I don't want the Dems to go so far left BEFORE the election that they become unelectable

[NNN0LHI]

I want the Dems to do and say whatever they need to do and say to GET elected so after the election they have the ability to move the entire country to the left where they want to be anyway.

Example. Most American want out of Iraq so bad they can taste it. But very few Americans want to be seen as losing if we do leave. Maybe none?

Does that make sense?

Don

[TwilightGardener]

1. Joe Biden and Hillary made good points at the debate last night--

withdrawal from Iraq needs to be slow, careful and responsible. Any whiff of "precipitous withdrawal", or of leaving in disgrace, will send the proud-but-scared sheeple back to the arms of the 'Publicans. Very important that our candidates send the proper message on this. I think Hillary is the best in this regard.

[alarimer]

102. We're leaving in disgrace no matter what

The real disgrace is that it ever happened at all.

We destroyed a country and caused a civil war. We should hang our heads in shame. It is disgraceful, all of it.

[Warpy]

2. Where is the center?

The majority want us out of Iraq.

The majority know health care is a disaster and want it fixed.

The majority know the oil refiners are gaming the system and want the monopolies broken up.

The majority know wages need to rise and by a lot.

The majority know the tax system is seriously flawed and favors billionaires as it falls too heavily upon working people.

That's where the MIDDLE is, folks. It's not the left, despite what timid, conservative propagandists within the party would like to tell us. Packaging another candidate as a bland, business as usual, Reagan was right, don't rock the boat, pallid GOP lite nobody is not going to work.

Any candidate who really wants to get elected needs to take a page out of Gov. Brian Schweitzer's book. He ran as a plain spoken progressive and won one of the reddest states in this country, Montana.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Yea, I want to get right on all that stuff ASAP

ASAP is when the Dems control the White House and Congress.

Don

[Virginia Dare]

11. Correct, but here's the problem..

when it comes down to the election, the Repukes will run on wedge issues and swift boating, both of which have been PROVEN to win elections. I sucks, but that is the reality of it, the American electorate are SUCKERS, which is why they keep getting SCREWED. How do we break that cycle?

Much of this was explained very well in the book "What's The Matter With Kansas".

[Warpy]

35. We're also seeing wedge issue fatigue

as the country is falling apart in front of our eyes.

My guess is that people are a little more concerned with keeping their jobs this time instead of whether or not some party girl in another state can still get an abortion.

Plus, church people are feeling just a little bit used right now. There is rebellion in the ranks.

[Virginia Dare]

41. I hope so..

but I've been saying this for a long time. I really thought 2004 was the year when people would see through all the bullshit. Sadly, it didn't come to pass.

[TheBaldyMan]

68. on the contrary - the RW dirty tricks campaigns don't work, they still have to steal elections

Kerry won remember, so did Gore. The neo-con cabal that has hijacted the Republican party stole the election twice. A flood of democratic voters put the current congress in power in Nov '06 in spite of the ballot box stuffing. The party is disenfranchising those who voted for them.

[jwirr]

18. Very good points.

[speakclearly]

61. I am amazed!

I can't believe that so many people here are saying, "Hey, we can't let the American people know what we really believe, want or will do once we take power, because then they won't support us." Instead you are advocating hiding behind a mask to deceive the voters? Is that what is being suggested? Do we really wna t democracy where we have to hide our true nature and policy because only a minority will support it? If that is the case, can we really claim to be the "majority" even if we win? This thread really has me embarrassed. I didn't think progressives were this way. I thought we had more confidence in the "rightness" of our message. Now I find that my fellow progressives either don't trust teh message, or don't trust the American people to support it! That's a really sad prospect! Imagine that same spirit being applied to many other "ethical" issues of the past: slavery, voting rights, segregation, environmental protection, safe water, electrification, etc. This makes us look as deceitful and prevaricating as the Repugs argue that we are. Can we talk this way and still claim to have the "moral high ground"?

[Nederland]

89. That's a list of problems

Make a list of possible solutions and you won't find a majority anywhere. That's the crux of the problem.

[WinkyDink]

3. Today's "Left" = Yesterday's Eisenhower. So I'd like a little MORE listing, as it were.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. I agree. No more DINO presidents. nt

[Virginia Dare]

13. Were Clinton/Gore DINO?

Was Jimmy Carter? Your DINO may not be my DINO.

[bobbolink]

28. Without a doubt.

[WinkyDink]

85. Not crazy about NAFTA, myself. And that whole airline de-reg hasn't worked especially well.

[barb162]

99. NAFTA was and is a disaster for the American labor force

[Yael]

4. It makes sense to me

*puts on flame proof suit*

I cringed when DK jumped on the reparations question with a hearty "yes and with no questions!" response.

We want health care, we want out of Iraq and we are sick of being raped at the gas pumps while ExxonMobileShellCitgo are positively printing money -- BUT BUT BUT in order to see change, we need cross overs and in LARGE numbers. We need to send a message to this country that the corruption will not be tolerated any more.

That will not happen on a platform of far-fringe-left policies. That will only alienate those who would otherwise support real change (and not a DLC clone)

[KG]

6. no danger of that.

the dem party isn't anywhere near left, and is in fact still, as for the last 25 years, running as hard as it can from the word.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. I get annoyed with people who disparaage "far left" without defining it

:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

15. Its because there is no finite definition of "far left"

I consider myself "far left" but I still may not agree with someones opinion who considers themselves "far left" on any given subject.

See what I am trying to say?

Don

[Virginia Dare]

16. Exactly Don!

my positions on some issues may be considered pretty "left", but not so much on others. What is so frustrating to me is that there are too many out there who think there can be purity in politics. There simply can't be. We all have to find a "middle" ground.

[Blue_Roses]

51. Don't you know

that's just too logical for some on this board:crazy:

The voice of reason..pffft...to hell with it. We need ...:freak:

[SoonerPride]

9. HOW 'BOUT FOR ONCE WE DON'T LET THE RIGHT FRAME THE DAMN DEBATE??

EVERY MOTHEREFFIN TIME we react, we dance, we him and haw, we mumble, we shuffle our feet, we look timid and weak because the goddamned right wing frames the debate and boxes US in.

TO HELL WITH THAT.

Say what we mean and say it LOUD.

You'd be well suprised how many peope would find it refreshing, inspiring, honest, and hunger for that kind of PROGRESSIVE stance.

FUCK BEING TIMID.

I'm so tired of that CRAP.

[Nunyabiz]

12. So then you mean exactly what Kucinich does? I agree

[AndyTiedye]

30. The Reich Wing ALWAYS Gets to Frame the Debate Because They Own all the Microphones!

That is why the far right policies of Bush** are defined as the "center", even though lopsided majorities disapprove of them.

[abq e streeter]

54. Exactly!!!

If the weaselly, scared of their own shadows party "leadership" all aggressively and shamelessly embraced progressive values, and finally stood up defiantly to the Republican/MSM BULLSHIT and forcefully call it what it is, (and we can quibble on the details; that's ok---I'm not a 100% "politically correct" progressive either), even at least some conservatives and middle of the roaders would have more respect for 'em, and be inclined to vote with us. The phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrat" was as much a response to that SOB's attitude and image of standing firmly for something as much as, or more than, any agreement with actual positions on issues. For the second time today, in a posting, I have to ask, WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY AFRAID OF?

[Virginia Dare]

78. I know what I'm afraid of...

President Romney
President Giuliani
President Fred Thompson....

etc.

etc.

But you get the picture..

[abq e streeter]

88. President...

Yeah, seeing those names with the word president in front of them scares the crap outta me too. Its just that in my opinion, spinelessness and continually trying to move towards whatever the Republican/MSM propaganda machine says "the center" is , is exactly how we increase the chances of Republiklans continuing to be elected.

[Virginia Dare]

121. So, do you think Howard Dean would have beat Bush?

:shrug:

[abq e streeter]

123. I think so, if...

Obviously we'll never know,but I think he could have kicked Bush's ass as long as the entire party stood with him and aggressively refused to allow the typical Republican/MSM lies, distortions, swift-boating etc, to go unchallenged and unrefuted. His real message, and his actually being a moderate on more issues than not could have been conveyed to the voters if the party hadn't once again, let the MSM define him. I know, lots of ifs, and he would have had to learn to sometimes think before he spoke a little more...Our side has the right message, but have been inept for sometime at getting it out. Saw a great description of this a few months back; that we approach campaigns like its a law school debate, and they treat it like selling a used car. I believe we can do a lot better job of selling , and still not compromise our principles or integrity. So yes, I think Dean and any other Democrat could have won with an aggressive , don't take any of their shit, stand united for what you believe campaign. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to have this dialogue with me. The fact that we're here on DU means we want the same things for our country, just maybe disagreements on what the most effective ways to get there are.

[Nunyabiz]

10. What you don't realise is that the Democratic base IS FAR LEFT

and these democrats are pissing in their face everyday. They will not win by pissing on their base even the absolutely insane rethuglicans know that much.
We lost in Iraq the day King George the W stole the election in 2000, the best thing we can do is to get out asap, Impeach these treasonous war criminals which would give us back at least a tiny bit of standing in the world showing that we have finally come back to our senses and then get these Neofascist OUT of the oval office and get someone in there with a freaking brain to start some of longest and most sincere ass kissing foreign relations ever witnessed.

The Democrats need to run, don't walk but RUN to as far left as they can possibly get and then start screaming at the top of their lungs.
What we do NOT need right now are Rethuglican Lite candidates that ignorantly think that a rethuglican will ever vote for them.

[Virginia Dare]

14. I can tell you unequivocally that here in Virginia..

the Democratic base is not far left. I can't comment confidently about the rest of the country, but I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the south is that way as well.

[Nunyabiz]

20. Virgina hasn't voted for a democrat president in 40 years

[Virginia Dare]

31. Kerry came pretty damned close..

and the Democrats are definitely on the rise here, so I think 2008 is the year. Apparently Obama is polling very well in Virginia.

[Nunyabiz]

36. well that's good

but unless these democrats stop acting like Rethuglican lite they aren't going anywhere

[Virginia Dare]

43. The Democrats are acting like politicians...

because that's what they are.

[Nunyabiz]

44. exactly, thing is with as phucked up and things are now

we DON'T need politicians, we need STATESMEN.

[ourbluenation]

19. I disagree. Most people, in both parties, are down the middle type folks.

I can say that from my experience in life and in chatting with folks on non political boards where politics comes up. There is a centrist, consensus-building huge chunk of voters right down the middle who are willing to compromise on most issues.

[Raksha]

97. SO WHAT??? "Down the middle folks" are just as fed up

with being robbed blind by the oil companies as we are. They are just as fed up with outsourcing and lack of universal health care as we are. They are just as sick of Bush's illegal war in Iraq as we are. Who exactly are we supposed to be "compromising" with? We ARE the center, and it's only because of the corporate media that the rest of the country doesn't know it yet.

Edited to add: I just re-read your post, and it looks like I was responding to something you didn't actually say. There might not be as big a disagreement as I thought when I read the words "down the middle folks."

[skyblue]

120. Giuliani's numbers should be very far behind the lead Dem Candidate if voters

were that enlightened to be fed up with the Republican party. Not any Democratic candidate can be elected.

Chimpy questionably won crucial swing vote states in 2004 in spite of the fact that we thought everyone with a brain would be against his policies. Swing vote state voters don't always have brains.

[ourbluenation]

124. I'm unclear what any of this has to do with what I said. n/t

[skyblue]

130. maybe nonsequitor but why

do people say in so many polls they will vote for a Democratic candidate vs a R and yet when it comes to individual candidates eg Rudy vs Hil is there little significant difference quantitative wise when there should be one if people are so fed up with the war and republicans. Think it means that people are more centrist..

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

(btw I do take these polls with a little grain of salt and think that perhaps they reflect more california and ny metro voters than all voters thus reflect more of a potential outcome of a pop vote rather than an electoral)

[mondo joe]

21. Measured HOW exactly?

How did the most far left nominees do in the last primaries?

How are the most far left nominees doing now in terms of donations, volunteers or any other measure?

[Nunyabiz]

22. That is because the MSM dictates whom the lemmings vote for

[mondo joe]

24. Please decide: is the base far left or is it just lemmings voting as told?

Which is it?

[Nunyabiz]

29. The base is far left, and the idiot lemmings will still vote for

the Rethuglican Lite candidate in this case Hillary because the MSM have convinced them that she is the real front runner.

[Virginia Dare]

32. So, in reality the MSM is the Democratic base?

:wtf:

[Nunyabiz]

39. Jeebus

the MSM is far Reich wing propagandist that are lying through their teeth on a daily basis and doing everything they can to make Democratic candidates look bad, especially the good candidates such as Kucinich.
So what they do is build up the least liked democratic candidates (Hillary) and make voters believe that if they vote for anyone else their votes would be wasted.

This gives the rethuglicans a chance to make the race close enough so all they have to do is just like they have the past 2 selections and steal just 2 states Ohio/Florida because of the utterly worthless electoral college which makes it child's play to steal elections.

[Virginia Dare]

45. How do you figure the MSM is making Hillary look good?

because every night when I turn on MSNBC or CNN, Hillary Clinton is getting TRASHED. I will buy into the theory that Hillary is being TALKED ABOUT, and Dennis Kucinich is getting ignored, but I don't see any big building up of the other Democratic candidates, with the possible exception of Obama, whom the media seems to have a love affair with right now.

[Nunyabiz]

49. Because she & Obama get 98% of the airtime

airtime IS the advertising, while they simply ignore Kucinich.
They do the same at the debates, whom the media wants elected gets most of the airtime.

[mondo joe]

40. So the democratic base is lemmings?

How do you decide what the base is?

[Nunyabiz]

47. The entire American public are lemmings being led by a

corrupt Reich wing propagandist media.

[Virginia Dare]

48. That, I can agree with...n/t

[mondo joe]

52. This gets more and more curious. By what measure do you claim to know what

the political leaning of the base is? You don't take their word for it, you just decide for them>?

[Nunyabiz]

60. Just about everything I read says so.

http://trltrauma.blogspot.com/2006/01/disconnect-of-democratic-party.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article607043.ece

[mondo joe]

70. So you really don't have anything to base it on.

Just some opinions.

Nothing verifiable.

Thanks.

[Nunyabiz]

92. If that is your criteria then neither do you

Thanks

[mondo joe]

100. You haven't asked me, so how canyou say what I have or don't?

I'd suggested using primary voters as "the base".

I think you could then look at which nominee those voters support, as a gaue of how far left they are. You could similarly look at the number of volunteers of each nominee. Or the number of donors.

But any of that would be much more of a measuer than just saying it's so because that's what you think.

[Nunyabiz]

116. If you believe the polls then I have a nice bridge over looking a swamp

I'll sell you cheap

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Fat chance. The Democratic Party has always been centrist party.

Sometimes leaning slightly left sometimes slightly right.

Even Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would be considered "moderates" in most European countries with real left-wing parties.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Exactly--a British friend told me that in the UK, every Dem candidate

except Kucinich would be considered a Tory (=Conservative), and even Kucinich would only be a centrist in the Labour Party.

[Virginia Dare]

33. Exactly...

Americans have always liked their politics on the timid side, the last time we voted for a bunch of extremists we ended up in a civil war.

[Solon]

93. Interesting, so the abolitionists were extremists? n/t

[Virginia Dare]

122. Some groups were considered so at the time, yes...n/t

[emulatorloo]

25. This is how politics works -- run to the left for primaries, run to the center for general.

Then "rule" on the left when elected.

[Virginia Dare]

34. Yep, that's what Bush did..

except "left" was "right" of course.

[Forkboy]

26. Well I would put that particular fear away.You won't be using it ever again from the looks of things

[bobbolink]

27. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

37. I don't think you have to worry, Don.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. The country is already with us.

I'm not aware of any polls featuring majorities in favor of corporate and political power grabs by the Republicans

[mmonk]

42. Read my sig line.

That's all anyone with integrity should be concerned with.

[Perky]

46. I agree and recoomend

Lefties are needed to pull the party to the left, but elections are not one in middle america by appealing to Simi Valley and Lynchburg, but also views the hard left as stuck in a time warp of the past continually genuflecting towards Haight-Asbury, Auburn Avenue and Harvard Yard. The middle is screaming for competance and effective governance.

We need to campaign and govern in prose rather than poetry.

[mmonk]

50. It's all in presentation.

Look where we are now. If you're against pre-emptive war or if you are for the constitution, people will brand you liberal. Never take the wrong road even if temporary. Present the right road and sell it correctly.

[TheBaldyMan]

53. so now being anti-war and pro-UHC is too left wing for the country?

Wake up, please.

[Subdivisions]

57. When I read the title of the OP, I was thinking the same thing...

wanting to end the war and make government work for the People is "too far left"?

[TheBaldyMan]

59. ... or wanting to remove a pair of blatant criminals from office,

but ... but that boat just won't float in Boonsville, <insert generic red state here>.

[mondo joe]

58. I thought the OP was clear that most people want out of Iraq.

But there is no broad concensus on HOW to get out of Iraq, or what it means to do so.

[TheBaldyMan]

63. hint: Saudi Arabia is right next door and already has US bases built there

an added plus, it would REALLY piss off OBL, the thing that he most wanted (infidel troops out of Saudi Arabia) is something he achieved with 9/11 and the half-baked response to it.

[mondo joe]

64. Irrelevant. The issue is that while there is a broad concensus that the US should

get out of Iraq, there is NO concensus on how to do it or when.

[TheBaldyMan]

66. maybe we should ask the troops patrolling the streets of Iraq their opinion.

They'll probably tell you it's a matter of 'we grab our gear and go'.

If it is possible to get the troops into Iraq within a matter of weeks if not days the reverse should not be beyond the wit of the American GIs.

Incidently they had to fight their way into country, they will, I suspect have their exit roads paved with rose petals. They will be viewed as liberators on the road out of Iraq - liberation from foreign occupation. They will also be seen as doing the right thing, leaving a country that they had illegally invaded and occupied for years.

[mondo joe]

71. You could ask. I suspect there'd be a similar lack of concensus on

HOW.

But this is still irrelevant to the OP, which was about the broad electorate.

[TheBaldyMan]

73. In that case, the question should be "How do we get out of Iraq now".

To be brutally honest your claim of irrelevance sounds like the sort of stuff the RW spin doctors come out with to delay any decision on pulling the troops out.

More people are dying every day, at least admit that a precipitous withdrawal would lessen US casualties at the very least. Continued illegal occupation only makes a bad situation worse.

[mondo joe]

74. To be brutally honest, the reality is that the electorate is not at concensus on

how or when to get out of Iraq.

I am on the side of as soon as humanly possible. But I recongize that opinion is not broadly shared -- nor is any other position on the how or when.

I don't think we can complain that government is not responsive to majority opinion, and then say who cares about majority opinion.

[TheBaldyMan]

76. maybe it's the time for leadership, get the troops out now, discuss it later

the RW will paint it as another 'we could've won in Vietnam if it wasn't for those pesky hippies' scenario. Let them, the end result will be healthier for US foreign relations and healthier for the troops.

Make history and let the RW nuts re-write it.

[mondo joe]

77. So listen to the people, except when you don't want them to?

Okay.

:eyes:

[TheBaldyMan]

81. wtf, who are you to say what the 'people' want ?

Do I understand right, that you are content to let more US service personnel die until the worst informed population in the Western hemisphere makes up its mind while listening to Fox News & CNN ?

I am suggesting that the Democratic Party lead the way out of a disaster area. That is not imposing their will on the people who elected them, it's delivering on the platform that they were elected on.

[mondo joe]

83. It's not me. It's the same sources we use when we say Bush isn't doing what

the people want.

And no, you do not understand me. Furthermore, delivering on the election platform of getting out of Iraq is a good thing that I support. But there remains much to be answered about how that's to happen.

[TheBaldyMan]

90. My suggestion for withdrawal would be quick and ...

troop level reductions in the Gulf could reduced almost immediately.

[Virginia Dare]

80. Unfortunately, nobody is asking the troops..

and the stars in charge say it will take 2 years to get out.

[Virginia Dare]

79. That is precisely why we are IN Iraq..

after 9/11 we left Saudi Arabia like dogs who had been kicked, and promptly set up shop in Iraq. Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it?

[TheBaldyMan]

82. but that would mean the terrorists have won !

and Dubya is the guy who delivered their victory.

[Virginia Dare]

84. The Saudi masters spoke..

and we listened apparently.

[autorank]

55. It's what's always done, then we make the same mistakes over and over

I want a Democrat elected who can get the job done. If they have to do what politicians do, that's fine up to a point. We can't lie anymore, e.g., moderation on environmental concerns, bull shitting on the war.

The appropriate way, imho, to address the war is that we were betrayed - lied into a war that was for purposes other than stated. Now that' powerful, people understand that. Sure, you say nobody can beat us, which is true, but you make the betrayal the main piece. Once elected, the rhetoric changes to the truth: we have to stop being bullies around the world and stop fucking torturing people.

This is a good discussion. I'm not impressed with the three candidates on this issue. They're tepid. I think the real challenge for us is the perception that we're weak.

That comes form, again imho, us laying down and taking crap ALL THE TIME. If you won't even stand up for your own, people thin of the party operation, then what is your major malfunction. They only vote in large numbers when the Republicans are a total disaster.

Somebody said to me (friend who knows I'm hard core) - the most you guys came up with on Iraq after six months is a filibuster. Well, he's right. And we filibustered for the wrong bill - Webb's bill would have ended the war.

So, we need Al Gore to come in - kick ass, take names, get rid of DNC and replace it with something that fights and dump all money from campaigns.

Other than that, things are really good;)

[bobbolink]

67. Well, at least it's all familiar ground.

We wouldn't want to actually step out and pull the country out of the pit, now, would we?

:shrug:

[LSK]

56. define far left???

[Nunyabiz]

62. well according the Media

"Far Left" would be anyone even slightly to the left of Faux Noise, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh.

So to them far left means about 100 clicks to the right of center.

[Individualist]

65. Americans don't vote for weakness

If elected dems stay on their present DLC-directed course, they're going to be in for a surprise.

[WinkyDink]

87. Exactly. LBJ was strong, but became a weakened president over VietNam.

Hence, no re-election run (he wasn't stupid).
Hubert Humphrey? Not a Ready-for-Prime-Time moniker; seen as Lyndon's puppet.
McGovern? Sand-bagged by Eagleton (in a sense); looked indecisive, esp. when no-one wanted to replace Tom. "Peacenik".
Dukakis? "Soft on crime" and looked goofy in that tank.
Carter? No second term; perceived as weak ("Killer Rabbit", anyone?)and ineffectual (hostages).
Gore? Portrayed as needing a woman's help to dress himself.

Clinton was the charismatic exception, and he wasn't a Leftie (Southpaw, yes. :) ).

But the tough old guys--Union, Smoke-filled-Room, Wheeler-Dealers---are gone.

[Individualist]

91. There's still one tough guy who speaks out for what he believes - Kucinich!

He's the one who'll get my vote in '08.

[The Straight Story]

69. By that logic, once they are in office they best not 'go too far left' or they will lose the power

they just gained in a few years.

And then they won't trust dems because they will see they voted for the middle and got the left.

They should run on what they believe.

[ieoeja]

72. No, it doesn't make sense.

Look at the Kansas State Board of Education. Dominionists ran for office keeping their views secret. Once elected they started rewriting the public school curriculum to support biblical parables. The next election they were all dumped and the public school system was restored.

This is a real life and very recent example of a group doing exactly what you propose. And it ultimately cost that group a little of the support they possessed. Because some of their less staunch supporters were disgusted by this action and angry at being lied to.

And you think it will be different if we lie to the voters then pull a fast one on them once we are in office?

Furthermore, consider what happened when the exact opposite was attempted. The Newt Gingrich Republicans successfully moved this country much further to the right than it was when they started. They did not run a stealth campaign. They sold their ideas to the American public while Democrats weren't paying attention (40 years of almost continuous power in the House will do that to you).

Every poll ever conducted says the American public overwhelmingly wants what we want. We just need to get out there and sell ourselves. Not sell ourselves short.

[defendandprotect]

75. What? Like don't condemn TORTURE, don't say Iraq is an "illegal" war -- ???

What are you talking about -- ???

[Solon]

94. He's saying that polticians have to lie to get into office, which is par for the course, they have..

always done it, and to be frank, that's the primary reason why I'm disenchanted with politics, period.

[Sanctified]

86. Going to the left got them elected.

Saying they were going to hold hearings, impeachments and getting us out of Iraq got them where they are. If they do not follow up on their promises it will show they are all bullshit and no action. There are a lot of independent voters who voted Dem because they did not like the direction the current admin is taking them, if Democrats continue to stay the course and follow this admin down the rabbit hole those Independents most likely wont vote for a Democrat next election.

[LWolf]

95. No, it does not make sense.

Where is the assurance that candidates who run to the center-right are going to actually govern from the center-left?

There is no assurance. None. There is just the assumption that they are all lying, and that they really don't mean what they say, that they will be different people once elected.

That's bullshit.

[NNN0LHI]

111. I think they are all lying to some extent. The electorate demands it

Even Kucinich would never run the country as far left as he suggests he would were he to be elected. To do so would be like trying to turn around a charging elephant. It literally could not be done. He would have to make compromises.

Don

[LWolf]

113. This voter demands the truth.

How about transparent campaigns, where the candidates tell the truth, say what they mean, and let the voters decide?

:shrug:

The fact is that Kucinich does exactly what he says he will. He doesn't just make promises about universal health care; he co-writes HR 676.

He doesn't just criticize the bush admin; he introduces H.Res. 333.

He doesn't just talk about getting out of Iraq; he votes "no" on the IWR and on funding the war.

He doesn't just talk about civil liberties; he votes "no" on the patriot act.

I don't think this would change were he to move from the House of Reps to the White House. I don't think all of his platform would magically be enacted without delay, but at least there would be more incentive from Congress to act.

[KoKo]

115. Yep....but everyone considers him "unelectable." Who knows why? I guess he doesn't have STAR POWER

he's called an "elf." :-( Maybe we need some MIGHTY ELFS....but...they can't get elected...so THEY SAY.

[LWolf]

118. The worst of it happens

when enough voters don't buy the "electable" kool aid and join in to vote for the candidate they've judged "electable."

Then you see the viciousness of a gang whose mojo isn't as strong as they claimed.

[OzarkDem]

96. Not a problem - most of the country is moving that way

Its actually not a matter of "left" or "right", its a matter of supporting the Constitution and preserving a representative democracy or not.

Its a matter of investigating and prosecuting elected officials if they break the law, steal from the government lie to the courts and Congress and commit other crimes

Its about balancing the budget and reducing debt to ensure a stable economic future for our country - we can't do that spending billions every month on the Iraq War


These are not "leftist" positions, they've common sense, some right vs wrong, and all backed by a majority of Americans.

These are the basic standards to which Americans hold their government and their leaders. There's nothing "leftist" or "radical" about any of it.

[barb162]

98. Whatever the position is BEFORE the election, should be the same one after

the election. No screwing around trying to fool voters, please. That is IMMORAL!

[dysfunctional press]

101. most of the americans that want us out of iraq realize that we've already lost.

i don't want to elect milquetoast centrists. i'd rather keep losing elections until things get bad enough for people to realize once and for all that the political right is wrong.

[NNN0LHI]

105. Most the Americans I know off-line think the new V-shaped troop carriers may help us win

They aren't completely convinced but they are hoping. That is what Fox news has been telling them.

Don

[dysfunctional press]

106. the insurgents have already figured out how to 'defeat' the v-shaped hull-

they're using MUCH larger ied's, as well as projectile charges.

a force of 350,000 (counting mercs) will not be able to control a country of millions who don't want them there- as long as american troops are in iraq, american troops are going to die.

[NNN0LHI]

109. They don't mention that on Fox though

They just get some retired general on who appears to be in the later stages of Alzheimer's to get all giddy about them new fangled troop carriers and people fall for it because it is what they want to hear.

I was around a group of people who were discussing how great the new v-shaped troop carriers were about a month ago and I asked "Won't the Iraqis just make bigger bombs like they have been doing for over 4 years now?", and they all became quiet and looked at me like I was an insurgent. As if I was letting out a big secret the "enemy" might pick up on.

Whats that tell you about the mind set we are dealing with here?

Don

[KoKo]

103. I'm a Leftie, Don...and have read and appreciated all your posts over these years

we've been trapped in this hell. I hope you aren't going after folks like me...:-(

[NNN0LHI]

104. I hope this doesn't look like I am going after anyone here because I surely am not

This is just my own idea on the situation. Nothing more.

And thanks for the comments about my posts over the years but honestly some of them have been real stinkers.

:)

Don

[KoKo]

114. When you've been here as long as some of us...you got lots of

posts that were "stinkers." I've seen very few from you. Unless you count "stinkers" that go to archives. Sometimes the best posts sink there. But, your body of work...is far from "stinker."

Anyway...glad you aren't trying to diss us lefties and try to throw us under the bus...like the DLC.

Peace!

koko

[abq e streeter]

125. Civil discourse

Just jumping in on this exchange between you and "koko"...and saying I appreciate the respect and civility in your exchange. I'm new here and my intention is to always keep it respectful between me and all other DUers. I have had some not so civil things to say about the "leadership" of my party, and certainly about the right wing, but even then have tried to encourage a certain civility re: personal attacks that are, in my opinion, over the line. An example was saying how disgusting I thought it was that someone hoped Tony Snow would suffer greatly before his cancer takes his life...Coincidentally I have had an exchange on this very thread in which I thanked someone who seems to be challenging some of my opinions for taking the tome to initiate a dialogue. Not tooting my own horn here; most of us are civil and respectful, but I wanted to take a moment to let both of you know of my appreciation for the example you've shown in your exchange.

[depakid]

107. I don't think you ANYTHING to worry about

If history's any guide, the Dems will do anything bold or significant over the next 16 months.

Of course, I doubt that's going to bode well for them in 2008.

[salinen]

108. Dangerous

They should do and say what they intend to do after elected. If not, they behave as Bushco. And Iraq couldn't be more lost. But I understand what you mean, I can taste it too.

[GeorgeGist]

110. not much chance of that ...

[David Zephyr]

112. Thank goodness someone said it. Yes, I agree with you, Don.

"I want the Dems to do and say whatever they need to do and say to GET elected so after the election they have the ability to move the entire country to the left where they want to be anyway."

Yes.

[eridani]

117. Anyone who ever uses the term "far left" is working for the Repubs--

--whether they realize it or not.

[Beelzebud]

127. Exactly... Bill O'Rielly bitches about the "Far Left" every single day.

[mmonk]

119. Left?

The dems are further right than republicans of the past right now.

[Beelzebud]

126. By "far left" do you mean "stand by their principles"?

The only person I hear use the term "far left" is Bill O'Rielly...

[ulysses]

128. I would suggest that we're a long, long way from that. n/t

[woo me with science]

129. So.....basically.....LIE about the true goals and vision?

Did you really just recommend that candidates say whatever they need to say to get elected, even if they don't mean it?

Do you recommend that for both parties, or just Democrats?


When did we get to a point where liberals are afraid to stand up and express with passion what they truly believe and want to accomplish?