Populism is our future

[Senator Lamb]

one thing i have been hearing about is that its not about Democrats going more centrist or more liberal. Its about populism and getting a candidate who can be marketed to middle america; a common man of the people, straightalker, perferbelly from the midwest. i agree very much with this idea. I feel there is divisions in the GOP we can exploit since much of populism deals with keeping jobs in America; basically anti-free trade. I believe the GOP, didvided between nationalist ie, Buchanans will be angered by the pure capitalists libertarians who believe in open borders, free trade, power of corporations, and globlization. this is how we get joe sick pack, the average mans man to once again have favor with our party, a party once again for the average person, anti-establishment populism that once again appeals to the union man who is conservative on social issues but progressive on labor issues, maybe william jennings bryan like. this is better than our current status as a divided house of interest groups. i also suggest outflanking the GOP on immigration issues to win some of the southwest back where the Bush administration and its corporate allies are much more open to open borders and illegal immigration as opposed to republicans like tancredo. like i said, the common man who is conservative on social issues, sort of isolationist world view, the manly union is guy should be won over. then we can turn the tables on who is elite and who is for the commoners.

[coloradodem2005]

1. You have some good ideas.

We need to start putting some of these into actions in the 2006 midterms.

[Mandate My Ass]

2. How conservative on social issues?

enquiring minds want to know.

[Senator Lamb]

3. we should not give up on social issues

i believe we should always be for equality. but sometimes the appearance and speech of the candiate is all the difference. kerry had that liberal elitist vibe to him while someone like wes clark would be less of a "threat" to people of traditional values even though they had the same positions. atleast i think. its all about marketing.

[Senator Lamb]

4. bump

[GuvWurld]

5. Populism, yes, but first debunk the myths

Your position sounds good on paper but does not take into account how utterly fraudulent the very foundations of our society have become. Sham "elections" and free speech zones are not indicative of democracy; no bid contracts and a cabinet full of industry insiders makes it hard to call what we have capitalism. These are just two quick and easy examples of the myths that need debunking. So long as we keep brainstorming within the context of how to improve the Ds or outflank the Rs, these myths stay in place and we all lose. At this time, the powerful elite are so entrenched that the only response history will regard as populist is a nonviolent revolution. The way I see starting such a transition is through rejection of the main frames. For starters, we have no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of US elections.

See: http://guvwurld.blogspot.com

[really-looney]

6. I feel the same way

I feel the same way and started a similar post a few days ago. It got about as much notice as yours did. Not a very popular view on this board