"Dems better shape up" according to Harley Sorenson

[GreenPartyVoter]

"Something's going on in this country, and the Democrats had better pick up on it. Books by Moore, Al Franken and other outspoken liberal writers are selling big. There is a hunger for reform, for the return of decency to our nation's politics and policies.

The Democrats can provide that. But to do so they have to return to their Democratic roots. More important, they have to stop letting the Republicans define them. Good Democrats are good people who are good for our country. Wishy-washy, lukewarm Democrats aren't good for anything."

more here: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1215-11.htm

[joeybee12]

1. Absolutely, and also the mainstream media seems clueless as well

They pretty much canonized Dumbo after Saddam's capture on Sunday, and look, no discernible bounce in the polls.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I am sick to death of

our media and its love affair with violence and those who beget it.

[Gloria]

17. I had my own run in with the "mainstream media" just now....check

out the thread in GD--"My Mindblowing Chat"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

[HereSince1628]

3. Resonates for me...

"wishy-washy, lukewarm Democrats aren't good for anything"

[Nederland]

4. Flimsy

An entire article written on the premise that the Democrat Party can get more votes if it moves to the left. And what proof does the author offer? Two facts: a Matt Gonzalez party "packed" with enthusiastic young people in their 20s and 30s, and a sold out Michael Moore event. Is this what passes for rational argument on the far left? Is this some people's notion of a statistically accurate breakdown of the voting electorate? Is this the type of logic that people employ in their lives to make decisions? If so, we are very lucky not to have these people running the country.

[ACK]

6. It will take a lot more than moving to the traditional left...

The article forgets the smear campaign against liberal ideas that have been sweeping this nation for nearly 30 years.

We need a revolution and a new path. We cannot win by being Repuke-lite we saw that in the 2002 election. We cannot win by being so far left that the common man cannot is repulsed by the candidate like Mondale.

We have to only really compromise on two major issues. Gun Control which almost all the Dem candidates have already compromised on and the death penalty which is another position most major Dem candidates do not even try to push.

Everything else including universal healthcare, independence from fossil fuels, pro-choice, pro-environment and other positions can be argued from a populist progressive voice. This is what we need.

We need to re-frame our campaigns and our language from the liberal language of today to a new progressive populist voice. There is nothing wrong with the old liberalism. But you have to have something new and exciting to ignite a real grassroots movement.

We have seen the hint of this with the Deanies and the Wellstone campaigns.

[cirej2000]

12. What Democratic Tradition is Left?

Folks we have to face the fact that this is a revolution!!

Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt...left? No! They'd be repugs almost today.

The country needs a radical shift and if we're not willing to stick by guys like Dean when the chips are down. Then we'll be a schizo party that will move to the middle when things look bad!

Harley is very opinionated and normally very correct!

[kentuck]

5. Democrats don't have the courage of their convictions because....

they are afraid they will lose the next election. There are more important things we can lose than just the next election.

[HereSince1628]

10. Even moderates could be strident

As an idealist as well as a liberal I have never bought into the DLC, triangulation thing.

I don't think that the democratic base is actually demanding a liberal candidate. Dean is currently leading and he isn't especially liberal. His appeal is that he took an early stand and was defiant about it. As of yesterday he still was. Moreover, all the candidates have more appeal to the base when they are being ardent about their positions.

What kills support is Daschle-esque lack of a will to take a stand. Now I know its important to pick and choose one's fights, and I know that things sometimes are being wrestled with out of sight. But, in this era of right wing maniacs, choosing to be bipartisan or to triangulate to "take an issue off the table" is, as the saying goes, just acceding to the political equivelent of date-rape.

My personal feeling is that the democratic base will respond to candidates who have earnst beliefs and will stand up and vigorously advocate them. Even moderates can take a stand, and they should have months ago...

This isn't the medias fault. It's the elected dems fault for using the finger in the wind method of deciding where to be on issues. You know, a wind blowing in one direction can drive boats not only in opposite directions, but it can be used to make progress toward virtually any chosen port. The base has had enough of running with the wind that leads to no democratic harbors. We want candidates who'll name a port and determinedly attack the course that leads to it.

[demon67]

7. Democrats can go on the offensive and win in 2004

But not if our arguments can be characterized as:

1. We don't think you pay enough taxes (including the middle class, whose tax cuts should also be rescinded);

2. The United States was wrong to topple Saddam Hussein; and

3. On foreign policy matters, the Americans and British are wrong, the French and Germans are right and we should not act without their approval.

These are positions that are popular on this board, and centerpieces of the Dean campaign, but will spell near-certain defeat in a general election in 2004.

On the whole, most people have an innate desire to feel good about their country and good about their future. Thus, the candidate that can generate feelings of pride and optimism almost always wins the presidency. The way to win in 2004 is to attack the president in a manner consistent with these emotional touchstones, while offering an affirmative vision of a future that is better than the present. Think JFK and Clinton, as opposed to Mondale or Dukaksis.

I know I sound like a voice in the wilderness here, but the one candidate that seems to understand this is John Edwards. Everytime I hear from Dean, he is aggressive and negative. Everytime I hear from Edwards, he is proposing a solution to a problem created or neglected by Bush. Dean appears hostile and alienating to independent voters. Edwards appears thoughtful and inviting to the undecideds. At this point, I have a hard time seeing Edwards win the nomination. However, were he nominated, I think he could do to Bush II what Clinton did to Bush I -- reveal him as being out of touch with the real concerns of real Americans and make people feel good about making a change. Just my two cents.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Kerry/Edwards

that'll do it. Edwards is great but too young. Kerry has everything we need to defeat Bush.

[bobbyboucher]

15. Interesting choices.

Might work.

[Ripley]

16. You must not listen to Dean much. Hostile?

Which debates have you been watching? He has been cooly defensive deflecting the aggressive attacks by the rest (except for Clark and Carol).

I like Edwards too, but he doesn't seem to have a national following yet.

Your 3 points are all incorrect. Dean said he was glad our forces caught Saddam, just yesterday. In fact people here attacked him for being gracious to Smirk and saying he deserved a day of praise for that.

Your mischaracterizations of Dean and his positions sound like you read them somewhere or heard it on TV from someone other than Dean.

[no name no slogan]

9. Glad you posted this

I got a link to this in an email earlier today, and thought somebody should put this up here.

It truly is sad what this party has become in the last couple of decades. We're more concerned with winning elections than in getting our agenda passed, and in running "electable" candidates than in runnng candidates who will help our country and party once they are elected.

This country (and the Democratic Party) are much further left than the mass media would have us believe. As the article states, look at what books are best-sellers. Even look at opinion polls that show 60+% of the population supports a single-payer universal health care system.

But, for some insane reason, we insist on selecting corporate-owned "moderates" for candidates, which have no appeal to our base and no appeal to the far right, either? How much longer will this party insist on defying logic?

:wtf:

[nn2004]

11. It's time to step up the attacks on bush

Dems have been too easy on him in this primary. We also need to convince voters that tax cuts only hurt those that need assistance from our government. Take the message to the people than a small tax increase will help millions of people that are in need and that is what America is all about. They need to also downplay any staged success in Iraq like the latest rigged capture.

[JPace]

13. In the 1960's

half the population identified themselves as a
Democrat. Now only a third do, same as repugs.
This is attributable to media persuasion done
by the right wing media, Rush Limpballs and
Faux news, etc.

Democrats need to use persuasion again, an art
they have lost.....they need media outlets of
their own and people gifted in the art of
pursuasion with their own shows appealing to,
educating, and entertaining the public.

Our dwindling ranks do no allow for a lazy and
passive democratic party anymore.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. "Dude, Where's My Country"...a great read....Soreson is correct

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Time for a big

:kick:

[redqueen]

19. Depressing and accurate

I feel this next vote my be my last for the 'lesser of two evils'.

I'm ABB, but I'm also out of patience with our party.

[Terwilliger]

20. kick