The False Choice that Democrats are arguing over today

[Armstead]

It's not a new debate, but it's one that has particular resonance now that the Democratic Party is trying to steer a direction and the GOP is trying to get off the rocks.

This is my admittedly biased view (held since the 1980's).

The Democratic Party has been portrayed as a party of "left wing radicalism" by the conservative right. Unfortunately, the Democrats hastened their own political demise by allowing that to become the basis for the overall political message of the last 25 years.

The result? The definition of the so-called "center" was pushed way to the right by the GOP and the Presstitute media and the Corporatists. Instead of resisting this, the Democratic Establishment willingly moved to the right too, on the issues that ultimately matter the most.

The Democrats thus gave up on liberalism and progressive solutions to the real problems of real Americans, and stopped being a counterweight to the GOP agenda and the interests of the corporate elite.

President Clinton was an accomplice in this process, by aligning the Democratic Party with the elite oligarchs, and marginalizing liberalism and progressives. The 1990's were much better than today, BUT the troubles we have today are merely the neglected chickens from the 80's and 90's coming home to roost.

Thus, today we are faced with a false choice. "Should the Democratic Party appeal to the 'center' and win? Or should it pander to its' left-wing base and lose?"

That, IMHO, is a crock. The traditional principles of liberalism and progressive reform IS squarely in the center. It is nothing more "radical" than protecting the economic interests of the majority of Americans against the small but powerful elites. It is nothing more "radical" than protecting and strengthening the basis of the Middle Class against the relentless drive of the elite to transfer all wealth to the top.

The situation we have today is a Systemic Distortion of the principles and values that most Americans hold, including grass roots conservatives. It is a distortion to remain silent about the increasing consolidation of wealth and power. It is a distortion to support the systematic gutting of American jobs and workers' rights merely to strengthen the bottom line of corporate bean counters.

Therefore, the "centrist" argument that Democrats should focus on micro-issues and avoid offending the "conservative majority" is a false choice. It's poppycock.

There is only one real choice facing the Democrats today. Whose side is the party going to be on? Will it continue to be an enabler of the interests of the elite, and pander to the perceptions of modern Phony Conservatism? Or will Democrats simply start telling the truth about the systemic rot of democracy and the economy, and offer real solutions to the core problem of an a society that is fundamentally destroying the real American Dream that is held by most Americans?

We should define the center ourselves, and stop letting Karl Rove, Tim Russert and the Corporate Titans and Beltway Strategists define it for us.

[indepat]

1. Bravo, kick, and nominated. Let the painting of the far extreme RW begin

in earnest, painting them as they are, extreme, corporatist, fascist, alien to everything good this country has stood for.

[Wordie]

3. I second the motion (and recommend this also)

The extreme right wing needs to be exposed for what they are.

[Warpy]

53. People know that, already

but pointing out just how bad the other guy is will be only half the battle.

The problem is that the party has completely lost contact with its own base, those hardworking people who find themselves farther behind every year as wealth is mined from them and shifted to the top 0.5% of wealth holders in this country. Come on, folks, you know this is true, but the men controlling the party seem to have missed this incredibly important part of neofascist economics: the entire economy is being stripmined to benefit a handful of already wealthy men.

Until and unless the party starts to address this and manages to offer its traditional base something besides the business as usual of allowing all wealth to be concentrated among the few, the traditional base will continue to stay home on election day.

Think about it, folks. Getting even 10% of the 51% of the electorate that has been staying home in disgust would have made enough difference that those Diebold machines would have been overwhelmed.

This is what the false dilemma of a GOP lite false centrism versus rabid socialism has done. The first alternative has resulted in the loss of all 3 branches of government for far too long; the other alternative is nothing that any sane person would support. It's time to cast aside this silly argument and do the tough work of reaching out to the base, of asking them just what it is that will get them out to vote, what will give them hope for the future.

Right now, there is none.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

2. I agree with our defining the "Center" ourselves

And the way we define it is by doing so in real terms.

Should every American be able to go to the doctor when they're sick? Yes? Vote democrat.

Should every American have access to a quality education that will prepare them for a shot at the American Dream? Yes? Vote democrat.

Should every American be able to support a family on one job? Yes? Vote democrat.

Should every American have access to the Courts when they're hurt? Yes? Vote democrat.

Should every American's vote be counted without corporate interference? Yes? Vote democrat.

Should every American child be able to grow up with enough to eat and clean warm place to sleep at night? Yes? Vote democrat.

Should every American child be able to grow up without a $50,000 debt hanging over his head? Yes? Vote democrat.

There's the center. Plain as day. And every one of those issues is at diametrical odds with the Repiglican agenda.

On edit: format issues

[Armstead]

4. Eggs Ackley

Those are the real questions that real people are struggling with.

[bread_and_roses]

23. Excellent Framing (n/t)

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. Also first rate. A clear focus on the key issues.

[ComerPerro]

58. Yeah but that's not how Republicans campaign

They control all the discourse.

So, they campaign promising every item you listed.

But when Dems promote these ideas, we get grilled. "Exactly how will you accomplish this". And even when we offer answers and solutions, those aren't good enough, because they "won't work"

[Bill McBlueState]

5. this ties into Lakoff's framing issue

If you haven't, I recommend reading George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant. It's written for busy people, so it's a quick read. He has a lot to say about framing Democratic concerns as good for all Americans and developing a unifying progressive message.

[librechik]

6. I know--what a bitch!

and the only way I can think of getting back our good name is to buy one or two TV networks and rehabilitate ourselves in the media.

Unfortunately, the "new liberalism" is so firmly entrenched as a "fringe group" in the collective mind that no one believes it would be profitable to serve the (in actuality) HUGE majority of moderate to progressive citizens. Instead they make their profits from selling ads to corporations--mainly conservatives.

When businessmen refuse to make a profit and go with the political side instead, you know we are dealing with an irrational force.

We are so screwed.

[Armstead]

9. Our side has to force the media to respect Democrats

One of the things that the right wing has been very successful at is Mau Mauing the media.

We have to start doing the same. That's one reason that the Democratic Rebellion in the Senate last week was important. Try as the presstitutes did to marginalize it, they had to ultimately take it seriously.

Democrats have to become as scary as Republicans to the media. It can be done simply by refusing to go along with the cute little dismissals that the Presstitutes try to cook up to marginalize our side of the spectrum.

[librechik]

11. yeah, more of that please! n/t

[pberq]

7. Kick!!! - Recommended

[adigal]

8. I just put up a thread about how Liberalism

should be reclaimed, and, if I had a voice in the DNC, the commercial I would run.

[Ysolde]

12. cross-post it so that more will see it.

It's a good idea and these two align so well!

[adigal]

13. My Fantasy Commercial for liberalism

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2229919&mesg_id=2229919

Thanks!

[corkhead]

10. on target again Armstead

recommended

[Ysolde]

14. Perfect summation...

You hit the nail on the head. I get so frustrated when I hear my co-workers complaining about Corporate elites and the unpaid overtime required of us while outsourcing our jobs, but then those some folks turn around and vote for the party who created the problem and want more of the same. Exasperating!

[Armstead]

16. Yes there's a disconnect there

People who suffer from the right wing policies are often the first to support their own oppression.

If we can figure out how to crack that code, we'll be able to turn it around.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. To which party are you referring?

Sadly, your post could apply to either as they stand today.

[inchhigh]

15. What is the American Dream?

I think this is what is all comes down to. Democrats should be the protectors of the American Dream, that WE the people should govern ourselves. The American Experiment was not to see if we could build a better society by winning lotteries or allowing corporations to "own" their employees. There were no Lotteries in 1776 and many of the people who came here had already been "owned" somewhere else.

The American Dream was to give the PEOPLE a way to counter the influence of Monarchies, Monasteries and Money. We've been sucked into believing the Repub meme that Government is bad and can't do anything right. If Government really represented us, did what "we the people" wanted it to do, it couldn't do anything wrong!

It really is this simple; ANYTHING that puts power in the hands of of the people (government,) is good. Anything that puts it in the hands of corporations, churches, or cabals, is simply UNAMERICAN.

[mzmolly]

17. We really have to demonstrate how Bush weakens the middle class in this

country.

Great post! :toast:

We also have to come up with a few snappy talking points to get out our message.

http://www.now.org/press/08-04/08-27.html

"Yesterday's Census Bureau report—that for the third year in a row poverty in the U.S. has deepened—is a strong indicator of that we have a larger problem: we have a phantom economic recovery," said NOW Vice President for Action Olga Vives. "Despite the Bush administration's rhetoric that an economic recovery is underway, there are abundant signs that for most working families their situations are no better—and in many cases are far worse."

...

More here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bush+weakens+middle+class&btnG=Search

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. This is what is infuriating me in the UK.

These utter low-lifes, masquerading as the party of the people, have the wretched gall to boast that the country has never been richer.

IT DOESN'T MATTER TUPPENCE HOW RICH the country is, if the DISTRIBUTION OF THE COUNTRY'S WEALTH IS ALL CROOKED, skewed in favor of the "snouts in the trough" brigade, among the least deserving people n the country.

Blair and his cronies are classic beggars-on-horseback, supreme beneficiaries of the welfare state. He went to what you call a private school and mysteriously, what we call a public school, but his father was a self-made man, who started as a Communist (like his grandparents, who were trade-union leaders in the Glasgow shipyards), then became a barrister. His education therein would have been fully funded by the welfare state.

Cherie is today quoted in the Daily Mail as having stated that, had she not had her education paid for by the welfare state, she would probably now be working behind a shop counter. But there would be many others in his party of the same ilk.

They are evidently firmly persuaded that all the past generations of British people who shed bood sweat and tears, in peace and war, did so to make their good selves virtually the sole beneficiaries of its remaining wealth, with their own descendants thrown on the scrap- heap.

Actually, things are not going too well at present, since they have been remorselessly increasing taxes on everyone BUT the wealthiest, whose tax burden has been recklessly, shamelessly reduced. And all the synergies created by a healthy and happy country, its people properly educated, in full properly-remunerated employment (one parent working, to begin with) have been, and continue to be squandered, with all the resultant anomie, violence, degeneracy and alienation of the populace; the insane, putatively PC measures achieved by militant atheist, only increasing the level of disaffection and lawlessness. A Christian organisation was prevented from sending toys to orphans because of the fear of offending their religious sensibilities, kind of cultural imperialism, I suppose. Apparently images of the Cross in charity shops, etc, too. Crazy.

[MADem]

18. I am not arguing with your reasoning, but I would like to take back the

House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch. Might be a dream, but maybe not.

The Monkey won by running to the center, and then moving right (in all areas except fiscal discipline).

If we have to run to the center and then move to the left, that's fine with me.

I am in the mood for some decisive victory.

Mileage may vary, but that is my take.

[Armstead]

19. The issue is defining "the center"

Bush is far to the right of the real center, even on his best days.

Putting it anotehr way, there's an awful lot of ground in the "center." My contention is that we don't have to adopt faux conservatism. Instead, clearly liberal and reformist positions can fall well within the real center.

[MADem]

37. A very valid point, that

The only thing is, ya don't want to frighten the horses, is all I am saying. I say pick some of those bedrock issues that the broad majority can relate to, on either side of the right-left line, and HAMMER the hell out of them. Then, we can drag the party, like a drunk in a sleeping bag, well left of the fire!

We really are not in disagreement, I think--I may be a bit more cautious than you, but that is probably a function of my geezerdom!

[Armstead]

38. Well, at 53 I'm getting closer to geezerdom

Maybe the difference is that i want to see the Democrats start actually addressing the fundamental truths that more and Amricans realize. The system of corporate "free market" economics and extreme selfishness that has become dominant over the last 30 years IS NOT WORKING.

"The horses" are already frightened aboout that. But what makes them more afraid and/or cynical is that there is a sense that no one is looking out for their interests anymore.

That's the void the Democrats have to fill. As the defender of the average person and the disadvantaged. Our basic philosophy is perfectly suited to that. BUT we cannot do that until our leadertship at least acknowledges the problems that the Average Joe and Jane are already too well aware of.

To do that today does require taking a strong stand against the conservative/corporate status quo that has brought this mess on, instead of ignoring or being apologists for it.

[MADem]

39. I agree with that

The trick is to sell it to the idiots who continue to think, like that asshole who just won the lottery, that a brand new Hummer is only a ticket away!

The GOP relies on the hubris of their voters, who think one day that THEY will strike it rich, and have use for the tax breaks for the wealthy that they vote for, against their own interests.

They're more likely to be hit by lightning, twice....in a day!

[Armstead]

48. Yeah, that's a core of what Rush Limberger is always saying

He makes his listeners identify with a class to which they will most likely never belong.

"Don't let them hurt the rich, because someday you will be rich."

[radio4progressives]

21. Hear! Hear! n/t

:applause: :bounce: :applause: :toast: :applause: :toast: :bounce:


:kick:

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. This is precisely why we should not abandon the party

If liberals leave the Democratic Party because it's not liberal enough, it moves even farther to the right, and liberals look even more "radical." That leaves a strong right wing, a weak center, and a loosely connected left with no chance in hell of having a significant impact on national politics.

What we need to do is shape the Democratic Party ourselves through voting, campaigning, and grassroots organizing. Absolutely: define the center ourselves!

[Donna Zen]

24. What defines the center

...is what lies to either side of it. As the beltway Democrats gradually push what they see as the "left" out from under the umbrella, the center moves to what is now the right.

Last night I read a piece about how the DLC Dems. are being advised to jettison the left if they want to win. A big ah-ha went up from me as I realized what the DLC was up to lately. BTW, the piece was concocted by two Clinton (B) people. They stated that to win the party needed to attract the center and forget the left, but again, what is the center?

As the republicans learned with the defeat of GHWB, losing your base is a terrible thing. Learning their lesson, they set out to broaden their base by promoting it and playing to it.

It breaks my heart that my party treats me like a woman with three heads. Why? Because I opposed this war, because I believe in the "common good" over corporate greed, or maybe because I believe that government does have role to play just not in our bedrooms. Wow! What radical ideas!

If the DLC has its way, and just listen to what they have to say, then the center will be so far out of wack that the Constitution, that liberal document, may as well get pushed out with us. And when that happens, instead of a winning Democratic party, they will see the rise of a third party that will challenge them everyday.

[Armstead]

26. The DLC -- Democratic Loser CONservatives

I think as more and more people wise up to the tricks of the CONservative GOP, they are also going to wise up to the lameness of the CONservative DLC.

[sandnsea]

27. If the left were separate from Democrats

Then the Democrats/left wouldn't all be over at that end of the spectrum. The reason politics has moved right is because the fundies are a distinct voice, separate from centrist Republicans. If the left did that too, then the Democratic Party wouldn't be labeled at the left end of the spectrum. It helps to have a separate left. The left is not the Democratic Party and we need them to stop thinking that they are or that it's helpful when they're seen to be. We desperately need a Green Party that advocates a further left agenda, and doesn't bash Democrats, the same way the fundies have done for Republicans.

[mrgorth]

59. The problem

is that the Fundies are a subculture but not a different party. I fully agree that we need a loud, vibrant left but strong Green Party (and I love the Greens BTW) can be counterproductive as well.

[Donna Zen]

84. The regressive Fundy right

...are definitely part of the republican party. In fact, since they sat out the election in 1992, their voice is heard very clearly. The republicans melded their corporate wing with their Fundy wing, and pay close attention to both.

Since the DLC is hell bent on dumping what they perceive as the far-left, they may succeed in actually shrinking the base, and moving the center further to the right. Wow! that is quite an agenda.

Meanwhile, as the DLC refuses our urgent phone calls, they are more than happy to lap up any negative bush poll numbers. Here's the problem: without us, the very people that the DLC denounces, there would be no negative bush anything. And yes, this little game they are playing pisses me off.

When knowing that the president was lying when he took us to war, when knowing that the Constitution must be protected, when knowing that the "rule of law" not rule of dog-eat-dog is the basis of the American experience, and when knowing that the politicians work for us, not some empty suit on K-Street, makes someone a "leftist" then count me in. I hate labels, but I'll agree to this one, because it is me that the DLC wants to silence. Fine. Fuck 'em.

[Guaranteed]

25. Outstanding. nt

[JudyM]

28. Rah! Kick! n/t

[Clarkie1]

29. FANTASTIC Post!

Well-done.

Now, what we need is the right messenger, someone all those blue-collar, middle-America Americans will listen to, someone they have not already prejudged as being one of those "radical lefties."

hmmmm......

"I am not a politician; I am a soldier and you have my word."

"There is one thing the opponents of affirmative action have never wanted to admit: it works."

"Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated."

"We don't want to be the kind of country where grandmothers need to travel to Canada to afford the medicine they need to stay alive. We don't want to be the kind of country where school budgets get cut to pay for tax breaks so millionaires can have more leisure time. And we certainly don't want to be the kind of country where our own President implies that we're unpatriotic if we question the very policies that got us into this mess in the first place."

"As president, I will employ every weapon in the U.S. arsenal to beat back the forces of terrorism...But the weapons of our country must not be limited to our awesome military capabilities. They must involve the web of international relationships we have built over generations."

"I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That's what we created in this country. That's in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

-- Wes Clark

[bonzotex]

30. kick/ nom...n/t

[In Truth We Trust]

31. Absolutely!!!!

[Iowa]

32. Excellent post. Nominated.

If we stop letting the Republicans frame the issues and just speak the plain truth, we may finally get some traction. And you have defined the core issues we face about as well as I've seen it defined. Great post.

[ljm2002]

33. What a great post!

Tell it, brother!

[fearnobush]

34. Liberalism is the center.

Nuff said.

[Armstead]

35. very succinct and true

[xchrom]

36. and that is why i think ideas are more important

than personalities or even party.
not that i don't vote democratic -- but if we don't push ideas and ideals first -- then we become clintonized.

the oligarchs prayed for a clinton -- in my humble opinion -- and were very happy when they got one.

to the oligarchs -- the point to a republican presidency -- again in my humble opionion -- is the judiciary.

well said, armstead.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. This was the success of McCarthy and the far right.

They equated socialism with communism and declared communism to be all but illegal -- thus the left was completely severed from the political spectrum, leaving the traditional progressive center as the new left. The far right wackos that permeate the republican party today should be balanced by the communists and socialists, not by the mainstream dems. I think that, besides the politicians, a large part of the problem is television - it is such an expensive medium that there is no modern equivalent to the socialist newspapers that thrived right up to WW2.

As dems, we need to insist that progressivism is mainstream and centrist - and at the same time, encourage the lonely voices of the greens and socialists so as to add more weight to the left end of the spectrum.

I sometimes wonder if removing see-saws from public playgrounds was a right-wing plot. A wonderful visual example of political balance.

[wabranty]

41. First - Fire all of the Democratic Consultants . . .

Great post (although I disagree with your assessment of Clinton). You are right that liberals have allowed the Republicans to paint us as radicals when we support mainstream values but we also have to realize that Democratic leadership has helped the Republicans by consistently hiring and maintaining a group of campaign consultants that, since the 1980s, have prohibited Democratic candidates from taking strong stands and proclaiming our liberal values. Yes, we must start a grassroots campaign to reclaim liberalism as the true mainstream belief of America. But before we take on Rove and his gang, we need to clean our own house first.

References on how consultants lose campaigns for Democrats:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8848
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/01/the_democratic_.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.sullivan.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1130-23.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9895-2004Sep9.html

[democrank]

42. Bravo!

The utter BS spewed by the DLC, corporate media, rightwing Republicans and assorted fascists in their attempt to define the Democratic Party base is truly sickening.

We spent the majority of our time during the `04 election cycle trying to disprove we were: unpatriotic, unwilling to defend our country, against the troops, soft on terrorism, against religion and against any moral values guidance for our children. On top of that, we don`t go to church and we want Big Brother to buy a big screen tv for all minorities.

Almost all our elected leaders run from the "liberal" label like liberals are lepers who should be sent to an isolated island...far away from normal, good Americans.

I know, I know....why concern ourselves with a few people working in a chicken processing factory? That`s so not fun. Why yak about outsourcing? That`s just something the big boys have to do to keep our economy moving in the right direction.

I keep saying it over and over and over. As long as we`re willing to stand on the sidelines and let someone else define us (for the sake of comity) we deserve what we get. It`s time for action. Not a couple emails here and there, but a massive movement that says...THIS IS WHO WE ARE, THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE.

[Armstead]

45. I believe there already is a massive movement

There is a large movement of individuals and organizations at the grass roots who are uniting behind liberal and progressive values, and injecting it into the political system.

The problem, IMO, is that in terms of partisan politics, it's still a large maze of seperate and disconnected wires with no central place to plug into. That central political point SHOULD be the Democratic Party, as the main political expression of the segment of the population from center to left.

The solution, IMO, is for the Democratic Party as an organization, to connect with all of those movements. It has to knock down some of its walls and become a Big tent party once again.

That would both reinvigorate the Democratic party AND bring more coherence and power to the groundswell of grass roots movements.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. A masterly expose. And timely, too.

[dime.end]

46. 2 issues

1. What issues should Democrats stand behind
2. going for the Center

Democrats have been trying to answer the second issue, and ignoring the first issue. The assumption has been the Center is the answer.


Maybe its all backwards. Stand for what you believe and let the center find you. Americans find great comfort "being in the center" but are amazingly flexible in how they let that center be defined.

You lose your right to define the center when you don't believe in anything.

[Armstead]

47. Concenctration of Wealth and Power

IMO that is the core issue(s) that must be addressed.

Everything else flows from that -- environmentalism, healthcare, worker's rights, protecting the middle class and advancing the poor, the infrastructure, promoting a truly competative economy....etc.

Over the past 30 years, the countrbalances to concentration of both wealth and power have been removed. As a result, we are stuck with a baroque and oppressive private bureaucracy that is owned and controlled by a minority of elites. Everyone else -- the poor and middle class -- have been thrown to the woles.

To restore what MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IN requires an equally concerted effort to dismantle the excesses of this oligarchy, and construct (or reconstruct) a system that is more balanced and opoen and diverse.

With that as a framework, IMHO, most other specific issues can be related to that as a core message and goal that would attract anyone with common sense and an honest view of their own self-interest.

[dime.end]

50. social good

So you got a social problem.
You better be sure your fix is better than the original problem.

In Russia, they had this kind of problem.
The communist party came in and eliminated this amassed wealth.

The society the Russians ended up with was no better, and arguably worse. The people who had the power to take the wealth soon had all the power also. The common Russian was a victim of a whole new elite.

There is no reason to believe that just because a person is willing to take money from a rich person to believe that he is necessarily willing to work for the common good.

[Armstead]

63. America in the 1950's and 60's was hardly the Soviet Union

Those were not idyllic decades, but they were an era in which -- in a large sense -- capitalism and the advancement of a middle class co-existed much better than today.

Don't set up the phony dichotomy that anything that is not blindly pro-corporate is automatically anti-business or anti-capitalist.

[dime.end]

77. So something is wrong...

What what exactly is your fix?

There is no easy way to take a significant amount of money from people who already have it.

And there is no gaurentee that the people who obtain the loot will distribute it equitably.

Humans are pretty generally greedy. It seems that this sort of situation would attract the most greedy.

[Armstead]

78. If you don't know what has been proposed, maybe you should do some reading

There have been many alternatives proposed by many people to reverse the "trickle up" nd transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the top.

If you really want to know the answer, and don't just want to repeat conservative talking points, I can suggest a number of sources for you to find out what they are.

You can also start with DU. A lot of constructive ideas and suggestions float around on here.

[dime.end]

79. do you have a favorite?

can you suggest one of the more constructive?

I seriously believe this is a major problem, but I haven't come across any workable solutions.

Please share.

[Armstead]

80. William Greider

A columnist for The nation magazine.

http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/william_greider

he's both very good at analyzing the economy and proposing ideas to deal with problems.

You might not agree with all of his ideas, but he raises a lot of possible solutions.

He's just one. I'm busy with work right now, If you check back later I'll list some more.

[dime.end]

83. went to his site

http://www.williamgreider.com/archive.php?section=1

he had some interesting things to say.

I didn't find anything on how he plans to redistribute wealth.

[Armstead]

87. Try these

You should have checked my original link above. A lot of articles there.

Here are a few excerpts from his articles, with very specific ideas. There's a lot more where those came from.

I'd also suggest you stop thinking in terms of "redistribution" of money. The nature oif money is always being redistributed. It just depends on who is distributing it to whom.

As workers wages have been lowered, the loss is "redistributed" to the top, for example. When you have to pay $2.50 for the same gas you paid $1.40 for a year ago, your money is being redistributed to the oil companies.

Anyway, check out these excerpts or better yet read the original articles, and look at more from the page I references above.

-----

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051003/greider
A New New Deal

...More encouraging evidence of changed politics comes from the left. Some bold Democrats are doing what they haven't dared to do for many years, even decades: They are invoking their New Deal legacy and applying its liberal operating assumptions to the present crisis. In the totality of the Gulf Coast destruction, the economy and the society have been collapsed. As New Dealers understood, you cannot fix one without fixing the other. And only the federal government has the resources and authority to lead such a complex undertaking.

Senator Edward Kennedy calls for a "Gulf Coast Regional Redevelopment Authority," modeled after FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority, to lead the rebuilding. Former Senator John Edwards proposes a vast new jobs program, patterned after the New Deal's Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), in which the displaced and the poor are hired at living wages to clean up and rebuild their devastated communities. In the week after Katrina, Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Stephanie Tubbs Jones swiftly rounded up eighty-eight House co-sponsors, including some from Mississippi and Louisiana, for a similar initiative.

As the dimensions of this challenge become clearer, reformers will discover other New Deal models they can emulate and adapt to present circumstances. For instance, in the 1930s Roosevelt's Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a central player in rebuilding the industrial economy, because it acted like a public-spirited investment banker empowered to channel startup capital to collapsed companies, provide temporary protection from creditors and impose equitable terms on how the private firms relate to social priorities. This time cities and schools need similar help.

The government, meanwhile, must quickly become the employer of last resort across the region. Neither local school systems nor small-business employers can recover unless their communities have a large, reliable base of wage incomes--that is, government-financed jobs to sustain customers and taxpayers. You can't rebuild homes without tools and materials or temporary relief from mortgage defaults. You can't reopen schools if their tax base is gone. You can't prevent poor people from sliding back into desperate conditions unless government creates ladders of upward mobility. ....

----

The New Politics of Capital
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050228/greider

While dispirited Democrats stew over their party's uncertain future, they might check out an unusual cluster of progressive "activists" forming within their ranks. Some politicians with real muscle are pursuing far-ranging possibilities for reforming the economic system. Their potential for driving important change is not widely recognized, perhaps because the reformers are drawn from unglamorous backbenches of state government--treasurers, comptrollers, pension-fund trustees. Yet these state officials, unlike the minority Democrats in Congress, have decision-making power and control over enormous pools of investment capital. They are fiduciaries who manage the vast wealth stored by state governments in public-employee pension funds, invested in behalf of working people--civil servants, teachers and other types of public workers--who as future retirees are "beneficial owners" of the capital.

In the wake of Enron-style corporate scandals, in which public pension funds lost more than $300 billion, some of the leading funds have restyled themselves as more aggressive reformers. They are picking fights with Wall Street orthodoxy they long accepted, like the obsessive maximizing of short-term gains. More important, they are broadening their definition of fiduciary obligations to retirees by trying to enforce corporate responsibilities to serve society's long-term prospects. Instead of adhering passively to market dogma, the activist funds now regularly accuse corporate managements and major financial houses of negligently or willfully injuring the long-term interests of pension-fund investors, therefore injuring the economy and society, too. Pension-fund wealth is thus being mobilized as financial leverage to break up the narrow-minded thinking of finance capital and to confront the antisocial behavior of corporations.

The core players in this struggle are the largest and most progressive pension funds in the nation--anchored by blue-state constituencies in California and New York. The heavyweights are occasionally joined by a handful of smaller states like Connecticut, North Carolina, Iowa and a few others where pension officials are kindred spirits. Together and individually, their efforts are possibly the only reform impulse ascendant among Democrats. Party leaders trying to rethink strategies could learn a lot from these state-level officials (and come to their political defense, if they had the nerve). "We're thirty-year investors and we have to take the long view," California Treasurer Phil Angelides explains. "I believe one of the things that led to the corruption of recent years was this notion that infected America that wealth is somehow created in six to nine months and all that matters is whether this quarter's returns are better than last quarter's--not whether you are building companies and products and an economy that will have enduring value."

His resonant phrase--"enduring value"--effectively summarizes the reform objective. The reformers understand that the current laissez-faire, let-'er-rip system damages important social values--equitable treatment of workers, the environment and other commonly shared public assets--and that both workers and retirees (and the state taxpayers who put up the money for public pension funds) have a strong self-interest, personal as well as financial, in husbanding the distant future: a healthy society and strong economy for themselves and their families.


-----
The Soul of Capitalism
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030929/greider

...Organized labor is widely disparaged as a weak and anachronistic force in American life, but, in one important matter, the labor movement is the vanguard: determined to reposition the capital that effectively belongs to working Americans to serve the true interests of those workers and, therefore, society's long-term interests too. Labor may be greatly weakened from its heyday, but one thing it possesses is capital assets--the power of the $400 billion in union-managed pension funds and the trillions in public-employee pension funds, where labor unions can exercise real influence over the patterns of investment.

"It's very much a capitalist project; it's not socialist or revolutionary," says Ron Blackwell, head of the AFL-CIO's corporate affairs department. "It's a project to improve capitalism through direct intervention." Institutional investors, especially the pension funds, "are well designed to provide this important social value that we need--patient capital for long-term wealth creation," he says. "Instead, they are driving things down the low road, following the same destructive practices the capital markets favor. Our vision is to change that. Since it's our money, we would like to realign the private purpose of business, which is making money, with its broader social purpose, which is wealth creation, and to convince pension funds to recognize that real security for retirees requires wealth creation, not short-term gains." Wealth creation, as Keynes explained, means an economy that provides the material basis to support civilization--not the other way around.

[ProudDad]

85. I think you're wrong.

People are not generally greedy. Most people would give the other guy a hand up or a break. Most people would be satisfied if their needs are met and happy to see their neighbor's needs met.

This canard that people are naturally mean, greedy and selfish is the bullshit line the repukes would like everyone to believe.

I don't believe it. The Dems shouldn't either.

[dime.end]

94. this a serious issue...

People generally do things out of self-interest, not altruism.
Maybe greed is too strong a word,but the effect is the same.

For instance, it is well known that China is rife with abusive employment policies. The world would be better off without these practices. But people continue to buy their products because they are cheaper. Other examples of self-interest triumphing on public good would include a western lifestyle that is not sustainable by the planet as a whole, and SUV's.

All the people who buy cheap chinese merchandise, live a comfortable lifestyle,and buy SUVs may be good parents and nice to animalsm but they are not doing things out of altruism.

[mopinko]

49. i say, bring back the new deal

i would imagine that the vast majority of the new deal programs would work today. and the whole thing was run with perfectly scrupulous oversight.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

52. Excellent post. nt

[scubadude]

54. This has been discussed for quite a while on DU

By successfully changing the publics perception of the word "liberal", the repubs have moved the entire argument to the right. We have to take back the true middle, by moving the argument back to the left. We must wake people up!!!

[zanne]

55. My hero!

VERY well said,Armstead. As long as we let Republicans define us and our message, we fight amongst ourselves and we lose.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

56. What does the radical right and the radical left have in common?

Answer: When confronted with their own failures, they both blame Clinton.

This is just another DU post that pretends that we can grow the Democratic party by shrinking it. The concept that you have to appeal to both left and center is simply something you don't want to admit, especially since the Big Dog was so good at it.

And let's not forget who exactly marginalized the far left. It wasn't Clinton. They did so themselves, by embracing Ralph Nader and his absurd assertion that there really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, just because he gave you only 90% of what you wanted instead of 100%.

Well, after five years of Bush, do you STILL believe that?

Oh, but now that the majority of Americans are thinking they took the results of Clinton's brand of moderate liberalism for granted, the hard left wants to pretend that the public is really pining for Noam Chomsky.

Sorry guys. No dice. Democratic leftism didn't work in the 70s. Republicanism didn't work in the 80s or now. The only thing that did was Democratic centrism in the 90s. People who work hard, play fair, don't abuse employees or the environment, have a right to the wealth they've earned. Because THAT is the American Dream.

[Armstead]

60. Your definitions are wayyyy too narrow

What exactly is "left" in your mind? Is a committment to raising the minimum wage to at least the equivalent of what it was in 1969 (in 2005 dollars) too "radical" for you?

Do you think the brand of "Enrich the Frists" healthcare while the cost of healthcare for average people risesd beyond reach a good system?

Do you support the notion of fewer -- but larger -- corporations taking over most industries and sectors of the economy, while mid-sized businesses are driven out?

Do you agree that all of the media should be owned by a handful of conglomerates?

I could go on, but you get the point.

It's easy to tar any change as "radical left" but when you break it down to the issues that matter in real life to typical Americans, the notion of conservative "centrism" looks more and more hollow. And, in a political sense, more and more of a losing stance.

P.S. I think as a person, Ralph Nader has inserted his head too far up his butt in recent years. BUT IN TER<S OF POSITIONS, most of his positions on corporate accountability and protection of participatory democracy are what the Democratic party should be espousing. Rather than "radical left" it is simply a return to the values that Democrats once stood for.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

70. Definition of the the hard left? Easy: LIARS

The radical left does the exact same thing that Republicans do. They lie about the positions of the majority of the Democratic party.

Now of course, their lies are different ones than the far right uses. They pretend that centrist Democrats are cheering in the wings as Bush loots and destroys the legacy we left. But otherwise, the tactic is identical and used for identical reasons: they have no real rhetorical answer to the success that centrist progressivism has delivered to this country.

Just to be clear, centrist Democrats do not believe "Enrich the Frists" is a good system. The DLC has decried the systematic looting of the country and media concentration. Kerry campaigned on stopping tax breaks for companies that outsource American jobs. There has been near absolute opposition for the tax giveaways. And you can tell this by going to any moderate website and looking over the materials.

What we differ on is on whether businessmen are welcome in the Democratic party. The hard left, including the parent poster believes they're the enemy, no matter how much they would otherwise agree with Democratic positions. So Clinton's big-tent philosophy is dismissed as: "accomplice in this process, by aligning the Democratic Party with the elite oligarchs".

If we take the position that the rich aren't welcome in the Democratic party, we'll lose. Because even middle class Americans hope someday to be rich.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Armstead]

72. Your definition just got even narrower

Befoe you toss around words like liars, you might look at your own glass house.

I read the DLC website, and listen to the talking heads and follow the news. I'm not basing my opinion on some knee-jerk reaction or false stereotype of what the conservative centrists believe or do.

The frustration of many you brand "too left" is simply the residual frustration of YEARS of watching the so-called centrists eitehr push the Democratic Party onto the wrong side of issues, supporting conservative corporatist positions or not even bothering to put up a fight.

That started long before George W Bush was even a blip on the national radar.

Health care is just one example. After Clinton blew it with his original convoluted proposal, the Democrats basically walked away from the issue, and the health care system got more corporate and exclusionary in the 1990's as a result. A "Patients' Bill of Rights" is meaningless to the millions of people who can't even afford healthcare anymore.

Media consolidation is another one. Clinton and the Democrats should have stood foursquare against the so-called "reforms" of 1996. Clinton should have threatened a veto, or vetoed it if necessary. That was the worst piece of legislation in the world, delivering to the Clear Chennels and Murdochs unsurpasserd dominance over the basics of our national communication infrastructure.

It was like that on so many basic clear issues, where the centrists made the Democratic Party AWOL on core issues. They helped divert the American people from a fundamental restructuring of our economy into a highly polarized oligarchy in which the basis of the middle class has been gutted, of which Bush is merely a symptom.

It's also proven to be a losing position politically. If the Democrats have become so tepid that they cannot or will not make the very easy case against the lies of the GOP, then something's broke. And it isn't because the Democrats have become "too radical."

[Armstead]

75. P.S. It's BS to claim it is "anti business"

Anti-business is a right wing lie. It's also one of those false choices for Democrats I referred to originally.

In fact, many liberal and progressive positions are PRO-BUSINESS, in the sense of promoting and preserving a truly competative free-enterprise system. They support a system in which small and medium sized business can actually survive and prosper, and rise or fall on their own merits instead of being victims of monopolistic consolidation and corruption.

Corporatist policies are the ones that hurt many businesspeople. Allowing the formation of huge monopolistic conglomerates that eitehr swallow or crush all competition is ANTI-BUSINESS.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

81. So that's the beef?

This ratcheted up rhetoric is all about Clinton not continuing to try to push Hillarycare when we lost the House and much of the Senate over it?

Sheesh. Talk about living in your own world!

Same thing for being pro-business. You can't simultaneously claim to be pro-business while you're using insulting terms about businessmen. Admittedly it's no "I'm no racist; losta my friends are niggers", but it's down the same general lines.

And insofar as the Telecommunications Act of 1996, you are apparently completely unaware that Clinton did threaten to veto the first couple of versions of that bill. And, as Common Cause puts it, "so in that context, the bill could have been a lot worse". But of course, with the House in the hands of the Republicans, and the Senate trending that way too, he had to compromise somewhere.

All this makes a mockery of your assertion that centrists "cannot or will not make the very easy case against the lies of the GOP". We do. Constantly. We just do it in an adult fashion. The whole spoiled brat, anti-WTO rioting, 'corporations and half the Democratic party is evil' thing just doesn't go over very well with voters.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Here's another definition of "radical": people who see even a hint of compromise with your political opposition as an absolute betrayal, and a hallmark of utter evil. A behavior the far left shares with anti-abortion kooks, among others.

[Armstead]

82. Clinton caved too soon

Even if one can't win the fight, the opposition is always important.

And I'm all in favor of compromise. But only if it's really compromise and not caving into the oppposition.

It wasn't "all" about Hillarycare. The point was that reform of healthcare to make it universally affordable was one of the platforms that Clinton ran on. He and the Dems should have come back with another plan, and another and another. Instead they basically gave up on the issue and allowed the very problems they ran against to get worse.

Same thing with telecommunications reform. It was simply outlandish to allow a handful of conglomerates to take over the entire broadcasting system. Democrats hardly even raised it as a public issue, with a few notable exceptions like Byron Dorgan.

The ultimate problem is that the Democratic Establishment never exposed all that was wrong with the conservative agenda, and all the problems the Republicans were creating. Win or lose, they should have been loud in opposition to these things.

And if you can;t mazke the distinction between legitimate criticism of the excesses of certain sectors of the business community with blanket opposition to all business, that's your problem, not mone.

[ulysses]

88. .

p.s. Here's another definition of "radical": people who see even a hint of compromise with your political opposition as an absolute betrayal, and a hallmark of utter evil. A behavior the far left shares with anti-abortion kooks, among others.

In order to compromise, one must get something in return for what one gives up. Compromise may be annoying, but contrary to your (repeated) cariacature, the left understands its necessity when dealing with opponents who also understand its necessity.

There are currently two problems here:
1. "Compromise", under Clinton, left out the "getting something in return" part.
2. We are not dealing with opponents who understand the necessity of compromise.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

105. . ?

1. "Compromise", under Clinton, left out the "getting something in return" part.

...which is why you really can't tell the difference between the way America was under that wimp Clinton, and the way it is now. Yup. Republicans were incredibly happy with Clinton being president! They loved him! He rolled over so much, he was just like Bush! And Al Gore was just like Cheney!

Wheeeeee! It's fun living in your own world! The flowers are all telling me that Alabamans would vote Socialist, if only they knew - if only, if only - some Democrat would just tell them that Republicans aren't always nice! Or, if that didn't work immediately, maybe insult some businessmen, or posit conspiracy theories - like Israel and the US military was really behind 9/11. Because, as we all know, the media works overtime to make Democrats look good.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. I actually agree that there is no point in trying to find a compromise with Bush and his neo-con cabal, since he really doesn't believe in it. And we also need to head the nation unambiguously left to get back toward the center. But let's not mince words: part of the reason we're in this situation today is because of hard leftists who attacked Democrats and enabled Bush to get into office, just because they only got 90% of what they wanted.

[Armstead]

106. The "left" got more like 30 percent in the 90's

During the 90's the Clinton Democrats brought us NAFTA, privitization and Enronomics, enthusiasm for Alan Greenspan (screw workers to create a "good" economy), media consolidation, growing healthcare gap and much more.

I think you ought to stop using such a narrow definition of "left" because you seem to think that a hardline Communist is the same as a traditional liberal or pro-grassroots-business progressive.

The original point of my post was that we ought to stop creating such false distionctions. Things like basic notions of protecting the rights and economic position of workers is not a matter of "left" or "center."

If you'd stop thinking in such broad terms, you might saee that the "left" has more in common with you than you think.

[ulysses]

107. sigh

...which is why you really can't tell the difference between the way America was under that wimp Clinton, and the way it is now.

Your words, not mine.

<snip of "reality based" ad hominem screed>

But let's not mince words: part of the reason we're in this situation today is because of hard leftists who attacked Democrats and enabled Bush to get into office, just because they only got 90% of what they wanted.

As long as we're not mincing words, tell me this - where do you get your oft-repeated figure of 90%?

[ProudDad]

86. Democratic leftism in the 70s?

Are you talking about Nixon, Ford or Zbigniew Brzezinski?

Damn, talk about revisionist history....

[ComerPerro]

57. You're exactly right, but how do we accomplish this?

[David Van Os]

61. How Democrats Will Get the Heartland Back

Down in Texas, a lot of us grassroots Democrats have known for a long time that Democrats didn't lose the heartland vote over ideological refinements. They lost it over turning into the Wimp Party. People like fighters. They figure if you're not a fighter as a campaigner, then they sure won't be able to count on you to fight for them when in office.

Most Democrats are salt of the earth, but we let the Beltway Dem silk-tie bunch define us into being nothing but the cake frosting. I'm not trashing the empathy platform, I'm all for it. But we're not going to attain it with earnest pleas for mercy and compassion, or by campaigning as if we're presenting a book review. We have to fight for it, with strength and passion, demanding it as the just rights of the people! And we have to add to the empathy planks our tough and passionate fights for the preservation of Constitutional democracy and liberty, and our unflinching resolve to knock out corporate government mano a mano. Fighting Democrats are rising again. Fighting Democrats will win!

David Van Os
Democratic Candidate
For Texas Attorney General 2006

[ComerPerro]

66. For your sake, and for ours, I hope you do just that

Good luck.

And, if you are gonna use your real name you might want to make sure to always censor yourself.

There wasn't anything wrong with this post. But I'm just saying, so you know, in the future make sure you're careful.

:hi:

[Armstead]

67. "Not a book report" -- I love that analogy

It's very true that too many on our side have gotten too bloodless and lost sight of the core emotional basis of issues.

That's an area where the GOP has done much better then us. They attach issues to emotions. Even though their use of that strategy is based on falsehoods, there's no reasons we can't do the same thing for the truth.

[Armstead]

62. Start with some straight talk and honest soul searching

And then I'd suggest the poo-bahs listen to the SUBSTANCE of folks like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy and Tom Harken and otehr liberals and progressives. (They are a varied lot, but they are all based on the principles of clear liberalism).

If you sepertate what they stand for -- rather then the personal style and image -- most of their economic positions are very mainstream in a classic sense. They only seem radical or "too left" in comparison to the corporate right that the elite have chosen to define as "the center."

[ComerPerro]

64. Well, yes, but how do communicate this message. How do we redefine "center

[Armstead]

68. Maybe start by forgeting about "the center"

Most people consider themselves to be in "the center." It's chasing shadows to try and catch a concept that is just vapor.

The real question is not "how to appeal to the center." It's: "What can we do for you and for the betterment of everyone?"

[ComerPerro]

69. Well, true. That could be spun into a great campaign slogan

[kentuck]

65. Dems need to verbalize a liberal agenda....

and steal it back from the "compassionate conservatives".

[mzmolly]

71. Absolutely. Let's do it here!

:toast:

[dennisnyc]

91. Lakoff is providing a forum for this, the Progressive Manuel Project

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/press/releases/manual

Open-Source Development Approach

Our approach to completing the Progressive Manual will be highly collaborative, to bring together the best ideas from across the progressive community and build alignment among important constituencies. We’re borrowing approaches proven in the open source software movement to do this. By collaborating with people who work day-to-day for progressive change, we will validate the ideas as they are developed, and ensure the usefulness and relevance of our written product. This open-source approach distinguishes Rockridge from many think tanks in which the research and writing is done by a small, closed group.

Can DU help with this?

[mzmolly]

93. Yes, start a thread! Great news.

:toast:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. Another excellent analysis, Armstead

and worth at least twenty of the "choose one empty suit from Column A and another empty suit from Column B for victory in 2008" threads that are littering this forum like junk mail.

[Armstead]

74. Thanks...We usually see eye to eye

Not always, but a hefty percentage of the time. :)

[Uncle Joe]

76. Excellent post, I would recommend it, but time has expired.

:kick:

[Poet Lariat]

89. "Democrats must now find and grow their leaders"

Saw this post written yesterday on the subject of Voter Anger at:

http://carol-sandy1.blogspot.com

Thought it was appropriate in light of some of the replies to your Original Message.

"On the question of which party "has stronger leaders," I believe that in this instance Republican traits seen as "strength" are indeed something different. I believe the country began to get it wrong a few months after 9/11. The natural and normal fears engendered by that terrible attack made us a little blind to what we were seeing as strength. Stubbornness, intransigence, arrogance, braggadocio and swagger are qualities that are limiting to good leadership, not enhancing. Our current president's numbers have rapidly dropped in recent months in part because he is now seen as weak and inept. Democrats must now find and grow their leaders. The public is receptive to this, right now, beginning on election day tomorrow, as a matter of fact".

[dennisnyc]

90. It Is a Crock! Most Americans agree with Progressive Values!

We just have to have strong candidates (Hackett-yes; Ferrer-no) who will state clearly what they believe in. Look at Bernie Sanders, practically a Socialist and beloved by his constituents for his candor and the fight he has in is belly for their best interest.

[mitchum]

92. kicking a great post

[Demi_Babe]

95. kickin it again...

it is a great post!

[WillyT]

96. Most Excellent Post !!! - Bravo !!!

:kick::yourock::kick:

:patriot:

[Raiden]

97. What an excellent analysis

BIG KICK

:kick:

[SeanQ]

98. Spot on!!!

[blm]

99. The actual platform is right where it should be for a TRULY bigtent party.

Those who complain we need to move further right are wrong. Those who claim we need to move further left are wrong.

What we do need to do is expose the GOPcontrol of the media and the voting machines. They are the ones who distort the party, its leaders and its agenda.

[Armstead]

100. I think we need to look BELOW those issues

You are correct that media mind control and privatizing of elections are major problems.

However -- like GW Bush himself -- they are merely SYMPTOMS of more fundamental and systemic problems.

Media control, for example, is just an example of a pattern that has occurred in all industries. Where once there were more companies of all sizes actually competing, we now have a few huge companies dominating particular industries, while the smaller and mid-sized companies have either been bought out or squeezed out.

It's happened in banking, healthcare, manufacturing and most otehr industries.

Similarly, the notion that the process of collecting and counting votes has been handed over to private companies is an example of privatization. It's the same reason we see halliburton getting fat contracts to run the military and rebuild New Orleans. It's the same basic principle that brought us Enron.

In otehr words, Democrats have to stop looking at specific symbols, and start talking about the root causes of problems like those you mentioned.

[blm]

101. And the only reason they are UNDER the radar is the media decides what is

ON the radar.

Gay marriage, anyone? Have a slice of Bin Laden video with your abortion kool-aid.

[Armstead]

102. Democrats have to start pounding omn the media itself too

Democrats still have the power to set the agenda, instead of always putting out fires created by the media and GOP.

If Democratic leaders demand to get time on talk shows to press their issues and also do more "stunts" like last Tuesday's rebellion,. they will eventually force the media to give them airtime and start treating them with respect.

Don't forget, the media is well aware that while the democrats are down at the moment, they still have a lot of power in terms of regulations. Plus they also recognize that they will some day be at the mercy of Democrats.

Howard Dean does that well. he doesn;t let interviewers set his agenda. Harry reid's "Are you kidding?" response to a reporter's stupid question was anotehr example.

But the key to that is a determination by Democrats to actually raise the issues we are talking about.

[blm]

103. This is now the time to do it.

Almost every fact that is hurting Bush today was KNOWN by the media for the last 2 or 3 years.

It took Katrina to sweep away the media's ability to spin for Bush.

Dems need to unmask the media's role in Bush's deceits.

[boobooday]

104. Absolutely

You are totally right. The far-right is now portrayed as the center, and the real extremists are in control.

The most right-wing Democrats are portrayed as radical leftists in their rhetoric, and we have been letting them get away with it.

We ARE the center.