Democrats warned DO NOT BE LIBERAL, MAKE YOUR MESSAGE UNCLEAR

Can't they see that they are creating a reasoning for the mindless to vote Repuke as they whine "our party is too liberal"? It is almost as if they are TRYING to create an atmosphere of distrust for the Democratic party.

Oh wait, that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do.

Yeah, it's a real shame that we have a segment of the party that thinks they know what is best for all. How original, glad you don't find yourself in that category.

This is politics folks, we're going to fight tooth and nail until we get a Democratic nominee. I hope that for the sake of the country we all coalesce around that nominee.

Your suggestion that the DLC is the problem for the Democratics could just as easily be stated as the liberals are the problem for the party.

Sorry I couldnt resist.

So I need to know, do you support the Iraqi invasion ? Do you support the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, have you remained silent while our public education has been gutted and the safety nets for seniors are abandoned.? Are you in tacit agreement with the Bush plans to privatise Medicare prescription drug benefits and ulimately all govt services?

I ask because it isnt liberals who either support all of the above or remain silent about them it is the democratic leadership as embodied in the DLC.........

Please show me and anyone else that gives a shit about the truth where the DLC explicitly supported the Patriot Act, and whatever it is that you are bitching about Homeland Security. Cites also please on the DLC support for the war with Iraq.

I'm not aware of too many things that the DLC does agree with Bush on, why don't you enlighten us.

.

n/t

We have a thread of compiled research on the DLC but I am not on the computer that has it bookmarked. I was hoping someone else might have it handy so you could research it yourself.

I'm not interested in doing a bunch of reading and research to prove your point though. If you have specific cites that address my questions then I'd like to see them.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=127&subsecid=900056&contentid=251785

"The important divide among Democrats is between two versions of internationalism. One is the soft multilateralism of the activist left, which is leery of military force and seeks international consensus for its own sake. The other is the muscular internationalism of centrists who see American power as a liberalizing and progressive force in world affairs."

One side is "soft" and "seeks consensus for its own sake." The other is "muscular", "liberalizing and progressive." Gack. You can just as easily characterize the former as deliberative, conservative even. And the latter can be called incautious and reactive.

Nowhere in the essay does he bother to define the "muscular" internationalism good Democrats should pursue, except to say what it is not -- McGovernism... and oh, by the way, opposition to the invasion of Iraq. In Marshall's essay, the Iraq Adventure is a sensible baseline, inarguable, as obvious and necessary as oxygen. So no refutation of Democrat concerns that it may be detrimental to US security, its tenuous connection to the War on Terror, the cost in lives and budget that might be better used elsewhere, the effect on international relations, etc, is necessary. Nope. You don't support the Iraq invasion, you're just an anti-war pacifist:

"The party divide shows up in today's nomination contest. On one side are anti-war candidates Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, whose arguments echo those of Henry Wallace and George McGovern. On the other are Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards, who, like Britain's Tony Blair, backed using force against Iraq on the condition that President Bush challenge the United Nations to do its job. While scathingly critical of Bush's botched Iraq diplomacy, once an impasse was reached in the U.N. Security Council, they did not flinch from going to war with a smaller coalition."

I don't need to point out that Dean just wasn't convinced by Dubya's case for war. If it was demonstrated that Iraq was a genuine threat to the US, he would've signed on. Yet still, he's anti-war (not anti-Iraq-war).

As for the contention that these biscuit-soft Dems would oppose any war anytime, he fails to note that only one Democrat voted against authorizing military action against Afghanistan (it wasn't Kucinich).

His "muscular, progressive" New Democrat method seems to be:

Eschew your Congressional duty to explore, investigate, and debate. Sign on early. Then get your criticisms on record in a rearguard action to cover your political ass.

of current and recent politial history? If so you have no business posting as if you are current, if not then you are very aware that the Homeland Security Act was the brainchild of one Senator Lieberman, a piece of legislation that Bush at first downplayed as unecesary then suddenly reversed himself and wholeheartedly supported , even claiming as his own.

I guess that therw would be no point in posting Heddafoils wonderful synopsis of the various calumnies of the DLC as you have a;lready stated that you dont care to read or think...pity really.

Dose of Reality! And maybe a swift :kick: in the hindquarters.

That's right. The way to present a clear alternative to the reactionary conservatism of the Bush administration is to give the nation a "Bush-lite" agenda. It's just like the original, but it's slightly watered down. :eyes:

The reason most Americans stay home on "election" day is because they cannot see the difference between the two parties. Most Americans think both parties represent the interests of big business and will not do anything to help the little guy.

Centrists like the DLC folks (LIEberman, Gephardt, Clinton and GORE) don't do anything to change that impression of the Democrats as Repuke lite or weak. When Clinton backed down on almost every judicial nominee everytime the -pukes or conservative Dems balked he showed me he was weak and lacking conviction.

When offered a choice between a Democrat who will SAY he supports working people but govern like a Repuke or a Repuke who will tell the working person, "I don't have your interests at heart but I'll keep those minorities in their place." the working person will either stay home or vote Repuke. At least with the -pukes we know we're screwed as working people.

Dems have stabbed working people in the back too many times. And don't site the history of the early 20th century labor union movement. The early labor movement WAS NOT led by Democrats but by SOCIALIST and COMMUNIST immigrants from Eastern Europe.


MJ
St Louis, MO

party to weaken it? It would seem so.

"In 2000, it criticized former Vice President Al Gore's unsuccessful campaign for being too populist and abandoning some of the pro-business themes that helped elect Clinton."

an excellent and factual point,btw.

start a national health care program, a very socialistic idea, and why we voted for him. At that time seventy percent of the population was in favor of it. When this happened and Clinton was elected, the HMO, Insurance and pharmaceutical industry went into full propaganda and lobbying war mode. They successfully convinced 30% of that 70% that NHC was a terrible idea. "See how all those Canadians come down here in busloads to avail themselves of our superior health care." (A total fabrication of PR firms who fronted for the health industry making them hard but not impossible to trace back.)

After the Republicans shot down Hillary's plans after a barrage of this propaganda from the corporate health industry, no Democratic candidate, would touch it with a ten foot pole treating the whole issue like it didn't exist, including Bill Clinton. This I believe more than anything pushed Clinton to the center.

have socialized health care. The health care that the military is given is socialized health care and the pols usually refer to it as the best care in the world.One thing that military health care has is teaching hospitals. Alot of the civilian doctors,nurses and orderlies were trained in the military at taxpayer expense and then later they argue that socialized medicine would ruin our health care. And I would bet that the health care that the congressmen get are part of the military health care system.

a bonafide non DLC democrat.

Recall how Joe left Gore holding the bag and said the controversial overseas military votes SHOULD be counted - even though they were past their deadline and it hadn't been done in previous years. Thanks Joe, you a-hole.

Watch what happens in 2004. Kerry will get nominated, be wishy-washy and "subtle" and unclear on foreign policy and will lose by a fucking landslide.

WAKE THE HELL UP!

The DLC will turn 2004 into another 2002. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN?

You'd think they would have learned their lesson about this "Bush-lite" policy of theirs. I don't get it. How can you present an alternative to an administration that you agree with 75% of the time? It would be even worse if we got Lieberman, but he's too far right to win the nomination I think. At any rate, it's up to us on the left to take our party back from these people. We've got to do our grassroots work for the progressives out there that are running for office. That’s our job in 2004

this really is my nightmare scenario.

we damn well better listen to what the DLC is saying. Someday, when the anti-DLC'ers get old enough, they'll realize you can't eat principles. Ideas and principles have no nutritional value. Ideas and principles will not feed the elderly nor small children. Ideas and principles will not put unemployed people back to work.

Keep your principles. So, you end up losing elections and having the idiot as president, more elderly starve, lose their life savings. More children starve and go without medical care or proper education. But, dammit, "I've got my principles and the party's going too far to the right... blah, blah, blah."

Unfortunately, when these kids were still in diapers, Clinton was elected on a pro-business platform and the hope that we can be better. He did not campaign as a flaming liberal. Once he was elected, he instituted and RE-instituted many liberal policies and signed "liberal" legislation such as FMLA. Clinton was smart. He didn't campaign on liberal issues. He knew that doesn't win elections.

Unfortunately, the anti-DLC kids don't know this because the world did not begin until when they were born.

I couldn't agree more. We have to campaign from the middle. After the election, we can take care of our liberal issues. We can't take care of squat if we don't win the WH.

incidentally the majority of the party.

In Mark Penn's poll of over 1000 Democrats, they described themselves as:

35% Liberal Democrats

39% Moderate Democrats

17% Conservative Democrats

Thus, 56% of self-described Democrats consider themselves to be either
Moderate or Conservative Democrats.


I consider myself a liberal Democrat, and I am a supporter of John Kerry.

It is revealing to note that in the MoveOn primary, John Kerry, who received only 16% of the MoveOn vote, could be enthusiastically supported by 75% of the MoveOn voters, who are decidedly liberal, as the Democratic nominee.

This means that a lot of liberals find John Kerry appealing.

:dem:

74% who are not conservative Democrats or Republican Lite. So why is the DLC trying to get us to pander to the 17% of Republican Lite Democrats?

on the party. They certainly have never had any influence on my vote.
Hell, most Democrats probably never even heard of the DLC.

And I am offended by the DLC calling themselves, "New" Democrats as I don't see a damn things wrong with "Old" Democrats.

The Democrats need a leader. Not a bunch of wishy-washy Republican wannabes.

Firstly, DLC types apparently had great influence on decisions concerning the recount.

Secondly, given the absolute schizophrenia showed by Gore in 2000, we can only assume that he wanted to run a certain campaign while the DLC wanted him to do something else.

From all the reading and listening and the whole gamut of emotions of the 2000 Stolen Election! :kick:

Let us not forget the 1994 congressional election that brought us the CONtract ON America and Newt Gingrich. The DLC lost that one too. Wasn't Tricky Dicky "I can't show up to vote because I am whoring for money" Gephardt also one of the "leaders" of the Dems at that time?

How many times must one be beaten down before one looks elsewhere? Would you tell an abused spouse or child..."well you had better listen to what we tell you because when you are old you will thank us?"

The DLC has abused working people and taken us for granted for too long. There are places for us to go.

period stop. 2002 was lost because of an unethical state of alarm that Bush/Rove created over Iraq. Even Bush I had the decency to postpone a decision on Kuwait/Iraq until after the 1990 elections to keep the decision from becoming political. But now we have for "president" a guy that in a drunken rage picked a fist fight with the dad that had that decency as president. And, we also have Rove who cut his political teeth doing Nixon's dirty tricks.

The Democrats lost because Democrats are honorable and decent people who were blindsided by the politicization of war. The Dems never saw it coming as they had planned to slam Bush on the economy. When a disabled triple amputee veteran loses a Senate election because he was branded as un-American, you know how badly the GOP manipulated the war as a campaign issue.

So, don't blame the DLC. Think about something before you say it and look at the facts first.

How could they not see it coming? They fucking BROADCAST it all summer long! Why did Max Cleland not walk up to Suxby Shameless and punch him in the teeth for his remarks (yes I know that would be unacceptable but why couldn't he find a socially acceptable political alternative to that?) THE DLC SEEMS TO THINK THAT WE WILL BE REWARDED FOR BEING THE GOOD GUYS AND PLAYING BY THE RULES. THE PROBLEM IS WE ARE PLAYING ON THE OPPOSING TEAM'S COURT WITH A FIXED REF TO AN AUDIENCE THAT ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION!!
That calls for a complete change of tactics. The DLC doesn't get it or at least the DLC leadership and spokespeople don't.

If that hasn't already occured to you.

dead blue dogs on the `double yellow

is not leadership. That is incompetence.

This incompetence extends to a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues and the psyche of the American people.

The DLC has destroyed itself by having no vision, no values, no morals, no fight. All they have is a wishy-washy identity that they are "not" Republican. At the same time they let the Republicans frame the debates and the issues then try to moderate them. They do this because they are wholly bereft of ideas.

Bill Clinton understood something fundamental about the American people - They don't really care if you are right or wrong, what they care about is that you make strong decisions. Howard Dean is the ONLY candidate that can meet pass muster on this most important of qualities in an American leader. The rest of the corrupt baffoons are too busy blinking and nodding at every word Karl Rove says. They look like idiots and the American people see them.

That is why we lost 2002 and that is why Kerry is going to lose 2004.

Instead of whining about an "unethical" use of power by the Republican Party we need a leadership that fights back - "Unethically" if necessary.

Howard Dean is the only hope the Democratic Party has and the corrupt cowards in the DLC, bereft of vision and values, are trying as hard as they can to destroy him.

We need someone who stands up and fights. We need strength. We need somebody with balls. We don't need a weak, ineffectual, wishy washy wimp like Kerry. We don't need a me-too like Lieberman. We don't need a corrupt fool like Gephardt and we don't need a child like Edwards.

We need a leader.

Howard Dean in 2004

Abandon Democratic principles and embrace Republican strategy to court corporate operating funding.

And....I'm 48.

without campaigning on the liberal issues. It appears everyone seems to think that you have to campaign on these issues and if you win, you win, if you don't you don't. NO! The idea is NOT to tell everyone everything you're going to do. The idea is to win an election. There's a real big difference between the two.

What would happen to the GOP if they campaigned on their REAL agenda? What if the GOP told about every right wing nut case policy they intended to implement once they were elected in 2002? Do you think they would have won? Hell, no.

You get someone elected however you can, then you go to work on policy, liberal policy, that is.

But the republicans don't tell their ultra-conservative base to go fuck themselves, either!
:grr:

you don't set yourself up as the faint echo of who you are aiming to beat.

You demonstrate strength, character and resolve and further your own agenda by contrasting it with your rival, not emulating it.

People are sick of Bush, they want another choice, something solid and authentic, a way out. He hasn't benefitted the country and the future doesn't look bright under his continuing screw-ups of...EVERYTHING.

right now.

They do want hem-hawing, they don't want subtle differences, they don't want weak distinctions. They want a leader.

Kerry is NOT this kind of leader.

if you are going to pander to the right wing and corpret lobiest any way. That is winning for winnings sake. Good for the ego, but the entire point of sending Democrats to congress in the first place is to see to the people's buisness, not just to win elections.

And the Dems have refused the public will at every turn. The latests exampel being the Iraq war vote. But this pasivity dates all the way back too Bush II.

It no longer works as a winning stratigy, if it could have ever been said to have worked at all. The DLC has nothing to offer the American people, so they only choises they have is to vote Republican, or stay home.

I'm a 61 yr-old grandmother and I think the DLC has RUINED the Democratic party. If people want to vote Republican, they will vote for Shrub, not our candidate.

I hope I never get so old that I value compromise over what's right. The appeasment part of this party will continue to blur our vision until the rest of the country doesn't know what we stand for. Or to put it another way, 2 pro-business/anti-wroker parties + 0 opposition = 0 democracy

As far as Clinton is concerned. He's about a billion times better than bush, but for every FMLA there was a NAFTA. Personally I'd take another Clinton in a second, but I'll do everything I can until the primary is over to make sure we don't get one.

You would have loved it back in the early 70's when I started this stuff. Oh, yeah... we all had the vision of how the world should be. We all would never "sell out".

Then you grow up, have kids, want to retire and hope for, at worst, a dead heat in the rat race.

and I want to be able to look them in the eye and tell them I was glad that I voted for so-and-so. I want them to understand that the principles of democracy don't fly out the window just because some DINO calls himself a Democrat. You work for change, and you vote for the people you know are right. You compromise when you have too, but you don't walk into a fight ready to bend over backwards to appease the other side. That's the truth, and I don't care how old I get, he truth does not change.

You start from your ideal and then move toward what's acceptable. If you START with the compromise position then where the hell is the room to bargain? Nowhere but further away from where you want to be.

:bounce:

I despise the centrist who figures out the political compromise from the get go, aligns with the moderate Republicans and doesn't even let the progressives have their input.

Fuckin' compromising centrists who scorn liberals make me sick!

<<You would have loved it back in the early 70's when I started this stuff. Oh, yeah... we all had the vision of how the world should be. We all would never "sell out".

Then you grow up, have kids, want to retire and hope for, at worst, a dead heat in the rat race.>>

he's done things that have hurt the people who already KNOW you can't live off of 'pricipals' alone.

the stage has been by our capitulation to our corp masters and now we are witnessing what not standing up to these bullies a long time ago brings.

well that is if we are going to go by the historical record ;-)

peace

we sometimes find real truth. This is one of those cases excepting I do not buy your centrist rant about those who oppose the GOP-lite version of the democratic party foisted upon us by the DLC being too young or too idealistic. This is simply nonesense to divert criticism of the failed policies of the democratic leadership.

Clinton was certainly a centrist but had the ability to speak as a populist, he could reach out to everyone. Your comment that he didnt campaign as a "flaming liberal" says far more about you than it does about the political leanings of the electorate. We cannot hope to win an election without giving the voter a clear message and a choice. What you advocate is more Vichy Democratic cowardice and will lead to yet another debacle at the polls.

Principles and conviction, stating the truth and stating it loudly are both anathema to you DLC'ers and the only hope to oust Bush.

I'd love to worry about my principles too but I agree we've got to win first, because its against some of those principles to allow the damage Bush is doing to continue to hurt others around me.
HOWEVER the DLC is gonna kill us. I totally think they've got the wrong idea.

It's been stated here before.. and I'll state it again.
Now, I don't think the parties are the same... but on the Major themes that Bush will want to put out in the general election...the DLC is simply Bush Lite... and why should the public not choose the original? WE HAVE TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE, didn't 2002 show us ANYTHING?

???????

So, someone clue me in here. Just what is the Democratic Party?

- The DLC is outright lying when they say Gore ran an unsuccessful populist campaign. Gore received more votes than ANY OTHER DEM IN HISTORY. But they have to spread this garbage to make it appear that 'populism' can't win elections.

- What really exposes these creeps for what they are is their rants against other Dems who don't agree with their 'pro-business', pro-war agenda.

""The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far left,""

IN MY DREAMS!!!!!

Oh dare I dream? :+

Whomever said that does not know the "far left." The "far left" such that it is in the US wants NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Democrats. The Dems are seen by the "far left" as just another corporately controlled party. Another wing of the boss party.

But this time I've got one thing to say: IDIOTS!
If the Democrats turn towards the center, then how many progressive voters will be off the hook?

If we abandon the progressive principles that should dominate our party, how much will our country get screwed?

all core liberal issues NO?

clinton won on a POPULOUS message and a good economy i don't get these folks who are against the left :shrug:

peace

The election will be about defense and the economy. Putting all our eggs in the economy basket isn't a winning strategy.

It's a syndrome I used to observe in the exreme right wingers; they just don't know how to be the party in power. These same folk will rail just as hard against Kerry Or Dean when whoever gets the nomination as they do now against the evil DLC, since NO ONE is "pure" enough to deserve their vote.

It's this attitude that will get the party ultimately ground into the dirt by the republicans, who DO know what this is about and are playing it that way:
THIS IS WAR. ITS ULTIMATE WAR. IT'S CLASS WAR.
THE DESIRED RESULT:ELIMINATION OF ALL CLASSES EXCEPT "SLAVE" AND MASTER

WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING TO WIN.
INCLUDING MITIGATING SOME PRINCIPLES.

Oh, I forgot, you guys "like" it underground.
You're just saving it up for the slave rebellion of 2025.
you GO, YOU CRAZY SLAVES, YOU!

"THIS IS WAR. ITS ULTIMATE WAR. IT'S CLASS WAR.
THE DESIRED RESULT:ELIMINATION OF ALL CLASSES EXCEPT "SLAVE" AND MASTER"

Can you please tell me then why DLC-favored politicians like Lieberman keep taking the opportunity to bolster the enemy's position when he is on the defensive?

...and we're still pissed that the CENTRIST's only advice was to 'MOVE ON'.

- How many times do we have to say it? GORE WON THE 2000 ELECTION.

- It harms both the Dem party and the nation to ignore this fact. But here we have the DLC spouting bullshit about Gore losing because he called corporations like Enron 'greedy'.

- The DLC needs a good dose of reality. It's interesting that they're 'mad' at the 'liberals' instead of the phucking Supreme Court and the Bushie thugs who forced their way into office.

newsflash: If you don't alienate them, there's more of US than there are of them.

the DLC was most unhappy with the campaign Gore ran. That he won doesn't seem to give them pause in their criticisms of current candidates they deem too "liberal" or "populist."

of the debate.

i guess it shows us 'underdogs' what we are up against.

peace

With a few small changes, your post could just as easily be applied to the DLC. You oughta mail it to them.

Here's the difference most of the DLC is successful in other areas and trying in their own way to give some of it back.

If they were what many here at DU imply, they'd be the Republican Leadership Council.

There's a huge reason they aren't.
But many just don't get it.

So just how many MORE progressives and leftists are they willing to lose to try to capture that elusive 2% swing vote?

Next year will we hear them whining that the Greens captured 7% of a vote that was "legally" theirs?

Sheesh....

And what's with that link in your post? No way I'm clicking on it due to some nasty internet tricks making the rounds these days. Whatever it is you have there, you should consider reposting the text in your post if you want people to see it.

That may be your wish but there aren't 7% of the public that agree with the greens extreme positions.

remind me of the Jews at Masada who committed suicide rather than submit to Roman rule in 600 AD.

To this day Jewish scholars debate the wisdom of that choice.

If all the Jews had made that choice there would be no Jews today to debate it's wisdom.

I think there is relevance in that story to our current situation.

rather than submit to the rule


What do you think Liberals and Leftists are? Serfs who need to submit to the rule?

What a bunch of hooey... and dirty tactics come to divide the Left.

They were too ineffectual to make a difference.

that's the most incredible act of desconstruction this side of Stanley Fish.

It is a story or parable about the dangers of extremism, but hey, I'll bet you think David Koresh was a martyr.

let me ask you...do you consider the DLC extreme? If so, what is their extreme? I would argue that Greens are slightly to the right of true Liberal...


So that would make the DLC....right-of-center at least

n/t

I wish I could share this speech I just heard by Bill Moyers...he eviscerated that middling crap by explaining that history defines that change has always come through progressivism

Please don't take this the wrong way but your subject line reminds me of "Top Hat" in Monopoly Tycoon. He says that whenever he wins an auction...lol.

Back to seriousness...if you've got something of substance for me to read then I'll be glad to do it. I don't doubt your claims about Moyers but I'd like to read it for myself.

his recent speech (June?) at the Take Back America conference.

I only heard a bit of it, but it was damn good...and he was obliterating the rightist media.

Check www.flashpoints.net later for an audio link.

How many do you think would be green under those circumstances.

17% of Americans consider themselves liberal.

35% of Americans consider themselves conservative.

40% of Americans consider themselves moderate.

You don't need a PHD to figure out what it takes to win.

CITE?!?!?!?!

I don't think you can say such a horrendously partisan thing and not qualify with facts. If the country is truly the way you say, I'll leave...I'll take my chances with sane people.

However, I don't believe that at all. In the final analysis, I'll bet you that fully 70% of all Americans would consider themselves progressivge.

Chew on THAT! and get back to me with those cites.

......" Only 17% of Americans identify themselves as liberal, as opposed to 40% moderate, and 35% consevative."

I respectfully submit that you put down your dog eared copy of Das Kapital and read some literature from the 21st century.

holy crap!!!!!!!!!!

and you want me to take you as serious!

When you get a well documented poll that can be verified by means other than THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA....let me know.

with the page number and everything.

I have stated a fact with the documentation to prove it.

Intellectual honesty demands that you prove that that the poll is not credible.

The Right Wing Media -Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The New Republic has endorsed every Democratic candidate for president since 1917

I guess to you anything that isn't to the left of The People's Daily is part of the right wing media.

Orwell had it right "some ideas are so bizzare that only an intellectual could believe them."

"Only 17% of Americans identify themselves as liberal, as opposed to 40% moderate, and 35% consevative."

Depending on how the question is phrased it does not surprise me that the results would be as described by the New Republic. Over the course of my adult life "liberal" has become the "L" word, a scarlet letter you might say. So, of course when asked if one is "liberal" or "moderate" one will opt for "moderate" because in the political vocabulary of today it does not have the negative connotation that comes with the words "liberal" and "conservative."

What I'd like to see is a poll that asks questions similar to this:

Do you support:
Healthcare for all regardless of ability to pay?
Higher taxes on corporate profits?
Better mass transit?
More funding of public education?

You will find that most Americans do support those things. Any response to a poll is contingent to how the question is phrased.

I think he was John Kennedy's pollster who predicted the razor sharp 1960 finish.

That's where the numbers come from

always have been always will be. The way to win is not through stupid polling data it is by reaching out to the electorate with a clear message, firmly delivered. Bush has been an unmitigated disaster and selling that is simplicity itself. He has failed the economy, he has failed to prevent 9/11 despite forewarnings , he has failed to get bin Laden he has failed to turn the freaking lights back on in Iraq for cripes sake! He has failed to curb corporate excess and failed to prosecute the most egregious of abusers.

We are spending a billion a month and 30+ american lives in and endless attempt to bring "democracy " to people who dont want it or us. Yet despite an endless litany of wonderful campaign points we get the same tired defeatist drivel from the centrists who have usurped the democratic party as the far right has usurped the GOP. How many failures at the polls will democrats endure before they cast out these republicans in jackass disguise?

Wasn't it 20% less than a week ago?

:eyes:

if you have evidence to the contrary intellectual honesty demands you share it with us

I have faith in polls to the same extent that I can, unaided, fly. I have no "evidence" to the contrary, but throwing The New Republic around doesn't convince me. Besides which, the label "liberal" has been so corrupted and maligned over the last twenty years that it's essentially meaningless noise where most folks are concerned. If you want to find out where people really stand, put a whole plate of clearly-stated positions in front of them and let them choose - if you can get their attention.

In Politcal Science one of the first things they teach us is the difference betwen the emperical and the normative or the difference between the way things are and the way things ought to be.

When I cite a piece of research data it has nothing to do with my preference only my desire to describe a phenomenon using real and hard evidence.

If not then everything is in the realm of opinion.

polls are considered real and hard evidence.



what a world what a world :crazy:

of how people feel on any given issue at any given time. It is a snapshot.

Maybe the polls can't tell you what Rousseau's transcendent "general will" is but they sure as Hell can give you a good idea of who is going to be your next representative.

Welcome to politics. Welcome to fickle human nature. Everything *is* in the realm of opinion.

You're welcome to think this is all scientific and that the human desires that animate politics are all graphable, pollable, citable. I think it's bunk.

"GARSH! It smells just like flowers!" " *GASP* Mr. Hanky!"

Back off man - he's a SCIENTIST! :D

that says Kucinich never gets nore than two percent in any primary and that Nader doesn't crack three in the general.

The facy is there are a ton of liberals in the United States--and all but a very very few are perfectly happy to vote for the mainstream Democratic Party. I'm really sorry this pisses so many people off around here, but, hey, why be a two-percenter if you can't be really, really angry?

When this whole thing started back about 40 or 50 years ago (I can't remember, it's been a while since I had intro to PoliSci) didn't you people say that what Political Science should be trying to do is show, in a detached manner, the way to an ideal society through polling data and intensive think-tank-style research. The passions of the individual don't matter in the equation. To you empirical types, there is an ideal society free from any ideological constraints, and your job is to find it. Ok, it's been about 40 or 50 years now. Where’s that ideal society we were promised?

The truth is polls always vary widely depending on how the question is worded. The best way to truly gauge the party and the people for that matter is to ask a broad range of questions about different positions on different issues, but even then the individual issue questions will vary depending on wording. So what you're left with is the bias of the person who writes the questions deciding how they're worded. Now either consciously or unconsciously that person (or group of people) decides how the question is slanted.

I suppose the point of this rant is. In the realm of politics, everything is in the realm of opinion whether we admit it or not.

hehehheeh...clever

how can find the info on the poll.
how many polled error rate,stuff like that.

not that it means a hill of beans to me because polls don't count
voting booths do and to that i submit this website for your consideration

http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/

i especially recommend reading through their material regarding the Youth Vote.

The fact that the Republican's

control the White House

" " the Senate

" " the House

" " the majority of elected officials nationwide

would disabuse all but the most partisan of the notion that "70% of Americans are progressive"

The poll I have c-i-t-e-d is reamrkably close to polls on that topic taken in the past thirty years.

Yes, go to the archives, at one time there were alot more self idebtified liberals but that was a long time ago.

when most people supported Jim Crow. You don't change the dynamic by panderng. Where people place themselves on the political spectrum is extremely subjective. For instance Dean is a moderate because he doesn't support gun control, but because he also doesn't support the war, all those genius polysci majors at the dlc consider him a McGovernite.

....thats why they dont vote...they know (unless its local politics) it will never get them anywhere

the voting booth says different. anywho,you didn't give me the answers to my question

how many people were polled
the phrasing of questions is important too
error rate

where can i get this info
since you cited the poll you should provide the complete poll for consideration

also, show me where it has been determined that polls are real and hard evidence.

The fact that the Republican's

control the White House

" " the Senate

" " the House

" " the majority of elected officials nationwide"


Looking at this information, why should I beleive a fucking thing the DLC says about winning elections?

less polls.

Most people I know who claim they aren't liberals actually ARE liberal on every single issue when it actually gets down to the particulars. The only reason they don't claim it is because the word has been maligned to mean something it really doesn't mean. And the DLC has done nothing to change the perception. Maybe it's because the corporate money flooding into the DLC is so much easier to pander to than actually promoting and protecting true American values.

It's not a smart thing to use labels that the opponent likes-- rather one should emphasize individual issues. I happen to believe the math on liberal v/s conservative-- but I think there is another story afoot here. What percentage of conservatives are social conservatives and what percentage are fiscal conservatives. The died-in-wool right to lifers will rarely vote democratic, but a greed-head might if he felt his own personal interests were threatened.

Unfortunately, come the general election one can't yell about your most distinguishing trait-- one has to dwell on one's must mundane (accepted) views.

I think the DLC (and I am neutral toward them) has two main points-- we can't afford to write off a libertarian type of conservative vote, and we can't argue against a strong defense. (We could outflank the repubs by arguing for better military benefits and against wasteful use of our troops.) The degree of social spending we can manage is something that we can discuss _after_ winning. Remember, the point of a party is to get candidates to _win_ elections. It is a matter of putting forth our best face.

I ask this question all the time. No one I ask seems to know for sure. They either coached Rick Kahn on THE SPEECH, or they didn't even bother coming to town in the days leading up to it, and were hoping for a disaster.

I have no trust in the DLC.

It is being repeated over and over on the cable stations - like Tweeety Matthews and some weird REPUBL-ICK-AN consultant named Glunz just now - they both said it over and over how Dean was an angry man - not cool and calm on MTP with Russert, etc.
Who can be cool and calm seeing the hideous mess this country is in beginning with the junta in 2000 in Miami with the Republ-ick-an operatives dressed down in thier "civvies" banging on the walls of the vote counters. That, to me, was the Polaroid moment - when the American democracy went down the drain.
If all that plus the moronic Iraq invasion can't boil your blood - you aren't human!
Go Howard!

The Dean campaign message that has stirred such a storm of interest online isn't really a message at all; it's a mood. While many other candidates in the race have put forward a menu of proposals large and small that they would undertake as president, Dean in the early stages of the campaign has in effect said to his audience, "My blood is boiling. If yours is, too, then I'm your guy."

That mood message has succeeded at revving up people animated by their hatred for Bush, their lingering resentment over the Florida election fiasco in 2000, and their more recent opposition to the war in Iraq. Trolling the discussion boards in some of the unofficial Dean fan sites, one finds scores of people who say they are backing Dean because, as one poster says, "Bush is evil."

...

But there is also another, simpler explanation for why fringe groups would be using the Internet better than mainstream campaigns: "Because they have to," said Fose, McCain's Internet manager.

Certainly, the fringes of the political spectrum are active online on heavily trafficked discussion boards such as the left-wing democraticunderground.com and the right-wing freerepublic.com. Dean's fiery message resonates in the left-wing haunts. He is the favorite son on democraticunderground.com, according to the site's proprietor, David Allen, and the people posting on that site are an animated bunch. Much of what they post -- about Bush, and about moderate Democrats -- would not be appropriate to repeat here.

...

Perhaps the closest parallel to the Dean strategy is the dot-com companies of the late 1990s: Accumulate eyeballs now and fill in the blanks on their business plans later. If, in the end, the early hype and glory of Dean's Internet campaign goes the way of the dot-com bust, then historians may rightly conclude it was for similar reasons.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=2&kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=251916

Hope the DLC's happy about supplying the rightwing with anti-Dean talking points. I'm sure the sabbath gasbags are.

He became what the supporters were looking for. He started out campaigning down here in SC early 2002 ascting like he was a level headed centrist who shouldn't be confused with the left wing of his party. When the antiwar movement grew and his non support of the Iraq resolution (he would have supported it with the Biden-Lugar amendment) was mistaken for antiwar, he benefitted greatly from the antiwar $$$$ that came his way.

People didn't even bother to notice that he did not join Dennis Kucinich and others in their legal petition to stop the war. They didn't question why he never bothered to speak out at an antiwar rally.

Lifelong centrist Dean talks now like he's angry with the Democratic party...Jerry Brown campaigned in '92 as the "angry" Dem, contrary to his personality at the time. What do they have in common? Joe Trippi.

but wouldn't you agree that it's unsettling that a Democratic organization is relentlessly flogging a few of our candidates with characterizations that traditionally have emanated from the right? Liberal, unelectably fringe, angry, populist, left-wing, etc.

FOR 11 YEARS!

Sorry...I believe in karma.

This is the DLC saying, "So you're turning on us to collect liberal coin, eh boy...well...we'll go along with your game....Hey everybody...Dean is an angry liberal, just like he wants you to believe."

The DLC isn't just smacking around a candidate for his contradictions and shortcomings (like in your Dean posts). They're reinforcing the rightwing canards about Democrats being flighty ultra-left reflexive pacifists proto-hippies. They're making it just that much harder for all, including your man Kerry. I know everybody thinks their favored candidate is blessed with the Right Stuff, is Kryptonite to Republicans, and won't have any problem flitting aside charges of being the new McGovern, but they're dreaming. It's going to be work, and the DLC is piling on the load.

calling the other candidates "Bushlite?" He was trying to stereotype them in much the same way that some greens said that Gore wasn't much different than Bush. It was wrong then, and more wrong today, since we KNOW how far right Bush is now.

I think we're talking past each other :)

I'm not a Deaner, and I'm not objecting to whatever schadenfreude you're enjoying over the DLC tearing into him. I'm pissed at the DLC for the reasons I posted above.

And he has more going for him than just being an "angry Dem."

Dean is a pragmatic centrist with populist appeal.

He'll compromise when it's warranted, and he'll fight when it's not.

Sounds like a winning combination IMHO.

Why is it a bad thing for someone to express anger in this society? It is by righteous anger that brings about change. People take to the streets when they are angry. That is exactly what we should be doing NOW.

Heck yes I am angry...

I am angry because...
I may lose overtime pay...
Too many people are out of work and too little is being done about it.
People are dying in a war without end that is being fought for oil profits.
I pay too much in payroll taxes while MILLIONAIRES are being given yet ANOTHER tax break even as layoffs continue unabated.
College aid is being cut which will cause many working-class students to abandon their education.
Congress impeached a president for having an affair but will not investigate a president who LIED to start a war of aggression on another sovereign nation.
The corporate media is basically the propaganda arm of the Bush mis-administration.

Yeah I'm angry. Anyone paying attention would be angry.

It isn't clueless old steadfast Joe Lieberman, who the parade marched right past, but the Clinton New Democrats that are scrambling to cover their arses, by insisting that we must focus on the present mess and not relate it to what led us here. They were all on the war bandwagon and can't exactly confront Bush with it so long as they were lining up behind him. So, it is the hell with the country and the truth, let's just hurry past this little awkward patch and move on.

We come to divide...

I see that there are some people who really believe that if the left (if I may call it that) developes its own unique message based on honest open debate and the promotion of true alternatives we will loose. If clear distinctions are made we will fail.

That it's best to repeat our last performance (I know we won... you really think 500,000 votes will work this time?)

I find it interesting, it helps me understand what others think.

If someone actually made a clear sensible and persuasive argument as to why this is good I think I too would join them. They haven't and I don't.

- It's certainly their right to disagree with 'liberals' and populist campaigns...but I can't see the logic in the attempts to split the party into RIGHT and LEFT.

- Clearly the DLC is forsaking the working class and liberals to appease their corporate masters.

quit the holier than though act.

This is absolutely the battle. The Democrats have, until recently, been as much of a disaster as Bush. It's time we make a stand and not be afraid that, if we do, the voters won't like us- according to the Right-wing dominated opinion machine.

are you talking to me?

Tinoire


;-)

:)

I will vote for any Democrat that emerges victorious from the Democratic primaries. Voting Democrat is a matter of religion with me.

I pray we choose a candidate that can beat Chimpy and this is not like 1972, 1984, and 1988 when we all knew our candidate was a loser before the All Star Game.

:kick:

in '84

anybody else get this feeling?

But this time has come and gone. When the Democrats controlled congress, the liberal party leadership along with conservative elements of our party were unable to piece together a coherent message during Presidential elections that could be embraced by the nominee as well the more conservative local and state Democrats. This was seen in 1980 when Carter was not accepted by many liberals who supported Brown, Kennedy, and later Anderson. In 84 and 88 Mondale and Dukakis were not able to run on a message accepted by the conservative wing. In 1992 this gap was bridged when Clinton ran on a message embraced by liberals and conservatives alike.

Since the GOP takeover of 1994, with the retirement of George Mitchell and the defeat of Tom Foley, the liberal wing of the party has played only a secondary role in governing. Since the loss of the White House and Senate our entire party has been reduced to this secondary role. Local and state Democrats no longer fear liberal message but yearn for one, for they know that without it the party has no purpose. The division perceived by the DLC is only in their heads, and they fear that winning means riding in the same car with those in the party who are liberal but are also electable.

As a party no longer in power, the only way to win power is stop detracting from a comman Democratic message. We have a message that can unify us, but will the DLC divide us at a time that we should be supporting this comman message? In other words..liberals trying to retake the party are not the enemy, they are the party's best hope because they are the voting base who do not wish to act merely as the water in the Republican agenda. If the DLC is right they can prove themselves, without attempting to define liberals who have a legitimate message.

Or they are moles. Assuming the former, think of the range of political views, now view that as a spectrum. Right now, it's skewed very far to the right.

If we keep the center we are going to lose ground.

If the rights are rightwingnuts, we need to be aggressive progressive liberals.

EVEN in a normal setting, if someone is a democrat, they should represent the left, and the republican, should represent the greedy cheap-labor conservatives.