Shrink the party = Win the elections ???!!!

[CreekDog]

Congratulations and welcome to lifelong loyal opposition. ;o)
===
In fact, we must focus less on ideological purity and attempt to gather folks to the right of the DLC. Why? Do the math! We need more voters not less and we need to be aiming for a 60% formula not only to win but to govern effectively. Which means that running as pure liberals will not accomplish our liberal goals. However, a strong Democratic presidency can move the country leftward and make long term liberal governance possible.

So, the party must outflank the Republicans on taxes, defense and national security. The winning formula will make a lot of liberals mad (remember how Clinton did just that), but ultimately, will accomplish more liberal goals than anything else.

[bluestateguy]

1. Maybe we should go back to being the party of segregation

That'll get the white southern vote back for sure!

[CreekDog]

2. Winning formula gets more voters than it loses

The party of segregation, apart from being wrong, loses us more net voters than it gains.

Gun control was an issue that the party has ratcheted down because it seemed to be keeping a number of critical voters from even considering the Democrats. On issues such as this, where it's more gray area than anything, the party can pick and choose its battles for the sake of winning. On civil rights, no, backing off doesn't help us win more voters and it's a core value.

[CTLawGuy]

38. so independents who barely pay attention to politics

are going to be our base, donate money, volunteer etc.?

[greenohio]

3. But the DLC...they're evil....Feinstein and Dodd are Satan's toadies

We must resist. Thank God for my tin foil.

[CreekDog]

8. If we shed the DLC, welcome to 40% of the vote for years to come

Feinstein rankles me, quite often, but fact is, she votes with the party and has almost as liberal a record as Boxer. Dumping her would not accomplish much. And Dodd is quite strong and effective.

If you want ideological purity, join the Green party. Not too many conservatives there, and certainly no DINO's --no chance of winning there either (winning Humboldt and/or Mendocino Counties is not enough for me).

In my post, I'm attempting to stir the pot, because I've seen all this bloviating about ditching the DLC, but fact is, they represent a block of thought and we need to be adding voters from groups that we can get, we mostly have consolidated our votes among those of us who already agree on basics of policy and ideology. Winning in American elections requires some real strategery.

Remember that Bush ran in 2000 as a moderate and made his signature issue education, and look at the conservative governance we got for it. There's something to that. Clinton ran in 1992 as a moderate, and look at all the liberal programs, tough defense of medicare and the working poor that we got out of it.

This is a hard truth for diehard activists, to gain power, you have to share it with people you hate. If you aren't prepared to do that, then you aren't prepared to have the power. Look at how LBJ passed the Civil Rights bills of his time, look at how he did it --it's not pretty my friends, but it was damned successful.

Fact is, Martin Luther King was the better man, but he couldn't have passed a Civil Rights Bill through our congress. LBJ was not the better man, but he was the better politician and he did what MLK could not. When you think about heroes, have ones like MLK, when you think about politicians, think abot the ones that accomplished things, and you'll find huge things in their character and decisions that give you pause. Lincoln, FDR and LBJ and yet they accomplished great changes in our society.

[greenohio]

9. Yes. Its true. But we will be pure. Purity is the goal... not winning.

We must rid ourselves of the heathens. Besides... I read on DU that they killed Kennedy.

[proud_Kucitizen]

4. Sorry,

but I'll vote green before I take one more step to the right or not vote at all. So you lose voters to gain voters thats a dilemma.

Anyway it doesn't matter how far to the right you move until we get fair elections.

[bowens43]

5. Complete nonsense.

We don't need or want people from the right if it means pandering to them. What you are suggesting is exactly what we have done in the last 3 elections and you see where it got us.

Your math sucks and is based on faulty assumptions. The winning formula is for us to stop being republican lies and to clearly differentiate us from them. The party needs to move sharply to the left and we need to do it now.

[greenohio]

7. Thats right. After Feinstein, Dodd, Rendel, Warner, Stabenow,

Landrieu, Kerry, and Clinton are gone... THEN we will be winners. All Dems have to do is DEMONIZE fellow Dems... and we'll win.

[CreekDog]

11. What I'm suggesting is what we did for 30 years 30's to the 60's

And even with all those segregationists, racists and pacifists, it was that governance that ended segregation, fought the racists and gave us the advantage in the cold war. We had to get into bed with some pretty rotten folks, expand our tent so big so that when it came time to make a stand, we still had the votes to get it through while losing some of our support. There's your Civil Rights victory right there.

[WyLoochka]

27. There's your Civil Rights victory

You are very misinformed. The LIBERALS of the Democratic Party, with the support of the LIBERALS that were then in the Repub Party, gave us our Civil Rights victories.

The conservatives in both parties, fought it tooth and nail and LOST.

We will ONLY win again when LIBERAL core values are once again championed by the Democratic Party. The nation was founded by LIBERALS. Historically, it's greatest accomplishments are LIBERAL accomplishments.

A return to our true identity - a party that supports a LIBERAL country led by LIBERAL leaders will win.

If the Dem Party refuses to undergo a restoration to embrace it's founding LIBERAL values - the Green Party will take the ball and run with it. And I'll be with them.

The Dem Party has lost election after election after election by trying to be what it never was (except in the south) - conservative.

We liberals beat the despicable southern conservatives to a humialiting loss in the Civil War and during the drive for Civil Rights - liberals will beat 'em again. First order of business is to duct tape Al From's mouth, go into his office and box up his things and ship him back home, wherever that is.

[gottaB]

6. Centrist fuzzy algebra?

How big is the solid center? As I see it, come election time it either moves right, or left, but doesn't stay loyal to the center. In actual fact the center moves from being from like a third of the electorate to being a goose egg. It is not a constant number.

Outflank the Republicans? I think we need to attack them where they are weak, where the center will not help them. We don't need to move to the center or join ranks with the center--remember "they" have no actual ranks--in order to do that. What we need is the ability to move freely through territory that the Republicans are unable to hold, and when we strike, use the power of the center to our advantage.

D^C > R

[CreekDog]

10. Lincoln pandered, FDR triangulated, LBJ appeased

Sorry folks. You really want to believe that ideological purity on the left side is key to winning.

But you have no proof to back it up.

I'm as liberal as you folks are, but if I have to vote for an absolute bastard to make my country better, I'll do it. And by the way, a lot of Bush's voters thought they were voting for a bastard but that doing so would advance their ideals --looking from this side of the aisle, it seems like they might just be right.

Do the math! Do the math! You have to add more voters than you are losing to the other side.

[gottaB]

12. Well, you can call me gottaB, and leave other folks out of it

I'm not advocating ideological purity. I'm suggesting some other things, like that polarization is endemic to the current system, and that there isn't a reliable "centrist" base. The center is a variable. Of course it's a variable we should work with, and deny the opposition the opportunity to exploit.

I think we agree that shrinking the party is bad. The question is how to exploit the center to our advantage.

[last1standing]

13. It's not a question of moving to the left or the right.

Liberals have never won presidential elections in this country just for being liberal. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton won office by presenting to the voters practical solutions to the problems that faced them. None of these past presidents relied on ideology to get them into the white house, they campaigned with honest, simple answers to the greatest problems of their day.

Right now our biggest single problem is that we are going broke, both fiscally and morally, due to our dependence on foreign sources for energy. I believe that if we had a candidate who could not only come up with an solution to that problem but break it down into easy to understand sound bites, we would have a Democrat as president.

I really think that if Kerry had given the people a compelling reason to vote for him, he would have won. Yes, I think he really won Ohio and Florida, but I also believe that if he had been able to talk to the voters like Dean could, he would have been able to surmount the fraud that took place in those states.

Anyway, this constant argument of whether we should move to the left or the right is nonsense. It's the very fact that we are so willing to move to the right or the left that has turned so many voters off. There is plenty of room in this party for those who disagree on many issues such as gun control, abortion, and even foreign policy, but we need to be able to show the people of this country that we will not compromise on honesty, integrity, or common sense.

I'm willing to bet that once we stop letting factions take control of our party we'll start winning again.

[CreekDog]

14. Right. It's about our positions/candidates more than our ideology

Yup. So much is about our candidates.

Plain language
East to understand solutions
Straightforward talk
Appeal to common values (hard work, honesty, etc.)
Patriotism

Not only has this been a winning formula for Democrats, it's the winning formula for Republicans too. Think of Reagan, Eisenhower and even Bush 1 and 2.

[CreekDog]

16. Transcend ideology and win. Serve ideology and lose.

If you transcend it, you can't serve it very well on the surface.

So, this might mean that our next candidate speaks rather disdainfully about abortion (but isn't really in favor of outlawing it --actually, this is not much different than the Bush position).

It has in the past meant that Clinton spoke out against welfare, but expanded help for the working poor.

What it means is that for us, as liberals, we should recognize that the Democrats next winning candidate is probably the guy or gal that makes you really nervous at times, that you can't always pin down. I remember after Clinton's Sistah Soljah moment in '92, my buddy said he was incensed that our candidate could stoop so low while speaking to Jesse Jackson's coalition. Postscript: He got over it. :o)

Transcend ideology and win. Serve ideology and lose.

[last1standing]

30. I don't think Ideology has anything to do with it.

Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Carter had very set ideologies that they campaigned and won election with. Truman, Johnson, and Clinton were more middle of the road guys. The commonality of them all is that they had easy to understand, practical solutions that they could convey to the voters of this country.

I'm not saying we have to nominate a candidate who will make us squirm, I'm saying we need to select someone who can not only stand up for what they believe but can express it in a way that makes the average American want to follow them.

Like it or not, that was the "charm" of Eisenhower, Reagan and to a much lesser extent, bush the lesser. Kerry, while obviously having the better solutions to our issues, was not able to reach a large number of voters and make them see his vision. Maybe next time we'll nominate someone who can not only come up with answers but can reach the hearts of the people.

[American Tragedy]

32. I'm not so sure that Johnson was more middle-of-the-road

compared to the others. On what basis do you say that?

[last1standing]

43. From what I've always read, Johnson was rather conservative.

He was pulled to the left by his common sense and pragmatic nature. I've always found that his blend of conservative values and liberal policies to be fascinating.

As for where I got the bulk of my info, it would be the trilogy of books on Johnson by Robert A. Caro.

[w13rd0]

15. What makes you think the voters...

...are deciding party affiliation due to sober assessment of the issues you claim we need to drift FURTHER rightward on? The vast majority of voters make their decisions based on perception and framing and PR. The party you seem to be advocating, why the hell would I bother being part of that? If I wanted to be a Republican, I'd be a Republican.

Taxes: spend now, charge it to the kids, how the hell is that conservative? But that's the direction you want to go.

Defense: making the US safe by making us hated around the world and misdirecting our military assets? That's the PNAC plan. Fuck that.

National Security: how has the GOP enhanced our security? Why drift right from a position of failure?

Hell, it'd be a miracle to get even 40% to vote on issues in and of themselves, nevermind ideaological purity.

[CreekDog]

17. I've never said move rightward

It's not about ideology. It's about having a candidate that will serve our values and can still win. No one who can serve all our values can make the necessary compromises to win a national election.

I'm playing devil's advocate, but this is a game, it is about winning.

I want to see where narrowing our base of voters has gained us voters. Historically, this is not borne out.

[ArthurDent]

19. Taxes

I'm not picking on you for bringing this up (it was in the original post), but were taxes _really_ an issue in this election? I doubt many people voted on it.

Besides, the Kerry stance wasn't very attractive to fiscal conservatives. Yes, Bush's was cut taxes but not spending. But Kerry's was raise taxes and raise spending. Bush was grabbing the "let the goverment pay for it" crowd while not losing any of the fiscal conservatives to Kerry -- Bush was the lesser of two evils.

[ArthurDent]

18. I mostly agree, but

You are missing something big. Huge, in fact:

Issue control.

One of the big reasons for the Bush victory is that issues on which Democrats are usually winners -- health care, for example -- were absent from the campaign. Instead, there was a lot of talk about Iraq and gay marriage.

Kerry should have been more deferrential on Iraq. His entire stance on it was backward-looking ("would have," "shouldn't have" instead of "will" and "won't"). Whether we should have gone to Iraq is something that one cannot change, and such a stance appeals to some of the core voters (ABB) but turns off a lot of others.

Second, the Goodrich (gay marriage) decision put the issue in the public spotlight. Here you have a mandate from a court in a liberal state that, if it had to pass the legislature, would have failed -- today. But in a year? Maybe three years? The wheels of democracy can be slow sometimes, and in this case, the feeling that a liberal sect is taking over on an unpopular issue through sympathetic, unmajoritarian courts -- that's a big problem for the cause overall. What you really had there was a "shrink the party" mentality: If we cannot get 50% of the votes, we'll find a way to do it with 35% (enough to stop a state-level amendment).

[CreekDog]

20. I think you are right about issue control...

But, the key to having voters know where you stand on the issues is not to have explicit positions on all of them.

Like almost everything I say, this is counterintuitive, but bear with me.

Rather, the candidate needs to be associated with a them and have a character that oozes that theme. Sincerity (or the appearance of such) is a key to this. This theme is built and fortified constantly. The stand on the issues is secondary. You have voters identify with the candidate themselves so that voters believe that the candidate shares their values without being told what those values are. When issues are brought up, it is to serve the character of the candidate, not to amplify the issue.

Our elections are about the men and women who run in them. It's true that party loyalty is stronger than ever, but among the folks deciding elections (and those who can decide them), those folks are not ideological and in terms of issues, they are too muddled and non-homogenous to really cater to in this way.

Rather, you build a candidate that has the storyline, the words and the record to convince people that he/she will make a difference for the better. You aim for a plurality from the undecideds and you get that in the same way.

[ArthurDent]

22. That worked... not

:)

Kerry's Iraq stance: Not Bush's
Kerry's gay marriage stance: Left of Bush's

I don't think it was Kerry's lack of sincerity that was his problem -- just a byproduct of how the battle played out. It was that he has winning issues -- we just never heard of them. Listen to his concession speech, take out the Iraq stuff, and what you have is what his campaign should have been about.

The entire campaign, Kerry was on the defensive. It didn't sound that way because he was claiming to attack Bush on things like Iraq, but what he was really doing was putting up a sheild hoping to prevent from look weak on the issues Bush was strong. (He was appealing to the marginal GOP voters.) This is silly -- the right move is to run with your strengths... even if that means capitulating on other issues.

Imagine how different the campaign would have been if Kerry started by saying:

"I don't want to get mired down debating whether we should be in Iraq. We're there. We cannot go back in time and change that. What I want to do is make this country better for our troops when they come home; for our men and women working hard every day here; for our children and our children's children. I want to bring us better schools, easier access to health care and prescription drugs, and to elevate working families to the next level. I will continue to protect our nation from terrorism and our enemies abroad, but the Kerry Presidency will focus on making life at home -- the life our troops risk theirs defending -- worth the name 'America.'"

Off the top of my head I've developed a better campaign than Kerry, and all I did was focus on core Dem issues while ignoring the ABB ones.

[WyLoochka]

21. Nonsense

The American people, by a significant majority, are NOT right wing whacko imperialist, neo feudalist, theocrats.

They have been LIED to by the increasingly effective neo feudalist, imperialist, theocratic propaganda machine for 25 frigging years.

It's almost all "in the framing" of the so-called issues.

The DLCers have co-operated with and participated in cultivating these lies.

We are being lied to about the need to spend our entire wad on defense. We are being lied to that taxes on the wealthy and on corporations are too high and a "drag on the economy," we are being lied to when we are told we need to build a "missile shield" for our national security, we are being lied to when we are told we have to invade countries that have done nothing to us in order to "fight terrorism," we are being lied to when we are told lawsuits are frivolous and are driving up health care premiums, we are being lied to when we are told Social Security is broken, we are being lied to when we are told this country was founded to be a Christian Nation and on and on and on.

"the party must outflank the Repubs" on taxes, defense and security- this is pure BS. There is NO ROOM on the right to outflank anyone and it is a truly odious proposal to even consider doing this in the first place.

What you are really suggesting is that we continue to allow Al From and his little band of LIE ENABLERS to try to find some right wing territory for Dems that is even further to the right of the GOP!

BOOO - HISS - REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA.

Your proposal to become even MORE EXTREME RIGHTISTS than the Repukes, if embraced by the DNC - and we will know in February with the selection of the DNC if that is the plan, will drive me, and I suspect millions of others right into the Green Party.

You can't win if you burn us on core values like fair and progressive taxes, using the military to defend against ONLY a real threat or direct attack on us, refraining from wasting bajillions on boondoogles like the missile shield that is really nothing more than corporate welfare designed by and for Raytheon, Lockheed and Orbital Sciences etal and getting back to real principles of national security - an educated, healthy, prosperous population secured by equal opportunity for real upward economic mobility for everyone.

If you don't have that - you have, essentially, a second or third world country. And note, NONE of them are "secure."

[CreekDog]

24. Sonora, I'm not in favor of all that(and it would cause us to lose anyway)

Outflanking on national security, defense, etc. doesn't mean moving further right than the Republicans (there is not much room available to move further right anyway). It means being stronger than the Republicans on these issues and being stronger.

Kennedy did this in 1960 by bringing up the US-Soviet missile gap and using it to show that Nixon was weaker on defense. Did Kennedy outflank Nixon on defense by doing this? Yes. Does this mean Kennedy was more of a war monger than Nixon. No (take a look at the restraint he showed in Cuban Missile Crisis).

Outflanking really means winning the issue. Taking an issue we are weak on and going on the offensive with it. It's a form of political jujitsu and it works. Bush did this on education --based on nothing really. You can't say he moved leftward on education, but he certainly outflanked us and it worked for him.

Winners in our elections do this. If we want a winner, we need a candidate who will do this, and the national security issues are the areas where this technique needs to be used.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Only if outflanking the Republicanites on defense means

talking sense to the American people, telling them that Osama bin Laden is NOT hiding under their beds, that neither blasting Iraq nor funding the Star Wars program will prevent a single terrorist attack, and that all those boondoggles for the defense contractors are making America weaker not stronger, since the money is not available for urgent domestic needs (such as decaying infrastructure).

I want canddiates who tell the truth and stand up for it. I don't want candidates who base their decisions on what the polls say or on what the critics on Fox News call them or on which corporation gave them the most money or on the desire to capture a market segment.

Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 24 hours a day.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Why Democrats must be more like Republicans: Thread #99,999,999

This is really not new.

[greenohio]

25. Why Dems must DEMONIZE fellow Dems. Post #.....

[CreekDog]

26. I'm not asking you all to be Republicans...

If that's what I really wanted, I would vote for the Republicans. I want this party to win and I want our values to govern --not theirs.

But, if I ran on my pure liberal thoughts, I would get your votes, thank you very much, and would lose in a stinging defeat.

I'll start writing my concession speech now,
"Winning isn't the most important thing, no, it's standing up for what you believe in that really matters!"

Then the headline in the paper the next day shouts,

"Winner in election guts all that his opponents cherish".

This is about politics folks. Stop asking for heroes in politics. Look for great politicians, and you might find yourself a hero in the process.

[greenohio]

29. C'mon now. The big tent theory is dead. Think little tent.

About the size of a folded napkin.

[CreekDog]

31. I see the error of my ways

Clearly, we should nominate Kucinich.

I retract everything I said. Obviously there is so much support for genuinely progressive stands, that there is no need to get votes from anyone to the right of those good and decent positions.

As for the questions that raises, I have some answers that should take care of things.

I suggest the Democratic Party develop a Fact Sheet outlining our new direction. We can mail it to everybody, but I think most of the questions and points should be directed to the non-progressives in the party, especially the DLC-types.

Something like this:

We, the Democratic Party, now believe we only need the votes of good and decent people who share progressive values (and I mean all progressive values .

Point 1:
For those who of you who don't share all these positions, we won't kick you out (it's not really our style), but we want to point out that you are wrong, we will continually remind you that you are wrong, and we will ask you to apologize for your wrongness. If however, you want to help us on the issues where you hold the correct position, we may or may not accept your help and in the meantime as a policy, will question your motives for doing so repeatedly. We say all this because we are right about all progressive issues and because of that, we don't need to take or entertain any contrary positions. Doing so would make us Republicans or DINO's, who are worse. We don't pander, under no circumstances. Let us make this clear once and for all :
We don't respect your opinion if it differs from the progressive cause--doing so would be pandering too.

Point 2:
The DLC is wrong. The DLC is made up of Democrats who want to be Republicans in order to win elections or Republicans who want to ruin the Democratic party's allegiance to progressive causes. What is the matter with you people?

Question 1:
What if one of our upper income potential voters really wants a tax cut?
A: Sorry, that's not what we're about, you selfish *^&^%. We only help poor people --well maybe some middle class folks. We're not sure, but you probably make too much money to even ask for this. This is a really hard issue, please understand. The problem is that everytime we want to help someone, it seems there is someone with less that we have forgotten and this makes us feel guilty, but don't accuse us of being religiously motivated.

Question 2:
What if a voter wants to kick ass in war and kill the terrorists? A:Obviously, that position is so simplistic and wrong and thus this voter is too clueless for us to compete for that vote, so we will not even make the effort. Instead, we will strengthen our share of the vote by talking about health care since this voter is obviously uneducated and probably works at Wal Mart and can't afford their health insurance there.

Question 3:
What if a potential voter wants Single payer healthcare but opposes abortion?
A: We always support abortion, no matter what, so I'm sorry, we really don't need anti choice voters, after all, we can't risk diluting our always correct pro choice stance by even suggesting that abortion is wrong. Even the party hacks support our new stance because it brings in more NARAL money.

Question 4:
What if a voter points out that Kucinich is pro-life?
A: He does? Oh crap! Who vetted this guy? How can a good man hold a position that is so obviously wrong? He has no place in our party and we should encourage him to join the Republican party or change his position as soon as possible. It may take us a while to get to him, however, as we must first drum out Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Max Baucus and their ilk. Until we do, we'll call him bad names so at least we can make him feel bad for being wrong.

[greenohio]

33. Well its about time. Now lets all join hands and strangle the DLC to win!

Down with all Dems but us! Down with all Dems but us!

[CreekDog]

34. And the clarion call will be, give us a 2 and a 3

23% of the vote to victory!

[greenohio]

36. Oooh catchy. I like that. Its quality not quantity. I'd rather

have 2 pure liberal votes than thousands of unpure libs voting.

[PATRICK]

28. Since sanity is winning in this thread

I might point out that the largest cause for frustration(people can be lead in any direction) is having to reach the minds and hearts in an increasingly hostile or really really dumbed down environment of corporate media, fractured, trivialized, RW pushed. by dumbed down I don't mean the hapless audience but the abdicated IQ of journalists and many advocacy groups flying through a storm on auto pilot.

Looking at what it means to be left might get things down to reality. A REAL case can be made for the nationalization of energy, health, education and elections. Would we want Bushco to be the socialist state enacting that platform. In a way they are through the entrepreneurial myth of privatization(privately owned government that is). Radical solutions are the hallmark of wing extremists. It kind of looks the same when the taken to the "extremes". Moderates tend to look the same too, especially if they truly have a respect for law and democracy.

There are more core unities than in the pro and con socialism/capitalism debate. It matters what kind of people there are and how subdividing the rational and decent, brutalizing and propagandizing them with distracting rage "issues" guts the majority the Dems are always wistful about. No one focuses on the horror show humans that sneak to the top during the righteous debates. A fantasy ideology like over indoctrinated fundamentalists which is outside the pale of its own religion has as much value as any other grouping within the odd game we have substituted for democracy and civic responsibility.

So those that see a light going off because a majority actually voted for Reagan, mild Carter handily wins while JFK labored mightily. If Carter won because of a message he disproved that the second time. LBJ, Mr Kennedy legacy landslide himself, knew when the jig was up. It's all nuts because the political reality is some ever new mystery of connecting to the people in a particular time or place, your ideas and skills and toothy grin be damned.

The GOP, who cannot represent the people they con, wish to simply remove those imponderables by controlling the means to communicate and vote. The need was simple and undeniable for them. We still argue about some sort of fair playing field where words and character count, and if not we simply try to improve our losing position with ideological cosmetics. Bush lost twice and he's doing just fine. he does nothing to communicate the truth to his addled backers. Rather than moving to the right we might just as well learn to lie better like politicians used to(and not just to your own party activists).

[CreekDog]

35. I don't think sanity is winning this thread

Seems like most posters think the solution is that we adopt a Green-party type platform as the solution to our electoral malaise and use the power from that obviously strong position to fix our broken election system. The point is that we can't win unless we stand for something, but we can't stand for something if we are in the middle. Now, we know we can't win if we don't stand in the middle, but we don't want to win if we stand in the middle but don't stand for anything.

Did we mention the election system is broken and that we can't win anyway? We just have to fix this system, so we must stand for that. I don't know how we will get the power to fix the system.

I'm just all muddled up. What is wrong with a country where good and decent people can't stand for something good and win an election? I'm moving to New Zealand.

[PATRICK]

37. What you said...I think?

Well, you got the confused focus point just right. People aren't going to win a piece of American political clout through ideas and platforms when the other side can control the words so any platform must be non-alarmist
and timid. It ain't us. It's them. parsing the Dem platform over invasive conservatism is probably something the average American couldn't see with a spotlight on it.

Speaking of spotlights. isn't it time to investigate the stockholdings and sources of income of some of the DLC management chiefs? There are easier things to do than trying to ferret out political alchemy spells pleasing to one base or the other.

[UpsideDownFlag]

39. tell you what- let's give up on gay rights, reproductive rights, and

desegregation, too. those havent been very popular.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Why not just change the name of the party to the Neo-Republicans?

How do you "outflank" the pugs on "defense"? Give the generals more toys to kill people with?

"National Security"? Advocate a new national police force and call it the Gestapo?

"Taxes"? Less taxes on the wealthy and corporations?

Outflanking them has led to such glorious victories in the last 3 elections..didn't it?

[CreekDog]

44. We didn't outflank the Republicans in the last 3 elections

In fact, it could be argued that they took the type of advice I've been advocating (that is run on your opponents turf) and were successful in doing so.

When Republicans even say the word "education" they sound more liberal and a number of voters, simply hearing the word, reflexively, think they care about the issue. Bush used this to his advantage with education, and some other issues, crafting a moderate image, without being moderate at all.

This is what the Democrats must do on national security, domestic terrorism, defense, perhaps even abortion and other hot button issues for the Republicans.

This is about having a position on issues that are more important to the base of the other party and negating the huge advantage on these issues that the other party has --talking about them in a coherent, somewhat populist and culturally-attuned way (speak to conservatives that is), will net votes from them. This matters because those votes are not in play now.

What am I smoking? Look, exit polls indicate that some 13% of liberal voters voted for Bush in 2004 and national security was undoubtedly the driver in that number. There are voters out there in the other party that you could never manage a civilized conversation with at a party, but that could vote for a Democratic candidate who said and did some right things. It's foolish and a losing strategy to not do this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Here's the thing all you DLC interns are missing

If the Dems move to the right or try to co-opt the Republicans, what is the underlying message? What else but "the Republicans are right and we're wrong" and "we're so brain-dead that we have no ideas of our own and can only react to the Republicans"?

We don't need to go all Marxist, but liberation theology has a phrase "a preferential option for the poor." In other words, when there's a policy that could harm the powerless, oppose it. If there's something that can help and empower the powerless, support it.

Rather than putting it in terms of "right" or "left," we need to put it in terms of "up" or "down," for the ordinary person, against the extremes of corporate rule, for peaceful conflict resolution and cooperation, and against the militarization of our society.

[MadHound]

45. Do you even really know what you're talking about friend?

Or are you just mouthing DLC propaganda in order to hear your own voice. Don't you fucking get it, we've tried the route that your recommending, and what in the hell did it get us the past three elections? An ever widening Republican majority in both Houses, and a two term 'Pug president. And you want us to trod even further down this path?:crazy:

You wish for us to downplay abortion rights, even though the majority of people in this country are in favor said rights. You want us to give up on gun control, even though poll after poll shows that the majority of people in this country want reasonable gun control. You want us to move ever further rightward, leaving the vast majority of people in this country feeling that they aren't represented by either party, and thus don't vote. Not a very bright idea friend.

You bring up FDR as an example. Do you know the history of FDR's first re-election bid? It was actually thought that he would lose, for he had a strong 'Pug opponent on the right, and the Socialists on the left. Guess what he did friend. He went LEFT, nicked a couple of planks from the Socialist platform, and won handily. Oh, and those two planks he nicked. Social Security and unemployment insurance.

Sorry friend, you talk a good game, but it is apparent that you know very little of political history and how politics work. Sad to say, that throws you into good company with the DLC/DNC and the current Dem leadership. They, like you, can't seem to learn from their mistakes, even when the answer is staring you in the face.

[Iris]

46. Perhaps if the DLC wants to get more folks from the right to come

over, then those of us on the left can leave. But maybe they'll siphon off enough folks from the Repigs to allow a viable 3rd party.

It'd be a slow and painful process.

[greenohio]

47. If we only had a little tent with just us true liberals.Then we could win.

Those darn other people who don't agree with us. They're holding us back.