Do you *really* not want moderates in the party?

[elperromagico]

Is that the way to win? By making the party's big tent smaller?

[Politicub]

1. Depends

Social moderates? No way. I don't waver on social issues, nor should the dems. I can see the party leaving me on these issues, thouggh.

Fiscal moderate? Maybe. Depends on the person. I tend to think that economic and social justice go hand in hand.

[Lenape85]

7. It depends for me too

Social Moderates I can handle
Fiscal Moderates, no fucking way. I do not want social security and the unions sold down the Mississippi in the name of corporations

[quaoar]

10. I'm a fiscal conservative

Which, to me, has always meant pay-as-you-go, not running up a huge deficit unless the economy needs stimulus or there is a war, not playing fast and loose with make-believe growth figures to justify tax cuts, etc.

A true fiscal conservative does not go along with Bush's plan to rape and pillage the Social Security system.

But the Republican Party of today is light years removed from the party of fiscal conservatism. They're thieves who have run up massive deficits to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the elite and plan to correct that problem by gutting Medicaid, Pell grants, etc. and selling off all the timber in our national forests.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Moderates are fine

Neocons posing as moderates are not.

[placton]

19. you are so right!

"moderates" does not define:
-anti-choice zealots
-Zell Miller
-Republican Lite Brigade members

[mcscajun]

3. Exclusion is for Republicans.

Keep moderates, of course.

[Laelth]

4. Depends.

What passes for moderate these days looks awfully conservative to me. I look forward to the day when the democratic party returns to its roots as the more conservative party, and a real liberal party is the dominant alternative. I vote for democrats only because it's better than voting for republicans.

Evidence:



Even John Kerry falls in the upper-right corner.

Here's where I am:



I'm much closer to Ralph Nader than to John Kerry, and Kerry is considered a "liberal" democrat. LOL! It's not that I dislike moderate democrats. I have great respect for Eisenhower republicans. But I'd rather have them as my opposition and not my allies. Still, we need them, at the moment, to fight off the rise of fascism.

-Laelth

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. As long as they understand...

That they are part of a whole. A part. Threads in a tapestry.

[dweller]

6. not making the tent smaller, but

expecting them to open their minds wider would work for me.


dp

[HeilChimp]

8. "Moderate" Democrats can go to hell

If you want to take away a woman's right to choose, make gays second class citizens, declare Chrisitianity as a state religion, kill Iraqis, and give more tax cuts to the rich, then you should join the Repug party. Plain and simple. Can we get Ben Nelson to switch?

[greenohio]

9. Who would we demonize if we got rid of moderate Dems?

We certainly don't want to beat up repukes... at least not here on DU.

[chaska]

11. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE...

Forget about the moderates. They can take care of themselves. They will likely stay. Our efforts need to be aimed at remembering the definition of democrat. We are the party of the people, the working class, the poor, the underdog, regardless of race, gender or orientation.

WE MUST CONVINCE THESE FOLKS WHO HAVE JOINED THE REPUBLICANS THAT THEY BELONG WITH US. Stand with the working man. Fight to increase the minimum wage, fight to stop outsourcing, fight to stop tax cuts for the rich, fight for health care access for all. AND LET THESE FOLKS KNOW THAT WE ARE DOING THIS FOR THEM, THAT THIS IS WHO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS.

Moderates are not a problem, fiscally conservative, pro business, anti-tax dems are a problem. They must not lead us.

[Zynx]

12. Fiscal liberal = Bush

So why is it bad to be a fiscal conservative? No desire to bankrupt the US?

[Guaranteed]

13. Two different questions, here...

My answer is that moderates are fine. In REALITY, as in, back before 9/11, I was a moderate. However, we have people in our party who are playing ball with fascists. I don't want them in our party.

[LittleClarkie]

14. "No, I just don't want them in leadership positions"

Reminds me too much of the pro-life gun guy who told me at the State Fair that Democrats could live in America -- "We'll let you" -- but that we couldn't serve in office because we were "unconstitutional."

He likened us to the British in the Revolutionary War. "The British are big time Socialists, you know." (Yeah, but not in 1776.) When I asked him about his t-shirt that said "Sportsmen for Bush, because there's no limit on Democrat this year" he said "Well, the Dems are like the British. Do we have to do it again (referring to the Revolutionary War)."

Scary guy.

[ulysses]

15. no, but it's the wrong question.

What I *really* want is for the party to once again represent the people's interests over those of corporations. Moderates may do what they will with that.

[Q]

16. The problem has never been...

...Liberals and Progressives wanting moderates out of the party. This didn't become an issue until the DLCers used their influence within the party to keep anyone to the left of them from running for national office or having a voice in the leadership.

That you're asking this question of 'liberals' and not 'centrists' shows that you're not aware of which holds power over the party right now. This is the time of the Clinton DLCers...who seem to think THEIR success and bank accounts are more important than the Democratic party or America.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Do the Republicanites have "moderates" leading them?

Hell, no!

The Republicanites put into positions of leadership people who unabashedly preach personal Puritanism, militarism, chauvinism, social Darwinism, and economic libertarianism, and their moderates are expected to follow along.

The Democrats give leadership positions to people who think that their main job is to slightly alleviate the suffering caused by the Republicanites without annoying the corporations too much. Their believers in personal freedom, peaceful conflict resolution, international cooperation, a social safety net, and protection from the excesses of corporate power are treated as regrettable baggage of an embarrassing history.

The Republicans clearly and emphatically stand for something. It's an evil "something," but you know where they stand. Despite some fantastic individuals who stand up for what's right, I can't say the same about the national Democratic party.

[htuttle]

18. Exactly. Moderates are fine to provide a 'moderating influence'

But NOT to set the direction of the party.

Why have someone who identifies with the political equivalent of 'lukewarm' set the agenda? Once the agenda is set, then moderates can go ahead and 'moderate'.

[0007]

20. Excellent, this expresses my feelings to the max.

Thank you & Happy Holidays to you Lydia Leftcoast

[Zynx]

21. The party has more moderates than liberals in it.

Throw 'em out if you never want to win an election ever again. The Democrats will just become a "statement" party, meaning that their campaigns will only make statements and never win,

[DireStrike]

22. Thanks for the pushpoll.

Yes, everyone who doesn't want the party to move to the right doesn't care about moderates. :eyes: