I'd like to post a serious question to our centrist friends here on DU

[DancingBear]

(caveat: I believe many of you to be sincere. I also believe just as many of you are here playing games. I address myself to those who hold the belief that centrism is what wins elections, and builds a party base)

I've a simple question to ask - nothing more. George Bush has been President for five years. He came to power with a clear agenda, that being to move this country so far to the right that it would be literally unrecognizable to its founding fathers. I argue that he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

I ask you this - please tell me in what way any centrist Democrat, has contributed ANYTHING in the way of trying to stop this agenda. Have they worked tirelessly like John Conyers to look for the truth about 9/11, or the NSA scandals? Have they worked, like Kerry and Kennedy, to try and stop a man whose main goal is to legitimize anything that George Bush wants to do, legal or not? Have they stood with Al Gore as he tries to make America aware of the dangers that this President holds in his hands?

PLease tell me why I should not put every ounce of my political capital into supporting a true progressive candidate, who unlike your centrist friends will not cower at the sight of a sociopath, but rather try and tell the world of the insanity that sits before it? Please tell me why, if all I crave is a glass of water, I should be happy for piss in a jar because the other side would not allow me anything at all?

Do not, in your answer, sit the same old tired straw man of "well if we don't stand behind him or her we'll get a Republican in that seat" in front of me. I will not answer you, for you have not answered me. I am asking why those in Washington state should not rally behind a true progressive in the upcoming primary, or why those in Connecticut should not try and send the pitiful fool that is Joe Lieberman packing, to be replaced by a Democrat who will look the Republican Party in the eye and say "not in my lifetime."

Just tell me how, without Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, George Bush would have free reign. Tell me all the things they have done to stop the judges, all the investigations they have conducted to find the truth. Tell me their efforts to stop the war. Please. Be detailed. I do not want to hear the stopped clock twice a day rule, when at one time Senator X voted the way an actual Democrat would. What does Joe Biden stand for? Hillary Clinton? Jay Rockefeller? Give me chapter and verse as to why a liberal Democrat should not challenge their stances, and if possible take their seats?

Our nation is dying, right before our eyes. Yesterday, a few brave souls tried to save its life. Your friends ran away, only to come back the next day when it didn't matter and show us all they could be brave when it didn't count.

Why?

[undergroundpanther]

1. I wonder this too,Centrists?

moderates?

Yep I am radical I always was, I am not afraid to call a bully the menace to humanity that they are. Enabling and appeasing bullies never works they must have full spectrum domination,and if we roll over and give it to them we as a nation have committed suicide and as human beings sold our souls.

So Centrists why do you think it is a good tactic to comprimise and give power to people who abuse power and trust to dominate? And who can never be satisfied?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

171. LIke many who follow my posting here

I don't know what a fucking centrist is... It sounds like another repuke effort to label political enemies to me.

I WILL say this; ANY fool who suggests voting for some off-the-wall party in a two-party system only serves the tyrannical party of Dur Fuhrer Bush! Guess what? their next tyrant will be prettier and smarter. Why not fragment our vote to insure the next Nazi dictator goes into office? We love this crap we're getting now, right?

[bloom]

179. That doesn't really answer the question of the OP

now does it?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

184. duhhh bloom

I read the posts ahead of this and found that the OP doesn't feel the need to answer ALL the questions about what a centrist is. It's like introducing propaganda and refusing to answer ANY questions... .. Who does the OP think he/she is Dur Fuhrer Bush?

[bloom]

229. And you think you are sooooo smart....

that you have to get your response at the top.


Someone put the question very simply downthread - >

"What has the centrist strategy done to stop Bush?"

(I'll give my answer since you don't have one.)

NOTHING

And worse than that - the DLC types are trying to be worse in some respects. Send MORE troops, etc. It often sounds like they are trying to out-PNAC the PNACers.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

231. as I first stated:

I don't know what a centrist is or does, so how CAN I answer? I'm not kidding. Any reasonable writer describes an oddball term like centrist as it applies to modern politics when they first present the word.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Voted for Greatest Page n/t

:yourock:

[MuseRider]

3. K and R

:loveya:

Good questions. I eagerly await real answers.

[Just Me]

4. Ask them to DEFINE "centrist", first, 'cause,...that term has lost,...

,...any definition or meaning.

What is "centrist"? :shrug: I thought I was relatively "centrist" until the RW told me otherwise.

[AZBlue]

109. I'll have to ask DancingBear the question.

I don't consider myself a centrist but maybe that's just because I don't know what that is - for example, I've seen Kerry described many times on other threads and posts as a centrist, but DB oboviously doesn't think he is.

I just don't know what the term means.

[MichiganVote]

5. I'm a pragmatist and if that translates are centrist, so be it

So far I am not enamored by the 'progressive', 'conservative' or 'moderate' positions, whatever they are. Factually, I'm not sure anyone knows who they are politically anymore. On principal, I want a gov't that functions and this ain't it.

[rucky]

6. Hey, Centrists! Wanna buy a car from me?

I'll tell you how much I want for it, you tell me what you think is fair, and we'll meet halfway.

You may be a centrist if you think this is a square deal.

[DancingBear]

8. You know, that pretty much says it all

Thanks for a funny, but all too true, example.

[AuntiBush]

128. Thanks for Clarifying that for me rucky.

I honestly haven't been able to figure-out what the difference is between "Progressive," to "Centrist" either, till I read your post.

At least *now* I know I'm not a "centrist." :)

[converted_democrat]

168. You are so on target!!!

:applause:

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

193. you hit the nail on the head...

enough of these appeasment...! We own this party, not the "centrist" DLC types.
Note to centrist: Leave our party alone! It is our party and not yours!

[rman]

219. Politics is more complicated then selling cars, your analogy doesn't hold

How about i don't want to buy a car from you - how do we meet half-way?
One might think it's only fair when i just don't buy a car from you.

more seriously though:

How do you meet half way when one party wants to privatize health care, and the other party doesn't? In practice we end up with privatized health care, just a little less so then what one party wanted (which can be "fixed" at a later date, as we are witnessing now) - but essentially one party got what it wanted - even though it's bad for everyone except for Big Pharma and their cronies.

You don't always get a square deal by adding up and dividing by two.

[sandnsea]

7. Get someone more progressive

Anybody who can, should. But Greens shouldn't pretend to be Democrats and run on a platform that doesn't represent Democrats. And nobody should expect the national party to support primary runs against well liked Democrats in their state. I don't have a problem with more people running in the primaries, it's the only way to distinguish what the left represents from what Democrats represent. But in close races, we all need to come together. And that would be whether centrists need to support a further left candidate, or vice versa.

[DancingBear]

13. Agreed

What would constitute "well liked"?

Lieberman has huge name recognition in CT, for example, and the "traditional" Dem party machine will back him until the cows come home.

Is that "well-liked", or "well-known?"

Huge difference.

No arguments on the coming together part - if I lived in CT and Joementum was the choice I'd pull the lever.

[radio4progressives]

142. Out of curiousity, which Green Party positions do you oppose?

that would be sort of helpful to know..

their position on Health Care (single payer)?

Environment?

civil liberties?

other?

[sandnsea]

145. It's not oppose so much

As thinking their views aren't clearly thought out or presented. They're still trying to save trees in Oregon by trying to get people to care about voles. Meantime, we've got some truly progressive sustainable logging going on, NOT tree plantations, but sustainable forests that people would prefer if they knew about them. If people want single payer, great, I just don't think they ever will. The Greens are pissing all over every Democratic proposal that might get ME health care because they're holding out for single payer. They are always fighting the WTO and trade agreements, when what we should be focusing on is real environmental and labor rights, world wide. They just go a step or two too far left and most people just aren't there. But people who only have a passing interest in politics don't know the difference between Greens and Democrts so Democrats get labeled with the whole package, and people vote Republican. That's what I see in rural America, over and over and over. Factor in candlelight vigils for trees, PETA, ELF, and even Cindy Sheehan visiting with Chavez, oy, what an enormous mountain to overcome before you can even begin to talk about repealing the tax cuts on the top 2%.

[samhsarah]

9. Right on!!

Not much more to add. K&R

[napi21]

10. I don't support ANY of the current elected Dems!

I don't believe any of them stand for anything except getting re-elected!

I think I am a centrist because I support the message of Howard Dean. I like anyone who isn't afraid to say what they believe without being so concerned about the political fallout! Candidates like Paul Hackett are an example.

I think that's why so many people supported Paul when he was running in Ohio against that witch whose name escapes me now.

I had high hopes for Warner, but the last few times I've listened to him, I'm now not so sure.

Right now, I'm still hoping that someone new will surface between now and the beginning of the 08 race!

[dogman]

11. Definition?

Kerry and Gore are centrist. They are either DLC or former DLC. LIEberman is RW with liberal social tendencies. The closest I see to centrist are HRC and Rockefeller. Obama is likely centrist and voted against Scalito and supported the filibuster. I think labeling those you don't agree with is useless. It would be more sensible to find candidates you feel an affinity with and support them.

[DancingBear]

16. It's a moveable term - doesn't dilute the question, however

Again, I'm just asking what these particular folks have done to stop the slide into fascism.

I could call them three toed sloths if you'd like. :)

[quiet.american]

175. Gore may be former DLC, but he is no longer "centrist".

He is a man on fire -- passionate, bold, direct, brave. Centrist, no.

[kliljedahl]

12. Read this from Jim Hightower

A quote:
"My wish is for a Democratic party that chooses to reconnect with its populist roots, recognizing that its only real reason for existence is to be the unabashed, unequivocal, unrelenting representative of its core populist constituency, including America's working stiffs, the middle class (this means the 60% of the country who have incomes of less than $55,000 a year), the poor (a fast-growing constituency, unfortunately), small farmers and local business, old folks and children, grunts and veterans, and proponents of clean air and water."


The DNC and particularly the DLC have become such corporate shills they are worthless: Read More



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[DancingBear]

15. Funny, I have a piece of mail on the counter

asking me to subscribe to The Hightower Report.

I think I will. :)

[William769]

14. I teeter between Centrist & Left

But I do not teeter on being a Democrat.

Theres enough back stabbing going on we don't need to add to it in our own party. In the primaries it depends on the candidate but in the General makes no difference to me I'm voting Democrat plain & simple.

I want Hillary Clinton to run in 2008 But if she goes up against someone like Al Gore, he will Probably get my vote instead. This may not make any sense to you but it does to me. I happen to like the DLC that doesn't mean I owe my blind allegiance to them. I also think the world of Ted Kennedy Barbra Boxer & Russell Feingold, but not blind allegiance.

This may not be the answer your looking for but it's my story & I'm sticking to it.

[William769]

22. self delete.

wrong post.

[DancingBear]

27. I appreciate the response,

but if you could tell me what things these DLC folks have done to make you like them I'd appreciate it.

My argument is that not only have they done nothing, but they have harmed the party to a great degree.

[William769]

35. For starters they helped get Dean as the DNC chair.

I thought that was brilliant. I am a fiscal conservative & a social liberal. I think thats why I can identify with them. I don't see how they have harmed the party, I think that it was just bad timing on everyones part Liberals, Moderates & what ever you want to call the other end. Although I love Bill Clinton I think he energized the other side to the point of fanaticism then of course you have the moral majority that swept in & played on the fears of the average American. AIDS, Abortion, Christianity, fear all play a part. I can't give you one definite answer but I can tell you this, it is going to take all parts of The Democratic party to save our Democracy.

[LincolnMcGrath]

135. Uhh, who votes for DNC Chair?

Here is a hint.

While anyone who is registered to vote as a Democrat is a member of the Party, there are 440 members of the Democratic National Committee.

The National Committee has 9 elected officers: The Chair, five Vice Chairs, Treasurer, Secretary, and National Finance Chair.

Membership on the National Committee is composed of individuals selected by the Democratic Party organizations in each state (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), the U.S. Territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands), and Democrats living outside the United States and those Territories listed above (Democrats Abroad).

Each jurisdiction is represented by its Chair and the next highest ranking officer of the opposite sex. An additional 200 votes are distributed to the states and territories based on population, with each receiving a minimum of two additional seats. Each delegation must be equally divided between men and women.

Also seated on the DNC are representatives of various Democratic constituencies and elected officials. These include two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives, two members of the College Democrats, and three representatives each from the Democratic Governors, Mayors, State Legislators, County Officials. Municipal Officials, Young Democrats, and the National Federation of Democratic Women. Fifty members are appointed by the DNC Chairmen, and approved by the DNC, and are considered "Members-at-Large."


And this group has exactly what to do with the DLC?

[radio4progressives]

143. William769, um the DLC did NOT help Dean get Chair position, in fact they

furiously and VICIOUSLY campaigned AGAINST Dean almost to the end, though when they finally began reading the writing on the wall and "got it" wrt to how popular Dean was with the rank & file - that's when the campaign against him began to ease up, and a few started backing him.

jut to correct the record on this particular point, which confirmed my FIRST observation about the DLC against Dean during the Primaries.

[LincolnMcGrath]

146. That is exactly how it was in Ia.

[quiet.american]

177. I second that emotion. n/t

[AZBlue]

114. Yeah, I'd have to pretty much agree with all of that. Well said!

I can't be labeled as pro- or anti-DLC, centrist, extreme left, or anything because I look at the big picture and I look at all issues and considerations. So, I might be centrist on one issue and very radically left on another. I take each one as it comes.

But, like you, I'm always a Dem!

[AtomicKitten]

127. me too

It's convenient for the "progressive" folks here to label DU'ers as "centrists," when that is pretty far from the the truth. It simpy fits their agenda of trashing and burning Democrats. They certainly have never treated anyone that doesn't agree with them as "friends."

[Dr Fate]

17. I have a quicker way to ask that question:

"Can you please give me one single solitary example of how giving Bush what he wants has helped Democrats or America? Just one single solitary example? I'm waiting."

[DancingBear]

18. Yeah, but you know me

Why use fifty words when I can use five hundred? :) :) :)

[Dr Fate]

19. PM me if you ever get a straight answer- you will not!

I use the line all the time with pro-Bush Democrats- it usually either stops them in their tracks or causes them to try to change the subject.

[Murky Waters]

20. support the cadidate that best reflects your views

by any and all means. That is the way the system works.

But I don't see how we get to a majority without the red state dems. If we purge all of them from the party they will be replaced with republicans in most cases.

I see your point with the "ambitious" ones like Hillary Clinton. She represents a very liberal population but takes frustratingly non-liberal moves in order to preserve her national election hopes. I don't know what Biden's deal is. Does he honestly think he has a chance at the Presidency?

But all these folks wanting to punish Byrd, Nelson, Johnson, and Conrad need to do the math and tell me how we are going to capture the majority without them, cause I just don't see it. Each one of these D's would be replaced by an R.

I see the vitriol and hysteria among some here and I just shake my head. I guess I used to have that sort of passion, as unproductive as it is. For crying out loud, though, the world is not coming to an end. Things are going in a bad direction, for sure. But it is all survivable. Crazy forecasts of impending gloom and doom make the left look foolish when they don't come to pass.

[Greyhound]

39. No of course not, we all know it can never happen here.

The world will survive just fine, of course there may be fewer people in it but WTF they had it coming anyway. :eyes:

[RC]

41. The are DINOs. They vote with the far right way too often.

How does that help us?

"But all these folks wanting to punish Byrd, Nelson, Johnson, and Conrad need to do the math and tell me how we are going to capture the majority without them, cause I just don't see it. Each one of these D's would be replaced by an R."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

138. Red state Dems may need to be more muted on social issues, but

is there really a clamor in the Red States for NAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, and tax cuts for the wealthy?

[fujiyama]

149. Well said!

Some really don't seem to have a clue.

While I don't want red state Dems voting with repukes on social issues, I can understand it. I'll give them leeway on defense related issues as well. They need their pork and their constituents fall for that 'Dems are weak on defense' crap. But no way in hell, can I excuse the likes of Landreui, Nelson, etc. voting for all these corporate interests.

[Dr Fate]

21. I note that no one can answer that question. Why am I not suprised?

Usually the "centrists" love to put us "Micheal moore radicals" in our places- where are they?

[William769]

23. I tried to answer the question.

Did you not like my answer?

[Dr Fate]

26. The question was: What has the centrist strategy done to stop Bush?

I dont see where you actually answered that.

Perhaps we could agree that we need to define what "centrist" means before any of this means anything.

I'm assuming the OP meant "leaning to the right" or "DLC"

[William769]

30. I see your point.

But I would also have to add what has ANY Democrat done to stop Bush?

[undergroundpanther]

33. Only radicals do the kinds of stuff that threaten bush.

Micheal Moore,anarchists,environmentalists, Outspoken risk taking people committed to changing things who ACT on it too.Radicals who are willing to do whatever it takes, even if moderates cringe and wag fingers.

The Anarchists stood up to g8,Seattle ect. The moderate Dems have very little to stand against on issues like this that effect us all but do not stir them from thier armchairs.

The only dems I can tolerate are Sharpton and Kuchinich.
I look at thier voting records and compare it to my interests.
Anything right is basically voting for my own suffering.I am not middle class so I will not move right.Besides the way rightwing politics is nowadays after raygun especially it goes against my moral core.

[William769]

40. I am by no means in the middle class

I have moved out in the wrong direction but that doesn't change my views. I am all for social programs as long as they were run like they were back in the 60's. I believe people need help when they are down & the Government should help them but as a means to help them back on their feet not to support them. I hope that makes sense.

[Solon]

46. See its BS like that that gets us in trouble...

Hate to tell you but, get this, the only way social programs have changed since the 60s is by TAKING away the help by reducing funding or eliminating it entirely. Johnson's "War on Poverty" is only a failure in regards to later presidents slashing the programs. Thanks to him, poverty by the 70s was reduced to 11%, after Reagan came into office, it increased, and is still increasing. Clinton's "Welfare Reform" was both unnecessary and cruel, I cannot believe anyone on this board thought that was a good idea. All that shit you here about Welfare and the abuse of it has been so exaggerated that it is no more than a big fat lie, do NOT believe the LIES to make policy, how stupid would that be?

[William769]

47. My Grandfather was on welfare in the 60's

He had to go to work with the City doing odd jobs to get his check. Thas not bullshit, thats reality & thats what I was talking about.

[Solon]

56. Uhh...that is what I was talking about too...

I swear, some people don't know how to read, do you think that has CHANGED at all since then? If so, list the facts jack, that is the type of shit I was talking about. The only exception I can think of are single mothers with small children, either have the government foot the bill for childcare when needed, or actually restrict the hours they can work to 20 or less a week, and make up the difference. The point being that for PRACTICAL REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS, welfare actually WORKED! That did NOT change between the 60s and now till the Repubs and their enablers actually SLASHED the programs.

[Dr Fate]

45. That is why I would ask the question like this:

"Can you please give me one single solitary example of how giving Bush what he wants has helped Democrats or America? Just one single solitary example? I'm waiting."

DEMs who vote "no" against Bush on various issues at least TRY to stop him. So do Air America types or elected DEMS like Conyers- who work to expose his crimes to the masses.

This as opposed to the "lets go along with polls to impress swing voters" or "lets not attack Bush or the media will go after us" strategy.

[William769]

48. Hillary Clinton has attacked him on numerous occasions.

on various issues.

[Dr Fate]

49. That is not giving Bush what he wants- that is being the opposition.

The times where she goes after Bush are good- the times where she agrees with him in an effort to impress "centrists" have yet to benefit the Democrats or the U.S.

[saracat]

51. Kerry and Kennedy just tried to stop Bush and they are NOT centrist.

Centrists aid and abet Bush!

[AZBlue]

120. What has the far-left strategy done to stop Bush?

I'm not arguing (I don't know if I'm "centrist" b/c I'm not sure what it means - seems to differ from person to person). I just don't see anyone being effective yet. To me, the closest we've come so far is the Kerry/Kennedy filibuster attempt and the combined efforts of the Dems to stop the social security "reform." But that's it.

[MuseRider]

24. Running from Chihuahuas?

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

42. LOL!

:rofl:

[undergroundpanther]

31. I think they are ashamed

of their lack of bawls,the more unashamed liberals and progressives that made them wince have had, and are embarrassed because their abuser enabling strategy duped a nation of cowards and enabling people into a hellish situation where the tyrannical have more power?Maybe they were suffering from poverty disdain? Closet republican,but can't be one because they see how awful it is.Moral quandary over perks pride and doing the right thing so you appeased the monsters?I dunno? Any centrist got an answer?

[MrBenchley]

54. So few people bother with horseshit questions....

You "Michael Moore radicals" are in the place you belong...and you got nothing at all to say except how much you hate Democrats. Go figure.

[MuseRider]

62. And you are always so full of

love, peace, rainbows and bunnies. :nuke:

Edit to add And a lot of non answers to the questions that are posed to you.

[MrBenchley]

186. Why WOULD anybody bother with the question?

The entire argument reeks of bad faith....

[MuseRider]

194. Because it FUCKING MATTERS!

We need each other for gods sake. Jesus. Are you so certain that you guys are doing a great job? I'm not but I would never purge you from the party or say the kinds of things you routinely get away with saying to people here. Your comments are rude, abrasive, dismissive, immature, frequently without any usable content and do nothing to bring this big tent together. I find your manner with people anything but Democratic.

[MrBenchley]

196. Not so....

I'll just content myself with remarking yet again that nobody is keeping the original poster from working for his "true progressive candidate"....but that he seems much more interested in pissing on other Democrats than doing so. In fact, there's been no attempt by the OP or his peanut galley to name such a candidate--which I sure find telling.

"I would never purge you from the party"
Now surely, you're not pretending there haven't been lots of threads from the far left demanding this or that Democrat be cast inot the outer darknesss, or that DLCers, or moderates, or DINOS, or whatever mindless epithet used, be purged en masse from the party.

Funny thing, too. Those posts are always from the far left. You never see moderates here demanding that anybody go.

The closest you get is me and a few others urging people who have announced they want to leave, to go and pipe down about it already. And mysteriously, they rarely go, even though they swore they were going to.

"I find your manner with people anything but Democratic. "
Funny, I often think threads like these are nothing but forum ratfucking from non-Democrats.

[MuseRider]

203. OK I have a couple of minutes

before I have to depart this lovely conversation.

The OP was asking a question and by doing so stated his feelings, so what? I did not see it as pissing on other Democrats, not at all. He is angry, so what? He was not asking to name a candidate he was asking you and so far I find it telling that you have not answered him.

I have not been calling for the purge of anyone, I was speaking for myself in response to your answer to me. I can't say that I have not in a time of anger said something of that nature but we all have to give and take with a bit of understanding that these days the anger is red hot and raw and we all say things we wish we had not at times.

Bullshit about never seeing anyone from the far right (or centrists if you prefer) demanding that others go, just bullshit. I was told I was on a list once and that if we lost this last election we on the left would pay, simply because we supported someone else (it was during the primary) and it was one of your pals who continually talk about the loony left.

I said I was leaving and I did, yesterday. Am I still a Democrat, not a registered one but in my heart I most certainly am, one who holds to what this party claims to be. I am still here, I will remain here until such a time that the admins request that all members be registered Democrats.

Your last comment doesn't even deserve an answer.

Gotta run, be back later.

[MrBenchley]

206. Go back and read the original...

Dancing Bear demanded to know why he shouldn't work for a "true progressive candidate"...as if someone was stopping him.

"Bullshit about never seeing anyone from the far right (or centrists if you prefer)"
Yeah, that says it all. Ta-ta.

"I said I was leaving and I did, yesterday"
No comment (snicker)

[Dr Fate]

141. You are the one being hateful towards Democrats on this board.

Not me- now you are making shit up about what I said.

You need to chill out and go take a powder with those imaginary right-wing Democratic volunteers & donors you invented.

I'll see YOU in my dreams, Powderboy.

[MrBenchley]

187. Yeah and that's why I started this thread--oh wait! That wasn't me.

[Dr Fate]

218. I see nothing hateful in the OP- you need to keep your powder dry.

If you and those fake right wing Democratic donors you invented in your mind were as agressive towards Republicans as you are towards DUers, we might win an election or two.

But I'll see THAT fight in my dreams, Powderboy.

[jonnyblitz]

144. damn....

seek help soon, please.

[kliljedahl]

147. Can you ever do anything besides call people names?

You moronic idiot.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[fujiyama]

153. So typical of the DLC crowd

When in doubt just pin it all on Michael Moore or anyone unwilling to compromise with this president.

You are all so pathetic, like your hero Al From. You're frustrated by the party's weak standing, not because you really give a fuck about the people the party is supposed to represent, but simply because you're not in power.

But hey you guys are the ones that have had control of the party all these years. Those of us that thought, that it's better to actually be an opposition party were lectured condescendingly that it wouldn't appeal to the "swing voter".

So after each loss you blame someone or the other - hey guess what though, the DLC isn't your ally either, unless you like being insulted as an "out of touch coastal liberal" (I'm being generous - From was even more insulting).

[MrBenchley]

188. Cry me a fucking river....

All we get on this board is puerile attacks on the DLC and Democrats.

"But hey you guys are the ones that have had control of the party all these years"
Wish you guys would make up your mind on this....

"So after each loss you blame someone or the other"
Yeah? What kept that Dennis Kucinich bandwagon up on the cinder blocks?

[Sparkman]

173. Michael Moore showed more truth to moore people than CBS/NBC/CNN

And his liberalism is at the heart of today's Democratic Party.
I can't think of how a CONSERVATIVE Democrat today missed the EXODUS to the Neo-Con rush to the Republican party, in the 1970's?

[mzmolly]

25. Great post.

Though I do feel the word "centrist" is a relative term however as Kerry was called a "centrist DLC-er" over and over again here.

I am glad that your focus is on changing the party from WITH-IN. It is YOU that sees the way to REAL PROGRESS. I have NO beef with running other dems in the primaries against Lieberman/Landrieu or even people like Conyers. Let the battles begin! My only issue is with the faulty logic that leaving the democratic party is going to somehow help in the battle against the right wing?

[MakeItSo]

28. I'm a centrist, the Democratic party is not

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are essentially one and the same. I imagine the center would be somewhere between these two parties and hard-line communism.

[mzmolly]

32. Piff!

:eyes:

[cali]

29. I have an answer for you, but

first let me state that I don't consider myself a centrist. I refer to myself as a liberal, albeit a cynical one. I don't look a Kerry as a liberal. I'm unimpressed by Cindy Sheehan, though I'm grateful that she got the ball rolling. I can tolerate Nelson, but totally back Lamont. But back to your question about a Centrist who challenged the bush status quo. Can you spell Jeffords? Jeffords really does have centrist instincts. I think we can see how far to the right the goal posts have been moved when he's considered a wild eyed liberal. Anyhow, Jeffords took a principled stand, both before and after his switch. Principled opposition doesn't have to come only from those deemed liberals.

[DancingBear]

34. I applaud Jeffords, but I think he left because Bush was not a Republican

I remember him from living next door in NH for many years - he was the Rockefeller Republican that Vermonters felt comfortable about. Many (me, too) found him to be a fairly principled man, something that is impossible to say about anyone in that party today.

Centrist is such a tough term to define these days - I used it in the header because many who share the view I am discussing paint themselves with that brush, so as to (by default) paint the (in my mind) true wing of the Democratic Party as extreme. I'll be damned if I can think of another word, though.

How come no one is defending Lieberman?

(sorry, rhetorical question) :)

[bpilgrim]

38. I'm unimpressed by Cindy Sheehan

who r u impressed with?

so you came up with 1 (ONE) reTHUG who challenged the chimp, right... so now you can see why lots of FOLKS are a bit up set with the establishment, right?

when is a dem in the leadership gonna step up?

here's Obama distancing himself from DEMs (thats u & me) mp3...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/aar/mr/obama.mp3

:wtf:

peace

[saracat]

55. Have you looked at Kerry's voting record? Kerry is definately a "liberal".

The only vote anyone could bitch about was the Iraq vote. But he is a liberal.

[RC]

36. "It does not matter where in the political spectrum one adheres.

The same rules of right and wrong, good and evil applies to everyone.
Our greatest danger of extinction comes from those that think the rules do not apply to them."
RC

We insist on looking at thing's as political. No, it is not. It is a criminal cabal that has commandeered our government for their own gain. It is Right vs Wrong. It is lawful vs Unlawful. Good vs Bad.

It is not Liberals against Conservatives or Democrats against Republicans. It is the criminals in our government against the citizens who enable and support them.

Criminals vs the good citizens of our country. We need all the help we can get to reclaim out country and imprison the criminals ruining our great country.

[marions ghost]

157. I'd have to agree

the hijackers are winning at the moment...a stress which underlies much of the political debate and adds an edge of desperation no matter which end of the liberal spectrum you're on. We are all looking for a way out of an intolerable situation. We have that in common at least.

[renie408]

37. You know what's weird? I thought I was a centrist.

But these days, I am thinking not.

[thethinker]

43. I have no "centrist" friends

To quote Jim Hightower, "There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

[Greyhound]

44. I used to be a moderate in that I have pretty extreme views on

both sides of the range, but that's not what your talking about. It is hilarious, however, that not one of the craven cowards has replied. LMAO! :rofl:
Edit: William 769 doesn't count, he's not really one of them, IMO

[Solon]

50. That's where people mess up...

to me a moderate or centrist is someone who has a series of RELATED issues they are centrist on. For example, a Pro-Life Dem that is Socialist economically is NOT a moderate, or a DLCer, not in the least. Same for 2nd amendment dems and others. Those are NOT the problem, not at all, in fact, many of us "crazy leftists" have little problem working with people like that. However, this is far removed from those who believe in a set of issues, like either foreign policy or economic/trade/social spending policy that is more like that of Republicans or Libertarians. Like using code words like "Market strategies", etc. when talking about government policies, or lack thereof for solving problems. Probably the worst are centrists who think half measures are better than no measures. There are situations (Health care "Savings Accounts" same for Social Security) that are actually WORST than doing nothing. But all they want is a sound bite, not real, workable, solutions to problems.

[SnookieDog]

52. How has the progressive wing stopped Bush?

How's fighting him tooth and nail working for ya? Not so good huh? Well that's because he has a majority behind him. THE. ONLY. WAY. WE. WIN. IS. TO. HAVE. OUR. OWN. MAJORITY.

And the best way to win a majority is to hold our base AND reach out to moderate republicans and conservative democrats.

I'm not the smartest girl but I know math. And I know that when we win more elections, we won't have to fight the republicans tooth and nail because WE WILL BE IN THE MAJORITY!!!

So flame away cuz I wish I cared. Nothing you say can bother me a bit. I'm here because I'm tired of losing. We need the middle. And we need the left. We need everyone who wants a better America. If you don't reach out to the middle, then get used to losing.

[marions ghost]

159. my biggest fear is even if

the Dems get control again we liberals will still not be heard. OK maybe we could knock the fascist regime back a bit, but being in the majority may not bring significant changes, and the rethugs will be fighting us in their ruthless and mono-minded way, as a minority. We will still be fighting them tooth and nail. That's IF we get control (with Diebold in the picture, I'm not making any bets).

I'm TIRED of being the sector that does the "reaching out." I'm ready for the moderates & conservatives to reach out to US for a change. What they've dished up together is NOT working. It is the most spectacular failure of leadership and policy in American history. It is THEY who should be listening to us for a change.

[Laelth]

161. Welcome to DU

Hi. :wave:

Can I ask just one question? The Repukes are the majority now. How did they get there? By reaching out to the middle? No, they did it by standing with their base. Reaching out to the middle weakens us, cheapens us, makes us look spineless. We need to expand the base. We can do that by standing behind our basic principles, not by sacrificing them trying to act like Repukes.

-Laelth

[marions ghost]

165. yes

:applause:

reach out to your base...and that would be us.

[Greyhound]

163. What progressive wing would that be?

The Democrats have tried to "reach out to moderate republicans and conservative democrats" since the 70's, and their support and power has steadily declined. history has shown your strategy to lead to nothing but failure and mediocrity (H.L. Menkin predicted this). Our greatest success was the result of The Party adopting the "radical" positions of Huey Long (socialist/communist), resulting in a landslide victory and established the Democratic Party as the power in the land for over 20 years.
Now that the re:puke:s have undone all of the progress made then it is time to offer those alternatives again, not more capitulation. {re:puke: lite = re:puke:}

[Laelth]

174. Hear, hear!

:applause:

n/t

-Laelth

[MrBenchley]

53. wow....

"PLease tell me why I should not put every ounce of my political capital into supporting a true progressive candidate"
Feel free to do so.

But it's funny....I never hear any arguments for a "true progressive candidate" around here...instead all I ever see here are mindless attacks on pretty much every Democrat anyone's ever heard of, especially those who seem assured of re-election in 2006.

The "true progressives" have their own organziation analogous to the DLC...and even they don't seem to give two shits for it.,

It's worth noting, in that regard, that INSTEAD OF "supporting a true progressive candidate," you're wasting time with yet another tired attack and a bunch of rhetorical hooey.

"why those in Connecticut should not try and send the pitiful fool that is Joe Lieberman packing"
Because Joe Lieberman is wildly popular with Connecticut voters, who have always valued bipartisan compromise above mindless partisanship. Connecticut Democrats are trying to unseat a popular Republican governor, not fuck with the top of their ticket to please some snotnoses in other states.

"Our nation is dying, right before our eyes."
If only there was some melodramatic pronouncement we could make about how awful that is!

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[DancingBear]

60. Oh, just a wee bit

He hasn't answered the question yet, either.

But that's only because he can't.

[MrBenchley]

61. Yeah, that's why the "true progressive candidate" is surging

Because when all is said and done, the true progressives haven't got a fucking thing except their hate for other Democrats.

[Solon]

64. That's not true and you know it...

Look, Kerry, Kennedy, Kucinich, and many other Democrats ARE stepping up to the plate, some are not even, as you deride, "Far Left". Many of them are liberal, some even leftist, but at least they are acting the part of the opposition. You deride and ignore the "far leftists" as you call them at your own peril. As demonstrated by 2000 election, you cannot ignore us, nor can you win without us, so STOP alienating US!

[MrBenchley]

72. Bull shit....

Here's an entire thread dedicated to nothing but pissing on other Democrats.

"As demonstrated by 2000 election, you cannot ignore us"
No, but we can point out what counter-productive wastes of time and carbon you are, and that the Democratic party would be better off without you. As demonstrated by 2000 election.

[Solon]

84. You, sir, are acting the part of someone who wants to destroy the party...

not fix it, nor even to win elections. Newsflash Mister Honesty with no Credibility, WE FUCKING LOST THAT ELECTION, whether it was through Republican fraud or just an outright loss, ignoring the base, and NOT differentiating yourself from your opponent will alienate many. If you feel that a run to the center and ignoring the base will win you elections, you are welcome to it, start your own damned party!

[MrBenchley]

87. Not even close to true.....

And if you want to boast about the far left fucking up the 2000 election, don't let me stop you.

But it's telling that we still ain't heard the name of this "true progressive candidate"....and the more you guys rant and toss out personal insults and slurs, the more apparent it is that your empty ideology has nothing to offer.

[Solon]

91. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order...

you talk about us bantering around with insults, when it is you who does that. Also, it wasn't the far left that fucked up that election, parties are supposed to WIN votes, not be entitled to them, or don't you believe in democracy?

[MrBenchley]

99. Bullshit....

"it is you who does that"
Yeah, that's why I started this thread to piss on Democrats...oh wait, that wasn't me.....

[LincolnMcGrath]

108. Reality is not some folks strong suit.

2000 #s

Greens
Libertarians
Reform
and others
"Spoiler" TOTAL = 3.74%

Winner AG 48.38%
Loser GWB 47.87%

1996 #s

Greens
Libertarians
Reform
and others
"Spoiler" Total = 10+%

Winner BC 49.23%
Loser BD 40.72%

Moral of this reality check? Spoiler votes were 3 times as high in 1996 as 2000, yet somehow BC managed to win. :eyes:

Now if we go back to 1992... http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1992&f=1

[Bridget Burke]

152. "far left"? Don't you mean "Loony Left"?

Some of the Naderoids were to the left. And others were Republicans.

Some of us are to the left of many Democrats & will vote our consciences in the primaries. (Not that I'll have many choices in Texas.) Comes the general election? Yellow Dog, all the way.

[MrBenchley]

190. Far be it from me to quibble....

[LincolnMcGrath]

63. Mr. Honesty can always be counted on for intelligent debate.

Ironically, he can not be counted on for a solid position, once you know he once Hated the DEMs too.

[Solon]

66. FLIP-FLOPPER!!!!! :) n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

67. LOL Or Mr.Honesty =

[MuseRider]

69. Well, well, well

Good find. Very interesting. Damned DLC!

[LincolnMcGrath]

73. He should leave the party if he hates Democrats so much,

Don't cha think? :eyes:

[MuseRider]

79. Yesterday!

:loveya: THAT was beautiful.

[DancingBear]

76. Well, somebody has to say it

:yourock:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

68. Hey, shouldn't you be in Mr Malloy's class right about now?

:hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

70. It is about that time.

See you there!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

74. Peace. n/t

[0007]

71. Absolutely fucking beautiful!

Did I hear a burp or was that a belch?

[bettyellen]

123. so, i take it you your liking the DLC these days.....

well, have at it, mr. b.
makeup sex is great!
:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

189. Yeah, I found out since then how full of shit the progressive purists are

Go figure.

[bettyellen]

197. for such an old salt, you did quite the 180, just recently.

traumatic experience, or were you just young and foolish a few months ago?

[MrBenchley]

200. Not all that recently...

That post is quite old...but this poor child keeps trudging after me with it in his grubby little hands, crying for attention with it.

[bettyellen]

209. it puts your attitude into perspective. it's quite personal for you.

that's obvious.

[MrBenchley]

211. Hey, it's an old thread

back when I was naive enough to think that the common wisdom being peddled in GD was most likely true. Little did I know.

[bettyellen]

216. well, perhaps you could show more empathy for those who haven't

seen the light as you believe you have.
given your history, i'd think you should be capable of that.
hey look, you're being fairly pleasant with me, so i'd think anything's possible.

[MrBenchley]

217. Or perhaps I'll just keep pointing out

when people who are full of shit ARE full of shit.

So what IS keeping our OP from working for or even naming his "true progressive canddate"?

[bettyellen]

225. who's to say he owes you that name? to be frank, i think it's avoiding the

question he posed and trying to turn it into something else entirely.
Look, 2008 is a long way off as far as i'm concerned, i'm just not wasting my time going there for quite awhile myself. There's too much to do and think about in the meantime.
those conversations bring out the worst in people here-- they get so emotionally invested in a candidate.
it happens a lot here that someone critiques policy or god forbid a politician, and someone immediately asks for a name, so they can go to town, exact their revenge upon the OP. it gets tiresome and off point really quickly. i don't fault him for not taking the bait.

[MrBenchley]

227. The fact that he hasn't got it

is a lot more telling than his bad faith "question."

[bettyellen]

230. well, i've never been a fan of the answering a question with a question

game. if a person doesn't want to answer, fine, don't reply... but to avoid the question and post your own is a dodge.
some people fall for it, but it's still a cheap trick as far as i'm concerned. it cracks me up how many people don't address the OP at all, and then demand answers for their own questions. it's not a way to have a productive conversation, it's gamesmanship, and it gets old really fast.
take care, mr B.

[MrBenchley]

233. And I've never been a fan of this sort of crapass question....

[DancingBear]

228. Thank you, bettyellen

That is exactly what it is.

The names of those running in primaries against both Cantwell and Lieberman are all over DU - everyone who shares my views has already either contacted them or (in my case) made arrangements to work on the campaigns, if they indeed come to fruition.

But it's much easier for some to change the subject and avoid answering the very simple question.

Thanks again. :hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

224. Sun Oct-02-05 01:57 PM

Mr.Honesty's definition of a "quite old" tread is around 3 months. :eyes: But, honestly with me staring down the barrel 40, I do enjoy being called a child. :)

[bettyellen]

226. i suspect 1/2 the posters who claim to be old really aren't...

i think it's a scam to get away with all sorts of rudeness and condescension. playing on people's habit of deferring to elders.
you'd think at their level of experience, they could argue facts without trying to belittle the other person. if they truly are old, then i'm just sad they are so embittered.

[Inland]

182. In this round, the ability of progressives cannot be questioned.

The framing of the questions is first, did the centrists stop Bush? and as long as the answer is no, then one votes for progressives.

The question of, can a more progessive platform or abandoning centrists DO A BETTER JOB is the relevant one, and nobody bothers to argue that one, and it isn't because it's self evident.

It's a rolling analogue to the Nader campaign, where the complaints and attacks are clear enough but the solution doesn't fit the problem. In the 2000 election, the problem of two "corporatist" parties was met with a "solution" of voting against Gore and getting Bush elected. I don't want to vote against centrists and get republicans elected.

[MrBenchley]

198. Good post...

You will notice nobody is stopping the OP from working for his "trrue progressive candidate"....but he hardly seems interested in the prospect himself.

[Inland]

202. Somewhat shortcircuiting a head to head comparison

say, in a primary. Let me look at him, heck, I might vote for him too.

But my suspicion is of a green sentiment, that is, if my progressive loses to that damn centrist, I'm not going to support him. Or first the party becomes leftist, and then we vote, in Alice in Wonderland fasion.

[MrBenchley]

205. I have the same suspicion

"Alice in Wonderland fashion" exactly fits many of the posts one sees here on DU.

And you'll notice that none of the ones demanding this or that Democrat (s) be drummed out of the party EVER come from the centrists or moderates, and that the Democrats singled out by name are almost always coasting toward re-election with a handy margin over his or her prospective GOP opponent. No doubt ,a coincidence (sanicker).

[Inland]

208. I can think of one illustration.

The call to run someone against Barack Obama in Illinois. Well, geez. Good luck with that. I mean, they could have picked Durbin, who only wins with 60% of the vote, but no, it's the guy who does 72%.

[MrBenchley]

210. You'll notice the threads screaming for a purge of "right wing Democrats"

never include John Murtha...although there's hardly anybody in the party further right than he.

And DLC-bashing threads that single out people not in the DLC. or even funnier, praise people who ARE in it, are so common as to be ordinary now. My favorite was the guy who singled out DLCer Rush Holt as the sort of non-DLC Democrat everybody ought to support....

[madfloridian]

75. I am no centrist. But I see danger in some of the rantings here.

I see people who have nothing at all to offer me, and they are trying to destroy the infrastructure of the party. They offer no substitute. They don't want to change things in the party, they want to harm it.

These same people say no that is not what they mean...they just want to pull the party to the left. If that were all, I would be fine with that.

But what I am seeing here is scaring me very much. People are coming here who are NOT Democrats, do not even understand the different sections of the party, and they are relentlessly attacking our party leaders.

I do not like the way our Democrats acted on this Alito issue, but leaving the party, withholding financial support from the DNC is ridiculous to me.

I don't like the policies of the DLC and the Blue Dog Coalition because they are more pro-corporate than pro-people. But I will go with what we have and try to change it rather than join with those who have nothing to offer but tearing down.

I told some people here this would happen if they were not reasonable. That the more moderate among us would start running the other way. Then I was made fun of for using the word reasonable, was called a few choice terms as well.

I used to be moderate, was raised that way. I started to the left the last couple of years. But what I am seeing here is scaring the hell out of me. I am all for reasonable and moderation now. I am getting scared of the extremes on both ends because they have nothing to offer but anger and name-calling.

[MuseRider]

77. Deep breaths.

Big tent ya know.

[madfloridian]

80. All need to remember that. All need deep breaths.

A big tent includes moderates as well. I have seen the bashing here of Kerry, Dean, Obama, Reid, everyone who doesn't word things just exactly as they should.

A big tent works both ways.

[MuseRider]

83. Yes it does

but we will not all ever agree on who should run things and how they should run them.

Edit sorry I dropped pizza on myself and had to go before I finished

There is no reason that honest criticism of what someone in the party says or does should send up such a call of alarm. We should all be able to take it as it comes and let people settle and regain their senses. Damn, it is so hard when things are this bad to not react so we all need to realize this, cut each other a little slack and see what happens.

[madfloridian]

86. Yes, but I intend to work from within the party for change.

If I fail, I fail. If we go down in flames I will know I tried.

And the way some are demanding things that won't be, I know I can't go their way with them. I would have liked to, but their intolerance is getting worse.

[MuseRider]

90. I just edited

I had to add something. We all have our own ways of working on things and yelling and reacting all over the place is not going to bring us all together. Face it, we are all getting intolerant of each other, these are reactive and scary times.

[barb162]

137. amen

[MrBenchley]

81. You used to jeer at me when I said it....

but ask yourself why the guy who wants to work for the "true progressive candidate" can't name even one.....

[madfloridian]

82. I don't like the way you talk to people. Works both ways, Benchley.

You could make a lot more friends if you did not insult everyone so often. It is not necessary.

There are many kinds of centrists and moderates. Some kinds I appreciate and respect, some go overboard.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

92. If they could show us it wins Prez. elections, that would be one thing....

But they have to go all the way back to a completely diff. media climate, 1996 to do so.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

96. Yeah, it does work both ways.....

"There are many kinds of centrists and moderates."
But it's telling that although these far left bozos profess to want to sweat and toil for "the true progressive candidate", the thread turned out to be just another dreary excuse for them to piss on Democrats...especially Democrats coasting toward re-election in 2006. And all they have to offer is slurs.

It ought to make you stop and think, but I'm too old and cynical....

[madfloridian]

100. I have stopped, I have thought, I have said how I feel.

I have made my decision based on logic and reason, and what I think is best for change. A few people here on both ends need to stop and think as well.

I will not be called names anymore by either end of the spectrum just because I am in the middle.

[MrBenchley]

105. I know you have.

I applaud you for it.

[Bridget Burke]

154. Again with the "far left"....

Quite a few of us Loony Leftists will vote for whichever Democratic candidates show up on the ballot this November. Even if we aren't in love with all of them. That's because we're Democrats.

Why do you insist on pissing on us?

[DancingBear]

93. Sorry, I thought when I mentioned Washington and Connecticut

that you could actually go the extra inch and figure it out.

Silly me.

[MrBenchley]

107. I understood exactly what YOU meant

Just as I understood that when you said you wanted to know why you couldn't work for the "true progressive candidate" you meant you wanted to crap on Democrats and spout rubbish.

[DancingBear]

113. Sure ya did, big fella

Anytime you'd like to provide us all with a list of those great DLC Dem stop the Bush juggernaut accomplishments you're so fond of - this IS the week you like the DLC, isn' it? (it seems you tend to vacillate just a tad) - well, we're all ears.

Until then, I bid you a fond goodnight.

[MrBenchley]

118. Yeah, that "true progressive candidate"

is going to be in big trouble with folks like you on the bandwagon.

[DancingBear]

89. I do not see that here

I do see pent up disgust, and rage, but that is to be expected. I see withholding of funds from the DSCC and DCCC, but that is to be expected as well. I see this money being re-directed instead to individual candidates, and that is fine. Message sending and all that.

Dean has an enormous task in front of him, and I really do not see many who feel he is not doing EXACTLY what needs to be done re: building from the ground up. If he is able to make the case that what he is proposing to build is NOT what the other fund-raising arms of the Dem party are used to then I think many will feel much safer.

For now, however, the catharsis that is manifesting itself is both necessary and cleansing. It really can not be argued that the present day Democrat representative as exemplified by the DLC can do anything but put us deeper into our self-made hole of second-class citizens.

note: On a party building note, Mark Herring, running in a special election for VA Senate District 33 won BIG tonight, taking over a Repub open seat. Small steps. Small steps.

[Solon]

97. I see hatred against the left, not the other way around...

whether its Mr. Honesty here on this board, or the DLC deriding us, THEY HATE US, they WANT us to leave the party. I'm thinking of leaving myself, their intolerance is becoming tiresome, why the fuck should any of us stay if all they can do is hurl insults at us, and deride us, and, hell, try to win brownie points with Repukes of all people by doing so?

[madfloridian]

98. I have counted many posts withdrawing donations from DNC

just the last few days. Oh, yes, some may have just been angry. But I posted a couple of posts about the purpose of the DNC...which is about electing a president and building the base.

I have been called names here like appeaser and Good German. To me those things smack of Hitler's Germany, and they put me on the bad side. Why? Because I said I work with the party. Oh, I forgot the words "nationalistic fervor"...yeh, they said I had that as well.

Yes, it is going on here. In a very big way.

[DancingBear]

104. You have to let those people be

People are mad. Hell, I'M mad.

They want Democrats to be Democrats again. If Dean delivers, there won't be a bat big enough to not break.

Just watch.

As for the "good German" comments - I've been called worse. :) :)

[madfloridian]

125. If they post threads saying they are stopping donations I won't let it be

I have been extremely angry, and I have been a fighter and will continue to be.

They do NOT, many of them, want to give Dean a chance to deliver at all. In fact, he is doing a pretty good job. Watch, whenever there is a good interview or something good in the news...the posts start.

It is going to be a fight, and I am willing to fight both extremes. Neither end offer anything but anger, nothing constructive.

[MrBenchley]

112. You're absolutely right....

And you have to ask yourself, who benefits from such tantrums?

[barb162]

134. really excellent post

I feel and think much the same as you. I would also add that some people think the country hasn't shifted to the right as much as it really has. I think it has and so offering a far left candidate will get the party nowheresville in an election. If a far left Dem runs, that Dem would most likely get creamed. I saw a bunch of threads on Alito and filibustering. It sounds nice to filibuster but there weren't even the votes to do a filibuster but I saw posters who just sort of thought well, let's filibuster!!! Did the makeup of the Senate change in the last three months or something and I missed it? Did 10 pugs switch to being Democrats and I missed it? I saw posters who were angry at Dick Durbin when he said there weren't enough votes for a filibuster, like I guess Durbin was supposed to hold a gun to the necks of fellow Senators or something. I remember mentioning to one poster that Durbin knows how to count his people and the poster responded: well, he's got to round up some more people. There has been some rather large amount of magical thinking, like you can just will these things to turn out your way. I don't understand this kind of thinking.

One more thing I want to mention is that the Dem elected officials are often in conservative states and cannot vote on everything that is far left. They know they won't get re-elected in their districts if they do that and that's the reality of the situation. I really like Conyers a lot but he has a constituency where he can do the things he does. Same with Kennedy. Put Kennedy and Conyers in Kansas or Oklahoma and see what happens. People have to get real about the constituencies that the Democratic elected officials have in their states.

Oh well, nuff said.

[marions ghost]

164. you have outlined exactly why

people are frustrated with the Democratic party at this point. A left (not even far left) Democratic candidate would probably not be considered after what the party perceives as the 'losses' of left- centrists Gore and Kerry. A right-centrist is the more likely pick unless Dean can work miracles.

I'm not going to repeat the reasons why the filibuster mattered even if a loss. That has been done extensively in the last few days. You don't see why and I'm sure I couldn't convince you.

As for the problem of Dems in red states, that is a factor. But it is disingenous of these red-state Dems to tell their constituency they are 'moderate Dems' while they vote with the Republicans every time. I doubt that's what their grassroots constituency really wants. It's a deception. They are pandering to the corporate sector under the guise of 'moderation.'

So you underline why people here should be questioning alliegiance to the Dems. If we don't, we will continue to be disrespected by our own party. There gets to be a point where you give up on that deal.

[Laelth]

167. Nice analysis.

If it were true that their constituents would throw them out, I'd agree with you. I just don't see that happening. Incumbents have a very good chance of getting re-elected. Besides, the next election is 10 months away, and the populace has a very short memory.

Democrats are perceived as weak. Why? I think it's because we "pander" to the middle. We look spineless and unprincipled when we do that. I think the Republicans are in the majority now because they do not take centrist positions. They pander to their base, and then their base grows because the people know that the Repukes will stand behind those principles, however repugnant their positions may be.

"Reaching out to the middle" is hurting us. Democrats need to stand with the base.

-Laelth

[BootinUp]

85. centrism smeeentrism

I advocate winning elections by presenting a product the voter will buy. No need to complicate matters with labels. Elections won give you the power to legislate, just ask Georgy. We should be strengthening our grip on the Red States, not letting it go. That makes us weaker. Its elementary. Activist's like many here, have a roll to play too. But the free for all approach is not getting us anywhere. It needs to be a little more co-ordinated so that issues we can actually win get the resources. I'll go away now.

[Laelth]

170. Please, don't go.

"I advocate winning elections by presenting a product the voter will buy."

I agree with that entirely, but I suspect we disagree on what people will buy.

Traditional logic says people will buy candidates that agree with them on political issues. That's why red state Dems. sometimes vote against the party. That's why many of them voted for cloture on the Alito debate, for example.

I think this strategy is killing us. I think people buy strong, principled leaders, regardless of whether they agree with them on issues. If I'm right about that, these red state Dems. need to be walking in near lock-step with the party leadership. They need spines. They need to be perceived as leaders. The Democratic party, as a whole, looks weak, timid, and pathetic when we are disunified. People don't know what the party stands for. We need to tell them by acting like a party, speaking with a much-more-unified voice.

We must vote our as out principles dictate and expand the base by showing strength and unity. It seems our candidates spend too much time reading the polls and figuring out what our conservative constituents want. Doing so is killing us. We need to lead and stop being led.

imho

-Laelth

[coldiggs]

94. If Nelson where a true blue democrat then he would be quickly replaced

with a Republican

[marions ghost]

166. I'm for honesty

Nelson should just be a Republican as he's a detriment to the Dems.

[LoZoccolo]

95. Lieberman supported the filibuster against Alito. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

102. No, Lieberman voted against the filibuster, for cloture

Get your facts straight!

[0007]

115. Thank you!

[The Whiskey Priest]

101. Are you asking us to leave?

I am unsure what the point of your post is, what you are after. Should we leave, here and the party, what then? Can you win without us, can we win without you? I for one will take anyone who votes Deomcratic...even Zell, who I loath.

[trudyco]

106. What's a centrist? A corporate Dem? Pro-life Dem?

I'm centrist in that I believe pro-lifers can be Dems (though I wish they'd say they wouldn't force anti abortion on us by, say, stacking the Supreme Court).

I'm a centrist in that I believe "free speech" should be limited on TV during child viewing hours (and video games and...), that free speech doesn't apply to minors, and that includes both sex and violence.

I'm a centrist in that I don't believe in universal health care run by the government. I do believe in everybody having basic healthcare, in the government regulating the plans offered and the max they can charge, and that the plan is purchased by the individual and not on the whim of the company they work for.

I'm a centrist in that I don't believe in making illegals legal (in fact I think children of illegals should not be legal either)and would only consider a guest worker system if they get a living wage and employers have stiff penalties like jail time for employing illegals. I don't buy that they do jobs that nobody else will: they do jobs that nobody else will for that little money.

I'm not sure if I'm a centrist on the Iraq war. We broke it. Should we try to keep it? Should we let it devolve into a civil war and theocracy? Not sure.

I'm a centrist in that I think Christianity should be a subject that can be studied in school as an elective, that Christmas can keep its Christian trappings enough that schools can offer Christmas shows with -gasp- songs like Silent Night, and that if a student says "Merry Christmas" a teacher can answer back in the same way, if they choose, rather than saying "Happy Holidays".

Otherwise I'm a Moore type liberal. LOL.

As for the DINOS - who says we voted for them in the primaries? The vote counting has been rigged. I would have voted for somebody other than Salazar if I could (well I did vote for somebody else in the primaries). Frankly I didn't know Byrd was a DINO until this week. I didn't know Biden was a DINO until the bankruptcy bill.

But maybe you weren't referring to people like me. The DNC just called for donations and I told them NO. Can't support the Dems en masse if they give my money to folks like Biden and Byrd. I'll pick and choose who to give money to.

[Solon]

140. Have a problem with your post...

First the free speech thing isn't about free speech, but about regulating PUBLIC airwaves, different thing entirely.

Anyways, this quote I have a HUGE problem with:
I'm a centrist in that I don't believe in universal health care run by the government. I do believe in everybody having basic healthcare, in the government regulating the plans offered and the max they can charge, and that the plan is purchased by the individual and not on the whim of the company they work for.

OK, I'll tell you this, how the hell would any of these half measures help people like me? I have a pinched nerve in my arm, for all practical purposes it is disabled, I can move it, but shit if I can use it to lift anything. Unfortunately for me, I ended up waking up with this while just starting a new job, I had to quit it because of that too, couldn't do the physical labor. Now, I can get insurance if I could afford it(fat chance), but no company on the planet will cover this condition, its in the category of pre-existing condition after all. They'll cover a future broken leg, but won't pay for the MRI I need, nor the surgery after that. No, I'll have to spend thousands of dollars of money I DON'T have because, since I'm not technically disabled, I can't maintain employment because I'm "slow". You would be slow too if you had to take so many painkillers that you are spaced out most of the day. Hell, our health care is so sad in this country that I would be BETTER off if I cut the damned arm off rather than keep it. Unless we force these companies to support ALL ailments that people have even if pre-existing, then maybe it would help. But then again, combine that with what you suggested, and we might as well make a government run system work, cause no company in the world will run at a loss, which is what would be necessary to do as you suggested.


Also, as a side note, you comments on Christianity and trying to talk about that stupid assed myth of the "War on Christmas" is unwarrented and unwelcome. Its a damned lie, and you should know better.

[Bridget Burke]

155. Please detail the issues you share with Michael Moore.

You've managed to come out for quite a few "Bush type Republican" ones.

[Festivito]

110. Be honest in your writing. I don't think you want an answer.

You say you have a question, a, one, then you make statement after statement followed by question after question. Not one. Not one question.

You show yourself inconsistent, then demand details. How does one present details to someone who presents themself inconsistent? One doesn't!

And, whom do you consider non-centrist? Kerry? Where then would you place Kucinich? I'm scared to wonder. Is Clinton a centrist? I'd say he did a lot to help this country, and stop fascism.

The current nature of our Imperial-Industrial-Military-Congressional-Complex is one of back door deals. Only now our representatives are bribed openly on our once sacred Congress floor.

What deals have slowed the fascism? We may never know. What I do know, know, is that we need people in different camps. I dislike Lieberman, but, there may be some things RepubliCONs will tell him and won't tell Conyers. We may need that.

My main issue is with our media. It has mislead our people. They think they know what is happening. They think they know what we, the left, are about, but they are mislead. And, so, if we must present ourselves in a way that does not scare them too badly, then, I say, we must, if we must -- accentuate the centrism. That would be why.

But, then, I don't think you really wanted an answer.

[Boo_Radley]

111. I consider myself somewhat centrist,

. . . but by that I mean someone like Al Gore or John Kerry. Maybe what I consider "center" is off.

I do think the Democratic Party, and the progressive populace, needs to be careful, though. I mean, the Republican Party has always had problems, but it hasn't always been what it is today. It used to be a political party with some problems, but now it's pretty much an enemy of the Constitution. How did that happen?

It happened by right-wing propaganda, extremely manipulative and emotional rhetoric, and an allowance for extremists to move up in the party. It happened because they started gaining momentum and refused to put on the breaks.

I think there's going to be -- no, there has already started -- a huge progressive backlash against the ultra-rightwing bullshit that's been coming from the Republicans for the last 5 years. I worry that the Democrats as a whole are going to do the same thing the Republicans did, and get too carried away with the rhetoric and the anger and the emotionalism contained in the growing backlash.

I'm fine with Gore or Kerry.

I'm cool with Air America, DU, Truthout, and other progressive news sources. I think all of that is great. So long as the liberal minded people don't get too wrapped up in it and end up like the progressive version of a bunch of screaming ditto-heads, isolated from any information that doesn't suit the cause, and certain that, if "liberal" is good, then "really really really liberal" must be better. The aforementioned screaming dittoheads are, in my predicted scenario, going to be a big part of why the Republicans fall back out of power and start a long-term downward trend. Those people give "Republican" and "conservative" a bad image, and the bulk of voters vote for image. I don't want to see the Democratic party end up with their own version of a Republican problem, with the swing voters turned off to Democrats because we've given them a bad image. I think that's started to happen to the Republicans. I think it's too late for them to change it, even if they're smart enough to. I don't want to see that happen to us.

As far as voting for moderates, I think we're not seeing eye to eye on what a moderate is. Maybe that needs to be defined. I thought John Kerry was a moderate.

I don't know if this answers your question or not, but it's what I think.

Last time I said something encouraging moderation I got flamed all to hell. Hope that isn't the standard.

[Bridget Burke]

156. Some people consider Gore & Kerry dangerously liberal.

And they call themselves "Centrist" when they really mean "Republican."

[Tigress DEM]

Dupe

dupe

[Tigress DEM]

I think being TRAPPED in the Centrist philosophy is the problem.

Having a moderate approach and wanting to be inclusive regardless of party to anyone who will work sincerely and with intelligent leadership to rebuild this country is pragmatic - we can't and shouldn't have to repair the damage and rebuild alone. I don't support Republican Lite, but I abhor eating our own if they can be useful. Their usefulness I guess is the question.

Not fond of or voting for Hil unless she gets onto Vote Reform, Campaign Finance Reform and IMPEACHMENT of this war criminal. I used to like her and felt she was strong and capable, but I think somehow someone had bought her and I no longer trust her. But I'm looking at each candidate based on issues and spine in the final wash.

The contributions of centrists are mostly in being open enough to listen and find ways to build bi-partisan support behind the scenes. It's very hard to say exactly how DEMs were able to bring down the SS juggernaut, but I think that Senators and Reps who've worked together through several administrations could agree on a few points and were able to jointly come closer and closer even though the final answer was, "Hey, NO, if dismantling Social Security is on the table we won't come," the events leading up that where Republicans were shamed into admitting that the pResident's plan was a joke. Publically, together they admitt no shame, but one on one with a moderate DEM these facts can be forced home.

I prefer leaders like Ted Kennedy, Paul Hackett and Barbara Boxer. I would vote for nearly any ticket that puts John Conyers on as VP because I want that pitt bull in charge of the Senate and I want him to get every pound of flesh that he is due from those who have ignored him.

I think if we can 1) get the criminals impeached, 2) repair the broken promise of "count every vote and every vote counts" that is our right as Americans and 3) get campaign finance reform in solid, then we don't have to worry as much about the rethuglican machine crushing all but the richest DEMS who have their own corporate donors.

I don't know if that answers your question, but thanks for asking.

Peace.

[Tigress DEM]

116. Dupe

My computer went a little nuts I guess.

[Tigress DEM]

117. What is USEFUL about a Centrist approach...

is still useful, but CAN'T become our "Holy Grail". We have to bring ANY and ALL weapons we have to bear on this problem in order to get it solved. It keeps the rethugs confused for one thing and that's always good game.

I think the NEXT question is, "WHEN is it ok and needed to behave in a Centrist manner and WHEN is slamming down a decent candidate just WRONG? (Like Paul Hackett because the Centrist poll readers think they can do better with someone more vanilla or whatever flavor the other guy was.)

Here in MN we had 2 fairly good DEM candidates and an even better Green running for Mayor. I voted for the Green in the primary because I wanted DEMS to take note and get the message that there needed to be more progressive in their message, but when it's the real deal with rethug and DEM, I'll vote for the DEM and spend the rest of their term stomping on their head if I have to.

[Donna Zen]

119. I've been accused of being a centrist

....because I support a General. But then again, when I support Democratic values, I'm accused of being from the radical left. Truth? I can think for myself, and hope everyone joins me. You often find yourself willing to listen to others free from labels.

There is no center. Everytime the Democrats move to the right the center moves to the right. I read a great piece at TomPaine the other day: Crashing Davos. (pardon my lack of link...) Anyway, it explained plenty.

There are Democrats who consider themselves part of the ruling class, and I don't believe they give squat about us. I'm also sure that they don't put our country before their careers. People like Conyers and Boxer are not radical leftists, they are just doing their job.

[DancingBear]

162. Welcome to the club

I worked my ass off in NH for that same General, and you should see some of the names I get called.

Labeling people is its own tight box at times, but not doing so also at times brings with it dire consequences. Racists need to be labeled as such, as do homophobes. False "Christians" like Falwell NEED to be paraded across the town stone with a scarlet H for hypocrisy stamped on them, lest their hatred be misconstrued as true religion.

It's a damned if you do damned if you don't world sometimes, and when people I put my trust in let fascism walk in the front door without so much as trying to stand in the doorway then I really have to wonder, and ask just how much the values I (and you, and millions more)I believe in really matter to them.

On Tuesday I got an answer, clear as day - saving their job first, saving our country second.

Wrong.

[BigYawn]

121. I am not a centrist, but I am a pragmatist...does that count?

Summarizing broadly, I believe in getting the most
return on my investment of time and effort and dollars.

As a pragmatist, I also believe to win elections, you
have to go find out what MOST voters want and desire.
I will define that in detail if someone will ask.

As a pragmatist, I was against Alito, but also against
the filibuster effort. Why you ask? Because it was obvious
to me Alito could not be stopped, so I did not want to
waste my energy fighting a sure loser. The filibuster
fiasco gained us nothing and may have actually be a net
loss. Sure the base was happy, but they already vote in
our camp. The goal should be to WIN ELECTIONS, not keep
encouraging "feel good" fiasco's.

[leftstreet]

129. What "filibuster fiasco?" There wasn't one.

To mainstream America, it looks like business as usual.
"A Supreme Court Justice got confirmed. Yeah, whatever."

The govt didn't shut down.
I seriously doubt half of mainstream Americans know Alito's name.

[marions ghost]

169. right

there is no filibuster fiasco. Nothing to see here....

[bettyellen]

131. see, this is why i'm not supporting anyone "centrist" in the least anymore

not a minute of time, not a dime and no, my vote is not assured anymore either.
been on the back of the bus too long.
give me someone who's not ashamed to be liberal, or i'm staying home.
this arrogance is how we lost the unions, how we lost hispanic and black voters, and now it's women.

[jonnyblitz]

181. good post! you would think they would pick a side already...

centrism is a timid and weak stance. Cowardly, if you will..

[Inland]

183. That's simply wrong.

I know that extremists like to compliment themselves with the notion that their positions come from their strength and bravery and any disagreement from craveness, but it's simply not true. Moderation is a virtue, or at least has virtue in its positions and appeal, and it is picking a side. Moderates have things they are for, and things they are against. That's why they are remaining moderates.

The conceit of the left that moderates will sheepishly go along with whatever program is put forward is simply wrong. It's also a little pathetic, since the misperception and self congratualation feed each other, eg, the moderates are timid, so push hard left, and when the election is lost, it's proof of both moral rectitude (in that we dare lose yet another election) and that the moderates were just DINO. It's a path guaranteed to end up with the maximum sense of self righteousness and the minimal number of people convinced. It's a one way ticket to Naderville. I'm not riding.

[bettyellen]

195. caring about the war, reproductive rights, civil rights is now extremist?

it's the conceit of the centrist appeasers that the can keep the voters they have turned their back on.
there's a whole lot of ego projection going on in your post that is way off the mark. it's simply about standing for something, and doing the right thing.
the centrists talk about being pragmatic, and with that, i agree. for me, it's quid pro quo at this point, i need to see someone working hard in the right direction (which used to be centrist democrat) before i'll consider backing them.

the centrist appeasers, what are they so good at convincing people of? i'd love to know.

[Inland]

199. No, those were moderate, too.

But I suppose it comes down to what you are calling "caring" and "standing for something".

You confuse centrists with appeasers. That's an insult, and false. Centrists don't just split the difference, and anyone who thinks that they are simply going to move if the party leadership or platform takes a far left turn is kidding themselves. They aren't just appeasing Bush and they aren't just going to appease leftists.

And anyone who is wondering what centrists democrats have done to convince people should be ready to pony up an example of someone else doing better. It's one thing to say this alternative isn't working out. It's another to suggest something positive.

[bettyellen]

204. It's one thing to say this alternative isn't working out. (as you did of

the lefties.)

It's another to suggest something positive. (which is what i asked you to do with the centrists.)

still waiting.

[Inland]

207. Hey, great question. Is the answer dumping all the centrists

without knowing what comes next?

If it isn't, then this thread has gone as far as it can go.

If it is, I'm looking for my personal options, as a dumped.

[bettyellen]

214. very funny, you....

i think a lot of us feel dumped.
for my myself, i just have to target my energy and dollars. it's not going to seem "strategic" to some here, but so far their strategy has been to tell me to wait on the side lines with my concerns, until they win the big one. i'm not impressed, or at all convinced it's getting us anywhere.

[Solon]

139. What is this BS?!?!

You wrote:
As a pragmatist, I was against Alito, but also against
the filibuster effort. Why you ask? Because it was obvious
to me Alito could not be stopped, so I did not want to
waste my energy fighting a sure loser. The filibuster
fiasco gained us nothing and may have actually be a net
loss. Sure the base was happy, but they already vote in
our camp. The goal should be to WIN ELECTIONS, not keep
encouraging "feel good" fiasco's.

Because of the section I emphasized, don't be too sure about that, not at all!

[bettyellen]

122. still no one answered?

[AuntiBush]

124. Well...

DancingBear, I have to agree with you, absolutely on everything you mentioned. I'm right there with you.

But you did pose the question of naming at least 1 thing Democrats did for us. I will say this. Last summer I watched C-SPAN a lot, keeping-up with the Social Security issue. As a too-young widow, and having lost 90 percent of his pension because "they" made poor investments, or so "they" say, SS was extremely important for me to survive in my olden years, which are not that far away.

My Senator Sarbanes fought tirelessly on the screen, morning, noon and almost every night telling whomever would listen "live" how Social Security was not in a crisis. Senator Mikluski did as much. Imagine, both in MD, near that craggy hill and they've managed somehow to fight for that. Granted, I think *2 will do all he/they can to destroy it, as much as I believe they set-up Medicare not only to make a bundle off of us, but to destroy it.

And while I agree with everything you say, and am extremely disheartened by Alito and I mean I cried yesterday and was sadder then sad last night, some Democrats did manage to starve off those beasts for a short-time on SS.

But I too am saddened, let-down, feeling down-right degraded & low as I watched (C-SPAN) the other day as Repubs laughed, and mocked Dems for opposing Alito, as if Republicans never opposed anything in their life.

And speaking of Bush and that wildest dream thing, to me it's our worst nightmare that is now a reality. I do not stand behind Dem's that did not filibuster.

What's the point of having the filibuster law on the books. But sadly, it appears we're in full-fledged take-over Fascism.

Hope this was helpful.

A serious poster, not here for fun, nor games. Nothing funny about any of this, rather it's down-right sadder than sad.

[klook]

126. Brilliant post

"Please tell me why, if all I crave is a glass of water, I should be happy for piss in a jar because the other side would not allow me anything at all?"

That's a great metaphor. :yourock:

[justabob]

130. Very well said, thanks

Though your whole post is beautifully written, this line pretty much sums it all up for me:

Please tell me why, if all I crave is a glass of water, I should be happy for piss in a jar because the other side would not allow me anything at all?

[12 12 2000]

132. Clear Agenda???

When this fascist ran in '00 remember Mr. Compassionate Conservative? I'm a Uniter not a Divider? His was a damned stealth campaign, and he continues the acts on and off depending on the moment.

[ChiciB1]

133. A Truly Good Post!!

It's VERY late here right now and I won't take the time to respond at this time. Just wanted to chime in with how much I agree with you.

You can add BILL Nelson to your list too! My Senator here in Florida, and the other one, well Fugetaboutid!

The Nation IS dying and the middle class is sitting on their ARSES, soon to sink into the toilet bowl!!

[AJH032]

136. My response to your post.

There are no concrete definitions of what a centrist is, what a leftist is, etc. How can you criticize "centrists" if there is no set of rules that defines that term? I bet some people who consider themselves "centrists" are actually more liberal than some who call themselves "leftist." My guess is that someone who's a centrist would be conservative on roughly half the issues and liberal on roughly half the issues. I think that makes sense. But yet, you call Hillary Clinton, who votes with the Democrats 96% of the time, a centrist. Well there, you and I obviously have different opinions on what the term means. Who is right? well, it doesn't really matter, but I just can't agree with a post that identifies centrists as obstructing entities in the path towards a better America when there isn't really a clear meaning of the term to begin with. All posts like this do is divide.

[marions ghost]

172. all such catch-all words as 'centrist'

may have 1000 meanings. 'Left' and 'Right' are equally slippery. ALL they are are tools for discussion. It's interesting to me to see how many interpretations we have right here of the concept of 'centrist.' I don't think the OP meant to divide. I think he meant to get a lively discussion going around these issues, and has succeeded.

[fujiyama]

148. Very good set of questions

We've become accustomed to hearing excuses by our senators and representatives. I understand that it's difficult accomplishing anything as a minority party.

But, the Dems did little better when they had control of the senate for about two years prior to the '02 elections. Under Daschle we ended up with the Bush tax cuts, the PATRIOT Act (understandable to a limited degree yet the powers given were excessive even then), the IWR (unavoidable yet those that voted for it showed poor judgement), a prior version of the bankruptcy bill, and a whole host of other shitty legislation. Granted, Reid is a huge improvement over Daschle (who was absolutely awful), but he still doesn't especially strike me as being all that impressive.

Dems have done a fairly decent job in stopping a few extreme judges from being appointed and they've successfully defeated ANWR but I can't seem to think of any real accomplishments by Dems in five years of this administration.

But yesterday's vote showed political cynicism at its worst. Especially those that voted for cloture yet against Alito. They did the same thing with the bankruptcy "reform" bill a few months ago.

I'm absolutely fed up with this condescending patronizing attitude of the wise and mightier than thou moderates. I'm not what one would consider a leftist. I consider myself a mainstream liberal.

But I am absolutely clueless as to what the Dems' strategy is at this point. They fail to excite moderates and independants in any meaningful way, they lack any coherent unified message, and yet they are pissing away the base as well. The seven Dems that belong to the gang of 14 are the usual bunch of backstabbers - I believe every single one of them also voted for the bankruptcy legislation, most voted for IWR, most likely voted for Bush's tax cuts, his prescribtion drug fuck up, his budgets over the years, hell a few of them even voted for ANWR drilling...

I'm not demanding 100% lock step voting. I understand coming from dark red states demands certain electoral calculations. I would allow some leeway. But at a certain point, I have to just say enough. No more excuses.

In fact I don't understand whose vote they are going after. Most of those in the gang of 7 Dems also represent some piss poor states (La and WV being two examples). Voting for corporate interests does NOT represent their constituents in any way.

[NoFederales]

150. K&R

NoFederales

[mtnsnake]

151. If this isn't divisive, then I don't know what is

and before you label me as a "centrist" for saying that, I am no such thing. I'm a Democrat, period. In some ways I'm far left liberal, some just plain liberal, and some as "centrist Dem", but in some ways I'm sure I'd be considered "centrist", period, by some because of how I often defend the absurd allegations thrown at the likes of Hillary Clinton. Bottom line is I'm a loyal Democrat and I hate Bush and that's why I'm here, to try and figure out solutions as to how we can get Dems back in power, period.

All this does is serve to get the Kerry people angry at the Clinton people and vice versa. Just what we need. Good gawd.

edit for clarity

[marions ghost]

176. they're already deeply angry

at each other. Talking about it MAY help :)

[Freddie Stubbs]

158. They stopped his Social Security privitization plan

This was a plan which would not pass without bipartisan support, and centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman said no. It is now deader than the parents on Pary of Five.

[DancingBear]

160. That is a very good point, but it is nowhere near dead

I think it just may come back in another form, now that the Court is packed with folks who embrace the concept of "unitary power." Remember, because of what Lieberman and his cronies DIDN"T do, it is now possible for Bush and HIS cronies to do whatever they WANT to do. If they want privatization, they'll get. Sammy Alito just gave George the car keys, and Lieberman just sat there and asked real nice if he could please not damage the headlights and be home by eleven.

It's stopping the car wreck that's important, not fixing the dents.

[SaveElmer]

178. Dancing Bear...

First, I am hesitant to attempt a reply because the definition of "centrist" here on DU is very elastic. One minutes liberal hero become a "traitor" and a "whore" with one unloved vote. However, I will attempt it.

In order to talk about the comparison of folks described as centrist the view of them has to be described from a different perspective. What is a centrist? How are they defined here at DU?

I consider myself left, I have not and will not ever vote Republican. I voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 Democratic primary in Virginia, and my political hero is Hubert Humphrey. However, I do not expect, nor would I want all Democrats to think like me. I want some that are more liberal than I (Bernie Sanders, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer), and I want some to the right of me (Byron Dorgan, Ken Salazar, Tim Johnson). We are going to have to appeal to the segments of society that these men and women represent if we are to regain our majority. I do perceive here on DU though (and I don't want to paint too broad a brush), an element I call the "rigid" left, those folks who will not countenance under any circumstance a vote away from the conventional wisdom of what is considered left (an imprecise definition I know). For example, two months ago Harry Reid was the darling of this board. He had just forced the Senate into secret session to highlight the administration's unwillingness to investigate the abject failures in Iraq. Yesterday I come in, and there are calls for Harry Reid to resign because he didn't push the filibuster enough. I even saw threads saying Dean should resign. Last Novemeber Tim Kaine was the "man" here, he just defeated a hard right conservative in a red state. Yesterday, thread after thread was started complaining what a lame choice he was for the SOTU response, calling him just another DLC corporatist. Most of the "rigid" left consider Hillary Clinton a centrist (a kinder word few use to describe her). Yet a reading of her voting record shows her to be very progressive, and one the most loyal Democrats in the Senate. So you see, it is difficult to even begin to limit my response to "centrists," because on this board, virtually every Democratic elected official has been called that from time to time.

The next point is defining what is useful in stopping Bush's agenda. You use the example of Ted Kennedy and John Conyer's out there publicizing Bush's failures and hammering him in public. Both are wonderful men whom I admire very much. However, they do not live in areas of the country where that message would get them thrown out on their ass. You tell us not to respond with "...same old tired straw man of 'well if we don't stand behind him or her we'll get a Republican in that seat'" Yet the fact of the matter is a Ted Kennedy or a John Conyers, or a Bernie Sanders, or any of the large number of wonderful progressives (again in imprecise term) in our party, wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected to anything south of Mason Dixon (except Maryland), and west of the Mississippi (except California and the Northwest). The best way in my opinion to stop Bush's agenda is to return a Democrat to the White House, and Democratic majorities to the House and Senate. In order to do that, we have to get "centrist" Democrats elected in traditionally red stats. We currently have Democratic Senators from Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia, and Indiana. A Ted Kennedy, or a Barbara Boxer could not get elected in those states. That is just a fact. Take the worst of these, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, even he votes with fellow Democrats about 60% of the time. Most of them are quite a bit higher. So yes I would rather have them than the alternative. So the primary benefit these "centrists" give us is their ability to get elected in red states, and move us a step closer to majority status. Some such as Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, provide a roadmap for continued victory in these states, and provide a mature, adult alternative to the adolescent Bush.

As to whether a primary challenge against them is warranted...in my opinion, no it is not in most cases. A successful challenge from the left to any of these Senators would result in a Republican winning the seat. The only possible exception is a challenge to Lieberman, which I think would fail as well. I think we are better served spending our time and money unseating vulnerable Republicans, and protecting the vulnerable seats we currently hold.

[Laelth]

185. Thanks for the sensitive, intelligent response.

Of course, you're right to note that passions flare on a board like this, and that yesterday's hero often becomes the traitor of the day.

But here's the question I have for you. Is it really true that our "centrist" Democrats would get thrown out of office if they voted like Boxer or Kennedy (and let's agree that all we're talking about, here, is our red state Democrats, given that the word "centrist" is hard to define)? I don't think so. As I have said in a number of posts in this thread, the Democratic party needs to stand for something. These folks who pander to their conservative constituents are killing us, making the party, as a whole, look weak, spineless, divided, incompetent ... you name it.

I think people vote for strength and character, moreso than issues. That's why I want consistent support of the Democratic leadership's position (the liberal position) from all Democrats, regardless of what state they happen to be from. I can't tell you how many Repukes I have heard groan about how they dislike what Bush is doing on a number of key issues that affect their lives. They don't like his positions, but they respect him--his strength and the strength of his party (strength that is created through unity and staying on message). And because they respect him, they vote for him. The issues don't matter.

We can't take much more "centrism" in the Democratic party. It harms the party as a whole. It prevents us from having a unified message. It makes us look weak.

... just my 2 cents.

-Laelth

[Sparkman]

180. Conservative Dems (neo-cons) left the party for the Republicans in 70's?

I can't imagine a "centrist" as pro-war, anti-civil liberty, anti-Union thinker that missed the boat to the RED-STATE OF MIND. So those with conservative ideas who supported Ronald Reagan, and his Contras, probably now support the Iraq War, have from the 2003 invasion, BELIEVING the corporate media even when the truth about WMD, Al Qaeda, Gulf War/Quwait lies were debunked in the independant media.
Just a little mental work should reveal the wrong thinking of the pro-war position , so why not stay with us and renounce the radical relgious RW, war mongering war profiteering corporatists. Many have changed their views on terrorism, Bush is the terrorist. there is a world of wisdom, outside of the U.S., greener and more peace-loving. Many of us have seen their wisdom, and that's progressive, fixing the U.S., not abandoning it.

[centristo]

191. i can only speak for myself

as one of the few to put "centrist" in his screen-name on a Democratic, liberal message forum.

Bush has indeed dragged this country to the far right but you are kidding yourself if you think it wasn't headed in that direction anyway. The right-wing Christian conservative movement was gearing up for decades and picked a presidential legacy as their golden child to get them to the promised land (the White House). I cannot relate to this administration in any way, shape, or form, but I still do not think I am a true progressive/liberal.

I think the far left is as wrong as the far right. If we adopted either agenda in its entirety our country would eventually suffer dire consequences. Therefore, centrism is the best option. I take the best policies and positions from the right and left. I am conservative on issues related to the economy and to education, and I am liberal on civil rights and most domestic issues. I am no moral relativist, and that puts me at odds with some liberals on this board. I am spiritual, but not religious, and that puts me at odds with most conservatives.

As far as our elected representatives who consider themselves centrist, liberal or conservative I can only say that I really don't care. If Zell Miller is a Democrat and Lincoln Chafee is a Republican than these labels we use for our politicians are truly meaningless. I vote for the best candidate. I want Bush and his crew the hell out of Washington today, but I cannot guarantee I will vote Democrat in 2006 or 2008 (prob will though).

Be my guest to support someone more liberal than Joe Lieberman to take his spot. But do not confuse centrist Democrats with centrism. I think moderate/centrist Republicans have done more to curtail this admin than centrist Dems, but that's probably because they have more clout as "one of them".

I know this wasn't the aim of your post, but please don't lump me and other centric-minded Dems into the same category as the DLC or Lieberman. Hope this post answered some of your questions.

[DancingBear]

213. Thank you for a very well thought out response

Part of the problem here, as you correctly state, lies with definition.

Let us, for arguments sake, conjure up a politician who looks at the Bush agenda and comes to the following conclusions: we were lied to about Iraq, the President has clearly broken the law with regards to illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens, the President has lied repeatedly about connections to convicted lobbyists, one key member of the presidential 'team" is under indictment, and more may follow, the President has staffed key positions outside the administration with cronies who have no experience save for the checks they wrote, and the soldiers we all care about are holding bake sales to get body armor.

In today's political climate, as defined by both the right and the mass media, if this politician were to speak out against these abuses he would be labeled unpatriotic. In today's Democratic party, he would be labeled a "progressive" by some, and a troublemaker by many WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY who would be upset at his audacity, as they fear that speaking the truth would lead to the end of their political careers.

Now, what would you call someone like that? By speaking the truth, and by not wrapping every line he utters around the direction of the political wind, he becomes, to me, "progressive" when viewed against his brethren. Sad, but true.

So who is "progressive" in these times? Kerry, for finally leading the way and speaking up? Surely? Kennedy? No question. The pro-filibuster people for coming to the conclusion that saving the country trumps saving their ass? Of course. Paul Hackett and the other 50 Iraq vets who are coming home and running on a Democratic platform where they are not scared to say "I've been there - it's bullshit" and then back it up with facts? You bet. Wes Clark, for giving us the road map to stop the senseless killing, all the while picking apart the spurious arguments of the right without breaking a sweat? Absolutely.

They fight, these "progressives". They take the mantle of the true Democratic Party ideals and run it not through some re-election filter, but through the filter of true Democratic ideals. Wouldn't it be nice if Ben Nelson thought not of his re-election, but of the kids who will die tomorrow and the next day because the man in The White House is as corrupt as any human can possibly be. Wouldn't it be nice if Joe Lieberman thought not of re-election, but of loving same-sex couples whose civil rights will vanish because he could not find enough temerity to stand and say no to the zealot he helped put a black robe on. I think if they ran as Democrats they would be very surprised at the outcome, and that is all that I and others ask. No careering to the far left, as some here claim. No carrying Engels in their back pockets, as others like to see it. Just a return to what built this party - respect for the common man.

We call that "progressive" these days. Ain't that something.

[RogueTrooper]

192. Do you mean centrists like Howard Dean?

Or centrists like Brian Schweitzer? Or has centrist just become a label for Democrats you don't like.

[Inland]

201. Howard Dean, good example.

He didn't turn Vermont into the People's State of Vermont, yet he's strong and vocal and doing, I think, a good job.

[TheFarseer]

212. This is the best answer I can give you

When a democrat is president once again, Ben Nelson will support his agenda, maybe not in whole, but the majority of it. Ben also votes against bush more than some people on here care to acknowledge. That said, I dislike Senator Nelson very much and can't decide if I will vote for him or write in the Cookie Monster. Running someone in primary vs. Lieberman would be more effective. That primary winner might actually have a chance to win in the general election. I hope you don't consider that a non-answer. It's the best I can give you.

[seabeyond]

215. honestly i thought i was a centralist. moderate. not even dem

but the people you put up i dont defend. i go for the kerry, boxer, kennedy, conyer dudes. young turks were saying the left is center. anything beyond that, right. repugs extreme right

[rman]

221. In so far that "center" = actual mainstream

(as opposed to mainstream as portrayed by the MSM),

..the Young Turks are correct. Just one example: the vast majority of Americans want nationalized health care.
But nationalized health care is not supported even by the Democratic party, and according to dominant public opinion as portrayed by the MSM, nationalized health care is downright communist, and therefor a very very bad thing.

[Nikki Stone 1]

220. I am not a centrist. I am a Ted Kennedy Democrat

But, I believe that certain political strategies are necessary to achieving our ends. Appearing centrist is one of them. These days, centrist means "traditional Republican" (not Democrat) and we need to put those horses out front right now.

[Heewack]

222. I think you are looking to be thrown a bone, and happy with that.

"I ask you this - please tell me in what way any centrist Democrat, has contributed ANYTHING in the way of trying to stop this agenda."

Without the votes you can't stop an agenda. What have all the people you mentioned stopped? Nothing. If you are into empty moral victories then I guess keep on keepin' on. Results are the only thing that matters to me.


"He came to power with a clear agenda, that being to move this country so far to the right that it would be literally unrecognizable to its founding fathers."

And I don't believe that would have been possible without 9-11. IMO, 9-11 moved the country by and large to the right, mainly out of fear.


If I'm on the road and I lose control of the car and it veers to the right, veering it hard left will only cause me to flip over. In this game of politics though the flipping over will equat to an even greater loss of power.

As a rule the country takes baby steps in one direction or the other be it right or left unless their is some forceful impetus, usually out of anyone's control.

In trying to gain back the the Senate and the House, which I think are more important than the presidency, it will not come in one fell swoop but incremental steps. The thugs didn't gain control overnight. We won't either. You have to bring the populace along with you at a comfortable pace. Nobody seeks a roller coaster ride in the direction of the country. Look at as many elections as you want in this country and I think you will find what I am saying to be true. This country never takes broad swings in one direction or the other from election to election.

[DancingBear]

223. You're arguing rationally in an irrational political climate

What have all the people you mentioned stopped? Nothing.

I used the word "try" in the post - we are all well aware of how majority/minority works. If you can, explain to me how co-operating with the Bush agenda does us any good. If results are truly all that matter to you, then I would assume you would be on board as we try and regain the principles that made the Democratic party strong. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't thinking rolling over and playing dead is in the playbook.

And I don't believe that would have been possible without 9-11. IMO, 9-11 moved the country by and large to the right, mainly out of fear.

9/11 just made it easier. Iraq was in the gun sights long before 9/11. The attack just ramped it up.

This country never takes broad swings in one direction or the other from election to election.

If you believe that the framework for representative democracy (i.e. fair elections) is either a) still in place or b) will be in place in 2006 then your assumptions of the gradual movement of the pendulum are correct. If, however, you believe that the 2000 and 2004 elections were hijacked in Florida and Ohio respectively by two Secretary's of State who just happened to be heads of the Bush re-election team in those respective states than you would feel (as many of us do) that past performance is no indication of future results.

[wyldwolf]

232. Let's cut to it.

I ask you this - please tell me in what way any centrist Democrat, has contributed ANYTHING in the way of trying to stop this agenda. Have they worked tirelessly like John Conyers to look for the truth about 9/11, or the NSA scandals? Have they worked, like Kerry and Kennedy, to try and stop a man whose main goal is to legitimize anything that George Bush wants to do, legal or not? Have they stood with Al Gore as he tries to make America aware of the dangers that this President holds in his hands?


See. This is tedious. In so many threads, John Kerry has been referred to as a "centrist" by the left. He's been dogged for being a member of the DLC, for voting for the IWR, and for not doing enough to count all the votes in Ohio. Now that he's done something you approve of, he's suddenly been given leftist credentials?

So to answer this question, I might say "John Kerry."

Hell, I might even answer with "Al Gore" - who is as centrist as they come. Please tell me you'd like to debate that point. Aside from his opposition to the Iraq War and his general opposition to Bush, the left (as they define themselves here) have little to cheer about with Al Gore.

I could even say John Edwards, another DLCer and Southern centrist, who has picked up the mantle on poverty.

But it would be too easy for you to say "they are not centrists because they did _____________." Catch 22 you're setting up here. They're centrists if they haven't done anything to stop Bush. If they have, well then they're not centrists.


PLease tell me why I should not put every ounce of my political capital into supporting a true progressive candidate,

Like WHO? NAME this "true progressive candidate."


who unlike your centrist friends will not cower at the sight of a sociopath,

WHO has done this? Give names and examples of any Democrat "cowering."

[The Magistrate]

234. Locking

This has become a flame-war.