If the Democratice Party Does NOT Move More to the Right...

I will change my registration to Independent. Progressive democrats are just as ignorant as those neo-cons. My way or no wya!! that will never get us the white house because majority of AMericans are in the middle.

Of course you will.

...I suggest you take a long look at the two-part thread posted recently at MyDD.com, which uses statistics rather than rhetoric to bolster the author's argument.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/10/183733/86#readmore

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/11/213724/11#comment_top

These point out the problem with the "move to the center" argument -- we're already pulling a clear majority of undecided "centrist" voters in most swing states, and it still isn't giving us enough states to win. On "moving to the center," Chris Bowers writes:

If the conservative and liberal size and share of the vote remain the same, in order to reach a Presidential popular vote majority just by appealing to moderates, we need 60% of moderates. That is a tall task, and it would still only take us to 50.1%. Further, if we move to the center and semi-demonize liberalism, ala Clinton, and no one voices the liberal opinion, the liberal vote will almost certainly decrease in size. An undefended ideology is not an ideology that will grow. Our base will shrink, and we will need even more than 60% of moderates to reach a popular vote majority. That might very well be impossible.

FWIW, here's the author's conclusion:

Moving one-way or the other isn't going to cut it, as our position would remain precarious in both directions. The problem, as I see it, is not that we are too liberal or too moderate, but that the country itself is too conservative. With 34% of the electorate self-identifying as conservative, and 85% of self-identifying conservatives voting Republican in national elections, Republicans only need a little over 40% of the moderate vote to win. In that situation, they could run a horrendous campaign and still win, while we could run a nearly perfect campaign and still lose.

We are in a lot of trouble, and the only way I see out is pretty long term: we need to close the gap between liberals and conservatives. Well beyond any other demographic, that is the heart of our problem. Conservatives outnumber liberals in states worth 459 electoral votes, while liberals outnumber conservatives in states worth only 79 electoral votes. In every southern state except for Florida, conservatives outnumber liberals by at least twenty-one points. That is not a swing region. That is barely a swing nation.

The only way we do this is if all Democrats, including moderate Democrats, start defending liberalism and telling the truth about conservatism. We have to grow liberalism. This does not necessarily mean that we have to adopt more liberal policies, but at the very least we have to start defending liberals. No one does that anymore, which nearly guarantees that liberalism will not grow. When you face a dead end in either direction, there is little point in moving. We have to move the country, or else we are dead meat. Either we defend the ideology of half of our voters--and defend it by name--or we face a generation of irrelevancy.

...how's that working out for us?

the it was back to this progresive movement, Nader and Howard Dean stuff. And we're back out in the wilderness completely shot out of power. Yet many people are prescribing even more of thesame pill that got us here in the first place. If not of those progressives jumping ship to waste their votes on Nader in 2000 We would have talking about a Gore second term now.

And the republican party was divided by Perot.

History is not your forte, eh sport?

He wasn't a Republican. And he promised me healthcare.

I was ripped off.

in exchange for the healthcare he wanted and they never came through.

I was saying that the only thing I didn't like Clinton for was that he signed us away on NAFTA. That's what they told me as we were stuffing literature to pass out for the campaign.

The Republicans promised healthcare for NAFTA? They lied and their word is worthless.

At what cost? What are our core principles? Which of those are expendable? (Both in terms of numbers and people who are just that - people) Clinton gave us NAFTA without environmental and labor protections. He gave welfare reform and downsized government. Bush spends like a drunken sailor and is credited as being great for the economy. In other words, any more to the right and we no longer exist. We must do a better job of telling the truth to the people. Most moderate Republicans vote out of lifelong conviction like us yellowdogs. If we lost this election due to issues it would be more significant. I feel we lost due to lies throughout the primary and general elections. The media has given up its watchdog role and gravitated to power. Don't forget the GOP claim that 4 million Evangelicals sat out 2000. If true that might balance the Nader vote. As far as i could tell the Party held together this time. That leaves the question of the GOP vote. Was it real? or was it microsoft?

-rolls eyes-

maybe we just don't deserve to win.

Go ahead, change to Independent. The Democrats will be OK. As they say in those potato chip commercials: "We'll make more."

See now I agree with you kind-of (not really with the "moving to the right" part but with a lot of the tactics and shrillness)...but you've gotta be specific or else it's all just nothing but push and pull.

Here is how:
Two things: we need politicians who can take the NEW Testament perspective and play it against the OLD Testament perspective taken by the GOP. THe Old Testament is the STERN parent. The religion of fire and brimstone, the politics that tells you to go get your own.

The New Testament is the LOVING AND NURTURING parent, the communitarian parent who follows the teachings of the quasi-socialist Jesus.

Shame America and the GOP for turning its backs on the poor, for exploiting the disadvantaged.

But before it even gets to the political campaign part, we need to develop a compelling economic narrative.

Liberals should not be thinking about attacking or electing this or that politician. Instead take the longterm ideological perspective. Build first. That is what the rightwing machine does. THat is the undergirding for the GOP's politics. THat is what the Democratic party is a failed party.

Think instead about how to explain liberal/progressive ideas to the crucial segments of the voting public, like white rural swing state residents.

The Dems have to develop a compelling economic narrative. THat should center around raising the income tax rate on the upper income earners and the wealthy.

Think about how to persuade white rural swing state voters that high taxes on the rich is a good idea. Think about how to persuade white rural swing state voters that taking money from upper income earners and rich people, and spending it on providing universal healthcare to all Americans is a Good Thing.

Think about how to demonstratre to white rural swing state voters that social democracies like Sweden, Norway, Denmark have higher standards of living.

Instead of worrying about how some rich senators and congressmen in DC are holding up, here is a plan to get regular Americans like you and me cheap healthcare and more time off and a more stress-free lifestyle:

Collaborate with other liberal activists online to develop prototypes of video and audio infomercials. This can be done very cheaply with computers and cheap electronics by informed volunteers. For example, an audio or video informercial might consist of informed activists like you or me interviewing one of the MANY well informed progressive academicians (e.g, PhD in Economics) who could explain how progressive taxation is used in Scandanavia to provide for the social safety net and healthcare for all citizens. This should be the centerpiece of the Democratic economic narrative in 2008.

No expensive media consultants or celebrities. Just plain Americans, unpaid and plain spoken.

Don't talk about gender or racial politics, affirmative action or gay rights or other wedge issues that both Dem and GOP politicians and the media are so fond of (gee, I wonder why...).

THen once we have some halfway decent prototypes of infomericials, organize withwell known websites like moveon.org. Set up a donation interface to get money online to run these informercials. Put the infomericials online so that potential donors can see what they are paying for. Tell them that all the donations will go for buying media time, except for a small fraction for legal help to set up contracts.

Run these infomericals as much as we can in the coming years. Run them in the cheap rural media markets in these states: OH, PA, IA, NH, WI, MN, MI, NM, CO, and FL. THose are the general election swing states, which also include the first Democratic primaries in IA and NH.

Get time in off hours in late night teevee. Buy time on radio in small rural markets in those states. Buy full page ads in small town newspapers.

The Democratic voters in blue states already are in agreement with these ideas. We still have to convince the white rural voters in those swing states.

This is what the rightwing propaganda machine has been doing for years, except they work through Washington DC, and big media outlets such as PBS, CBS, CNN, Fox, etc, and big newspapers and other outlets using products created and funded by their think tanks and foundations (studies, essays, news stories, etc.). But they have billions of dollars and have been at it for decades.

We do not have that kind of money or time.

But worrying about conventional politics is not productive. You wind up with Presidential DINOs like Clinton. Instead, concentrate on moving the crucial rural white swing states voters to the left. The media markets where they live are cheap. In addition to late night tv and small town radio, throw in full page ads in rural newspapers (Really Cheap!).

I bet we can do it for 200 million dollars in the next 4 years. Are there 10 million committed liberals in America? That is $20 apiece.

THen, in the 2008 Democratic primaries, a big chunk of the voters in IA and NH will be primed to vote for a Democratic candidate who is a real liberal. And in the general election, there will be a good sized chunk of the crucial swing state voters who will be ready to elect that same progressive, real liberal Democrat.


Or you can just go back to conventional politics, which has produced what we have today.....

You wrote, "Two things: we need politicians who can take the NEW Testament perspective and play it against the OLD Testament perspective taken by the GOP. THe Old Testament is the STERN parent. The religion of fire and brimstone, the politics that tells you to go get your own.

The New Testament is the LOVING AND NURTURING parent, the communitarian parent who follows the teachings of the quasi-socialist Jesus.

Shame America and the GOP for turning its backs on the poor, for exploiting the disadvantaged. "

I KNOW I heard a discussion on NPR about this very theme. I think it was based upon a book but I just can't remember. Can you elaborate, please?

I do not listen to National Pentagon Radio, and I do not remember where I first heard of the genesis of that general idea. I have heard some variation of it in a couple of places/networks. What I wrote is my synthesis of it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Dont get shut out of reality by shunning opposit views. That will cement a republican leadership for genrations. The truth is the red states have been trending blue more than the blue states going red. Even i so-called blue states like PA, MI, WI, we have to fight tooth-and-nail to win. We Must embrace the center and get our selves in power and then we can use the pulpit of the presidency to advance a progressive agenda!!!

BAYH 2008!

Just bullshitting disruptors like yourself.

Interesting choice of words. :eyes:

We have sold our souls for too damn long trying to get moderate voters.

they are so far right we must balance that with a firm left stance

my way or the highway?
:wtf:
isn't that * talking?
yes many americans are in the center.
are you a troll?

...and is known for his strong grip.

You might find more company at www.freerepublic.com. They prefer them right of center.

If you really ARE a centrist, you are truly welcome here, but I suggest that you DON'T suggest making people here change their stances on anything. We are who we are, but if you think that a stance closer to the center is worthy of discussion, be sure to post it in a clear and persuasive fashion, backed by facts and proof, and people will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, if you are just trying to stir up trouble, you won't have too much trouble getting a nice little tombstone next to your name. :)

I'm simply expressing my view point and I shocked at the hostility thats coming my way especally from you. Why??? Di I touch a raw nerve by trying to suggest an alternative way by which we can get to the whitehouse. Telling me to go make my case some where else is very undemocratic and shamefull.

Maybe it's your extremely low post count coupled with your extremely inflammatory thread.

You know, the two bench marks of a disruptor.

I'm sure you're not one of those though. ;-)

are a bit of a giveaway as well. I almost never see this kind of spelling and grammar from someone who is not a disruptor.

...not the conservative or right leaning democrat board.

What good is winning the White House if we abandon our entire platform of equality and civil rights in order to win?

Would you like to be specific about how your fellow democrats were "Too leftist" in their approach?

Was it railing against a war based on lies?

Was it supporting healthcare for all?

Was it supporting worker's rights?

Was it supporting the right for all Americans to be treated equally in the eyes of the law?

Was it in treating our allies with respect?

You seem to have the answers. Tell us, where did we go wrong that we lost by a whopping 1.8%?

Your views are valuable. As far as I am concerned you have valid points. Fell free to make them and ignore the self appointed police.

Because most disagree with you, you think you're being put-upon.

This is a tough forum. Toughen up, or go to the Lounge.

Or points further right...

i don't need you to tell me who I am or what to do!

Fascinating.....

are you high ???? screw that the moderate road has been walked long enough, only freeptards believe that Kerry was "the most liberal senator"

People who watched and studied the candidates know that Kucinich Dean and Sharpton were the most progressive candidates. Not necessarily in that order but still. To say that we need to move to the right, while the conservatives plunge headlong into radical neoconservatism, it's absurd. The Dems have always stood for fair minded liberalism, not militant liberalism/communism.

Away from here you freeper.

The right is falling off the edge over there on the other side.
This country needs to get back to the real center, not the one the rebugs set.
But first we need to wake up, get our bearings and get back to reality.

The fascists will embrace you, especially if you say you're a convert.

Their ways attract you, our don't. Why stay? Go and be happy.

You can help them mandate those voting machines in every state and be a winner forever.

The democratic party does not belong to just the progressives. A simple suggestion seems to rile up so many folks. the party is not a progressive party. It is the DEMOCRATIC party and if you want a progressive party then petition Nader and go join him forming one.

I'll bet it is. ;-)

You just said so. You want to belong to the right wing. So go and do it. Absolutely nobody is stopping you or asking you to stay.

We are most definitely a progressive party at our roots.

Educate YOURSELF before you start teaching US.

Go ahead. I think the party needs to move back to the left.

But don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. :)

BTW, I'm doing the same thing except I'm going Green because the dems are too moderate for me. Too much "appeasement" to twits who want the party of the people to more resemble the dreck we've got in the WH today. It's one of those "there goes the neighborhood" things, when you start seeing guys in bermuda shorts, brushcuts, and white socks pulled up to their knees. When the geeks move in, it's time for the rest of us to find higher ground (preferably with a clear field of fire).

Gyre

My guess is you voted for Nader in 2000 as a protest against the centrist Gore. Well the chickens are now coming home to....


VOTE BAYH 2008!!!!!!

...and we fall back. There comes a point where principles are more important and the line must be drawn in the sand as to how far we are willing to abandon our values for power that never seems to materialize.

not move more to the right!

Notice no one big in politics talks much about universal health care for the 45,000,000 without it anymore? Harry Truman introduced the idea. That was 50 years ago! It's considered socialism, and it is socialized medicine, and socialism has been equated to something worse than what we have now--which, ironically, means the 45,000,000 without health care under our present system again. Also note Clinton advocated that Kerry should abandon gay civil rights where there were amendments to ban gay marriage. Some of the bans also outlawed civil unions for same-sex couples as well, so even if the Democratic Party explicitly advocated "civil unions" instead of "gay marriage," it'd probably still be used as a wedge issue to divide Christian Democrats from the more agnostic and secular branches of the party as well as other minority religious groups.

Would you be happy if we proposed ad hoc solutions to our health care system that Kerry proposed? Even though it was no guarantee that everyone would get coverage?

Would you be happy if the Democratic Party decided to put in its platform that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that there should also be a parallel ban on civil unions for same-sex couples that don't invoke the term "marriage"?

Should we also allow certain groups to pass laws that move the country closer to state-sponsored religion? To recognize God and the bible as the foundation of US law in this country? Regardless of our governmental system's origin being in the Greco-Roman tradition?

Honestly, these are three questions I wish to see you answer. I am not being facetious or sarcastic. I want a straight-laced reply from you on this.

bring them into the system and give them a reason to believe that we will deliver. The democratic party must be reformed. Throw out the parasites and build from the ground up.

We need to offer these people a clear alternative to the right wing agenda.

We haven't been a liberal party for a long time now.

Kerry ran a slightly left of center campaign.

We cannot win without winning in the south and midwest. The democratic party tent must be broadened to accept others. That's why Dean said he wants to be the candidate for those with confed flags on their trucks....to appeal to those people we must move closer to the center....

NOT.

Dean was pointing out to the pickup guys that they should be voting for us because we're already right on the issues that matter to them. We can appeal to them without moderating our stances by convincing them not to vote against their self-interests.

career parasites who run the party and are so far from the average citizen that they have no idea what it's like to earn a living. They do just fine no matter who is elected.
We should not abandon the principles of the Democratic party. Progressive Populists support a living wage for all, ecological solutions that are sustainable and that support the environment, corporate reform, an end to regressive taxes, the breakup of the military industrial complex and medical care for all.

n/t

NGU.

What is wrong with these people ! There are some things that should be under the radar until we get in there but being Bush like is not my idea of being a democrat...Its not even my idea of being a repug. Its my idea of being a fascist ! Why don't we all just get hoods and sheets and join the Christian Coalition ..Move further to the right my butt ! I am a christian but I respect people who choose not to believe as well. The republican party should call itself the Gantrys for Elmer. Or the JOnes Party for Jim.

I think things are going to look a hell of a lot different two and half to three years from now. It's too early in the ballgame to say "move to right."

why on earth would people vote "Republican lite" when they can vote the real thing? . . . what we must do is return to our roots, support working people and the underpriviliged, and give Americans a real progressive, populist alternative to the party of oil, wars, and millionaires . . .

or do you mean more in the way of tactics?

The one thing perhaps Kerry didn't do that he probably needed to is the symbolic gestures or small policy proposals?

Examples - Clinton's school uniform or V-chip proposals. They seem to be trying to reach the people worried about the culture and it's effect on their families.

This kind of outreach may, while small, give struggling families the feeling that you understand some of their problems raising kids now. Sometimes people don't necessarily need to know you will solve their problems (some are unsolvable) but they need to hear you acknowledge them.

Hey, around here, unless people have seen you enough to trust you, they will be a little sensitive to criticism.

Sometimes the moderates just stay away from threads where they may not agree unless they are up for a flame war. There are plenty of flame wars between people who have been here for a long time. Just imagine this place during the primaries when everybody had their own candidates.

The poster is more than a bit drunk on the koolaid !

:evilgrin:

what the person is really thinking. Then you can really tell if it is a troll or just a moderate shocked to see a Dem web site after just dealing with the MSM for a long time.

Democratic party should take a very clear stance against Gay Marriage and support civil unions. Then in terms of tactics explain pocketbook issues in moral terms - like clintons commitment to help those who "work hard and play by the rules." Socially conservative blue-collar workers and churchboers can relate to our economic agenda but cannot relate to our values. And when I say move to the center, I mean in terms of our moral views and explaining those pocket book issues in that light. A poster chile for such a campaign is definitly Evan Bayh!!

enough. Some people believe the caricatures that Rush, Coulter and Faux put out there and not everybody pays as much attention to the news. They are just left with general impressions.

You just stated both JK and Bush's stance on gay marriage and civil unions. Bush came out the week before the election and said that (of course, we know that is complete bullsh@# because I believe the Constitutional Amendment they are proposing would prohibit Civil Unions too - how do we know he is lying - his lips are moving) The Repukes had mailings and robo calls going out all over the place about JK wanting gay marriage which was a complete lie - I got one myself (actually intended for my hubby).

I'll respond more in the morning. I've had two kids wake up and come wandering in. Bye.

Come to think of it, why not just register Republican and your wildest dreams will come true.

:)

Show your support for the president, wear a FUCK BUSH button!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
(We usually ship same or next business day by first class mail)

The Democratic party has been moving to right for years, so it must always have been too far to the left for you. It hasn't been this far to the right since the days of the Dixiecrats.

Which Democrats do you consider "progressive"? Kerry? Do you really find him comparable to a neocon? How did you get that impression? Was it from listening to Rush? Rush Limbaugh's and Fox News's caricatures of Democrats and progressives are very different from the real thing.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your stay here.

I never said Kerry was very far to the left. The problem with Kerry was he tried to be so many things and by the time he could settle on one it was too late. I think he let politics get in the way of taking firm principled decisions on issues that required him to do so. The Party must continue to stand up for univresal health care, strong social security, against corporate greed etc, but we must move to the center when it come to maral issues and values. Otherwise you will continue to see poor blue-collar people in the south voting against their own economic interests...

As for me enjoying my stay here: I'm not here to please anyone or join some fantasy chorus.

show some repect. If the South disagrees with their own best interests, that's OUR problem (I'm in a red state myself).

Now, I see where you're going with this. There are roughly 30 Million gays in the US. 80% of us vote democratic. That means there are 60 MIllion parents of gays, and probably another 120 Million of their family members/friends who know what hateful rhetoric truly is. If Even even gets considered for a Primary, not only I will leave the party, but all 200 Million of us will go with me.

See, you can join the GOP, us gay people and our loved ones have nowhere else to go. The GOP has already decided that we are worthy of death, by pandering to reptilian bigots hiding behind the Bible to mask their hate.

A party which loses itself trying to achieve victory will gain nothing. The most common criticism I heard of Kerry was "he's a phony". Is the argument that we were not phony enough to win the majority? I think not.

If the next election is fought between genuine repugs and dems masquerading as repugs, my hopes will sink even lower than they are today.

1) Someone opposed to Gay marriage?
2) Someone who favors gay marriage?

if someone is more concerned about what's going on with the personal life of someone they've never even met than they are with the well being of themselves and their family, then they deserve to get whatever Bush has to dish out to them.

Anyway, Kerry was quite explicit that he did not support gay marriage. Just because he didn't want to alter the constitution over it, doesn't mean he was for it.

If you think he was, you've probably been listening to too much Rush and watching too much Fox News.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what principles we give up. They will always manage to find some other wedge issue to divide us. Much better that we should stand firmly for principle and point out to people the many ways that the repukes promote immorality.

Whichever way you cut it, lying a nation into an unnecessary war is more immoral than tolerating the existence of gay people.

and out of my government. If you buy that Morals and values stuff, you need to be introduced to the real victor of this charade of an election. Meet. Diebold ! That is what was leaning right Nov 3 ..and that lying snake in the grass who called himself moral helped rig the thing ! The Monkeyboy ain't right, he don't lean right (Machavelian) and he will be proven WRONG ! Wasn't talking to you Frog. I was talking to the Koolaid sipper.

Warmachines, Blood for oil, control power. Nothing to do with morals..
He is a pharasee. Read Matt. 7..KJV Sheep in wolves clothing. that is the one who claims to be RIGHT !

I don't see it as a question of moving to the left or the right. Our problem is the way we phrase things. For one thing, most of us on the left are acutely unaware of what is going on. Since I work in the mass communication field and I have done a lot of academic work in that area, allow me to write an overly long essay in an attempt to play educator. The techniques of Murdoch and Limbaugh, which are the driving forces stripping away the working class from the Democratic Party, grew out of the Cold War. In the 50s and 60s, the US government spent millions, if not billions of dollars on mass communication psychological warfare research, using brilliant mass communication propaganda techniques developed originally by Nazi Joesph Goebbels, as its foundation. It all went into one of our major propaganda weapons of the Cold War, Radio Free Europe. They did research, they applied the research in the field, and over the 25 years of the Cold War they knew what worked and what didn't. The Right wing media machine is built on these principles.

Many of those on the far right are military veterans of the Cold War, or are academics who studied the research and results I have cited, one of whom is Limbaugh. For decades they have seen us as the American version of the Communist Party, a threat to what they consider the American way of life. Since the end of the Cold War, their aim has not been to merely win elections, it has been to destroy the Democratic Party. To do so, they are using the same techniques that destroyed the Communist Party. If we do not become aware of these techniques and counter them, we as a party will be destroyed. This election can either be the beginning of our funeral or our rebirth.

In any communication war, there are two main communications going on at once- confrontation and persuasion. In the Cold War, the aim was to engage in a broadcast of confrontation with the Communist Party, combined with a broadcast of rhetoric aimed at persuading the masses who lived in the Soviet Bloc that our way of life was better. The right wing media machine works the same way.

Language and phraseology used about us is confrontational, persistently negative, condemning and blaming. Language used about them is glowing and praise-filled. But the real target is the listening audience. Its biases, prejudices, myths and attitudes are appealed to, or outraged or re-enforced by the announcer. Knowledge of the worldview of the target audience is essential. But the single most important thing is that the other side in the confrontation be portrayed as opposed to the masses world view, is responsible for their outrage, is a member of or supports the group they are prejudiced against, and that they hate the social institutions cherished by them. Using these techiques, Adolf Hitler was able to talk one of the most civilized societies on Earth into being accomplices in the gassing and murders of 11 million Jews, homosexuals, "undesirables" (thats you, Mr. Democrat) and other targeted minorities.

The propaganda techniques of the fascists, now refined and modernized over 50 years, are ones you would recognize. For example, to achieve maximum affect, being "on message", (something you think is a modern buzzword but actually goes back to the Nazis), must be completely saturating. The On Message technique was perfected on a massive scale in the Cold War. The thousands of stations that made up Radio Free Europe were all connected, and from Cuba to China they broadcast the exact same message, all day - that they suck and we don't, and that the Communist Party was to blame for all their ills. They would even have debates with Communists -picked of course for their stupidity or just down right faked, and later television was added to the mix, a daily stream whose whole message was that life was better on the other side, now in pictures.

AM Radio and Fox News, and also Drudge, the new Internet component, are the exact same thing. We are blind to this, because we think hate radio is only for the True Believers. In fact, its saturation message of the day, (and it is the same - ask anyone who travels for a living and they will tell you the AM radio fascists are talking about the exact same thing from Duluth to Dallas) the outrage component, the blame component, all exactly the same from Hannity or Limbaugh or your local guy, is designed to deliver its message to every set of ears in the country. Millions trapped in their car during rush hour, or in rural areas with only a few stations, or those who drive company vehicles all day who need to relieve boredom, - in short the working class - are bombarded all day with a story, a spun explanation and a blame and derision component, and a scapegoat group - "Liberals" the new word for Goebbels "kike", said in the same way they used to say "nigger".

When Joe Average gets off work, he turns to what looks and acts like a snazzy news channel with juicy murder stories and gossip, but it is in fact a government controlled propaganda channel, packaged a little different, a little less outrage, but here we get the technique of confrontation, and like the Communist counterpoint, the "Liberals" are picked for their stupidity, or for the known negative image they have with the target audience, or because they look weird, like Colmes, who looks like a frigging space alien, while those on your side are handsome and articulate, and of course the slanted news stories always contains something about the "On Message" propaganda story of the day that Joe has heard on the way home.

We Democrats have been chumps. We don't know any of this, and they use our ignorance against us. We do all the wrong things. For example the Democratic Party is clueless on the correct use of the confrontational component. You never use confrontation on the people you are trying to win over to your side who may be open to your message. We are ignorant of all this psy-ops that is going on, because our leadership is not made up of Cold War war pigs. To make it worse, we supply way to many confrontational images that actually confront the sensibilities of working people, like that asshole idiot Whoopi Goldberg making gentalia jokes about the President of the United States, something you or I here might find amusing, but a working class person is going to see in an entirely different light, and something that is only going to prime the rightwing propaganda weapon with new ammo. Kerry, the blind policy wonk, should have condemned this in no uncertain terms, in fact he missed his "Sister Solja" moment, and instead gave the Repug machine what it needed.

We constantly let the other side maneuver us into all of the situations I described above. For example, instead of talking about "human rights" or "the pursuit of happiness" or "Liberty and Justice for All", loaded terms that appeal to fundamental beliefs of working Americans in a positive way, we are talking about "gay rights" or "alternative lifestyles" or "Affirmative Action", terms that appeal to the negative prejudices of the working class. The key to fighting them is to use a different phraseology, one where we are really saying the same things but in broader terms that emphasize the underlying principles that just about all Americans are in favor of.

I do not like the terms "Liberal" or "Progressive". Both say things to a working class voter, in fact they have been hypnotized to think "Big Government". I believe the best moniker is simply "Democrat" or even better "Democratic". The word democracy is one the right dare not demonize, and also I can say things like "I guess on that issue, I am a pretty conservative Democrat".

A lot of this is common sense. If you are dealing with a right wing ideologue, be confrontational, but in a respectful way, and confront the ideas not the person, and keep the cultural sensitivities of working smucks foremost in your mind. Any working class observer will respect you for standing up for your ideas, if you do it in away that confronts your opponent but does not offend or confront the cultural sensitivities of the people you are trying to persuade. The Republicans have become expert at this techique.

When speaking directly to them, be persuasive, and use terms and phrases that appeal to broad positive ideas about human rights - get to know the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees that we are all equal before the law, and the Bill of Rights, and cite them whenever you can to support your arguments. If you want to argue for rights of gay people put it in those terms, and stay away from the specific "loaded" words like "gay"or "alternate lifestyle" or "marriage". Simply say things like "well I am in favor of all people having the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness if it does not hurt me in any way." Or "we should all have equal rights before the law - its guaranteed in the consitution".

Stay away from two minefields - Affirmative Action, which no working class white guy in this country supports and we need to unload like a bad turd, IMO. Especially stay away from the gun issue. The gun control issue has lost us more of the traditional democratic base, it has cost us more working class voters who would vote for us other wise, than any single issue I can think of. Post 9-11, it is a total loser for us. Soccer/Security Mom is now OK with NASCAR Dad having an assault rifle in the closet, so he can shoot the terrorists who want to kill her kids. Myself, after listening to Michael Savage, I have changed my position on it too, and I can see now why it is in the Bill of Rights. In the end we will win this.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because I agree with you. And welcome. :hi:

We need to move LEFT. You know, actually distinguish ourselves from the Nazis...
We can't keep running on "I'll do the SAME things, just smarter, better..." blah blah blah. :puke:

and leave the progressive party to the progressives?

then you can become one of those 'swing voters" who everyone pays attention to- but who are usually meaningless in the end.

He's been banished to freep heaven.

What's with the random number assignments in the usernames, anyway?

Sources are de rigeur at DU, my friend. We don't take to rumormongers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The last thing our party needs is to move further to the right. Please, get the hell out of my party. Take your wishy-washy politics and go. We don't need you. We don't want you.

Or perhaps you have other motivations for posting such absurdities.

that post had me laughing a bit........clumsy efforts do that ......

aren't an alternative rather than mostly the same, which is where we're sadly headed, at what point do we finally say that there's no point for our party to exist?

of human rights, the environment and health care just to score electoral victories, we end up with nominally Democratic leaders who don't do anything for human rights, the environment or health care. How, exactly, is that a victory?

Anyway, the Democrat farthest to the right in the primaries was a laughable non-starter, so your "strategy" of being unprincipled whores is flawed right there.

I will cry and sulk.
:nopity:

isn't their ideas or values, which the majority of Americans agree with, it's how they propose to pay for them. Clinton had the right idea when he shed the "bleeding heart" and "tax and spend" monikers. The ideal candidate is a socially liberal, fiscally responsible populist with great charisma, an understanding of working class America, and inspiring oratory skills.

Clinton came close, but he took it too far, and compromised too much. He sold out our long term values for short term gains. As a result the Democratic Party now is now viewed as untrustworthy by not only our base, but by the same element of middle America we were trying to woo in the first place. The Party as a whole is now seen as immoral opportunists who stand for nothing except for winning, and will do or say anything to achieve that end. And since we aren't winning, we're seen as failures to boot. We have an image problem that has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIBERAL OUR CANDIDATES ARE.

The solution to repairing our do-anything-but-stand-for-nothing image isn't more of the same slippery slope opportunistic slop. Moving away from our core values is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Integrity does matter.

What you are suggesting is a defacto one party system, nearly what we've currently got.

Your ideal primary line up would be:

Evan Bayh
Joe Lieberman
John McCain
Tim Pawlenty
Zell Miller

I suppose.

always check the profile

No need to let him disrupt "poorlier."

I really wish this forum had a quote feature. I am reading all these flames after the message I posted, and I have no idea if they applied my message or someone elses because no one used the reply feature. For otherwise excellent software, it is sad it results in a lack of communication, but if the remarks demanding that someone needs to join the Republicans, go to freeperville, etc were meant for me, I have been a Democrat since the 1960s. I have been in Civil Rights protests, draft riots where I was tear gassed, I have worked on numerous presidential campaigns and was very active in the Dean campaign this year. I have been a Union Ironworker for years. As far as I am concerned, a lot of you aren't "leftists" you are "confused", and you are the ones fucking up my Democratic Party, not the other way around. On every thread I have been on, there is some stormtrooper element, who instead of posting a reasoned counter-argument engages in assholism, and I am not just talking about me, I see a lot of people getting this treatment. Either debate the issues intelligently and skip the Thought Police routine, or shut the fuck up, or better yet, grow up. The way politics is played by adults is to engage in persausion. You idiots that seem determined to run off anyone who doesn't agree with what your current little shit issue are part of the problem of this party losing, not part of the solution.

This guy is a known right winger... we are closing the gap in several swing states and Kerry may now be poised to take Ohio and Iowa. The repukes are pulling out all the stops as we draw near the finish line to try and demoralize us. Don't fall for it!

the original poster has been banned.