Two positions on which I'd like to see a little triangulation

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

1) Affirmative Action. I like to see us move towards a Marxist paradigm that takes socio-economic status and legacy into account. On both of these fronts, minority candidates are still in the VAST majority. But this is what it boils down to politically: if a poor white southerner who has no college graduates in his family competes with a Latino American whose family makes $70,000 and whose father and mother both graduated from college, I'd say that the way to begin to break a pattern poverty in this country is to provide an opportunity to the southern white male. College by no means makes one rich, but it certainly helps pave the way to a middle-class lifestyle (and sets a foundation in the family for future generations). This model does away with the apologetic "mend-it-don't-it" slogan and seeks socio-economic mobility for those who have NO mobility.

At the same time, this policy would WITHOUT A DOUBT help the minority candidates it intended to help in the first place. And perhaps maybe even moreso. If you take legacy (or, more precisely, lack of legacy)into account, you will actually be able to reach the minority candidates who need it the most. For example, two Black-American female candidates compete for the same position (highly unlikely but play along). One of the women has no college graduates in her family and her mother and father make a combined $25,000. The other woman's mother graduated from college, her father is a welder, and the two make a combined $75,000. All academic markers are not equal, but woman one meets all minimum requirements for acceptance into the university. Under the Marxist paradigm, woman one would be accepted.

This is simply a general framework, but you can see where it's going. It's intended to accelerate entrance into the middle-class (say what you want, being middle-class affords one far more opportunities in this world--hence the repeated call for a living wage as opposed to a minimum wage). Middle-classdom for all ought to be the goal. And I don't mean the mannerisms, the consumerism, the car leasing; I simply mean the opportunity provided for children of the middle-class (quick quiz: how are most public schools funded in this country? By property taxes. You can extrapolate the message from here).

2) Abortion. The Democratic party needs to come out and condemn the practice, enforce its legality (which is what Clinton essentially did with the nifty slogan: "Make it rare and make it safe"--or whatever it was), but then create social adoption programs. Offer up CLEAR government sponsored alternatives. The woman's right to choose is a given, obviously. Of course, one can offer up birth control programs, but that doesn't fight them on their own turf. In other words, we can say, we are against the practice as well, but rather than try to pack the courts, here's a PRACTICAL solution that will have immediate results. For all of the Dennis K. supporters, this should sound familiar.

Please feel free to slam the above ideas. I'm thinking in terms of stepping on their turf and using their issues against them.

[DrWeird]

1. Hmm.

Since the republicans are the ones against abortion shouldn't they be at the forefront of adoption programs? And they're against welfare too.

OH! That's right. There was always Newt Gingrich's idea of taking poor children away from their living families and putting them in orphanages.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

3. Yes, good Dr.

That's why it's called triangulation. You keep your core principles (in theory--damn you, Clinton) but bring them over onto the other guy's turf. You don't have to lie like the Ass-clown-in-chief lies when he says "no child left behind" and means the opposite. You mean what you say; you just say it from a different perspective.

You want Southern votes? You want the white male vote back? You want rural votes? You give them a Marxist paradigm (yet don't let them know it's a Marxist paradigm) and they'll eat it up. And we still maintain our core principles, especially considering the vast majority of candidates under this system would still be minorities. But we get to take other "forgottens" along for the ride as well.

And on a pure Machiavellian note: what better way to indoctrinate poor white males than sending them to those damn liberal universities BBBBBBWWAAAAHHHHHAAAAHHHHHAAAAH. It's a joke people, a joke.

[grasswire]

2. I don't know....

....if there's a strategist in the Dem campaigns competent enough to pull triangulation off. I don't see much skill.