Wanting a leftie president is why America hates Democrats

[Michael_Bush]

Yes, yes, the big meanies steal the vote and that is the only reason America doesn’t vote them all out of office and replace them with Democrats, Greens and Naderites. Boo hoo.

Of course it could be that MOST of America doesn’t see it our way. Rather than take the time to educate them we simply want to legislate our “better” beliefs down their throats. Unfortunately, they are just bright enough to see the truth in that statement.

If you doubt the truth in that statement, why do you think at the Republican convention they didn’t have the wackiest of Republicans giving fiery “burn the atheists” speeches? No, instead they had a Democrat, and lots and lots of Republican moderates.

THEY KNOW THE MIDDLE DECIDES THE WINNER

Is it lies? Of course it is but they are winning lies. Not only that, if they felt they could cheat their way to any victory, they wouldn’t need to pander.

Trying to elect a far left nominee without first convincing an America that sees many of those ideas as wrong is suicidal. Notice all those people driving SUVs? They don’t think our dependence on oil is bad. Notice all those people buying Chinese crap at Walmart? They don’t think America is losing jobs or that corporations have a responsibility to their employees.

So you want to elect someone who will legislate these issues instead of convincing people to demand them. You wonder why some are afraid you might win?

Clinton LED this country, he convinced people what he was doing was right and they demanded that their legislators enact laws to that effect. Was he perfect? No, I think he bent over for the Chinese and we and our sons and daughter will pay in blood for that mistake. However, he worked WITH the vast middle to convince them his way was a better way.

If you want to regain control of politics in this country you are going to have to do two things. Accept that those muddle headed people in the middle decide the direction of our country. Then work hard to show them that recycling is good, that our economy will be stronger by paying workers more, and that alternative energy means their sons and daughters will not have to die in places like Iraq.

Till then, move to the middle or accept Republican control of this country.

[Atman]

1. No

And, welcome to DU.

[MisterLiberal]

167. I second that. NO!

I'm tired of people telling us to move "to the center" when we haven't even tried moving to the left.

If Republican and Republican-Lite are the choices, people are going to choose Republican. Then, our base either holds their nose or they vote for a Green candidate.

WE LOSE WHEN WE MOVE TO THE CENTER!!!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. I just love lectures like this

Actually MOST of America DOES see things SLIGHTLY to the left of center when you see polls on issues such as Universal Healthcare, Social Security and other programs.

BTW...the public IS on our side on minimum wage and when California had it's energy crisis we DID conserve our way out of it including all them right wingers.

For living in Sacramento, I wouldn't expect such a callous misrepresentation of the positions of the "mushy middle"

BTW..so they had a senile Dem giving the wackiest of speeches and slobs wearing purple heart band aids

[Michael_Bush]

45. Davis was an Idiot

Davis is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

He sat there and railed against Bush but didn't do anything. Where was the leadership? By complaining to Bush, he put Bush in the position of power.

California is the 10th largest economy in the world. He should have said that Bush was allowing the crisis to happen but Davis would deal with it. He showed no ability to lead whatsoever.

Threaten the power companies by providing massive subsidies and tax breaks for switching to solar to all new and existing homes. Talk about creating more public utilities like SMUD that offer cheaper power. Propose mandatory energy buy backs at RETAIL which would greatly help pay for solar. Announce an inititive to take California off the private power grid in a decade.

Wouldn't even had to pencil out in fact, the mere thought of California taking itself off the private power grid and going public would have terrified those bastards and they would have fixed the problem overnight since it was a problem THEY created.

Davis would have been a damn hero but he was too afraid of risk and too small on vision.

Here is what I am saying. A leader has to galvinize public opinion behind a decision. It isn't something you can mandate. Find a far left Democrat that could do that, one who gets moderates to call their senator and demand that they consider this new policy and you will have that person as your next president. Only problem is, I haven't seen one who can do it. Which brings us back to the slow drugework of conventional electoral politics, which is appealing to the middle.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. John Kerry was the centrist candidate.

He lost (well sort of) to a radical rightwing fascist. Welcome to DU.

[paulk]

55. only in the upside down world of DU

is Kerry a centrist.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. really?

which positions held by Mr. Kerry in the campaign were left of center?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[last1standing]

64. That doesn't answer his question.

He has asked what views Kerry held that were "extreme". I have asked the same question. Care to give an answer?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

75. I said nothing about "extreme"

and you have no right to put words in my mouth.

[last1standing]

100. This is your exact quote.

"only in the upside down world of DU is Kerry a centrist." Do you care to explain what you were trying to say if not that Kerry is extreme?

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[delhurgo]

128. He ran as a centrist during the election, and thats why he

almost won, but there were still too many people that were aware of his record as a Senator from Massachusetts. He really was a 'northeast liberal'.

You can find his voting record for his career in the senate online; he's rated by all kinds of interest groups, republican and democrat, as being one of the most liberal members of the senate.

Like I said, he knew that was a problem though and moved to the center for the election: strong defense, middle class tax cuts, no gay marriage, etc... But he also had a past as a liberal activist against the Vietnam war, which to a large degree canceled out him being a war hero.

The guy that wrote the post that originated this thread is absolutely correct imo. The way for democrats to win Pres elections has been proven time and time again, by centrists like Clinton, Kennedy, Carter,... Gore and Kerry positioned themselves close enough to the center to almost win. Kerry had bad luck with the last minute appearance of Osama bin laden, but he also had good 'luck' with being on his 'A game' for all three debates. And democrats have proven how to lose as well, with liberal candidates like Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, Stevenson,...

In short, the way to win is... to run a centrist in the first place, preferably from somewhere other than the northeast, and then be for a strong defense and be reasonable on taxes and spending. The 'social issues can be finessed; most people agree with 'liberals' on those. Socially liberal/ fiscally conservative, strong on defense - thats the way to win. Oh yeah, and drop gun-control COMPLETELY.

That wasn't all meant for you, I just used your post as a springboard thanks.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Michael_Bush]

60. Oh thanks for that!

The next time I hear someone from Santa Cruz say "but everyone I know thinks Bush is an idiot" I am going to SCREAM.

They don't get the fact that there are places in America where people say "gee, everyone I know thinks Reagan is the greatest president ever and Bush is doing a fine job"

There are also huge swaths of the country where people get their news from the local town station, have never heard of Greg Palast, and don't know anyone with an internet connection, let alone cable or DSL.

One man's extremist may be another moderate, it is all a matter of perspective.

[last1standing]

63. So exactly what were Kerry's "extremist" positions?

I would like to see either you or paulk list them.

[Michael_Bush]

65. I never said Kerry was an extremist

and I don't think anyone else has either. Someone stated that he was viewed as a moderate only by people to kerry's left.

However we are starting to argue over how many liberals can sit on the head of a moderate without falling off to the left or right and that is not a discussion I am interested in.

[last1standing]

67. Check post #55.

"only in the upside down world of DU is Kerry a centrist." -paulk.

I also believe your analogy to be quite incorrect. We are debating the face of the Democratic party. You have claimed that we need to move to the "center" and I say we are already in the middle but need to get that message out better.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

129. By "We"

Do you mean the Democratic party as a whole, which coming from the UK I'd categorise as basically central, or that segment of it most vocal on DU (which as far as I've seen is far left even by European standards on economic issues, although fairly mainstream on social ones).

John Kerry certainly ran as a moderate. I don't know enough about American politics to know if the claims that his voting record was more liberal are accurate or not.

[last1standing]

133. I was speaking of the Democratic party as a whole.

On the other hand, I don't think that most of the members of DU are out of the mainstream either, certainly not to the extent that our counterparts on the Internet are.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

142. Mainstream means something different

to me than it does to an American. If by "our counterparts on the internet" you mean FR, then yes, you are, by UK standards, but you could advocate Stalinist dictatorship (or practically anything else) and the same would still be true.

Broadly speaking, the social policies nearest to consensus on DU(abortion on demand for the first two trimesters and arguably for the third, civil unions and arguably marriage for gays, no Creationism in schools, and the like) are completely non-controversial in the UK, but the visceral hostility of DUers to "corporations" is something that I've never seen in the UK.

Here, (I think, although I may be wrong) most people feel that while there are undoubtedly all sorts of individual corporate abuses, on the whole the world is a better place as a result of trade and business than it would be without them. I get the impression (perhaps falsely) that a lot of DUers regard words like
"corporation" as perjorative, which I don't think is a widely held view in the UK

We do have an anti-globalisation movement, but it's not influential, and not widely respected.

[last1standing]

143. Both socially and fiscally, most DUers are in the mainstream.

I think you'll find that most Americans, when given the definition of corporate personhood, oppose it. Also, most of us do not believe that big business is the root of all evil. We do have problems with corporations who act in their own self interests at the expense of the country and the world, but once again, you'll find that is a mainstream position.

Honestly, I don't see where you're going with this as most Americans also favor the right to choose, and separation of church and state when provided non-leading surveys. The only questionable issue is civil unions for gay people and even then it's a close race.

While there is little doubt that the U.S.A is more conservative in many respects than most of western Europe, we still have a slim majority of moderates in this country. Democrats aren't losing to the issues, we're losing to fear tactics.

[CWebster]

145. But then

you aren't the Empire anymore, either.

US response is to US Corporate domination to the point that the best our centrists can offer is to buy drugs, manufactured by US pharmaceuticals, from foreign countries.

[JRob]

77. ...I think I like this guy. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

112. So please do set out all of Kerry's leftwing positions

Right Here:


And stop dodging the question.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Voted YEA on the IWR

Supported free trade, and supported the No Child Left Behind Act. Kerry has some liberal credentials, he's by no means the most liberal member of the senate. And even the most liberal member of the senate doesn't really represent that absolute left of this country. Those people can't even get elected to congress.

[paulk]

85. well, if supporting NCLB makes one a centrist,

I guess Teddy Kennedy doesn't get to wear the liberal crown anymore. He did help write it, afterall. Liberals support things like free trade and NCLB because the right has the votes to pass them with or without liberal support. It's better to get involved and try to get a few good things in the legislation. That's politics -

Kerry's floor speech on the IWR was not exactly a ringing endorsement of Bush's Iraq policy. GW Bush himself said that the IWR wasn't a vote for war. It's the left that has hung that stone around Kerry's neck.

Kerry may not be the most liberal member of the Senate, but he's pretty damn close. The only Senator with a higher lifetime ACT rating was your avatar.

Kerry is most certainly not a centrist, unless one's politics are on the extreme left of the spectrum. And, like you say, those people don't have enough supporters to get elected.

[FourStarDemocrat]

106. Ted Kennedy worked with Orrin Hatch on NCLB

NCLB was certainly promoted as a centrist, bipartisan piece of legislation.

Kerry's sceptism of the IWR was not what Liberals hung around his neck. It was his percieved inability, after the fact, to come out during his campaign and say we were flat out lied to as many on the left wanted him to articulate. There are many on the right as well, that disagree with the policies and decisions that led up to the Iraq war, Pat Buchanan being among them. It's not neccessarily a left-right issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

114. George Bush muttered no child's behind left

with every other rambling incoherent statement he made in the debates. That piece of crap legislation was anything but 'liberal' or 'left of center'.


So list Kerry's leftwing positions right here:









still waiting.

[WildEyedLiberal]

135. Okay

Opposed Condi, Gonzales, Bolton (and Bork and Thomas if you want to go back)
100% HRC rating.
92% LCV lifetime rating; cosponsored amendment to save ANWR
Opposed DOMA
Led investigations that uncovered Iran/Contra and BCCI (maybe that's not "liberal" per se, but it was certainly unpopular and the right thing to do)
Supports progressive income tax brackets that remove the burden from the middle class; opposed Bush's tax cuts
Is currently sposoring a federal health care bill to cover children's health insurance


There you go, for starters. I suppose it won't be good enough, but whatever.

[last1standing]

137. Those aren't leftwing, they're common sense.

Warren Stupidity and I are asking how anyone could think that John Kerry is an extreme left winger, not trying to run him down. I can't speak for Warren on this, but I think Kerry would have made a fine president. His views are firmly in the "center" of majority opinion.

[WildEyedLiberal]

138. Who said Kerry is an extreme left winger?

No, he's definitely not extreme... he IS liberal, which lots of people don't want to allow, but he is not extreme. I'm not all that sure I LIKE extreme anything, to be quite honest, unless you're talking about someone far left like Kucinich, whom I admire, obviously. But then again, to my mind, most of what Kucinich says is common sense too.

[last1standing]

139. If you read up thread you'll find the answer to that.

Kerry is liberal, but in US politics today, being a liberal is being moderate. If you look at the positions that you laid out previously, you'll find that polls show that most Americans agree with Kerry's stance on the issues. I consider that moderate or "centrist".

[WildEyedLiberal]

140. Yeah, if you define moderate as "supported by the majority"

Then liberal does = moderate. I see a ton of deleted messages, so I wasn't really able to follow upthread very well. Basically, I thought someone was trying to say that Kerry wasn't liberal, so I posted his liberal positions.

Sorry for any confusion.

[last1standing]

141. No problems here.

:hi:

[paulk]

165. really? where?

the only person who made any reference to Kerry being an "extreme left winger" in this thread is you.

[Warren Stupidity]

148. He got my money my time and my vote EOM.

[CTLawGuy]

155. oh yes, it's REALLY liberal to:

vote for the war,
support part of Bush's tax cuts,
advocate getting rid of gay marriage in your own state,
advocate cutting corporate taxes,
etc.

[mahina]

4. Like our nice middle of the road president? Thanks for the DLC memo.

I don't know who you are, where you live, how you vote. But I know that Kerry WAS a moderate, as were all the other candidates.

The existing administration is extremist, and we will be fortunate to survive the current term without devastating economic collapse as a result of his idiot policies. Or should I say whoever it is who has his hand up his ass as this sock puppet could no sooner run the country than tie his own shoes. Illegal unneccessary wars launched with lies, 1600 dead Americans, our reputation in tatters, a new war with Iran brewing...
tell me more about how we need to get closer to that sh*t to win America's hearts again.

What far left candidate are you talking about? Most people I know won't vote for the democratic candidate because they are too far RIGHT.

Oh ya welcome to DU.

[MisterLiberal]

168. You're correct

Most Democrats are afraid to be anything other than moderate or rightwing.

I can count on one hand the true liberals and they have no problem getting elected.

Even if there were such a thing as a candidate "too liberal" for me (I can't imagine such a candidate - I sure have never SEEN one), I would still vote and support them because I know the dulling influence Washington has on politicians as well as the ever-moving-to-the-right tendencies of the national party.

If the slippery-slope is to the right (and in Washington it always is) then I want them starting out as far left as possible.

The Repukes have plenty of extremist right wingers but we seem to be afraid to support the extreme left.

Sure would rile things up!!!

[formernaderite]

5. Errr...I think Kerry already tried your plan....

when you move to the middle, how do you "explain" your philosophy to the American people without sounding like watered down republican mumbo jumbo? Sorry, we need a coherent, progressive and recognizable democratic platform....so the muddle in the middle can recognize the difference between us and them.

[LoZoccolo]

There are a few more instances of Republican triangulation I can think of.

- Barely a mention of abortion at the Republican convention.
- Bush* ran as a moderate the first time.
- Bush* couches a lot of his agenda in liberal rhetoric.
- The campaign to get people to come out to vote for anti-gay marraige bills, and thus vote for Bush* while they were there, was very hush-hush. People didn't see it coming.

I don't think you'll find too many people here that will acknowledge that the Republicans play good chess while they're advocating that we play checkers, though. You will find more, though, at DNC meetups and what-not. I think it's just the nature of people who spend a lot of time on the Internet versus people who spend time actually getting involved.

To give you an example: look at the furor over Dean saying we could run pro-life candidates in districts where a pro-choice one can't win. People would rather have a Republican win. The token gesture takes precedence over real power. Someone also went and called Barack Obama a "piece of shit" because Obama said Bush* had good intentions in going to Iraq. So the one statement demolishes everything he stands for or is going to do. This is because people who spend an extended amount of time on a message board are close to useless in this respect.

[Michael_Bush]

24. More dems eating their young!

Thanks for the insightful post (and yes, there were many others).


In the primaries, Kucinich didn't do all that well among Democrats and I think most would say he was left of center. I actually AGREE with many of Kucinich's positions. However, if they were so damned popular why didn't he WIN? Or were the Republicans controling that vote too? I have no doubt they can add a few percentage points here and there and are certainly not above funding those who they "dream" of running against. Can someone explain to me how running candidates that can't unite the Democratic party are somehow going to unite the wider American electorate?

As for playing suck up to Republicans, I oppose it as much as anyone. The day Kerry said he would vote for the war again, I knew it was all over. "If you supported the war you idiot, why are you running again?" Fiery attacks like Galloway are what we need but we also need someone who can build common ground with enough of America to win.

I worked for Clark before the primaries even started and thought Dean to extreme to win. Clark lacked media savvy and got knocked out. Dean got sucker punched with the fake scream issue. I think Dean is a perfect choice for chair. He is a firebrand, he understands politics, and he has the skills to unite our devisive little band of rebels.

For those who whine and bitch about how "Republican" Clinton was (and Clinton is anything but my hero", think about this. Ole George is busy dismantling the very environmental protections and other "good" legislation Clinton put in place. If nothing Clinton did mattered, then why would Bush be bothering to destroy it?

[salin]

6. er

when was the last time democrats were in a position to "legislate our 'better' beliefs down their throats?" Eleven years ago? For about a year?

History lesson time - for the past twenty four years there has been exactly one two-year window where this could have happened - and then the dems were too divided to get anything done.

The tone of what you are describing is just more of the vilification for the right ... creating an image that isn't true- and is incorrect as in the past thirty five years (plus) there have been only a very few moments in time where this could have even possibly been true as the Republicans controlled the White House (veto power over the congress) and often held at least the senate, and then took over the house and has maintained it for the past eleven years.

Clinton couldn't lead very far as he was obstructed at almost every turn. Remember his big issue per the election - concern over national health care. Turned back. Big time. I liked Clinton - and think he had the potential to do many great things - but he couldn't do them, because he did not have control of the congress and the 1994 model of republicans was no longer the compromise folks of earlier generations (where the two sides could negotiate policies) but instead was a warrior mentality GOP where defeating just about anything proposed by Clinton ... whether or not they agreed with the intention of the proposal... was a "victory".

While I find your anaylsis more than lacking - and the insults both to the left and to those in the middle rather offputting and counterproductive... I do agree that one has to lead by getting ideas out there - and having public support for those ideas as a prerequesite for making change. And that most of america is moderate. Indeed that point rather counters the perpetual republican control - as the republicans are increasingly doing things that make them appear less and less moderate and they are quickly losing support of the middle (more people are now wanting to see a dem controlled congress in 2006 than those wanting to see continued repub... this isn't about dems being perceived as better - this is because repubs are beginning to be viewed in the exact way that you start off claiming that dems are being viewed).

However, even if dems do succeed in taking a house or two of congress back - I agree that until the public has a shift in thinking - nothing will be able to get done (legislatively) -as the warriorlike mentality of obstruction 'of the other political side' is now the active tone in DC. Until there is a public outcry for something different - this will continue.

[welshTerrier2]

7. here are a couple of hints ...

there were no "far left nominees" running for President in the Democratic Party ...

here's another hint: there is nothing fucking sacred about the center ... what wins are good ideas backed up by candidates who really believe in them ... whether those ideas are in the center or on the left is not the issue ...

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salin]

9. Curious as to your take on Dean as

DNC chair.

[Michael_Bush]

35. Dean is perfect

He is a firebrand safely out of the way of presidential politics. He can play the role of Galloway and attack them for their lies.

He is also a sharp professional politician who can help shape the debate so that there IS a debate, not abstentions (like Levin saying he opposed the war but actualy just abstained).

Perhaps most important, he can bring the far left back into the party and sit them down and school them a bit about how politics work. Want a local Green candidate, great, work your butt off and you have a good chance of getting one. Want one at the state level? Great, get a bunch at local levels and show that we are better off with some of the Green Parties ideas. Want one at the national level? Do all that work 50 times over.

How many here have worked actively at campaigns at the local and national level? I have. It teaches you a bit of cynicism about the electorate at large. Remember, there are enough people who don't bother to vote to beat ALL the members of ALL parties who DO vote.

Dean is perfect as chair and I applauded the choice.

[salin]

44. Thanks for your responses

sometimes it takes delving into these conversations to begin to understand from where people are coming.

I agree with you per Dean, on all fronts.

As for a race where I would love to see a Green run? Right here in red-land Indiana there are a couple of races that for the most part seem unwinnable. But one, held by a corrupt crazy long timer (Dan Burton) is seated in a growing suburban area... and there are more folks moving into that area who might be willing to go for a change. I don't know that a dem could win- and a strong contender hasn't run against him in ages, that I can recall. If folks want Green - why not test out grassroots organizing and grass roots populism in races like these? Stranger things can happen.

I have worked on local and national elections - and am cynical. But still am also a believer in the impossible. Many folks don't pay that much attention. They just listen enough to either resonate with themes or to decide to ignore themes. Shortly after the first time I returned to my home state after living in a cosmopolitan area - I was in a long discussion with a mechanic. He was ranting and raving about the flag burning amendment (this was the bush1 race, era). I tapped into his anger - but shifted the theme...

You know what burns me? says I... the time wasted on 'dressing issues' that don't mean much in the long run and ALL the money wasted on it... I mean (now I am on a roll) - I don't like to see a flag burned but what does it do? Most folks watching turn away in disgust - nothing accomplished but turning people off... and we want to make it an amendment to the constitution? It would what, stop a couple of incidents from happening - how often do we here of such things. And while these politicians, waste our dollars, on an issue affecting almost NO ONE... they do NOTHING about the economy, nothing about homeless people, nothing about anything... just get their mugs on tv so folks will keep voting for them so they can KEEP wasting our money.

About two sentences in - Dude is agreeing with me - and his outrage has turned on the politicians. THAT is what Dean is good at doing - in a slightly sarcastic way (that few politicians can pull off... and that sometimes causes him to step in it) he calls the right on their hypocrisy and points out the lack of emporers clothes. If we did more of that - conversationally, one on one, all the time - not just during elections... we'd get some of those nonvoting folks to the polls.

[Michael_Bush]

47. Waiting for elections is TOO late

Thanks for the polite response!

I agree with what you wrote but especially the part about not waiting till the elections. The time to push for change is BEFORE the elections, elections are about winning and since that requires a majority, it is by definition, not about fringe politics.

Want better candidates? Work hard before the election to get good people to run and then work even harder to make sure they get elected. Then watch them and support them in implementing their vision.

[JRob]

87. Well said ! Here Idaho it's the only way to have...

A productive conversation about politics and you find that even a lot of the folks that are initially cavalier about anything "liberal" in nature end up agreeing with you.

Once you get them see how completely misdirected and diversionary our "passion" is for these smokescreen issues, there's really no opposition and you can help to focus them on things that need their attention.

Unfortunately there are way too many who can not get themselves to believe that this is all anything but "business as usual" and that next year, next election everything will be different. They are "too busy" to devote the time to be "educated" about the finer points of what's going on in the country or government... these are the "moderate majority that never vote" and justify it by convincing themselves (each other) that it doesn't matter if they do anyway. It will be interesting to watch the paradigm shift if (when) they start drafting their kids.

I do agree with the poster that we can not wait, that we need to do any and everything NOW (including things that have drawn some snipes and criticism) and hopefully it's not already too late...

[salin]

88. Some of the actions from washington

are starting to shake some people up here, in indiana. Folks who are moderate, and somewhat sympathetic to the religious right rhetoric of "family values" (sympathetic because on the surface it sounds nice, and they don't peek below the surface or spend any time thinking about how contradictory the policies are to that nice sounding term) were very unnerved by the whole Schaivo thing. Then more unnerved by the DeLay and Frist violent rhetoric about judges. I think some cotton fell out of the ears with the nonstop Schaivo coverage... and what people heard made them more than a bit uncomfortable.

At least here in Hoosierland - some of the paradigm shift has already begun to happen.

[JRob]

97. Let's hope so. And let's hope that it motivates them to seek out real...

information from reliable sources and then get involved...

[Warpy]

10. Clinton won because he campained like an economic populist

and not because he played to the mushy middle and squabbled over yuppies like your "moderate, middle" DLC idiots have done for far too long.

Understand this fact and you'll understand why the elections have been close enough to steal and why 51% of the people eligible to vote don't bother to. You'll also understand how the DLC has lost all 3 branches of government.

The middle aint where you think it is.

[eridani]

91. Wish to hell he had governed as one.

Too bad he didn't.

[jmowreader]

93. Clinton also attacked first

When you campaign for a high office you have to run two campaigns: a positive campaign focusing on you, and a negative campaign focusing on the opponent.

Clinton ran a marvelous negative campaign. By the time he was done you knew Bush was a worthless SOB and Dole was a senile old hack.

By comparison, Kerry and Gore tried to stay above the fray--to run positive campaigns and not get into mudslinging. Wrong answer. When you run for president you need to sling mud with one of those catapults they used to tear castles down. Neither one would do it, and Bush was all too willing to. ('Course, Bush's positive campaign needs to go in the Guinness Book under "most lies in a presidential campaign.")

We have to go negative. We have to marry their candidate to every scumbag in the Middle East.

[IChing]

11. I agree with the poster and I'm trying to live up to that image

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Where does this guy come from, anyways?

Hasn't he seen the House of Representatives, Senate, and the President? If they hated us so much, we wouldn't have complete control of the government.

[NYCGirl]

16. So I guess you agree with him, LoZoccolo?

Or did you forget your sarcasm tag?

[LoZoccolo]

18. Somewhat, by default.

Part of it is you gave another one of your "No, _____. NT" posts again, so as usual, no one knows where you're coming from or why they should believe you.

[NYCGirl]

23. So you agree with him because you disagree with what you think I might

have said. Okay, makes sense.
:sarcasm:

What America "hates" (which is just more overheated rhetoric) is the Republican's characterization of Democrats, which many of our leaders have played into by cringing everytime the other side throws a wild punch.

I don't think the OP really knows what a Democrat is, or what we've traditionally stood for, or he wouldn't make such a patently ridiculous blanket statement. We don't have to move to the right or the left. We have to stand our ground.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late getting to the gym.

[LoZoccolo]

25. No.

That's not why.

[salin]

17. yep there is so much hatred for democrats

that Al Gore won the popular vote. That John Kerry nearly toppled a sitting president (in terms of electoral college count). Yep it is overwhelming hatred that led many senate races to be very, very close.

More to do with incumbancy - in terms of congressional elections... and some funky circumstances in 2000 in terms of changing the party at the top of the ticket.

If extremism is what is being feared... and the fear of legislating one-sided views... as is the argument made by the OP... then all we have to do is sit back and let the story unfold - as the GOP gets more emboldened doing exactly that (legislatively and PR wise per extremism). Indeed the most recent WSJ polls do show a shift away from the GOP in terms of who should lead congress after 2006 elections (47% dem control vs 40% repub control). So for that part of the argument - there is growing evidence... but the fear of extremism and of legislating said extremism - seems to be turning on the current republicans.

[Michael_Bush]

31. EXACTLY

They didn't learn from our mistakes, the very mistake I am talking about.

America doesn't buy into extremism from the right OR the left. They thought everyone agreed with their nutty ideas and so they forced them down peoples throats.

I am simply arguing that perhaps we can learn from our mistakes and theirs.

[salin]

43. Another point

to be made, is that much of the public does agree with much of the democratic party agenda. The biggest challenge is taking the mike away from the far right demogogues who have reworded things so that their extreme policies sound mainstream ("clear skies initiative") while somehow painting dems as the extremists (how many gazillion times has rush used the term "environmental wackos" even for the most moderate environmental positions?)

I think that Kerry framed a whole lot of issues very well. But the mike kept getting stolen - by the swifties (and all their media coverage)... then by Cheney stating that there would be another terror attack if dems were elected (then after the election other gopers started saying another attack was "inevitable" ...) So there was no mike to reach the American people.

Good friend's parents are moderates in the upper midwest. Voted bushco. They don't listen to talk radio and don't have cable tv. She expressed frustration when they would say well if only the dems didn't support x... she would point out that they don't - and where Kerry said /supported a similar view. They had never "heard" it before.

That is one of our biggest challenges. Getting our voice - not the snarky imitated one that Rush presents as being ours - back into the public dialogue - back into regular political discourse.

The republicans are currently self-destructing. But we will have more of the cautious positioning (eg not able to correct much of the damage of the past four years) - unless our voices, once again, reach the public - so there is a connection between our policies and the general public (which poll after poll has said - support much of hte same thing).

[JRob]

89. What happens in the interim?

I agree that the repubs are self destructing

I agree that the majority is moderate

I agree that the neocons have a death-grip on "the mike"

I totally agree, that given the "truth" Kerry wins in a landslide with bipartisan support...

But these sociopathic CSers control everything and there one vote away from being able to stack the judiciary!!!

With all this and no opposition to stop them from implementing electronic voting nationwide, why does anyone believe (unquestioningly) that there will ever be a REAL election again?

Hell why have an election at all!!!??? Nothing, at this point would surprise me.

[salin]

92. More than ever we need to be working endlessly

to get more information and to distribute it - to broaden the 'circle', as it may be, of those who now "see".

Sadly I don't think there is a way to stop the shortterm dangers of actions of congress.

Keep info about elections going and awareness growing so that questions around election integrity become very common in the public discourse.

Franky we have too long of a history to be outright disenfranchised. Otherwise in the post 911 period they would have called national emergency and cancelled elections. But there is not the infrastructure in place currently (ala stalinistic kgb, or the stazi) to completely shut citizens down as would be needed if elections were cancelled.

I think rigged elections are more likely. But I also think that can be fought - but it will take a long time of educating and stirring up concerns and then it might take one election that the results are SO far out of skew before elections are secured/improved.

I just fear that in the time that takes to happen - the damage wrought by the radicals now in control. Can the country, or the world, recover?

[JRob]

96. Wow, you have a lot more faith in what these bastards may or may not do...

than I...

The line about "why have an election..." was certainly sarcasm, however voter fraud is/has happened (based on what I've read).

The irregularities were there in Fla and Ohio last year, in 2002 and probably in 2000. I was characterized as a wacko prior to the 2000 election for forecasting a scenario similar to what's happening now... What's truly frightening is that it's worse than I imagined. As an aside, a lot of people who painted me as a fanatic have apologized.

I guess my point is that I do not believe that these f***ers will stop at anything (I would love to be wrong) but that is my fear. I've known some of these types in business, in my personal life and it's like the Langella role in the movie "Dave" as White House Chief of Staff when his says "I can kill a person, I can kill a thousand normal people...” or something like that. We're expendable, a statistic. Rules and laws apply only to us and they will do whatever it takes for the greater good of their agenda. I believe that the "time" is now and that only a massive grassroots effort will garner any attention by them or the press. I've stated, and been criticized for believing that our best hope is to threaten their pocketbooks by not participating in THEIR economy.

[IChing]

46. from his web site

About MG Stocks.com
I have been in the firearms business since I was a kid, opening my first gunstore before I was old enough to get my own FFL. My career in the firearms field has been varied, including working for a number of the larger imports in the US and best of all, I spent a number of years working as an armouror for ARMEX, one of the largest importers of machineguns.

My interest has always been in military weapons and my experience in the gun business has been in businesses that service that market. Having on various occassions being involved in the importation of surplus weapons like the MG 34 and FN 49s, guns that begged for quality stocks. I was amazed at the lack of suppliers and when suppliers were found, the poor quality of their stocks.

SO...

I founded European Restoration and MG Stocks.com to service that market and provide products with a level of quality above the rest. To achieve this, I researched how military stocks were originally made. I then made my own special machinery that allows me to blend the efficiency of mass production with a minimum of expensive handwork to produce quality gunstocks. That is why on our products you will notice crisp edges, sharp inletting, and profiles that actually duplicate the original.

[Michael_Bush]

48. And your point is?

I hate to break it to you but quite a few liberals own guns. Most keep it a dirty secret because people like you will DISCRIMINATE against them based on some BS purity test.

So again, what's your point?

[IChing]

101. You are not just a gun owner but a dealer in automatic arms

[LoZoccolo]

103. I think that's what it said, right?

Funny you responded to his message but not mine, where I call you on changing the subject.

[LoZoccolo]

76. Do you think you convince anyone of anything...

...by changing the subject? Especially to an irrelevant one? There are a lot of firearms enthusiasts on this board in the gun forum. They've been there for a long time.

[JRob]

94. Thank you ! ! !

It's CSers like Wayne Laperre, the NRA and the Republican Party that have created this myth that "liberals want your guns". They have a lot of people convinced that the next time Democrats are in power "hide 'em all, 'cause they'll be comin' around with the wagon the very next day!".

I'm pretty ****ing liberal and I've owned guns and been around gun owners all my life. To be honest, the characterization of liberals on guns costs us a lot of votes. Being a gun owner doesn't make you a bad person. I know several "gun owner" that vote strictly based on this issue, and as deluded as they are its none-the-less true.

I've said again and again that I'm more afraid of the neocons "roundin' up all the guns" than I am of the Democrats. "One thing I'll guaranty" I say "you'll at least get a real debate over it from the left..."

Kerry’s overture on guns in the last election shows that he sees this to some extent. But the right and the NRA managed to convince their disciples that it was all a lie.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

15. As I've asked before, just WHO is it you're calling "middle"?

Perhaps a reveiw of the Pew Research Report "Beyond Red vs. Blue" might help identify this obscure pool of voters. (I've never seen them, quite frankly.)

See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949

Here are the Typology Groups:
ENTERPRISERS - 9% OF ADULT POPULATION (98% Republican/Lean Republican)
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES - 11% OF ADULT POPULATION (97% Republican/Lean Republican)
PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES - 9% OF ADULT POPULATION (86% Republican/Lean Republican)
UPBEATS - 11% OF ADULT POPULATION (73% Republican/Lean Republican)

DISAFFECTEDS - 9% OF ADULT POPULATION (60% Republican/Lean Republican)

LIBERALS - 17% OF GENERAL POPULATION (92% Democrat/Lean Democrat)
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS - 14% OF ADULT POPULATION (98% Democrat/Lean Democrat)
DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS - 10% OF GENERAL POPULATION (99% Democrat/Lean Democrat)

BYSTANDERS - 10% OF ADULT POPULATION (the 96% non-voting drop-outs)


The "Disaffecteds"?? How do you propose to reach them? "Disaffecteds have little interest in current events and pay little attention to the news. No single medium or network stands out as a main source." And since they don't pay any attention to the policy directions, just what the f*ck would convince them to vote Democrat? They've got absolutely no comprehension whatsoever about the "trivial" difference between "moderate" and "left." It's NOT the 'moderation' that disaffects them. The color-blind don't even notice the difference between blue and blue-with-a-slight-tint-of-red.

The "Bystanders"? These are people who've pretty much lost any faith whatsoever in our political process. I sure as hell wouldn't call them "moderates" ... more like left-of-Nader liberals who see BOTH parties as owned and operated by "the man." So, offering these people something that's "in the middle" is sure as hell not going to motivate them to vote.

If it's the so-called "Conservative Democrats" then I'd suggest that pool is completely tapped out ... and despite 98% voting Democratic, the Democrats lost!! (Subtract Perot from 1992 and 1996 and Dole is President. Period.)

In my opinion, the Democrats have been moving right ever since LBJ. While some view Jimmy Carter as a liberal, they're basing that almost solely on his activities in retirement, and the degree to which we've LURCHED to the right in the last 25 years.

I again call BULLSHIT on this 'Myth of The Middle' ... it just doesn't exist. By far, the greater problem is one of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber ... Pepsi vs. Coke.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result.

Most of what I see in calls for "moderation" is mere appeasement and timidity.
("Adolph is killing too many Jews. Our guy will kill fewer.")
("We spend more than the rest of the world combined on the military but, gee, we shouldn't reduce it because we'd be called 'soft on defense.')
("We have more of our people in prison than any other country in the world but we shouldn't stop imprisoning them since we'd be called 'soft on crime'.")

Riiiight. :eyes:

Let's not get called names ... like "liberal." Heaven forbid! :puke:

[FourStarDemocrat]

107. Well said! n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

22. How much more of a centrist do you exactly want?

I mean, Kerry was hardly the most rabid left-winger in the world (and as a socialist, I am being charitable here). The last election was fought, by the Dems, almost entrily to try and seize the center ground. The Republican party, by contrast, kept speaking to their base. I think empirical evidence shows who got it right (and lets not get into whether it was stolen or not for the moment) - which ain't to say Dean or whoever else would have won it, but it does show that appealing to the middle don't win you shit.

[LoZoccolo]

28. I disagree about the Republicans playing to their base.

See my post #6. I think they do things that their base wants, yes, but their rhetoric in the very wide-reaching forums doesn't stroke them too much in ways that most people pick up on. I think another example is Bush* citing the Dred Scott decision during the debates as an example of a court decision that he didn't agree with. He avoided mentioning abortion, yet anti-abortion activists picked up on it because they compare Roe vs. Wade to Dred Scott all the time.

[Vladimir]

38. Yeah but the base gets the message

You know, however it is couched (and Rove is good at spinning, for sure), they make sure first and foremost that the base get the message. Whereas the message put out by the Democratic Party at the last election, with regard to the Iraq War for example, was so incoherent I doubt even the candidates understood it.

[Michael_Bush]

29. Perhaps I wasn't clear

Kerry was certainly a moderate and I would not want a President any more to the right of that ground.

I don't want to slide into a discussion on the relative merits of Kerry's campaign. I am addressing those who think the reason we have lost the house, the senate, and the white house is due to us not running "left" enough candidates.

Most people think the far left is wrong about many issues, OR they agree in theory but when it comes time to shop at the local co-op or pay less and go to Walmart, their SUV is found in the parking lot at Walmart.

If anything else were true, it would have been Kucinich in Kerry's place or at least Kucinich as the likely nominee for VP. Neither of which was true.

We, as liberals need to push our ideas by showing and educating people we are right, not by electing someone to ram it down their throats through legislation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Let's get ranked voting, then we'll see what the breakdown

of support for progressive and moderate candidates really is.

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Mojambo]

30. I am SO with you

If we had ranked or IRV our political makeup would be drastically different.

Incumbents wouldn't be re-elected at a 95% clip with it so you'll never see it. It's too democratic to work in this country.

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. Which is why we need to start at the municipal and state levels

because this Congress and pResident would never do anything positive about overhauling and fixing our election system.

[ProudDad]

27. Some facts (sorry about that)

More people are registered Democrat than are registered repuke or independent.

In every poll, the leftist position on Housing, Health Care, Education, Against the Iraq war and other adventures and on treating the poor with compassion and dignity rather than letting them die in a culvert always triumphs.

As Michael Moore said, America IS Liberal, they just don't know it yet. Our job is to edumicate them, not roll over and suck up to the corporate teet the way the dems have been trying to do for the last 20 years.

Sorry to break it to you but the ideas and compassion of the Left can LEAD this country much better than the ideas of death this current crowd it pushing.

[Michael_Bush]

33. I agree

So what we are arguing over is only does America "know it yet"

We need to wake America up, I am NOT advocating playing dead like Feinstein, I am not advocating being like Boxer and ALMOST accusing Rice of lying. We need to oppose them openly.

However, we also need to pay attention to what middle America believes. Until they wake up, they don't want to hear America caused 9/11 by OUR violence in the middle east. They don't YET want to hear that they should give up their 5,000sf house and four cars for a lifestyle with less impact on the earth.

A leader who can do both will win, we choose someone who just wants to lecture them and look forward to Jeb for four years.

[ProudDad]

36. I think we agree

George Galloway is the model, not Harry Reid.

You know, in all of the coverage of Galloway, not one mention of the fact that he's as far to the left as they get in the British Parliament.

The amerikan media was so stunned by an unapologetic, honest radical that they totally forgot that he's a radical!!!

Interesting, eh?

[Michael_Bush]

42. Of course we have common ground!

The older I get and the more I read the more radical I get.

Some would rather have pure thoughts than impure actions. I prefer results and real world change. If running a Green candidate would galvanize public action, Kucinich would have done better than he did.

You want a Green President, then get at least ONE Green governor (more like 10 or more), till then, don't say anyone is selling you out.

I am not picking on the Greens, but they DO represent the far left for most people. My candidate was Clark, many of his positions were pretty close to Kucinich's. I worked for him with heart and soul, when the general election came, I worked with Kerry. I didn't drop out, I didn't pout, I rolled my sleeves up and helped.

That is all I am saying people should do.

[LibertyorDeath]

34. Complete bullshit ! America Loves Democrats!!

Republicans, Fundamentalist whack jobs
Corporate America & Corporate Media hate Democrats.

Oh yeah and the Fascist fucks that control the White House
along with the CS on the SCOTUS that put them there
and don't forget the scum at Diebold & ES&S.

The average (intelligent) American loves Democrats.

The sheep will vote for whomever the media tells them to fucking vote for.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Michael_Bush]

41. Seems like a fine post to me even if the guy is wrong

Please don't delete this one too. We are here to debate this stuff out of the mainstream. If we can't do it here, where can we do it?

I am NOT talking about sucking up to Bush, we should be demanding impeachment hearings.

I am talking about sucking up to the political middle and even then, not exactly sucking up but understanding that their politics just might differ from ours.

[earth mom]

39. Hmm...interesting user name you got there. Any relation?

:eyes:

[cindyw]

40. Bush is a moderate who leads from the center?

nt

[Q]

49. You haven't defined ANY terms...

...as to what you think is 'far left'.

I get the feeling that what you mean is pretty much what the DLC wants: to abandon the 'special interests' of the left...such as Labor, Choice, New Deal, Social Safety Net, Civil Rights, Gun Control, Separation of Church and State. These might be the 'far left' issues you refuse to point out. The 'moderates' would just as soon see them disappear in order to get more cash from the corporate interests that also want to see them disappear. Corporate over Social Welfare is their goal.

If moving to the middle means fucking the middle class and the poor...then the Democratic party is doomed.

By the way...America doesn't hate Democrats. But they HAVE been fooled into hating the left by RWingers who look and act like fascists.

[Michael_Bush]

50. Wow, you exposed my secret plot

Uhm, other than Labor, choice, the New Deal, SS, civil rights, seperation of church and state, there isn't much left TOO the Democratic party.

Oh, and yes, I fully support fucking the middle class and the poor in favor of supporting the real base of the Democrats which is...umh gee, there really isn't anyone left is there?

Oh, and which is it? America doesn't hate Democrats (which I believe) or they have been fooled into hating Democrats by FOX. Can't have it both ways now, so why don't you choose one or the other.

In case anyone misses the dripping sarcasm...the above is meant to be dripping sarcasm.

[Q]

51. The very fact that you use the term 'far left'...

...means that you're trying to stereotype and bring a negative connotation to the discussion. At the same time you use the word 'moderate' in a positive fashion. Yet...you never define the differences in their positions and policies...preferring to let stand the Right's mischaracterization of the left as evil or extreme.

You come in here with a chip on your shoulder against the left and expect to have a fruitful discussion?

Perhaps you haven't read much about the DLC? These self-described 'moderates' want to separate the party from what they call the special interests of the left. They believe that they're (labor, affirmative action, choice, civil rights, activists, etc) are holding the party back from competing with Republicans. Why don't you check out their agenda before you pretend that no such agenda exists to pull the party even further to the right?

The Democratic party is already in the middle-right. Could it be that this really isn't what America wants from the right's only opposition?

Please stop playing to the stereotypes that the Right likes to use against the Democratic party. The far left candidates? No such thing. And you should know that.

[Michael_Bush]

52. Reread my post slower this time

I used the terms "far left" and "moderate" in a discussion of ways to win back the presidency. I insinuated no negative or even positive connotations to either word. You are being reactionary and responding without giving real thought to what I wrote.

The discussion I am having here with a few was meant to challenge the assumptions of those who criticize candidates for not being "left" enough. I was CLEARLY discussing what it took to WIN a presidential election, not which views were more correct.

Try reading my post again with an open mind.

[mtnsnake]

119. Exactly. Our first priority is winning, and to do that we're going to have

to PLAY THE FUCKING GAME and play it to win. By playing it to win it might mean that the face we take on during the next campaign doesn't exactly have to be our real face. It's called being political, and it's sure a hell of a lot better than the other choice, which would be another Republican win.

Enjoyed your posts, BTW, and I agree with what it takes to win. I don't know how many times I've been frustrated at how long we wait before we start campaigning, and by campaigning I don't just mean for president.

[snowbear]

53. Mr. Bush,

Curious why you chose to word the title of your post as you did..

..."yada, yada, yada.. America hates Democrats"

Thanks for responding.

[Michael_Bush]

56. Simple Answer?

Because I wanted to yank some chains and get people thinking. The title WAS a bit inflamitory but my message was thoughtful and respectful.

If I had instead chosen some wonkish title like:

Positioning strategies for general election candidates,

would you have read it?


This debate is no longer an academic debate, neither we nor the world can absorb another four years of these crazies. The time for whining "there is no difference between parties". I think it is pretty clear we would have been better off with a Republican moderate than the crazy nuts we have in the WhiteHouse today. I am NOT advocating that we support a moderate Republican or a sold out Democrat. I AM advocating that we give serious thought to picking someone who IS mindful of the issues that are most pressing and who can win. You think today is bad, imagine if these morons are really dumb enough to think they can conquer Iran. Unlike Iraq, Iran is united ethnically and has terriain you do NOT want to be fighting in. We invade and BOTH countries, Iraq and Iran will turn into terrorist cesspools and will spell the end not just of the empire of Bush's dreams but of America herself and all the good we have done and could possibly do in the future.

THAT is why I wanted to spark some genuine debate.

[snowbear]

57. Would I have read it...? uh... yeah..

Of course I would have read it.

You're right about one thing Mr. Bush, the title was inflamatory. And bogus. And a complete lie.

But hey.. to each their own Mr. BUSH.. to each their own...

:eyes:

[last1standing]

54. And yet this administration is further to the right than any other.

What I get out of your post is not that we should move to the right, but that we should make it appear as though we are moving to the center as the repubs make it appear that they are more moderate than they truly are. Once we have the election we can then legislate as extremely as we like so long as we appear moderate every two years.

I'm all for changing the terms of the debate and showing the people what our views really mean to them, but I'm not that keen on lying to them.

What's your take on that?

[Michael_Bush]

59. You haven't been watching Hillary have you?

She keeps sliding to the right, but I agree, the public sees those sort of shifts as slimy and they are certainly easy for Rove to paint as such.

I am NOT advocating lying. What I am advocating most for most strongly is the far left stop dreaming the only reason we lost the last election is we didn't pick Nader or Kucinich. Both candidates had views I liked but what I like or most here like doesn't matter.

We need a candidate who has view that middle america can put themsleves behind first of all. Secondly, for those view that are NOT centrist they have to have the ability to lead/convince America that that is the right path, not something easy to do in an election year.

Again, this is something Clinton excelled at. Dean was good at doing it with his base but never got the chance try it nationally, neither did Clark. I think in some ways, the Dems have a vastly more electable pool of candidates than the Republicans but we have to get them to the general election first.

[last1standing]

61. I have been watching Hillary.

She has not really been sliding to the right as she, like Bill, was always rather centrist in her beliefs. Also, I never said the public sees the shifting of message every two years as slimy, in fact quite the opposite, they fell for the idea that bush was a moderate and Kerry was an extremist. Both those views were, of course, false.

As for the rest, I think I can agree with you that we need a candidate who can present himself/herself as in tune with the majority of the country and that Kucinich and a few others did not fit that bill. That doesn't discount his value to the process, however. If anything he gave a push to the idea of Kerry being more moderate, which he is. It took a rovian media blitz to change that impression, and arguably, even that didn't quite work.

The point I'm trying to get across is that Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, and Gephardt were all moderates. Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun were not that left wing, themselves. Lieberman can not be considered a moderate because of his socially conservative views. What we need to work on is message, not policy. In poll after poll, Americans support Democratic positions. It is only when the media is able to twist it that it seems extreme.

So how does nominating a "moderate" change the fact that we will still be hit with the extremist label?

[Michael_Bush]

69. Thanks for an insightful post!

First off, your assessment of which candidates were where matches my own although I think the majority of the electorate, certainly the middle would have seen Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun as very left to one degree or another.

Rove is going to attack us with everything they have, every dirty trick, legal or not. So we need a candidate that thinking people in the middle and moderate right can see through the smokescreen. We need someone that doesn't have easy targets tacked to their back and a candidate like Kucinich or Sharpton have to many easy targets to scare people with (wrongly but we are not talking right or wrong but about defeating Bush)

Knowing how successful Rove and the Republican machine has been, do we really want to pick an easy target for them? I am NOT proposing running Zell Miller(who should be kicked out by the way), just please lets not pick someone so far to the left that Rove can just let his assistants destroy them. We need someone with the fire of Dean, the brilliance of Hillary, but who isn't a lightning rod of hate for the moderate right. Someone who not only doesn't scare the middle but who can deliver a message to them that the Democrats ARE what is best for America and we represent what is BEST about America.

[last1standing]

71. We should never stop talking about right and wrong.

That is why we are all here to begin with. I don't care about beating bush, it's too late for that. I care about getting someone into office who will more closely support what I think is in the interests of our country and the rest of the world. Most of America feels the same way as most issues polls will tell you. It is a very moderate opinion.

As for being attacked by the rovian machine, there is no one, absolutely no one, we can choose who will be safe. The first rule of rove is to turn a positive into a negative. Kerry's service was his greatest positive to the country at large so pure lies were spread via the media to discredit him. His record in the Senate has been very moderate, so we suddenly heard that we was the most liberal voting Senator in history.

The only way to stand up to lies is with the truth. Kerry is not president today because he did not stand up and tell the truth until the lies had already saturated the mindset of the average voter. Once again, we do not need a "Christ" figure, we need a fighter who can get the message out. That is our only chance.

[Michael_Bush]

81. I agree completely

Kerry never ran an ad showing Cheney opposing the very defense bills that he was railing against Kerry for holding the same stance.

Kerry should have fought the swifties, while it made sense to stay quite and see if it died, when it didn't, he should have crossed their T and sunk them but he didn't.

Perhaps the communication disconnect we are facing is equating moderate stance with moderate behavior. We need someone with a moderate stance but with immoderate behavior.

My choice, Clark suffered from being to moderate in behavior. A little more rable rousing would have done him a world of good. Perhaps we can all pitch in and get Galloway to tutor our upstart nominees?

[salin]

78. We need someone who can convey a Vision,

who can carry a message that resonates with people - and that resonation should be in a way that a) folks see as relevant to their daily lives, and b) "makes sense" to them.

Forget about worrying to find who someone who Rove can't character assassinate - if there isn't a target on the back - he will paint one there. Anyone will get slimed in the most vicious way. The better we plan for the slams far before they deliver them (ala what they did in the initial staging for W) in ways that make them easier to quickly neutralize. For the first half of the general campaign - Kerry was excellent at this. Sadly, in the early fall, stopped being as effective and canny at returning the lob in a way that made the grenade, a dud. In my eyes, it wasn't the swifties that were the turning point (though they DID shift his growing momentum), it was falling for the trap laid by Rove... ala the question... knowing what we know now would you still have voted for the war. Answer "no" - and appear to be hanging the troops out to dry; Answer "yes" - and validate the idea that a preemptive war with no threat is legitimate... OR (because that reality of the words spoken by bush is just too ugly for most americans to get their head around - so they choose not to acknowledge it) - make it sound like one agrees with the contemporary excuse for the war - that it was all about democracy in the first place.

I agree with much of what you write. We need someone who can resonate with people with a message that stirs. As I write this, John Edwards (who I was not behind in the primaries...btw) comes to mind. Not him, necessarily - but the type of speaker who can lead those listening to "see" his Vision.

Frankly worse than someone perceived as you suggest as too left... would be someone like the utterably unable to inspire, but attractive, Evan Bayh. Appears to stand for little (and this from one who has voted for him for state office and federal office), rarely willing to "fight". Little fire in rhetoric. But "safe" in many peoples' eyes. He is Indiana's corresponding part for Dan Quayle - with a tad more intelligence.

[OneBlueSky]

66. today's middle is yesterday's extreme right . . .

while today's extreme right is pretty close to Nazi Germany . . . the whole spectrum keeps shifting rightward . . . if we "move to the middle," there will be no one left to speak for workers, minorities, and just plain folks . . .

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Michael_Bush]

72. Donkey before the cart

No pun intended but you don't run a candidate to shift politics one way or the other, that is backwards. You shift politics and run politicians that people want.

The Republicans quite sucessfully shifted politics to the right and THEN swept into control of congress under Gingrich. They kept riling up their base and have succedded in pushing us FAR to the right but they convinced the electorate first.

Of course they use those positions as bully pulpits to further their agenda and have succedded in pushing us closer to their little corporate dream state. However, if you think you are going elect someone without first waking people up, it is you who are dreaming.

Now I am out on a limb here but I believe people are not awake to this fact since they just reelected Bush, they kept his Republican Senate and House. There is no hue and cry from their constituents to save the Republic.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

130. Yes, but

The *way* you shift people is by the politicians you run, surely?

[murdoch]

73. Why is winning national elections so important?

If we look at the history of continental Western Europe from 1945 to 1990, the left parties never won an election, yet they held a massive sway over Europe. Of course, the left parties in continental Western Europe were the communist parties - in 1956, the communist party was the largest party in France, and the Italian communist party almost won the elections there as late as 1976 (and had it stolen from them really, although not as much as 1948). Of course, Spain was a dictatorship, and in West Germany the KPD was banned.

These parties never won an election (well, if you ignore all the fraud in Italy anyway), yet look at how workers in Western Europe have it compared to us - unemployment insurance can last for years, mandatory month (or more) of vacation every year and so forth. And the EU's GDP is larger than the US's, and French workers are more productive per hour (Germany into 15 years of restructuring has not caught up yet, I believe).

Winning national elections isn't everything. There are labor unions, independent (and the fight over mainstream) media, cooperatives and so forth. The base of the Democratic party has been weakened for running to the middle forever. The last time an opposition party arose in the US, it was to abolish slavery. German workers started the SPD in 1863, English workers start the Labor Party in 1900. American workers never started their political party - there was the Democratic party, then an anti-slavery party started in 1854. US labour never started its own party. Eugene Debs won 6% of the vote in 1912. In 1920 he came in 3rd with 3.44% of the vote - in jail. His location during the election gives one a good idea of why a US labor party never formed - there's just a lot more oppression in the US. This can be overcome though.

[salin]

80. er... nice in theory... but we are rather being overrun by extremists

and the damage being done can't wait for historical era lengths of time required to shift the public sentiments on a range of issues.

[Michael_Bush]

83. You forgot one thing

We are not a parlimentary system where minority parties can wield larger influence. We are pretty much a winner take all system.

If there was this huge resevoir of votes on the left, Kucinich would have done far better than he did. Or someone would create a genuine third party utilizing that huge untapped pool of votes.

If the far left couldn't form or win during the depths of the Depression doesn't that mean anything? That someone could jail their leader and get away with it?

[JRob]

79. I'm still not convinced that Kerry (or Gore) lost the "election"...

(typo)

but I get what you're saying and although I agree that we (our politicians) need to enlighten moderates on both sides (forget the radicals because... well just forget them) but there A LOT of monkey business that need to be stopped if anyone is ever going to feel good about an electoral outcome...

[Michael_Bush]

82. I don't want to win by a margin I want a damn landslide

I want to burry the bastards, not eek out some slim margin.

I want America to wake up to the crimes committed by these bastards and help us change the world and the only way to do that if you are a Democrat is to unite the people behind you.

[JRob]

98. PRISON ! ! ! For the lot, but I'd love the landslide too...

I've said to my wife for year that if I get to see Bush & Co. go to prison it just might help to heal some wounds...

Although I never fail to feel (deeply) for the families and friends of ALL the dead on all sides of Bush's coup.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jade Fox]

90. America doesn't hate Democrats. Republicans hate Democrats.

Apparently you have failed to notice how many Americans ARE Democrats.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

99. Bush makes repugs look bad because he's the worst Prez we've ever had!

Bar none!

[Desertrose]

102. nope...off the mark here

"America hates democrats"..well lets say that maybe republicans hate demcrats.....

because...this is pretty clear...because the repubs have taken control of the media & control of the message.

How can that be counteracted....well we have to regain control and counter the spin.

Don't you realize its all spin??

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

108. Very interesting POV here Michael.

:hi:

Welcome to DU, I hope you'll stick around. We need to have more diversity here.

[Michael_Bush]

111. What I don't understand

Is why people take one glance at something and throw out a flippant response without ever taking the time to read the way too damn many posts I have made here on this subject.

I was merely trying to spark some debate about where the party should position itself to win the next election, probably our last chance before the repubs destroy the world.

[last1standing]

113. I understood what you were trying to say....

but your title was a bit over the top in my opinion. America does not hate Democrats and to say that is likely to get rather heated responces from a site called Democratic Underground. :)

Still, I like where this thread has gone, mostly. Thanks for the subject.

[Michael_Bush]

117. My pleasure

People who surround themselves with like minded people often fall into the trap of thinking that everyone agrees with them.

I deal with people all over the US in very different walks of life and the way even the moderates among them see the US is very different. I also deal with a lot of conservative Democrats and the way they see the party is also very different than how we in California (I realize there are people from all over here) tend to see things.

Working on the Clark campaign I was really surprised at how many young people saw Democrats as the enemy or at least as the party of "sell outs". While there is some truth to that, I just don't believe we can allow that to color our judgement at the national level.

[mzmolly]

115. It's DU. It's how it's done. So many moderates and centrists are driven

off the boards because they share your position.

I hope you'll stick around. I think even people who disagree can and should respect what you have to say?

The thing we have to realize is, as they say "politics is the art of compromise" so many don't get that. I don't think you should compromise on certain issues of course. But, you can't do JACK if you don't win. And, you needen't sell your soul to be prudent, right?

:hi:

That said, I agree the title was a bit inflamatory, but as you said, it was by design.

[Michael_Bush]

125. Who says I am a moderate?

Many of my views are anything but moderate. I just have this silly thing about winning. I would much rather a dem I dislike in the WH than a Republican who makes me fear for the future of the very Republic itself.

If I were king, I would consider banning inheritence.
I think that people should be taxed on the fuel economy of their cars
Cars over a certain mpg should be allowed to use TWO car pool lanes
We should boycot the chinese and if we need cheap labor, lets enrich Mexico, not china, solve two birds with one stone
Recognize the Democracy (imperfect thought it is) in Taiwan
Define terrorism as terrorizing civilians to further political or economic goals
utilize a consumption tax to reduce consumption and incease reuse
mandate solar technology for all new housing and building projects
Reimpliment Carter's energy policy (with a few revisions)
Rename the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS Jimmy Carter
Demand that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld and a few others be tried for treason and war crimes and punished accordingly
Make it clear to Isreal, peace or else
Make it clear to Palestine, peace or else
Make it clear to the Muslims, peace or else
Make it clear to the oil companies, peace or else
Mandate the UN to have a rapid reaction force fully authorized to kick ass and prevent not just genocide but crimes against humanity
Recognize the ICJ
Provide REAL family planning to Africa
Provide real sex ed, maybe even a course on tantric sex to school kids
Make schools offer trades classes for those not ready for college

So how quasi republican am I again?

[mzmolly]

131. Well, around here .... your a Moderate.

Some here liken winning to selling your soul, if you try suggest an appeal to middle America in the process.

Moderate is not my definition of you, that's DU's definition. Remember HERE Kerry is a Moderate. In Middle America, he was a liberal. I personally don't like labels at all, but would love to see more "moderates" here at DU. By moderate I mean Joe Lieberman Democrats - sure they'd drive me insane if they supported the war, but I really want to understand everyone and try to build a consensus if at all possible.

I'm not with ya on the tantric sex thing in school education, however, other than that, I think you've got some good points. ;)

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

110. Awwww! I LOVED it at the DNC

when they were calling for the burning of bibles and the slaughtering of Christians. Ya mean I have ta give alla that up just to pander to the "middle"? And we have to have "sensible" people like Zell Miller giving speeches at our conventions instead of wacky left wing nutcases like Obama. Gosh, you're just no fun at all.x(

[LittleClarkie]

136. Don't forget Ahnold

and his railing against socialists like Johnson. Or was it Johnson. I don't know. I remember his history was fractured.

Yeah, we should trot out or moderates and hide the meetings with all the lefties and then spring our extremes on them after the election.

I think we're doing just fine. The American people are seeing the nuts in governement right now. I'm hoping that I'm seeing what I think I see, which is that the American people are starting to wake up from 9/11.

Was it like this right after Pearl Harbor too, I wonder. Were we driven to extremes only to wake up eventually and come back down?

[Stand and Fight]

116. One word:

bullshit.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unkachuck]

122. America hates copy-cats....

....I think next time we should nominate the most far-left extreme candidate we can find and arm him/her with the most extreme, workable left-wing agenda possible and call it all moderate....

....the reason Kucinich and others on the Left didn't resonate is because people like you believed he and the Left couldn't....we've had many years of placing 'moderates' before the public and we've had many years of failure....

....what's the worst that could happen if we placed far left-wing candidates and programs before the public?....lose like the 'moderates'?....ABL (Anything But Left) isn't going to work on people like me anymore....I'll either find a new home or stay home, and you, and people like you, can keep losing with your 'moderates'....

[Michael_Bush]

123. The worst that could happen?

You can ask that after 2000 and 2004 with a straight face?

Want to know the worst that could happen? If you can't imagine it after the last eight years, I am not sure what to tell you.

I recycle, really recycle by buying in bulk, I live downtown so I can walk places, grow food organically, etc. But there are about 4 SUVs on my block and mine is the only recycling container that ever gets put out. America loves talking about being green but the minute you explain to them that the co-op is more expensive, look for their car at Walmart.

If there is some massive pent up demand for "far left-wing" (YOUR words) candidates why don't we see them getting elected to state offices? How many Greens or Peace and Feedom people are there in congress? How many governors? I think I recall a Dem being recalled and replaced by a Republican, know of any Republicans that have been recalled and replaced by Dems?

I LOVE most "far left-wing" ideas but I am adult enough to realize that middle America doesn't or at least they don't vote that way. I agree that the media in the rights pockets, that we are painted unfairly.

You are certainly welcome to sit the next election out, I will miss your help as will many others. Hopefully you will get another chance at an election, not all of us are sure of that though so we are working hard to win.

[demo dutch]

174. Don't you get it! Bush came across as a moderate to most people

got elected and then took a sharp turn to the right! That strategy paid off and it's why people like you log on to DU!

It's the exact strategy the Democratic party should follows, and the only reason why Clinton was elected twice!

[zann725]

124. Normally I welcome newbies, but...

I find this thread too obviously divisive. Then there's your screen name...

[Michael_Bush]

126. My screen name IS my name, so live with it.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Tires]

132. um....the Dems tried 'moving to the middle'

already last November...no such luck

[LuPeRcALiO]

134. if only it were so. . .

If 2004 was an honest election it showed one thing: he who smears best laughs last. We had the truth, Bush had Rove, and Rove won, or so we're told. Very sad.

[CWebster]

144. Moving to the Middle...

is to accept Republican control of the Country.

That IS the point.

As long as the issues are framed according to the Right, than the Middle accepts that view as "normal". When there is no campaign to counter that invading Iraq is about the spread of democracy and leading Democrats parrot the Republican spin-- or no one draws a line repeatedly and loudly between SUVs, corporate profits, oil and the environment, well then you have no alternative view to offer the Middle.

The Progressives may be trying to promote an alternative view, but they constantly have to contend with liberal bashing from Centrists triangulating on the Right's monopolization of message.


For the hundredth thousandth time--Get it?

[Swamp Rat]

146. Moving to the middle = enabling the fascist takeover

"Till then, move to the middle or accept Republican control of this country." - Completely wrong! Moving to the middle means ACCEPTING Republican control. x(

[sendero]

147. Yes but...

... SUVs are losing popularity as we speak due to gas prices, and Wal-Mart can't seem to meet investors expectations while other retailers are doing OK.

America is a bit slow, but she's figuring it out.

As for a flaming leftist, no America is not ready for that. But left of center, I think she is.

[Bridget Burke]

149. You're right! America wants a Leftie President....

And they find too many current Democrats are mealy-mouthed moderates.

[depakid]

150. This "logic" is why dems lose

and why THEY WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE.

This post, aside from its vacuousness about anything approaching sustantive policy, simply repeats a tired old mantra that has been proved to be a LOSING strategy for over 10 years now.

Continue to pander to some ephemeral middle-

Well, if it anyone's still paying attention- we've been getting our asses kicked listening to advice like this poster's- and the Dems WILL continue to lose if they continue to pander, rather than stand for something.

On issue after issue- go down the list yourselves-

Progresssive positions poll out to be the more popular postitions- and it the party actuallt showed some leadership- or god forbid a little courage and political fortitude and pushed those issues in a strong, united package- stood up and said enough is enough- the Dems days as the minority would finally be over.

Unfortunately, that's not the conventional wisdom that the media and the corporate right (which includes all too many dems) wants you to believe.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Michael_Bush]

160. Interesting quotes to pull

Why not post this one out of the same post:

"I believe in the concept of unions, and I thank them for the good work they did long ago. Until they change their ways they are a burdern not a help to their members."

That position doesn't sound too different than the position many here take on our entire party. They believe in the concept of Democrats but believe we are not the party we used to be and have voted for Green or Nader or want to move the party to the farther to the left.

Until unions reform, I think they "suck", that isn't the same as "hateing" them. Below is a link to my entire post which has a rather different flavor than the selected quotes you pulled. Please read the above post again and see if you still think I am anti-union.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3697107&mesg_id=3697430

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Senator Lamb]

158. im sorry, but i disagree, Americans didnt vote for Kerry

cause he was too centrist or republican lite. they didnt vote for him cause of the flip flop memo and relucatance to change administrations midstream, esepcially since we were still in IRaq and we had no terrorist attacks since 9/11. kerry also wasnt relatable to the average American. Edwards would have been better that way. americans wont vote for a real liberal though until he has a charasmitatic personality and populist appeal.

[MadHound]

154. Sorry, but by the very definition of middle,

There is an inherent need for those of us on the "far left". If all of us on the left moved to the middle, the middle itself would be moved right, and once again, we would be considered leftist. In fact that is what is happening right now, and the middle section is getting pushed further and further right. You are buying into the conservative game plan, and the fact that you're repeating the talking points shows just how good this meme is, brainwashing even the most sane among us.

There was a time when what passes for the middle in today's political spectrum was considered fairly radically right, ie Goldwater type right. What is considered the left today was considered to be the middle. Left was defined as communism, and actually a little bit of socialist thought was considered a good thing. The Neo-Cons and their enablers have managed to push the political spectrum so far to the right that Goldwater looks middle of the road.

Sorry pal, but you strategy is a losing one in the long run, it is just a slow motion cave to the Neo Con forces on the radical right. Rather, to tip the pendulum back we need a hard push back to the left, and rather than going to the middle to accomplish this, we need to go left. Anything else is simply conceding the battle, and consigning us all to a fascist hell.

[CTLawGuy]

156. so...

Reagan was a moderate?

George W. Bush is a moderate? They both won.

I disagree. moderation doesn't win. It doesn't make people hate you, but it doesn't make them LIKE you either.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

157. I must have watched a different Repuklican National Convention

What was that about the Republican national convention being a peace fest?

When That Kiss Ass McCain called Michael Moore a disingenuous film maker, what was THAT all about. Bush tore McCain a new asshole during the 200 election when all he could do was say mean spirited crap about the guy - Now he's all cozy with the retard.

Zell Miller is not a democrat -- Maybe in name only but he was filled with hate and acted like he was raised by wolves. That guy needs to be kept in a straight jacket.

Why are you pontificating about how we should bend over, grab our ankles and get fucked by these lunatics?

Do you realize that your statements were/are all over the map? What are you really trying to make us all believe?

[Michael_Bush]

163. What I am trying to make you believe is

That the Republicans, despite having succeeded in energizing the far right worked very hard at their convention to APPEAR to be moderates. Miller IS a Democrat, one that should be kicked out, but it is still his party afiliation. McCain IS considered a moderate by most people, you yourself called him "cozy with the retard."

Even THEY had to pretend to be moderate and they own the press, the voting boxes, and the money. I just think that is something that might give people cause to think.

As for "pontificating about how we should bend over, grab our ankles and get fucked by these lunatics" I have no idea where you get that ideal.

Being a moderate in your politics does not require you to be moderate in how you deal with war criminals. The shrub and his administration need to be tried for war crimes but the American people don't buy that yet. They are starting to wake up from their long slumber. Galloway's testimony is too controversial (if it bleeds it leads) to be ignored, the media is going to play that over and over. He is the perfect messenger, he is not a partisan, he is an outsider. People tune out, to some extent, what the two parties hurl at each other.

I am sure we will all have differing opinions of when and where and of course which issues to attack on, but trust me, I am NOT one who wants a mushy candidate who is scared of his own shadow. I fault Clark, the candidate I worked for, that he didn't at the end start making a bigger ruckus about his lack of media coverage. However, he got to learn about the campaign process (which is ugly and brutal) and will be a MUCH stronger and I hope more outspoken candidate this time.

[xchrom]

162. after the bipartison support for the bankruptcy bill

as well as votes for the war, the middle is looking pretty right wing extreme.

[Michael_Bush]

164. Your not going to like this

Voting for the bankruptcy bill was a sellout of the highest order and we will look back in shame on that one. Even if you wanted to reform the bankruptcy laws, sticking it to credit card holder and exempting the rich was NOT the way to go. I would LOVE to hear the strategy behind that one because I can't imagine a better knife to stick in the hearts of the Repubs than that one when backruptcies start going up due to inflation and people find out they can't do it. The crap is going to hit the fan and WE helped the bastards pass it. I still can't believe it.

Now, here is the ugly part, I think that those who voted for war had good cause. That "cause" was manufactured LIES by the Administraion but you could easily make the case that those in congress did not know that at the time. To me the bigger crime the Dems committed is not demanding to see the plans for the war and especially the one for "winning the peace", that was negligence of the highest order. It was clear at the time the Administration didn't have one and the Dems should have insisted on seeing one.

Again, I was AGAINST the war, for the same reasons Bush's dad was. The place was/is and ethnic disaster waiting to happen. Iran only stood to win and nobody on any of Iraqs borders had any self interest in helping us. Not exactly the recipe for success.

That is why I NEVER understood calling it an 'intelligence failure" when it was anything but. The intell was there and it was telling the Administration (who CONTROLS the intelligence agencies and who CREATES the reports the Senate sees) was picking and choosing what to put in intelligence reports and led Congress on. The sooner we stop calling it an "intelligence failure" and start calling it what it was which was administration lies, the sooner we get those nuts impeached.



But voting for the war was a reasonable choice, before you lynch me, read the below paragraph.

[xchrom]

178. the protests in the streets were huge

by the time the war vote was cast.
it was obvious europe hated the idea.
information regarding saddams real threat level was free flowing -- so i don't buy the idea that senators were sold a lemon on this war.

someone who had been in the senate as long as kerry - should have deep information roots on his on so he most certainly can be chided for at the very least being lazy -- worse if you're talking to me.

and for my money, doma is extremist right wing legislation.
and so was nafta -- there was information flowing up the hill about the disruption this was going to cause everyday americans but the legislators sough to act in the best interests of corporations.

[nickgutierrez]

166. I reject the premise of your original post.

Several points to be made:

- John Kerry was hardly a far left candidate. Neither were any of the major Democratic candidates. *, on the other hand, is a far right extremist. When pressed on the individual issues, the vast majority of Americans actually agree with us - the problem is finding a way to communicate these ideas in a way that circumvents the usual political and media filters.

- The Democrats' relative inability to communicate their ideas are probably about half their own fault and half down to the corporate media. When one of the biggest media conglomerates out there (NBC) is owned by a company that is one of the world's biggest weapons makers (General Electric), it's going to be very tough to get anything but a right-wing stance out of that company. Also, the corporations that control most of the media have something of a financial stake in the elections, since Republicans are far more likely to support media consolidation than Democrats are.

- The problem with the past couple of elections has been that they weren't about ideas at all - the Republicans got the upper hand early on by playing the fear card hard, and the Democrats weren't able to catch up. (Naturally, the caveats about the election results apply - most of the statistical evidence I've seen seems to suggest that Kerry probably won.)

- I also don't necessarily believe that people who buy SUVs actively support foreign dependance on oil, or that people who shop at Wal-Mart actively support outsourcing. There is a level of cognitive dissonance that surrounds these things - people do them because there is simply no way of forging a connection between SUVs and a rising dependance on foreign oil, or because there's not a powerful voice out there making the connection between Wal-Mart and outsourcing. When the connection is not made, people naturally don't see it.

In short, I don't think the problem with the Democrats lies in what we believe or that the American people don't agree with our beliefs. I think the problem is in finding a way to communicate these ideas in a way that accurately gets the message straight to the American people, not by moving even more towards the middle but by creating new ways of starting a dialogue directly with the voters.

[LittleClarkie]

169. I don't think I get your point

What was so darned leftie about Kerry? What was so extreme about our convention? They were quite polite really at the DNC, while the Repubs were quite rude at the RNC. The biggest speech on our side was given by a centrist. Kerry, while quite liberal, has also shown willingness to work with Repubs to get something done. And he's more hawkish than many lefties want him to be.

So I dispute your beginning premise. I think both conventions were relatively moderate. But I would agree with the person who said that Zell Miller wasn't exactly Mr. Moderate. I don't think we had a freak on our side to match Zig Zag.

Are you a conservative Democrat? Might be skewing your definition.

[MsTryska]

170. mmm....could you give me an example of a "far-left

nominee", please?


thanks.

[ArkDem]

171. What difference does it make? The vote is fixed.

[Mike L]

172. Michael, good post, but hate your last name. em

[smartvoter]

173. The post's premise is wrong. The ultra-right controls the Republican

party. In case you haven't noticed, the crew in power is WAAAAAYYY out in right field. So much for states' rights, citizens' privacy, fiscal responsibility, conservative use of troops and, and, and, and...

As for oil dependence -- everyone recognizes this as a problem on both sides of the spectrum. Even Bush is forced to speak to it (though actions may be otherwise)...

And for the election issues, how do we really know WHAT or WHO America wants if we can't trust the vote? You many not think the vote was stolen, but the bottom line is we have no real accountability as long as elections are demonstrably vulnerable and outcomes run contrary to other indicators of public opinion. If you don't agree with our assessments/suspicions around here, put your own logic to the test. It is not moderate Republicans that are winning elections right now, but the ultra-right. This does not square with your centrist view.

I am curious, however, who you think should be running. This might provide some context that better explains your position.

Who should we run?

[Michael_Bush]

175. Good Question!

You say everyone recognizes the problem with oil dependency? GM didn't, the people buying SUVs didn't (they are still selling), and Bush isn't doing anything serious about it. You and I, and others here, would more likely label it an emergency but due to the above, I really don't believe that is a common belief.

Who would I run? I love Wesley Clark and worked for him a LOT even before the first primary but I am still terrified that skeletons are going to rattle out of Kosovo that could turn the left and right against him. He is an odd duck. Many of his views align with Kuscinich but he is for staying and fixing Iraq, at least in comparison to Kuschinich. He is clearly intelligent and yet does not have that hubris that turns some areas of the country off. He is a policy wonk but also a man of action. He is not one to play dead in a debate. He wasn't up to beating Rove in '04, he didn't know how to grab press coverage (poor guy, they would be talking about someone who had dropped out while he nearly ties for second) and could not give short answers. He has fixed many of his weaknesses and has been looking really sharp in his recent appearances

I would also consider Bill Richardson for a number of reasons. One, he is pro-gun, something I know is a red hot button here but one that I think costs Dems over and over. I don't actually have an in depth knowledge of him so I am not going to BS my way through on this one.

I am a firm believer in going after the people who have a record of voting rather than focusing on those who don't vote. It is cynical I realize but winning national elections is an exercise in cynicism. I want someone who either has a middle of the road opinion OR has the strength of character and charisma to make people support them anyway. The Republicans have convinced people they are moderates, which supports the theory that most people ARE moderate, otherwise, why the charade?

we need someone who can rip that image apart AND convince the voting public that not only are we the real moderates but that we are the only ones who can save us from the mess the far right has got us into. We are not going to do that with a left of center Kucinich and we are not going to do that with a mushy moderate like Kerry who would still support going to war.

Thanks again for the excellent question! I look forward to more.

[smartvoter]

176. Replies:

As to oil dependence, my view is it's more tragedy of the commons w/ respect to recent vehicle-purchasing trends than knowledge of dependence. Money takes a while to catch up with one's mouth (or knowledge, as the case may be).

More importantly, your post gets to the heart of a major challenge we face right now -- overcoming disinformation. The right wing, through years of demonizing the term "liberal," has been able to sway a certain portion of the public to equate the opposite of liberal as being reasoned, or balanced. Many politicians on our side of the spectrum attempt to duck the term, effectively empowering those who call themselves conservative. The irony is that virtually all the rights and safeguards we rely on in this society were "liberal" causes -- voting rights, labor laws, safety, etc. My personal view is the only way we are going to overcome the right wing is to punch back, and to do so hard -- a position that tends to draw both praise and dissent when voiced out here (perhaps demonstrating the complexity of the challenges we face).

But I genuinely worry that unless we get election safeguards in place, it doesn't matter who we run. Setting aside bizarre election outcomes and explanations, the other side is opposed to safeguards for a reason. I think it's because members fall into one of two categories -- they either know there is hanky-panky taking place or, keeping in mind that you don't need a grand conspiracy to sway votes in computerized recording and tabulating mechanisms, see the same evidence we do and suspect they could be benefiting in some way and don't want to mess with a "winning" system.

Again, I realize many disagree, but I don't think there is any realistic way of measuring the true viability of candidates until the well-documented vulnerabilities of our election system have been addressed. Who knows what it will take to get real momentum behind these safeguards -- perhaps another election outcome that is the statistical equivalent of winning the lottery -- but it seems that until we can trust that our votes are being counted correctly, arguments about whether or not we are floating the best candidates are moot.

[noiretextatique]

177. wrong...it's politicians and the media who drive the muddlers

not the other way around. there is no broad support for bush's policies...only the soundbite versions of them that people are spoonfed. it's ridiculous to suggest continuing to pander to something that is mythical. a better idea is lead, as you mentioned briefly.