Current Democrats who are the hardest for the GOP to paint as librul boogeymen

I think a big part of winning elections comes from avoiding being painted as an "extremist." GW Bush tried to sell himself as a "compassionate conservative," Clinton as a "New Democrat." Here in MI, Devos(R) lost to a arguably unpopular Granholm(D) because it was so obvious he was a far right nutjob. Lamont lost 27% of the liberal vote and 33% of the Dem vote to Lieberman.

Tester was able to appeal to Democrats as well as independents in a dark red state like MT partly because of the way he looks. I think military background, as well as hailing from red states, helps politicians like Webb or Clark. Politicians like HRC try their best to take moderate positions on the War or flag burning.

Who are the most progressive Democrats out there now who are the hardest for the GOP to paint as being scary libruls? Why?

A stealth progressive, a true liberal

"We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

- Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Bill Maher Show, September 4 2003

And masquerading as an unscary Middle American moderate military man.

:hi:

unthoughtful voters will find him to "likeable" and "tough."

Probably his own experience with being lower-income makes him more empathetic towards others currently living in or near poverty. Not many people realize he advocates a single-payer health insurance system. I listened to him at fundraiser articulate a pretty good plan for expanding the Pell Grant to offer more students the opportunity to go to college. He's not opposed to gay marriage or offering benefits to those in civil unions.

Oh yeah, and he wants to reduce the defense budget.

He's definitely the stealth liberal.

It would be nice to have a real progressive Democrat.

Pro Choice
Pro Affirmative Action
Pro SINGLE PAYER health care
Pro Labor
Pro Environment
Pro Alternative Energy
Pro Education
Pro tecting our ports, our chemical plants, our borders
PROGRESSIVE

He never even got off the ground.

He just started too late and the Media jumped on the Iowa caucus bandwagon.

Clark lost his votes to Kerry, who won in New Hampshire because of his upset win in Iowa. Had Kerry seriously faltered in Iowa, I doubt he'd have resurged in New Hampshire like he did. Clark was poised to defeat the wrong nomination opponent in '04, but then he had to make tough strategic choices given his very tight window of operations.

Q: What can you do to help make sure that gays and lesbians have an opportunity to build and love their families?

A: One of my Army friends came to me. He said, "Sir, I've got a little bit of trouble with your position on gays in the military." I said, "Well, let me explain it to you this way. If you had a son or daughter who was gay, would you love them? And he said, "Well, yes." I said, "And wouldn't you want them to have the same rights and the same opportunities in life as everybody else?"

Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003

The Confederate flag is a divisive and racist symbol of American history. I am proud to have served and fought under the American flag. That's what I want to see waved and supported. Perhaps some of those who have used the Confederate flag in the past don't realize how offensive it is to others. We have to take account of its association with practices that all America regrets. It is time to put that past behind us and move on into a future where we are all united.

Source: Concord Monitor / Washington post.com on-line Q&A Nov 5, 2003

I went to local schools except for a year at a Tennessee military school when the high schools closed in Little Rock in the late 1950s because of disputes over racial integration. I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance. I've often gone back to that experience. It's something I've related to.

Source: Waging Modern War, p. 20-21 Jul 15, 2001

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Wesley_Clark_Civil_Rights.htm

It is made-up fantasy BS created by the dlc.

Put a real Liberal candidate up and let them run.

I am very suprised that you feel that Americans just go out and vote on the issues and nothing else, that marketing has nothing to do with it. I guess you are more optimistic than I am.

But it is this defensive kind of thinking that they are going to paint a good candidate as "too Liberal" is what has pushed the party so far to the right that we are now in many ways the republican party of 40 years ago.

What is needed is creative campaigning--and marketing--of good, strong, unabashed Liberals. Take back the good name of Liberal! When Liberal is used as a slur, remind voters that it was the Liberal New Deal that created the greatest middle class in modern history. Remind voters that it was Liberals who gave women the right to vote & ended Jim Crow.

The fact is, that what makes it so difficult to fight the false stereotypes that have been placed upon Liberals is the push to the right from within our own party. Strong, intelligent, and creative Liberal candidates can--and must--push back to take back our name, our party, and our nation.

it's not defending you positions up front and vigorously. It's so called "centrists" who are too chicken to stand for anything. It's letting the opposition define you instead of the other way around. To me, the only difference between a republican that trashes the constitution and screws the poor and a democrat that won't defend the constitution or economic justice is merely a matter of just a few degrees of separation.

(as far as what I have read) and got absolutely demolished in the election. You think being painted as "too far left" had nothing to do with it? I disagree. What about Lamont losing a solid chunk of self described liberals in CT? Do you think he would have lost that election if he was a 4 star general? I don't.

Lots of extraneous shit that doesn't matter to you and me matters to Johnny Sixpack.

Lieberman LOST.

Lieberman had REPUBLICAN money and the backing
of the DLC people like Schumer.

The smell of AIPAC was also in the air.

lost 27% of the liberal vote and 33% of the Dem vote to Lieberman.

Link?

they wouldn't have voted for Lieberman in the first place. Point being, Lamont was pretty damn progressive on the issues and stood his ground pretty well. Lieberman won in part because enough Democrats and independents were convinced that Lamont was too far left. If Lamont had military background or, hell, even looked more like Tester, it would have been harder for people to think he was some looney lefty. My experience is that a large percentage of the population spends about 2 minutes thinking about what they are doing before they vote. Little stuff counts.

Here are the exit polls if you want to see them:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/CT/S/01/epolls.0.html

of Connecticut voters are Republican or Independents.

The exit polls for "ideology" are meaningless in this context.

He would NOT have gotten as many independent votes if it
had not been for the traitorous behavior of the Schumer's of
our party and the stink of the backroom deals. It was common
knowledge that he would be keeping his seniority even if he
won as an indy.

Lieberman defeated Lamont in the general election because the rnc and the WH threw their support--and big $$$--behind Lieberman. It wasn't the few ill-informed Democratic voters that flipped that election, it was that the publican machine refused to back their own candidate and instead backed Hoementum.

This is just a simple discussion. Calm down please.

Lieberman took 33% of the Dem vote, Lamont 66%. If Lieberman would have taken 20% of the Dem vote, and Lamont 79%, with the rest of the indie and repub numbers staying exactly the same, Lamont would have won. Democrats could have won this for Lamont, but too many of them voted for Lieberman.

posing as "mainstream". No more erosion of our rights. No more erosion of our economic principles. No more thoughts of war for hegemonic control of the middle east while lying to a gullible people. I've had enough. I'm going down swinging.

The rest of the country now calls what used to be mainstream liberal. The country can't go any further right. The reason the dems have been losing lately is framing. Its time the democrats started to do the framing or fold up the tent.

It has nothing to do with anyone posing as anything, and I don't care who you are or aren't voting for.

Why didn't the candidates I listed, or any other ones you want to talk about, not get elected? They were pretty progressive, were they not?

I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE NEED TO ELECT CENTRISTS, I AM NOT SAYING WE NEED TO TRIANGULATE, I AM NOT SAYING WE NEED TO FRAME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Lieberman

"Unpopular Granholm"? I have lived in Michigan all my life, and I don't know what you are talking about. I would also drop the arrogant "inferior Johnny Six-Pack" attitude too, if I were you. As to your question, which Democrat would be the hardest to paint as a "librul," I would say Ted Kennedy, because the great Kennedy would not tolerate that phony, distracting shit for two seconds.

I think DU is big enough for the both of us. :hi:

I have lived in Michigan my whole life too, so maybe I can help you understand that Granholm was not very popular before this election season started. DeVos was leading Granholm in virtually every poll when he first started running his TV ads. Granholm was also usually ranked around 40th in the surveyusa nationwide polls. If you go in the Michigan forum, you will see there was a thread called "I don't know anyone voting for Granholm" that was stuck at the top for months. Before the election, she was not what would call popular, but you are feel to call her that if you like.

You have to explain to me what my "Johnny Six Pack" attitude is, and why I should drop it.

What is phony about my question? If it angers you so much to be "distracted" from my questions here, feel free to ignore this post and continue on with your important work. Thanks!
:hi:

The "I Don't Know Anyone Voting for Granholm" thread was stuck at the top of the forum with people disputing the claim. Apparently somebody voted for her; she won easily, even after the Republican-slanted Survey USA attempt. You have used the phrase "loony lefty" during this thread; don't claim that your jargon is not phony. "You have to explain to me what my...attitude is," "If it angers you so much..., continue on with your important work," with waving smilies. Stupid, phony shit. Can't you answer a criticism of your attitudes with an adult response?

I am just asking you to lighten up! We are all on the same side here! :hi:

Granholm's numbers were very good in the Detroit News, Free Press, even Democratic Zogby, a few months out from the election. Did you never see those polls?

"Loony lefty" like "librul" is used sarcastically. I thought that would be obvious, sorry that went over your head.

Again you have to explain my "attitude." I don't see what I doing wrong, and I certainly don't mean to upset you.

Thank you for that reply, and just to clarify a little, the thing I have become so pissed off about on this issue is that a great Democrat like Ted Kennedy, for example, who is a such a wonderful model for understanding issues, great speaking, historical knowledge, friendliness to all people, etc., (did you hear the recent Kennedy Senate floor speech blasting Republicans for blocking the Minimum Wage bill vote, that was on You Tube and that got such a long, enthusiastic DU thread here a few days ago? it was beautiful, inspirational), such a wonderful model for how to be great, can be discarded for the likes of third-rate "D"LC "framing" slogans, and pandering to Republicans, who will never call us anything honest, accurate, or favorable, no matter what you do. I have been thinking about this for a long time, and have even been on several DU threads of this type of subject with omega minimo, for example--how our true Democratic legacy, and higher levels of articulate thought, are being killed by cheesy, corporate-style "framing" and "positioning," and this was the general thought I had in mind about this thread.

I also do believe, although it may or may not be true with you, that an essential part of that annoying "framing" attitude, is a sense that the majority of people are "stupid sheeple," etc., "inferior to me, of course," and that I can lead them around by the nose by being on a perceptual level so far above them, that I just totally understand the wellsprings of thought and feeling itself, and they do not, etc., etc., and I am really, deeply offended by that attitude. This was what seemed to be the case with your reply #8, about "extraneous shit that doesn't matter to you and me matters to Johnny Sixpack"; there is a real arrogance to catagorizing a whole "class" (sixpack=poor or middle class) of people, whom you then pretend to "read" like it was nothing. I am also tired of people running away from being called things that they could easily fight and win on, like "loony" "libruls," and all the rest of that slander campaign that has poisoned the whole political discourse.

I guess I am just interested in those "teflon" politicians who have certain characteristics that enable them to avoid the smear machine more than others.

1st of all, "Johnny Sixpack" has nothing to do with class, I could have used "your average American" instead.

45% America didn't take the time to choose between McGovern or Nixon, or Bush or Kerry. A large portion of Americans don't believe in evolution. You know, I do look down on some people like that. People who couldn't find Iraq on a map, but are more than happy to send a bunch of Americans over there to liberate it. People who still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11 and that WMDs are in Iraq. People who think that homosexuality is some "choice." People who think global warming is a myth. Obviously if you have crappy parents and no money, it is harder to be educated, but PLENTY of people have no excuse.

is for the public to become immune to the whole tactic. The more savvy the public is to the RW media coverage - the less it is effective. It seems to already be working. All the Obama assaults - are being easily dismissed. Seems the rw media has begun to marginalize itself by being so far over the top far too many times. Think of it as a combination of reaction to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" and Buyers remorse.

So, i don't think it matters - anybody up there will be painted with the same brush.

It's a tactic that can work on anybody. You go through their public statements and voting record with a microscope, find anything that sounds "out there" when stripped of context, and - - regardless of when the statement or vote was made - - stir up a lot of fake outrage about it.

If they wanted to, they could paint Zell Miller as the Big Scary Liberal Who Will Destroy America.

It's a tactic that doesn't require facts to work.

when he was running for senator. No matter how conserve the dem, they'll paint anyone and everyone as an 'evil librul'.

It seems that the racist "call me" ads were what sunk him.

just like some bought the ads. I love living here in TN, but the fact remains there are still many racists in this state. I think that's why he didn't win. It was a very close race.

As to your question, the GOP paints any dem as the most liberal. They did it with Kerry, Ford and others. I have no doubt they'll try it with the dem nominee.

who are the hardest candidates to paint that way? I am not trying to insinuate that one candidate is better than another, or everyone needs to triangulate, but it is obvious that many DUers think that is my intent.

They tried to smear Webb but he took everything head on and responded with force. The fact that he speaks forcefully, has a son in Iraq, has tons of military experience, etc made Allen look like the chickenhawk he is. There are some people that are just better at deflecting the smear than others. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.

they paint them all that way. That's my answer. :)