A Great Website Recommendation for Everyone! More useful than bashing.

[Armstead]

(Note: Please keep this thread kicked for a while, if you feel this site is worthwhile too. Even if it's just the ol "kicking mule" icon. This really does frame the basic issues our side is dealing with in a constructive way.)


"The True Democrats Guide....for winning elections"
by Charles Kelly.

http://www.kellysite.net/

This is a kick-ass and enlightening website that spells out exactly why traditional core Liberal Democratic values are what is needed today, and is also a pragmatic key to "winning" in a political sense.

I stumbled across this website, and I must say it was like someone was reading my mind. Your mind too, if you are a LIBERAL (and/or Progressive) who really wants to see sanity restored to this country.

It's also worth visiting if you are a Centrist or even an "Anyone But Bush" Liberal. This site explains perfectly the problem many of us have with the stragegy and behavior of centrist Democrats (including Clinton). AND IT OFFERS A CLEAR, MAINSTREAM ALTERNATIVE.

The website's author is not a raving Greenie or a hardcore leftie radical. He is a retired management consultant who has seen how things work from the inside. And he knows this stuff, and explains it in ways that will bend your mind with a lot of "Aha" moments.

A picture of FDR and Harry Truman greet you at the website. That's where he is coming from.


Please visit and :kick:

We need more of this, and less about which candidate is the embodiment of evil.

-----
From his bio:


Charles M. Kelly

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck Kelly is the author of THE DESTRUCTIVE ACHEIVER; Power and Ethics in the American Corporation (Addison-Wesley, 1988); THE GREAT LIMBAUGH CON, and Other Right-Wing Assaults on Common Sense (Fithian Press, 1994); and CLASS WAR IN AMERICA; How Economic and Political Conservatives are Exploiting Low- and Middle-Income Americans (Fithian Press, 2000).

He holds a Ph.D. in industrial communications from Purdue University, was a management consultant for 40 years, and is now retired. He taught courses in communication, ethics, and management at Syracuse University, Cal State University, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institutes of Management. He has conducted conferences and seminars on these same subjects for numerous Fortune 500 companies.

He has published articles about ethics, productivity, and management in several newspapers, and professional journals such as the Sloan Management Review, the Personnel Journal, Organizational Dynamics, Research Management, Training and Development Journal, Management Review, Business Horizons, National Productivity Review, and Industrial Management.

For his reasons for doing this website, see Why Class War in America was written.

[mhr]

1. Agreed, Great Site

This is why Dennis Kucinich is such a great candidate.

This is why we will continually get beaten by the right - we compromise our own principles in appeasement and are unwilling to tell it like it is.

One would think we have become ashamed of who and what we are.

Like Truman and Roosevelt and Kucinich and others, I am no longer ashamed and am willing to take the fight to ANY right-winger.

[KoKo]

2. Running out......but I bookmarked it!

Thanks!

[noiretextatique]

3. thanks armstead...great site!

i bookmarked it! this especially caught my eye:

Sure, the U.S. has become a very conservative country, but it's not because of the conservatives' record, or because their philosophies and strategies are right. It's because they have successfully distorted important economic and social concepts, and not enough knowledgeable Democrats have been willing to call them liars.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. great site

Check out the three winning qualities that distinguished Roosevelt and Truman from too many (most?) of today's Democrats:

They were willing to repeatedly and strongly refute the economic and social absurdities
of their opponents. They didn't let themselves get distracted from important issues and they let no outrageous attack go unchallenged. They recognized that educating the public was an important part of their leadership.

They exposed right-wing conservatives to the public for being the demagogues they were.
Their political opponents were closet aristocrats who pretended to represent the interests of the general public, when they actually represented the interests of investors and the established wealthy.

They were proactive leaders who believed in the objective analysis of problems and in
establishing priorities. They resisted the pressures of special interest groups and gave the
voting public confidence that they knew how to make government work for them.

[Armstead]

5. "Your candidate sucks!" "No he doesn't!" "His ears are too big!"

DU is getting depressing.

[Armstead]

6. Really depressing

We're as bad as CNN in terms of focusing on shallow nonsense. This drops off the page in five minutes.

DU is becoming a substance-free zone.

[ulysses]

12. just saw this

will :kick: for classroom supplies...;-)

[NashVegas]

7. *smooches*

Nice site.

[Padraig18]

8. Kick!

:kick:

[Toucano]

10. Falling in 5 minutes! Geez

Kick again! EOM:kick:

[JNelson6563]

9. Everyone needs to check this out!

A nice change around here in GD. Thanks for posting.

Julie

[juajen]

65. I agree

Go Kucinich!

:kick:

[jonnyblitz]

11. cool site..not a big fan of Truman...but a cool site to look at.

I have it bookmarked also.

[ulysses]

13. How to Combat Republican Half-Truths

http://www.kellysite.net/halftru.htm

When a Republican presents a half-truth, it’s not enough simply to reply with a truth. In the age of sound bytes and short attention spans, such a response results in a draw. Casual listeners decide that both persons have a case to present and most issues are too complicated to make easy conclusions.

This means that, in addition to addressing specific issues, Democrats must also inform listeners what is going on in the discussion, or must challenge the moderator to follow-up on the issue. By saying something like the following:

“Mr. X is telling a half-truth that distorts what’s actually happening here. As Mr. X well knows…”

"It's important that your listeners understand what Rep. X is doing here. When he says that Democrats hope the economy goes into recession, he's admitting that he has no response to what I just said about the economy. All he can do is attack me personally by suggesting that I have terrible motives, which is a classic tactic of demagogues."

more -

[noiretextatique]

14. kick

:kick: for a constructive thread

[Tatiana]

15. Excellent work Armstead!

It occurs to me that liberals tend to be a bit too academic at times. We need to be able to articulate our positions in easily digested soundbites or slogans.

We need to be more authoritative. We need to have more conviction. Witness Teddy Kennedy come out and say that Bush is using funds Congress authorized to rebuild Iraq to bribe other nations into faux support. Now whether Bush is actually bribing people (I'm inclined to think he is) doesn't really matter because Teddy said it with such authority and conviction that the most Republicans could do was whine over his lack of "civil discourse."

We need that type of mentality.

[ulysses]

16. kick

:kick:

[MuseRider]

17. Great site

I have only briefly looked at it but I bookmarked it for after rehearsal reading. Thanks and KICK.

[KoKo]

18. And for NC'linians and Edwards fans here's a great article from that site,

too!

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:

How Bowles Could Have Won the Election,
And Edwards Become the Next President




If Erskine Bowles and John Edwards had been courageous enough to call one, a well-planned news conference in North
Carolina would have received tons of free publicity. Not only that, it would have framed the political debate in their favor for the
rest of the campaign.

Such a news conference would have drawn immediate outrage from right-wing pundits on radio and TV, and would have
created an on-going discussion about the very issues where Ds are strongest and Rs are extremely vulnerable.

In checking out the positions suggested below, news reporters and analysts would have to delve into economic issues where all
the facts favor Democrats.

Bowles and Edwards could have made the following points:

1.Both are very well off financially. No one can accuse them of trying to make voters "envious of the rich." Like Franklin
Roosevelt, Bowles was born rich, his parents sent him to good schools, he became successful in business, and now wants to
do what is best for the greatest number of citizens in the U.S.

Like Harry Truman, Edwards was born into the middle class, worked his way through college, became rich as a successful
lawyer and also wants to do what is best for the greatest number of citizens in the U.S.

2.Then they would explain the difference between a rich Democrat and a rich Republican:

Rich Democrats appreciate the fact that a major reason they are rich is that present laws greatly favor investors and
the wealthy, at the direct expense of working-class Americans. Rich Republicans, on the other hand, believe that
they are rich simply because they are virtuous and work hard. Others are not rich because they are ignorant, lazy or
incompetent, and they deserve to be poor.



http://www.kellysite.net/newscon.htm

[Dover]

19. Thanks for the link! I've only just begun to peruse it, but I liked this

part:


The basis for meaningful change—the change that allows further positive changes to occur—is an informed, politically active public that votes the right people into office in the first place. So,

1) As a general rule, and barring unusual circumstances, never, ever, vote for a Republican, anywhere, for anything—even for the proverbial dogcatcher. All the Republicans voted against the 1993 Deficit Reduction legislation. Misguided voters who thought they were voting for moderate Republicans in the past several elections actually, in effect, gave more power to their anti-worker right-wing Congressional leaders.
Qualification: I know an exceptional Republican—who once was a Chicago politician—who I would vote for every time. But, again, barring similar unusual considerations, the general rule applies.


2) Vote for a conservative Democrat only if there are no other realistic choices, and if a non-vote would result in a win for a Republican.

3) In the primaries, pick a traditional, liberal Roosevelt/Truman-style Democrat who has a realistic chance of winning over a conservative Democrat.

4) Always vote for a progressive populist, independent or Democrat, if one is available who has a realistic chance of winning. Unfortunately, not many independents fit this description. (Maybe the present economic downturn and its accompanying problems will encourage more Democrats to remember what their party used to stand for, and why. Until they do, just hold your nose and make sure we take back America from the Republicans.)

**5) MY OWN ADDITION - Insist on verifiable voting and a paper trail. Otherwise no matter HOW you vote, our democracy is much more vulnerable to mishaps, misinterpretation and outright fraud.


Progressive Populist Democrats

It’s easy to identify the progressive populists who believe in the kind of liberal Roosevelt/Truman-style democratic capitalism that we had from the 1930s to the ’80s. Progressive populists:



Support a progressive income tax (higher taxes for those who have benefited most from the sacrifices that governmental policies have forced upon working Americans)—versus those who want to reduce inheritance, capital gains, and real estate taxes for the wealthy.

Support a reduction in regressive taxes, such as sales and social security taxes—versus those who support flat taxes and increases in sales taxes, which hit low- and middle-income citizens the hardest.

Support laws that protect the rights of workers to collectively negotiate for wages and humane working conditions through their organized unions—versus those who use their power to destroy unions and decent working conditions.

Believe that world trade can be truly free only when it is managed. That is, businesses with high moral standards—those who respect workers, the environment and the public—must be protected from unprincipled competitors, and be able to compete on a level playing field.

Work to improve relations between cultural subgroups—versus those who use code words and divisive rhetoric to drive wedges between them. Progressive populists are interested in justice and in improving conditions for all Americans. This is what separates them from some of the so-called populists who want to demagogue their way into political power.

Work to improve the environment—rather than corporate bottom-lines—so our descendants will be able to survive beyond the next 20 years.

Recognize that it is always cheaper and more efficient to prevent our nation’s problems from growing than to ignore them until it is too late to take effective action. Progressive populists believe that proactive problem solving is preferable, and ultimately more cost effective for the taxpayer, than cutting taxes for the wealthy.
In other words, progressive populists actually believe in government. They recognize that no private organization has as its charter the obligation to solve social problems—only our democratically elected government does.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. What I've been saying for two years:

Emphasize economic liberalism, give people a feeling of economic security, and a lot of the other problems will take care of themselves.

Happy people are less likely to have time to hate, and they are less likely to get involved in crime.

[Armstead]

20. Here's some Raw Meat

(Thanks for the kicks above. I'm tempted to be diabolical and strategically time individual "thank you" posts as thinly veiled kicks. But I won't. Just hope others will keep this from disappearing too fast.)

Anyway, since folks want controversy, here's some for the rest of you from that site:

-------------------------

Clinton: A Moderate Republican

Forget the Monica Lewinski debacle. She's irrelevant.

Clinton was a disaster for liberals and Democrats because he was a closet Republican and was a major cause of the wealth and income gap that exists today between the rich and middle- and low-income Americans. Voters now identify his economic policies that benefitted investors and the wealthy at the expense of workers—primarily, but not exclusively, NAFTA, WTO and "globalization"—with today's liberals and Democrats. As they say, "Why vote for a Democrat if their economic policies are just as bad as the Republicans."

The Wall Street Journal agreed. From the November 7, 1996 issue:


"We have a great Republican president now."

A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard
Chairman of the Securities Industry
Association and head of Alex Brown, Inc.

"Here we are dead set in the center with a big long leash around President Clinton."

Hardwick Simmons
Prudential Securities Inc.
Chief Executive Officer

According to the biased-conservative-news-media, Clinton was right where Big Business wanted him: in the middle of the road between the Republican right wing of Congress, and the moderate Democrats in Congress.

In other words, The Wall Street Journal and America's right wing have successfully changed our definitions of balance and moderation. Traditional "Eisenhower Republicanism" (Clinton) is now considered moderation, and is almost nonexistent in the Republican party. Traditional "Truman Liberalism" is now considered extremist and is increasingly rare in the Democratic party.

This means that big corporations, the wealthy and the powerful have convinced the American voter that:

Workers' wages are low, not because they lack power, but because they are uneducated and poorly trained

Unmanaged free trade will eventually benefit all Americans

The growing wealth and income gap in our society is good because it is fair (the wealthy work harder and have more talent) and it will eventually benefit everyone

The more money our richest citizens take out of our corporations and our society, the better off everyone will be

High taxes on our richest citizens are unfair and hurt the economy

Money, greed and raw political power have nothing to do with what voters believe about the above

And, in general, no one should try to change any of the above because that would be "big government," and, besides, these "temporary abberations" are the natural, inevitable forces of a healthy economy.

Conservatives have been very effective in palming off these economic absurdities. Even many former liberals have changed sides, having joined the ranks of the affluent, and having forgotten what kinds of governmental policies got them there.

And as America continues to drift to the far right, the charade continues.

[ulysses]

24. heh

I'm tempted to be diabolical and strategically time individual "thank you" posts as thinly veiled kicks.

I've done that before...:)

[KoKo]

45. Yep....eight years of "unfettered Prosperity for the Rich and wannbees...

have left us with no pensions for anyone under 45....depleted 401-K's (the 90's alternative to those dreaded pensions) and mountains of credit card debt!'

But, Hey! We all got really cheap stuff from China....that has kept us going....and we could afford any kind of house we wanted due to the 2 1/2 times your income rule.......so what the hell.......LIFE IS GOOD in Corporate America!

Downside: Cheap goods that allowed us all to feel rich.....sent manufacturing/textile business out of the country.......and mortgages based on two incomes at 2 1/2 times income.....didn't allow for a "downturn" when only one might still have a job........and what about those "retirement" savings invested in the boombing stock market...?? Well, just wait folks the market is "coming back." Heck we just grew 3% this year.....in the "RECOVERY."

[havocmom]

21. Thanks, Armstead

:kick:

[Armstead]

22. you're welcome

[juajen]

66. Hey, Armstead

I forgot to say thanks. Great site!

:kick:

[Dover]

23. *

*

[Dover]

25. Can't understand why this page drops down so fast........

while other less visited ones stay up.

[newyawker99]

26. Thanks Armstead! I bookmarked it!

:-)

[shirlden]

27. Kick for a voice of reason

:kick:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. But...but...but...

McGovern lost by a landslide in 1972, so we shouldn't follow that advice unless we want four more years of Bush. ;-)

(I thought I'd get that one in, just in case no one else had.)

[wyldwolf]

30. I think some of this is a bit absurd...

Clinton was a disaster for liberals and Democrats because he was a closet Republican and was a major cause of the wealth and income gap that exists today between the rich and middle- and low-income Americans.

Bill Clinton, a closet Republican? Bwahahahaha. What this author is actually saying is Clinton wasn't a radical leftest as he is. The base of the democratice party has always been left of center but only slighted. People further left may want to infiltrate the party - which may be a good thing in some ways - but don't make the ridiculous statement that Clinton was a republican.

Look at the sources he cites as proof of this absurd statement. The Wall Street Journal's quotes from big business? PLEASE!

Being rich is not an evil thing in itself and under Clinton, every class saw economic improvement.

On September 26, 1996 the Census bureau reported median income up and poverty down. ABC's World News Tonight.

In 1992, 10 million were unemployed, had record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. "Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression." (

Under Clinton, median Family Income went Up $6,000 between 1993 and 2000: Economic gains were made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all citizens. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).

Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.

As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

The Clinton years were great for everyone. I don't begrudge someone who is rich as long as it doesn't keep me down. Under Clinton, the rich got richer but so did the poor and middle class.

The author asks, "Why vote for a Democrat if their economic policies are just as bad as the Republicans."

Were the economic policies of Clinton bad? Some may have had their problems (NAFTA) but compare them to the economic policies of the last 5 republican administrations. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II's economic policies were just as bad? THAT is a laughable proposition.

Another funny thing: He states never to vote republican
but then gives himself an "out."

Great website for the far left who entertain fantasies about taking over the democratic party.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. "Far left, far left..."

What part of this is so "far left":

Check out the three winning qualities that distinguished Roosevelt and Truman from too many (most?) of today's Democrats:


* They were willing to repeatedly and strongly refute the economic and social absurdities
of their opponents. They didn't let themselves get distracted from important issues and they let no outrageous attack go unchallenged. They recognized that educating the public was an important part of their leadership.

* They exposed right-wing conservatives to the public for being the demagogues they were.
Their political opponents were closet aristocrats who pretended to represent the interests of the general public, when they actually represented the interests of investors and the established wealthy.

* They were proactive leaders who believed in the objective analysis of problems and in
establishing priorities. They resisted the pressures of special interest groups and gave the
voting public confidence that they knew how to make government work for them.


Maybe I'm underwhelmed by Clinton's economy because I'm old enough to remember when blue collar families could afford to buy a house on one income and could feel confident that their children would do as well as or better than they did.

[wyldwolf]

34. What is your point?

The parts you quoted are all well and good and I agree with them but what does that have to do with today's democrats? I see them, for the most part, fighting back as passionately as they get.

Conservatives today saturate the market with their message because they control the tools by which the message is conveyed.

That doesn't mean Dem don't respond and refute the economic and social absurdities of the right, they're just not heard as loudly in a society where cable channels like MSNBC will fire someone for having too much of a liberal viewpoint.

The author of this site is looking back with fondness at only a few democrats of the past and holding ALL of today's up to them, which is unfair. The democratic party has always had their share of wienies. Democrats of yesteryear are no different than that today's. FDR and Truman were exceptions, not the rule.

Perhaps you were underwhelmed by Clinton's economy. Did you enjoy Reagan's and Bush's more? Are you enjoying George W's more?

But the accomplishments in that 8 years tell the tale.

[Armstead]

36. And why is that? Thank the Democrats.

>>>Conservatives today saturate the market with their message because they control the tools by which the message is conveyed.
That doesn't mean Dem don't respond and refute the economic and social absurdities of the right, they're just not heard as loudly in a society where cable channels like MSNBC will fire someone for having too much of a liberal viewpoint.<<<

One of the reason that a handful of conmglomerates own the media with no restrictions is that the Democrats did not even raise the issue of media consolidation, while the media were being consolidated.

In fact,many of them embraced it. They helped the Repiggies promote the Orwellian Big Lie that allowing monopolies promotes competition.
Just one of the Big lies of the sort that website is talking about.

Same thing has happened in most other industries. The big have gotten too big, and no one has challenged them (except the "far laft" whackos).

And we're paying the price as the chickens have come home to roost in the Bush administration.

[wyldwolf]

38. You are, of course, correct on this point...

..but for the record, I don't consider the far left "wackos" - just generally uncompromising which won't get them far politically unless they take up arms. (Then I would consider them wackos.)

The answer, however, isn't to be uncompromising as the author seems to suggest. The answer is to be stronger willed and LESS accomodating - something I see in Dems lately. And these are the base of the party.

The relaxing of media rules was one of those things that probably seemed like a good idea at the time. I'm sure both sides thought they could get the upper hand - but it didn't happen for the Dems.

[Armstead]

33. Statistics can prove anything

Yes Clinton was okay in some ways. But their kowtowing to the Corporate Elite ceded the political field to the Republicans and made Bush possible.

I hope you read the whole website. The author specifically has a page explaining why he ONLY cites the conservative press for his sources.

Also, statistiocs can be bent to prove any point. For a diffferent take on what has happened to the economy, see below.

(But hey, at least we're disagreeing on substance. That's a lot more useful discussion than the preoccupation with things like Dean''s hair or Clark's tie.)


From website of Cong. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/releases/20030926171353.asp

For Immediate Release, 9/26/2003
The Shrinking Middle Class


As President Bush moves into the end of his 3rd year in office, the economy continues to decline and the middle class continues to shrink. Since January 2001, 3.3 million jobs, including 2.5 decent paying manufacturing jobs, have been lost. Poverty is up for the second year in a row and has grown from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.1 percent in 2002. This means an additional 1.7 million Americans are now living in poverty and, for the first time in a decade, poverty has increased for 2 years in a row. In addition, the Commerce Department has just announced that median household income is down for the 2nd year in a row – declining by 1.1 percent.

On top of all of that, a recent study indicates that the gap in income between the rich and the poor in America is now higher than at any time in modern American history. The richest one percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent.

To read a recent article in the New York Times which discusses this study click here. http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20030926164946.asp

Excerpt:
Published on 9/25/2003 in the New York Times
U.S. Income Gap Widening, Study Says
by Lynnley Browning

The gap between rich and poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000, an analysis of government data shows.

The gulf is such that the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent.

In 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent had just under half the after-tax income of the poorest 40 percent of Americans, analysis of new data from the Congressional Budget Office shows.

The figures show 2000 as the year of the greatest economic disparity between rich and poor for any year since 1979, the year the budget office began collecting this data, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research organization in Washington that advocates tax and federal spending policies to benefit the poor. It released its analysis on Tuesday.

[wyldwolf]

35. Really?

But their kowtowing to the Corporate Elite ceded the political field to the Republicans and made Bush possible.

Really? How so?

You seem to put more importance on the the gap between rich and poor than I do and that is quite possibly an impass we won't be able to find middle ground on.

As I said, I don't care if Daddy Warbucks is getting richer if I am, too. Only when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer do I find fault in an economic system - as we are seeing today.

Under Clinton's economic policy, we all (on average) did better. Which was good for me.

Statistics can prove anything but I don't tend to discount them when they disprove a point of mine.

The first article you quoted shows economic conditions caused by policies of the current administration.

The second article, while showing your assertion of a growing income gap, doesn't account for the fact that out of those years quoted (1979 -2000) eight of them (at least) showed positive economic growth across the board and transcending class.

Again, Armstead, I don't care if economic policies allow YOU to get richer if the also allow me the same opportunity.

I have read the entire site and find great truth in a lot of it - but idealistic and ideological wishful thinking in parts of it, too.

Especially the "Clinton is a closet Republican" bit. Now THAT was funny!

[Armstead]

37. I just look around and see the results

Regardless of stastics, the reality is that many people are worse off in general than they were 30 years ago.

I can see it in the story of my hometown -- and my hometown is just typical of many.

I won't go into it all now (I'll save it for my Great American Novel someday) but the evidence of everyday life shows that we need more of a change than the centrist Democrats are willing to admit.

The rich ARE getting rich at the expense of the trest of us. Our money is going to pay the increasingly lavish lifestyles if the few at the top. You can't have a corporate culture in which the CEO makes $20 million in take-home pay while cutting jobs and wages of average working folks below and say that the rich guy isn't getting rich off your skin.

[wyldwolf]

39. Again, you're correct, but that isn't the whole story..

Regardless of stastics, the reality is that many people are worse off in general than they were 30 years ago.

Comparatively, yes, but in 2001, people were better off than they were ten years prior. A continution of Bill Clinton's (a democrat, NOT a closet republican) policies probably would have kept us on that road. Speculation, yes, but then the entire website we're discussing is based on little more than opinion and speculation.

That is why the policies of the last democrat and the current republican are so different. But to listen to this website, they're one in the same.

The rich are getting richer and usually at the expense of the rest of us. No argument there. But up until two years ago, so was I.

And there lies the difference in democratic and republican policies.

Capitalism was a liberal creation. I think you and I would agree that what the conservatives have done to capitalism is where the crime is.

[Armstead]

42. I'll go with that

>>>I think you and I would agree that what the conservatives have done to capitalism is where the crime is.<<<

No argument there.

[noiretextatique]

49. we have lost ground, i think that's the point

think of it this way. let's say the income level of the poor to middle class was 20 when reagan took office. after 12 years of republican reign, it was -20. after 8 years of democratic reign, it was 15. along comes bush, inc, and it's dropped to 0. a crude example, but it illustrates the significance of the income gap, and how it affects people over time: a NET LOSS.
the TREND is quite disturbing.

and clinton did co-opting neo-con issues...this is not news. this is why some call him a closet republican.

[wyldwolf]

55. We have lost ground...

...so the answer is a far left candidate with unproven policies as opposed to a moderate one like Clinton whose policies allowed us to gain ground?

No logic in that!

[noiretextatique]

62. you MISSED the point: still a NET LOSS under clinton

and more of a loss with bush. it's been a steady decline, and as you demonstrate, psychologically, it diminishes people's expectations. this is the problem with the sheeple, and it only serves the decline, and those who benefit from it.

the answer is surprisingly simple, if you can let go of that stale and meaningful rhetoric: redistribute the wealth! that is not about being "far-left"...it's about being responsible to the ENTIRE population, not just the wealthy.
unless of course you think roosevelt and truman were "far left."
:eyes;

[RebelOne]

31. Great site

Kick!!!

[Djinn]

41. great site - bookmarked

Very similar story/argument in Oz and UK, where the "left" parties have taken such a huge leap to the right that there is very little difference between liberal and conservative parties anymore. The theory for some seems to be the acquisition of power under any circumstances, they'll say whatever is calculated to get them elected and then after that it's "as you where"

The arguments as to whether it's better to have a realleft candidate who may not get elected or a populist who could win an election but may not make any difference while there can go on forever but it has to be more useful than swapping insults

[proud patriot]

40. Hey thanks ..Great to see you Armstead

:loveya:

[mike_c]

43. thanks for posting this, and a kick....

:kick:

[Ivory_Tower]

44. Interesting site

He makes some good points.

Thanks, and a kick.

[Tinoire]

46. Awesome site! Thanks a million - I've book-marked this! n/t

[LWolf]

47. Interesting!

I've browsed and bookmarked. I agree...a much more productive use of time than bashing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Kick!

And I'm glad to see that my nickname for the Republicans (originally applied to the Oregon Republicans, who SO deserve it) is catching on!

[mykpart]

50. Bump!

:)

[ulysses]

51. get back up there

:kick:

[RebelOne]

52. Wonderful and informative site.

I recommend it to all DUers.

[Armstead]

53. My last kick for the Monday "cube rats"

Thanks to all who've given this kicks.

I'm just gonna give it one more so the Monday folks can see it....But feel free to add your own kick if you think it merits staying a live a bit longer.

The site (whether you agree with it all or not) puts the issues in a very clear context. It's definetly worth a visit.

[spinkbottle]

54. kick

and bookmarked.

Thanks!

[IrateCitizen]

56. Thanks for the great link, Armstead!

I found the part on "values" to be especially important. And I was definitely intrigued by the assessment of the Clinton presidency -- right in line with exactly what so many "yellow-dogs" tar and feather Michael Moore over.

[Armstead]

58. Yes, that pulling of the line to the right is the big problem

The assumptions of Corporate Conservatism have become so ingrained that what is now defined as "moderate" is actually right-wing anti-worker, anti-consumer and anti-democracy Republicanism.

People have become so brainwashed that we seem to think that "If it's bad for me, it must be good for me." Or we buy Orwellian Double-Speak like "Monopolies create competition."

The Democratic Party used to be the counterbalance to that kind of nonsense. We need to return t telling the damn truth for a change.

[Greyskye]

57. nice

And I've just scratched the surface of it. Up for the morning crew on the Left Coast!

[Zuni]

59. Great site

A good idea and this should be looked at by everyone on DU

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. kick

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. And I'll add my own kick because

the "my candidate has a bigger one than your candidate" (or "your candidate is a bigger one than my candidate") threads have started to pile up again.

[Karmadillo]

63. Kick

n/t

[jiacinto]

64. I read it

What that link basically leaves us with is this point:

The left has allowed the right to define the basic terms of the debate. Secondly they have allowed the right's theories on the various political issues of the day--education, taxes, illegitimacy, welfare, economics, taxes, internationa relations--become accepted "common knowledge". Before the debate even starts they've forfeited it to the right by agreeing to their assumptions at the outset.

The book "Up from Conservativism" by Michael Lind details how the Democrats, and liberals/progressives in general, have allowed the right to define the debate on these issues. It also shows how the right was able to get control of the debate. That leads to this point:

The left needs to develoop a better media strategy. When right wing foundations start project they almost always hire someone to handle the "public relations" aspect of the endeavour. The right has talk radio and Fox News. The left needs to develop their own media and publi relations infrastructure.