Moderates: Here we are, stuck in the middle with you

[Q]

- Moderate politicians have never accomplished anything beyond compromise and concession. Don't misunderstand: compromise is an excellent approach when congress and the senate are in good working order and checks and balances are in play to keep the executive branch from taking too much power.

- But with the authoritarian Bush* government in power...compromise and concession becomes appeasement and surrender.

- What is 'moderation' surrendering to the Bush* government? (in no particular order):

1. The 2004 election

2. Environment

3. Social welfare

4. Peace

5. Choice

6. Bill of Rights

7. Coequal branches of government

8. Checks and balances

9. Civil Rights

10. Free and fair elections

- Moderation is a dangerous thing when you have a government willing to circumvent the Constitution and Rule of Law to get what it wants. Compromise only works within the framework of a working Democracy and representative government...where both sides are willing to give and take and come up with a solution for the common good.

- But that doesn't describe the Bush* administration and RWing Republican controlled Houses. They've already warned us of their intentions when they referred to bipartisanship as 'date rape'. The totalitarian Bush* government isn't interested in compromise: they simply take what they want. You won't find a moderate among them.

- Save your moderation and compromise for another time...when Democracy is restored and government serves the people instead of itself and corporations. Moderation and compromise is the friend of fascism and totalitarianism. The Bushies are powerless without it.

[deminflorida]

1. You don't have to be stuck, you can run back to Nader where you

came from in the first place and let us win this election like we did in 2000.

I hear Ralph's thinking about making another run for it, so they'll be a train for you to catch latter in the morning.

The Dean train your riding is headed for derailment.

[Iverson]

3. He didn't write a single word about Nader.

However, if I wanted to distract from the point when I had no argument, I'd do the same thing.

Look! A UFO!!

:eyes:

[Q]

5. In one post you accuse me of 'supporting' Nader and Dean...

...when I've supported neither one.

- Yeah...we 'won' the 2000 election...which is why Bush* is in the WH.

- Put on your critical thinking cap for a moment and ponder how and why we can win elections and still be out of power?

- You got it! It's not that we can't win elections...it's that the Bushies have TAKEN power from us.

[Ardee]

57. amazing leap of logic, really

have you considered a job in the circus, where your acrobatic leaps would be more apropos?

When you awaken from your apparent coma( kidding) you will find that this is now 2004, the results of the 2000 election, where Bush won the elctoral votes necesary to gain the WH ,so, when you awaken you wont have to read the news to understand.

I do understand how, stuck in the past as you are, you cannot process the information showing so plainly that current democratic strategies are miserable failures, the results of the mid term elections, which you missed unfortunately , were a disaster for dems, not so much in the few seats they lost, but because ,historically, the mid terms are always gains for the party not in the WH.

Yet, rather then analyise the reasons for these failures we see, again and again, limited thinkers unable to process information and derive conclusions, seeking scapegoats, Nader makes such a good one,rather than doing the difficult and mentally exhausting (I guess)task of understanding that democratic strategies are not working.

When a poster, concerned that Bush is going to win, worried that republicans are going to gain even more in the legislature, afraid of the further packing of the Supreme Court posts his concerns we get nothing but vindictive attacks. Nice way to get together to defeat this threat to our democracy and to world peace as well.

I cant wait to read who you will blame for the 2004 election fiasco......

[kayell]

2. Excellent post, Thank you

Moderation and compromise worked out so well for Chamberlain, didn't it?

[TomNickell]

6. Chamberlain didn't fight against a radical uncompromising enemy....

He needed to defend universally accepted principles, not promote a controversial agenda of his own.

[TomNickell]

4. Moderation, or guts?

With * having abandoned the broad consensus at the Center for extreme right policies, moderate centrist positions on issues are winners.

What's needed is the courage to call lies, extremist radical policies, and corruption by their true names. What has passed for centrism is actually cowardice.

The big issue of the coming election is control of the terms of debate. If we can frame the debate as "Should we throw out this lying, incompetent radical den of thieves?" then we win. But, if the debate is, " Should we keep this marvelous courageous wartime leader, or replace him with a limp-wristed liberal who like terrorists?", we lose.

[Q]

7. Bush* campaigns as a 'moderate' and governs to the far right...

- Republicans understand that Bush* has to LIE and misrepresent in order to appeal to the moderates. But Republicans know and expect that he'll have a far right government so they don't object.

[Ardee]

58. Why Tar All Republicans?

Especially when it is a small contingent of far right wing hard liners who have come to dominate that party. After all the same might be said of the democrats as well......

[maggrwaggr]

45. I'm with you, Tom. The definitions have changed

the old definitions just don't hold up these days.

Bush can't be called "conservative". He's a fascist, plain and simple.

What does this make "moderates? " Well, if they're like Daeschle and the other Dumbocratic scum, they're fascists, too, just "kinder and gentler" fascists.

A true "centrist" these days in an actual American who believes in the truth and honesty and governing for the people instead of for corporations.

I'm not being overdramatic when I say it's come down to a battle between good and evil. Pure corruption, the death of democracy versus an awakening to take us BACK to what this country stood for in the first place: a government by and for the people.

Hell, we're living in a time where Pat Buchanan seems like a breath of fresh air because he tells the truth! I used to hate that guy! Now he's closer to us than he is to Bushco!

It's fucked up times we're living in here. The old words mean nothing.

[Rowdyboy]

8. Think of all the great leftist American presidents...There's

well, none, but think of all the wonderful things they've accomplished!

[Q]

9. But right now...you have what the press calls a 'great' Rightist...

...president. Should we at least wonder how he got there and how he was able to attain this type of unfettered power?

- The left doesn't think much of Bush*...but the right loves him. Why? Because he has brought to them what they've wanted for so long: a scattered, powerless Democratic party.

[Iverson]

10. Let's explore this.

Since there haven't been any leftist presidents, we should therefore ...

... ignore Q's point about the toxicity of compromise with the far right?
... keep rolling over for the Bush administration?
... follow the DLC strategy unquestioningly?
... discard "left" ideas in politics?
... assume normal times and normal models of domestic politics?

I'm absolutely positive that you're trying to make a coherent point, but I need more help in locating it.

[Q]

12. "Normal times and normal models"

- You've nicely captured the point. Our 'house' is on fire and DLCers have issued us squirtguns to put it out.

- Part of the problem is that many of the more 'conservative' Democrats actually support Bush's* agenda. Hell...some well-known Dems are actually saying they'll VOTE FOR HIM in 2004.

- How can we make an issue of the Iraqi war being illegal and immoral when some high-profile Democrats voted for it and continue to support it?

- I don't understand why some think that it's 'leftist' to call for the end of the appeasement of the corrupt Bush* administration.

[Rowdyboy]

27. My point is, when you begin with a foundation of attacking the center

in favor of leftist reform, you are going to lose. America, sadly, is not a leftist nation and has not been for many years. You can try to fit a square peg into a round hole all you like but it just won't fit. Leftist ends can only be achieved by cooperation and compromise with the center.

We tried with George McGovern. I remember the night well, I was in college and was a "true believer" right up until Nixon won 49 states. I learned many lessons over the next few years but this was one of the primary ones. The left must be realistic, not purely idealogical. I don't expect you to agree, but it is the truth as I see it.

[Iverson]

29. much more coherent

I appreciate your clarification.

Now, how do you propose to analyze the situation when the meaning of "center" is what formerly was meant by "right?"

[Rowdyboy]

32. I honestly don't know

But I do know it won't be accomplished by attacking the center. Most of these center-right people were center-left when Clinton was in office. They basically don't care about left-right issues as long as you don't attack their values, raise their taxes, or screw with their jobs. They're largely apolitical and could just as easily come back to us-if we choose our candidate, our issues and our strategy carefully.

And they're not stupid, contrary to the opinions of some folks here (the asses who refer to 'sheeple'). They may not be as educated or as politically aware as many of us, but they know a phony when they see one and they know when they're getting screwed. Bush is a phony and is screwing them. He's also sending their children overseas to fight in a war many of them consider nuts.

This is a foundation we can build on.

[Q]

51. I'm trying to wake up...more than 'attack' the center...

- Why? Because it's the 'center' that gives Bush* his power. There aren't enough RWingers to do it by themselves. They NEED the center who seems willing to go along with Bush* on many issues. This is what gives the Bushies the type of 'credibility' they need to claim they have a mandate. It's the cooperation of 'our' center that gives Bush* the ability to say that he's a 'uniter', not a 'divider'.

- The moderates are giving Bush* the type of credibility he needs right before an election.

[Rowdyboy]

62. Actually the "center" split in 2000

If we agree that roughly 35% of America is far-right, 35% is liberal-left and 30% is centrist-moderate. In 2000 half those guys went for Gore, half for Bush. Americans tend to "support" the president in office (whether fairly or not). But support doesn't mean they'll blindly vote for him. Given the right opponent, the right issues we can win.

The only reason the "mushy middle" is supporting Bush now is that he holds the office. These same people supported Bill Clinton in 1999 when the impeachment bs was in full swing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. I would tend to disagree

I would consider FDR to be a leftist president.

[Rowdyboy]

25. Nice try

Modern historians would disagree-forcefully. Roosevelt was a moderate-conservative who fought desperately to maintain the capitalist society with only a few modifications. Poor whites received far better treatment than poor blacks while lynching continued unabated in the south.

http://academic.csuohio.edu/perloffr/lynching/

Huey Long threatened to run against Roosevelt from the left in 1936 and, Had he lived, could have presented a serious threat at the height of the Depression.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsharewealth.htm

Don't misunderstand. FDR is one of my heroes. I respect FDR tremendously, but he was not a leftist. Eleanor, maybe, and some of his appointees, but not FDR himself.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. A moderate-conservative?

OK, well, by your definition then almost everyone must fall under that category.

FDR is the most liberal politican that has ever been installed in the oval office. Far and away in my opinion. If you think that moderate-conservative, then I question your definitions.

[Rowdyboy]

33. I agree with you that FDR is the most liberal president we've

ever had and he's still considered a moderate (at least by modern, historical standards). A sizable portion of the Democratic party of the 1930's-1940's was to his left including his second vice president, Henry Wallace. Had Wallace not been replaced on the ticket in 1944 (Roosevelt picked Truman), America WOULD have had a leftist president. Wallace was a real hell-raiser. He ran against Truman in 1948 as a 3rd party candidate, and, yes, nearly cost Truman re-election.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Only by OUR standards here

Would FDR be a moderate.

[DerekG]

37. Wrong president, actually...

Lyndon Johnson was our most liberal president, who sought to fulfill what Roosevelt had started. Had he not escalated the war, he would be a hero to 90% of us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. But he did

And he loses lots of liberal points for that.

[Ardee]

59. biographers suggest otherwise

While FDR steered the ship of state through perilous times indeed he was, by any definition, an aristocrat, an anti semite, no lover of civil rights and there are many, many proofs of this in the biographies. Eleanor was his stabilising influence, by any standards the greatest first lady in history, and a real liberal.

[0007]

13. Excellent Post Q

I do agree with you 100% - and the guy in Florida, what can ya say about folks that have head problems?

[NicRic]

14. Moderate, a must to win in 2004 !

Our country seems split , and I honestly believe a moderate would be the only nominee that would win against bush in 2004 .For some reason ,and Iam sure the media has alot to do with this ,many ill informed voters seem to believe bush is a moderate. I liked Clintons triangulation process .He would listen to all sides and do his best to come up with an answer that gave each side a feel good feeling about whatever bill they where working on .He got things done that way ,tohe other choice is gridlock, and nothing gets done. You have to creawl B/4 you can walks .and even then its small steps. I believe Westley Clark fits this model and would win in 2004.
Take Care Nick

[Q]

16. A sure win for whom? Bush*?

- Bush* will be campaigning as a 'moderate'...should centrists vote for him?

- It's time to face reality: we're campaigning against a fascist government who will use any and all means to win. And you still think moderation is the best approach?

- Bush* is counting on Democrats to approach the 2004 campaign with moderation, compromise and concession. He knows that will make them indistinquishable from the moderate campaign he PLANS on running.

[are_we_united_yet]

18. Q

As usual, you are right on the mark.

[kentuck]

36. "many ill informed voters seem to believe bush is a moderate"

So, why should "moderate" politicians agree with him?? Would they not be "ill informed" also?

[dusty64]

15. Also many formerly

considered moderates are now seen as lefties. As the political climate in Washington as swung to the very extreme right, anyone politically left of this is a "liberal". Of course, I've been baffled by the incompetence and unwillingness of most of those career politicians to fight this nasty and evil agenda. But I guess thats what ya get when corporations and special interests are allowed to own and decide the system and its players.

[Q]

21. Or is this propaganda?

- Has the political 'climate' swung the right...or has the right wing corporate media simply used this as a rationale for Bush's* far right policies?

- Many on the left fail to see the connection with the American media demonizing Democratic politicians while making excuses and offering support for their right wing opponents.

- It's important to understand that mass communications in America are controlled by conservative ideologues with an agenda to transform our country into a one-party state. if you think this is a conspiracy theory...then take another look at how the 'free press' treated Gore as compared to Bush* in the 2000 campaign.

[dusty64]

34. I do not believe the

climate has swung extreme right on "Mainstreet", only in Washington. Of course, the People have little control over the process anymore especially if the "christian reconstructionist" electronic "voting" machines takeover. It doesn't help having the media functioning as a wholly owned subsidary of the rethug party either, barraging the public with 24/7 crap last seen in the old Soviet Union.

[Ardee]

60. you take on established "truths" here and about time

Thank you Q for raising the spectre of democrats willingly adopting the definitions of the GOP and battling on their terms. On the issues americans have always been liberal and still are given both sides of an issue. Yet we see, again and again, the demos allowing Bush to frame the debate, allowing Bush to define the issues and thinking in terms of republican definitions.

If the democrats are to have any chance to beat this machine they are going to have to realise that you fight on your terms not the enemy's, you frame the debate to favor your view not theirs, and, most importantly, you do not fear the electorate,you trust them to make the right decision.

For far to long now democrats have tiptoed around the debate, have refused to publicly state the way Bush lies, makes claims without substance and have given the voters no real choices.

[Q]

61. Bush* will make sure the 'debate' is about war and national security...

...Two issues that he can use successfully because they're shrouded in secrecy. The opposition has allowed him to build a government with a foundation of secrecy and now he can hide his true intentions under the veil of 'security'.

- One of the biggest strategic blunders made by the Dems last year was their announcement that they wouldn't pursue Bush's* lies that took us to war. This conceded the issue and may have given him the election on a golden platter.

[buddhamama]

17. good post, Q

and point well taken.

i am not surprised but highly disappointed that fellow DUers have failed to see the larger picture.

this isn't about which Democratic candidate will become president; this about what our current crop of Moderate Representatives have allowed * to do to our Democracy.

the 'play' is taking place now not in Nov.2004

misplaced focus will lead us where? Nov may be too late
for many of us, it already is
because the road to destruction has already been paved
who walks down that road today, tomorrow, a month from now
will decide that fate of our Democracy.

[Q]

19. We need a modern 'Paul Reverse'...

...yelling..."The fascists are coming".

- The 'Left' didn't start this 'war'...but we sure in the hell need to finish it if we expect to ever return control of our government back to the people.

- It makes you wonder what politicians like Miller, Lieberman and other 'moderates' must be thinking when they directly or indirectly support Bush* policies in spite of all the evidence of the damage they're doing to our country.

[ShimokitaJer]

20. It depends on what "center" you are moderating towards

Much as the two parties would have us think otherwise, there is no math textbook line with "liberal" on one side "conservative" on the other and the zero of "moderate" in the middle. The pet issues of labor, abortion rights activists, and gun control advocates on the left are often in contradiction with one another, just as are the issues of the fundamentalists, the neocons, and the fiscal conservatives on the right. It is not "appeasing" or "selling out" to seek common ground, even though the center praised by the DLC has, in the past, been exactly that. There are other places we can define the center where compromise does not mean selling our souls.

Consider this: Bush is an extremist, with views that are out of synch not only with that of most Americans, but with that of many Republicans. By insisting on party loyalty, the Republican rank and file are forced to support a president who is radically opposed to many of their supposed ideals, such as fiscal responsibility, small government, and states' rights. It has been the Republicans' unwillingness to compromise with the Democrats, insisting on unilateral partisan votes and browbeating its own members into compliance, that has allowed this radical element to become so successful.

Bush ran as a moderate, running against a Democratic campaign that failed to define itself, and he managed to take away 20% of registered Dems votes in the process. There is no way any of our candidates will let the people make the mistake of seeing Bush as a moderate again. Yet there are still "reasonable" people in the center to whom "liberal" ideals appeal... as long as we don't call them liberal ideals but just plain ol' common sense. A majority of the American public wants increased funding for education, is in favor of keeping abortion legal, want workers protected, wants to curb corporate excess, wants affordable health care, wants to protect the environment, and most importantly... they are willing to pay for it as long as they believe the money is being well spent.

Personally, I see no reason to dismiss those who appeal to this center as "sell-outs." We need to ask ourselves what really furthers progressive ideals: focusing on the most divisive issues to maintain our moral purity, or finding common ground and creating authentic change? Just because those on the other side of the political fence share some of the same concerns, don't be so quick to dismiss them as "tainted."

[Q]

22. The term 'sell-outs' is yours...not mine.

- It's no longer a matter of 'appeal'. How can you appeal to voters if your message has to go through a set of filters controlled by those who don't want you in office?

- Once again...you're proposing a set of standards that may well work in 'normal times' when real bipartisanship and common sense prevail. But these are not normal times and the 'other side' will do anything to keep us from returning to power.

- You're trying to make this an argument about strategy when it's really one of simple survival as a party and ideology.

[ShimokitaJer]

23. And I stand by it... the DLC are sell-outs

My point is that the "moderation" and "centrism" of the DLC is not truly compromise and cooperation, but rather pandering to the same moneyed interests as the other side and refusing to stand up for ideals mistakenly believed to be unpopular.

Survival as a party and ideology? Do you really think they are synonymous? Personally, I think the ideology is not as fragile as you do; Bush's excesses will only make that ideology stronger. But I don't give a flying fuck about the survival of the party if they fail to uphold that ideology. If it's a choice between preserving the power of the party and advancing progressive issues, I say let the party die.

Yes, the 'other side' will do anything to keep us from returning to power, just as 'our side' will do anything to keep 'their side' from holding onto power. When will you realize that it's the insistence on loyalty to one of only two 'sides' that prevents either side from enacting positive change?

[maggrwaggr]

46. The DLC are as fascistic as Bushco, only "kinder and gentler"

Theyr'e still fascists. They're still interested NOT in the people, but in their own power, money, and the corporations that fund them.

These people are not true "centrists" but another form of the right wing corporatists.

[loudsue]

24. Great post Q. Maybe if we had a Dem candidate who would

run from the center, and rule from the left, we could get some of this mess balanced out.

The problem is, anyone running from the center in the Dem camp.... probably IS from the center, and won't inspire the base OR the undecideds -- that person would "seem" like bush lite, and many would stay home.

Dean, so far the front-runner, may actually BE the center, but is perceived as running from the left.

We're in the middle of a major media perception distortion, and I'm not sure how we fight our way out of this paper bag. If we don't get the voting machine scandal straightened out, we won't win regardless of who runs.

Once we have THAT straightened out, grassroots education of the issues might sway enough voters that we can get someone in office that will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and get us some help with the corporate press.

Next, once the press is back to reporting the truth, we could start funding education, and get the people in this country THINKING (critically thinking -- for themselves) again.

Without the vote and the press, we don't have a democracy to begin with.

Thank you for your post.

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. Q i think you know where i stand! i hear ya

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. All I can do is smile..now everytime I hear that song, I am going to

think of centrists.

[drdigi420]

31. appealing to the "centrists"

is what made the 2000 'election' close enough for bush to steal by keeping the uninspired base at home on voting day

energizing the base is what needs to be done

this whole 'us too but not as much' attitude is spelling defeat for the party without an identity

[kentuck]

35. Q, I wish every Democrat in Congress could read your comments....

Because you have nailed the problem to the side of the barn for all to see. This clearly defines the problem with Democrats like Zell Miller, John Breaux, and others. At other times, they would be leaders in reaching compromise for the better good. In these times, with a regime that scoffs at any hint of compromise, they are nothing more than appeasers. They are a threat to our nation, co-conspirators with those presently in power.

[Iverson]

38. a kick from the left

(kick!)

[kentuck]

39. kick !

Because it is important that Democrats understand that we are living in different times...

[Q]

50. Indeed...but I think we're dealing with the same Democrats...

...who still believe the 2000 election was a 'close race' and that we should just 'move on'. Further...they haven't yet fully comprehended the kind of damage a stolen election does in a 'experimental' democracy.

- Some of us can now empathize with the German people...as they too probably had their naysayers who wouldn't recognize what was right in front of their faces. Not that I can blame them. Sometimes fear is a great motivator...for good or bad.

[Solly Mack]

40. it allows the illusion of a choice to continue

.....because power has been seized by those who would continue the illusion to preserve their power...

If you think you have a choice...you'll fight along those lines...if you know the only choice is to rid the country of those who have grabbed the power...then you fight the real fight..and take the country back

[Cleita]

41. I'm one hundred percent in agreement with you.

We have to be the opposite of these crooks. We will have to fight their propaganda machine every inch of the way if we gain power in 2005. If the volleys that are starting to be thrown towards Dean and Clark from the right wing are any litmus test, be prepared for the nastiness of the Clinton impeachment and Davis recall over and over again. They will not give up easily.

[Rowdyboy]

42. Kick for an excellent thread

:thumbsup:

:kick:

[economic justice]

43. As a member of DUs "radical center"....

I will say that I do not have the energy right now to refute everything you wrote. Though, the radical agenda many here have to address the issues on your list is a prescription for *nothing* getting done regarding those issues. You DID write something that MUST be challenged:
"Moderation and compromise is the friend of fascism and totalitarianism."
THINK about what you wrote! Facism, totalitarianism, dictatorships FLOURISH on radical, sweeping changes that are hardly moderate or compromising. Your sentence (above) is truly quite shocking. In a democracy (and yes, we still have one :eyes: ) modreration and compromise are the engines of government.

[Q]

44. You disregarded the...

...salient point that moderation and compromise work ONLY in a FUNCTIONING Democracy. I believe the facts to be on my side in the dispute as to whether we still live 'in a democracy'. Roll your eyes all you want...but show me the free elections, coequal branches of government and the checks and balances. Add to that the absense of a free press and you have anything BUT a democracy.

- I say that moderation and compromise is the 'friend' of 'fascism' because it lacks the power to make meaningful changes in a one-party state.

[maggrwaggr]

48. I am now in agreement with you, Q

I didn't think I was in your first post.

but I think we're seeing eye to eye.

We cannot work with these people, we cannot make deals with these people, we have to throw them out and make sure they never come back.

I believe in true democracy. And we do NOT have that now. We need to fix the country, then we can get back to old definitions of "right", "center" and "left".

I feel like the old right/center/left needs to unite to throw out these undemocratic fascist bastards that have taken over the country, co-oped the old right-wing and completely put THEM out of power.

If I was an old-time republican I'd be plenty pissed off.

[Q]

55. We should know these things after three years of Bush*...

...kicking our asses on almost every issue. Nearly every single Democratic-inspired program has been weakened or eliminated.

- And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In another post someone scoffed at the idea that we no longer have a functioning democracy. I'd like to know what makes them think this way after three years of Bush* and a rubber-stamp congress?

- It's clear that words like 'Hitler' and 'fascist' scares the moderates. This fear may be preventing them from seeing what so many others see.

[maggrwaggr]

47. you overlook the BIG problem:

which is if the fascists are in power (and they are), to compromise and work with them makes you complicit in their atrocities.

What we need to do is throw out the rotten apples instead of having the rotten apples flavor the whole country.

Cut the mold off the cheese as it were.

These people need to be destroyed. They are a virus on our Democracy. We can't work with them, we can't negotiate with them, we can only put them out of power.

I used to be a "centrist". But the old terms just don't apply any more. Pat Buchanan now has more in common with US than he does with the "neocons".

Everything has turned topsy turvy. The country we grew up with no longer exists.

[Q]

49. It's beginning to look as if the American people...

...will have to repeat history...even though the survivors of Hitler's Germany are warning us about the similarities with those in control of the US government.

- Maybe it's just human nature...that human beings always have to learn the hard way.

[PATRICK]

52. moderation can't be surrender

You can go too far by degrees and that is where the path of least resistance(and most easy campaign money) has gotten the Party. Reasoning they have been unable to get the support(aka money) from their constituents, the majority that can't be pleased all the time, they have gone hat in hand to big money that runs counter to the constituencies in all else except mutual economic self-interest(aka greed). That those monied interest are too a large extent merely hedging their influence and at root intent on the destruction of opposition is something the Party does not like to face. Shadow Republicans is a weak hedge bet. What Bush is trying to make a case for is total destruction. The ken Lays are not so broad-minded or rational or neutral or beneficial as any moderate hope had painted them. Clinton and most others have been accommodating their own destruction.

That is not moderation, but perhaps several other terms might fit better. We can all moderately hang together or we shall all hang moderately alone? The word robs all sense and energy out of truth and action. We shall hang in every case is moderation is de facto collaboration with anti-democratic(small and big "d") forces.

[Q]

56. The grass roots of the party are quite aware they've been abandoned...

...just as the real conservatives know the Bushies have abandoned them.

- This doublespeak about 'appealing' to the 'swing voters' is simply a convenient rationale to join the Right in going after the big bucks instead of representing ALL Americans.

- Now that we KNOW Bush* is a representative of the 'military/industrial' complex...cooperating with his administration is tantamount to appeasement and complicity.