If the new head of the DNC is 'moderate,' how will you feel?

If they have a history of supporting legislation and issues that I think are detrimental to the people of this country then I won't be pleased because they aren't a "moderate." I'm tired of the meaningless labels.

probably because he's still mad at Al Gore for supporting Dean for pres.

and you throw one out in answer. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT whether someone calls themselves a liberal, a moderate, a conservative or a radical. I want to know WHAT they're going to do to try to stop the march of corporate domination of EVERYTHING in this country and STAND UP for the well-being of average working people.

. . . you're delirious. They depend on corporate funders as well. The only way to get corporate interests out of politics is public funding of campaigns.

This position is not even remotely as important as many on this board think it is.

I'll be furious, but I'm not leaving the party. I'll keep fighting to win it back!

nothing wrong with it. I dont know, I just want a good fundraiser and an outspoken guy, if either Vilsack, Dean, or whoever can do that, then frankly I wont care about the man or woman's personal idealogy, isnt that what the DNC head should be, an outspoken and fundraiser type.

actually moderate. I voted for Kerry this time solely on the
Anybody But Bush theory. That does not seem to have been successful,
so they can kiss that shit goodbye. I'd have been better off voting
my conscience, which would dictate a libertarian or green party
candidate, who would at least represent my opinions and politics
in some degree.

The thing some of us like about Dean is that he is a democrat, he will
listen to and work for the wishes of his constituency rather than
viewing his job as bullshitting us into voting for him by not allowing
any other choices.

picking a moderate? I agree with that if thats what your point is, but I think the person's personal politics arent the issues you deal with in choosing who heads your party, if I recall Marc Raciot was more moderate than many republicans, it has to do with money raising and being outspoken I think that makes a good party chair.

I don't actually see how you could get that out of it,
so I expect I wasted my time trying to explain my POV.

"I'd have been better off voting my conscience, which would dictate a libertarian or green party candidate, who would at least represent my opinions and politics in some degree."

"I'd have been better off..."

Better off how? Bush would still be there.

"...who would at least represent my opinions and politics to some degree."

Represented where? You were going to get a Green or Libertarian elected? Or would you have been going for deniability? "Don't look at me, I didn't vote for either one."

That doesn't seem difficult to me.
Do you prefer to vote for politicians you don't like?

But I don't have to like them, I just have to think they're right.

Nevertheless, I really, really like Kerry a whole lot, so that wasn't my problem in this election.

I'm sorry, I just think that in this election it would have come out the same: Bush for prez and a candidate that did not win. And if more ABBs had thought that way, we really would have given Bush that mandate. Seems self-defeating to me, is all.

His first four years proves that. What is self-defeating is to
continue to vote for party political hacks, neither one of whom you
agree with. Voting is my one chance to express my views directly in
the political process, and I almost never vote for political hacks,
but this time I did, I tried to be "pragmatic", and the sucker quit
without a fight anyway. So I won't make that mistake again.

Funny - we were thinking precisely the same thing -

This election has already pushed me farther to the left. The Johns vote for the Patriot Act has never made me happy.

If they keep trying to grab the center - they are gonna lose me.

years of conservative domination.

Talk about "enabling".

Republicans will maintain control for the next 40 years. They will undo everything we've ever accomplished. Things would get a lot worse and we won't have the ability to filibuster the most heinous aspects. Not to mention losing all the state legislatures and governorships we currently hold.

Well then perhaps the party should start listening to its base.

is not big enough to win elections. Its that simple. Its really not a matter of left or right. We need a message that appeals to liberals and moderates alike.

Leadership.

I am extremely close to bolting the party myself after seeing the asinine steps they are taking now.

Reagan made "Liberal" an epithet in the 1980s. As long as the party works on a Progressive agenda, Health care, the environment, an expansion of personal liberties (gay rights, decriminalization of marijuana, scrap the Patriot Act, review and eliminate the WTO).

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

and I will more than likely stay that way.

...and does not try more pointless and defeatist triangulation. The reason people see the party as "willing to say anything to get elected" is because all this re-imaging gives people the impression that there are NO PRINCIPLES. QUIT re-imaging.

Who cares if it's a moderate. We'll know for sure in two years, though we can guess that Vilsack won't be very effective.

I think Dean is toast because of the way he handled his campaign finances at the end. We can't allow a lapse of management like that at the national level. I say that as an early Deaniac.

Sadly, I don't see any other alternatives. Personally, I'd nominate Kos.

By the way, all you greens: hope you change your mind (again) after another 2 years of BFEE reign. I won't call you flip-floppers. Promise!

what matters is if they are good at party building.

a certain amount of ideology is going to be necessary for party-building.

we don't need to be dividing up the party into wings. The Republicans are trying to kill us and we can't afford to be fighting with each other.

:hi:

"pro-corporate, pro-war" is what would aptly describe the majority in this country since the late 1800s.

I'm not endorsing that, but it is the truth.

and one reason there are such sentiments is because of the lack of debate in this country, aided by people afraid to take a stand....

Yeah, I'm just basing my assertion on the fact that during the last 100+ years this country has been in more wars than any other, and corporate wealth and power has grown stronger than anywhere else.

What are you basing yours on?

good one!

and any money I would have sent the DNC will go to DU.

They are the people who believe we are subject to elections and leaders rather than always in a position to question their legitimacy, their wisdom, and their place.
I don't want moderates to lead the Democratic Party. Let them waffle between the extremes, but I know where I stand.
Now is no time for conciliatory strategies or tactics with moderates or fascists.
Now is the time to stand against the usurpers who've taken our nation, our culture, and our constitution away.
Democratic republicanism is the future. We need to study it, become aware of what it is, what it requires, and then implement it again.
All the emotional and moral discipline it took to keep our government constitutional is what's withered away. WE must nurture it back into existence and then use it against the forces of black night, brown shirt, and iron cross.
We must repudiate totally the ideology of empire, corporatism, and hero-worship.

something that has been missing for a long while.

wain back power.

I am going to be sooooo PISSED! :nuke: It better be Dean or they will NEVER get another cent from me! :mad:

it will be because it's the most accurate reflection of the Democratic Party, most of who's members ARE moderate.

btw - I don't consider Lieberman a moderate - he's definately leaning toward the conservative side of the aisle.

What backs up your opinion that most Dems are moderates?

And what do you mean by moderate, exactly? I have a feeling the OP referred to "alleged moderates" rather than true moderates.

political affiliation. Poll after opinion poll confirms this.

My definition of moderate would be someone who is a centrist - for democrats, center left, for republicans - center right. I don't think that holds true for all members of either party - I see Lieberman as center right and Lincoln Chaffee, for instance, as center left. It's really not much of a difference, since, in the end, the only real difference is that one has a (D) next to his name and the other an (R).

Irregardless of party, the center is where the great mass of people (and voters) are. The Republicans have done a better job lately of keeping their moderates voting Republican, even though the party control has shifted toward the right. The Democratic strategy did manage to pull some Republican votes, but Rove's strategy of getting Religious conservatives to the polls seems to have compensated.

Evidence of these polls, perhaps?

it's a commonly held belief.
It's a truism.

I'm not going to provide "proof". I don't care if you believe it or not.

All I can say is - if you want to affect political change - you had better understand what the playing field is.

If you can't back up your opinion, that's fine - no shame in having an opinion! But don't try to pretend it's fact.

I'm sick of people whining and bitching that they'll go Green if the Democrats promote more "moderates." Kerry wasn't a moderate, he is a liberal. Why don't you investigate his actual record? Furthermore, Howard Dean is a (gasp) moderate - probably more conservative than Kerry about certain things. Why is everyone on DU blind to that fact? I love Kerry, I like Dean a lot - would be glad to see him as DNC head. But for chrissakes, stop acting like Dean is Liberalism Incarnate and Kerry is Bush-lite. That's blatantly false and smacks of sour grapes.

Also, the only type of Democrat I would resent is one who is spineless against Bush's agenda or who is actively conservative. I don't "mind" moderates - I probably am one, well, a moderate liberal anyway. Moderate doesn't mean "supports Bush and all the Pubes." It means non-radical. I realize there are plenty of radicals on DU who think Kucinich would've been an awesome nominee, but in the real world, Dennis Kucinich does not represent mainstream ideology. We don't need to turn into the left-wing version of the Repube party by flipping "moderates" the bird in favor of radical, fringe element extremism that will appeal to precisely 40% of voters at best. We need to reinforce that liberal values are American values. We don't need to change our platform. I honestly think beating ourselves up over this is entirely counterproductive and a bit stupid. Americans have been fooled by the media whores and the Pube fearmongers that Shrubbie shares their values. Not so. All we need is to make people realize that. This whole moderate-liberal-progressive debate is stupid as hell. And if you have your panties in a twist about whatever the hell and are going to vote Green, well, go ahead. I'm sure they represent your "true Progressive values" so much better than realistic, pragmatic Democrats. God, sorry, this just pisses me off. Flame away.

I just want someone who is strong, who can defend us an our values well on TV and who can articulate grand themes.

That said, Dean and others could do this job well. Dean is my personal pick.

Beyond that, Tom Vilsack would be a disastrous choice, namely because his apparent, sole reason for wanting the job is to preserve the Iowa Caucus. Well, we have the Iowa Caucus and a losing political party --which of the two should be our first priority?

This past year is the best example possible of why that's the worst possible way to decide a Presidential candidate.

.... myself WildEyedLiberal. I say to all those who that are so unhappy and are screaming they are going to the green party and voting green next time go it's your choice and your right. But I could be wrong but I don't think you will find what you are looking for. But if you do then good for you as I said before that is your choice. Just as it is my choice to support Kerry who I feel is liberal but also is smart enough to know when it is in the best interest of the people to be willing to work with others on the other side.(Just as he did when they turn deficits into a surplus in the 90's) Kerry by all means has loves this country and has worked hard for the people of this country and will continue to do so. The man deserves respect for all he has done and will continue to do.

I have no problem with moderates. The DLC version of moderates, that I have a problem with.

But here's the real problem: adjusting one's leadership to fit the Republican framing, without even ensuring that elections are transparent and honest, is like redecorating your house to your neighbors' tastes while they're busy throwing gasoline on the bonfire in your backyard.

It's just - FUCKING - stupid and shortsighted.

If by moderate you mean more of the same mealy mouthed, don't get the Republicans angry or they won't like us attitude--I won't be happy.

If you mean someone who'll actually choose some core economic principles that will improve people's lives and maybe slightly downplay some of the more divisive social issues without totally wimping out AND take the fight to the other side then I could be happy with a moderate.

in this political environment. The Republicans are steamrollers. They cannot be reasoned with. The American people are being steamrolled. They need to be yanked out of the path of destruction.

convictions and guts like Howard Dean.

The DNC will be saying, "GO AWAY!" to the base that dedicated time and money in 2004.

ultra-left.

And to define the term "ultra-left"?

What, to you, is the "ultra-left"?

I should have said that there are more moderate and conservative Democrats than liberal Democrats. It's 67% to 30%.

"The difference is that conservatives dominate the ranks of Republicans, while Democrats include a much higher share of moderates and even conservatives. Using data across the full length of this tracking poll, 51 percent of Democrats identify themselves as moderates, 30 percent as liberals and 16 percent as conservatives. Among Republicans, by contrast, 61 percent are conservatives, 32 percent moderates, 5 percent liberals."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=179352

Also, the Dems' lead in percentage of Democrats vs. Repugs has been shrinking since the 1970s.


The Harris Poll® #15, February 27, 2004

Democrats Still Hold a Small Lead in Party Identification
Almost no change in proportions who consider themselves conservatives, liberals and moderates
_____________________________________

by Humphrey Taylor


"Unlike some of the other polls, The Harris Poll finds that the Democrats still retain a small lead over the Republicans in party identification, although it has declined in every decade since the 1970s. Based on over 6,000 interviews conducted by telephone last year, one-third (33%) of all adults "consider themselves" to be Democrats, 28% self-identify as Republicans and 24% as Independents.

However, the average Democratic lead in party identification has fallen from an average of 21 percentage points in the 1970s, eleven percentage points in the 1980s, and seven points in the 1990s to only five points, so far, in the 2000s. There is no mistaking the huge change in party affiliation that has taken place over the last 30 years.

Some other polls report that the Democrats and the Republicans are now virtually equal. We believe the small differences between their numbers and ours reflect the use of slightly different questions; the trends are very similar."

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444

:eyes:

Polls are shit, if you ahdn't noticed.

Glad to hear it- next time McCullife & Donna Brazille needs grunts to do the ground work, they can call on the legions of "moderates" and "swing voters" to do it.

I hope they are dedicated as the people who busted their asses in 2004.

...and their hard-earned cash to the DNC like WE did?

I doubt it.

I'll always vote straight DEM- but no more money or volunteer time to the DNC until they start LISTENING to me and people like me.

Until then, they can find fucking swing voters to answer their phones, knock on doors, organize, etc.

what difference does an ideological label make for the DNC chair?

He's virtually a repug.

You should have said: "As thrilled as Bill Clinton"

throat. "Moderate," by the way, is a code word for collusionist.

I don't care if they are liberal or moderate.

principled, powerful, persuasive, and strategy-wise person of any bent that a wishy washy one of a particular bent that happens to coincide with me.

Having said that, moderate is fine by me. In fact, probably better. But whatever. As long as not too conservative so as to be practically Republican.

And I dislike all the hits against Lieberman. Whatever you think of his policies, he's a damn decent person who has done a great deal to further Democratic causes, esp. since he works well with Repubs on committees. That is to say, at least he gets in the door! And decent politicians are hard to come by.

...over the past several years-in local and national organizations & campaigns. Given them plenty of money too.

I'll still vote straight DEM- but ZERO money & time will go to the DNC unless they start telling it like it isand keeping their promises.

Otherwise, I'll work with groups like Dean's DFA, envoromental groups, or donate money to Bev Harris.

I mnean, if I've got a choice between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, why not go for the real deal?

:shrug:

I don't care about what wing of the party they are from.

Geez.

I don't care about "moderate" I care about effective.

I would prefer a moderate voice. I don't see why that's such a dirty word. But I'd like to see an effective moderate voice.

I don't mind the fiscal concervatives. It's the social conservatives that make my teeth itch.

Hanging with the moderate Republicans for Kerry, I found that many of them were for responsible government, but also were concerned about the environment, war and other issues not mutually exclusive to your average Dem.

I'd love to know exactly how many Republicans for Kerry there actually were voting in this election. I'm hoping there are enough of them around to have a voice in stopping what's going on in their own party. "Country before party!"

I fear that if we wander too far left, that we will isolate ourselves from both the moderates in our own party, and the moderates in the other party who might join us. We fear we would be further marginalizing our party and lose even bigger in the next election (not that we lost that big in this election -- if all the ballots were counted that is.)

So I proudly say I am a moderate. I'd hate to see our party jetison us the way the ruling Republicans are jetisoning their moderates.

Leaders have become. I am a moderate who sees no good answer yet for voting for war. Still a moderate, but I don't want the Democratic "definition of late" of moderate as chair. :hi:

it does depend on what the candidate's platform is;if any perks in it for we the "pea pickers"? Maybe.....

Otherwise I may go Independent or Social Dem...

:eyes: