Can someone please name to me just ONE liberal senator who represents

[woodleydem]

a solidly red state? Or a liberal governor who represents a solidly red state? The "evil" DLC has Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, just off the top of my head. Is there even one freakin liberal senator who represents a solidly red state? Let me save you the suspense. THERE ISN'T!!!!! And that's important because no Democrat can win a national election without having some kind of appeal outside of their base. Clinton did it by using his charisma to promote a platform of centrist Democratic ideas, such as free trade, welfare reform, fiscal discipline, and an emphasis on family values (i.e. Sister Soulja, Defense of Marriage Act). John Kerry, one of the most liberal guys in the Senate, just lost a national election to an incredibly unpopular President by 2.5 million votes. Obviously, "firing up the base" isn't really enough to win on a national level.

I could go into detail about the great things Clinton did as President for lower and middle class families, but I've already done that in the past. And you know what the bitch about it is? This place masquerades as a 'Democratic' forum, and yet most of the posters around here spend most of their time attacking OTHER DEMOCRATS!!!!! Republicans are probably sitting back and laughing at us right now, because we can't get our act together. Here's an idea: let's attack a President that has fucked over our environment, run hogwild over America's financial books, given tax breaks to the rich, and launched a war on false pretenses (and has no idea how to stabilize Iraq). The 2008 elections will come soon enough, but here is a message that I leave to all self-described liberals: if you really think that there is no difference between DLC Democrats and Republicans, then you do you think there is any difference between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. I don't think DLC Democrats and Republicans are the same

I think because there is DU and FR, each has its own echo-chamber mentality and it is always that DU is far to the left of the Congressional Democrats and FR is much to the right than the average Congressional Republican.

If you go to Freeperville (I don't recommend it, it's dirty over there) many think "Bush is too liberal" and all at least believe Bill Clinton to be a Stalinist.

On the flip-side there are those in this forum that consider the DLC to be Republican-lite, or even to be "just as bad as Bush".

I think if everyone is really honest with themselves that regardless of what they think of the DLC, the DLC are different to Republicans. Not different enough for most, but different nonetheless and not the same.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Here's another question

Has the mainstream Democratic party ever supported a real populist in a red state?

Who gets elected is in part a function of who gets noticed and who gets funded. Is the Democratic Party in the red states playing it overly cautious?

Being DLC is no guarantee of victory. I remember seeing an interview with Molly Ivins in once in which she was talking about some race in Texas where the Democrat was a conservative businessman, and all the Republicans said about him was, "He's a librul. He's a librul." (He lost, as I recall.)

The Republicanites know how to run against the standard-issue empty suit anchorman of a DLC candidate. How about blindsiding them with a down-to-earth, personally charismatic populist?

[jobycom]

6. That's an easy yes.

Ask Jim Hightower about being a populist running in a red state. Ask Garry Mauro (you won't remember him, he was the guy who Bush trounced into the stone age to win reelection). The Democrats ran Tony Sanchez last time for governor. He was so Republican the Democrats had trouble voting for him. But a populist wouldn't have won, either. Otherwise, Jim Hightower would be governor, and Rick Perry, who beat Hightower, would be back on his daddy's ranch.

The Republicans dream every night in Texas that the Dems will blindside them with a populist. It would save them a lot of money, not having to run a serious campaign.

I'm a long way from saying we should run the Dems we've been running, who try to appease the Repubs. We do need someone who approaches the election from a different direction (the way Clinton did, the way Carter did). But lefties don't win in this red state, and yes, they've tried. These DINOS that you spit on are the best chance we have to regain a majority in many states.

[NaturalHigh]

45. Well written...

Here in Oklahoma, no liberal has a chance in a statewide office.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. But back in the 1970s, Oklahoma had

Senator Fred Harris, who served two terms, and who was a genuine left populist.

:shrug:

[Armstead]

46. You got it

The republicans brand ANY Democrat as far-left liberal. It doesn't matter how conservative the Democrat tries to be. The same charge is thrown against a conservative Democratic centrist as against a liberal one.

remember Kerry? Hardly a boat rocker, but the GOP still managed to paint him as both a "liberasl far out of the mainstream" and as a "flip-flopper."

We have to stop letting them set the terms for our own self-definition.

[woodleydem]

70. That has more to do with political strategy than anything else. And let's

face it, Kerry had a 20 year-liberal voting record that was easy to exploit. Now, I may identify myself as a centrist Democrat, but I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH VOTING FOR A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (as I did for Kerry). But Kerry's strategy in spring 2004 was incorrect: hunker down and let the President attack, in the meantime let surrogates return fire while he was on the road fund-raising so he could return fire in the summer of 2004. That was a (in retrospect) wrong strategy, mainly because he got tagged with the 'flip-flopper' label because he didn't spend the spring of 2004 on the offensive burnishing his credentials.

Presidential politics has everything to do with strategy, and that's where Hillary excels. I only mention Hillary because she gets attacked here more than anybody else, (and here I thought this was a Democratic message board) but I really feel that she is 20 TIMES more politically savvy than John Kerry. Many of her advisers were in the trenches for two WINNING Presidential campaigns: there won't be any attack that they won't be ready for. And Hillary's voting record isn't nearly as liberal as Kerry. Kerry stumbled the most when he had to explain his vote FOR the Iraq War but against the $87 billion supplemental (BTW, Hillary advised him that voting against the supplemental would be a huge mistake). That was incredibly damaging because in a lot of voters minds it crystallized their fears of Kerry: he was indecisive. Hillary doesn't have that problem. Her voting record on military and foreign policy matters is consistently pro-military. Now, that may irritate many liberals, but let's face the facts. THIS COUNTRY WILL NEVER ELECT A DOVISH LIBERAL!!! Even LBJ, at the height of the Vietnam War (a war that was much more unpopular than today's war), got re-elected in a landslide. The American people need to know that whoever the President is, they won't hesitate to pull trigger if they feel it necessary.

[jobycom]

3. Man, I'm grinnin'

Excellent rant. You'll get hammered, I'll get flamed for agreeing, but I agree completely.

[woodleydem]

7. Buddy, I'm grinnin too because I know there will no coherent response to

this post. I'm just tired of the fact that this party seems intent on destroying itself by allowing an increasingly shrill fringe of the party to try to control the agenda, without any input from Democrats of other stripes. I'm just posing a simple question: is there one liberal in the Senate or in a Statehosue (I say Senate or statehouse because you have to win statewide for a Senate seat or governor's seat) that represents a solidly red state?

[noamnety]

11. "increasingly shrill fringe"? n/t

[bejammin075]

27. My coherent response

I believe the DLC's very purpose is to undermine the Democratic party. I don't think the people here should pretend to be friends with the DLC for the sake of party unity. Notice that the DLC has no grassroots support of any kind, and their only values/priorities are the enrichment of dead corporations at the expence of living people.

Having the DLC is like an army of 3-4 divisions having 1 division that is secretly on the side of the enemy. I think regular, living, breathing Democrats should declare war on the DLC. Cast it out with total rejection. The DLC is the reason that Democrats seem to have paralysis, and lose at the polls. Because it's a party divided that cannot stand. The corporate interests that fund the DLC are typically pro-Republican interests that know they can divide and conquer the Democrats easily by throwing just a little $$$ their way. Fuck the DLC.

[Tigress DEM]

4. Here is why the DLC pissed me off - and I'm basically a moderate DEM.

Their agenda is full of things the Republicans have all promoted -- and it's missing crucial things that the DEMs really need to stand up for, like Election Reform and Prosecuting the War Criminals in this administration as examples.

WE THE PEOPLE, and that includes:
ALL DEMs (Conservative/Moderate/Liberal/Progressive);
Independents (Green thru Libertarian and beyond);
and even Republicans who are tired of being dragged around lied to ...

WE THE PEOPLE have agenda items that MUST Be Dealt With AND the DLC just DIDN'T Hit them. We don't NEED to APPEAL to the Republican base. WE ARE the MAJORITY - the election was definitely rigged in OHIO and other states were suspicious also. WE HAVE THE NUMBERS. WE HAVE THE FIRE in our BELLIES and WE HAVE the TRUTH on our side. WE DON'T NEED TO COWER Behind politically correct agenda items.

I DO Agree with you however, that the DU needs to spend LESS time ATTACKING DEMS and MORE time CHEWING UP THE ISSUES and getting them to make sense out here so everyone who comes on the DU leaves with a clear sense of what kind of progress we can make by coming together in this way. WHEN the DU works that way IT IS HIGHLY EFFECTIVE.

[woodleydem]

16. Who said anything about "appealing to the the Republican base?" I see

that as a Democratic base that has been going to the Republican party because our party hasn't been articulating our ideas very well. Look, I like John Kerry, and I voted for him. But he certainly wasn't a guy that did a good job of our articulating the ideas of our party (nice way of saying that the guy had an incredibly wooden personality). My point is that some of these ideas are Democratic ideas that have been STOLEN by the Republican party to promote their agenda. Whoever the nominee is in 2008, (whether they be liberal or centrist) let's unite!!! If the liberals have 'THEIR' candidate, run him (or her) in the primaries. But if they lose (as they surely will), the liberals need to show some party loyalty and unite behind the nominee. And I know some will say, "we compromised in 2004" with Kerry, but you really didn't. The 2004 field was weak at best, and Kerry was the best of the worst; he was a nominee that had NO appeal to any group except liberals. He got almost 60 million votes and tons of money by default. I don't expect liberals to agree with every aspect of a centrist agenda, but my question remains the same: Is there even one liberal senator or governor that represents a solidly red state? The implications of that question are quite serious for 2008.

[eridani]

25. Kerry appealed to liberals?

WTF are you smoking? Just about any lefty I know thought that he had some redeeming features (not least of which was his promise to end the project of permanent military bases in Iraq), but the main thing was getting Bush out.

[kerrygoddess]

55. I'm a liberal!!!

He appealed to me. Still does.

Show me one Senator that has been consistently on the right side of the issues and fighting of rus the way Kerry has this year.

[CTLawGuy]

75. well, if you're only talking about this year ok

voting for IWR and refusing to apologize for it is not exactly progressive.

[kerrygoddess]

56. I guess John Kerry never hugged you... Eh?

I doubt you would say that had you met him and spoken with him and maybe weren't for someone else before the nomination. Eh?

[CTLawGuy]

74. remember, he voted for the IWR

I don't understand how you think liberals worship this guy.

Can you explain to me why the DLC bashed Howard Dean mercilessly and not Kerry?

Can you explain to me how Tom Vilsack can be chair of the DLC now and have been a huge Kerry PRIMARY supporter?

His entire campaign was based on how he served in Vietnam. Was that meant to appeal to liberals? Do liberals sit around craving a war hero?

He advocated keeping part of the Bush tax cuts. He said he would vote for the war again. LIBERALS DON'T LIKE THESE THINGS!

Kerry was an acceptable DLC candidate. They would have wanted Lieberman in a perfect world, but Kerry was just fine for them. Hence the absence of the bashing like the kind given to Howard Dean by them.

So it is incorrect to try to say that Kerry was a darling of the liberals.

Your post sounds like CYA talking points out of the DLC. If he wins, he's a moderate like us, if he loses, he's a liberal.

[kerrygoddess]

5. Thanks for saying this...

"Here's an idea: let's attack a President that has fucked over our environment, run hogwild over America's financial books, given tax breaks to the rich, and launched a war on false pretenses (and has no idea how to stabilize Iraq)."

Yes let's. We're feeding the freepers here lurking by attacking our own. No politician is perfect, nor is any man or woman. They cast their votes often due to what their constituents want, not what the party platform is. It sucks sometimes, but they are doing the job that they were elected to do, for the people who elected them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Now if the DLC actually did that...

"Here's an idea: let's attack a President that has fucked over our environment, run hogwild over America's financial books, given tax breaks to the rich, and launched a war on false pretenses (and has no idea how to stabilize Iraq)."

...I'd be more supportive.

[Hardrada]

10. Yes, let's see Hillary and Di Fi

attacking the WAR!

[nicknameless]

22. Di Fi's hubby is making a f***ing fortune off of the war and

weapons in general.

[kerrygoddess]

54. When DiFi tired to pass through a bill against Bunker Busters...

Did any of you applaud? Hell No! You're to blind to acknowledge when they do something good. The war isn't the ONLY issue. Sad but true.

[CTLawGuy]

77. tell that to the families of the 1700 dead soldiers that cowards like

Kerry and Feinstein voted to let die in an unnecessary war.

OOh bunker busters. Well, I guess I can forgive the war vote now :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

76. I hope you're not holding your breath.

NT

[Lecky]

9. Thank you!

My favorite part of your post:

And you know what the bitch about it is? This place masquerades as a 'Democratic' forum, and yet most of the posters around here spend most of their time attacking OTHER DEMOCRATS!!!!!

So true

[bejammin075]

28. Some should be attacked

I think you have to take a case by case basis. You can't just make a blanket comment that Dems should never attack any Dems. Fuck that. Fuck Joe Lieberman. I hope a challenger displaces him.

And don't WE hope that some Republicans will come to their senses and attack Repubs for lying us into war, etc? Politicians are an untrustworthy bunch. Don't kid yourself that all the evil ones are Repubs. Some are Dems too, and they should be attacked, exposed, and purged.

[DCal]

12. How about Byron Dorgan of North Dakota? nt

[Kurovski]

18. Yep, Dorgan is one.

[DaveinMD]

63. he's been attacked on DU

for some votes as well.

[woodleydem]

69. Dorgan is a liberal? He voted to BAR GAYS FROM THE BOY SCOUTS, voted for

the war in Iraq, and voted to CONFIRM Ashcroft as AG. Don't get me wrong, I like Dorgan. But he votes his conscience and votes to represent his constituents in North Dakota. So sometimes, he votes for positions that don't always agree with the liberal base. Does that make him less of a Democrat?

[Armstead]

82. Dorgan is liberal/progressive on economic issues

He has been one of the main opponents of the scam of Corporate Globalization. He also has been in the forfront of the issue of media consolidation.

[JackDragna]

13. People said you'd get hammered....

well, here's the hammer. To an extent, you're right. Liberals cannot win in many of the red states. Much of the problem, however, is a problem the centrists made themselves. They gave up talking about class issues. Instead of making jobs, the economy and education the main issues, centrists in the Democratic party got caught up talking up the same coded message bullshit the Republicans use for attacking lower-and-middle income people, such as welfare reform (read: gut welfare) and family values (read: repress civil rights for minorities). As a result, the Democrats ceded the white lower and middle class vote to the Republican party by holding on to their coattails, doing enough to appease a general electorate to get elected without really doing anything to rock the boat.

Where did that lead us? To a party full of capitulators. I can forgive a Democrat being a centrist, but I cannot forgive the Democrats who, in the name of being a "centrist," marched lock-step with the Republicans to war. I cannot forgive the Democrats who increasingly dismiss those of us who actually care about the environment or the president torturing POW's as "wackos." I cannot forgive the Democrats who buy into the ridiculous "war on terror." I can bend so far, but eventually I break.

There is a difference between the DLC and the Republicans. The DLC is more dispassionately evil than the Republicans, but they're evil nonetheless. Let me put this to you and your little friend who were "grinning" over your supposed knowledge of a lack of a coherent response: how much do you know about the political history of the U.S.? Every freedom you have, every right you enjoy, was fought for tooth and nail by "liberals" who saw that just getting along with the opposite party wasn't going to cut the mustard. I am all for negotiating with the other party over political issues, but only when disagreements have to do with the extent we should do policy X. When it comes to things like an illegal war which kills tens of thousands of people and ruins our reputation on the international stage, there is no compromise. When my elected representatives worry more about video games than whether the White House leaked the name of a CIA officer, there is no compromise. My Democratic representatives must fight the most egregious evils of the Republicans or they are useless.

[Kurovski]

20. Excellent post. a "velvet hammer", if you will.

[woodleydem]

71. REPRESS CIVIL RIGHTS? I am a South Asian minority, and I can tell you

that there is a night and day difference between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration. Ridiculous or not, I don't think the war on terror is ridiculous. In fact, as an Indian-American, I can say that India has experienced more terrorism from Islamic terrorists than America has, and based on conversations with my parents and grandparents, ISLAMIC EXTREMISM IS A REALITY!!! And until the ENTIRE Democratic base realizes that, no Democrat will win a Post-9/11 Presidential election. What's ridiculous is that my parents (South Asian immigrants who are now U.S. citizens) voted for Clinton both times, but VERY RELUCTANTLY (at my request, and they live in Florida) voted for Kerry. They loved Clinton because of his blue collar background, charisma, and his pulled-up-from-his-bootstraps beginning (much like my father). My parents are pretty socially conservative, but they are FL residents who voted for Bill both times and Kerry in 2004, but now they are questioning their vote for Kerry. As Indians, they are also very hawkish, and want a President who is willing confront Islamic fundamentalism.

My father is a physician, and can no longer be classified as middle class (he is now comfortably upper-class). The Democratic party has to be able to appeal to suburban voters in swing states like my parents, and I can seriously tell you that someone like Dennis Kucinich, or Barbara Boxer, or Russ Feingold doesn't have a chance in hell. But, if liberals are so fired up, they should run their candidate in the primaries, and accept the outcome. Whoever the nominee is, liberals should unite and support the Democratic candidate. I shudder to think of Repugs winning in 2008.

[jab105]

83. No one in the real democratic party is saying that the war on terror

is ridiculous...where do you get that from?

what the real democrats are saying is that the war in Iraq has done nothing but increase fundamentalism, to increase hatred against the US, and to increase the likelihood of terrorism! The DLC is saying, yes, war in Iraq is good...but it is NOT!

*real* Democrats are the ones that realize that islamic extremism is the reality, stabillizing Afghanistan, completing the mission, defeating and FINDING Bin Laden there was going to fight extremism a whole lot more than going to Iraq which has zero to do with the war on terror...

How does fighting a war for reasons that turn out not to be true (in IRaq) is going to increase extremism...it is going to increase fundamentalism in Iraq which for all intensive purposes was a secular country in the middle-east before and now is much less so...its going to decrease stability which is what extremism feeds on...do you think that

I have no idea how in the world your parents can now question their vote for Kerry now...what in the world has Kerry done since then? Bush has control not Kerry, so what you are seeing is Bush in control...Kerry has not done anything...

Democrats used to win the south by huge margins because of economic and social issues...the DLC gives in to the Republicans on social and economic issues and that hurts all democrats in the long run because people cant identify themselves with the party like they used to...

[eridani]

14. Clinton said jackshit about "free" trade and welfare when he campaigned

Dem support of NAFTA pushed large numbers of working class people into the arms of the Repubs, who were no different on NAFTA, but were willing to feed them red meat on the subject of God, guns and gays.

[woodleydem]

17. Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. Welfare reform and free trade were

central tenets of Clinton's 1992 campaign and his "new Democrat" campaign. It still doesn't answer my question: Are there any liberal senators or governors that represent solidly red states?

[eridani]

19. Here's a link to his campaign brochure

http://www.4president.org/brochures/billclinton92.pdf

Welfare reform is buried in the second page, well below taxing the rich and "fighting for tough, effective trade laws." I'd bet good money that any average person reading that would assume he was against deals like NAFTA and for protecting their jobs. The brochure also promises health care for all and big spending on public infrastructure projects.

[woodleydem]

23. Huh? Welfare reform is listed, but now you are going to blame Clinton

for not putting it in bigger font? Let's not forget, he is a TWO-TERM DEMOCRATIC President!!! But I suspect that liberals don't really care about that. They just don't like Bill Clinton. And universal health care was proposed by the Clinton Administration, but it was torpedoed by Congress. The fact that it was the first major policy proposal of the Clinton Administration shows how serious they were about it, but unfortunately the political climate (as well as tactical political errors by a new President) dictated that it wasn't meant to be.

BTW, the fact that I am defending the Clinton Administration on a supposed 'Democratic' forum tells you all you need to know about the current state of the Democratic party.

[eridani]

24. Part of the problem was that he did not offer UNIVERSAL health care

The plan was written by large insurance companies, and no health care activist could in good conscience back it. The proposed plan was essentially backing down from his campaign promise.

And his rhetoric was definitely anti-NAFTA as well.

What happened during his administration was that the prison population skyrocketed (temporarily or permanently disenfranchising a lot of his supporters), poor people did worse, middle class people regained a slight amount of ground (though falling short of the income levels they enjoyed in 1973), and the rich got dramatically richer. Homelessness went way up also. Telecoms Act 1996 intensified the rethug noise machine.

To give him credit where it's due, he was actually way more effective against terrorism than Bush (except for the Al-Shifa fuckup), and he blocked some of the worst neocon initiatives, like the bankruptcy bill. And hell yes, that's better than repubs.

[dsc]

58. You also claimed he campaigned in support of NAFTA

which is totally false. As the poster above pointed out, and you convienently ignored, he campaigned using code words suggesting the opposite. He also relentlessly bashed Bush 1 for his stance on trade in regards to China, which he proceeded to coopt once elected. Clinton ran as a protectionist, at least in the heavily unionized place I was living in when he ran.

[NaturalHigh]

41. That was a great link.

Thanks, I had never seen that before.

[CTLawGuy]

79. wow

great link!

Clinton sounds really good to me in that brochure.

[Kurovski]

21. Again, as mentioned above: Sen. Byron Dorgan.

Just this past weekend I was talking to a Friend who grew up in ND, and he spoke of how the liberal Dorgan has won for years.

He is presently slamming contractors and the admin. for the fraud and waste in Iraq.

[safi0]

40. The other Senator

From ND, Kent Conrad

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

78. what about Universal Health Care

the DLCers seem to forget that.

[theboss]

35. NAFTA was big in his campaign

It was one of the only "victories" of his first year.

Welfare Reform was discussed in his campaign, but he wasn't going to touch it until the disaster in 1994 forced his hand.

[eridani]

15. Here's an idea--

let's attack a President that has fucked over our environment, run hogwild over America's financial books, given tax breaks to the rich, and launched a war on false pretenses (and has no idea how to stabilize Iraq).

Good idea. Now would you care to explain how your are going to get the Dems who voted with Bush to fuck up the environment, raise the deficit, give tax breaks to the rich and cheerlead for the war to follow your suggestion?

[Apollo11]

26. Is "liberal" now a bad word here at DU?

You seem to be arguing that liberals are losers. But what is a liberal? Someone who will not support Bush on Iraq? When polls are showing that most Americans want to the US to get out of Iraq? Is it someone who believes in equal rights for everyone and protection for the rights of minorities? In which case - I would hope that all Democrats could be proud to call themselves liberals ...

Democrats are looking for leaders to fight back against the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld Administration and give new hope to working people and middle-class Americans. Leaders who will stand up and speak out on issues like Iraq. Leaders like Howard Dean, Al Gore, Wes Clark, Barbara Boxer.

If Hillary and other DLCers would come out and publicly slam Bush for having - in your words - "launched a war on false pretenses" - then maybe more of us would listen to them.

Here is a link to an article from The American Prospect that DUers may find interesting. It puts forward the case that progressive Democrats who speak to the concerns of working people can win elections in so-called red states.

The Democrats’ Da Vinci Code
The electoral results they didn’t tell you about: progressive victories in the heart of red America.
By David J. Sirota
The American Prospect - 01.04.05

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8956

[expatriot]

72. no - he's not saying liberal is a bad word he's saying that

how can we expect to have Democratic senators from super-red states vote party line? I would rather have a Democratic Senator that only voted with us 50% of the time than a Republican Senator who voted against us 100% of the time.

[CWebster]

29. Where's Cynthia McKinney from again? nt

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. Excellent point!

And she even came back and won again, after being FUCKED OVER BY THE DLC.

[NaturalHigh]

42. From a liberal DISTRICT.

The thread concerns liberals who are elected by a statewide majority in a red state.

[DaveinMD]

64. she represents a majority minority district

that no Republican could ever win.

[auburngrad82]

30. Isn't John Lewis from Georgia? nt

[DaveinMD]

65. represents a liberal district

that no Republican could ever win.

[NMDemDist2]

31. Janet Napalitano (D AZ) Governor with excellent poll numbers and

a good liberal stance

[NMDemDist2]

84. ***** crickets *******

[CWebster]

32. Oh, Senator you said

Well, there are a couple good ones from the Midwest. Harkin and Feingold--off the top of my head.

[Hardrada]

36. Harkin good on most things

but voted to give Bush war powers.

[CWebster]

37. At least he regrets it. nt

[Mass]

33. Dorgan?

[sadiesworld]

34. Free trade is an absolute loser.

Always was. Clinton won in 1992 in SPITE of his support for NAFTA. What other choice did voters have? Poppy was also a free trader and Perot had been marginalized. What choice has anyone had since? Lumping free trade in with the other issues you mention is either ignorant or disingenuous.

[gulfcoastliberal]

52. Perot was the other choice

Dem voters could have voted for Perot and stopped the plan to eliminate our factories and manufacturing jobs, stop the outsourcing of jobs to countries with slave labor, etc. Looking back I think Perot would've been much better for the country and the middle class.

[AJH032]

38. I never see Ann Coulter bash any Republicans

even though she's far more conservative than several leading Republicans. It's pretty sad we can't stop attacking each other. Instead of asking who's to blame for the recent elections, we should realize that this stupid blame game itself is probably the cause of the loss. Republicans, even though they have just as many or even more differences with each other than we do, at least have the ability to come together.

[AntiCoup2K4]

44. Actually that's not true

Just the other day Anndrew was bashing John Roberts for being "not conservative enough" on Hannity and Colmes.

S/he has also bashed conservatives in the past who questioned any part of the Chimp's war on the struggle for global fascist domination (or whatever the fuck they're calling it today)

[bvar22]

50. Ann Coulter

YES!!! Lets hold up Ann Coulter as a role model . I want all DUers to behave JUST LIKE ANN COULTER!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Good One!
Have one on me!
:toast:

OK Everyone start being Ann Coulter!
Then the Democrats could win!

[Armstead]

43. Um, the Senator from the state of Iowa

Tom Harkin, a true blue liberal. Same state as Vilsack.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Some of those red states used to be bluish

As I mentioned above, Senator Fred Harris from Oklahoma and Senator George McGovern from South Dakota.

Rural Minnesota is largely red these days, but Minnesota once had a Socialist governor.

The Dems began losing the red states when they failed to do anything about all the farmers who lost their farms during the Reagan administration due to a combination of high interest rates and low crop prices. The farmers wanted to pay their debts (that was their culture), and if the Dems, who had a majority in both houses at the time, had come through with a low-interest loan program for the farmers to transfer their debts to, it would have gone a long way to preventing the Republican inroads.

But except for a few futile attempts on the part of some Midwestern Dems, most of the party did nothing. The Republicans didn't either, but they paid lip service to conservative social values, so they at least tossed the rural voters a few symbolic crumbs.

[JaneQPublic]

49. Was John Edwards (NC) DLC? How about former Sen.Bob Graham (FL)?

Was Mel Carnahan DLC? Hell, he got elected post mortem in John Ashcroft's state.

How about Gov. Schweitzer of Montana? He's pro-choice and pro-environment.

[DaveinMD]

67. Graham was definitely a moderate Dem

Carnahan was as well. Most DLC politicians are pro choice and pro environment in some way. Schweitzer lost when he ran for the Senate.

[bornskeptic]

60. But Iowa isn't solidly red.

Kerry lost it by only 10,000 votes, and it went blue in the previous four presidential elections. Even Dukakis carried Iowa by over 100,000 votes.

[toddaa]

86. Iowa is not a solidly red state

It's a half and half. The Western half is solidly red, the Eastern half is solidly blue. That's why you get a Harkin and a Grassley. It tends to oscillate between the two parties, which is why you get middle of the road (and very dull) governors like Vilsack and Branstadt.

[election_2004]

53. Woodley, I don't attack Dems just for being DLC...

I do, however, take issue with the suggestion some people make here that Hillary Clinton will be able to somehow magically help Democrats up and down the ticket in 2008 as part of the "50-state strategy" (which apparently involves writing off the South because "we only need the blue states plus Florida or Ohio to win the Electoral College") just because she's married to Bill Clinton.

What I have a problem with is people acting like the Democrats with high name recognition and a connection to the Big Dog (i.e. Hillary, Gore) are supposedly "sacred cows"...but yet, any other Democrat who has made compromises and cast some questionable votes is somehow a "traitor" and doesn't deserve to be considered for the presidency.

Apparently, you now have to be a purist (or close to one, however that's determined nowadays) to be seriously considered for the Democratic presidential nomination....unles, of course, you're *A_BIG_NAME* who is going to be exploited by the corporate media whores.

Sorry, I'm disgruntled...it's honestly nothing against you directly, Woodleydem. It's certain people on this board (and in the Dem party)...

[dsc]

57. There aren't a heck of a lot of conservative ones either

We ran 6 Democrats straight out of the DLC playbook in 2004 in GA, FL, OK, LA, NC, and, SC. All 6 lost despite the fact that 5 of the 6 were running for Democraticly held seats. In many cases the people running were more conservative than those they replaced. Bowles was far to the right of Edwards. Castor to the right of Graham. Tennebaum to the right of Hollings. LA had more than one Democrat but one of them was very far to the right. Only in GA did we run someone who was to the left of the Democrat being replaced.

The DLC is liberal on the wrong issues for the South and conservative on the wrong ones as well. I think our best shot of winning here would be class warfare, protectionist economics, coupled with middle to right positions on the social issues. The DLC is often close to the reverse. Most DLC are firmly pro choice but to the right on economics.

Of course, the above doesn't solve the problem of coming up with a national candidate. My suggestion there is to be a much stronger contrast on economics. We are bleeding Catholics for two reasons. One is our stand on social issues but the other is that our candidates don't offer enough choice on the economics where Catholics tend to agree with us. The fact is that if we don't offer a choice on economics then the GOP will offer a choice on divisive social issues. The DLC is exactly the wrong prescription of that.

My ideal candidate would be someone who opposed the bankrupcy bill, the tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and had a coherent plan to get our house in order economicly while providing health insurance to all. I would also like him to at least support ENDA and hate crime legislation. Abortion can be left to the courts where he would presumedly appoint people to uphold it.

Maybe a Southern governor would fit the bill. Maybe not. But he sure wouldn't be DLC in the sense of believing what they do. I honestly think candidates like mine would win in the South at least as often, if not more often, than DLC ones. My ideal national candidate also would win more often than DLC ones in the South. That isn't to say we would win even half the races. But we currently aren't doing anything close to that.

[Pepperbelly]

59. I can name you one ...

He is not in the Senate right now but he hasn't been gone that long, either. Lincoln replaced him when he retired.

Senator Dale Bumpers, Democrat from Arkansas.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. One of my all-time favorites

I said at the time that Dukakis should have chosen him instead of Lloyd Bentsen for his running mate. He was not afraid to stand up to Reagan.

[Don1]

61. This argument does not make any sense.

We don't have many because the Dem leadership doesn't try it. They theorize that it will not work and so they support conservative Dems for those positions.

Their theory is all based on one failure, too: Mondale. Mondale did not lose because he was liberal. He lost because he was unpopular and Reagan was a popular movie star.

P.S. Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana. Here's a quote from his Inaugural:
"...I hope you share our commitment to the future of Montana, and let us remember that we take care of every Montanan. The Montanans that will not make it to the front of the line and can only dream about the next generation making it to the front of the line. Those people who have special health and education needs, we will be there for you..."

[Robeson]

66. Yep. Jesus Christ couldn't have beat Reagan after he survived the ...

...assassination attempt. It made him an instant national hero.

[Q]

68. Since you're relatively new to DU...

...those of us that have been here for a few years would probably see your argument as bogus.

You're asking for the same mindset that destroyed the Republican party: never criticize another Republican. You can see what THAT got them: Bush, Neocons and the Zealots.

'Liberals' have been hitting Bush for four years now. Every time we make some progress...one of the mighty 'centrists' steps up to the plate and demands that we quiet down for the 'sake of party'.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the DLCers support...either directly or indirectly...most of Bush's policies. Certainly you're not suggesting that we shouldn't criticize those 'dems' that are both enabling Bush and hurting the Democratic party?

It does little good for US to attack the Bushies if the so-called leaders of our party are too afraid or complicit to do the same. THEY have the power to make changes in our government...all we have is what's left of the first amendment and voting.

Bush couldn't have accomplished anything on your list WITHOUT THE HELP of certain Democrats. You should stop screaming at liberals for wanting accountability in their own party. While it's true that this government is the most corrupt in our history...his accomplices in the Democratic party has made it that much easier for him to get everything the Right has ever wanted.

[woodleydem]

73. "Destroy the Republican party?" They control both houses!!! It's hard to

say that the Republican party is in shambles. And let's be completely clear: not only will a liberal NEVER win a national election, they won't even win the primary!!! Now, if a liberal does in fact win the Democratic nomination, I will vote for them (like I did for Kerry), but realistically, this isn't liberal or conservative nation. THIS A NATION RIGHT IN THE CENTER!!! Bush has just done a better job of telling people that he is a moderate. My choices for the 2008 nomination: Vilsack of Iowa, Warner of Virginia, and Clinton of New York.

[Q]

85. A liberal has as much chance of winning an election...

...as Jews did in Hitler's Germany...and for much the same reasons.

The Bushie Republicans and the DLC 'centrists' devote a great deal of money and time demonizing liberals. Why is that? The answer is that these two political powers have joined forces to keep liberals and progressives from attaining any kind of popular support.

In other words...both the Republican party and the corporate wing of the Democratic party don't WANT a government of, by the for the people.

[geek tragedy]

80. The problem with the DLC isn'ttheir ideology--it's the fact they criticize

Democrats a lot more than they criticize Republicans.

[Sparkman]

81. "tax breaks to the rich" is only bad if it causes fiscal problems.

Let's remember, the average U.S. income is greater than the vast majority of the world's!! We're all "rich", in the most common sense of the word. I prefer not to judge the wealth or fortunate by demeaning them for that alone. BUT when the budget deficits soar like they do when Republicans have their tax cut/mil spending disasters, their fiscal policy of TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, AT THE EXPENSE OF REST OF US sounds a lot less predjudicial. Let's be more persuasive and inclusive for the sake of the party.
Clinton was infinitely more capable than chimp in ALL RESPECTS that I can think of, your last point.