Makes me ill: Democrats plan shift to center.....

[garybeck]

washingtonpost.com
Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; A07



The liberals' hope that Democrats can win back the presidency by drawing sharp ideological contrasts and energizing the partisan base is a fantasy that could cripple the party's efforts to return to power, according to a new study by two prominent Democratic analysts.

In the latest shot in a long-running war over the party's direction -- an argument turned more passionate after Democrat John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush last year -- two intellectuals who have been aligned with former president Bill Clinton warn that the only way back to victory is down the center.

...

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601645_pf.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. a good shift leftward to center would help. They went so far right.

not enough left-leaning voters?

If you do not try, you guarantee failure.

[marmar]

6. Exactly...

Where are they now, precisely? They're not in the leftward sphere I occupy, that's for sure.

[senaca]

98. A leftward to center would help.

Standing up for populist principles would also help. Whoever can truly show that they actually care about what most of the population is experiencing, and can inspire people by bold ideas to help, can win.

[IntravenousDemilo]

109. The American idea of "left", "right", and "centre" is all wrong.

It doesn't agree with the rest of the world, including here in Canada, where "left" is socialist, "centre" is liberal, and "right" is conservative, with the far left being communist and the far right fascist.

Our Liberal Party is middle of the road and always has been. Our New Democratic Party is left wing. Your Democratic Party is ideologically nearer our Conservative Party (or as I call it, the Silly Party of Canada), and thus right of centre by the rest of the world's estimation. Meanwhile, the Republicans are RIDICULOUSLY right wing.

In fact, if you were to place our parties and your parties on a colour spectrum, with red on the left and violet on the right, our NDP would be an orangey-yellow, our Liberals would be green, and the Silly Party would be blue. In the United States, you don't have much in the way of political choice, since your entire political spectrum varies between a greenish blue and violet, with people like Cheney and Buchanan somewhere in the ultraviolet range.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

120. shame on you. You are just showing us up w/ real choice stuff.

And frankly, it is embarrassing. I mean, if a "small, unimportant" (Cheney's words, not mine, lumping it together with others not happy with the coalition of livid) country like canada can figure out more than two parties, why can't we? do you know how bad you are making us feel, starting with jealosy?

What is worse is that evil empire growing south of mexico actually has election turnouts that approach 89%. That can't be, because the president warned us that Venezuela was a future country of concern.

No matter that Chavez offered to donate relief to those in need. No matter that democratically, he is significantly popular with most segments of society (except the ultra-ultra rich FOBush)


So, I hear immigration officers are busy with yanks, eh?

[mattclearing]

2. It's based on a false premise.

I think more than a few of our elected Dems know this isn't great advice.

Nothing Dems do will make up for the fact that their opponents get unexpected election day bounces of anywhere from 4 to 16 points as needed.

[Mass]

3. Democrats plan nothing - two strategists say they should - not the same

Get those two out of the chain of direction, if they are in. That's all.

[ret5hd]

4. DLC tripe if you ask me (i know, you didn't ask)

[Jon8503]

5. Not me, not going with them to the center. N/T.

[AtomicKitten]

7. If Kerry actually ran to the left, there might be a debate.

But he didn't. He tried to run to the right of Bush on some issues. If he had truly embraced a progressive agenda, we might have a president in office that could string a sentence together. There is no other politician as talented as Clinton who could fight it out in the center and win.

[JohnnyBoots]

11. good point n/t

[Jose Diablo]

116. He gave that speech at the convention

where he reported for duty and saluted (how quaint), that speech sounded like he was a progressive or at least a populist. But I don't know if the rest of the campaign tightly held those positions.

I thought he conceded too quick on Ohio.

Anybody else remember how this board was being saturated with 'legal eagles' right after the election. One was even admitting to having worked on Gore's legal fight in Florida.

Beginning about a month or two before the primary, the DLC came en mass, to get ideas about a platform and defend the 'moderate' position. 'Oh, all those others running in the primary, we have to place a moderate, it's Anybody But Bu$h you know', this was the cry. Anybody on the left was hung out to twist in the wind. The unions, the progressive activists, people donating to Dean and Kucinish, all of us got screwed on that deal. The DLC doesn't speak for the party, who died and made Frome King?

Conyer's though, insofar as investigating the Ohio election, he's done pretty good, but I don't see how the money spent on the legal challenges by the party has done much in Ohio.

It was the Greens that got the recount going and here we heard, "Oh, thats good strategy on our Dem leaders part." Bah.

This party is being strategically decimated by these 'experts'. I have seen much more intelligent operating during a big union strike than these experts could ever hope to produce.

Who needs experts that always lose?

Edit: And don't forget how many network channels showed the Democratic conversion. Anybody remember?

[atommom]

8. I'm very suspicious of these two "experts." I hope the Dems

don't take this advice too seriously.

[iconoclastNYC]

56. Exactly

The House Organ of the DLC says these people are "experts". This from the paper that has been giving non-stop fellatio to the Bush administration from the start.

Gas is at $3.00, consumer confidance is down, 40 million people are without healthcare, wage growth is negative, and the top 1/10 of 1% have captured the last decade's economic growth, and these people are telling us to not go "too far left". Puhleeze. This left-right thing is so tired.

When Democrats grow a spine and start talking to the voters LIKE ADULTS about class and what Republican policies are doing to the middle class we'll start to win.

Experts who makes six figures and do better under Republicans will never embrace this strategy.

[Ladyhawk]

78. There was some guy on DU who claimed to be a Dem strategist.

He said what Kerry was doing was "political Judo," allowing the momentum of the opponent to become his own undoing. This strategist said we must be patient.

Well, practicing political Judo didn't seem to work. Kerry didn't defend himself against the smearboat folks when he should have. The Dem "strategists" were trying to make the swifties look ridiculous, but instead, people thought Kerry had something to hide.

I'm tired of letting our "enemies destroy themselves," or using "political Judo." Americans obviously don't respond to subtleties. It's time for Dem strategists to go in-your-face!

[Ravenseye]

9. Dems shift to center, Repubs shift further right

rinse and repeat. It's a sure way to doom this country if the so called 'liberal' party keeps running further and further away from what it is supposed to stand for.

[annabanana]

10. who the hell is Thomas B. Edsall?

And why should his word be taken "on faith" anyway?

[leveymg]

33. A Sr. editorial writer for the WashPost. A dead newspaper in need of new

editorial direction.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. They take the center, I leave the party. The "center" got us where we are

today...NOWHERE! WTF are they thinking??? Do they not learn anything from past experience?

Progressives need their own party. Who could be our candidate? How's about Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, JOHN CONYERS!

THIS is why Chuck Schumer made that snide remark about the "far left" the other day. Crap. PURE crap from a party with no damn balls!

[me b zola]

76. They want to run us out of the party, IMO

By "us" I mean people who are politically literate. They fear people who follow the issues and the votes. They want the dumbed down masses who will blindly follow. I say they cannot have the good name of the Democratic Party.

This is the discussion that we *must* have! We are not Dem bashing to expect representation from our elected officials. There is a struggle for the soul of the party. Those who seek to keep power away from the people are at war with us, and we must defend ourselves and our right to a representative government.

[garybeck]

83. I don't think they want us to run out of the party but that will

be the result if they just become "Republican Light" which is what this article is suggesting.

[mod mom]

13. Dems shift right, I shift Green. I do not think I am alone.

I am conservative in spending but way left of the Dem party on other issues. We need a livable wage, to strengthen social programs, get corporate influence out to government, and sustain our planet. I will not support DLCers who bend over to the greedy corporations.

I backed Howard Dean in the primaries (probably have shifted to Kucinich in the past year) and I do remember that this wing of the Dems raised a lot of $ in support. Also we were the ones that GOTV not the DLCers who live in their priviledged quarters.

[garybeck]

15. I'm with you. Maybe we should all

send a copy of this article to DLC and DNC and write on it with pen:

"if this is what you're doing, I'm leaving the party."

maybe if they got thousands of letters like this they'd listen.

[Deep13]

21. We do not need 1000s of voters, ...

...we need millions. We turned out our base in the last election and it was inadequate. Frankly, we need to rethink this whole thing.

[garybeck]

26. no it wasn't inadequate

the problem was election FRAUD, not democratic turnout.

[Deep13]

39. prove it.

I have heard many allegations of fraud, but no evidence. Besides the Rs claim we committed fraud by registering nonresidents in swing states. Frankly, the vote here was not that close. In this county, we had a collossal effort with 100s of volunteers and a lot of money. We still got buried 3 to 2. Besides, Ohio is just one state out of 50. Why didn't we win NM, WV, Arkansas or Georgia? Every year since 1980 where there had been high turn-out, the Ds have lost. 1992 and 1996 were low turn-out years and Clinton won both times. What really killed us here was the anti-gay marriage amendment that was on the ballot at the same time as the Presidential election. Dubya won with 52%, but the anti-gay thing passed by 3 to 1. That means about half of Ohio Kerry voters also voted for the gay marriage ban. That issue turned out the Fundy base and cost us the White House.

People voted against JK for two reasons. First, they thought he was soft on defense. The Rs created that impression in the 1970s and we have not been able to shake it. A candidate looses credibility by opposing a war he voted for. Second, he really is the archetype north-east liberal. (Pretending otherwise cost him believeability.) Many voters feared he would radicalize the country but disregarding cultural assumptions (call them folk prejudices if you want) and they went with the devil they knew instead.

[mod mom]

50. We don't have SUPOENA POWER, but we have proved it to the House Judiciary

Dems Legal Staff. Read Conyers + the HJD staff excellent report "what Went Wrong In Ohio".

[garybeck]

53. you haven't seen any evidence? I guess you haven't looked

turn off the TV and open your eyes. the evidence is overflowing. A consortium of PhD statisticians wrote a report that the exit polls simply could not have been off by that much, simply by chance. the chances are 16 million to one! Here, read the report:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

How about the fact that 90% of our the votes were counted in secret, by private companies owned by replublicans?

How about the whistleblower at Diebold who has come forward and said that they know about the security holes and hushed anyone who makes an issue about it?

how about the white stickers that were found on the ballots in Ohio and witnessed by 7 recount observers in separate instances, and they have signed affidavits to this effect? See the affidavits here:

http://www.solarbus.org/election/archives.shtml#investigations

how about the proven fact that we know the recount in Ohio was done illegaly and the hand counts were not chosen randomly?

I could go on and on and on.... It never ends. There is an endless flow of evidence of fraud.

I must say that if you have not seen any evidence of fraud, you must be glued to CNN and not looking for the truth.

If you want to find out what really happened last november, here's a good place to start:

http://election.solarbus.org

I will send you a free CDROM with much of the evidence if you would like. You can download it for free here:

http://www.archive.org/details/election2004-video-CD

if you don't have a fast internet connection I will send you a copy for free. just PM me your mailing address and i'll send one off.

the truth is there but you have to open your eyes.

[eridani]

135. Jeebus! Of course you haven't seen evidence!

The public is not allowed to look at vote tabulation software or observe real recounts. Though there is no proof, there is damned well probable cause.

[mod mom]

46. It was not inadequate it was FRAUD! I am hoping for the breaking up

of the 2 party system. Repukes are divided by fundies and greedies, we should break into DLCers (corporate lovers) and Progressives (Greens, CBC, labor and progressive Dems) We certainly do have millions.

If the Dems put out a DLC candidate, they can kiss the African American vote good bye. They refused to protect their votes in the last 2 presidential elections, they refused (except Sen Boxer and the CBC, plus a few others) to stand up and fight for their vote. The DLC have been backing business over labor. Labor was at DC Peace Rally and they are also rebuilding. Why not join forces and start anew rather than SOS.

I scream:

LIVABLE WAGES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NO WAR-SCHOOLS
SOCIAL JUSTICE
END PROVERTY
TRUE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
HEALTH CARE

[Deep13]

65. You are hoping for irrelevancy.

We are pretty close to that as it is. The two party system exists from our winner-take-all presidential model of government. We don't have coalitions here. The candidate with 50%+1 gets everything. The party with 51 Senators or 50 plus the White House gets all of the Senate committees. A three party system just makes it easy for the Rs to get more than anyone else.

[LincolnMcGrath]

71. Actually the right is close to being irrelevant.

They cannot run a campaign of fear forever.


God Guns Gays and Gny will only get you so far.

[IntravenousDemilo]

112. Gny? n/m

[mod mom]

92. the 2 party system has evolved from the elitist proposition that they want

to control the masses. They will do the leading and we will follow. It's time to stop blindly following and do some thinking ourselves.

As far as the repukes are concerned, have you noticed a little infighting between the fundies and the fiscal conservatives? They both have very different agendas. I do not assume that they will be a cohesive force for long. why not have a 4 party system, or more.

I would like to suggest 3 books to you. Howard Zinn's Peoples History of the United States, Andrew Gumbel's Steal that Vote, and Greg Palast's the Best Democracy Money Can Buy. These three books, all read since the election theft have changed my perspective. No more straight party ticket for moi.

[Deep13]

58. RE: Fraud

I'm aware of the Conyers report.

I will simply direct your attention to Dr. Dean's recent comments about close elections. We cannot afford to plan to win elections by the skin of out teeth. That is not enough of a margin. Under the best case scenario JK would have squeeked by. Clinton won in an electoral landslide and, consequently, fraud was not a factor.

[garybeck]

69. that is not correct.

at the last election, if you follow the exit polls instead of the fraudulent results, Kerry had a landslide victory:



316 to 222 is a landslide.

[mod mom]

96. Ohio was not the lone state where fraud occured . It was a landslide.

Do you think Gore didn't win in 2000, as well? I really don't think Former President Jimmy Carter would have made such a strong remark unless he was certain. Mark my words, this information will come out (unless these crazy neoconsters nuke us back to the dark ages. )

[Jose Diablo]

129. You got that right, I saved a printout from right after the election

From some of the 'swing' states, listen to these stats on exit polls vs actual:


Non-paper Ballot States

Wisconsin Ex=+5 Kerry, Act=+1 Kerry, Dev=-4
PA Ex=+7 Kerry, Act=+2 Kerry, Dev=-5
OH Ex=+2 Kerry, Act=-2 Bush, Dev=-4
FL Ex=+1 Kerry, Act=-5 Bush, Dev=-6
MN Ex=+10 Kerry,Act=+3 Kerry, Dev=-7
NH Ex=+17 Kerry,Act=+1 Kerry, Dev=-16????
NC Ex=-4 Bush ,Act=-13 Bush, Dev=-9
CO Ex=-7 Bush ,Act=-6 Bush, Dev=+1


Paper Ballot States

AZ Ex=-10 Bush ,Act=-10 Bush, Dev=0
LA Ex=-14 Bush ,Act=-15 Bush, Dev=-1
MI Ex=+3 Kerry,Act=+3 Kerry, Dev=0
IA Ex=0 Tie ,Act=-1 Bush , Dev=-1
NM Ex=+2 Kerry ,Act=0 Tie , Dev=-2
ME Ex=+11Kerry ,Act=+8 Kerry, Dev=-3
NV Ex=-1 Bush ,Act=-3 Bush , Dev=-2
AR Ex=-9 Bush ,Act=-9 Bush , Dev=0
MO Ex=-8 Bush ,Act=-7 Bush , Dev=+1
IL Ex=+11 Kerry,Act=+11Kerry, Dev=0


It is clear that when comparing the deviation between the exit polls and the actual vote remains at of lower that 3 percentage point in the paper ballot states. What you see is what you get.

Now comparing the non-paper states we see deviations as high as 16 percentage points and in those important swing states of Ohio and Florida we saw deviations of -4 and -6 percentage points. Something stinks with those non-paper state elections.

The 2004 election was rigged, and in many more than just 1 state. I wonder if we could compare the party of the Sec of State of each of those non-paper states what we would see. Is the problem with the Sec of State office or is it the company that supplied the voting machines?

Not only that, but in those non-paper states, the deviation always went to Bush, except Colorado. That is strange too. That would seem to indicate that somehow if a mistake was made by the voter, the mistake would favor Bush. Or maybe the tabulator somehow changed votes to Bush, without the voter knowing this. Or maybe lost Kerry votes due to a 'fluke' in the counting, but why favor Bush in practically all cases?

Edit: Or maybe, just maybe operatives accessed the tabulators remotely and changed the votes through a 'backdoor' in either the vendor supplied software, or accessed it through Microsofts ME Operating System. Now I could see how Gates would want to get back to Redmond so fast after the meeting he and many other 'corporate captains' met with Bu$h just after 9-11. Would these guys do that?

[me b zola]

80. Gary, please read post #76, just upthread

I feel so much like you do, but at least consider what I have posted.

[nvliberal]

22. If one shifts Green, one shifts Republican. n/t

[mod mom]

51. No, if one shifts DLC, one shifts Republican. Big difference between

Green-Republican not big difference between DLC-Republican.

Look, I closed my business of 17 years to fight for democracy. I DID NOT do this for business as ususal. WE NEED REAL CHANGE, NOT LIP SERVICE AND SOS!

[acmejack]

72. Spot on, Mom!

I admire what you have done, that takes real commitment.

[mod mom]

90. thanks, Mom part means kids and I fight not only for my kids but all the

children of the world. Our planet cannot sustain these greedy sobs who care more about their almighty $ (hidden behind the cloak of Jesus) and their self righteous bs. This is a wake up call to the sheeple. time for some serious re-evaluation of our lives and direction we want our nation to move!

[LoZoccolo]

95. You shift green, you open the door for torture.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2138137&mesg_id=2138137

I would think that letting the Iraq war happen, getting conservative Supreme Court justices nominated, and letting people die in a flood would be enough for splinterist lefties, but maybe they want us to get tortured too.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Never heard of Galston and Kamarck before today.

Should I care what they say?

There will be no compromising on the main issue, because the biggest difference between those on the left and a conservative Democrat is the welfare issue. I hear it time and time again from people who are thinking of switching to the Dems, "I like the Democrats, but I don't like the welfare thing."

You know why that happened? Because the Democrats, like Galston and Kamarck, I imagine, allowed the Republicans to paint a welfare recepient as a black single woman who was leeching off society. What the Democrats, like Galston and Kamarck, I imagine, failed to do is counter this image, like Edwards did, with the reality of welfare, that many were working two or three jobs and still in need of assistance. OR Democrats like Lieberman, who failed to point out that Welfare Kings, like Dick Cheney, were bigger leeches on society. I imagine that's because Lieberman and his buddies are Welfare Kings too.

So, why should the Left be punished for the whimpiness of the moderate and conservative Democrats?

[bpilgrim]

16. more DLC BS - from TWO people, but they get all the ink cause the ELITE

is TERRIFIED of the TSUNAMI heading their way :evilgrin:


more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[soleft]

17. So....we have to execute retarded people in order to win?

I'd rather be the opposition party forever.

[melissinha]

18. We need votes on democratic issues

We KNOW that our party is the moral one, but if our leaders keep cowtowing to the Republicans and not voting like they should we have nothing to campaign with. We need them to lead by example so that we can show actions, not words, is what the party is about.

Thats why we love Conyers, Waxman, Slaughter, Jackson Lee, Watters so much, they are doing EVERYTHING.

I say tell Biden to "straighten up and fly left" and "saionara" to Leiberman.

[garybeck]

23. we need our votes to count!

[melissinha]

31. absolutely, that's one of those issues

Even if we vote for our people, we can't "have faith" that they will be counted fairly. Its all pointless if this issue is not addressed.

[Deep13]

19. Bit of a dilemma.

Swing voters want distict differences between parties and candidates, but also see us as kind of out there. The fact is what we need to do is get back in touch with our base and stop letting Washington and North East intellectual liberals from running the party. We need a clear message that the party works for people with ideas that mean something to them. We need to make a case of national healthcare, conservation, a real education reform and a sane foreign policy. We need to restore financial competence to the government by repealing the Bush tax cuts and getting out of Iraq. Where we do need to move toward the center is on hot-button cultural issues that do not help us. Single-issue voters nearly always are against us despite the fact that they vote against their own interests. This country is far more socially conservative than most of us realize. I grew up in MA, so moving here to Ohio has been a real education for me on that matter.

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. It's about framing wedge issues, period.

[Deep13]

43. can't be done

Remember JK's explanation on his abortion views? Logical and factually accurate, but it still came off as trying to play both sides of the issue. Dubya's explanation was two words, "I'm prolife." Wedge issues always favor their side because our supporters do not vote on those issues.

[LincolnMcGrath]

60. Can be done.

"Who isn't pro-life?"



See how easy that was?

[Deep13]

63. Those who support abortion.

Our target shoots back and has more money and institutional support than we do.

[LincolnMcGrath]

66. "Those who oppose medical privacy."

Working men and women far outweigh the hard-line anti choicers.

[Deep13]

70. They are the same people!

Been in a church lately? The fact is that most Americans are pro-choice, but do not vote on that issue. Anti-abortion voters do vote on that and nothing else even in races where it is irrelevant. Same with anti-gay voters and pro-gun voters.

[me b zola]

82. Bull. The majority of repub women are in favor of choice

The repubs have done a good job, with the help of some soft Dems, in convincing the public that the republican party is overwhelmingly anti-choice---THAT IS A LIE. Same with the lie that the military overwhelmingly votes repub--ANOTHER LIE.

The repukes go to great lengths to create an illusion. When the media no longer questions, and many Dems no longer refute ridiculous falsehoods despite all of the evidence of polling data, then the public begins to believe the lies.

I do not believe that this lie has become urban legend because repukes outspend us. Many (who get free airtime) Dems have stopped refuting falsehoods, hence conceeding that ground.

[incapsulated]

111. Yes, but these two geniuses are *against* framing

"They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: 'The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity.'"

Yeah, like how we won all those races on our detailed "agenda", which was so watered down by people like this no one knew what the fuck it was. Integrity? How do you deal with issues of integrity if you allow yourself to be swiftboated and have your reputation smeared by... Rovian Framing?? Integrity? How to we convey integrity by distancing ourselves from the core values this party is supposed to represent by making ourselves into mushy centrists who stand for nothing and everything?

Stay in Harvard and sell your bullshit to someone who cares. :mad:

[RethugAssKicker]

52. North East intellectual liberals ????

Would you prefer South Eastern non-intellectuals?

I think we have enough of that in the Regressive Party.

We're already center... hasn't helped on bit!. Your logic didn't and won't work!

[Deep13]

62. That would be true ...

... if it was true, but it is not. There is nothing regressive about the national D leadership. The same people have been running our national campaigns for years and we have been loosing for years. Clinton was the exception, partly because he used his own people. The D leadership has failed because it is so afraid of pissing off any particular interest group that it cannot adopt a winning strategy. Plus, it is a bit naive in its perception of the Rs. JK ran the same campaign as Al Gore with the same results. The leadership of the Ds thinks it knows everything and suffers from a kind of group think. Further, they are more concerned with their positions within the party than with party success. D insiders are vicious to those who disagree with them. Take a moderate view on abortion, for example, and you will be run out on a rail. This is despite the fact that generic states like Ohio have two kinds of politician: 'prolife' and unemployed. Our salvation is to be centrist on hot-button social issues, but to be liberal on economic matters, ethics, the environment, civil rights and worker rights.

[Clark2008]

91. Oh, shut it about South Eastern people.

I live in the South East, am from the South East and am marrying a North Eastern liberal.

THIS is the attitude that needs to be dropped from the party - where ever it comes from - that people in the South are stupid.

We're not.

[RethugAssKicker]

119. Look at the educational records and scores.

They say it all!

[fhqwhgads]

64. you have a point...

...at least as far as campaigns go. on the other hand, i think an argument could be made that the democratic party is so inextricably perceived as being on the "wrong" side of all of those hot-button cultural issues that any attempt to move to the center would seem disingenuous.

it's not just the heartland that's socially conservative, by the way. i live in the suburbs, in one of the bluest parts of solidly blue new jersey, and yet the everyday conversation i hear around me is much more to the right than i would expect. it's only when i go to work in manhattan that the dialogue changes.

i'm the most pessimistic person i know, but i see no way out and no end in sight.

[Deep13]

67. Clinton did it.

He was pretty progressive despite NAFTA, yet he avoided two hot-button issues by supporting the death penalty and welfare reform. Those issues are now non-issues because of it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. Welcom To DU

"it's not just the heartland that's socially conservative, by the way. i live in the suburbs, in one of the bluest parts of solidly blue new jersey, and yet the everyday conversation i hear around me is much more to the right than i would expect. it's only when i go to work in manhattan that the dialogue changes.'


You nailed it...

People on the left only talk to people who think like them and consequently think everybody thinks like them...

It's like the unfortunate woman who lived on the Upper East Side Of Mahattan in 1972 and couldn't belive Nixon won in a landslide since "all her friends voted for McGovern."


Oh, the right does it too but I could care less my concern is for the Democratic party...

[calico1]

20. The Party has already shifted too far to the

"Center." So far that in fact the Democratic Party today is similar to the Republican Party in the 60's. A lot of eligible people don't vote. They don't vote because they see both parties as being the same or not much difference. They want something different. Not a choice between Republican and Republican lite. If the Democratic Party shifts more to the center, which really means right it will become even weaker. This is totally the wrong advice and I hope most Democrats in office do not agree with it.

[Larkspur]

24. Dems shift to center = Dems being permanent minority party

The DLC and Clinton Elitests want to be the big fish in the little pond. Their bread is buttered by corporate donors. They don't want to answer to ordinary Americans.

[G_j]

25. Did these Dems help write Bush's speech yesterday?

nope, but you could have fooled me

A QUESTION OF VISION
Sherle R. Schwenninger, The Nation

Rather than pointing us in a more constructive direction,
much of the Democratic leadership is reinforcing a foreign
policy agenda that has divided us from the world.

http://www.alternet.org/story/26352 /

<snip>
Unchastened, the neoliberal wing of the party wants the Democrats to repeat this gambit by toughening their rhetoric and committing yet more resources to the fight against what they describe as Islamic jihadism. In a New Republic essay late last year, Peter Beinart called on Democrats to rediscover their "fighting faith" and to commit themselves to a new generational struggle against "Islamic fascism."

More recently, Blueprint magazine, the house organ of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a statement on national security, signed by leading Democrats, urging the party to "make winning the war against Islamic jihadism the party's first priority." The group's agenda--prosecuting the global "war on terror," democratizing the Middle East and increasing the military's ground forces--is echoed by likely Democratic presidential candidates, including Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

..more..

[leveymg]

27. Just as the GOP Right is fragmenting, the Dems should also fragment and ?

What, move Right, again? That seems to be a Rightist strategy for the Dems to loose yet again.

To the contrary, what we're seeing is the last gasp of the DLC, not the beginning of a Clintonian revival within the Democratic Party. It's time for the Democratic Centrists to distance themselves from the GOP, abandon conservative policies, and let the Republicans complete their process of self-destruction in full view of the American people.

The Republicans are going to loose big in 2006 and 2008. The Dems should stand up proudly for what we are - the progressive alternative to failed policies of the defunct conservative movement.

[Stand and Fight]

28. I call bullshit.

If Democrats shift FURTHER to the Right, then we'll surely have a one party state.

Who the fuck are these two idiots anyway? Intellectuals my left leaning butt cheek!

[garybeck]

55. me too

this "shift to the right" makes me think Rove has planted his helpers into the Democratic party.

[Stand and Fight]

79. And so we agree, garybeck.

I have long suspected this. I believe my own county party has been infiltrated by Republicans -- to make it worst, one of them was elected County chairman over me! I was accused of being too liberal because I took part in the Sheehan vigils!

[MisterP]

131. the PPI is a think thank with a PNACer chief and a PNAC agenda

with Blair quotes added in.
The PPI also has an office in the DLC HQ...
If PNAC is fulfilled by Will Marshall instead of Rove, that's just as good for the masters behind both.

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. More DLC B.S.

:puke:

High gas prices;

High heating costs;

Stagnant wages;

Shrinking health coverage;

Massive underemployment;

Social security at risk;

Labor under attack from two new scotus corporatists;

Womens rights at risk;

etc, et al, ad nauseum

Yeah, what the fuck, run to the center you corporate boot-licking fuck balls! No reason or opportunity to energize working folks. :eyes:

[Dhalgren]

30. Is it just me or do these two statements contradict each other?

The report "said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy." And - "the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans."

If the number of socially liberal voters is rising and in an amount that is pulling the Party to the left, then how can they say that there aren't enough left-leaning voters to make adhering to the base viable? There are a larger number of left-leaners than there are Republican base (just look at the respective turn outs for any demonstration by either camp). If the Democratic Leadership moves the party to the right, they WILL lose a sizable portion of their base. The left just ain't gonna take it anymore. If we have to be out of power, we might as well be out of power while sticking to our principles; we've already done the out-of-power-while-selling-out-your-principles-thing...

[melissinha]

35. I was thinking that this morning

Listening to Chris Hedges on the Morning Sedition...

No more compromising, because of the damage Bush has DONE, Democrats need to get to work and stop playing within the framework established by the Republican party. We don't need to debate them on science vs creationism, creationism is so assenine. This whole theocratic "have blind faith BS" is attacking reason and logic to remain in power. We need to use real reason and logic to dethrone them.

Here's reason:
War is not a Christian value

Democrats who voted for CAFTA should be replaced, we don't need you boggin us down.

I think we need to start running real democrats against fake ones. Lieberman is a disgrace, out!

[omega minimo]

45. The embedded lie is about who "most Americans" are

"the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans."

"They" think Americans are stupid and a lot of effort has gone toward making Americans stupid. But people who are not "liberal" or "progressive" or even "Democrat" know what is going on in this country. They know the Republicans are Big Liars supported by Limbots and Rapturists. They bought the anti-politician "both sides do it" meme....

MORE CORPORATISM FROM DEMOCRATS WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL. Is that what they want? Maybe it IS one corporatist party and our mistake is to think the Democrats are capable of pulling their head out of the sand? Maybe it's warm and cozy in there.

[acmejack]

34. A couple of Bios for the authors.

DLC/PPI hacks, both!



Here is a smple of his wrting, note it is posted!



Her

[LincolnMcGrath]

40. Great find! I really didn't need to look though.

The DLC is plugged full of former GOP activists. Yet, certain DUers try to shame those of us who repeatedly call for their heads on a pike.

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

36. Flamebait in the Post? FALSE DICHOTOMY!

The Democrats have got to get a clue. I think when people talk about "the base" and "swing voters" they are thinking theoretically and abstractly, rather than about people that they KNOW.

"...some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy ...which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

That is a totally false argument. Heading for the Democratic base will DRAW the "swing" voters. Being REAL Democrats and speaking clearly -- WITHOUT THE SPIN, HANDLERS, MBA BS-- will reach the base and the swing voters.

AND WE HAVE TO GET THE NON-VOTERS. The huge group of young, smart cynics who don't bother voting cuz they think it's ONE CORPORATE PARTY.

That is not "radical" or "progressive" or "fringe." JQ Public knows who is running the show-- the sooner the Democrats figure that out and quit trying to pander to a non-existent cliche voter, the sooner they will start succeeding.

:patriot:

[Cults4Bush]

103. Exactly!! Why is this so hard for Dems to grasp! How many non-voters

are out there? Not just the registered who didn't bother but the ones so jaded they dont any point at all in taking part in the system.

Why are they jaded, what is the bulk sense of discontentment there and shouldn't we doing study after study as to why and reframe to accomodate or at least spark their apathy enough so that it burns away with the fire of passion. That fire will only come to flame when we pay attention to what the disaffected and the dispossesed see in a political party that would stand for them and be worthy of their time and consideration and maybe their vote.

Playing softball is not going to impress anyone who has been lobbed nothing but grenades.

[garybeck]

37. I'll tell you what "to the center" means

it means not taking a stand against the war
it means not being overly critical of bush
it means going after support of big business, instead of people
it means more NAFTA-like legislation
it means "family values" and religious morals that do not help families or support ideals written in the scriptures.

it means republicrats and democans.

[mmonk]

38. Illegal wars

and civl liberties restrictions are not center. Therein lies the lie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I Just Win To Elections..

I offer nothing to this debate other than to cite the composition of the electorate....



VOTE BY IDEOLOGY



Liberal (21%)

Moderate (45%)

Conservative (34%)

The numbers speak for thesmselves....


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[garybeck]

54. that is useless.

unless you ask about issues, you are only surveying people on their definition of words. if you made everyone read the definition of the word "liberal" first, you'd get different results.

ask about the issues -

do you care about the environment?
do you care about the poor?
do you support the war?

then you'll get different numbers....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Conservatives And Moderates Are Too Stupid To Know They Are Liberal

Been there....

Done that....

[Marr]

86. Those numbers are meaningless. Everyone considers themselves

a "moderate", but ask them where they stand on national healthcare, decent wages, public transit, education, Social Security, etc., and you'll see how many liberals are really out there.

Just because the right has conducted a successful smear campaign on the *word* "liberal", doesn't mean they've defeated the position.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. I Disagree...

Believe what you want...


If it comforts you to believe that conservatives and
moderates are too stupid to know they are liberal than that belief can be your salve when we keep using elections...

[Marr]

118. That's the sort of crap strawman argument I'd expect to hear from Rush.

Who said they were "too stupid to know they're liberal"? I said the *word* liberal has been tainted, and people shun it. There's broad support for many *liberal policies*, like national healthcare.

If it comforts you to grab your ankles for the Liebermans of the world, you're the one who's gonna need salve, my friend.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. I'm A Pragmatist... I Want To Win Elections... Martyrdom Doesn't Suit Me

I shared with you documentary evidence that demonstrates the -percentages of voters who define themselves as liberals , conservatives, and moderates...Numbers that have remained more or less constant for the last four deacdes..


When I said that some folks think conservatives and modeates are too stupid to know they really are liberal I was cutting through the bullshit...


Oh, Lieberman and the Corpulent One... LMFAO@ dem... Nice use of strawmen... One's a clown... The other is besotted...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. The moderate wing of the Republican Party is what they want to become.

Not that they're very far from that now - with the exception of a few holdouts.

[Solly Mack]

44. Damn the well-educated! Everyone knows the more educated you are

the bigger danger you are to democracy!

[bee]

47. "Galston and Kamarck -- whose work was sponsored by Third Way"

Anyone surprised that a DLC funded study comes out in favor of the DLC?

[leesa]

48. More DLC "I wanna be a Republican" crap.

[mmonk]

49. Right, center, or left

are just perceptions in a particular time and place. Right now, more than any other period in American history (because of the stakes), we need an opposition party and public discourse in this country.

[Mutley]

57. A shift to center puts them closer to liberals than they are now!

[ProfessorGAC]

The Strategy, Idiots(!), Is To MAKE The Middle Lean Left

The RNC strategy was NOT based upon energizing the base. That's a complete misread of what they did in 2004. They used fear to get the swing voters to lean rightward, even against their own best interests.

The strategy that these two idiots are promoting, isn't even a strategy. It's a tactic. The strategy isn't to target left leaning voters, but to get more voters to lean left.

Boy, these two are dumber than dirt. No wonder Silverspoon won.
The Professor

[TreasonousBastard]

61. Complete load of crap based on a false premiss,,,

that the Democratic Party is simply Congress and the White House.

Fact is-- we are strong at the state and local levels across the country, even in "red" states. And, we do have close to half of Congress, and may get more than half soon enough.

Locally, people vote for who they are most comfortable with to fill the potholes and not cause any trouble. The elections are also, more often than not, controlled by local party machines. Both parties. Broad national policy issues rarely come up in, say, City Council elections.

Nationally, it's not much different. People vote their congresscritters on the basis of what they can do for them. Kansas farmers have a far different view of things than San Francisco artists.

In all cases, where the elections aren't manipulated, it's perception more than anything else. Many people might have a handle on a few issues that interest them, but most don't know or care much about the rest of it. They vote on trust that a candidate will handle all that other stuff properly.

Probably far more important than fraud or policy for House seats is the oddball disticting that goes on to make seats safe for one party or the other. Used to be a deal between the parties that most seats would remain safe with a small number "in play," but DeLay and his ilk have broken the deal and forced more Republican districts.

[EFerrari]

68. It's WaPo Bull

I wonder how they know how many "left leaning" voters there are when we can't even count the vote?

:eyes:

[Toots]

73. What they are saying is "We already have the left's vote so we will go for

the middle as well" They are taking me and those who think similarly for granted. Same thing they have done with the black vote for years. They do not automatically have my vote. I am an Independent and will vote for the person no matter what party although I find it very hard to imagine I would ever vote for a Republican and almost as hard to imagine I would ever vote for a DINO. If they do not represent Democratic values I will not vote for them PERIOD. I have survived these past five years and not pleasantly or happily but I have survived and will continue to do so no matter who gets elected. I will not be coerced into voting against what I feel is right. There are some issues that don't need to be addressed such as "Under God" in the Pledge or Gay Marriage or Abortion but if those issues do come out then by God my candidate better stand up for right and equality for all.

[omega minimo]

74. Who the hell are we talking to?

Not each other, apparently

[Individualist]

75. DLC horse hockey

[smartvoter]

77. Interesting timing -- just as the right is imploding, DLC crap about not

going left.

[ultraist]

81. PAID FOR by: Hillary Clinton for Pres campaign

Two researchers closely associated with the Clintons advise the party to move to the center all while Hillary is repackaging herself as a centrist, to run for president.

HOW convenient. I call BS.

[Marr]

84. They'll shift right if the public LETS them- you bet. Lots of money in it.

If that's what they do, I'll go Green.

[BurtWorm]

85. I wonder if Edsall snuck in a little satire at their expense...

<<They suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner, by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson and by calling for an end to welfare "as we know it.">>

Now to find a "semi-retarded" death row inmate to sacrifice...

:eyes:

[the_real_38]

87. That's one way to get me to not vote for them...

... .

[madfloridian]

88. This is why we support the DNC and Dean.

It is the only way to take the power out of their hands. These two are DLC/PPI/Third Way.

[redqueen]

94. I hope Dean has some choice words to say about this "study" n/t

[blm]

123. Kamarck was one of Dean's people in the primaries.

She's dead wrong about shifting right. Why was she for Dean shifting left in the primaries? He's staying left while she urges others to move right...that doesn't compute...he should have a talk with her.

Kerry lost because of rigged machines and rigged media that covered for the machines.

They want to pretend he lost because he was too liberal.

[madfloridian]

133. Elaine K. posted at the blog for a while after the election...

She was on board with him for a long time.

I sort of felt sorry for her the way she got attacked by the Deaniacs. Most were pretty nice, some were not. She was sounding just about like she is now.

Do you remember the TNR article about possible retribution to DLC people who supported Dean? She was one of them...and she seems to be toeing the line pretty good now.

Another was Ivo Daalder, and he is not making much effort to sound less like a warhawk. He is not as bad as some though.

I think the Third Way is making stuff up about the way the country wants to go.

[blm]

134. I agree. I don't know why she wants to buck Dean now.

The best thing he ever did, in my book, was move left and allow himself the opportunity to really UNDERSTAND the more liberal part of the party. Once he understood, he adjusted for real, and for that I give him all the credit that move deserves. It's a hell of alot easier to give into Clinton style centrism, but it's not where the party is really at anymore.

[crispini]

89. Your headline completely misrepresents the article's content.

This is just flamebait.

[redqueen]

93. Time for a schism?

Guess they want to see the utlimate demise of the party.

[NashVegas]

97. At This Point, a Shift to the Center WOULD Be a Left Turn

Where the Democratic Party is concerned.

[LoZoccolo]

99. The Democratic voters are more centrist than DUers acknowledge.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=240

Whine, cry, threaten, and "predict" demise all you want, but the voters are not as left as you all might be, and if you're willing to splinter or even spread discontent without so much as lifting a finger to get the people on your side, you are being selfish, vain, and irresponsible, and victimizing all those people who are affected by the difference between Democrats and Republicans. So far, we've seen that these people are:

- soldiers who now have to risk their lives in Iraq if they haven't already been injured or killed
- people facing losses, injury, and death due to Hurricane Katrina

You all might not care about these people. I do.

[BurtWorm]

100. When has moving right unambiguously helped Democrats?

1992, you say? The year Bush the watch-watcher/economy wrecker/tax-cut-promiser ran against Slick Willy and Batty Perot? The year when given a choice between two "conservatives" from Texas a plurality picked the Democrat?

[LoZoccolo]

105. Yes.

Also, off the top of my head, Melissa Bean won a congressional district in Lake County nearby to me, and her campaign signs didn't even mention she was a Democrat. The 1994 congressial shift had a lot to do with shifting alliances in the south, as well, so you can't really blame the DLC for that. But compare Mondale and McGovern to any other races. Also, compare the farther-left candidate's showings against Bush* in primary polls.

[BurtWorm]

110. Mondale and McGovern ran against allegedly popular incumbents

Bush daddy was not one of those. McGovern was also virtually handpicked by the Nixonites--remember? It wasn't just for his anti-war side that they wanted him. It was for his not being Ed Muskie. Remember? And Mondale wasn't exactly a yippie.

The point is, the constantly touted rightward shift strategy is an unproven risk.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. When Did A Democrat Run As A LiberalAnd Win?

Please don't say it was JFK....


John Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy and accused the Eisenhower-Nixon administration of allowing a "missile gap " to grow between us and the Soviet Union during their tenure in office...


In a nation where approximately forty five percent of voters call themselve moderate, thirty four pecent call themselves conservatives, and twenty one percent call themselves liberals it seems obvious what a winning electoral strategy looks like...


Oh, if you are going to suggest that conservatives and moderates are too dumb to know they are really liberal don't waste your time...

[BurtWorm]

121. Johnson, despite his war, ran as the Great Society liberal

and won in a landslide. Then his war did him in.

I only answer because you asked.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. " despite his war, "

That's like asking Mary Todd Lincoln how she liked the play...


But you have a point...


I think Americans will accept a progressive leader as long as they are convinced he or she has "balls" and will protect their interests...


Nothing in the above sentence is intended to suggest "having balls" means getting us into quagmires like Nam and Iraq though I do think the situation in VietNam was possibly more retrievable and the stakes were lower....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. A More Useful Exercise

A more useful exercise would be to compare Clinton to the contemporary Democrats who lost... McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore,and Kerry...


Oh, I would take a one hundred year reign of Clinton than eight years of BFEE but I'm not a purist...

If I want to see the new Jerusalem created I'll wait and pray for The Rapture....

[BurtWorm]

122. I would take Clinton over this crap for sure.

I'm not a purist. But I wouldn't recommend that the party go right when it doesn't have to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. It's Not About Going Right...

I think Kerry ideologically pretty much captured the center...


I think Kerry's problem was that enough folks didn't really believe that Kerry's positions were authentic to him....


He's a decent and bright fellow but he wasn't able to overcome the caricature of him as the elitist New England liberal...

[BurtWorm]

128. Kerry definitely moved right.

I say this as someone who voted for a very different Kerry for Senator in 1984. He positioned himself as a centrist leading into the 2004 primaries. But his message after winning the primaries was "Bush said he'd do all this right wing stuff. He didn't do any of it right. I will do it better." (Not I will do left wing stuff.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. Exactly...

Kerry moved right but a lot of folks didn't buy it... They saw it for what it was ; a calculated move to the center and not an authentic change in ideas...


I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro decriminalization of most drugs and prostitution...If I was running for office in most areas of the nation I would have two choices; modify my positions or get trounced...


Ideologies of voters could be plotted on a Bell Curve that tilts slightly to the right...

The point I am trying to make in vain is that a candidate has to strike a balance between what is desired and what is possible...

A would be leader can have the best plans in the world but unless he or she can get themselves elected they are worthless..

[ultraist]

101. Your article is about Deaniacs

Not all of us who are not centrists are Deaniacs, I'm not. I didn't support Dean during the primaries although I do now support him as DNC Chair.

[LoZoccolo]

106. I think most people will catch the similarity. n/t

[Cleita]

102. Well, that worked so well in 2000 and 2004, we definitely

should do that again. :sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

104. I don't see where it says the Dems are planning anything

Two centrists suggest. Whether the Dems will agree, we don't know.

Some here have also said we need to be more Rove-like. I don't agree.

Some thought Kerry was already too far to the right. Of course, it depends on who's lookin' at him.

Right now the party is a pushmepullyou. We shall see.

[IntravenousDemilo]

107. Never trust consultants

I've never met one who was worth the toilet paper he was smeared on. More companies have been ruined through following the recommendations of consultants than by just about anything else.

[Ksec]

108. Does it matter?

Either way we will be pigeonholed by the repugs.

Theyll say all we stand for are Gays and abortion...like always , and the Gays and the abortion advocates will play along. Like always.

[LSdemocrat]

125. Incredibly misleading thread title

Two random experts do not control the Democratic Party.

[Zhade]

132. Considering the DLC admitted that centrists ARE NOT the base...

...this is a false premise from the start.

Today's liberals are yesterday's moderates, and these liars want to move even more to the right?

Not with MY fucking vote.