Honestly, I've never seen so much anti-moderate sentiment on this site. The mere mention of a politician who is a moderate Dem sends droves of people to the thread screaming and hollering "FUCK THEM!!!" or "NO NO NO NO NO!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!" or "FUCK YOU ______ < (insert moderate Dem's name here)"

I don't get it, are we to just purge all those from the party with moderate views? :shrug:

the argument is about how far in the middle someone is.

I assure you.

that most of the time, when people post "moderates" that should run, they are actually DINOs; to some people, moderate means "left of hitler". those are the people who get the hostility


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

majority of dems are NOT DUers. Witness, the Democratic primaries. When it came down to it, Mr. and Mrs. Moderate Democrat chose our nominee.

McAuliffe et al picked our candidate because they said he was the only one that was 'electable."

:eyes:

Looks like when it came down to it, Mr. and Mrs. Moderate Democrat *did not* choose our nominee~

in full collusion with Mr Murdoch and Mr whoever the fuck is running TimeAOLWarnerCNN.

This is the one of the last bastions around for traditional liberalism. I don't like the compromise of what I believe by "moderates." We fundamentally disagree.

I can be civil, but I don't have to like or respect your political philosophy. I don't just disagree, I think its morally wrong. Now, that's just my opinion. But its how I feel.

So if you don't like that sentiment, maybe somewhere else would suit you better. If this site turned into some "new" democrat DLC hugging majority, I would be out the door.

moderates Dems are actually blue dogs who have gonew along to get along. But when it comes to dealing with repukes, all moderation begets is DEFEAT!

We want yellow dogs, we want our party back and we want people who will stand up and claim liberalism ... who'll inform the inbreds how much they have benefitted from LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC administrations and programs.

That's why I'm sick of moderation. Besides, to quote Jim Hightower:
Ain't nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadilloes!

so we're biting one another. It will settle down soon.

.

I'm sure wallowing in anger is a sure-fire solution

This bad mood is over 30 years old, now for me.

A moderate democrat in 2004 is politically the same as a mainstream republican 20 years ago!

We've reached the point where we are backed up against the wall and can't back up anymore. The notion of "compromising" with the GOP thugs on UNCONSCIONABLE ideas like destroying Social Security, a regressive "flat tax" , or any of the other cockamamie schemes coming down the pike is UNACCEPTABLE.

they would understand just what you said; Moderate Dems are equal to mainstream Repubs of yore..

I've been reading up a bit on what is now termed "NEO LIBERAL" ... I think that is wear the "Moderate Dems" fit in...not 100% clear on that yet... In anycase, Clinton (now Kerry) was more of a moderate than I at first realized, for example. He began a "cutting" of social/safty net programs while in office AND at the same time, didn't bother to follow up on the investigations around Iran Contra/Bush Reagan. He just shut the door on it--"in the name of bipartisanship and the need to 'get along'."

Clinton, though I like him personally, didn't have a clue what he was walking into when he got the presidency. He should have fought tooth and nail to bust the regime that came before him--investigators were ready and willing to hear the word "go". Instead, he rolled over and they took that as weakness and went after him like wild dogs. His reluctance to "rock the boat" has led to THIS ADMINISTRATION. What a mess!

Yes, I completely believe that our party has been hijacked..little by little, over time. It is "different" today...

Bring back the "tax and spend" liberals anyday. In my view, the "elite/upwardly mobile" Repubs and Dems are the reason they rest of us in everyday America are suffering. ie: much too interested in aquiring wealth, education, and status ignoring those Americans who can't keep up. It's the classic tale of Corporate and old world Aristocracy and the prospering bourgeoisie....against the labor class and under priviledged...

I've had enough.

Neo-liberalism is an economic belief that basically believes capitalism should be non-regulated.

to in terms of left, right, center Dems is what I'm curious about.

It seems the moderates are more "okay" with free trade etc..than I am. Clarify if you like. Ears open :hi:

...to lost elections which is "move the party to the right". The party has been steadily moving further to the right and we are increasingly losing elections.

Perhaps it is time to differentiate ourselves from our opposition party rather than trying to emulate them?

Well said.

My feelings as well. I am sick to death of being Republican-Light and trying to pander to the right. They have already stolen our most valued issues and twisted and turned them into something unrecognizable while still using the terms and names that we stood for. I'm sorry, but right now, I just can't stand anyone telling me that we must "heal" and "unite." Bullcrap!

If that hurts anyone's feelings, tough, but I am no longer voting for any namby-pamby candidates who cannot "tell it like it is," and meet these Republicans on the battlefield head on.

Navel gazing into the dillema over "morals" voters. Those people who said that wouldn't vote for a dem if their lives depended on it. 49% of voters said no to Li'l Georgie, and we want to focus on the hard core rightists who thought he was a "moral" man and shared their "values".

The heck with that. But, once again, it is occurring.
The Professor

but the DLCers want to make him out to be a McGovernite. I have nothing against many moderate democrats who fight. My problem are with those who continually give in to the Bush agenda and believe that the best thing to do is cooperate and give in on basic democratic prinicples.

I'm a moderate and I laugh when my senator, Joe Lieberman, who supported Bush's immoral war against Iraq enthusiastically but won't sacrifice his own children to Bush's war god, say that Howard Dean is too liberal and that the salvation of the Dem Party is in moving to the "center." "Center" in Lieber-speak is "moving to the right of fascism."

The only reason Lieberman is calling Dean a McGovernite is because Dean strongly opposed the Iraq War, a war Lieberman wanted for his Likkudite pals in Israel. Lieberman is an ultra-conservative Jew and he reeks of "conflict of interest" when it concerns Israel and Palestine.

Back in 2003, I looked at the potential field and said, "Dean is someone I can live with. A deficit hawk, anti gun control, but also anti Iraq war kind of guy. He knows we have to get the sixty year old promise of national health care addressed, at least. He should pass muster."

Then he became a flaming liberal. Go figure.

You do need to reach out to the other side. The difference is making sure people know you have a SOLID base and positon on issues.

Now, I liked John Kerry, and I know that he did have solid positions, but the media and the Bush campaign contorted him into a waffling jackass - very unfortunate.

We need someone that the media can't toy with.

To me, it doesn't matter if you're moderate or very liberal, just wake people up to what's going on in America.

"We need someone the media can't toy with."

With the state-controlled media we have now, I don't think there exists a Democrat whose record they couldn't distort and whose character they couldn't slander. Hell, if we ran Jesus Christ, you'd be hearing about what a weak pacifist, communist wealth-redistributing, bleeding heart sissy he is. I do not think any of the other Democrats would have fared better against the Bush/Rove/corporate media juggernaut. The only thing that will help is if Bush gets himself caught up in a HUGE scandal - I mean HUGE. The only thing that will cause the media whores to betray their masters is the scent of blood.

we need to have honest elections.

we have the winning message, we are the majority.

In this election I dont think it mattered if we had Kucinich, Dean or Kerry. We were getting behind them. Kerry was fine we won, we unfortunately do not count the votes.

means you are being manipulated by the machine.

turn off the fucking television, people!

read.

Kerry held up better than anyone else we could have run.

I don't think it is 'hate' for Democrats with more centerist, moderate positions on issues. My belief is that most Democrats, liberals, progressives, Greens, etc. are fed-up with the politicians that are so cautious when it comes to really taking on the Bush regime.

Face it ... we've got a gang of liars, looters, war criminals, and thieves running the federal government. There is too much at stake for this tepid, civil, "let's all get along" approach that some in the US Senate especially want to offer.

Hey, be 'moderate' but fight this criminal enterprise occupying the White House.

They don't say it's not hate. They're saying their hate is justified.

I think it is more about pushing back against the ridiculous right turn the country has taken. Moderates are seen as facilitating this because they accept certain aspects of it. Many of us think we need to take a very strong opposition view to the right in order to get back some sense of balance. To just say we should be more balanced at this point isn't nearly enough.

willing to compromise liberal ideals & values in the name of bipartisanship, then I consider those 'moderates' worse than irrelevant. They should keep their asses out of politics altogether if compromise and appeasement is their preferred method of dealing with repugs - who, by the way, NEVER compromise!

I hate the damn Pink Tutus...:grr:

Sorry, but our party has tried so long to be like the Republicans that we are in reality becoming them.

In Florida it is hard to tell the difference between the two at all.

That is not what the two party system is about.

I am a moderate, but that is not what the anger is about.

nt

I dont get what you are talking about. We are as centrist and moderate as it gets. The maniacs have skewed the whole perspective way far over to the religio fundamentalist totalitarian corporatism right. You want left see the sandanistas, see castro, they are not here.

I have issues with fake ones who fold to the GOP without a fight.

those who voted for the Patriot Act, for the Iraq War Resolution, for a Medicare give-away to drug companies, etc, etc. then I think you may have your answer.

i am nice.

His/her politics fall between the socialist (almost extinct in this country) and the militiant nationalist fascist (AKA mainstream republicans - all too plentiful today)

To be a 'moderate' democrat is to be a center-rightist, IMO.

democrats and DLC types who are not content to win races with moderate conservative/democrats in conservative states, but who force their corporate suck up anti grassroots philosophy on the rest of us.
The DLC who would take a moderate/liberal like Dean and set out to stop him because he was too radical to win (talk about no freaking political sense at all).

I am sick of being told over and over and over we must move to the center when we are already in the center and we keep losing anyway.

I agree with you Cheswick. The center of what? There is no ideology anymore informing either party, so there is no center there that anyone can stake out - or even define.

"Center" means half insane - only agreeing with half of what Limbaugh says.

Moderately nuts. Moderately fascist.

I get awfully tired of being told by moderates that weakness, waffling, cowed silence and reserve in the face of some of the most repellent outrages committed by a government in a century constitutes "effective communication."

My district representative, Adam Smith, is a perfect example. He actually voted for the Patriot Act twice. He said he voted for it the second time because he figured it could not possibly be as bad as its reputation. As it turned out, the fool hadn't read it -- not the first time, and not the second. After thus pissing off his constituency, and when the press pointed out to him the passages he'd misunderstood, he offered a sheepish apology. As you might expect, he voted for the Iraq War, too. Smith is also on a committee called IndiaPAC that tapdances in front of Indian ministers and CEOs, and promises that they won't do anything to impede the flow of middle-class jobs to India. "Moderate" is another word for c*ck-sucking, smug corporate shill, as far as I've experienced.

Yeah, they're all so much more enlightened and mature than I am, because they don't use "radical hate speech" such as Our healthcare system is in crisis, The war is unconscionable or We need to keep jobs from going overseas.

I'm a real moderate Democrat, but the ones identified as such by the press should be called "Bend-over-and-take-it-Democrats," or "Don't-piss-off-the-corporate-lobbies-Democrats," or "I'll-say-anything-to-get-reelected-Democrats."

as it changes depending on the political position of who is doing the defining.

and instead talk about hating DLCers, appeasers, etc but still accept calling them "moderates" as obvious from all the posts on DU that denounce "moderates" and "centrists", and the others that claim that "liberal" means "moderate"

bring down the party.

Already the rest of the world sees the two parties in America as the right wing and far right wing party.

And let's be honest. Most who call themselves "moderate" are nothing of the sort. They are either far liberal or far conservative.

Rush Limbaugh and his legion of followers think of themselves as "moderates".

Zell Miller probably thinks he is a moderate.

1) I have been saying for several years that the answer is neither moving left or right; The answer is to do a better job of promoting our positions.

2) The rest of the world does NOT agree with you that "there's no difference" in the parties. I consider it the height of pretension to assume that the world agrees with your views on the two parties. We know the world doesn't like bush*, but there's no evidence to support your claim that they think the two parties are similar.

3) Most who call themselves "moderate" are nothing of the sort. They are either far liberal or far conservative

And that's exactly my point. People deny that they are criticizing "moderates" (your excuse is that they're not really moderates) so it's OK to call them moderates and bash away.

4) Rush Limbaugh and his legion of followers think of themselves as "moderates".

Quoting Limbaugh to support your argument is NOT the most credible way to make a point.

This:

"I consider it the height of pretension to assume that the world agrees with your views on the two parties. "

And this:

"The rest of the world does NOT agree with you that "there's no difference" in the parties."

So explain to me what greater justification you have for assuming that you know the rest of the world agrees with your view of the two parties?"

I'd like to see you make a defensible case that the majority of the world sees clear and important distinctions between the two parties in America. That would be enjoyable to me.

The majority of the world's population is not familiar enough with our political system and the parties in the US.

I'd like to see you make a defensible case that the majority of the world sees clear and important distinctions between the two parties in America. That would be enjoyable to me.

I said nothing about "clear and important distinctions". IMO, most of the world doesn't know about our parties and what they stand for. And if they don't know about our parties, they can't think that they're the same.

No, the rest of the world does NOT think this way, speaking for the rest of the world, then criticized the post above for thinking he could somehow speak for the rest of the world.

No big deal, just pointing it out.

Here's what I said:

The rest of the world does NOT agree with you that "there's no difference" in the parties. I consider it the height of pretension to assume that the world agrees with your views on the two parties. We know the world doesn't like bush*, but there's no evidence to support your claim that they think the two parties are similar.

I did not speak for the rest of the world. I did not say what they think. If I said the "the rest of the world is NOT Jewish", I wouldn't be commenting on what the world believed.

You said "there's no evidence to support your claim that they think the two parties are similar." Ok, great. No problem there. However that isn't reconcilable with the statement that says, "The rest of the world does NOT agree with you that "there's no difference" in the parties." You don't know that's true anymore than you know it is false.

I don't think any of us here today have evidence right in front of us which conclusively proves one statement or the other.

In fact, we don't even really know if there is any evidence or not. I mean, unless your researching skills are vastly superior to mine, it would take an awful lot of time and research to be able to say there is no evidence of what "the world" thinks or doesn't think.

So, you have no grounding to declaratively state that the world does not agree with the other poster, and the poster does not have the evidence to defend the claim that it does.

Seriously... this is one of those times where I just need to stop talking, because it so doesn't matter - its a total technicality - I understand the INTENT of what you are saying. I won't say anything more about it.

that those living on less than a dollar a day don't get to keep up with the two parties by reading a newspaper or watching the news on cable.

Then add in the people who are ruled by tyrants who do not allow accurate information into their nation, particularly information about democracy.

DO you know how many people belong to those two groups?

Point taken.

plenty of people in the rest of the world, by dint of neccesity, knows PLENTY about your parties and you electoral system, and given that atleast half those of voting age in the US don't even vote I wouldn't mind betting that knowledge is better formed in some parts of the world than it is within the US. Yes there are many people whose daily struggle to eat probably precludes much contemplation about the US political system but you know there's also rather a lot of us who DON'T live in the third world and even have a semi decent media.

Just because the majority of the world would have preferred Kerry to Bush that doesn't mean anyone sees much difference between them.

Kerry may not have started the Iraq war - no-one can say that for sure though - but he WOULD have continued it, he does support "free trade" agreements and is happy to whore himself to corporate money.

Back on the topic from this outsiders view I wasn't aware there where any "left" Dem's anymore they all look very very "moderate" - I nearly wet myself when I heard that "most liberal senator" line.

..of how I feel.

Not much as far as I can see. Both sway with the political/popularity winds and have a "what's in it for me" attitude.

from extreme right wingers. both sides try to kill the middle.

Private industry union workers in the 60s 38%, now 9%, welfare reform followed by growing poverty and gutted of training and health care, NAFTA was to benefit all of North America, but hastened job loss to Asia.

The capitulation on those issues have erased the reason for working people to vote for Democrats.

Environmental regulations that were loved by limousine liberals are now routinely bypassed, since Democrats have effectively been out of power since 1994.

Rights of privacy were abandoned with haste in the Patriot Act because Democrats had to out anti-terrorism the Republicans.

Twenty-four Democratic Senators voted to give Bush the power to start a war in Iraq (don't bother with the Kerry fig leaf argument) an abandonment of their duties to explicitly declare war.

After 10 years of losses, "moderate" Democrats routinely blame liberals for electoral defeats. This, after reducing the issues we have to run on to the two most divisive ones we ever took on. If, as James Carville says, if you're looking for a party that stands steadfastly for only those two, present day Democrats are the place to go.

I have nothing in common with "moderate" Democrats, "DLC" Democrats, "New" Democrats or whatever you want to call them. I resent the fact that they have taken the name of Democrat and its long history of traditional liberalism and turned it into a limp, weak, less effective version of the Republican Party, and then claimed that this consistently losing strategy is somehow the only thing that keeps us from being totally marginalized in national politics while actually doing the most to aid that marginalization effort.

I can, and should try to be civil. But I am at fundamental odds with so-called moderate democrats every bit as much as I am at odds with republicans. I fundamentally disagree, to the core of my being, with the DLC philosophy, agenda, and perspective on the issues. I don't just disagree, I think its morally wrong. Now, that's an opinion. But it is my opinion, and I feel it strongly.

I can't just "get along" because I don't support moderates or a so-called moderate agenda. They want to take the country and the party in a fundamentally different direction than what I believe is right. I have no respect for their politics of collaboration, and consistently feel betrayed and left out by the party which used to be MY party.

They aren't "Moderate" views. Moderation is a good thing; balance between excess is important. But that's not what political "moderates" are about. Liberalism is not an "extreme." It is a moral right. That's like saying that "justice" is an extreme. No, its just right. Liberalism is a political philosophy and it is possible to articulate that philosophy in a healthy, responsible, balanced way, or in an extremist way. "Moderate" in this context is also a political philosophy and it is possible to articulate that message in a balanced way or an extreme way. The difference between the two is that I believe the core principles behind political moderate philosophy to be utterly, wholly, wrong. So-called moderates reflect not a "balanced" political philosophy but a specific political agenda and path that I vehemently oppose.

Again - I can try to be civil. But I'm glad that this place is ONE place in the web that caters to a progressive and traditional liberal perspective. When it stops doing that, I will say my goodbyes. I don't want yet another place where moderates dominate the discussion and the thinking. I deserve a place where liberal and progressive viewpoints are the norm. This is it, and if that doesn't work for you, there's the door.

and they do not have a specific agenda.

DLC Dem is a member of the DLC
Moderate Dem is a Dem who is somewhere in between a liberal and a conservative.

There are plenty of liberals in the DLC, and there are plenty of moderate Dems who have never heard of the DLC.

If they do not have a specific agenda, then how are the "moderate?" What does the word "moderate" imply? Good dental hygene?

See Lakoff's idea of "conceptual metaphors", particularly "radial categories"

The "central model" for "moderate" is probably someone who is not beholden to any particular ideology, and instead chooses both liberal and conservative metaphors, depending on the situation and context.

But since YOU are the one who claimed that moderates DO have a specific agenda, the burden of proof lies with you. Could you give us some more info on this moderate agenda?

..and so far I have found no "meaning" with which I can agree.

You mentioned an agenda

and the DLC wants to push the Dem party to the right (they have succeded to a significant extent), now proclaiming they won't let progressives highjack "their" party (while they've been around only since 1985).
Not much of a surprise given that the DLC consists mainly of representatives of corporate interests.

destroyed the Democratic Party and the United States at the same time.

That's really a tough one to let go of for some reason.

Who were suffering a real financial squeeze from taxes and high gasoline prices, coupled with a fear that we were losing to the Soviet Union.

but they were more conservative at least on social issues than most dems.

But I agree with the notion that the class distinctions should be, at least, mentioned.

Randi Rhodes was on one of her diatribes the other day, but an instructive one, I think. She was relating a story of going to Maine to see a relative. They were poor, religious, the men were out of work, they hunted for food, so they loved their guns, they drank too much because they were out of work, their kids were getting pregnant, they had more kids than they could afford. But, they didn't vote Republican. They still believed that those good jobs they used to have would come back when the Democrats got back into office.

They just hadn't bought the guns, God and gays cool-aid, yet. They hadn't decided that a $6.00 an hour job at Wal-Mart and moral superiority was better than what they once had.

Democrat?

most flaming liberal knows you don't spend more than you take in, and you don't waste money.

Democrats never wanted the economy to go bust. But, even Clinton could only sell balancing the budget as a way to social good -- higher minimum wage, health care, environmental protection, social security guarantees. The unions went along because they thought they could squeeze a deal for their workers, silly boys.

The point is, virulent capitalists, like the true believers of today, are never satisfied with the dollars they can extract from the mix. It isn't any accident that a corporate CEO wants to make 500X what is workers make. Hell, he'd really like to make an infinite amount over the worker by doing away with them, all together. And, first and foremost that means low, or no, taxes, particularly for the corporation, and, secondly no oversight by government. Government, for them, is a stooge to steward natural resources until needed, and an army to take them away from those who would withhold them from the holy mission of making profit.

Republicans want to make sure that CEO can get his wish, because their businesses, their stocks, their trust funds benefit, too.

plenty
moderate democrats are these new democrats you hear about who are more open minded on social issues like they're pro choice, pro gun control, pro environment but more more for free markets on the ecocomy like they would support tax cuts

conservative democrats are older and more likely to oppose abortion, gun control, but more economically liberal.

Basically you could call my aunt a conservative dem and many suburbites moderate dems.

when people start a flamebait thread and then disappear, leaving requests for explanations or clarifications hanging...

Sometimes I really have to wonder if the questions they pose are legitimate requests for information~

..several times a "troll" has started a thread then bailed out of it, but the thread itself was interesting and worth discussion. Too bad.

Kinda like the really great tangents some otherwise crappy threads occasionally take.

enemies within. Appeasement and conciliation are seen as weak by the Republicans, and those who regard moderates as Quislings see them as crippling our party from within.

I'm not saying I necessarily always agree with that - I think that kind of ideological preciousness is overly fanatical and rather immature - but they are sometimes right. We need to present a strong, unified facade, and that's tough to do when there are those within our own ranks who'd rather avoid offending the ruling junta at any cost.

:evilgrin:

"I think that kind of ideological preciousness is overly fanatical and rather immature."

People eat or they starve. They can unionize or they can't. They are free from being bombed or they aren't. They have freedom and civil liberties or they don't. Their votes count or they don't. They are free from unreasonable search and seizure or they aren't. They have medical care or they don't. They have education or they don't.

In each of those I choose the first. Rigidly. Uncompromisingly.

but i do feel they like a vision strong enough to unite the party.

disenfranchised Republicans who tend to cling to policies and ideals that hurt Americans...like love of warring, fiscal irresponsibility of Republicans, eradicating social safety nets, etc. Basically they support the Republican agenda.

The moderating idea that is thrown in is to moderate on economic issues and avoid "class warfare", even though the war is waged by those who wish to reverse the gains made from New Deal to Great Society.

If the liberals will only give up their wild eyed socialism, goes their pitch, they will join with us on social issues. They are uncomfortable with the Republican's verbal wars on abortion and gays.

The moderate version leaves the Democrats with no economic populist clout to countervail the populist appeal of "moral values", that is, "we have gays and women."

Moderate Republicans are more than happy to take their tax-cuts and give in to abortion and gay issues. They probably have had one or both, but they will never vote Democratic for fear of the Democrats atrophied, historical social conciouness.

"Moral values" Republicans come from the class that once contained union workers, but the "moderates" convinced us that they weren't worth the loss of social liberals we could attract from independent and Republican ranks. We took two in the bush for a bird in-hand.

The Democrats were snookered. We gave up real benefits for working people and allowed the Republicans to give them illusory benefits they will never attain, because abortions and gays will go on, whatever ruling political party prevails.

that moderate Repubs & even non-crazy conservatives don't feel comfortable there. So they switch parties & try to mold the Dem party into what used to be the Repub party. And try to make us feel guilty for not cooperating with the plan.

... we've seen too many moderate Dems practically run each other over to get to the front of that line which says, "Bend over and grab your ankles for Bush". If it weren't for the obsequious "moderate" Dems we wouldn't be in the crappy friggin' mess we're in now. When push came to shove they got on their knees to the PNACers and presented their collective asses.

if not socialist. People talk about making the party like it was in FDR's years, umm guys, I agree whole heartly but that party was big tent to all kidns of people and idealogy, I say :shrug: fuck the conservative dems like Ken Lucas who actually consider switching, now moderates like Landrieu who I had the pleasure of meeting today are good people. All poliitics are local as O'Neill said, I understand people have to represent their constiuents.

It isn't moderate Dems that earn the wrath of so many of us. It is Dems who betray their constituency. There is nothing moderate about cooperation with a fascist agenda, and there is nothing moderate about pandering to the Democratic comnstituency and then selling them down the river in the name of practicality, electability or being realistic.

Nothing wrong with being moderate Republicans - which is what most of the Dem politicians are now. There is something very wrong with earning people's trust on false pretenses and then betraying those people.

Here's my take -- I consider Howard Dean a "moderate" Democrat.

However, those who call themselves "moderates" -- say, like Evan Bayh or anyone from the DLC -- have failed miserably at standing up FOR Democrats, and seem to exist for the sole purpose of being Democratic yes-men (and women) for the Bush agenda.

These "moderates" make me feel betrayed by my own party.

then I might be able to tolerate "moderate" Democrats in control of the DNC. Until then, "moderation" among Democrats is next to collaboration with the right wing. This is not a time for moderation.

Of those generally referred to as "moderate", I find little moderate about them.

There is nothing "moderate" about supporting unjustified wars of aggression, nothing "moderate" about giving huge amounts of power to corporations, and nothing "moderate" about opposing basic civil liberties.

"OH YEAH!"

That's the way I see it. Someone here - who I greatly respect but I don't want to mention by name because I don't want this to become about them - told me that they think people on the far left and far right rely more on authority figures to tell them what to think, and I've actually found this to be very true upon observation. I see a lot of "we should go farther left" without much details of how or why, and I keep thinking the reason we don't see the details is they truly don't know them. These people who consider themselves farther left would get a lot more respect for their ideas if they could elaborate on them rather than just telling us we're not on their side or we don't care if we don't agree with them. If I'm to go and pass these ideas on to other people, I need more than an Internet-style two minutes hate.

I think there is a way in between the way of "we should go farther left" and the third way you hear so much about.

I see a lot of "we should go farther left" without much details of how or why, and I keep thinking the reason we don't see the details is they truly don't know them.

You're probably looking in the wrong place. The reasons to move back to the left (besides the fact that moving to the right hasn't worked electorally, other than electing one centrist president who still needed Ross Perot's help) are usually to be found in issue discussions such as on welfare "reform", not in threads like this one.

Not only has the party slid steadily towards Republicanism, but people can't even detect right from left anymore.

The following comments are what is called "radical" now, and what the moderates want to differentiate themselves from. At one time this was middle of the road Democratic party thinking.

The whole point of politics - let alone Democratic party politics - is to give the little people a voice and a fighting chance to not starve. The wealthy people don't NEED a voice in a democracy. They would do just swell with no voting, no politics, no government and no democracy at all. Think about it. Do away with government and the wealthy will rule - it is called feudalism and we will all be the starving peasants.

So the idea of two parties is silly, since one (or both) are just bought off by the wealthy people, who then set about to abolish government.

This idea that the Republican party has a "philosophy" that deserves "equal time" is just plain wacky. Their philosophy about government is that it should be destroyed.

An analogy - some people may want to sail across the lake, others may want to row. Those are two different opinions as to how to get folks across the lake. Sinking the boat so no one gets across the lake is not a legitimate opinion that deserves consideration, especially when it is being offered up by people who own yatchs and can cross in style any time they choose.

Get it? There is no such thing as politics that are "class warfare" or "targeting the rich" or that are "too radical" or "too far to the left." Politics is the one and only antidote and check against the targeting of the poor by the rich - that is the true "class warfare" - and politics is the one and only check against radical right wing rule - feudalism. If we are going to throw away progressive politics, then there is no need to have politics at all.

A true political spectrum would put Trotsky on the left, Nader in the center and Dennis on the right. Anything to the right of that is NO politics and NO government - just out-and out-rule by the upper class.

Liberal and progressive politics fail because we imagine that Republicanism is a legitimate alternate political philosophy, and give it credibility, and try to understand it and seek compromise with it. You can't compromise with people whose goal is to sink the boat! You can't understand a philosophy that says one thing and does another! And, since their goal is to sink the boat, they are free to make up just any old nonsense that sounds good to get people to vote for them and call it a philosophy.

Common sense tells us that what the leaders of the two parties want, they would get instantly and automatically if we just eliminated government, individual rights and democracy altogether, starting with the Constitution - and by God, just take a look! That is precisley what they are doing.

The government exists to protect us and to help us - no other reason to have it, and it belongs to us and not to a privileged wealthy class of people. It is the one thing that they should not be able to buy. And can there be any doubt that they have bought it?

Thanks, m berst.

IMOFO


(InMyOwnFuckingOpinion)

Intolerant of views different, an any way, than their own. Idealogues.

how tragic. Yes, Cat Atomic, this picture does say it better than a 1,000 words. Our go along to get along Dems have wrought the horrors seen on this child's face and much more.

We don't need a moderate to win, we just need to start playing by their rules. Trash Bush instead of building up Kerry. Be aggressive, call the admin on every small mistep they make.

How completey :boring:

Can't you guys get the hint that the DU is made up of a whole host of people, some loud, some quiet, some smart, and some trolls. It takes all kinds to make a world. Only a subversive would claim absolutes about the DU.

I never did.

Some say moderate doesn't mean DLC, some say Joe Lieberman is a moderate, what do you say?

For over twenty years they have worked night and day to make the democratic party more liberal. DeLay likes to say that by the time he is done the democratic party will consist only of blacks, homosexuals, and environmentalist extremists.

It has been remarkably successful.

WTF are you smoking?

and conservatives leaving the party. Which has always been the goal of DeLay and Gingrich.

In case you weren't around there were calls for purges here at DU...but not by the left leaning Dems.The moderate Dems (read,moderate republican) were all aghast for a long time.If it was within the rules I could name dozens of DUers who have shown far more disdain for those on the left than those on the right.

Maybe having people call you "fringe leftist","whackjob leftist","loony left",etc is ok...but when the moderate way results in ANOTHER loss of seats it's time to think again about where the party is going and how it's gotten to where it is.

never the moderates. ;-)

If we'd only cut that out I'm sure the moderates will come swarming back to embrace us :D

When will we ever learn?

...Or disrupting Greens in disguise.

Give us some specific issues. Name some names.

And why did you change your name from the magazine many consider the bible of non-"Moderate Democrats" to a fake pill?

DINO. Hope that helps.

make up your mind: are you setting the rules or being victimized? this sounds almost as wingnutty to me like the majority of youe stances (which I can only qualify as : "let's be more like THEM!")

It's about the establishment Dems vs the grassroots Dems. I'll support any moderate that runs on a platform that clearly distinguishes him/herself from the Puke party. I'm sick and tired of following the week-kneed establishment crew that want's to keep things as they've been for the past decade and run candidates that try to out-Puke the Pukes.

Most mainstream Democrats are moderates. The people on DU who hate moderates aren't Democrats, they're people who think the Democratic party is too moderate.