LTTE: Moderates can lead the way (Mark Warner)

There is one empirical and one absolute mathematical maxim to consider if one wants to win an election. Unfortunately, some Democrats on the far left are out of touch with these realities:

1. If you throw donkey dung, you are going to stink of it, and the majority of voters will not vote for you.

2. If you do not reach out to the majority of the voters, you will not win the majority of the votes.

These points were nicely summed up by Virginia Gov. (and possible presidential candidate) Mark Warner while speaking at the Florida Democratic Convention on Dec. 11. "You have to go beyond simply criticizing the other guys. You've got to also show where you want to head, and I think you also have to be willing to say that you'll work with anyone to get there."

On the other hand, many thoughtful Republicans are embarrassed that their party, which is controlled by the far right, will be held responsible for record deficits, a poor response to Hurricane Katrina, indicted congressional leaders, unprecedented war profiteering with over $10 billion in nonbid contracts to the vice president's former company (Halliburton), the graphic revelations of torture, the disclosure of spying on Americans by our government, and a costly pre-emptive war, where even President Bush conceded on Dec. 15 that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060101/OPINION/601010822/1029

you'll stay out of power and you'll richly deserve to.

NT!

support gw bush in his war on Iraq..right wing extremism is more like it.

All three branches under Republican control.

:eyes:

Thank you.

<taps foot impatiently>

that moderates put Republicans in power.

Myth. Unless you have some evidence?

All three branches of government are now in Republican hands. Is that enough evidence?

Common fallacy - mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

So what is needed is evidence that moderates are the cause of Republicans being in power.

* ah. repeating that myth. are ya?

* the myth is that moderates put Republicans in power.

Myth. Unless you have some evidence?

* Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). Common fallacy - mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

So what is needed is evidence that moderates are the cause of Republicans being in power.
========================================================================================================================================

You haven't answered a damn thing.

And you've answered nothing yourself. So let's start over.

Do you evidence that moderate Democrats were the cause of the ascension of the GOP?

The GOP controls all three branches of government.

I've repeated this THREE TIMES now.

Let's remain civil.

What exactly did moderates do to give the GOP the reigns.

Or better yet, your take on the election since all you have done is diparage other views without revealing your own.

How about rational, or logical?

I'm all for it. Using your best logic (which require facts for proof), what did moderates do to hand over the reins of power to Republicans?


Or better yet, your take on the election since all you have done is diparage other views without revealing your own.

We weren't discussing any ONE election. And I'd like for you (if you're so inclined) to show me how asking someone a question - then trying to get an answer - is "disparaging other views?"

And I did give my view. I said it was a myth.

right?

1)"Democrats on the far left are out of touch with these realities"

2) "We, the DLC, would rather work with the far right criminal pieces of shit who have destroyed this country than the so-called leftists in our own party."

If indeed "you also have to be willing to say that you'll work with anyone to get there", then why dismiss working with YOUR OWN SUPPOSED PARTY before conceding to the enemy?

By the DLC's own admission in this letter, the neocon foreign AND domestic policies are ruining America. So why don't you back off and get the Hell out of the way while the REAL democrats do our damndest to steer the country back to what is decent and right.

If there were, they'd be agreeing to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Bush's illegal wiretapping, cooked prewar "intelligence" (OSP, WHIG), and many other scandals. Instead, they all put partisanhip ahead of country. If we don't run someone who articulates these things, we'll lose. The DLC mantra of "support the 'war' president no matter what" doesn't fly.

contributing factor to the creeping FASCISM in America.
I DEMAND my Democracy BACK, and the "Centrists" aren't on that team!

Please go here and click on the 1st link:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

June 2005
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis
Survey
Graphs

Click on the "Analysis" link. It will be in Adobe format which is why I can't Copy & Paste here: I WILL be posting this information later today as a separate thread. Please note that this analysis was co-authored by James Carville, a Conservative Democrat and Campaign strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Many in the Clinton administration give Mr. Carville much of the credit for the Clinton successes. He is generally considered a brilliant campaign manager and and unrivaled expert.

Here are some excerpts:



The "We're just like Republicans only nicer" campaigns of the Centrists Democrats have proved to be a disaster. Whether you agree or not, the average citizen sees the Democratic Party as an imitation Republican Party.This is the result of two disastrous campaigns where the Democratic Party ignored traditional issues , and chased after mushy republican voters with campaigns of "Centrism". These polls shout that voters want a sharp distinction, NOT Republican lite.

If the Democrats want to turn the bush*/Republican drop in popularity into positive gains for Democrats, the Democrats must offer choices on issues that are "sharply different" from the Republicans.

The Democrats MUST offer clear alternatives on issues:

*Instead of Free Trade and Outsourcing, the Democrats MUST offer Fair Trade and (at least some) protections for American Jobs (not corpoWelfare tax credits, LEGAL protections)

*Instead of Staying the Course, the Democrats must offer options for withdrawal

*Instead of Big Business, the Democrats must offer REAL protection and support for the Working Class and Poor

*Instead of Patriot Acts, the Democrats MUST offer protections for Individual Rights and Freedom from Big Brother and BIG intrusive Government.

*Instead of Fighting Terrorism by expanding the Military Wars overseas, the Democrats MUST offer improved security within our borders, and International Cooperation of Intelligence Agencies to track and capture International Criminals

*Universal Healthcare...the Americans WANT it. The Democrats MUST offer it. (To hell with contributions from Big Medicine and Big Pharmaceuticals)

*Instead of a Bigger is Better Corporate Policy, the Democrats MUST offer restraints, consumer protections, and Fair Competition legislation that makes it possible for Mom&Pop Businesses and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Marts and Corporate Factory Farms.







summary:
The Republican Party is seen by most Americans as the Big Business Party. Polling data analysis combined with performance in 2000, 2002, and 2004 clearly indicate that if the Democratic Party is to be able to capitalize on the low ratings of bush*Republicans, the Party MUST clearly and publicly show itself to be the Party of the Working American.

A UNIFIED PRO WORKER/PRO-LABOR Platform similar to Gingrich's Contract with America MUST be produced and SUPPORTED by the Democrats AS A PARTY!!




The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

Thank you.

Apparently, no one will step up to defend the original post. Hit and run from the Warnerites.

I wish we could do bipartisan ship. I think Warner does that very well and could in DC, but DC isn't Virginia and things are meaner. He could be a good president I think. I've read he is pro-choice and for LGBT rights and he did a good job with the economy in Virginia since they had a defecit and in one term he turned it to a surplus. I'm really rooting for him or Feingold now if Kerry doesn't run again.

better the the cons. Did they run away from the far right? NO!!! They embraced them. They courted them. They pander to them. They won the presidency.

Why in the world don't these pundits get it? They want to run to the middle. I would go along with that if the cons were running to the middle too. Unfortunately they are running to the far right. And we cannot chase them there. We have to give the people a clear choice.

It was reported in October last year at crooksandliars.com that McCain met with Jerry Falwell. Sad that you have to pander to the fundies. What about the rest of us? What about me? I'm not a fundie. You want my vote? Prove to me you're not going to pander to just the fundies and not abandon me and my rights.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm always amazed at the way "electable" DLC candidates keep not getting elected.

Downhill? Only leaders can lead me. Not ersatz Rrpukes.

All he could do was give us his resume for over an hour and tell us what a good job he thought he was doing. I found it very patronizing and boring as well.

Also at that convention were John Edwards and Barack Obama who were much better speakers with a much more inspiring vision for America. Edwards gave an inspiring speech on poverty in America and around the world, he spoke out against the war and said he was wrong to have voted for it. Barack Obama gave another good speech at dinner but I'm not having an easy time recalling the particulars other than to say it was about bringing people together.

Both Barack and John Edwards were much better than Warner.

I also got to hear Tom Vilsack of Iowa (who is also rumoured to be a 2008 candidate) speak and got to spend about 15 minutes talking to him in a small group setting as well. He's done a lot of good things for his state same as Warner but doesn't spend so much time blowing his own horn. He would make a potentially good Veep candidate but he too isn't in the same category with Edwards or Obama.

I will support John Edwards, John Kerry, Barack Obama, or Al Gore in any combination in 2008.

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

I've looked at three, at least, and I just logged on.

countering point of view.


Doug D.

before they even think about it. Running to the Center. The Dem Part has moved to where the Repug Left used to be during Nixon. Don't hand me any candidate who starts that crap about how people want the "Center." You couldn't get more "Center" than Kerry/Edwards and look at where that got us.

Opposite viewpoints are great for them to hear. Maybe it will help them "refine their message" before that tired stale DLC crap drags our party through another two loser elections...Mid-terms and '08.

Kerry particularly has a pretty liberal voting record if you really look at it and Edwards is all about helping the poor and the least among us. Hardly what I call "moderate". He sounds very much like Bobby Kennedy to my ear (except for the accents of course..)

Kerry/Edwards ran a very "safe" and managed campaign in 04 due to Mary Beth Cahill. I don't think she will be managing any '08 attempts by either of them.

Kerry will probably not run given that he'd have to give up his Senate seat to effectively do so in '08 and I don't know if he would be willing to gamble everything on an '08 President run.

Gore has claimed repeatedly that he will not run. (Still has plenty of time to change his mind.)

That leaves Edwards and Obama.. how about an Edwards/Obama (or Obama/Edwards) ticket?

Doug D.

to Bush before we start lining up behind candidates for
'08. We have plenty of time and much work to do on message. Message for Dems is important in looking for a Candidate. The Voice of the People should speak this time and it shouldn't be another "top down" for Dems. We have lots of grassroots out there working on the ground and trying to put more liberal Dems in locally.

By '08 the Candidates are going to have to be listening to what "WE" on the ground and in the State Party apparatus want and not whether they are charming, have lots of money and charisma. Message has got to be the most important thing for us to WIN. Some Charm and Charisma sure won't hurt, but it just can't be the only thing.

I DO like Edwards and Obama on "message" though.

Doug D.

I think Warner and others like him are just introducing themselves and getting their feet wet. I think it's very interesting, and quite amazing really, that all the democrats are focusing on 2006. Even Vilsack I heard a couple Sunday's ago said to concentrate on 2006 and not 2008 when he was in Florida for their state convention. That's why I think Warner is being so boring now. Even Dean said he wasn't going to release any plans until later this year closer to the midterms. Democrats are being smart I think and not giving away any plans that the republicans can use and attack them with. I don't think Warner has come out and said he was running even though I have a "gut" feeling about him and have since last March.

I spent about twenty minutes in a room with him and what was mostly a small Seminole County Dems crowd with a few Orange County types and we discussed a variety of things but he said nothing about running for President and really seemed very motivated about helping us in Florida win back the governor's office (I'm a Rod Smith guy myself...I can tell you about that if you're interested...)

None of the speakers at the FDP convention came out and said "I'm X and I'm running for President.." of course but you could tell the difference between the ones that want to be Pres and those who either don't or aren't very sure yet.

From what I saw and heard I'm pretty sure that Obama, Edwards, and Warner definitely do. Vilsack might want it but he seemed a lot less like a guy who is shopping himself around and more like a guy who just wants to help the party elect Dem governors.

I don't see Dean hopping into the Presidential race because it would be a hard thing to do to jump from DNC Chair to candidate. Many people would look at it as a conflict of interest and/or an abandonment of the DNC Chair job - unless say, he could talk someone like Bill Clinton into taking over that job...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

I've read from other reports here in GDPolitics that Warner has a woman who helped Howard Dean and someone who helped Al Gore.

Tell why you wouldn't want Warner or just your critism of him and who you'd want instead. I believe you have enough posts to do that. No sense in going around spamming.

It would be spamming to talk about what I did for New Years for instance.

I was discussing Governor Warner who is the topic of this thread.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

He could be posting more "I will worship at the feet of Hillary J. Christ" crap. :evilgrin:

I mean I'll support her for NY US Senator and if she's all we got after the primaries in 2008, I'll support her but she's no Bill Clinton and she has been totally absent on the wiretaps and the war in Iraq as far as I can tell.

Currently I'll back Kerry, Edwards, Obama, or Gore in any combination of Prez/Veep for '08 unless somthing truly better comes along.

Doug D.

to DU?





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

their copy and paste features. :hi:

Vilsak, Clinton, Warner, Richardson, Biden, who else?

I'm losing track... there's so many of these wretched asses - they just crawling out of the woodwork - front loading '08 candidates in '06 is really fucked up.

really fucked up.

With the DLC I don't like them as a whole. But other wise with personal canidates I look at them and their records. Actions speak louder than words. Look at it this way. You may have a very good friend who associates with a bad group in general, but does that make you or this friend necessarily that way the group is? No. Kerry is listed as a DLCer and he's quite progressive throughout his years. I've also read from other Kerry supporters that he hasn't done any associating with the DLC since 2003. Warner did a decent job with Virginia apparently (Kaine got elected after all) and I've read he is pro-choice and for LGBT rights and he knows how to balance a budget and get things done. That's what I like. Just because one is with the DLC, whether just associated or full in-swing activist, doesn't mean you're a Hillary clone. And didn't Al Gore help create the group?

Different parts of the country are at different points in the political spectrum. It would be hard to sell a Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank in Georgia or many places in the Deep South for instance. Bill Nelson is a great Senator for Florida but not nearly as liberal as say Kennedy or Kerry.

I thought Bill Clinton was a great President and I backed Al Gore and then John Kerry.

I'm not for running all the way to the left either but I'm:

1) Very opposed to the war in Iraq and want us out now. This was all a big lie and a big disaster for which Bush should be impeached but it's been hard to prove that he lied to the degree required.
2) Very opposed to all the Bush usurpations of our civil liberties. Particularly the wire taps and the Patriot Act stuff. Bush needs to be impeached for the wiretaps -no ifs ands or buts - he confessed on TV to this one.
3) Very opposed to all the offshoring of American jobs and union busting that Bush has been doing.
4) For prosecuting the war against Al Qaeda but in an intelligent way as John Kerry has previously described
5) Opposed to ANWR, for methanol fuel cell cars.
6) For universal healthcare for all Americans.
7) For a living wage for all Americans.
8) Opposed to Social Security privatization.
9) For a balanced budget whenever possible and not at the expense of the poor.
10) For more gov't basic research and development programs.

Doug D.

Down in Hollywood (Ft. Lauderdale) Florida.

I saw him give this speech. He's definitely running for President based on the speech he gave -(all defense related and trying to be tougher than Bush on Iraq etc...I'm pretty leery of the guy the more I think about his speech.)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

you would know it. All the democrats are together in staying in focus on this year's midterms (which is quite amazing really).

does have things to offer but he does need to get a new story or something. I've seen him on "Road to the White House" three times and each time he told the same story. :shrug: I think people know him well enough now to move on. Tell me what he wants to do for me if he is going to run in 2008 (which I think he is). Of course I also think all the democrats are waiting till at least after the midterms before they start campaigning any. It's kind of weird how they're all together on this. Not even Joe Biden is out there or Hillary.

Why does he want to be President?

He didn't really say when I saw him speak.. His motivations will have a lot to do with my interest in supporting him.

On the plus side for Warner, As an engineer I DO really like the idea of a scientifically and technically competent President.

Doug D.

good Campaign Manager. Just what he's looking for ...to the center. And, maybe Liberman will go on the campaign trail with him.

I can't wait to see all the Moderate Dems who turn out on the streets to work their butts off to get Warner elected. The rest of us I guess are supposed to pitch in...but we did that once for an ABB Candidate. I don't think if we are ignored once again, that many of us have the money to spend out of our own pockets and the time going door to door to try to convince folks that "this time we have a BushLite Candidate...so won't you please just go out and vote on those corrupt machines so we have a chance of putting a centrist supported by the DLC in office?"

Oh YEAH! I can't wait. He trashes the Left who did the work last time and have been slogging here on the internet with petitions and letters and grassroots party activities since 2000 Selection and 2008 is really almost three years away... Sure...he's got me on his side right away with those comments. :puke:

hmm...

I should have used this emoticom. :sarcasm:

someone from Dean's campaign and Gore's campaign working with him. I think it's a PAC he has.

then make predictions for 2008.

"far left" of the party?

One thing I love about being a democrat is all the differening views on things. The republicans are all lock step in center. If you don't shout "I agree!" with everything they will call you a traitor or some nonsense like that. I like how I can be who I am and be a democrat and believe in democratic principles in general. I'm a person of faith and that doesn't matter. I'm treated as an equal. Not any better and not any less. There are conservatives, moderates and liberals. Look at the country today. Lots of people are considering themselves to be conservative and/or moderate. Last time I read at least 80% of the country proclaims to be Christian or believe in the Christian faith. Our job is to show them why they should vote democratic and feel good about it. Not just to vote against someone else. I treasure my vote because I know blood, sweat and tears has been lost over my right to vote as a woman. I don't ever want to vote for someone just because he's (or someday she) is not quite as "evil" as the other person. You have to think broadrange. Sometime go out in your local town at the mall and just ask people what they would consider themselves to be politically. See what your answer is. Please keep in mind I am a far left-wing "looney" liberal and I always wear the label proudly because of my beliefs in the government and what we've done in the past so you can't bash me and say I'm bashing a liberal (I'm not bashing myself).

"Unfortunately, some Democrats..."

in other words, he wants to divide and conquer...be divisive...get those "some Democrats" in here to start fighting with him and flaming.

yeah, those "some Democrats" are also "far left" his term he uses to attack them.

borrowed from:

LynnTheDem
Mon Dec-26-05 02:38 AM
Response to Original message

_____________________

139. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Otherwise they and the right-leaning indies will stay home. The "far-lefties" have already said they will take their ball and go home. So the centrists win simply by virtue of numbers.

The best we can hope for IMO is AL GORE who is progressive but bona fides established enough to not scare away the center.

Ps: I will not presume to dictate the intention of this thread of which I am not privy.

I think that moderate Republicans would be willing to vote for a liberal as long as they view him as honest and sincere. I knew quite a few crossover Republicans who voted for Kerry in the last election and he's a pretty liberal Senator if you look at his voting record. Even the notoriously conservative Orlando Sentinel endorsed Kerry over Bush last year and that's the first time they've endorsed a Democrat in about 40 years and it was because they felt the Bush hadn't kept his word and was basically not to be trusted.

It will be an honest guy who presents him or herself in a straightforward unpackaged (well as much can be) manner and tells the people WHY he or she wants to be President without sounding like a beauty pageant contestant (you know... I want world peace...etc,etc..)

There has to be a solid and simple message and there has to be a "Democratic Contract With America" with a return to honesty, integrity, and a willingness to listen to and treat the little guy with respect instead of just corporate donors...

Doug D.

Around Thanksgiving my grandmother on my dad's side came out and said she no longer supports Bush. When Katrina happened she was still a Bush supporter and glad he "won" re-election. Than I was visiting her a while before Thanksgiving and she confessed she no longer was a supporter because of all of his lies. How did she come up with that? :shrug: She only gets basic cable and she doesn't have the internet. So I don't know, but she said she likes a president who she can trust and won't lie to her. According to her the best president in her lifetime was Eisenhower. I think Warner could win people over with that and I think I could get my grandmother to vote Warner.

so, realistically speaking no serious candidate is going to forsake the moderates who make up the majority of the electorate for their votes. That's just the facts. What part of that don't they understand? Anybody in their right mind will see if they can peel off more votes from dissafected republicans and independents. Why? Because there are more votes in those groups. So they can continue to stomp, threaten and hold their breaths until they turn blue. It won't change anything.

keep blaming the Greens for costing them the election in 2000? The fact is the Dem Party NEEDED those leftists who were disenchanted enough to vote Green. The DLC further alienated them, and lost the election.

will be throwing their hats in the ring. It's good to know early who to not even bother with.

Just to clarify.

What he did say is this "You have to go beyond simply criticizing the other guys. You've got to also show where you want to head, and I think you also have to be willing to say that you'll work with anyone to get there."

Somehow I don't find that in and of itself appalling.

Your op is misleading.

Warner was put in parenthesis to indicate the LTTE was about Warner. Perhaps I should have wrote re: Mark Warner.

Just wanting to clarify. ;)

The majority of the votes are in the middle, so that's where the focus must be.

There is no need to worry about the far left. No matter what, they will be there on election day.

tiny for any serious candidate to cater to. It would be nice to have them on board, but nothing can force them to do them something they're opposed to.

And while you guys sell out this party and this country, just to appeal to 10% of the yayhoos in Kansas trailer parks who don't have the mental capacity to realize that George Bush Junior is a pyschopathic Nazi piece of shit war criminal, you don't bother to realize the fact that TWO corporatist conservative parties is exactly what makes 50% of eligible voters stay home on election day.

I'd rather have the 50% who know damn well something is wrong with this country than the mush-brained middle who can't even tell the fucking difference.

the reality on the ground or even the price of tea in China. :hi:

Thats right all you New Middle Dems. If you followed the middle like our over indulgent megalomaniac friend here, than you have moved from being a moderate to being repub lite. The Middle has swung farther to the right under fake news, propaganda, emotional manipulation of fear, anger and grief.

Got that? The New Middle is far to the right than it was 5 years ago! That means that New Middle Dems would have been repugs 5 years ago with their stances and policies of today. That is THE empirical and absolute mathematical maxim if you are a realist.

Someone here is trying to stem the backlash that is coming in this country. That backlash means that some of the Dems that followed the path of political expediency and fence sitting are going to lose their jobs in the next four years. Some of them wont but there will be a few examples to be made.

If he wants to call out the leftists and go to war over insulting tactics and verbiage then fine, lets fuckin rock Mark. That goes for anyone thats wants to feed this shit to my face as well. I might just have had enough of this by the time a moderate wants to convince me how stupid and naive and dangerous I am to my face, that I will have to literally kick them in their know it all elitist ass.

If any other politicos want to compare far right with far left lets talk about it in terms of people killed and injured.

Funny that he cites the war when the moderates all pretty much ate the presidents lies right up, ("we twusted him! wah wah waaaaaah"). Fuck you, fuck off. The only group of people to have hurt our country more were the
reich wing themselves, enablers are almost as bad.

I'd tell you where "I want to head" and not be "just criticizing the other guys" except that you moderates would report me to DHS, the DOD, NSA, FBI and all the other vaunted agencies that I'm sure you all think are just the sugar teated moo cow. I'm sure you'd do everything you could to block my voice, my progressive candidates, my anti war movement.... anything that is more left than you, you will try and destroy with the same viciousness the pukes display in their methods.

In a nutshell you high horse and holy discourse moderates, while you sit there and get off being anally reamed by that pointy picket fence you sit so glibly upon many many people are waking up to the fact that rightwing fear mongering is enabled by those who so boldly stay wishy washy.

I am so done with you New Middle types, at first I thought we were allies thats over now. I am going to war on every single one of you who supports this war. The war is not a single issue but in fact by itself includes every crime known to man, you help to enable that. If you cant find the fortitude within to admit to that and your mistake in supporting if for whatever reason than I don't want you representing a thing. As I stated above you'll also do everything you can to destroy me, so fairs fair (though I'm sure you'll whine your weak milquetoast ass off when the gloves come off).

the same as Howard Dean's. The only difference is rhetoric. Howard Dean on the issues is just as mainstream as the party in general.

Unfortunatley the hysterical left views any deviation from their viewpoint as dishonest political maneuvering. Fortunately this is the DU bubble which has little relevance to how rank and file Democrats feel.

I'm supporting Hillary, but as a Virginian I can tell you Warner is a wise man and would make a very good President.

"Far left" entails authoritarianism, akin to Stalinism or Maoism.

Democrats, being liberal-to-conservative, do not fit the definition of "far left". Liberalism is anathema to authoritarianism, and while conservative Democrats are closer to that with their ideology (much of it shared with Republicans), they also do not favor authoritarianism.

The piece starts out with a flawed and intellectually dishonest premise.

__ Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth – George Orwell from 1984

Now some words from the mist:

Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union --link:

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

“We cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

One thing that's always just under the surface of these DLCer-led reflect-on-the-'centrist'-past-of-the-party discussions is the unacknowledged fact that the party used to host, well, a bunch of racist motherfuckers.

I don't know about the DLCers who wax nostalgic for the past, but I'd prefer today's party not consist of ideas from yesterday's conservative, bigoted, narrow-minded segregationist aisle-crossers.

But hey, that's just me - an ex-Dem who thought that party stood for ALL Americans, not just the well-connected, the rich, the powerful.

The list FDR described is socialistic, yes - and I ask, what the bloody hell is wrong with wanting to make sure everyone has a fair starting point? Nothing in there about wanting to hold people down, rich or not, and everything about enabling everyone to give it their best shot, their bases covered, to try and make a hell of a life for themselves.

That's the American Dream, baby! Who the hell could have a problem with that, besides conservative pricks bent on keeping others down to mythically elevate themselves?

The "far left" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Lies. Or, perhaps, just ignorance of worldwide political reality.

At any rate, as long as I'm around, such idiocy won't be left unchallenged.

In Virginia, Warner managed to push through some incredibly vigorous environmental protection legislation, if anything even stronger than the sorts of things Al Gore would have managed. Plus, Warner succeeded in pushing through *tax increases* (!) to solve Virginia's budget crisis, but he stayed popular even with Virginia's relatively conservative electorate.

Mark Warner seems like a miracle worker to be able to pull this off. However, I suspect that he's managed a clever sleight-of-hand that could pay off us-- he may "pose" as a moderate to the media, but at heart (as well as in his actions), he's a liberal without doubt. I have yet to hear his stands on the Iraq War, but thus far, he sounds pretty strong, both a great candidate and a liberal.

His views on the war are similar to Hillary's. He was supported by the NRA in his run for governor, and he is a member of the DLC.

I would not call him a Liberal really...left of center moderate might be a better term.

He has been a very good Governor here and could be the kind of non-ideologue, competant candidate people look for following Bush.

Although many of the fringe on the left refused to acknowledge that. I wholly support Dean as DNC chair because I love his sassy comments, but I was put off by his cult following in his presidential bid in the primary. People need to be honest about the candidates and view them as a total package, not find one position or one vote that are deal-breakers. Most of us would not be in personal relationships if we were that rigid.

Seems the #1 complaint people have against Warner here (other than him being DLC itself) is that he doesn't stand for anything. And probably won't stand for anything until the DLC writes him a platform. And so the guy is putting in appearances and making speeches, but not really saying much of anything, outside of pushing indefinable "centrism" as a doctrine.

Howard Dean, on the other hand, never left any doubt whatsoever where he stood on any subject. You want to know what the Doc thinks? Ask him. Or eventually, he will probably tell you anyway. That's how he was as a candidate, that's how he is as the DNC chairman. And the DLC despises him for it.

Sorry, but other than the fact that they were both governors, I don't see any similarities between Warner and Dean.

I said Dean was a moderate when he was governor and that some of his fan club in 2004 failed to acknowledge that.

And you and some folks like you here at DU throw the word "DLC" around, randomly applying it to this person or that, having no knowledge of whether or not it is applicable, but tainting the discourse because you have decided you don't like this politician or that.

It has become an adjective to you, an adjective meant to deman and denigrate.

And I as well as many DU'ers will make up our own mind about the candidates, thank you very much. Your input probably has the exact opposite of what you intend.

Stop bullying those here at DU.

That just makes me furious when people say that. He was not only a moderate as governor, he was very centrist and made liberals mad sometimes. We all know that.

I am very moderate in my views actually, many of us were who supported him. Some of our group are Republicans who appreciated his forthrightness, some are independents. We are a motley crew.

But none of us ever thought he was that liberal, though there would be nothing wrong with that.

I come from the fundamentalist background of Southern Baptist, raised in the tenets of the church, raised our kids that way as well. Moderation is what a lot of us are about.

Now unless your name is "some," I wasn't speaking either directly to you or to all nor even a good number of Dean supporters, although I note you refer to "none of us" apparently speaking for all Dean supporters.

I know for a fact that some Dean supporters thought he was a liberal/progressive, completely oblivious to his background, because I was involved in some local debates on the subject.

I just love it when people get their knickers in a twist over nothing, or twist words to pick a fight. I have never seen a more fractious bunch than those here at DU. What the hell is the matter with you people?

It gives me more resolve for the future fight we may be facing in this party. And it won't be just from the right, you know.

Thanks for the nice words...
"I just love it when people get their knickers in a twist over nothing, or twist words to pick a fight. I have never seen a more fractious bunch than those here at DU. What the hell is the matter with you people?"

Who are "you people"?

But then, I'm not the one starting all the Hillary Cult threads.......

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

I will inform the rest of voters who have declared that they will support the candidate democratically chosen in the Dem primary that we are in a cult.

I guess now we'll have to get uniforms and perform sacrifices.

Nearly 2,200 Americans in uniform have been sacrificed for Hillary's sickening cult already. Since it's the same cult Chimp & PNAC belong to.

And I also liked Dean for the chairman job because he knows grassrooting efforts and all that. He did a great job with that during his campaign.

Do you really want to go there? Many of us could point out "cults" that are ongoing, but we don't insult like that.

That's why labels are totally useless and a waste of time. Howard Dean who is the same on the issues as me is a raving "progressive" while according to a lot of DUers I'm some sort of rightie. That's crap. And I will call them on it every time. By any sane person's definition, I'm no falling off the cliff socialist, commie leftie. But I'm certainly liberal. And I also notice that in all my years on DU, the "progressives" have yet to define exactly what that is or what it means except for in the broadest of brush strokes.

He might not be the FDR or Kennedy liberal mode but he is a progressive. We need someone to clean up after Bush with the budget and jobs and if Mark Warner can do that than he's got my support. Watch the introduction video of him and see what others say: http://www.forwardtogetherblog.com/

Shallow analysis.

When push come to shove, even so called "thoughtful Republicans" will never vote Democratic. Pursuing them at the expense of the base and disaffected voters is a fool's errand.

They'll no more vote for Warner than they would for Kerry.

Is there any type of poll to back up your statements? I could get my grandmother to vote for Warner. My grandmother on my dad's side last two times voted Bush but now doesn't support him. I could get her to vote Warner way more easy than I could her someone like Kerry. Same thing with perhaps my two aunts and my uncle who didn't vote last election. So that's four new votes for you.

and we've lost the Congressional elections every single time- and the presidential elections were close enough to get swiped twice now, based on hunting for a few Republican votes- and ending up standing for nothing-

Take a page from the Republican playbook, if you want to win-

I found this at MyDD in July, and I remember it was from the LATimes.
The article is archived and costs money to buy, and then you can't quote from it....so I am posting what I saved from July.

"How does he think people who are on Medicaid are going to rely on private insurance? If they are on Medicaid, they probably can't afford private insurance in the first place. Does he live in the real world? I had no opinion on him until I read these 3 paragraphs. Sorry, but they bother me a lot.

SNIP.."Among the options he said should be discussed are encouraging individuals to rely on private insurance rather than Medicaid to cover long term care, limiting subsidies for expensive treatments such as hip replacements for the very old, and preventing employers with young, healthy workers from dropping out of insurance risk-sharing programs.

(What concerns me about that statement is that insurance is not that readily available and many can not afford it.)

"Warner was not specific about what he would do to deal with Social Security's long term financing, except to say he believed shoring up Medicare and Medicaid were much more urgent problems.

Still, he said that Democrats sometimes are too wedded to simply defending the 70-year-old retirement program without considering how it might be improved for current conditions: "The program itself becomes sacrosanct, rather than what the goal ought to be: how do we protect folks in their senior years."

I need to know more what he means about that...cause I sure am wedded to the idea of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm sure we'll start learning more as the midterms come to a close.

I am genuinely neutral about the Mr. Warner and the whole question of who will be the nominee in 2008. But, he does need to clarify what he means. It would be political suicide if we got wobbly on those issues.

He may very well have a satisfactory explanation. We'll have to wait and see.

borrowed from:

LynnTheDem (1000+ posts)
Mon Dec-26-05 02:38 AM
Response to Original message

___________________

139. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

that universal health care, raising the minimum wage, and getting out of Iraq are all mainstream moderate positions.

It's bad enough when rightwing extremists try to portray such views as being far left, and it certainly doesn't help when both conservative Democrats and self-styled revolutionaries here do the same thing.

A great many people can still be stampeded from the name, and are more attached to other items than they are to these positions. Most people do not vote rationally; if they did, the left would win every time. Most people vote from emotion, and the right is very skilled at rousing emotional reaction against certain labels and items that are largely symbolic, and which gain an even greater emotional power by the very virtue of their being actually unreal....

most of the time it appears that it is emotionally charged wedge issues or irrational labels that harm progressives.

In fact I recall that polls in 1984 showed that on issues Mondale beat Reagan overwhelmingly -- but that didn't change the result of the election

but if we are right and the majority agrees us with us the majority of times -- there has got to be a way to (I hate to use the cliche) to re-frame the debate and change the public discussion. we don't need to cease being progressive.

you will see emotion. Trouble is all the the Democrats who have become centrist because they are afraid of the big bad liberal label...have helped take away medical care from our poorest.

The Democrats who say what happened in New Orleans are also quiet and afraid to speak.

So let's all be afraid of the word liberal because the GOP doesn't like it.

And you will say but Ma'am, that is the reality. Yes, it is because our Democrats are silent and not an opposition party. And because we use the word "cult" against each other as had been done in this very thread.

And until we start dealing with the reality instead of emotion we will continue to lose.

True moderates oppose the far right. Liberals oppose the far right. Even some conservatives like Bob Barr have finally had enough! Instead of battling eachother, why don't we band together to defeat our common enemy?