Here we go again....go left or go moderate ??

[kentuck]

The same argument we have gone thru for the last five or six election cycles, it seems. And everytime, the moderates have won. And everytime, we seem to have lost ground. I have no idea which way we should go? Perhaps, it isn't the relevant argument. Perhaps it is simply standing up for what you believe and being able to communicate that to the voting public?

One thing is for certain, if we do not change our tactics, we will fall prey to the same Repub strategy the next time around also. They won the last election with a superb character assassination attack. Bush did not deserve to win. He had the worst record of any president in our lifetimes. Yet, he managed to make himself favored over John Kerry, the superior candidate. But, we did not counter the Repub message or the Repub attack effectively.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Six Election Cycles Take Us Back To 1980...

I'll just cite our nominees and let others decide whether they were "moderate" or not and if other more liberal candidates would have done better... For the purpose of this exercise it would really be fair to confine your answers to the candidates that ran in any given year and if you feel that a candidate in any given year was too moderate please explain in what areas he was moderate and how your liberal candidate was different and how he would have done better...


1980 Jimmy Carter

1984 Walter Mondale

1988 Michael Dukakis

1992 Bill Clinton

1996 Bill Clinton

2000 Al Gore

2004 John Kerry

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Ok, comments

As I recall, Carter ran as a Washington outsider, promising not to cozy up to the lobbyists and to listen to the people. He won because of that and because many people were mad that Ford pardoned Nixon before Nixon was indicted for his crimes. Carter had a rocky time with Congress before the Iranian hostage crisis.

I always thought of Mondale as a progressive. He offered a real choice, and I think he would have steered the government away from rewarding corrupt businessmen-and he would have shored up unions instead of breaking them. But Reagan was a great actor, starring in his greatest role, and the spin machine that had started under Nixon had learned from its previous mistakes and was doing an effective propaganda job, hence the win for Reagan's second term.

Dukakis had some good liberal ideas, including being against the death penalty. The spin machine got hold of this, of course, and belittled him and used distortion and racism to win the White House for GHW Bush.

Clinton got in, I think, not because he was more conservative than Mondale or Dukakis, but because the rw spin machine underestimated him. Still today, people underestimate Arkansans, basically thinking they are all stupid hillbillies. Clinton got in on populist measures, and had to withstand the wrath of the spin machine-the fact that he got another term shows, I think, the strength of his character.

The spin machine was ready for Gore, and Gore was handicapped by the defection of many liberals who felt that he had abandoned his progressive ideas to find something safer towards the center.

I won't talk much about Kerry, except to say he wasn't my first, second, or even third choice to be the Democratic candidate.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. When you finally figure out

than none of these candidates can be fully defined as either moderate or liberal you will finally understand the question.

PS... Kerry is not a liberal anymore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Really Didn't Define The Terms Or Where The Candidates Fall On An

Ideological Scale....


I posed the question in an attempt to get folks to think critically about what the categories are , where the candidates fit into those categories, and whether using categories such as the original poster suggest are even a useful tool...

[Julien Sorel]

21. Dukakis wasn't a liberal? He thought he was -- perhaps you know better?

Mondale wasn't a liberal?


There must be an interesting definition of "liberal" going around.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Go left

more and more the Dems don't look that much different from the Repukes. We also have to be willing to withstand underhanded tactics that are aided and abetted by the right wing media.

The way to start is to create alternatives to Faux News, and to get out the truth about this maladministration any way we can. Then we need to get behind a person who will show us something different than GOP-lite.

[pnutchuck]

8. I don't think anyone's listening

I think most dems carry the same values and that we have created alternate news sources for ourselves, however we're just preaching to the choir. I've tried to send news articles about Bush and Cheney frauds, republican lies, researched arguments against the Bush agenda to my 'moderate' repuke friends and they just dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, the only way this country is going to unite against the Bush administration is under dire circumstances, like a depression or a tremendous number of deaths because of his wars. And as long as we continue on the paths of war with fewer casualties than the enemy, our country will not fall into a depression, nor will they see our losses as a great fault by this administration.

[VioletLake]

3. Focus on their crimes.

The left/moderate/right argument is somewhat irrelevant at this moment.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. Both....

The question is not left or right, it is right or wrong. We can own the store on fiscal issues since responsibility is ultimately liberal. When you run up deficits you kill social spending. So fiscal responsibility is essential. Republicans are bad for the economy and only good for the rich.
The pendulum is due to move left on social issues. People are going to be scared by the dominionists when they finally figure out what they stand for.

[rainy]

7. The democratic party is dead.......

it is no longer the people's party, Kerry couldn't even say no to illegal war, and it will never favored by business and corporate America. Just look at all the contributions the republicans get from corporate America. Dems want to be both supportive of corporatism and the people and this is a conflict that cannot be resolved without taking away much from the corporations which the dems will never do because of the MONEY. So the dems move left or the people should choose a new party. Greens are looking very good right now.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. The dems are dead but the Green party is looking good?

Come on, the Greens didn't even get 32 percent of the vote and they have no base. The democrats are wounded but they aren't dead. It makes more sense to rebuild an existing structure then start back at the beginning growing the trees that make the planks.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[liberalmuse]

10. Go left.

At this point, we have absolutely nothing to lose. We need to stand strongly and firmly for justice, equality and liberty of all human beings on the planet.

No more of this 'namby-pamby' crap. We support civil unions between gays. We don't need to hear some politician re-iterate over and over again why he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman on this issue. Who cares? We support civil rights for ALL Americans, period.

We need to come out against pre-emptive war and expose the 'war on terrorism' as the B.S. propaganda/massive fear campaign it is. Terrorism is not THE issue--it is but one of the many important issues we face going into the future because of the disparity between rich and poor, and all the acts of injustice perpetrated by corporate 'entities' around the world in the name of greed.

And speaking of corporate 'entities', they should be stripped of their personhood. They will no longer have the same rights as a human being. If they choose to go over seas, let them move there, but they will no longer benefit from the capitalist system in America, nor will they receive corporate welfare. We should instead stress small, home-grown businesses all across America. We've got the internet, and thus the connectivity these small businesses will need to thrive, but without corporate enslavement. There would have to be some reconcilation between internet shopping and the benefits local communities would receive. This is kind of what Ghandi envisioned for India.

We need to emphasize the importance of religious freedom in this country--for ALL religions, not just one specific branch. We need to kick religion and religious ideology out of our policy-making. Abortion is a deeply personal issue that does not belong in the halls of our legislatures. We need to stress individual freedoms and rights.

Legalize marijuana, or at least 3 ounces or less. The war on drugs is hurting America and strenghtening brutal dictatorships in Central and South America. Cut the billions of dollars we are giving to these regimes and use it right here in America for education.

Only put dangerous offenders behind bars and let the rest of the criminals do some sort of restitution for ther crimes and/or their victims outside of the prisons.

Perhaps it's time to rip up Amtrak and replace it with a energy efficent, environmentally friendly high speed rail system. That would create a mass of jobs and open up middle America.

I am seriously thinking of defecting from the Democratic Party for good. The last time I did this was in 2002 for six months, but I came back because I saw some redeeming qualities in my party, mainly in one Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, there isn't another viable option out there at this time, so perhaps it would be best to stay within the party and try to give it some life again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Can't We Support Choice And Civil Unions Without Inciting Religious Folks?

As for pot I think we should decriminalize all drug offenses for first offenders with an emphasis on treatment...


I don't know what treatment you would give a pot smoker as it is a rather benign drug when used moderately...

[Pepperbelly]

13. This is exactly the WRONG question for us at this time.

All that means ZERO until we come to grips with our basic problem. As a party, we have not learned how to deal with the playing field as it now stands. We have opponents who have not yet plumbed the depths to which they are capable of sinking. They do it quickly, they are more than willing to lie to do it, and they are absolutely shameless.

The media overwhelmingly enables whatever kind of low-life shit these bastards want to do. Swiftboat Vets, anyone?

And then there is the whole question of election mechanics --registration problems (and the Protect the Vote Act or whatever that piece-of-shit Diebold/suppress the vote atrocity was called), election day logistics, and what about the way the votes are counted.

These are the factors that we have to address successfully to win. Until then, everything else is window dressing.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Exactly.

We have the right message, the right vision, the right values and the real majority in this country. What we don't have is a fair election process and a corporate broadcast media that is willing to expose it.

[jarab]

18. I second that, too ....

Since we aren't in power, much of the changes suggested here just will not happen, such as voting machines.
Any Democrat worth his salt will not move far to the left or right. That isn't to be expected.
We should be playing the game as it develops daily, not as we are conditioned to believe that that's the way the "game" should be played.
We cannot stand by for three years, whining .... spend another year in-fighting .... and then hire loser retreads to tell us how the game should be played. By that time the game has been decided.
We should have a national plan which is winnable, and stick by it through thick and thin. We should manipulate the Sunday newscasts through co-ordination, just as they do.
We should remember that an election is a four (or more) year plan, and that it doesn't commence in 2007.
Democrats are too divided to agree on a big-tent plan for revival of our party and issues. Our party's (tent's) size is a detriment to good organization, but there must be some credible leadership with steadfast goals .... or we're in for a bunch of long cold winters.
...O...

[w4rma]

14. Out gun the Republicans by supporting even less gun control, aimed at

specifically rural voters.

ALLOW Democratic politicians to talk more about religion and how liberals values are Jesus Christ's values. I think they want to but are held back by a few loud people who are mostly in the Democratic base. Anytime they try to talk about religion these knee-jerk anti-religious folk shout them down. You have to remember that Jesus Christ's message is a good one and its not a bad thing to be evangelistic about Jesus Christ's message. Its bad when the message is twisted into (a Satanic message?) one of hate toward folks of other religions, cultures, ethnicities, social standing, etc.

Forget about gay marraige, alltogether. Don't let big media and Republican appointed judges suck you into that argument again. But, fight hard for getting civil unions into law.

Be tough on illegal immigrents. Remember that they are breaking the law by being here. Forget about pandering to Hispanics with stupid things like supporting drivers licenses for illegals. Illegals don't vote. Pander to the hispanics who are American citizens, not hispanics who are not supposed to be here.

Never ever support *anything* that sends the jobs of Americans overseas. And you must be very very clear about that to southern Americans, because they know who passed NAFTA: Bill Clinton. And they blame Democrats for NAFTA and they think that Republicans are basically the same. You MUST defeat this fallacy. And anytime big media makes hay about some Democrat who opposes "protectionism" and supports NAFTA as written hurts Dems in the South, regardless of what the DLC may tell you.

If this is what you mean by 'moves to the right" then I'd have no problem whatsoever with this. This is basically jettisonning just about as much extra policy, that helps Republicans drive a wedge between Americans, as ethically possible.

I think this question, in the manner you have posed it, is uninformative.

[saracat]

26. And your answer gives no reason why you shouldn't be a modrate republican

[2cents]

15. This is putting the cart before the horse

In this new age of BBV - issues, tactics and philosophies are meaningless.

First, we need a legitimate and verifiable voting process.

Debating rolling form (tactics) when the game is fixed and the dice are loaded is a little silly.

[212demop]

17. Whatever it takes

I wish I knew- crystal ball?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

20. Lost ground?

We got more votes this year than ever before in the history of the party.

[m berst]

25. neither

"Left" and "right" as they are currently understood by most people have been defined by the reactionaries. The way in which left is now defined is "anything that loses." Democrats accept and embrace these definitions, and are happy to be "right" while losing.

"Moderate" means compromise and back pedal and cave in.

Half of the people in the country have no political voice whatsoever. Left and right and moderate have no meaning for them.

I see Democrats debating and lacking consensus on the most fundamental traditional liberal positions. "Reverse racism" and "free markets" for example, are actually controversial. The election fraud issue is another example - the threads here about possible disenfranchisement of white voters by electronic machines outnumber threads about certain and definite disenfranchisement of African America voters 10-1.

Discussions about the working class and poor people and rural people are laced with the most hateful, derogatory and condescending language - they are stupid, fundies, repukes, idiots, mouth-breathers etc. Is that kind of talk really about politics, or is it about the need for people to identify with the Democratic party for the sole purpose of feeling superior to their fellow citizens?

Discussions about left versus moderate that Dems are having are completely irrelevant to any political reality IMHO. It is an insider's argument among those in a very narrow segment of the population, and people on both sides of the argument are prejudiced by a chronic blindness to the arrogance and eltitism of the most vocal and aggressive Democrats, and this small faction controls the direction of the party.


typo repaired on edit

[scarletwoman]

27. It's the WRONG question.

"Here we go again...", indeed.

As long as people persist in asking the wrong question, no truly useful answer will emerge.

The real question is: Will the Democratic party become the party of the People and fight for OUR interests in opposition to the corruption of OUR government at the hands of the moneyed elite? Or will they continue to go along to get along in order to preserve their own places in the power structure of the status quo.

This is not a "left/moderate" or even "left/right" issue. The direction is vertical; up/down. Either the Democratic party is simply one head of the same corporate-controlled beast, or it actively champions the well-being of the masses; the workers, the family farmers, the small independent business owners, children and the poor.

It's a simple dividing line, either continue to work for the interests of the Overclass, or actually level with the people, tell them the truth and champion THEIR interests above all else.

Won't hold my breath, though...

sw