Why Dems Don't Win

[EXDIA53]

The Democratic Party has been losing national elections for four main reasons:
1. We let Republicans control the debate.

2. The candidates our core activists support can not win swing votes.

3. We let special interest groups that scare the average voter represent us.

4. Americans think we don't care about national defense, and it's at least half our fault.

Don't start with the "stolen election" crap again. The voters were looking for an excuse to vote against Bush in 2004 and we gave them nothing! We lost 2004 fair and square. The main problem with "Getting out the message" is not always the message, but often the messenger. Working the 2004 campaign in Florida, we had energetic young campaign workers who's appearance scared the crap out of 85% of the people in the precinct. We need to look professional, people. You can't appeal to the swing voter when they have their pepper spray trained on us.

I think many of you on this site are under 30. My start in Democratic politics was 1972 with George McGovern. Between 1972 and 1980 the leadership of the party changed from the old FDR economic focused people to the anti-war, Blame America First crowd. If you haven't noticed, we've been losing ever since. Bill Clinton won 8 years, but he is an FDR Democrat. If we can convince Americans that we can give them economic justice, save the Bill of Rights and keep them safe without kissing Islamofascist ass, we'll win. We aren't even close, yet.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Road Scholar]

40. Here's why. Dems always talk issues, repugs always talk

about Democrats. EOM

[Moochy]

86. read the DU rules.

pssst. thats against the DU rules. read em. they are very explicit about this.

[LincolnMcGrath]

107. LOL Sock Puppets are against the rules as well.

:hi:

[Moochy]

110. How about Meatpuppets?

I sense that there is an organized campaign here to discredit Janet Doobydoo's 2008 campaign. :( she was the only candidate who was pure enough for my tastes, but now I find she's a left-wing fascist communist chomskyite red-baiting right winger.

:cry:

[DainBramaged]

109. We all started sometime here. And everyone is equal for that 1st post

[stepnw1f]

2. lost fair and square? Ya Sure about That

:popcorn:

[ChiciB1]

119. I Dun Sink So!!!

Fraud, Cheat and just plain Down In The Dirt Dirty Lying Bastids!!!

My frustration level is beyond "red hot!" NOW, the Dems are being attacked for having NO MESSAGE... and maybe that's true, however what the F is ANYONE doing about the CORRUPTION of America??

Oh, I forgot... I don't live in America anymore... not sure what to call it these days! Babushka, oh yeah, that's it!

MILLION PERSON MARCH & NATIONAL REVOLUTION is the ONLY thing that will wake up the stupid dumb-asses who simply sit on their dumb-asses and aren't PAYING attention! And it makes me livid that WE who really really SEE the Flim-Flam are having to pay the price! If not us, then it's either our parents or our grandchildren.

Hello, Is Anybody Out There????

[stepnw1f]

122. Criticism from Criminals is Like Diamonds on a Pile of Shit

I'm surprised people aren't in the streets, beating the hell out of republicans. I'm not joking either.

[ChiciB1]

123. Oh, Give Me That BIG Stick!!!

[bowens43]

3. Another to win we have to be republicans post......

no thanks. We have lost because of people in our party who believe that the way to win is to move not only to the center, but to the right of center (that and vote fraud).

If I want to elect republicans, I'll vote for republicans.

Your 'blame america first' rhetoric gives you away.... good try though.

[EXDIA53]

6. I rest my case!

Okay, be a "Footnote in History". We need a Social Democratic Party in this country to keep from being a one party state. In twenty years, there won't be anything but the GOP.

[guidod]

112. What are you talking about?!

[TankLV]

285. And with your "advice" that be sure to happen.

But glad you joined up to scold all us progressives - opps, I mean "blame america firsters" and communists - got to get the labels correct!

I don't believe YOU are a WE.

I belong to the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party.

We know which party YOU belong to.

BTW - McGovern was proven to be CORRECT.

I am PROUD to be McGovern Democrat - in the proud tradition of FDR.

BTW, WHAT issues/groups are you willing to abandon?

Those who correctly point out this ILLEGAL bushwar?

Gays?

Pro-Choicer's?

Women?

[Dinger]

7. Good Night And Good Luck (nt)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[mtnsnake]

46. Speak for yourself n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. There is some truth in what you say

and even some humor (the folks scared by the precinct worker)

But you are probably about to get your pants flamed off. If I were you, I'd start running and never look back!

Go! Run! Run!

[EXDIA53]

11. Thanks, Grannie!

I was actually talking about Tallahassee. Yes, I'll get flamed by the 12% of the voters that think Americans really think like they do, but capitalists stole their vote. Nothing more pathetic than ignorance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. If you truly believe there is nothing more pathetic than ignorance,

please spend a few days perusing everthing in the "Election Reform' forum.

It might just open your eyes a bit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. The Democratic Party needs to move to the mainstream of opinion

The Democratic Party won its greatest landslide in American history in 1964 on the promise of sweeping social reform and a promise for peace, to keep America out of War. Militarism and misguided cold war ideology destroyed this once great party.

Islamo-fascism is an term intentionally devised to illicit racist/militarist-ism.

borrowed from bvar22 with thanks:

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of self-described "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate off shoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe off shoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26% percent saying it's headed in the right direction
]

Borrowed with thanks from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[Sparkman]

27. Don't ignore D.C.'s facts posting, these opinion stat data are ripe.

[paulk]

53. the problem with polls like this

is that they don't take into account the electoral breakdown of the country.

That, and that voters often don't vote their priorities, they're apt to believe in protecting the environment, for instance, and then vote for George Bush because they believe he is better at protecting the country than John Kerry.

The most important stat of the last five years, IMHO, is that the Democrats went from being tied in the Senate to having a nine seat deficit, despite getting more overall votes in all three elections.

Democratic Senatorial candidates recieved 2.8 million more votes overall than their Republican counterparts in 2004 alone - yet they lost four seats!


Having a liberal majority in California doesn't help us in Wyoming - and both states have the same representation in the Senate.



This is what we face.

[Douglas Carpenter]

147. I agree that holding the right positions does not guarantee an election

victory. In fact there are polls which indicate that it is only a minority of voters who seriously examine the positions of the candidates.

But what it does show is that there is nothing fringe or even left-wing about holding positions like supporting single payer universal health care or opposing neoliberal liberal economic ideology. It is mainstream.

It certainly would not hurt the Democrats to adopt these very mainstream positions and shout it from the roof tops.

[rman]

320. That's not a problem with the polls, it's a problem with the electorate

Voting against their interest based on the outcome of a rigged popularity contest.

If any candidate or party could manage to run on a platform of the issues that are addressed in those polls, then no amount of election fraud would be able to prevent a landslide victory. But the owners of the MSM won't allow anyone running on such a platform to get any significant amount of attention.

[ruggerson]

238. Johnson won in 64

because the nation was in mourning for Jack Kennedy and because Goldwater was considered extremist even by country club standards.

[Hippo_Tron]

304. And Johnson used his mandate to do some very good things

Not the last among them is civil rights.

If not for Vietnam, he would easily be one of my favorite presidents.

[TankLV]

286. I can understand where he came up with that 12% crap - NOT!

Somebody is ignorant here, but my take is that it the original poster.

But that never let them let facts getting in the way of a good right wint repuke spew.

[ProSense]

9. Abramoff, Blackwell, Cunningham, DeLay, Libby, Ney, Noe, Scanlon....n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

10. The iceberg below the waterline (why dems don't win): The DLC

The DLC is committed to funding dems who are anything but liberal and/or progressive. It was organized in 1985 on their take why McGovern and Mondale lost to Reagan, and they assumed it was because the electorate gravitated toward conservative candidates. I believe that was a misguided judgment. Americans were attracted to Reagan the way consumers choose their breakfast cereal: the commercials, the sugary coating, and the feel-good glow after a big bowlful. The electorate wanted two things 1980-1988: one, anyone but Jimmy Carter (Iranian hostage PR problem), and two, someone who resurrected the republican party and "America" after the disgrace of Richard Nixon. They got that in a bright, shiny movie star, Ronald Reagan. The DLC saw the success of Reagan, saw the polls, and concluded that Americans wanted the values of RR. Wrong. Once again, Americans chose style over substance and liked Reagan but felt uneasy about his social policies. (They were getting a pocketful of money with his economic policies, so they were cool with that.)

Anyway, the DLC gives out the money like the RNC and it stifles other democratic candidates from potentially challenging and winning over the republicans on all levels.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. While I can agree with you on a couple of points that you make,

namely letting the Republicans frame the issues and the fact that people think Democrats don't care about national defense, but I don't think that we lost in 2004 fair and square. There is still a question in my mind as to whether or not the voting machines were rigged. I don't trust the current administration to play fair on any level.

The Republicans jump out in front of every issue, often with false information, and the Democrats wind up playing in the catch up position. I believe that has hurt as much as anything else. We need to start framing the debate and forcefully calling the Republicans to account when they spread falsehood and rumor.

[Greyhound]

282. Worth repeating, "and forcefully calling the Republicans to account when

they spread falsehood and rumor." Are any of them listening?
Here's a great thread for them to study, a surprising consensus seems to have emerged.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x375337

[FloridaPat]

13. What was wrong with their appearance? What were they doing that

they met the people in the precint and where was the precinct?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. so much for the reasoned discussion.

do we let the GOP control the debate?
Does the pope shit in the woods? Is the bear catholic?
In case that is too obscure. HELL YES!

The candidates our core activists support cannot win swing votes?
Let's see. John Kerry comes to mind. Any guy who bitches about SS causing him to fall while skiing, or goes windsurfing on national TV will not connect with the average voter. The DLC killed off the best candidate and installed Kerry instead. Plus, he ran a pathetic campaign.
To that extent, the poster is again correct.

Special interest goons scaring the voter?
Swift boats. Nothing more needs to be said.


National defense?
EVERY SINGLE DAY Mehlmen and his bandits are pounding the airwaves, claiming we are weak on terra and on defense.
What is our response? bah.

There are a lot of smart, active and knowledgable people here. I suspect they would agree on these points. So, why the harassment?

[karynnj]

116. Stop repeating RW lies

Kerry did not bitch about the SS making him fall - one of the ran into him and he reacted as most people would by saying something he wouldn't in other circumstances and the NYT printed it. Kerry's reputation going back over 35 years is that he has impeccable manners and is extremely polite - what was tacky is the NYT's printing it. He did not windsurf on national TV - he went windsrfing during the Republican convention - one day. The media created the theme that windsurfing was bad but clearing brush as much as 40 days a year was manly - was that anyone's view before it was decreed.

[acmejack]

15. Thank you for explaining all of this to me.

Without your valuable insight, I don't know where I would be. I think I will muddle through and remain a Democrat vice accepting your recommendations & becoming a student of Karl Rove.

btw, exdia, you would most likely gain some cred if you would spell bait correctly in your profile;)

[GOPFighter]

16. We don't win because our politicians...

...don't campaign with any conviction (at least not lately). They run scared, always afraid they'll say something to offend a voter, always with their finger in the air checking the political wind, always ready to back down of hem or haw. They would rather back down and move to the right than lose an election.

What we need is politicians with fire in their gut, politicians who are genuinely pissed off at what the Republicans are doing to this country. We need anger and conviction and courage.

[Stand and Fight]

174. I love that last line... I love it.

"What we need is politicians with fire in their gut, politicians who are genuinely pissed off at what the Republicans are doing to this country. We need anger and conviction and courage."

Mind if I use it in my next article?

[GOPFighter]

236. Certainly

Can I ask where you publish articles?

[TankLV]

287. And who are willing to FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT and LOSE rather than

compromise and "stratergize" for the sake of winning, having abandoned any PRINCIPALS at all!

[Mist]

17. "Why Dems don't win" : Diebold n/t

[EXDIA53]

19. I thought only Republicans had simple answers to complex problems!

[bowens43]

24. Ah no.

Repulicans don't even have that.

[Mist]

34. I would say Diebold, combined with many voters being kept from

voting, had a larger impact than anything Dem candidates did, or didn't, do.

[Vektor]

199. Occam's Razor, my "friend."

It is most often the simplest explanation that is the correct one.

As is the case with Diebold.

[MrBenchley]

18. 100% on the money

Especially number four.....groups like ANSWER and the Chomskyites do a lot more damage to the Democratic Party than anything the DLC does or doesn't do.

[Township75]

26. Bench and I have a history of strong disagreement...

but I agree with his post.

I would also add a #5 to the original post.

5) Republicans get out their votes themselves (i.e. local volunteers).
Democrats, at least in OH, relied largely on unions to supply the people to get voters to the polls. Why doesn't our party do that themselves? Additionally, when it came to encouraging registered Dems to vote in PA, a lot of PA voters were turned off by the fact that people from NY were knocking on their door to tell them to vote Kerry.

Repubs have locals do that.

Overall, I think we lose SOME elections because our get out the voter effort is relatively poor when compared to the repubs.

[MrBenchley]

29. Good point....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

32. My dear Mr. B...

I totally agree.

Radical is radical..neither play well in Peoria.

[MrBenchley]

35. Exactly so....

When you see these threads bashing Democrats because they are "corporowhores" or DINOs, or DLCers, (or whatever epithet one chooses) you have to ask yourself "cui bono?" It sure isn't the Democratic party.

And you will note that the Democrats singled out for abuse by our radicals are almost always:
--up for election/relection in 2006, and
--walloping his or her prospective Republican opponent.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. I bet if you went around in the average American neighborhood

or even several average American neighborhoods in every state and went door to door, asking "Who's Noam Chomsky" and "Have you ever heard of an organization that goes by the name of ANSWER?" you'd get blank stares in over 90% of cases.

Next!

[Armstead]

43. And if one actually reads or listens to Chomsky.....

He wouldn't really seem all that radical.

[EXDIA53]

61. Is that a joke?

Earlier, someone posted that George W. Bush is as crazy as a rat on acid. I'd apply that to Chomsky also.

[Armstead]

68. He has moments -- we all do.

But he's hardly a wild eyed radical -- especially when compared to what passes for conventional political wisdom these days.

George Bush is radical. Turning over our public infrastructure to private interests is radical. Dismantling the social safety net is radical. Standing idly by while a small number of corporations suck up the lifeblood of the economy, and dismantle the middle class, is radical. Invading a freking country just because it "seemed like a good idea at the time" is radical.

Democrats who stand idly by and let that happen without challenging the basic radical CON job that conservatives and corporate oligarchs are perpetrating is enabling radicalism.

P.S. You ignored my more detailed and thoughtful post, but chose to reply to this little quick hit with an ad homenum hit of your own.

[TankLV]

288. That explains alot.

Thanks for claryifying.

We all now know what you are.

[Nederland]

70. For example

When Chomsky says that the United States of America is the greatest sponser of terrorism in the world, most people would not think that statement "radical"?

[Armstead]

75. Yoiu may agree or disagree but it is not inconceiable

In terms of extent, we are the only nation to have dropped atom bombs in war, we supported regimes in Latin Ameerica that made Sadaam look like a Boy Scout, we also supported Sadaam until he went against our interests, etc....The United States has done a lot of crappy things.

We've also done a lot of good things. But we have a lot of blood on our hands too. We can't be the pot calling the kettle black.

The truth kind of sucks sometimes, but it doesn't disappear.

[Nederland]

76. You are missing the point

I'm not arguing the truth of the statement.

I'm taking issue with your claim that Chomsky "wouldn't really seem all that radical" to the average American. Quite to the contrary, if the average American actually looked at the collection of things that Chomsky has said I believe that would find him to be very much what he is: way outside the political mainstream.

[Armstead]

83. It would depend on what statement.

Sure you could take some of his more incendiary statements out of context and make him sound like a wild man. But you could do that with anyone who ever says anything.

"Gee this would be a lot easier country to run if it were a dictatorship." -- GW Bush

But I thinbk the majority of Americans now agree that the Vietnam War was a mistrake, and Robert McNamara has even confirmed many of the darker theories about what was going through the minds of our leadership then....I think the majority of decent Americans would be shocked and appalled about some of the genocide committed by dictatorships with our blessing and support over the years. Our role in Chile was as brutal and unAmrican as one could imagine.

Chomsky's problem is that he doesn't gloss over those facts. And by revealing uncomfortable truths, he seems radical.

It's a tricky political problem to figure out how to deal with awful truths in a politically viable way. My basic point about Chomsky is that whether he is outside the mainstream or not, the real issue here is the degree to which the Democratic Party is avoiding the truth, and thus enabling the lies of the other side.

-----------------

Here's anotehr statement from him on anotehr subject. Whether you agree or not, it certainly represents the views of a substantial number of Americans:

Geov Parrish: Is George Bush in political trouble? And if so, why?

Noam Chomsky: George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, "How can you criticize it? You all voted for it." And, yeah, they're basically correct.



GP: How could the Democrats distinguish themselves at this point, given that they've already played into that trap?

NC: Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Take, for example, take your pick, say for example health care. Probably the major domestic problem for people. A large majority of the population is in favor of a national health care system of some kind. And that's been true for a long time. But whenever that comes up -- it's occasionally mentioned in the press -- it's called "politically impossible," or "lacking political support," which is a way of saying that the insurance industry doesn't want it, the pharmaceutical corporations don't want it, and so on. Okay, so a large majority of the population wants it, but who cares about them? Well, Democrats are the same. Clinton came up with some cockamamie scheme which was so complicated you couldn't figure it out, and it collapsed.

Kerry in the last election, the last debate in the election, October 28 I think it was, the debate was supposed to be on domestic issues. And the New York Times had a good report of it the next day. They pointed out, correctly, that Kerry never brought up any possible government involvement in the health system because it "lacks political support." It's their way of saying, and Kerry's way of understanding, that political support means support from the wealthy and the powerful. Well, that doesn't have to be what the Democrats are. You can imagine an opposition party that's based on popular interests and concerns.

[Douglas Carpenter]

252. I completely agree that he is outside the mainstream of opinion

And I certainly don't think he should be the spokesman for the Democratic Party, nor does he want to be. The only Democrat celebrity I have ever come across who quoted Chomsky in a favorable way was Ed Schultz in his book, Straight Talk from the Heartland.

I don't see that the Republican Party leadership has ever been concerned about those who are waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the mainstream of opinion. It certainly does not seem to have hurt them politically in the least. In fact they seem to revel in putting right-wing extremist front and center at every opportunity. They have for years. Does any sane person actually believe that the Republican Party gained dominance because they are such moderates and mainstream centrist?

Chomsky is an iconoclastic intellectual. He says a lot of different things; some agreeable and some not so agreeable, much like Jean Paul Sartre was France. Sartre was a committed Marxist-Leninist, but still was highly respected even within very conservative circles of France specifically because of his iconoclastic contribution. On this side of the Atlantic, Ema Goldman would have made Chomsky sound like a DLC Democrat, yet it did not stop Eleanor Roosevelt from befriending her. A bit earlier than that, Republican President Harding invited Eugene V. Debs to the White House as a special guest-after he had been pardoned by him and released from prison-just because he wanted to meet him. Has American society become so antiseptic and skewered so far to the right that only right-wing extremist are considered credible contributors to public thought?

Nobody has even accused Chomsky himself of being a Holocaust denier except from the most absolute ultra-right fringe. The actual accusation by some is that he is excessively tolerant of such deniers. That is not the same.

link:

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

[Moochy]

93. But he uses big words...

It's easier to just throw out some baseless smears, and move on. Plus it saves on the typing.
Chomsky is a self-hating jew too, did you know that? :sarcasm:

Besides his criticism of corporations is well just plain silly, all us grown-ups know that. Only commie kids read chomsky, since he's an imbecile. (snicker) Everyone knows that all corporations are benevolent entities that can do no wrong. Their influence is only a good one.

DLC 4 teh win! which of you politicians wants a check? come get yer check bitches!!!

[MrBenchley]

48. Just as I bet if you went to the average American household

and mentioned any of the crap Chomsky or ANSWER says, you'd hear what you deserve to hear....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Such as?

Chomsky says some things that are crap, it's true, but not 100%.

But the more important point is, how can Chomsky and ANSWER hurt the Democratic Party if the average American has a) never heard of them, and b) never heard anything that they've said?

[MrBenchley]

58. The average American has heard the crap being shoveled

and rejected it long ago.

And since you need examples:

Chomsky is in bed with the holocaust denial crowd and claimed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were innocent of genocide. ANSWER took last fall's anti-war demonstration and turned it into a celebration of Castro and Hamas.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Okay, I did some googling on the subject of Chomsky and

holocaust denial, and what I found were a bunch of right-wing sites that branded Chomsky as a holocaust denier without any backup, and a Wikipedia article which stated that he had signed a petition upholding the right to free speech of a holocaust denier, and that one of his essays had been used without permission in the foreword to a book by a holocaust denier.

It would be odd indeed if Noam Chomsky, whose father came from a town in the Ukraine that was wiped out by the Nazis, would deny the holocaust.

He also never disputed that the Khmer Rouge slaughtered their fellow Cambodians. He only disputed the exact numbers.

Castro! Hamas! Scary! Oh, now I'm trembling!

Have you actually ever been to an anti-war march instead of reading about them in The National Review?

[EXDIA53]

64. Not all Dems are anti-war...

I would not be unhappy to declare war on HAMAS today!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. If you'd ever talked to anyone who was a civilian during World War II

in Europe or Japan, war would be the last thing you'd be happy to declare.

If you think war on ANYBODY is so great, I'm sure there's a nice military recruitment center in your town.

[Tom Bombadil]

128. Oh,

and exactly how will that secure peace in the middle-east? That's the most stupid statement I've heard all week.

[Blue_Tires]

134. lol

and i'm SURE you'd be first in line to go fight it, right?

[Douglas Carpenter]

251. are you advocating a direct U.S. military assault against the

occupied Palestinian territories and its residents?

[IndianaGreen]

258. I'll bet you the poster is a chickenhawk!

It is very easy to support wars that one doesn't have to fight in. Let the children of the working class be the ones that die to protect the interests of the investor class.

As to your specific comments, Douglas Carpenter, our newbie does advocate a US attack on Palestinians.

[Douglas Carpenter]

261. I've spent many years in the Middle East. How could any sane person

believe that more and more bloodshed is what is needed? Is it not the U.S. government that constantly talks about ending the cycle of violence?

[Douglas Carpenter]

262. doesn't it bogle the mind that being pro-peace is fringe and

pro-war is moderate?

[IndianaGreen]

264. Militarism and ultra-nationalism are hallmarks of Fascism

No, I am not surprised that many Americans are embracing Fascism, just as the Germans did in the 1930s. The final outcome will be the same for the US as it was for the Third Reich. We are the fools for thinking we could have saved our country from Bush's follies.

[MrBenchley]

74. Guess you missed the preface Chomsky contributed to Faurisson's book

"Like his writing a preface for a book by Robert Faurisson--a guy whose thesis seems to be that "the alleged massacre in gas chambers and the genocide of the Jews is part of one and the same lie, a gigantic political and financial racket for the benefit of Israel and international Zionism"? Like his claiming in said preface that Faurisson seems to be "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort"? Like his claims that he "know(s) very little" about Faurisson's work, has "no special knowledge" about the topics Faurisson writes about, and--as Jay Parini notes-- continues to "maintain to this day that he has never read anything by Faurisson that suggests that the man was pro-Nazi"? These are supposed to be high quality insights?"

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html

I could also suggest you look at the piece Chomsky wrote for The Nation in June of 1977, long after the rest of the world knew Pol Pot and his gnag were butchers, in which the dreary old shithead claimed the Khmer Rouge were innocent.

And I've been going to anti-war rallies since 1966....and I know how often they get hijacked by fucking imbeciles.

"Oh, now I'm trembling!"
And before you were denying. Neither is particularly convincing.

[Armstead]

78. You miss the point -- Chomsky is irrelevant to Democratic politics

Chom,sky is an individual. There are people who agree with him. There are people who think he is full of bull. There are people who think he is sometimes righty and sometimes wrong. And there are a lot of them who've never heard of him.

None of which has anything to do with the Democratic Party.

It's the same as that moron Sean Hannity getting all worked up because Hillary Clinton didn;t apologize for remarks made by Harry Belefonte. Like because both Hillary and Harry are to the left of George Bush, they are one and the same, and Hillary is somehow responsible for anything Harry Belefonte says?


A Big Tent political party is not the same as a Homogenous Big Tent. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

[MrBenchley]

81. I didn't miss any such thing....

I suggest you tell the people posting his imbecilic words here that "Chomsky is irrelevant to Democratic politics", not me.

[Armstead]

90. I've posted some of his imbecelic words here

But it still has nothing to do with Democratic politics.

Not everything has to fit into that tiny little filter. Discussions can cover ideas, even when they have no bearing to partisan politics.

[Bridget Burke]

94. Didn't Chomsky give the keynote speech at our last convention?

Oops--guess he didn't!

[Douglas Carpenter]

120. my dear Sir, that is not a correct representation

here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"

snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."

[MrBenchley]

165. Rotsa ruck peddling that silliness....

Hitchens is about as dishonest as they come.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. You didn't read my post, did you?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

166. I read it and gave it the response it deserves....

[Douglas Carpenter]

259. here is the link to the June 1977 article -- there is no such mention

of him considering the Khmer Rouge innocent or anything of the sort:

Distortions at Fourth Hand
Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman
The Nation, June 6, 1977

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

[Douglas Carpenter]

263. some more facts:

here is Chomsky in his own words --- just in case facts matter:

His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. "

another article - Link:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"

snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."


And I certainly don't think he should be the spokesman for the Democratic Party, nor does he want to be. The only Democrat celebrity I have ever come across who quoted Chomsky in a favorable way was Ed Schultz in his book, Straight Talk from the Heartland.

I don't see that the Republican Party leadership has ever been concerned about those who are waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the mainstream of opinion. It certainly does not seem to have hurt them politically in the least. In fact they seem to revel in putting right-wing extremist front and center at every opportunity. They have for years. Does any sane person actually believe that the Republican Party gained dominance because they are such moderates and mainstream centrist?

Chomsky is an iconoclastic intellectual. He says a lot of different things; some agreeable and some not so agreeable, much like Jean Paul Sartre was France. Sartre was a committed Marxist-Leninist, but still was highly respected even within very conservative circles of France specifically because of his iconoclastic contribution. On this side of the Atlantic, Ema Goldman would have made Chomsky sound like a DLC Democrat, yet it did not stop Eleanor Roosevelt from befriending her. A bit earlier than that, Republican President Harding invited Eugene V. Debs to the White House as a special guest-after he had been pardoned by him and released from prison-just because he wanted to meet him. Has American society become so antiseptic and skewered so far to the right that only right-wing extremist are considered credible contributors to public thought?

Nobody has even accused Chomsky himself of being a Holocaust denier except from the most absolute ultra-right fringe. The actual accusation by some is that he is excessively tolerant of such deniers. That is not the same.

link:

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html



http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

[Nederland]

80. Read and decide for yourself

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work."

Noam Chomsky -- Search for the Truth

[Armstead]

88. He was arguing for academic freedom

A ringing endorsement of that French guy would be to say that he is correct, there was no Holocaust and it was all cooked up by the Jews.

He was defending the right scholars to come up with theories, even when they are not necessarily politically correrct.

Agree or disagree with Chomsky's defense of that professor's right to come up with cockamamie theories. But at least get his motives right.

[Nederland]

96. It's not a question of academic freedom

Certainly everyone should be entitled to freedom of expression, and that includes expressions that are anti-Semitic. However, I think it's ridiculous to assert that Holocaust deniers like Faurisson are not ant-Semites. They are, and that is apparent to anyone that reads their work.

[Silverhair]

143. "...not...politically correct."?? Try ...historically full of shit.

That would be more accurate.

It is one thing to be open-minded. It is another to listen to someone argue that the world is flat.

[MrBenchley]

170. By the way, isn't it apropos

that we've got a whole subthread of "Democrats" angrily trying to deny that Chomsky's ever said this sort of thing?

Do you think the average American would agree with the sort of shitheel running around saying "The Nazis didn't kill Jews"? Me neither.

[Armstead]

172. Do you also hate the ACLU?

They defend Nazis and other creeps in order to protect the freedom of the rest of us.

[MrBenchley]

176. Try to get a little more desperate, why doncha?

The ACLU isn't running around saying the Nazis didn't kill the Jews...Chomsky IS...and he's denying that saying so is anti-Semitic.

[Armstead]

177. Whatever...It still has nothing to do with Democratic Party politics

Just anotehr smokescreen to make excuses for an unwillingness to say or do anything that might make Mr. and Mrs. Conservative uncomfortable.

[MrBenchley]

178. LOL! As we can tell from the "Democrats" sticking up for the dreary loon

And trying to spin his idiotic and hate-filled views away.

L:ike I said, I couldn't think of a more apropos demonstration than the Chomsky cult has provided in this thread.

[Armstead]

179. Why don;t you send that on to Hannity?

I'm sure the two of you kindred spirits can have a rousing chuckle about how the "loony left" has taken over the Democrat Party.

[MrBenchley]

182. No need to....he already uses crap like that

as the OP pointed out. Good job showing America that Hannity's actually got something to back up his smear.

[Armstead]

184. You're incorrigable

I admire your persistence.....I just wish you'd aim more of it it at the real opposition, instead of people who are opposed to Republicans and want to see Democrats win, but don't fit in your exact mold of how to dress and think like a good centrist.

[MrBenchley]

185. I'm accurate

Geeze, where ARE these people who want to see the Democrats win? Guess you've missed all these threads attacking this or that Democrat or calling for party purges.

Some days it seems ilke the only people a big chunk of posters approve of are Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders (and none of them are Democrats) and actual Democrat John Murtha, who's far to the right (but the Kool Kidz are too cowardly to attack him).

"how to dress and think like a good centrist."
Geeze, is it too much to ask to have those folks who don't dress and think like their fellow citizens stop trying to set the bandwagon on fire?

[Armstead]

186. You seem to want to filter those people our of your perception

All you seem to pay attention to are the criticisms of democrats, without botehring to even consider the underlying reason for such frustration.

Many of us desperately want to see the Demcratic Party win, but we have seen them lose so many elections and political power -- and assisting the GOP/right wing takeover -- by avoiding issues and trying to placate conservatives and corporations instead of fighting for liberal Democratic values.

That "centrist" avoidance strategy is bad for the country and it's also bad politics. Maybe it's time to try something different -- like actually becoming Democrats again.

[MrBenchley]

189. I seem to want Democrats in office....

"Many of us desperately want to see the Demcratic Party win"
It shows (snicker).....

"All you seem to pay attention to are the criticisms of democrats, without botehring to even consider the underlying reason for such frustration."
Considering the criticsm comes from fuckwits like the Green Party, Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky....

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

214. here is Chomsky in his own words --- just in case facts matter:

link:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

[Douglas Carpenter]

239. facts:

here is Chomsky in his own words --- just in case facts matter:



His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. "

another article - Link:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"

snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."

[Douglas Carpenter]

240. facts:

here is Chomsky in his own words --- just in case facts matter:



His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. "

another article - Link:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"

snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."

[Douglas Carpenter]

253. facts:

here is Chomsky in his own words --- just in case facts matter:

His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. "

another article - Link:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"

snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."

[IndianaGreen]

266. You are wasting your time with the Bob Boudelang of anti-progressives!

Facts don't matter to him!

[Douglas Carpenter]

273. you're probably right

I might as well be arguing with Bill O'Reilly.

Facts are for wimps for these kind.

[TankLV]

289. Exactly - he always shows up - just like clockwork.

And continues his lies despite being confronted with the FACTS.

It's annoying and very tiresome but somehow amusing.

I take most everything he says and ignore it - it's usually either downright LIES or repuke spin,l as has been numerously pointed out in this thread.

[Debs]

297. I have the book Political Economy of Human Rights

And that is exactly right he says explicitly in the book there was a bloodbath in Cambodia he disputed the numbers and also some of the undeniable falsehoods like the picture Time magazine used to show Cambodian atrocities AFTER it was exposed as a fake by Thai intelligence, Not only is Chomsky NOT a holocaust denier he once said that to even enter into the discussion of whether or not there was a holocaust is to lose ones humanity.

No one can deny Chomsky's brilliance he is a Nobel Prize winner in his field of science. It is his honesty and determination to take on the tough calls that some people find offensive. Someone here called him an iconoclast, and that is exactly it. In its definitive meaning to throw down idols. Working outside a system to throw a light on what is uncomfortable. A common theme runs through his books, that the US should apply to themselves the standards we apply to other countries. While most would agree with that in the abstract many become uncomfortable in the details.For instance it he Nuremberg laws were applied Bush would be hung. That might sound radical yet it seems pretty clearcut to me. Many of the Nazis were hung for starting a war of aggression that at the time they CALLED a war of self defense, how many here would deny this is pretty much what Bush has done? We are demanding that other countries not gain nuclear weapons at the same time we are saying we will build a whole new generation of nuclear weapons, how in the world is that morally consistent. We say we will attack other countries who harbor terrorists yet we are harboring Orlando Bosch who our own former Attorney General called a terrorist. We are the only nation ever convicted in the World Court for what amounts to international terrorism. Not to mention the worst car bombing against a civilian target in the 80's in the middle east was done by the CIA against a mosque in Beirut set to go off as they left the mosque killing 80 and wounding more than 200. I know some of these things are not as simple as I have listed them. I certainly don't want Iran getting a nuclear weapon, at any rate these hard questions should be looked at, we should not be hypocritical or have a double standard where we demand other countries comply to standards we would never accept for ourselves. When Chomsky brings these facts to light and makes this argument it is EXACTLY throwing down the idol of conventional wisdom. It is challenging us to take these issues and give them moral scrutiny. Ask the hard questions should we or should we not have a moral standard to our foreign policy or is it just self interest and thats it. This makes Chomsky easy pickings to attack. He points out the undeniable wrongs we have committed stands up for misconceptions and propaganda against out official enemies as the truth should NEVER be our enemy. For that reason its easy to dismiss or attack Chomsky for things he has said outside the very involved context he is constructing. He has true value to our society if we take his challenge seriously. These are hard questions nuanced, no superficial take on his writings or stances can possibly do him justice and calling him a holocaust denier is purely ludicrous.

[Moochy]

79. If you repeat a lie often enough n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

84. only when quoting you or your meatpuppet pals

Partially true..

LOL(snicker) chomsky is an imbecile who is in bed with holocaust deniers

see thats the lie part.. inside the div.

[MrBenchley]

87. Nope...you do it yourself....

[Douglas Carpenter]

212. that seems to be the strategy,

[Breeze54]

100. NOT TRUE!!

I was at the PEACE MARCH in DC during the weekend
of September 24th - 26th, 2005.
It did have some of those elements and speeches
but the majority of the people, all of the over 350,000,
were there to march AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

Get your facts straight!
Stop drinking the MSM koolaid!
United for Peace.org; Military Families Speak out.org,
Iraq Veterans Against the War.org, Code Pink.org
just to name a few were there in full force!

These people told me they were from Ohio, not Cuba!


These people are American students!


Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Iraq!


Iraq Veterans Against the War in Iraq and Veterans for Peace!


Military Families Speak Out...MFSO!

[paulk]

55. you don't need to know who ANSWER is when you go to

one ot their sponsored rallies.

But, I'll guarantee you that everything - from the Bob Marley thundering from the PA to the idiots ranting and raving on the stage about everything but what the rally was advertised for - is going to be a turn off to all but the faithful...

[MrBenchley]

59. And all of that gibberish does more harm to the Democratic cause

than anything Jennifer Granholm or Tom Vilsack does or doesn't do....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. That's not what the rallies I attended in either Portland or Minneapolis

were like.

:shrug:

[paulk]

71. it's what the rally I attended in Denver was like

One of the people I attended with is a registered Republican, who had some very serious doubts about the
wisdom of invading Iraq. She was very turned off by the overtly partisan nature of the rally. Opposition to
the Iraq war doesn't need to be partisan - and I think it hurts the cause when it is presented as such.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Well, since the war was dreamed up by Bush and company,

opposition is necessarily going to get a little partisan.

Partisanship is not necessarily a bad word, especially when one's opponent is so wrongheaded these days.

[paulk]

104. you are missing my point

the rally was supposed to be about the impending invasion - and opposition to it, an opposition that was
shared, believe it or not, by many rank and file Republicans. When ANSWER takes over the stage and starts trotting out every fringe issue under the sun, many of which re-enforce the very reasons those rank and file Republicans don't vote for Democrats -

how is that a good thing?

to drive potential allies away over issues that have nothing to do with the issue they may be willing to ally with you on?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

124. Well, if they're the ones organizing the rally, they have the right to

put whomever they want on the podium.

A more relevant question is why is the Democratic Party too chicken shit to oppose the war? Why didn't the local Democrats organize their own anti-war rally? Why was it left to ANSWER to do so?

[paulk]

126. they do have that right

which is why I refuse to go to any more rallies organized by ANSWER....

The Democratic Party doesn't organize rallies because it's membership may or may not support whatever the
rally is about. The best it will do is send (elected) members to a particular rally or public event to speak.

Which they won't do at ANSWER sponsored rallies for the reasons stated upthread.

Even Diana DeGette, one of the most progressive Democrats in the House, wouldn't go to the rally I mentioned, although she
did send a large contingent of supporters, who had to correct (quite vocally, I'll add) the ANSWER speaker who was busy trashing Democrats and lied about her (no) vote on the IWR.

[Armstead]

44. Depends on what you define as "damage": I guess

[MrBenchley]

49. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre......

[ulysses]

130. well, let's ask it this way:

Who has more influence on the party - Chomsky or Al From?

[Armstead]

139. Now don't go casting aspersions on the Great Al

What are you, a Nader supporter or something?

[ulysses]

160. no, not I.

Nader supporters caused the Black Plague, dontcha know.

[Armstead]

173. I thought the black plague was Chomsky's idea

[ulysses]

200. that was syphillis.

:o

[Silverhair]

140. I too agree.

MrBenchley and I often argue strongly about guns. I am strongly RKBA & he is pro gun-control.

But on this issue, I am in total agreement.

[fujiyama]

307. I partly agree

ANSWER and other extreme leftist groups do not do the party any favors.

But I still can't let the DLC off the hook either. When the party pushes issues that don't help thee working people in any way like the bankruptcy bill, we are letting go of issues we can possibly use against the pukes. Most Americans do not favor unrestrained corporate power.

The people who get hurt are those whom Clinton said "work hard and play by the rules". We know the repukes are the party of screwing people over. We shouldn't too.

The party needs to stand up for some basic principles - liberty, freedom, and the defense of those ideals from threats both foreign and domestic. At the same time, we should assure that we have a fairer and more equitable playing ground.

[blm]

20. If you think the corporate media is the same as 1992 then YOU have not

been paying as close attention as you need.

You think Clinton convinced people he understood the military in 92? He had 9hrs on national TV during his convention to tell the public about himself and his plans.

Kerry had a media who stayed away from his National Security events and his speech attacking the Swiftliars in front of the Firefighters' convention, and had 3 hrs on national TV during his convention and 1 hr was BILL CLINTON.

This after the corporate media gave us FIVE YEARS selling Bush as a heroic figure strong on terrorism.

Did media clue the public in that John Kerry was the first lawmaker to expose the global terror networks when he uncovered BCCI? Nope - too busy protecting the Bushboy.

[NMDemDist2]

21. most of us are under 30???

:rofl:

WRONG! every poll we take here at DU, over and over, shows a majority of us are 40+ we are the 60's generation baby boomers. look at the pictures of smaller city protests, you'll see many (if not most) of those holding signs are middle agers or older

your experience in FL is not indicative of the country as a whole IMO. google some images if you don't believe me.

http://www.rocklandaction.org/images.html

[Silverhair]

164. No, YOU are wrong. Try reading what he ACTUALLY wrote.

He said, "many". "Most" is a word that you have substituted for "many", and then argued against "most". In my dictionary, the two words have different meanings.

Honesty requires that you you NOT put words in his mouth. You have been dishonest in your arguement.

He said that many are under 30.

[Sparkman]

23. "LOSING ever since" is dead wrong. Goal is steering RW Dems from Fascisim!

You sound like a logical pundit, and best of luck in helping the party. The Republican Revolution may begin it's downturn, starting in 2006. AAR and Pacifica and the ravaging of Dan Rather (plus 4 top journalists) and the consolidation of Media seem to be meaningful.
FDR attended Social Security, integration of the miltary, huge attention to government domestic projects combating the great depression, and the income taxes to pave the way.
Clinton was a NAFTA proponent which has ruined our manufacturing industries. Clinton never followed through with a national health care program, now in pitiful condition-40% w/o insurance.
Clinton Bombed countries that didn't invade us (Bosnia/Iraq/??), FDR resisted WW2 until Dec7,1941 when our Imperialist military Naval Base on foreign soil (Hawaii) was bombed by the Imperialist Japanese, killing 2335 U.S. killed, 1778 wounded.
Clinton & FDR were both Imperialists, but with quite a different personna, I believe.
Pre-emptive attacks are now a reality, thanks in no small part to media ownership issues that suppress wide dispersion of counter-Imperialism opinion.

Battling the likes of the neo-cons, with the clout ($$), the stamina and their media access advantages will still require the integrity of the voices from the left, and shutting us out will doom the Dems to Repuke-lite status, and local political influence rather than national dominance.
The Dems have had little restraint against the military-industrial-media onslaught that has throttled the throat of liberty, and much more needs to be done. persevere

[Armstead]

25. They don't win because of the lack of confidence you displayed

I agree with about half of what you said. However, I have a very different interpretation of both the cause and the solution.

I expounded my own view at lkength in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2443763&mesg_id=2443763

I agree with you that Democrats lost support when they abandoned the liberal economic plank embodied by FDR.

But I disagree that the problem was that the Democrats suffered by being taken over by crazy lefty pacifists. The Democrats suffer because too many Democratic leaders have no confidence anymore in econmic liberalism and progressive populism as a viable political position.

The Democrats suffered because the Democratic Establishment abandoned liberal populism and became faux conservatives. The mainstream Democratic leaders betrayed liberalism and became nothing but corporate shills and enablers for the corporate elite.

The social issues or pink-haired progressive kids are not what eroded the Democratic Party's support among so-called "swing voters." The lack of a real liberal economic agenda is what did it.

(By the way there isx nothing wrong with progressive kids, no mattr how they style their hair. That's just fashion.)

Before you dismiss that as the rantings of a young lefty, I should point out that I'm 54, and have been payting attention since the 60's. I also consider my political views to be basically mainstream liberalism of the 60's variety. And I can't tell you how many times I wanted to kick the wall seeing the Democratic leadership ignore, drop the ball and enable horrendous changes in policies and values over the last 30 years.

You're blaming the wrong group.

[TheFarseer]

36. You're right on one and not as right on the other

Economic liberalism or populism is a big winner IMO. Well over 90% of the people should be for that. It's just common sense to support economic policies that benefit you and the country as a whole over the richest 1% in our country.

I think cultural liberalism is turning people off. The republicans are doing a good job of framing these issues. Gay rights is seen as 'anti-family'. For what reason anyone would make that connection is just mind-boggling but that perception is out there. We're also getting beat over the head with 'anti-religion' and the list goes on and on.

[Armstead]

39. That's because we let it happen

There's an obvious dilemma in the connection between social and economic liberalism.

But I also think that we let the GOP exploit it by mischaracterizing what social liberalism really is. I believe, when push comes to shove, most people have a laissez faire attitude about things like Gay Rights. In otehr words, they may not approve of it personally, but they also believe in "live and let live."...Beyond that, any objections they may have to feeling like it is being forced on them in an "in your face" way is a cultural and personal issue -- not a political one.

Abortion is a more difficult one. No easy answerv to that, otehr than to accept that it is largely a matter of personal conscience. A majority supports the basic right to a legal abortion, though. The rabid anti-abortionists are actually a minority....

In terms of the Democratic Party, we should have a strong enough economic program that people who disagree with the pro-choice position could overlook that partiucular issue, or fight it seperately. That doesn't mean we should abandon our positions on social issues, but we should frame it as the party of individual freedom and tolerance. If some conservatives are too narrow minded to accept that, we'll never get them on our side anyway.

Basically, what I'm saying is that we have allowed the Republicans to artificially connect issues that have nothing to do with each other. If the Democrats had a strong and honest and clear agenda on the issue of protecting the interests of the majority on matters of Wealth and Power, the other social issues would be overshadowed in the basic partisan debate.

[orwell]

28. The Main Reason...

...the success of the Southern Strategy.

[Clark2008]

31. Is there a mid-West strategy?

Because the mid-Western states are more red than the Southern states.

[orwell]

38. The Mid-West strategy...

...is an offshoot of the "Guns, Gods, and Gays, Southern Strategy. The only missing element is the overt racism. The Midwest was a side benefit of the Southern Strategy if you will.

The Western Mountain states responded to the Reagan ruralism, an offshoot of the Goldwater "get the hell off my property" mindset,

The bow that ties it all together is the cartloads of money supplied by pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation big business. They supply the ammo. The social ideologues supply the footsoldiers and the passion.

The last group, the powerful corporate elites, have always been the core of the Republican party. They needed the rest to provide the actual votes.

[Clark2008]

47. You're funny

I've seen more racism in the mid-West than the South.

And those are the only two parts of the country in which I've lived.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[TheFarseer]

33. I think you make alot of good points

of course the repubs are framing the debate. That's our fault to some extent, but mostly I'd blame the media for not seeing past the GOP spin and being too superficial and lazy to see the real debate.

The republicans do a very good job of tieing us to special interest groups that scare most voters. We do a poor job of hanging them with Pat Robertson, the KKK, those crazy fucks living in backwoods shacks with their weapons cache in Montana, people who have no use for science and of course corporations that want to put everyone out on the street and send their job to China.

Your 4th point just ties into the 1st one.

Your second point ties into the 1st point some also, but I think some of our candidates, who will remain nameless, would be a big mistake because they don't stand for anything except watering down republican policies. How can anyone get excited about that!?

[TheFarseer]

37. Damnit! I killed another thread

[Armstead]

41. I know the feeling

I'll spare you from being the "thread killer" on this one.

[mtnsnake]

45. Good post. I especially agree with the first 2 points & the part about

"stolen election crap". It's amazing how many posters here use that as the excuse dejour as to why we lost the election. Anytime anyone points out that we lost because we ran a pathetic campaign or anytime someone comes up with a positive suggestion on what we can do to better the party, the "stolen election" people come out of the woodwork and say "what's the use of even trying to get better; the election was stolen". Yeah, great way to get anything accomplished.

[VonDoomPhd]

50. Every week...

Every week or so I see one of these threads pop up.
This seems as good as any other one to insert this turd I scrawled in a haze of rum, pepperoni pizza and Bill Hicks nostalgia:




****The Viability Of The Democratic Party In The Era Of Post-Modern Politics

The Republicans win and keep on winning. They shrug off heinous onslaughts of common sense and basic human reasoning the way Superman waves off a pellet gun.
Why?
Democrats keep losing. Not all the time, mind you. But in areas where there is heavy competition between red and blue, red more often than not emerges from the purple mess.
Why?
It is my contention that the success of the Republican party and their candidates is due in no small part to the fact that they are, by and large, the practicioners of post-modern politics.
Kissing babies, speaking at assemblies and debating issues went the way of the dodo for the GOP after two consecutive presidential defeats (no matter that those defeats were largely due to Ross Perot and not the still-in-vogue-and-not-looking-to-ever-stop "centrist" Democrat movement.)
These losses shook the GOP to its core, culminating in the disastorous Bay Of Monica operation.
Defeated, the GOP had to take a long, hard look at itself and make changes if they hoped to once more attain the highest office.
Did they move to the Left and become more like their opposition in the hopes of gaining more moderate votes?
Fuck no.
They went hog-wild to the right.
They nuzzled themselves with the soft downy chest hair of religious radicals, drank watered-down alcoholic piss with NASCAR dads and sucked at the teat of racist, obediant house-fraus who demand that when their children watch prime-time television they not be exposed to sex, violence or black people.
This, ladies and gentleman, is their base.
But has it always been?
It's been noted, since the 80's, that there is a "silent majority" or "moral majority." I have never met someone affiliated with this majority and doubt such a person exists, however if I were to think outside the box I would imagine a member of this clan to be a decent, quiet, perhaps ignorant human being that believed in the basic tenants of Judeo-Christianity.
I doubt they get drunk, gorge themselves on fast-food and when tired of slapping their mewling, cracker kids around scream, "Kill all them faggot rag-heads, gawddemmit!"
But that seems to be the make-up of the MM or "Chistian Right" currently.
I exaggerate of course.
It is exceedingly difficult to get tired of slapping unwanted, unloved, trailer-trash children.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 this already noxious assortment of humanity was injected with the sociological equivalent of Kryptonian steroids: FEAR. Fear is the ultimate seducer of reason. It is what turns a quiet, likable middle-America housewife into a rabid, xenophobic geyser of hatred. It is what turns a twentysomething accountant with no prior political interest or affiliation into one of Rush's "ditto-heads."
It is what turns a rather amusing left-leaning comedian with a brief high-profile stint on Monday Night Football into a bobble-headed nationalist jackass that licks up GOP discharge like a kitten under a cow's udder.
And it is what gave the Neo-Cons their Neo-Base.

The GOP strategy, as far as I can surmise, is this: seem not-insane on television and in the newspapers, and talk all the CRAZY SHIT you want to your base. Let Hannity & Limbaugh and O'Goebbels assure the base that when you said, "strengthen our security" you really meant, "kill all them faggot rag-heads, gawdemmit!" and so on.
This ingenious filtration/translation process is but one aspect of post-modern politics.

The Democrats can't compete with this because they have no cohesive base.
I will repeat: they have no cohesive base.
That fabled base has long since been undercut and marginalized by the Center-Dem ideology.
There was a brief resurgence of that base during the Democratic primaries when Howard Dean managed to smell the coffee and speak his mind. But the Center-Dem agenda shot him in the back.
But all is not lost. Hope remains, if the fellowship is
strong.

What the Democratic party needs are strong personalites. They need candidates that are not named Zeb Miller that speak their minds come hell or high water and if they happen to be leftists, then gawdemmit, all the better. The party also needs high-profile supporters and/or shills. Hannity, Rush, Savage, O'Goebbels, et all do far more damage to the party and their hopes for re-emergence than any one is willing to admit.
Every month their factually promiscuous poison spreads to another radio station in another town and, no shit, there are confused people out there that believe their drug-addled drivel and then vote.
Hannity even has his own-goddamn television show and dating service! (Seriously. Dude has a dating service. Look on his website. Shudder. Know they will spawn.)
Where are the Democratic counterparts?
And, no, Al Franken Does Not Count.
Neither does Michael Moore.
Moore is irrelevant because his most powerful statements come via his movies. These movies come out every few years. Rush & Co. are on the air all the time. By that logic you can cross off Sean Penn, Sarandon and the rest of those Hollywood daytrippers from the list because it only counts if you're in our face every goddamn day.
Al Franken does not count because, funny as he may be, he is not a strong personality and his radio show is god-awful boring. In addition, there is no warmth to Franken. His browser didn't get the Macromedia Warmth plug-in, opting instead for a high-speed download of Apple's Snarky-Time.
Funny that a comedian and actor can't bullshit up the storm of community and "we're all in this togetherness" they way Rush & Co. can.
Keith Olbermann is a step forward.
But who else?
What high-profile Democrat is going to come forward, realize that the "center cannot hold" and let loose with some old-fashioned liberal cannon fire?
Who is going to shit inspired logs of fire and humanity into the public consciousness?
Who from the Donkey Brigade is going to make people believe in something again?

That is the only way to succeed. Debating issues matters not a whit when the opposing party has a black-belt in debating reality itself.
You fight fire with water.
But you fight crazy with crazy.
This is post-modern politics.

"War On Terror", "No Child Left Behind", "Homeland Security", "Let's Roll", "Iraqi Freedom", "Big Time", "Shock & Awe", "Activist Judges"...these are all memes of the GOP, whether they be generated in-house or co-opted. Post-modern politics thrives on these memes. PMP is theory-in-action, it treats ideas like biological weapons armed and ready to infect the lever-pulling populace.
Where are the memes of the Democratic Party or the Left in general?
They simply do not exist and this is a shame given the Democratic Party is the one most associated with pop-culture, entertainment and rocking out.
Republican leaders can sling the Bible, firing off phrase after phrase, virus after virus, that latches on to the imaginative attention and back-knowledge of all within earshot.
Where are the Democratic leaders that invoke Pulp Fiction in their addresses? Or Seinfeld, or Fark.com or video games or even Sgt. Pepper. The Beatles are still bigger than Jesus so why are Democrats still losing and losing big-time?
They are losing because they are still playing old time politics.
They think that the truth will out.
That honesty and goodwill trump deceit and avarice.
That true Christian ideals of charity and social justice will conquer greed and sectarianism.
The donkey masters are wrong.
The goose is poisoned, the hero is dead, the true love is lost.
Politics is no place for fairy tales.
The party of pacifists and progressives must go on the attack and they must do so according to the guidelines of Post-Modern Politics: Anything Goes.
It is no longer enough to go after the opposition with facts and then declare, "So you see, he isn't telling you the whole story" or "he doesn't have his facts straight."
No.
Now you must scream that he is a "fucking liar. He lied. Here's the proof. He is a liar. A liar that fucks. A liar that fucks the American people. A fucking liar." Better yet, put it in a press release. Could you imagine the pride Democrats would feel, the excitement the youth would feel if you woke up one morning and saw this:

Chuckie The P For Senate
Contact 215-555-5555
For Immediate Release

RICK SANTORUM IS A SOUL-LESS BAG OF 8 WEEK OLD SHIT



If you think that could never happen, if you think the American people would never stand for that then your idea of the American people is south of 1950.

But we don't even need a candidate to do this. We only need a recognizable personality. Someone to counterract the unrelenting 24/6 (no work on Sunday) shitstorm that is the right wing propaganda machine.

What's remarkable is that Post-Modern Politics in America as I see it, is actually ancient politics. The people elect those that in turn govern, and look after the welfare of those people. The times have changed, but the sentiment remains. People helping people and expecting nothing in return for politics in its purest form is its own reward.
I don't really know what that means but it sure sounds profound.
And pretty.


Samuel Johnson once said that "patrotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." This was never more true then after the events of September 11th when war-mongering amongst the elite and xenophobia amongst the masses had sexual congress under a banner of red, white and blue.
In that union, lay the Iraq War.
Our government would have you believe that that is not the case. That we went to war because Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and his people, his people, needed liberation. They say they have talking heads that will attest to this reasoning.
Of course they do.
Right-wing talk show hosts can convince you that an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to Ann Coulter.
But use your eyes, your ears.
This is Post-Modern Politics.

I think it's time to show the bastards, and the world that the absurd is the last refuge of the sane*****

[EXDIA53]

62. WOW! One more example of leftist hate-speach like that...

and even I could be a Republican.

[ptolle]

73. are you sure you're not already?

Anytime I hear the word hate- I automatically think repiglicons and all shades of their favorite fellow travelers. I'm apparently the same age as you, my first political experience also being of that same vintage as a GI bill college student returned combat vet from our ill considered military misadventure in the sun and fun capitol of southeast asia and in comparing the posts- yours and the one you call leftist hate speach(sic) I'll take the latter prescription rather than your even more repiglicon lite.

[Vektor]

202. Oh, yes, you DEFINITELY COULD BE.

Smartest and most accurate thing you have said on this thread yet!

"Leftist hate speech?"

No Democrat would use that Rovian/O'Loofah canned rhetoric. Ever.

Edited to add, you spelled SPEECH wrong. Dead giveaway. Next thing you know, you'll be calling us "morans."

[Douglas Carpenter]

277. do you advocate more military attacks against Arabs?

are you aware that lots and lots of Arab children would killed if that is done?

[TankLV]

291. WTF are you spewing?

Name ONE thing in that post that was not SPOT ON!

[xkenx]

89. I Agree With You 110%

But is there anyone in the Dem. Party willing to go there and take the immediate abuse that will be shoveled his/her way, including from Dems.? Olbermann has not, to my knowledge, even declared a party affiliation, except that he's willing to call lying sacks of shit by their correct names. My candidate, Wes Clark, has the courage to "Bring it on" to the Rethugs, but his style is one of diplomacy.

[The Magistrate]

158. An Excellent Rant. Sir!

That was a real pleasure to read! My hat is off to you.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ulysses]

221. dayum.

:thumbsup: Sweet.

[TankLV]

290. Take it to hear everyone, especially the OP.

THIS is where we need to go!

THIS is what we must do!

[4n6]

51. Message is the dominant force in politics

I can understand why a lot of people on this forum might be mad about this post, but essentially s/he is right. Postmodern politics is about message and image. If the dems don't have a clear message and image to project (I don't mean platform that is not the same) then we don't win elections. This point is well made by Carville and Begala in their new book. Clinton had a clear message with his themes of responsibility, community, and opportunity. That kind of message needs to be brought back. And we have to do it forcefully.

[Armstead]

52. Clinton didn't have a clear messaage

He was a great politician with a good heart and good intentions but I still for the life of me don't understand what his core convictions are.

Responsibility, community and opportunity?Rrepublicans say that stuff all the time. They are wonderful ideals, but meaningless on their own.

Clinton was a populist one day and a corporatist the next. A social liberal one day, and a blue nosed church lady the next. It all got muddled when you tell people their interests are the same as the oligarchs.

IMO it's real simple. The rich have gotten richer at the expense of everyone else. The big have gotten bigger by swallowing up all the competition. We as a society have been sold a CON job in which "Winner take all" is the real goal. And the architects of that don't intend include the majority among the winners.

We as the majority -- lower and middle classes --- have to reassert OUR common interests through regulation, a return to the idea of a "commons" and public infrastructure and policies that allow the successful to reap their rewards but prevent them from robbing the rest of us blind. The reasonable responsible members of the upper classe with a conscience are invited to join us. But they have to support our interests, not the interests of the greedy and power hungry.

[Hippo_Tron]

114. Clinton had a clear message in his first campaign

Basically it was that he would apply traditionally populist economic programs with a new more efficient management style. Of course, as you said, once he was in office it was like he had almost no message whatsoever.

[blm]

77. Not understanding that today's corporate media is NOT THE SAME AS 1992

when Clinton ran is the problem that NONE of you seem to notice.

Clinton had 9hrs of his convention for the public to hear his plans - Kerry had 3 and 1 of those hrs the media gave to Clinton.

Please don't try to snow us when we all know that the GOP has controlled big media since 1997. Why the hell do you think the silver-tongued Clinton was able to be impeached.

Wake up - you're not in Kansas anymore and the GOP owns Oz.

[Hippo_Tron]

118. I don't think it's that the media became a GOP propaganda machine

I think it's that they seized to do any real investigative journalism and to report stories with any real depth of information. I don't think that they do this intentionally because they want Republicans to win, I think that they do this so that they can include more Britney Spears drives with her baby in her lap bullshit. However, this inherently helps the GOP out, especially when they have someone as dumb as Bush in office. "We're going to cut taxes so that you can spend more of your own money" fits a 30 second sound-byte. "Tax cuts don't work and here is our alternative tax plan..." doesn't fit a 30 second sound-byte and thus we are just left with "Tax cuts don't work" because we are forced to fit our statement into the sound-byte. The public perception then becomes that Democrats don't really have a plan. The truth is that we have lots of plans, they just take a little more effort and a little more critical thinking to understand than the Republican plans. Unfortunately, the media no longer gives us the time needed to explain to the American people what our plans are.

Until we can get the media to start actually reporting the news with some depth (and I think that winning the white house back will be helpful because we will then control their access to the president), we need to learn how to master the 30 second soundbyte like the GOP does.

[unfrigginreal]

56. Good Post

Welcome to DU!

[paulk]

57. I don't think we let Republicans control the debate

as much as the media lets Republicans control the debate.

Your other points are valid, IMO, except #4, once again has more to do with the media portrayal
of Democrats than with actual positions.

Recent poll by WSJ shows Democrats with a 53-37 lead in Congressional preference. I have to disagree with your
"we aren't even close, yet". Progress is being made, despite the efforts of the MSM to prop up the Bush junta.

[jarab]

60. Welcome. That's a good post ...

and the disagreement could have only been expected.
I, too, think it's time we acknowledge our own shortcomings - and begin to find solutions instead of being childish in assigning all that goes wrong on ...... something ... anything .... but ourselves.
If we're so perfectly blameless for our own failures, how come we're sucking for political air - nearing impotency?
I got news. Democrats aren't perfect. I refuse to blame our failures on them. We're not using the proper tools with which to fight. I guess you could say we're not preemptive enough.

We have a larger tent to accommodate. That makes it hard to win close elections, imo. Goes with the territory.

On your topic, my idea is that they like to deal (successfully I might add) with the abstracts like morality and patriotism.
We need as a strategy to be more successful with the real visuals: the Lower Ninth pictures, factories now dormant, soldiers' obits in lieu of pictures, etc.

They paint us as unsuitable to govern without offering reasons of their own. They angrily call us angry - and get away with it.
And, we don't help ourselves because most of our quality spokesmen are posturing for their own candidacies, and are afraid to take a stand which might handicap. So, play safe becomes the motto.

We're out of power obviously not because of their performance; look at their results. Rather because of our own ineptness at this political game.
About the only weapon we have - or anyone has - as a minority opposition party is our timely utitlized voice(s) sounding in unison (most of the time), and we can't get that right half the time.
Again, they have claimed the abstracts, and HOW!
All we have left are the human issues of reality. That should be enough, imo.
...O...

[martymar64]

66. Why not just accept the status quo?

How could I have been so wrong? I can now see the light of your wisdom! George W. Bush is my God and Karl Rove can do no wrong! It's all a commie loonie-left moonbat plot to bring down our Glorious Leader! I will write my congressman and tell him to vote with George Bush 100% the time. The war is a great thing! I don't have any kids, but I'll go out and have some just so I can send them to Iraq to fight for the fatherland! America can do absolutely no wrong, we're God's favorite nation. Screw them Muslims, let's nuke them and then take their oil. We should take all of these lefties that don't tow the line and send them to those bright shiny new camps that KBR are building. We just be happy that the NSA is watching us with their benevolent eye, protecting us from ourselves.

I'm so glad you saved me from a life of liberty. I think I'll go shop at Walmart now.

BTW. . . Free Tom DeLay!

[Totally Committed]

69. Point by point:

The Democratic Party has been losing national elections for four main reasons:

1. We let Republicans control the debate. True, mostly. And we are still lousy at framing our own issues. Plus, there are DINO's and gutlessness abounding. It's hard NOT to control a debate where only one side is talking and the other side is mostly hiding or agreeing, just to keep the peace.

2. The candidates our core activists support can not win swing votes. Such as? I consider myself a "core activist", and believe that the candidate I support (Wes Clark) could win swing votes, swing states, and every debate on national defense the Republicans dare to have with this Party.

3. We let special interest groups that scare the average voter represent us. Again, such as? MoveOn? Code Pink? Who are we talking about?

4. Americans think we don't care about national defense, and it's at least half our fault. That's true. Instead of the fuzzy, self-agrandizing message Joe Biden sends on this subject Sunday after Sunday after Sunday, the Democrats should be sending their best National Defense "experts" out there with a concerted and unified message. They should be telling Biden to shut the f*ck up or find a way to muzzle him, and all the Repub-lite mealy-mouths (Jane Harmon comes to mind, but she's not the only one...) or lock them in a closet at clost of business Friday afternoon, and let them out on Monday Morning, if need be.

Don't start with the "stolen election" crap again. The voters were looking for an excuse to vote against Bush in 2004 and we gave them nothing! We lost 2004 fair and square. The main problem with "Getting out the message" is not always the message, but often the messenger. Working the 2004 campaign in Florida, we had energetic young campaign workers who's appearance scared the crap out of 85% of the people in the precinct. We need to look professional, people. You can't appeal to the swing voter when they have their pepper spray trained on us. I don't believe we lost the 2004 election fair and square (I do believe there was fraud), but it should never have been close. I agree we gave them the "wrong messanger". That campaign was shamefully weak and depressing for all of us who cared so much and wanted anyone but Bush to be elected.

I think many of you on this site are under 30.Nope. Not me. I'm an old lady and don't mind saying so. My start in Democratic politics was 1972 with George McGovern. Between 1972 and 1980 the leadership of the party changed from the old FDR economic focused people to the anti-war, Blame America First crowd. If you haven't noticed, we've been losing ever since. We started at about the same time and I agree with you, we have been mostly losing since. But, you cannot tell me that the "leadership of this Party is of the "anti-war, Blame America First crowd". That's bullsh*t. The DLC has taken over the "leadership" and we have gone soft as a rotten tomato. "Anti-war"? The overwhlming IWR vote doesn't reflect that. "Blame America First"? Nah... With all the COrporate money and all the corporate influence, it's "Blame the little guy first" and "Every poor person for themselves". I think you are way off base with this assertion. Bill Clinton won 8 years, but he is an FDR Democrat. Get real! Just as we can thank Reagan for the Neo-Con revolution, we can thank Clinton for the DLC power grab happening right now. He brought 'em here, he fed 'em, and now we can't get rid of 'em. He's an FDR Democrat? Would FDR have signed the Welfare Act? HELL F*CKING NO, HE WOULD NOT HAVE. FDR Democrat, my old, gray ass. If we can convince Americans that we can give them economic justice, save the Bill of Rights and keep them safe without kissing Islamofascist ass, we'll win. We aren't even close, yet. Maybe.

TC

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Breeze54]

91. We are the same age....

get over yourself, newbie!

I've been voting and have been active in elections since 1972.
I also worked with the voters in another state, for the 2004 elections,
other than my own and people were not only friendly but quite interested!
And ACTIVE!
That state voted AGAINST bush!
And elected a DEMOCRATIC Governor for the first time in years!!

There are many reasons why 'we' didn't win the presidential election.

The take over of the media by FIVE corporate pigs is one reason!
The message wasn't and STILL ISN'T getting out!
Hence the reason people are asked to donate to advertisements

so WE CAN GET THE MESSAGE OUT!!!

[Bridget Burke]

92. Any specific examples of those scary special interest groups?

While you're at it, give potential campaign workers some grooming tips.

Please define "kissing Islamofasist ass."

(I'm well over 30.)

[ulysses]

136. damn, you haven't gotten a response either?

:(

[The Magistrate]

163. Speaking As Clinically As Possible, My Friend

The reference is probably to homosexuals, Blacks, feminists, and Union workers, particularly teachers, all of which groups have been steadily and effectively demonized from the right, to a point where real distaste is roused in many people, sufficient to induce them to act against their own self-interest under the impulse of emotional reactions.

The alchemy by which a term, "special interests", that originally was understood to apply to large business concerns, such the oil and gas industry, bankers, mine operators, and the like, has come instead to mean in the popular mind and usage large groups of ordinary citizens, is of course something else again.

[ulysses]

201. truly enough said.

This regular agreement between you and I is becoming a concern, my good man. :D

The alchemy by which a term, "special interests", that originally was understood to apply to large business concerns, such the oil and gas industry, bankers, mine operators, and the like, has come instead to mean in the popular mind and usage large groups of ordinary citizens, is of course something else again.

I had not thought of that, but how long did it take them to make that change in the common perception? Decades, I know.

[The Magistrate]

219. A Sign Of The Apocalypse, Perhaps, Sir

But just about everyone here would be on the same side of the barricade in a real fight, whatever our intra-mural quarrels might be. That is a thing to remember when the heat rises in squabbles here....

"LET'S GO HGET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Debs]

298. Isn't it amazing that when the right talks about special interests

They mean labor, minorities, women, gays, in other words about 80% of the population and they never mean. corporate interests, oil corporations, financial corporations and CEOs, in other words about 5% of the population? Isn't that a neat trick?

[ulysses]

300. think "no special rights for gays"

Same kind of deal.

[CTLawGuy]

95. Response

1. We let the Republicans control the debate.

Agreed. They have a very organized media/propaganda force in their network of talk radio and TV pundits. We, on the other hand, don't even have a unified and distinct message which we could communicate. We need to stop being afraid of offending someone and come up with something to stand for, otherwise we stand for nothing and no one supports us.

2. The candidates our core activists support cannot pick up swing votes.

We can't evaluate this because the core activist candidates have largely been defeated by centrist DLC candidates in the primary.

In 2000 there was a split between Gore and Bradley, about 70% - 30% of Dems. Gore was the more centrist candidate, and he defeated Bradley.

In 2004, the leftists were mostly behind the bold, straight-talking centrist Howard Dean, as well as Dennis Kucinich to a smaller extent. During the last weeks of December and first of January, the base decided that we couldn't risk someone like Dean, who was going to say what he felt, even though it may alienate some people.

They went with Kerry, who pushed his "electability" and his military service was emphasized to a nauseating degree. these are essentially DLC/centrist arguments for nomination.

The point is, the "core activist" candidates never make it, becuase a majority of the base will not take the risk of nominating them. The centrists got nominated both times.

So you cannot say that they could not pick up swing votes. In fact, perhaps swing voters don't join a party because they want to have a choice every time. Perhaps they want to be brought to the right or the left by the candidate running that cycle. We need candidates who give swing voters a real alternative to the republicans.

3. We let special interest groups that scare the average voter represent us.

I think what rules us is our own fear of losing to the Republicans. that fear prevents us from sticking our necks out. We worry that they can criticize us. But do they care what we think about them? No, and that's what makes them an effective party and governing force. With the Rpeublicans you know what you are getting and a lot of voters would rather vote for that, even if they don't agree with everything, than for a guy who seems to stand for both everything and nothing.

Both parties have interest groups that people don't agree with. Personally, I think ours are relatively powerless against the ruling DLC faction and their corporate backers. It doesn't matter anyway, if we put out good candidates who can connect. People vote for people over party (at least swing voters do). So any negative influence from interest groups can thus be minimized.

And frankly, if the "swing voter" is scared by our groups but not by theirs, then they probably aren't really "swing voters".

4. Americans think we don't care about national defense, and it's at least half our fault.

The only reason that people might think this is becuase Dems have no unified plan. Half of us vote with whatever Bush wants, and the other half recoils in horror. We need to come up with a philosophy that promotes responsibility and cooperation in world affairs. Going along with Bush's plan gives him even more credibility, thus hurting us, NOT helping us.

Again people will follow a party who is confident (even if completely wrong) rather than someone who doens't know what they are doing.

[Nederland]

98. I'm confused

You say:

In 2004, the leftists were mostly behind the bold, straight-talking centrist Howard Dean, as well as Dennis Kucinich to a smaller extent. During the last weeks of December and first of January, the base decided that we couldn't risk someone like Dean, who was going to say what he felt, even though it may alienate some people.

If a left wing candidate cannot win the primary, what makes you think they would do better in the general? Do you believe that swing voters are left of Democratic primary voters? I find that hard to believe...

[CTLawGuy]

113. ok, time to reexamine your fundamental assumption

you think that primary voters choose who they like the best, and who fits most with what they agree with.

If you read what I wrote you would have seen that they chose the person they thought was the least risky, by rejecting a riskier candidate (Dean). The primary voters originally favored Dean by a lot, but then they decided that "we have to beat Bush, let's pick the safe candidate, even if he did vote for IWR and the Patriot Act."

Put simply, primary voters wanted to win. And by doing so, we lost.

if primary voters would actually choose the candidate they most agreed with and liked the best for what that person stood for, then that person might give swing voters a reason to come to our side.

[Nederland]

115. I guess I would say the same thing back to you

I don't think the voters in Iowa particularly liked Dean the more they got to know him. A quick review of Iowa polls shows that the better people there got to know him, the less they liked him. I think they voted for Kerry because they liked him better, plain and simple.

[CTLawGuy]

148. do the polls say WHY they "liked" Kerry better?

I think its indisputable that Dems wanted to beat Bush badly.

The centerpiece of Kerry was that "I served in Vietnam, I'm electable."

It was effective.

[IA_Seth]

227. Iowan's point of view....

The whole idea that Iowa voters were somehow lulled into voting for Kerry because of some anti-Dean conspiracy is horseshit, plain and simple.

Iowan voters get a very good opportunity to meet and interact with the candidates on a much more personal level than some other voters, we have them at our diners, in our union halls, at our churches and our ball diamonds.

Kerry connected with Iowans on a much greater scale than did Dean. I know Dean is a great guy, a good Democrat, and a true leader...but Iowan's like Kerry better.

A not-so-small part of Kerry's victory in Iowa was the support he had from the unions. The unions were the feet in the street for the Kerry campaign. They were the ones knocking on doors and talking to their neighbors.

Dean's campaign on the other hand (at least in my neck of the woods) used out of state volunteers (of which there were many). Chalk it up to Iowan's xenophobia or the lack of cultural understanding when talking to Iowans, but it wasn't as effective as Kerry's use of locals in drumming up support.

It's hard for Dean supporters to see (especially when they don't want to), but Dean lost Iowa fair and square. No conspiracy needed.

[CTLawGuy]

281. no conspiracy

Iowans just wanted to win, as I think all Democrats decided at the end.

Too bad they miscalculated.

[mitchum]

97. Give me a fucking break

[LincolnMcGrath]

106. I second that emotion!

We lose because the GOP accuses and usually the Dem leadership capitulates.

[MadHound]

99. Wow, I don't even know where to begin on this.

Let's start here, that you say you started with the McGovern campaign. I don't know where you were for that campaign, but I was a kid out in the trenches, and from my viewpoint, it was the last hurrah of the "anti-war, Blame America First crowd" ie leftists and progressives, formerly known as the Democratic party base. Those who hadn't been turned off by the debacle in '68 and dropped out of politics altogether were given little or no support by the DNC in '72. You see, McGovern, bless his heart, wasn't supposed to get the nod, Muskie was. But a couple of strange things happened on the way to the convention, Muskie flaked out, and the American public, tired of the war, gave the nod to the only antiwar candidate available. Pissed, the DNC threw in the towel right after the convention, and did everything they could, short of running another candidate, to sabotage the McGovern race. And they succeeded wildly.

This backstabbing really drained the ranks of the Democrats. Those of us on the left felt betrayed and left out, and many many of us dropped out of politics altogether. Those of us left were dismayed and disheartened, as we watched the spectre of creeping corporatism steal over the party. Sure, we managed to put Carter into office in '76, but hell, we could have run a dead man and won after Nixon's folly.

But then came the Reagan years, and the party really started to drift rightward, all in a vain effort to pick up those swing votes, those Reagan Dems. Yet no matter how far right the party drifted, no matter how many candidates we stuck in tanks, nothing worked. And the reason nothing worked is because there was and is little real difference between the two parties. While we were busy becoming Republican lite, Americans figured if that was what we were offereing, why not go with the real thing?

But then we finally found the "perfect" candidate in Bill Clinton. He could talk the leftist talk, empathize until the cows come home, full of charisma and charm, but a man who governed solidly from the right, pro-corporate side of the coin. That you compare him favorably to FDR just shows how very little historical knowledge you really have. FDR first of all had the courage of his convictions. If he wanted something done, he would move heaven, earth and the Supreme Court in order to get what he wanted. Clinton, when presented with resistance to UHC immediately caved on the issue, and handed it off to his wife to get lost in the flurry of minutia. Hell, Clinton didn't even have the stubborness of Truman who intigrated the troops, public and army opinion be damned. What did Clinton do under similar circumstances? Oh yeah, hemmed and hawed and gave us "Don't ask, don't tell":eyes:

And FDR had the good political sense to listen to his base, and feed them regularly. Hell, he even stole a couple of planks from the Socialists in order to bolster his support amongst the left. Those two planks by the by were Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

And I don't know about you, but I live in a very red, and redneck state, Missouri. And quite frankly the notion that "young campaign workers who's appearance scared the crap out of 85% of the people in the precinct." is rather quaint and outdated. I worked the streets twenty five years ago with piecings and hair down to my ass, and quite frankly, nobody blinked an eye, even out in the boonies. Now I know that Florida can be a special case sometimes, but not that special:eyes: Besides, who else are you going to get. As is the case forever, it isn't the old farts who provide the energy, the drive, the feet in the streets work force. It is the young, the idealistic, the energetic. You want to drive them away because of their appearance? Hah, good luck with that losing strategy.

And again, you whine about "We let special interest groups that scare the average voter represent us." Umm is that special interests like the DLC? Because quite frankly they scare the crap outta me, and have led directly to dozens of people I know personally, and hundreds of thousands of people nationwide to either vote third party, or stop voting.

You want a winning strategy for the Democratic party? Then stop moving to the right and trying to out wing the RWing nuts. Instead, start appealing to Americans self interests, their home and pocketbook. Rather than putting up pro-war candidates, bring the troops home, which Americans overwhelmingly favor right now. Rather than promising more corporate tax havens, instead work for UHC for everybody, for that too is an overwhelmingly popular position. If you take these kind of leftist, progressive stances, the party will bring out the biggest voting group in the country, the non-voter(who is overwhelmingly liberal) in all of their millions. You do that, you appeal to their moral conscience and self interests, and you WILL win elections.

By the by, if you're going to try and stick around here for awhile, I suggest you drop the freeper language. Terms like "Blame America First crowd", and "Islamofascist" are rather hateful, and if you are indeed a Democrat, you should realize that we're all about the love, not hate filled, mysoginistic, bigotted bullshit.

[Silverhair]

152. McGovern beat McGovern

He was down double digits in the polls from the convention to the election. The American public rejected him soundly.

Let's remember some of the events. There was the Eagleton mess and McGovern's flip/flop. there was his idea of having the gov't send $1,000.00 dollars a year to every American. And, during a time of war, he wanted to cut the defense budget by one third.

Reagan won because under Jimmy Carter the economy had gone badly south, and defense had been neglected. Jimmy has made his statement about American having an inordinate fear of Communism. Numerous countries came within the orbit of the Soviet Empire during his watch and Americans were scared. Reagan offered strength.

Mondale was a disaster from the start. Picking Ferraro emphasized his weakness. And promising to raise taxes didn't help him.

BTW - If we are all about "love", I can point to many hate-christianity threads here, and please don't try to say they don't exist.

For that matter, read the huge post above that is so condescending to people who live in mobile homes. Try going to someone who lives in one with that kind of attitude and get them to vote for your candidate.

[LincolnMcGrath]

187. No offense implied, but your post had to be written by Lee Atwater

That is not the image of Dems that I see, It is the image of Dems put out by GOP spinners.

Show specifics on Cater military cuts (or neglect as you call it), and show what Reagan did (1st term) to rectify it.

Show specifics on the Carter economy, and show what Reagan did (1st term) to rectify it. (Other than thanking Paul Volker)

[Silverhair]

194. The election of 1980 was BEFORE the begining of Reagan's Presidency.

When one talks about the election of 1980, one can ONLY speak of things as they were at the time. Events later than 1980 can not impact an election that occurs in 1980. So to talk about what Reagan may or may not have done after he became President is NOT germaine to the 1980 election itself.

In 1976 Carter had blasted Ford for having a misery index of 13.45. He said that any President with such an high misery index did not deserve re-election. In 1980, with his own misery index at 20.76, his own words were thrown back in his face.

The perception of the American military was that it had been weakened. Reagan promised to increase military spending.

I am not defending Reagan. I am pointing out that Carter was in a very bad position to run for re-election.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

265. Carter was blamed for things that weren't his fault

1. Inflation: the delayed effects of OPEC jacking up oil prices

2. High interest rates: The president has no say in the level of interest rates. Those are determined by the Federal Reserve, which is purposely structured to be independent of the president. Besides, interest rates were even higher under Reagan.

3. "Neglecting defense": That's just plain hogwash. The U.S., then as now, spent more on its military than any other country in the world and was in a state of MAD equilibrium with the Soviet Union. By the way, it was Carter who proposed the MX missile.

Carter's statement about "inordinate fear of Communism" was spot on, even though he didn't phrase it well. Successive governments used fear of Communism in the same way that the Bushies are using fear of terrorism today, as carte blanche for the latest money-making schemes of the military-industrial complex.

"Numerous countries came within the orbit of the Soviet Empire under his watch": Where did you get this information, from Jeane Kirkpatrick? What happened was that some countries with repressive governments (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Angola, Afghanistan) underwent grassroots revolutions or attempted revolutions that the U.S. tried to sabotage and the Soviet Union supported.

As far as McGovern was concerned, the rejection of him was cultural as much as everything. Nixon appealed overtly to the voters who were unnerved by the Black Panthers and other militant groups and by the way their own children were taking drugs and having non-marital sex. He referred to socially conservative voters as "forgotten middle Americans" and promised that he would "bring back law and order."

I agree with you on Mondale. Even as a Minnesotan, I wondered whether conservative elements in the Democratic party weren't trying to throw the election by nominating such an obvious loser.

Ditto Dukakis. I was a college professor in 1988, and despite the DLC mantra about Dukakis "proving" that liberals can't win, among my colleagues, only the hard-core county party chair had any enthusiasm for him. Even though all my colleagues hated Reagan an dconsistently voted Dem in state races. they thought Dukakis was pathetic. Again, I wondered if the nomination of Dukakis was a deliberate attempt to throw the election.

[Silverhair]

279. Perception creates it's own reality.

I will grant that Carter was not to blame most of it. But that does not matter. The perception was all that mattered.

The public perception was what determined the elections. It happened on his watch, therefore he is to blame, even if he isn't. The public perception of the military was that not enough was being done. That was reinforced by the hostage crisis and the botched rescue attempt only three years after Israel has pulled off the Entebbe rescue.

[Lexingtonian]

101. Ass backwards.

1.-3. Yes, the political center and swing voters have been what we call 'social conservatives' throughout your experience. And the GOP has been the Party of that, can't be dislodged from that, and as such has been the dominant Party. It defines this political era. Btw, what was considered socially liberal in 1960- the real emancipation of white ethnic and religious groups, but only the technical and superficial varieties of emancipation for black/Latino/Indian/Asian people- was unchanged and relabelled socially conservative after passage of the 1965 VRA.

4. The fellow who screwed that up was LBJ and his misjudgment of Vietnam. Yes, after the Sputnik and Cuban crises average Americans needed some arena in which to exhaust/evade their Cold War paranoia and fight real enemies. Vietnam was the wrong pick.

I disagree with your characterization of the '04 campaign. The outcome, if you actually bother with exit polling and exit interviews of the 10% swing voters, was simply a matter of there being three partisan issues of equal proportions in swing voters' minds. Republicans owned two (social policy and 'dealing with terrorism') and Democrats had one (managing the economy). Democrats got the advantage on the economy via the massive tax cuts of March and September 2003 not working out for average voters. Republicans lost advantage with swing voters on social policy via the Schiavo v Schiavo idiocy of March/April 2005. The Republican advantage on dealing with terrorism neutralized in the polls after the London attack by Al Qaeda of July 2005.

A truth about the social condition is that since the FDR Democrats have started dying out, social conservatism has diminished in power. Early Baby Boomers are the last stronghold of the social order that preceded WW2, the one portrayed to perfection in 'From Here To Eternity', which is the world we are reliving now (one last time, I hope). Bill Clinton had the talent of bridging FDR Democrats, Boomer Democrats, and post-Boomer Democrats during the time when power transition from FDR Democrats to Boomers took place. That's the real story of the 'triangulation' business from 1994 to 1996.

All the trees you see, I'll show you the forest. Realizing the 14th Amendment's guarantees that create citizenship and dignity of the individual is the historical issue of the present political era, 1945-2020 or so. The myriad of social and economic issues and differences in our approach to foreign peoples root in our willingness and unwillingness to live to what the 14th says the standard should be- Immunities and Privileges (i.e. Bill of Rights applicable to both individuals and groups) guarantees, Due Process of Law guarantees, and Equal Protection of the Laws guarantees. Permanent progress in economic justice trails permanent progress in social justice, that is a pattern you can discover for yourself in every ~75 year historical era since colonization.

There is no going back. You and we cannot revive the FDR Coalition, cannot reinstitute the FDR Compromise that created it, nor would we actually tolerate the price that would all entail merely in the name of power. Power that would be useless since it could not create what the country needs or destroy what it hates. Democrats are presently the Party that is to usher in the Modern arrangements of society, Republicans are the Party that is to expend the colonial/Settlement social and economic order and foreign involvements. Both Parties rebel against this division of labor but The People does not let them escape these roles.

Contrary to what you believe, the vital front lines in making permanent social and economic progress in this country are those icky, seemingly marginal, things like gay marriage and reenfranchisement of ex-felons. Womens' rights are easily secured in the wake of gay marriage rights, minority rights are much more easily secured in the wake of reenfranchisement. Foreign affairs are more complicated, with an American obligation to end Stalinisms and abandon or ruin U.S. Cold War ally colonial/kleptocratic post-colonial regimes worldwide on the one hand and leaving the world to evolve to Modernity (once freed of Cold War chains) on its own terms on the other hand.

Here, up North, we're closer to realizing these things. Not perfection, but at least to the point of rejecting the Republican rejectionism of these things. In 15 years you will remember the fights of the present with amazement that they lasted so long and were so slow to decide...and then the dam just broke in 2006 or 2008.

[derby378]

102. Welcome to DU, EXDIA53!

Hang in there - it only gets bumpier after this.

:toast:

[JamRock]

103. Might be wise to look at other democracies and how parties work

to build support and win -- distinctive platforms, organizational unity, clear leadership

[Uncle Joe]

105. The answer to all four of your points is

the corpwhorate owned MSM, they are the same gatekeepers to the truth which have brain washed a large percentage of Americans in to believing this. Their motivation is simple, the Republican "leadership" care only about money, power and corporations, which are the same passions as the majority of the CEO's of the five major corporations which own 80%-90% of the national media, including television, radio, newspapers and publishing, however this monopoly is not enough for them, they are now trying to take over the internet.

[Hippo_Tron]

108. Oooh NARAL and Planned Parenthood sooo scary...

I'm shitting my pants at the thought of a woman's right to choose.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[TankLV]

292. Ooo - you said what I KNOW.

Only am too afraid to say it aloud.

Good for you.

ANOTHER self proclaimed "democrat" newbie comming here to scold all of us awful commies and lefties.

I can tell him where he can shove his comments!

[wyldwolf]

117. Great post, and very accurate

welcome to DU.

Oh, and don't let the crack about your low post count worry you.

I've been here since 2002 and a low post count member called me a troll just yesterday.

And you're exactly right. Our party did change after '72 which is when our slow spiral downward kicked into gear. That simple fact is documented in numerous places but many here refuse to believe it. Some here seem to think the Dem party wgained prominance with the anti-war movement of the 60s. That was actually the start of our decline.

[JeffR]

121. Hooray!

This thread is finally starting to fall down the page!

Oh, shit, wait a minute...

[BigYawn]

125. For only 12 posts, you have done an excellent job with this post!!

Right on bro!!!

The rabid left wingers are killing the democratic party.
Where is FDR & JFK & BJC when we need them.

But may be we will wake up and nominate someone closer
to Bill Clinton, mmmm how about Hillary?

[Douglas Carpenter]

151. within the context of the Democratic Party

who specifically of significance is "rabid left wing" and what specifically are they advocating that is "rabid left wing" ?

[BigYawn]

243. General perception of "rabid left wing"...

Who:
Dr. Howard Dean, chairman of dem party
Cindy Sheehan, may run for senate
Rev. Sharpton, leading spokesman for blacks
Rev Jackson, -do-
Senators Durbin, Kennedy & Leahy

What:

Immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq
(Hillary, Biden, Clark, Edwards, Warner oppose)

Immediate suspension of Bush taxcuts, which in
essence is defacto tax increase. Polls run consistently
against tax increase of any kind.

Favor gay marriage, and late term abortions.
Voters are against late term abortions by a huge
margin.

And there are more perceptions out there, but my
time is limited.

[eridani]

245. The Bush tax "cuts" are a tax increase for most of the population.

[RagingInMiami]

129. You make good points

But unless we get rid of the computer voting machines, I'm afraid we're in for a rude awakening in November.

[BigYawn]

131. The rabid LEFT is killing the democratic party, slowly but surely....

just look at the election results starting in 1994.
1. Lost Senate, I believe it was 1994
2. Lost House in 1994
3. Lost White House in 2000

If the party reconfigures itself in the mold of JFK,
FDR and Truman, we will again be the majority party.
Just MHO.

[ulysses]

135. and the "rabid left" had what to do with thoses losses?

You're being sarcastic, perhaps?

[BigYawn]

144. Well...yes and no...I believe the MSM has created a perception

out there that the democratic party is lurching to the
left because of the so call "rabid left" demands.

As you well know, perception is more important in politics
than facts. I don't think anyone really knows if the left
wing of democratic party is hurting it in elections.

However if the perception exists out there, the quickest
remedy would be to install a main stream/centrist democrat
as the nominee in 2008.

[LincolnMcGrath]

188. Wouldn't the quickest remedy be to call it what it is?

:shrug:

[BigYawn]

228. Unfortunately politics and truth are not always congruent...n/t

[Nederland]

217. The rabid left

...caused us to lose the south. Their positions on guns, gays, and god lost it for us. However, I would rather lose than surrender many of those issues (personally, I would compromise on abortion, but that is an extremely unpopular idea around here). I think we just have to face the fact that we are a minority party and work to educate people till we aren't anymore. Not very fun, I admit.

[ulysses]

222. but if their positions are good

and worth keeping, in what way are they "rabid"?

[Nederland]

223. Good point

I guess I shouldn't use BigYawn's term.

[BigYawn]

244. Aborting any fetus in the 9th month is definitely "rabid"

99% of unborn fetuses can easily survive on
THEIR OWN in the 9th month of pregnency. If a
woman in 9th month of pregnency is killed in a car
accident, the fetus survives if medical help is
available quickly.

On the other hand every woman should have the right
to abort if pregnency is caused by rape, incest or
other such dire circumstances. But the abortion must
be performed "early" meaning before reaching half term.
4-1/2 months is plenty time to decide and act.

I am even favor of abortions performed for health reasons
of the mother, except very late term. It is no more
hardship for the mother to deliver the baby by C-section
or natural birth in the 9th month than first spearing the
fetus's head and then deliver the dying & bleeding fully
formed fetus perfectly capable of breathing on its own.

[ulysses]

254. .

I am even favor of abortions performed for health reasons of the mother, except very late term.

Wow. Mighty white of you.

[BigYawn]

275. Just trying to be accomodating to all views...I don't like being extreme

one way or the other.

[ulysses]

283. women everywhere thank you

I'm sure.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

267. And how often are fetuses aborted in the ninth month?

Been listening to James Dobson much?

[BigYawn]

274. Even ONE is too many IMHO

But that's just me. If you have no problem with very late
abortion of a fully formed fetus, it is between you and God.
I will not be the judge and put you down.

[eridani]

246. No, our position on civil and voting rights for black people-

--lost the South, as LBJ himself predicted.

[flaminbats]

156. the rabid right beat the Democrats in 1994..

liberty is not a disease, but rabies is. One that labels those whom embrace liberty as rabid, is desperately in need of rabies shot. :crazy:

Remember that Gore won half a million more votes than Bush did, Democrats lost the White House because of the electoral college..not for being rabidly liberal!

[BigYawn]

157. Can't disagree with your point....n/t

[depakid]

132. "swing votes." -LOL-

If you want to know why the Dems lose, it's because the've been following PRESCISELY the type of "strategy" that you're attempting to lay out for going on 12 years now.

And they're going to lose 2006 too- for the same reason. Because they're listen to shallow, uninsightful musings like this.

[ulysses]

133. wow. where to start?

1. We let Republicans control the debate.

Hearty agreement here.

2. The candidates our core activists support can not win swing votes.

But we keep hearing that the candidates our core activists support aren't those supported by the rank and file, so what's the problem? If y'all rule the primaries, why are the candidates supported by the left a problem?

3. We let special interest groups that scare the average voter represent us.

Who do you mean? Gays? Blacks? Who?

4. Americans think we don't care about national defense, and it's at least half our fault.

The continued happiness over Iraq from prominent corners of our party notwithstanding.

I think many of you on this site are under 30.

37 here.

Bill Clinton won 8 years, but he is an FDR Democrat.

Yeah. And I'm Big Bird.

[WildEyedLiberal]

137. Bill Clinton is NOT an FDR Democrat

That is all.

[Douglas Carpenter]

145. I agree...."Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure

was forgotten, the lie became truth" – George Orwell from 1984

Now some words from the mist:

Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union – link:
http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

“We cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

[mitchum]

155. You're right...he's a Rockefeller republican

[More Than A Feeling]

138. You know, the hyper-partisan Republican who eats dinner with me

was saying the same thing to me yesterday...

You both are wrong. The Democratic Party is going to take back the House in 2006, and if we are really good, the senate. Our 50 state strategy, increased online organizing, and challenge-every-seat mentality will allow us to show the american peoople that we are going to fix what the Republican-controlled congress has screwed up, and more.

There will be three independent branches of government again, and the Democratic Party is going to make it happen.

[mdmc]

141. welcome to DU!

old school!

how do we change these things, like framing the debate?

[flaminbats]

142. but Republicans love accusing Democrats of election fraud!

Actually if the Republicans do something effectively..it is accusing Democratic officeholders of buying votes, gerrymandering, and stealing elections. If Republicans used this trash against us when Democrats were the majority, why shouldn't Democrats do the same against the Republican majority?

The real reason our party keeps losing elections is because most voters don't even realize that Republicans control Congress! When Republicans ran the Harry and Louise ads, they convinced most American's that if Clinton's healthcare plan passed..fewer people would be covered, those who were covered would have rationed healthcare, and everyone would have to wait even longer just to see a doctor! Most importantly such ads reminded the public that the Democrats controlled Congress..stating they and the trial lawyers should be blamed for the problems with our current healthcare system.

The problem isn't that Democrats make false accusations, but they are determined to prove that every accusation must be true before making it! Republicans have no problem with slinging mud and using unproven accusations against us, but Democrats insist that any mud we sling must be purified and appealing. :eyes:

I agree that it isn't enough that Gore won half a million more votes that Bush in 2000, but that most voters didn't know this in the last election. It isn't enough for Democrats to complain about Diebold or funky ballots in Florida, but to link such threats to democracy with the party that is now in power! If Gore had been President during 9/11, the Republicans would have never let the voters forget that! If Clinton had the kind of deficits that Bush and his party puppets now do..every voter would have known on election day! And who could forget that Clinton "didn't inhale"?

But voters didn't fault the Commander-in-Chief for doing nothing on 9/11, they don't blame the Republican Congress for deficit spending, and they don't even associate this goalless nationbuilding in Iraq with the incumbent party. But who could forget Clinton's crimes of nation-building, Gore's amoralism, or Carter's malaising stagflation?

[Benfea]

146. We keep nominating John Kerrys instead of Paul Wellstones.

That's at least part of the problem. When a centrist like Kerry tries to pose as a liberal, everyone can see right through him and see that it's a false image they are being treated to. People liked Wellstone because he was liberal to the core and didn't apologize to anyone for it, even to appease "swing voters."

I think swing voters are more influenced by someone who says what he believes and believes what he says than some centrist "electable" schmuck going around telling everyone what they want to hear and generally acting like "Republican lite."

The Democratic party isn't giving us anything to vote for. They almost had a real candidate, and that's exactly why they got scared and tore Dean down at the first possible opportunity.

[WildEyedLiberal]

149. Your post is a joke

Did you know Kerry and Wellstone sponsored a campaign finance reform bill together that would have gone way farther than McCain Feingold in reforming corrupt election soft money? No, of course you didn't. Did you know Kerry voted AGAINST the homophobic "Defense of Marriage Act" bill of 1996 - while Wellstone voted for it? Did you know Kerry exposed more government corruption in his career, exposing Iran-Contra and BCCI and making enemies on both sides of the aisle, than any other legislator in modern history?

You obviously know nothing of which you speak.

[CTLawGuy]

150. well kerry sure didn't do a good job of talking about it

All I heard was "vietnam vietnam, electable electable."

I heard nothing about his senate career.

[Silverhair]

154. You DID hear about his senate career - from the Republicans.

Of course, they only told part of his career, and then with their spin. But since Kerry was trying to talk about Vietnam, that left the Republican message unchallenged.

[CTLawGuy]

161. right

I think that Kerry's "I served in Vietnam, vote for me" came across to people as pandering. I personally thought it was way overdone.

Contrast with Gore, who mentioned it maybe once or twice, and that was acceptable.

[Daylin Byak]

168. I'll agree with that

Kerry did shoot himself in the foot alittle when all he did was bring up his war record and eventually he would of pissed off some vietnam vets(like the swift boat for truth)

Talking about your previous experences in Vietnam won't make you a better president, talking about new ideas and saying what's right for your country will, you had no need to mention vietnam a million times.

[Benfea]

162. Your post doesn't seem to make a point.

• Did you know Kerry and Wellstone sponsored a campaign finance reform bill together that would have gone way farther than McCain Feingold in reforming corrupt election soft money? No, of course you didn't…
  Campaign finance reform isn't a liberal/conservative issue, and thus does not support your claim.
  
  
• Did you know Kerry voted AGAINST the homophobic "Defense of Marriage Act" bill of 1996 - while Wellstone voted for it?
  Citing a single example and trying to suggest that this one example is indicative of the whole is a common tactic of conservatives. We all know that Kerry's overall voting record isn't anywhere near as liberal as conservatives claimed, but hey, go ahead and post about one vote and talk about that instead if it makes you feel better.
  
  
• Did you know Kerry exposed more government corruption in his career, exposing Iran-Contra and BCCI and making enemies on both sides of the aisle, than any other legislator in modern history?
  Again, exposing government corruption does not establish liberal credentials.

[Hippo_Tron]

301. Kerry and Wellstone are/were both very good people

But I will contend that Kerry shyed away from what he truly believed in when he decided that he wanted to be president. He has had an incredible senate career standing up for what is right and he is still doing it to this day, but between 2002 and 2004 he lost sight of that and focused too much on the white house.

I'm not saying that the Kerry is a flip-flopper mantra wasn't overblown by the mainstream media and especially by the GOP. It was, especially when you consider the fact that Bush said "I am against nation building" in the 2000 debates yet he gets to use 9/11 changed everything as an excuse, while Zell Miller gets to go on stage and say that Kerry is weak on defense because of some weapon systems that he voted against 20 years ago. But Kerry did change his views on the Iraq War and it's not that, that is a bad thing because lots of Americans changed their views. But as a US Senator and a national leader it would've been better if he'd seen through the smoke and mirrors from the beginning and just voted against the damn resolution and been against the war from the start.

[martymar64]

191. Another point . . .

What about the 50% of the people that don't even bother to vote because they feel nobody, Democratic or Republican, represents them? The earlier post that reveals that the overwhelming majority that support "liberal" programs is dead on the money. If a candidate would address the concerns of that majority, then the argument of swing voters importance would be moot.

[nickshepDEM]

153. You hit some valid points, but at the same time, your a little off...

Bill Clinton was a new Democrat. Supported free trade, welfare reform, and deregulation. FDR was, in a nutshell, a socialist.

[Awsi Dooger]

159. 9/11 impacted how white women vote in federal races

Astonishing this wasn't mentioned or emphasized in the first 150+ posts. It's the bottom line of our failures in federal races in 2002 and 2004, and the only voting block we should be focusing on this fall.

Security moms were hardly a myth. Just look at states with a gov race and a senate and/or presidential race on the same ballot. In almost every case you'll see a clear difference in how white women vote for the federal race(s) as opposed to the statewide races. We've lost several critical percentage points and as long as we are perceived inferior on national security I see no escape. White women are the only key voting block who changed sharply in partisan percentage from 2000 to 2004 in terms of federal races.

Big hint: negativity and blindly attacking Bush is the perfect blueprint to repell those thoughtful but conflicted swing white women now, and in the near future. We're doing a marvelous job.

[Daylin Byak]

167. STOP BEING SCARED

That's the problem with the dems, they won't fight back. Who cares if you offend a voter or two just as long as you campaign hard enough, say what you need to say and get your word across. That's all what counts.

We need to get rid of the DLC completely, Democratic voters like myself and my grandfather want real democrats that are going to support what is good for the country not to mention the party, we want dems that aren't afraids to speak out againist republican scandals, illegal wiretappings and an unjust war, we don't want corpreate DLC clones that aren't going to do anything but be the republicans bitch,suck up to corpreate welfare and vote for an unjust war and supreme court justices that will be nothing but a rubberstamp to the president and will want to take away your freedoms and your reproductive rights.

America wants progressives, people that want to fight for change not some stupid texan chimp.

Grow a set and speak your mind, basically be like Howard Dean without "the scream."

I think I got my point across.

[Silverhair]

195. You don't get people to vote for you by offending them. NT

[eridani]

248. So, how come blindly and negatively attacking Kerry worked?

Why did that work against Cleland a couple of years earlier? Why is being negative bad for Dems but good for Rethugs?

[leesa]

169. Maybe we should stop using Booga Booga scare propaganda 24/7

and we wouldn't have such a weenie American population who needs to be coddled so by a Big Daddy. This whole "strong on defense" crap is such nonsense. Such a con job by the arms industry to sell stuff.

[Daylin Byak]

171. I'll give you that

That's one thing that I hate about Bush and the republicans, they hide behind the american flag. Ever since 9/11 happened the republicans have been milking it every chance we get and everything bush has said or done has "been in the name of the terrorists" like the patriot act, iraq illegal wiretappings and you can't watch a speech with him with mentioning the words: terrorists or iraq every 2 sentences.

SHUT THE FUCK UP, 9/11 WAS 5 YEARS AGO, STOP ABOUT IT AND MOVE ON

[Silverhair]

197. And that is why we are viewed as weak on Nat'l Security.

Your statement would be viewed by the average person as meaning: "There is no threat to America so we can let our guard down."

Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, Muslims are rioting worldwide, Muslims recently rioted for about two weeks in France, every few weeks seems to bring a new Muslim bombing incident somewhere in the world. Never mind your explanations. That is what the average American voter is seeing on the news. So the average voter genuinely believes that there is danger. And you are going to try to tell them there isn't?

[Daylin Byak]

241. What i'm saying is this.....

About stuff like the wiretappings, the patriot act is this. I wouldn't have a problem with the patriot act but it goes beyond catching terrorists, it goes into digging up infomation from decent human beings like you and me who are not terrorists and who do not plan on reeking destriction on our great country.

I wouldn't have a problem with the wiretappings but the fact of the matter is this: President Bush did this illegally without a warrant from the FISA court and plus who do we know if he was tapping more than terrorists. Now if Bush actually did the right thing and got permission from a 3rd party which would be the FISA court than I would have no problem with this.

The war in Iraq was unjust from the beginning cause he lied to the american people for the reasons for going to war, with the connection to 9/11 and the WMD's. The sisutation with Iran is bad, they do pose a threat to the united states and possibly the world and they actually have WMD's. This is the place we should be in, not Iraq.

And i'm not weak on national security, i'm just looking out that every citizens is entitled to there privacy and i'm tired of bush mentioned 9/11 and the terrorists everytime he makes a goddamn speeach.

Did I get my point across?

[Silverhair]

256. Privacy is ultimately doomed, no matter who wins.

Democrat, Republican, or some other party, privacy will cease to exist within twenty years.

With the increasing ability of one person, or a small group of persons to cause really serious major harm, including killing tens of thousands, the demand for preventive instead of reactive law enforcement will increase. Preventive enforcement will mean monitoring. Modern technology makes it increasingly possible to identify a person as they are becoming radicalized.

Right now, it would be possible for a small group, (less than 20) to bring a modern industrial country to it's knees, in a single day. I won't say how over the internet. It would simply involve the group to think militarily and read some history, instead of thinking in terms of theatrical type targets.

And they would not need a nuke to do it.

Fortunately, modern terrorists tend to think in terms of theater, and of their acts as a kind of performance art.

[TankLV]

293. So that means we should all roll over and give up?

You speak only for yourself with your assesment.

Privacy is not doomed if WE do something, instead of giving up to a fate accompli as you state.

And with statements like that you expect the base to support your positions?

NEVER!

You spew stuff like that, you can count me and millions like me out, and remain a small minority party.

[Silverhair]

306. To predict something is not to desire it.

Someday, somewhere, there will be another really major terrorist attack. And the countries of the globe will be forced to a permanent preventive stance. To say a storm is coming does not mean one desires the storm, nor does anger change the inevitable.

[eridani]

250. That's exactly what I'd tell them.

So what if Iran wants nukes? Pakistan, India and Israel are far larger nuke threats, but nowhere near the biggest nuke threat, which remains Russia. (Not that they mean us harm these days, but because their command and control systems are so badly deteriorated. Bush, of course, slashed funding for the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Initiative which was intended to deal with this problem.)

The worst that Islamists have been able to do to us was 9-11. The only thing anybody needs to know about 9-11 is that it was eminently preventable. It happened because the current administration just didn't give a damn about stopping it. If the worst we have suffered from Islamists need not have happened, then they aren't really a threat.

Random attacks by various whackjobs are inevitable as long as the world is overpopulated and a fraction of the surplus population is alienated and unemployable at work worth doing. If the whackjobs live in Islamic countries, they'll invent a whackjob version of Islam. In Japan, it was Aum Shinrikyo. For Christians in this country it's whackjob Rapturism, and for non-Christians things like Heaven's Gate. A single crackpot in Seoul with no group affiliation whatsoever took out 100 people just by lighting off a can of gasoline in the subway at rush hour. This kind of random crap can be scary, but the chances of it happening to any one of us in particular is pretty remote.

[Silverhair]

257. And then they would vote Republican.

They would think that you didn't understand the danger.

And further, you would have alienated a percentage of Christian voters by referring to their religion as a whackjob. There ARE Christians who ARE Democrats. The belief in the rapture is shared by many millions of American Christians, including many that vote Democratic. By making the Democratic Party hostile to their faith, you kiss off their votes.

You would doom Democrats to permanent losing status.

[eridani]

276. But there isn't any real danger.

At least not any that is more likely than getting killed by a drunk driver. Are you saying that we just have to accept the fact that large numbers of our population are doomed to be perpertually disconnected from reality, and that there's nothing we can do about it? I don't buy that.

Whether it's Islam or Christianity or Hinduism, fundies are whackjobs. The Domininionist rapture bullshit was invented in the 19th century, and in fact is a heretical take on traditional Christianity. I have never yet heard of any who fundies will vote for Dems.

[Silverhair]

278. LOL !! Late 19th century? There is a 6th century sermon about it.

Try looking up Ephraem the Sryian, sermon titled: "Sermon on the Last Times, The AntiChrist, and The End of the World". He clearly talks about it, although he does not use the word Rapture. The doctrine is a vital part of the pretribulationist part of premillenarianism.

And then there is Irenaus writing in "Against Heresies" in which he take a very definate futurist interpretation of parts of Daniel and of the Revelation. He wrote in about the 2nd century.

As the early chruch consolidated into the Roman Catholic church, Augustine's amillenialism became orthodox, until the time of the Reformation.

Increase Mather, Puritan preacher, preached that "all the saints will be caught up in the air" to escape the tribulation. Althoug you probably hate him, (NO, he did NOT burn witches. He was against it.) it does prove that the doctrine was around well before the 19th century.

19th century invention? Definately NOT.

And Yes, many of them do vote Democratic. My neighbor two houses down is one. I am another. Most black churches believe in the Rapture, and most blacks vote Democratic.

I guess you would be happier if we were all ejected from the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party were to openly attack their beliefs, you could well see large segments of black preachers leaving the Party and influencing their congregations. Would that make you happy?

[eridani]

313. The current version of it seems to be pretty new

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/dominionismexposed.html

The above site dissects all the various versions, and no black churches are listed. How come MLK, Jr. never mentioned it in his sermons if it was that all-fired important?

What you are talking about is utterly amoral thuggery justified by idiotic beliefs, i.e, we do whatever we want to the earth and people we don't like because God's just going to trash it all soon anyway. I don't see how anyone who thinks there is such a thing as the public good can buy it. I'll bet that the evangelical environmentalists speaking up recently don't put a lot of store in it.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2005/12/what_the_left_b.html

The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God."
-- 15-year old fundamentalist fan of the Left Behind series

That is the sophisticated language and appeal of America’s all-time best selling adult novels celebrating the ethnic cleansing of non-Christians at the hands of Christ. If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of the last book in the Left Behind series, Glorious Appearing, and publish it across the Middle East, Americans would go beserk. Yet tens of millions of Christians eagerly await and celebrate an End Time when everyone who disagrees with them will be murdered in ways that make Islamic beheading look like a bridal shower.

<snip>

Fetishizing of the End Times as a spectacular gore-fest visited upon on the unbelievers is nothing new. But the sheer number of people gleefully enjoying the spectacle of their own blackest magical thinking made manifest by mass media is new. Or at least the media aspect is new. It reinforces the major appeal of these beliefs, the appeal being (to restate the obvious) that they get to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with them, and then watch God kick the living snot out of them. It doesn’t get any better than that.

[Silverhair]

314. You are attempting to set up a religious test to be a Democrat.

And it would appear that you want anybody that fails your religious test must be kicked out of the party.

You seriously misunderstand elements of the belief in the Rapture. The site you list holds to a different interpretation, but proves nothing. Anyway, whether the Rapture is sound Christian doctrine or not is ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT.

My point is: Many Democrats believe it, and you are attacking what they believe. If you want to attend some black churches that believe in the Rapture, come on down here and I can take you to a different one each Sunday.

Regarding MLK, his public sermons never talked about basic salvation either. His call was to preach to the nation about a horrible social sin. Because he never preached about salvation does not mean that he disregarded it. You are trying to make an argument from silence.

His denomination was National Baptist. They have over seven million members. You may find their beliefs on their web site here: http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/26.pdf Paragraph XVIII deals with last day matters. It is PDF so I can't cut & paste.

The Church of God in Christ is the largest black Pentecostal denomination. They have over 5 million members. You may find their beliefs on their web site: http://www.cogic.org/dctrn.htm

"THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

We believe in the second coming of Christ; that He shall come from heaven to earth, personally, bodily, visibly (Acts 1:11; Titus 2:11-13; St. Matthew 16:27; 24:30; 25:30; Luke 21:27; John 1:14, 17; Titus 2:11) and that the Church, the bride, will be caught up to meet Him in the air (I Thessalonians, 4:16-17). We admonish all who have this hope to purify themselves as He is pure."

In addition, there are many other small independent black churches, and my experience over a lifetime is that almost all of them will believe in the Rapture.

That these are often strong allies to Democrats is shown by this sociological article:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_1_60/ai_54422499

And I personally know white Democrats who believe in the Rapture.

You may hate the belief all you want to, but as you attack the belief, you need to be solidly aware that you are attacking the belief of tens of millions of Democrats. Maybe you would be happier if those millions of votes left the Party?

[eridani]

328. Why not consider the political function that the idea of Rapture serves?

Which is, fuck trying to improve the world you are now in, forget about any notion of attempting to collectively control the circumstances of your life, and forget about good deeds and Christian ethics, because God is going to trash the world soon anyway, and only belief matters.

Traditional Christians take strong stances against this attitude, which also undermines the notion that there even is such a thing as the public good. If there is not, the Democratic Party has no reason to exist.

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/2001-10/olson.html

The dispensationalist view of the end times was developed in the 1830s by an ex-Anglican priest named John Nelson Darby, who condemned most of Christendom as apostate and worldly. Dispensationalism subsequently spread throughout the U.S., in the early 1900s, as a result of the popular Scofield Reference Bible, which incorporated dispensationalist ideas into its footnotes. In the 1970s, the doctrine was popularized through the best-selling books such as The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey.5

Some Catholics might dismiss these unusual beliefs as unimportant. But that would be a mistake for a number of reasons. For one thing, despite waning popularity in scholarly theological circles, dispensationalism is still a widespread belief system among Fundamentalists and many Evangelicals, even many of those who are unfamiliar with the term.

Another reason is that the vast majority of dispensationalists are either actively opposed to, or are very suspicious of, the Catholic Church. Many of them believe the Catholic Church will play a central role in a coming one world apostate religion. In a sense, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, since the core of dispensationalism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine, even though they are compatible on some secondary issues.

<snip>

Yet from the Catholic perspective, the term rapture is problematic. On one hand, it can refer to being taken to be with Christ (1 Thess. 4:17; see CCC 1025). In fact, the term rapture comes from Jerome’s Latin translation of 1 Thes 4:17, meaning “to be caught up.” Catholics believe this will happen at the Second Coming, when our bodies are resurrected (see CCC 989-990).

On the other hand, the term “Rapture” is, in a sense, owned and copyrighted by dispensationalists. In popular discourse, it almost always refers to a secret snatching away of “true believers,” prior to the Tribulation, and distinct from the Second Coming. Since the term Rapture is rarely used in Catholic circles, it is easy to see how confusion among Catholics might arise. But in any case the Rapture, as dispensationalists use the term, is contrary to Catholic belief.

[Silverhair]

329. Now you have shifted to arguing about the rapture itself.

In your first post in this sub-thread, #250, you said, "That's exactly what I'd tell them. ... Random attacks by various whackjobs are inevitable... For Christians in this country it's whackjob Rapturism,..." I understand that as meaning that is what you would say if you were an official Democratic spokesperson.

My argument is that millions of voting Democrats believe in the rapture, and if the Democratic Party did as you urge, - publicly condemn such a belief - it would grievously offend most of them into sitting home at elections, or voting Republican. With that as an official stance of the Democratic Party, it would never win any election again. But you could console yourself in having a "pure" Party.

I believe I have proved that part of my argument.

I am not going to argue about whether the belief itself is valid. You are arguing from a Roman Catholic perspective, and you should realize that many of the Catholic doctrines, and even some books of the Catholic Bible, (Apocrypha) are rejected by Protestants. So to argue with a Protestant about the Rapture by quoting Roman Catholic doctrinal references is a waste. You have to start with something commonly accepted. I have proved that the belief itself is not of 19th century origin, but can be traced back to reformation times and to the early church.

[eridani]

333. Dispensationalism is recent though

And it is a trend that actively opposes Democratic values.

[Silverhair]

334. So what if it Dispensationalism is recent ?

I have proved that millions of Democrats belief in the Rapture. If the Democratic Party took your advise and called them "whackjobs", we would lose most of those votes.

Nor can you prove that it is anti-Democratic Party in values. After all, millions of Democrats sincerely believe in it, and still vote Democratic.

Disagree as an individual if you want to, but don't try to get the Democratic Party to take an official stance that millions of it's members are religious whackjobs.

[eridani]

335. Believing in the resurrection of the body has always been Christian

Believing that you will get to enjoy watching God trash the world and everybody that you don't like from a lovely ringside seat without disturbing your hairdo is not. I don't believe that anybody who believes this votes Democratic. If they do, it's for local offices only, a legacy of Jim Crow, and they vote Republican for all the national races.

I think the stance that the Dems ought to take is that ethical standards are relevant to politics, but religion isn't. What we want is people being on the same page ethically. Of all the people who are on the same page ethically, some will ground their ethics in some form of Christianity, and others won't.

[Silverhair]

336. Did you even read the references I gave you on black churches?

The Church of God in Christ, a black Pentacostal demonination with 5.5 million members has the Rapture as one of their doctrines on their web site.

Are you saying that they vote Republican?

You have blinders on. You hate the doctrine so much that you can't imagine anyone believing it except those whom you consider your enemies. Take off the blinders. Many Democrats do believe it too.

Remember, in your post #250 you said that Democrats should call those who believe in it "whackjobs". Are you now modifing that position?

An "ethical" position on what happens after death, or translation if it happens, is not something that any earthly political party can have a genuine position on.

[eridani]

337. I didn't see that they were dispensationlists

You know, the people who think it's ethical and virtuous to look forward to a safe ringside seat at the spectacle of God sticking it to everybody you don't like. I am saying that anyone who thinks that faith excuses vile deeds and this basic attitude toward other people is not in line with either Dem or traditional Christian values. You can believe in bodily ascention into heaven without that baggage, IMO.

I'll admit that being raised in the Catholic tradition, where faith is not a Get Out of Jail Free card, probably has something to do with my attitude.

[Silverhair]

338. They believe in the rapture. That was what you were calling a "whackjob".

If you want to call everyone who believes in the Rapture a whackjob, then you are insulting a whole lot of Democrats. The term Dispensationalism is almost never used.

Also, you don't understand the doctrine as well as you think you do.

First, you have to be saved, which means that you have to accept Jesus as Lord of your life. That means that you have to agree to attempt to do things the way Jesus would do them, and learn to live in His Love toward people. (That does not mean gooey, sentimental love. Sometimes, real Love has to be "Tough Love".) Such a person can believe in a Rapture, and while personally looking forward to the rapture for it's promised meeting with Jesus, can also fear it for those who would be - left behind. (BTW - I haven't read the books in the series, and I thought the first of the movies of the series was really, really stupid.)

I disagree strongly with many Roman Catholic doctrines, but I don't try to say that the Democratic Party should call then "whackjobs" for believing in Papal Infallibility. BTW - I am aware that P I only applies to matter of Faith & Doctrine, that it is not general infallibility. But several Popes have really failed on birth control. But I do NOT want the Democratic Party to attack the Catholic Church. It is enough that a Catholic accept that their Church does not get to write the secular laws of America. If they will agree to that, I am content and will accept them as a Democrat.

Religious tolerance is a progressive value, and you have NOT been showing much of that.

[eridani]

339. There is something badly morally wrong with people

--who look forward to watching people they don't like get killed gruesomely by God. Believing (or not believing) in papal infallibility does not have that kind of soul-warping consequence.

[Silverhair]

340. So you want kick them out of the Democratic Party?

That includes millions of black votes.

What happened to the progressive value of religious tolerance?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

268. I agree that these things are happening

I disagree that they're a major threat to the average American.

The Dems' mistake has been to buy into the Republican meme of "the terrorists are right around the corner and coming to kill us all so the entire country has to go under lockdown" instead of calling bullshit on the use of "the terrorist threat" to dismantle the whole Constitution.

Any individual MAY be killed in a terrorist attack,true, but that same individual is so many times more likely to be killed in a car crash than be killed in a terrorist attack that it's not even worth worrying about statistically.

I'd like to have the Democrats start taunting the Republicans about being scaredy-cats.

[eridani]

249. Amen!

The OP and the Rethugs want us to be a nation of bedwetters, and they have to a large extent succeeded.

[EXDIA53]

175. Well, I got an education...

with this. It is fairly depressing, actually. More than half of you think a Paul Wellstone Uberliberal could win a national election. There are a few of you who seem to have strayed into the Democratic Party from the Socialist Workers Party. And the people I guessed were young and inexperienced turned out to be my age. That I'm not too surprised at, having an old hippie ex-wife.
I guess the uplifting part of this has been those of you who are Dems with both feet on the ground, and who realize that we can win and improve the lives of all Americans without turning the country into the "People's Democratic Republic of America". I know I won't avoid the snarling ultra-left replies, but I actually have gotten around and seen how people live in other countries - mostly third world countries. It's just my opinion, but I'd rather not adopt a discredited, poverty-inducing socialist economic system here , no matter how romantic the "struggle" would be. America has it's problems, and some are deep and serious. One of them is that we have become a one-party state with no effective loyal opposition. This is partly because the GOP knows how to play the game better than we do and partly because the "Big Tent" is keeping us from having effective leadership. It's hard to nominate a serious candidate like Wes Clark when we have all the pulling and tugging from the "Che" crowd. As for FDR, he could have been a benevolent socialist by 1940 standards, but he was so far to the right of some of you on non-economic matters that you would probably have crucified him. We need a Democratic administration that will institute policies to help heal the economy, work to keep jobs in this country, vigorously defend the bill of rights, protect the separation of church and state without crushing religious expression, work with other nations instead of issuing ultimatums, and have the foresight to understand that the US has real enemies who must be dealt with, not appeased. There are a couple of Democratic leaders like that, but many of you have turned your backs on them as "GOP-lite". In the red states we need to win, a Wellstone clone will just be another sad failure. Some of the national pundits have been whispering about us Dems fracturing into two (or more) parties. I think it's already happened and they missed it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

180. may I respectfully inquire Sir,

who specifically do you mean by special interest?

and are you proposing preparing for imminent military action against specific countries? If so, who?

and

Please define "kissing Islamofasist ass." And within the context of the Democratic Party, who specifically is doing this?

[Sugarcoated]

181. Welcome EDIA53

I find your points well thought out - and some I have contemplated as well.

Who are your 08 candidates, the one's who fit the bill for you?

[Armstead]

183. Response from a loony leftie

---"I'd rather not adopt a discredited, poverty-inducing socialist economic system here , no matter how romantic the "struggle" would be."

That's the same phony choice that GOP right wingers set up. Any call for reasonable economic regulation and a safety net and other public sector action is automatically "socialism" by the GOP and right wingers.

If you spend more time here before spouting off, you might find that the majority of people who you seem to brand as the loony left are actually just calling for the same kind of common-sense liberalism embodied by people like FDR and Hubert Humphrey.

Hell, if peope like you had been in charge of the Democratic Party in the past we'd never had "socialist poverty inducing programs" and policies like Medicare, Social Security, a miniomum wage, etc. Those were branded as "radical" at the time too.

---"It's hard to nominate a serious candidate like Wes Clark when we have all the pulling and tugging from the "Che" crowd."

Again, maybe if you spent some time getting to know this place, you would know that many of the "Che" types were enthusiastic supporters of Clark during the primaries.


---"As for FDR, he could have been a benevolent socialist by 1940 standards, but he was so far to the right of some of you on non-economic matters that you would probably have crucified him."

Um, it's hard to compare World War 2 with the Iraq War.

[VonDoomPhd]

192. Three Points:

1.) It's not so much that the republicans "control the debate" as it is the republicans have redefined the center of American politics. In the wake of 9/11 and in a desire to show that Dems are tough on security as well, all that's happened is that the center is being pushed further and further to the right.

2.) The far-left of the Democratic party is like The Loch Ness Monster or Rodents Of Unusual Sizes: existence in doubt and only blurry photographs as evidence.

3.) FDR was a brilliant traitor to his class. We need more FDRs that shrug off charges of "socialist" and respond forcefully, "No. Idiot. It's about people. Politics is all about people."

[Stand and Fight]

206. When you can receive private messages...

When you can receive private messages, I would like to talk to you... I think you have some interesting ideas. I cannot say more here.

-S&F

[flaminbats]

193. which is more important?

did Martin Luther King put winning elections on top of his list?

Or did the civil rights movement turn a political party that embraced segregation, war, and backroom politics into a movement that fights against those things? It doesn't matter to me which party is in power..only that majority party fights for universal healthcare, equal rights for every citizen, and fights against the treatment of American workers as just another commodity or product to be bargained for.

[Blue_Tires]

204. wow...generalize much?

I know that no one on this site (especially you) owns the copyright on exactly what the makeup of the party should be, and what direction it should go in purplish-red states....But so far all i've seen from you is a bunch of general rants at what you see as the leftist fringe, without coming up with any solid ideas or suggestions yourself...WHO are these 'special interest groups' that you find so dangerous, and if you hate someone like Wellstone, WHO are the Dem leaders that you think could win in the red states?...and iirc, Clark was torpedoed by the more moderate voices in the party, stressing that cursed buzzword 'electability'

My other question is this: the GOP has done NOTHING but move rightward the last 10+ years---they haven't even pretended to try to cater to the middle, and 'moderate' repubs have long since been extinct...why should our party move rightward in following them?

[EXDIA53]

209. Don't move right or left...

The Democratic Party in the US is what Europeans call a "center-left" party, with accent on the "center". American history has shown that true left parties just don't make it here. European left parties are successful to the extent that they are because they have unions and an historical base in a left-leaning working class. We have neither. Our weak unions are made up of people who vote GOP while their leaders campaign for Democrats, and except for small groups or blue-collar ethnic neighborhoods in the rust belt, our working class is the foundation of the "God, Guns and Guts" movement that got Reagan two terms.
I understand your frustration, but the Democratic Party is NEVER going to be a true left party. It is a "big tent" party controlled by professional politicians who need the corporate donations to keep it afloat.
I seriously think those of you who actually believe more Americans would vote for an unadulterated left candidate than voted for Gore in 2000 are so far off the mark you might as well bark at the moon. And those of you who don't think the US is in danger of terrorist attacks are far more ignorant than I could have believed. I don't want Bush's brand of authoritarianism one minute longer than we have to, but I want it replaced by responsible people who know the way the world works and are willing to do what it takes to fix things internally and externally, not spout Noam Chomsky and stage sit-ins. My ex-boss several jobs ago was a fairly prominent Democrat (no names) who told me recently that the Democratic Underground was full of loonies. I think he was wrong. Some of you are, but many have your heads screwed on straight and actually want to win elections. If the DLC can do that, I've got no problems with them. Since I actually have to earn a living reading tea leaves about middle eastern affairs, I won't be posting much, but you haven't scared me away. It's been nice resting my injured knee and getting in touch with fellow Dems about domestic politics - something I never had time for. Now I know what the "democratic wing" of the Democratic Party thinks, and as they say here in the northern Virginia farm country - HOOOO-WEEEEE.

[Blue_Tires]

220. oh dear

"And those of you who don't think the US is in danger of terrorist attacks are far more ignorant than I could have believed."

talk about a broad brush....The only "danger" (lol) is the bush admin 1. Falling asleep to potential threats, 2. Scapegoating those that pose no threat, and invading innocent countries on false pretenses, and 3. Collaborating personally with criminal regimes to further enrich themselves, and consolidate power in the middle east....Believe me, the only terror attacks that will happen will be the ones bush allows to happen.

[flaminbats]

225. Why are you calling Bush a conservative?

A conservative is someone "inclined to preserve the existing order of things, opposed to change, or moderate ie cautious."

In the 2000 election Gore was the more conservative of the two candidates. Gore wanted to continue Clinton's practice of using surpluses to pay down the debt, to expand Medicare only enough to provide prescription drugs, and opposed most forms of change..positive and negative.

Bush wanted radical change...to cut taxes on those who are doing great and increase military spending by billions of borrowed dollars, to slash funding for programs for the disabled and unemployed, allow oil to be drilled on land owned by the taxpayers for profit, and attacking a weak country that has not attacked us. Bush believes the government should search the papers, houses, and effects of citizens without first demonstrating probable cause to get a warrant.

"I don't want Bush's brand of authoritarianism one minute longer than we have to..." What does that mean? Authoritarianism is a brand of politics that doesn't give us a choice, those in power decide when or if we no longer will need it! How can a candidate not be more liberal than Gore? Gore may of won more votes than Bush in 2000, but that didn't stop Bush from winning in the Electoral College.

The Democratic Party is no longer a big tent, it is only the outhouse for those of us not welcome in the Republican Party. Just as minorities were once not welcome in white schools and restaurants, we are not welcome in the party holding power. But history has shown this will only change when liberals make their presence known!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

270. All the Europeans I've talked to think that today's Dems are

"center-right," while the Republicans are "far right."

During the last election, my European friends said that Dennis Kucinich was the only presidential candidate who would qualify as being at all left in European terms, and even he would be center-left.

[TnDem]

309. Thanks

Your posts are a breath of fresh air and are spot-on.

I have been on this site for some time now and many times hesitate to post my opinions of potential winning strategies because of the very vitriol that you are experiencing.

What sums it up is your statement about Wellstone's,(and his ilk's), nationwide electability. Mr. Wellstone, (R.I.P), wouldn't garner 20% ofd the vote in my state FROM DEMOCRATS alone even if the Republicans stayed at home.

That's a fact. People just don't understand that the entire country is not Greenwich Village or urban DC.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

312. MINNESOTA isn't Greenwich Village or urban DC

Wellstone was a favorite of the VFW, for heaven's sake.

[LWolf]

269. Some random thoughts in response:

My overall interpretation of your OP and your subsequent "education" is that you think Democrats lose because they are not enough like republicans, in philosophy and practice.

I think Democrats lose because they allow republicans to frame every conversation. They allow all of the orwellian terms and talking points into the conversation without pointing out the unvarnished bullshit. They are afraid to speak truth, because they perceive that the american public is so brainwashed by rightwing rhetoric that they won't recognize truth when they hear it. And...because "winning" is more important than truth, anyway.

I'm pondering the recent increase in efforts to control those "liberal professors" and institute some top-down control over higher education. Why?

I think educated, thinking, people fall into two categories: those that recognize self-serving bullshit and dysfunction, and say so, and those that spout self-serving bullshit because they know they can make it "sound" good enough to the non-thinkers to own their support. The ethical vs the greedy.

Whether or not I think a Paul Wellstone liberal could win a national election or not, I know that leaders in that mold are what the nation needs, and what move the nation forward towards the ideals embodied in the constitution. I know that if I accept the official party line and support candidates who don't fit that profile, I'll never see the kind of leadership I want. It's hard to nominate a serious candidate who fits my idea of a leader. That doesn't mean I won't keep working on it.

Really, instead of trying to brand the left wing of the Democratic Party as proponents of poverty-inducing socialism, maybe you should take a close look at the reality. What you'll see is a viewpoint closer to social democracy, which you can find thriving nicely in prosperous Sweden. Frankly, I'd be thrilled to see the country head this direction.

I think you are correct in noticing the fracturing of the party. I don't see the party coming back together that easily. Your side of the party can pressure mine to "get in line" as much as you want. How do you respond to that kind of pressure? Do you think it's really productive?

I don't have any answers for you as far as the future of the nation, or the Democratic Party. In the end, the nation gets what she chooses, and so does the party.

[TankLV]

294. Yourf assertion to an education as evidenced by your diatribes is

questionable.

[Hippo_Tron]

302. Paul Wellstone inspired people like Jack and Bobby Kennedy did

If you know anything about him, you know that he was an absolute nobody who defeated a highly entrenched incumbent GOP Senator named Rudy Boschwitz with a multi-million dollar war chest. Wellstone had no money, no party support and only the help of an incredibly talented campaign staff and an incredibly dedicated field operation who would move mountains to get him elected because they loved him and knew how much good he would do in Washington. That is no small political accomplishment for anybody.

BTW, since you mentioned Wes Clark, you should no that pretty much everyone on DU from all sides of the political spectrum absolutley love him.

[Tom Bombadil]

310. In response to

and have the foresight to understand that the US has real enemies who must be dealt with, not appeased

Nobody is saying there isn't a real threat to the US. Where many democrats disagree with the Republicans is on the extent of the threat, and more importantly, how to deal with it. In four short years Bushco has squandered international goodwill, and at the same time managed to create thousands more terrorists where before there were only a handful.

In typical republican fashion you completley fail to understand the true complexity of 21st century Islamic terrorism - end result a more dangerous world, due in a large part to wreckless US foreign policy.

By the way, in European terms, if the democrats are centre-left, then the GOP is far right. What's with the European Union avatar anyway?

[CarlSheeler4U]

196. Sheeler Has a Slightly Different Read

We lose because we lost the 70's style "in your face" rebelliousness that believed that issues like, fair wages, environment and rights meant something other than slogans.

There's always a slight uptick in confidence when Reid, Dean and Pelosi take on the machine as Murtha did.

People who work together with one voice can change the political landscape in this country, but we can't offer up vanilla candidates who are advised by political hacks who take them to the center.

I'm unashamed about my progressive stance and we need more supporters who will stop bitching about what was or should be and do something more than write it to people who already agree, but to the majority who have become disenfranchised and complacent.

We do have a dream. It is America and it belongs to us. I'm a patriot and I'm willing to fight for this belief alone or with your help. Otherwise, what is the point of life as we now know it in America?

Carl

www.carlsheeler.com
Sheeler for US Senate

[Laelth]

232. Bingo!

I'm with you 100% on that. I think the party's leaders need to stand with the base and be proud of it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Vektor]

198. Nice try.

You lost me at "stolen election crap".

Please.

If you can sincerely sit there and attempt to pass off the ridiculous idea that our past TWO elections were conducted without any dirty tricks, you clearly have not done your homework, and desperately need to.

I'll tell ya something, when the chair of the Bush re-election committee for the state of Ohio, (Walden O'Dell) who also happened at the time to own Diebold, the company whose paperless machines "counted" our votes, says publicly that he PROMISES to deliver the state of Ohio's electoral votes to GWB, and proceeds to do just that (then quickly resigns from Diebold as soon as investigations begin) I believe him. I believe he did just what he said he would, FAR more than I believe any blind declaration from someone such as yourself.

If you had been on DU for a while, which you clearly haven't, you might have also have seen the poll asking DUers ages - the VERY VAST majority here are middle aged, 40-50 or so. Most of us here are NOT under 30, but nice of you to assume you know that. Though FWIW, many of the youngsters here have FAR MORE wisdom and insight into what's REALLY going on in America that those Americans twice and three times their age. Your post supports that point, if you are indeed as old as you claim.

Again. Nice try, but no way. If you can sincerely sit there and defend the stolen elections as having been "fair and square", I'd be tempted to question your motive as well as your ability to see what's right in front of you.

I suggest you start doing a little research on what happened in 2004, and until then take this foolishness elsewhere, please. At least once a day someone "shows up" at DU posting this drivel.

It never works. Think we haven't seen it before?

Edited to add: Where are my manners? Thanks for stopping by! :hi:

[goodhue]

203. no thanks, not buying

I agree with reason number one, but two through four are bogus DLC-like crap. Also I don't think DU skews as young as you think.

[Javaman]

207. Big yawn...

Yeah, another freep trying really hard to be a liberal by over arguing the point.

there are only a few kinds of freeps out there. They are:

-the raving lunatic.

-the repuke rebel that wants to be one of the guys by trying to "stir" things up at DU then yak about it over at freepland

-The moderate who tries to bring up somewhat intelligent points only to crumble when shown he/she are full of shit, then they go crazy with talking points when backed into a corner.

-The poser liberal who wants to come off as being a liberal but still praises ol' ronnie boy and bashes Clinton and wanting the good ol' days back, but also slides into talking points when cornered.

-Then there is the imposter (my personal fav), the one that comes on here trying to stir the pot as a liberal, continues to bash us when we call him on his/her bullshit, by saying "this is why the Dem's are failing" or "that kind of talk isn't going to solve anything" or, again, a personal fav, "and you call yourself a liberal?". These are the truly bizarre ones. I don't understand how trolling on here as a liberal serves any purpose other than falsely inflating their ego.

-lastly the closet liberal that can't let go of being a repuke because his or her's parents were repukes and going against them would drive them mad because that means thinking for themselves.

These are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head, if any of you think of any others feel free to add.

[EXDIA53]

210. The Poster Child for Why We Lose! n/t

[Javaman]

216. Knock yourself out dude. I don't fall for clap trap. n/t

[TankLV]

295. We certainly don't. We know trolls and imposters when we see 'em.

Couldn't agree more Javaman.

The OP already lost and doesn't know it yet.

[Nederland]

218. My thoughts exactly

Posters like this can't imagine that an intelligent person could actually disagree with them on any issue. If a person disagrees with them, they must either be stupid or delusional.

Sad.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

271. Yeah, they always give themselves away in the end

On another board where I post under a different name, there was a self-proclaimed "liberal" expressing incredibly vicious and racist anti-Muslim sentiments, to the point of wanting to nuke all the Middle Eastern countries.

When I called him on it, he referred to himself as "a far-left, tree-hugging, peacenik, Bush-hating, Hillary-loving liberal."

Can you see the two points at which he gave himself away? :evilgrin:

[AtomicKitten]

208. I'd prefer to discuss how the Dems WILL win.

[Silverhair]

211. To do that, you first need to talk about what we are doing wrong.

You can't correct mistakes until you identify them. I we refuse to look at our mistakes, we will continue to make them - and continue to lose.

[AtomicKitten]

224. you go right ahead -

you'll find plenty of company here at DU to eviscerate the Democratic Party.

The rest of us will roll up our sleeves and go to work.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

213. Wow I didn't think you could fit THAT MANY RW talking points into one

short post!

"Blame America First" crowd, Rush Limbaugh couldn't have said it any better!

[ProSense]

215. Why did Gore lose?

Two recommends for a post filled with RW inaccuracies and BS generalizations.

[Laelth]

226. Hmm ...

I get suspicious when a 25 post noob comes on DU to tell us "what politics are all about." Nevertheless, despite your somewhat condescending tone which, perhaps, we deserve, I want to respond, specifically, to your point #2, that "The candidates our core activists support can not win swing votes."

I think you're dead wrong about that. Consider, if you will, the following excerpt from a letter I sent to Democratic Senators who voted against cloture of the debate on the Alito nomination.

Consider, if you will, how it is that the Republican Party became the majority party in Congress. Republicans do not pander to the middle. They support their base and expand their base through strength. I have heard many Republicans complain about the direction in which the country is heading. I have heard them complain about numerous Republican policies. Regardless, these same people vote Republican because they admire the unity and strength of the Republican Party. Republicans are widely perceived as being “strong” while Democrats are regarded as “ineffective, divided, and weak.” This is so because Republicans support their base; they support the principles they espouse. Democrats regularly vote against their base in order to appease supposed “centrist” voters. This strategy is killing us. It makes us look ineffective, divided, and weak when our elected officials vote against the interests of the party’s base. Thus, we lose elections because it is clear that the party will not fight for its stated principles. You, Senator, have enabled the further deteriorization of the party by pandering to centrist voters. If the Democratic Party is to survive, this can not continue.

I urge you to consider that most Americans do not cast their votes on the basis of “issues.” In this day and age, most Americans vote for strength, clarity of purpose, and raw determination. You may believe that some voters will punish you for standing with the party’s base on various issues. However, I invite you to reconsider that notion. I believe that most Americans vote for strength and resolve, regardless of where a given candidate stands on a particular issue. If this is so, the Democratic Party needs to radically change the way it operates. Its elected officials need to learn to listen to the party’s base and vote accordingly. Defection must be punished, severely.

If elected Democrats will regularly support the party’s liberal base, then those of us who follow politics will be pleased to see our representatives actually representing us. We will be encouraged to further support the party and its candidates. By the same token, the majority of Americans, even if they disagree with us on some issues, will see the strength and resolve that is required to have an effective national party. We will win if we can earn the respect of voters. We can only gain that respect by showing an unwillingness to sacrifice the party’s principles.

It's not the core activists who are the problem. It's the "race to the middle" Democrats who don't support their core voters who make the whole Democratic party look weak and unprincipled.

imho

-Laelth

[IndianaGreen]

229. Why Dems lose? Dems have an identity crisis!

I think it is because of too much weenie Kool-Aid, but Arianna says that Dems suffer from identity crisis. What identity? When party leaders enable the dictator Bush, there is no identity to speak of!

Published on Thursday, February 9, 2006 by the Huffington Post

Dems Have (Yet Another) Identity Crisis - On the Front Page of the New York Times

by Arianna Huffington

Another week, another episode of our least favorite long-running political soap opera, Desperate Democrats.

In the latest installment, Democratic leaders decide to have an all-out, full blown identity crisis. On the front page of the New York Times. Above the fold.

The article, penned by Adam Nagourney and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, reads like a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Except the only ones laughing will be Republicans.
The party bigwigs -- both those on the record and off -- come across as dithering, hand wringing poltroons, worried about taking too strong a stand on... anything. It's as if they've learned nothing from the last three elections.

The Democratic arsenal is stocked with powerful weapons -- Iraq, Katrina, Abramoff, Libby, Osama, illegal spying, repeated lying, etc., etc -- and yet, according to the Times, "party leaders are divided about what Democrats should be talking about." What's more, if they ever manage to decide what to talk about, Dems are apparently clueless how they should talk about it -- "divided over whether to take on the Republicans in a more confrontational manner, ideologically and politically, or move more forcefully to stake out the center on social and national issues."

Oh, boy. Here we go again. Be afraid. Be very afraid. The Dithering Dems have become the Party That Couldn't Think -- Let Alone Run -- Straight.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0209-31.htm

[Tyranus]

230. ...

Democrats need to focus on the things that matter. No more of the angry bash-Bush crap. I propose candidates this year campaign on the most relevent issues, like strengthening social security, instituting national health care, creating manufacturing jobs for those that have been displaced, and focusing on security of the country by enforcing immigration laws, something Republicans refuse to do. They also have to make sure to keep taxes low for the middle class, the backbone of the country.

They can promise not to invade any countries without just cause, but running on Iraq as an issue is doomed to fail. It's better to focus on real domestic issues that actually affect the lives of every American. Democrats should denounce this administration's willingness to work with a blatantly corrupt United Nations. They should also denounce our relationship with China. Pouring US dollars into that country while it supports practically slave-labor just so Wal Mart can have it's low prices is deplorable.

It's time for America to be America again.

[AtomicKitten]

231. your very first post!!!

Welcome to DU, Tyranus!

[Laelth]

233. Welcome to DU!

n/t (no text) ;)

:dem:

-Laelth

[IndianaGreen]

234. It's the war and the lawbreaking, stupid!

It's time for America to be America again.

That's as bad as Kaine's "there is a better way!" Another slogan devoid of meaning!

How about "It is time to restore the Republic and punish the lawbreakers!"?

How about the Democrats firing all of the political consultants that they rely on?

[Tyranus]

235. If all you care about

is putting George Bush in prison, then Democrats will never regain power.

It's not the consultants you have to fire, it's people like Howard Dean who give the party an image of lunacy.

[IndianaGreen]

237. It's the Constitution that is being trampled on by our budding dictator!

It was the Constitution, not military imperial adventures, that kept us free from our own brand of Hitler and Mussolini, at least until now.

As Democrats, if we can't stand up for basic values like liberty and freedom, what do we stand for? We cannot fold in the face of fear and intimidation by the White House. (Especially if we hope to have any chance of winning future elections.) Rolling over now is not the answer.

-- Russ Feingold

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/10/115433/566

[Daylin Byak]

242. So, atleast he stands up for people...

Yes i'll agree Dean can go off the deep end sometimes like when he said that the GOP is nothing but a white christian party but atleast he speaks his mind and makes sense. Plus he has balls unlike some of the Dems we have in office like fucking Ben Nelson or Maria Cantwell.

Dean's all right in my book.

[VonDoomPhd]

308. Dean was wrong about this....

The GOP is not the party of White Christians.
It is the party of the selfish; the POS.

It is the party of those that disparage the poor and condemn humanitarian programs as "hand-outs", ostensibly for the lazy and unworthy and undetermined, etc., et-fucking-cetera.

It is the party of those that believe that the importance of their nephew having an X-Box360 at christmas is more important than that of an elderly woman whose hip-replacement sends her into bankruptcy.

This is not "leftist hate-speech."
This is not an opinion.
This is the truth.
I can prove it, MacGuyver-like, with two pinecones and a stick of bubble-gum:
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE PARTY OF THE SELF-ABSORBED.

American politics is suppposed to be about people.

Let's start acting like it.

Assholes, the fucking lot of them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

272. All good ideas, and welcome Tyranus

A little bit of Bush-bashing doesn't hurt as a first step (gotta break the hypnotic spell), but it has to be followed by clear, easily understood proposals that voters can see as impacting their lives.

There are two possible reactions to becoming disillusioned with the Republicans:

1) Voting Democratic. This is the one you hope for. BUT, the second reaction is just as likely if voters don't find a positive reason to vote Democratic beyond "We're the Unrepublicans":

2) Not voting at all. This is where 50% of the country is right now.

[TankLV]

296. Hoo boy - another one!

They are comming out in droves today.

But you do have all your right wing repuke talking points and labels correct at least.

[radio4progressives]

247. Joe "Moderate" Lieberman accepted Sean Hannity's Endorsement

and promise to Fund Raise, organizing a Conservative for Lieberman campaign..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=384058&mesg_id=384058

[IndianaGreen]

260. Another reason for Connecticut Democrats to support Ned Lamont

and toss Holy Joe out in the primary.

This also lends support to Holy Joe's comments that he would run in November even if he were to lose the Democratic nomination for the Senate.

Joe is getting ready to switch to GOP!

[mtnsnake]

280. Give us a link to this, & not just a DU link that has no links within it

There is not one link in the link you provided that proves Lieberman accepted Hannity's endorsment, so how about coming up with a link that supports your subject.

I don't like Lieberman either, but if you can't provide an official link that proves this, then it's simply heresay.

[retread]

255. What do you mean "we?" n/t

[BlueBoat RedSea]

284. Finding Winning Ideas

I saw a post here regarding Democrats Pledge to America and it was similar to thoughts I have been struggling to clarify. This thread seems to be the same vein. My idea was to create something like Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms; simple but powerful statements of the themes that motivate us to be politically involved. The pledge post generated a vigorous and useful discussion. Hopefully, this one will too.

My working title is Dem Ethics and this is not offered as a finished work. It is certainly not short enough to be a motivational document. The explanatory text is intended to provide context - what I had in mind - for the topics.

The post is also personal. It pertains to my feelings about a specific group whose ideals may or may not be relevant to the party as a whole. Obviously, I hope they are relevant.

As you’ll notice if you struggle through this, I haven’t found my ending. It trails off in an unfinished paragraph. I wanted to include a concept I’ll simply call unity. It grew from my revulsion to a Paul Harvey commentary. I’ve included what was intended as a public letter. It explains the idea that I want to convey. If at all possible, I’d like this concept to be a part of my finished product.

I hope that this spawns a good discussion and helps to further our shared cause.

Dem Ethics Essay

Like a lot of disappointed Democrats, I’ve been soul searching since 2004. Am I that far out of the mainstream? Or worse yet, has the mainstream have moved so radically away from me? John Kerry ran a good campaign. He presented thoughtful approaches to the issues. “Stronger at Home, Respected in the World” offered a vision for the future. Maybe the policies were a little wonkish and the slogan a little abstract. Still, we should have been able to convince rational voters to stray the course. Where did we go wrong?

After a year of clipping articles and jotting notes, I’m ready to add my voice to the crowded conversation. Despite our best efforts, other people defined us. They painted us they way we used to look, and it stuck. John Kerry and his supporters became poster children for everything discomforting about the 60’s. It wasn’t just that we had the audacity to question a terrible war, it was how we looked in the process. The social revolution of that time was rude, messy and often downright ugly. Never mind that the same could be said for 1776. What was reviled so long ago by loyalists to the crown is revered now; mainly thanks to those who survived to write the history. The history of the ‘60’s generation has yet to be written and therein lies our opportunity.

Midway through life, it is beginning to dawn on many of us that our time is finite. What will be our legacy? Will we bend the arc of history or will we simply fade away in a purple haze - a promising opportunity wasted?

We came of age under the shadow of Viet Nam. Students stood up and questioned the war. And it didn’t stop there; young people searched for insights about race, gender and the environment too. Easy answers sprang up like new fashions and died just as quickly. Solutions, it turned out, would take time. During those frenzied years, our mission was to challenge the status quo. The mission of those who froze us in still life during the campaign is to maintain that status quo. We have unfinished business.

An Ethic of Environmental Stewardship. Our generation must leave a cleaner and more vibrant environment than we inherited.

Our generation was the first to hear about smog and pollution in the classroom; the first to begin their adult lives wondering if the earth would continue to sustain us. Though in earlier years, the primary concern was air and water, it now is abundantly clear that energy - sources and uses - is the keystone of a sustainable future. We began to see our roll as stewards rather than owners of our planet. Succeeding generations have not experienced the shock, hence the urgency, that we felt. It is up to us to make environmental stewardship an ethic, not simply a personal virtue.

An Ethic of Financial Responsibility. Our generation must honor its financial obligations.

We have a public debt as high as the moon and it will take a Apollo scale effort to pay it. Though much of the problem was created by others, we simply can’t turn over such a mess to our children. To do so would forever brand us irresponsible, which incidentally would greatly please our conservative opponents. They could go about the merry business of enriching themselves at our eternal expense. That is reason enough to fight; though ultimately, it is our moral obligation to pass on a country that still belongs to us. We must not allow our children to be renters in our own land.

An Ethic of Equality. Our generation must eradicate structural barriers to social mobility.

Racial prejudice has been a central conflict of American life since colonial times. Our rhetoric - all men are created equal -has never matched our deeds. Martin Luther King provided a map to follow. His arc of history bent toward justice. Our energy must bend the path of our ideals toward the path of reality. Barriers remain and can reemerge as the public begins to look upon the struggle for civil rights as history and not a living movement. It is up to us to keep the dream alive.

An Ethic of Protecting Freedom. Our generation must expand the concept of defending freedom.

The defining issue of our generation, is the debate over defending freedom. Our generation is falsely accused of being unwilling to defend it but that is not true. We know that freedom isn’t free; we also know that war alone does not make us free. As youths, we not only sang but understood “a time for love, a time for hate, a time for war, a time for peace.”

The process of safeguarding freedom suffers from a lack of imagination; and in this theater, we may well find our greatest opportunity to write our history. Since the 60’s we’ve ridden an unprecedented wave of technical innovation. The science of the social world hasn’t kept pace with the science of the physical world. We must employ our wealth of intellectual curiosity and inventiveness to demonstrate new approaches to conflict that deliver results.

We are uniquely positioned to lead the necessary national debate. Since we came of age, youths have repeatedly been asked to join in foreign military actions. Yet, we have not questioned these ventures with the same intensity applied to the conflict of our generation. If anything, we have allowed the bar for military engagement to be lowered with the false comfort of volunteer forces. It must be made clear that lives have the same value regardless of the means of conscription. Bold leadership is desperately needed.

In addition to delegating defense to a professional military, Americans have also become complacent regarding the methods employed. We have come to believe that if we don’t know the actions taken on our behalf, we are innocent of moral transgressions; our desire being to live our lives under the umbrella of an all powerful state while at a safe remove from the troubling details. If the ‘60’s generation stood for anything, it was for direct engagement in the policies of our government; and above all, its foreign policies. Americans are fully responsible for America’s actions. In the years since 9/11, we have seen the terrible consequences of our indolence. We must reconnect ourselves to the actions of our government; reasserting the founding principle that it is a government of, by and for the people. Foreign policy, most particularly foreign military action, must never again be delegated to the few, regardless of their pride in serving. If even one American is asked to go to war, we must all share the risks, the burdens and the consequences. Establishing this ethic should change the dynamic of the decisions to engage in foreign actions.

Good stewardship often demands that we choose the difficult path - one that isn’t entirely clear. We must come to be known as the generation that faces the unknown without loosing the way. This is where our youthful willingness to experiment can transition into our mature wisdom to lead.

Discussions about ethics revolve around universal truths and immutable laws. Not incidentally, the great religions tend to focus upon similar laws; illustrating them as sacred parables. At the center of the ethical debate is the essential nature of humans vs. their moral imperatives as expressed through religion or through secular reason. In bitter irony, progressives (as many young activists of the ‘60’s became) are currently portrayed as being immoral while regressives are held up as paragons of virtue. Again, the indelible image of civil disobedience during the ‘60’s seems impossible to escape; a circumstance regressives enthusiastically encourage. However, the truth is self-evident; progressive ethics demand that the higher path be taken. The progressive struggle is the moral struggle. We must not yield on this principle.

Finally, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between the American Ideal and the American Reality....

We are not done. We will not be bypassed. We will not have our history written for us.
End of Essay

The Unsent Letter
And Now, the Rest of the Story

“And so it goes with most nation states, which, feeling guilty about their savage pasts, eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded, and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry and up and coming who are not made of sugar candy.”

Paul Harvey, June 2005

Mr. Harvey was commenting on a quote from Winston Churchill regarding Pearl Harbor. Churchill opined that America hadn’t advanced so far because it was made of sugar candy. According to his world view, those on top in this world get there because they are ruthless in their use of power. Harvey was downright sanguine about it. He expounded on the darker points of American History such as the slaughter of native Americans, and even slavery. His candor was absolutely chilling. Even nuclear weapons got two thumbs up in his comprehensive walk on the dark side. In Harvey’s sad world, getting to the top and staying there is all that counts.

Though this may be the ultraconservative world view, it is not the picture painted for their children. Raised in Sunday School and obedient to the Scout’s Honor, coming of age must be a terrible moment of truth. The gloomy right of passage when the stark realities are revealed must be what prepares their young for life as conservatives; saying one thing and meaning the opposite. It wins elections and keeps them on top and that’s all that matters. Right?

Wrong, actually. Wrong because it carves a chasm between heart and mind. Wrong because it mocks morality and faith. Wrong because it makes one’s very image a thin veneer hiding a rotten core.

Ann Coulter is right about one, and only one, thing. Liberals even grow up differently. Liberals escape the wrenching metamorphosis and go on believing the lessons of their youth. We know the world often falls short of the ideal and go on striving. Whether it is John Kerry or Paul Hackett, we draw strength from battles waged well. Our greater victory is over the temptation to exchange who we are and what we believe for fleeting advantage.

Mr. Harvey sees a dark world becoming darker. He misses a critical point. Why is our nation becoming more cynical, more selfish and more violent? With ironic consistency, his answer may be the opposite of his prescription. Might it just be that the humans can’t sustain themselves forever with their hearts unplugged from their minds?

[Debs]

299. I think Dems have two inherent problems election time

1)They try to simultaneously please the corporations that have the big money to donate AND the downtrodden people who are supposed to be their base. This dichotomy is hard to pull off

2) Republicans just flat out LIE. That is a huge advantage. Turning a war hero into a coward who didnt deserve his medals. Telling everyone a tax cut that was going to mostly benifit the wealth was mostly going to benifit those on the bottom of the economic ladder. Heck Bush even lied strait out about what policies he had supported previously. When the press lets the GOP get away with telling flat out lies it is a real advantage to them

[Hippo_Tron]

303. Could you give some examples please?

I've heard every Republican pundit from Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter talk about points 2-4. So I'm inclined to believe that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are completely full of shit as they always are and thus you are too.

Would you care to give some examples of this blame America first crowd? What are these liberal interest groups that you speak of? What democrats don't care about national defense?

[Montauk6]

305. Let's be frank here

It's because TOO MANY Americans are too lazy (therefore don't go out and VOTE) OR too stupid (who cares if our children and their children are saddled with more and more debt; consarn it all, we have FIGHT to keep them gays from gittin' hitched!).

What else but a sadly unaware populace would buy the trickle-down theory as an excuse to give more tax cuts/subsidies/etc. to the wealthy?

Please forgive my extreme cynicism but there ya go.

[spiderbiter]

311. I think Democrats lose because...

...WE define the Republicans and fight them from THAT standpoint. Instead, we need to listen to how THEY define THEMSELVES and fight them from THAT standpoint.

[rman]

315. Stolen election 2000 is the very reason why DU was founded

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html
"About Democratic Underground, LLC
Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas."


Some here will not let you control the debate by accepting the exclusion of election fraud from the debate.

Election fraud does not mean there are no other factor why Dems lose, but election fraud can not and should not be ignored.

DU Election Reform forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[EXDIA53]

317. Thanks for clearing that up!

Now I know why so many of you sound so different from the Dems I know! I like DU because I rarely get a chance to hear Dem voices outside the beltway. I don't agree with much of what I hear, but it helps to know what you're thinking. On the other hand, many of the Dems here may seem like DINO's to you, but they are very experienced with national politics and know a great deal about how government really works. Both sides of the Democratic party need each other - hence the Big Tent. If you want a smaller, more ideologically pure Smaller Tent, be prepared to lose national elections into the foreseeable future.

[rman]

319. Former Defense Intelligence Agency, hm?

Putting forth logical fallacies (argument of authority: "i know how politics really works") in trying to convince us ignorant DU-ers to support what amounts to a RW agenda.

It's not as though your talking points or your methods are exactly new to us.

Given that you didn't even know the reason why DU was founded, there's probably a lot more that you don't know about DU.
If you'd have lurked around here for a bit you'd know that many of us know more then we'd really want to know about how politics works.

[EXDIA53]

321. Nice Icon. n/t

[rman]

322. Ignoring the issues is part of the method

When ignoring fails, ridicule starts.
When ridicule fails... well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

You probably also have no idea how popular the Latin American progressive platform is here on DU.

[EXDIA53]

323. Oh, I can just imagine...

But that's someone else's turf, not mine.

[rman]

325. Yeah, operatives are usually specialized,

aren't they.

[Bridget Burke]

331. OK--only those who live inside the Beltway understand....

What it is to be a Democrat. Yet you keep telling us how to win "The People."

Edited for a correction: The Beltway folks don't actually LIVE inside the Beltway. Too "inner city." They commute from Outside the Beltway.

[Bridget Burke]

316. Let me ask you again--what do you define as "special interest groups:

I'm old enough to remember when "Blame America First" was new! And I remember the people who used the phrase.

I think the Iraq adventure was wrong & it's turning out even worse. We don't need to invade Iran or Syria, either. Of course, you probably think that means I "kiss Islamofascist ass."

Peddle it elsewhere, please...

[EXDIA53]

318. No, I agree with you -

Invading Iraq was the stupidest thing the US has done in years. It has totally botched our efforts in Afghanistan and turned the "Arab street", however you define that, against the US.
The special interest group that most offends voters in red states seems to be People for the American Way. I don't pay much attention to them, but many of my friends and associates think they are killing us at the polls. Let me reiterate, I spend 99% of my time looking at the mid-east, not the US. Domestic politics only seriously caught my attention after Bush got elected. I voted in every election since 1972, but my interests were elsewhere. The problem for me is, I want Bush gone and I think Dems have shot themselves in the foot so much, they are starting to think it's normal. No matter who the GOP nominates in '08, if we nominate anyone to the left of Gore, they will wipe the floor with us once again. Of course I know many of you think we lose because we nominate "centrist" candidates. I can't tell you how sad I think that is.
Anyway, continue to post on this thread. I have to go back to work, so I'm signing off.

[Bridget Burke]

324. People for the American Way is not a "special interest" group.

It is an advocacy group.

President Bush has proposed to make his tax cuts for the wealthy permanent while again attacking programs for low-income people, senior citizens, and children in the name of deficit reduction.

In response to President Bush’s latest budget proposals, People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas released the following statement:

"The net result will be bigger deficits over the next five years. President Bush has already been responsible for the four largest deficits in history and the nearly doubling of the national debt. The budget he proposes today charts a course of red ink as far as the eye can see while clinging to failed proposals such as Social Security privatization, and reckless tax cuts for the wealthy. And now he is going after Medicare too, and looking to cut Medicaid, education, child care, and housing programs."

www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/

Here, we have some of the "special interest groups" served by the evil PFAW. People who need Social Security & (maybe) Medicaid. People who want better education & housing. People who worry about the defecit.

Yeah, right.

[Silverhair]

330. A distinction without a difference.

Most people will see no difference between an "advocacy group" and a "special interest group". In fact, I don't. It is just semantics. I suppose the difference is if the group is for or against something one supports.

That is NOT at attack on the PFAW.

[CarlSheeler4U]

326. Sheeler We will win when we say we will

Here's a more positive outlook

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2450397&mesg_id=2450397

[Odin2005]

327. We lose because of the culture war.

I know many people who are very left-wing economically, but vote Republican because of gay marrige, abortion, or gun control. The GOP has been very sucessful in framing the debate, getting people who are socially right-wing but economicaly left-wing to become single issue voters.

[HughBeaumont]

332. So in other words, it's AOK to be as far to the right as possible . . .

but to even be SLIGHTLY left of center . . . THAT'S BAD!! BAD, I SAY, MOONBAT!

Those who control the media control the message. Republicans own the media, they control the message, and if not outright, they place their own little slant on it (witness Katie Couric's desparate attempt to smear Kerry while on her show and Kerry's subsequent smackdown of her weak effort). Sorry that they have all of the cash and corporations on their side, and sorry if you're so damned deluded that you refuse to believe that, but that's the way it is. Dems will get interrupted, chided and strong-armed when they attempt to make a point and Repukes will be given the full nine yards to spray whatever cat piss they can distract with this week. It's even this way with the callers on C-Span: notice how they let every yokel yahoo vomit RNCTP hairballs and not ONE of those hosts calls them on their bullshit, but they give no love to Dems at all?

You're playing the "Appearance" card? Does middle America even know or care who the "Free Mumia" crowd is? You're making it seem like they have a larger voice than they actually do. And so what? You don't like their message, you don't have to pay attention to it. Most of those at the September 24th March were alongside of them. You didn't see it because, again, Repuke-run corporations control our media outlets.

You want a message? Fine. Look to Howard Dean's Five Points. I think this is the most sound-bite-friendly thing that we should stand for.

One: American jobs that will stay in America, using energy independence to generate those jobs.
Two: a strong national defense based on telling the truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies.
Three: Honesty and integrity to be restored to government.
Four: A health care system that works for everybody just like they have in 36 other countries.
Five: a strong public education system so we can optimism and opportunity back in America.

Strike those down. Please. How could ANY working American, rural, urban or otherwise, be against those points? Not even the most Bewsh-loyal suck-ass would be in disagreement with at least one, if not two of them. The only problem I can see with them is, well, good luck getting the plutocrats running our various corporations to go along with them. Personally, I think it would make them MORE money even in the short term.

And we didn't lose that election "fair and square". Vote machine chicanery, Rove-inspired gay-bashing, my state's uber-religious SOS who oversaw our state and our lousy media worked hand-in-glan to kill that for us.