Tell Me: What Is Wrong With A Stealth Dem President?

[ruggerson]

The Republicans play this game all the time. Their ultraconservative candidate present themselves as centrists during the general election, in an effort to fool as many of the broad swath of centrist voters as possible. Reagan did this. Nixon did this. W has done a magnificent job of deceiving the country and making centrist noises, only to run the country as a far right religious zealot once elected.

So, tell me why we so vociferously object to our own candidates doing this? Do you honestly think that Hillary, or Feingold, or Warner or Schweitzer, running as a centrist, would govern as anything but a good, solid progressive? Do you think they would heed far more closely to our goals of stopping the killing in Iraq, appointing progressive Supreme Court Justices, balancing the budget, making government work again and fighting corporate interests than the Republicans would? It's a no brainer.

So, why don't we give them the leeway to make centrist noises and take centrist positions, so they can actually get elected and start implementing some of our policies? Why don't we let them play the game? The rightwingers let their candidates play the game every election cycle. Are we that naive politically that we can't sit back, keep quiet and let our candidates actually win, for once?

[atommom]

1. Do we dare trust them to rule as progressives? That's the question.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Exactly. There is no guarantee that someone will run from the center and

govern from the left.

[ruggerson]

7. Ask yourself AM

Who would you rather have appointing Supreme Court Justices? Bush? Allen? Browback?

Or Hillary, Feingold, Warner?

I think the answer is obvious. There is LIGHT YEARS of differences between our candidates and theirs, on issues big and small. Yet we don't seem to have the political savvy to let them win elections.

We rage with ideological purity and then doom our country to even further far rightwing control by demanding that our candidates take ideoligically pure positions during election cycles.

Bush has never ONCE publicly said that he wants Roe V Wade overturned. Or that he backs a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Yet have you heard their base yelling about this? Of course not. They KNOW he is being duplicitous when he dances around the issue publicly. They KNOW he will do everything in his power to send women back to the dark ages. They KNOW he has to cover his real intentions in order to win elections.

[atommom]

8. That's very true (and the thought of Brownback as Pres just made

me break out in hives). I think the Repubs are far more organized, and much better at getting their "hidden messages" out to their base.

[bigscott]

3. Maybe it is just me

but everytime I hear "what do we have to lose?" something else is lost. :scared:

[ashling]

9. Answering the wrong question

"what do we have to lose?"

I can't answer that (yes, I know its a rhetorical question)

Here's another that we keep finding the answer to :

What do we have to do to lose?

We find it, and then we do it. Let's stop doing it.

[Deep13]

4. Good question.

Never occurs to anyone that maybe they are using the center and not vice versa.

While any of the folks you listed would be a good president, I should remind you that no member of Congress has been elected to the White House since 1960.

[ruggerson]

12. Neither Warner nor Schweitzer

have ever been in Congress, nor are they currently.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. CODE WORDS: RWers have code words they use to indicate true selves

They are just words to the regular public, but to fundie zealots these phrases/words have significance. So their candidates talk a centrist game while actually embedding these code words into their speeches to tip of the Rapturist Right that they are really on their side. wink...wink...nod.

Can we get a secret decoder ring for progressive code words?

[mattclearing]

6. Absolutely nothing.

Hillary could actually be one, though I don't know that I trust her that much.

I think Kerry was more of a stealth candidate than we give him credit for.

Clark looks mainstream, but his positions on economic issues put him well to the left of the Democrats in the Senate.

[emulatorloo]

10. This is politics 101 - Run to the center, rule to the left

Run to the center to skim off some of the moderate repubs and those nutty independents and undecideds.

[DanCa]

11. I agree

Makes you wonder if the great compromiser Henry Clay would be welcome in the party today.

[Terran1212]

13. These rich elitists will be progressive?

No, sorry. Won't happen.

And they can even run as socialists if they wanted to and still get elected. US elections are all about image, not issues.