Why don't we nominate a moderate southern republican?

[Cheswick2.0]

Hear me out.

The south hates us, so even though we keep voting for them, apparently they refuse to vote for us since we are smarty pants elitists. (If you have kids you think could be president one day...better move south). So we need to chose a southerner.

I'd say any old republican would do, the voters sure seem to say that. But I think it is best we stick with a moderate to get the progressive vote and the independents. Besides moderates don't scare people. They don't think anything much should be changed except to declare they are pro-business and think we should compromise on choice.

But here is the best part...we should nominate a republican. The best thing is if we nominate the same republican as the republicans do. We are sure to win that way and our senate and congress wouldn't have to worry about opposing him at all. After all he would be our nominee too.

[aquart]

1. Offensive.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. why?

Our transformation to all southern moderate pro-business, pro-corporate, anti union, anti minority, anti gay, anti women and anti worry would be a great relief to America.

[janx]

2. forget 2008!

We have 2006 to worry about.

DFA!

[Cheswick2.0]

5. HI janx

:hi:

2006 indeed, we have some people to elect.

[Goldmund]

3. I have a better idea

propose to the Republicans we will all join their party if they only switch their logo from an elephant to a donkey. Our victory would be assured.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. A brilliant idea

Branding is everything!

[Goldmund]

11. Indeed

and for every fag's vote we give up, we'll get at least 3 evangelical "values" votes...

I think we're onto something here. I'll contact the DLC and propose this.

(or shit, maybe that's a bad idea -- they may be inclined to accept that proposal!)

[LimpingLib]

7. If those people you are teasing actually talked issues...

.... then I wouldnt be so mad and deragatory at times.

I offered a truce to the Clark supporters that if they stoped the B.S. about needing a southerner or moderate because "progressives cant win" then I wouldnt get so angry and attack him right off that bat.

No area in the country do we get pounded in more badly in than nearly every Southern state (aside from Florida and Virgiia).

There are many states we at least come close in , and almost non are in the South.

Its the most foolish strategy I have ever heard.

Ill try for every state but there will be no regional strategy on my part and I will look down at those who sugest one ...especially when it aims for the South.

[janx]

9. Where do you live and what are your options for 2006?

?

[FrenchieCat]

26. Since you mentioned Clark supporters,

I will have to respond to your offer of a truce. I think that you are misunderstanding the point that Clark supporters make in favor of Wes Clark. Wes Clark is not a moderate per se....indeed, his policies (Domestic and foreign) are quite progressive. The important point, however, is that Clark is perceived as moderate due to his title of "General", and the fact that he did, at one point, based on his own admission vote for Republicans as well as Democratic candidates.

Wes Clark has the unique qualifications of being a perceived moderate Southerner who is also seen as "Strong" on National Defense issues and in addition represents public service, and important heartland values such as hard work and self reliance.....

The issues that actually lost John Kerry more votes during this election was not his democratic domestic offerings...it was his perceived weakness on National Security due to his perceived indicisiveness (lack of him showing anything in his recent background to alleviate that notion other than voting against various weapon systems, the 1st Gulf War resolution and yet voting for the Iraq War resolution didn't help). Although Kerry was in the military for some months back 35 years ago...that was not enough to connotate "Strength and security" to many of the American voters.

So those who keep talking about Moderate Southern candidates are not connecting the dots and, in fact, are missing the boat.
We need to be a "full service" candidate to represent our party.

Part of the problem with Democrats is not that their domestic policies are not strong....they are! The problem is that the "full" picture is rarely represented. We need a candidate that has many of the attributes that would make him attractive to many voters. When we discuss Mark Warner or even Evan Bayh....we are still talking about Milktoast candidates that will not connotate strength in the one area that Democrats keep missing.....there are two wars going on, whether we like it or not. We can't act like that is not the case.

The last time both the Republican and the Democratic parties did not have either an incumbent nor a VP running in an election was in 1952. It was a time of war (the Korean War)...and guess who got elected? General Einsenhower. Now, I am not saying that Wes Clark is an Einsenhower (he's actually better prepared, more intelligent and a Democrat)....what I am saying is that it is not incidental that Republicans are attempting to run candidates in their party such as Hagel, McCain, Guiliani (why him, I don't know) and Schwarzenneger....they all represent a certain strength or hero manifestation that works well in a time of war.

We need to get smart in the strategy of winning.

The Daddy party will be the winners in 2008 over the Mommy party. The "Icanprotectyounomatterwhat" party will win over the "Icannurtureyouandkeepyoueconomicallyviable". I can guarantee it.

Sooooo when we talk about who to nominate......"full service" has got to be the guiding light.

[demnan]

8. Yeah

and we could change our mascot to a donkey in a pink tu-tu.

[charlie]

10. Heh

It'd be tempting, unless Repubs got wise and nominated Zell Miller. Then we're back to square one, or worse, with a Democrat* president haranguing the country about what fuckups Democrats are.

* yes, "Democratic" is preferred. But while Zell is a Democrat, he sure isn't Democratic.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. now that really is a dilema

maybe Zell could be persuaded to switch parties to republican. Then the whole country would be happy.

[Demeter]

13. For the Same Reason Hen's Teeth Are Scarce

Ain't any such thing.

[madfloridian]

14. No, I disagree, you left out a word.

We must run a Southern Christian governor who does not take a stand on womens' right or civil unions.

That is the almost exact wording I heard from DEC person who came to bring some papers yesterday. That is the thinking now.

[charlie]

15. Really?

I thought we got that crap out of our systems last week. Lordy. 2006 is gonna be a sorry spectacle if we go out there trying to out-Jesus and out-jingo the Repubs. And I doubt it would make a damn bit of difference in our fortunes.

[Cheswick2.0]

19. Okay but let's at least not nominate someone who looks french

you know how the news media will just kill us on that issue.

[charlie]

20. Right, he's gotta look Amuriken

And speak Amuriken too, none of that fancypants English stuff. If a man can't speak good old Yew-niteddy States, he ain't fit to govern.

[Cheswick2.0]

17. yumpin yimminy

Now there's the ticket!

[demokatgurrl]

16. Because we're DEMOCRATS?????

[Cheswick2.0]

18. BUT WE MUST WIN!!!!

We must nominate someone republicans would love enough to vote for. Who better than a republican?

[Goldmund]

23. We would still be "DEMOCRATS"

Starts with D, ends with RATS, 9 letters, whatdyawant?

[bobbyboucher]

21. Why don't we just vote Republican and save the effort.

What the fuck? Why are soooooooo many here running to the right. Fuck that southern moderate bullshit and the horse it rode in on.

Let me give you a heads up: We are not wrong on the issues!

If we can get the REAL Democratic message out there we do not have to come over to the right. We are right on abortion, but it needs to be talked about in the right context. We are right about gay rights, but needs to be put into context. We are right about health care, war, social security, medicare, the list goes on and on and on.

Our opponents are crooks and religious hypocrits and zionists. If our true message gets out, we win. If we cower and hide and run to the middle to please lunatics, we are being dishonest and will lose again and again.

FUCK THE SOUTHERN MODERATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[grease_monkey]

22. cheswick, you rock, man! How about Jeb Bush in 2008?

Can we nominate Jeb Bush for 2008? Southern Gov. Republican. Has the whole Bush thing going for him!

Let it begin here: Jeb for Democratic candidate in 2008!

[Cheswick2.0]

24. Perfect...when he steals it we STILL WIN! wooooooooohoooooooooo

[hughee99]

25. We ought to

Figure out exactly what our platform should be, what objectives we want to push for, and then nominate whatever candidate best represents them. Having a moderate southern republican won't do us any good if he's not going to promote our goals. Getting him elected won't get us closer to what we want, it will just alienate our base and hurt our party even more.

[AntiCoup2K4]

27. I've got the perfect candidate: JIM TRAFICANT!!!

Right wing loony enough to get the red state votes, and Ohio definitely in the bag.

Not only a "Christian" radical - but has better hair than even most televangelists!!

Convicted criminal? Didn't stop half of Bush's team, did it?

Let's run him with Zell as VP

TRAFICANT/MILLER 2008 - Totally Deranged for Real Change!

[Lone Pawn]

28. You go a bit too far.

The same candidate might be a bit too conciliatory. We have to be firey liberal Democrats. So why don't we NOMINATE NEIL BUSH?!?!
That would be so totally out-of-right-field (hahaha get it?) that they wouldn't know what to do? We'd kick their asses! And he could be OUR candidate! So we could beat them too! It's perfect!