for a change.

we might be able to get things done.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and new baby brother Sammy, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

democratic voters would turn out and vote instead of staying home.

But it's incorrect.

There are population centers where nothing remotely Democratic will prosper.

And have him tell everybody what he REALLY thinks of Romney.

lol

Respectable, great background. And from Virginia.

and get him to speak. He could make as much sense as any fucking living republican.

Do they keep them on a game preserve somewhere?

see my post below #11, I believe

It's perhaps a statement on both parties...

It says Democrats are far less ideological and are about governing; whereas, the gop ... are the polar opposite.

.... protective custody

would be my first guess.

or pull a Spector and cross the floor for her last few months in office? It's not like she'd have anything to lose.

Snow has been the most liberal R in the Senate recently, but she has been to the right of the most Conservative Dem.

What about Chaffee, a former moderate to liberal Dem from RI? I think that Snow would be better, but Chaffee could help.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/11/politics/democrats-look-to-snowe-in-search-for-gop-moderate-to-speak-at-national-convention/

AUGUSTA, Maine — While political observers in Maine focused Friday on whether Gov. Paul LePage would attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa later this month, a national political writer speculated whether another top Maine Republican would be invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention in September.

Joe Hudson, writing for AtlanticWire, listed Sen. Olympia Snowe, who earlier this year decided to halt her bid for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate, among moderate Republicans whom Democratic convention organizers would consider as speakers to add an air of bipartisanship to the party gathering in Charlotte, N.C.

Hudson cited “an event planning document obtained by Politico’s Mike Allen saying Democrats want a ‘centrist Republican leader’ or ‘notable GOP woman’ to play a part at the Charlotte convention on at least two of the nights.”

“A punch in the gut could also come from Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, who could refrain from endorsing Obama but raise her own profile by pushing for bipartisanship,” Hudson wrote. “It’s possible she could go on stage with some sort of platitudinous unity message resembling her statements when she [announced plans to leave] the Senate.”

Snowe is the only political figure still serving in office to make Hudson’s list.

She led Obama and the Dems on a merry chase to get her vote to make the ACA "bipartisan." Which of course, it wasn't, not thata lot of Dems were surprised.

She may be easier to catch because she can now snub her nose at Mitch McConnell without consequences.

It's like the difference between useless and completely useless.

Defenders of this kind of bipartisanship might also want to point out a third possibility- worse than useless. That makes it seem so much better...

But finding a progressive Republican is more difficult than finding a pork chop at a Jewish feast. That said, the GOP has deteriorated to the point that a few moderate conservatives may begin to make their presence known.

I believe they ride unicorns. Just find a unicorn and you will probably find your progressive republican atop it.

In my lifetime the Republican Party has been the Party of the Banksters, the Oligarchs, the Corp-o-crats. Their platform has been by, of, and for the rich, and has relied on racism, misogyny, and theocracy to inflame their base. They are outsourcers and union-busters. And the great failure of the Democrats has been the failure to provide a clear alternative to them.

I think having Rs attack Rmoney at the D convention is a brilliant political tactic. It should not equate to an embrace of Republican ideology, or the notion that it's somehow OK to be an R. If you're an R, you are supporting that platform.

Does that mean we attack ordinary deludeds who are registered R? No. But we try to depress their vote at the least, and switch it if possible.

I have no love for the Scraps and Bones Party the Democrats have become, but that does not mean "embracing" Rs or their fetid Bankster platform and candidates in any way.

Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower - three progressive Republicans who set an example of what a U.S. President can be. Don’t let this tradition die. “Two out of four on Mount Rushmore ain’t bad.”

ProgressiveRepublicans.org



It’s time to restore the proud, old “progressive” tradition within the Republican Party, reduce the partisan bickering in politics, and tackle the nation’s urgent problems from a position of knowledge and strength.

This web site is about building a political community. If you want to belong, please send your contact information by email. Regard this web site as a resource to help create a progressive Republican movement.



Some assumptions:

(1) We are not Democrats.

(2) We are not conservative Republicans.

(3) We are not persons merely opposed to these other groups but a political faction offering our own policies and proposals to help build a better society.

(4) Given big-media domination of U.S. politics, we will only succeed if we build our own grassroots organization that can communicate directly with its members.

(5) Since the big media will not cover certain issues fairly, the only way to achieve a clear and lasting victory is through electoral politics. Election results cannot be questioned. Previously marginalized persons and groups need to come together in a grassroots coalition capable of attracting support from a majority of voters.

(6) To build a grassroots movement, developing the right package of issues is paramount. A single issue, however compelling, will not be enough to win elections. There must be a package.

(7) Any package of policy proposals will have its detractors on some points while the same persons may support other points in the package. But never mind. The process has to start somewhere. The package of policy issues ultimately embraced by progressive Republicans will depend on opinions expressed and accepted after there is a movement large and strong enough to win elections. Please stay with us if you agree with the thrust of this effort.

(8) This website suggests a particular set of proposals. (link to issues) The criteria of inclusion are that the policies benefit the American people and (less stringently) that they be unlike what the Democrats and conservative Republicans have put forth and bear a general resemblance to what progressive Republicans have advocated in the past. The proposals take a clear stance on important issues of the day, even at the risk of being outside the mainstream of current political opinion.

(9) Progressive Republicans should be willing to talk sincerely with persons of any political persuasion. We should resist demonizing opponents. Our aim would be to find solutions to the nation’s problems, not put other people down.

(10) Even so, progressive Republicans should be willing to fight for their beliefs and not retreat from our positions in shame. Since many of us have been called “RINOs” (Republicans in name only) as a means of dismissing our views, we can fight back in the youthful and resilient spirit of “Ray the RINO”, seen at the bottom of this page. However, those of us who uphold the ideals of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Theodore Roosevelt are not “RINOs” at all but, in fact, true standard bearers of the Republican Party.



Now, to get into the meat of what this web site is about, click on this link:

a proposed package of issues for progressive Republicans - Eighteen issues that include the following points of decision:

• decision #1: for more international cooperation and less unilateral use of military force,
• decision #2: for job creation through reduced work hours rather than government deficit spending,
• decision #3: for tax increases targeted to the wealthy to keep the federal budget in balance,
• decision #4: for the deficit problem to become a priority,
• decision #5: against the dualistic world view of the Civil Rights movement which in its contemporary manifestation blames “racism” and “white society” for our common problems,
• decision #6: for federal legislation to increase paid leave and maintain standards of humane treatment in the work place,
• decision #7: for environmental protection and resource conservation as new economic imperatives,
• decision #8: for a compromise policy on illegal immigration suspending deportations while requiring employers of such immigrants to pay a surtax to help cover the increased social costs,
• decision #9: against the abusive use of building inspections by local governments,
• decision #10: for a new, independent investigation into the events of 9/11,
• decision #11: against political correctness and its violation of free speech,
• decision #12: for ending the war on illegal drugs and funding more treatment programs,
• decision #13: for a greater federal role in insuring or providing health-care services,
• decision #14: for greater regulation of the financial-services industry,
• decision #15: against free trade and for the use of tariffs to promote improved labor and environmental standards around the world,
• decision #16: against the cruel deception of young people who are being urged to take out student loans to go to college and prepare, often, for nonexistent jobs,
• decision #17: for a crash program to reduce traffic congestion in urban areas, and
• decision #18: for a crash program to develop technologies that will help sustain human life in outer space.

No doubt some of these are dead wrong #5 is no doubt dead wrong, racism is real. But most of it could be from the President's agenda.

All these ideas fail to address the fact that the Repug Party firmly believes that women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Same with equal rights for LGBT citizens.
A woman (or gay person) voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

There are other strange priorities in there as well, like #18. But there are some good ideas in there as well, like #3, #7 and #14. Some of the things are in the eye of the beholder so it would depend on the details, like #8 and #15. But, at least, the word "compromise" is not a dirty word with this group.

They can't resist, can they? This is a farrago of a deception. As per usual with the Rs.

against the dualistic world view of the Civil Rights movement which in its contemporary manifestation blames “racism” and “white society” for our common problems."

I note that these anti Civil Rights Righties continue to oppose equality and deny their own racist and homophobic ways. Note number 11: "against political correctness and its violation of free speech." Which means they want to be allowed to use slurs. They deny they are bigots, yet place the need for slurs high on their list of priorities.

ABO is about as racist as it gets.

it seems to me that these people should have by now disassociated themselves.

How to find progressive Republicans? Look among some of the older victims of their party's "RINO hunts" who haven't changed their party registration yet.

Obviously, you're never going to find a Repuke who shares all - or even any significant number - of the Democratic Party's priorities, but there are some out there who do share our positions on a few specific issues. I agree you don't want to give them a long enough leash to use the podium you give them to preach their party's agenda and acquire a bipartisan veneer of legitimacy in the process. But, if you can play them and get them to say what you want them to say - and only what you want them to say - that's very smart politics.

Not only does it bolster your position by giving it that same bipartisan legitimacy you want to make sure the Repuke doesn't get from you, it fosters cracks in the Repuke unified front. One of their greatest strengths has been their party discipline and they have very effectively utilized divide and rule tactics against us. Whenever you can get a Repuke to break party discipline and stand with the opposition against the Repuke agenda, it spotlights divisions within their party and weakens their ability to act with the unified, cohesive, military discipline that has made them so effective despite their crappy ideas.

It is telling that we highlight Republicans at a Democratic Convention... Just how far to the right have we moved anyway?

progressive Republican is the same as a center Democrat. A republican.

So far that they get RepubliCONS to speak at their conventions.

Didn't that weasel Joe Lieberman speak at the RepubliCON convention for McCain? Seems there were a few other fake Democrats who spoke at RepubliCON conventions too.

Anyway, I'm not sure how to take this. It just reinforces the crap that liberals have no where else to go, and gives the Democrats a conservative gloss.

On the other hand, it didn't stop the uber conservatives from taking over the RepubliCON party when they brought in Democrats and it may give stupid people who haven't decided who to vote for an excuse to vote Democratic.

Oh well, it doesn't really matter. The 99% would be destroyed under Romney and will be ignored under Obama. I would rather be ignored than destroyed.

which Obama are you talking about, because the President has done amazingly well considering the opposition and the constant lies about him.

really.

Democrats and Republicans versus the Tea Party.

Yes, we should bring Republicans over to our side. If we don't do that, we perpetuate the war. This war is going to be won by whoever is left standing at the end of it.

It won't be the Tea Party. I'm convinced of that.

And I am one who will not be optimistic simply because it makes me feel good. This is what I see happening.

Republican Party. They are all Republicans. There is not one official who is listed as 'Tea Party' they are Republicans. If these chimeric 'moderate Republicans' were opposed to a segment of their own Party, why have we not seen them exert any effort to counter them? They could easily take such steps as Republicans if they wanted to. And they don't. What the 'moderates' actually do is vote along with their Party Fellows, the other Republicans.
Tea Party is a construct, there is no Tea Party. For there to be a battle between the Tea Party and the Republicans, first one group will need to make an actual separate Party, right now they are all merry Republicans, voting as one and sharing pools of election funds.
Radical Republicans are still Republicans, no matter what their spin might be. Did the 'Tea Party' people get up and leave the GOP? No they did not. Did the 'moderates' speak out against them, did they leave that Party? No they did not, what they did was vote along with their fellow Republicans, for that is their Party, their only Party. Because 'Tea Party' is a p.r. construct, not an actual political Party. They are just Republicans, voting for Romney and the works. If 'moderates' don't care for the facts of the Republican Party they need to join our Party and take up our principles. Claiming that some made up organization is a real Party, organized against the Republican Party is so far from reality it needs it's own time zone. Without the GOP apparatus and machine, there would not have been and there would not be this 'Tea Party' pretense. I mean, at least the Greens are really a Party. Small, disorganized but they are legally and truly a political Party, which the so called Tea 'Party' simply is not, for they are just an arm of the Republican Party.
Tea Party. There is no such Party.
Moderates and Radicals, but Republicans all of them, and the 'moderates' are deeply tied to the many, many radicals they support with money and lent legitimacy.

An infection doesn't announce it's going to start screwing up the place.

The Tea Party is ousting incumbent Republicans now. That's not the work of a subset of Republicans. It's the birth of a new, hopefully short-lived, party.

We need to move to the Left, as a country, before we too are in danger of falling off the Right hand cliff. A "progressive Republican" is or should be still to the Right of any Progressive Democrat. Otherwise thy would be Democrats. How many Liberals, Progressive, Left of Center Democrats will be allowed to speak at the Convention?
The support given here for the Republican speakers is scary.

having to have republicans speak at their convention.

Sigh.

is an oxymoron

and he's been gone since the Twenties.

is that the hand reaching across the aisles play? Well, that worked so well the last few years, didn't it? We had Rethugs voting with us all over the place, didn't we? We didn't? Really? wow, I thought that was the way we should do it. Do I really need a sarcasm thingee here?

Just because we didn't get Utopia in Obama's first term is no reason to disparage his tactics.

If you DON'T reach across the aisle, you will have implacable enemies. Forever.

But if you wear them down by being a statesman instead of an enemy, some will cross over. Eventually, that crossover will gain momentum and we will have the advantage.

Reaching out to the party of banksters, big business, job killers and the very people that want to get rid of the safety nets and Social Security? This is appealing to whom? Surly not the 99%.
I have a better idea. The Democratic party needs to get back to its roots. You know, the Blue and Pink Collar Workers. The average Sally and Joe. The working class. Start doing something for us, "We the people...", and those Independents will come back on their own.

They abandoned the union when they swallowed the managements bullshit that they would be taken good care of. They lost the power to elect Representatives that would actually protect their interests. Their jobs are gone along with their health insurance and pensions. The only way a Democrat can get elected is to sell out to corporations utter wise they will will be stomped into the ground. The only hope is that the workers will come to their senses and unionize and elect representatives who are not beholding to the international capitalists whose sole objective is to maximize profits at the expense of the workers.

The more we fight, the longer the war goes on. More and more Republicans are acknowledging that their party is batshit crazy.

The ONLY way we will gain any of the goals you mention is if we stop the war. Because while we're busy fighting with no hope of ever gaining an inch, our situation worsens.

You can't wear down the republicans, they are mean, hateful, spiteful and a total lost cause.

BUT, what BO TRYING to work with them has done is allow the folks in the middle to see the disconnect between the Rs bellicose portrayal of BO and reality.

He did it for the right reason - he DID try to work with them.

The wingnut 40% won't see it, they believe he is a socialist, communist, christian and america hating lunatic.

No getting past that.

But, the soft 15-20% middle will see the disconnect between that and his conciliatory nature. For any TRULY reasonable person, it discredits the manner in which the Rs portray him.

And what is your solution, then? More hateful fighting from both sides? It doesn't work. The war needs to end.

It is all just hateful fighting?
The spare few Republicans who lightly criticize the more radical elements of their Party do so because they are not in radical districts, that is they do so to serve themselves and their Party, which includes the extremes, and the 'moderates' are happy that they get the Bachmanns elected where they can.
Show me some actual leading current Republican officials leaving that Party to join the Democrats, show me some of them coming to districts with radical GOP nominees and speaking out against them and in favor of the Democrat. I sure don't see any of that. Any of them could do those things on any given day. Instead, they wrap up cozy in bed with the far, far right. They make that choice every single day.

No, I don't see Democrats acting like Republicans at all. But some think we should never try to bring them over to our position and the only thing that does is make them more obstructionist.

The Michelle Bachmann types are getting elected because fewer and fewer 'smart' Republicans are running. The GOP is losing steam. The demographics favor Democrats in this regard, IMO.

"How do you explain Republicans acknowledging their party is bullshit these days?"

On what planet does this occur?

First, I said, BO absolutely did the right thing TRYING to work with them.

There are clearly Rs who say the party is trainwreck.

Almost to a man/women, that admission is followed VERY quickly by "but, the democrats are god/america hating socialist scumbag demons of satan." They then find a way to somewho speak even worse of a very decent man who happens to have done a pretty good job as president the last three and a half years.

Whatever extent that republican's might have a glimmer of awareness to the BS that the party advances, almost to a man and women they STILL believe in their heart of hearst in the evil liberal boogeyman.

Yeah, the war needs to end, but if every democrat in this country never spoke even the first partisan word again, these lunatics would put us in a place that is is unimaginable.

I think you're right about the Michelle Bachman types, at any rate. Nothing can be done to bring them over to our side. The same can be said for Cantor and Paul Ryan.

But the impression I have is that even the John Boehner types know they are fighting an uphill battle. I think we can outlast them and outthink them.

I HOPE I see the day we outlast them ...

I don't think I will.

I THOUGHT they were in real trouble after 06 and 08, I thought demographics were going to get them.

Then the country, for some reason I can't even begin to comprehend, decided to elect 50+ complete lunatic fringe reps and senators.

They have so many states caged. Pa has a million more registered Ds than Rs, has gone D in the presidential for a couple decades now, but somehow the Rs have a mortal lock majority in the state senate and a strong majority in the state house.

Ohio, they LITERALLY are implementing early voting for republican districts ALONE - democratic districts can not early vote.

They pretty much can do whatever they want. They are mean, the media enables them completely ...

It takes someone with Barrack Obama's brilliance to get the better of them ... And, sadly, the Ds just are too fricken soft to battle the Rs at their level of intensity.

The more reasonable we appear, the more batshit crazy the other side looks. This is kinda poking fun at the "Obama is the most far left President we've ever had" crap they love to spout.
In terms of "reaching across the aisle" to actually govern--I think the President had learned his lesson there.

The die-hard Republican voters have been able to overlook a lot of the hypocrisy in their party. But you're right, the batshit craziness has become so extreme now, even die-hard Republicans are disavowing their party.

Four? Did it produce even one vote a year? Do you have any stats that show momentum of any sort is building? One of them votes with us every 18 months, that is not much of a gain. How long is 'eventually'? Clearly it is more than four years. Thus far, he reaches out, they call him names, lie cheat and libel him. So he reaches out again. That's sweet on a playground, but sort of daft in real world face offs at a certain point.
I'd just like to see the facts you base your theory on, that Republicans react well to statemanship and there is a growing momentum of bipartisanship.
The House candidate from the GOP here is a delusional crazy person. Will these 'centrists' endorse that as well? Or will they speak out against him? He says public education is child abuse and radioactive materials are good for us. Do the 'centrists' at any point stand up and say 'that is not us' or do they remain in bed with the Art Robinsons and the Michele Bachmans? Because as long as they remain in that Party, endorsing delusional hate mongers, they are in fact just delusional hate mongers. Will any of them speak out against Alan West's McCarthyism, which is a feature of their Party, the Party they remain part of by choice, each day. These 'centrists' hear that crazy talk, I sure don't hear them speak against the nuts. They endorse and fund the nuts, they prop them up and provide cover for the nuts. Is it centrist, to cooperate constantly with insane right wingers while voting against every Democratic bill? Is that what we seek? Why?

Many of them are fighting the Tea Party in their midst. We hear more Republicans publicly acknowledging that their party is beyond the pale. Obama can't wave a magic wand and have everything magically transform more to our liking.

He is wearing the Republicans down. The Tea Party is dragging them down.

They are going down.

In one or two years, I predict we will have more Republicans voting with Democrats. They won't have a choice.

Again, that is not optimism on my part. It's how I see things shaping up.

this 'momentum' you claim is building. I don't see it expressed in voting, I do not see any 'centrist Republicans' taking a stand against the extremists in their own Party on the ground. In reality they vote along with their Party, nuts and all, virtually every chance they get.
I asked for your reasons, what I got was 'I predict, that's how I see things shaping up'. Well no offense, you already said that.
So you have a cool theory, I hope it works out. It sure did not help the last 4 years much. But of course, they say that doing the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result is a sign of genius, right?

Plus, the Tea Party factor has gotten worse as time goes on.

You're right, I don't have a lot of facts to support this other than the increasing numbers of Republicans who disavow their own party.

It's a sea change, IMO.

Any of them could actually disavow, leave that Party, campaign against their own right wing. But they do not do that. And you keep saying 'Tea Party' as if it was an actual entity and not just a subgroup of Republicans. There is no Tea Party, those are Republicans, each and every one of them and the alleged 'moderates' are folks who are perfectly comfortable remaining in bed with those radical Republicans, meaning they are basically just the same thing with some softer words thrown in....
Here is what 'disavow' actually means. Let me know when even one Republican disavows even one other Republican in a way that fits the actual meaning of the word.
Definition of DISAVOW
1
: to deny responsibility for : repudiate
2
: to refuse to acknowledge or accept : disclaim <party leaders disavowed him>

See, voting right along with them precludes the notion that they repudiate, that they refuse to accept, and the very act of remaining in that Party means they have not disclaimed them in any way. Note that 'light infrequent intermittent criticism' is not one of the meanings of 'disavow'.

They are taking over the Republican party from within. So I don't see them as part of the same 'genus' as Republicans. More like a spreading infection.

I concede your point about disavowal. But I still see a movement building that will force Republicans -not Tea Party crazies- to become more centrist.

The oncoming budget crisis and climate change reality will drive a bigger wedge between the religious loonies and centrist Republicans. The whole marriage equality momentum is making Republicans look more and more out of step. I don't see how they can continue to stand against the majority of Americans and survive. I expect the party to evolve when it no longer becomes possible to maintain the status quo.

We're getting closer to that point.

IMO.

Republicans. That is how the system works. To buy into your theory one has to pretend there are three Parties involved, DNC, RNC and Tea. That is simply not the case. And of course in a primary one Republican will defeat another. How is that new? They are not 'taking over the Party' they ARE the Party. They are not people who joined recently, they are lifelong loyal Republicans. Not one is different from Alan West unless they stop voting just like him and being in his caucus and all. They are that, they are the Republicans.
We'll see what these moderate enablers of Republican radicalism have to say to us. I know what I have to say to them.

I think the plan is to reach and influence independent voters rather than crossover legislators.

They have come out and said compromise is giving THEM what they want and guess what? Most voters seem to agree that as much as they are annoyed by the lack of progress in Washington, when it comes to voting they are going to continue to vote for the most partisan representatives they can. Independents are a myth today. Everyone's picked a side by now.

Obama's plan is not only brilliant it will cause yet another heart seizure in the Romney camp.

I'm sure he or another of his dixicrat ilk can be brought out of the retirement home they moulder in.

They've been using Democrats for years, they call em Blue Dogs. Let's be honest here, in the last 30 years the Democratic Party has shifted so far to the right that moderate Republicans now call themselves Democrats. I'm more concerned about progressive Dem ideology being included in the Convention.. Endless wars, unregulated banksters, eroding civil liberties, unprecedented power grab by the Executive branch of the government, corporate buy off of our elections, global warming etc.. Will Obama include anyone that can express MY interests in his convention?

All 3 are from States where a batsh#t crazy Republican is running for Senate this year.

I think there are a lot of Dems and progressives who would say the same. I feel I can disagree with the guy in a civil manner, and even have open arguments. He reminds me of good uncles.

I assume they mean one of the departed, a 'former leader' one out of or leaving office. The only Republican candidates on my ballot will be Willard and a full tilt nut named Art Robinson. I do not recall even one 'centrist Republican leader' speaking out against Robinson, who says radiation is good for us and we should add radioactive material to our buildings an food. Yep. So these 'centrists' are party and policy mates to that nutter, who also says all public education is child abuse. I've not even met a 'centrist Republican leader'. They must mean what's her name, retiring in Maine. A fairly right wing old hack, really.

than it has already been devastated?

This is the reality that most politicians would prefer to ignore:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101747526

Notice that there are only 2 comments on this video. Instead of the usual mud slinging from both sides, how about hearing about what they propose to do to better the economic situation? Will either party bother to mention the poor?

Neither party will mention the poor, the poor do not exist in their world.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy from all sides. For example, Obama throws a bone to Hispanics, but more illegals have been deported than when Bush was in office. Today there's an article on The Huff about the deportations. The Repugs came up with an ad about it, but the hypocrisy is shared by both parties.

"The Obama administration has deported a record 1.2 million undocumented immigrants. The administration’s stated policy has, since at least mid-2010, focused on deporting those who have committed crimes or pose a risk to public safety. But independent studies of the nation’s immigration caseload have found that the overwhelming majority of those deported never were convicted of a crime or were arrested for a minor offense."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/deporter-in-chief-attacks_n_1762435.html?utm_hp_ref=latino-voices

Democrats are far enough right these days without inviting in "centrist" Republicans.

Conventions are to fire up the base.

Doesn't excite me to have a Warner speak to me. Let's hear from some Democrats that espouse the philosophy that fires up the base.

to further divide the GOP. And it will be effective. It's been done before.

I know the GOP had Lieberman at their convention prior to losing to Obama. Does it ever work better than that?

If you have a mediocre candidate, or you're running a bad campaign, then it won't help much if at all.

If you have a popular candidate who is doing well and running a great campaign, as is the case with Obama, then it can help by adding to an already good campaign.

and I'd like to know about that. I can't think of an example at all. "It's been done before." You said. So I asked 'when?'

Either way, the theories are all great and I hope it works, if it has worked before, I'd really like to know that. While thinking about it I've thought of a couple of famous Republican names who were not and are not elected officials who might actually be not awful ideas as speakers. Military Generals and that lot who are not machine Republicans. I still don't dig it, but I could see the point of doing that. There could be votes in that. Active politicians running against Democrats now or soon should not be invited to speak.
If there are examples at hand of past cross over speakers, I'd love them. If not no big deal. What ever they do, I just hope it works and works well.

They focus on how extreme today's Repuke party is, it could work. They need tight message focus. I am more angry about things like not prosecuting Goldmn Sachs, trade policy, and guys like Geithner in the administration. We need more thn tweaks - total shakeup needed. Obama has sounded more forceful, but it must be an indicator of his next term.

I think Miller helped with the right-wing base and Koch with independents. How effective was it? Obviously that's hard to measure. But I'd say it didn't hurt either.

There is another name for centrist Republicans: Blue Dog democrats. I've had my fill of those.

I've been e-mailing the White House for over 2 years asking the Big O to start kicking ass. It's great to see him start doing this................bring FDR and Ike also to the convention.

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

To wit: That the only realistic and possible options in the world are right-wing/neocon/corporatist, or right-wing/neocon/corporatist on steroids.

There is no other option. They can't have the masses even exposed to the idea that a party might not include these things.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

-Noam Chomsky

You get a couple of old time moderate Republicans who have a generally positive reputation, to point out the hard right turn the GOP has taken.

The Tea Party types go nuts and scare off more moderates.

they are starting to separate the teaparty from the repubs. The indies that normally vote repub will have to vote against the teaparty people when the normal repubs show up with Obama.


This will serve to divide the repubs vote. Teaparty and repub, separate. Maybe more teaparty types and Ron Paulites will vote libertarian.

That just leaves them with senile Dixiecrat Zell

I always knew that our Pres. was smart, but my respect just went up another notch.

Otherwise this is going to feel like the failure of the first few months of this Presidency were the left was shut out and only center-right Dems and Republicans gobbled up all the cabinet positions. We need a place at the table and Democrats in general need to hear our message and our ideals. We always flinch at giving Progressives a legitimate voice and that's why they have been able to label liberals as some sort of evil caricature. Let us speak and you'll be surprised how many people will realize they agree with us.

(choking back lunch)

They're holding the convention in a non-union state, in non-union hotels, and now this.

Obama the corporate Republican can kiss my ass.

I don't know why offering a progressive alternative to the Republican bullshit is so distasteful to the Democratic Party.