New Group to Tout Democrats' Centrist Values (3rd Way's Moderate Majority)

[Khephra]

New Group to Tout Democrats' Centrist Values
Third Way Plans to Focus On 'Moderate Majority'

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 11, 2004; Page A35

As Democrats continue to stagger from last week's election losses, a group of veteran political and policy operatives has started an advocacy group aimed at using moderate Senate Democrats as the front line in a campaign to give the party a more centrist profile.

Third Way is the latest in a series of organizations aimed at rescuing Democrats from the perception that they have lost touch with middle-class voters, particularly in the heartland states that voted overwhelmingly for President Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry.

The group, which has enlisted several senators from Bush-backing "red states" as honorary chairmen, hopes to rebut the notion that Democrats represent an outdated brand of liberalism by producing new policy proposals designed to create a "moderate majority," said Matt Bennett, Third Way's communications director.

"It's one thing to publish op-eds -- that's important," Bennett said, "but to really reach voters, we need to have concrete legislative proposals on the table. Post-election, it's clear that progressive centrists must have a response equal in scale and scope to the tectonic changes that Bush is proposing."

snip......

"The answer to the ideological extremes of the right has to be more than rigid dogma from the left," said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), whose state gave 60 percent of its votes to Bush, and who will be at tonight's strategy session.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41113-2004Nov10.html

[aquart]

1. As opposed to our nearly rightwing profile?

Who needs these bozos? And who's paying them?

Oh, good god, Evan Bayh is a DINO.

[greenohio]

157. Do people really think John Kerry is right wing?

I don't think our perception the and the perception of the country are the same.

[Sterling]

164. Really? WHo told you that CNN, Fox news?

Of course according to them Kerry is the most liberal sen in the game. However he voted for the war and represents the monied elite. I think that says more about the American media's perception than it does DUers. look at other western countries, by comparison our "left wing" is their middle right. I think that is a big reason we are in so much trouble. there is no real counter ballance to the corporate RW.

[greenohio]

166. Actually

National Journal rated him. I assume their suspect now as well. Ahh the tin foil Dems are everywhere. It is killing us.

[ilovenicepeople]

172. Actually

It's The fact that the "tin foil" Dems(I like to call them people seeking the truth)aren't being taken seriously that will be most peoples Demise.

[David Dunham]

2. Clinton and Carville did this approach and won in 92

[whirlygigspin]

4. 3rd way

that is so 80's.

The 3rd way hit the 3rd rail long ago.

Buy a new book guys.

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

10. they "won" and in the process turned the Democrat party into GOP-lite

Spare me another round of Clintonian DINO reign. Figures that the mainstream would give these bozos free publicity. THat Ol' Liberal Media at work again.

[dolstein]

17. Crap. CRAP. C-R-A-P. CRAP!!!!!

Bill Clinton was not Republican lite. He wasn't McGovern lite either, and I suspect that it is this fact which pisses you off. The old left has never been able to figure out the third way approach, for the simple reason that they are physically incapable of taking a fresh approach to ANYTHING.

Bill Clinton balanced the budget. Name a Republican president who could do that?

Bill Clinton presided over the best economy in our lifetime. Wages rose at all income levels. Living standards improved at all levels. Welfare rolls declined. Only the most craven left-winger would consider this to be Republican lite. To the contrary, the Democrats have already been the party of prosperity.

Personally, I think eight years of peace and prosperity is good for the national. Those who think that good politics involves placating every old Democrat interest group can't see the forest for the trees.

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

23. Clinton WAS Republican Lite

welfare reform
NAFTA
roll over on universal healthcare
etc etc etc.

[PhuLoi]

69. I agree. n/t

[dolstein]

103. Just because Bill Clinton wasn't a raving socialist . . .

doesn't make him Republican lite. Unfortunately, many DU'ers are so far off the beaten path political, that they seriously believe that Fidel Castro is a sensible centrist.

[Forkboy]

113. What we need is some Joementum baby!

[dolstein]

114. As opposed to what? Kerrymentum?

NT

[Forkboy]

116. ABB all the way baby!

Hamsammichmentum!!!!!!

[Redleg]

147. Good luck with that.

EOM

[Warren Stupidity]

153. democratic socialism is not communism,

universal healthcare is not communism, funding social security and medicare is not communism, fair trade policies are not communism, sensible environmentally sound energy policies are not communism. Your red-baiting 'fidel castro is a sensible centrist' is typical rightard nonsense.

The clintonistas and the DLC have had their turn with GOP-lite. It has led to the loss of all three branches of the national government. Currently the Democratic Party stands for nothing different from the GOP except for our enthusiasm for abortion and gay marriage. Gee, I wonder why we can't win?

[tmorelli415]

148. Clinton is Traditional Liberal - Do You Know What "Liberal" Means?

So this is my first post and I've been reading DU for many months now, but this finger-pointing by the left wing of our party claiming that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc are not "real" liberals or "Republican lite" is making me nauseas. Please please please please please before you do that learn a little bit about what liberalism really means. The "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" is in fact the near left socialist wing of the Democratic Party. The "Republican lites" are in fact traditional liberals. The hardcore Bush conservatives are neo-cons who stole a few liberal ideas and not the other way around. Look it up, take a class, read some history, educate yourself but stop pointing fingers and claiming you are a liberal when you're really a "neo-socialist." And stop insulting traditional liberals like Clinton and Kerry who have very effectively shown that REAL traditional liberalism works and it always has. Liberals are quite simply reformers who believe in personal freedom and shared responsibility - they are not ideologues, they are idealists. I'm serious here, kids - the Democratic Party has not lost its way - it is right where it has always been and "3rd Way" or not it has always been the Democrats' way.

welfare reform = liberal (neo-conservative co-opted)
NAFTA/regulated economic globalism = liberal (neo-conservative co-opted)
economic corporate globalism = conservativism
economic unregulated corporatism = fascist
economic societal redistribution = far left socialism
economic regulated redistribution = near left socialism
universal healthcare = near left socialism
regulated healthcare = liberal
humanitarian militarism = liberal
isolationist = conservative
ideological militarism/non-militarism = socialism (neo-conservative co-opted)
fiscal responsibility = liberal
fiscal subsidization = near left socialism
fiscal redistribution = far left socialism
fiscal redux = conservatism
personal morality = liberalism
public morality = conservative
relative morality = near left socialism
societal morality = far left socialism

Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater = traditional conservatives
Clinton, Kerry, Gore = traditional liberals
Kucinich, Nader, Dean, Western European "liberalism" = near left socialism
Lenin, Marx, Mao = far left socialism
Bush, Religious Right, DeLay = "neo-conservative"

Near Left Socialists seem to be confused by Western European "liberalism" (really near left socialism) - they think that liberals are too much like those who they *think* are conservatives (but who are really neo-conservatives). They see some policies that leaders like Clinton and Kerry hold as identical to those held by the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld, and jump to the conclusion that they've sold out to the conservatives. The reality is that a few of those policy positions are in fact the same - and that is because the neo-conservatives have co-opted those policies from the liberals! Think Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy - that is liberalism and it has always included economic and military globalism. Clinton and Kerry did not depart from that liberal tradition. It was easy to confuse people when neo-conservatives started calling themselves 'traditional conservatives' because they co-opt some traditionally liberal economic and globalist policy, but this is of far lesser importance than their near right fascist ideological views of corporatism and institutionalization of morality - it is not a political theory but rather an ideology that borrows from liberalism, conservatism, and fascism as a reaction to keep their ideological priorities relevant).

Don't flame me if you don't like what I'm saying here. It wouldn't be a very liberal thing to do to flame a person for telling it like it is - it would, however, be a very "neo-socialist" thing to do. (Think about it real hard ... I'm forcing you let go of your ideology and it hurts, I know... but if you're REALLY a liberal why do you have an ideology? Stop! The angrier you get the more your ideology is taking over, and the less you can really be a liberal - say it! you're a socialist! It's okay - liberals like socialists just as much ase we like neo-conservatives as long as they *both* leave their ideology at the door and try a little ideallism).

[ulysses]

150. phhhhht.

I'm forcing you let go of your ideology and it hurts

Don't flatter yourself, ace. :D

[Sterling]

165. Exactly any post that starts with welfare reform=liberal is to be

scoffed at. I am not sure who this guy thinks he is fooling.

[jwirr]

177. If you do your research

I think you will find out that when Dukakis was governor of MA (before newtie and Clinton) he instituted the first liberal welfare reform program. I remember writing our MN Governor Perpich that it was a good idea: remember I was one of those long time welfare mothers trapped in a system that favored keeping us in the system as opposed to helping us off it. The next thing I hear is that tommy thompson of WI is doing a repug version of welfare reform. Where the repugs instituted programs in repug states they are the ones to blame for making it into a penal system of reform. I now watch younger welfare users here build lives that I envy because they are in the end more self-sufficient than any of my generation in the old welfare ever could become unless some man came along and rescued us. They take pride in their accomplishments. When it comes to welfare one must remember that it is the state that administers the program and this means that if you live in Texas then you are going to get a welfare that looks repug no matter if there is reform or not. The Bible Belt sees poverty as a sin and sets out to punish the sinners. In other states we see the needy as our neighbors who need a boost and we see welfare as a way to help them. This was what was happening with welfare then and it still holds true. Just an example: I was told that in Texas welfare mothers are not allowed to get pap tests or mammograms on Medicaid. Is that a kind of Final Solution? I think we need to stop blaming the Democrat politicians for the rotten system of welfare and realize it has more to do with those so called "christians" in each state who are not their neighbor's keeper.

[tmorelli415]

179. Liberalism Is About Reforming the System ...

Of course welfare reform is a very liberal idea. ANY reforming of the current system is reform, whether or not the original system or policy came from liberals or not. Reforming doesn't take place once and stop. Reforming means adapting the system to the time and place and it is a process that always takes place in the liberal mindset. The conservatives may co-opt the term "reform" because they know they can't dismantle the system entirely, but their real aim is system redux (con=oppose servatism=delivery of legal/legislative writs). Please don't fall for the conservative/neocon co-opting of liberal concepts or language constructs to misrepresent their intentions. Clinton never intended to dismantle the welfare system - he set about to fix it. Can anyone argue that it needed reforming? Can anyone argue that at some point in the future, even if we get it exactly right today, it will need more reforming to adapt to the changes in time and place? Welfare reform is a liberal idea. Reform is a basic principle of liberalism. And as to the other gentleman's comment re: ideology - my point was satirical at the end but the fact remains that ideology has no place in liberalism. Idealism does. Ideology is what distinguishes socialism and conservatism from liberalism - ideology suggests that there is a absolute right and wrong viewpoint. idealism does not know if it is right or wrong, and instead focuses on the process of achieving ideal outcomes for the time and place - it is the difference between imperative ends (ideology), and mitigating means (idealism). Ideologists know they are right, while idealists know that there's no way to know for sure who is right so they'll reform the system always. If you don't believe that welfare needs reforming and always will then you're not a liberal. Sorry if that seems insulting, but it is not meant to be - it makes me sad to see how much intolerance and certainty there is on DU because those are the same issues we have with our opposition. Sometimes I think we forget that liberals accept all points of view, and not just those who are like them.

[ulysses]

188. ok, welfare reform is liberal.

Is kicking people off welfare after an arbitrary five-year limit - hey, surprise! 2001 was a recession year! - liberal?

Sometimes I think we forget that liberals accept all points of view, and not just those who are like them.

Wank, wank, wank. Horseshit.

[stevedeshazer]

168. I'm flaming you anyway.

Your entire post has the tone of "my way or the highway."

With all due respect, having these definitions shoved in my face with no attribution is insulting. What the hell is "humanitarian militarism"? Is that some kind of joke?

Your definitions are ridiculous and straight out of right-wing hell in my opinion. Universal healthcare is near-left socialism? By whose definition? That's absurd.

Come on, now. Where does that come from?

[Massacure]

189. Reagan seems more Neo-Conservative than a traditional conservative

[ilovenicepeople]

173. Did you know Clinton is a Rockefeller?

[jwirr]

176. You need to look at the situations!

Welfare reform: I have been poor all my life and on welfare programs much of it. If I could do it over I would have built a life for myself by moving away from welfare dependency as much as I could. While newtie and the repug senate were trying to push a reform that would have cut payments off in 2 years and failed to give any assistance with education and child care the Democrats did the best they could when the Senate was repug. They at least moved it from a punishment for being poor to a reform that encouraged needed preparation for jobs. This was a result not of singling out the poor for a changed approach to help. It was in answer to the fact that the only parents sitting at home with their children were the poor since most of Americas women had been working outside the home since the late 70s.

NAFTA: here I agree - Clinton signed a bill that had been prepared by bushie I and should have known better.

HealthCare: Were you there? The crucifition he and Hilary got when they tried to get a national health care program passed was just a beginning of the Hunting of the President.

[Zhade]

42. Tell the Iraqis that it was 8 years of prosperity.

Tell the Colombians.

Tell those in Kosovo.

Or maybe those cut from the welfare rolls and left to starve to death.

Maybe you should mention that "prosperity" to those workers who lost their jobs thanks to NAFTA.

Yeah. "Prosperity". Only if you were white and already well-to-do.

[snoochie]

119. Thank you for saying this

For all the good he did, I still think regarding leave for new parents, FLMA was crumbs compared to the real family values oriented programs you find in most other civilized countries. His failure to make good on his claim that he'd get something like the Fairness Doctrine started, and on top of that, signing the Telecommunications Act (which resulted in the formation of the bush-supporting, radio-ruining corporation - ClearChannel!)

[Carni]

56. Bill Clinton also allowed gays in the military

Hardly a Republican lite move...Bill Clinton was not GOP lite.

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

65. learn the diff between social liberals and economic liberals

Clinton was a social liberal. He gave us a social liberal agentda while screwing us over on economic issues. THIS is the WHOLE PROBLEM with the Democratic party.

[Carni]

70. Well- DUH- I know the difference thanks.

YOU should verse yourself on what the media is saying *won* this election "MORAL VALUES" (ring any bells?)

That is what I was addressing, but thanks for jumping up my ass for not wanting the party to "veer right" and turn into GOP party part deux.

We certainly don't need to veer right on economic issues and what I was trying to illustrate is that the public didn't pander to this "moral values" shit after the impeachment when they kicked a lot of the Repuke congress to the curb...so why would they care now?

This veer right thing is all a bunch of BS cooked up by a bunch of DINOS who are probably getting their palms greased /period.

[TankLV]

107. Oh yeah - "don't ask don't tell" has been a RAGING success!

sarcasm off!

more gays have been outed and booted since that policy went into effect than were before.

Total numbers aa well as comparable percentages.

Doubled, I think.

[Carni]

121. My point was

That Clinton wasn't a "social conservative" not whether or not his gays in the military plan worked.

He was impeached and his approval ratings were STILL WAY above Bush's...

That's my point, the people don't give a rat's ass about moving to the center on social issues and all this crap about bush having a mandate and people wanting more "Christian conservatism" in the oval office is bogus SPIN IMO!

[TankLV]

122. Point taken and absorbed.

"then-que" or "tank-u"!

[wuushew]

129. Clinton is overrated on economic matters

Even voodoo man Raygun economically benefited from falling oil prices. A situation which also befell Clinton in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Some of his policies were not helpful such as cutting capital gains taxes which further worsened the pre-bust stock bubble.

[merh]

145. Because of Clinton, the democratic party has been crippled

and weakened. His getting a blow job in the oval office from a 23 yr old intern "because he could" (his words, not mine) while knowing that the RW were out to get him any way they could was the stupidest, selfish thing ever done by a member or leader of the party.

If he hadn't been facing the impeachment proceedings, it is possible that he could have taken out Usama, but instead he was afraid of "wag the dog" talk that could hurt his party/administration!

Because of his selfishness, the party has been viewed as heathens and the "moral majority" was allowed to grip the nation and control.

His policies regarding the FCC and trade were also very harmful and continue to screw us to this day. He is no saint in my book.

Yes, the economy was good and jobs were made, but we are still trying to repair the harm to politics and the party that he allowed to happen "because he could". His centralist views are not the views that I feel best represent the democratic party.

[greenohio]

162. Never left enough

John Kerry was NOT DLC. Give it up people. He never was. DLC played little to no role in this election.

Do you all think we should run left to win...or are you TRYING to lose?

[saracat]

18. This is NOT 1992

That appraoach lost in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Pack it up!

[TankLV]

108. but it won in 1892 AND 1692!

Don't mention that we've lost seats and membershiop ever since!

Shhhhhhh!

[sandnsea]

38. Ross Perot

We can't forget Ross Perot in both 1992 and 1996. I don't think Clinton would have won straight against Bush. This third way crap is nonsense. Slow suicide instead of a head long leap over the cliff.

[salin]

49. Bingo!

and watch Bayh continue his slide rightward (which he has been on, past the center, since 2000) towards Zelldom. Late last spring, long after Kay had returned and gone public, on the sunday talk shows Bayh was contending that there were WMDs and that they would be found.

[greekspeak]

135. I did research on 92 and determined that Daddy would probably have won....

if not for Perot. I split the Perot voters 2:1 favoring Daddy. I do not know if that is an accurate reflection; seeing as how I personally know a total of one democrat that went Perot and several pukes that went Perot, I may have been overly generous to Clinton in giving 2:1 favoring daddy. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but in my model, Clinton would have lost several states that he won in 1992. Again, this study is hardly scientific but I do not think Clinton would have won w/o Perot. However, my model did suggest that the Perot factor was of no help for Dole; Clinton still would have cleaned his clock.

[Protagoras]

66. In 92 the "Center" was about 3 Miles left of where it is now.

And as long as we continue to allow the RIGHT to define the LEFT then the center will continue to shift further and further away.

This is a semantic game the pugs keep playing with us, and we just don't seem to catch on.

[regnaD kciN]

142. Their "Communications Director" was on AAR this morning...

...and the host of "Unfiltered" absolutely carved the poor (well...not really) guy up.

It didn't help that he could come up with absolutely no specific proposals or even vague generalities about his group...except to repeat over and over that they were "progressive centrists" (without, of course, explaining what that meant) and use the words "rebranding" and "transformational" WAY too often.

The session concluded with the host promising to invite the guy back on once he started to use the word "progressive" with a meaning they could agree on.

:spank:

And this non-communicative individual was their Communications Director...?

:eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

169. No..the THIRD way was running Ross Perot..Clinton never got CLOSE

to the number of AMericans to vote for him that Kerry or Gore did.

[TankLV]

180. They would have lost if Perot didn't split the repuke vote.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Look at this:

"Third Way is the latest in a series of organizations aimed at rescuing Democrats from the perception that they have lost touch with middle-class voters, particularly in the heartland states that voted overwhelmingly for President Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry."

Why do some states get listed as "heartland states"? I'm probably in one but what a pile of sh@#. Why don't they do their jobs and actually state the geographic area they are talking about.

[David Dunham]

7. Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Tenn -- all of which Clinton won

[sonicx]

8. OH is heartland?

the way the RW defines 'heartland' is dumb.

Mass. and the northeast are America's origin states.

[Lizzie Borden]

124. Actually, I believe it was Maryland ..

that first ratified the Constitution.

[iamjoy]

141. Delaware (n/t)

[UpInArms]

16. DLCer Centrist Jean Carnahan

who licked *Co.'s shoes every chance she got - was tossed for a real Repuke - Jim Talent.

Won't work - stupid idea - get a grip.

Be Democrats, no GOP-lite.

Sheesh!

[dolstein]

22. You have committed a logical fallacy. CONGRATULATIONS.

Your absence of logic earns you a place in the left-wing Hall of Fame (Shame?).

You assume that Carnahan would have won if she had vigorously opposed Bush on every issue. But it's just as plausible that she would have lost by an even larger margin. Indeed, your presumption that Jean should have been able to win reelection is badly misplaced. Jean, unlike her late husband Mel, was never elected to anything. And Missouri is increasingly a Republican state, as evidenced by the fact that Mel Carnahan, the most successful Democratic politician in Missouri in recent years, was never able to open a lead over John Ashcroft.

[sybylla]

52. Then let's try this another way, shall we?

Sen. Russ Feingold is far from centrist. In fact, he is blatantly leftist. He defends his positions doggedly but honestly. In this state that nearly went for Bush twice, Russ Feingold has won here with increasing margins, this year by 10 points. In my own little 60/40 puke county, Russ Feingold still won by 6 points, a bigger margin than the chimp.

The best part is that I'm not alone in thinking this. A major Wisconsin newspaper agrees with me.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/editorial//index.php?ntid=15372&ntpid=2
Editorial: The lesson of Feingold's win
An editorial
November 3, 2004
Almost exactly three years ago, even his supporters were suggesting that U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., might have finished himself off politically with a solo vote against the Patriot Act.

Almost exactly two years ago, his critics were suggesting that Feingold had finished himself off by joining the small band of senators who voted against the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to launch the war with Iraq.

Almost exactly a year ago, Republican operatives were gleefully suggesting that one of their three high-profile Senate candidates would finish off Feingold.

But reports of Feingold's political demise were premature.
<snip>


What's more, I see some very damning evidence in the fact that every election since we started the race to the middle, the Wisconsin state Senate and Assembly has lost Dem members.

Rather than attack the messenger, why don't you try to attack the message. Explain to me how on earth I ought to be suppporting a race to the middle that has proven to be so unsuccessful while at the same time adamant, common-sense liberalism is winning big?

[UpInArms]

63. thank you, sybylla,

that was much more clearly explained than I had been able to impart.

I personally do not consider it a "race to the middle", I consider it a "race to the bottom".

[sybylla]

82. Point taken

Definitely a race to the bottom.

[Zorra]

97. Yeah. And Dennis Kucinich is a beloved hero in his district. Another DEM

who stood up for his people and his principles and won't be leaving his office any time soon unless it is to become a Senator from Ohio.

[dolstein]

105. If you think Dennis Kucinich could get elected governor of Ohio

I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

[Zorra]

191. I think you may have misread my post. I keyed Senator. n/t

[dolstein]

104. Congratulations, you have committed ANOTHER logical fallacy

You assume that beacuse Russ Feingold ran for reelection as a liberal, in Wisconsin, in 2004, and was reelected, that Jean Carnahan (who, unlike Feingold, was never elected) would have won if she had run as a liberal, in Missouri, in 2002.

You assume that:

2004 = 2002
Russ Feingold (twice elected incumbent) = Jean Carnahan (unelected incumbent)
Wisconsin = Missouri
Russ Feingold's opponent (a nobody) = Jean Carnahan's opponent (who was nearly elected governor two year's before)

[sunnybrook]

181. Missouri is not exactly progressive

Carnahan was the first female Senator the state has ever had. I live in MO and people who run for Senate have to appeal to city and rural gun lovin folks. Missouri is definitely not Wisconsin, I imagine Wisconsin to be much more progressive than here.

[TankLV]

110. BINGO! S!

You nailed him good!

So much for his PERSONAL UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION masquerading as "fact"!

[Lizzie Borden]

125. Feingold is my Senator,

and I really could'nt be prouder.He is principled (sole vote against the Patriot Act)and, he's honest.

[TankLV]

109. but YOUR absense of logic is even worse

She is certainly no "liberal".

If she would have run more to the left, she would have won - it's MY opinion, but yours is only YOUR "Opinion" not fact!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

170. With what? maybe the SAME or less votes than Gore or Kerry. Why? Perot

[SoCalDem]

138. Heartland= any area that is not a democratic stronghold

as dems, we are portrayed as godless heathens, lacking in any heartland values..

Via that definition, ANYPLACE can be "heartland" ...even pockets of heartlanders within an area..

It's just more rw code-speak parroted by lazy media types.

[TheFarseer]

5. I wonder if that would work

I wish the dems would get back to basics of standing up for the working man, tough but sensible foreign policy and the equality of all Americans. *I* think that's a winning message but what do I know?

[sunnybrook]

183. What about the working woman?

Or is that too "liberal?"

[Turn CO Blue]

6. No freaking way, at this point, am I even remotely interested

in moving farther to the flipping right! The right would just move farther right to get away from us, and then they would just keep referring to us as the LEFT!

These knuckleheads can blabber on about "centrist" profile if they want, but how are we going to balance this damned teeter-totter if everybody keeps moving right?

Look at where we are! Once you get past Fascism, what the hell is more right?

[Crunchy Frog]

33. I agree.

The "center" is just a mythical line in shifting sands. By trying to stake our tent on this constantly shifting line, we just end up looking even more unprincipled and like we don't stand for anything.

The Republicans sure as hell didn't do that when they were down and out. Rather than shifting to the "center", they just shifted farther and farther to the right.

Our message isn't wrong, and it isn't even close to being left wing although the media and the repubs try to portray it as such. We have a problem with the marketing of our message.

Anyway, if the Dem party just turns into the Rockefeller/Goldwater Republican party, I'm out.

[OneBlueSky]

37. I agree x10 . . .

we Democrats need to return to their populist roots and be the party of working people and the underprivileged . . . we'll never win elections being Republican lite when voters can opt for the real thing . . . besides, unless we expose and end the complete control of the electoral process by Republicans and Republican corporations headed by ultra-right religious fanatics, Democrats aren't going to win any national elections ever again . . . and you can take that one to the bank . . .

[Zhade]

43. To the guys currently in power, HITLER was a leftist.

After all, he was a vegetarian!

You are, of course, exactly correct: there will NEVER be a time when the Republican party refers to the Dems - no matter how rightward they tack - as anything except "the left".

Dems need to stop chasing their framing, and return to what they used to be - the party that gives a fuck about the poor and working-class people of America.

Fuck this "Third Way" DLC-esque DINO Republican-lite bullshit. NO MORE MOVING TO THE RIGHT. It's not necessary.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

91. Dems WON the last 4 prez elections. 2 were stolen by fraud!!

That's the biggest problem. We don't win when we've WON!

Next is undoing the decades of propaganda that changed 'liberal' into a dirty word.

[Zhade]

93. Which was helped right along by the DLC/NDN.

I mean, comparing Kucinich to RUMSFELD. Come ON already. That's disgusting.

[Warren Stupidity]

154. It's part of the rightard catechism

To the guys currently in power, HITLER was a leftist.

In order to keep rightadism pure and free of the taint of corporate totalitarianism, in order to rewrite the history of the the post WWI-cold war era, the rightards actually do insist that the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy were just another form of socialism. After all, Hitler was the head of the National Socialist Party.

[Carni]

58. I agree with you completely

For that matter what is so "left" about the Democrats now?

The Dems TODAY on social issues are pretty much like the Republicans were in the 70's.

I have relatives that have never voted for a Democrat in their life and they voted for Kerry in this election.

Bush's "right" makes Pat Buchanan sound moderate in comparison--
how the hell can you move the Dems any farther "right"?

This so called "centrist" move is a bullshit idea IMO

[Gyre]

9. This clinches it.

I am NOT supporting these losers again. They don't even fight as hard as their supporters. Have fun sucking up to the brainless jerk-offs in middle amurrika. Green Party here I come!

Gyre

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

11. I am with you, in fact, as much as it turns my stomach,

I may even consider voting GOP if the Dems take the advice of these con artists, and voting GOP is something I promised myself I would never do again, after I did so for years. But maybe keeping the Dems out of power for a while will make them get their act together?

[Gyre]

24. Dude, that's too extreme.

Don't do it. Then you really have become one of "them".

Gyre

[Amigust]

31. Better go third party than sleep with the enemy

[Carni]

61. I certainly would NEVER do this

Third party maybe (if they piss me off enough with this "right shift" idea) but I would NEVER cast a vote for this gang of GOP criminals.

[Eurobabe]

47. yes, i am seriously considering that too

i am sick of supporting the two party corporatocracy. i just looked at the green party platform and find myself much more in line with their ideas overall.

if i am going to support LOSERS, than at least i will support 'losers' with whom my conscience can agree with.

[Sugarbleus]

12. Not with my vote they won't.....

One more inch to the right and I'm outta here. I may be out of the party anyway since it has already gone to the center(right) too much!!

I've always been for the common man everywhere in the country. My party has DROPPED the ball on them/me a long time ago. I will NEVER vote republican and I can't vote Democrat if they continue their LIMP move to the center.

All they need to do is FOCUS on old fashioned Democratic/liberal ideas and STAND STRONG with them. Dem leadership and devotees: Stop the snobbery via closing ears to the common man's needs/desires and maybe more "red" folks will sign on with Dems.

As opposed to republicans, democrats are suppose to be for ALL THE PEOPLE; not just the intellectual, upwardly mobile few. :grr:

[Amigust]

30. Lots of company

One more inch to the right and I'm outta here

[Zhade]

44. A thought just occurred to me...

If these machines aren't gotten rid of, you may not go anywhere - the DLCers may be just as eager to steal your Green vote as the Repubs are to steal the Dem vote.

[SOS]

174. Agreed

As the Party tries to impress Republican voters with it's endless triangulation, the grassroots base is heading for the door.
They pick up one "security mom" vote and lose five traditional votes.
That's a real winning strategy.
:eyes:

[FlaGranny]

146. If the party moves any more

to the right it WILL be the republican party of the past. My gut tells me if it moves more to the right, the scales will tip, and the world will shatter.

[mmonk]

13. I prefer the old republic approach

[high density]

14. "progressive centrist"

What in the fuck is that?

Ignoring those dumbass exit polls quoted in this article, I'm sure there are plenty of liberals out there. They just don't want to call themselves liberal since the right-wing has made it such a nasty word.

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

20. we need to create a leftwing propaganda machine to move America leftwards

The rightwing propaganda machine moved America right over the last 30 years. We need to move it back leftwards. You do not just react to America moving right, you ACT to move it left.

Here is how we start: we work through moveon.org to raise money to buy time on late night tv and AM radio and then create cheap infomercials to explain progressive and leftist ideas. Convince America that progressive taxation and welfare state and universal healthcare work well in countries like Canada, Denamrk, Sweden, Norway, France, Belgium, etc.

Run these infomercials independent of any candidate. Run them for years. Buy ads in small newspapers.

Anyone can do this. We don't need slick productions or expensive "media buyers". Just have plain old working class activists do it for cheap. Cheap informercials with charts.

Then, when the primaries come along, a real liberal can just push the right buttons and get nominated and then get elected.

[Amigust]

32. Good place to start,

but we ultimately have to create a left wing media machine big enough to effectively neutralize the right's. Size is important, of the megaphone, that is.

Anyone want to join Al Gore and Air America? Got a long way to go.

[TankLV]

111. I'm with you. Got to form our own network of progressive left ideas and

relentlessly and ruthlessly push for OUR agenda.

[jwirr]

178. Actually I think you are right!

If we continue to drift apart here at DU we will accomplish nothing but division. We all recognize that we have differing opinions and that is fine. But we need to unite on some of the issues and start to use our power like we did during the campaign. We forced many of the suppressed stories into the press and even rocked to stock market with Sinclair. Now lets use this power to build our own media and to educate the public.

By the way is it the Progressive Report (the think tank) that you are all calling the DLC? I am a little dumb on the identity of this group? Who exactly is it?

[Zhade]

45. "What in the fuck is that?"

A lie.

[Carni]

67. Most Joe blow public/ *liberals* just think they are moderates.

I marvel at some of the people I talk to who's *values* are frankly, liberal as hell by today's media standards, but they don't consider themselves "liberal" (and in fact would be insulted by the term)

They hear "liberal" and they think of radical characters from the 1960's--the Repukes have indeed pulled quite a scam on the voting public.

[sunnybrook]

184. Destruction of the word "liberal" was a long and intentional process

Carried out by right wingers. I spent the summer doing a research paper on this topic. This came about due to a coordinated linguistic strategy applied by rw extremists. They have done the same thing to the word "feminist" so that many people who actually believe in the values of equality that define feminism would claim to not be a "feminist" because that is associated with radical, man-hating stereotypes. The RW definitely runs a brilliant spin machine, even though their goals are dishonorable.

[Lizzie Borden]

126. I agree. That could be just about anything.

That's about as concrete as 'compassionate conservative'.

[michaelwb]

139. "progressive centrist" defined

"progressive centrist - What in the fuck is that?"

That easy Republican on economic/business issues.
And Democratic on social ones, unless someone disagrees (Republicans) then they won't fight for it.

Sad but true...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. O-O

:scared:

[napi21]

19. You can fight this is you wish, but it really is the center that wins.

Please don't try to play the RW Pub on me here. I don't think it was the redical RW that won this time, it was a few more of the middle who leaned a little more to the right than the left.

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

21. It is not about winning elections. It is a battle of ideas

Does it matter if you win when your candidate are rightwingers? What have you actually won. PLease read my post above for my solution.

[GainesT1958]

26. Does it matter if you win?

Uh, yes--I prefer winning to losing!:D

Clinton won--and it's going to be a whole lot owrse than 19992 by 2008.

Ideas do matter--if they're coupled with values. We can't take "values" forgranted--and that means OUR values, not theirs!

B-)

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

27. Anyway, just read these articles

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/2004race/10354/index.html
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/nationalinterest/9988/

[mazzarro]

51. To make our wins enduring, we must look beyond just winning

as in Clinton's case. ReThugs have built up their support structures such that even when they lose, they still control(manipulate) the most of powers of the government thus forcing democratic presidents to bend towards the reThuglicans in order to get any agenda items passed into law. We must build up our own support structures and the having our own media outlet that can effectively compete with the right wing and/or main media is necessary thing to do NOW!

[Gyre]

29. You people are so high.

They STOLE the effin election! They didn't win the popular vote. The jesus freaks didn't give them anymore votes than they got in 2000.

I'll tell you what they have accomplished which has got to be really sweet. They've totally splintered what's left of the dem party. Kerry's concession was the coup de grace; they're the icing. I'd be surprised if there was 40% turnout in the next election. It's not their fault. They're just trying to spin it so they appear to have more juice than they really have. Typical hienas (sorry hienas!).

Gyre

[Amigust]

35. And would you promote the center (say, moderately fascist) when the

ultra right has become ultra fascist? Just curious how far you would move to the right before abandoning your preference for the center.

P.S. I guess you also believe this election was legitimate despite all the evidence of fraud that is accumulating, to be able to assert that the middle RW won it for Bush. Just an observation.

[Zhade]

46. Where is the center when the system continually veers to the right?

It changes, becoming more and more rightwing. Always chasing the elusive, ever-moving center is a fool's game.

Fuck the center. Anchor yourself in one place with good principles that include all Americans, and watch the votes roll in (assuming, of course, those votes are actually counted).

[demokatgurrl]

55. You don't think it was the radical RW that won? Bush, Cheney

and company are the EXTREME right wing, nowhere NEAR the center.

God, this is scary.

[Bush was AWOL]

57. You're exactly right

Some people are not realizing that this country is still much more conservative than liberal. If we get the middle we win.

[rman]

71. leaned A LITTLE more to the right?

they voted (if they did) for the most RW president ever.

[kk897]

167. Right-leaning left?

Here's an interesting tidbit of info from Ohio, America's "Heartland":

Total Number of Votes for GWB: 2,796,147

Total Number of Votes for Issue 1 (anti-gay marriage): 3,249,157

If we assume that the vote tallies are accurate (HA!)... well, if we assume that the vote tallies are somewhat accurate, then these figures indicate that a lot of people who DIDN'T vote for Bush also didn't want gay people to get married.

Evidently, these are Democrats (or Republicans) who will still vote for a Democratic candidate even if they have socially conservative "values," and even if the candidate's party doesn't support those socially conservative "values."

Who *are* these people? And where do we get more of 'em?

[sunnybrook]

185. do you think that the majority of actual Bush voters

(as opposed to the extra "pretend" ones he got through fraud) really know that much about issues? I am telling you, in a class I took I started talking about liberals and conservatives and at least three students (aged 23-40 or so) had to ask me what those terms meant! We are all obviously well versed on politics but I would be willing to bet that a large percentage of voters vote based on stupid crap unrelated to policy.

[Carni]

72. And BUSH is the freaking center?

I don't THINK so --

[VegasWolf]

25. How much more centrist can we be, look at the platform Kerry

ran on, should we give up woman's right to choose,
turn our backs on civil rights for gays, okay
offshoring american jobs, allow tax cuts for the
wealty to consume the oxygen out of the economy.
Hell, Kerry even went hunting and killed birds!

Any more to the right and there will be no left base, I for one,
will be long gone.

[sandnsea]

39. that's ridiculous

If the left doesn't understand we just ran on as left a platform that we could ever hope to win on, then they're never going to have solutions either. Kerry is solidly pro-choice, solidly gay rights, for enforcing trade policies and adding more regulations, and against tax cuts for the wealthy. What campaign were you watching? Socialists run for President all the time, people can vote for them if they want, they don't.

[Bush was AWOL]

59. Yeah, other than Foreign Policy

I don't see how Kerry could go any farther left without being an all out Socialist-which many Americans saw his platform as anyway.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

160. Clearly, you have no idea what a socialist is

:eyes:

[VegasWolf]

84. You miss my point. I wasn't arguing that Kerry wasn't Dem enough,

I was simply stating that they is very little room to
move much to the right. I've heard people on this
board argue in favor of dropping opposition to abortion
as long as we keep a rider for the health of the woman.
I don't believe that our party will win by being
Republican Lite.

Looking back at my first post on this thread, mea culpa, it
was poorly written, I must have had too many glasses
of wine when I wrote it. The bit about Kerry hunting
was simply to show that even leaning a little right trying
to convince the NRA types that he was a good guy didn't
work.

[Warren Stupidity]

155. Huh?

If the left doesn't understand we just ran on as left a platform that we could ever hope to win

This is typical. Hello? We just lost. Again. Perhaps the lack of much difference between far right and not so far right, except for the cultural wedge issue of abortion and gay marriage, has something to do with it? I know, lets run to the right of the GOP.

[sunnybrook]

186. Hello? Bush just stole the election

Again. This is different than saying we "lost." That has irked me for the last four years when the media talked about where Gore went wrong and "lost" the election.

[Blaze Diem]

28. Stop treating the Dem Party as though it is the REASON Bush is in the WH

It is not the fractured front that they want us to think it is.
It is their way of dismanteling it though.
To understand why Bush is STILL in the WH they will have to admit a few things.
Start with Diebold and the voter "fix".
Add to that the Swift Boat lies, & labelling anyone not pro-Bush as unpatriotic and un-christian.
Tell the F***ing Truth onthe fair and balanced media for a change.
Tell the TRUTH about the occupation of Iraq, the blatant murder of its civilians.
Tell the truth about 9-11 and where the hell is Osama???
Tell the TRUTH about all we Dems know to be fact about the Bush cronyism and war profiterring.
It is not that the Dem party is in need of anything but a backbone in the presince of an unelected self serving dictatorial government.

What is needed is exposure of the lies and manipulations of the Bush board of governance in order to achieve a reversal of a democratic society.

War profiteering. The ultimate goal of the Bush cabal.
American democracy will be quickly rewritten for the porweful and greedy to achieve their goal.
Nothing will be salvaged nor spared, except their own blood.

It is not the Democratic Party that is sick.
Maybe they should fix the one that is breaking the backbone of this Nation.

The talk within this 3rd Party really f***ing pisses me off.
They are a shameful insult to all citizens of America and those worldwide who know and fear the real truth of the current GOP.

They are the "sick" ones.
Not us.

Thanks
Blaze

[Crunchy Frog]

34. Well, it looks like Grover Norquist

is maybe going to get that "neutered animal" that he's been talking about? Well, they can do what they want, but I won't be involved in any way with a castrated party.

Oh, and we could have run Joe Lieberman and they still would have turned him into a baby eating, bible burning, flaming liberal.

[Yavin4]

36. Again, A Brief History of Democrats' Cave-Ins on Major Issues

The Democrats have nearly the exact same position as the Republicans on the following list of major issues in the last 12 years or so:

Dems have supported:

NAFTA/GATT
Outsourcing
Welfare Reform, passed it into law
Deregulation of the Media
Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders
Three Strike Laws
No Single-Payer National Healthcare plan
Balanced Budget
Patriot Act I and II
The Iraq War Resolution
John Ashcroft as A.G.
No Child Left Behind
Several Dems supported Bush's first tax cut
Bush's Prescription Drug plan

And what did all of these positions get the Democrats? The most right wing government in U.S. history. Why would anyone vote for a sort of Republican when they can vote for a real Republican?

[G_j]

41. thank you

and you just scratched the surface.

Want to embrase more RW 'values'? count me and most people I know out!
Great for the Green party though!

[xchrom]

50. actually nafta and it's step children

is a dem idea to begin with.
originally, the point was to ''spread'' the wealth.
but it wasn't well thought out.
the point is -- they never tried to fix what was wrong with it when the evidence was in that it was way broken.
other than that -- you are on the money.

[Carni]

73. "And what did all of these positions get the Democrats?"

NOTHING Not a damned thing!

You hit the nail on the head!

[Dr Fate]

40. Thing is-the Democratic party is the moderate party.

So why not present it that way? The Repubs. are a bunch of Jerry Fawell right-wingers. We already ARE the moderates

I'm not changing my positions- and I see nothing wrong with framing our issues as "moderate."

[Bush was AWOL]

60. That is the whole idea

you don't change your ideas or positions, really. You simply say you're going to be become more moderate and present yourself as such by framing the arguments to fit your agenda. This really is not that big of a deal people.

[JerseygirlCT]

134. If that's truly the case, then I'm in

That makes sense, especially b/c it's true. I think it's very important to continue to stress how radically right wing the GOP has become. We ARE the moderates.

I have no problem with attempting to find common ground so long as it doesn't compromise our positions and beliefs. Budget? Sure, let's find that waste, let's work toward (once again) ridding ourselves of a deficit. But that needs to be done with all-around cooperation, not at the expense of the middle class for the benefit of the wealthy. Abortion? Sure, by all means, let's work to make them less necessary. Let's find better birth control and get it to those who need it. Let's make adoption less financially crushing and easier to do. All of that good stuff I think we all can agree on.

Let's NOT cave on issues like Bush's bogus tax cuts or choice. (Just pulling two off the top of my head, not an exclusive list by any means!)

[Merlin]

48. Poor Dolstein. His buddies Holy Joe and Al Fromm have been outflanked.

The DLC will rue the day it sold its soul to Lieberman in the late 90s. If it had stayed centrist instead of gone to the extreme right it might have a role to play in the party today. But it is finished. Done. Kaput.

Welcome, 3d Way!

[demokatgurrl]

53. Another "DLC"?

[Carni]

54. In other words a bunch of people picked by Rove and company

Will "reform" the Democratic party and turn it into the "GOP Party Too"...give me a fucking break.

[RyomaSakamoto]

62. didn't work in 00, 02, or 04...

maybe 08 will be our year :shrug:

let's keep trying the same failed strat... one day it WILL work :bounce:

[Barkley]

81. You're on the money Ryoma Sakamoto!

I'm so proud to see so many DUers not falling for this "Moderate Majority" crap!

[TankLV]

112. Ooooo - don't give the "dolsteins" facts!

That's not fair!

[Protagoras]

64. This time lets just make sure every name in this group is public

I'm amazed at how many people didn't know who was an active part of the DLC. I don't care what they call themselves now. There is nothing "Centrist" about chasing neocon positions toward fascism.

[Stephanie]

68. They can f*ck off! Did Rove plan this?

That's just what we need is to split the party.

[Tippy]

74. Democrats best get out of the middle of the road

If they know what is good for them...sooner or later they will get run over by the right or the left...Momma always told us you can't cake and eat it to...Who is more proud of their ancestory...a right leading righty or a right leading lefty....neither...none is more proud of his/her heritage then a true Yellow Dog...

[mcgovern]

75. war

"If a lot of dogs are on the beach, the first thing they do is smell each other's asses.
The information that's gotten somehow makes pacifists out of all of them.
I've thought, 'If only we smelled each other's asses, there wouldn't be any war.'"

(Dustin Hoffman)

[Kitsune]

76. Jesus Christ, this is the LAST thing we need!

We might as well fucking merge with the Republicans at this rate!

[Minstrel Boy]

77. "rigid dogma from the left" - what a joke!

There is NO SUCH THING in American political culture.

There's barely even a hint of a squishy, malleable centre-left.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Really, the "center" of the party is already to the right of Richard Nixon

Just what "extreme left" positions is the Democratic party supposed to give up?

Because for the life of me, I can't think of any.

[American Tragedy]

79. What precisely was wrong with the first way?

Or second way, whichever.

[Star]

80. This is it - the split

This plays very well into Rove's hands.

Split the Democratic party in two - one side on the left and the other side in "the middle". If this continues, we have no hope of ever winning anything.

The left will never join the middle because the left believes the party moved too far to the right and betrayed its own roots.

The middle thinks the reasons for the loss to * was because the party was too far to the left and needs to move more to the right to win.

[snoochie]

120. Both can't be true

I think most of us know which one of those is BS.

[DemCam]

83. Moderate Majority....Yes!

That is certainly where I stand...and I believe that is where most of us stand.

It only appears that the radical right won this past election. In truth people couldn't bring themselves to change horses "in the middle of a war". The Christian Right had their own agenda and think they won the election. One could argue they did because of the numbers...but I canvassed so many Democrats who voted Bush because of the war.

They were unsure about Kerry under these circumstances.

I support any group who can have a conversation about moderation....that is inclusive of human rights, the environment, health care benefits....and a strong defense of our nation.

Small changes make huge differences. We don't need a radical overhaul.

We were 1.5% away from victory!

[Bragi]

85. The Spin on "moral choice"

A wire service report on an exit poll in Ohio is the only "evidence" I recall seeing that backs up the almost undisputed claim that America shifted significantly rightward in last week's election.

My recollection is that the poll showed that some 22 per cent of voters said that "moral issues" were their top concern when casting their vote.

What struck me was that this means 78 per cent say they voted for some specific reason that wasn't, for them, a "moral issue", such as the economy, taxes, Iraq, etc.

In any un-rigged system, that shows a considerable concensus around the notion that things other than "moral issues" were what the vote was all about.

So what's the on-record evidence so far to back up the claim that the political driver for this 3rd moderate way, is real? Before adopting the Moderation proposal, is it clear that the question it answers is reality-based.

*I'm also wondering what evidence there is to confirm that those who said they were voting in the reported exit poll on "moral issues" weren't thinking something more akin to "all of the above" when they answered.

- B

[ourbluenation]

86. Stick with our core values, forget the center line

If being a democrat means becoming more "red" I want nothing to do with it. I don't want the party to "become" anything. We need to define our core values and stay with it. All this shifting around waters us down and makes us weaker, in my view. We need to revisit our soul and stand by it because we believe it is the right thing for this country.

I am not interested in allowing the "reds" define who we are and where the center line is in the sand.

Ignore the line, stick with our core beliefs, and our base will grow.

JTT

[TankLV]

115. All this spin and strategizing about how to "win" makes us look like

flipfloppers and opportunists who have no ideals or definite grounds on what we're about - anything to "win" an election - to hell with what we really believe in and will fight for.

THAT is why we have lost and will lose even more.

No one respects a skeemer and waffeler with his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

We need to set the groundwork to call a LIE a LIE not "misspoke" or "misunderstood".

We need to call a crook a CROOK.

A LIAR a LIAR.

We have the media comparing the swift boat and "fuzzy math" LIES as equal to KERRY's TRUTHFUL FACTUAL record!

Kerry should have gone out and said "Mr. bush* - you are fucking LIAR! STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!"

[Zorra]

87. Here is the DEM organization we can use to make the DLC obsolete:

New Organization, "Progressive Democrats of America" Emerges After Democratic Convention
Joe Libertelli
snip----
Cheered by an enthusiastic Kucinich and "Deaniac" crowd, the activists discussed the issues, talked strategy, and vowed to "keep the heat in the street." Medea Benjamin, the founder of Global Exchange and co-founder of Code Pink and Cynthia Peters of United for Peace and Justice brought a global perspective, Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner of the Green Rainbow Party brought it home in concrete Boston terms in concert with the Fund the Dream campaign. Granny D. Haddock talked about the need for activists to provide political help for people in need. Jim Zogby of the Arab-American Institute described the challenges of even talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the Democratic Party. Tom Andrews, former congressman (D-ME) and leader of Win Without War described his campaign efforts. And actors Mimi Kennedy (Dharma and Greg) and Jaimie Cromwell (Babe) leant their own experience and perspective as progressives in Hollywood.

http://www.opednews.com/libertelli_080104_new_org.htm

Kucinich supporters taking aim at Democratic platform
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 2, 2004

Contact: Andy Juniewicz, [phone], [phone], [email protected]

With a week to go before the Democratic Party's Platform Committee convenes in Miami, supporters of Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich and representatives of leading Progressive Democratic organizations are gearing up to give the committee a political earful.

Hundreds of Kucinich campaigners and political allies, armed with petitions bearing hundreds of thousands of names (www.kucinich.us/petitions), will begin arriving in Miami next Friday to present platform planks and amendments they want included in the final document. They are expected to push hard for planks calling for the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, national health care reform, and other issues.

The objective, organizers say, is to fashion a platform that lays out a more distinctly "Democratic" position on domestic issues, such as economic policy, health care, education, civil rights, and the environment; and on foreign policy issues, such as trade agreements, military intervention abroad, and international relations.

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_070204.php

[bvar22]

99. DNC/DLC too republican for you....

...but you are not ready to abandon the Democratic Party?
Go here:
http://www.pdamerica.org/

The DLC/DNC no longer gets money from me. All my time, money, and sweat now goes to the Democratic Wing of the Party.


I wonder why the corporate owned Media never mentions these guys?

[Zorra]

101. Thanks....if Reid gets appointed Senate Minority Leader, I may go Green

and PDA at the same time.

I've had it with the DLC.

[bvar22]

102. Me, too.

I've been voting Green alot locally.
I'm lucky. I live in St Paul, MN. We have Dem reps and a Senator that I can vote for without holding my nose.
I will be screaming for the Democrats to hold their ground, especially on the judicial appointments, but after 4 years of heartbreak and bitter disappointment I don't expect much from our Party. Everyday I see them more as co-conspirators than an Opposition Party.

If they won't fight for me, why should I fight for them?

[Lorien]

118. They should drop the "democrats" part and just go with

"progressives". The Dems have let us down one too many times. My canvassing companion during the campaign was a Torey (British RWer) who thought that Kerry was to the right of his party! Enough fascism! If the Dems won't return to the left, then the left needs a new party to call home.

[IndianaGreen]

88. "Third Way" sounds sinister if you have seen the film "The Quiet American"

Pandering to the middle class while ignoring the working poor, and those that are barely making it, will not win us any elections. Over 40% of the eligible voters chose to stay away from the polls on Election Day. That's quite an indictment of the 2-party system!

[suston96]

89. Third Way

Not enough working poor and not enough people barely making it. While we are at it, not enough body bags from over there.

If pandering means trying to get the vast number of moderates to listen to what you have to say, then for crying out loud - PANDER!

They keep winning, or getting away with election fraud, and we end up on forum boards wringing our words and phrases hoping to eke out plausibles that make sense.

So far the only words that make sense to me are: pander and steal votes.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

90. Rigid dogma from the left!???

Look at this thread, or pretty much any thread on DU, and see what zombie groupthinkers we are... :eyes:

[greenohio]

161. No doubt...

between stupid Deaniacs and the Clinton haters, we're fricken doomed. This guys are drivin us right over a cliff. Apparently they don't care.

[MattWinMO]

92. This is a good idea....

I know alot of people on DU think the Democratic party should become more liberal to be successful and the media thinks we need to move to the right to be successful.

Instead of moving left or right we need to figure out an overall message that we stand for and that should be responsibility and common sense.

Clinton won because he argued that his policies weren't liberal or conservative but sensible and responsible. We can't win by becoming just as reactionary as those on the Right.

[derby378]

94. Ditch the AWB, and we may even win some Southern states (n/t)

[TheKingfish]

96. Whats AWB ? n/t

on edit must be assault weapons ban

[ElectroPrincess]

144. Yes, even though I believe in certain controls, even the AWB

it's NOT time to talk about the 2nd Amendment at all. Well EXCEPT for those appropriate Democrats to announce how much they love rifles and legal hunting.

Nothing is more delicious than Pheasant from South Dakota. I'm a die hard Democrat but love my assortment of rifles and shotguns handed down to me over the years by my Dad and Older Brothers. And yes, I like to hunt Pheasant, not deer, i.e., Bambi movie must have got to me although deer meat is also delicious in stews.

However, I'd caution fellow Democrats who love rifles and hunting to refrain from giving your Vegetarian friend an "Omaha Steaks" catalog. They won't appreciate the joke and could ruin a friendship. :(

[Q]

95. Why is it considered by some that's it's 'liberal'...

...to get back to the values and principles that attacted most of us to the party in the first place?

[TankLV]

117. and having Ross Perot split the repukes a bit didn't count at all, huh?

without Perot, the repukes would have won that time, too.

[librechik]

98. why don't they grow some balls and appeal to the base?

they have been pretending they're something they're not for so long they don't even know who the base is anymore. We're the ones who are pro-choice, pro affirmative action, pro diversity and equality for all, and pro environment. Remember? We're not so far to the left. THAT's our center!

[Q]

123. Because their base is the working poor and minorites...

...and very few of them own major corporations with cash ready to trade for legislation.

[jwirr]

182. There is more to our base than that.

Environmentalists, labor unions, educators, elderly, disabled. We can have many groups that share our values in this party.

[TexasSissy]

100. They should do this strategizing behind closed doors.

You don't hear about the Repubs starting "groups" aimed at changing their image, putting the mods up front, etc. They do all that behind closed doors and then implement the plan.

And the Democratic fumble continues.

[TankLV]

106. I f the dems move any further to the right, they can count me out forever.

How about forming a group that adheres to progressive, liberal values, to STOP the rightward shift!

[bvar22]

171. You can find the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party here:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[Lizzie Borden]

127. Me too.

As it was, I held my nose when I voted for Clinton.

[uhhuh]

128. I Think We have To Embrace The Term

Class warfare. The right likes to talk about how the left is engaging is class warfare.

We need to agree, but point out that the low and middle class people of America were attacked first.

The people of this country have been subjected to outsourcing, pay cuts, cuts in needed services, loss of employment, media consolidation limiting consumer choice and access to unspun information, the Walmartization of communities to eliminate choices and drive down incomes, so that many can't make a living, corporate malfeasance and fraud that has stolen savings from millions and made millions for the thieves that moved their money off shore, rigged energy crises that have cost billions and none have been held accountable, "tort reform" designed to limit relief for those who may have been wronged and limit punishment for companies that harm others.

There is much more. Edwards spoke to some of this with his "Two Americas" stuff, but it must be hammered home that there is class warfare being conducted on the non moneyed classes. I think that would go a long way toward getting the supposed "Red" states to realize they've been had. We need a populist message. We can bring a lot of social conservatives on board if they feel like someone is standing up for their economic interests.
Deep down, they know the right is just pandering to them, but I think a lot of them feel that, with the right, at least someone is speaking to some of their issues.
We don't have to give an inch on social issues. I think most people just parrot these things. I think the average American voter, if experiencing their own prosperity, wouldn't give a damn about same sex unions or limited gun control or whether some people got abortions, or prayed or not, or if some people need public assistance to get by.

Give people a solution that brings them some degree of hope and comfort and they won't be so anxious to blame this or that group for being the source of their problems.

Let's acknowledge and start winning the class war.

The right leadership actually secretly hates their base and has no interest in seeing them succeed. They think they are above them, and NEVER do anything to help them. NEVER!!

We can win this because we actually have the message that would help everybody. We can get those voters. Let's fight the class war. We will win!!!

(This is, of course, if the voting machines are taken care of. They did get a lot of votes, but I KNOW they stole a lot too. This rant is not to imply that we actually lost this election, but even if we did, we could get almost all voters next time with a message that clearly benefitted all people.)

[regnaD kciN]

130. What? Is the DLC too LIBERAL for them...?

:boring:

[Fovea]

131. All I hear is

Repuglickanism with a human face.

I guess these are the Dems for whom the DLC is not far enough to the right.

[AntiCoup2K4]

132. Whether you spell it DLC or NDOL or NDN or whatever.....

It's still neocon Republican mole appeasement bullshit.

F
U
C
K

T
H
E

D
L
C

[greenohio]

159. * the idots who say * the DLC

Lets keep our current loser stratgy of running left. Losing aint so bad. John Kerry was not DLC.

[JerseygirlCT]

133. The big question:

what is a moderate?

Who are the "moderates" they're talking about here, and what does that mean?

I continue to insist that our positions are not at fault; our selling of them may be.

If this is yet another whine about how the Democrats need to move to the right... ugh, no thanks.

[The Flaming Red Head]

136. Next time I'll draw in an arrow on my ballot in between the two parties

Is that fucking centrist enough?

It's not like it'll get read correctly anyway.

[mike_c]

137. it's the republican wing of the Democratic party!

Or is it the democrat wing of the republican party? Is there really any difference?

[NineIron]

140. What do you want?

Do you want Repugs elected in these states or do you want Conservative Democrats? At least the Conservative Democrats vote w/ the party on leadership. You can't have it both ways. Liberal Democrats are NOT going to get elected in the South.

[ElectroPrincess]

143. 3rd Way = Pansy Compromise.

The Republicans respect scrappers and secretly hate tutus and pansies. Really guys, figuratively consider taking your balls out of your purse. <giggles ... just heard that QUIP a few days ago and thought to use it> :P

[ulysses]

149. I am simply overwhelmed with excitement.

Always nice to see party leaders coming up with new ideas. :bounce:

[Laelth]

151. Who keeps kicking this thread, and why?

This thread was started 9 days ago. Why continue to focus on the division between the left and the middle-left of the Democratic party. Standard, Machiavellian divide and conquer tactics. Makes me suspicious.

-Laelth

[ulysses]

152. looks like tmorelli did today.

:shrug: Not as if the issue has gone away.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

156. Let's see, we've already got the DLC, the "Progressive" Policy Institute,

the New Republic...

and we need another body telling us that the Democrats are "too far left"?

How can Democrats win when their own DINOs are telling the base of the party that rural and working class white men hate them because they (the left-liberals) don't support NAFTA?

[greenohio]

158. I love to lose....

apparently everyone else does to. Lets not use a strategy that worked, lets keep doing what we're doing. /sarcasm

[ulysses]

187. funny, that's the same argument

I'd make in this situation.

[Teaser]

163. Note "late breaking" by any stretch.

This is a week old and was posted about ad nauseam last week.

[jwirr]

175. Hopefully this means

we are finally realizing that we need to move a ways to the left of center? We have been moving right for so long that it will be hard to find ourselves make to the center. Either they wake up and realize that we need to get back to our base or we have nothing to say because we merely sound soft on repug ideas.

[Bush_My_Ass]

190. the way i see it...

is it's not so much about being in the center, but about choosing someone who can actually win. We all know Clinton had that quality about him-that charm and that grin, God I miss that! he just understood people. That's what we need. I for one liked Kerry and Gore, ( I even thought Kerry was sexy-but I am weird! and alone on that issue among my fellow Dem friends) but they do lack a little in the guy next door department. We have to have someone that most can relate to. I have a few male co-workers that are republican-only fiscal not social-they voted for Clinton but voted for Bush. They pissed me off this year.

If I could have it my way, I would have the most far left of presidents, but I know how people are. They are fucking stupid. I live in the pathetic state of Oklahoma. We need to win win win damnit. Clinton could walk around Howard Univ in DC and just talk for hours and walk into a donut shop and talk to the owner. Hillary doesnt have it. I like her, and would vote for her, but I just don't think she will win if she runs. Believe me I am sorry for saying that. Maybe I will feel differently later on, I don't know, but I just hope to God she does not run.