In `08, Democratic Party base should draw the line.

Enough already with our jumping up to cheer almost anyone who even hints he/she might be willing to oppose a Bush policy. Enough of the middle-of-the-roaders whose tepid responses get a ticket to Wolf Blitzer`s cheerleading tournament. Bold is what we need. Bold, as in....I have always opposed the invasion of Iraq. It may hurt. We may lose, but at least we will have stood for something.

We`ve been battered around by the DLC and ripped to shreds by a media intent on proving anyone to the left of Lieberman is a crazed Michael Moore follower, willing to blow up a Thomas Jefferson statue but not willing to defend America. Inside the beltway there are planners busily concocting just the right mix so our candidate`s position papers reflect nothing controversial. Going with the flow, the new measurement for true patriotism.

I can`t abide our party`s acceptance of a nominee willing to continue this bloodbath in Iraq or the dastardly chest-beating attached to it. How easy it was for the lying fraud in the White House to drag our party`s "leaders" into his imperialistic cesspool. Easy because he set the rules....we`re with him or we`re with the terrorists. Time to change that tune.

We should draw our own line in `08 and make it clear that if a candidate ever supported this immoral invasion of Iraq, they just don`t have what it takes to represent us. We must remember the weak-kneed response to torture, the zillions of dollars eagerly handed over to Bush and his cronies, the countless troops sent to war without proper equipment, the dead and maimed. All for a lie. As far as I`m concerned, the Democratic base should take a life-or-death stand and stick to it.

out for being the treasonous crook that he is. Further, I'm not voting for any candidate that voted for the Iraq war or who isn't ready for us to get the hell out now. That means no Kerry, Clinton or the DLC crowd.

but who is left amongst those expected to run?

:shrug:

the side of the American people, all the people. There is someone out there, they just having emerged. Gore, Clark, Conyers, Boxer, Edwards aren't slouches.

Thank you!

"We should draw our own line in `08 and make it clear that if a candidate ever supported this immoral invasion of Iraq, they just don`t have what it takes to represent us."
Yeah, why would we want any incumbents in Congress? oh, wait....

Somehow I don't think "Nyah nyah! Told you so!" is much of a winning slogan.

thereof.

But then I am actually a Democrat.

By the way, it's a good thing that Americans' sentiment abouyt the war has changed even a teeny tiny bit since it started, isn't it? Oops.

anyone who criticizes good Dems. I don't see why I shouold contribute time or money to people who work at cross purposes with good Democratic policy.

IWR is not my litmus test. I might boycott pols who make it theirs, as is my right. The people who make this their litmus test can, after all, easily carry any nomination by themselves, without monetary support from me and without me convincing friends and neighbors to vote Dem and without my help stuffing envelopes and such. Good luck and let me know how it works out!

I consider folks like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Max Cleland, and the rest fo the DLC good Democrats. About the only bad Democrat I can think off offhand is Zell Miller.

IWR?

IWR is one of them. If someone else wants to, that's their option. I tend to dislike single issue candidates as their appeal is limited. The seem programmed to lose. I choose not to affiliate with them.

Sorry. Don't know what that stands for....

dogma may work for the republicans, but it's not a good direction for the dems.

We often stand behind several lines in the sand.

Yeah, baby. Herd them cats! Yeehaw!

"supported this immoral invasion of Iraq". That's straight from the Republican strategy book from the last campaign.

Also, I am not looking for a candidate that is necessarily "willing to oppose a Bush policy". I am looking for a candidate that is able to propose a comprehensive, progressive policy of their own. Remember, in '08, Bush isn't running.

The war will be a very important issue, but not the only one, and a simple cut-and-run agenda may backfire. And the party will be DOOMED if it puts all its money in that one investment. This party is starting back on the right track now in terms of grassroots organizing in all districts and expanding the electoral map. We can not and WILL NOT win unless we expand that electoral map and broaden our support. WE NEED TO GET BACK RED STATE MIDDLE CLASS AND BLUE COLLAR VOTERS WE HAVE LOST. How do we do that? We do that by coming back to our economically populist roots with a willingness to be more moderate on some of the cultural issues that have been killing us. If we continue to infight, if we continue to insist on a far-left only agenda and far-left only candidates, we will continue lose nationally. This needs to be a
big-tent, national party again, and there's plenty of room for all of us. Now is the prime time to whack the R's on the bread and butter issues and sear them for the corporate-owned lackies that they are. In '08 a Governor like Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, etc. would probably be the best candidate. LOOK AT HISTORY! Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W, ALL former Governors.

I see people calling for a populist, but that doesn't seem to mean progressive somehow. Depending on how you define progressive, I suppose. The people I spoke to at our state fair wanted the common man more represented on issues that would be important to them, as in a living wage and such. They didn't seem to see some of the more special interests as needing to be front and center. I think they were looking more for an FDR New Dealer.

Liberal - Decidedly left-wing across the board and considers one stance equally as important as the other. (e.g. fights equally for workers' rights as well as environmentalism). A lot of activists come from this pool of people, and they represent the heart and soul of the American left.

Progressive - Decidedly left-wing across the board, but tends to emphasize economic issues above others, seeing that as the root from which many other issues arise. A lot of the "intellectual left" fall within this category, providing the framework from which left-wing ideas flow in many cases.

Populist - Decidedly left-wing on economic issues, especially that of workers' rights. Also, decidedly conservative on many social issues. A populist will fight tooth and nail for the right to a living wage, but will fight equally to put the Ten Commandmeents in schools, seeing morality as the root from which all issues arise. These are your blue-collar/agrarian types.


Populists are interesting in that they can go for either party as long as the party delivers the message they wish to hear. So far, the Republicans are the only ones in the ears of the populists. That should change.

It's good to be on th same page, ya know? Sometimes I feel like folks all have different definitions of some of these terms. Maybe it's just me, though.

and I completely agree....we need to have some kind of definitions for the debate here. Too many people throw around terms without making sure that all parties involved know their exact definitions. Oftentimes, said parties might agree if the terms are treated the same.

Terms I do not like are "far-left", "DINO", "fringe", and "GOP whore"...none of these terms pinpoint exactly the person to which the monniker is pinned.

In addition to the above terms, I also recommend we get definitions for "moderate Democrat", "conservative Democrat", and "corporate Democrat"

"moderate Democrats" - Middle of the road Democrats whose involvement and participation are a hodgepodge of left positions sprinkled with centrist and even conservative positions on this issue or that. Howard Dean is an excellent example of a moderate Democrat as well as Wesley Clarke. These are good people who make up the bulk of the party, and their opinions are worth considering. Populists would fit well here. So do "yellow dog" Democrats (but they bleed into Progressives and Liberals, as well).

"corporate Democrat" - Not really represented well in the electorate, but certainly in the prevailing wisdom of elected Democrats in Washington. Perhaps a few labor-minded Democrats tend to think this way, as well, but corporate Democrats, by definition, are not populists. Corporate Democrats are unpredictable as to the positions they take socially (some argue they follow the prevailing winds), but can be counted upon to support conservative economic policy.

"conservative Democrat" - A strange breed of Democrat who will not vote a Republican because Republicans represent the party of the Union soldiers during the civil war. These Democrats typically vote Republican, but may also vote for their fellow conservative Democrats provided the message is ubiquitously conervative. I have seen this type referred to as "Zell Miller" Democrats and "Blue Dog" Democrats.

Armed with the definitions, I bet many liberals and progressives wouldn't terribly mind making a coalition with one of these groups. The only one I see that cannot ever make a coalition with the left are the "corporate Democrats" because they work diametrically against liberals, progressives, populists, and half if not more moderate Democrats. I have yet to be able to wrap my head around "conservative Democrats" enough to even have an opinion on the possibility of making a coalition with them.

By the way...all of this is my opinion and represents the framework by which I use these terms. I have no idea if we could ever reach a consensus about these words, and I certainly have not been on DU long enough to presume to introduce the debate.

often terms are defined according to where the person using them is standing.

The farther left you are, the more you can't see but a dime's worth a difference to the right of you. It reminds me of a picture of Reagan that was weirdly distorted. The caption read "If this picture doesn't look right to you, you're not standing far enough to the right." And lo and behold, if you went to the far right of the picture, Reagan looked alright.

I'm called a moderate (sometimes a DLCer) here, but where I live, I'm called a flaming liberal. All depends on who's lookin' apparently.

So yes, not only are terms thrown around, they change depending on who's using them.

a moderate Dem from what I have seen of your posts.

I straddle the line between moderate Dem and progressive. But I am beginning to see the power behind populism, even though I do not agree with it...it is still far more prefereable and Democratic than corporate Dems running the show.

I would prefer a progressive candidate, but I'll take a populist or a moderate Dem any day. I sincerely believe there is little room in the party for corporate Democrats (because we need to streamline our message and revamp our power structure within the party).

Thanks for conversing with me. I really so believe that this exchange of ideas is necessary for the entire party...even if it is one blogger-type at a time.

I avoid threads that talk about progressives...yadi, yadi because the definitions are skewed. And the polls about this are even worse. We need to have a common language when we are referencing candidates.

Although this is your personal framework, and perhaps some thought and research can clarify these definitions; nevertheless, they are an excellent starting point. I'm bookmarking these posts. Thank you.

Progressive , a liberal who is afraid to admit it
Liberal, a republican who's just been arrested

testified to Congress opposing the rush to war, has consistently been right on predicting consequences of Bush's Iraq policy, and is an acknowledged military/foreign affairs expert, who is a war hero himself,who has the ramrod spine to take down the RW smear machine,
who is a true progressive but perceived as a moderate in red states because of those 4 stars on his shoulders. Dems look no further!

just sayin.....and Clark is not my favorite, but he is a very good choice.

Others, imo, would be Gore, Edwards, Dean, Feingold, and Harkin (why Harkin? look up his voting record on bill passage and confirmations).

energy bill or the gun bill ...

We all have our important issues and the most important issue differs from one to the other.

Personnally, I choose to look at ALL the issues and decided who is the best based on all that.