Red state blues and the BlueMeanies

[OKNancy]

Here I am, a liberal in a “red state”. I sometimes feel real hostility toward my circumstance from the blue-state Democrats. Certainly there is a lack of empathy by some. Fortunately our party chairman isn't giving up on us. Howard Dean initiated the Fifty State Strategy. So far Democratic state chairmen are enthusiastic. Dean is serious about this, for example assigning a full time staffer in Mississippi. He’s doing a fantastic job of building the party and building it for the future.

I do envy the blue-state Democrat who can work and nominate a fiery progressive and have a chance to win an election. What I don't enjoy is attacks on the more moderate candidates in red states and the Democrats who support them.

Red state Democrats aren't DLC flunkies, in fact most I know are would say they are anti-war liberals. However we are also smart enough to know that to win an election in a red state we have to support someone who can win. All the talk in the world about ideals is worthless if we nominate someone who will lose in the general election.

In my state, Oklahoma, we have a Democratic governor ( Brad Henry). He's not as liberal as we would like, but he is a head and shoulders above our former governor, Frank Keating, and miles above his 2002 opponent , the homophobe Steve Largent. His opponent in the 2006 election is Earnest Istook. For those not familiar with the Congressman, he is just about the nuttiest right-winger in Congress.

So, all you blue-state folks, don’t be a bluemeanie. Please remember when you toss out words like DINO, and even worse epitaphs, you aren't helping us. Mary Landrieu is much better for this country than David Vitter and Bill Nelson is going to vote with us many more times than Katherine Harris. If your blue-state Congressperson disappoints you, then yes, you certainly should pound your fist, write angry letters and vent all you want, but think about why the red-state Democrat votes the way they do. So often the red-state Democrat must chose to represent the voters of their state, not yours. Now, this doesn’t mean we won’t get mad at our compromising Democrat. We liberals in a red-states probably will be mad. But we will understand the reasons, and we certainly will continue to support and vote for Democrats.

My hope is to win elections and to win with Democrats . I’ll support the liberal candidate in the primary if I think they can win. If in my judgment it’s a lost cause, I’ll put my emotions aside and go with the one who can win.

Check that. Here is what my emotions tell me: I hate Republicans. I hate Bush and the PNAC neo-cons.
Maybe I hate them too much. I want to see Democrats win.

[Teaser]

1. Who is this aimed at?

Jesus...I know that red states are going to elect conservative Dems, if they elect Dems at all. Fine with me. I also know that Red State Dems will vote more conservatively than I'd like.

What I will not countenance is those Dems trying to push core issue positions on the party as a whole. Fine...be conservative. But remember, elected red state Dems, your position is a tool for winning in conservative areas. It is not an ideology the party endorses.

[OKNancy]

2. I agree actually

"position is a tool for winning in conservative areas"

[bigjohn16]

3. All you need is a (D)?

Would you vote for Zell Miller(D)? There are just some issues that I'm not willing to compromise on for a center/right Democratic majority.

[OKNancy]

6. Let's see - who is worse, Zell Miller or Tom Coburn?

Thank god Zell is no longer around.
I don't think even Oklahoma Democrats would nominate a Zell. However they might go with a Boren. I'd go with Boren over a nutcases like Inhofe or Coburn.

[bigjohn16]

11. I've only got one life to live and I'm not going to waste it...

... playing political games for a majority. The anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-gun voters that these centrist are angling for aren't going to keep a Democratic majority in power if they don't see returns from it. To support them is only going to hurt the party in the long run as more Dem's move to the center/right to win over those voters. To say that we can let some center/right candidates in but keep a progressive majority while holding on to the those votes is wishful thinking at best.

I'll spend my time fighting for liberal candidates and fighting to move this party toward being a true liberal party.

[ruggerson]

12. Well, she's got a point

there is no way the Democrats could put up someone worse than Coburn or Inhofe. Oklahoma has the worst Senators in the entire country. If they could get a moderate or even a moderate/conservative Democrat elected over one of these mentally ill Senators, they would have performed a great service for the entire country.

[OKNancy]

14. You feel my pain.

I think that is why I wrote the post. I'd rather have the despicable Lieberman that those two.
Neither are up for election in 2006, so I'm watching other Congressional elections from afar.

[mitchtv]

20. Believe me I feel your pain too

I've held my nose and voted for Dianne more times than I care to remember, but Michael Huffington?
ps I live in a red part of my state

[struggle4progress]

27. As a D in red NC, my strategy has always been: try to knock off ..

.. the worst rightwing SOB we have a chance of beating: if the incumbent induces projectile vomiting, and the challenger merely makes me gag, then the challenger is a definite improvement.

The correct attitude towards compromise is complicated. One should usually compromise on inessential issues. And, of course, there are issues on which one should never compromise. But there are many issues for which one is sometimes wisest to reluctantly accept a temporary defeat in order to make some other progress.

Progressive politics is not merely about voting: it's also about changing the political center of gravity, which requires continual grassroots political work and outreach, even when an election is not immediately at hand. If we don't have the candidates we want when the electoral season rolls around, we should be asking ourselves what different things we might try in the future ...

[cally]

35. I agree...we need to push the party to the left

by grassroots political work and outreach. There are several issues I will not compromise on for the sake of a majority. I feel your pain with the choices you have but if we allow the party to sell out our rights and values then we don't have much of a reason to stay in the party.

I'm considering supporting a green if a centrist Dem wins the primary for my local race. I live in a VERY liberal area and I think it helps send a message to the Dem party that we want someone who represents our district.

[struggle4progress]

37. Well, push as far left as you can without losing -- unless, of course, ..

.. winning is really impossible, in which case one may as well just make a statement ...

[Andromeda]

39. It's wonderful that you have such high principles.

I have high principles too but values and rights aren't going to do you any good if you can't set the agenda and you can't set the agenda if you don't compromise.

The Democrats in our Senate and House believe in the Constitution as much as most of us do but they are literally powerless to do anything about the current incompetent administration because they can't set the agenda.

The Republicans control the media, the House, the Senate and it's looking more and more like they now control the courts.

If you can't set the agenda all you can do is make noise---and if you make too much noise it's counterproductive because you are then viewed as a troublemaker and a nuisance. If you're going to be vocal, be smart.

The Democrats are trying to get their message(s) across in bits and pieces and they're trying to do it in a smart way.

I know this probably is going over like bees at a picnic, and I really admire your idealistic aspirations, we need idealists in our world, we really do. Just remember that sometimes we have to do things we don't want to if we don't want the kind of world in George Orwell's prophetic, nightmarish vision of "Negative Utopia."

[MissWaverly]

4. please, don't vote based on winning

that's the entire Republican mantra, we have to choose a leader, not a party boy. I
am tired of the Democrats running on no message, we need principles, this country
needs major fixing. We must fix Iraq, and the Gulf Coast and a jillion other things.
We can't go on like the Republicans say we must be fiscally responsible while they
are bankrupting the country for special interests. 26 trillion has been spent since
Bush was in office, we have to do better. We can't just pick up their talking points.

[rockymountaindem]

7. Don't vote based on winning?

What does that mean? Don't you want to win? I'd rather have a moderate Dem who can win in the race than a liberal firebrand who'll only get 30% of the vote in a conservative area. Why shouldn't I support the candidate with the best chance of winning?

"Losing pretty" and "fighting the good fight" aren't substitutes for a Democratic majority.

[MissWaverly]

9. I don't want a George Bush, Tom Delay in power

Look at Joe Lieberman, he's a democrat who behaves like a republican, corporate interests
would love, love, love it if they were all like that. That way we could all have mad
cow burgers, mine disasters, mercury poisoning and radioactive water. We have to
choose responsible leaders, let's send DINO back to Fred Flintstone.

[Andromeda]

38. Don't you understand that if you don't...

elect Democrats regardless of whether he/she is as ideologically pure as you would like them to be, we will never be in a position of strength.

We won't be in a position of strength unless we WIN elections. If we don't win elections, we have no power and if we have no power we can't head committees, pass legislation, appoint judges, or initiate ANYTHING.

We will continue to be as impotent and irrelevant as we have been the past five years.

We need to elect Democrats in order to make some changes in this country. Even if it's a Democrat you don't like. Get past your ideology and look at things realistically.

When we get control of the government we can then encourage more progressive candidates to run and win elections.

The Republican party will only be neutered when they're out of power, not before. Prepare for more of the same if the Republicans hold their control of the government.

[ruggerson]

5. You know what I hate, Nancy?

That there is such a visceral feeling of loathing from red staters towards Blue states, particularly New England.

And I hear this from both Dems and Reps in Red states.

Their mantra is that no candidate from New England (especially Massachussetts) can or should be elected President, because they are "elitists" and out of touch with supposed "mainstream" America.

Bullshit. THis is just Republican anti-intellectual, anti-education propoganda that Republicans have spewed for years that has now been adopted by Red state Democrats.

New England has every right, and is actually long overdue, to elect a national leader. New England has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, so the Southern and Midwestern "Moral Elitists" (which is what I think we should start calling them) could actually learn something about real family values from New Englanders.

Let's stop playing this divisive game that the Republicans invented. We're all Democrats, whether living in red or blue states, and we should be helping each other to elect the best possible candidates given the circumstances of where we live.

[OKNancy]

8. I guess I wasn't too clear in my OP

I'm speaking of 2006. Not Presidential politics.
Otherwise, I agree. Working together is the way we need to take back this country.

[xultar]

15. You were clear, people just read what they want.

[ruggerson]

23. No, you were clear

I was just adding my own private beef about the whole red state/blue state thing.

:)

[Clark2008]

30. And you know what we hate?

The fact that you don't "get" that there is this attitude in the red states and that it is very real and factors in more than you care to understand when swing voters hit the polls.

We could argue for days as to why this is - whether it's a bias in red state media or the fact that some New Englanders have moved to red state communities and want to change everything or the Nixon "Southern Strategy" (I suspect that there are a lot of factors) - but the fact remains is that it's a REAL problem.

I'm a Southern gal married to a Massachusetts liberal, so I don't necessarily fit this mold, but I do "get" that it occurs.

I have often contended that the reason Republicans do so well in what are now red states isn't because of racism or sexism or Godism or gunism - that it simply boils down to the fact that Republicans didn't "tsk tsk" and wag their fingers at the "stupid" Southerners and mid-Westerners. They embraced the slower and more agrarian culture. Democrats would do well to do the same - and they can do it without evoking racism and sexism - without turning it into a fight of "God, gays and guns," but by understanding that our culture and heritage is different, but not so different as to divide.

What you need to understand is that it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but won't be solved by the 2008 election; therefore, to win this round, we need to nominate a Heartlander and work to address the problem of red-state bias toward New Englanders - I happen to love my New England liberal more than I have ever loved another person not of my loin (my son), but, rather than the "fuck it" attitude you have expressed, he, after living here a great number of years, "gets" that the bias is real - whether the reasons behind it are real or not.

[Greyhound]

10. "moderate" and "center/right", are just the accepted code-words for the

Corporate Party. The party that has had a strangle-hold on this country for at least 25 years. This is the main reason for all the frustration, they are not on your side, never were, never will be. Electing a Democrat from the Corporate Party nets exactly the same results, no matter which letter follows their name. Is CT really better off with an entrenched Joementum, or would it have been better for an extreme reich-wing re:puke: to have won and then been thrown out to be replaced by a true progressive?

BTW I think you meant 'epithets'

[xultar]

13. Corprate party...you couldn't be more wrong. But then that is the key

issues. Just beause you are moderate or centre right doesn't mean you are some corporate whore.

That's like saying all blacks steal
All whites take meth
All Mexians are illegal aliens

Get it straight.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[OKNancy]

16. I just don't get that type of thinking

Yes Joe Lieberman is better than a rightwing Republican.
Then on the other hand, I don't live there so I have no say in what the fine people of Connecticut decide.

[Greyhound]

34. How is he better? Are the citizens of CT still provided the

right to declare bankruptcy? Are they immune to the deleterious effects of GATT, NAFTA, etc. etc.? No, they are also being transformed into indentured servants to the corporate masters, just like all of the rest of us.

[Armstead]

17. That's OK on a state level but the national level is different

I understand your point. I live in a dark blue state represented by Kennedy and Kerry, and where my Congressman is not showy but votes as liberal as they come. (He signed onto the House impeachment probe, for example.)

I also realize that candidates have to reflect their constituencies. And in some states that does mean that candidates have to go for a more "centrist" or moderate posture.

HOWEVER -- and this is what's more important, IMO -- all states have the potential to be purple on the core issues that really matter, which is the questions of Wealth and Power.

Getting screwed by the corporate system and the erosion of the values of economic justice is an area where the Democrats all over the country should be able to unify. A Democrat in a more socially conservative area can be a moderate liberal if need be on those divisive wedge issues.

BUT in the issues that affect the basic foundations of our economy, the survival of a mdidle class and the ability to debate the other issues on level playing field, they do not have to sell out and become faux conservatives. They should not do so. Instead, they should take the core of liberal and progressive economic issues and Stand Up fpor them and advance them and explain them AS Economic Liberals and Progressives, so that fewer peopel vote against their own economic self-interest.

It's like what Howard Dean said in his misunderstood statements in 2004 about appealing to Rednecks in Pickup Trucks with Shotguns on the back who vote against their own interests when they support Republicans.

[NJmaverick]

18. I agree 100% with what you are saying Nancy

We in the Democratic party need to being skilled pragmatists at this point in time. Until we have a firm grip on power, it is self defeating to put ideology ahead of the practical matter of winning elections.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I feel your pain.

I agree completely with you and wish others would understand your plight. If we don't win, we can't govern; what's the point of clinging to principles (without compromise) if they can only be worn as badges? To use a congressperson's voting record to determine whether or not they are a "DINO" is an insidious assault on red state Democrats. Democrats must not only accept but embrace the big tent notion rather than turning their nose up at those Democrats that can win (re)election in red states. I met Dennis Kucinich at several fundraisers in Santa Cruz, California; he's blue state material, not red state. There are some that need to contemplate that distinction and understand that not all Democrats are liberal/progressive, but they are most assuredly Democrats.

respect + cooperation = success

[maddezmom]

21. I agree and feel your pain

Me~~proud to have grown up in upstate NY, proud owner of a house in the Woodlands TX and currently living in the UK.~~~

We all need to work together and kick the repubs out. I'm willing to hold my nose now and again to see it happen. I'm not a purist and I'll never be one...there is too much to lose.

[PBass]

22. Dems need better candidates...

I refuse to believe that it's impossible for a progressive politician to win in states like Oklahoma, Texas and Idaho.

[ruggerson]

24. I gotta disagree

I don't think a strong liberal would stand a chance in those states.

[Solon]

29. I think you are wrong...

Couple of things right off the bat, most Americans in Red States only object to liberals as protrayed by Repubs and their Media. That's plain and simple right there. These are the types of people who think all liberals want to take away their guns, outlaw Christianity and other BULLSHIT that Repubs put out. What we need are a bunch of plain speaking LIBERALS who CALL the REPUBLICANS on their BULLSHIT. In my area, a conservative area at that, a LIBERAL democrat could win if they are PRO-GUN, and you know what, they could be damned near SOCIALIST in every other way, they would win, and they would win easily. In my state, the Republicans are vulnerable, hell they are losing the rural voters because of their ECONOMIC policy, we need to be the hammer that puts the nails in their coffins, and capitalize on that vulnerability. Talk about being an economic leftist, with populist rhetoric, and represent the middle class, and you can win. Hell, its not even the whole "Gods, Guns, and Gays" shit that people think it is, to be honest, I think most people who are considered conservatives in my area are now realizing that that "anti-everything that represents stereotypical liberals" is but a smokescreen. Granted there are always that 10 to 20 percent who will never vote democrat, even if the guy was a member of the Christian Coalition, but we shouldn't even try to win those people. Who we NEED to bring to our side are the disaffected and apethetic people, those who don't even bother to vote half the time, you know, the actual majority in this country.

[OKNancy]

25. The last liberal Senator we had was Fred Harris

He left office in 1972. We did have Mike Synar as a member of the House ( god love him )but he left office in Jan of 1995 ( He died in 1996 )

Unfortunately too many Texans have moved here ( sorry .. that's an Okie Democrat joke )

[seaglass]

26. I am in true blue MA, but I do agree with your point.

The only thing I can't tolerate is a D who will repeatedly publicly undercut their party - ala Zell Miller.

There really is no benefit in having a D like that in the party.

Other than that I'm fairly forgiving, though sometimes annoyed and often angry.

Even in blue states we have conservative Dems, Finneran our former House speaker was an anti-choice, anti-gay marriage conservative Dem. I'm guessing his district was a strong conservative Catholic area.

[InsultComicDog]

28. I agree

quite reasonable.

[TedsGarage]

31. Move to a Blue State

We need more electoral votes! As late as 1980, the states John Kerry won could have elected a president. Come home, liberals!

[OKNancy]

32. No thank you

First, this is where my business is, one that I love and have built for 31 years.
Second, my family and friends are here.
Lastly, I love Oklahoma.

[cynatnite]

36. From one Okie to another...Well said!

I sort of liked Keating, but I thought he went too right for my tastes. I was relieved to see a Dem take over the spot. Istook is a RW nutjob and a half.

I'm in TN now, but I do try to follow OK politics a little. I want the Dems to win, too.

Luv your graphic, BTW :patriot: