Face reality, people. centrism is the path to DEFEAT!

[Ken Burch]

There IS no "middle of the road" anymore. There's US and there's THEM. That's all there is.

There are MORE of us then there are of THEM. We're the Silenced Majority, the Rainbow Majority, and the Global People's Majority.

If we nominate a candidate who mobilizes that majority, WE WIN!

If we nominate another "careful" "statesmanlike" "measured" "nuanced" candidate, WE LOSE.

We need to have strong progressive ideals, a coordinated strategy, and the GUTS to defend our party AND ITS VALUES!

Only a progressive nominee can do that.

We win if we start the fire, if we excite the nation. We DON'T win by fixating on sounding bland so big donors write us big checks to our losing centrist presidential ticket has luxurious offices in D.C.

It has to be grass-roots, run from the bottom up, and it has to have drama and power. Bland and "moderate" don't cut it and will never cut it again. 2000 and 2004 proved that for all eternity.

Let's organize. Let's mobilize. Let's galvanize. Let's WIN!

Only a progressive and uncompromised party can do that.

With the people, victory!

With the Beltway, defeat.

Are we clear on that now?

[Phredicles]

1. More to the point, the "center" is to the right of most voters;

Just as an example, polls consistently show single-payer health coverage the most popular option, yet non of our party's candidates will dare to remove the insurance industry's holy profit.

This is why the Democrats keep disappointing in elections.

[Selatius]

4. That's because single-payer is easy to understand.

"single-payer" essentially means that there is only one customer, the federal government. The federal government acts as a negotiator for the people between them and pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers.

Because the federal government represents everybody in the country in such a scenario, it has an awesome amount of bargaining power in negotiating prices for consumers.

[Richard Steele]

7. Yup. The "radical right" loons have tipped the scale so damn far...

...that a good 70% of us are now on the "LEFT",
and there is no longer any "center" worth mentioning.

Stand for what we stand for, and we win in a landslide.
It's just that simple.

[some guy]

10. try a different example

Mr Kucinich is a candidate:

http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

[mykpart]

24. I remember in 1964 when Barry Goldwater was considered

ultra-conservative, almost reactionary. His views now would be considered slightly left-of-center!

[Vincardog]

44. More to the point, the real "center" is to the LEFT of most voters;

That is why when DEmocratic candidates run to the Consultant determined "Center" they run right into the CONservative's hands and loose.

The thing that will save this country from Germany's fate is a strong populist movement NOW. We have to take our power back from the PARASITIC CORPORATE PREDATORS and return the power of the government to the people NOW.

[upi402]

2. clear

like Montana sky

[Az]

3. Play to the center and the right will just drag everything further to the right

If you do not stand up for the things you believe in then you will not achieve the things you believe in. Its that simple.

You either fight for what you believe or you are fighting for what someone else believes.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. E X A C T L Y ! ! !

WHAT YOU SAID!

sorry about screaming.

[undergroundpanther]

5. Agree Here!

You cannot negotiate,deal,bargain, or otherwise appease psychopaths with tactics of pity or comprimise..or"centrism".

Sometimes You gotta be confident in your own right to draw and demand sane social boundaries.And be brave enough to defend and to reinforce them, to protect the social contract that makes living together as people on a planet possible at all.And do whatever it takes.Even if it means being"radical".Sometimes you got to just hit the bully boys back where it hurts the most to make them stop their tyranny and mind games that are tearing up the constitution and undermining every noble ideal that has inspired human beings to desire to be fair and decent in this world to each other.

[jpgray]

6. So why did Clinton win? Further, what happened to McGovern?

Now you may say the corporate and political power centers of the country found Clinton's centrism tolerable, and had to crush McGovern. That theory is fine, but wouldn't they have found Bush I or Dole far -more- palatable than Clinton? And besides, if it really is a rigged game, we need to accept all the victories we can get, progressive and centrist (the likes of Lieberman however need not apply) alike, so that the leaders in our party can actually change the way political power is distributed. The chances of that happening are nil, of course, but that's the way the system works. Activism on the part of progressives within the party will, as you say, make a huge difference. There may come a time when handsome, ambitious and wealthy guys are sounding like Kucinich on matters of economics. Right now, they think it's campaign chest suicide.

[Ken Burch]

11. problem is, when they sound like Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000 it's POLITICAL suicide.

It will never work for us again to run as bland cowards who defer to the right. Nobody wants that, and nobody respects a party that does that.

Yes Clinton won(in my view, solely on personal charisma, and he could have won running as a REAL Democrat who fought for the workers and the poor with that charisma had he not also been a total coward), but his victory ended up being of no use to us. It also cost us Congress in 1994(we lost because the man had spent two years telling most of the people who elected him that they had no right to expect anything from him, which naturally convinced millions of people that there was no point in voting in the '94 election since NEITHER party was on their side) and gave the right total ideological dominance in that decade.

The Clinton adminstration was the dictionary definition a Pyrrhic victory. It left us worse off than we would have been if he'd lost. There was NO excuse for a DEMOCRATIC president abolishing welfare, cutting social services down to nothing, increasing the war budget and increasing use of the death penalty. A half-assed defense of abortion rights and a few recycling baskets hardly balanced the scales.

As to why McGovern lost? There were many reasons, few tied to his stances on the issues.

1)The whold CREEP-Nixon reelection effort would have doomed any Democrat to a landslide defeat(remember what they did to Muskie and Scoop Jackson). The massive and illegal campaign donations they sought and received would have made it impossible for any Democrat to make a credible showing in '72.

2)The FBI was acting as the law enforcement wing of the Nixon campaign(rent "The People Vs. John Lennon" to refresh your memory).

3)The regular wing of the Democratic Party, the Beltway types that went on to found the DLC, made a conscious decision, with no justification(since McGovern had done nothing to THEM)to sabotauge their own party's presidential campaign by sitting on their hands and writing massive checks to Nixon. They were the ones who caused the Eagleton situation by refusing, as a bloc, to take the vice-presidential slot on the ticket. They stabbed McGovern in the back just because the activist kids beat them fair and square in the primaries. I think we can all agree that there was no excuse for this betrayal and that no good came of it.

4)The McGovern campaign was totally unfocused and unable to stay "on message" (or even to agree on a message) in the fall. McGovern was even induced, by some twits in the campaign, to fudge on his opposition to the war.

5)The "liberal media" did everything they could to leadpipe the McGovern ticket. McGovern was the victim of some of the most biased and unjustifiably vicious coverage ever inflicted on a major party presidential candidate(Mondale got it almost as bad, as did Dukakis).

6)The Nixon China trip hammered in any coffin nails the above didn't pound down flush.

So no, McGovern's campaign did not prove a progressive couldn't win. It proved that Nixon had rigged the election beyond any possibility of a fair outcome. Reality is, Scoop woulda lost 49 states too.

[AndyTiedye]

22. Most of What Doomed McGovern's Presidential Bid Has Only Gotten Worse Since Then

As to why McGovern lost? There were many reasons, few tied to his stances on the issues.

1)The whold CREEP-Nixon reelection effort would have doomed any Democrat to a landslide defeat(remember what they did to Muskie and Scoop Jackson). The massive and illegal campaign donations they sought and received would have made it impossible for any Democrat to make a credible showing in '72.

Karl Rove's operation puts CREEP to shame. Every broadcasting network, nearly every newspaper, all the largest churches, all pulling out all the stops for the Repiglickins.

2)The FBI was acting as the law enforcement wing of the Nixon campaign(rent "The People Vs. John Lennon" to refresh your memory).

As we now see the way the Gonzales "Justice" Department works, totally in service to the Repiglicans' political ambitions, to an extent that even John Mitchell (or John Ashcroft) could not have stomached.

3)The regular wing of the Democratic Party, the Beltway types that went on to found the DLC, made a conscious decision, with no justification(since McGovern had done nothing to THEM)to sabotauge their own party's presidential campaign by sitting on their hands and writing massive checks to Nixon. They were the ones who caused the Eagleton situation by refusing, as a bloc, to take the vice-presidential slot on the ticket. They stabbed McGovern in the back just because the activist kids beat them fair and square in the primaries. I think we can all agree that there was no excuse for this betrayal and that no good came of it.

Can you say Joe Lieberman?

4)The McGovern campaign was totally unfocused and unable to stay "on message" (or even to agree on a message) in the fall. McGovern was even induced, by some twits in the campaign, to fudge on his opposition to the war.

Our candidates are always accused of being unfocused, and getting off-message, when they are under constant attack in the media. If they respond to the attack, they are "unfocussed" and "not on-message",
otherwise they are "wimps" for not responding forcefully enough to the attack. The Repiglickin' media has been playing this game for years.

5)The "liberal media" did everything they could to leadpipe the McGovern ticket. McGovern was the victim of some of the most biased and unjustifiably vicious coverage ever inflicted on a major party presidential candidate(Mondale got it almost as bad, as did Dukakis).

Gore got it even worse, but the way Kerry got trashed by the Mighty Slime Machine takes the cake -- so far. I'm sure they'll be piling it on even thicker next year.
Nobody can dispute that Repiglickins have greatly consolidated their control of the Mighty Slime Machine since Nixon's day. Reagan did away with the "Fairness Doctrine", so now we have the best media that money can buy, and guess which party had enough money to buy it all?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Why was what Gore did in 2000 'political suicide'?

He won more votes than Bush. He would have won Florida clearly, if the Republicans hadn't cheated by purging people from the electoral roll who should have remained on it. He probably did win the Florida vote, but the Supreme Court prevented a proper recount.

Many people say there was similar vote fixing in 2004.

That's not suicide. If you're keeping that metaphor, it was political murder.

[blm]

55. Bush had the election rigged more than Nixon ever dreamed possible.

And he rigged it against a great progressive candidate who likely won by a landslide.

[cosmicdot]

59. highly recommend viewing of "One Bright Shining Moment...

... the Forgotten Summer of George McGovern" ...

for anyone who wasn't around, or was and still doesn't get it, or anyone who needs a refresher course ... the 'what happened to McGovern' meme is as bad as saying Bu$h won the elections in 2000 and 2004 without reading all the ******* asterisks ...

http://www.amazon.com/One-Bright-Shining-Moment-Forgotten/dp/B000E6ESSA



of course, we know what happened to Nixon shortly after his Watergated 'landslide'

[NuttyFluffers]

77. IMHO, in 1992 clinton was a fluke dependent on the madness of perot

by 1996 clinton was guaranteed success because he got americans into that happy cuddle space of fat and happy prosperity. but even if miserable americans are generally loathe to get off their ass for well over 30 years now. i still believe if LBJ ran he would have won, and he could have stopped the war. maybe he left because he didn't want to be "silenced" for showing flagging support for the war in vietnam. i believe carter lost because gas prices and inflation (thanks to nixon's shift from the gold standard) *and* reagan just blew him out of the water in terms of folksie feel-good bullshit.

it's easy to control america -- sell them beer, tv, and a sofa, some folksie pride/jingoism, and a belief in soporific optimism and the populace will eat out of your hand. they'll even tolerate just about all the beatings you can dish out. i think this whole "clinton won by being a centrist!" is just a self-indulgent meme perpetuated by the DLC. and i think it is especially true because their tactics failed so hard in 1994, in the loss of congress, and from pretty much then on. the only high point was the re-election of clinton, and that's easy to figure out; americans prefer stasis if given a choice (hell, look at our policies from slavery to women suffrage, etc).

[PassingFair]

91. No one thought Clinton was a centrist when he came in.

He BECAME a centrist.

People thought he would fight for the little guy.

[JHB]

99. Actually, those on the Left didn't believe he was "for the little guy"...

Go check out some back issues of The Nation or EXTRA from 1992.

He was the governor of an anti-union "right to work" state, was cozy with Tyson chicken, etc., and was quick to characterize attempts on behalf of "the little guy" as anti-business or old and outdated thinking.

Clinton was the most conservative (or centrist, if you prefer) of the '92 Democratic lineup, and for that primary campaign the press loved him as it never did before or since. He was declared frontrunner before a single vote was cast, based partly on funds raised and partly because he was the favorite for most of the campaign press themselves (a one-of-us yuppie!).

And then Bush cranked up the Wurlitzer and painted him as Hippy Bill&Hill.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. So what are WE doing? Singing to the choir.

We MUST make more time to personally lobby our representatives -- and not with threats of "if you don't do what pleases me, I won't vote for you" but with real, in-depth conversations with the rep and his/her staff.

Communication.

DU is a great watering hole and a place to run ideas up the flagpole, but the real action is with our neighbors and politicians.

Use them or lose them.

--p!

[EFerrari]

9. Well, sometimes it helps to hear a few bars before we venture out

into the Great Beyond. :)

[Ken Burch]

13. Well, I'm not disagreeing with you there.

But we have to defend our principles, even in "real, in-depth conversations".

[AndyTiedye]

15. Where Do You Get That Kind of Access?

We MUST make more time to personally lobby our representatives -- and not with threats of "if you don't do what pleases me, I won't vote for you" but with real, in-depth conversations with the rep and his/her staff.

How? The closest most of us can get is a phone call that is answered by some overworked staffer who wants to get the call over with as quickly as possible so they can get on to the next caller.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Persistence

We don't need to get 100% face time immediately. And while money can buy access, money is not required for access. I think we have forgotten that.

Our cynicism tells us that those staffers are worthless. The reality is that in most political war rooms, those staffers are frequently canvassed by the strategists and The Boss. They are paranoid that they will miss the slightest little peep from the electorate, their base, or even some potential noise-making group. I also found this to be true when I registered my complaints with Santorum staffers, as I did episodically. In some small way, when Man-On-Dog Rick had to do some horse trading, this may have put a pennyweight more on the balance.

If you attend a politician's get-togethers, or write to the reps, and do it consistently, you will make an impact. They will remember your name. They will know that you don't just write to rant, or to complain, but to add your honest opinions and suggestions. You will become not just another statistic to them, but a citizen.

Cynicism tells us what we can't do. When we disobey cynicism, we can accomplish what cynicism mocked us for trying.

Believe me, if you write with reason and passion, you will be heard. It won't guarantee a 100% impact rate, but your efforts will not be in vain. Not only can this succeed, Democracy demands it of us.

Now, imagine if several hundred progressives did that in any given precinct or district ...

--p!

[Morgana LaFey]

43. right, and at best puts a click in the "aye" or "nay" column

At best.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. Az is right. as we pull our party back to where it belongs, the right is

moving away little by little away from the fringe right. if our party gets moved back over to the center or right of center, then the right will go back to the fringe.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

14. THE RIGHT IS MADE UP OF A GANG OF WHINNING SOCIOPATHS

THEY NEVER HAVE A NEW IDEA AND THEY TRY TO SABOUTAGE COMPROMISE.

[Ken Burch]

16. Yeah.

n/t.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

17. SUGGEST YOU ALL READ THIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle THE REPUBLICAN GAME :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[rucky]

82. Sounds like the politics game.

Oppressors need victims. Victims need rescuers. Nobody really communicates.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Nonsense

pure nonsense.

[Ken Burch]

23. Care to offer an actual rebuttal?

Disparagement doesn't count. Let's hear YOUR case for why we should stay centrist and cowardly and keep losing.

[ConsAreLiars]

25. Don't expect one.

Nothing there but slogans and hate radio opinions. That said, you are completely right, a party that stands for nothing in particular will inspire little more than indifference.

[eridani]

19. Standing up for principles more would have paid off for Kerry in Ohio

Cinncinnati is NOT a bastion of liberalism, either

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/eridani/201

The next Democratic candidate considering running for president would do well to talk to activists like Justin Turner of Cincinnati Citizens to Restore Fairness, fighting to overturn the anti-gay Article XII.

From a skimpy minority of 32 percent who voted in favor of repeal in February 2004, the Restore Fairness campaign won over 53 percent of the vote on November 2. The campaign set a goal of turning out 60,000 supporive votes; the repeal proposition won with over 65,000. The gains came disproportionately from the most conservative parts of town.

"The key was to put a human face on the message and to address it head on," Turner told me on the phone from his home after the proposition passed.

Kerry campaigned in Cincinnati with the losing, instead of the winning, side. he brought onto the stage with him the one group of African American leaders that was not part of the Cincinnati for Fairness Coalition.

[mzmolly]

20. Centrism is such a relative term. We had independents swing the last election

because we essentially have the 33 percenters that don't budge on both sides of the isle.

That said, I do think we have to be who we are and not try to win by becoming Republicans - so you are correct in my opinion. Now, if we could only agree on who's progressive? ;)

[Az]

26. Thats 33 percent of those that vote

An overwhelming majority of the US population is sick of elections in part because they do not feel as though they are represented. The compromises and lack of fixed ideals is a large part of why people have fled the voting booths. Get those people interested in voting again by standing up for something they can get behind and the paltry percentage of swing voters won't matter any more.

[mzmolly]

53. Right, 33 percent of voters. But, in order to "connect" with voters we need to ask

what they want from us. Most who dont vote feel that politicans are corrupt and that voting won't effect them much anyhow.

[Az]

63. You don't lead by following

You lead by standing up for principles and making the people see the sense of it.

[mzmolly]

71. Well, I don't consider representing "the people" following.

I think we need a balance between "vision" and "the will of the people." And I feel that is what Democrats offer, which is why I'm a Democrat. :hi:

[Morgana LaFey]

45. "Independents" are increasingly liberals like most of us

disgusted enough with the Dem Party to make a point by withdrawing their registrations. I've seen and heard and met many -- blacks, whites, you name it. They feel SO disenfranchised by their party that they go ahead and take the hext logical step.

SO! Don't imagine that all Independents lean Republican.

[mzmolly]

52. I don't imagine anything other than we as a Party need to connect with

independents and where they are at in order to win elections. My family has many inde's some lean right some lean left.

[NobleCynic]

27. I concur completely, moderation does not win converts

Some of us believe in the virtue of campaigning at the extremes even if we do not believe we should be governed by the extremes. No one is inspired by a moderate. You win converts in politics by preaching strong ideology, that is why the Republicans were able to grow so quickly from Reagan forward. They gave no ideological ground. Even if you don't believe in a black and white stance, preaching flat grey is a suboptimal approach at best.

Sure, you may win a single election by moving center, but by doing so you push the center away from you which hurts your cause next election. People do not pay close attention to politics, they judge the center to be in between the two parties. Therefore when one party moves center, the entire country moves away from that party because they assume that the center is still in between the two parties. Only by running from the center can you pull the country with you.

To end, I leave you with a short paraphrase I attribute to Abbie Hoffman:
I'm really not as extreme as I seem. The reason I do what I do is to make what I truly believe seem reasonable by comparison.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Then those who look 'extreme' on purpose shouldn't expect to get elected

If you make yourself look like one end of the spectrum, it's possible that someone espousing your real policy desires will get elected - but it won't be you, it will be someone who is now called 'the centre'. As long as anyone using these tactics understands they're 'taking one for the team', that's fine.

[Ken Burch]

35. No one gets elected as a bland centrist and then governs as a progressive

It never has happened. It never will happen.

And it isn't about "looking extreme on purpose". It's being strong and confident in our values. Reagan didn't move a millimeter left to win and he still got the "centrists". He got them because the respected him for looking confident and believing in something. If he can do that, we can do that. In any case, it has to have better results than our usual approach of surrender and shame and treating progressive values like they're the political version of kiddie porn.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I understand you don't feel that way, but NobleCynic does

That's why he said "Some of us believe in the virtue of campaigning at the extremes even if we do not believe we should be governed by the extremes." And then gave the Abbie Hoffman quote.

[NobleCynic]

49. There is a balancing act to be had

If you can campaign at an extreme without seeming to be extreme, it is a victory in every way possible. True talent is had in making what you believe seem moderate. Making people believe what you do, rather than catering to what they currently think.

But yes, some elections may be too important to purposefully lose by being extreme, so in such a case a more moderate stance should be forged. But not too moderate. It is important not to be seen as taking the middle road. A middle stance has no ideological strength. People are simple creatures, and no one is inspired by compromise. They may respect it, they may understand it, but compromise will not win converts to the cause. As a dumbed down example, which of the following statements is stronger and more inspirational?

Thou shalt not kill.

or

Thou shalt not kill except in self defense or under other extenuating circumstances considered on the balance exculpatory.

Even if you have to govern under the latter, you campaign under the former. Simplicity wins. The simpler your stance, the better your chances. Always.

My point is that campaigning centrist can only spell utter defeat in the long run. Anyone who runs such a campaign does so at the cost of the party.

Even if you manage to win, it leaves you in a difficult position. One who campaigns as a ideologue who runs a more moderate government than he campaigned on is seen as someone who can compromise by the middle. One who runs as a moderate, but governs with a strong ideological platform is seen as deceitful and deceptive by the middle.

Am I saying that we should nominate Dennis Kucinich? Probably not. But not necessarily because of his stance on the issues. It isn't fair to Kucinich, but he really isn't that good looking of a man. We're a vain nation. He'd the lose the general solely on that. What I am saying is that it is dangerous to the cause in general to nominate a candidate that is grasping for the center.

[sampsonblk]

88. Rick Santorum got elected. Explain that. nt

nt

[Jamastiene]

28. Centrism is what has gotten us into this mess to begin with.

Bush could have been stopped, but nooooo-ooooo, the centrists didn't want to rock the boat and go against him. They gave him godlike powers that no president should have under the Constitution. Never has a president had the kind of powers our Congress gave Bush.

Then there are always the centrists who say, "Shut up, gay people, your rights will have to come when we damn well please." Yep, blame it all on the gays. Sometimes, I wonder if some centrist policies aren't just covers for something that amounts to nothing more than secret agreement with the Talibornagain Falwell/Robertson types. When it comes to my rights, my livelihood, and my chances in life, dammit, you are either with me or against me. If that's what it takes to get Democrats to do what someone wants them to do, then dammit, you are either with me or against me.

[On the Road]

29. I Agree That Conciliation is the Path to Defeat

and the fact that neither the congressional leadership nor the major candidates seems to get that is appalling.

But it's not simply a question of progressive/centrist. Howard Dean had the right spirit despite being a centrist, and I believe he would have won.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. By definition, you are including the centre in 'us'

"There IS no "middle of the road" anymore. "

No, that's not how humans are. We have a wide range of opinions, on different matters, and there is inevitably a 'middle'.

"There are MORE of us then there are of THEM."

So 'us' includes the middle, so that on whatever scale you're measuring (economic left/right? liberal/authoritarian? Free trade/protectionist? Nationalist/internationalist?), you get a majority when you include the centre.

I suspect what you mean is "don't compromise with Republicans". That's fine. They are a minority, and one that screws up the world for others. They've managed to scare people into voting for them, or fooled them about what their economic policies would do.

But 'the party', ie the Democratic party, includes registered voters who call themselves the centre. Your 'rainbow majority' already includes them. A 'compromised party', in other words. If you say you can't compromise, you get rid of the rainbow.

[Raksha]

75. I totally agree with you. It's important to remember

that we already include the center, that Us = 70% and growing, and Them = 30% and shrinking. So there is no reason for Progressives to even talk about "moving to the center." The center of WHAT? We need to articulate who we are and what we stand for clearly and openly and WITHOUT apologizing to anyone! That's the way to win elections.

[JTFrog]

33. My problem right now

is trying to understand how so many democrats, including those here at DU, thought we had claimed such a victory last year in the elections and that the vote showed that we wanted to get out of Iraq.

Yet those same people come here and support candidates that have no plans to end the war. Who are already spouting the rw crap about needing a presence in Iraq for years to come and show no signs of restraint when it comes to Iran. And heaven forbid you should point out this illogical behavior. Why do people accept this? Why show blind support to a candidate?

There are other options. If everyone throws their hands in the air and decides that the candidates who want to end the war and end human suffering can't get elected because "insert your reason here", we are only empowering the media with the ability to keep telling us what we really want.

Haven't we had enough? Enough war? Enough death? Enough suffering?

I used to think cognitive dissonance to these extremes was impossible.

[mema42]

68. I sure hope so

That war needs to end. In my view, no Presidential candidate should be able to get away with "I'm opposed to the war, but .... and an excuse for staying."

I also view that Bush should have been impeached with a bunch of his cronies but I've pretty much given up on that.

[EstimatedProphet]

36. Absolutely

I want a government for, of, and by the people. Centrism leads to for, of, and by the corporations.

[TwilightGardener]

38. Totally disagree. Speaking as a centrist Democrat.

The further left our nominee goes, the more that centrists of either party and independents will take a closer look at the R's, IF their candidate is not too far right. It all depends on who gets nominated for both parties, what happens with the war between now and then, and whether or not a third-party ticket emerges and whether that ticket is moderate or fringe. Most Americans have a political comfort level that they do not want to breach, and it's risky to assume that there will be a demand for a very progressive candidate just because GWB was an abject failure--folks may not see his failed policies as an indictment of conservatism or Republicanism, but just of the man himself, and may not respond in a reactionary way, but rather in a "safe", cautious manner. Just as the saying goes, "You've got to put the hay where the goats can get it"--you've got to put the candidate where the voters are.

[jgraz]

79. How's about we put a candidate where the people are?

Ever wonder why so many people still don't bother to vote? Ever think what would happen if someone ran a candidate that spoke to them?

Anyone who would consider voting for a Rethug after the past 6.5 years is not someone we EVER want a Democratic candidate to pander to. I say go after the real progressive majority in this country and we'll walk away with every election, theft or not.

[onenote]

95. where were all those people when Ned Lamont ran?

The idea that there is the untapped body of progressive voters who would show up if someone would just "speak to them"? Well, in Connecticut an alternative to the status quo emerged and won the Democratic nomination, but still managed to lose the general election. Now I think (and hope) that a lot of the voters who went with Lieberman over Lamont recognize the folly in their decision. But the fact is that if Lieberman hadn't continued to act like a total repub jackass over the last six months, but had voted the same way as Clinton and Obama -- two Democrats oftened criticized here as not being progressive -- he would probably be viewed as pretty popular in Connecticut.

[leftchick]

39. It is hopeless with the DLC's 'Junk Yard Dog' Emanuel running the show

this is a pretty good analysis of why things won't change with the DLC doling out the cash....

http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/rahm-emanuel-democrats-junkyard-dog.html


<snip>

And Koltys isn't alone. Another Democratic activist summed it up this way:

1. Overwhelmingly, the electorate listed Iraq as the most important issue in 2006. Up until September of 2006, Rahm was telling Democrats NOT TO TALK ABOUT IRAQ. Only when they noticed that opposition to Bush's Iraq policy made a candidates numbers go up, did Rahms Democrats start talking about it. So - not exactly a message genius there.

2. If you look at the 25 candidates on Rahm's "Red to Blue" list - the races he thought the Dems could win, and where he wanted to pour ALL the money - only 13 Dems on that list won. The rest of the Dem pickups were grassroots, netroots populists and progressives who had been first opposed by Rahm, and were then ignored by the DCCC.

3. Rahm poured MILLIONS and MILLIONS into races on his list that were eventually lost: Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Darcy Burner in WA, Patricia Madrid in New Mexico.

If Rahm had gotten his own ego out of the way, looked at the polls, and put even a fraction of that money into netroots candidates that the DCCC ignored - like Larry Kissel in North Carolina, Victoria Wulsin in Ohio, Charles Brown in CA - The Democrats could have picked up another 5 or 6 seats in 2006.

Emanuel is now Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, a powerful leadership position and precisely NOT the place you want a junkyard dog. He's helping to fashion the DLC's next campaign platform and sitting in on strategy sessions.



.... And don't forget "THE FACE OF THE DLC"





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-stoller/hillary-clintons-dlc-pro_b_39566.html


Hillary Clinton's DLC Problem

[entanglement]

40. "Moderates" are pro-war, pro-imperialism, anti working-class, pro- big business

They have cosmetic differences with conservatives on a few social issues, and that's about all. An utterly unprincipled bunch.

[mema42]

65. Oh really.

Thats odd. The moderates don't sound that way, nor do they actually promote many of the ideas you say they stand for.

Now I do agree that the Democrat party runs on a center platform that is what you are saying or close to it, the actual views of those who consider themselves center are something else.


Maybe the term moderate is an unknown.

There are "moderates" on the right and the left, in both the Democrat and Republican party as well as in the Independents.

Independents prefer to choose based on the person involved in the vote. Republicans and Democrats tend to vote based on the party.

Myself, I do not agree with the any view ruling the country or its people. Each should respect the differences in others and govern for all the citizens of the country. Not the select few that meet their criteria of what one should believe. The right and the left, the moderates too.

Is that to much to ask of a democracy or even a republic?

[Raksha]

74. A small correction: There is no such thing as the "Democrat party."

Now I do agree that the Democrat party runs on a center platform that is what you are saying or close to it, the actual views of those who consider themselves center are something else.

And yet you used that term twice. The part I just quoted, and also here:

There are "moderates" on the right and the left, in both the Democrat and Republican party as well as in the Independents.

Interesting...

[zanne]

41. What's more, "centrism" turns into "rightism"

Whenever it's convenient.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Recommended read: "being right is not enough"

The basic premise: pandering to fundamentalists is a counterproductive waste of time. They're not going to vote for you, and you really wouldn't want them to anyway.

[Madspirit]

46. k&r...n/t

[onenote]

47. so how do you explain Kucinich's lack of success as a national candidate?

If being more progressive and less centrist is the path to success, why isn't DK more successful?

[NobleCynic]

50. He's not good looking

I'm sorry, but we're a truly vain nation. Before television, he might of made it big.

[jgraz]

80. He's also an ineffective campaigner

As much as I respect DK, it's not enough to simply share progressive principles. You need to also be able to make your case to the voters. When people are asked why they're not voting for DK, hardly anyone says "he's too far left for me". The just look at the packaging and turn up their nose.

If you want to see a working model of a successful progressive, look at how Russ Feingold continually wins elections in a mostly rural state like Wisconsin. We might also take a few lessons from recent progressive/populist victories like Jon Tester's Senate win.

[onenote]

81. John Tester -- just another pretty face?

Sorry, but I'm having trouble with the excuse that DK's progressive values aren't resonating with the alleged "silent" progressive majority because he lacks physical appeal. So there is a large untapped progressive vote out there but they also happen to be really shallow, physical features matter more than substance types?

[jgraz]

84. They may be progressive, but they're still American

Shallow is the biggest majority we have.

As fas as Tester goes, check out the youtubes of his debates with Burns. It's not about looks, it's about presentation.

[onenote]

94. the reason Tester won was because Burns was a total screw up and a third party candidate

Burns shot himself in the foot any number of times during the campaign and was linked to Abramoff, which hurt him considerably. Yet Tester managed to top Burns by less than 3000 votes. Moreover, Tester almost certainly would've lost had Stan Jones not run as a Libertarian, pulling in more than 10,000 votes, most of which probably coming from Burns. (Jones' positions include support for the death penalty and opposition to same sex marriage.

Plus, Tester is hardly a progressive poster boy. He voted for the no timetable iraq war funding bill and voted for legislation to make English the official national language.

In short, Tester is hardly proof that there is an untapped progressive majority out there.

[jgraz]

98. Tester ran as a progressive populist and he won

At the very least, that's proof that populism can win elections in traditionally conservative states.

[aikoaiko]

48. I'm not sure what that means. but I still long for Democrat that leads and speaks for most Americans

Not just left of center.

[WilliamPitt]

51. I love a good rallying cry.

You're right.

Now what?

Saying we need a plan, leadership, organization, etc., reminds me of a saying I once heard.

"If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs."

I worked for Kucinich, worked for PDA, worked within and for several progressive campaigns, and I can tell you one absolute and axiomatic truth, a truth that every progressive politician knows and endures and copes with.

The Left is filled to bursting with passionate, informed, patriotic people who want to make change. We are short on passionate people who build lists and organize campaigns.

The Right is filled with people who know how to make voter lists, how to canvass an entire city, how to get mailing systems going, how to build phone banks, how to build lists of numbers for the phone banks, how to organize carpools for voters who need assistance reaching the polls...organization is to victory as water is to life.

The passion and shouting and anger and emotion is the fun part. We have barrels of that.

When we get the organizers, we'll be in business.

Until we can get those organizers into an organized organization, all we do mostly is shout.

I'm with you. But answer the next question.

[cascadiance]

54. Most of those claiming to be "centrist" are actually "corporatist"...

In my book those terms aren't equivalent, even if the DLC folk want you to think they are "centrist"!

[lostinacause]

58. What do you consider "corporatist"? Essentially every developed country

uses corporate entities as a form of wealth generation mechanisms. There are a number of reasons why corporations are superior to government organizations as a general industry structure. Since it is not part of the discussion I will leave it to others to request elaboration. Is a party, or a wing of a party, corporatist if the support corporations having a role in the economy? What if they desire the implementation of programs that align private incentives with those of society? What if they seek to reduce the power of corporations in decision making? Where does free trade fall into this? What if a liberal (“free”) trade policy is combined with transfers that make it so the benefits from free trade are more evenly dispersed? What if at the same time policies are implemented that decrease the costs of free trade policies?

[cascadiance]

61. Corporatists are those that are influenced by corporate money for their agendas...

It is one thing to recognize that corporations play a key part in generating wealth in one's economy, and seeing the value of that, and not dismissing them as some with communist ideologies might.

It is another thing to have the corporations exercise control over the government through money contributions (aka BRIBES!), so that they can reduce regulation, etc. and allow them to do things like externalize costs onto society purely for the motivation of increased profits and not in the best interests of the society they push these costs onto.

Corporations should be about making profits, and that is how they should be judged. That is PRECISELY why they shouldn't be considered "persons", nor should they have ANY role in directly influencing the actual governance of our country. Corporatists seem to not understand either intentionally or not, that the current system of campaign financing, etc. that allows them to in effect call the shots through these corporatist entities like the DLC is corrupting our democracy, and is precisely why we have things like global warming, our health care system in the mess it is in now, us helping profiteers as the only real reason we are in Iraq, etc. As many Republicans, such as Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, as Democrats have warned us about the problems with corporatist influence over governments in the last century.

The limit of lobbyists should be to just allow them contact with government officials to inform them of how legislation might affect them in more detailed fashion, so that the politician won't arbitrarily and unknowingly hurt industry when it isn't necessary, etc. There should be no money changing hands. It should be purely a relationship of the lobbyist helping the politician make the right decision, but the politician ONLY being influenced by and beholden to the will of the people they serve, not the will of those big donors that pay for their campaigns.

We should advocate "fair trade", not "free trade". NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO all need to go, unless they at the same time break trade barriers, seek to enforce global standards of fairness and equity in the way their workforce, the global environment, and the other components of their economy are treated. Without this, our "free trade" institutions are just a license for multi-national corporations to continue the "race to the bottom" they have now, which in effect institutionalizes slave labor which they use in many parts of the world to get us "cheap stuff".

We shouldn't allow the robber barons back in power again! That is what has been happening since 1980.

[lostinacause]

72. I agree with your general philosophy on the role of the corporation. On a few of the details my

opinion differs. I believe that since corporations are a major stakeholder in many decisions that are being made by the government they should provide input. They have valuable information to add to the process of regulation and there are benefits associated with efficient regulation. In many cases low cost regulation leads to increased employment and employment earnings, increased tax revenue and increased shareholder profits. At the same time effort needs to be devoted to ensure that their influence is balanced. This is where I believe that regulation should be focused. Effort should be devoted to reducing, but not eliminating, corporate influence. At the same time institutions need to be developed that ensures that the interests of other stakeholders are represented.

(I will comment on the rest later)

[cascadiance]

73. I don't think I actually disagree with you much here...

I also think that lobbyists should play a role, but those of being advisors and not bribers. They should have NO control in terms of monetary power over the politician they are working with other than their own contribution they can make like any other citizen can (the $5 contribution for public financing signature that is normal now). They should be able to persuade the congressman that by doing the right legislation, it enables the business to generate more jobs here, and that the costs are being properly being identified by the company (outsourcing, environmental, etc.) and explain how legislation will help or hurt that equation. A legislator empowered with that information but not receiving ANY money from that lobbyist, will be able to make what the best decision is for the people ultimately, and if in the process he doesn't hurt business or perhaps can help it, then everything will be done right. The lobbyist then must make their case based on how his/her info helps the public, not how much the congressman can get money in exchange for favors for his/campaign or personal well being as it is done now.

You can't even allow a LITTLE money to come in, or it will be used the way it is now and then the question will be where you draw the line of how much is too much, and it is better if you say it isn't allowed AT ALL, so that the laws of what is improper are clear, and there isn't any room for the games that are being played now.

[waiting for hope]

56. I agree wholeheartedly -

my choice for President fits that bill quite nicely. :)

[Le Taz Hot]

83. Oh, please!

The OP is talking about YOU and your candidate. Wake up, already!

[Rex]

57. It was pretty much made clear - either you are on the BFEE/PNACs side

or you are on the side of Democracy. THEY told US.

[IChing]

60. agreed n/t

[gravity]

62. I disagree with the "us vs them" attitude that the republicans have been playing for years

Great leaders don't demonize their opponents, they work with both sides and come up with compromises.

Most people in this country our moderates having values that fall within both extremes of the spectrum. Saying that "if you aren't with us, your against us", is not going to win over any support, and will just alienate at least half the voting population.

The problem with the Dems in the past few elections is that we aren't able effectively articulate a clear message for the general public, not that they are too centrists.

[mema42]

64. Good point

Thanks good point. I am not far left on all my views, nor do I want to be. I see no reason why even the far left and the far right can't respect each other and the opposite view. Is diversity good only when not applied to politics? Is a closed mind a requirement for the Democratic party I missed somewhere.

[lostinacause]

69. I couldn’t agree with you more on the “us vs. them” attitude being bad for public choice.

History, however, has shown numerous examples where people get drawn to leaders who work to divide. The most famous example would be Hitler. Most recently Bush successfully obtained power in an election based largely on his ability to depict the Democrats as being weak on terrorism. Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Hugo Chavez are other examples and I can go on. In each of these cases the politicians has benefited from an “us vs. them” attitude. In light of such “benefits” it is not clear to me that, if wining is the primary objective, that one should avoid pinning people against each other.

I also agree with you the problems in previous elections. There is a big difference between a person who panders to all sides and someone who is a centrist. Kerry gave off the image of trying to hard to please everybody. In the end he looked as though he stood for nothing. Standing for balance is quite different that standing for everything.

[Ken Burch]

76. Pierre Elliott Trudeau did NOT work to divide Canadians.

His whole project was to hold the country together and prevent the departure of Quebec by actually dealing with the grievances of Quebec francophones. So that's a cheap shot.

Hugo Chavez isn't working to divide either. He is working to UNITE the working-class, multiracial majority of the Venezuelan people. The only people who are somewhat excluded are the rich, and that's because the rich in Venezuela have never had progressive or humane values. So THAT's a cheap shot as well.

You are correct about Bush, of course.

[lostinacause]

87. My reference to Trudeau was both to the Quebec situation and to the

the disconnect between the East and the West that rose out his choices. It could be argued that in each case he did what he had to. Regardless a great deal of discontent still lingers from his actions.

Chavez, in my opinion, has done at least as much to create an "us vs. them" attitude as Bush has. He has benefited immensely from creating discontentment for the rich and for America. You, like many people who supported Bush, seem to justify certain actions of individuals who share your political ideologies that you condemn in those of an opposing ideology. I believe that we should hold them to the same standards that we hold people with opposing ideologies.

We have seen what 8 years of “us vs. them” politics has done. We have seen what politics based the creation of division has done for America. We have not seen a quest for good choices but rather a quest for power, influence, control and support. America does not need to see more of this.

What America needs in a President is someone who will work to unite the country. Someone who will address the concerns that are occurring as a result of the fast changing political and economic environments. Someone who will spearhead initiatives to discover ways to deal with issues related to the global economy. Someone who will transform a health care system that fails far too many American citizens. Someone who will address the issue with oil becoming more expensive and less available in the coming years. Someone who realizes that the vast majority of economic gains have been realized by people in the middle and upper income demographics and make the appropriate changes such that the lower wage earners see some of the benefit from growth. For these and a number of other necessary changes to happen, it is my belief that the president has to be a uniter rather then a divider. There is too much to be done to have people focus on attacking each other. These issues are also far too complex to be thoroughly and properly addressed by politicians of one ideology. America needs somone who will unite the parties.

[Ken Burch]

92. Chavez hardly CREATED the resentment of the rich and "America" in Venezuela

The rich and our own government did an excellent job of creating that resentment themselves. It's not as if if it hadn't been for Hugo everyone in Venezuela would see the U.S. government as their benefactors and the rich as their natural rulers.

Chavez is fighting for the excluded majority. The rich in Venezuela, like the rich throughoug the rest of Latin America, have no capacity whatsoever to be progressive or humane. Chile proves that. Guatemala proves that. Nicaragua proves that. I could go on.

[lostinacause]

100. Hitler did not create the resentment towards Jewish people. It was already

there before he started his propaganda. In fact it was by no means isolated to America. Hitler also did not create the feelings that people had regarding the reparation payments from World War I. In both cases he just justified and, through propaganda, intensified the feelings that were already there. The same can be said about the feelings that Bush justified.

[Ken Burch]

101. Please tell me you DIDN'T just compare the class struggle to Naziism.

Please tell me you also didn't just compare the disempowerment of rich people in Venezuela to the persecution of the Jews, gays, Roma and LEFTISTS that occurred in Germany.

That is a morally abominable comparison. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Chavez is nothing like Hitler. A movement to emancipate workers and the poor is nothing whatsoever like Naziism.

You owe an apology to millions of victims of capitalism and fascism.

[lostinacause]

105. Did I mention anything about "the" class struggle being equivalent to Nazism?

One similarity between two things is not enough to develop guilt by association.

[AnOhioan]

66. Keeping this kicked

[me b zola]

67. Checking in to say that I agree

:)

[Kazak]

70. Agree, his name is Gore...

I think. :shrug:

[bigtree]

78. maybe you are right, but those voters who elect folks to our party with a centrist appeal

have a perfect right to expect our party to pay attention to their pov, and to respect and give room for the representative they elected to present their views alongside the others in political debates.

It's very unlikely that we can achieve a majority in Congress by just relying on voters who represent just one ideology or set of beliefs. And, there's no value at all in our party relegating themselves to minority status until we achieve some sort of ideological purity. It will likely never happen. As long as these more moderate legislators are willing to work with a less moderate majority of Democrats to effect their ideas, they should be welcomed to organize under our banner and allow us the elevation to actually effect those aspirations into legislative action.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Worse. It's stagnation and grasping at the status quo of politics as usual.

It's an effort to reverse or stop time and change. It's the ultimate form of burying one's head in the sand.

As Dylan said, "The times they are a' changin'" and the "centrists" are busily denying that we, as a country, must change with the times.

[Individualist]

86. Abso-damn-lutely

Get rid of the DLC cancer that's destroying the party.

[sampsonblk]

89. Absolutely! kick

nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

90. AL GORE is our answer. He can win again...He did it once and he can do it again, BUT

this time he'll play the game HIS WAY! He's got them all figured out now. He knows exactly what they're up to and he's not afraid to call them on it.

ALL DUERS BAN BEHIND AL GORE.....once he enters the race. Imagine if ALL DUers banned behind him, donated time, money and energy....he would wipe the floor with whichever LOSER repuke they run. GORE/OBAMA! KILLER TICKET!

[DemReadingDU]

93. morning kick

[Zodiak]

96. I agree with this OP

That is all.

[leftofthedial]

97. the DC version of the "center" is basically radically conservative

and completely out of touch with America and Americans.

It is a good place to "keep your powder dry" though.

[Jed Dilligan]

102. Funny how DU's resident centrists haven't shown up here

because they can't argue with what you said.

:applause:

[LittleClarkie]

103. And so who would you suggest we pick

of the candidates we have?

[mmonk]

104. Centrism is an illusion.