"Third Way" moderates offer this advice to Dems

this is pretty bad ... what the advice lacks is anything positive ... it's a list of "myths', i.e., things the authors don't believe will help the Democratic Party ... i disagree ... each of the myths listed is a component of a program of changes that are needed ...

the most important thing the Democratic Party needs to do is to open its message up for input from a wider audience ... the Party likes to advertise a "big tent" but it sure seems like many people are left standing out in the rain ... Democrats may need to do more than "just play to their base" but they damned well better pay more attention to their base ... the authors of the study seem to be making an argument to move the Party further right ... that is NOT going to work ...

what is really needed is a Party-wide vision based on passionate, deeply held beliefs ... if our message is built on mere electoral tinkering to grab a few percent more from just right of center, there is no passion ... voters can smell that kind of politicking from a mile away ... it's a loser strategy from people who have been bringing you loser strategies for decades ... the Party does NOT have an ideological problem ... we do NOT need to focus on points along a political spectrum ... what we do need is a more democratic party open to the views of ALL Democrats ... the tightly controlled, elitist manipulations of Party strategists portrays candidates as cold and calculating instead of passionate and committed ...

the study is flawed in many ways ... the only point of agreement is that the Democratic Party does NOT have a foreign policy ... and that is simply unacceptable ...

The country is polarized, the third way belief in a populist mass in the middle is the worst myth laid onto Democrats.

even the polarization is a kind of myth ... yeah, i agree in one sense the country is polarized ... here is the "left" and there is the "right" ...

these are myths created by the divide-and-conquer puppeteers ... they are controlling the questions we debate ... when Americans are confronted with realities, all this theorizing will be exposed as empty rhetoric ...

does anyone believe the Democrats are the Party of big government or that the republicans are the Party of small government? it's all crap and yet that's a major part of the national debate ... what all Americans want is EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT ... and the shit we've been getting out of Washington for the last 50 years or so is not very effective ...

soon, all the mismanagement will come home to roost and the great American empire will enter "the end game" ... and then, Americans will mature rapidly and get down to serious discussions of what our policies should be ...

Extremists rarely win, and the few times they do, it is usually over for them pretty quickly, and it also inflicts damage to the party.

I will always vote Democrat, but nominate aa nutjob and I'm staying home, along with millions of centrists.

How many millions of leftists have you got to make up for that?

i see hot words like "extremists" and "nutjob" in your post ...

i think the war in Iraq is killing this country and will never succeed ... does that qualify me for either label?

i see 40 million Americans with no health coverage and i think something has to be done to make healthcare a fundamental human right in this country? nutjob?

i'm deeply troubled by global warming ... i think it threatens life on the planet and i'm concerned that our media and our government is so in bed with corporate America that the issue is not reaching the American public in a meaningful way ... sound kind of crazy and "extremist" or do you agree?

let's stop there ... 4 issues ... war, healthcare, environmental safety, and corporate abuse of our democracy ... i'm not asking you if you agree or disagree with me on these specific issues ... i'm asking whether you really mean to level allegations about "extremism" and "nutjob" ... fwiw, most would label my views far to the left ...

wealthy, the more of a nutjob you are.the rightwing way of thinking is considered the norm in this sort of analysis and the farther you deviate from it, the nuttier you are. It has come to the point, for me, where I don't even want to argue with these "democrats" anymore.

How about the 50% of eligible voters who started staying home once the Democratic party started allowing the Deluded Likud-loving Corporatists pick our candidates?

I'll take them over the 10% who can't pull their fucking heads out of their ass long enough to realize they put a fascist chimp in the White House.

If you believe there is a silent majority of ideological liberals there just waiting to be mobilized, then I have a bridge to sell you.

You've got it completely ass-backwards. The truth is that the Democratic Party of the 1930s-1960s wasn't nearly as liberal as you would like to believe. Once the Democratic Party lurched to the left in the late 1960s/1970s, social conservatives and foreign policy hawks left the party in droves.

What's "far left" to you?

"The theory demographic changes over time will make Democrats a majority, a questionable concept with the Hispanic vote increasingly up for grabs."

Demographics don't mean a thing. Social issues will become important as more hispanics becoming second generation. Also, many second generation hispanics, and those who have long lineage support Republican polices. Bush's percentage of Hispanics went up, and on a state-by-state basis, black voters voted for Bush in higher numbers (probably due to baiting on gay marriage. Ohio, where questionable voting and a gay marriage amendment was on the ballot, could se skewed.)

"The belief Democrats can succeed politically if they simply learn to talk more effectively about their positions."

Polls show that Americans agree with us on more issues than with the Republicans. However, I agree that we can't just frame everything to suit our position. We need to offer substance and be honest. However, people like Lakoff are right in pointing out the need to repositioning our talking points. Rarely do I see Democratic surrogates on televison articulate clear messages.

"The strategy of avoiding cultural issues, playing down national security and changing the subject to domestic issues. National security is too dominant a concern now."

Agreed that we cannot avoid this issue. We will be in Iraq for as long as Bush in still in office. However, this does not mean we should co-opt him rhetorically. We should not go back to the "me too-ism" of 2001-2002 that got us into Iraq in the first place! We ned to move the debate to discussing the "right priorities" and not spouting Bush-written rhetoric of like "they hate our freedom" and "we will oppose any imminent threats to the country." Our position needs to be more than senseless flag-waving.
Domestic issues are also important. Polls show that a plurality of people care about the economy, although it is close with Iraq. After Bush's plan to privative Social Security, and with the possible collapse in the housing market, talking about the economy is important. Especially talking about oil prices, which is also a national security issue.

"The belief Democrats can win if they just do a great job of mobilizing their base. Republicans have improved at mobilizing their own base, so Democrats need to do more than that."

Getting swing voters and moderates is important, but without principles and a base, what the hell is the point of being a Democrat? Swing voters can be persuaded, but they need to hear from people who are not pundits or talking heads. The 2000 Election would have been a decisive victory for the Democratic Party had Chris Matthews and Frank Luntz not repeated bullshit themes about Gore (ie. "he's an exaggerator") and tried to vaguely connect him to Monicc Lewinsky politically. If our folks in DC worry TOO MUCH of what swing voters think, then they make bad votes like the Iraq War Resolution, which when things go bad, make these same swing voters LESS LIKELY TO TRUST THEM. Part of the reason why many voters see the Democrats as weak is because they are too afraid to speak out with force.

i especially liked your last sentence: "Part of the reason why many voters see the Democrats as weak is because they are too afraid to speak out with force."

Some in the Party are putting a huge emphasis on portraying the Democrats as "tougher on defense" ... i'm all for a strong defense but i fear that what these Democrats still don't understand is that many see them as being afraid to fight for their own beliefs ...

These people hold Democratic party values.

people maybe wanting to vote Democratic, that little name conjures up unpleasant images of a looney bin/old jippie/cultist/wackjob shop.

The truth is that the Democrats can't become the majority party in America if they only seek to appeal to ideological liberals. Ideological liberals only made up one part of the New Deal coalition that governed American from the 1930s through the 1960s. DU'ers conveniently and repeatedly forget this.

The truth is that the Democrats continue to be perceived as weak on defense and weak on values. Up until the late 1960s, that wasn't the case. Again, DU'ers conveniently and repeatedly forget that throughout much of the 20th century, the Democratic Party was more hawkish than the Republican Party. They also forget that devout Catholics as well as Southern evangelilcals were once part of the New Deal coalition.

He's not seen as weak on defense or values AND he's more liberal than Dean - he's just not seen that way.

Perception is everything.

i'll agree with this sentence you wrote and add a little more truth to it ... you wrote: "The truth is that the Democrats can't become the majority party in America if they only seek to appeal to ideological liberals."

i'll add that "the Democrats can't become a majority party in America if they don't appeal to ideological liberals."

if the Party truly believes in being a big tent, things are going to have to change ... if you see the Party's left as "having nowhere else to go or being statistically insignificant", all i can say is roll the dice and find out ...

personally, i'd rather see a more inclusive party ... the Party is in serious need of reform ... too many don't believe they have any voice in the Party's direction ... this state of affairs cannot continue ... the process is pretty simple: listen, exchange ideas, learn, negotiate, find common ground ... that is NOT what's happening right now ...

They make their points. Simple, precise, easy for their pumpkin head base to wrap around.

Copy that? No....let's do a Chinese fire drill of ideas and muddled presentation.

We copy their positions, just toned down a bit.

We need a "Third Way" like we need a third asshole.

Stand for something. Stick to it. Repeat.

Learn to love it.