2012 is going to be a clear choice of ideology. So let's cut through the bullshit.

[Armstead]

One thing is crystal clear about 2012, regardless of the nuances, personality politics, ultimate GOP candidates, bickering on the left half half of the spectrum, bickering on the right, media spin, etc.

2012 will be a choice between Liberalism and Conservatism.

The nation will be making a choice. On one hand -- the conservative right hand -- the GOP (and perhaps a 3rd Tea Party)represents the ideology of "free market capitalism," deregulation, privatization, Complete Corporate Dominance,no taxes and other measures to starve and shrink the public sector and the role of government....And the inevitable Rule by Oligarchy and the hollowing out of the broader middle class economy.

As a distraction and to placate their socially conservative baser, it will also be a Right-Wing Jihad against minorities, the poor and working classes -- and all who are outside of a narrow spectrum of "Real Americans" -- as well as an assault on women's rights, gay rights and on Freedom from Religion.

On the other side, is Liberalism and Progressive Populism. This hand represents the role of government and the public sector as a positive and necessary counterweight to amoral and immoral market forces, and a check on the power of the Wealthy and Corporate Oligarchy. It is a defense of the public sector and those values to keep keeps society operating and civilized. It will be a fight to protect and support the economic and social interests of working and middle class -- and to ensure the survival of the social safety net and opportunities for advancement for the poor and disadvantaged. It will also be a fight to defend the basic programs and services.

It will also be a defense of cultural, ethnic, political and spiritual diversity against the forces of bigotry and social repression.

Those are the stakes. The side shows are side shows to that fundamental battle. They matter but they are not the Core Contest.

Now the Democratic Party as an institution and President Obama have a choice. The Democrats can waffle and ignore this fundamental theme of the election and squirm away from it and try to be "moderate centrists."

Or instead, they can get off their collective butts and actually represent clear Liberal and Progressive Populism. Give moderates, as well as the liberal base, an actual choice. To the extent they do this, in my opinion, the better they will do politically.

So let's cut through the bullshit and petty nonsense, and ACTUALLY LOOK FOR WAYS THAT THE WE CAN ACTUALLY UNITE AND WIN THIS BASIC IDEOLOGICAL BATTLE BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT.

[NICO9000]

1. The only true defender of liberalism is the man in your avatar

I've come to the conclusion that Bernie is the ONLY one in the Senate who truly is on our side. I don't think he's caved in to corporate blackmail the way his colleagues have no problem in doing so.

[Armstead]

12. Not really true. Bernie is the most visible but there are many others

With the Congressional Democrats there are many who stand for the same principles as Bernie, and who -- in their own way -- defend and fight for liberalism.

What we need to do more is recognize them, and work to empower them more, so their views and proposals can get more visibility and public recognition -- and ultimately more power within the Democratic Party.

[rug]

2. But the ideolological choice is between conservatism and neoliberalism.

Not much of a choice.

[Armstead]

5. That's the political choice -- But there is a deeper choice beyind that

You are correct that there is a narrow political choice. That's one reason I believe we need to push the politics to reflect the actual ideological choices, by supporting those Dems who are liberal and propgressive, and putting pressure on Obama and others who may be on the fence to actually jump onto the liberal side. (Some of the Democratic Centrists are hopeless neo-liberals, but others are persuadable, me thinks.)

[CakeGrrl]

3. Obama vs the GOP challenger. Period.

Anything else is wishful thinking.

[Armstead]

6. Nope. More complicated than that

A lot will depend on HOW Obama chooses to govern and campaign over the next year -- PLUS how the Democratic Party institutionally chooses to govern and campaign.

That includes whether they acknowledge this basic ideological crossroads or attempt to sweep it under the rug, and try to be the Mushy Middle while the GOP and their corporate backers sell convincing lies and distortions.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. It sounds like you're finally getting it, Armstead. Forget about Obama.

Put more LIBERALS in Congress and you've won the battle.

Bernie can't do it all himself! He needs more help.

[Chipper Chat]

18. More prudent would be to get rid of all Tea Party folks in Congress.

Free their grip on the House by defeating them soundly in 2012. Follow Wisconsin's lead.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. Sure. Electing more libera/progressive Democrats *AND* defeating the Teabaggers

are not mutually exclusive. :)

[Armstead]

20. Well, I actually got the point long ago -- especislly in the 90's

Congress is important obviously. I could see that in the 90's -- both the need to ward off the Repugs and also to have more liberal Democrats to push centrists like Clinton to be more honest and liberal.

Obama gets most of the attention now because of his position. But I see it as walking and chewing gum at the same time. We need both branches.


(Pardon my crappy typing. I'm doing this on an IPAD atvthe moment)

[CakeGrrl]

11. Where is your primary challenger?

Where is their support?
Where is their announcement?
Where is the data that supports the idea that they can defeat Obama in enough primaries to win the nomination?


Obama isn't stepping down or aside.

[Armstead]

13. Are you deliberatly missing the point?

[CakeGrrl]

28. "Give moderates, or the liberal base, an actual choice." Meaning what?

There will be a choice, whether people here want to call it one or not: President Obama vs. the GOP challenger. I don't see anyone else with any realistic chance actively seeking the Presidency.

What is it that you want to see the President and the Dems do between now and the election? And what will YOU do if you don't see whatever this action or change take place?

[Vattel]

34. He's not recommending a third party candidate.

He's suggesting that Obama and Congressional Democrats should clearly embrace the liberal values he enumerates and present the voters with a stark choice between those values and the conservative values of their Republican opponents. The alternative is the mushy middle, "we hate high taxes and deficits too," sort of stance and message.

[Armstead]

35. Exactly

[Enrique]

4. nice try, but I'm not buying it

a 2nd Obama term would be a million times better than Rick Perry, but it wouldn't be a liberal presidency. That is something we have to work on for the future, along with a liberal Congress.

[Armstead]

10. No we agree. I am saying....

this is the REAL IDEOLOGICAL CHOICE at all levels, and we all need to apply pressure and push the POLITICAL CHOICE to reflect that more.

We are stuck with the Democratic Party as the only potential counterforce to the GOP/Corporate Machine. We can't just get all fatalistic or self-destructively idealistic (i.e. big 3rd party movement) in this election.

Obama is also not the main issue in this, despite his symbolic importance. But he should receive as much or more pressure from the "liberal base" to force him to at least take some stands and help to clarify the larger stakes.

[Enrique]

14. the "corporations are people" line could have been a start

Romney got a lot of crap for saying that, and it's actually a rare bit of substance in a presidential campaign. After getting crap, Romney came back and said "yeah, I said it and I meant it." he even said he'd make it a defining issue of his campaign.

Yes, the DNC ran a couple of ads, but is it a defining issue for Obama? It could be. Will it? I can't see it.

[Armstead]

16. We may need to do end ryns around Obama and the centrist wall in terms of messages

That's kind of what the Teabaggers did. They were, as much as anything, a reaction to Bush, who they saw as a big spending CINO (conservative in name only).

They pulled the GOP to the right. The GOP Establishment saw them as an opportunity, and they used them to gain political power.

That's what we may need to do with the Dems from the left -- to statecthe case from the left, and showcthe level of support that exists fir liberal populism. If the Democratic poo bahs want to be opportunistic in the same way, that's fine with me.

Its all a series of steps, I guess.

[Ganja Ninja]

7. The question is; Who is willing to represent the left?

The Democrats have earned the distrust of liberals. Obama has protected all the people we wanted investigated and prosecuted. He's shown time after time our cause is not his.

The rest of the party is riddled with "moderate centrists" that have stifled progress. They've proven to be every bit as obstructionist as the most dedicated teabagger.

[Armstead]

15. There are Democrats who do represent the left. They need our support

There are plenty of good liberal/progressive Dems in Congress....including those are moderate but liberal. They do not have as high a profile, but they are there.

They need support to empower them within the institution of the Democratic Party, so they can collectively advocate for liberal and progressive messages and policies.

Others (including Obama) also need to have the pressure put on to at least stand on the liberal side of the line...if for no other reason than to make them remember the liberal base they stand a good chance of losing.

[DaveJ]

9. I vote for competent leaders and they tend to be Democrats

Regardless of who gets elected, politician should not totally alienate the other side.

Well, A Repuke will totally alienate the other side.

A good Democratic leader will try to do what the populace as a whole wants, even while getting punished for it, because that is the point of Democracy.

[valerief]

17. Socialism vs. Corporatism. nt

[LaydeeBug]

19. no it's not. nt

[Armstead]

21. And why not?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. It Will Likely Be A Referendum On The State Of The Economy

~

[DaveJ]

24. Does that mean Hello Romney?

I don't think anyone would say the economy is great, at least not by 1990s standards.

I would hope that folks would understand that we do not have unlimited resources on this planet. People are so materialistic and will suck the planet dry given the chance. (Health care of course I do not include in this equation, or basic housing)

The economy is a tough one since the rest of the world is now demanding resources they did not expect 20 years ago. Frankly things need to be rationed. And if people are not understanding then Obama will take the heat for it even though it is not his fault.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I Don't Think It's About People Wanting A New Lexus

But wanting food to eat.

[DaveJ]

27. That's different. When I was homeless I never had trouble finding food.

It was housing and medical care that was the big issue for me. In fact when the economy does well people start consuming more resources. GWB's solution was to provide lots of jobs at Taco Bell and McDonald's which would likely be Parry's approach as well. This might solve the issue of providing the minimum necessary, but that was a horrible solution. I do not know what the solution is, but I feel Obama is headed in the right direction. Changing the economy is such an extreme manner necessary will take much longer than 4 years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. How Did You Find Food If You Had No Money?

~

[DaveJ]

30. When I asked for help, that's usually all that was offered

People, shelters, churches, etc, always had plenty of food. I hate to sound like a talking head on the MSM, but food is abundant here. Due to individual greed, nothing else comes easy.

[great white snark]

25. No, but as 3rd party I'm sure you'd like it to be.

It is Democrats vs Republicans.

[Armstead]

32. I dont support a third party -- but attitudes like yours make it tempting

[craigmatic]

31. It's not so much going to be about ideology as it will be about who can message and raise money best

Obama isn't an old school new deal liberal, he's a moderate who compulsively acts middle of the road. In alot of ways he's more of a 1990's republican than he is a progressive. the repubs on the other hand will be hardcore right wing when they finally get a nominee. 2012 will be a campaign between the center and the far right.

[MattSh]

33. Wow! Is it 1960 again? nt