will you demand liberal themes from a moderate/conservative dem...

[bridgit]

congress; there's indication that the congress will not be 'liberal/progressive' at least as are notions expressed here, are you able to accept a centrist america governed from somewhere nearer a state of balance

[Armstead]

1. On issues of Wealth and Power -- Yes

Democrats have to go back to being the liberal party that defends the interests of the middle class, economic diversity and disadvantaged against the elite oligarchs and monopolists.

[HereSince1628]

2. If Conyers gets the Judiciary chair...I can live with it...do you really

think Pelosi is going to let anti-abortion or anti-gay legislation go forward? I don't.

I'm looking for her to do what she has said she is looking to create...2 years of lame duck do-nothingness.

Can I live with that?

Well, yes, if we can expose the scope of the national crisis that Bush has created.

20 months from now I'd not mind seeing a string of committee reports finally seeing the light of day on the incompetent response to 911 warnings, pre-war intelligence manipulation, the illegalities of the K-Street project, indifference to the destruction of New Orleans and the gulf coast, corrupt management of the Iraq occupation, destruction of the competency of regulatory agencies etc. etc.

[bridgit]

5. gee, ya'know, for me "anti-abortion or anti-gay legislation go(ing) forward"...

is the middle...must be my cali up-bringing :shrug: but i hear you on the rest as well as i'm ready for some splain'in, Lucy :thumbsup:

[acmejack]

3. They'll ignore us and govern as they wish.

I shouldn't listen to weekly standard people and read about the the 68 DNC/The whole World's watching!. I get (more) depressed.

[magellan]

4. If you consider being anti-torture, anti-unitary executive "liberal"

Yes. I'll continue to demand whoever's in Congress uphold the Constitution instead of selling themselves and us out for their own political ambitions.

[bridgit]

7. constitutional principles are the center balance, they are neither left...

nor right imo

[magellan]

9. Exactly so

But there are a lot of people on the Right who would disagree, and a bi-partisan majority Congress who are evidently willing to exchange those principles for votes.

[bridgit]

13. 'the right' are usurpers, it would be suggested they no longer do so...

by means of insatiable tinkering, for they so willing to exchange principles for votes...there are sins of omission

[elocs]

6. Here is a newsflash: THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AREN'T LIBERAL!

As Unpopular as it may be we need to be realistic and pragmatic about our Liberal politics. Most Democrats are not Liberal much less most Americans as a whole. If we try to force Liberal ideas down the throats of Americans our rise to power will be a short one. I would rather see us nudge Americans and moderate/conservative Democrats further left. I would rather keep a moderate/conservative representative in office than demand they move to the left which might put their seat at risk in a conservative district. If a representative has a "D" after their name then they still count as being on our team and to maintain our control in Congress. It would be arrogant of us as Liberals, being a minority within our own party, to expect and demand a hard move to the left. We need to select issues that are acceptable to most Democrats and even some Republicans and move Americans and our representatives in that direction. Then after we have those we should find a few more. This would be a way to shift all of America more to the left.

[bridgit]

8. neither are they imo 'conservative' by what may be your dictionary...

i appreciate your point of view :)

[elocs]

27. Thanks. I would demand what I think they can give

and still stay in office. A Republican in a congressional seat does not help the Democratic majority in Congress. If a member of Congress represents a district which is mostly conservative, in the classic definition of what most people consider to be conservative, it might be unreasonable to ask them to move toward more liberal positions. Especially if it results in their being defeated by a Republican in the next election.

[magellan]

11. But they are progressive

Or we wouldn't have the consistently overwhelming national support for social security and national health care proposals, abortion rights, and environmental concerns, among others.

[elocs]

23. Exactly.

Start with the goals and issues that have the most support overall. Move left bit by bit, or Democrats won't be in a position to move anywhere. Also, don't forget about local and state races and offices. I think we all know now how important the office of state Secretary of State is even if we never thought about it before.

[boolean]

34. Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit

Bullshit.

[elocs]

36. Are you referring to your eloquent and well written post?

Really, you can do better than that. Well, then again, maybe you can't.

[MiniMe]

10. I want democratic themes, not Unitary Executive themes n/t

[bridgit]

31. that sounds right to me...

:)

[Homer Wells]

12. In the next two years

the primary demand I will have is for the new Congress to roll back the atrocious legislation that Bush Co has saddled us with.

My next demand would be a series of deep investigations regarding the different war crimes committed by this administration, to include our involvement in Iraq, Iran, and others, domestic spying, and a whole host of other possibly unConstitutional acts.

As to liberal agendas, I hope to see some of the liberal causes brought forward, but I have little hope that anything can occur until the country as a whole becomes more socially aware.

This last part I expect to occur about the same time donkeys nest in my chimney!!:sarcasm:

[aikoaiko]

14. I demand centrist leadership... with a lean to the left.

:D

[rucky]

15. I expect unity.

meaning, if a progressive congressperson introduces a progressive bill, it will be supported by all/most of the Democrats.

[bridgit]

16. unity would be a welcome change of pace...

[Telly Savalas]

17. Bipartisanship would be nice too.

meaning, if a progressive congressperson introduces a progressive bill, Republicans will put their petty partisan bickering aside and support the bill.

[dkofos]

18. I will demand the assholes listen to the fucking people they are

supposed to represent.

We need to quit thinking in terms liberal, moderate, and
condervative, and start thinking in terms of what is good for the
American people.

[Jed Dilligan]

19. What's a liberal theme?

Ending the war?

[bridgit]

21. which war?

should some wars continue to rage, while others are stopped? stop all war? or are some wars reasonable, and others not? is war ever reasonable? or is war the absence of reason itself?

[Jed Dilligan]

33. The Iraq War--

the war which is ours to end.

[bridgit]

35. without doubt end what never should have began agreed...

[mmonk]

20. I will not bend on constitutional matters

or dishonest foreign policy. I will fight any that go along with furthering the nominations of rightwing judges that will erode civil rights. I will fight the further dismanteling of our meagar safety net. Outside of that, if they want to play around with the right on certain economic policies, there isn't much I can do but I will concentrate on the aforementioned including impeachment and/or indictments of government officials that have betrayed the trust.

[bridgit]

22. that makes sense to me...

[porphyrian]

24. I'm tired of having no representation in government...

...and I vote. Every election, I'm asked to choose between shit sandwiches to bite, and I'm really fucking sick of it. I want my government to represent me, and I'm tired of having to be the one who makes concessions all the time. It's not like "liberal" is all that radical. When's the last time moderates had to tolerate a liberal in office?

And, no, I can't run myself.

[bridgit]

30. me too..

[sendero]

25. No...

... but I expect them to be against the Bush** agenda, which is 100% wack-job right.

And I expect the whole party to stand together on the really important votes.

[bridgit]

29. with oversight comes just what these usurpers have been doing...

and with that knowledge will come many more disappointed republicans, independents, and cross over dems that will finally know just how wasted their votes were all along

[LWolf]

26. Your damned right, I will.

If I'm not going to demand liberal/progressive action on issues, why the hell would I bother to vote or take part in politics at all? So I can work for something I don't want and don't support? That makes no sense.

Like any other term, the term "balance" can be spun more than one way, and manipulated to make more than one point.

I like balance. I'm actually really good at working with people I don't agree with. I've been doing it all of my life. It's because I can almost always see more than one side of any issue, and take that into account. I've seen the way that "extremes" can sometimes trump common sense. I've also seen the way that using the term "extremist" to categorize the opposition can keep things stagnant. Balance is not stagnant. Much of the "centrist" agenda is one of stagnancy. One of avoiding needed change so that those benefitting from a particular situation can do so as long as possible. One of making cosmetic changes to pacify those advocating change, making it "look" a little better, while keeping the underlying foundation of corruption. I'm not going to sit back and applaud a bunch of centrists for doing so, no matter what party they happen to be registered with or elected from.

Balance can also mean deliberate, thoughtful change that takes the big picture, and all the ramifications, into account. "Liberal/progressive" change can be balanced and thoughtful. The point here is that I want to move forward and to enact positive change that does more than restructure the surface appearance of an issue. You're damned right, I'll be holding any "moderate/centrist" conservative leaning Democrats' feet to the fire. It's either that or I will no longer vote for Democrats. Which would you prefer?

[bridgit]

28. i'm going to disagree here, balance is balance; if deliberate by your...

definition means "thoughtful change", then by your definition bush was being thoughtful by going into iraq; when we all know he was being thought-less

and that is why i council balance plain & simple so that if balance is a landscape absent people on either side running all around flailing their hands in the air yelling with their hair on fire then i am for that = a balanced system of civil governance

[LWolf]

32. "deliberate" can also be spun.

"Deliberate" is often, incorrectly imo, used to mean "on purpose," which is not the same thing as taking time to give careful thought. You can do something "on purpose" without caring about the effects, which means that you either didn't deliberate, or you just frankly don't care, or both.

Bush may or may not have been "deliberate" in deciding to go into Iraq. Many who control his strings obviously were; they'd been thinking and planning a long time, if you read PNAC. That doesn't mean that their plans and actions are "thoughtful" in the sense of considering others, or that the changes they wish to enact will be positive for any but themselves.