Concerning "liberal democrats" and why they must be kept in check,

[mmonk]

what is meant by that? What are these "extreme" "elements" intent on doing?

The next question is what do "moderates" want as policy, both foreign and domestic? What are the "moderate" positions on the constitution and Bill of Rights? What is the "moderate position on judicial candidates?

Waiting on these answers is killing me. I really don't know what all this rhetoric flying around really means.

[ixion]

1. this country hasn't seen a 'left' since FDR

We are so far to the right of center that the left isn't even in sight. There is NO 'left' pols in power, IMO.

[Tesha]

19. Two words: Bernie Sanders. (NT)

[roguenkatz]

2. I'd like to be kept in check...

cash, money orders or wire transfers are perfectly acceptable as well.

[mmonk]

13. Lol

[ShortnFiery]

3. Liberal Democrats today would be considered "moderates" in

the 1960s and 1970s.

We're LIBERAL because we want these senseless and illegal occupations (of Iraq and Afghanistan) to end sooner rather than later. And BTW, would you mind rescinding the suspension of habeas corpus and authority to torture?

Yes, we're proud American Patriot :patriot: LIBERAL Democrats because we want our beloved Troops home and to reclaim our Civil Liberties.

Yeah, ain't we wild? :eyes:

[yurbud]

9. liberal democrats today would be moderate to mildly right republicans back then

Run some of Nixon's policies by a conservative without saying who did them, and they would call him a commie.

Someone wrote way back at the 2000 election that they were surprised that a European friend who was in one of their conservative parties had been hoping for Gore to win. The Euro guy said it was because both parties here are far to the right of Europe.

[NewJeffCT]

23. That's how the framing has changed things

If you ask the "average" person out there, they think today's Democratic party is WAY WAY WAY to the left of the Democrats of the 1960s. I'm not joking, either. Because the RW has so successfully controlled the media & the message the last 25 years, Democrats are now the party of dope-smoking anti-war hippies who care more about gay marriage & affirmative action than the concerns of the middle class.

What has also happened is that a lot of those groups that were left of the Democratic Party in the 60s & 70s have kind of faded into the background - the Black Panthers, SDS, etc - they were the bombastic bombthrowers of the left. With groups like that around, it made the Democrats seems more mainstream.

Nowadays, the bombastic bombthrowers are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Glen Beck, etc. With far right reactionaries like them around, if a Republican politician takes a position or two that is slightly to the left of one RW media chorus, it makes them seem more mainstream.

[annabanana]

4. What, exactly, does a "moderate" Democrat want. . .

that a "liberal" Democrat doesn't?

Do moderate Democrats support Roe vs Wade? Stem Cell Research? Cafta & Nafta? (I know, I know.. tricky one)

There has been a lot of labeling and very little defining going on around the place...

[yurbud]

10. feudalism with a smaller does of theocracy than GOP

[mmonk]

14. Yeah. Label matching is difficult.

[longship]

5. What is the moderate Democrat agenda?

I'd like to hear that, too.

Or, is it just... Get along with the Republicans?
Or, maybe... Be more like the Republicans?

I've not heard anything but a lot about this from the media, the pol pundits, and a bunch of others. But what we don't hear is a substantive difference on the issues.

Maybe it's just a bunch of screeching. Do you think?

[mmonk]

15. Beats me. That's just it. Everybody says these things,

but I don't have a clue anymore.

[stepnw1f]

21. Been Waiting

:popcorn:

[talk hard]

6. Democrats better hammer this shit out

[annabanana]

27. Democrats already have....

it's the RW noise machine trying to hammer our shit apart...

[Skidmore]

7. K&R because I want the answer to this one too.

I'm tired of liberal being treated as a filthy word by both parties. I'm a liberaland proud of it.

[Armstead]

8. Moderate and Liberal are not mutually exclusive

It's a load of horseshit to describe "moderate" and "liberal" as two different positions, IMO.

The real contradiction is between so-called "centrists" and liberals.

To put it another way, a moderate and someone who is more liberal can be rowing in the same direction with the same goals. The major difference is the pace and extent of what they each believe is possible.

But a centrist is pulling in a different direction entirely. They are moving in the direction of Republican Conservative, which favors markets over people, corporations over the public sector and power over equality.

[yurbud]

11. liberalism is by definition moderate, trying to balance best of free market and gov't action

Those who call themselves moderate Democrats want to take government off the table nearly as often as GOP does.

[yurbud]

12. extremist=interferes with corporate profit, neoliberal rape of other countries, and expect real

not just for show democracy.

[madmusic]

16. Compare these two:

"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties—if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I am proud to be a liberal."
-- John F. Kennedy

Found here: http://americanliberalism.org/frontPage.do

In 21st century American politics, there is considerable confusion over the meaning of the term "liberal". Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans have made a concerted effort to change the meaning of the term, by a method called "framing". <5> Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, "framing" attempts to change the meaning of the word in the public consciousness, so that a belief in equal rights for all Americans is framed as "special rights for homosexuals", a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is framed as "soft on crime", and a belief in freedom of religion is framed as "hatred of Christians". <6> This has been successful to such an extent that the term "liberal" has become stigmatized and is now generally avoided by those running for office; "progressive" is now often used instead of "liberal". Although the two are related, they are really distinct political ideologies.

Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_liberalism

[mmonk]

17. Yep. Framing is the issue in descriptive terms.

However, what does it mean when democrats use this type of framing? What are they saying as opposed to what republicans are saying?

[madmusic]

18. Democrats aren't any good at framing.

That's because framing is deceptive. Framers know they are lying and twisting the truth of the real meaning. They don't care. They know they are using propaganda and are proud to do so. Their followers don't know this and are led around by the nose, e.g. the fundies who got a shock when they learned BushCo thinks they are nut jobs.

Democrats are truer to their principles and ideals, but they do repeat the frames of the Right because the framing worked on them just like it did with the fundies. It may take years to unravel all of this and figure out what each party really believes without the muddy propaganda. It may never happen.

Here's more on framing that explains why it is more than the old school politics:

http://www.alternet.org/story/17574/

[ShortnFiery]

20. It's not so much that us Democrats are NOT good, but that the Republicans ...

*OWN THE M$M*! Always remember we are talking about CORPORATE USA Media Conglomerates. Their best interest is to consolidate even more. Republicans are much more to THEIR (the suits in the Executive Suites) liking than Democrats ... well save for the DLC, i.e., what used to be refered to as moderate republicans. :yoiks:

[madmusic]

26. But if the Dems could frame well enough to kick their ratings up...

Greed would force them to air it. Good sound bite talking points that earn ratings are hard to ignore. But Dems don't like to deceive like that and say something just because it is alarmist or melodramatic, and that's probably a good thing. Like in the other post, good pity opinions like Clinton can do so well are what we need. Not propaganda framing. But mocking their framing could work wonders too. Spoofs, satire, caricatures of propagandists like Newt. We could really drive that in like driving a steak into their hearts. Like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2755315

[NewJeffCT]

24. Framing doesn't have to be deceptive

Bill Clinton often did a terrific job of it - saying that abortion should be "safe, legal & rare" - what is deceptive about that?

It's more about putting the other person on the defensive - how can somebody be against something that is safe, legal & rare? Granted, it's not always honest - "the Defense of Marriage Act" is a good one. If you vote or argue against it, you risk the headline of "Senator NewJeffCT fails to defend marriage," or "Congressman NewJeffCT against Marriage" But, the reality was that it was a bill against gay marriage, and had nothing to do with "defending" marriage.

[madmusic]

25. Is that framing?

I don't think so, not in the sense that the Republicans use it (as defined in the wiki entry).

What Clinton said with "safe, legal & rare" is an opinion, I think, and a frank one.

The Defense of Marriage Act is an example of framing because it is not a frank and honest opinion without loaded words and propaganda. "Defense" itself implies a need to fend off an attack. The phrase implies marriage can be attacked and subdued or wounded, maybe even killed. That's why it works for them.

But it could be we are just using different definitions of "framing" and both could be valid.

[ulysses]

22. you'll find that those who champion the DLC/centrist tack here

don't much like to participate in threads like these.