OK moderates, hit us progressives with your best shot

[Ken Burch]

You want us to get behind nominating another moderate on another moderate platform for 2008.

Tell us why we, as progressives, should do this.

Specifically, tell us why, since another moderate might even be to the right of Clinton/Gore, why we should do this.

Perhaps you have a case. Perhaps you don't.

Here's your chance.

[Inland]

1. No. You first.

No, really, no thanks.

Why should we moderates give up anything to get your vote? You progressives are, what, ten percent, soaking wet?

Here we are, eight years into the most radical backward incompetent administration ever, and you are holding out as if you have something to give up in order to support a moderate.

You tell me why a single position should be changed to accomodate anyone with an agenda more radical than, say, Kerry's. For example, tell me why their should be a single concession to homosexual unions if homosexuals are ten percent or less of the population. Go.

[expatriot]

2. blacks are like what, 13% of the population?

minimum wage earners, far less than 10%....

let's just not make "concessions" to them either.


on edit: sorry to post and run but I am going to be late for work. Just hopped out of shower, was going to shut computer down and then i checked out this thread.

DAMN YOU DU, DAMN YOU!!!!!!

[Inland]

4. This is demand time. What do progressives have to offer?

You tell me why any concessions should be made whatsover to progressives. What do they bring to the table, except demands?

Already in trouble with blacks with the "progressive" agenda. Thanks, we moderates can do fine with enforcing the consensus built from the sixties on equal rights and equal opportunity. Why should we endanger that bloc for a few progressives?

Minimum wage earners, less than ten percent of voters, more of wage earners I bet. So what's in in for us?

Come on, progressives, leftists and radicals. What do you have to offer the moderates to get us to accomodate you?

[xchrom]

5. you BLEW IT in florida. the civil rights consensus

you speak of is in tatters -- to put it politely -- for abandoning african americans by the thousands in florida.

your pontificating is laughable.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Inland]

7. Missed the part where someone says what progressives bring.

Go ahead and convince me. You got one state, Florida--what in the progressive agenda is going to do well there?

Maybe you didn't notice that Bush is going to black churches and scaring them with the gay stuff. So if the civil rights consensus is in tatters, is it because or despite of progressives? Maybe more energy should be spent on bread and butter racial issues, employment, education, voting rights--you know, the moderate stuff.

Come on, progressives. Tell me what you have to offer us. Otherwise, we might as well reach out to the center right.

[dbonds]

10. Its the 1960s, would you throw away equal rights for a dem win?

[Inland]

12. Not sure how this answers the question.

Your question is, would I throw away victory for a progressive position? And the fact is, moderates could always take unpopular positions and lose.

The OP doesn't ask me to bargain with progressives for the purpose of losing. He's pretending like progressives are going to bring a win.

I don't think so. There aren't that many progressives, IMO. So what changes my mind? Come on, change my mind. Show me what the progressives are going to bring to the table.

[dbonds]

14. My point was a sense of right and wrong.

See my post below for what I believe progressives stand for. I consider myself a progressive, although I will bargain for the middle to defeat RWnuts. I think gay rights and abortion are the RWs issues against what we believe. They are what divides. But is it right to give them those issues. Would you throw away the rights of a group of people is the point. Don't we stand for everyone? Should we compromise our basic belief that everyone deserves rights for anything at all. Do we let one group get stepped on so another group can get power?

[thegreatwildebeest]

67. Facts, not opinion....

<i>There aren't that many progressives, IMO.</i>

Your opinion, as opposed fact, doesn't mean anything. As indicated by the caterwauling moderates did in 2000 over the influence of the Nader vote, there is a significant chunk of people who are not satisfied with a "moderate" vote. As long as those people vote progressive and not moderate, you will always lose. You can't complain about the Nader spoiler effect and then argue that progressives don't bring anything to the table. Obviously moderates and the DLC ignored this AGAIN and lost on Nov. 2nd, and this time not by a technicality, but by the popular vote. Going more "moderate" didn't seem to win you a heap of anything.

[Ken Burch]

18. Arguably, the Kennedys were perfectly willing to do so before 1962 or '63

It took the bombing of those black girls in the church in Birmingham to bring them around.

[dbonds]

11. BTW:

are you just looking for the mythical vote, or what is best for the people of this country. I don't think you can judge by the last 2 presidential elections what the people want, in both cases we were denied a voice. So what is best for the people of this country.

All this assumes the bush madness is gone by then - it is very hard to tell from this far out. But if there is more election fraud it doesn't matter who we run. Of course I would vote for moderate over a right wing nut, but what if they run McCain - a moderate

[Inland]

13. The OP didn't ask what was best.

He asked what the moderates were going to do to woo progressives. Not what was right or what was wrong. My response is, why do moderates have to court progressives? What do progressives have to offer the moderates? What states are the progressives going to bring? How many progressives are out there---that won't bolt to Nader anyway? Why should moderates try to wrangle that herd of cats?

Anybody? Anybody got a reason to bother courting progressives?

[dbonds]

15. OK

Then the reason becomes the framework of the party. Are we the party of the people, or are we the party of the people and business. The republicans definitely are the party of business. The populace is not divided because half doesn't believe in people. The populace is divided because we haven't given them a belief system for what we believe. The republicans stand up like a stern father looking out for the pocket book and making fun of our compassion.

Our position is we are the people. We are community. All are equal. The leaders are in the service of the people.

If a moderate can be within that position it is fine with me. There is a wide range of extremes within that position.


On Edit: Woohoo, this is my 500th post.

[Ken Burch]

16. First of all Inland, I respect you for engaging the topic...

but I think you misunderstood my premise.

I wasn't saying that moderates(or, increasingly, we could call them moderate conservatives)should woo progressives. I was simply stating what your arguement would be as to why we progressives should once again accept being in the back seat in the party and just settle for whatever you put out there.

And as to why you should court progressives, moderates can't win unless we give you at least passive support. Clinton would never have beaten Bush on moderate votes alone. There weren't enough of them. You need our votes. You got them in 1992 and 1996 and you got them basically for nothing. Why should we do that again when the result was an administration that didn't even hold the line of stopping cuts to social services or being unambigously pro-choice?

[Inland]

21. I think your premise is wrong.

That's the second paragraph. Not that progressives didn't get anything, but that moderates can't win without them. After all, who are the progressives? Where are they? What states do they carry? There's a vibrant, active, intellectually sound progressive political community in San Francisco. Guess what? My suburban county outside of Chicago has 200,000 more people than San Franciso. And they are center to center right.

Clinton beat Poppy handily and Dole soundly on unapologetically moderate positions.

And I think a heck of a case can be made that holding the progressive elements at arm's length can be a plus. Example: I think the media exagerrated the effect of the gay marriage brouhaha, but I can tell you this: if you want a negative backlash, what you should do is careen around like loose cannons, issuing thousands of marriage certificates of doubtful legality, and announce that one of the strategems was to judicially force red states to legally enforce gay marriages through the full faith and credit clause. I don't think anyone even near the fence wouldn't be offended by this judicial strategy, and I don't think it is purely coincidence that there are a number of state constitutional amendments and federal judicial appointments and a proposed US constitution that would prevent that strategy from working. That's the kind of political movement you want moderates to hook up with? I mean, the moderate dems aren't political geniuses either, but that was bad and nobody seems to ready to deal with it. In fact, the entire going down in flames part seems a point of pride. No, those don't make good political allies.

To go on further about that example, not to bash the gay rights movement but they were in the news, Kerry was one of those moderate guys who couldn't satisfy the vanguard, who didn't see why they should give up their positions just so he could win. Or so the state referenda would fail. Eschewing moderation got the progressives more radical conservatism, on their pet issues AND social security, too.

So here's my thought on what moderates have to offer the progressives, given the fact nobody can tell me what the progressives are offering moderates: a chance for a democratic win and elected officials that you can talk to about what policies that are best for the country, with an outside chance of getting them enacted. Better than what you have now, and commensurate to what you bring to the table.

[Ken Burch]

23. Unfortunately, the attitude you bring to the table

(At least in this thread)is the attitude that drove millions of progressives to support Nader and millions of others just to give up on politics.

In Britain, it is the attitude that just cost the Labour Party almost 50 seats in the general election.

In other words, it is not an attitude conducive to winning.

Kerry failed on the gay marriage issue because his position was weak and muddled. It alienated gay voters(who rightly saw it as a betrayal)and didn't gain him the votes of anyone who hated gays.
The same thing happened when Clinton sold out on gays in the military(a fight he could have won, had he stuck to his guns instead of folding the way he did every time the right attacked.)

[Ken Burch]

25. You could at least offer a progressive foreign policy amongst your planks

I mean, Democrats should have a foreign policy that is not based on forcing every country in the world to have pro-corporate economic policies, that opposes IMF austerity demands, and that finally comes out for closing the School of the Americas and ending the historic US pattern of always backing the rich against the poor.

You know, the kind of policy that gave us Vietnam.

Scoop Jackson's approach to the world brought nothing but misery.

[Inland]

26. But it's the same attitude you brought to the table.

Moderates have to go convince progressives to vote for moderates with concessions to progressive positions, implicitly because having moderate positions isn't good enough.

All I did was turn the question around and ask, who said we have to go and make a plea for progressives? Why should we? We have our stands, our issues, our attitudes, our personalities too. There isn't anything about an extreme position that requires the middle to come to it, per se. I'm not sure what you are bringing besides demands. Where's the votes?

And to go back to Kerry's marriage position, it wasn't weak and muddled. It was moderate, which progressives characterized as weak and muddled, in another example of how it helps to keep the extremes at a distance. Kerry got both the browbeating from the extremes on the left for being weak and muddled, and from the right, which was able to argue that Kerry was actually owned by a vociferous and extreme interest group that would call the shots after the election (more republican projection of their own traits on Kerry, just as he was a draft dodger chicken, drug user, and liar too). Better in an eletoral sense to have the extremes criticize Kerry from a safe distance and take a "strong" position of telling the gay marriage people to take a leap if they don't like his position. Seriously.

So you tell me what the progresssive are going to bring that is conducive to winning. I've already suggested how progressive policies might be enacted, and it isn't in a repeat of 2000.

[Ken Burch]

27. We are much better at grass roots politics

at campaigning on low budgets(as Paul Wellstone did so brilliantly)and at mobilizing people on issues.

And if we had all gone to Nader in 1996, or if we had all stayed at home after being left out in the cold in our own party in 1992, Clinton could never have been elected, let alone reelected.

Progressives worked our asses off for Slick, and he spent eight years ignoring us. And the worse thing is, during his first two years, when he had a Democratic Congress, he weakened himself politically every time he moved away from a progressive position and took up a "moderate" one instead (I.e.,when he backed off from nominating Lani Gunier, when he refused to consider single payer, when he sold out to Florida racists and sent the Haitian refugees home to be beaten to a pulp by the Tonton Macoutes).

And when he fought on a principle, it was on a right-wing principle
(going to the mat to get NAFTA through, even though the overwheming majority of the American people opposed it.)

It was this record that caused the rise of the Greens. You got many of us back in 2004, but you'll drive us away if you insist on continuing to treat us as people who deserve no respect and no voice.

It is time to recognize that progressives and activists are not solely responsible for the Democratic lean years in the 1970's and 1980's. Massive corporate money in Republican coffers, vicious Republican campaign tactics, Democratic candidates who had all the charisma of week old Malt-O-Meal, Reagan's inexplicable invulnerability(which moderate Jimmy Carter was just as unable to fight against as was so-called liberal Walter Mondale)had much more to do with our losses than the fact that the party didn't hate gays and welfare mothers as much as Republicans did.

We will find our voters against those left out in the cold by the Republicans, not among those who think Dubya is more right than not.
Those people will never support us.

We will find them in finally defining "real Americans" to include gay people, political activists, workers, and people of color just as much as the term means suburban white people.

We will win if we fight for the inclusive America.

[thegreatwildebeest]

64. Don't bother arguing...

As was evident the day after the elections, the hope of DLC/Centrist types ever getting a clue and realizing that being Republican-lite isn't going to cut it has been throughly extinguished. Inland can run up, down, and sideways arguing about how Slick Willy won off moderates, and ignore the influence of Perot in the 1992 election, and the shoddy candidate of Dole in 1996, but he can't explain how Gore got so close to losing in 2000 (without of course, acknowledging the Green party prescence, which somehow "spoiled" the election yet progressives don't matter...you can't have it both ways) and the poor showing of Kerry in 2004. Nor can he explain the absolutely thick round of losses inflicted in the House and the Senate under the influence of the so called DLC moderates. Simply put, the DLC has no answer, other than to backbite and try to trivilize progressives and more radical fringes, ignoring the fact that people clearly are leaving the Democratic party either to apathy, right wing populism, or non-electoral based leftist politics. Reality has a way of rubbing the wrong way.

More over, whats the point if getting elected just means watered down Republican banter? Mildly less environmentsl destruction, mildly less crappy trade policies, mildly less sucky foreign intervention and war? Qiuotix it might be to be leftist in these days of America, but atleast its standing for something, anything, in the face of wish washy third way-ness.

[TheFarseer]

29. Maybe a strong pro-gay Al Gore brings in more Nader votes

but how many moderate votes does that scare away? Do you think Al Gore was my perfect candidate? Do you think John Kerry was my perfect candidate? No Way! But sometimes you've got to suck it up and vote for the guy that is appathetic towards you rather than the guy that hates your guts and wants you dead and burning in hell. It makes perfect sense to me. Why not anyone else?

[benevolent dictator]

41. If a moderate is scared away by gay-rights,

are they really a moderate? Someone who would be so scared of the thought of the "evil homosexuals" having basic rights that they would be willing to abandon the rest of the moderate ship and vote for an extremist like Bush, those people are moderates?? Excuse me??

Why is it that the progressives are always told to "suck it up" and vote for the guy who's less bad, but the moderates can't ever do the same? Why can't a moderate "suck it up" and vote for someone who supports gay-rights as long as s/he agrees with most of the rest of the platform??

Why are we always trying to sacrifice what should be core principles of our party to the "moderate" vote? Why don't they SUCK IT UP and vote for us once in a while?

As a lesbian who voted for John Kerry, I can appreciate the whole voting for the guy that doesn't really care over the guy that hates you, but it still irks me to know that what should be my basic rights keep getting put on the table as a bargaining chip. Why can't the moderates SUCK IT UP and do what's right for everyone for a change, rather than what seems like it's most politically expedient at the time.

Let me tell you, a lot of the gay republicans I know (yes they are out there, 1,000,000 GLBT people voted for Bush in 2000) were turned away from the party by the moderates. "Well Clinton signed DOMA and 'don't ask, don't tell.' He also signed NAFTA. He told Kerry to support marriage bans. Kerry doesn't really even support our rights anyway. Why should I vote for him? I think the Republicans run the country better anyway./It's better for me financially to vote Republican, especially if the Democrats aren't even standing up for their own causes./At least the Republicans have principles/I think the Republicans..."blahblahblah insert reason here.

What a difference 1,000,000 votes would have made in 2004, eh? We'd have a different president even if only half of them had changed over and voted Dem. (Well, assuming they live in Ohio, but you get the point.)

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[benevolent dictator]

60. Plenty of people were denied a voice

The people who waited in line for 10 hours to vote in Ohio and were then turned away when the clock struck midnight. The people who couldn't afford to wait in line for 8 hours when their voting precinct of 10,000 people only had two booths. The people who's votes weren't counted because of the punch card ballots. The people who's votes were miscounted or uncounted in the electronic voting machines with no paper trail. The people who claim their vote for Kerry was registered as a vote for Bush. The people who had to vote absentee and then had their ballots left uncounted or thrown out.

There are plenty of people who's voices did not count in the last two elections, just look up the voter fraud.

Crying over not getting one's way is a wee bit different from being upset at outright fraud and cheating.


Edit: spelling

[Ken Burch]

19. There are a lot of progressive issues with wide popular support

Changing our trade policies so that workers as well as big business
benefit from global trade. Support for increasing living standards
in developing countries so that people have less reason to come here to work(which is a far more positive choice than just punishing people for illegal immigration)
universal health care, raising the minimum wage, passing "living wage" laws. Reforming labor law so that working people have a chance in the struggle for a better life, full employment,
ending the war in Iraq.

A party that represents working people as passionately as Republicans fight for the rich is a party that can win.

A party that muddles everything is a party that loses control of the agenda and ends up being just barely distinguishable from the party it defeated.

And, on the gay marriage issue, it is now clear that Kerry would have done far better(assuming the election wasn't stolen from him)by standing up and fighting for gay marriage as a civil rights issue and ultimately as a "pro-family" issue.

Democrats need more grass roots support to win. They can't get that support being the party of business types who watch the convention from luxury boxes.

[PA Mamma]

78. TRUE DEMOCRACY and EQUALITY & JUSTICE FOR ALL!

just to name 3. And you know what? An overwhelming majority of Americans agree! http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/20050526_greenberg.cfm
They've just been duped into not knowing it.

[Don1]

37. Principles

Since your post is only about things like "electability" I can see that is something missing here.

So let's start. Quid pro quo. I'll name a principle. Then, you. Then, me. And we'll keep going.

#1 for me.
And end to killing kids in Iraq.

Your turn.

[benevolent dictator]

40. Haven't you seen and read all of that stuff

about how the Republicans are kicking our asses specifically by NOT running moderates? They run the most radical, right wing people out there and you know what? THEY WIN! Sad as it is. But people see them as a real choice. I suppose what you want is Republican-lite and Democrat-lite, basically the same things wrapped in two different packages. That doesn't seem to be what most people want, they want their options. They want Republicans and Democrats.

If your choice is a Republican and a Republican-lite, who are you going to vote for? (not you personally, "you" the average person.) Are you going to vote for the person with the plan and the ideals or are you going to vote for the person who says "me too!" "that sounds good, I'll do that too! But not as drastic... just in case someone doesn't like it." I mean really, I think we can see who people are voting for.

I still maintain that if we had focused on Kucinich A LOT during the primaries, that the GOP would have had a MUCH harder time painting Kerry and Edwards as "the most liberal people ever who were going to turn us into a bunch of commies and get rid of religion and let those dirty homos marry!!" Because really, Kerry and Edwards were not that liberal.

Maybe the minimum wage earners would get out and vote if they felt like the Democrats were actually doing something to help them? Most moderates don't want to do too much to help them, since, you know, it might not sit to well with the Republicans, and it's all about compromise, right? You compromise raising their standard of living for the Republican business owners... and they compromise... um... hold on... it'll come to me...

Personally, I think we should adjust it for inflation and then re-adjust it for inflation every year. Minimum wage is really meaningless right now, since in a lot of places one can't even support oneself on it, let alone a family.

[thegreatwildebeest]

66. Don't need to win elections...

...to raise the minimum wage. As indicated by the many cities that have enacted living wage ordinance laws, and constitutional amendments to raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation in various states (including my own of Florida) you can make progress on the minimum wage issue without necessarily winning large federal elections. Obviously having a sympathetic person in office helps, but even that can be overcome if the pressure is enough.

[benevolent dictator]

72. I know, and I was just addressing the point in #4 about

how minimum wage earners are only 10% of voters but a larger portion of the population.

And, really, it has to happen all over for an increase in minimum wage to be effective. Have you heard about this?

McDonald's is experimenting with a new type of outsourcing, one that stretches 1,300 miles to North Dakota.

But what in North Dakota is of use to the company?

Drive-through operators.

In Hermiston, a sleepy little town in Northeast Oregon, customers roll up to the McDonald's drive-through window: "Two Big Macs, a large fry and a large Coke."

The order is placed with a Grand Forks, N.D., call center employee, who then punches the order into a computer that relays it back to Hermiston. The worker then verbally directs the customer to the next window.

...more...

http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/01/27/41f908c59e2d8

[saracat]

52. What do moderates offer, except status quo?

[Oerdin]

83. That's pretty uninformed.

Centrists want things like universal health insurence, universal public funding for higher education, and making it easier for families to start their own small business. Maybe you think Republicans will be more sypathetic to the far left then centrist Democrats will but I think you're wrong.

[Ken Burch]

84. The Clintons gave up on universal health insurance

(After refusing to even try single payer)they didn't raise funding for education, and as for SMALL business, the Clintons were both CEO groupies. There may be something more nauseating than corporate luxury boxes at a Democratic convention, but I can't think of it.

We can assume that future moderates will follow the Clinton model like robots, or go even further right. The last thing we need is to go back to being the party of Wilson or Cleveland.

And no, we don't think that Republicans will be "more sympathetic to the far left" than moderates(although that "far left" line rather falsely implies that we're a bunch of Khmer Rouge types or something)
but we do think the last three elections(2000, 2002 and 2004)show that triangulating and trying to sound Republican clearly doesn't work anymore.

A narrow defeat is still a defeat. Democrats need to stop playing defensive politics and start fighting to win, and centrists don't seem to be able to do that anymore.

A centrist would never have made the kind of showing Paul Hackett made in that congressional race in Ohio.

[inthebrain]

61. Accomodate?

All those issues you mention are positives to the Democrats BECAUSE OF PROGRESSIVES!!!!!!!!!

What issues do the moderates care about?

Over the last five years its been the Liberals pushing campaign finance reform and living wage initiatives. Ask yourself this simple question; who makes up the bloc of "none of the abovers" otherwise known as non-voters?

If you guessed low wage earners you are correct!!!!!

I see the progessives taking up those causes and pushing the Democrats to enact real legislation on them. For the most part they have been all talk over the last 20 -30 years.

All I have to say is without the progressive vote, the Democratic party may as well be the Green Party.

[Zhade]

65. Just so I'm clear: you won't support equal rights for GLBT folk...

...because we're not a large enough bloc to swing an election?

That's pretty fucked up, not caring about inherent equal rights just because those affected are a minority group that you can't wring an advantage out of. I used to think looking out for EVERYONE'S rights was a basic part of being a Democrat.

Responses are yours are only one of many reasons why I'm now an independent. The Democratic Party's failure to stand up for equality for all is hurting it seriously.

[Oerdin]

82. Progressives have a big problem.

In that only 8% of the American population identifies themselves as progressives while something like 30% of the population identifies themselves as conservatives. Virtually everyone else, damn near 60% of the population considers themselves to be moderates or centrists.

There is one inescapable fact which the DLC haters here just can't get around. The more a candidate moves to one of the extremes the more the centrists and the opposite extreme hates them. If you rush left to court that 8% who are progressive then you lose all of the conservatives and most of the moderates and you have yet another losing candidate. As Clinton and the DLC have shown in two elections the sweet spot to be in is the center where you sit right on top of that 60% and you make the other guy look like the extremist. You do that and you'll still get he 8% progressive vote because they'll still vote democrat no matter what. Running further left doesn't help anyone but the Republicans.

Please feel free to flame me for saying this, shake your fists in rage, and do what ever else you need to in order to voice how unhappy you are about these facts but that's just the reality of the situation.

[salvorhardin]

85. So...

What you are saying is...

GLBT folks don't matter
Atheists and others for separation of church and state don't matter
The disabled don't matter
The mentally ill don't matter
Homeless people don't matter
Native Americans and other ethnic groups don't matter
College professors don't matter
Moms who've lost kids to the war in Iraq don't matter

While I'm sure I've missed some other 10-15 percenters in there, but you add them all up and you've got a sizable portion of the population. And none of them matter, because they're all fringe groups and unless you're an upper-middle class to upper class suburbanite who's never cracked a book other than a Danielle Steele or John Grisham novel, well shit. Your too damn "radical" for us moderates.

Got ya. Nice to know where you stand.

[TheFarseer]

3. I think the pressure is on you to give something up

Gay marriage and abortion on demand are losers. Right or wrong it's true. Economic issues, health care, a moderate foreign policy, social security are winners and important issues for most if not all democrats and a majority of Americans. Let's hop on the train to victory!

[benevolent dictator]

42. I'm going to assume you're a straight man

and that's why you're so willing to give up my rights as a woman and a lesbian, right?

Maybe if we spent a little more time explaining and reframing the issues instead of just repeating their arguments and saying we should drop these issues from the platform, they wouldn't be "losers."

"Let's hop on the train to victory!" By dumping some of our core principles and the rights of millions of people! Brilliant!! Next, we can start giving large tax breaks to the rich so that they'll give us lots of money so we can win elections, and then we'll destroy the environment and export all of the middle class jobs so that the corporations will have even more money to give us to help us win elections! Screw the people and make friends with the CEO of Diebold! THEN we'll win elections.

You're brilliant. I wish I was a straight man so that I could give up other people's rights, too.

[Ken Burch]

56. My point was, we gave EVERYTHING up in '92 and '96

and most everything this year(the songwriter Carole King was one of the many Kerry enforcers going around at the '04 Convention lobbying all the delegates not to ask Kerry to every say anything progressive or allow any progressive language in the platform. Ah well, she's still a great songwriter and she USED to have principles...once)and the result was comprehensive electoral failure.

So why, with that record(and with the centrist failures in 2000 and 2002)should we progressives STILL be in the back seat in this party?

[patricia92243]

6. YOU ask specifically each question you want answered, and I will at least

try to answer.

[dbonds]

8. Going to the middle has not given us an advantage.

Clinton gave us NAFTA, although compared to Ray-gun and bush 1 he was great. We can not differentiate ourselves by being in the middle. What is the Frame for democrats. We are the populace party. The one that believes in equal rights and opportunity for all. We believe we are only as strong as our weakest link. We believe in education for all. We believe that no one should profit from the pain and misfortune of others.

Push some of today's issues through the frame.

Gay rights is not an issue, it is a given. There should be no question.

Abortion. That is a personal issue of health care between a doctor and patient.

Social Security, great service. Lets reinforce it - not let stock brokers take a cut of it.

Energy - we need a new forward looking alternative.

Environment - without it we all die.

Big business - too much power over our lives.

Health Care - maybe it should be a government service. Too much opportunity for abuse otherwise.

Edit to add Health care.

[LeftofU]

53. I think every one of these points are

Moderate/Middle issues. I don't really see a leftest view anywhere.

[benevolent dictator]

54. Most moderates want to dump gays and women off the back of their platform.

[MrSandman]

9. I would think that a moderate..

Would be preferable to another RW fascist?

Do we want 4 more years of conservative, charismatic judicial appointments?


Does this progressive candidate have a wide appeal?

[Ken Burch]

17. Potentially, especially if moderates don't start doing everything possible

to drag down a progressive front-runner(as the classic moderates who went on to be Democrats for Nixon did to McGovern during the '72 primaries.)

And I think a progressive candidate can win IF that candidate will stand and fight for his or her principles and defend them with pride and dignity, rather than the Mondale and Dukakis tactic of acting like every vaguely progressive plank in their platforms was the electoral equivalent of a pile of doggie doo and holding them out at arm's length.


Also, on the question of electability, the Nader showings in 1996 and 2000(and the ferocity of Nader's attacks on Kerry in 2004, a ferocity provoked unnecessarily by the Democratic legal attacks on Nader's ballot status, attacks which also made it a point of honor for Nader to NOT withdraw from the race)recent years have shown what happens when the Democratic Party treats progressives with the kind of contempt moderates are expressing towards us in this thread.

[MrSandman]

20. Specifically, who is this J. Doe?

Yes a progressive can garner the appeal, but you ask such an abstract question.

I wasn't speaking with contempt, but in the hope that the primary will identify the best candidate and we can all back that candidate.

IMO, we need to be more specific in our issues. Choose the four or so which are most important and hammer at them.

[Ken Burch]

Duplicate message deleted by sender.

[Ken Burch]

22. Give these a try

OK, on issues, I'd say

Full Employment/Fair Trade
Health Care
Education
Civil Liberties/Civil rights(people are sensitized to this now due to the Patriot Act, including many who are not traditional Democratic voters).

In terms of candidates, Feingold is a definite possibility(the fact that he is less-known than some other candidates can work in his favor, since it will allow him to define himself as a new face.)

Others could also emerge(Kucinich still needs more seasoning, Sharpton still comes off as a sleaze, but Boxer or Obama or others yet to emerge could make a good race of it, especially if they ignored the traditional advice to move away from progressive principles in the fall campaign, a which allows Republicans to
further demonize progressive values and gains no votes).

My remarks weren't meant to be tied to any particular progressive, but to the idea of a progressive candidate in general.

I think we can also find new ways to define the terms "moderate" and "conservative" to present ourselves as the defenders of the best of American values and Republicans as the enemies of those values.
This can be done without moving to the right. But it requires candidates with backbone and the courage not to fold under media and push poll pressure.

[MrSandman]

24. I could get behind Feingold...

Or someone like him. I would prefer a governor or former governor given the history of Senators in Presidential politics in the last 11 election cycles.

I like the issues. Too many Dems back Unfair trade.

Even many of the hardcore Republican voters hate the Patriot Act in whole or in part.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Progressives would LOVE to see moderates emphasize economic issues,

but they need to do so in a populist style that speaks to uninformed voters.

We need national health care, measures discouraging overseas outsourcing, repair and modernization of our national infrastructure, support for alternatives to the automobile and alternatives to oil, incentives for affordable housing, etc.

Most of all, we need to have a party that has its own ideas, forcibly defended, and simply explained. We need a party that takes the side of ordinary people instead of the rich and powerful.

The "moderates" have been rolling over and whimpering for the Republicans for 25 years, and look where it's gotten us.

[ndcohn]

30. What are the real differences here

I think that someone should post what they consider to be the major differences between a progressive and a moderate in their opinion. I doubt its much and im sure there is a candidate that can satisfy
both.

[MaineDem]

31. Excellent point and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

32. Nothing hurt us more with working class voters

than going "pro-business" on economic issues and Clinton's fight to ram NAFTA through.

We need to make it clear that, while we'd want a balance between business and labor, when it comes down to cases we'd stand with the workers.

We need some more William Jennings Bryan and Gene Debs in the mix.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Exactly, the Beltway pundits have NO IDEA how much

NAFTA and "pro-business" attitudes and Dems voting for the bankruptcy bill alienate working class voters.

Not all blue collar types and rural people are obsessed with "God, guns, and gays," and those who aren't have not embraced the Republicans, but they're not voting for Democrats either.

They're completely removed from politics.

[ndcohn]

35. These differences are too small to justify different classifications

That is if im right in my interpretation that ....

Progressives are less pro-business as Moderates are? Or is a Moderate more moderate across the board then a true progressive?

In case the person who started this thread wasn't aware, the essence of electoral politics is building coalitions of different and sometimes opposed groups behind one candidate to create a majority. If we can create a position that can consistently attract enough groups and compete with swing constituencies, we will have a majority. This must be the ultimate goal of the democratic party - create an electoral majority.

Now - obviously the prerequisite to this is that a base constituency is formed. Today, these groups are African Americans, Postgraduate women, and Secular voters. Then there are groups who don't vote as much for the democrats, but can still be considered part of the greater coalition: Hispanics, Union Workers, and Professionals.

Going into 2008, we need to select a candidate that can keep the support of our strongest demographic groups, consolidate our support among our weaker coalition groups, and bring swing constituencies into the fringes of the democratic coalition.

Now until yesterday, I wasn't aware of this dichotomy between Progressives and Moderate Democrats, just that there were obviously democrats who were not as liberal as other democrats. Regardless, we need a candidate that can have the support of both groups and reach out to the catholics, the low wage and well educated women, blue collar Americans, the seniors, etc.

Thus, the key isn't whether or not we nominate a progressive or a moderate candidate, the key is how either of those candidates can
access these groups.

Therefore, I think this is the ideal message:
If there is one thing that all the polls indicate, its that people think that the government does not share their values ues, and isn't moving the right direction. the public is increasingly viewing the republican policies as being oriented in favor of the top percent, not towards helping the average American. And if there is anything the democratic coalition mentioned above, as well as the swing groups have in common, its that they are almost entirely groups that republican policies are hurting. So, the crux of our message should be about providing "opportunity to every American" or something to that effect. Stanley Greenberg, who was Clinton's pollster and author of the fantastic book "The Two Americas", thinks that the phrase "Building a 100% America" would be most effective. While his message is poll tested, and mine obviously isn't, maybe a combination of the two "I believe in building a 100% America, where every American has the opportunity to succeed, not just the privileged few" would be very effective. Starting at this message, we can begin to piece each issue into this message, and craft an effective platform that can win an election.

Now i don't know whether or not the platform I'll say below is "moderate" or "progressive", but if you have to think about it, then i think ill have succeeded. These positions should be the crux of our platform in 2008.

Universal Access to Health Care, something similar to the Kerry Plan. Why is obvious. Reaches out to every voter.

A Crash Effort to Achieve Energy Independence, like what Stanley Greenberg supports in the afore mentioned book. This is something which I think is absolutely brilliant from a campaign purpose. Gas Prices have a direct impact on peoples lives, and it can also be tied into National Security and Environmental Issues. It will make the Democratic candidate seem like he has fresh and new ideas, and contrasts extremely well with the republican policies. Reaches out to every voter.

Fair Trade - not Free Trade.
This resonates big with working Americans, who see our trade policy not as a question of supporting business v. workers, but as a matter of Supporting America. The latest Democracy Corps poll shows this clearly:

A Candidate who says

The outsourcing of jobs by big corporations is one of the biggest
threats to American workers. It's time to end tax breaks for
companies that move jobs abroad and provide incentives for those
that keep jobs in the U.S., allow unions to organize, and have good
benefit plans. It's also time to stand up to the Chinese so that
American companies can compete on a level playing field.

gets 52% of respondents to support them much more, and 24% somewhat more, for a total of 76% more likely to support.

In contrast, when told the message

With a level playing field, American workers can compete with and
outperform anyone in the world. Free and fair trade will help
create more higher-paying jobs for American workers by opening
new markets for American products, bringing lower prices and
more choices to American consumers, and attracting foreign
companies to invest and hire in the United States. America is
economically stronger when we participate fully in the worldwide
economy.

Only 30% were much more likely to support and 36% somewhat more for a total of 66% more likely to support.

Fair Trade is the right place for a democratic candidate to stand when it comes to supporting Americas workers.



Roll Back Bush's tax cut for the most wealthy Americans. Yeah, i know its controversial to argue for a tax increase, but it highlights the republicans bias towards the top few, and their abandoning of the rest of America. Also, it nails our point about the growing budget deficit, which portrays the irresponsibility in government right now that we want to fix. It also explains how we intend to "pay for our programs"

Education Policy: It doesn't really matter what we say as long as we support it, the voters cant really perceive the difference. However making it clear we do support Education is important, so we must talk about whatever policy we may choose as much, or slightly more then they do. I'm not an expert by any means on this issue, so someone should fill in what exactly the position would be.

Fight for Americas Seniors: Reform Medicare to ensure its viability, and eliminate the cap on social security benefits , and slightly decrease the social security tax for people under 90K.

Immigration: Give existing immigrants the opportunity to become citizens at a price, they'll have 2 years to do it. If they don't deport them. In the mean time, we must increase our border security big - terrorism, and American jobs are on the line. This reaches out big to white rural voters in particular, and this can help us big in 08 if they keep with the Bush approach.

On Foreign Policy: We will be nice to people and not alienate our allies. Same basic message from last time. But this time add in that "Without strong alliances, our military is useless. Just think about it, if other nations wont let us use their land to deploy, how are our troops going to be able to attack if necessary. If other nations wont let us use their bases, then how are we going to be able to strike when we need to. The fact is that we need strong Alliances so that we can use our strong military; We need to have countries on our side so that we can fight at their side." On military policy in particular, we should advocate a modification of US Army Deployments to create a Rapid Reaction Force to respond to the outbreak of a global conflict. We should critique the present Military Overstretch that has ensued, and show how it has made America less safe. "Today's Military is in a worse position to respond to an international crisis then ever before. With American Troops spread all over the world; if a war started, we wouldn't have the troops necessary to defend our interests. America needs to be able to respond rapidly to any major crisis, so that Americas enemies don't think that they have an opportunity to exploit our weakness. Thats why I support the creation of a Rapid Reaction Force, which can be deployed to any major hot-spot around the world, so that America can be a force to defend freedom." We should also continue our critique of our terrible "homeland security" with the same basic solutions as 04.

Now the tricky part; Social Issues.

It would be better if these issues didn't exist - if it weren't for them, we would probably win these elections by 8-12 pts. Thats why at a fundamental level we should do everything we can to keep these issues out and forgotten. Unfortunately, the republicans are going to do everything they can to keep it on the table, so we must be prepared to defend ourselves.

Abortion: "I believe in Roe v. Wade, not because I'm pro-abortion, but because I do not believe that government has the right to tell to tell others what they can and cannot do on issues that are so controversial... Its just not my or anyone Else's place. I do agree though that we should make it a common goal to prevent and reduce the amount of abortions by increasing sexual education and supporting abstinence with Americas Youth and trying to encourage greater responsibility with every American.

Guns: "I support the 2nd Amendment, and as your president I will respect the right of every American to own a firearm. But, I think that this only goes so far. I believe that the legalization of Assault Weapons is very dangerous, and makes terrorist organizations, drug lords, and gangs more and more deadly. Thats why I support a ban on assault weapons - but I promise to uphold the right to a firearm."

Gay Marriage: this one is terribly difficult. From an electoral perspective, we should step up and support a ban on it. But i personally cannot support such an idea. We have to find a middle ground on this issue and take a hold on it. Civil Unions might be the way to go, but it doesn't have great thermometer readings itself.

Would progressives and moderates alike support this candidate? Is this candidate a progressive or a moderate anyway. If you believe this candidate is not your classification, would you support them?

[benevolent dictator]

43. I agreed with the basic points of your post pretty much up until...

Gay Marriage: this one is terribly difficult. From an electoral perspective, we should step up and support a ban on it. But i personally cannot support such an idea. We have to find a middle ground on this issue and take a hold on it. Civil Unions might be the way to go, but it doesn't have great thermometer readings itself.

Again, I have to ask, why are the rights of GLBT people always the first to go to the chopping block. You can come up with reasons to support abortion and guns, but perhaps after that long post you were too tired or too lazy to think about why people should support same-sex marriages? To rationalize why we deserve these rights?

How about, "I support same-sex marriages. No church will be forced to bless a same-sex union, but the government has no place saying which two citizens should be allowed to enter into this contract and which two should not be. I believe the constitution upholds the rights of ALL of our citizens and it's not my place or anyone else's to legislate discrimination based on personal prejudices."

How about that? Hmm?

When will you people stop seeing my rights (rights you have by default and have no fear of losing) as a bargaining chip? Why is it more politically expedient to "support a ban" on it? It's not like GLBT people are the only people fighting for GLBT rights!! You'll lose a lot more votes than just ours should you decide to drop us from your platform.

[ndcohn]

47. i dont disagree with you

my post was only trying to create the candidate with the best possible chance of winning a general election. I think we can say with some degree of certainty that supporting same sex marrages is not popular. Its more polidically expedient to "support a ban" on it because people, unfortunately, support that.

We democrats should search for a way to uphold our principles and win elections. If you read this portion of my post:

From an electoral perspective, we should step up and support a ban on it. But i personally cannot support such an idea.

you can see that i refuse to support a ban on same sex marrages, despite the electoral consequences. Thats why I was saying that we need to find a way of framing the issue from a that is, atleast better then how we frame it now in terms of public popularity, and still uphold our principles.

[benevolent dictator]

49. But I don't think that supporting a ban on it IS politically expedient.

It's not, and most progressives I know and hey, even most moderates I know would not vote for any so-called Democrat who wanted to ban same-sex marriages.

Supporting same sex marriages may not be that popular, but civil unions are, which you said weren't. Most polls show that between 60-70% of people support civil unions for same-sex couples, so why go for banning it?

I saw that you refuse to support a ban on it, but I was still a bit miffed that you could think of ways to rationalize our positions on guns and abortion, but couldn't take the time to think up a similar argument for same-sex marriages.

[unlawflcombatnt]

34. Economic Policy Changes

Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy. It would take all of about 20 minutes to explain to someone how his economic mismanagement is worsening the economy, in addition to the complete absence of logic to his economic policies. His policies are actively worsening life for the lower 98% at present. And they will make 100% of us poorer in the future.

Tax cuts for the affluent, and other "supply-side" giveaways make no economic sense. Many people aren't aware of this, because it does take a little time to explain. But not very much. So I'm going to try here.

Our country became the world's most powerful economy under administrations that practiced "Demand-Side" economic policies. In general, demand-side economics centers on consumer spending and demand. Profits are made when goods are sold, not when produced. Industrial production is driven by DEMAND for goods made from that production. Consumer spending creates the demand for that production. Without demand, there is no production. Because there's no benefit to that production. No profits can be made from unsold production.

Consumer demand is the ONLY factor that increases job and wage growth. Demand for goods also creates demand for labor to produce goods. Increased demand for anything increases the price. Thus, increased demand for labor increases the price of that labor. In other words, it increases wages. It also increases hiring. Demand increases the number of people working, as well as the wages of those people working.

If more workers are working and average wages are higher, it increases the aggregate (or total) demand for goods in our country. Aggregate Demand, when measured in dollars, is the ultimate limiting factor of industrial production. Aggregate Demand in dollars is total spendable dollars available to consumers. (Republicans hate the concept of Aggregate Demand. It conflicts with their "alternate reality" economic theories.)

Again, aggregate demand for goods is the engine that drives our economy. It drives production, hiring, and wage increases. The demand cycle has a self-perpetuating effect. As labor/consumer income increases, so does the demand for goods. Because consumers have more money to spend. This increased demand further increases labor demand. Which further increases wages and hiring.


Supply-side concepts have never been accepted by a large number of economists. What I mean here is that they are not even accepted as a valid economic theory. Many economists refuse to call supply-side policies a theory. Some refer to them as "voodoo economics." Supply-side policies are essentially economic mythology. They are a completely illogical set of ideas that were concocted to justify tax cuts for the rich. The major proponents were not even economists. Most were actually journalists, such as Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Let me try to show the error of some supply-side propaganda. A major point is about tax cuts for the rich. This is supposed to stimulate investment. That investment is supposed to go into building production facilities and increasing production (supply). There is an obvious problem here. What if consumer spending doesn't necessitate increased supply? If consumer spending doesn't keep up with supply, that investment money is completely wasted. Profits are made by SELLING products, not producing them. Un-sold goods do not "grow" our economy. (Neither do increased CEO salaries.)

Another less important, but even more illogical assumption, is that if you tax people less, they will produce more. It may be true that high-end taxpayers would have more money to invest. However, that's where the truth ends, and the fantasy begins. Even acknowledging that smidgeon of truth, the benefit of that money is questionable. The extra investment money is supposed to lead to increased goods production(supply). Again, there is no benefit to producing more goods than consumers can pay for. This increased investment money is useless unless demand necessitates increased production.

There is also a definite negative to these supply-side fantasies. Increasing the deficit to fund these cuts increases inflation, as well as devaluing the dollar. That means consumer dollars are worth less. So consumers will buy less. And provide less demand for goods, causing less demand for labor. Which starts us on another self-perpetuating downward spiral.

The big picture is this. In order for production to increase, demand for production must increase. Consumers need to have enough spendable wealth to purchase increased production. Inreasing production without increasing consumer spending is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The horse isn't going to "push" the cart forward. And manufacturers aren't going to "push" consumer spending forward. Only consumers can drive our economy. They provide the demand that "pulls" production forward. Remember the old adage: "Necessity is the mother of invention." So it is that "Demand is the mother of production." Demand for goods leads to increased production of those goods. However, supply of goods does not increase demand. Unsold goods are worth absolutely $0.


Demand-Side Economics were almost universally accepted until the mid-1970's. However, sometime in the 70's, supply-side mythology was born. (Under a rock, in a dark cave.)

Today we're seeing the fruits of supply-side mythology.
Consumer income has decreased during Bush's "economic reign-of-terror." Tax cuts for the top 2% favor investment, not consumer spending. Though consumer income was obviously declining, Bush decided his rich friends needed more money to "grow" the economy. According to Bush, they would produce more goods and increase production capacity. Also, as Bush dishonestly claimed, they would hire more workers.

Does this make any sense? Will a company hire more workers just because they have more money? Do they hire more just because they can afford to? No, absolutely not. They only hire workers when they NEED them. No amount of corporate giveaways will increase hiring, unless demand for production increases.

Let me give an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who sees 6 patients per day. I need one nurse. What if my new friend, George Bush, gives me $1 million because he likes me. (for some unknown reason.) Will I hire more nurses? Of course not. I don't NEED more nurses. They won't increase my profits any, so I'm not going to hire them.

Let me change the example. Let's say I'm the same doctor, and my ex-friend, George Bush, takes back the $1 million. Then he gives it to the potential patients who live around my office. Now more people can afford medical care. Now I have 30 patients per day. Am I going to hire more nurses? Yes, indeed. Because now I NEED more nurses. The DEMAND for nurses has increased. Hiring more nurses increases my profits.

I hired more nurses only when I NEEDED them. I hired none when I didn't need them, even though I could afford them. Being able to afford hiring of nurses had no effect on hiring. Demand for their services did. This increased demand was due to increased consumer income. Increased consumer income ALWAYS increases aggregate demand. (It may effect demand for individual products differently. But is still increases the sum total of demand for goods and services produced.)

In the above example, nurses spendable income increased because of demand increase. In turn, their income increased aggregate consumer income. This increases demand for the goods they buy, and the labor that produces those goods.

Again, increased consumer income increases demand for production. But how does consumer spending increase, if consumer income decreases? Through credit and borrowing. Consumer spending has been maintained through increased borrowing and credit card spending. To phrase this differently, it has been maintained by consumer "deficit" spending. And this is becoming an increasing portion of consumer spending. A lot of this deficit spending has been financed by the artificially increased value of homes, and the resulting increase in home equity loans. Interest rates have almost a direct effect on the market value of homes. The higher the fraction of buyer's cost going to financing, the less the market value of the home. This is because the seller receives a smaller fraction of the total payment. If interest rates are low, the seller receives a higher fraction of the buyer's payment.

Let me give a brief illustration. Let's say I want to buy a home. Let's say I am a perfect example of all potential buyers in my area.
I'm willing to pay $300,000 total for a home. This includes all finance charges, as well as principal payment. Let's say the total financing costs $150, 000. That means the seller will get the other $150,000. That means the market value of his home is $150,000, because that's what he actually gets.

Let's change the finance charges. I'm still only willing to pay $300,000 total for the home, including all finance charges. But the finance charges are only $50,000 now, because of a lower interest rate. The seller now gets $250,000, instead of $150,000. The market value of his home is now $250,000. The market value of his home has increased $100,000 because of a reduced interest rate. The reduced interest rate accounts for 100% of the increase in market value. This increases the equity, and increases the amount he can borrow off this equity.

Lowered interest rates have greatly increased home equity values. They have also greatly increased the amount of money that can be borrowed off this equity. This money has made a significant contribution to consumer spending during the last 4 years. It's prevented consumer spending from sinking. As interest rates rise, home equity values will decrease. Money borrowed from this reduced home equity will decrease. The contribution to consumer spending from this money will decrease.

From this, it becomes obvious that consumer demand cannot be maintained by this consumer deficit spending. We are nearing the limit now. We are going to reach this limit in the near future. The home-refinancing loan bubble, and its contribution to consumer spending, is about to burst. When it does, consumer spending and demand will drop. And they will continue to drop, because this is also a self-perpetuating cycle. As demand decreases, hiring will decrease and layoffs will increase. This will further decrease demand for production. Further decreasing demand for labor.

We need to change our economic course. We can't let Republicans distract us from major issues. We can't let them waste our time with discussion right-wing planted distractions. Subjects such as steroids in baseball, the Robert Blake trial, Michael Jackson, and Terry Shiavo provide cover for what the Republicans are really up to. Corporatization of social security and extension of tax cuts for the rich affect all of us. Job loss to the cheap slave labor of foreign countries affects all of us. Let's not help provide cover for the
Bush/Mankiw/Snow/Greenspan "economic axis-of-evil."

Clinton was right. It is "the economy stupid." Let's not let the Republicans convince us otherwise.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Commentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

_________________
America needs a return to Demand-Side economic policies. Consumer spending and demand drive our economy. Investment "permits" growth, but only DEMAND will cause such growth. Production is limited by Aggregate demand for that production.

[Akno21]

36. Sure,

The Clinton Years were not ultra-liberal as we may have liked them to be. But he got a lot of good stuff through that would never get done with Bush (Brady Bill, sensible judicial appointments). Compare the Clinton Years to the Bush Years. Clinton was no where near as bad as Bush is.

I think you guys are missing something here, about why Kerry lost. He lost because voters voted on social issues, and he was simply too liberal on those. People in Arkansas didn't like George W. Bush. But they couldn't vote for someone with such liberal (sensible) views on social issues. We turned out well, but we can't rely on turnout, we have to win socially conservative, security moms, and we didn't do that. Kerry was not a moderate. Mark Warner is a moderate. Evan Bayh is a moderate. Kerry was not a moderate in American politics.

We went with the most liberal realistic candidate in 2004, and we lost. He lost the two issues people voted on, social issues and the war on terror. So don't nominate someone more liberal on both those issues.

[benevolent dictator]

44. Maybe if Kerry had reframed those issues instead of letting the

Republicans dominate the debate and turn everything against him, he could have won.

The problem with the Democrats (especially, it seems, the moderates) is that they're afraid to REDEFINE the issues, which is exactly what we NEED to do to win.

Kerry IS a moderate, at least in my book and the books of most of my friends.

The problem is that he let the Republicans define him rather than defining himself. Maybe if the Democrats defined themselves and the issues on their own terms this stuff wouldn't happen.

Man, I would have just loved it if when they started hammering Kerry with questions like same-sex marriages and abortion, he would have said, "I support the rights of all Americans, be it to wed the person they love or to have a consensual, legal medical procedure done. But why are we still discussing issues that only effect the people participating in them when we should be discussing issues that effect everyone, like the environment. We all breath, eat, and drink, why are we polluting our precious resources? Why don't we talk about health care? So many Americans are without it right now that it's raising the costs for ALL Americans. Why don't we stop talking about these divisive social issues that don't have a direct effect on anyone but the participants and start talking about the REAL issues that effect EVERYONE."

[unlawflcombatnt]

45. Important Issues & Irresponsible Media Coverage

Benevolent Dictator,

I completely agree that we should have discussed issues that affect everyone, instead of only certain groups of people. My issue would be the economy. Who will really care if gays can marry, if we're all sleeping in the street due to Bush-induced poverty. My marriage won't be affected one way or the other. But if we continue down the road towards an Economic Armageddon, we'll all be affected.

Bush supporters voted on simple issues they could understand, rather than major issues they could not understand. They voted on issues that in favor of simpler issues, that had little real effect on them. It took less effort to follow a short soundbite, than to understand a more complicated issue, like the economy. Bush's message was simple to the point of being a "non-message" message. Bush's message of "being strong" and "staying the course" have practically no meaning (other than restating Bush's disinterest in adapting policy to fix problems.) Bush simply pushes through his agenda, oblivious to current problems. He simply claims that such problems don't exist, like our sinking economy. He exaggerates minor problems, like Social Security, to justify his agenda. He lies about statistics and concepts with impunity. Reality is of no concern to him. He simply "creates" it as he goes along. He puts his Neo-con, Neo-Nazi propaganda machine to work to create this reality. And this elucidates the biggest problem we have today.

That problem is the completely dishonest reporting in the press and media. We no longer have a free press. What we hear in the news is very carefully edited. Several giant media conglomerates own almost all of the TV and radio stations. Stories that aren't favorable to Bush (and the media CEOs that support him) simply aren't aired. Reporters learn which stories will be aired, and which ones will not. As a result, they stop researching and reporting on stories unfavorable to Bush. They focus on other stories as a result, which are less critical of der Fuehrer. This corporate media oligopoly affects the reporting of every single issue of the day. It results in deceptive reporting regarding IRAQ, the economy, and even public opinin polls. The latter helps foster the misconception that many people support Bush's corporatocratic policies. Regarding opinion polls, in depth review shows networks report only the most favorable polls, while ignoring the overwhelming majority of unfavorable polls. (I've actually posted numerous polls at my blogsite, to show this deception. Anyone that thinks Bush has a mandate has lost touch with reality.)

Before we can address any issues, we need to return to honest media reporting. Hopefully we can make up for some of this through blogs and discussion boards. We should also get our news from less propagandized sources, such as C-Span or PBS. In spite of its widely publicized criticisms, the New York Times is still one of the best written sources. In contrast, Fox pseudo-News should be shown on the Sci-Fi channel, given it's essentially fictional reporting.

I wouldn't emphasize environmental issues as much as you would, but I certainly agree that they are more important than the splinter issues that got Bush elected. We certainly need to emphasize issues of broader importance. Unfortunately, we are restricted by a dishonest, irresponsible media. We're fighting a battle against WMDs: Weapons of Mass Deception, Mass Distortion, & Mass Distraction. We need to win this battle before we can move forward.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

[benevolent dictator]

50. I agree that media spin and consolidation is a big problem

but at the same time, I think the Democrats, Kerry in particular, really botched up the whole campaign.

Kerry didn't have a strong "sound bite" filled message. He was often convoluted and off topic. He also didn't call Bush on most of the misinformation and lies that were spewed. He allowed himself to be distracted from the real issues.

I don't really care which topic gets emphasized as long as it's one that affects everyone. I just picked the environment because I thought it would be simpler to explain in a sound bite and it's also something that everyone "uses" whereas often times people tend to think that their job is "safe" so they don't need to worry about the economy.

The media is our biggest problem, no doubt about it, but the Democrats sure aren't helping anything with their campaign styles of repeating Republican rhetoric and taking positions on issues that attempt to please people who won't vote for them anyway.

[caitlyn]

81. Well said, Akno21

I agree with your points. Well said. My biggest fear about 2008 is that we nominate someone who can't be elected and we end up with another right winger who destroys what is left of our democracy and our civil liberties. With a conservative Supreme Court this is a very real possibility. A moderate to liberal Democrat will undo some of the great harm the Bush administration has done to this country.

I'd like to see John Edwards run again and get the nomination. I lived in North Carolina in 1998 and I saw how he defeated an incumbent protege of Jesse Helms in Senator Faircloth. This was in a very conservative state and Edwards is liberal on many of the issues we hold dear. I also saw how well he handled himself in the debate against Vice President Cheney. He's telegenic, charismatic, and knows how to communicate with southerners and middle America. He can win.

Sure, I'd be happier with a more progressive President. We aren't going to get one. Let's be realistic.

[ndcohn]

38. These differences are too small to justify different classifications

That is if im right in my interpretation that ....

Progressives are less pro-business as Moderates are? Or is a Moderate more moderate across the board then a true progressive?

In case the person who started this thread wasn't aware, the essence of electoral politics is building coalitions of different and sometimes opposed groups behind one candidate to create a majority. If we can create a position that can consistently attract enough groups and compete with swing constituencies, we will have a majority. This must be the ultimate goal of the democratic party - create an electoral majority.

Now - obviously the prerequisite to this is that a base constituency is formed. Today, these groups are African Americans, Postgraduate women, and Secular voters. Then there are groups who don't vote as much for the democrats, but can still be considered part of the greater coalition: Hispanics, Union Workers, and Professionals.

Going into 2008, we need to select a candidate that can keep the support of our strongest demographic groups, consolidate our support among our weaker coalition groups, and bring swing constituencies into the fringes of the democratic coalition.

Now until yesterday, I wasn't aware of this dichotomy between Progressives and Moderate Democrats, just that there were obviously democrats who were not as liberal as other democrats. Regardless, we need a candidate that can have the support of both groups and reach out to the catholics, the low wage and well educated women, blue collar Americans, the seniors, etc.

Thus, the key isn't whether or not we nominate a progressive or a moderate candidate, the key is how either of those candidates can
access these groups.

Therefore, I think this is the ideal message:
If there is one thing that all the polls indicate, its that people think that the government does not share their values ues, and isn't moving the right direction. the public is increasingly viewing the republican policies as being oriented in favor of the top percent, not towards helping the average American. And if there is anything the democratic coalition mentioned above, as well as the swing groups have in common, its that they are almost entirely groups that republican policies are hurting. So, the crux of our message should be about providing "opportunity to every American" or something to that effect. Stanley Greenberg, who was Clinton's pollster and author of the fantastic book "The Two Americas", thinks that the phrase "Building a 100% America" would be most effective. While his message is poll tested, and mine obviously isn't, maybe a combination of the two "I believe in building a 100% America, where every American has the opportunity to succeed, not just the privileged few" would be very effective. Starting at this message, we can begin to piece each issue into this message, and craft an effective platform that can win an election.

Now i don't know whether or not the platform I'll say below is "moderate" or "progressive", but if you have to think about it, then i think ill have succeeded. These positions should be the crux of our platform in 2008.

Universal Access to Health Care, something similar to the Kerry Plan. Why is obvious. Reaches out to every voter.

A Crash Effort to Achieve Energy Independence, like what Stanley Greenberg supports in the afore mentioned book. This is something which I think is absolutely brilliant from a campaign purpose. Gas Prices have a direct impact on peoples lives, and it can also be tied into National Security and Environmental Issues. It will make the Democratic candidate seem like he has fresh and new ideas, and contrasts extremely well with the republican policies. Reaches out to every voter.

Fair Trade - not Free Trade.
This resonates big with working Americans, who see our trade policy not as a question of supporting business v. workers, but as a matter of Supporting America. The latest Democracy Corps poll shows this clearly:

A Candidate who says

The outsourcing of jobs by big corporations is one of the biggest
threats to American workers. It's time to end tax breaks for
companies that move jobs abroad and provide incentives for those
that keep jobs in the U.S., allow unions to organize, and have good
benefit plans. It's also time to stand up to the Chinese so that
American companies can compete on a level playing field.

gets 52% of respondents to support them much more, and 24% somewhat more, for a total of 76% more likely to support.

In contrast, when told the message

With a level playing field, American workers can compete with and
outperform anyone in the world. Free and fair trade will help
create more higher-paying jobs for American workers by opening
new markets for American products, bringing lower prices and
more choices to American consumers, and attracting foreign
companies to invest and hire in the United States. America is
economically stronger when we participate fully in the worldwide
economy.

Only 30% were much more likely to support and 36% somewhat more for a total of 66% more likely to support.

Fair Trade is the right place for a democratic candidate to stand when it comes to supporting Americas workers.



Roll Back Bush's tax cut for the most wealthy Americans. Yeah, i know its controversial to argue for a tax increase, but it highlights the republicans bias towards the top few, and their abandoning of the rest of America. Also, it nails our point about the growing budget deficit, which portrays the irresponsibility in government right now that we want to fix. It also explains how we intend to "pay for our programs"

Education Policy: It doesn't really matter what we say as long as we support it, the voters cant really perceive the difference. However making it clear we do support Education is important, so we must talk about whatever policy we may choose as much, or slightly more then they do. I'm not an expert by any means on this issue, so someone should fill in what exactly the position would be.

Fight for Americas Seniors: Reform Medicare to ensure its viability, and eliminate the cap on social security benefits , and slightly decrease the social security tax for people under 90K.

Immigration: Give existing immigrants the opportunity to become citizens at a price, they'll have 2 years to do it. If they don't deport them. In the mean time, we must increase our border security big - terrorism, and American jobs are on the line. This reaches out big to white rural voters in particular, and this can help us big in 08 if they keep with the Bush approach.

On Foreign Policy: We will be nice to people and not alienate our allies. Same basic message from last time. But this time add in that "Without strong alliances, our military is useless. Just think about it, if other nations wont let us use their land to deploy, how are our troops going to be able to attack if necessary. If other nations wont let us use their bases, then how are we going to be able to strike when we need to. The fact is that we need strong Alliances so that we can use our strong military; We need to have countries on our side so that we can fight at their side." On military policy in particular, we should advocate a modification of US Army Deployments to create a Rapid Reaction Force to respond to the outbreak of a global conflict. We should critique the present Military Overstretch that has ensued, and show how it has made America less safe. "Today's Military is in a worse position to respond to an international crisis then ever before. With American Troops spread all over the world; if a war started, we wouldn't have the troops necessary to defend our interests. America needs to be able to respond rapidly to any major crisis, so that Americas enemies don't think that they have an opportunity to exploit our weakness. Thats why I support the creation of a Rapid Reaction Force, which can be deployed to any major hot-spot around the world, so that America can be a force to defend freedom." We should also continue our critique of our terrible "homeland security" with the same basic solutions as 04.

Now the tricky part; Social Issues.

It would be better if these issues didn't exist - if it weren't for them, we would probably win these elections by 8-12 pts. Thats why at a fundamental level we should do everything we can to keep these issues out and forgotten. Unfortunately, the republicans are going to do everything they can to keep it on the table, so we must be prepared to defend ourselves.

Abortion: "I believe in Roe v. Wade, not because I'm pro-abortion, but because I do not believe that government has the right to tell to tell others what they can and cannot do on issues that are so controversial... Its just not my or anyone Else's place. I do agree though that we should make it a common goal to prevent and reduce the amount of abortions by increasing sexual education and supporting abstinence with Americas Youth and trying to encourage greater responsibility with every American.

Guns: "I support the 2nd Amendment, and as your president I will respect the right of every American to own a firearm. But, I think that this only goes so far. I believe that the legalization of Assault Weapons is very dangerous, and makes terrorist organizations, drug lords, and gangs more and more deadly. Thats why I support a ban on assault weapons - but I promise to uphold the right to a firearm."

Gay Marriage: this one is terribly difficult. From an electoral perspective, we should step up and support a ban on it. But i personally cannot support such an idea. We have to find a middle ground on this issue and take a hold on it. Civil Unions might be the way to go, but it doesn't have great thermometer readings itself.

Would progressives and moderates alike support this candidate? Is this candidate a progressive or a moderate anyway. If you believe this candidate is not your classification, would you support them?

[xchrom]

39. if fair trade continues the practise

of exporting american jobs -- progressives won't get behind that.

there is a deep sickness in the american economic system -- one of the results is a lack of diverse jobs -- i.e. manufacturing is being lost to us.
the result -- more low wage service jobs. which in turn means we ''import'' foreign labour to do those jobs in many parts of the country.
and lately we begin to see high tech jobs that are service oriented going over seas.

there is also a divide -- and i loved seeing moderates here laugh at this idea -- between african americans and the democratic party.
the party did not get behind them after the 00 debacle -- and there is a bitter wound there.

and frankly after many, many years of voting dem -- if dems want me to stay home on election day -- that's fine.
the public will find more of their liberties in the hands of corporations with a moderate like lieberman or nelson.
you'll be safe from gay marriage -- but you'll see the democratic version of privatising government.

[unlawflcombatnt]

46. Outsourcing, Slave Labor, & CAFTA

I don't know if you agree with my "Economic Policy" post in this section, though I think you'd probably agree with most of it. But I'd like to repost my letter on "CAFTA, Slave Labor, & Outsourcing." I completely oppose unrestricted free trade. Here's the letter.

CAFTA is the latest anti-worker, pro-slavery, "free" trade bill being considered in Congress. l urge everyone to write Congress and tell them to vote against CAFTA. This is another bill designed exclusively to facilitate outsourcing of American jobs. The bill is much worse than any of the previous "free" trade bills. The flaws are even more obvious. It is a dishonest attempt by the Bush administration to portray an outsourcing bill as an attempt at "opening up markets." Central American workers are so poor they will NEVER create a market for American goods. Impoverished Central American workers, however, will provide an excellent source of cheap semi-slave labor. This new source of slave-labor will be in direct competition with American labor. The only way American workers will be able to compete is to accept the same slave-labor conditions as their Central American counterparts.

CAFTA is nothing but an extension of the disastrous NAFTA scam. American workers will lose jobs, wages will decline, and 0 new jobs will be created. CAFTA's advocates are 100% aware of this. They are simply lying when they talk about "opening up markets to American goods." In reality, what they really want is to "open up" the American labor market to competition with foreign slave-labor. Don't let Benedict Arnold corporations extend their economic treason any further. Americans must continue to stress Economic Patriotism, and oppose this new outsourcing extension.

George Bush, and his fellow "economic terrorists," continue to espouse outsourcing as being "good for America." It is not. And they know it. It helps a selected few at the expense of the many. This bill is a typical product of today's inhuman corporate greed, and its influence on the legislative process. And outsourcing is the epitome of this corporate greed.

Again, outsourcing is done exclusively so American corporations can use cheap foreign labor. The underlying motivation behind ALL free trade agreements is to enable American corporations to use the unskilled, impoverished, semi-slave labor of other countries. There has never been any real concern about "opening up markets." That is more than just a mistaken concept. It is an outright lie from Bush and the economists that espouse "opening up markets." The minuscule income of these 3rd world countries makes it impossible for them to buy American products. Bush knows this. Mankiw knows this. Snow knows this. The man on the moon knows this. Markets are created by aggregate consumer income, not people. Countries with little aggregate consumer income have minuscule-sized markets. Exporting countries that pay their 11-year old slave laborers $2/day will never, ever buy US products. Those wages don't provide enough consumer income to do so.

Chinese and Indian industries would collapse if they had to depend on their own populations to purchase the bulk of goods and services they produce. Wages and consumer income are too low for them to survive on domestic sales. They depend on the American consumer market, which is created by American wages (and borrowing).

When American industry outsources jobs, it outsources consumer income as well. This is the same income that purchases their products. Loss of jobs also places downward pressure on employed workers' wages. If labor demand decreases, so do wages. If this trend continues, America will be unable to purchase 80% of its own goods, as it currently does. Demand for goods, and the labor to produce them, will decrease further. This will further reduce consumer income and buying power. This is a self-perpetuating cycle, which will result in a continued decrease in DEMAND for American production.

The price reduction on foreign-produced goods does not make up for the income lost. It is simply illogical to think so. If it did compensate, there would be no benefit to outsourcing. Wal-Mart statistics, provided by Wal-Mart, provide some insight. A Wal-Mart spokesperson recently stated that consumers save $600/year purchasing goods from Wal-Mart. He also admitted, however, that Wal-Mart wages were $2/hour lower than those of the average retail sales worker. Here's the math: $2/hr x 40hr/week x 52weeks = $4160 per year less income for a Wal-Mart employee. However, the $4160 is only a small part of the labor income actually lost, because it is confined to retail sales employees only. Nearly 100% of the labor income from production workers is lost, since Wal-Mart buys most of its products from production facilities ouside the U.S. The loss of income by American production workers is even greater. Does $600/year in consumer savings make up for income lost by retail employees and production workers? Of course not. Aggregate consumer income decreases FAR more than prices decrease. The price savings are MUCH less than the amount of labor income lost. The only income increase is in CEO salaries and corporate profits. And that increase is entirely at the expense of the American worker. Increased corporate profits are EXCLUSIVELY from reduction in labor costs. In other words, this profit comes directly out of the pockets of American workers.

American workers are the most highly educated, highly skilled, productive workers on the planet. They produce more goods per hour than any of the workers they are losing their jobs to. But they are not as productive measured in goods per dollar. American workers lack the "skills" to survive on $2/day. We need to begin retraining them to acquire this skill. Our educational system has completely failed us here. And the ability to survive on $2/day is THE most essential job skill in today's market. We definiely need to increase federal funding to teach this "skill."

In reality, the "re-training" mantra is just a cop-out. The solution to outsourcing is not increased worker training. Nor is it increased funding to job-displacement programs. It is not extension of unemployment benefits. The solution to the outsourcing problem is to stop outsourcing. Period. Repeal ALL "free" trade agreements. We have absolutely no need for any "free" trade agreements. We already had free trade before any of these agreements were ever created. NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA and the others have only one real goal -- to reduce the labor costs by using the slave labor of impoverished countries. This makes American workers compete with the exploited labor of poor countries. American workers then become no more than slaves themselves. Is this the job retraining Bush has in mind?


Economists speak of "comparative advantage" with outsourcing. This outdated concept is nothing but economic fantasy. It's what Right-Wing, "alternate reality" economists hide behind when defending outsourcing. They should lose their economic degrees for even mentioning this in public. It's a long, twisted, completely non-applicable concoction, which is designed to disguise the real reasons for outsourcing. Mankiw and Snow know better than to hide behind the "comparative advantage" fairy tale. Bush may be too stupid to be held completely accountable for his policies. But Mankiw and Snow are nothing but taxpayer-paid liars. The Bush/Mankiw/Snow/Greenspan "economic axis-of-evil" may destroy our economy.


unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

[ndcohn]

48. So then Moderates would tend to disagree with this:

The outsourcing of jobs by big corporations is one of the biggest threats to American workers. It's time to end tax breaks for companies that move jobs abroad and provide incentives for those that keep jobs in the U.S., allow unions to organize, and have
good benefit plans. It's also time to stand up to the Chinese so that
American companies can compete on a level playing field.

Whereas Progressives would agree?

[xchrom]

51. moderates don't tend to disagree with

mega business.
they tend to support it.

america's democracy has been usurped -- i vote with the democratic party -- but there is no doubt in my mind that corporatism has corrupted the party to the bone.

the bankruptcy bill not only underscores this -- it screams it.

as evidenced by the moderate posters earlier on in the thread -- they aren't interested in the future -- a healthy future for every one.
they're interested in the status quo -- and preserving it.
cafta or a version of it would represent the status quo to moderates.

[Ken Burch]

55. Moderates also don't favor having Democrats try to set the agenda

Instead, they have called on us(and they got their way on this in 2000, 2002 and 2004, leading to our humiliation each time)to let the GOP call the tune and just sound like we would meekly obey.

This is one reason why, when Clinton was in, you couldn't TELL it was a Democratic administration.

We must stop being a party that acts like its a disgrace to disagree with Reagan and Nixon.

[geek tragedy]

57. Because this is a conservative country--at best a moderate one.

John Kerry wasn't a moderate-he was a liberal pretending to be a moderate. He was also a shitty candidate--as most Senators are.

Nominate a pragmatic, non-ideological governor from a state like Virginia or Tennessee or North Carolina. Even New Mexico.

About the ideas:

Stop talking about gay marriage. Start talking about civil unions and human rights.

Stop talking about gun control, period. Instead of abortion, gay rights, etc, start talking about standing up for personal freedom.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. It's kind of funny, progressives and moderates both dislike John Kerry

Maybe that's why we lost the 2004 election.

[ProgressAlwaysWins]

89. I don't dislike John Kerry

I thought he was a good man with compassion, whose name was slandered and raked across the coals by his political opponents. And the American people largely bought their bullshit.

Kerry's biggest mistake was trying to run a clean campaign against an opponent who was hitting below the belt. Democrats don't want to sink down to the Republicans' level. We don't want to play dirty like they do. I think that's largely our downfall.

[ACK]

58. Dems took all the wrong lessons from Clinton adminstration

You do not win a nation-wide election running left of Senator Kennedy.

You do not win a nation-wide election running right of Senator Lieberman.

The DLC seems to believe that Clinton's fence sitting positions on many issues won him the day.

They are wrong. Despite his fence-sitting naunced positions on many issues he still won on the strength of his charisma.

His charisma was grounded in the ability to put a populist face on many issues of the day and to talk to the American people in a way they could not only understand but felt they could not ignore.

The DLC has never come to grips with this. The losses of the last 3 elections and many more before that come from the inability of the party to come to grips with forming a coherent populist message that appeals to the middle class of America.

What can one moderate on to prevent the "liberal" label from sticking?

Gun Control and the death penalty are easy ones. State a clear position for the death penalty and against gun control. Like it or not the American people believe in vengence and repukes will use the gun issue to kill any candidate in rural areas as wimps.

What do you remain progressive on? Well, hell just about every frickin thing else. You just have to understand how to voice your position in a way that connects to the middle class of America.

Take the school voucher and the social security reform issues. They are not privatization. They are a form of corporatism. These bastards are talking about taking public money and giving it away to companies to teach our kids which does nothing but hurt both public schools and makes private schools dependant on public funds which hurts them as well. Social Security? How can you save social security if you are taking money out of the program and giving it up to a select few money managers. They are not giving you back an extra check. No, you only get to make a few people the Repubs in government have already chosen for you very rich. That is insane.

You have to mention the environment and how you will work with business on regulation but will not let them write the legislation. You tell the common man you are nobody's stooge and no one has bought and paid for your support. You are your own man not a stooge of monied interests. Then you lay off.

The common man cares about these issues only as quick contrast points.

You have to explain to people why you are like Clinton, Truman and FDR.

You have to explain how voting for a democratic -wink- centrist will benefit them personally.

You cannot step into the bear traps of social engineering either. Cutting the SUV tax benefit is a great contrast issue (minor as it may be) so don't slit your own throat by talking about an SUV tax. That gives the Repukes a double talking point about the big bad liberals trying to tax you and control you. Which is really bad considering how the religious right and repukes want to tell you all the time how to live.

Don't fall into the traps people!

Talk about ending Corporate welfare and stopping businesses from getting tax cuts for sending jobs overseas.

Don't talk about raising taxes in fact pledge to never raise taxes on the middle and working class. Talk about the rich paying their fair share and cutting tax loopholes that lead to 60% of all corporations paying no taxes between 1996-2000.

Talk about transparency and truth in foreign policy. Talk about a real concrete exit plan for Iraq.

Talk about how a universal health care policy is something good for the people and business. How many millions do companies flush down the toilets by having to support their own healthcare plans? How many millions have to die without healthcare before we realize America is losing billions in productivity?

Make sure that all your positions can fit into neat nice sound bites.

Most of Kerry's positions were pretty damn decent but they were so naunced it was silly. It was sadly humorous.

Take a damn stand. I believe in a woman's right to choose. How hard is that to say? I believe in Civil Unions because marriage is so tightly tied to religious norms. Not perfect but it beats the barrage of anti-gay laws that passed last time. Kerry's explanation took a good five minutes and pages on a website to explain.

Make the platform clear and concise and voice a real alternative to the nut case scenarios the Repukes have voiced.

Why is soo hard to say that all you have to do to save Social Security is for the government to pledge to keep their hands off my granny's money and for people to pay their social security taxes even if they do make over 100,000 a year.

Take a damn stand. A real stand with a real plan.

Oh yeah and learn there are only two types of people that win the presidency.

The charismatic or the common man. Get a Clinton or a Truman to run or just stay the hell home because you are not getting in.

Oh yeah and organize on a local level. If you cannot redraw the district lines then you are not getting congress back.

To do that on a local level it might mean supporting Dems that are more conservative than you like but that does not mean Zell Miller traitors just maybe a few Lieberbush wannabes. It sucks but it beats staying at home and railing through the tv at Delay doesn't it?

[inthebrain]

62. Some have a lot to learn!!!!!

Moderates need to wake up a little bit.

You arent losing elections because of progressives, if anything they are keeping this party in the game.

Heres a simple slogan and everyone reding this thread should take it to heart; IT'S THE MEDIA STUPID!!!!!!

Over the last thirty years you have experienced a right wing slaughter of a media that used to pride itself in being objective. This goes allthe way back to 1971 with Edith Efron, Nixon, Scaife and Coors.

Now you are at the mercy of a media that is completely subjective and claims "balance" at the risk of providing actual facts. The extreme right has excelled in media baiting and getting their talking points on the air. The main stream media completely Kow Tows to these people with the fear of being labled "Liberal".

THe Gore election should have been a complete landslide. The only reason why it even became a contest was because of the media kow towing to right wing talking points.

"Gore said he invented the internet"
"Gore sad he was the inspiration for love story"

Yadda

Yadda

Yadda

These were all lies and a truly objective media would have debunked them and made the RNC look silly for it. They didn't.

Why?

RIGHT WING MEDIA BAITING!!!!

[ACK]

63. Good point

Media manipulation is going to be the most important way for the Democrats to get back into the game.

A honed message for simplicity and a real concerted plan for baiting and keeping the media fat and happy while covering our tracks and stopping the Repuke rebuttal.

Btw, Gore was still kind of boring and uncharismatic and not a common man. Very tough for a guy like that to win. And he did!! So that says a lot for him imho.

We have to be very careful with our candidates. We had the ultimate Democratic president fail to make it through the primaries (John Glen). We cannot let icons and perfect figureheads simply fail by their own merits. We have to recognize the potential and groom their campaign and message to a razor's edge. I mean frickin' Reagan was President but a former Astronaut hero cannot get through the primaries? That is nuts. That is as bad as the Repubs putting Bob Dole against Clinton. WTF were they thinking?

[Ken Burch]

74. I think we could ease back a bit on gun control but not necessarily

have to be just as gung ho on the death penalty as the GOP.

We should consider starting a Democratic outdoorsfolk association.
Hunting is a working class pastime in much of the country, and we should be able to support hunting and fishing.

The hardline animal rights people usually aren't that interested in other progressive, economic justice and social justice issues anyway.

When't the last time you saw PETA members walk a picket line?

[ASIANDEMMN2006]

68. Moderates

You all have it wrong! The Moderates are the ones keeping the Democrats in the “game.” The moderates are an important piece of the puzzles in OUR party. The moderates in the party including myself are just as devoted and loyal to the party as anyone else. Moderates are the one that will win more seats for the Democrats. Moderates are the ones pulling over other moderates in the Republican Party. Moderates are the just as important as the Liberals, Progressives, and Conservative Democrats. We are all Democrats! We all should support all Democrats! This is not the time to fightamongt our selves. We as a party need to unite to battle the ultra-conservative right wing Americans.

[xchrom]

69. moderates of either party didn't support civil rights, equal rights

for women, etc.
moderates can only come along after leftists{or wing nuts for that matter] have produced workable, pragmatic ideas and take them over with corporate money.

there is nothing more corupt than a moderate claiming most people believe like they do.

most peopple are picking their noses waiting for ideas that get their grey matter producing electrical energy -- moderates behave like the pimpmps they are -- claim some kind of high ground{remember keating} confab with their corporate lords and masters and proceed to make ''new leftist ideas'' don't turn the corporate power structure upside down.

we'd still be in viet nam if it were up to moderates.

[ASIANDEMMN2006]

70. Moderates

The moderate are what make up a great number of the bulk in this party. We as moderates could go off join with other moderates and make a central party. If that happened the Democrats would be depleted of thousand of supporters. I the moderates ended up joining together they would definitely be the 2nd biggest party in the United States. We would take senators, and representatives away from the Democrats and the Republicans. Moderate are the reason both the DNC and the GOP are so big. If there was a centrist party it would be huge!

[xchrom]

73. it would be huge -- and nothing would ever happen of significance

except to keep money flowing from the middle and poorer classes to the wealthy.

moderates excel at promoting mediocrity.

[inthebrain]

71. I beg to differ....

We Progreesives are your wellspring of ideas and inspiration.

Instead of thinking about pulling over more Repblicans how about trying to create more Democrats?

You have a whole host of none of the abovers in this country to choose from. Many of them dont want a moderate party. THey want a party that's willing to fight for them tooth and nail when it comes to paying the rent, putting food on the table and finding stable employment.

Way too many democrats voting for these free trade agreements that promote lawlessness by corporations. That needs to stop!!!!!!!

[Ken Burch]

75. You didn't bring ANY moderates over to us in 2002 and 2004.

The whole damn party(except maybe Wellstone and Feingold)ran as moderates those years. fat lot of good it did.

We need to stop acting as if its a disgrace to disagree with Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

76. "Progressive's" record in Presidential races

1946 - "progressives" splintered from the party and ran Henry Wallace against moderate Harry Truman. Wallace got 2% of the popular vote.

1972 - "Progressive" McGovern lost in an electoral landslide.

1980 - "Progressive" Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy brought his fight to the convention, did not pull out until that second night at New York. He refused to hold Carter’s hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions brought on by Kennedy contributed to the victory won by Reagan.

2000 - "Progressive" Ralph Nader gets 2.7% of the popular vote, tips Florida to Bush.

There could be many reasons for this but they would all ultimately boil down to one:

"Progressives" either lack the knowledge or desire to run an effective campaign and would rather the seats or office just be given to them.

A poster above quite generously gave you 10% of the party. I think he was a bit too generous

[thegreatwildebeest]

77. Someone reports having cake, not being able to eat it...

1999, WTO protests happen, Clinton at loss as to why someone might be angry about free trade agreements. DLC continues to ignore the growing anti-globalization movement, calls them fringe, and then wonder why they don't push lever for Democrats come election time. Reports come in that Mexicans and other indeginous south americans don't seem to like free trade either. Unsurprisingly, despite the agreements and mounting losses in elections, paid DLC politicos still have job. Others get laid off enmasse, or forced to work in sweatshops across the US-Mexican border.

1946 - "progressives" splintered from the party and ran Henry Wallace against moderate Harry Truman. Wallace got 2% of the popular vote.

Both Democrats and Republicans red bait, running any vaguely populist rhetoric into ground. American Left probably set back decades by purge, initiated by both sides of the aisle. Moderates wonder why most of America are conservative, ignoring the fact that most people left of center were blacklisted, run out of town, deported, or harassed by their predecessors. Light bulb not turned on.


2000 - "Progressive" Ralph Nader gets 2.7% of the popular vote, tips Florida to Bush.

DLC moderates ignore fact that some people don't want Republican lite, lose election because of it, blame the loss on progressives, and then say progressives don't matter. Someone reports having cake and not being able to eat it.

2004, moderates again lose with an arguably even more centrist candidate, demand more accomodations after inability to win elections. People wonder whats the point of winning elections anyway, if you get watered down Republican proposals. DLC stays silent, but points to large sales of Bill Clinton's autobiography as proof that people still love centrists.

"Moderates" either refuse to be anything but Republican-lite, or expect evangelicals to push the blue lever sometime before the Rapture.

Moderates still claim they represent some mythical center, of which for whatever reason has not come out for the past 3 federal elections enmasse, and still complain that were not being centrist enough. DLC'ers on verge of shooting progressives and other people who want to vaguely stand up for something, wonder why other people don't opinion poll their beliefs. Losses still mount. Story at 11.

[wyldwolf]

90. Let's analyze, shall we?

DLC continues to ignore the growing anti-globalization movement, calls them fringe, and then wonder why they don't push lever for Democrats come election time. Reports come in that Mexicans and other indeginous south americans don't seem to like free trade either. Unsurprisingly, despite the agreements and mounting losses in elections, paid DLC politicos still have job. Others get laid off enmasse, or forced to work in sweatshops across the US-Mexican border.

1. Until you can show that the "growing anti-globalization movement" has any significant numbers, they will continue to be called "the fringe."

2. I challenge you to provide any evidence - even a shred - that shows Democrats lost elections due to the DLC and the WTO.

3. Ditto that the WTO caused increased job layoffs or forced work in sweatshops.

Both Democrats and Republicans red bait, running any vaguely populist rhetoric into ground. American Left probably set back decades by purge, initiated by both sides of the aisle. Moderates wonder why most of America are conservative, ignoring the fact that most people left of center were blacklisted, run out of town, deported, or harassed by their predecessors. Light bulb not turned on.

1. "American left" removed themselves by rejecting Truman.

2. Most of Americans are not conservatives. Fabrication.

3. Most people "left of center" were not blacklisted (unless you have some stats to back it up.)

DLC moderates ignore fact that some people don't want Republican lite, lose election because of it, blame the loss on progressives, and then say progressives don't matter. Someone reports having cake and not being able to eat it.

Fact is, "proooogreeesssiiiivess" tipped Flordida to Bush.

2004, moderates again lose with an arguably even more centrist candidate,

John Kerry more centrist than Al Gore? You're kidding, right?

Moderates still claim they represent some mythical center, of which for whatever reason has not come out for the past 3 federal elections enmasse, and still complain that were not being centrist enough. DLC'ers on verge of shooting progressives and other people who want to vaguely stand up for something, wonder why other people don't opinion poll their beliefs. Losses still mount. Story at 11.

Again, ZERO evidence that DLC caused election losses. The rest of your post is a joke.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. I just want somebody with PASSION

I'd prefer that we nominate a progressive but frankly I'd rather a moderate with passion than a progressive without it. Frankly, Howard Dean was just as moderate of a governor as Mark Warner, Mike Easley, or Phil Bresden. Sure he's more liberal on social issues, but Dean was Governor of Vermont, those guys are Governors of socially conservative southern states.

But the key difference is that Dean was passionate about what he believed in. I have yet to see a similar passion from any of these guys, but I guess it's early and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

[NNadir]

86. Why are so called "Progressives" always begging us to beg them?

If you cannot see what the Republicans are, if you are so attached to labels like "Progressive" and "Moderate", you probably not much in the reason and critical thinking department. There is no reason morally or intellectually therefore to take you seriously.

I have yet to meet a self described "progressive" who is actually interested in "progress." Most are interested only in ideological navel gazing. Most of them are very much like Ralph Nader, the immoral piece of shit who is crying on behalf of Terrell Owens while the world descends into unparallelled horror.

This is not a fucking Repuke game wherein people take responsibility for themselves first and the rest of the world only when the rest of the world is deemed worthy.

Our country has just been savaged. It is quite nearly destroyed. Fuck you if you need to be begged to do something about it. Vote for the next Nader. Who gives a fuck what you do? You are useless in any case.

There isn't much hope left for the world given the events of the last 5 "Bush is the same as Gore" years, but personally I have only contempt for people who in the face of such things, are obsessed with sticking their heads further up their asses.

[wyldwolf]

87. well, that just about sums it up!

[Ken Burch]

88. I wasn't asking moderates to "beg".

I was just asking them to make their best case for the position they will be taking in
2008, the position that the party must once again leave the poor, union labor and progressive activists out in the cold, but yet has the right to demand absolute unconditional support from all
the constituencies that "moderate" policies disregard.

I was asking for respectful, reasoned arguement. People who build successful coalitions try, if at all possible, to treat all in those coalitions with respect. I wanted to see if "moderates" were willing to reach out to us rather than just assume that it's THEIR party first and that they have the right to say "jump" and expect the rest of us to say "how high".

Three straight defeats on "moderate" policies(the Kerry program was suicidally neutral on the war, had no real health care program, did not support electoral reform and did not support strengthening the labor movement)should have shaken some of the arrogance out of our party's right wing.
Apparently, they haven't shaken it yet, which means the party's still in big trouble.

(And let me remind you, the Nader/Green vote came back to the party as a virtual bloc in 2004, despite the fact that the party did nothing whatsoever to reach out to those voters. What ELSE do you want from progressives?)

[Politus]

91. Kos owes Dems a big apology

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the DailyKos is on record* calling the Democrats in 1994 “a totally corrupted party.” That is an outrageous and defamatory statement, and Moulitsas should issue a quick retraction and full apology.

A totally corrupted party? That would necessarily include Democrats in the U.S House of Representatives in 1994, such as Nancy Pelosi, Ronald Dellums, Henry Waxman, Jane Harman, Patricia Schroeder, John Lewis, Barney Frank, Joe Kennedy, Edward Markey, John Conyers, and John Murtha, among many others.

It would also include Democratic members of the U.S Senate in 1994, including Barbara Boxer, Bill Bradley, Robert Byrd, Russell Feingold, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone, among many other senators.

Also included in the Democratic Party in 1994 was a little-known governor in a small northeastern state, Howard Dean. Were they all “totally corrupted?”

Moulitsas inexplicably says they were. Whether it was simply a poor choice of words, a deeply held belief, or a cynical ploy to sell books, he owes all Democrats an explanation and a sincere apology.


* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10629288/site/newsweek/

“That is what happened to the Democrats in 1994. We were the corrupt party then. It was not pretty being a Democrat. But it took Democrats 30 years to become a totally corrupted party and it took the GOP only 10 years.”

[Moderate Donkey]

92. KOS is an amatuer

He has little knowledge of Democratic party history.

In addition, he's parroting the rightwing. He words stem from the House Banking Scandal in which Newt Gingrich exploited the situation for political gain.