Too far to the left?

[theriverburns]

On another post I read someone say that American's would never elect Kucinich because he is too far to the left. That's funny, because to me, the best president of the modern era, FDR, was the most liberal. He was also elected FOUR FREAKING TIMES.

Maybe that crappy cede to conventional "wisdom" is why half of us stay home.

Why are we buying into the BS that "American's won't elect a liberal" and letting that discourage us from trying? I know a lot of folks who would actually get out and vote if we gave them a candidate who, unlike the frontrunners who we think can win (win what??), actualy said something for a change.

[Dhalgren]

1. I agree!

These slack-faced types , who in a bored, superior voice say, "Move on, he can't win" really piss me off.

If you win by putting up a candidate that is not fundamentally different than the puke in office, what have you won? If you want the country to flow back to a more leftist position, you have to LEAD it back. And most of it (I'm convinced) is already there! They just need someone to vote for, some one to get excited about.

Go Kucinich!

[stevebreeze]

2. the reason for the crappy conventional wisdom...

is the corporate press does not want any discussion of economics from a liberal point of view. They will do anything they can to marginalize anyone who does not tow the corp line on economics.

:kick:

[diplomats]

3. FDR was elected during a time of terrible economic crisis

the situation today is very different.

[brokensymmetry]

5. All depends -

on the perspective. And we have to remember that lots more jobs may get exported between now and election day.

[diamondsoul]

7. HUH?

Um, mind telling me what country YOU live in? Because where I live there IS a terrible economic crisis.

Ask all the people who lost their jobs over the past to years, lost their homes, can't get healthcare, can't find work because there aren't any jobs for companies moving overseas where they can get cheap labor. Ask the single mother or father who can't afford daycare because he/she just got laid off if there's an economic crisis in America.

That must be the nuttiest statement I've ever seen!:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Unemployment Was At 25% In 1932

If unemployment rises to 25% between now and next Fall Al Sharpton could win.

[revcarol]

68. Unemployment is at 25% in my county!!

Next argument.

THIS IS NOT ONLY CLOSE TO HOME, THIS IS HOME. 25%.

[Nederland]

71. Response

Unemployment is at 25% in my county!!

And I'm sure Bush will lose your county. Where talking the national election though, not just your county.

Next argument.

[revcarol]

73. Touche.

But there are pockets and whole states like this. Democrats have traditionally been concerned with "the general welfare."

It's time to go back to this tradition!!

[w4rma]

8. Not so different

[Woodstock]

19. But according to Rush and his ditto heads, it's Clinton's fault

If the Democrats don't use all the ammo against Bush to their advantage, I will either go Green or move to Canada. I know we might lose the election, but if we go down without fighting, that will mightily piss me off.

[pansypoo53219]

21. Really?!?

seems to me Bush is takin us TO a depression. which is what i said we needed to actually GET a progressive.

[diamondsoul]

4. Hi there and thanks for that! :)

People are discouraged. Badly discouraged. We let the money bags talk for so long in this country that we forgot how much the little guys can do. I admit it, I was just as bad until we invaded a country that couldn't have done much to harm us in any meaningful way. When I saw what was happening I was outraged and I knew I couldn't sit back and do nothing any longer. The lesser of two evils just isn't going to cut it with this woman's vote. It's gotten us nowhere.

Most people you ask will say "I like what DK says but he'll never win so...". Well it's up to people like me, John, and the other supporters to make them realize if they just COMMIT to voting for Kucinich he'd win by a landslide. That's the pathetic truth, the saddest truth of all that I see being ignored right now. That Dennis Kucinich is the cure for what has plagued this nation for years and so many people agree with that but they are afraid to hope. I guess I should do something to make my sig text bigger. Anyone know how? It's a quote from the Nation article by Studs Terkel. :)

"One man can make a difference. The important thing is we can not be afraid."

[Mairead]

40. Making your sig text bigger

{font size="+2" color="#999999"}One man can make a difference. The important thing is we can not be afraid.{/font}

Now, replace the curly brackets with square brackets, and you get

One man can make a difference. The important thing is we can not be afraid.

If you'd rather it not be that big, use "+1" instead of "+2":

One man can make a difference. The important thing is we can not be afraid.

And if you'd like to add color, see http://www.lynda.com/hexh.html and substitute the top line (e.g. ff99ff) for the 999999 (don't forget to leave in the sharp sign):

One man can make a difference. The important thing is we can not be afraid.

[diamondsoul]

47. Ok let's see how it looks

[wuushew]

6. I believe that it is a statement based on some truth

Asking people what canidate they would most vote for, must reveal something other than people's like or dislike of their personal traits.

By looking at preferance numbers combined with some scale by which to judge a canidates leaning left or right it can be assumed that people are influenced somewhat by a persons political leanings.

[arcos]

9. Check out this article by Ted Rall...

thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=152323&mesg_id=152323

[theriverburns]

10. Thanks for that article

It makes good sense.

[Terwilliger]

24. kick for this article

and check my sig :D

[arcos]

65. Great!!

:D

[JanMichael]

11. No such thing. It's another RW myth that's permiated OUR thinking.

Balls to the wall LEFTISM can win in this most important election.

Sissies need not apply.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Just How Liberal Was FDR

He saved capitalism and he saved the monied boys asses.

As Arthur Schlessinger has argued so convincingly in his seminal work on the New Deal that the New Deal was essentially a conservative program in that it conserved capitalism by saving it from it's own excesses.

I resepect DK, I respect all the Dems but you need a political program tailored to the political realities of the moment.

If you don't get elected you can't do a damn thing.

[theriverburns]

14. and....

If you don't do a damn thing you shouldn't be elected.


What the hell do I care if someone "can win" if the frog continues to boil. I would rather see four more years of Bush than a moderate candidate who keeps us subdued as they chip away at the little piece of the Dream still left to us.

A moderate candidate winning and inheriting the mess left behind by Bushco could prove to be the fatal blow. I remember replacing Nixon with Carter begatting Ronnie Reagan. Ugly.

[JanMichael]

16. Oh no! You hit on an important point.

You are correct about FDR saving American Capitalism, without him the "Big Money" may have very well been defeated.

So I have mixed feeling about him...He did MUCH good but to what End?

That's the 100k question.

[mitchum]

63. Very true. FDR wasn't a traitor to his class....

he took measures to avert his class from swinging from lampposts.

[rman]

72. the point was to save the people, the economy, the nation

(the point of the New Deal) - and he did succeed.
There'll always be some capitalist aspect to economy - for the time being at least.
When FDR saved the nation, the people etc, it was inevitable there'd (still/again) be opportunity for capitalists to confiscate wealth. The wealthy elite caused the depression in the first place, they were doing well during the depression, and they were still around after the depression. surprise, surprise.

And you make it seem as though this is somehow FDR's fault?

[Blue_Chill]

13. In all honesty I don't think the guy can win

I don't think he can even carry his home state.

I don't think any candidate that demands military cuts in a time when most americans believe we are at war will get the moderate votes. I don't think the department of peace will be well recieved when cutting spending is what most people want.

[theriverburns]

15. Miliatry spending at the expense of Social Security?

We have to frame the debate as what it is-- Iraq and retire at 72 without health care? Wave that flag.

[Blue_Chill]

17. I don't think it's one or the other

and I think the entire social security system needs to be changed. You don't get anything near what you put in it, and you need a growing population of hard working tax payers to keep it going or you hit bumps.

It needs to be changed not just have its funding increased.

[theriverburns]

18. It's been operating in the black...

for nearly three quarters of a century. It's entire existence. We hit a speed bump because of the Baby Boomers but that is a bump we could have riden out had the righties not created so much debt. Wasn't the Reagan plan to bankrupt the New Deal/Great Society programs, most particularly Social Security, with the debts created by defense spending? What pisses me off about righties is that they will want to keep the payroll tax, just eliminate the benefit. Good deal, huh?

[Blue_Chill]

79. I see what you are saying but

I don't think it works. Almost everyone I have ever met that is retired and on SS complain that the payout is too small. You put a lot in but you don't get a lot out. It's unfair to force people to make a bad investment.

[pansypoo53219]

22. easy

NO LIMITS ON FICA deductions. the millionares+ pay what 20% on ALL OF IT. NOT JUST 70,000. ALL OF IT

prolem solved.

[cosmicdot]

20. is the question right v. left or right v. wrong ...

... and, common sense leadership ... for the common good ... basic, fundamental principles ...

[LWolf]

23. It's that "U" word again.

I have gotten so sick of hearing the "u" word that I fight an automatic reaction to rise up and stuff a pickle down the throat of the speaker.

I believe it goes back to a comment made by Dean several months back...something like "I'm from the electable wing of the democratic party." His supporters have run with that, and part of their campaign strategy seems to be to throw the "u" word out every time their candidate gets beat on an issue.

What it really boils down to is marginalizing progressives. I said this once before in another thread. We take the scorn, the patronizing, the demonizing of progressive ideas from the right all the time. We're used to it. But when it comes from within our own family, we've got a bigger problem than the repubs can dish out. We don't have to worry about their "uniting vs dividing" rhetoric. We've got enough dividing and marginalizing going on here at home. In the long run, the dems are going to lose a larger and larger segment of the left with the "too liberal to be electable" tactics. I read it as "The progressives are too far to the left to be elected, so we democrats aren't going to be the party for progressives." The 04 election is a perfect opportunity for the party as a whole to illustrate that position or debunk it. We'll see.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. was Wellstone too far to the left?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. To Be Elected President Yes

That doesn't mean he wasn't one of the good guys.

[buddhamama]

31. you don't know that.

if it hasn't been tried how do you know. would you bet your life on it?

gawd you PoliSci people are just so schooled in predicting the future.

[charlie]

35. And Ronnie was too far right to be electable

Establishment Republicans were nervous and Democrats were gleeful that they'd floated up the standardbearer of their nutbar wing. Goldwater all over again, oh no! And the sappy lightweight with the cornpone homilies and endless variations of the same damn GE speech he'd been delivering for 30 years kicked off a consolidation of conservative forces that have steamrollered liberals to this day. Imagine that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Ronald Reagan Was Elected Twice

to governor of the largest state of the Union.

He nearly defeated a sitting president of his own party for the nomination in 1976.

He was running against a president, who rightly or wrongly, was perceived as having a failed administration.

He was one of the greatest public speakers of his era.

It's not like he had nothing going for him.

[charlie]

66. I didn't say he had nothing going for him

I said he was too far right to be electable. Democrats were pleased with the nomination of the big-stick authoritarian B-class actor and Republican handwringers abounded. There was even talk from the Reagan camp of a "co-presidency" with Gerald Ford to ensure he didn't drive off the moderates.

You don't buy that Great Communicator crap, do you? He was merely competent as a public speaker. What he did have, at least after beginning his slide into dementia, was an aura of likeability. Which is something Wellstone also had -- when people got to know him, they trusted and liked him.

Of course we'll never know, so this is pointless, but I still contend that there was no way Paul Wellstone was "too left" to win the presidency.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. I Didn't Agree With Reagan

but he was a great public speaker.

A great public speaker not a great extemporaneous speaker.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. "if it hasn't been tried how do you know"

would you bet your life on it.


Now , come on , just because we can't submit every proposition to a real life test doesn't mean we can't use logic and reason to make some judgements.

I have never ate poop but I bet it doesn't taste very good.


I have never seen Arnold Schwarzenegger and Woody Allen in a weight lifting contest but I'll bet Arnold would win.

Yeah, on some proposition I would bet my life if say I would win $1,000,000.00 if I was correct

[buddhamama]

64. now, come on, yourself

i'm not impressed with your logic and reason or your predictions.

we've been down this road you and i. you throw out polls and they mean nothing in the real world because they can't be proven.

even your analysis of the independent electorate means poop.
as if you could define an independent voter.

[jiacinto]

28. Kuchinich can't win

His platform advocates that we cut the military. In a time like this that is not going to sell.

Kuchinich has some noble ideas, but that's all he has. And that is nowhere near enough to win the election, let alone become the nominee.

If he were really interested in running Kuchinich would run for statewide office and then try when has gotten more experience.

[buddhamama]

30. not military

Pentagon spending, and Dean advocates the same.

[Terwilliger]

33. ahh yes, experience

because experience counts in today's politics! :eyes:

[buddhamama]

34. yeah it is a bogus excuse

besides sitting in a PoliSci class what experience do you have in party tricks, Carlos?

[KG]

44. experience counts!!

yep, that's what i hear about the greens/nader 'they should get some experience'

but a novice like wesley clark should just waltz in and be handed the dem. nomination?

delusion and denial runs rampant on DU! :)

[KG]

45. how much more experience does he need?

statewide office?

Cleveland city council
cleveland mayor
ohio state senate
US rep from OH.

[bpilgrim]

62. he constantly reveals his ignorance here yet unashamedly likes to pretend

he has the whole truth :crazy:

peace

[DarbyUSMC]

60. You may think me daft but

he can't win because of his last name. Just as Dukaukis couldn't win partly due to his name and his eyebrows and of course the Willie Horton deal. A lot of the people that vote are the same people who watch Springer and buy Tabloids and think soap operas are real. They need a simple name to pronounce and a fairly good looking candidate.



President Hubert Humphrey? Couldn't be.

If Henry Cabot Lodge had ever run for president he'd have won.


Before television and our nations obsession with looks, celebrities, and image, the name and "the look" may not have mattered.

My pen name is Darby Thorpe. I get better tables using that name than I do my real name. It's the difference between a view of the lake or a view of the kitchen. How absolutely ludicrous eh?

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. More than that

Kucinich's name doesn't fit easily into headlines. Short names do. That means they appear in headline form more often than others. Reagan, Carter, Ford, Clinton, Bush all are great short headline names.

It matters.

[bpilgrim]

61. sure, this from the guy who has been consistantly caught off guard by

events of the past 3 years by sticking like glue to the 'conventional' wisdom.

"Kuchinich has some noble ideas, but that's all he has."

ideas are what it's all about...

"If he were really interested in running Kuchinich would run for statewide office and then try when has gotten more experience."

yeah, he needs more experience after all the years he has already served while BEATING reTHUGlicans :crazy:

bush PROVES anyone can win, period.

peace

[MaverickX]

29. I disagree...

Kucinich isn't "too far left" he just appears too weak on defense, national security, and foreign policy. I don't think you can argue that FDR was viewed as weak on these issues. Americans would elect a liberal, just not a liberal that goes so far to proclaim his pacifism as to support creating a Department of Peace. I agree with Kucinich on alot but not on these issues.

[revcarol]

74. He's no pacifist.

He just believes in American DEFENSE, not American OFFENSE.

Only those who believe in spending American blood and treasure on behalf of multi-national coporations can be against that.

VERY strong on Israel/Palestine.
VERY strong on working with the UN and NATO.
VERY strong on diplomacy.
Very strong on bi-lateral trade agreements.

[MaverickX]

76. he hasn't convinced me...

What specifically has he said about defense?

[Blue_Chill]

80. He wants to cut pentagon spending

and spend that money on more worthy causes. Such as a department of peace.......

[MaverickX]

81. that won't fly..

With most voters.

[Judson39]

32. Roosevelt scared congress to pass an amendment

to prevent another 'roosevelt' from becoming an American dictator.

[JVS]

36. What is so liberal about Kucinich anyway?

FDR enacted a new deal, and while many here correctly point out that the new deal saved capitalism, I'd argue that it was a reformation of capitalism. The destruction of its influence on the american economy has been a capitalist counter-reformation of sorts.

But on to Kucinich. What fundamentally separates him from other candidates? He's anti-war, so is Dean. He's anti-Nafta, so is Gephardt. If you argue that he is the most liberal and thus would serve us best, I'd like to know what he is going to do that makes him so much better than the other candidates. I like Kucinich, but I don't see him as much different from other candidates, possibly a little more to my liking on the issues. But I also have a very difficult time seeing him get elected, although not as bad as many here paint it. The way I see it Kucinich has a great advantage getting Pennsylvania and Michigan, two important swing states. Sadly though, I don't see him getting Iowa and the electoral numbers just don't add up to a win unless he gets Ohio, which looks doubtful.

So my question boils down to this: What is so special about Kucinich and his platform that we should risk a long shot candidate for the white house? If the answer is that he's more liberal on a couple of issues, I don't think that will be sufficient. If the answer is that he will fundamentally alter the political and economic landscape of the country, I'll be impressed.

[MaverickX]

37. no candidate.....

Will dramatically alter the political and economic landscape.

[JVS]

39. FDR did, so did Stalin

So If Kucinich can't or won't then his supporters might want to stop comparing him with FDR. Increased risk with no more yield isn't worth it.

[MaverickX]

41. you give FDR too much credit...

He wasn't that supportive of social welfare programs and he was pretty racist.

[JVS]

42. His personal views are not the issue

He oversaw the construction an economically active federal government. The result was the social programs that made a middle class possible. This was a significant change of the economic landscape and whether he did it for the right reasons or not is irrelevant. He also destroyed the old Republican party. The Republicans that we deal with today are a very different animal from the type from the beginning of the 20th century. Thus I argue that Roosevelt altered the economic and political environment of the country.

[MaverickX]

49. I don't think FDR really did..

What did he personally do that was so great?

[JVS]

51. Well, maybe not him but his administration and people within it

did give us Social Security and the Wagner act (Unions). Politically he gave the Republicans such a beating that they didn't have a president from 1933 to 1953 and even after that needed to do a makeover (southern strategy) to get a firm hold on power.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. I don't know if FDR was racist

but he argued against the "dole"

It trips me out how some DUers remake presidents, the party, candidates in their image.

It reminds me of religion where man creates God in his image.

[JVS]

57. I've never heard a candidate argue for the 'dole'

But something along the lines of the Public works administration at least gives people work and money. I don't think FDR was perfect, but I'll give credit where it's due. He made the country better and those improvements lasted a pretty long time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. FDR is one of my favorite presidents

and all historians put him in the top five.

Social Security

FDIC

SEC

WPA

CCC

Land Lease

WW2

Roosevelt was great.

I think Comparing Kucinich with FDR is not plausible.

[MaverickX]

78. how about FDR on this...

Refusing to allow Jews to immigrate from Europe who were fleeing the Nazis.

Internment of Japanese-Americans.

Most credit for those social reforms should go to the liberal Democrats in Congress(ie. Maury Maverick).

[MaverickX]

77. I'm not the one arguing FDR

Was a major progressive.

[JVS]

43. And would you mind answering my question?

What is so special about Kucinich and his platform that we should risk a long shot candidate for the white house?

[MaverickX]

46. me?

I think running Kucinich is suicide.

[JVS]

48. Fair enough

Thanks for your honesty.

[MaverickX]

50. I haven't been defending Kucinich..

However he's the only candidate who openly states what reforms I think the country needs, except his farm policy stinks.

[JVS]

52. His reforms. That's what I want to know about him. Please tell me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. This Is Purely Subjective

but I think Robert F Kennedy was the last "liberal" who could have won a national election.

And he was way to the right of Kucinich on national security.

[diamondsoul]

53. Interesting question-

If the answer is that he will fundamentally alter the political and economic landscape of the country, I'll be impressed.

Well good because he will do exactly that, although I don't know that he can pull it all off in a single term. Why else do you suppose his supporters follow him?

[tjdee]

38. That was before television, simple.

And also, that was over 60 years ago.
Hey, in 1858 Lincoln and Douglas had debates that lasted for three hours. Should we bring that back?

I wish I was as hopeful about voting Americans today as some DUers.

I'm not.

[CWebster]

70. I believe that there were those to the Left of FDR.

Do you think Sharpton is electible? Why not? I heard him speaking on Tom Harkin's forum and he was excellent. Can you think why he is not electible? Posters worry that Dean will be tarred with the liberal brush, can you imagine what easy work it will be to marginalise Kucinich when liberal Democrats like Kerry are terrified of the liberal brand??

[noonwitch]

75. They will never elect him for other reasons than that

1. He's extremely funny-looking in a tv world.
2. It's not so much that he's too liberal, it's that he is an idealist and he's serious about it. We are a cynical society. This is not a criticism of him so much as it is of society.