can Dem centrists win it all by themselves?

[ulysses]

If so, why haven't they?

If not, why do they act like it?

[Horse with no Name]

1. I'm not a centrist

and I don't support the centrist movement in the party.
IMHO--Repugs have moved so far right that center stands for what the pugs stand for.
If I wanted to vote pug--I'd vote pug.
I won't vote for watered down anything.
I'm not willing to sacrifice.

[MisterLiberal]

124. I totally agree with you

I'm tired of compromising. I'm tired of posts here that tell us which Repuke issue we need to take. I'm tired of apologizing for being liberal.

We shouldn't have to be this defensive in our own party. If the moderates want a party, they should start their own damn party!

[zanne]

152. They have started their own party..

They call themselves Libertarians.

[Zensea]

2. No

Answer to question 1 not necessary.

Answer to question 2 is that they desire to stay relevant.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Did Kucinich get more than 3% of the primary vote?

Can the left wing of the party win it by themselves?

[ulysses]

4. I asked first.

:)

In fact, no, I don't believe that the left can. Now answer my question.

[mike_c]

11. this is the crux that the centrists do not want to face...

...and I believe that it will fragment the Democratic party unless they deal with it soon. They CANNOT win without the left-- America is too evenly polarized today-- unless they move far enough to the right to encourage moderate conservatives disillusioned by the radical neocons to bail from the republican party. In short, the only way they can prevail without the left is by becoming the republican party of say, Richard Nixon's day. Stated another way, they'll have to betray their own liberal roots. That's what is happening right now, so I don't think it's too far-fetched.

If they want to keep the left, they're going to have to seek some compromises, and they're going to have to move left. Not just stop their rightward drift, but actually return to their liberal base. I just don't see many in the current dem leadership willing to do that-- they've gotten into bed with too many sugardaddies to turn back now.

There is a third way, which is to recognize that America's nearly even partisan polarization is largely the result of the republican party managing to convince a significant segment of the population to consistently vote against their own best interests, and rather than align themselves with those delusions, actually begin articulating alternative policies that will attract voters away from the "middle."

[ulysses]

17. well said.

:)

[Dr Fate]

55. "The 3rd way" pretends that far-right concepts are "centrist" n/t

n/t

[Mass]

104. I agree.

[ulysses]

16. no answer?

I'm completely stunned.

[LoZoccolo]

22. I was coming home from work.

The answer is "maybe".

[ulysses]

24. maybe?

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

25. Yeah.

Lieberman was actually one of the only candidates ahead of Bush* in the 2004 primary polls for a while. That's why I say "maybe". I'll likely go with someone who can easily beat the Republican next time. I don't know who that is yet.

[ulysses]

26. you'll let me know, yes?

:D

[LoZoccolo]

27. It'll likely be pretty obvious by January 2008.

Just like when I saw that Dean couldn't beat Bush* in the polls but Kerry could, so I gave up on Dean (as well as a lot of other people, leading to accusations about how the media destroyed Dean and that the DLC is responsible for the sound levels being off during his scream and distributing the tape with the bad sound to the media).

[ulysses]

28. and what a relief that Kerry won...

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

30. He fell behind during the Russian terror attacks on schoolchildren.

I don't think Dean could have weathered that one either, and definately not Kucinich. People cling to their leader in situations like that.

[ulysses]

32. the Chechens lost it for Kerry?

:boggle:

That's unique, anyway.

[LoZoccolo]

34. It got it from someone on here.

He had basically shown that it was not the Swift Boat guys either due to the timing of the dip.

Anyways, no one can make the argument that he lost because he wasn't loud or brash enough, because he did much better than Dean who did all that, and was ahead of Bush* for a long time.

[ulysses]

39. maybe it wasn't the SBVs

but somehow I doubt it was the Chechens.

Anyways, no one can make the argument that he lost because he wasn't loud or brash enough, because he did much better than Dean who did all that, and was ahead of Bush* for a long time.

"Loud and brash" isn't the point, and never was. One can be a loud, brash centrist.

[karynnj]

36. It actually makes a huge amount of sense

Look at the states where Kerry narrowly lost with exit polls showing terror was a big concern. The concern that terror could hit anywhere was stroked when a small Russian town was hit. The people here were already predisposed to see Bush as a protecter and it did have an effect.

[ulysses]

41. if we lose because of a territorial dispute in Russia,

why are we even bothering to field candidates?

Then again, if the average American perceives a huge personal threat from Chechnya, maybe we really do deserve Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

42. It had nothing to do with the specific demands of the terrorists. n/t

[ulysses]

43. do Americans really fear Chechen terrorists?

Really?

[LoZoccolo]

44. Probably not. Respond when you get it. n/t

[ulysses]

46. get what?

Is the implication that terrorism anywhere will swing elections against Democrats? Should we take a position on the Basque region?

[LoZoccolo]

48. Maybe not.

There was an effort at the time to link the Chechans to the terrorists who attacked us.

Cheney added Russia to his list of countries that have suffered from terrorism, speaking of the school hostage crisis that left more than 300 dead. He suggested there may be ties between Chechen terrorists who have been fighting Russian forces for years and al Qaeda, saying some of them trained at camps in Afghanistan.

"There may be some links there but we just don't have specific details," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/10/politics/main642509.shtml

[ulysses]

49. and yet again

Bush plays politics while we have no answer.

If Kerry lost because of Chechnya, we have only our own "leadership" to blame.

[LoZoccolo]

51. I'm sure that both had strong words for the terrorists.

But the incumbent who happened to be in the White House when we got attacked tends to win when that happens, I'd imagine.

[ulysses]

53. but the Chechens didn't attack us.

But the incumbent who happened to be in the White House when we got attacked tends to win when that happens, I'd imagine.

(emphasis added)

[JI7]

57. these voters vote on emotion

they saw terrorism can hit a small town and got scared. the Republicans have had a decades long advantage in being viewed as the party of defense. it's not a matter of what specific candidates say to many. they automatically see Republican and view the person as being pro defense.

[ulysses]

59. in that case, unless Kerry had promised to declare war on Chechnya,

weren't we doomed? Why even field a candidate?

I think this is horseshit. I live in Georgia and didn't hear anyone at the time even mention that attack, even though it was all over the papers.

[JI7]

61. it wasn't about declaring war on Chechnya

it was about their view that Bush would hit back if attacked before asking questions unlike Kerry who would ask permission from the UN, France or whatever else before striking back.

[ulysses]

63. thus my point.

If we're going to accept:

1. that terrorism anywhere dooms Democrats unless we're even more bloodthirsty than the GOP

2. that terrorism anywhere dooms Democrats unless we're even more bloodthirsty than the GOP

3. that terrorism anywhere dooms Democrats unless we're even more bloodthirsty than the GOP

then, unless we BECOME THE GOP, what's the point?

The Chechens, as horrible as that attack on the school was, DIDN'T ATTACK US. If folks in America are going to vote based on that conflict, and if we're not going to even TRY to counter GOP spin concerning the event, why the hell should we bother? Just annoint whoever it is Bush names as his successor and call it done.

Or become the GOP.

[LoZoccolo]

66. That's sort-of my point.

No one could have won against the incumbent in that case. The original point was that Kerry was probably the best we could do.

[ulysses]

68. but I thought Mondale lost because he was too leftist,

even though he lost against an incumbent no one could have likely beaten.

Kerry doesn't get special treatment that centrist bugbears like Mondale don't get.

[LoZoccolo]

70. Mondale lost 49 states. n/t

[ulysses]

73. what are you, an automaton?

Someone mentions "Mondale". The automaton automatically fires off "Mondale lost 49 states. Mondale lost 49 states. Mondale lost 49 states."

Why did he lose 49 states? Centrists have always argued here that he was too liberal, and poopooed the argument from the left that he was up against an unbeatable incumbent. Now you want to shield Kerry with the same "unbeatable incumbent" argument. So which is it? Was Kerry too centrist?

[LoZoccolo]

77. Someone probably could have done better than lose 49 states.

Kerry didn't lose 49 states. There is not a state I've heard anyone name that Dean could have won that Kerry didn't.

[ulysses]

80. Who?

And you're the only one talking about Dean here.

[LoZoccolo]

84. I don't know.

You just get that feeling that someone didn't have to do that bad.

[ulysses]

88. awfully touchy-feely

for someone who likes to demand documentation of others.

[Nederland]

143. Answer

Modale lost 49 states because he promised to raise taxes.

Dumb move.

[Ken Burch]

122. Mondale lost big largely because he presented in '84 as a man without

a personality
(He hadn't been that boring when he was Carter's vp, in fact in the '80 primaries Mondale was the only half-decent stump speaker in the whole Carter re-election campaign.)

He had been a courageous, gutsy man early in his career(at one point as a freshman senator going undercover to as a farmworker in order to invest rural labor conditions)with a Stevenson-like sense of humor.

In the next four years, Mondale decided that he could only win if he ran as a bland, centrist member of "The Establishment." That, combined with the fact that the Mondale candidacy gave Reagan one more chance to run against Carter, was what really did Fritz in.

Reagan and Mondale could have SWITCHED platforms and Reagan would still have carried 49 states.

In high school terms, Reagan was, as a personality type, like the coach who led the team to the state championship. Mondale was the principal who made the team return the trophy(and also cancelled the senior prom)because somebody had a kegger after the championship game.

It was the personality, not the platform. Get it straight, people.

[LoZoccolo]

64. From the analysis, it was like, white mothers who largely switched.

If I remember correctly. It was a good analysis, I just don't think I can find it easily now. I can't remember who wrote it.

[ulysses]

67. let me know when you do.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

75. I'm having trouble finding the DU article, but here's documentation...

...of how Kerry had a 15-point slide amongst women voters:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409160257sep16,1,2715709.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[LoZoccolo]

62. Bush* was in the White House when we were attacked on 9/11. n/t

[ulysses]

65. gee - no shit, sherlock.

I'd never have known if you hadn't mentioned it.

:eyes:

Your point wasn't about 9/11. You're playing games again.

[LoZoccolo]

69. I'm not.

I can elaborate if you'd like. People saw Bush* lead us during one terror attack, 9/11. His approval rate was almost 90% at the time. When people are afraid of another one because of the Chechans, they cling to the guy who led us through 9/11. Go back and you'll find that's what I was saying.

[ulysses]

71. follow me out then - why were people afraid

of a Chechen terror attack in the US?

[LoZoccolo]

72. They weren't. n/t

[ulysses]

74. then what the fuck is your point? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

76. Excuse me? n/t

[ulysses]

78. what's your point?

If Americans weren't afraid of a terror attack from the Chechens, what the fuck is your point?

[LoZoccolo]

79. Strike two.

Don't talk to me like that.

[ulysses]

81. I'll talk to you however I wish

within DU rules which, to my knowledge, I haven't broken.

What the FUCK is your point? Do you even have one?

[LoZoccolo]

86. This conversation is over. n/t

[ulysses]

89. I doubt that.

[Coastie for Truth]

113. I was at a training exercise with some "RW Dems" this weekend

FEMA's and - the Civil Air Patrol, Coast Guard Auxiliary, Volunteer Fire Department Demographic.

In the Post-Katrina world, with Bush's screw up (as in "Brownie, Yer Doin A Good Job") "terra" has to share the stage with "catastrophic, almost Apocalyptic Natural Disaster."

And, in the eyes of these volunteers - Bush has dropped the ball, and the regret is strong that Kerry didn't win.

And this constituency is a RW Dem constituency -- what could be called the "hard hats" or the "Reagan Dems".

And this is a constituency that many younger progressives don't even know exists. (OK - I'm in my 60's, I grew up in a blue collar, rust belt, heavy industry town, and I was a volunteer "constituent service" worker in my Assemblyman's office - a block from really heavy industry factories. But these folks are Dems - the old backbone of the party - and Katrina soured them on Bush).

[The Magistrate]

91. His Point, Sir

Is that there is an emotional connection from such events, despite there being no particular logical or resasonable one. An event like that reminds the timorous that bad things can happen; being timorous, they imagine it happening to them, in their community; imagining such an event, and fearing their imagining, they renew adherence to a figure they view as protecting them from such things.

It is not as if they thought Chechens were going to attack in the U.S. in some small town: they simply saw radical Moslem fighters attacking in a small town and killing children in a school. They do not draw great distinctions in such matters: one Moslem is as good as another in such minds, and what they fear is attack by Moslems. What they want is protection from attack by Moslems. That is the article on offer by the present regime, and whether rightly or wrongly, an unfortunate number of people are buying. Though the number seems to be dwindling nowadatys, it is still too great for comfort by a long sight.

[ulysses]

93. I understand that, Magistrate.

(I appreciate you vocalizing it for my brittle friend Zoccalo, though. :) )

If this is the case, though, aren't we completely fucked until time immemorial? All a Republican has to do is yell "Muslim! Boo!" and the electorate comes running?

Doesn't all this pretty much make the case that what the Democrats need to be doing encompasses education as well as politicking? Leadership doesn't mean following the fears of the most ignorant among us.

[The Magistrate]

101. Unfortunately, Sir

If not exactly "completely fucked until time immemorial", we are gravely handicapped, and many here would not like the simplest remedy for the condition.

Our discussions here about whether the Democratic Party is a leftist party, or whether particular Democrats are leftists, or left enough, are quite beside the point to the great mass of the national electorate. To most people in our country, the Democratic Party is the Left, and the Left is something that, for several decades at least, the people have viewed as utterly and dangerously incompetent to handle national security. The left is viewed as pacifist and anti-patriotic, and hence not be trusted with defense of the nation. It makes no difference whether this is accurate or not; it is widely and firmly believed, and enough supporting factoids can be extracted to confirm those who hold to this view in their doing so. It is no accident that during the last half of the Cold War the only Democratic Presidential victory was over an appointed figure, after a ghastly excess of scandal, any more than it is an accident that once the Cold War was well and truely over, the people promptly put a Democrat in the White House.

Your prescription for a campaign of education engages my sympathy, Sir, but it does not seem to me a practical course, at least as usually construed. These are questions of brand loyalty, not wholly rational things, and such identifications are very hard to break. When a little tyke, there was always Campbell's Soup in the larder, and no other sort, and to this day, in a supermarket, it requires of me a moment's exercise of will to choose some other sort of soup for the cart. That is the sort of thing we are faced with here. For nigh on forty years, in the popular mind, the Republicans have been the party of bellicosity, and the Left has been the crowd of pacifists burning flags and calling the U.S. military criminals. Again, it does not matter if the view is accurate or not: its existance is a fact that must be dealt with. Altering it will require an alteration in our own behavior, not a campaign to educate people to the view that we are right and they are wrong. They will not sit still for that; people do not like being told they are wrong, especially by people they do not think highly of in the first place.

It seems to me that we on the left ought to take advantage of the fact the fundamentalist radicals ranged against us abroad are in fact virulently reactionary, and hostile to everything people of left and progressive views hold dear. Destroying them should be something the left supports, energetically; they are things the left should denounce vehemently. The only way for the left to alter the view of it in regard to national security by the people at large is to find a violent threat to the country and its people it is willing to oppose with violence.

[ulysses]

105. but the simplest remedy, as I understand you,

is for us to become what I do not condone.

I understand the brand recognition point very well; however, this

Altering it will require an alteration in our own behavior

is problematic, as I'm sure you know.

Destroying them should be something the left supports, energetically

Again, I understand you point, but no. Destroy fundamentalist, reactionary ideas? Yes. Destroy fundamentalists in the most literal sense - and in the process destroy thousands who are simply in the way - simply because they adhere to an idea that seems attractive because they are bare-bone poor? No. No again.

The only way for the left to alter the view of it in regard to national security by the people at large is to find a violent threat to the country and its people it is willing to oppose with violence.

I reject this entirely. I am not opposed to all war, but if the choice is irrelevance or the willingness to seek out someone to kill in order to prove my ability to be violent, I'll chose irrelevance. Every time.

[The Magistrate]

112. We Do Not Always Agree, Sir

And this would seem to be another instance where that is true. Irrelevancy seems to me to be the worse course possible, and your view differs. We are not likely to alter one another's positions in the matter.

[ulysses]

135. we'll agree to disagree, then. n/t

[Nederland]

144. Well said

It seems to me that we on the left ought to take advantage of the fact the fundamentalist radicals ranged against us abroad are in fact virulently reactionary, and hostile to everything people of left and progressive views hold dear. Destroying them should be something the left supports, energetically; they are things the left should denounce vehemently. The only way for the left to alter the view of it in regard to national security by the people at large is to find a violent threat to the country and its people it is willing to oppose with violence.

You could almost be Andrew Sullivan :)

FYI, I meant that as a compliment.

[The Magistrate]

146. A Case Of "Smile When You Say That, Pardner", Eh, Sir?

Fair enough. Mr. Sullivan on occassion illustrates the principle that "Even a blind chicken pecks up a little corn."

[Douglas Carpenter]

147. if certain "Democrats" stopped repeating RNC talking points...would this

not help?

Whether it is Will Marshall denouncing Democrats as unpatriotic or efforts by certain "Democrats" to marginalize Democrats as "far left" or "fringe" left or whatever; would this not help?

I would suggest that efforts by certain inside the beltway Democrats is even more affective propaganda than anything the RNC can come up with?

I would also question the wisdom of backing violent action just because it might (if it does not back fire) help build a macho image for the Democratic Party. Violent Islamist extremist are not a finite number. Simply picking them off until they are all gone is simply not how it is going to work. Having lived a good deal of my life in the Islamic world, I am quite certain that the vast majority of Muslims have no desire to live like the Talaban. But, every military action by the U.S. creates more people sympathetic to their cause. Every day that the U.S. allows to pass without a balanced policy in regards to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute creates more "Islamo-fascist". These things do not happen in a vacuum.

I'm not suggesting that military actions are never necessary. I'm suggesting that they should never be taken without the assumption that there will be numerous long-term negative side effects. Any reasonable experienced general would say as much.

[karynnj]

102. It was not a fear of Chechnya, but a fear that terror could strike anywher

If terror is limited to NYC, LA, DC, Chicago - the big targets, it would be less scary. But if they see it can hit every small town, it is scary. (Now in reality Breslin was near the border with Chechnya,)

The other thing was the nature of the attack. They invaded a school and killed children. If you have kids, this hits home to a degree that goes beyond logic. (I remember a killing in a school in Scotland in the late 80s, early 90s - I still remember seeing the class picture - and seeing a girl who looked like my daughter - and the additional anguish when the girl was identified in the article as one of the dead. ) The idea that you could send your kids off to school in your little town and have them killed is major.

This affected the vote only because people (stupidly) connected Bush with keeping them safe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

128. :highfive:

There was a woman in the suburbs of Minneapolis who actually said that she was voting for Bush because the the school hostage situation in Russia had made her fear for her children's safety. :eyes:

If the Dems were aware of that kind of idiocy prevailing among voters, they should have answered it somehow.

[Ken Burch]

121. Actually, Dean was only five points or so behind Dubya at that point

He might well have done better in the fall(though, as a Kucinich supporter, I had problems with him as well)since he wasn't boring, he wouldn't have had anyone like the Swift Boats slime to contend with, and you knew where he stood(partly because Dean, unlike Kerry, could still speak coherent English at that point.)

What I couldn't understand was why, when he endorsed Kerry, Dean asked nothing whatsoever OF Kerry. He had a lot of strength and could have at least made some demands. Instead, at that point, Dean just meekly surrendered and delivered most of his voters fo Kerry for free.

[LoZoccolo]

125. Oh, I don't know...

...because it would have been a useless and spiteful thing to do? What would Dean demand of Kerry? Dean has a lot more class than his supporters would like him to have.

[Ken Burch]

126. It would've been useless and spiteful

for Dean to use his strength to that point to at least get Kerry to say, allow a free vote on the Iraq plank at the convention? Or to get Kerry to support electoral reform, which would have done far more to get Nader out of the race than the millions of dollars the party wasted on court challenges to Nader's ballot status?

Why did Dean just have to surrender? And then campaign for Kerry against Kucinich, who was still in the race as a peace candidate?

By endorsing without asking for any concessions, Dean effectively told his supporters "your work for me now means nothing".

[Cha]

142. And you are always dissing Dean

Supporters..what's your problem?

Dean does have class, intelligence, and the brass cajones to stand up for what he thinks.

[Ken Burch]

37. This frames the whole discussion in a totally wrong way

Democrats haven't lost because they looked too "left". We lost because we looked too meak and weak.

We need to find ways of looking strong and exuding leadership. That's what worked for Reagan, allowing him to take centrist votes without moving an inch away from the far right(granted, he wasn't actually a leader, he just looked like one would look in a movie, before anybody hammers me on that one)and it could work for us.

We need to look strong and tough and confident. The easiest way to do that is actually stand up and DEFEND liberal and progressive ideas, rather than acting like we've been caught with dirty books when people see the progressive component of our platform.

As I've said before and will say again, Democrats have to learn how to say "Hell yes we're progressive, and here's why." THAT is a way to look like leaders

As to Kucinich, his difficulties had little to to with his place on the spectrum. Kucinich's main problems were:

1)Dean stole Kucinich's natural progressive base and then squandered that base by looking like a loose cannon) The progressives then stayed loyal to Dean even though he endorsed Kerry without asking anything of him whatsoever.

2)Kucinich got pegged as a "flake". This had as much to do with his personal lifestyle and dietary habits(for some reason, people couldn't handle the idea of a vegan president, as if that should have matteredand some of them couldn't deal with the fact that he'd been divorced twice.

3)Kucinich couldn't get any money.

None of these factors had anything to do with Kucinich's actual views on the issues, which were closer to those of most Dean supporters than those of Dean himself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. There is one more problem Ben

I went to listen to Kucinich in Hawaii, and he was just an extreme example... Dennis is a brilliant man, with brilliant ideas, and in the age of FDR I suspect he would have done much better, if he were not a Catholic, but that is another story.

Where he failed, and I even pointed it to him, is in the 30 second spot

When he opened his lines he had both my husband and I going WTF? Once he took the ten minutes to develop the idea, WOW denis that is great.

This problem is endemic to the party

The pugs say culture of life

We answer with a whole paragraph

Our latest attempt at defining the other side (and it is a good start) is culture of corruption... but we need to develop the language, we truly do

The pugs spend millions on this, and it is high time we start

Of course there is another one....

Astroturf, the pugs have made it into an art form, we need the same kind of email campaigns.

Ok off my soap box

[enough already]

155. Letting Centrists "win" means those of us on the left lose

We have to defeat the repukes and the centrists

[acmejack]

5. They sure think they can..

Read as Moderate Dem threatens us with irrelevancy!

[Coastie for Truth]

6. No

BUT "PROGRESSIVES" CAN NOT WIN WITHOUT THE "CENTRISTS"

AND "CENTRISTS" CAN NOT WIN WITHOUT THE "PROGRESSIVES"

That "identity" is essential to understanding the difference between being a majority party and a minority party, and also between being a minority party and a vestigial party.

[ulysses]

9. fair enough.

[Boredtodeath]

7. Uhhh, don't they BLAME Nader (and the left) for 2000?

Hey, if they can win without us lefties, why do they perpetually blame Nader for 2000?

They don't need us lefties, right?

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. It's worse than that, actually...

Some of the Democrats who Love Corporatism actually accuse anyone to the left Of Zell Miller of BEING a Nader supporter.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Document or retract. n/t

[Ken Burch]

127. The DLC Blames Nader, but they have yet to acknowledge

That it was their reactionary arrogance that CAUSED Nader's candidacies. They just expected progressives to settle for whatever crumbs were thrown our way.

I supported Ralph in '96 and '00(although in '00 I WOULD have voted for Gore if I'd been in a swing state)because I realized that I couldn't go into a union hall or a working-class neighborhood or a slum and ask the people their to vote for the Democratic presidential ticket with a clear conscience. A lot of poor people and working people did anyway(and got nothing for their support)but the party really had no right to ASK them to do so for anything above the level of Congress or maybe, in some cases, Senator.

in '04 I came back to work for Kucinich(Dean was my second choice)because it looked like it might be possible to make the Dems a people's party again. I still haven't given up hope on that, but clearly the DLC are the enemies of the Democratic coalition.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Read all you can on the Coup of 2000

this is the elephant in the room the DLC does not want to aknowledge

It is that pile of stinking and still warm manure called BBV (and the use of the USSC)

I have contended many a times taht Nader was the patsy, convenient patsy, but patsy nonetheless, to give soem somebody else to blame.


The coup was gonna happen one war or the other. Bush was gonna be in the WHI... so Nader became a convenient patsy... it has happened before in US History, just don't ask the DLCers round these parts to read history... ah yes the newly found days of the Gilded Age...

But this is why you have that wonderful cognitive disonance, NADER, but we don't need the left, NADER, but we don't need the left, NADER... you get the picture

[MissWaverly]

8. there are no centrists, those are just Republican covert ops

their purpose is to marginalize us by telling us what we should want
like more Iraqs, more troops, more incentives for big oil. Folks are
really going to go for that, and we should just LOVE that they cut
Head Start by 1/2.

[dolstein]

10. Can Dem libs win it all by themselves?

If so, why haven't they?

If not, why do they act like it?

[ulysses]

12. please see #4

I don't see the left acting like it, myself. Hi dolstein.

[ulysses]

13. oh, and please answer my question.

I notice centrist reluctance to do that.

[mike_c]

15. quite right-- MANY green party members abandoned their own...

...candidate in 2004 to assist the dems, who were running a centrist's centrist, many of whose positions on the issues were anathema to the greens. Yet they joined with dems. I certainly don't call that "acting like they can win it alone!" Quite the opposite-- I'm waiting to see whether the centrists can bring themselves to return the favor.

[karynnj]

18. Kerry was a centrists centrist???

Kerry likely had a better record than the Green candidate on the environment (should be a green issue), women's rights, gay rights, civil rights. Kerry has fought the RW agenda in foreign policy more than nearly any politician you can name.

For which "liberal" candidate do you want the centrists to do the same.

[mike_c]

19. Kerry ran as an uber-centrist in 2004....

He refused to condemn the war against Iraq and banished all antiwar sentiment-- the single most hot-button issue for the left-- from the convention and the campaign. He embraced Bush's call for a "war on terror" and a security state in America. He refused to push environmental issues except in the blandest imaginable way. He refused to fight for equal rights without respect to sexual orientation. He did not articulate even one single policy proposal that was significantly different from the issues that the republican party framed-- not one. He never did the equivalent of asking whether we really needed a "war on terror" or whether it was really in the best interests of the U.S. to pursue it. He tried to appeal to all those "swing voters" who vote in the gray area between the dems and repubs. And on and on.

Sure, Kerry had great liberal creds-- right up until the time he began campaigning against the likes of Dean and Kucinich. Then, inexplicably, he veered toward the middle, where the road-kill lays.

on edit-- and besides, your argument ignored the essential point of my response-- that MANY on the left, in the green party, did in fact support the Kerry campaign at considerable cost to their own state organizations. When will the centrist dems return the favor and vote for a liberal green?

[JI7]

29. being anti war does not make one a liberal

Pat BUchanan , Robert Novak , Ron Paul all oppose the war in Iraq.

i support Kerry because i'm a liberal .

[mike_c]

31. so now we're out to demonize opposition to the war against Iraq, huh?

That's the same strategy that the Kerry campaign used at the Democratic National Convention. I'm not surprised that it's still around.

on edit-- just to clarify, I'd rather agree with Pat Buchanon and oppose the war, than agree with Kerry and support it.

[JI7]

33. i have no idea what you are talking about

you are talking about centrist, left etc. and i'm saying being against the Iraq WAr does not make one whatever you claim it does.

i opposed the war in Iraq but i certainly am not on Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Robert Novak's side.

[mike_c]

35. then why bring them into the discussion if not to taint opposition...

...to the war by association with them. I'd rather agree with Buchannon et al in opposing the war than with Kerry in supporting it.

[JI7]

38. because you brought up centrist, left etc as it relates to war

[mike_c]

47. so you're suggesting that opposition to the war is a conservative...

...position? Or that conservatives oppose the war as much as liberals?

The poll results suggest the opposite:

CBS News Poll. Oct. 3-5, 2005. N=808 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults). RV = registered voters


"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 32 64 4
Republicans 69 25 6
Democrats 11 87 2
Independents 26 69 5

Kerry's refusal to repudiate the war is in opposition to 87 percent of democrats, and in agreement with 69 percent of republicans.

[JI7]

50. Kerry has always been critical of the war

many who voted for Kerry did not view him as being pro war such as myself and that's where people like yourself have a problem.

you claim those who are in your position are where all liberals are when that is not true.

many people who support the Democratic Party and have issues with people who whine all day about being abandoned by the party are those who consider themselves to be liberals.

[mike_c]

98. see # 97....

Kerry criticised the way the war has been conducted, but he has never called for ending it. Not once. He said he could do a better job of "winning" it.

[The Magistrate]

85. It Seems To Me, Mr. C

That opposition to the war is not a litmus test of whether one is of the left or not. Indeed, the opposition of some prominent persons on the right would seem to establish that.

The reasons why a person opposes the war matter, just as the reasons someone might support it matter. Buchanan opposes the war from an intermingling of old fashioned isolationism, and a borderline Anti-Semitic orientation that view the U.S. as unduly inf;luenced by Jews: both are throw-backs to the Franco-ite milieu in which he was raised. Opposition to the war from that ground is hardly leftist, nor is it congenial to leftist attitudes, and a person who opposes the war from such grounds remains an enemy of the left by any reasonable stanmdard.

Mr. Oliphant, one of my favorite commentators, supported the war in Iraq, at least in its early stages, on the ground that Hussein had defied U.N. directives to such a degree that if nothing was done, it would constitute a blow to the concept of international law. That view is not mine, but is a view worthy of some respect, particularly by people who assign a value to international law and want to see it heeded. Mr. Oliphant's holding that view does not incline to view him as a rightist, and doubtless does not move people like Kristol and Limbaugh to regard him as a fellow of theirs.

[mike_c]

99. I know-- I included that as part of a longer list that collectively...

...does constitute a rather liberal amalgam, but the DUer extracted that single issue from the list as though-- out of context-- it could invalidate the entire set.

[karynnj]

92. look at the question

You say 87 % of Democrats repudiate the war. The question says 87% disapprove of Bush's handling - as does Kerry. Why are you deliberately misinterpreting.

Kerry said MANY MANY times that the war was wrong, the war was a mistake etc. He spoke out more firmly against war in early 2003 than Dean (who recommended giving the inspecters a finite amount of time.)
What is your agenda in misconstruing Kerry's position.

Kerry was asked, given we're fighting it, what would you do. He (at NYU in early Sept 04) gave a plan. The Repubulicans claimed it was the same as theirs. (They never laid out a plan and what they were doing was different from what Kerry said.) In addition to the Republican echo chamber, Kerry had to fight the LW who didn't bother to read anything he said and parroted the Republican view. But, Kerry's statements exist - they are consistent and thoughtful. He is not a warmonger, not matter how many times you say it.

There is currently no Senator or party leader calling for getting out immediately. (Feingold and Boxer want out by Dec 2006) If Kerry's plan was followed we would already be on our way out. Kerry will make a speech in the next few weeks - from small comments, he clearly feels the situation is substantialy worse. He went to Iraq last Senate recess and is likely talking to his peers.

[mike_c]

97. uh huh-- Kerry NEVER ONCE called for an end to the war...

...and the Kerry campaign prohibited ANY anti-war sentiment at the national convention. Find me ONE public statement in which Kerry said "American needs to get out of Iraq" or "my position is that we should end the war against Iraq" during the 2004 campaign-- just one-- and I will stand corrected. But he never said it. All he EVER expressed was support for the war, support for the reasons Bush said the war was "necessary," and support for its objectives in Iraq and in the middle east. In other words, support for the neocon middle east policy. Find me ONE link to an unambiguous public repudiation of ANY of those-- a repudiation that doesn't need an explanation of what Kerry "really meant"-- and I will humbly admit my mistake.

[mike_c]

114. let's not mince words, ok...?

I took that poll to mean that 87 percent of dems think America should get the hell out of Iraq. Perhaps I misinterpreted it. Maybe you're right-- 87 percent of dems think that Kerry would "handle" the war better. I certainly don't!

[The Magistrate]

120. One Point Worth Note, Sir

A good deal of opposition to the war currently owes to the accurate perception that it is calamitously mis-managed: it is not opposition to the exercise per se. A great many who have come to the conclusion we should withdraw agree with the stated goals, and see nothing wrong with the attempt to achieve them, they simply feel those goals are not going to be achieved, or are not worth the cost to date and in foreseeable future. It would be a mistake to think these people agree with the view that it is a criminal enterprise, and unwise to approach them with the arguement it was, particularly in a strident manner. Agitation is best focused on the idea that it is a colossal snafu, demonstrating the incompetence and fecklessness of the fools who undertook the enterprise, and the point of agreement, that it should be ended promptly before more harm is done to the country, is what should be emphasized in seeking to rally popular sentiment to positive action. One speaker in a suit denouncing criminal incompetence and profiteering is worth dozens in tee-shirts denouncing imperialism and war crimes, if what is desired is popular mobilization for a prompt withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mike_c]

132. oh my-- I don't even OWN a suit....

:-)

[The Magistrate]

133. They Can Be Got Quite Cheap At Re-Sale Shops, Sir

But it is my hope that, all humor aside, you see the point being pressed. Popular action requires not so much that people agree with you as that they identify with you and feel themselves part of a group with you. It is therefore adviseable to tailor every detail of agitation and action to encourage feelings of "Hey, you're one of us!" in the people you need to reach. Things that seem strange and foreign and "unlike us" will not just serve as distractions from the message, but are active impediments to identification. They are a luxury too dear to indulge in, a mistake on the order of a dope smuggler wearing a tee shirt sporting a marijuana leaf in the Custom's line.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mike_c]

136. I do see your point of course....

I'm a middle aged university professor who works with lots of people all the time, so I do know the value of charm and helping folks get past their fear of things they'd rather not confront. However, as I get older I also find myself less and less willing to temper my message if, in doing so, it becomes another message entirely.

[The Magistrate]

137. For My Own Part, Sir

Aging has brought me a greater acceptance of such limits. It takes all kinds, eh?

Always a pleasure to cross words with you, Sir!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AntiCoup2K4]

40. You sure about Novakula??

I know about the other two, as I mentioned them just yesterday. But given the lengths Novak went to (**cough treason cough**) in the interests of protecting the Bush/PNAC war agenda, he really doesn't seem like much of an opponent.

[JI7]

45. Novak is anti war, he is anti Israel also

just as Buchanan and Ron Paul are.

and Buchanan went to lengths to support Bush also. after all he did vote for him .

[karynnj]

52. Kerry did do many things you said he didn't

Kerry was the FIRST Senator ever to talk about equal rights for gays on thye Senate floor and has a 100% rating on that issue. (He was for civil unions with legal rights - and refused to follow Clinton's advise to back the gay bashing bills, He voted against DOMA.

Kerry had a great agenda on the evironment ranging from alternative fuels, conservation, supporting development for cleaner, more efficient next generation engery sources, he has worked on global warming for at least 15 -20 years (and met Teresa at a conference on this - it is an issue they are both passionate on), restoring and improving the clean air and water regulations. Teresa spoke about how people needed to switch fish they use in recipes to avoid those high in Mercury. Kerry as Lt Gov of Mass in 1982, was among the first people who raised the issue of acid rain - going to Europe (where the problem and solution was moved advanced) and proposing and selling a plan to deal with it to the NE Governors and Canadians. (That plan became the basis of the clean air act's acid rain solution.) Kerry spoke of the environment at nearly every rally. Teresa spoke on this issue as well , it was on his web site - the MSM pretty much ignored it as it was an issue wher Bush was horrible and Kerry great. Note Sheiffer didn't have a question on envirnment or energy in the domestic issues debate.

Kerry talked about a smarter war on terror that hit terrorists not countries. Look up his U of Philadelphia speech in late Sept. (It even alluded to following money trails and rolling up the terrorist and alluded to BCCI. Read the NYT magazine article where he offered the vision of a world where we didn't allow ourselves to be terrorized. It was there if you wanted it. Kerry articulated it well and often - the MSM ignored it or belittled it.

[dsc]

96. No Kerry wasn't

Kerry became a Senator in 1985 and ENDA predates that. I don't know who the first sponser was, but it can't have been Kerry (I am presuming that the sponser did support it from the floor).

[karynnj]

107. ENDA didn't include sexual orientation when first enacted

So no, it wasn't mentioned then. (I believe it was added by Clinton by executive order - but this is from memory and may be wrong. But it was not there at the beginning.)

[dsc]

115. There were two enda's

but sexual orientation was added well before Clinton. Metzenbaum was an early supporter of gay rights (not the first though). I know for a fact that I worked on petitions for the support of ENDA in college which puts it back in 86.

[karynnj]

94. I asked which liberal green

It was an honest question - I really don't know who such a candidate would be.

[mike_c]

100. I was referring to some future candidate-- I have no idea either....

It was a rhetorical question.

[karynnj]

108. Then why take me to task fo=r no answering when a

non-specific hypothethical event would happen. How could anyone answer that?

[AntiCoup2K4]

58. Kerry's record from the 2000 coup through 11/2004 was anything BUT liberal

...and it was DLC "centrism" that he was using as a vehicle to the presidential nomination. He did not run as a liberal, or vote as one during this time.

And while he's improved after the election, his overall record against this illegal regime is really not anything to brag about.

[welshTerrier2]

20. just because the point hasn't been raised here ...

let's not forget that all this discussion about WINNING by its very definition means we are no longer fighting for what we believe in but rather which pond has the most trout in it ...

and left, right or center, that's no way to win anything ...

but since we're discussing winning and losing and fragmented parties, let me add this ... take the question about Kucinich only getting 3% of the vote ... or the Greens only getting some other small percentage ... the fact that the ideas promoted by Kucinich or the Greens did not attract large blocks of voters is caused by many factors ...

their ideas have not been a regular part of the national discourse ... their ideas have not been pushed by either of the two major parties and third parties get virtually no media coverage ... the question is not what DID happen; the question is what COULD happen ... if Americans were truly exposed to a broader range of ideas instead of the tightly controlled message put out by the two major parties, who knows what the American people would choose ... that's what leadership is all about ...

most of the logic i've seen here is trying to match the platform to the electorate ... and voters see that as insincere ... and it doesn't sell ... the Party and the country would be far better served if the Democratic Party offered real alternatives and fought for deeply held beliefs instead of just trying to WIN ...

and one last point ... if this rift is not healed very, very soon, we ain't winning nothin ... those not calling for a new process of reform in the Party to make the Party more inclusive and more appealing to those who are alienated are missing the point ... the Party needs to win every vote it can get; if the current situation continues, it won't only lose the votes of many on the left but the Party will also lose money and a huge force of party campaign activists ...

if you are not pushing for reform, you are part of the problem ... until we find a "unity of ideas", there will be no "unity of votes" ...

[ulysses]

23. right.

The GOP win in 1994 was about more than what we're talking about now. They changed minds then, instead of chasing the wind.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. Right, in Minneapolis-St. Paul, where Kucinich had a dedicated group of

"guerilla" supporters who hounded the news media, handed out flyers at any public event that would allow it, including Twins and Vikings games, had publicity materials made up in all the major immigrant languages, and wrote op-eds in non=mainstream publications, and countless letters to the editor, Kucinich got 27% of the caucus vote and even won some precincts.

Kucinich spoke to a few dozen people the first time, to 800 in August 2004, to 1600 in November, and to 2500 in January or February, all with very little MSM publicity.

Across the country, where Kucinich had good publicity (Minnesota, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, New Mexico), he made it into the double digits. Even in Iowa, his 3% of delegates actually meant that he got at least 15% of the delegates in 3% of the caucuses. He did best in the area around Decorah, Iowa, which Minnesota Kucinich supporters targeted for special efforts.

And don't get me started about how the New York Times in discussing the candidates' positions on various issues, would give a paragraph or two each to Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Dean, and Edwards, and then give Sharpton, Moseley-Brown, and Kucinich each one sentence.

In addition, Kucinich got much less face time than the other candidates during the debates. In the first debate, he got five minutes, compared to at least nine for everyone else.

So don't dismiss Kucinich as "unelectable" or "too far left" until we see him on a level playing field.

[Dr Fate]

54. Most of us are centrists, compared to Bush & his enablers.

I think you mean "DEMs going far right."

Anyone who says we need to go along with Bush is not being "centrist"- they are going along with the far right.

Let's not give in to the far right by pretending that going along with Bush's policies is "centrist." It's not- it is far right.

We win when elected DEMs listen to centrists & Liberals as opposed to the far right and those fooled by them.

[ulysses]

56. I understand your point, Fate,

but I'm still left of center. Not as far left as many here imagine (although I've tried to be in my younger years), but still left of center. I'm just a liberal, really.

Let's not give in to the far right by pretending that going along with Bush's policies is "centrist." It's not- it is far right.

True enough. How's the left coast treating you?

[Dr Fate]

60. "The 3rd way" percieves some far-right concepts as "centrist"

Nothing wrong at all with being a Liberal or a good moderate. My problem is with the far right.

What I dont like is this media/DLC inspired perception that going along with the far right makes us "centrists"- when we are already there.

Last time I checked, Bush's policies were FAR RIGHT.

And CA Rawwks!!! Always good to speak with you, U.

Doc

[Pepperbelly]

82. No and of course ...

neither can the lefties.

:shrug:

Ain't life a bitch? We KNOW we get no help from the gops. It's just all us and the big squishy middle.

[ulysses]

83. again, see #4

I know the left can't win on its own. Thanks, though.

[Pepperbelly]

87. Like I noted ...

it's just all of us and the big squishy middle.

(BTW, I just like typing squishy ... reminds me of an ee cummings poem or something :D )

[ulysses]

90. LOL

It is a bit cummings-like. :D

If it's just us and the squishies, though, doesn't it behoove us to have an identifiable plan? If we need each other, doesn't it behoove us to work together?

[Pepperbelly]

116. Squishy ...

Did you see the Samantha Bee segment on the Daily Show during the election regarding undecided voters?

The squishy middle wants things to work so they can lead their lives without having to worry about politics. Period. They want a good economy, stable prices, opportunity and the ability to live their lives without excessive interference.

[AntiCoup2K4]

95. Except the squishy middle ain't all that big.

It's around 10%.

And I don't see the point in throwing away 50% of eligible voters to get that 10 % by running a Puke-lite platform.

If we establish ourselves once again as the party of the PEOPLE, not the second party of the corporations then we'll get not only a reasonable chunk of the 50%, but probably most of the 10% as well.

After all, they wouldn't be the "mushy middle" if they actually liked the neocon agenda, would they?

[Pepperbelly]

106. I tell you what ... why don't we just continue the internecine bickering

and just cede the rest of the elections to the fascists?

[AntiCoup2K4]

159. I'm not ceding any elections to fascists

Including primaries.

And anyone who endorses PPI foreign policy, which is a whitewash of PNAC written by PNAC'er Will Marshall, might as well be wearing a swastika armband.

[Mass]

103. Third Way is not centrist - They are the RW of the party.

And no, they cant win by themselves, at least not running on a platform we would consider as democrat.

However, there must be a compromise between all the factions of the Democratic Party if we want a chance to win. But what they are proposing here is not a compromise, it is a right wing policy.

[tandoori]

109. Bill Clinton was basically a centrist and he won TWO terms...

So the answer is yes.

[ulysses]

110. you miss the point.

BC got a lot of progressive votes, to say nothing of a little help from Perot both times.

Particularly, I meant centrist voters.

[Cocoa]

111. Tom Oliphant and Al Franken were talking about Wellstone yesterday

It was really a great conversation.

They were talking about how important it was to have Wellstone in office when Clinton was president.

Franken did a great little impression of Clinton talking in some imagined meeting with Trent Lott or whoever, saying, "Ah'd love to help y'all out, but ah've got Wellstone back there in the Senate." :-)

[xchrom]

117. here's what i don't understand -- the war has increased members in groups

like al queda -- it's become a fervant rallying cry to those susceptible to that sort of message -- and thus made the world less safe.

this is the strategy offered by centrists{in america} and conservatives.

we increasing numbers of reports that iraq is facing civil war -- and if not civil war we certainly testify to murderous chaos.

what about any of this offering is successful?

how is it that we should congratulate centrists and conservatives with any defence strategy that has worked?

now i'll tell you my personal view in this contemporary climate is this -- as radical as conservatives have become -- for centrists to compromise with them makes them the same -- radical, extremist.
but that's my personal view.

and i'll add one more thing -- i've never voted anything but dem -- but i'm no boot licker and when i'm confronted with poorly run campaigns or by what i perceive as obvious gaffes -- i.e. kerry and the swift boaters -- i'm going to say so.

but as long as my gay brothers and sisters could possibly remain in harms way{and in this culture that's always} i will vote for the party that offers the best hope for legislative defense.
that is the primary -- and really the only reason the dems have held on to my vote.

[mmonk]

118. They'll have to move to the center before I consider it

Right now, they are just conservative dems (some with neocon ideas as well).

[Coastie for Truth]

119. IMPORTANT WINNING BLUE PRINT FOR ALL DEMS

IMPORTANT WINNING BLUE PRINT FOR ALL DEMS - AFTER WE DEBATE HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE THE HEAD OF A PIN - LET'S CONCENTRATE ON RUNNING A DIRTY, IMMORAL, ROVIAN, ATWATER, GINGRINCH CAMPAIGN -- AND TAKE BACK THE PRESIDENCY, AND THE SENATE, AND THE HOUSE, AND THE COURTS -- AND PROTECT OUR VITAL ISSUES --

BUT FIRST LET'S WIN

1.

2.

3. - This is the Pew Research Center Report Referenced in appends 1 and 2.

[Moderate Dem]

123. How about this?

Compromise here:

Partial birth abortion and waiting periods for minors - You're never going to win on these issues anyway.

Gun Control - Many Democrats are also tired of liberals' antigun stance, and it's killing us at the polls.

Take the center here:

Tighten border security - Expand legal immigration, close the border to illegals, indict corporations hiring illegals - it will help in the war on terror, and play to the working class' desire for jod security.

Tighten Homeland Security - Clamp down on our ports and other areas ignored by the Republicans.

Take the liberal view here:

No to outsourcing, penalize corporations who move to overseas headquarters to evade taxes.

Just a few thoughts (I'm sure there are many more possibilities), but they could cut the heart out of the right, if the right keeps going downhill as they fight for the soulf of their party.

[eridani]

130. It should only cost us a few hundred dead women a year to win, then

BTW, thanks a whole bunch for using the shitstupid Rethug term for the procedure. Way to frame!:sarcasm:

If a woman has the bad luck to have her baby die in her womb far into her pregnancy, her death or permanent sterility is mere collateral damage, after all.

[Moderate Dem]

138. Don't be dense...

I am talking about the "health" aspect only. Most Republicans are already OK will Partial Birth to protect the LIFE of the mother. The health argument is really poor anyway, from everything I hear.

[eridani]

139. Permanent sterility is not trivial

No woman deserves this.

[zanne]

131. Please define "centrist".

I'd really like to know. It seems like just a matter of perception, and I find that some people just like the sound of it. So please come up with one definition. Otherwise, I never know what you're talking about.

[ulysses]

134. I suppose it is a matter of perception

just as "liberal", "extremist" and "left-wing looney" are.

I have no single definition to give you. Either you know it or you don't. :shrug:

[Nederland]

145. Yes they can

Ok, maybe I don't actually believe that, but I'm going to run with it for a bit just to see how it goes :).

Here's the argument: Provided you define "left" and "centrist" in reasonable terms, there are far more centrists than leftists. The proof of that fact lies in looking at the 2000 election numbers. As Nader has frequently pointed out, 10 times as many Democrats voted for Bush than voted for him. If we rank the "leftishness" of the candidates as Nader then Gore then Bush, that means that there were 10 times as many votes to the right of Gore's position than to the left of Gore's position. If this is true, then one might be compelled to conclude that any move to the right results in more votes gained than lost.

QED


Pretty sure this one is going to crash and burn...

On edit: Forgot to answer the second question, why haven't they? Answer: because the primary attracts proportionally more lefties than the general, thereby preventing real centrists from winning the nomination.

[xchrom]

148. gore won florida.

the newspaper coalition who went in and looked at the all of the votes in florida shows that gore won florida.

[Nederland]

150. Gosh

Gore won Florida? I've never seen anyone on DU post that sort of nonsense before. You truly have an original mind sir.

[xchrom]

154. well, it's been out there.

sorry you missed it.
it wasn't exactly hidden.

[Nederland]

157. I guess you missed the sarcasm... (nt)

[xchrom]

163. can't miss what isn't there.

[Nederland]

164. Oh come on

Do you honestly think anybody like me, who has been here since 2001 and has over 4000 posts hasn't ever seen a post pointing out that Gore won Florida? Of course Gore won fucking Florida. Everybody knows Gore won Florida. At some point you have to get past the 2000 election and concentrate on the future.

Oh, I know what your going to say now:

NEVER FORGET!

Well, let's just say I believe in moving on and you don't.

Cheers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. And yuo have not been readying the local media

hell even the NYT ran a story on that matter, coindidentally on September 11, you know what happened that day? More than just buildings came down

[Nederland]

158. I guess you missed the sarcasm... (nt)

[Armstead]

149. Well then, let's just run a Bush and get 100 percent of the vote

But every day I am realizing that the terms "left" "right" and "center" are totally meaningless. Depends on the issue and on how one defines that position.

Many rank-and-file Republican voters actually suppoirt raising the Minimum Wage, for example. The have a disconnect between the fact that the CONervative republican Party opposes the minimum wage.

Therefore, supporting a higher Minimum Wage might be labeled a "left" position, but it is actually one that many grass roots self-defined conservatives actually support.

[Nederland]

151. Completely agree

The terms are completely useless once you start talking about an aggregate of issues. I am a social liberal and an economic conservative. My father is a social conservative and an economic liberal. As a result we disagree on almost every issue down the line, and yet somehow we are both in the "center". It makes no sense on the face of it.

[Armstead]

153. You might find this of interest

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5022876&mesg_id=5028234

This is an article written by a liberal Democratic website which the DLC also included on theirs. It's about an effort that was made last year before the election to find economic positions and a "message" that both centrists and liberals/progressives could unify on and mutually support.

You may or may not agree with their conclusions -- and it obviously didn;t settle anything. But at least it was an attempt to go beyond the framework and labels and look at actual substance.

[welshTerrier2]

160. link correction ??

the article you referenced is actually at this link:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=164&contentid=252653

or the full DU thread at this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5022876&mesg_id=5022876

the link you provided appears to be to a post you made within the thread ...

btw, if i'm stuck with labels (i think they're close to useless), i would label myself far left on the political spectrum but i strongly support balanced budgets and sound fiscal policy ... not sure how all that fits together with spectrum labels either ... i'm off to read the article you referenced ...

[Armstead]

161. Oops...Thanks for the correction

[welshTerrier2]

162. not a bad program ...

i could live with the ideas proposed in the article you posted ... i think they touched on many of the economic themes i support ...

a few quick points on things i would add:
1. ability to pay: i would go further with tax reform than the article suggested ... i would like to see a program where "wealth" is taxed ... the tax system should be predicated on "ability to pay"; not on how much income someone has in any given year ... someone "sitting on billions" but showing little taxable income in a given year has far more ability to pay than someone with a decent income and little in savings or investments ...
2. domestic jobs: corporations should be free to move their headquarters offshore or higher workers anywhere in the world ... but this does not mean they should receive the same perks and goodies as companies that provide domestic jobs ... to create an incentive for shareholders to invest in companies that create domestic jobs, i would base the "tax discount" on capital gains on the percentage of a companies jobs that are based in the US ... so, for example, if a company hired 75% of their employees and 25% overseas, the "capital gains discount" would be reduced by 25% ...

finally, as an overriding consideration that is perhaps as much politics as it is economics, we need to get big money out of our political process and out of our government ... without substantial election reforms and more stringent enforcement against campaign and lobbying abuses, none of the economic policies proposed in the article will ever see the light of day ...