A lot of people are trying to redefine Democrats. Why?

[ProSense]

What's with all the pretend, dress up, labeling and disguising being promoted as the way Democrats should go? It's as if after all the talk about standing up for principle and being progressive since the election was confusion, and everyone is heading down the path to centrism again. Remember: Republican lite! Well that's the problem. It's not either or, it's both. I prefer progressive Democrats!

Kerry, for example, is a liberal Democrat, one of the most liberal Democrats around. The MSM and those with self-serving motives want to paint Senator Kerry as a centrist. He is not, and no amount of spin is going to make him so. It may confuse voters, but it doesn't change who Kerry is. It's not just his voting record it's his position on the issues, the positions that he has fought for over his entire career.

Nothing can change that fact: Kerry is a liberal Democrat!


So this weekend Kos introduced a different type of Democrat:

The Libertarian Dem

by kos
Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:15:50 AM PDT

It's no secret that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.

And what is the common thread amongst these candidates?

They are all Libertarian Democrats.

Ack, the "L" word! But hear me out.

Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad. While practical libertarians (as opposed to those who waste their votes on the Libertarian Party) have traditionally aligned themselves with the Republicans, it's clear that the modern GOP has no qualms about trampling on personal liberties. Heck, it's become their raison d' etre.

Snip...

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.

more...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/7/131550/7297

Doesn't sound Libertarian to me. If you really want more on this, visit:

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html


Kerry earlier this year said it best, IMO:

"'It's not the government's money, it's your money' ... (is) a very difficult proposition to defend against. The problem is, it's also your pothole and somebody's got to fill it. It's your school and somebody's got to manage it. It's your bridge and somebody's got to fix it."

Barbara Boxer, who is one of the most progressive Democrats, was a participant in Yearly Kos. Here are opinions of her by some attendees:

Clueless
By Jane Hamsher
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/10/clueless


This is the MSM on Kerry and Democrats:

DEMOCRATS

How to Reconnect With Voters and Realize Your Dreams of Victory

A Step-by-Step Guide for Democrats

By Michael Grunwald
Sunday, June 11, 2006; Page B01

These are dark days for the Republican Party. Voters are angry at the government over the war in Iraq, the price of gas, Capitol Hill corruption, out-of-control spending, the Dubai port deal -- and Republicans control the government. They failed to deliver Social Security reform or ethics reform, and now they're failing to deliver immigration reform. After Katrina and Haditha, NSA wiretapping and CIA bungling, President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to Jimmy Carter levels. As the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal spreads, the GOP congressional leadership's ratings are approaching O.J. Simpson levels. And now the Fed is warning that the economy may tank.

So the political pundits, as always, want to know: What's wrong with the Democrats?

It may seem like an odd question, now that polls show voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on every major issue -- including national security. But even Democrats -- especially Democrats -- seem to think their party is uniquely capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory this fall. And all around the Beltway and the blogosphere, every self-flagellating Democratic expert seems to know why.


Snip...

So how did Kerry become the party's standard-bearer? Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire, liberal and moderate, thought a military veteran had the best chance to beat Bush. They analyzed the political landscape, tried to imagine what the American people wanted in a president and voted accordingly. Their analysis just happened to be wrong.

They voted, in other words, like pundits.

Maybe that's what's wrong with the Democrats.

[e-mail]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977_2.html

There seems to be a trend to insult voters by the same pundits and self-serving types.

Kerry won by winning the primaries.


So on being a Democrat:

There are a lot of people who support a spectrum of liberal values, but on one issue or another lean conservative. The thing is that the one issue isn't always the same, and a handful lean conservative on a couple of issues. As you say, that's the reality. For the most part, Democrats are united on a number of core issues. Ignoring reality is what continues to give the Republicans the edge. People know, or should know if they're paying attention to this Congress, that Republicans do no support ANY liberal values.

The country is more liberal and may become more liberal still, but for now it's important to take the Republican advantage away.

For 2006, imagine a Democrat who supports most liberal values winning in a Republican-dominated district or state, taking the seat away from a Republican who supports NO liberal values.

[bleever]

1. Watch out for people telling you who you want to be.

Their interests may not be the same as yours.

Recommended.

[blm]

2. I think it's odd that Kos chewed on Kerry for a couple years just for

being a member of the DLC which he claimed was ruining the Dem party, completely oblivious to the fact that Kerry had the furthest LEFT record of anyone in the DLC - and now Kos is just loving Mark Warner who represents the furthest RIGHT of the DLC.

Kos didn't want Alito filibustered, and he doesn't believe in election fraud.

The only thing I do agree with him is the horribly WEAK Dem infrastructure - and it's been in that condition since 1997. Gore and Kerry were able to get their votes DESPITE that weak Dem infrastructure - they couldn't get the REST of their votes due them BECAUSE of that weak Dem infrastructure.

[emulatorloo]

4. kick and nom n/t

[Totally Committed]

18. Believe it or not, I actually agree with this...

I think Kos really lost the moral high-ground with his support of Warner after his denegration of the DLC. His position on this has made absolutely no sense to me.

TC

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. All the lefties on DKos

better wake up and smell the coffee. Kos has never and will never be a true lefty a proud LIBERAL, he is more to the right. I mean now he is outing himself. What a crock of shit Libertarian Dem. :wtf: Who the hell is he fooling. Hypocrite.

[wisteria]

5. You have that right. I won't stand by and allow this little twit to remake

or try to remake the Dem party to his crazy liking. Libertarian Dem? What an outrageously stupid direction and term.

[ProSense]

6. It's an all-out assault by the

centrist!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2673702&mesg_id=2673702

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Looking for leadership with spines??

:shrug:

[ProSense]

8. This is about labels. In fact, you seem pretty lost! Get a clue! n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. here's a clue... try getting labeled as WINNERS for a change?

There's just too much laying down and taking it these days. Obviously, what we have been doing isn't working. I know it's hard to work against the voting machines, but jeez man, where is the message? Where is the outrage? Believe me, and it hurts me to say this, but the machines aren't the only problem we have. The few Dems that are standing up to this criminal cabal are getting NO SUPPORT from their own damned party! It sickens me to watch this. How can we expect to win when we can't even stand together to bring down what's wrong in the first place? That's the reason, in my own humble opinion, that people are trying to redefine the Party. They are looking for strong leadership to take over and lead!

BTW: my first reponse up there was meant in a wry, funny way. Sorry you misunderstood.

[ProSense]

10. You mean as in the 2005 elections? The same thing is in order for 2006 n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. We're making baby steps, but yes, it IS an improvement. 2006

can be the key to unlocking the house again, but we cannot become complacent. We can't slow down now with everyone just expecting a win in November. We still require a LOT of work and have a long road to recovery ahead of us. We aren't going to magically heal this Nation or our image to the rest of the world overnight, nor by just winning back the house and hopefully the senate, in 2006. The main point is to have a strong platform to run on. A platform needs ISSUES ... issues have labels. Important issues such as the economy, our infrastructure and the needs of the American people need to take precedence over the issue of should we impeach the shrub & shotgun dick (of course we should, but we have time for that later).

Speaking for myself, I would rather hear about the issues that matter the most. How are you going to lead this Country back to greatness? What is your plan for taking care of the poor and homeless in OUR Country? How are we going to deal with and treat our veterans who return from this slaughterfest in Iraq, many of whom are returning limbless, disabled or mentally and emotionally damaged? Are they going to be left to live on the streets like our Vietnam Vets were? What are you going to do about alternate sources of energy? What are your plans to fix the immigration fiasco? How are we going to keep our jobs here at home instead of outsourcing them?

[ProSense]

16. "A platform needs ISSUES" Where have you been?

The "where are the Democrats" on the issues was beaten to death long ago, despite the MSM insistence on continuing to spin confusion.

Here:

To learn more about the Democratic Party's commitment to security, opportunity, and responsibility, read about our agenda below.

Keeping America Safe at Home
Strength Overseas
Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families
A Strong Economy
Education
Retirement Security
Affordable Health Care
Honest Government
Election Reform
Protecting Our Environment
Civil Rights


http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

http://democrats.senate.gov/


The party only needs one label: Democratic Party! Appeal to people from there.

[blm]

12. That's ALWAYS been the case - ever read about how long it took before any

Democrat would support Kerry's findings on IranContra? Over a YEAR of working on his own. And for FIVE effing years Kerry was investigating BCCI, he had Dems working to block his investigation almost as much as BushInc did.

Dems rarely stick together - look at the DSM inquiry - it should have been a slam dunk.

[Ghost in the Machine]

14. he had Dems working to block his investigation almost as much as BushInc

Yes I know. That's what I'm pointing out. These should be labeled as what they are: cronies or repug sympathizers. Period. If the party can't pull together and act as one, they need to be relabeled and remade into what the people want. The only problem with this scene is that there is still going to be division and it is going to take away from the majority vote because it will be spread out among the multiple candidates ala Nader or Perot being on the ballot.

At least with the labels, people know where they stand. Maybe with enough labels we can come up with a strong party who all agree on certain issues. Maybe others wouldn't agree on all the issues, but would find enough common ground to be able to think "well, I can put that one issue aside and join this camp to better the cause, and gain more support for my ideas at the same time". Majority Parties aren't born, they are built on ideas and ideals. One thing you've got to the repugs credit for: they stick together and cover each other's backs to the almost bitter end, but once the ship lists and starts going under they scurry like the rats that they are. Then they hang around like vultures, waiting to see what they can steal or salvage off the top of the water.

[ProSense]

15. "with enough labels we can come up with a strong party," Nonsense!

That's like saying maybe with enough positions Democrats will be viewed as a strong party. Suggesting that the party be remade to accommodate more views runs completely counter to reality. The party already has a broad set of core values and is inclusive of many. The party doesn't need more labels and positions, which confuses the crap out of people, it needs to stand it's ground and make it's case. People want to know what Democrats and Republicans stand for! You just ask that very same question. Throwing a bunch of confusing and disingenuous labels at them is going to confuse them even more.

[ProSense]

17. Oops! "its" not "it's" n/t

[rman]

13. Which kind of Libertarian?

Left Wing Anarcho-Sydicalist libertarian, or
Right Wing Anarcho-Capitalist libertarian.

It's kinda silly to call both just "libertarian".

The addition of "democrat" is hardly comforting, since it ranges from all the way from Center-Right to Progressive.

[Igel]

19. If Kerry is a centrist, it

redefines the norm leftward. This means RWers are more extreme right than they were on scale before renorming, and those on the far left are moderate-left.

If Americans don't look at details, just at labels--part of the Worf/Lakoff business, where the signified doesn't count, just the signifier does--it makes sense. I personally don't buy the Lakoffian argument, except in trivial ways; the more important something is, the less Lakoff's theory holds. But it may hold well enough for a couple of percentage point swing.

[mrgorth]

20. I agree with Kos

on the whole intermountain west thing. We need to flip some states and the south is gone.