is pandering to the right really what will save the dems?

[stubertmcfly]

granted, this was coming from cokie roberts but i am of the opinion that we need to be different than the republican party. not just a slightly more tolerant version of the right. the dems slide to the center is not what i am seeking in a party and if we go that direction, i will have to look elsewhere for representation. i think that appointing dean as party chair is a step in the right direction and frankly, i am appalled at our "representatives" that are just republican-lite (salazar, lieberman et al, i am looking in your direction).

this country needs someone to stand up for those of us who don't have scads of cash to throw at politicians to get our big business interests covered. we need a party that will enact legislation to take care of the environment, protect the right to choose, work for fiscal responsiblity coupled with protecting those in our society who aren't as fortunate.

hopefully dean will be the person to lead us back into the place where "liberal" is not a dirty word.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Abso-fucking-lutely.

The A#1 reason I support Dean for DNC Chair is that he will NOT tolerate the hateful labelling of liberals without a fight.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Abso-fucking-lutely beat me to it

No pandering. Engage and educate them maybe, but zip, zero, nada on pandering. There is nothing wrong with the democratic message. It just gets drowned out by right wing noise and propaganda and hate. The easiest way to piss a conservative off is to tell them the truth.

[liberal N proud]

2. cokie roberts is a two bit media whore and has no clue

Any one listening to her advice on politics is in danger of aiding the repukes in their attempt to condemn the Democratic party to termination.
If we all pander to the right, what choices do people have? If we do as cokie says, then this country will only have one political party. If you don't like the two party system you really will hate the one party system.

[TomClash]

3. No

[DemonFighterLives]

5. What did cokie say?

I think that we have gone as far to the right as we ever could. It is time to turn around and be what dems. were and always should be. The right has nothing about them that I admire.
Yes, Dean may lead us to the promised land. I had the righties laughing in my face already about Dean. They think it will do something for them. I don't know what it is, but laughing about the scream sure seems to tickle their fancy.

[CrispyQ]

6. I believe they laugh because they are really pissed

that we are taking 'ownership' of that scream as our war cry. I believe they are afraid of Dean. He is a straight shooter, he stands by his convictions & he has SPINE! They can't deal with that!

If the Dems don't stop apologizing for being liberal & being repuke-lite, they will lose me.

[DemonFighterLives]

9. I agree

:-)

[Deep13]

7. Not a question of right vs. left...

...but one of what works. Moving to the right generally will not help us. As Truman said, if the choice is between a R. and a R., the people will choose a R. every time. Still, most people do not think in those terms.

First of all, I believe that the lesson of the last 30 years is that "educating" people to think our way does not work. People do not appreciate being told they are wrong and would rather be wrong than admit the error. Consequently, I disagree with the assertion that there is nothing wrong with our message. If that was true, we would not be in this position today.

America is far more conservative than most Washington D consultants realize. What is preventing us from redefining the center to be further left are three albatross issues: support for late term abortion, gun control and gay marriage. All three of these issues challenge fundamental assumptions that many people have about the world. All three have prevented voters who agree with us generally from coming over to our side. People vote against their own interests year after year because of these issues. We will never get traction in places like Ohio until we give up our stubborn support for these issues. Last year a bare majority of Ohio voters supported Dubya, but the gay marriage ban passed 3 to 1. It will be fifty years before gay marriage is generally accepted in America, so why sacrifice opportunities for progress on that altar? Likewise, hunters are natural allies for environmental issues, but they vote for anti-environment candidates because they are convinced that Ds. will take their guns. If 3rd trimester abortions are restricted, the patient still has six months to change her mind about a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade does not protect 3rd trimester abortions and will likely be overturned anyway. Removing this issue from the table will go a long way with moderate Xtians and Jews.

I personally support the liberal position on all these issues, but most don't. We will never get anywhere on national healthcare, global warming, tax equity, international peace or other pressing issues if we let these three issues keep our people out of office. Hopefully, Dr. Dean will help rework our message to be what the voters want and to package that message in a compelling form.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Your three issues are all red herrings.

Poll after poll has shown that the majority of people want reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. A waiting period before purchase does not prohibit any legitimate buyer from buying a gun. Registration of all guns no more leads to confiscation of guns than registration of all cars will lead to confiscation of cars. No one, IMO should be allowed possession of a gun without first passing an intensive training and safety course. The NRA already sponsors such courses. Hunters and sports shooters have no need for 30 round clips, for armor piercing ammo and other accoutrements of military weaponry.

Late term abortions are already extremely rare, and are not lightly committed to -- the danger to the woman is usually greater with the abortion than with carrying the fetus to term, once it gets that late in the pregnancy. Late term abortion is not performed for convenience, or as a willful act, and no responsible doctor would perform one if not medically necessary. That said, it sometimes is medically necessary, and when it is, it should be an available option to preserve the life and/or health of the woman.

For most people, marriage is a sacrament. That in itself says that the government should have no say in it -- it's called the separation of church and state. If, for tax purposes or other federal regulatory reasons, two people want to join their finances, it should be an option -- whether it is a straight couple, a gay couple, special situations (my unmarried aunt lived with her invalid sister for forty years as a single household). If, in that governmentally recognized civil union, a couple wants to get married, let them find a church to marry them. What any other couple does, has no direct impact on me. You might also note that while 60% oppose same-sex marriage, 60% also favor civil unions. It's not the moral issue the right wants to make it, it is a religious issue, and none of the state's business.

We don't need to use the right's talking points. We need to clarify our positions and make them work for us.

[Redleg]

11. You are right but how do we get through to people who are obviously

(and perhaps willfully) mis-informed about those issues?

[Deep13]

12. Not in the reddish swing states.

"Poll after poll has shown that the majority of people want reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. "

I have not seen the poll figures. Nevertheless, a bare majority nationwide does not matter much if blue collar people in reddish swing states are prepared to defend perceived threats to their gun rights at the expense of the environment, jobs, etc. You will never convince these people that reasonable regulation is a good idea regardless of how sound your logic is. People around here (rural to suburban Ohio) would rather give up their eye teeth than entertain the notion of even tangential gun control.

"Late term abortions are already extremely rare, <...more sound reasons...> That said, it sometimes is medically necessary, and when it is, it should be an available option to preserve the life and/or health of the woman."

First, I agree with that last point. I also agree that your factual assertions are valid. Nevertheless, a lot of people who are generally pro-choice or ambivilent on abortion are really bothered by late term terminations. Again, for most people nationwide, this might be a non-issue, but in places like Ohio (aka the Mississippi of the North) it is enough to shut moderate candidates out of office in the townships and liberal candidates in the cities.

"For most people, marriage is a sacrament....while 60% oppose same-sex marriage, 60% also favor civil unions. It's not the moral issue the right wants to make it, it is a religious issue, and none of the state's business."

Again, logically your reasons are dead-on. Nevertheless, we are talking about cultural attitutes, not legal status. We lost Ohio and the Presidency because of this so-called issue. Neither candidate actually supported gay marriage, but the attention it was getting in the press because of the MA court and a few mayors made people think it was an issue. In a lot of places in this country, this matter REALLY rubs people the wrong way. Blacks and Spanish-speakers in particular crossed the aisle in record numbers because of this issue. By the way, the gay-marriage ban in OH that was passed on election day not only bans gay marriage, but bans any non-marriage relationship or benefit that approximates marriage, gay or straight. All the progress on that issue that was ever made in this state was instantly lost on that day. I suspect OH is not alone in that regard. The gay marriage issue was a signal to many people that society was about to be radicalized and taken in a direction they did not want to go.

"We don't need to use the right's talking points. We need to clarify our positions and make them work for us."

We tried that and failed. Remember when Dukakis clarified his position on capital punishment? Bill Clinton buried the issue by executing the first Federal prisoner in decades. These ARE artificial issues created by the right to push people's buttons. Realizing that does not change the fact that it works. We cannot simply stick to our own issues. That is the mistake we made last year and in 2000. The Rs will make sure that these matters are on the tops of people's minds. I must have received 100 pieces of mail during the two weeks before the election claiming that Kerry will raise taxes, take our guns, recognize gay marriage and make Jane Fonda secretary of state and similar bullshit.

We DO need to clarify and better package issues that work for us. We should have painted President Dumbass as incompetent, a corporate whore and a wimp. After all 9/11 happened because he was asleep. (It's ha-a-ard being president! That should have been our TV ad.)

[Redleg]

10. A thoughtful response but....

The Repubs are using abortion, guns, and gay marriage as wedge issues and they are effective in doing so. We are not likely to convince people otherwise so we must make other issues more attractive to voters while still supporting reproductive rights and human rights for the gay community and the rights to own certain types of firearms. Perhaps we hammer on the issues relating to employment and wages. We can use those economic issues to overshadow the wedge issues.