As much as I hate to admit it, conservative Dems are going to win this thing for us.

[Mountainman]

I listened to lots of political shows this morning on C-Span and the talking heads and what I come away with is that the base of both parties are going to back their candidates and that independents and disgruntled repubs, if they vote at all are going to vote Dem as a vote against the big spending, Iraq war hawk, corrupt Repubs. They are not going to vote for in favor of liberal causes but rather against the current repugs in congress. So, I think that the Ford, Casey and Lieberman types are our ace in the hole.

I am what you would call a far left liberal and I hope to see a new progressive movement come into being soon but it won't happen in the next two years. I don't think we will see health care reform or amnesty for immigrants or repeal of the tax cuts in the next two years. The seats we will win in Repuke districts will be for two years only unless the Dem who wins acts like a conservative.

I'm willing to take that so we can put the breaks on this corrupt administration and it friends in congress who are trashing our Constitution and killing the working class.

[stepnw1f]

1. Conservative Dems do Not Deserve Any Credit

They have been wrong all along..... funny how they get credit for doing nothing at all.

[ginnyinWI]

5. I disagree

This is a big, diverse nation and some states just cannot elect liberal Dems, especially Southern ones. I'm fine with a mixture of Conservative Southern Dems, Liberal NE Dems, and every gradation inbetween, all across our fine country. What's "wrong" for some of us is "fine" with others--and I think our tent is big enough. That's what true representative government should stand for. I wouldn't want the far left to rule the agenda any more than I like the far right ruling it--if that is not where most people are politically. If our liberal policies work, they'll attract their own support.

:patriot:

[stepnw1f]

9. Nobody Said Anything about there not being a "big Tent"

I am saying Conservative Democrats do not deserve credit... they have done NOTHING for the people of our party... but hell do they side with pukes when WE needed them most! Time and time again they screw us over. Liberal Democrats are the only REAL challeng to the Republican Party. Where the hell were these conservative Democrats when appointing Alito, or John Bolten? It infuriates me....

If you are a conservative Democrat, then you would be happy I suppose. Not me... they are part of the reason the Democratic party has suffered since the 90's. Just look at todays info regarding Jane Harmon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=243174&mesg_id=243174

or

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001863.php

[ginnyinWI]

24. oh I'm actually pretty liberal

I just am saying that we need the conservative element to win majorities. Even if they are dead weight otherwise. :)

[Clark2008]

10. Actually, Dems in the mid-West are more conservative than

Southern Dems.

Just making a point.

[WestSeattle2]

12. Could not have said it better! Washington state is a microcosm

of the country. We have liberal Seattle, moderate suburbs, conservative Eastern Washington, with pockets of right wing-nuts and bible thumpers thrown in for good measure. It's impossible for a liberal to win in Eastern Washington, and impossible for a bible thumper or conservative to win in King County, the largest county in the state which includes Seattle.

Dem's control the state house and Governor's mansion, but that control is only possible due to some very conservative D's.

I'll take that any day over repug control of anything. OK, they make good dog catchers, but little else.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. They make good dog catchers? Really?

I always assumed that they'd simply let the simple genius of the free market system deal with stray dogs.

[GreenArrow]

15. You can't win if you never try

In those states and regions where we are told, time and time again, that left leaning Democrats cannot be elected, those opting to run under the banner of the Democratic Party too often start out with the philosophy that in order to win, they need be as Republican as the Republicans. Then, less often than otherwise, when one of them does happen to win, he or she governs (or legislates), in ways largely indistinguishable from those of Republicans. See Mary Landrieu for a case in point. She's useless.

How can the party sell Liberal ideas if it's not willing to talk about them, if it doesn't demonstrate its beliefs on a National level? Such cowardice will not help the party, nor will it help the Nation.

[stepnw1f]

17. thank you

for saying what you said....

[WestSeattle2]

20. Who said anything about not trying?

Politicians of all stripes are always trying to get elected in my state, in areas that they realistically have no chance.

It's just a reality that must be faced in Washington State: a liberal Seattle\King County politician has never won state wide office. The only D's that win state-wide offices are moderates.

Point in fact, "liberal" Senator Patty Murray supported DOMA, and many on the eastern side of the state consider her a raging liberal. Senator Maria Cantwell supported the Iraq war, hardly a liberal stance, but again, half of this state regards her as a raging liberal.

We have a very liberal King County Executive, Ron Sims, who can't win state wide. He's run for Governor and Senator, and lost both times. He wins overwhelmingly in King County, but that's it.

It's like Dennis Kucinich attempting a national race. He will not win the south in my lifetime, and I'm 46. That's just a fact. Folks can choose to ignore that fact, or they can accept it and support a candidate who has an honest chance of winning.

It boils down to what you value most. Do you support someone who agrees with you on say 75% of the issues and can win, or do you go to the mat for a candidate who agrees with you 100%, yet has no chance of winning?

I always support the candidate who best supports my positions and can WIN. At least I know that I'll receive some support, as opposed to a conservative winning where I'll receive zero support.

[BeFree]

36. You ain't no liberal!

You make too much political sense to be calling yourself a liberal.

[Deja Q]

2. Amnesty?! It's wrong to be an immigrant?

Unless it's doing so illegally, in which case forgiving applies only after they make up for it. Other countries have policies and some of those countries are more liberal (others clearly are not), so why shouldn't the US, since we're in the middle?

[Mountainman]

7. I didn't mean for this to be an illegal immigrant thread.

I don't like the term illegal immigrant. That's my personal feeling. There are lots of illegal things people do that we don't give a shit about but by god let someone seeking a better life come here because there is a chance that they just might make it and we can bash them just because they came here illegally. No we bash then because we are xenophobic. So I guess I'm helping to make this an illegal immigration thread.

[Mythsaje]

3. You're probably right...

On the other hand, I think a lot hinges on investigations from this moment forward. If we can reveal the depths of the Republican deception and corruption, and twist the arm of the media to actually help us reveal these things, we could do near-lethal damage to their propaganda machine. If we can fracture their ideology, including their economic theories (which are so much bunk in the first place) we may have a chance to swing this thing around.

If we don't, they're going to get another crack at it and we're ALL screwed.

[wakeme2008]

4. they are going to help a little like Pro-Life Ford in TN

but that is only one Senate race. The house IMHO is a different story.

[napi21]

11. It's actually the same in Pa. Casey is prolife too, but I doubt

a far leftie could win over Santorum.

Remember, the most important thing is to gain the majority! I firmly believe even the prolife Dems would never try to overturn the settled law of Roe, but the WOULD stop any more nominations of crazy judges to the SCOTUS and most of not all of the radical tax cuts etc.

[Mandate My Ass]

35. Casey is not pro-life, he's anti-choice. He's pro death penalty

and pro-Iraq war despite the lies that got us there. He has said he's Roman Catholic and would vote as a Catholic on the matter of abortion.

[papau]

6. If we get single payer health hearings, increased min wage, out of the Iraq civil

war, and the end to tax cuts for those making over $250,000, plus stopping Bush from further trashing our Constitution and attacking Social Security - then I'll be satisfied.

Anything less than the above will be the result of no Dem spine - and perhaps time to reflect.

[Thickasabrick]

8. Did anyone read the NYT's editorial a few weeks ago by

David Brooks? He accused the RW people in the GOP of attacking the moderates (RINOs)and ruining the party. He actually made a lot of sense and I would hate to see up repeat it.

There will always be extremes based on the demographic of where the politician comes from. The good thing about those extremes is that usually you end up with a nice compromise - which is really all most people can ask for.

[Rose Siding]

13. Oh, I don't know about that. Here's another argument:

This whole series is good. Here's a taste:

The Netroots and The Progressive Movement Are The Difference

.....Now, let's look at candidate recruitment and party infrastructure. Democrats are running in more districts this year than they have run in a long, long time. While the Democratic leadership, including Rahm Emmanuel, deserves some credit for this, it didn't happen until the netroots started banging the drums of the fifty-state strategy in 2004. Howard Dean and the netroots demanded that we run everywhere, and then we went about making that plan a reality. We have filled thousands of vacant committee seats and precinct captainships the Democratic Party, paid for party organizers in all fifty states (the DNC is primarily bought and paid for by the netroots and the progressive grassroots), and sounded the call to activists around the nation that we could and should compete everywhere with Paul Hackett's narrow loss in OH-02. The netroots and the progressive movement are the primary driving forces behind the fifty-state strategy. They are why we have candidates, organizers, and party officials in more places than at any time in recent memory. This strategy has had, and will continue to have, a significantly positive impact on the outcome of the 2006 elections.

And why is the press coverage for Republican so much worse these days? The obvious answer when it comes to Foley is that sex is involved, and sex sells. However, the longer-term answer over the past two years is once again the netroots and the progressive movement. New organizations such as CREW and Media Matters are putting more pressure on the media to cover Republican scandals accurately than ever in the past. The netroots are keeping stories alive, such as the Downing Street Memo, and eventually helping to push them into the mainstream. New progressive media is now directly reaching millions more people every day than it did in the recent past. This is not even to mention these new progressive medias, especially the blogosphere, are putting serious pressure on the established media every day on every issue on every news story. This simply was not around before 2004.

The national media is already spinning that if Democrats win in 2006, it will be in spite of the netroots and the progressive movement, and if they lose it will be because of the progressive movement. However, the truth is that almost every major improvement Democrats have made in 2006 compared to previous election cycles was primarily driven by the netroots and the progressive movement. Fundraising, infrastructure, fifty-state strategy, media--almost all Democratic improvements in those areas were driven by the netroots in particular, and the progressive movement as a whole. We are the primary difference between 2006 and the past five election cycles (click here to see just how large that difference is right now). Even when it comes to Republican implosions, the progressive movement played a large role in making sure that those implosions were on display within the establishment media for the entire country to see.

The media narrative should not be that Democrats have a chance to win in spite of the netroots and the progressive movement. An honest appreciation of the situation reveals that most, if not all, of the significant improvements Democrats have made from 2004 to 2006 were generated primarily within the netroots and the progressive movement. If Democrats win in 2006, it will be because of the netroots and the progressive movement, not in spite of it. That Democrats are in such a good situation right now is largely because of the netroots and the progressive movement, not in spite of it. I'd really like to hear a counter-argument as to what improvements Democrats have made in 2006 that were not primarily generated by the progressive movement. An argument could be made that the nexus of new institutions surrounding Democracy Alliance is another major difference maker, but that is hardly an old-school development. The netroots and the progressive movement are far more organized and wide-reaching than they were in 2004 and before, and that is making a big difference in Democratic fortunes in 2006. Just look at Colorado for a microcosm of this. Democrats are not winning in Colorado in spite of the progressive movement, but because of it. When Democrats gain seats in 2006--and Democrats will gain seats in 2006--that will be because of the progressive movement too.

http://chris_bowers.mydd.com/story/2006/10/2/144532/926

Progressive Majority Rising
http://chris_bowers.mydd.com/story/2006/10/10/212841/26

Republicans Are Not Losing Because of Mistakes
http://chris_bowers.mydd.com/story/2006/10/11/1348/6257

[applegrove]

18. I agree the netroots worked hard to fight the neocon narrative. But it is

a fact that 35% of Americans are Conservative base, 20% are the left and the rest are in the middle and up for grabs (ie 40% at least). Add to that the 35% don't vote and many of them are apathetic poor who would vote Dem..and you get a real problem.

Nobody can win without the middle. That is just the way it is at present. But if Bush hangs around for another two years...and drives everyone nuts..perhaps more lefties will be created or born (however it happens).

Same problem in Canada. The left (NDP) comes up with the brilliant ideas (in the past) and the middle (Liberal Party) gets elected time and again and implements the policy.

You guys get to duke it out within the party.

So come up with great ideas when the Dems are in power. And affect things that way. Also..GOTV. Become part of the drive to find those apathetic Dems and get them politicized.

[jwirr]

14. I am old enough to know that in some states they are the only kind

of Dem that can win. We have always needed them even if they do not toe the line perfectly all the time. Their votes often win on issues that are dear to our hearts: social issues, education, health care and the like. All I want for this election is a majority of Dem/Ind in both house and senate. I an writing Santa Claus about it right now.

[Bluestar]

16. And what do you expect when Republicans

have demonized liberals for the past 20 years--spewing crap on their vile talk shows and on the airwaves that Reagan allowed to become partisan by getting rid of the fairness doctrine. Many voters have never heard anything else. It was different when I was a kid--we had had democratic rule for so long (since FDR) and we KNEW that all the good things like civil rights, social security and government protection came from the democrats. Some people don't know any different because they hear these idiots spewing right-wing progapanda 24/7.

It's going to take a few election cycles of "conservative" democrats to swing the pendulum to the left again--to make people trust us.

[opihimoimoi]

19. Hi There Mountain Man......I also hope we win this 06 election...Prolly

the most important message we can send at this time.....is the House and perhaps the Senate....

Sanity and Clarity is about to be Free from the Right Wing Prison....canardly wait...

[Mountainman]

28. Hi opihimoimoi, we've waited a long time for this moment haven't we?

[opihimoimoi]

33. Yeah we did....goes back 5 years now....soon our spears and "Raid"

gonna work on the roaches and ticks aka GOP

[LaPera]

21. I can't accept conservatives or moderates...What the fuck good is Lieberman when he

always votes republican on critical issues? Lieberman's is NOT a Democrat, he's proved that in more ways than one...He's a greedy piece of conservative shit, raking in the republican bucks and votes...Lieberman is a self proclaimed Independent...The only Democrat running defeated Lieberman in the primary, Ned Lamont! Lieberman is no democrat.

Moderates are the worst though...fence sitting assholes, they can't make up their minds will vote for a republicans, they actually will vote for a fucking republican, undecided sheep... which ever-way the wind blows, moderates know NOTHING about ideology, they especially don't know shit about politics! They are too busy following trends and doing what they are told to do, very self absorbed.

Sorry, I just despise "moderates" (regressives) as much as I detest conservatives...There's no joy in Mudville if a "conservative democrat" as you call them, vote with republicans on critical issues...especially if the Dems are the minority party...and there's no fact that they will be anything but the minority party....it's a wait and see...I hope your not being seduced by the polls or discussions you see on TV?

Dems have gone into election day with polls saying they had double digit leads, exit polls saying they would be the winner, leading all night in the vote counting and the next day...the republican is announced the winner (sometimes "winning" by double digits) with some mathematically impossible surge in the middle of the night, and no way to prove it either way...just what the republican owned machines tell us...Do you know about Georgia 2002, Alaska & Ohio in 2004?

[Mountainman]

31. Here's the thing, if we win we get control of committees, we get to set the agenda.

I doubt we will pass much legislation but we can frame the debate for 2008. For instance, if the people want health care reform. We could propose the bills that would give them what they want. Bush would not sign them but come 2008 we say, give us a Dem President and Dem Congress and you will get your health care reform. So I don't think it matters much the leaning of the candidate in 2006 as much as it does that the winner is a Dem and not a Repub.

[NoPasaran]

32. So, what's your plan?

Stand in the polling place doorway and refuse entrance to moderates?

Hold a gun to their heads and force them to vote for repubs?

Hack the voting machines and erase their votes?

[helderheid]

22. If we win, it's due to OUR work and OUR votes, not theirs.

[LaPera]

23. Your absolutely correct!!!

[mmonk]

25. No, the voters will decide and will win it for us.

[goforit]

26. and it is these conservative Dems that will go in and vote for Cheneys agenda

Enjoy the next 2 years of psychoathic crimes committed by "THE Tyrranist"

[mmonk]

27. People who vote for change aren't more influenced into doing

so by people who represent the least change.

[1932]

29. Dems wouldn't have a chance to take House/Senate if they weren't competitive

in conservative districts. And they have a chance because they're running candidates who appeal to voters in those places.

People who have a problem with this should look back to times when Dems had majority and look at some of the kinds of Democrats who were winning in Red states back then.

[B Calm]

34. All this liberal / conservative labeling is a bunch of hogwash. I'm

sorry but limiting peoples rights is not a liberal or conservative idea. One would think a balanced budget would be conservative thinking, but after the past 14 years we know better.