Middle Democrats; Consider the Left or Lose

[liberalmike27]

I hate to say this, but if all you centrist democrats don't consider those on the left, and try to tap not only into "our" votes, but some of the 80 million who don't even bother voting for either candidate that they don't see representing them, then Democrats are going to continue to lose.

All you people who huff and puff at Green Party people need to understand that if you want us in your party you need to help us choose a candidate that we see as different than the Republican. I can't speak for everyone, but if you examine the votes of the democrats in Congress, you see a lot of 99-0 in the Senate, and only about 100-125 democrats in the House that vote as a block. If it isn't 99-0, they often vote 75-25. They seem to me to be more alike than different.

We need to stop letting the media influence our votes. We like Dean, they hammered him so hard that many stopped supporting him. All but those of us who like his policies from the beginning were quickly sheared away. I saw it. I was there leading the group. Doubled in size; scream; newbies who follow, left.

You may not like the message, but the truth is we are either part of your party, or we are not. It is your choice, and if you keep screaming at us like we are unaware of the consequences, you will just drive the wedge deeper between the Democratic divide, and push us away from the party. I guess it all depends on your perspective, and from mine I just don't see much difference. Think about it.

[skipos]

1. Isn't that what primaries are for?

I am not trying to be snarky. I thought everyone (including MSM) just talking about Dean, and then when Kerry and Edwards upset Dean in Iowa it was all over.

By the way, I hope that in the future dems take longer to decide who it the best candidate.

[zanne]

2. People will just stay home

Why vote in a primary that offers no real choice?

[liberalmike27]

3. Snarky or Not

If democrats pick another lame candidate like Kerry, or Hillary, in the "primaries" and they lose because we left-lefties leave and choose someone who will make a difference, not a "same" then the democratic primary voters deserve what they get. All we get is yelled at. I can't believe how silly some of the people are who yell at us as if we don't understand what our vote does, or does not do. Primary voters need to stop being led around by the media, and voting their feelings, not what the media is telling them. Dean and McCain were both destroyed by the media, as they represent a moneyed crowd that didn't want a race between a left-leaning Republican, and democrat. After all, they've been pushing the debate to the right in this country for decades now, and this would be backsliding. My primary mission is to do my best to make people aware that our media is not their friend.

[skipos]

9. MSM was all about Dean until the Iowa upset.

You think that MSM "destroyed" Dean when he was getting 90% of the MSM coverage up until Kerry upset him in Iowa? I'll have to respectfully disagree.

And as for MSM "destroying" McCain, my memory is that GW Bush and Rove did that. Right now, MSM is giving McCain most of the hypothetical 08 coverage. But if you go over to freerepublic, most people there can stand him. DU, like freerepublic, represents a portion of voters.

If *your* choice for the 08 nomination is someone I am not crazy about, but they are our nominee, I can guarantee that I will be campaigning for that candidate. I will do everything I can to make sure our candidate wins and the republican loses.

I most certainly respect your opinion and your vote, just as you should respect mine. We are all on the same team here, we want more dems and fewer republicans in power.

[radio4progressives]

64. What happens when "our" candidate ends up implementing more Neo Con

agenda policies?

what do you think we should do then?

pretend it isn't happening, again?

[skipos]

74. My plan is to support any dem that is a lot better than the republican

And most dems qualify for that. The republican majority has enabled them to push further to the right. A democratic majority would enable us to push further to the left. I am working for a dem majority. Somtimes I am supporting a dem I really love, sometimes I am supporting a dem that I think is ok. As long as the democratic candidate is a lot better than the republican, I will keep doing it.

[jackbourassa]

73. Yes he was getting 90% of the media coverage

85% of it was negative.

[skipos]

75. We must have been reading & watching from different sources. nt

[jackbourassa]

99. No I think you're just sensitive

If you think Dean got good press in 2004, then we were definitely watching from different sources.

[MrBenchley]

12. The Green party candidate was

David Cobb, who pulbicly announced he'd resign if Al Sharpton or Denis Kucinich was the Democratic nominee (oh yes he did).

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cobb.html

You got a lot of crust calling Kerry or Hillary (or even any other third party candidate) lame.

"All we get is yelled at."
Oh, I'm so tempted to put a link to a certain MP3 file here....but I will refrain in defernce to our party's chairman.

[radio4progressives]

65. and your point is? n/t

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

4. Certainly, as a centrist, I think the Dems should always

consider the Left. I just don't think the answer is to go gung-ho to the fringe, as some people think. Those on the committed Left ought not to ignore centrists either.

[lynne]

6. I'm with you on that -

- and I find that the sentiment goes both way.

Rewrite the first paragraph of the OP by replacing "centrist" with "progressives" and replacing "those on the left" with "centrist" and you'll see that it is accurate both ways.

[MrBenchley]

11. Bear in mind

we're seriously being asked by a member of an unpopular third party why we don't pretend that his unpopular third party is part of ours....

"Female European Cuckoos lay their eggs only in the nests of other species of birds. A cuckoo egg usually closely mimics the eggs of the host (one of whose eggs is often removed by the cuckoo). The host may recognize the intruding egg and abandon the nest, or it may incubate and hatch the cuckoo egg. Shortly after hatching, the young European Cuckoo, using a scoop-like depression on its back, instinctively shoves over the edge of the nest any solid object that it contacts. With the disappearance of their eggs and rightful young, the foster parents are free to devote all of their care to the young cuckoo."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Brood_Parasitism.html

[radio4progressives]

67. suppose it is you that is unpopular, and is removed by the Cuckoo

do you think then you culled from existance?

[MrBenchley]

90. Hahahahahaha...

Nothing but cuckoos in the Green party....

[Heewack]

51. I agree completely.

This is not a fringe party. It never has been and never will be. Whoever came up with this idea of running to the far left must have been brain dead politically speaking. The country has moved to the right over the past few elections. Moving to the other extreme shows a deliberate disregard for where the country's mindset is, like it or not. "We can't win being repuke lite." Actually we can and have because the center is where we shine the brightest. The repukes are great at selling a center message but terrible in execution.

[radio4progressives]

66. please clarify, what is the meaning "fringe" specifically?

this isn't intended to be snarky, i think maybe it would be better to explain what you think are "fringe" issues.

just trying to better understand what self identified moderates mean, when they use these terms... fringe left, extreme left, etc.

some of my best friends are moderates, by the way. ;)

[zanne]

94. I'm curious about that, too.

You can ask ten people what "moderate" means, and they'll all have a different interpretation. It depends on where your "head is at", if you know what I mean.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. It is all a numbers game

because if the candidates are too far to the "left" then you lose the moderate dems. Which group has the bigger demographics? I honestly don't know.

[Double T]

7. The left of center is a broad spectrum of ideas and agendas.........

that typically have the greater good of All people in the forefront of those positions. Any extreme positions, whether they be right wing or left wing typically are NOT accepted by the collective majority of ALL people and are therefore unpopular with MOST people. There still is plenty of room for support of liberal and very liberal ideas within a Democratic centrist campaign and I think we need to stop thinking in such narrowly defined political position terms; it is not good for Democrats or Liberals.

[electropop]

10. Maybe "centrist" candidates ought to go halfway between "centrists"

and lefties like me. Currently Dem centrist politicians go halfway between the extreme right and moderation, placing them firmly in what used to be Republican territory, before the GOP swung to Fundie-Fascism. If a Dem candidate wants to win both the primary and the general election, he needs to capture the whole party, but he doesn't need to capture the rabid right. By placing him/herself in the center of the Democratic public, they don't get too far from Centrist Dems or from Leftie Dems. They need to recognize that they should not in any way kowtow to the extreme right. Here's my little diagram:

Dem Pols Now:

Left---ModerateLeft--RealMiddleOfRoad---CentristDems/CentristRepubs---Attila,Bush,Hitler,DeLay,Frist

Dem Pols Who Want To Win And Honor Party Values:

Left---ModerateLeft/CentristDems---RealMiddleOfRoad---CentristRepubs---Attila,Bush,Hitler,DeLay,Frist

[Armstead]

14. BINGO -- You got it

It's that way with so many issues. The Democratic "centrists" are so afraid of being seen as "too left" that they avoid common sense and mainstream truth in the process.

For example, on CNN yesterday some inane Demiocrat "strategist" was saying that the Democrats can't go "too far left" and lose the "patriotic vote of Middle America."

That's utter bullshit. The Iraq War was a fraud that has ultimately weakened our true national security, undermined our ability to truly go after any terrorists who have us in their sights and has made the US look like a "pitiful helpless giant" instead of a strong superpower. It is also causing the needless deaths of Americans.

Is that recognition too far "left" to be viable? Ask John Murtha, that pacifist peacenik.

[MrBenchley]

22. Good post...

"I think we need to stop thinking in such narrowly defined political position terms; it is not good for Democrats or Liberals."
On the other hand, it is good for the Greens. A third party like the Greens has a vested interest in causing a rift among Democrats...which is both why the GOP exploits them, and why they're happy to fbe exploited.

[minvis]

35. I'm not a Green but...

I'll tell you what. I'll bet you most people supporting the Greens are not trying to cause a rift among Democrats. They are simply frustrated that the Democratic Party, by moving more and more to the right, does not stand for what they believe anymore. It is not the people who have changed, it is the Party that has changed.

[MrBenchley]

44. At this point you'd sure have to prove that to me

"It is not the people who have changed, it is the Party that has changed."
Ronald Reagan used to say "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the party left me." It was horseshit when he said it too.

[radio4progressives]

68. Bingo! n/t

[MrBenchley]

8. Funny, all the exclusion I see around here

is leftists calling for this or that Democrat to be purged (and it's almost always a prominent, popular and respected Democrat facing no serious Republican challenge in the 2006 elections. Go figure that.).

"All you people who huff and puff at Green Party people need to understand that if you want us in your party"
Us? So you're not a Democrat at all, and yet we're supposed to consider you one when the party sets policy? I don't think that's the way things work in the world.

"They seem to me to be more alike than different."
If that's what you think, that's what you think. Funny, though, you're not pestering Republicans for a seat at THEIR table. Why is that?

"the truth is we are either part of your party, or we are not."
The truth is that by your own choice, you are not part of our well established and popular party. You're part of a party that is little more than a Republican dirty trick. You're part of a party that is resoundingly unpopular with the voters. Why should anytbody in the Democratic party EVER listen to what anyone in the Green party has to say?

"you will just drive the wedge deeper between the Democratic divide, and push us away from the party."
But since you're only a handful of extremists, and voters clearly don't like what you've got to say, "why should we care if you stay or go?" is the question your post raises.

[Virginian]

13. How many Green Party candidates win elections?

Personally, I would rather have a half a loaf than none.
A centrist is better than a conservative. A progressive or liberal is better than a conservative. I will take anything over a conservative any day of the week. The only thing lower than a conservative is a Neo-Con. The more you let conservatives win, the more they think they can get away with going all the way down to Neo-Con.

I wish we did have more than two major parties, but we don't. A vote for anyone other than a candidate for those two parties is just throwing away your vote and getting much less than you want, rather than a little less than you want.

I still don't understand why the hype about a "scream." I heard a man trying to rally the followers giving a pep talk and trying to talk over the din in the room. I did not hear any "scream." Since then, I have heard reference to a "directional microphone" that picked up Dean's voice over the background noise, but I thought that was what microphones were supposed to do anyway. I think all the talk about a scream was Rovian and KKKarl Rove won.

Good luck in finding a party that is an exact fit. I haven't found one that agrees with ALL my opinions yet and I am pushing retirement age.

[Armstead]

15. You are missing an important point. Centrists are a form of neo-con.

Centrists are different than moderates.

Dick Durban is a moderate, but a clear liberal. That is different from the "centrist" Democrats who are trying to pull in two directions at once.

The "centrists" meanwhile echo the neo-con view of just about everything -- war, the real meaning of the economy, etc. They are as bad as neo-cons. Worse probably, becaue they package the same basic worldview as the GOP neo-cons in Democratic clothing.

As uncomfortable as it is to admit, the neo-con takeover since 2000 would not have been possible if the "centrist" Democrats had not advanced a very similar agenda in the 1990's.

[Clarkansas]

17. The neocon take over of 2000 has reason to thank Nader.

I voted for Nader in 2000, and while my vote made me feel good for a little while 4 years of GWB completely overshadowed that.

I think there are many moderates in the party who are wrongfully accused of being centrists. Just because a democratic politician disagrees with most democrats on a few issues does NOT make them some calculated centrist trying to pull votes from both sides.

Now Hillary Clinton, I'd say she is a centrist.

[Armstead]

18. I recognize the distinction but...

that also reflects why the term "left" is relatively meaningless.

I don't think the problem is with Democrats who are basically liberal, but may not be as aggressive or who may agree with conservatives on specific issue. A few of the most economically progressive members of the House are somewhat socially conservative in their views on issues like abortion.

The problem is that the "centrists" consistently undermine the entire concept of liberal and progressive values and policies, because they have embraced the elitist corporate worldview of the neo-cons.

[MrBenchley]

21. If the centrist Democrats of the 1990s

(assuming he means the DLC and Bill Clinton/Al Gore) REALLY were paving the way for the "neocons" how does one explain that there was no attempt by any those neocons to pick up moderate Democratic votes with claims that Chimpy was "carrying on the real legacy of Bill Clinton" or any such nonsnese?

[Armstead]

25. Because for the GOP neo-cons it's partisan

You have to take off the party glasses for a minute.

It's possible to fight for partisan power while still agreeing on core ideas.

The Republicons wnt power for its own sake, and Democrats are still different enough that they would not be as reliable neo-cons.

However, that doesn't mean that they can;t share a lot of important ground and basic assumptions, and push neo-con ideas like unchecked corporate power, privitization, elitist globalization, etc.

[MrBenchley]

28. wow....the view is breathtaking so far from reality....

So we have to take off the party glasses for a moment so we can reject the Democrats and put on the Green party's glasses....

[Armstead]

30. I didn't say that

I have my own problems with the Green Party and especially with Nader.

But in terms of the core of their ideas, they are much more like Democrats in an ideal sense than the Clintons or Bidens or DLC "centrists."

They believe that social and civic values have to be as important as economic ones. They believe capitalism needs to be diverse, rather than monopolistic. They believe in making corporations accountable, instead of allowing them to grow to immense proportions and running roughshod over the rest of us. They believe in grass roots solutions whenever possible, but with government intervention as necessary for the "safety net" and to restrain the power of the elites and big corporations.

That's why I said take off the party glasses, at least long enough to think in terms of actual realities, pllicies, ideals and goals rather than assuming everything is okay if it comes from a Democrat. If a Democrat is ignoring or supporting Corporate Power over democracy, or the economic vision of the elite rather than the interests of the majority, they are not being true Democrats. They are also not being true to the real concept of national security whenthey go along with faulty and dangerous Neo-CON premises that has driven the US into a futile and misguided war

Rather than obsessing over the lack of "loyalty" of Greens and otehr people who have been alienated by the Democratic Establishment, it seems like it would much more constructive and effective to look at how the Democratic party can return to its core ideals, which would have the political result of making parties like the Greens less relevant.

[MrBenchley]

31. You know, I really don't give a rats' ass about "true Democrats"

because except for Zell Miller and a few of his kind, pretty much every one IS by my lights. This notion of purity tests seems to me idiotic in the extreme and vaguely fascist...and it is noticeable that they are promulgated solely by the extreme left.

If you want to vote for a Democrat, fine. If you want to quit and join the Green party, that's okey-doke with me too. But instead of repeating Green party talking points about how impure Joe Biden is, perhaps you ought to ask yourself why their party is so whoppingly unpopular with voters.

Instead of repeating Green party talking points about how much this or that Democrat is just like the Republicans, you might ask yourself why they're not over on Free Republic, giving the freepers policy adivce.

[Armstead]

33. You do have a purity test

As I said above, I have problems with the Green Party and Nader.

But I also believe that the Democrats have too often followed a primrose path that has moved so far from representing a different view than Republicans that the Greens do have a point when they say there is too little difference between the two parties.

You are more of a purist than any Green. You only acceptable source of ideas seem to be "Anything as long as it's coming from a Democrat."

It's not a question of "purity." It's a matter of asking why there is such an undermining of the very principals that are necessary for the Democratic Party to actually offer a viable alternative to the RepubliCONS. And -- more importrant -- to fight back and prevent the damage the republiCONS are doing to this nation.

Instead of accusing the Greens of not being able to build a viable party, to me a better question is why the Democrats are blowing all of the advantages they have. A party that is supposed to represent the interests of the majority of wiorking people, the middle class and the disadvantaged should be creaming the RepubliCONS.

Why is it that even now, when the scam of the GOP is being exposed, that the Democrats seem unable to rush in to fill the void with a strong clear alternative?

That is not a "disloyal" question or empty "Democrat bashing." It is a necessary core question that the most loyal democrats should be asking honestly, insterad of blindly trying to defend the stances that have gotten us into this mess.

[MrBenchley]

36. Well, that IS hilarious...

Yes, my purity ttest is no purity test at all.

"It's a matter of asking why there is such an undermining of the very principals that are necessary for the Democratic Party to actually offer a viable alternative to the RepubliCONS."
So who's undermining the Green party?

"Instead of accusing the Greens of not being able to build a viable party"
Like I was accusing the sky of being blue and the snow of being white. That's not an accusation but a statement of fact.

[Armstead]

37. Well duh...The Greens aren't a viable major party. But....

you tend to obsess too much over that question.

The real issue is the viability of the Democratic party. And the real question is why the democrats have become LESS viable over the last 30 years.

That's a sad fact, but it's reality. If it were not true, we wouldn't be on the ropes now, with the RepubliCONs in total control of the government and the national debate.

It's especially sad when the RepubliCON agenda is such a naked slap in the face of what the majority of Americans truly believe in.

Why is that? Why is there such a vacuum of leadership that really represents what the majority of people believe in?

Instead of worrying about the Greens, you might start being more intellectually honest about the Democrats of you are really interested in how the Democrats can actually start winning again.

[MrBenchley]

40. WHY NOT?

I don't think there's anything wrong with considering that question at length over and over again because it cuts to the heart of what we are talking about.

"Why is there such a vacuum of leadership"
So you're telling me the problem with the Greens is that they don't have a strong man. That it's all that keeps them from sweeping us poor Democrats into oblivion, armed with those shit-hot ideals that are uncompromised over there? If THEY had leadership instead of us, they'd be the larger, more popular party?

"you might start being more intellectually honest about the Democrats"
I am. Now consider this, as long as we're discussing intellectual honesty...why isn't our Green party friend hanging out at GreenUnderground.com, discussing those noble ideals over there and building his own party instead of trying to tear down a party he's not part of over here?

And as another exercise in intellectual honesty, ask yourself why every Democrat singled out by the Grren poarty and its sympathizers around these parts is
A) instantly recognizable by the general public AS a Democrat
B) crushing his or her Republican opponent at the polls and virtually reassured of re-election unless the voter base can be destroyed...

Do you think that's just coincidence?

[reformedrepub]

79. I know I'm going to get killed but....

the problem with the Democratic party is, it's house is divided. There are many members of labor who are pro-life and pro-gun and may vote on social issues. Ohio is a prime example of that. Many environmentalists want change, but not in their backyard. ie the Kennedys and other well known Dems fighting the wind energy "farm" off Martha's Vineyard because it would ruin "our view" . I live in pretty well off suburb of NYC which is becoming more and more Dem, but people here cannot pass a school budget, because they spent 50,000 on their Jaguar but get angry when asked to spend $100.00 more a year to support their child's education. We need someone who speaks to the working class Dem, that is where we win elections. The plumber or carpenter or Teacher, who may own a gun, be catholic and pro-life, we need to get these people back squarely in the fold instead of having most of them on the fence. I asked my grandfather, who was a Teamster, if he was voting for Kerry, he told me no, because he thought Kerry talked down to people. NO MORE INTELLECTUALS....We need a common person.....

[Armstead]

95. I partially agree with you on that

I think the basic problem is that many peope are not consistently "left" or "right" onm a personal basis. As you correctly pointed out, there are many people who may be liberal on economic issues but are socially conservative.

I don't think it's a matter of wjether a politician is an intellectual or not. It has more to do with their ability to connect with peope. Bernie Sanders. for exampe, may seem to be a classic leftie intellectual, but he has the passion and positions that resonate with working class voters in Vermont.

The current polarization is somewhat of a false choice that has been successfully engineered by the Republicans, while Democrats have been ineffectual at overcoming the divisions that often exist within individuals.

For example, there is no reason on God's green earth why someone who is religious and supports traditionbal family values should also automatically support a conservatuve economic agenda that is against their own interests.

What the Democrats should do, IMO, is to hammer on the issues of Power and Money that can appeal to the middle and working classes because they directly affect their lives and the whole workings of democracy. That doesn't mean ceding ground on social issues, but we should emphasize those issues that common ground exists, and doing as much to allow room to "agree to disagree" on otehr issues.

[Zodiak]

56. A few issues?

A few issues, or most?

I only ask this because most people are unaware that 16 of our 44 senators vote with the Republicans MOST of the time....this is for the last Congress, so you know the bills that came up were full of Repuke "goodness". It is not a few issues...I wish it was.

We mustn't lie to ourselves about it. We have a lot of "centrist" and "conservative" Democrats whose voting record resembles that of the neo-con controlled Republican majority. We allow excuses to be made for them and are told, as progressives, that our ideas are no good and the American public hates us, so we have to hide our message. That has been the mantra for 20+ years, so how is that working out for us?

I do agree with you that Hillary, by voting record, is 65% against the Bush agenda. I guess that makes her a "moderate" by US-2005-bizarro world standards.

An aside...can someone please tell me about what defines the "far left"? I really would like to get a picture as to how the unheeded wing of the Democratic party looks to everyone. As far as I'm concerned, I am a middle-of-the-road New Deal Democrat; it is this new philosophy of chasing "undecided voters" and matching their beliefs (whatever they are) instead of honoring our own ideas that has miraculously transformed me into the "fringe" of the party. I honestly think that if undecided voters decided they were going to wear hats up their asses, the wisdom of the Donna Brasils of Washington would be that the Democratic Party needs to show America that Democrats understand asshat-donning, too.

The Democratic Party should stand strong enough to LEAD, not follow people who wake up for 3 weeks and go to sleep as soon as the election is over. These people WANT to be led, not followed. Hence, the perception that Democrats stand for nothing. I call is "douchebag" syndrome. Americans do not like douchebags....plain and simple.

EDIT: BTW...only the first couple of lines of this post pertain to the previous post.

[MrBenchley]

20. What a strange post....

What exactly does the word "neo con" mean in that context.

"they package the same basic worldview as the GOP neo-cons in Democratic clothing. "
Really?

""Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action."

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

Which centrist Democrats espouse that? Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Howard Dean? John Murtha? I'd really like to know?

[Armstead]

26. All of the above

There was absolutely no excuse to invade Iraq or support it.

That is a neo-con idea. "We think Sadaam might be dangerous someday, so we have to take him out now."

Hillary, Kerry and otehr Democratic war supporters were backing the same basic concepts as neo-cons. They just were not as straightforward about it as the republican true believers.

[Tarc]

16. I agree completely

3rd party candidates for president are a waste of time and a waste of a vote. It may not sound fair, but the reality of political life is that such a candidate, without a real and permandent political base, will never have a prayer of winning a state, much less an election.

I would love to see the LP and the Green's be viable alternatives to the Big 2, but they need to start at the local level and build a true foundation for a lasting party. Imagine how much more visible and vocal Cobb would've been if there were even just a handful of Greens in the House or the Senate, or in state congress, governorships, etc...

Start local, strive for national. Until then, it is just a protest vote.

[MrBenchley]

24. Being lectured by the Green party

on what Democrats need to do to win elections is like being lectured on proper theatre etiquette by PeeWee Herman.

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned Cobb and his little bunch of zealots can take a long walk off a short pier...they hurt us and help the GOP everywhere they turn up.

[radio4progressives]

70. Lots of Greens winning local elections

here in northern California, Washington and Oregon.

building on a grassroots, community by community level.

[Virginian]

100. I'm glad that is happening.

We need more major parties. This two party system is just so... so... Polarized.

[stray cat]

19. Or consider moving to the right and go for a moderate republican

and the republicans can win again. Good news for the moderates is they can vote for a moderate republican or a moderate democrat, swing the election and be moderately happy with the results. Its a little harder to decide if there are extremes chosen from each party. Greens need moderates at least as much as moderates need greens. Without each other we ensure more republican victories.

[radio4progressives]

71. haven't you noticed ? the party has already moved to the right...

how much more to the right would you like to see it go?

[Donna Zen]

23. Left-Right-and Center/ or is it?

How do we define any of these terms? Well, mostly we don't. Is it left-wing to be for Healthcare for all Americans? Good, I'm for it. Is it left-wing to believe that we are all healthier if we live in "clean house" by taking care of our environment? Good, I'm with you. Is it left-wing to believe in a "transparent" government that represents the "common good" and not corporate greed? Good, I'm so for it. Is it left-wing to advocate protecting our Constitutional rights? Good, and double super-good. And while I can go on and on, I'll add, is it left-wing to oppose a war sold with lies, one that is the worst geopolitical blunder that our country has ever made? Good...then sign me up as a "lefty."

Quite frankly, I cannot believe that anything that the so-called left is saying is not woven deeply into America's founding fabric. Ooops, maybe I'm really part of the main stream. Or at least what was once the main stream.

I am against the spinners of lies who put corporations above their love of country so that can stay on the lobby gravy train. I do oppose people who are so afraid to speak the truth that they fail their oath of office. When push comes to shove, I do want someone who takes the matter seriously before they take another poll. Spinning and fawning are not great qualities of leadership. I do not demand that I agree with anyone on every issue, what puts me off is plastic politicians who insult me with their spin. Does that make me a "lefty?" Ya know, labels are odious, but give me one of those "lefty" name tags now.

We are constantly told that so-and-so is moving to the right to position themselves for some fabled higher purpose, but never is it recommended that any mungo-jerry moves to the left. The result is that the "left" been shunned and vilified to near extinction. Little wonder that none of our goals are on the radar.

Ignoring the so-called left and constantly moving toward some undefined center serves no other purpose beyond moving the center to the right. Think about it. If the left is eliminated from the Democratic Party, then where is the center? Why, it's further to the right. Besides, what is so wrong with having a wing that wants honest government? It's not like we're monsters who want to, well, put our country into unrecoverable debt to China so that we can bomb other people's children.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. It really frosts me to see alleged Dems supporting Republicanite

or other corporate-inspired bills that can only hurt the middle class.

Whatever their talk of "moving toward the center," there was NO popular middle class demand whatsoever for the bankruptcy bill or tax cuts for the rich or privatization of social security or CAFTA or cuts in Medicaid or invading Iraq.

There were plenty of opponents, probably a majority who didn't pay attention to these issues either way, and only a few who adamantly supported the Bush positions.

Voting against these bills would have cost NOTHING politically.

That any Democrats at all supported these abominations tells me that they care more about their corporate donors and about staying in office for the sake of staying in office than they care about doing the right thing and serving the interests of their constituents.

[MrBenchley]

29. "never is it recommended that any mungo-jerry moves to the left"

A-a-and how many votes did that Green party corral by doing that, pray tell?

"The result is that the "left" been shunned and vilified to near extinction"
She says, in a thread by a leftist demanding that Democrats not only let leftists set party policy, but let leftists who are NOT IN OUR PARTY set party policy.

Or else, we're going to lose, says a party that is struggling to stay ahead of the Christian Phalangists and the Natural Law party at the bottom of the ballot....

[Donna Zen]

38. Are you a member of the Green party?

or do you just assume that anyone who is in favor of improved health care policy, protecting the environment, transparent government, people before lobbyist bribes, and honest government, must not be a Democrat. Tsk, tsk, how low can we go? Prehaps you can get me outsted from the Democratic Party for thinking for myself. There ya go, a open seat on my county Dem committee. Who woulda thought believing in honest government would carry such a high cost. So wanting better for my country gets me da boot.

What is your problem with Greens? I don't think that they want to lie us into war, or even say "oops" sorry, I gave bush a blank check that killed thousands...ten of thousands of innocent people. I have disagreed with them about how to best create a construct where ordinary Americans would actually get some piddling representation. But, I like Greens.

[MrBenchley]

43. No, I am a Democrat and damn proud of it....

"Prehaps you can get me outsted from the Democratic Party for thinking for myself."
Actually, you can stay or go as you please, as far as I am concerned. But it IS noticeable that the only folks screaming for "ousters" or "purges" are on the far left...and that they always want to chuck popular, respected Democrats who are all but certain to be relelected in 2006 overboard.

"What is your problem with Greens?"
Their poltiics seem to be toxic to voters even in liberal enclaves like NYC, they function mostly as a Republican dirty trick, and instead of honestly trying to build their party to attract followerrs, they're over here pissing on mine. Other than that, I think they're just peachy-keen.

[Armstead]

34. Excellent points. Most "left" ideas are mainstream.

Any claims to the contrary are simply echoing the Media 'Ho's and the Republican spinmasters.

[Donna Zen]

39. Thank you for understanding my post.

Cutting on your left does not put you in the middle, it only moves the middle to the right. Besides, when you think about it, the left used to be the middle. How did it become the left, because the powers that be decided that the middle class didn't matter as much as their clinky-clangy cash box contributors. That is all history now: BN (Before NAFTA).

Any bets on when the republicans shy away from the Christian Reconstructionists? Ain't gonna happen.

[Virginian]

42. Some of your left, I think of as moderate, middle of the road.

I consider myself a moderate and I think healthcare for all should be a moderate or even centrist concept. If you want to consider that our industries can better compete on an international stage if they don't have to carry the burden of employee health insurance, that could be a right wing idea. Most people cannot afford their own healthcare, and therefore need some kind of pooling of funds or insurance coverage. This has been demonstrated to be more cost efficient under Medicare than under any private insurance company. There should not be a profit in the illness of a human being. Medical care should not only be available to those who have money. Everyone should have equal access to medical care.

I believe this country was founded on pooling resources for the common good of its citizens. Everyone cannot afford nor needs a personal army or police force or fire department. We share the expense and share the benefits. That is also true of public parks, public waterways and public roads. Why can't this also be true of public hospitals?

I believe that as the Neo-cons in Congress, the White House, talk radio etc have moved this country more to the right, the moderate median point has been forced to an artificial left. It may be left of the current center, but it is the true center.

[Donna Zen]

52. Me too!

I actually don't do labels. But this spouting off about the left without defining what that means, really fries my butt. Yes, I think that there is a huge number of people who want to see our country forge ahead and solve some problems. And yes, I do believe that nothing will happen as long as Washington is awash in corporate money. At least thems been the rules of a road for a while now.

"Want a prescription drug bill? Let me check my donor list....ah...how's about we privatize it little lady...oh, and can you phone bank this weekend?"

So when I ask for clean government etc., I get labeled as a radical leftist. Exactly what leftist or progessive program are they trying to scrub?

You are exactly "right on" about how the middle became the left. And if, as this thread possits, this so-called left is silenced by voices advocating God knows what, well, how much further right will the middle move? That was my point. Thanks.

[welshTerrier2]

81. the political spectrum

great post, DZ !! it really deserves its own thread ...

i think there are real differences between left and right but not the way the labels are used on DU ... to me, left means some form of socialism or Marxism ... many on DU might identify with those ideologies but it's very rare to see posts on these subjects on DU ...

for the most part, the term "left" is often used in a disparaging manner ... what is really meant by the term is that those accused of being "lefties" have not demonstrated sufficient loyalty to the Democratic Party ... it has nothing to do with the issues at all ... "lefties" are "purists" who only tear down the Democratic Party (never republicans) and who engage in "circular firing squads" and who love Ralph Nader and will do nothing but end up electing republicans ... what their views are is not the issue; that they are critical of Democrats and MIGHT not support conservative Democrats is what earns them the label ...

and incidentally, the same is true at the other end of the spectrum ... those who are called DINO's are called that partly because they are choosing conservative positions but perhaps, equally importantly, because they are choosing them "to win elections" rather than because the policy is the best policy for the country or what they deeply believe in ...

[Writer]

32. No. n/t

[woo me with science]

41. and vice-versa. nt

[PassingFair]

45. I am sitting next to a pile of petitions that came in the mail yesterday.

Nominating petitions for Jennifer Granholm and Debbie Stabenow. I am active locally and am a precinct delegate.

They are going in the trash.

I will vote for them, but I will NOT work for them, nor will I give any more money to DLC candidates, period.

I had hoped that Dr. Dean could effect changes within the party, but the do-nothing faction of our party, our friends at the DLC "think tank", and THEIR good friends, the corporate media, are in full enabling mode. :puke:

Guess we had all better shut up and not erode the credibility of our pResident.

It doesn't matter HOW those candidates vote on social issues. By kissing the ring they doom us to minority status for the foreseeable future.

[skipos]

49. Not me. I don't cut off my nose to spite my face.

The only thing that dooms democrats to minority status are people who passively let republicans win.
I'll be working for Granholm, I am sure many other DUers will to. We would definietly appreciate the leaflets you want to throw away. If you went to the MI forum, I am sure you could find someone to take them off your hands! :)

[PassingFair]

53. Come & Get 'Em...

You'll have to root through my trash, but that probably won't bother YOU. Knock yourself out.
In my opinion, the "only thing that dooms democrats" are people who passively let democrats vote like republicans.

[skipos]

54. I didn't know you already threw it away.

In the future, let me know when you have stuff you don't want.

My goal is get as many democrats elected as possible, as long as the democratic candidate is a better alternative than the republican candidate. If we had a government filled with democrats, the party as a whole would be able to the left. Now that the republicans are the majority power, they have certainly been able to push to the right. I am working for as much democratic control as possible, as it would clearly be the best thing for America right now. We did really well in Virginia, New Jersey and California in 05, and I think we can do well in 06. Do you agree with anything I am saying?
:hi:

[PassingFair]

55. The "push to the right" has been ABETTED by certain of our

representatives in Washington.
I'm tired of a corporate-funded think tank shooting down progressive candidates within our OWN PARTY. I'll take a correct voting Independent over a DINO ANY DAY.
If we don't get the message across to the enablers, we might as well just enlist in the military ourselves.

We NEED an overhaul. It is LONG overdue.

Do you agree with anything I am saying?

:hi:

[skipos]

72. Could you answer my question please? nt

[PassingFair]

76. I would have agreed with you in '00.

Now I don't agree with you. The party must change, or it will remain irrelevant. I am working very hard to change the direction of the party. I am NOT a leftist, I am a centrist. This is how *ucked up our party has become.

I am reminded of this:

"...when voters have a choice between a real Republican or a Democrat posing as a Republican, they will choose a real Republican every time."

--Harry Truman

[skipos]

77. In the case of MI and Granholm

how are you working to change the direction of the party? I ask because I would like to know.

For whatever it is worth, I email my congressman, senators, MSM, Walmarts, etc whenever a DUer brings up an issue, or if I have one myself. Petitions... polls.. protests... marches.... I try to change the direction of the party too, but I don't see how passively letting republicans win ANYTHING helps ANYONE.

[PassingFair]

80. I host a DFA group.

I am a vocal progressive voice at my local dem party group. I canvass for dem candidates at every election.
I think the situation is bad enough in our own party, that a message MUST be sent to the people with the purse strings that they ARE GOING TO LOSE THEIR BASE.

It is already happening.

My donations go to the DNC and DFA. That is how I am working for change.

Would you campaign for Zell Miller. Would you campaign for an anti-choice candidate in a BLUE district? I am boycotting the DLC.

[skipos]

82. I understand your broad goals

but in the case of Granholm, how would it help your cause to let her be defeated by a republican?

[PassingFair]

83. I don't think DeVos has a chance against her.

I will devote my time to unseating Miller. She is a thug.

[skipos]

86. Fair enough. I am not as confident as you about her win (yet).

If I had to sum it up I'd like to
1. work on keeping/moving candidates to the left
2 get as many republicans out of office as possible

And I feel I can work towards both of those goals at the same time. I disagree with those DUers who see it as an either/or situation.

[PassingFair]

87. Me too, skipos, we really ARE on the same side.

I am ONE person. I can do only so much. And what resources I have, and what energy I have, is going towards building a better party and crushing 'pukes SIMULTANEOUSLY!

Lively conversation, by the way. Thank You.

:hug: <---------------- I don't give out very many of these......

[skipos]

88. Back at you! nt

[SaveElmer]

46. Seems to be the opposite around here...

Can't say that I have ever seen thread bashing Dennis Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or any other left leaning Democrat...

Can't recall once ever hearing "I will never vote for Dennis Kucinich." Or any comments calling left wing Democrats commies or socialists or any other nasty name for that matter...seems like most if not all of these people are treated with respect by all wings of the party here on DU...

But when it comes to a centrist Democrat...we see an avalanche of mindless, often personal and rude commentary...

Seems to me the left here at DU ought to be a little more tolerant and respectful.

[Clarkansas]

47. Can't recall once ever hearing "I will never vote for Dennis Kucinich."

That is a good point. I am pretty new so maybe I am coming at a bad time, but it seems like everyday there are hundreds of posts from left leaning people that criticize/attack/insult moderates. I wish we could show a little more repect for everyone in the big democratic tent.

[SaveElmer]

48. See post #45 for a prime example of this mentality...nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Ha, then you weren't here during the primaries! (altho Save Elmer was)

so he must have a poor memory.

Dennis Kucinich was criticized for being too far left, unrealistic, not appealing to moderates, too New Age, a vegan, twice divorced, Jerry Mathers' lost twin, or the Keebler elf; having greasy hair, wearing a brown suit, coming across as nerdy, and I'm sure there were other insults that we Kucitizens had to put up with on a daily basis.

I suppose the criticisms have leveled off because someone who is quietly working in Congress following through on his beliefs is harder to criticize than someone who constantly shifts positions at the advice of Beltway consultants.

[SaveElmer]

96. There are always exceptions...

But I can tell you the criticism levelled at Kucinich was of a political nature...and was rarely personal or nasty...and I do not recall anyone saying they would not vote for him under any circumstances. And I do not recall any posts calling Kucinich anything approaching the vitriolic names I have seen Hillary called - slut, asshole, whore, and the "C" word, which was thankfully deleted.

And the level was no where near what it is with Hillary now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Actually, some of the single-issue pro-choice voters said that they

would never vote for Kucinich under any circumstances and called him a hypocrite and an opportunist (as well as short and ugly).

:shrug:

I think the bitterness against Hillary comes from her perceived lack of integrity and her willingness to compromise far more than necessary with the worst administration of both our lifetimes.

If you put yourself out there (spamming people with unwanted 9 x 12 envelopes full of pleas for money every two weeks or so--NOBODY else does that), pontificate on wedgy non-issues, have nothing to say on the important issues, buddy up to the Republicans along with your spouse, and say nothing when the Republican media promote you as the obvious candidate for 2008, you shouldn't be surprised if rank-and-file Dems get annoyed with you.

[SaveElmer]

98. Well Lydia....

I hate bashing of this type no matter who it was...and if there had been anything approaching this level of vitriol aimed at Dennis Kucinich I assure you I would have been as ticked.

"I think the bitterness against Hillary comes from her perceived lack of integrity and her willingness to compromise far more than necessary with the worst administration of both our lifetimes."

Key word here is perceived...it seems too many here are willing to be led around by the nose by Fox and the other news outlets without taking a look at what she is actually doing.

"If you put yourself out there (spamming people with unwanted 9 x 12 envelopes full of pleas for money every two weeks or so--NOBODY else does that), pontificate on wedgy non-issues, have nothing to say on the important issues, buddy up to the Republicans along with your spouse, and say nothing when the Republican media promote you as the obvious candidate for 2008, you shouldn't be surprised if rank-and-file Dems get annoyed with you."

As to pontificating on wedgy non-issues...I assure you every politician does that...take a look at the cosponsors of these bills everyone hates...you will find Hillary is not the only Democrat....she is the focus of media coverage so everyone hears about it. Second some of this pontificating I admit is done for political reasons...which is what it is going to take to defeat the Republicnas who don't have your sense of fair mindedness.

As for saying nothing about important issues that of course is completely untrue. A simple perusal of her website, as well as those of the environmental, women's, educational, and union groups that giver her their highest rating.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. None of those people will ever get a presidential nomination

And thus that automatically makes them less controversial to begin with.

Another factor is that America is significantly farther to the right than other western democracies. Centrist Democrats in America would be members of the conservative party in almost every other western democracy and that pisses off a lot of people at DU.

Also Democrats who are farther to the left do seem to get some criticism. Except that criticism is always "they can't win an election".

[MrBenchley]

91. Nor do you ever see

centrist Democrats demanding that Dennis be purged from the party, or announcing that Maxine Waters or Barney Frank are DINOs, or that Jerome Nadler is not a true Democrat. But you can find leftists singling out prominent Democrats with exactly those claims (and again, almost always Democrats up for re-election in 2006 who are either walloping their Republican opponents).

Look at all the childish, dishonest, ill-informed bashing of the Democratic Leadership Council by our "teen progressives". Is there any thread by any centrist Democrat anywhere even mildly disparaging the Progressive Democrats of America?

http://www.pdamerica.org/

Even funnier, I'd bet there's not a single post here by our teen progressives that's PRAISING the PDA or promoting its activities.

[Can o Beans]

50. LEFT democrats...Consider the middle or LOSE

You need to get your head around this. Your attitude toward the middle is precisely why we have the idiots in power that we do.

[SONUVABUSH]

57. You are exactly 100% wrong.

I believe the majority of Americans are somewhat moderate in the center. If you want to lose most elections, then continue to embrace gay marriages, gun control, and don't dare say Merry Christmas.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. A majority of Americans supported the Iraq War too

And 2000+ people died based on false evidence. So yea I agree. Let's always do what is popular and not what is right.

[Donna Zen]

60. I own 5 guns and say Merry Whatever I want..

The moderate center no longer trusts the beltway insiders of either party. That's what loses elections. You have to stand for something and know what that something means. So what does the moderate center want?

[Hippo_Tron]

58. The man in your avatar probably wouldn't describe himself as liberal

Don't get me wrong, I think that he is easily the greatest president of all time.

But the thing about FDR is that he really didn't have much of an ideology. He came to office with a simple agenda of ending the depression and keeping the country together. An expansion of the federal government as great as the New Deal was considered insane at the time. But because FDR had no binding to an ideology he was willing to give it a try.

The bottom line is that FDR wanted to do what is best for the people. He told the truth and stood up for what was right.

I think that part of the reason that we have this fight between left and center is that we don't have a leader like FDR anymore. We don't have someone who we know absolutely has an agenda of simply doing what is right. I think that is why we turn to either the left or to the center, because the next best thing to having somebody who is trustworthy in office is having somebody that you agree with.

My point is, be on the lookout for the next FDR. For some people, I think that Howard Dean even was the next FDR. I don't totally agree but I think that he shared some of those qualities in that he was willing to tell the truth even if the truth wasn't popular. His positions weren't even any more liberal than Kerry's, but he challenged the establishment when Kerry wouldn't and that's what people liked about him.

[Lady President]

63. Maybe Greens Need to Learn about the Candidates

I've read through the posts in this thread, but it seems as though you like candidates based on personalities, not platforms. You stated that Greens like Dean, and in another post that Kerry was a weak candidate. You do know that Dean is the centrist, and Kerry is the lefty? If you liked Dean's policies, then you aren't a lefty. It's perfectly fine to like Dean's policies (many do), but don't complain that Dems. are losing your vote because we don't run liberals. It's also fine to like Dean's personality, but don't confuse that with policy.

Sorry to sound rude, but my pet peeve is complaining that the Party is ignoring a groups needs, yet not understanding the position of the candidates.

***Edit to point out that do not think any single poster could speak for all Greens.

[nickshepDEM]

69. I think it works both ways. Isolate the center, lose.

Isolate the left, lose. We need to find a common ground and work together to elect democrats. Id take 50 Ben Nelsons over 50 of any Republican.

[skipos]

78. And THAT is the best statement in this whole thread IMO.nt

[MrBenchley]

92. Great post....

[LittleClarkie]

84. Sorry, the Dems aren't going to turn Green. That's what the Greens

are for.

Hence two different parties, and all.

That said, how would you feel about a populist candidate ala FDR.

Also, if you didn't see but a dime's worth a difference between Kerry and Bush, you were standing too far to the left. Same thing happens if you're too far to the right, I've noticed as well. It's all in perspective.

[LittleClarkie]

85. There is also a difference between centrist, moderate

And why are you skipping over the liberals like they're not there, and heading straight for Green Party folks and their votes?

[eridani]

89. We demand to be treated as well as the Repubs treat their extremists!

All the Rapture whackjobs who think that the world will end soon with themselves floating above it all watching Jesus slaughter millions of infidels are treated very nicely by the business classes who want them to keep voting for cutting taxes for the wealthy. They always get juicy bones thrown at them like anti-abortion Supreme Court justices. No "moderate" Rethug as EVER said jackshit about how Rethugs should distance themselves from Anthrax Annie or Oxycontin Pimplebutt.

Meanwhile, all us leftie extremists who say crazy shit like "Er, all those other industrialized countries have health care for everybody, no exceptions. Could we consider getting something like that here?" or "Um, maybe we should be spending billions on inventing the post-oil economy instead of on military conquest of oil-rich countries, because, like, the cheap oil is going to go away regardless?" get treated like dirt. Except when they want doorbelling or phonebanking volunteers, or lots of $20-$100 donations. And no, Michael Moore is not the same as Anthrax Annie. Has he ever called for any of the really vile sociopaths who control this country to be shot for treason? No? Then why must Dems distance themselves from him.

[capitalistdemocrat]

93. There's nothing wrong with considering the left

And sometimes they have some good ideas. However, like the far left has just about as much support as the far right (very little). So, in order to win, more emphasis must be placed on the center.