Hi. I'm a moderate/DLC-type Democrat. We should probably talk.

I realize a lot of people here blame people like me for what happened tonight. And I have to admit some of your points. I don't want to be like Rumsfeld and pretend that how we got here is irrelevant. It's very relevant, and we need to figure out what went wrong to fix it in 2 years.

I grew up in the south and diasporad eventually to New England. I'm an Iraq vet and electrical engineer. I've voted Democratic my whole life but I've always been towards the centrist (to use a positive term) side of the party.

Now, from what I can tell I'm more or less somewhat left of center compared to "the country as a whole" (whatever that means) and I'm probably pretty much as far to the right as you can be on DU and not be banned.

The particulars are not really worth arguing about but might as well be said: I'm against gun control for the most part, I'm troubled by deficit spending, I'm for the increase in the troop levels in Afghanistan, I think the market is a good way to distribute a lot of goods and services, I think for all the evil corporations have done the good they have done makes them (barely) worth it, I support charter schools for the most part, I more or less believe in "free trade", I worry about how we would pay for Medicare For All, etc. Though, I'm definitely pro-choice. I'm for marriage equality but I don't see a way we can get it without catapulting Republicans into even more power. In short, depending on your perspective I'm the ultimate reality-facing pragmatist or the ultimate sell-out coward.

I am not a "member of the DLC". The DLC as far as I know currently has 3 members, Harold Ford and both Clintons. I think most of you mean the New Democratic Network when you say DLC, but I'll leave that be for now. And, I haven't been "bought off by corporate interests"; I do work for a for-profit corporation that primarily does Navy contracts, and I live comfortably making pretty much exactly the national median wage. But I don't believe and write the things I do because some corporation tells me to; I actually do believe this stuff. I'm also not a Blue Dog; that's a very specific caucus with very specific interests (and, incidentally, almost entirely distinct from the NDN/DLC). (Also, my previous two jobs were with non-profit education advocacy groups, for whatever that's worth.)

But, yes, I'm definitely a "third way" kind of guy. All the policy differences I listed above can be dealt with, more or less piecemeal. IMO the big difficult-to-surmount difference between me and a lot of people here is that I don't think the alleged "silent majority" is a bunch of liberals, and I don't think that running farther to the left is going to help us. I also think that any changes to current institutions should be made cautiously and slowly, because unintended consequences have a way of biting us in the ass. And I think private enterprise has to be an element of the solutions of pretty much any problem we face, because I just don't think we can afford to go back to the Great Society days; the postwar expensive-dollar boom is over and we have to rethink what our standard of living is and what government should and shouldn't do.

Now, if there was ever a mixed bag, lesson-wise, it was tonight. Grayson lost. And, yes, people like me were detractors of his, and so I accept some responsibility for this and apologize. We should have shown up for him and given him more national money, if only to make Freepers' heads explode. Sestak lost (would Specter have lost? We don't know, though my own opinion is no, which is why I was against Sestak challenging him). Manchin won. On the other hand, the southern and western blue dogs were decimated. No more Gene Taylor. No more Rick Boucher. No more Blanche Lincoln. Etc. I honestly don't think there is a single lesson here; individual campaigns are just that: individual, and this was a bad night in a lot of ways. Everybody comes out of this with a lot of work to do for 2012.

I recognize that my instinct to moderate our demands and not get too far ahead of the populace infuriates a lot of you (well, not "mine" so much as Obama's and other Democratic leaders'), to say nothing of my opinion that corporate interests are here to stay and can actually do some good sometimes. I swear I'm not doing it to antagonize you. I really do think we can only make measured, gradual changes if we want to be effective. I really do think we can't afford the level of social programs spending we had 50 years ago. I do think people like Nelson and Baucus represent real concerns that deserve to be heard (though possibly not given committee chairmanships so often).

That said, "my way" has clearly failed in a lot of ways, and saying "your way would have made things worse" is weak sauce. I don't think a left-wing version of the tea party is what we need; I don't think that moving farther away from the squishy center of the country is going to help us. But, my voice isn't the one that's going to be guiding this party: for whatever reason, the GOP has taken quite a few of the moderate/centrist Dem seats. One result of this election is that come January we'll have a Democratic caucus that's in a lot of ways more liberal than ones we have had in recent memory.

So, I'm sorry the third way let us down; I thought we would do better. And I'm with you wherever we go from here, though I'll obviously be pushing for my views.

Now, the close. Having just attended the rally to restore sanity, I want to try to overcome our differences. What are some principles we can move forward with that will help us turn the House back blue in 2012? Given the things I said above, about which I differ with a lot of DU, what sort of issues and common ground can we find that we can all work for and concentrate on? I'm willing to make changes, and I think a lot of centrists like me are too after tonight. But what do you think we should do? Believe it or not, I am on your side. The Republicans made their tent smaller and managed to score a victory tonight. Do we do the same?

There's a lot of hashing out that needs to be done in the next few. Let's talk.

A majority does not support the war in Afghanistan, and wanted out of Iraq. Some of your views are not actually moderate, they are simply more toward the average Democratic stance than the average Republican stance. That's not moderation, unless one allows the two parties to define exclusively where reasonable policy lies. Sometimes, the reasonable, moderate view lies outside both parties. Sometimes the public recognizes this.

copy that

TARP was bungled in a lot of ways but so far it seems to be making the Government money. We lived on debt (government, corporate, and consumer) for a long time and there's going to be a hangover whatever we do. But axing this or that CEO (literally or figuratively) won't in my opinion accomplish anything. But, if you have a sacrificial lamb you want to nationalize I'll back you.

for true bad actors.

B of A and BP, for entirely different actions, should be dismembered and dissolved in the public interest. Use their assets to pay their creditors and recompense their victims. Wipe out their major shareholders and explicitly their board of directors members; exempting pension funds, retirement funds and 501(c)3 institutional holders.

I favor nationalizing the Fed though. I see no reason it should be quasi-public as it is currently.

There are a few cases where they work but for the most part they bring the worst of both worlds. The Fed is I think more "public" than a lot of people seem to think, but it should just be "The Bank of the US" completely overseen by Congress.

B of A and BP, for entirely different actions, should be dismembered and dissolved in the public interest.

That's certainly tempting; the worry as I see it is that liquidating BP wouldn't come close to paying for the oil spill, so as galling as it is we have to keep them alive and profitable so they can continue to pay that off.

Why can't the Dept. of the Treasury run a tax-payer owned Credit Union with a branch in every State that makes low-interest loans to qualified buyers on everything from new businesses to residential homes, and use the simple-interest profit margin to begin paying down the debt? WHY are we STILL using a privatized monetary and fiscal system that only and always seems to enrich the already wealthy? As an aside, I would think that if we wanted to begin the process of re-valuing the dollar, wouldn't this kind of system be perfect? If you raise the interest rate on a loan by 1% above what you need it to be, (thereby removing that cash from the economy) and stick it in a vault at Treasury and DON'T COUNT IT, haven't you just made every dollar worth that much more? This is addition to the fact that now that currency is sitting in the coffers of the people, rather than the Universe Masters over at the Fed, and could be used to pay for anything from a new round of bailouts, to the next illegal war, to Medicare-for-all/universal healthcare. Just my 2 cents, but if we really do need to start slaughtering lambs, I cant think of a better one than the US Federal Reserve=)

of Dick Cheney?

That in most of Europe you'd be basically a Tea Partier?


"I really do think we can't afford the level of social programs spending we had 50 years ago."

Maybe we could if we quit throwing all our money away on useless Navy contracts, eh?

See, that's kind of what I'm talking about.

I also don't know how much of the European way will be recognizable as the austerity packages they are making go into effect.

Maybe we could if we quit throwing all our money away on useless Navy contracts, eh?

Hey, I've whistleblown waste in my own company. We do what we can.

And tax cuts for the rich, and tax cuts for companies who send our jobs out of the country, and subsidies for oil companies...

I think if we had just come out and said that we would have done better tonight.

I've been calling to restore the top rates to pre-Reagan levels since, well, Reagan.

So, how do we do that?

austerity program.

I wish I had some answers but I fear I will not see a resurgence of the middle and working class in my lifetime.

anything Democratic that I've ever known. I'm not willing to wait any longer. I'm done talking and hashing. Equality isn't something that should ever have been waited for. Free trade has cost more than half my family their jobs. I don't worry about 'how we're going to pay for Medicare for all' when we shell out billions to aid banks and car companies. That thought will forever smack of bullshit to me. Thank you for, at least, realizing that a woman's right to choose doesn't concern you. Thank you, also, for your service. Take care now.

What do you mean by that? I escort people into and out of PP every other weekend, and I've defaced my ballot rather than vote for an anti-choice Dem before.

service, my one sincere thank you. Otherwise, I'm done with it. :hi:


On edit: You only quoted part of it...It was "Thank you for, at least, realizing that a woman's right to choose doesn't concern you."

The right itself "concerns me" a lot; the choice is something I have no business getting involved with.

I'll check back on you in a couple of days. :hi:

Hekate

All good.

It's a lot like a monster truck rally. I'm gonna sit and watch and enjoy some :popcorn:.

I can't help with the conversation though. I'm pretty clear-minded. The DLC, Blue Dog Coalition and NDN or whatever else we're calling it these days, needs to be put down. Humanely, but still; everything dies and the end has come for the third way. There are two ways...the Democratic Way and the Corporatist Way and we will be a party ill at its' core until we clean the infection.

Edit: I just noticed that between my two posts, one might think I'm possessed by Thanatos. I'm not usually this morbid or death-loving.

Even if I dont completely agree with your conclusions ....

When voters perceive that parties stand for nothing, or when they repeatedly pander to the corporate right (while backhanding and gratuitously insulting their base) this is the result we get.

It's happened over and over for 16 years. And my guess is that it'll happen again.

In a recession you get deficits automatically.

The revenue base collapses. Yes, sales tax, personal income tax, payroll tax all fall -10% plus in this case.

But Corporate Tax? A 10% reduction in sales can take a profitable business to a loss, A 100% reduction in tax revenue.

So what is the Government supposed to do - Not spend? reduce Reduce spending?

Individuals and businesses are ALREADY reducing spending and investment - So you give the economy a triple whammy by reducing government spending as well?

What exactly do you mean by 'deficit spending'?

That is, this is exactly the time we need to run high deficits to pay for stimulus spending. There is a structural deficit increase every year, though, because we simply can't realistically pass high enough taxes to pay even for our non-discretionary spending. I'd love to see a much higher tax rate (that's definitely an area where I'm not "conservative") but I don't see how we could get enough people to agree to it.

But, I think we got the stimulus and deficit level we could get this year, though they should have held out and not made so much of it tax cuts (that, I think, could have been pounded through).

I'm confused though, how you could say that you're uncomfortable with deficit spending in your OP, and then you turn around and say that you think the deficit should be higher than it is.

So, you're against deficit spending (I'm presuming I've decoded your use of the phrase "uncomfortable with" correctly{?}), but you think there should be more of it. You are pro- more taxes, despite the fact you don't think they could pass (... despite the fact that they could if Democrats had the gonads to use reconciliation during the lame-duck session... though from your tone I suspect that you're really only willing to entertain the idea of higher taxes as a result of your conviction that it couldn't happen... a giving of ground on a supposedly moot point— I just can't decide whether you're trying to con yourself into believing this, or the rest of us...)

Between your OP and the rest of your posts, you seem to be in support of everything that is presented to you... or maybe you just believe that all the Republican-lite points that you espoused in the OP mean the same thing as the "Democratic" response points... either way I think your "positions" lack any focus. It sounds like you are in support of the interests of the workers and the bosses and the hawks and the doves and Wall St. and Main St. ... and that's just not possible.

Your perspective, as expressed in this thread, seems schizophrenic to me.

You can accept compromises on one or another position, and still maintain a coherent set of objectives/priorities... but you can't be in support of everything— and still sound coherent &/or sane.

You know, just FYI.

which is a fairly common point of view in economics. You have to run a deficit when the economy has shrunk - the tax take from jobs and companies goes down, spending on welfare goes up, and a decent level of government spending as a stimulus is a good idea. What you have to do after the economy has recovered a bit is run a few years of surplus. As Clinton did, and as Bush failed to do.

but I will put you on my ignore list.

To drown out discussion of Corporate control of the party at the local level.

It's just the general Internet culture of the Millenial generation, I guess.

"Anyone who disagrees with me can go to hell" -- very hostile to liberal discourse.

The OP seems to me like a "moderate", what that means, not a corporate
"screw everyone who makes less money than me or thinks differently than
me, give me my one social issue and they can gut everyone else's budget
for all I care" type of centrist like, um, some people.

Because there isn't anything in your post to which I can relate. My conservative husband is to the left of you, btw. We have a state full of "democrats" of your flavor (FL) and it's done us a whole lot of harm because the only thing which gets accomplished is getting extremists from the right elected. Personally I'd challenge you to re-consider your views in light of what others have said in this thread.

I mean, I'm to the left of the President on a lot of things, and he's to the left of our last Democratic president on about everything.

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

Typical of how it really is and thanks for the insight into why we will continue to lose based on a few moderates. But then again I am a DFH or professional leftest, so I'll just sit back down and watch the train wreck from here. Thanks.

A yard sign I saw that resonated. The fact that it was a sign for a repub who probably had issues without solutions is beside the point. That sign encapsulated what people are looking for from Washington.

person who would talk to him about now:)

Though no doubt that 10 million will appear in a gubernatorial run soon. Rather than, say, in some House races where it could have helped tonight.

and she is like you.

Food for thought.

I suspect money had a lot to do with that race.

I don't think the result from this is a call to "go left" or "go right" so much as it's a call to find some way for the Government to actually accomplish things.

but reality is the WH fucked up... they had a mandate,

So did the SENATE. I will place the blame squarely where it belongs.

But seriously with Grayson it is hard to win when you are like in the top ten targeted districts.

That said, this is NOT as bad as 1994, even if some folks are ready to get into a fetal position.

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

Ok, welcome to people who never have to go out on a limb. What else?



Please, no self-sacrifice required. You can practically play smear the queer in this place like it was pin the tail on the donkey and still be allowed. You're really not in any kind of danger. I can't imagine why you're pretending your viewpoint is scandalous here. We've had far, far more conservatives than thou.



And then you post a whole host of particulars that absolutely require arguing about. It's like bouncing in and saying "I'm a fundamentalist who loathes the gays, but lets not get hung up on theology. . . "

Yeah, except that main bit is sort of defining, you know?

Jesus. When our so-called centrists are practically Angle supporters on the issues, where does that leave us? I know there's the t-shirt brigade "Just say you support Obama and all is forgiven" but half of us aren't actually brain damaged, no matter what you might've read.

I want higher union enrollment. Less outsourcing. A tax rate that can more or less pay for our spending. Health care to be available to everyone in the country.

You can practically play smear the queer in this place like it was pin the tail on the donkey and still be allowed. You're really not in any kind of danger. I can't imagine why you're pretending your viewpoint is scandalous here. We've had far, far more conservatives than thou.

Well, that's probably true, but I catch a lot of shit here for saying we can't afford to open up Medicare as it is currently funded and currently reimburses for everyone, and that there just isn't a way to change that funding mechanism or the reimbursement formulas.

When our so-called centrists are practically Angle supporters on the issues

See, that's what I don't get. What did I say that makes me sound like Angle?

The answer is self-evident. And if you don't know, you've not looked hard enough.

And, look, I'm not a hard-ass. I'm actually a halfway nice person. But you don't know. You don't. You've no idea. Have you looked into this stuff? Have you read the statistics? Do you know how the economics tilt into a cluserfuck for the average worker?

I'm not hostile to ideas out of hand. I don't look and say "Oh, a Republican said it so it must be wrong." But your answers and ideas and solutions reek of "Shit I saw on TV that sounded good to me."

And, if you're going to go the whole "Why I'm conservative but still a total Democrat but for serious!" nonsense route, you should know about these things at least in passing. But you don't seem to.

When I mentioned Nelson and Baucus I wasn't saying I agree with them (on just about anything). But they caucus with us instead of them for a reason.

who eat up one third of every dollar in profits that should be going to actual health care. It's called 'Single Payer', it's cheaper, more efficient and every other civilized country in the world, can afford it.

You want to talk NOW?

If we had talked BEFORE, tonight would have been different.

We could start by restoring the rule of law in this law-forsaken country. For Corporate Criminals, sorry I don't agree that letting criminals go because it's too inconvenient to prosecute them is a good idea, and that's putting it mildly.

For War Criminals, if we had done that, for two years the country would have heard about the crimes committed by Republicans, instead they saw a Democratic President bending over backwards to try to get them to like him.

So, we get to say 'we told you so'. Did you really think that is what we wanted?

Now what we need you to do is stop thinking that you'll get a little of what you want if you concede to the right. If you have to concede to someone, concede to us. We won't likely get what we want, but you will, because we'll be pulling the country back to the center right.

If you are working class or middle class, you're fooling yourself if you think you have a party to support that supports you back.

There is no opposition to corporatism, and the media is corporatism's propaganda organ.

If you want to cite 'the numbers are in the middle' then it's pointless. The middle is full of chickens in love with Colonel Sanders due to the media.

because till then, it doesn't matter what any of us think,
the media will get enough people believe the same thing for
enough time to do its bidding politically and socially.

Which unfortunately is sensationalist way-oversimplified BS. How do we incent them to do differently, keeping in mind that a non-independent press is pretty much a non-starter?

has stood for since FDR

You should really do some soul searching and decide where you really belong

80% of Americans think outsourcing and offshoring are a problem.

But I don't know of a way to get that genie back in the bottle that won't cause even more problems.

Having decided that what the American public really wants is more free trade and outsourcing.

I'm a radical populist, about on the opposite side of the issues from where you are, but I can understand your moderate opinions on them... and us populists don't have many friends in the party anymore either. Makes it tough to come around these parts :-(

We have so little in common that there's nothing to talk about. You usurped the Party leadership as the DLC which was so shamed that now it calls itself New Dems and refused to talk about anything as you took the party so far to the right that many liberal Democrats have been fleeing the party in horror. There can be no compromise on the things you stand for, free trade being a good example.

The day you understand how selfish and disastrous the things you support are for the American people, how socially unjust, then we can talk.

The Third Way, lukewarm Republicans, has no place in FDR's Democratic Party. I'm sorry because you're so polite but I have no middle ground with the Third Way. I already know how that middle ground works. We say stop the war and you throw us a peanut. It's insulting.

Defense is the GOP's stimulus and welfare program.

If you look at the amount we spend on defense and what states those dollars are you will realize that.

It's just the GOP has managed to make defense spending unquestionable compared to other social programs.

Dude you sound like a republican that needs to come out but appreciate your votes in the past for Dem candidates.