Let's try a reasonable discussion about the fractured left

[jpgray]

Nader can run. He has every right to run. The Greens are a separate party, and will not endorse a Democrat for an office when they have their own candidate. The Democrats are a separate party, and will not endorse a Green when they have their own candidate. Each party will run whomever they want, and they don't care about ideological sympathies--the Greens discussed running against the very progressive Wellstone, and the Democrats fought hard against the admirable Matt Gonzalez in San Francisco. So even when the ideology is complementary, they are two separate parties and behave this way.

Greens resent being told to shut up and support a moderate Democrat, and Democrats resent being told that Democrats and Republicans are the same.

Another big irritant is debate on Nader's effect in 2000. Is he harmless when the elections are in danger of being stolen, especially when they are close? Now, some would say Nader voters wouldn't vote for the Democrat anyway, but the feeling is there all the same for Democrats--that both groups are the enemy of the Right, and that Nader's margin would have been enough to push Gore into office. We'll never know if Nader was *the* thing, but frankly, before you blame Nader, there is more than enough blame to give the "selection" process, and of course Gore's campaign.

The real danger, in my opinion, is that the Greens and Democrats are competing for the leftist vote. The Democrats have a good deal of centrist folks, and also a good deal of lefties. The Greens are all lefties. If the Greens want to compete, two guesses on which party they have to weaken or replace? This competition would be healthy and fine, if the right were not so fearfully organized at this time.

If the Republicans can keep us disorganized long enough, I have no doubt that they will find a way to maintain their power over this nation for a very long time. Through fair means or foul, they will do it--their media advantage is now so large that I can't believe anyone will argue the point. The Republicans are trying to begin an era of *their* leadership and their politics alone--they do not compromise or share power.

So I don't really care about the power struggle of the Democrats and Greens--all I care about is getting Bush gone, and turning Congress away from the right.

So my question is, Greens and Democrats, how do you plan to do this? I personally plan to campaign and vote for the Democratic nominee. What do you plan to do, and will it remove Bush? If you don't have a plan to remove these neo-cons, do you think you'll still have that chance after he governs for a second term?

[CWebster]

1. Coalitions matter

in a system that is still limited to a two party choice. The task is to pull in as much of a broad-section of the big tent, without alienating any group by catering exclusively to another (swing voters). That is what happened last time when the Dems positioned themselves too far Right, expecting more progressive Dems to be left with no alternatives.

[Charlls]

6. Coalitions are a possibility

I just want to point out another, more distant alternative


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=25124

[jpgray]

25. Well, I don't see a major candidate the Greens can support

The one that can do it is Kucinich, and he will never get the nomination in this climate.

[BadFaith]

42. Coalitions are non-existent

This isn't Proportional Democracy. The American political spectrum has consistently been dominated by two parties. First the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists. Then the Democrats and the Whigs. Then the Democrats and the Republicans. While there are certainly caucuses within parties where coalition building exists (say, labor and environmental organizations), but interparty coalitions have NEVER existed in the U.S. system. Expecting it now without some system of proportional representation is wishful thinking. I would sooner expect a dyed-in-the-wool Green to support the Democratic Party as I would expect a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian to support the Republican Party.

There is simply no basis for such interwoven partnerships to exist.

[JailBush]

2. Here's the answer...

See my Nader post at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=886451

The difference between Republicans and the Vichy Democrats really are fairly minor - and the Greens aren't as different as many people suspect. Corporations have infiltrated all three parties. Here in Seattle, it's very hard to distinguish King County Democrats and the Green Party of Seattle from Republicans. In fact, the Greens have received some publicity for allegedly working for Republicans.

What drives me up a wall is the constant rhetoric and philosophy. Why won't anyone get up off their butts and do some actual RESEARCH on Ralph Nader - or on Al Gore, for that matter? Al Gore DID write the foreword to the book "Victory in Our Schools" - it's easy to verify. And the author of that book, the late John Stanford, was a corporate thug; he was the George W. Bush of public education, and he was being groomed for a position as U.S. Secretary of Education. Those are all FACTS.

It's also a fact that Ralph Nader is the chair of Commercial Alert - www.commercialalert.org - an organization that gave an award to the Seattle School Board, a gang of thungs that wrote the book on corruption. Or I could cite Nader's relations with the Green Party of Seattle and the Citizens' Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools.

Think about this: In spite of their red hot hatred of Ralph Nader, no Democrat has ever thanked me for revealing this information or even acknowledged its significance. None has ever joined me in attacking Green Party of Seattle emperor Brita Butler-Wall. Nor have any Greens ever come forward to defend the Green Party of Seattle or Brita Butler-Wall, except in the most general terms ("The Greens are what America needs!")

I'm always game for a good debate. It would be especially interesting if some Green Party officials with name recognition would come forward and defend their own. What are they hiding from?

So how does this all relate to getting rid of Bush? First, anyone who wants to pull the plug on Bush had better be aware of all the games that are being played around us. Second, getting rid of Bush isn't the ultimate solution. If Bush vanished today, we'd still be in grave danger. We need to start fixing our institutions from the GRASSROOTS, and that means getting a handle on education issues, environmental issues, etc.

Neither Al Gore nor Ralph Nader have a clue about education, and I don't think they have much to offer the environment, either.

[zeemike]

8. I am far less cynical than you

But I acknowledge that you are probably right that the power of money has corrupted the system and that thee is no Jesus Christ among us that can chase them out of the capital with a whip.
Let’s not feel so hopeless and instead look for the good in the man and hope we can select one and elect one that has some sense of justice to at least stop this runaway train of greed and corruption that is the Bush.
I happen to think that Dean is the one that can give liberals as well as green at least some of what they want and move forward on some of the issues that concern them.
It is the destroyer of unity that will tell you that because he is not 100% with you he is the enemy.

[Iverson]

3. I've been trying.

Good luck to you too.

[jpgray]

4. I posted on your thread

It seems to have been buried. Maybe I'll go look for it...

[morgan2]

5. the DNC should.

offer to make IRV part of the partys platform in exchange for Green support in 2004. They should but never will, they like having control over the left.

[jpgray]

7. Neither wants to give up any of the power and influence they hold

And as political parties in competition, that's as it should be. So Dems will refuse to allow a third party seat at the debates, and Greens won't endorse Democrats. This is just normal inter-party behavior, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just trying to find a solution that will oust Bush and a good percentage of Republican Congress in 2004. Perhaps there is no right strategy?

[LWolf]

9. Good idea.

I support IRV. And there is at least one democratic candidate that does, as well. Dennis Kucinich.

[ShimokitaJer]

14. The fact that Kucinich can't make headway should be a warning sign...

that the Democratic party leadership is not interested in progressive ideas. Kucinich and the Progressive Caucus have been consistently ignored and rebuffed by the mainstream Democrats.

The Greens refusal to join the "mainstream" of the Democratic party is due to the Democratic party's lack of interest in their issues. Yes, there is room for a third party in this country, but I believe it will emerge in the center, with the Zell Millers, Jim Jeffords, John McCains, and Olympia Snowes of the Centrist Coalition. If that every happens, I'm sure the Greens and the remaining Dems will find the common cause they have such trouble locating now.

[Armstead]

10. Greens could focus on state and local races

My feeling is that Greens focus on state and local races that they actually might have a shot at, and stay out of Presidential and Congressional races.

That way, they could continue to build a political base, while also supporting the effort to oust Bush and the GOP.

That's also, IMO, help the Greens, by generating more goodwill among Democrats and liberals who might eventually support them. If they help to further entrench Bush and the GOP, the Greens will alienate potential supporters.

[PVnRT]

12. I've beens saying that since the beginning

It seems that third parties in this country just want to run for president and little else. Think about it, if you by some miracle win, what support do you have anywhere else? If you're a leftist party, the Democrats will probably be pissed at you, and there ain't no way the GOP will come to your side - ditto for rightist parties.

I would love to have Greens to vote for in state and local races. I would love for more viable third parties to be part of the national landscape, but to get there, they will have to start building from the ground up.

[ShimokitaJer]

17. Why does everyone think Greens don't run in local races?

Didn't you see the news about the San Francisco mayoral race? 205 Greens in 26 states hold elected office. Most of this is at the local level, of course -- school boards, town councils, mayorships -- but it's very real. And if you think Greens don't encounter the same rhetoric about throwing the races to the Republicans at the local level as the do with the presidency, you're kidding yourself.

One of the Greens' ten key values is decentralization, and they see that change has to be accomplished at the local level. What they are facing, however, is an increase in presidential power and an increased willingness to use national control to restrict local progressive causes (see medical marijuana, gay marriage amendment, etc.) Seeing how little the Democrats are able to get done when the Republicans are in charge of the white house and Congress, I also have to question why you think the Greens would be able to move their agenda forward without national representation. And seeing how the Republican party treats the Libertarians, I have to question why you think the Democrats would be any more generous towards an oppostion party, even if they supposedly hold many values in common.

[PVnRT]

30. San Francisco is not America

Sorry to break that to you. The fact is around most of this country, the Greens have barely a presence at all.

And just how are the Greens going to get any kind of "national representation" without gaining some credibility first? I hate to be the one to inform you of this as well, but most of this country looks at the Greens as a bunch of wild-eyed lefty hippie freaks. Yeah, it's unfair, but there it is.

[ShimokitaJer]

32. So which is it? Should Greens run locally or not?

If you're so dismissive of their local efforts, why do you encourage them to make them before getting in the race.

You don't get credibility and then run a national race. You get credibility by running in and being competitive in a national race. The Dems wouldn't pay attention to the Green issues one bit if the Greens hadn't put Nader in the race against Gore last time around, and you know it.

I think I'm beginning to understand the fascination with "electability" on these forums. All that matters is winning. Thank god we've found our common ground with the Republicans on that one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. It's fun, isn't it?

Don't run a presidential candidate, go for the grassroots. Well, wait, we didn't mean governor, try mayor. You want San Francisco? Well, no that's not a good idea. Try for "head of towel folders at the Louisville Hilton".

:eyes:

[library_max]

36. "Our common ground with the Republicans"

So let me get this straight - we shouldn't be trying to win the 2004 presidential election, we should be trying to lose. Trying to win makes us too much like the Republicans. Is that what you're saying?

[ShimokitaJer]

38. Try to read more than one sentence at a time... context does help

I said:

"I think I'm beginning to understand the fascination with "electability" on these forums. All that matters is winning. Thank god we've found our common ground with the Republicans on that one."

And I'll stand by that. Eight of the Democrats up on the stage the other night said that the Democratic front runner didn't have a chance of beating George Bush. 90% of the posts in the forum today are about how "electable" a candidate is, while the ones that are about issues sink like a rock. Nader is attacked viciously on DU all the time, not because people disagree with his positions, but because he isn't a Democrat. If he were, people say, we just might vote for him.

Many on DU have said directly that they are voting for the Democratic party whether it addresses the issues they value or not. No, trying to win isn't what makes us like the Republicans. Being willing to sacrifice our party's principles in order to win is what makes us like the Republicans. Embracing a strategy of appeasement in order to win is what makes us like the Republicans.

If you can't defend the party on these grounds, feel free to pretend I said we shouldn't try to win. Just don't expect me to lay down and take it like a 2002 Senator.

[library_max]

41. It's the same difference.

"Sacrifice our party's principles" is exaggeration-speak for "compromise." "Embracing a strategy of appeasement" is exaggeration-speak for "courting the center." So, in that language, we cannot hope to win - no party can ever hope to win - if it doesn't "sacrifice our party's principles" and "embrace a strategy of appeasement." U.S. electoral history demonstrates that point in capital letters.

The reason electability is such a big deal this time is that Bush is the worst president in history. We have to get him out. I forget who said it first, but it's true - the Republicans aren't campaigning to govern this time, they're campaigning to rule. Bush and Rove are trying to do nationwide what Perry is doing in Texas - stamp "Republican" on it indelibly, rig the system in perpetuity, create a reich that will last a thousand years. We MUST stop this!

As for Nader, some Democrats agree with him and some disagree and most agree on some issues and disagree on others. But the point that he ought to run as a Democrat instead of running against Democrats is that his ideas would get a hearing, which is what he says he wants, but he would be in no danger of being the election-day spoiler he was in 2000.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. We have a presence

http://greens.org/elections/

[KittyWampus]

48. Sounds So Reasonable & Doable.

It's much easier to vote Green when it's a neighbor that you know and respect...

not some scary "exremist" the media portrays...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The Democratic party has to move left to keep or gain the votes

of the left. It's that simple. The Democrats have always been eager to move to the right to capture the the mythical center. Especially since the inception of the DLC and Clinton.

I'm a Democrat and have been one since 1965. I've watched the party swing from left to right and back again over the years.

This election, the grassroots Democrats are not going to vote for the status quo, politics as usual, move to the right. Dean is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the candidate to recapture the party from the centrist appeasers.

The Greens are the counterbalance to the right in the Democratic Party. They are the hammer that looms over the party if they insist on the status quo. The disgruntled left will vote for the Greens that much more represent their progressive views. The only thing that has held the Greens back so far is the perception that "they are a minor party", "they can't win", etc, which has made many on the left shun them.

This time, the Democrats have the opportunity to move back to the left and reject the appeasement policies of the DLC. If they fail to do so, they may lose the left to the Greens.

I, for one, will vote Green without a qualm, if the Dems should be foolish enough to nominate a candidate who voted for Bush's aggression.

On a more pragmatic level, I don't believe a "centrist" can win against Bush. The votes simply aren't there.

Now is the time to take our party back..or look for a new one.

[jpgray]

13. Well, that makes one ask the question

If the Greens are this countrerbalance, why are the Democrats moving to the right? In my opinion, it is because politicians are "success-minded"--i.e. they see Republicans winning, so they think "move right". They don't see Greens losing, albeit while taking a chunk of the vote, and think "move left".

So I'm not sure the Greens are pushing the Democrats left--they themselves state this is not their goal, seeing as they consider running against some very liberal folks who are Democrats. So I believe that witnessing overwhelming Republican successes in elections will just make the Democrats move further to the right. Only time will tell, I suppose.

[CWebster]

15. Not the Dems who see the writing on the wall

The era of triangulation is over. Democrats must differentiate themselves because when they are viewed as watered-down Republicans it is perceived as an endorsement of the Republican model---so why vote for a Democrat?

[jpgray]

16. I really hope more "see the writing on the wall" (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. I agree to a certain extent.

The Democratic "leadership" sees the way to winning is to try and capture the "middle". Thus the kneejerk rejection of the "liberal" label. The problem for them, is that they are now competing with the republicans for a "middle" that is mostly apathetic and votes on whim. A result of which is to alienate the left to the extent that they will either vote Green or not vote. I believe this to be a unsupportable policy. The republicans have a strong rightwing base that Bush plays to and can count on for money and blind support. The Democratic leadership, in their eagerness to win, have alienated much of their natural base by moving to the right. Not only "the left" but unions, African-Americans, and women. The Democrats since Clinton have become tepid, squishy, without a "vision" other than "we're not as bad as.." the republicans.

IMO, they must become a party with a alternative vision of what America should be rather than merely a less destructive mirror of the republicans.

They will do so, or the Greens will.

[jpgray]

19. If the Dems collapse, I fear the chance for opposition will have ended

Because if the opposition party gets slowly weaker and weaker, the group who stands to gain the most will not be the Greens but the Republicans. And since politics is about acquiring and maintaining power, what do you think the Republicans will do once they rule the roost for a few more years? Make sure they keep the roost, and hold all the doors that allow entrance. The Democratic party is deeply flawed, but I think the best chance for this next election has to be under their auspices.

We'll swing back left eventually, and then I think the Greens and Dems can have their competition without inadvertantly empowering Republicans. But right now the left is as fearfully disorganized as the right is consolidated and united.

[CWebster]

22. Wouldn't you think it would be in the Republican's best interest

to keep the Left fearfully disorganized and weak, but at least preserve the illusion of an opposition party?

Are the Republicans, considering their record of underhanded, or even criminal behavior, likely to try to use covert means to stop an emerging Democratic unity if they sensed one emerging on the horizon?

What are they likely to do and how far would they go?

Maybe it is best to not be intimidated by their propaganda but at the same time be wary of what lengths they are capable of in pursuit of power

[jpgray]

23. Yes, you're right--but our Dems still have some bite left

The Repub dream would be a party of Zell Millers--a group to blame when things go wrong, but one that wouldn't have any real impact on the actual control and manipulation of the state.

With people like Kucinich, Feingold, Harkin, and the late Wellstone, we still have the ability to be a true opposition party. When we lose that ability, then there indeed would be no reason to vote for a Democrat--the Greens might get traction then, it's true.

[CWebster]

20. Good post

bandera!

[PissedOffPollyana]

49. I totally agree.

The 'middle' are not a solid bet this time out if we are too far to the center, IMO. GW seems to have a good base among folks that get informed via social & watercooler; many people in the US are not very informed. Nuances may not move them; let's recall how many still think Iraq was in on 9/11. The centrist swing voters cannot be trusted to sift through the rhetoric. They have an abyssmal record so far, why go there?

But left-centrist swing voters & far lefters are all one thing... ticked off about the corporate hijinks that have cut their pay, overtime, pensions, benefits, etc. The mood is for someone, not who is literally an 'outsider', but one who is not spoiled by the huge sums of money being tossed around. The 'outsider' tag is more about not playing the game, otherwise that image can only last for so long.

If the Dems were more left in the ways that are important to progressives & Greens (for campaign reform, against privatization/corporatization), that would make a dramatic difference. So many people have moved away from the party because of the 'too friendly with business' policies that have been rather common. A move leftward in that direction would probably have a good effect on both sides.

The Dems can only give themselves a harder campaign by trying to compete with the Bush machine for the ones that are already lost. They need to look at how they can make sure that ALL the left (or at least as much as possible) goes their way by adapting policy accordingly while there is still time to do so.

[library_max]

26. Actually, it's more likely to be the other way around.

Greens are taking votes from Democrats on the left. There's nothing the Democrats can do about that - if they move far enough left to suit the Greens, they'll lose the middle and every election outside of safe liberal seats. So they have to court the moderate conservative middle all the more aggressively to make up for what the Greens are costing them.

This is what comes of the fantasy that people at either end of the spectrum can insist on candidates who are close to their own ideological position. You can only do that in a splinter party, and a splinter party's inevitable effect in national elections or ideologically balanced elections is to throw the victory to the other side (i.e. their ideological opposites, in this case the Republicans).

[mrgorth]

21. I love this thread

I want to agree with so many posts I'll just post here and say that almost every post in this thread is spot on. I registered as a green in 2002 on the premise that dems were the flip side of the same coin as the GOP. I registered dem to support Dean. If the dems run an all DLC ticket (say Lieberman and Gep) I will vote Green knowing what such a vote does. Until the DNC wakes up and realizes that it has to acknowledge and satisfy the left while finding a way to not lose too many centrists it deserves to burn. We're the opposition party. Oppose. I also think a 3rd way centrist coalition would be a good party. The problem is that dems are always happy to split and republicans toe the line.

[ShimokitaJer]

24. I'm not so sure the Republican party is as "solid" as everyone thinks

After all, it wasn't a Democrat, but a Republican who was fielding the idea of an opposition party in the center; it was McCain in 2000. And I think Bush's anti-conservative fiscal policies and DeLay's heavy handed tactics have only increased division within the party. Also, the Senate's Centrist Coalition is fairly evenly split between Dems and Repubs, with about a third of the Senate being members. I believe a split in the GOP is VERY possible.

[sharkbait2]

28. The mark of a true democracy is representation

a good 90% of our legislators don't represent us. We need something closer to the Parliamentary system. We need more parties.

There is no reason a Green should vote Democratic. Somehow, I don't see Republicans getting away with pressuring Libertarians to vote Republican, or even trying to. Why is this acceptable with Greens and the Democratic party.

There is something seriously wrong if Democrats can't win on their own merits. The Republicans aren't that organized, and there are plenty of weaknesses to be exploited. If the 2004 elections are lost, liberals need to scrap the current party leadership and rebuild it from the ground up.

[dansolo]

27. Nader isn't even a Green

Why do Greens support someone who won't even become a member of their party?

[ShimokitaJer]

29. Very true, but he shares many of the same ideals of the Greens

which is more than many of us can say for some of our candidates (Lieberman anyone?)

In addition, one of Nader's strongest motivations is to break the monopoly of the two party system, and this is one of the strongest needs of a third party.

[Q]

31. While Democrats have been scurrying to the middle...

...it has left a giant gaping hole in the traditional base. Blacks feel disenfranchised because their civil rights weren't defended in the 2000 voter purge. Workers feel betrayed because their jobs are going overseas and unions have lost almost all their power. Poor people feel left behind because nearly every social program has been weakened or outright eliminated. Environmentalists feel neglected because...well...just look at what the Democrats have allowed the Bushies to do to our soil, air and water.

- Democrats can write off at least the next few elections if they can't bring these groups back into the fold.

[library_max]

33. You're blaming Democrats for things they couldn't possible have prevented.

Don't you understand that Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress? What were Democrats supposed to do about any of the things you're complaining about?

The Democratic Party doesn't have a lot of wiggle room here. 9/11 has the nation still paranoid and looking for tough guys to lead it. Even the most outrageous excesses of the Bush Administration enjoy about a 50% approval rating. 2004 isn't a year in which we're going to be able to move left. Your disenfranchised lefties are going to have to come to us, we can't come to them. I'm an environmentalist and a card-carrying member of the ACLU myself, but I know we're going to have to settle for half-a-loaf or less this time. The Bush menace is too serious for ideological purity games.

[ShimokitaJer]

37. No... they didn't bother to find out if they could have prevented it

They rolled over and let the GOP have whatever the hell they wanted. Bush was vulnerable because he was playing fast and loose with the facts and the ONLY risk the Dems would have been taking by calling him on it was a political one.

We can't move left in 2004? Gee, I heard that in 2002 and 2000 too. Clinton sure seemed like he had the chance to move left, but I guess it wasn't the right time after he was elected the first time, or even when he was a lame duck. So when is it going to be the right time?

They offered us half-a-loaf last time and you took it, thanked them, and promised them your vote next time. This time you'll clearly be happy with only half-a-loaf, so why shouldn't they offer you a quarter of a loaf and see if you'll take that. After all, these are hard times and we all have to make sacrifices... not political ones, of course... and by "we" they mean "you."

[library_max]

40. You don't seem to get politics.

American electoral politics are either/or. When your party is riding high, you can try to move to your base, like Bush is doing now, like LBJ did in the sixties. When your party is on the outside looking in, you need to capture as much of the middle as possible. Clinton had Republicans controlling both houses of Congress when he was a lame duck, so a fat lot of good it would have done for him to move left then. And he tried moving left in 93 but was undercut by Dixiecrats in Congress.

And as far as the voter purge is concerned, perhaps you've forgotten the nationwide "Sore Loserman" media blitz but I haven't. We were killing ourselves politically even for pursuing a legitimate legal chance (the Florida recount). There was no legal remedy for the voter purge - the state wasn't going to hold the election again, and suing the bastards wouldn't have helped right the wrong. This is the same reason they didn't push the butterfly ballot issue.

[BadFaith]

44. Both Houses of Congress are required to pass a bill...

And the last time I checked there was still something in the Senate called a filibuster. The Republicans have never had enough votes on anything to call for cloture. Wasn't the Medicare Bill worthy of a filibuster? Clear Skies Initiative? How about when the overtime regulations bill comes up? Three pieces of AWFUL legislation designed to rip apart the Democratic base, and all I've heard is boo-hooing.

Is Daschle afraid of being called an obstructionist? It's too late for that, as the majority party is now willing to CALL THE POLICE on Democrats who don't tow the administration's line. The troubling aspect of these times is not that Bush and the GOP think that they have a Mandate from Heaven to carry out their agenda, it's that the opposition party has decided that the words "civility" and "surrender" share the same definition.

[library_max]

45. A filibuster only buys time.

It only works when the majority is trying to sneak something through that the general public wouldn't stand for if they knew about it. The Democrats have used the filibuster quite a lot in the Senate since Bush took office, but it isn't the silver bullet you seem to think it is.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. Elite liberals vs. the populist working class

That's the main split and has been for a while. The elite, upper middle class, college educated liberals want a liberal, secular, capitalist culture. They expect to be in charge. Your average working American is a Christian, but not too religious, culturally conservative (at least on the outside) and more interested in a better standard of living than to remake society.

[DinkyDem]

43. When given a choice between a REAL Republican and a fake

Republican, the people will always choose the real Republican!
We cannot forget this.

We are our own party with our own ideas that WE BELIEVE IN.
So stop thinking we will beat the Republicans by running a Republican-lite! GET A SPINE AND SUPPORT A REAL DEMOCRAT WHO BELIEVE IN REAL DEMOCRATIC IDEALS! What do we have to be ashamed of in our True Democratic candidates?

We need to stop focusing on trying to beat Republicans and start focusing on making Democrats win!
A Wesley Clark or Howard Dean win would be a loss for Republicans, but by no means a win for Democrats.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS!

The rise of the Green party has come about only because we Democrats have surrendered the Left.
And since doing that, we have lost election after election after election!

WE MUST RECAPTURE THE LEFT!
When Democrats represented liberals and not Republican-lites, we ruled the House and the Senate and the White House!

Now look at us.
And it is because we have sold our souls so the Clintons could get rich.
And what has it gotten us?
NOTHING.
Nothing but a smug rich obnioxious ex-President who won't go away and let new leadership emerge!

[library_max]

46. Your premise is dead wrong.

Once again adjusting for exaggeration-speak, Clinton and Gore are both "fake Republicans" by your definition. And Clinton won twice, Gore once.

As a matter of fact, it is hard to remember a Democrat who was elected president who wasn't a "fake Republican" by your standards, or who didn't at least run like a "fake Republican" (i.e. centrist). Even FDR ran as a centrist, as did JFK.

See, it's better to have facts to support your position than to just assert it.

[Iverson]

47. uh, that was Harry Truman's premise

You may have heard of him. Now what was his party affiliation again? It must be around here somewhere ...
(rummage, rummage)

[DinkyDem]

51. Ah, a man who knows a little history around here.

;)

[PissedOffPollyana]

52. Thank you Iverson!

Y'know, since we've become such a TV, sound-bite culture, fewer and fewer people know what the leaders of our country (& party) actually were about. I know so few people that read anymore and even fewer who keep educating themselves after finishing school. We miss out on a lot of worthwhile information that really helps in getting perspective. We have become immune to the lessons of history because we are uninformed and undereducated as a nation.

Politics is not an absolutist, black & white thing. It is a sliding scale, which varies depending on general opinion of each issue. It does not HAVE to be determined by the media & commercials. They are just a short-cut which people are becoming as immune to and cynical about as any other marketing technique.

The way to get to people is not to come up with another empty marketing strategy. It is to make the connection between the 'big news' issues and the effect on their day to day lives. If we educate people at the county, region, city, local level, we don't need cynical moves to the safe middle. We only need to remind people of who the party REALLY is and give them a reason to believe that their interests are represented instead of sold out to the corporations that are sucking them dry.

That strategy requires taking a leftward step; anything that REALLY benefits voters over 'the machine' generally does. Wow, that could actually get the public thinking we can win and not just not lose... Hmmmm....

**edit spelling (ack!)**

[ErasureAcer]

50. Kucinich is the only one we can all agree to back

or at least I think. Terry McAuliffe probably doesn't give a rats ass about Dennis(as seen by not one word after ABC dropped his embed reporter).

I for one will not vote for anyone who supports the death penalty(under any circumstances)...so if you want my vote to go to the Dem candidate...you better start backing someone who is against it.

I didn't vote for Gore for 2 big reasons. He supports the death penalty and Joe Lieberman is a fucking moron.