Let's Reject The "Centrist" Positioning - The Clinton Model Is Dead

[stopbush]

Now, before you flame me for launching flame bait, hear me out. I was a big Bill fan when he was in office. I did great under him financially and was living the American dream (as in making about $22k per year in 1991 to making $150k per year by Jan, 2001). So this isn't a bash Bill thread. It's a "take a look at the R's strategy and you'll see we Dems are making some big mistakes" thread.

I'm prompted to write this because Bill's thoughts and advice have been all over the airwaves since the election. To quote Bill Maher, that's SO pre-bush! I'm afraid that we Dems are clinging to the Clinton legacy for one simple reason: he's the only Dem who's been elected pres in the last 24 years. Because of that, we give his ideas lots of cred, too much cred. Bill was a man of his times, and his centrist strategy worked for him *at the time.* But it isn't going to work now.

While the R's have been advancing an agenda that moves further and further to the extreme right, we have been moving more to-wards them, ending up in the center. The center, where battles are not won these days. The R's are a clearly defined party that has over the past 30 years steadily and relentlessly pulled the country in its direction. By contrast, we Dems have NOT tried to pull the country back to the left. Rather, we've been content to win on the rare occasion and bask in the middle.

I'd put it to you this way: imagine that the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if the Dems were the ones who controlled the WH for 16 of the last 24 years. Imagine if the R's did the Dem routine and gave incredible weight to the one candidate they had managed to put in the WH. You can't imagine it, can you? Go ahead, pick any one of them. If it were Reagan, do you think the R's would be looking for a candidate that was alot like Reagan to run in 08? Nope. How about Bush Sr? Nope. How about shrub? Nope. Do you honestly think a Reagan or Poppy could get elected in today's political climate? I think the answer to that is Bob Dole...and Poppy Bush in 92.

Friends, the next R candidate will be even MORE right wing than shrub. It is the course they're set upon, the course that *started* with Reagan and has led to shrub. We sit around praising the ONE guy we put up that won the WH, living in the past and the "if only" realm of mists and spirits while the Rs eat our lunches as they stay the course on their longterm agenda.

You know, there was a time when Dems resembled Rs in their ability to hold the WH. That was the period from FDR through Carter when Rs were few and far between in the WH. Look at the GREAT things that Dems accomplished in those days by *being Democrats!* We had principles, programs and power to shake the earth. We sure as hell didn't get that by pretending to be Rs, compromising our beliefs and taking blows to the gut every four years.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but with all due respect to Bill Clinton and his campaign team, we Dems need to get back to our left wing roots, keep our eyes on THAT prize (rather than winning the WH in the short term) and offer this country the greatness that can ONLY come from true liberalism. I still love ya, Bill, but we truly need a course change if we're ever to return to the days when Dems owned the WH and the country voted with the angels.

Just a few thoughts from a 50-year-old lifelong Dem who is tired of eating the double-decker shit sandwich every election cycle.

[saracat]

1. Hooray! Great post! This is what I have been trying to say

But you said it wonderfuly. Kudos! Yay!

[rawtribe]

2. Thank you

I think you express the views of allot of us. 45 year old life long Dem.

[ever_green]

3. You bet. Good post.

We need to get over to the left where we belong. No more "Bush-Lite" garbage. We need identity.

[erniesam]

5. I agree, thank you for articulating it so well.

[carnie_sf]

4. Make liberal

a compliment again

[bobbieinok]

6. thinking about how many people I voted for since 64 actually won

but up until dem stupidity in Reagan's first 2 years, things went pretty well, good stuff for people was accomplished...... the democratic party had a majority in congress .... sometimes both houses, sometimes just one

so I started thinking, maybe we should put our major attention into congress....then it's easier to organize/know each other, etc at the state level than at the national

I got the impression from some DU posts that in some states 'new dem blood' was forcing life into near dead county and state parties

[Protagoras]

7. The New Paradigm...LIBERALISM

I know...it's a radical concept...feeding, housing, educating people and all that. But I think it just might work. If only we can stop chasing the repukes rightward long enough to try it.

[RummyTheDummy]

8. I disagree on one part

I think where we find ourselves now is not completely unlike where we found ourselves after Carter, Dukakis and Mondale were anhilated in back-to-back-to-back elections. With the exception of Carter, Mondale and Dukakis were liberals. In 1992, Clinton ran in the middle as a centrist and won.

See, I'm not willing to blame this completely on where we are as a party -liberal-conservative-moderate and I don't think we have to settle on one viewpoint. I think this loss can be attributed to two things.

1-The changing horses in mid stream argument as it relates to the bogus war on terra and Iraq. I think a good number of voters made up their minds with this argument. We've all heard the historical point of no incumbent losing re-election during a war.

2-As much as we liked Kerry at DU, I'm not sure he ever connected to non partisan voters, people who aren't at all loyal to one party, in a way that they ever viewed him as likable. Clinton just connected with people in that way Kerry and Gore couldn't. Gore should have won by a landslide. It's supericial but it can be argued the most successful Dems of all time connected with the people - FDR, JFK, Carter and Clinton. There's a reason Clinton survived the Jennifer Flowers flap in '92 and there's a reason he left office with approval ratings Shit Head coul only dream of.
I think it's more important in the grand, sometimes superfical, scheme of winning elections that first and foremost the next candidate must have a certain degree of natural charm. If he's ultra liberal and fits that bill, so be it. If he's a centrist and fits that bill, so be it. The one thing we don't want is a DINO and I don't think that's going to happen.

All of this is good news. Eventually that kind of candidate will come around again.

[DELUSIONAL]

9. Agree -- we need to take back the word Liberal

and we have to let the uneducated voters know how liberal ideals have improved their lives.

Social Safety net being the catch phrase for dozens of Liberal programs.

[mopaul]

10. you're right, the old way of thinking is getting us nowheresville

and we need to git a whole lot tougher

[dbt]

11. Well done, stopbush!

I have been a Clinton fan since his first term as Governor here; I love the man. On the other hand, he truly subscribes to the theory that politics is the art of compromise.

And after reading about half his book so far, one of Clinton's blind spots seems to be a constant underestimation of how vicious the right wing truly is. Whatever they will compromise on is what they never wanted anyway. So the Dems compromise--and the Pugs giggle as the supposed Opposition moves ever farther to the Right.

Who was it who said, "Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who votes like a Republican, voters will pick the real thing every time?"

Bill, I love you, but shut the fuck up. 'K?

:freak:
dbt