~ Why we do NOT want "moderates" to head our party ~

[rpgamerd00d]

[me b zola]

1. exactly

Dem "moderates" today are slightly to the right of Goldwater. I support a TWO party system.

[Dr.Phool]

2. I'm with the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

But after the next few days, who knows where I'll be?

[w13rd0]

3. According to your graph...

...the moderates shouldn't want to lead, because in NOT leading, the compromise falls squarely within inches of their ideaology. Kind of a simplistic view (who says that the Rs, who are now in power, would even bother to compromise with the Ds on the far end...or the ones nearer. They've shown time and again that they don't believe in compromise).

[Armstead]

4. Moderates are fine -- as long as they are moderate LIBERALS

There's a difference between a "moderate" and a "centrist."

A modrate is clearly liberal, in tems of policies. Doesn't reflect whether they are fighters or not in tactical terms. Ted Kennedy could be called a modeate liberal, as could Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, etc. They may disagree with those further left on the extent of change required, or perhaps on tactics. But they are pulling in the same direction.

Centrists are the flies in the ointment, becaue they are neither fish nor fowl. They are maybe a little bit liberal in some ways, but very corporate and conservative in others. Because of that, they keep our side pulling in different directions, which ultimately means we get dragged further and further to the right.

[unblock]

6. i think it has more to do with definitions than logic.

today's "left wing lunatic fringe" is actually yesterday's "liberals"
today's "liberals" are actually yesterday's "moderates"
today's "moderates" are actually yesterday's "conservatives"
today's "conservatives are yesterday's "right wing lunatic fringe"


the reason we don't want "moderates" running OUR party is because these people are basically republicans. they are the fords, reckefellers, eisenhowers. let them fight to regain control of the republican party.

[Armstead]

7. Yes to an extent -- But I'm an old fart

Well a 54 year old fart. By my yardstick Ted Kennedy is still a moderate liberal, Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders are liberal liberals. Hillary Clinton is a moderate conservative Republican. Evan Bayh is a conservative Republican.

[unblock]

5. this supposes that once elected, leaders ignore their party

which is more than a little simplistic.

a moderate leader might say 'that compromise sounds fine with my personal views, but i got an awful lot of liberals in my party who would crucify me if i accepted your proposal.'

[BurtWorm]

8. Well put.

Excellent graphic display of information. :thumbsup:

[rpgamerd00d]

9. Thanks, I'm big on "pictures" since the Repukes are so uneducated

Helps them understand us better, ya know?

:rofl:

[Cleita]

10. Because what a moderate is today is a corporatist.

The company is all and we are beholden to the company and they will tolerate us long enough to buy their products.

No that isn't an inclusive society in my mind and it's not my middle ground.

[rpgamerd00d]

11. We need to fight against corporate takeover, and we cannot...

...do it from the middle.

[Marr]

12. Yep. And eventually, you've drifted right into fascism.

Which is what we have today. After years and years of "compromise" by an opposition party that really doesn't want to oppose the Republicans on any of the issues that actually matter, this is where we are. The public gets to choose between what would've been far-right Republicans just 20 years ago, and outright fascists.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Why we do not want so-called "progressives" to head our party.

----------------------------------------------------
!                                                ! !
(D) - twenty seats                          (R) -!the rest
                                                 !
                                              compromise 
                                              falls here