name a politican, besides nader, who attracted republicans by moving left

[LoZoccolo]

I'm waaaaaaaaiting...

[Chicago Democrat]

1. Franklin Roosevelt...

[LoZoccolo]

2. You had to go back SIXTY YEARS to find ONE.

And I don't even agree.

[Chicago Democrat]

3. Today's reality (made worse by Bush) WILL be every bit as awful

as the great depression. I'm talking about huge amounts of desperate people. After another attack, inevitable due to Bush's complete ineptness and lack of interest, the people of this land will turn to a leader.

A leader that is fearless like Dean, tactful like Kerry and Godly like Jimmy Carter. And the nation will turn back all of this crap put on us by the neo cons, and the conservatives will be beaten back for another 100 years.

Jimmy Carter was another example of the left winning
Woodrow Wilson was another one
The current Spanish PM
The current German PM
Yushenko
Lenin

[wyldwolf]

23. frankly, Carter was a moderate...

...and a great man and leader, but any Dem would have won after the Nixon/Ford disaster

Carter:



http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=3&a2=2&a3=3&a4=3&a8=1&a9=3&a10=2&a5=3&a6=4&a7=3&a14=3&a15=3&a16=3&a19=3&a17=3&a18=3&a20=2&a11=3&a12=5&a13=3&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=60&e=40&t=17

[wyldwolf]

22. nor do I

Many put the label of left on FDR because of his new deal, a much needed suite of social programs that he would not have even considered had the country not been in depression.

Shortly after the new deal was passed, FDR said, "the federal government must and will quit this business of relief." Meaning it wasn't meant to be permanent.

[Forkboy]

4. attracted republicans by moving left?

Is the goal to attract Republicans?

[LoZoccolo]

5. Yes.

We need more people to vote for us, than vote for them. Since there are more people that vote for them, we need to take from their numbers.

[Forkboy]

6. Well that certainly explains a lot

[LoZoccolo]

27. I don't see anywhere else to get the votes from.

If anyone didn't vote in the last election, then I'm at a loss as to how to get them to the polls in the next.

On the other hand, we here a lot of talk about how a lot of people who vote for Republicans, especially in the red states, should be voting with us based on their economic needs, but don't. And this is based on the things Kerry already supported like universal health care. These are the Republicans I'm talking about.

[mtnsnake]

28. How about from Democrats who voted for the Chimp?

Unfortunately, there are some. Quite a few I'll bet.

[AntiLempa]

33. missing voters

What about the 40-50 percent of people who don't vote? Do they not count? Is it better to sell out the working class, the environment, the rest of the world simply to "win"?

This is a silly mindset. This is a losing mindset.

[LoZoccolo]

35. No, they don't count.

They make themselves not count.

Why didn't they storm the primaries and make Dennis Kucinich our nominee? They had every chance.

[AntiLempa]

56. You're kidding, right?

I mean, this is a joke, right?
Please tell me, what chance did Kucinich have? I supported him. I gave time and what little money I could. But I never thought he would win. I hoped that he would, but I knew he wouldn't.

You knew he wouldn't either.

The Democratic establishment (i.e. the DNC, DLC, Clintons) wouldn't have supported him. You know as well as I do that a candidate won't win without the support of the party. Look at what happened to Dean when he gave off the illusion that he would be indepenent.

Instead we get stuck with an establishment corporatist who couldn't wipe the floor with the most disastrous president of our times.

I have only encountered a few people, outside of DU, that were excited about John Kerry. I have a feeling those people were excited because they are Democratic partisans, not because Kerry was a good candidate.

To say that real change will hapen by moving right is telling of your (and the Democratic establishments) motives, nothing else.

[UpsideDownFlag]

45. doesn't it, though? nt

[DieboldMustDie]

14. More people don't vote for them.

In this year's Senate races Democrats out-polled Republicans 52% to 48%.   Unfortunately, while we were winning landslide victories in New York, California and Illinois, they were winning seats in places like Wyoming, Oklahoma and South Dakota. :shrug:

[Chicago Democrat]

7. "Republicans" are simply "Americans" and they are generally

stupid, but when things get really dodgey. They usually get the idea finally.

Bush won in a sqeaker. I doubt the second term will accomplish much and we can un-do in when we get power.

Iraq is going down in flames.
Bush is totally shooting for the moon and will loose and end up with mush.

Cheer up, everything looks like shit

[niceypoo]

8. Nader didnt "attract" republicans

They worked for his campaign to steal votes from Kerry. Nader didnt get any votes in the actual election.

[sonicx]

9. America is too polarized to attact Republicans

Independents are the key.

[Chicago Democrat]

11. that's the way to think...

independents....yes....modern people

[OneBlueSky]

10. and while you're waaaaaaaaiting, you're playing right into their hands . .

the whole left/right (horizontal) dichotomy today is largely an artificial construct employed by those in power to keep us occupied and not discussing the REAL issue . . . which is the up/down (vertical) dichotomy, the us vs. them, the oligarchy vs. the people . . .

as long as they can keep us occupied with issues like abortion and gay marriage (an agenda which THEY set, btw), we won't have the time or the energy for things like justice, equality, and fairness . . . or with issues like jobs, health care, progressive taxation, ending corporate governance, education, war and peace, and all the other stuff that working people, left and right, could actually work together on . . . if only we weren't so busy doing their bidding and expending all this time and energy on the peripheral stuff that separates left and right . . .

when you look at things from the up/down perspective, there's a hell of a lot more that could unite us than currently divides us . . . and they're petrified that we'll figure this out and start talking about the REAL issues . . . and identifying the REAL problems (like corporations controlling everything, including the media) . . . and actually starting to do things to solve them . . .

I have no use for the left/right arguments anymore . . . in today's political arena, terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are largely meaningless . . . I'd much rather spend my time discussing real issues . . . like how to take back control of our government . . .

[LoZoccolo]

12. I actually agree with most of what you say here.

I think this whole thing where people want to "move left" is largely a substitute for thinking out the issues, as I seldom see it accompanied with details of how to take better positions on individual issues.

[hfojvt]

18. that analysis sounded leftist to me

Making economics primary and being concerned about the power of gold - is that not straight out of Marx?
I am not sure if I am hearing people say we should move to the left, but that there are more people who are disgusted by calls to move us to the right. I think the latter is a strategy where even if you win - you lose.

[OneBlueSky]

19. it only sounds "leftist" if you're looking at things . . .

from a left/right perspective . . . if you approach it from an up/down perspective, however, you'll find that many who call themselves moderates -- and even many who call themselves conservative -- would agree with us on a lot of these issues . . . classic conservatism, for example, abhors budget deficits, supports environmental protection ("conservation"), and has no use at all for government peeking into people's bedrooms and other invasions of personal privacy . . . these are just a few of the issues on which left and right can find agreement, if only we'd stop fighting over peripheral issues we are told (by the media and those in power) must separate us irrevocably . . . that's just not so, and the sooner we realize it, the better . . .

one caveat . . . this discussion does NOT apply to extreme right-wing religious fundamentalists, whose view of the world is based on myth and wishful thinking rather than on reality . . . but they're a distinctly small minority -- despite their loud voices and inordinately large influence these days . . .

[Protagoras]

29. Just as Moving LEFT without specifics is vacuous

so is moving anywhere...middle, right...whatever.

We keep mixing up two other issues throughout this debate as well. We have our stance on the issues..and we have the presentation of our stance. A lot of people who want us to speak up more CLEARLY and CERTAINLY don't actually need a change of position as much as they need a change of tone.

On the other hand, in issues like Heathcare, education, and progressive taxation (read repeal of Bush tax cuts) plenty of movement toward a more socially responsible position could easily be interpreted as moving to the LEFT. But as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread...most of the left/right distinction has been lost because it's being defined by NEOCONS in a way that utterly skews any real discussion of the spectrum.

[mark414]

13. bingo

nothing to say since you said it best

[hfojvt]

15. McGovern

re-elected to the Senate from that Red State SD in 1974.
Mark Dayton, the most liberal member of the Senate who probably won Minnesota by more votes than Kerry did, and you could probably add the late Paul Wellstone.
How about Progressive caucus member Tammy Baldwin who occupies the seat once held by TV republican Scott Klug?

[greenohio]

70. McGovern lost 58%-39% in 1980

McGovern spent $3.2 million to save his Senate seat in 1980, while his opponent, Jim Abdnor, spent $1.6 million. Lets not even talk about his humiliation in the presidential race.

The 80s changed the landscape people. Some will just never get it. The 70's by the way, are over.

[In Truth We Trust]

16. I don't agree with the premise of your question since WE REALLY WON

in the first place and if you don't believe that then i BELIEVE YOU ARE TERRIBLY MISINFORMED. sECONDLY, EVEN IF WE HADN'T WON WHY DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD MOVE RIGHT. ( SORRY FOR THE CAPS-BIG FINGERS)

But to answer your question what about John Anderson in 84 I believe. I think he took 20% or so from both Raygun and Fritz.

[eridani]

60. That was 1980--

--he took 15% from Raygun and Carter.

[wildflower]

17. Schweitzer's story (Dem gov.-elect of Montana) is an interesting one

I'm not sure if he moved more left, but he didn't abandon his own ideals in order to win.

<<There aren't too many states in the union redder than Montana. George Bush won the state by more than 20 points in November. The state legislature and governorship in the capital, Helena, have been in GOP hands for 16 years. Sparsely-populated Montana is represented by only one congressman, the far-right Rep. Denny Rehberg, and by two senators, an ultra-conservative Republican (Conrad Burns) and a conservative Democrat (Max Baucus) who often votes with the Republicans. The state's electoral votes are conceded so automatically to the GOP that neither party's candidate campaigns there. Culturally, with the exception of a few rich Hollywood types who weekend in places like Big Sky, the state could hardly be further from the metro-cosmopolitan culture of the coasts. To give but one example, Montana has the highest percentage of hunters of any state in the union.

But in November, a Democrat, Brian Schweitzer, won the state's race for governor. Schweitzer not only won, but he also won decisively, beating his opponent Bob Brown, the Republican secretary of state and a two-decade fixture in Montana politics, by a solid four points. His victory was so resounding and provided down-ballot party members such strong coattails that Montana Democrats took the state senate and four of five statewide offices.


How did Schweitzer pull off such a dramatic victory in an election year when Democrats seemed to have lost their capacity to win red states? The answer should give Democrats everywhere some hope and Republicans reason to worry.

...

But in addition to a winning personality and strong populist convictions, Schweitzer had an innovative, three-part political strategy, one that perfectly fit the current conditions in Montana, but which Democrats across the country could learn from. First, Schweitzer took advantage of public dissatisfaction with two decades of insular one-party rule in the state capital, casting himself as an outsider and a reformer. Second, he rallied small business, usually a solidly GOP constituency, to his side by opposing the deals Republicans had cut in Washington and Helena to favor large or out-of-state corporations over local entrepreneurs. Third, and most interesting of all, Schweitzer figured out how to win over one of the most important, reliably Republican, and symbolically significant groups of voters: hunters and fishermen.>>

much more at

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.sirota.html

(EDITED to add more text from the article)

[IrateCitizen]

30. Right. It's not about "moving left", it's about standing for something!

Similar things happened in CO this year. Bush won the state's electoral votes, but it elected a Dem Senator and changed at least one House seat from Rep to Dem, along with winning back the state legislature for the Dems.

Candidates there didn't do this by pandering and twisting in the wind -- they did it by standing up for what they believed! Also, the State Democratic Party did a FANTASTIC job of recruiting candidates from people that were already plugged into their communities and regions in many ways OUTSIDE of politics.

[fujiyama]

57. It's about principle

and sincerity...and a willingness to take political risks. For example take a look at Fiengold. He won his race by 10 points and got more votes than anyone else in his state. Kerry won it by 1. Now I'm not saying that Kerry wasn't sincere or didn't have principles, but it'd be hard to find an example where he took a political risk in the last two years.

Another good example is Obama. He won his state by a huge margin. Granted he had a mentally unstable fool for an opponent, but he still attracted moderates and republicans as well by advocating a sensible inclusive message.

It's not about left vs. right. Russ's win wasn't a sure thing until late in the race. It definetely wasn't when he voted against the PATRIOT Act.

[outraged2]

20. no need for republicans

There are millions and millions of people who don't vote at all and who are not affiliated with any party or any particular ideology. Why bother trying to deprogram republicans or tempt them over to the Dems when there is a vast pool of people who can be much more easily swayed. All those nonvoters aren't just stupid sheeple or whatever, there are many (way more than enough to make a difference) who see no point in participating because they get screwed no matter which party wins. Added: Give those people a good reason to vote and Republicans can't win. I mean something more important to them than gay rights and abortion.... those issues aren't going to do it. Healthcare, labor issues.... those are the things to reach them with, a more populist message.

[wyldwolf]

21. wait... how many Republicans did Nader attract?

Bush got more votes (supposedly) than any Republican in history.

Kerry got more votes than any Dem in history.

Nader got considerably less than he did in 2000.

So who are these mystery republicans who voted for Nader?

[LoZoccolo]

26. I hear an odd story here and there...

...about a Republican who wouldn't vote for Bush* or Kerry but voted for Nader. I was very vocally against Nader's run, but I think the mix of people who voted for him this time was probably weighted a little more to the Republican side because the Democrats were so unified.

[wyldwolf]

59. no evidence of it

[sendero]

24. Why don't you name some....

... in relatively recent history who actually moved left?

[w4rma]

25. Sen. Feingold. Sen. Wellstone. Sen. Corzine. Sen. Dayton. (nt)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Also Peter DeFazio in Oregon and Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur

in Ohio.

They're economic leftists, not social leftists. That's the secret, which DLC types hate to acknowledge, since it would ruin their yuppified theory that the way to win elections is to give corporations a free hand and promote a laissez-faire attitude on behavioral issues.

No wonder you see so many DUers who find the Libertarian party attractive.

[IrateCitizen]

42. Sherrod Brown in OH as well, Maurice Hinchey in NY, Bernie in VT...

[ReadTomPaine]

71. Thank you. Especially Paul Wellstone.

Paul Wellstone was about as liberal as they come and had some very conservative supporters. Why? He wasn't a weak kneed monkey-kissing sellout. He believed in what he stood for, and he was a fighter. We all have a lot to learn from him. Some of us more than others.

RTP

[XemaSab]

31. Uhhh.... Bush?

In the 2000 primaries?

[htuttle]

32. Russ Feingold

He did WAY better than Kerry in Wisconsin's Republican districts, and he's to the left on Kerry on every issue.

Turns out rural Republicans respect someone who stands up for their beliefs hell of a lot more than someone who 'triangulates'. While rural Republicans don't always like leftists (though sometimes they do), they hate syncophantic wimps a lot more.

[madfloridian]

34. Disingenuous statement. Very unfair phrasing.

Very cleverly worded.

No one is trying to move the party left. Some are trying to keep them from becoming one party with the Republicans.

[LoZoccolo]

36. That's what I hear all the time here.

That we have to "go left". I don't even see any details, and that, I think, is a substitute for thinking. Not everyone, mind you, but you do see it here. I'd much prefer to have discussions about how we should adopt _____ position on _____ issue which would have _____ benefits over _____ position for _____ reasons.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Okay, you asked for it, you've got it:

1. Move left on economic issues, taking the side of ordinary people over corporate interests whenever possible. Just about anybody you talk to from anywhere on the political spectrum has at least one horror story about shabby treatment by a corporation, often an employer.

2. Increase the beneficial aspects of government (help for the needy, provision of infrastructure) and reduce the repressive aspects (the war on drugs, the Patriot Acts). As Barbara Ehrenreich wrote many years ago, ever since Reagan came into office, the beneficial aspects of government have been cut back or put under severe strain, while the repressive aspects have been increased, so it's easy to win votes on an anti-government platform.

[IrateCitizen]

41. I'd add one more to your list, Lydia, that has broad appeal...

3. Push for Clean Elections campaign funding. This takes the "For Sale" sign off of government, and enables more people with good ideas to run for office. I've found numerous right wingers who also believe that this is a good idea, and it's worked quite well so far in Maine and Arizona.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Personally, I think that when most people say, "go left"...

... they are really saying, "Fucking stand for something!"

I'm a leftist Democrat. I'll readily admit that many of my views on things aren't exactly mainstream in our society. However, I think that the important thing isn't about moving "left" or "center", but just about standing up for what we believe, loudly and completely unapologetically.

What do we believe in, whether we are leftist, middle-of-the-road, or conservative Democrats? I'd like to think we believe that work is more worthy of reward than wealth. I'd like to think we believe that we should look for ways to promote civic involvement in community. I'd like to think that we believe that our natural resources should be stewarded and preserved for future generations. I'd like to believe that our future generations are our most important resource, and therefore we should invest in them accordingly. I'd like to believe that we think that all citizens should have as equal of an opportunity for success, no matter their background. I'd like to think that we believe a society in which people look out for and care for one another is a better place for everyone than one in which everyone is only out for themselves.

These are pretty basic values. Although I'm a leftist, I don't necessarily think that they're leftist in themselves. I actually think they're pretty mainstream. But it seems that our Democratic leaders run from such values whenever they're challenged by the Republicans, rather than shouting them down and throwing the GOP's opposition to these values back in their faces. And we're all worse off in both the short and long run for it.

All I want, as a leftist Democrat, is for Democratic elected officials to stand up for their basic values, and for all people who believe in those values. Instead, it seems that we have leaders who readily cede basic value judgements and arguments to the opposition in hopes that "moderating" their stance will somehow get them somewhere. Or maybe, it's just that they're more concerned with keeping their jobs than DOING their jobs. I dunno. But I do know that we need new leaders who aren't afraid to stand for what they believe.

[eridani]

61. Bingo!

I'm less concerned right now with where Dems are on the center through left spectrum than with where they are on the wuss through fighting back spectrum.

[Pushed To The Left]

69. I agree

Candidates should not change their positions on issues unless they have really changed their minds. Voters respect politicians who stand up for what they believe in and stick to it. If you are a moderate politician, then just be a moderate politician! If you are a liberal politician, then be liberal! I think it turns people off when politicians start governing differently just to attract certain voters rather than just sticking with what they believe in.

[UpsideDownFlag]

46. okay, here's specifics:

Economic populism

universal healthcare

fair tax policies.

these are progressive values, which many current dems would have to 'move left' on to attain.

[sampsonblk]

40. Nader doesn't "move left" to atttract anyone

He says what he believes in. Maybe we should do that, instead of "moving" back and forth to attract people when we are right all along.

[Radical Activist]

43. Senator Paul Simon turned Illinois blue

He represented rural downstate Illinois in Congress for years before becoming a US Senator from Illinois. This was back when Illinois was much more of a swing state, not the strong Democratic state it is now. He also represented one of the more moderate areas of Illinois in Congress, nowhere near Chicago.

Paul Simon is one of the people most responsible for making Illinois more liberal over the years. How did he do it? He earned the respect of people in both parties by showing integrity and always standing up for what he believed in. People knew that Simon was always going to stand by his beliefs even if he held an unpopular view. A lot of people who disagreed with his very liberal views voted for him anyway because they respected his integrity. Bush got a lot of votes from moderates in this election because they viewed him as someone who always stood for his beliefs, even though it isn't true.

Conviction politics works. By standing for his convictions that were more liberal than the average Illinois voter he moved the state to the left while gaining more support. Paul Wellstone did the same thing.

People can recognize a panderer who is only telling them what they want to hear, at least most of the time they can. It doesn't benefit our party to allow the nation to keep moving right because we're afraid to show conviction for liberal principles.

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. Agree wholeheartedly on Simon and integrity take, but

gotta disagree with you on the solidly Democratic state of IL. If it weren't for Cook and a few other counties that I could pretty much count on one hand, Illinois would have gone to Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/P/00/map.html

Yes, we're certainly leaning more Democratic thanks to a corrupt GOP, but we've a long way to go.

[Radical Activist]

50. Chicago can't carry Illinois alone

We need some Democratic voters downstate as well. That's what makes Paul Simon and Dick Durbin so important. They are liberals from downstate who can reach beyond the Democratic base in Chicago. Blagojevich became Governor by getting a lot of support in downstate in the primary and general election.

Illinois didn't become blue because Chicago got bigger. It turned blue because downstate votes less Republican than it once did. That's where the swing voters are in Illinois. If downstate voted solidly Republican instead of splitting its vote then we would go back to having Republican Governors again.

[UpsideDownFlag]

44. why are we trying to attract republicans?

i'm waiiitting.....

[LoZoccolo]

55. See #27 n/t

[matcom]

47. what's the point?

who the HELL wants to "attract" Repukes?

not me THAT'S for sure

[UpsideDownFlag]

51. i guess a vocal minority of DUers do....

and the DLC is just the way to do it! haven't you gotten the message? moving left is baaaad.

[LoZoccolo]

54. See #27. n/t

[WI_DEM]

49. Howard Dean

there were many Republicans who supported him from what I saw at meet ups.

[UpsideDownFlag]

52. by the way, my post that you copycatted....

didnt ask about attracting repubs. it asked about benefiting.

[m berst]

53. what would make you happy?

This seems to be an issue. But it isn't really an issue. Yet it keeps coming up. But nothing is decided. No one is converted or persuaded. The best you can hope for is to anger people.

If you are saying that no left wing candidate can ever succeed, you are of course going to run into some resistance on this board full of left wingers.

I just don't get it. Where is this dangerous swing to the left that needs to be stamped out?

Is it just to counter the DLC bashing? Nothing wrong with that. Is there a way to do it that isn't just the same old tired bickering?

You ask a question, but you do it in such a way that makes it clear that you already are convinced of the answer. That makes it a taunt.

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all moved to the left on at least some issues. Since then the country has been in a rightward drift. So what? Maybe a leftward drift is due.

[HeilChimp]

58. how's this for starters?

A small sample of Democrats who moved FURTHER left and INCREASED their base of support:

Franklin Roosevelt
Jimmy Carter
Paul Wellstone
Robert Byrd (W.Va has been taken over by Repugs, Byrd has gotten more and more liberal over the years, and his vote totals keep going UP)
Kent Conrad
Byron Dorgan
Barack Obama (got more votes in the ultra-Repug county of DuPage than Chimp did!)
Kathleen Blanco
Bill Richardson (much more progressive Governor than Sec. of Energy)
John Lynch
Tammy Baldwin
Cynthia McKinney (back in office!)
Charlie Melancon

[FightinNewDem]

65. Fact Check

Carter won the 1976 nomination by running as the centrist alternative to both a field full of liberals (Udall, Bayh, Shriver, Harris) and to George Wallace's politics of bitterness and resentment.

Blanco and Obama ran as mainstream Democrats, unafraid to discuss themes like faith, morality and values in an unabashed manner. Neither of them ran as liberal firebrands.

John Lynch faced a challenger from his left in the Democratic Party, and ran as an anti-tax, conservative, chamber of commerce technocrat, not a progressive activist.

Richardson is a dyed-in-the-wool DLC member, delivering the keynote speech at the DLC's national conference in Philadelphi in the summer of 2003.

I don't know enough about the political dynamics in North Dakota to comment about Dorgan or Conrad, but I do know that Conrad has long been a member of the New Democratic Coalition in the Senate.

I will give you Wellstone, though I think his appeal had less to do with his ideology than with his unquestioned integrity and his outsider spirit. If you look at the polling data from Minnesota, you will find a lot of Wellstone voters were Ventura supporters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. nice job...

and as Arthur Schlessinger wrote in his seminal biography on FDR , FDR was a conservative. He conserved capitalism by ridding it of its excesses...

[Geek_Girl]

62. Let's see

Jimmy Carter
Lyndon B Johnson
John F Kennedy
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Barrack Obama

too name just a few..

[Geek_Girl]

63. On the Republican Side

Some Very Popular Republicans that moved left

Eisenhower
Prescott Bush... Who has far more popular than his son or grandson.
Theodore Roosevelt
John McCain

[leftofthedial]

64. why attract repukes?

dems are the plurality

[chaska]

66. Why on earth would we want that. Let's attract Dems ... for a change.

[Geek_Girl]

68. If you want to attract Republican voters

Here's a few good ideas

STICK UP FOR YOUR FUCKING PRINCIPLES!!
QUIT FLIP FLOPPIN ON THE ISSUES!!
HAVE A CLEAR AND CONCISE MESSAGE!!
RUN A COMPETENT CAMPAIGN!!!
WHEN ATTACKED BY THE OPPOSITION DEFEND YOURSELF AND FIGHT BACK!!!

People didn't vote for George Bush because they think he's
a great president. He had a 48% approval rating for Christ sake.

They voted for him because they thought the (DLC) democratic candidate John Kerry SUCKED BALLS!!

It's Time we faced the facts! Every person that I know of who voted for Bush did not like Bush, every fucking one of them. But they voted for him, because they thought the other guy was a flipper flopper, do anything say anything to get elected politician. That's what the DLC tactics get you absolutely nothing.