterans of World War II. And, that was my image. So, what I tried to do within our frame was to say, 'I was on your side.' I was on the side of the people of the state of Colorado.

Now during one of our debates, Pete Coors was asked a question and he was, he basically, he was asked a question, "How is it-" It was a question directed at both of us in the debate. "How is it that you can best connect up to the common man? How is it that you can best connect up to the common man?" Well, he went first and he said, "Well, uh, I don't know what a common man is." (laughter) And then he went on to explain in a couple of paragraphs what he kind of meant by that. Well, within 24 hours we had this nice commercial up on television. (laughter)

We had him dressed in a tuxedo with a glass of wine, and in his own words Peter Coors was saying, "I don't know what a common man is. (laughter) So, I tell you that story only to really buttress what Chet said that this game is not one that you can wait (inaudible) incorrectly think that.

One of the major mistake that my good friend John Kerry made in his campaign is that he let them define him. He let them go on for weeks on attacks without him defending himself. This is something that requires you to deal in real time and most of the time that means it's really a matter of minutes and never more than a day before you're responding or you're taking opportunities that are presented to you on the campaign trail.

Let me just conclude by saying this to all of you.

We are absolutely, I think, at a place where 2006 and 2008 can be the time where we as Americans start restoring the greatness of this country. And for me the greatness of that country, of this country is the greatness my parents saw- the greatest generation of all-time of World War II- who dreamt yes, that their children could in fact get a college education, who dreamt about the greatness and the strength of this country.

There's a compact, I think, that is there, not written down anywhere, but I think passed along from one generation to the next, and that is that we receive the baton from our parents, and when we take that baton and give it on to our children, we're giving it to them in even better shape than we have received it.

Well, the legacy of five years of the Bush Administration has put us in a position where we will become the first generation of Americans to violate that historic compact that makes America great.

And I for one, as a US Senator from Colorado, am not going to let that happen, and I'm going to be joining with all of you here and with General Wesley Clark, not only in 2006, but also 2008, to make sure that we restore America's promise once again. Thanks a lot.

(applause)

Session 1. Winning in the Red Regions: Questions and Answers

Congressman Chet Edwards (TX-17)
U.S. House of Representative

Senator Ken Salazar (CO)
U.S. Senate

Jim Kessler
Vice President of Policy
Third Way

Transcription by Kat



We encourage you to listen to the clip.

WES CLARK: You know, we have a few minutes for questions, let's take some questions from the group. Back here, Mike.

Q: My question is for Jim Kessler. Your talk was based on the report “The Politics of Polarization” I've had another report that we've done caught on quite as (unintelligible) some other research since 2004 If you could just... that's a great report, really just great analysis. One of the things that struck me in that report was the idea that on the morals and values question. We weren't necessarily looking for specific (unintelligible) values, but rather something a little bit more amorphous in that they were looking for character that believed in their values, Can you talk a little bit more on that?

JIM KESSLER: I'll tell you that ... that's a really good point that on the cultural issues. That, look, there are some voters who if you believe in a woman's right to choose. There are certain voters that you're never going to reach if you're a Democrat because culturally, you know they're just in a different place.

There are a lot of voters out there that what they can find as a moral issue or a cultural issue is more akin to integrity and character. And that, I'll give you an example of that on the Republican side. Barry Goldwater, when there was the fight over gays in the military, Barry Goldwater came out and he said, “I support gays in the military. I don't care if people ARE straight as long as they can shoot straight.” But the thing was that Goldwater wasn't criticized because he'd built up this ferocity of liberty. That that was essentially what he backed. And that if Democratic candidates have established for themselves a profile for themselves that defines themselves in a way that voters can understand and they can see that it's got character and integrity, the positions that you
take necessarily on abortion or on gay issues or on guns or whatever won't matter as much because they'll see it in context of who you are and as it relates to your higher character. And we don't do well when we say things, “Well, I personally oppose.... I'm personally against abortion, but I don't want my views to be the views of the world.” That fails the character test.

WES CLARK: All, right... Thank you. Over here.

Q: Great panel. Thanks for all of you This is sort of a question for Congressman Edwards. First of all, I'm from Austin Texas, so it's great to have a fellow Democrat from Texas in the room.

CHET EDWARDS: I'd like to have a few more Democrats like you have down in Austin.

Q: Well, Lloyd Doggett also survived, so he's like one of the only ones. I think what you said is great about “Define yourself, define your opponent” and respond immediately. I had a little living room conference in LA where I saw Tom Harkin recently, he said the exact the same 3 things. And he's a blue Democrat running in a red state. One thing you said that I disagree a little bit about the way you said it, which is you took a page from Karl Rove's book to respond to your opponent. I think we need to make this clear that you responded with the truth about your opponent, not lies.

(Vigorous applause)

It's always fair game to speak the truth, I think it's not fair game to speak a lie. And so I think we belittle ourselves when we say we're going to follow Karl Rove's model. We're not.

CHET EDWARDS: I appreciate that. Let me word that more appropriately. Just as Wes Clark spent a lot of time in the Army understanding more about the military enemy than they knew about themselves, one of the things I fault myself and Democrats for is we don't listen and understand the other side. We need to listen to their radio; we need to listen to some of their TV, (unintelligible). We need to listen to it, but I do think the Bush lesson...not with the tactics of deceiving anybody, but with the truth or taking their deceptions that they've used as a great strength. For example, they believe in faith-based values and programs, but their budget has nothing to do with a faith-based program because I don't know of any religion in America that teaches you take the most from those who have the least and take nothing from those who have the most. That's the way (unintelligible due to applause)

WES CLARK: This will be the last question.

Q: By the way, I'm from New Jersey so I'm on a little bit of a high from the election a couple of weeks ago. We're happy about that.

It seems to me that Republicans have been very successful in developing these wedge issues. Frankly, if you're on the wrong side of the wedge, it doesn't seem that you can get over to the other side unless we pull the wedge out.

One issue that I think is a real big problem for us is gay issues, gay rights, because the religious leaders on the Republican side have been able to cite the Bible, saying that the Bible says you should be killed if you're gay. And the fact of the matter is gayness is like being redheaded or prematurely bald or a lefty, right? It's not an elective condition. People are different. How do we deal with that straightforward way? Because they're going to come after us with that issue again.

WES CLARK: I'd like to ask each of our panelists how you would respond to the issue. Let's start with Jim, then we go to the Congressman and then the Senator.

JIM KESSLER: Here are a couple of different ways to respond to it. One is to make it about a higher principle. For example, I believe in individual freedoms, I believe in gun rights (not for terrorists and illegal aliens) but I believe in individual gun rights. Only once in our history did we take away anybody's rights and that was Prohibition, it was a disaster. So I believe that's the most important thing to me. You can couch it into another principle that people find valuable.

Another way to do it is to say, “I do not think it ... I think it's unfortunate that courts are making rulings that should be more appropriately left up to individual voters and legislatures. I'd like to work with voters and legislatures to come up with a compromise that everyone can live with instead of pushing it off against the courts. And the other is that I would just ... for most people it is the toughest of the cultural issues. But people where religion is very important, but there is also a point where voters feel that religion is being abused for political purposes. And it's important to try to find that point and be on the other side and I think we saw that recently in Gilbert Pennsylvania when the school board was thrown out over intelligent design and what was really interesting
was (unintelligible) voter that said “When I went to school we said the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer, and that was practicing religion, not teaching you anything.

So I think it's important to try to find the point where people believe that this is encroaching sort of on my life and me on the right side on every corner.

WES CLARK: Okay, thank you. Congressman Edwards?

CHET EDWARDS: Just a couple of points. I think you win campaigns on whether you fight on your turf or on their turf. And I think Democratic candidates, particularly in tough districts need to address that issue in whatever way they feel comfortable, but then say “But now, let me talk about the values that our families care about, a good job, a decent home, affordable health care, quality education for their children and retirement security. I think we ought to paint these others as, in effect, fig leaf issues that they're trying to use to get you to forget the fact that they're cutting college student loans, and undermining health care for pregnant women, and cuts to Medicaid and focus on these other issues and one other point. Bill Clinton once said something the Democratic
Members of the House a couple of years ago that not anybody else mentions. But I've never forgotten it. He said, “One of the great problems we Democrats have, is we don't understand the difference between an issue and a message. Whether it's abortion, gay marriage, gun control, the flag amendment. We always debate the issue and get caught up in the technicality. For instance, I opposed the partial birth abortion bill, but I think on the issue, I'm right. But we've been murdered, because the message to America was that Democrats want to take perfectly healthy babies right before childbirth and kill them, which is absolutely a lie. But, if you forget everything else, I'd say, think about the point about issue vs. message. Republicans are horrible on the issues, they're unbelievable effective
(and have been) on the message. We Democrats have got to do a better job on the message. And I think whenever someone's views that might disagree with me on abortion or gay rights or other issues, if I talk about their values and I'm a person that cares about family values. What they're trying to say on gay issues is that we Democrats don't care about families, that we don't care about family values. And that's a lie and we've got to be sure they know it's a lie.

WES CLARK: Okay, thank you Congressman. Senator Salazar.

KEN SALAZAR: A couple of quick thoughts on it. First, I think it's important for us not to let them define the issues, so if they want to make the debate or the campaign about gay rights or gay marriage, I think Chet's right, whether it's in the debate or broader media, we're talking about national security, we're talking about jobs, we're talking about issues that affect America's families. So I think keeping the debate on those things is a fact 99% of us, I think is the place to keep the debate. I was fortunate to have been able to do that in my race in Colorado, so I didn't have to deal with at least, the issue of gay marriage in any significant way it was a non-issue in my campaign. So we minimized those wedge issues, would be the tactical advice I would give to somebody else.

Secondly, I will tell you that, I think, that the Republicans feel that they have won the war on morality and I think that there are 2 things that we can do and should do. One is I don't shy away from talking about my faith. I don't shy away from saying that the Bush budget is immoral. I don't shy away from what's happening now in the Republican controlled Congress is that we are delivering a budget that is hurting the most vulnerable and is a violation of the basic ethics of Christianity as set out in the Beatitudes. I will talk about it in that kind of a context. I also think that it's important for us to think about the labeling that has gone on that the Republicans have clearly won. This is related to the gay and abortion issues. Pro-life/pro-choice. Yeah, I think that we as a Democratic
Party, as a nation need to redefine those terms. Now with Mayor of Denver, John Hickenlooper, just a few days ago... he was saying, you know, he's another traditional label, he's pro-choice...

He said, ” You know, I consider myself to be pro-life, because I believe in suicide prevention programs, because I believe in taking care of women and their children...” and he went and on about how he considered himself to be pro-life. Yet, we have somehow become the Democrats, the pro-death party. That is what the Republicans have defined us as.... “You call yourselves pro-choice, you really are the pro-death party. We're the pro-life party”.

Well, I think most people would like to be part of the pro-life party. Yeah, I believe that a decision on abortion should be one that is made between a woman and her God, but I will forever as a politician and a US Senator define myself as a pro-life person because that's the way I vote in the Senate.

WES CLARK: Thank you very much, Senator Ken Salazar.

(Applause)