Reality Check: Democrats are *supposed* to be liberal. Am I wrong?

[ecstatic]

I don't get what it means to be left wing or too liberal for the Democratic party. Aren't Democrats founded upon liberal ideals?

Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.

Am I wrong to think that those who disagree with that basic philosophy may be best suited for a separate party, i.e. Centrist or Independent?

I know these type of questions are counterproductive since our number one, immediate goal should be to get Bush out the White House. However, in the future, I think it would be better if there was a major reorganization of the political party structure in this country.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[el_gato]

1. and dump the dlc corporate whores

[Rowdyboy]

2. Successful political parties are coalitions

of likeminded people. The FDR Democratic coalition that basically ran congress and the country from 1932-1994 included: labor, intellectuals, southerners, liberals, moderates, conservatives, environmentalists, women, gays, blacks, and hispanics-among others. These groups do not share a simplistic, single ideology or agenda. Their common goal was a better deal for the common man. Now that coalition has been shattered, and each group wants to be the boss of everyone else.

[Frodo]

4. OK. "What he said"

I like your answer better.

[ecstatic]

9. Please read what I said in post #8

Are all the loosely tied groups you mentioned (women, gays, blacks) really getting what they want once their party comes into power?

[Ardee]

20. seeker of distortions and shatterer of illusions

found one!

I reject your characterisation of every disparite group within the dmeocratic party attempting to be in charge, that is far from true and far too inflammatory.

As you correctly point out the democrats have a history of inclusivenenss, the proverbial large tent. With the takeover of the reins of leadership of the neoconservatives within the party all other agendas and ideologies have been stifled and rejected.The progressives, liberals, the black caucus and the like all seek only to be heard and understand, to be included. It is the neocon DLC leadership that seeks power over all others, that seeks to arbitrarily set the course of the party and the hell with the rest of us!

If this were not the case Albert Gore would now be the frontrunner for the nomination, hell, if this were not true Gore would already be preparing for his second term!

[Frodo]

3. In a word. No.

While there are two main political parties, the political spectrum is far more than a single line with "Left" and "Right". And people break down on either side on different issues.

The Democratic party is (or at least WAS - and should be again) FAR BIGGER than JUST the left. We used to OWN the center.

Every time you hear lately "the first Republican elected (Gov/Sen/etc) from "X" state since recounstruction" it's a SOUTHERN state. The entire South was ours for decades upon decades. And while they didn't look like today's Republicans, they sure didn't look like today's "Liberals".

So, yes, today they may be "better suited" to a centrist party. But that is SUPPOSED to be US.

edit - speeling

[sangh0]

5. You are wrong

Very wrong.

Do you consider union members "liberal"? Many are not.

(The group known as "Reagan Democrats" contains a large number of union members)

Do you consider blacks, latinos, and other minority members "liberal"? Many are not.

(Many people in these groups are quite conservative when it comes to social issues like gay rights, abortion, welfare, school vouchers, etc)

Q: Where would the Democratic Party be without those two groups?

A: Ask Ralph Nader

[ecstatic]

8. so why are all these people in the same party

when their goals/beliefs are so different? I guess I'm sort of naive about this issue. Are parties less about political ideologies and more about power? If it is more about power, thats fine, but the sheer amount of philosophical differences within the party prevents any real changes from being made once the party comes into power. So basically, even though we might win as a mass coalition, none of us will get what we really want. It's just a bunch of crappy compromises.

[Blue_Chill]

23. Because the other side stands united against us

Centrists and Liberals are friends of a common enemy.

[sangh0]

26. You just did a "bait and switch"

I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but you just switched your premise. You started out asking if all Dems should be liberal. Once the answer turned out to be "No", you ask a question that assumes that the various Dem sub-groups have goals/beliefs that are "so different". I disagree.

Just because they are not all liberal does not mean that their goals and beliefs are so different. The only thing you can deduce from the statement "They are not all liberals" is that "They are not all liberals".

You don't have to be a liberal to support equal rights, compassion, equity, etc...

[Terwilliger]

37. how many conservatives support those things then?

and if you're not a liberal or conservative...does that mean that you have no say in this two-party system?

[sangh0]

39. Plenty

Plenty conservatives support things like equal rights and compassion, etc. They just have different ideas as to what they mean.

[ulysses]

45. couple of questions, sangh0

Do you think labor is a centrist issue? Do you think ethnic minority rights have traditionally been fought for by those wild-eyed folks in the middle of the road?

[ulysses]

55. no, really.

Who were all those folks who laid down their lives on the picket line? Moderates?

Who were all those Freedom Riders who got beaten for registering people to vote? Pragmatic centrists?

[meow2u3]

6. I think you are mistaken to insist all Democrats be left-liberal

The Democratic Party is intended to include almost everyone, provided they don't belong to the power elite; in other words, 3/4 of the American people.

Allow me to digress: on that quiz, I would be rated a centrist.
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.

[ramapo]

7. Never were

The south was a Democratic stronghold but it was never a liberal Democratic area. Just the opposite was true. These were very conservative Democrats. Many were against the civil rights movement.

Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. The South hated Republicans and a Democratic stronghold was born.

LBJ said upon signing Civil Rights legislation something to the effect of "There goes the South". He was on the mark.

Not that long ago there were liberal Republicans. Both parties were more inclusive.

[Hep]

10. Everyone is different

We have to tolerate diversity.

[highlonesome]

11. mutually exclusive

"Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality."

Well for one I'd say that you can't have self-government in personal matters and central decision making on economics.

I'd also say that you can't tolerate social diversity and acheive economic equality either.

We live in a monetary economy so to truly have self-government in personal matters you have to have self-government in economic matters as well.

To acheive economic equality will always involve some use of force since not everyone is going to agree on what it important economically. In order to acheive a power base that can enforce economic equality, you eventually forego "self-government in personal matters."

Two people of interest you may be interested in:

Aaron Feuerstein (sp?) who owns Malden Mills (try a search on this name if I speleed his wrong) and is a wonderful example of what can be great about capitalism when it serves a purpose other than just making money.

Milton Friedman. He's a Nobel prize winning economist I've become interested in lately. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but it's nice to hear some ideas that you don't normally hear. he's from the monetarist school of economic thought.

[ecstatic]

17. Thanks for the information

We live in a monetary economy so to truly have self-government in personal matters you have to have self-government in economic matters as well.


To a certain extent, I do believe that we are all responsible for our economic situation as well. I just don't think that those who really need financial help should be left to die of hunger, so there has to be some sort of set aside for such individuals. As for social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. I think those are great things and if other countries do it, why can't we? The rich and powerful made their money off the backs of less fortunate people, therefore, those less fortunates should not be forgotten.

Again, I'm kind of new at this and these are questions I have not researched yet.

[Kanary]

12. A Convenient Illusion

Since the New Deal, and with the exception of "The War On Poverty" (why does everything have to be a WAR??), there have been very few instances of even listening or paying attention to "the disadvantaged".

Clinton, who everyone seems to think was such a god, put through a bunch of cuts that are hurting "the disadvantaged" mightily.

We are expected to VOTE for the do-nothings, but not expected to even dream of being heard.

Are there any "libruls" still around who who actually want to do something about it, rather than mention it in passing, then boing back to bashing other Dems?

Kanary

[Rowdyboy]

13. Southern moderates propped up the Democratic party for decades...

Bumpers, Pryor, Clinton, Sasser, Gore, Wendell Ford, Huddleston, Nunn, Wyche Fowler, Chiles, Askew, Graham, Yarbrough, Hollings, Hodges and Hunt-to name a few. Those moderates are gone now, replaced by their polar opposites-Frist, Alexander, Chambliss, Hutchison etc.

An ideologically "pure" party might draw 30-35% of the vote nationally-with luck. That might satisfy some, but it does nothing for me. I want to include people, not exclude them.

[ecstatic]

18. Yes, the Dem includes a vast array of people

But are the people actually being served or is there too much conflict within to actually get anything done?

[HawkerHurricane]

14. More liberal than the Repukes,

does not mean liberal.

Our system encourages a two party set up; as such each party represents a coalition. Compromises are needed to rule. You can either compromise and rule, or be idealogically pure and powerless.

[Terwilliger]

16. rule what?

I believe Dems are out of power across the board, and they did nothing but compromise. I'd like to know how that works.

[HawkerHurricane]

22. Wrong type of compromise

Dems are out of power across the board because of the media domination by the Repukes. It does not help that the 'purity of purpose' crowd keep on giving pointers to the propaganda machine that are going to be used against us.

We must reconvince the broad center and the working class that we represent them better than the Repukes in spite of the propaganda they are served daily.

[Terwilliger]

24. well, you don't do that by making yourself similar to your opposition

and every time Dems allow Bush another victory, whether tax-cuts, war, or medicare and your common average joe will simply identify Democrats as weak-minded, ineffectual, and not having a stand on issues

If you require that the media has to chnge tack in order for the people to get "the message" and for the Dems to win, what do you plan to do when the media doesn't change? What's the contingency then?

[The Magistrate]

44. Well Said, Mr. Hurricane

What is needed to achieve this is to concentrate on magnifying the differences that exist between the two parties. The "not a dime's worth of difference" line is particularly pernicious, as it tends to depress voting by persons who are not too comfortable with Republican attitudes and policies.

It is worth noting the other side is well aware of the value of exaggerating differences between the parties at the polls. The average Republican voter is utterly convinced the differences between Republican and Democrat amount to the difference between right and wrong itself, even when they might actually be, say, the difference between state and federal regulation. The more left a person is, the more likely they are to actively blur the differences, and thus subtract their energies and themselves from the electoral process. The reactionary cadres, on the other hand, are always in there pitching to paint their opponents as the worst thing possible. Thus, there is a serious imbalance of energy in the agitations of each side, that is reflected in a greater proportion of the reactionary base actually turning out to vote.

[HawkerHurricane]

47. It seems, sometimes...

that the Far Right and the Far Left have the same goals: marginalization of the Democratic Party. Of course, they have different reasons for these goals; the Righties to rule without opposition, the Lefties to replace what they see as defective.

[The Magistrate]

48. True, Mr. Hurricane

But only the right has any prospect of success from that unspoken collaboration.

There are two elements from history in the thirties of the last century that seem particularly pertinent to me in this regard.

First, the collaboration between the German Communist Party and the Nazis in the latter days of the Weimar Republic, aimed at destroying the Social Democratic Party, in accord with the Comintern line that destruction of that "Social Fascist" party would leave the Communists in undisputed control of the workers, and in a position to engage in revolution against Hitler. The Social Democratic Party was broken, but the result was not what the Comintern expected, quite.

Second, the fratricidal fighting among the Left parties during the Spanish Civil War, which went far towards ensuring Franco's victory in the long run. The disinclination of the left to unite, and an active tendency to virulent splits on what are, after all, largely theoretical grounds, is an unfortunate fact. The right, being authoritarian in inclination, is more prone to unity. The ruling classes, after all, have had a long practical experience of staying on top though outnumbered.

[Terwilliger]

58. Democratic party marginalizes itself

There is a two-party system. There is the Right and there is the Left. If the Democratic party wants to be a part of this, how is it that they don't want to be to the left??

If you want to play the center, then your two-party nonsense means diddly-squat.

[The Magistrate]

61. The Democratic Party is Not Marginal, Sir

After all, its candidate received the most votes for President in the last election....

[roughsatori]

15. How dare you suggest a Democrat be a Liberal

We would never get in office if we didn't strive to act like Republicans. ;)I am joking--but you got a reply or two that almost says seriously what I just wrote as a joke.

I think the new code for really hating Progressivism and still being a Dem is: "We need to win the South." Not to mention the condescension of the phrase--as if the only way to win Southern human beings votes is by NOT promoting civil-rights and economic fairness for all.

[ecstatic]

19. Maybe its time to let the South go...

Aren't there way more states in the North that we can focus on? Can't we cut our losses because it seems as though the South will never be happy (by the way, I live in the South).

[Ficus]

21. so we're a coalition party...

If we thought alike all the time we'd be the green party. And gawd, who'd want to be them?

[Terwilliger]

27. Yeah, who wants unity?

it's over-rated :eyes:

[library_max]

31. Unity and 2% of the popular vote.

Tempting offer, but I think we'll pass.

[Terwilliger]

33. ok fine

when you lose to Bush...SHUT UP!!

[SahaleArm]

62. Is that a threat? Do you plan to win with 2%...

of the popular vote or just want to keep the Democracts hostage?

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. You are wrong

The Democratic Party is the party of centrists. All others should take a hike.

Just kidding, oh course. Since the time of FDR the Party has been made up of several coalitions who although they may not have liked each other, were will ing to unite to achieve common goals.

Now a serious thought: Those who demand ideological purity are the ones who are better suited for another party (Green, Libertarian, Communist).

[Kanary]

28. Several coalitions

This idea seems to be a common theme. Nothing wrong with coalitions..... there CAN be potential power in coalitions.

The problem seems to me to be that Dems included various races, labor, and later on poverty issues, but they didn't seem to have th will or the knowhow to carry it further and teach the individuals in these separate interest groups why it was in their best interest to also care about the people in the *other* groups, and learn to work together. So, in the absence of this necessary step, compromise after compromise was made to accomodate many different interests until it was so diluted as to be indistingishable from The Party Of Cain.

What is needed is some strong LEADERSHIP: someone who has the knowledge and the courage to begin Teaching people to care about others in order to promote the larger benefit. For instance, farmers want everyone to care about their "plight", but they turn around and bash labor unions, or denigrate disabled people for needing assistance. So, then it stands to reason that disabled people wouldn't have too much sympathy for farmers. What we need is an actual *LEADER* who can help people to realize that we exlude others to our own detriment, and that it's all connected. The Evil Side has used this division all these years to stomp on us... when are we going to get a clue?

OK... I didn't type this for my health... how bout one or two comments (in a civil vein, of course...)

Kanary

[ecstatic]

29. Thats a very good point

What is needed is some strong LEADERSHIP: someone who has the knowledge and the courage to begin Teaching people to care about others in order to promote the larger benefit.

That would certainly unify the party and eliminate the need for Greens, etc. But is it really possible to make people care about the plight of others? Even religions haven't fully succeeded in that.

[Kanary]

43. Is It Possible? Possible???

No, not when we've decided from the get-go that it isn't. I guess you have just verbalized what is wrong with this whole party. I'm sure the ghost of John F. Kennedy is watching and crying. Look at what that man did to energize and mobilize people. Look at what he did to bring awareness into the next generation. HE INSPIRED. Are there so few people left who even remember him that nobody can even conceive anymore of Leading people to their higher selves?

We have given up and allowed the Party Of Cain to inspire people to live from their worst instincts. I guess you're saying that you're satisfied with that, and willing to just let that stand. Nevermind that many of us will continue to suffer the results of your rolling over.

I give up.

You've convinced me that it's hopeless.

Thank you for sparing me the effort of trying to keep my hope alive.

Kanary

[library_max]

30. Yes, you're wrong.

All you're advocating is the division of the non-Republican vote into as many pieces as possible. Does someone have to explain the electoral math of why that's a terrible idea, now or ever?

[Terwilliger]

34. so if Democrats aren't supposed to be liberal

what exactly makes them different from Republicans? The style of their rich excesses?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

36. I see you didn't answer the question

totally expected, but I thought I'd point it out

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

41. not a question?

so if Democrats aren't supposed to be liberal what exactly makes them different from Republicans?


Looks like a question to me.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[library_max]

53. Hm. Truth apparently not a defense against libel charges around here.

All right, more slowly. "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a question in a purely grammatical sense. But what it really is is a rhetorical trap, to facilitate condemning the other person and his point of view no matter what the answer. Hence my likening your question to that well-known example.

Can't help noticing you pursued the string and didn't hit Alert until you'd run out of answers, :cry:.

[Terwilliger]

59. sorry Maxie...I don't hit alert

I figured it was you

[HILLARY SUPPORTER]

32. democrats...

Most democrats are liberal, but there are different extremes of liberal. Some are real far left and some may be more moderate and ect.

[many a good man]

40. Two party system excludes; A better idea

Our government has been unconstitutionally forced into a two party system. Parliamentary rules and state laws make this kind of system unavoidable. The benefit is greater stability but the main disadvantage is the exclusion of voices due to least common denominator dilution.

In most parliamentary systems there are several parties each with their own focus and points of view. They group together with other parties to form ruling coalitions. They are able to get their issues aired more readily than in a system like ours.

I think its a lot more complicated than a straight liberal-conservative dichotomy. For instance, many of the "Reagan Democrats" are socially conservative but economically liberal (pro working class). Northeastern Establishment Republicans are socially liberal but economically conservative. Southern Democrats are sometimes more conservative across the board than than northeastern republicans.

This leads to stagnation and status quo politics. It is conservative by design. If Republicans maintain control of all three branches of government in 2004 I modestly propose that we dissolve the Democratic party . Replace it with a new "Democratic Republican" party (the original name of the Democratic party). It will have the following general platform:

1) No new Civil rights initiatives (abortion, civil unions, affirmative action, etc.). These rights are under the purview of the judiciary and are now guaranteed under law. Pledge to support the constitution and take these wedge issues out of the equation.

2) Support people not corporations. Main thrust must be that corporations have corrupted government and have gained too much power. Go back to the original conception of corporations: they are only given their special legal protections if they serve the public interest. Corporations, however, are not our enemy. They do things like employ people and provide goods and services. Full employment and equality of opportunity is number one priority

3) Universal health care through single payer system

4) Apollo project for subsidizing transition to renewable energy based economy

5) Constitutional convention to rewrite the way our system is governed. Many aspects of our government are extremely antiquated, such as the Electoral college, and must be changed.

Republicans are clearly the party of privilege, tax haters and religious hardliners. The formation of a more populist party that avoids wedge issues and identity politics will crush them like an ant. It will generate renewed interest in politics, bridge divisions, and unleash the full potential of the American people.

[library_max]

52. We don't have a parliamentary system, in the first place.

Our political system of winner-take-all is different from systems which allow proportional representation. In parliamentary systems, coalitions of minor parties work, but splitting up parties is guaranteed suicide in our winner-take-all system.

As far as the platform you propose, there is nothing stopping the present-day Democratic Party from adopting it. The twin problems would be, 1) can we agree on those items, and 2) can we win elections with them? I'm not convinced that either answer would be yes. And if you're saying that Democrats can't agree because of who we are (i.e. people of different classes, different perspectives, different parts of the country), who are you going to build your new party from? What people do you plan to use, that are both unified in a way the Democrats aren't and numerous enough to carry elections?

And please don't just say that the nonvoters will vote. First, there's no reason at all to think they will, and second, studies have consistently shown that there is no significant different ideologically between voters and nonvoters - in other words, the same approximate percentages of nonvoters are right, left, and center as voters.

[many a good man]

56. Yes we do, and we need a new system

I used the term parliamentary in the generic sense; any deliberative legislative body is a "parliament." There is nothing in the Constitution that says we should be a two-party system of government. State laws that severely handicap third parties are the only thing preventing them or adopting proportional voting.

My point is that we are stuck with a status quo two party system because the power brokers like it that way. And it favors conservatives. Four more years of GOP control and lots of people are going to be alienated, not just liberal Democrats. The only way to break the stalemate is to think outside the box.

Too many people who don't vote Democrat have brainwashed conceptions of what the party stands for, especially white males. They are divided by the propaganda that portrays Dems as commies or soft on crime, soft on defense, against freedom, etc. They routinely vote against their own economic interest because of these wedge issues. They can't understand the issues because of the rhetoric and propaganda so they tend to go for the party that will do the least harm. They don't see any personal benefits from the higher taxes and new programs so they are opposed to it.

A fresh start will give the opportunity to redefine its platform and appeal to all those who should be voting with us. The culture wars are over and we won. Now lets move on to issues of substance.

The new party will pick up all current Dems except for DLC-type ultra-pro-corporate DINOs. A populist platform absent divisive wedge issue rhetoric will attract tons of lower and middle class Republicans and independents. Non-voters who see a party pushing for their interests instead of the military-industrial complex, big Phrma,oil or insurance will jump aboard. The point is to redefine ourselves and broaden our base.

Democrats used to be the majority party in this country until wedge issues like race tore us apart. People don't see Democrats supporting issues that effect their lives. People don't go to the polls because they don't see a big enough difference between the two parties.

Our experiment in democracy is sick and dying. Our standard of living has been in decline for thirty years now. The fundamentals of our economic foundation are weakening. Our military is engaging in imperial wars of aggression that we can't afford. Our short-sighted corporate run government is no longer able to meet the challenges we face.

Thomas Jefferson said we should write a new Constitution once every generation. The time is way past due. We need to engage our citizenry in a debate to define a new form of democracy for the 21st century. Two party or multi-party? Electoral college or direct election? What's the proper separation of federal-state jurisdiction? How can we meet the needs of all and protect ourselves from terrorism?

The current system disfavors Dems. When the system is rigged against you you can't win (witness Al Gore). If the GOP maintains control over all three federal branches of government and has a majority in each state our party may never be able to fight its way back. This may be the only way to take our government back. For the people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Nope. It's a shaky, often contadictory, coalition.

As I see it, this country is split along ideological and regional lines. We see (alleged) "liberals" standing in the Rose Garden with Emperor Junior backing the invasion of another country. We see "conservatives" voting enthusiastically for budget deficits to support that "war". ("War" hardly being the word to describe what happened in Iraq). "Liberals" voting for phony Health Care and "conservatives" voting for "nation building".

I would much prefer political parties that reflect actual positions instead of whatever seems most politically expedient at the time. But, as can be seen right here on DU the scent of victory at any price sells, no matter how hollow.

The ABB "liberals" are all too ready to sell their souls and dance in lockstep to the DLC tune.

[Scott Lee]

49. There are two brands of "liberal".

There's a "Classical liberal", or more accurately a Jeffersonian liberal. They are the real hands off business people, anti tax, against any kind of strictures on vices or substances and favor a very small government out of the citizens faces.

Sound familiar? It should. The GOP coopted all these ideas some time ago.

The second liberal would be the Modern post-60s liberal. They are more favoring of government to improve the lot of society.Amicable to higher taxes (pursuant to the Great Society idea) Pro civil rights, toleration of other religions, creeds, nationalities, lifestyles, anti-war, pro-labor, progressive.

The "liberals" you see in the Democratic Party today are mostly frauds, in my opinion. They ape some of the words and ethics of the modern post-60s liberal but hypocritically go against it by supporting imperialistic wars, enabling industry to destroy environment, support brutalization of one people at the behest of another (lots of modern libs are blindly pro-Israel).

This is one of the showdowns we are going to see in the Democratic Party. An unmasking of the faux liberals and an ideological battle that hopefully will recalibrate the moral compass.

[Selwynn]

50. NO - you are NOT wrong.

[Selwynn]

51. You can't be for EVERYTHING

Sorry, but there are going to be some things that are not going to be complimentary with the platform of the democratic problem.

The quickest was to destroy the party is when we try to be for everything and neverbody and are too afraid to take a stand on any issue.

[library_max]

54. But that's a false choice.

Obviously, the Democrats aren't for "everything and everybody." We're not for Bush, to begin with. This is a popular but false dichotomy between ideological purity and being for "everything and everybody." There's a whole spectrum of middle ground.

The conflict is between big tent people who want a broad enough appeal to win elections (which requires some issues on which good partisans agree to disagree) and little tent people who prioritize unity and ideological purity over electoral success. That, in my opinion, is the quickest way to destroy the party.

[Terwilliger]

60. big tent people who want a broad enough appeal to win

is that why you're losing so much?

[Iverson]

57. no, you are not wrong

First of all, there is such a thing as a group character. Those critiques that nitpick over whether every element of the Democratic Party shares every liberal quality are engaging in a diversion. Not every individual element needs to share all the qualities of the whole in order to be part of that whole.

Secondly, it is clear that you and I both have a preference that the Dems be liberal ("supposed to ..."), but it's clear that the group isn't always that way, especially under the effective control of the DLC. Now you see how the Greens became necessary.

Cheers.

[arewethereyet]

63. politics is a sliding scale, "democrat" is a range

and the range is subject to change. some don't like that because they don't want the company, some don't like that because it makes it hard to figure out (my range and your range may be quite different, when you say democrat its not the same meaning as when I say it).

Setting the range properly is a big part of determining winners and losers.