Reply #144: It's a Repuke/DLC tactic to convince Dems they can't win being Dems [View All]

[jaybeat]

That they have to "distance themselves" from the "excesses" of "the sixties," of "big government." That they have to build a "bridge" to "mainstream" voters or else they will lose in a landslide like Mondale in '84. That the only way to win is to be a "new democrat" (aka DLCer) like Bill Clinton, and to adopt right-wing sounding positions like "the era of big government is over" and pledge to "end welfare as we know it."

It is also a load of crap. Ask people about the policies they support, and it turns out that what the Repuke media calls flaming lefty radical libural unelectable fringe is in fact MAINSTREAM. More people are in line with Edward's and Kucinich's positions than Clinton's, Obama's or any of the Republicans. But they vote more for Clinton and Obama because of the MSM/right wing spin. Because of the concerted effort to turn this into a popularity contest and not a contest about issues. Because of deliberate efforts to discredit and ignore candidates who hold popular positions, and to distort and hide those positions from voters. Not to mention the whole host of actions taken by Republicans to disenfranchise whole segments of the voting population who hold non-conservative positions.

Regrettably, Obama appears to be falling into this trap. This is the trap that tamped down Al Gore so far that he was as flat as cardboard. This is the same logic that says Edwards shouldn't talk about corporations or the wealthy because that's "class warfare."

Here, now, we are at an historic time where people are so outraged and fed up with Republican policies, and the damage they have done to mainstream America is so clear, that I think Democrats can win BY BEING DEMOCRATS, despite the propaganda machine arrayed against us. I believe we NEED a Democratic candidate who will not be afraid of the labels "liberal" or "progressive," and who is not afraid to stand up and say, "I will fight FOR you, and AGAINST them!" We don't need "unity" with those who have worked since before the turn of the last century to keep us down and make us powerless and poor. We need someone who will fight these people, on our behalf.

The election of Reagan was a sham, a lie, and never would have happened if John Anderson hadn't split the mainstream vote. He then used his position to control the debate, define the terms, and begin the destruction of programs dating back to the New Deal that had been supported on a bi-partisan basis at least since Eisenhower. He made "liberal" a dirty word, and redefined as "liberal" positions which were and are mainstream and held by majorities of Democrats, independents and in many cases Republicans.

In my opinion, if Obama doesn't discuss the Reagan (counter-) "revolution" in any terms that don't describe the destructive effect it has had on people and politics for the last 28 years, then I don't know how any of us can trust his intellectual judgment. If he is thinking one thing in private and saying something else in public to get elected, then I don't know how we can trust him at all.