Name a single state Kerry lost because he wasn't liberal enough

While I find it completely predictable that many DU'ers are now demanding that the Democratic Party nominate a "real liberal" in 2008, I look at the electoral map and see a completely different story. The fact is that Kerry didn't simply lose most of these red states, he was completely blown away. And look at the red states that were (relatively) close: Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Ohio. More importantly, look at the Democrats in these states that have been elected to statewide office. None of them are more liberal than John Kerry.

We can write off most of the south in terms of presidential elections (not senate or house). But what we CAN do is elect moderates so we can sow up Colorado and Ohio. If we do that we wont lose elections.

We try to imitate them and this is what we get.

Of course you're right. It isn't about not inspiring the left.

But nobody is buying your B.S. about Kerry being a Bush clone.

Sorry. I was actually agreeing with you, but I didn't express it very well.

I was pointing to the backward thinking of Bush/Rove ("we aren't fighting the war on terror very well, so you need to elect us to fight the war on terror" type thing) rubbing off on the DUers who would suggest we didn't nominate a candidate who is "liberal enough".

My bad. But Nader? That's harsh! ;)

By the way, how many votes does Ralph appear to have drawn away from Bush? That's what he said he'd do, right?

Sorry. I was actually agreeing with you, but I didn't express it very well.

I was pointing to the backward thinking of Bush/Rove ("we aren't fighting the war on terror very well, so you need to elect us to fight the war on terror" type thing) rubbing off on the DUers who would suggest we didn't nominate a candidate who is "liberal enough".

My bad. But Nader? That's harsh! ;)

By the way, how many votes does Ralph appear to have drawn away from Bush? That's what he said he'd do, right?

It's an article of faith here among many that there is a silent majority of leftists in America that will suddenly show up if we can only nominate a candidate far enough to the left to appeal to them.

It would be nice if that were true, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of it.

bunch of Dohlstine Democrats who followed their hearts and voted for Bush...because DLC "Democrats" consistently exhibit a lack of balls, an inability to express solid ideals with consistency and conviction and a tendency to say things in campaign ads like our famous FORMER DLC Senate Minority Leader did for the past week....and I quote "I support president bush more often than not".

Now you tell me....if that is the crux of the assholes cache of retorts to Rethuglican liable....if he feels that these words will resonate with his constituency, if he believes bush's policies are worthy of his support the majority of the time...then why the fuck would that constituency vote for him instead of a fellow who will stand with Bush 100% of the time? Why would they vote for Kerry, a man whose philosophies dohlstine claims are in stark contrast to the Presidents?

They wouldn't....and guess what kids...they didn't.

Quit with the spin fellas....your phony Democrats lost...just like we said they would....and your answer is what? If you can't beat'em be just like they are?

If I gotta change the democratic party into the Republican party to win....then why not save the headache and vote Republican. Which brings to mind my final thought. Why Dohlstine, if you are such a fan of Conservative policy don't you join hands with Zell Miller and your pal Lieberman and get the fuck outa here?

RC

A President Lieberman at least wouldn't put gay people in cattle cars to work camps like Bush's fundy base wants to do...

We should just run a Republican next time. Maybe Zell Miller would be interested.

Is what I would guess.
Not sure he'd have my vote, but I think he could win.

Indiana and Arizona would do it...

The problem, of course, is defining what, exactly, is liberal.

If he was more more liberal there would of been a larger turnout of youthful voters....instead it was all war all the time...again...

Young people didn't turn out for Howard Dean in Iowa. What makes you think they'd turn out for a Howard Dean clone in Ohio?

who runs against a Republican = a liberal.

That's their logic.

And sadly - and more importantly - frighteningly true. :(

and theyd call him the most liberal guy since marx

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

in SD?

Democrats all across the spectrum can work together to help Dems win.

And people have to remember, we don't elect a president of the United Neighborhoods of San Francisco. We elect a President of the US of A.

of working people. opposing bush's tax cuts. he was no zell miller type or even evan bayh type. he really does believe in progressive economic policies. he even understood the importance of the courts and justices. he stood up against the anti gay amendment to the constitution. all this while representing a state that is solid red and opposes him on many of these issues. yet people act as if he sold out or is some traitor to the cause.

other than kerry/edwards, losing daschle's seat probably made me the most upset.

a more liberal dem to be majority/minority leader? Never heard the former - and have to agree - at least in terms of being willing to hold fast and fight as hard as the other size in the majority/minority leader seat.

I would say he is more liberal than Kerry and he was relected...congress from Ohio by double digits...

NT

he did pretty well in closing the large gap on terrorism and iraq. and he did well on economy and other domestic issues. he won independents also. and he did get younger voters.

but he lost on cultural issues. on "moral" issues. many of these people even admitted they had questions or problems with how things were going in iraq and even the war on terrorism. but they saw bush as a man of god. and they gave reasons like morals and values for why they supported him over kerry.

the anti gay measure on the ballots helped turn out the right wingers to vote. many of these people who may have been questioning bush on iraq, terrorism, jobs etc went out to vote on the anti gay measure and while there they voted for bush. they would probably never have voted for kerry and at best stayed home. but the anti gay measures in the states were always intended as a strategy by republicans to get a turnout during the elections and it worked.

Kucinich is a congressman who runs in a smaller geographic area.

Even the reddest states have pockets of liberals in them.

Running statewide is another matter altogether.

but about differentiating yourself from your opponent.

As we have seen, you can't let the other guy define you, you can't run on the "I'm just like my opponent, only better" platform, and "electability" isn't worth the breath you draw to speak the word if the candidate isn't willing to fight for US.

It wasn't enough that John Kerry wanted to be President.

He had to give a damn about the future of this country. I remember a quote I heard about what kerry will do if he loses. Som,ething to the effect that it won't matter, because he'll go back to his life as a rich Senator with a rich wife.

Not fucking good enough.

wars here at DU for the next 4 years. I don't buy the argument that Kerry didn't energize the "base" because he isn't liberal/progressive enough. The thought of having Bush in office 4 more years should have gotten every lefty to the polls regardless of what they thought about Kerry.

The problem is more fundamental- this election was primarily about social values, such as gay marriage and abortion. As it turned out, the majority of American voters seemed more concerned in denying gays the right to marry and denying women the right to choose how to deal with their pregnancies.

How do we beat them on social issues? I don't know that we can beat them on those issues. But we can try to get people to attend to other issues such as employment, healthcare, peace etc instead of focusing on these wedge issues that serve the right so damned well.

Kerry's negatives got too high from the smear campaigns. Exit polls showing it was more than fundies and rich people voting for shrub.

They will do it again in 2008 because it worked so well the last two presidential elections.

Liebermania 2008!

Because the democrats just ain't republican enough.

I have defended Lieberman repeatedly against the malicious, mean-spirited, and at times downright bigoted statements about Lieberman. But I didn't support him in the primaries because I concluded that he wouldn't be the strongest candidate to run against Bush. His hawkishness on Iraq would have been a double-edged sword. It would have turned off as many liberals as it would have attracted moderates. Plus he doesn't have charisma and there are too many anti-Semites out there, including (unfortunately) many in our own party.

I thought Edwards would be stronger than Kerry, but I'm not sure how he would have fared in an election focused on the war on terrorism. Wes Clark looked better on paper, but he was less than steady on the campaign trail.

I think he was kinda for it and kinda against it but all those people are still just as dead and the bombs keep falling...

the campaign was a clusterfuck. Mary Beth Cahill should be banned from politics forever. Great decision to ignore the South.

Somewhere in Vermont Howard Dean is smiling.....

daughter or father or mother or cousin or aunt or uncle or brother or sister in Iraq and listening to Kerry explain his position to this murderous invasion of Iraq and trying to determine YOUR LOVED ONES future. UNNNNNacceptable. UUNNNNacceptable. An immediate, determined and self assured denounciation of even a STEP towards this war was the only honorable response..ever.

DRAFT LIEBERMANN 2008!!!!!

The sure way to get our butts kicked!!!


:eyes:

you get a failing grade in logic...


repeat logic 101...

The answer, of course, is not one.

The problem is a little more complicated than that, however. There are two elements of "liberalism" with which the Democratic Party is deeply entwined in the popular mind, and these associations the right makes it its business to keep fresh and green, with occassional assists from the left in doing so. Neither is quite accurate, but both are saleable.

The first is pacifism, which translates to otherwordliness at best and cowardice and anti-patriotism at worst to the mass of the people. There remains, dating back to the late sixties, a popular impression that "liberals" and Democrats cannot be trusted with matters miltary and the national security. Sen. Kerry went a good distance towards overcoming this, but it remained a drag on his prospects in the current situation.

The second is the identification of "liberalism" with a cultural elitism that looks down on the lives and practices of people who lack its sophistication. This, too, dates back to the late sixties, and remains a sturdy perrenial. The problem is that a number of people have become convinced that it is "cultural elitism", and not "economic elitism" that is the cause of their very real uncertainties and difficulties in life. That is false, and does open at least a possible line of attack.

This line is not one of liberalism, but of economic populism, an attempt to educate people, without condescention, and making use of the critiques available in traditional moralism, to who their real enemies are. For the real source of most people's uncertainties and difficulties in life is the ruthless exploitation of their time and work by corporate thieves; the active principle of destruction of traditional mores is not urban cosmopolitanism, but the free market itself, and the commodification of everything that it depends on for its expansion.

"America looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

"America looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

Yeah, that about sums it up....

I fully agree with you regarding economic populism. I think that the first step in approaching this line is to continue with the grassroots re-invigoration that started under the Dean campaign. It's important that we undertake the long, hard road of cultivating successful Democratic candidates all throughout the country, from local offices on up, because these local and state officers of today will be the national officers of tomorrow.

This is important because it will give the Democratic Party people in districts all across the country that the citizens of those areas can understand. Therefore, they'll be much more receptive to that message of economic populism than if it came from a Presidential candidate who hailed from a totally different part of the country than they did.

I think a good example of where this can lead is Wisconsin. Kerry barely carried Wisconsin by the skin of his teeth. Russ Feingold was re-elected to the Senate by a comfortable margin. Feingold could be described as much more liberal than Kerry (at least the Kerry of the Presidential campaign). He voted against the Patriot Act, against the IWR. Yet, he received a higher percentage of the vote than Kerry in what was portrayed as a more conservative state. Why? Because people know him and trust him, and therefore are more receptive to his message because he listens to theirs.

I kind of feel like I'm talking in circles here, but I think that it's important to recognize what has become a major failing of the Dems over the past 25 years. As the Democratic Party has embraced market fundamentalism, it has lost what once were core constituencies who now feel more allegiance to the GOP over social issues. We can get those constituencies back, but it will require a long campaign and a significant shift in the party platform to do so.

And clearly a fellow to look out for....

It seems to me the path you suggest is the only one we can follow with much hope of success. The further the left gets from the kitchen-table talk of our countrymen, the further it gets from political influence in our national life. The left may have originated the slogan that the personal is political, but the right has clearly picked up the fumble and run for a touchdown.

We need to find a line that lets people feel in us they have a friend against the boss. Everybody hates the damn boss....

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

Funny thing is, when I would discuss politics with some of the more aware (but decidedly RW) people I knew in the military, many of our concerns would be pretty much in line with one another. Chief among these concerns were:
- the increasing control of corporations over our daily lives, and
- private financing of political campaigns

Funny thing is, when I bring things like this up here, I'm denounced by some people as being "too left". My question is, if ideas like this are "too left", then why in the hell do even a lot of people on the RIGHT agree with them?

Economic populism is our only hope. And it has to be done in a simple, plain-spoken way. I like your idea of "we're your friend against the boss...."

There really is a sort of "new party" for restraining corporations waiting to be born in our country, and the question is whether the Democratic Party will be able to transform itself into that, or if it will have to be made up from scratch. If the latter, it will be unfortunate, as it will take a tremendous amount of time, during which the enemy will grow even more entrenched.

The reactionary elite rules by divide and conquer; it can rule in no other way, because it is by definition a minority, and cannot stand on its own against a united and aroused electorate any more than in former days it could stand against a mob. We on the left need to engage in some serious self-criticism, and see what it is we do that feeds into the lines the enemy uses to divide the people, and figure out ways to say what we know to be right and good for the people without providing the sort of openings we do to our foes. We have to learn the language of the people we really do share a great commonality of interest, and even view, with. The enemy is not the person who is moved by rightist swill; that person is a potential recruit, and the enemy of that person, and ourselves as well, is the person who works to delude him.

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

IMHO THAT's the biggest issue the Dems have been avoiding for the last 20+ years.

One thing that bugged me this year was Kerry's emphasis on "the middle class", and almost no mention at all of "the working class" or the lower class.

It may not seem like a big deal to most of us (who can afford computers and internet access), but it matters a hell of a lot to people who ARE working/lower class.

The Neoliberal economic policies of both the GOP and Dems in the last 12+ years are more similar than the are alike. Both are advocating some sort of "free trade" that favors corporate rights over human rights, investors over workers, and making it easy for business to operate at the expense of defending workers from predatory capitalists.

I mean, come on, Kerry's closest economic adviser was Robert Rubin, the bigwig at Citigroup, one of the largest banking/investment firms in the WORLD. How many times has he lost his job due to "free trade" agreements, or had to take out a second mortgage to fix the water heater, or had to live on an unemployment check?

Face it: the party leadership is simply out of touch with most Americans on economic issues. And until we start fighting the Republican "class war" on OUR TERMS, we'll continue to lose nationwide elections.

It has taken away the one card that the Democrats can play to counter the cultural issues employed by the Republicans. Yet, they willingly abandoned it in order to court corporate contributions. In so doing, they adopted the idea of every election being a sprint, rather than looking at ways to get ideas out there to the vast majority of people to show them that the Democrats are the ones on their side. This is perhaps the prime reason that I believe that the Clinton years may have been one of the worst things imaginable for the long-term of the Democratic Party. His bubbling charisma combined with a political strategic retreat was somehow portrayed as "winning".

As The Magistrate said above, most people don't like the boss. The boss is always trying to squeeze that last bit of blood or life out of them. Therefore, what sense does it make to come down on the boss's side? Perhaps if the Democrats were able to point out the boss and say, "The Republicans are on the boss's side against you. We're on your side, to help you stand up to the boss." -- we might have a little better success.

There's also, of course, the chance that we won't have quite as good success. But with our recent performances, it's clear that the current strategy isn't working.

Economic populism is the key. You can call it class warfare if you like. But the idea is simply getting people to believe that you're sticking up for them.

I like Feingold- he is a fine Senator and a worthy representative of what we mean by liberal.

principled enough or enough of a leader. That's an easy one.

So in the states he won he won because the voters thought he was unprincipled...


In best Aronld voice from Twins "That's a good one"...

Mind you, Feingold's margin was bigger then Kerry's.

and feingold is from wisconsin unlike kerry. and obama is from illinios which kerry won by a large amount also.

and Obama ran against someone even loonier than bush*

...as the RWingers to denigrate 'liberals'?

- This is a silly argument...liberals haven't had any kind of voice in the Dem party for decades. It's been the far-right GOP versus the 'centrist' Dems since at least Nixon.

- Just as predictable as some in the party wanting to nominate a 'real liberal' is the predictability of the centrists still holding the belief that the party is going to return to power IF ONLY they can find the 'right' conservative candidate.

- The New Republicans desire to put an end to the New Deal and anything else to do with the People having a say in government. It's a shame that the DLCers can't see that they're helping them accomplish this goal by throwing away the base of the party and going for the corporate cash.

The fact is, no liberal can get elected president without winning ever state Kerry won as well as at least one additional red state. The fact that you can't name a red state that a more liberal Democrat could carry speaks volumes.

because he CAN'T answer the question.

I see answers to "which local politician is more liberal than Kerry" and "what is wrong with Kerry" but no one can answer the question you ACTUALLY asked.

...and he isn't exactly what anyone but the Bushies would call a 'liberal'.

- The problem is that you have constantly brought up this strawman agrument about liberals versus the centrists. Perhaps you can name a liberal democrat candidate for president that was supported by the DLC? You can't because they have a litmus test: candidates that don't tow their line are kicked to the gutter. ( See: Dean)

- Why is it that you have to trash liberals in order to make conservative Dems look better? Why did the DLC split from the traditional dem party and call themselves 'new' Democrats? The answer is that they're on the side of the Republicans in trying to destroy everything the New Deal created for all Americans. They've become corporate whores trading legislation for cash and favors. The DLC and their conservative friends have betrayed the party and the people.

- You're trying to portray liberal Dems as radicals or worse. But liberals want nothing more than a government of, by and for the people. How radical is that?

The problem is that you have constantly brought up this strawman agrument about liberals versus the centrists

That's pretty funny, given your history of starting thread after thread denouncing the centrists in the Democratic Party.

Sorry I meant to answer the original poster.

Why don't you ask "how many states did he win because he's a Buddhist monk?"

word "Liberal" had become a bad word. Even Democrats turn away from the label because its so "bad." Personally, I think that what has weakened the Democratic Party is allowing the Conservatives to define who we are and to allow them to make "Liberal" a bad word and act ourselves like its a bad word. It isn't. It will take time but what we really need is to make "Liberal" and Liberalism a good thing again and to remind people about all the things that true Liberalism brought them--like unions, 8 hour work days, safety codes, etc., etc. What have Fundy Conservatives done for Americans? They have decreased the size of the middle class, increased the size of the poor, encouraged hate and racism, etc. And we are supposed to win elections by moving in that direction? Why do I think this is wrong?

Kerry beats Bush 54 to 45 among self-identifying moderates.
Kerry beats Bush 85 to 13 among liberals.
Bush beats Kerry 84 to 15 among conservatives.

Why did Kerry lose then with these numbers?
Only 21% of voters identified themselves as liberals, while 34% identified as conservatives.

We need to change these numbers. We need a big cultural push in favor of liberalism and progressivism. Talk about history. Write plays, stories. Films that promote liberal values like thinking and fairness.
Polemics, but also more subtle influential works.

We need candidates who cannot be smeared. That means candidates who are nationally known with strong personalities. Liberal equivalents of the Governator would be most helpful.

and where he would have won anyway because of the anti gay measures they put on the ballots. that's why he got the high number of votes.

And, his other less than liberal stances. The Democratic party might give thought to standing for something rather than merely being "not as bad" as the repugs and offering a clear alternative rather than dishing up pablum.

in places like Wisconsin and Iowa and Ohio.
dolstein is dead on right here.

His vote on the $87 billion hurt him a lot more than his vote for the resolution.

"they wanted Kerry to vote AGAINST IWR, so they voted for bush* instead"

:crazy:

some from saying, "They wanted Kerry to vote AGAINST IWR, so they stayed home and didn't vote for anyone."

You may recall that there was a rather large opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Do you think that none of those people would have voted for someone who opposed the invasion, but that they all came out and voted for Kerry because he was ABB? Seems about as likely to me that people for whom the invasion of Iraq was important enough to get out and march might have decided that they needn't vote for anyone if their choices were between two people who favored the invasion.

like the fact that there were several anti-war candidates (Nadir, Kucinich, Dean, etc) and those non-voters who are supposedly anti-war (though no evidence for this has even been shown) stayed home.

They stay home when the candidates are "pro-war", and they stay home when the candidates are "anti-war". We have dozens of candidates running in each and every election pushing ideas and ideologies that span the political horizon, but those non-voters still don't have enough "choice"

There was nothing wrong with his vote on the $87 billion. There was never a possibility that Congress was not going to fund the war. There were two votes on two versions of the bill: In one, the reconstruction funds were in the form of a grant; in the other, in the form of a loan.

Kerry voted for the latter, against the former.

Bush supported the former, said he would veto the latter.

Please explain how it was the vote, rather than the way he allowed it to be treated, that was the problem.

Centrism may have cost Kerry New Mexico. Nader's vote there this time was bigger than Bush's margin of victory.

Also, you are wrongly assuming two things:

1. That stereotypical, Johnson-era 'liberal' stands are what we mean when we talk about moving the party off this 'centrist' course. In fact, what some of us -- me included -- are contending is that we need to stick like glue to our base and make a forthright, divisive, class-based appeal -- which brings me to your second false assumption...


2. That all of the electorate is already spoken for, and that the issues that won recent elections will win future ones. As it happens, much of the electorate doesn't show up to vote ever, and we know that demographically speaking, these people are disproportionately likely to be working class. They may well be receptive to a class-based appeal. It's true that they haven't yet come out to vote for us, but it's also true that they haven't been inspired to support the repugs, either.

Basically, to win an election, the repugs have to come considerably closer than we do to tapping their entire potential base. We can make our greater potential capacity work for us, but NOT by flocking ever-rightward.

Kerry lost because all the liberals in NM didn't like him, so they voted bush*.

That's sounds reasonable

:cazy:

And here comes the "IF he was more liberal, turnout would have gone up" even though turnout WAS up.

The Nader factor in New Mexico? The need to switch to class-based politics?

'Cause that's what I was talking about.

not a slight reshuffling of those who did that is at issue.

Would a more liberal candidate or a more progressive coalition motivate a percentage of current Dem voters PLUS reenergize a significant number of the disenfranchised?

We need to completely rethink who we are and build the kind of coalition and infrastructure from the left that Reagan built frfom the right.

The religiously insane-gun-nut-faux-libertarian coalition fueled by huge corporate warchests and marketed by think tanks and media "infil-traitors" for the fascists now outnumbers the thinking population in Murka.

Most of the apolitical types I know aren't very ideologically inclined.

They've Nadir to vote for, but they still stayed home.

Heck, if there are disaffected liberals who don't think Kerry is populist enough, they'll just haul themselves down to the polls to vote for Nader, thus engaging in a bit of Quixotic statement-making.

Seems to me there might be some middle ground. Classic New Deal/Great Society class-based populism comes to mind, as others on this thread advocate.

The repugs keep white Southerners in line by playing racial politics, but the repugs remain vulnerable on class. We have GOT to summon up the courage to hit 'em where it hurts.

It's just that the Democratic Party leadership is extremely reluctant to go there...

But of course the Democratic Party is reluctant to go there, because it would piss off too many of their corporate sponsors.

There is, however, a way around this. It means that WE have to take over the party from the ground up. We need to support progressive candidates in local and state elections. We need to build our machinery to the point that the party hacks can't discount it.

But above all, our party needs to learn how to LISTEN to people, and to address their concerns. Polling is not listening.

if we can put together a progressive coalition and pander to them with a couple of wedge issues the way the repukes pander to the gun nuts and the anti-choice homophobic crowd

as long as they vote for us, even if it's only because of a couple of token "wedge" issues.

Conservatives vote for the little bushturd and he is no way conservative nor does he pursue conservative policies.

But during campaigns (which are continual on their side), he talks the anti-tax, small gummint, us-versus-them-big-defense game. So they vote for him.

areas had to be allowed to stay open for 3 or more hours after they should have closed because there weren't enough machines and folks manning them. I think in this election we reached our physical maximum in many areas. We can't gain more votes from those areas without more polling places.

it is a repuke tactic to undersupply dem areas

only by fighting the nasty local political wars to ensure that voting is fair can we ever win

That will clarify who the base wants to run.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT for election reform at the municipal and state level!
Clean up the American government from the ground up!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform

Talk to a self-styled conservative Republican about their fundamental beliefs, and you will find that most of those beliefs are liberal. Problem is, they have been told that liberal means Soviet styled Communist, and nobody has corrected them. Kerry, for instance, never once said, "yes, I am a liberal and proud of it. Here's why...".

As a result he comes across as ashamed and trying to hide his true self. Hardly the sort of heroic figure men want to follow.

rejecting our base and the true meaning of liberalism cost us in 2002, and killed us in 2004.

The Dems need to purge all liberals, progressives, leftists, and Deaniacs from the party. That's the ticket for success for the Dems! And all of the afore mentioned groups of citizens could join together to form a new party. Of course this new party will not win any "national" office right away, but sooner or later it will. Remember the Whigs? I'm sure you do...

Most voted for him because he was not Bush and the hope that their sons and daughters might not have to see war.

I'm just curious what your source of info is. Or are you projecting your own thoughts?

Dems also lost because big media is actively fighting against us. If a Dem tries to move to the right then I wouldn't put it past big media to say that the Dem is a religious extremist.

It's totally incredible what can be done with such a powerful tool that beams propaganda at an instant into everyone's homes.

Let me start by stating that I firmly believe that many of the wonderful folks here on DU already have spines - it's the DLC'ers who need vertebral transplants. The problem with spineless-DLC-BushLite-Demublicans is that they waste their energy fighting for issues that were fully settled during the Constitutional Convention 200+years ago.

Let's start with the quote:
"Dems won on economic issues and lost on God, Guns and Gays"

This is about as cogent and succinct an analysis as I've seen of this election on short notice. I really believe that the vast majority of Americans really want some form of populism & economic justice in society - witness the popularity of writers like Jim Hightower and the traction that Kerry got by decrying outsourcing jobs and tax cuts for millionaires.

Now about those "God, Guns & Gays" issues. Why do we (and by "we" I mean anyone to the left of Genghis Khan) get our asses kicked on these issues? My answer: lack of clarity, plus a perplexing avoidance of basic truths that can be found & upheld in our truly wonderful US Constitution.

The Rethugs have mastered the art of treating the Constitution (and particularly the Bill of Rights) like a salad bar: grab what you want at the moment, and leave the rest behind or throw it in the trash. I believe that for the Democrats (or any progressive party that hopes to seize the mantle of progressive liberalism) to succeed, we need to uphold the Constitution for what it is: the Supreme Law of the Land - a work in progress that has never been perfect, but is eminently perfectable through frequent, continual reification and occasional (slow, even tortuous) amendments.

What does the US Constitution say about God? In my mind, there are two important sections: the Preamble and the 1st Amendment. In the Preamble, God is NOT mentioned...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

These are beautiful words, no? Reading them aloud still gives me chills and a rush of pride. And if the founding fathers really were shooting for the "Christian Nation" crap that Rethugs yammer on about, you can bet your blue state that God would have received mention there. But it is "We the people..." who receive top billing. Then in the 1st Amendment, we learn that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." As a great (NYC, public school...) teacher of mine used to say, "No law means NO LAW." We as Democrats need to hammer this home even more frequently than RW talking points. NO state monies to religious institutions, NO prosletyzing in any venue that uses tax dollars, and NO interference with people who wish to connect with their Maker in any way they see fit, on their own time and own dime. WE HAVE THE HIGH GROUND HERE IF ONLY WE WILL SEIZE IT.

Now, about guns. I know that some Dem. constituencies feel like gun control will make the nation safer. I personally think that's a ridiculous argument, but once again let's content ourselves with the Constitution. Specifically, Amendment 2 says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now, I know that people like to argue in circles about the placement of commas, the existence of National Guards, and all sorts of other tangentials, but the fact is that the Supreme Law of the Land grants us citizens the right to bear any and all "arms." There were no quibbles about muskets being OK, and cannons being off-limits back then, and in 2004, Kerry lost a lot of sportsmen's votes due to his ridiculous contortions around "assault weapons," etc. "Well regulated" in my mind means that violent felons can lose the right to bear arms following a conviction by a jury, and that the state can have a say in when & how we citizens ought to get our guns out of the racks and assemble into a posse, militia, or mob. But beyond that, gun control advocates need to accept the fact that the founders of this country reserved for the people the right to bear the most effective and advanced weapons of their day, and that nothing barring a Constitutional Amendment should stop citizens from exercising that right (even though guns carry more rounds now, times have changed, blahblahblah). A gun control Amendment won't clear Congress or the States, so let's stop flogging this LOSER issue.

OK, moving on to gays. Many people more knowledgeable about Constitutional history than I have already stated that all of the founding fathers would be adamant about the US Gov't avoiding any and all interference in the bedroom or other personal spheres. But let's concentrate on narrow legalisms and the 11 amendments that passed on state ballots, drawing out the fundie vote, much to Karl Roves satisfaction. They are all blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and should have been stricken before the ballots were ever printed. Why? Gay marriage is already legalized. What you ask?!? Check out Article IV, Section 1. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state..." This means that all the states are CONSTITUTIONALLY BOUND to recognize a Massachusetts marriage licence RIGHT NOW. End of story.

One of the saddest moments of the VP debate was Edwards' tortured argument for just the opposite: that no state has been forced to recognize a gay marriage. What crap! No state has been forced because we citizens have lost the balls to demand basic rights, and instead whine and hope that SOMEDAY some half-assed law can be passed to recognize domestic partner benefits. I say, quit shivering in yer boots and demand to EXERCISE the RIGHT that you have held for 200+ YEARS!!! Instead, VP candidate Edwards shows his worst lawyerly side to satisfy the homophobe vote! Feh!

I could go on and on. The War on Drugs? UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And that should be the last word on that unless a drug amendment passes. The FCC regulating low-power radio stations? UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And that should be the last word on that unless a radio/speech amendment passes.

In short (and I know this rant has become very long, but too much silence during the last 4 years is bursting out of me), I think that we can WIN if we SEIZE the CONSTITUTION like it is OURS and use it to beat the hell out of Rethugs and any others who seek to trample us and our RIGHTS. People who cast aside parts of the Constitution like certain clauses and amendments are unfashionable clothes are UNAMERICAN. John Ashcroft is UNAMERICAN. George Bush is UNAMERICAN. The Patriot Act is UNAMERICAN. Clinton's Anti-terror law of '96 is UNAMERICAN (and didn't stop 9/11 besides). The Democrats can WIN if they campaign as firm, grounded, sensible AMERICANS who are vigilant in guarding and upholding ALL of our CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES. Will this mean alienating a few gun-control freaks? Sure, but they mostly live in states that will stay blue even without their votes. Let them waste their time pushing for an Amendment on "assault weapons" or other such nonsense.

I want to be part of a party that treats the Constitution as our Supreme Law. Did it have problems? Sure - the original bit about slaves being 3/5 a human was crap (although necessary crap to smooth the Union's formation) that got revised through the 13th and 14th Amendments. Doesn't that give you hope?!? Even if you don't like every clause of the US Constitution, think of the POWER we could tap into if we simply treated the document as a cohesive WHOLE.

Anyone with me? Or am I just a complete freak out here in the boonies?

there are over 50 million gun owners in the United States. Many of them are one issue voters.

We lost by 3 million votes.

the math isn't that hard to do.

better liberalism could have gotten us Ohio, Florida but also CO, VA, and definitely NV. Generally gains all across mountain states.

Government off the backs of people, where have I heard that one before. It's the Libertarians who are being abandoned - can't we find the Libertarian heart in a Liberal body?

i don't think kerry'ss potition on social issues hurt him, it was a failure to fully adopt kitchen table issues that actually effect amaericans and end the gay maariage distraction bush engineered

the answer is hardly to adopt the barking mad hate of zell miller

a moderate. Works for them can work for us.

we need a gun carrying deacon who is still in the closet and whose daughters have had abortions but were forgiven and end every sentence with thanks you Jesus

Democrats have an impossible road trying to appeal to the middle with a net at both ends to catch the hardliners.

who's Liberal, not Liberal enough blah blah blah

It's about clearly defining what the Democratic party stands for
and, fighting to ensure that Our Values and Ideals are reflected in the Policies.

I think Kerry did this with his campaign. What we as a party have to do now is not backdown or regress but continue on, determined and resolute. If we waiver we give the appearance that our passion and commitment to the issues IS determined by the political climate in this country. That's not the message we want to send.

As long as folks around here use the Liberal tag the same way that the GOP does we'll stay in the minority party. We can run folks that disagree with Puke positions BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG, not because the candidate is a Liberal. Until the fucking idiots in the DLC are put in their place we'll continue to lose by trying to be better on Puke issues than the Pukes are.

I'm already seeing the same DLC fucks starting to push Wes Clark as a candidate for 2008. Who did he inspire this year? He inspired the crowd that desperately feels that we need to out patriot the Pukes. Well, it ain't gonna happen. If we don't take some lessons from this year on what kind of message energized our party than we deserve the same fate in 2008.

Yes, I'm talking about Dean. When was the last time that you saw Democrats as energized as they were when he first started his run. I don't advocate him for 2008 because he's damaged goods thanks to both some errors in judgement on his part and the Party's efforts to tear him down. But, if we don't take the message that we need to run a pragmatic populist that will attack Puke positions and policies to show them as phoney, then we're going to continue losing.

Zip.

...because it's playing right into the hands of RWingers using liberal as a dirty word. It's became a contest between conservative and liberal when it's just about ideas.

- Conservative Democrats fell for the bullshit dirty politics of thugs like Gingrich when they disavowed liberals within their own party. Take a look at the DLC website and do a search on 'liberal'. It's a sad thing to admit that the DLC has divided our own party into camps...where liberals are accused of 'living in the past' and aren't welcome in the New Corporate Party.

- The Democratic party exists for ONE reason: to represent those the other side refuses to deal with...the poor and working class. Blacks and other minorities. Unions. Gays. Women's rights...the list goes on and on.

...I'm a progressive green and I don't have the disdain for rural blue collar folks that I've seen on this forum and within the democratic party. I work in a blue collar industry and have beers with these guys every week. They're not even evangelicals, they just want some respect. It's your smugness and disdain that comes across loud and clear. I always show respect for their differing opinions, never come to blows and share clear common ground. Kerry's liberal credentials were never the issue.

Bush proved that the reality doesn't matter - only the campaign does.

Kerry wasn't too liberal, too conservative or too moderate.

He ran on an ill defined platform, he allowed Rove to define the campaign.

Worse still, he believed in the intelligence and goodness of the American people instead of fighting dirty.

We've now had two losses by candidates who didn't want to attack Bush.

I wonder how many more it will take.