let's keep this real. we've been moving to the right

[ulysses]

for 19 years, at varying rates of speed. In that time, we've had one Democratic president (the premier politician of his time, helped out by Ross Perot in both elections) and have otherwise had our asses largely handed to us on a platter.

Are we ready for a change?

[Julien Sorel]

1. Yes, let's move to the left.

It's just what we need to get those Southern and Plains states, where we lost all the seats and lose the presidential elections, on board the Democratic bandwagon.

[ulysses]

2. are you paying attention?

Has moving to the right helped so far?

[JanMichael]

3. Sure doesn't appear that it's helped a lick.

But some here will continue to insist that the best way to beat the Repukes is to become a Repuke.

Puke.

[ulysses]

6. no, no.

The idea will be that we haven't gone far enough! Surely, one more abandoned position will mean electoral victory, if we're lucky!

Wank, wank, wank.

[Julien Sorel]

5. Yes, as a matter of fact, I am paying attention.

Have you been paying attention? Have you been looking at electoral maps and congressional elections results? Do you know where those losses are coming from, and the types of politicians who are winning in those regions? I do.

[ulysses]

9. yes.

I've looked at the maps and the results. I've seen a flaccid party that couldn't beat the worst president in American history for all that it tried to agree with him.

[Julien Sorel]

11. Unable to answer, I see.

Allow me to ask again. Would moving to the left have improved results, on either the congressional or presidential races, across the country? If so, show me the evidence that it would. Simply tossing around charged words like "flaccid" is a weak attempt at hiding an obvious fact: you have no idea what you're talking about.

[ulysses]

13. you never asked that, friend.

Your previous post read thusly:

Have you been paying attention? Have you been looking at electoral maps and congressional elections results? Do you know where those losses are coming from, and the types of politicians who are winning in those regions? I do.

You didn't ask whether or not a move to the left would have improved results. Do try to stay focused.

Allow me to ask again. Would moving to the left have improved results, on either the congressional or presidential races, across the country?

I don't know, but I'd wager that it could scarcely have done worse over time. Understand that I'm talking about the movement from 1992, when we controlled the presidency and the congress, to now, when we control neither.

Simply tossing around charged words like "flaccid" is a weak attempt at hiding an obvious fact: you have no idea what you're talking about.

The fact remains that we didn't beat the worst president in American history. You tell me what word I should use, since you obviously carry all the answers.

[ulysses]

15. Julien? you there?

Surely you haven't given up...

[ulysses]

16. wakey, wakey!

Let's go, Julien! I can't imagine that you'd disappear before you tell us which values we have to ditch in order to win. Let's see it, son!

[ulysses]

17. helLOOOOOO!

Wow - accuse someone of being unable to answer a question, and then vanish. Where have I seen that before?

[Julien Sorel]

20. Actually, "friend,"

the question is implied in my original post. I should remember that even gross sarcasm goes over the head of some.


I don't know, but I'd wager that it could scarcely have done worse over time. Understand that I'm talking about the movement from 1992, when we controlled the presidency and the congress, to now, when we control neither.

Understand that so am I. Again, you have ample opportunity, "friend," to adduce evidence showing that your proposal, a "muscular," (as opposed to flaccid) move to the left would improve those results. You haven't done so. Neither have your equally muddle headed cohorts. Instead, like you, they keep whining about losing ground, without demonstrating either an understanding of how that ground has been lost (because the party was already too far to the left), or how moving to the left would somehow recapture that ground.

Let's take a peek, "friend," at the presidential elections of the past 30 years or so. The most conservative Democratic candidates in that time were Clinton, who won twice; Carter, who one once and lost once (the loss to the far more conservative Reagan); Gore, who won the popular vote, and Kerry, who lost a narrow race. The most liberal candidates, friend, were McGovern (whose nomination sped the migration of southern conservatives to the Republican party, and the ensuing loss of congressional seats); Dukakis; and Mondale. All of them got crushed. Notice the pattern: the left wing candidates came pretty much in a row, the period between 1972 and 1988, and were generally not just beaten, but crushed unmercifully: some of the most lopsided elections in history were decided in that time frame. Since the Democrats stopped trotting out liberal candidates, the ass whippings stopped. Do you, friend, see evidence there that practicing left wing politics is somehow a route to winning elections in this country?

Now, friend, let's also look at the congressional races in the period you brought up. The Republicans took over congress in 1994 in part by running on the "Contract With America," a document espousing conservative principles that is still used in some ways as a blueprint for the conservative movement. The electoral gains they made were largely in the conservative South and Plains, and following the elections that year, several conservative Democratic politicians switched to the Republicans. I seriously doubt, friend, that Richard Shelby and people of his ilk switched to the Republicans because the Democrats were moving too far to the right. Perhaps you have a different view.

Well, "friend," I think I've wasted enough time with you. Unless you can present some evidence showing where a move to the left would do anything to reverse the losses the Democrats have suffered, or show where my understanding of electoral history is off, I'm going to continue operating on the assumption that, as I stated before, you have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[ulysses]

25. hey, you're here!

Again, you have ample opportunity, "friend," to adduce evidence showing that your proposal, a "muscular," (as opposed to flaccid) move to the left would improve those results. You haven't done so.

Such has not been my proposal. It seems incumbent upon those of your bent, friend, to prove your idea, since that's what we've been following lo these many years.

Do as you will. Personally, I think you're the one who lack the clue.

[TankLV]

18. Oh, we have - bigots, racists, sexist, homophobes, lliars and hyppocrits.

Which one should we become more like?

If the Democrats move one further inch to accomodate these ignorant intolerant bastards, they can count us out forever.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Let's move towards common sense.

And the Democratic values are common sense for the vastest number of people.

We just have to communicate that to them.

One way is showing Democrats as them. Common folk. Working folk. The salt of the earth. People, like them, who will never pay the inheritance tax. Not that "limosine liberal" or radical bombthrower bullshit that we have, in our indolence, allowed to be played on us.

We can take the high ground in the discourse. The question is: how bad do we want it?

[Padraig18]

7. Exactly!

[LizW]

8. What kind of change?

Should we come out in favor of:

Mandatory Christian prayer in public schools?

Unrestricted access to all types of weaponry?

Criminalization of homosexuality?

Criminalization of abortion?

Different levels of civil rights for different groups of people?

Abolition of free, equal public education?

Wedge issues are being used against us. The reason they work is because they are wedge issues, meaning issues that we will never compromise on.

What is the point of winning, if we give up every value we hold dear and turn this country into something we don't recognize? If we're going to do that, we could save ourselves a lot of time and effort and just let the Repugs have it and do what they will.

[ulysses]

10. no...

Maybe you haven't been around here long enough to know where I'm coming from, but we pretty much agree in toto. I want to see my party stand the fuck up, and have wanted that for years. The change I want to see is in our Vichy leadership, for starters.

[LizW]

21. Okay, sorry, I misunderstood your original post

and thought you were advocating a move to the right.

Lots of folks have been, and I finally snapped.

Sorry about that.

[Zorra]

12. Unrestricted access to weaponry....good issue to get behind. That will

force the republicans to legislate restrictive gun control regulations.

They don't want us wild-eyed liberals arming ourselves in response to our fear of their fascist police state now, do they?

Since the assault weapons ban has expired, I am seriously thinking about purchasing a good used AK47 before the republicans are forced to reinstate the AWB. I have a friend that used to be a gun dealer and he said he can get me a good one pretty cheap.

IMO, every wild-eyed liberal should be armed, if for no other reason than to be able to hunt for food after the Bu$h economy makes the Hoover Great Depression years look like the Clinton boom.

[Padraig18]

14. I'm well armed.

We don't plan on going quietly to the camps, when they come for GLBT people.

[slackmaster]

26. The AWB did not stop you from buying a semiauto AK clone

If you want one, why have you waited until now? Throughout the AW "ban" you could have bought a brand new one without a bayonet mount or threaded muzzle. Those features don't affect how the weapon shoots.

[joelogan]

29. Dems chose to use wedge issues b/c they are afraid of economic populism

The Dems turned their backs on economic populism because the people at the top of the party are rich and would rather have regressive taxes just like the GOP, and globalization, just like the GOP.

If they really wanted to avoid the wedge issues, just refuse to answer questions about them, and build a platform around economic populism. But they would rather focus on social issues and avoid economic populism.

[Avalux]

19. We should become who we are

it's that simple and at the same time, that difficult.

[KG]

22. give it up, bro.

seems some would be happy for a party full of zell millers.

[JanMichael]

23. Stop repeatng yourself!

How's St. Pete????

[KG]

24. it would be great if the dem. senator candidate ran to the right of

mel martinez in order to get elected.

[Cocoa]

27. ironically, there has been some progress

I think civil unions will soon be commonplace. Even Bush is on board.

[w4rma]

28. The shift to the "left" (which, imho, is actually "right") on gun control

within the Democratic Party is a loser. The Democratic Party MUST lose the label of gun control. Gun control just ticks off rural folks to the point where they do not hear any other issue. Lose the issue. It's lost anyway and the Democratic Party should have never been fighting for removing gun rights. These folks have to be willing to listen to Democrats to vote for Democrats. Removing more gun control from the Democratic Party agenda will help Dems in rural areas talk to other folks openly about Democrats.

God is an issue that NATIONAL Democrats need to learn how to talk about. Wear God on your sleeve as President Carter did and how Bush does. The Democratic base in the Northeast and West needs to allow national Democrats to talk about God and Christianity. The Democratic base needs to let this happen so that rural Christians who are only rarely exposed to other religions and are taught to be intolerant of them by their peers will LISTEN to national Democrats again as they did with FDR.

Abortion is basically gone. Girls will have to die by the coathanger, in America, before rural folks start to rethink that issue again. That, their intolerance of gays and their indignity about sex are pretty much all that Repugs have to point at on morals. The Repug leadership is immoral, according to their own definitions, in every way if you remove those 3 issues.

You can't give in to the big corporates because they are the folks behind the Republican Party pushing them and covering for them. They are the true base of the Republican Party. They are the folks who need to be pushed out of power even more than the the Repukes do. If they fall, then the Repukes fall (but not neccessarily vice versa).

You can't give in on fighting against voter fraud because without a fair vote, issues do not matter. You can't give in on tactical issues, ever. Anything and everything that degrades our democracy must be fought at because we will never get back into power under a dictatorship without a civil war.