This election was not a mandate for liberalism it was a mandate for change.

[Perky]

We did not beat conservatives by being liberal Rahm Emmanuel recruited candidates who were moderates and we beat neocons in the House by appearing reasonable.


Look at the Senate. Jim Webb? Bob Casey? Lieberman? Harold Ford (almost). John Tester? None of these guys are liberals. They are however Democrats.

The only liberal Democrate who took away a Senate seat from a republican was Sheldon Whitehouse and he beat another liberal.

Look at votes on Gay marriage across the country. The Country is not liberal. It did however create an equivical mandate to get away from extreme right-wing politics.

[William769]

1. I have to agree with you.

[mmonk]

2. Shut out a significant part of your base or take it for granted,

lose in '08.

[Mike Daniels]

38. Alienate the moderates and Independents

and you will lose the election regardless of your base.

Neither base has the majority needed to win elections and it's when the national parties forget that fact that they lose.

[mmonk]

46. The "conservative" republicans have already alienated

the moderates and independents.

[ThomCat]

108. Yeah, that's wonderful

Always go with the "moderates" and you sacrifice all the issues. "Moderates" don't do jack shit to help the poor, the disabled, GLBT people, most imigrants, etc. And they do pretty damned little to help anyone else.

In my opinion, the moderates don't stand for anything and all the efforts at catering to moderates is what pushed the entire party so damned far to the right.

We need to pull the center back towards the left, and that won't happen unless we have a strong left wing to do the pulling.

[SwingVoter2006]

125. Incorrect!

ThomCat, do you even know any real "moderates"? Your tirade against moderates tells me that you do not.

If you want to duplicate the failed extremism of the Right, but do it in a Leftward fashion, you will see your Democrat Revolution shrivel on the vine.

Oh. And my family and I give thousands (yes thousands) of dollars every year through our church to directly benefit the poor. Early in my marriage we relied on that same church fund for support, food, etc. We like to return the favor now that we are more well off.

[ThomCat]

126. Maybe you disagree

but I'm not incorrect.

The civil rights movement would never have succeeded if moderates had their way at the time. The anti-war movement would not have had an impact in the 60s and early 70s if moderates had their way at the time. Moderates don't stand up and fight. You clearly don't know history.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iris]

148. well said, ThomCat. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

164. "Your Democrat revolution"?

As a sometime churchgoer I must rebel against your implication that the values of the left are immoderate.

And I have seen churches (including my own) sell the poor short way too many times, if and when it runs afoul of the chattering class in the neighborhood in its assistance efforts, the pastor will get ousted.

[SwingVoter2006]

173. Never said liberal values are "immoderate"

I was merely pointing out that, as a self-identified moderate, my family and I don't just sit around in easy chairs burping and farting and scratching our rears. We've seen hardscrabble. We've seen tough times. And the truth is, our church was the only thing going for us. That, and family. The government didn't give a shit. And in my church our bishopric is not a politicized position, which can be leaned on by cranky neighborhood folk. When we needed it, our church fed us. They kept food in our bellies when we were scrambling to pick up holiday work and find a place to live at the same time. This was in late '94, about as rock bottom as our financial situation has ever gotten. And my wife had terrible asthma problems to boot. I recall several hospital ER visits and several thousand dollars of medical bills piling up.

Sorry, this is going down a weird tangent. Don't wanna bore with details. Suffice to say, our church came through, so we like to come through for our church, because we know the money will be converted into tangible food and goods that will help other families who are currently stuck like we were once stuck. And if that's not showing demonstrable "liberalness" then I don't know what is.

[Jamastiene]

176. Ahem,

I know real moderates and real conservatives and I agree that we should take the party to a left of center. Taking the party left of center is not the same as the extreme right as it has been for the past umteenth years now, nor is it the same as an "extreme left." Just because something is not center to right doesn't mean it's exreme left, for the record. Btw, taking the party to the extreme right sure didn't work. I'm beginning to see more and more that "moderate" is code for right wing lite. Why bother?

[LostinVA]

181. Of course he knows real moderates

Like I said, we know THomCat and. We don't know you. And, you act like NO moderate I know... and I know alot.

[SwingVoter2006]

190. Sad!

I think I am about done arguing this.

Go ahead and have your exclusive, members-only club.

I've done enough in my life that I don't need to prove jack shit to some embittered, faceless person on a message board.

Keep pissing down the necks of the noobs and the moderates. Go right ahead.

[Sapphocrat]

201. Are you calling LostinVA...

...an "embittered, faceless person"?

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jamastiene]

206. "noobs and the moderates"...Incorrect.

There are plenty of people in both of those categories whose necks we hug on a routine basis. You get what you give. It wouldn't hurt for you to remember that next time you try to "discuss."

[Name removed]

221. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ecstatic]

272. Don't let a select few turn you off from the site

They do not speak for everyone here, and I'm noticing an unfortunate pattern all across DU boards of a select few posters ganging up on newbies and/or anyone who says anything that they don't approve of.

[Kerrytravelers]

273. So you advocate the tirade above?

Do a search and you will see a history of being inflammatory and insulting.



P.S. BleedingHeartRN is quite new, on this very thread, and doing quite well. So, maybe it's something a bit more.

[ecstatic]

277. per your advice, I read the entire exchange

and found it shameful. The guy/gal said s/he voted for Democrats. That "swing voter" and millions of others are responsible for giving us power again. Do I want our party to jerk to the right? Hell no, even Joe Lieberman's values would be an unacceptable shift. Yet, I saw no indication of that being advocated by the new person or the OP. I guess it all depends on what is meant by moderate. When I think of the term, I think about folks like Howard Dean--liberals with common sense who know how to choose their battles carefully and balance budgets. A realist liberal-- who understands that in order to defeat the enemy, conversations and discussions must be framed in a certain way to fool the enemy into complacency.

[Kerrytravelers]

280. I think we're talking about the same thread.

If it was regarding the attitudes of people toward GLBT people, then it was shameful.

I don't think of moderate as a realist liberal or a liberal with common sense, as I don't find liberals in general devoid of common sense or a sense of reality. A moderate is someone more in the middle. They can swing from party to party. And this time, they swung more our way. But, it was certainly due in part to the hard work of the activists. If we'd sat on our hands and did nothing, there is a very good chance that the sheeple would have stayed asleep.

[Sapphocrat]

188. Bobby Kennedy...

...is now spinning like a top in his grave.

[sampsonblk]

231. Moderates can never be pleased

They are all different. You can talk to a liberal, because you know where he stands. Ditto for a right winger. But what on earth is a "moderate?" That doesn;t indicate a set of beliefs. It indicates a lack of a set of strong beliefs.

Its someone who either doesn't stand for anything too strongly or doesn't know exactly what he stands for. Show me a hardcore moderate candidate, and I'll show you someone who will say anything to get into office.

[Jamastiene]

238. A moderate might be pro gun control/anti gun control,

pro-choice/anti-choice, pro equal rights/anti equal rights, pro this/anti that. You just never know what to expect. It's like you have to go through a laundry list to figure out exactly where they are coming from at times.

The untrustworthy moderates though are the ones who sit on the fence and can't decide who to vote for (so they literally flip a coin) or go along with the flow of whoever is in charge at the moment. I'd be willing to bet everyone is really a moderate, when the laundry list was completed, but it's the moderates who vote for whoever they "like best" at the moment that I don't trust.

You make a fine point there. :hi:

Edited:
Oops, found a typo.

[sampsonblk]

260. I thnk you said it a bit better-nt

nt

[zanne]

295. I think we've turned into The "Kinda" Democratic Underground....

[ecstatic]

271. Welcome to DU, SwingVoter2006!! nt

[kath]

287. But how much of the money that you give to the church goes to paying off the

church's mortgage, paying the pastor and other b.s. instead of going to the poor. And does that money only go to people of the same denomination/religion as your congregation?

Why not give to organizations that help people without any religious strings attached? Such as Doctors Without Borders, CARE, HAbitat for Humanity, etc.

(IMO, putting money in the envelope to pay off the church's mortgage, pastor, etc, should NOT be considered a charitable donation for tax purposes.)

[kath]

288. Helloooo - its DEMOCRATIC revolution, not Democrat revolution.

Just like DEMOCRATIC PARTY, not "Democrat Party".

[SwingVoter2006]

124. I agree!

Mike Daniels, well put. And totally correct.

[ThomCat]

127. You seem to love to announce

who is correct and incorrect. Do you have some direct connection to rightness that the rest of us missed? :eyes:

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

131. "fringe wedge issues from the edges"

Like civil rights, education, healthcare, labor rights, regulation of corporations and all that other stuff that liberals always take the lead on?
:eyes:

While you're taking credit for the entire victory, why not tell us what you've done other than vote? We "radicals" tend to consider voting the minimum, not the maximum that we should do to support our issues.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

180. Not radical, wheels-off ideologically crazy change.=screw civil rights

Or, maybe I should say screwn civil rights, so the poster understands better.

[Jamastiene]

187. ...

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

192. That made me laugh, too

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

249. Wait a minute, you just called the Democratic Party a fringe group?

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

250. It's the DEMOCRAT Party, missy!

You extremist!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

253. I'm screwn!

[LostinVA]

254. Ye're screwn, lassie!

[Sapphocrat]

205. ...

:spray:

[Kerrytravelers]

234. Yeah. Get a brain, you morans!

:rofl:

He's so screwn. :rofl:

I wonder if they have the "Check Spelling" feature on "that other site." Maybe we should ask our new friend. :shrug:

[LostinVA]

243. Giggle

[Bluebear]

303. :)

[Sapphocrat]

195. "Democrat Revolution"?

You meant to say "Democratic," didn't you?

Oh, wait, there it is a second time. Hmm.

[LostinVA]

197. Oooh -- I didn't catch that!

Good catch, Sapphocrat.

[Jamastiene]

200. Actually, you can paddle with one oar and not go in circles.

And we've had to do that for years now. We are used to it now. All we have to do is paddle on one side then switch and paddle on the other side. Unfortunately, there are others around trying to take our one paddle away all the time. I guess that is why YOU keep bringing up the term noob. That is coming from you. We are quite used to being told what we are and what we think, when we know already what we are and what we think. So when you come in here and do that, we know what to say to you because we've enlightened more stubborn people before.

[BleedingHeartRN]

211. If you're looking for a big pat on the back for Tuesday's victory...

Here ya go. But along with it, you can also take credit for buying into the fear-mongering tactics of the wing-nuts that kept Bush Co. in power in 04. It only took "the moderates" as you've monikered yourself, 6 years to come to same conclusion we liberals/progressives/democrats had years ago.

[LostinVA]

212. Oooh! Another Tarheel liberal!

You go, BHRN!

[BleedingHeartRN]

and I'm a newbie ;)

[LostinVA]

220. I noticed that -- proves our point, eh?

Welcome!

I lived in NC for 17 years, and my parents still do -- so I feel part Tarheel.

[BleedingHeartRN]

227. I've only been here 4 years, but I consider it home

Originally, I guess you could call me a "bluegrass" liberal. Thanks for the extremely warm welcome - no chill in air here!

[Kerrytravelers]

235. Bluegrass? As in Kentucky?

That's where my family is from! And ALiberalSailor is from there, too!

ANd isn't it funny, at 40 posts, I've actually seen you around quite a bit and somehow, no one has pointed out that you are new in a negative light. Gee, funny, that.

[Jamastiene]

222. And Welcome to DU.

Might I say, you have fine debating skills from what I have seen so far? You made your point very succinctly. I'm impressed.

[BleedingHeartRN]

229. Why thank you! Right back 'atcha.

I've debated a time or two before. I just feel so much more at home here. You guys are great!

[Jamastiene]

219. When tarheels are liberals, we mean it.

:hi:

[Jamastiene]

218. Very well said.

:yourock:

[Sapphocrat]

194. A-farking-MEN.

We "radicals" tend to consider voting the minimum, not the maximum that we should do to support our issues.

Damned right. The VERY minimum.

This should be etched into the medicine-cabinet mirror of every self-proclaimed "moderate" in the country... but only because I don't believe in forced tattooing.

[Kerrytravelers]

246. Wedge fringe issues... let us look into our new friend's posting history...

On concerning the treatment of GLBT people:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2665838#2671997

Apparently, gay kissing isn't "as shocking" as other things one might see at a Pride Parade. Funny, I've seen Pride parades and I don't see the naked dildo people at such a high hate os the media and the "Christian" right like to claim is there.




When someone is this argumentative and this insulting, I don't think pulling up their post history is out of bounds at all.

[LostinVA]

247. Oh boy -- I didn't realize that was him

[Kerrytravelers]

251. Is that pizza I'm smelling?

Maybe I'll go for some pineapple on my Tombstone!

[Leopolds Ghost]

167. Why be moderate? As a small-government leftie

I want the debt ELIMINATED entirely.

Big government exists to protect us from the depredations of unchecked multinational corporate ideology, which needs to be reduced or eliminated as well.

Best way to do that is to restore the original focus of the Federal Government which was to regulate tarriffs.

It is unchristian and unpatriotic to extol the virtues of multinational corporations and the tricke-down "house slave" economy on which white collar moderates have become loyal to, and dependent on.

"Moderates" today romanticize Applebees and cube jobs like their grandfather romanticized working for Big Steel. There is nothing ennobling about being white-collar in today's economy. We have become addicted to "big government spending" as a sort of security blanket without which our present wasteful, non-production economy, which consumes 75% of the world's resources without producing anything (thanks to manufacturing cutbacks) would collapse, New Orleans-style. Do you want to live in a society where ID checks are required to enter schools, to cross an intersection in DC, to vote, lest "terror" upset the delicate balance of a society seemingly on edge? Is that moderate?

[Sapphocrat]

232. Nicely said, LG!

And pert'near poetic! :)

[Sapphocrat]

186. Hey, it's up to you.

You can alienate the hardcore DLCers who will still vote Dem no matter what, or you can tell the lefties/libbies/LGBTs who have been blindly faithful and trusting for the last eight-brazillion election cycles to go get knotted, and risk losing a half-dozen-million votes.

I think your best best is to stop worrying about your aces-in-the-hole, and start worrying about courting the factions with the tire treads all over their backs.

Where are the moderates going to go? The Green Party? :rofl:

[Kerrytravelers]

237. Oh, honey, that's another thread that got insane.

But, apparently, I am to write very long winded posts to "clean up my act," because, apparently, I don't write enough. :eyes: Truly laughable and foolish. And again, one guy arguing with quite a number of DUers. Sad, funny and now... <wait for it>...<you know it's coming>... locked because it's flamebait.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. what should we do now? roll over?

we need to start framing our own debates...and stop rolling over.

[Lerkfish]

4. I hearily DISagree. I think the progressive and liberal movement MADE

this change possible. Without Cindy Sheehan, we would not even have been allowed to criticize the war. Are you so quick to forget how much of a turning point that was?

there were others, ALL accomplished by the hard work of liberals. The centrists keep arguing to compromise and do nothing but appease the republicans.

sorry, no go here. You don't get to crap on us liberals while we were trying to affect change and THEN TAKE CREDIT FOR IT.

nosireee

(addressed not to the OP but all the centrists here that told us to shut up as late as a year ago)

[Perky]

9. I give liberals their due on speaking out...but

Look at the candidates who won. with the exception of Whitehous and SHerrod Brown they are all moderates.

[mmonk]

15. Due primarily to geography but don't let that cloud your thinking.

Change means something different from that you got rid of. Such a sweep doesn't occur if people are looking for something similar.

[ThomCat]

109. But they won with Liberal grassroots support.

[Sapphocrat]

207. Good thing for them...

...an awful lot of us held our noses -- again -- and didn't vote true to our own moral values -- again -- isn't it?

[Perky]

And moderate swing voters as well

I am not saying the liberals were not in some case equally important to the victory. I am simply saying that moderate and swing voters were also incredbly important. If you look at the the exit polls...you will see that folks who typically would have voted do the conservative incumben in large numbers suddenly voted for the dems because they were pissed off at the GOP.

[Perky]

294. And moderate swing voters as well

I am not saying the liberals were not in some case equally important to the victory. I am simply saying that moderate and swing voters were also incredbly important. If you look at the the exit polls...you will see that folks who typically would have voted do the conservative incumben in large numbers suddenly voted for the dems because they were pissed off at the GOP.

[fishwax]

158. but they won on an issue that was "loony left" just a year or so ago

It was not so long ago that opposition to the Iraq war was something that some moderates tried to chastise liberals for. Some of our winning candidates may not be raging liberals, but a big part of their appeal was on their opposition to that war. Moderate candidates won this election, but liberals and progressives pushed the public, the issues, and this election to the left.

[LostinVA]

198. Yup, Bernie is a flaming moderate....

And most of the other big winners were from border states (Missouri is very much a border state) or historically-traditional conservative states.

It WAS a win for Progressiveism... look at what was important to the voters.

[VelmaD]

19. What you said

:yourock:

I'm already sick to death of hearing that I should just sit down and shut up about all the important issues that our party is supposed to be founded on. Don't rock the boat. Go along to get along. FUCK THAT.

[KittyWampus]

20. Oh for cat's sake. Sheehan came along well after the war was unpopular and

being criticized. Talk about revisionist history.

And like it or not, there are liberal democrats and centrist democrats and LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WHO FLY UNDER THE RADAR BY APPEARING CENTRIST.

[Lerkfish]

58. dude, I said there were others, that was the example off the top of my

head, not revisionist history, just trying to type quickly.

sheesh. You missed my ENTIRE point: that centrist democrats have crapped on what they call the "liberal fringe" and ordering us to shut up on this board for at least two years, to no rock the boat, to keep our powder dry.

which is fine, that's their strategy, BUT SURE AS HELL DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THE GALL TO TAKE CREDIT FOR NOT SHUTTING UP AND KEEPING OUR POWEDER DRY.

I put my point in all caps so maybe you'd understand it better and not miss it this time.

[KittyWampus]

59. Hello Lerkfish, sorry I veered off your main point. And I'm a she not a he

:)

[Lerkfish]

63. that's ok, I use "dude" without respect to gender.

and sorry to sound snappish.

[Sapphocrat]

203. Lerk, I think not everyone got an A in history.

I guess it takes less than two generations to forget that liberals built the Democratic Party, eh?

Cheers to us and to our ideological ancestors, my fellow lib! :toast:

[Lerkfish]

215. right back at ya!

:toast:

[BurtWorm]

5. "equicical?" You mean equivocal?

Aside from Lieberman, the Dems you cited (who won) oppose status quo in Iraq. That's a large part of why they were elected. The country is not equivocal about that.

[Perky]

33. I edited the typo

[BurtWorm]

34. What about the substantial point?

The country is to the left of the current Congress and the GOP on Iraq, and that's a major reason why the next Congress will be Democratic.

[Perky]

41. Oh I agree....But that does not mean they are liberals or that those

we elected for the first time were liberals. It was clearly a rejection of Bush on Iraq.

[BurtWorm]

42. So it was a referendum to move the Congress to the left.

Why put a finer point on it than that?

[Perky]

44. Move Congress to the left on Iraq for sure.

Left overall I think is a bit of a stretch..but certainly it was a move to the center center-slightly left.

Again Harold Ford. Joe Lieberman. Bob Casey. John Tester, Webb alss could scracely be called Liberals

[BurtWorm]

53. Why put so fine a point on it?

The Congress is moving left. Period. Not far left. Not extreme left. Just plain left of where it was. And most people see that as good news.

[Perky]

65. Bwcause there is a huge difference between moving to the left and embracing liberalism

and that can not be reduced to a fine point in my opinion.

[BurtWorm]

74. I will say this much in agreement with you.

Most Americans are, according to polls, not ready to call themselves liberals, the term has been demonized to such an extent. But Democrats are in a position to yank the center firmly away from where the right forced it in the last 20 years and back to where it belongs.

You want to help in that process? Don't participate in perpetuating the demonization of liberalism by denying that that's precisely what people were voting for on Tuesday. No, they weren't voting to nationalize the energy companies, outlaw meanness and give condoms to every person age 13 and up. But they were voting to find a way out of Iraq, to raise the minimum wage, to lower health care costs, to do something about climate change, and to make the goverment and corporations more accountable to the people affected by their policies. Those aren't radically left principles, but they're not right wing principles at all.

[fishwax]

160. well put, BurtWorm

:applause:

[Sapphocrat]

208. Geez, Perky...

...what scares you so much about moving the whole party back to its very roots: the left? I swear, you sound terrified. It's not like we're going to make you sacrifice puppies to Belial or anything.

We lefties want to leave you non-lefties to live your lives in complete peace, whatever way you want, as long as you do the same for us. What's so awful about that?

[smalll]

289. What about "democrates" if we're going to talk about "typos"?!?

(Although I have to admit, I don't disagree with the OP that much at all.) But how do people pull "democrates" out of their heads onto the page?

[bryant69]

6. It's a mandate to walk back the extremism of the Bush years

I'd like to think we can turn it into a mandate on Providing oversight to the Bush Administration.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ThomCat]

111. I'd like to turn it into a mandate to restore

the populist concerns that the republicans have systematically stripped from government policy.

Civil rights
Regulation of corporations
Environmental protections
Workplace protections
Consumer protections
Support for human rights worldwide
Education for everyone

and I'd like to finally see some progress on building a real healthcare system.

[seabeyond]

7. i think it is a stand against christian right, i also agree with you

that it isnt about liberalism per se. the nanny state liberalism. but.... i believe the people just want things to get done, and fixed and fiscally competent. just do the damn job. dont tell me what to do, how to riase child, what sexual preference to have, .....

[dysfunctional press]

8. how can a supposedly "christian" nation NOT be liberal...?

we just need to remind people what AMERICA is supposed to be about.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. I do understand what your point is, but

I dispute that America was intended to be a Christian nation.

[dysfunctional press]

35. i don't think so either...

but a lot of the people that claim to be christian like to pretend that it is, and was so intended.

and polls keep showing that the majority still considers themselves to be christian.

(personally, i'm an athiest)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

54. Yes, many like to claim to be Christian who don't even understand the concept

I'm agnostic but I respect the concept of Christianity, it is really rather beautiful in theory. I think that core concept is what most people align themselves with, and then they don't follow the actual teachings.

[Perky]

37. I actually think that was the intent of the Pilgrims though not the framers

But recognise the Framers were white Europeans and thus numonally Christians, They wer not about allow for the excesses of the Church of England or or Rome.

But having said that. we removed all pretense with slavery and the Trail of Tears and lost the right to call ourselves a Christian nation by 1810.


The sins of fathers are visite upon the sons......and their sons.....

[Lone_Star_Dem]

56. Yes, I can agree with that

And even though most Americans today may associate themselves with Christianity, a large block of them don't actually practice it.

[boolean]

10. CHANGE = LIBERALISM

QED.

[Perky]

14. wow Ok if you say so.

SO when the nation rejected Jummy Carter in 1980 for Reagan it was being more liberal?

When we got our thumpin in 1994 it was liberalism?


Cmon.

[Horse with no Name]

107. Revisionist history at it's best in your statement

The nation rejected Jimmy Carter because of the Iran Hostage situation.
He should have won that election except for the fact the arms-for-hostages deals that were brokered by the Republicans which culminated in Iran-Contra.
This was done expressly to lose the election for Carter. It worked.
Read "October Surprise" by Gary Sick if you doubt this.
He served on the National Security Council under Ford, Carter and Reagan after a 24-year career in the Navy as an analyst of political and military affairs. I'd say he was extremely qualified to say this.

[Iris]

147. Right. Why must we buy into the idea that liberalism is a bad thing?

[Bluebear]

292. Bravo. nt

[leftofthedial]

11. we beat neocons in the House by appearing not to be repukes, period.

Even the American public saw the corruption and contempt for America at the heart of the repuke party. The repuke faithful and the usually-reliable-semi-fascist "independents" all convinced themselves that the ugliness that had been exposed was the repukes failing to be loyal to the principles of conservatism. The truth (and few in America realize it) is that the slimy, evil, venal, arrogant incompetence that the last six years of repuke rule have exposed IS the core of conservative principle, fully realized.

[Individualist]

62. Damn right! The election was an anti-neocon referendum

The people don't want neocon enablers continuing the policies of the cabal, and that's what DLC wants.

[HardRocker05]

79. so dems are just anti-repukes? how many elections can we win on that? nt

[leftofthedial]

95. not many

it is now our calling to establish, communicate and achieve a truly Democratic agenda and show that

a. Democrats can be effective
b. Democrats have positive principles
c. A Democratic agenda is good for America and Americans

[ACK]

12. Basic liberalism is the center now

The country is more center-left leaning than they ever were.

There was a thread here that the majority of Americans want to raise the minimum wage, and have universal healthcare.

From bvarr22's post:
In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority (Democrats AND Republicans) has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788 /

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Come on people we are the center. Liberals solid liberals not socialist leaning leftists and not conservatives but good old-fashioned liberals are the majority.

[Tommymac]

32. Thanks for posting this.

Most Americans hold progressive values - whether they know it or not.

Part of the confusion is because the RW have framed language to further their cause - and this framing has been perpetuated by a complicit media. The real issue is we need to take back the language. The last 20 years have seen it twisted by the right.

The Dems we elected are not Conservatives - they are Liberals. The people elected them because for the most part they hold the LIBERAL values ACK stated above. The media calls them "Conservative" Dems. But they are not.

[Odin2005]

78. Bingo.

The term "liberal" has been demonized for the last 30 years so that most so-called "moderates" are actually liberals without knowing it. Most of these so-called "conservative Dems" are social moderates but are left-wingers ECONOMICALLY.

[Shakespeare]

83. This is the best post in the entire thread.

In fact, you should start a new thread just to draw folks' attention to those numbers. :thumbsup:

[Tommymac]

100. Agree with the bard - Post this as a thread. n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

106. You wouldn't know it from watching the TeeVee

[originalpckelly]

13. THANK GOD YOU ARE IN TOUCH WITH REALITY!

:woohoo:

We need to understand that we need to make progress on electing progressives. But to do that we must change the mindset of the American people. We have to teach how to be considerate and thoughtful of other's rights and feelings. Only then can we elect good progressives.

We'll be able to work with these conservatives, because they aren't insane, but we'll have to moderate our policies.

We should never lose sight of the goal to change America and give everyone equal protection under the law, but we shouldn't be out of touch with reality.

[Mr_Spock]

23. Excellent post

I agree - we need to educate the electorate - then we will make "progress" and can implement more "liberal" policies.

We are not there yet!

I like your pragmatic approach to politics - much the same as myself :D

[Zensea]

31. to be considerate and thoughtful of other's rights and feelings -

that's a definition of liberal.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

[tomp]

55. you can't work with traitors.

"We have to teach how to be considerate and thoughtful of other's rights and feelings."

virtually every republican and a whole lot of democrats (on crucial votes) went along with bush's agenda. that's the "conservative" streak in america. and it applies to many democrats (think: bill clinton cozying up to bush pere). that kind of conservatism gives conservatism a bad name. when "real" conservatives speak up and denounce all that has happened, top to bottom, and act to do something about it, then maybe we can have reasonable dialogue. we can try to teach the american people that that was intolerably wrong and must never happen again. but there are a whole lot of people out there who think it wasn't wrong. trust me, you're not going to convince them it was. not any time soon.

[KittyWampus]

16. I'd say we beat the GOP by running candidates in many more areas AND spending

boatloads in some races. Even IF we didn't win in certain areas that were getting money via Rahm's organization... it forced the GOP to pick and choose where THEY were putting in money.

As for the liberal/conservative bent of the Dems that won... that's something that depends on each individual candidate.

Sherrod Brown is a freaking progressive.

[Perky]

21. I agree with you on Brown but

It was really about throw the bums out top to bottom in Ohio.

[Mr_Spock]

18. Agreed

It's going to take time to steer the country back to being more liberal - it takes education and we are here to educate.

[KittyWampus]

22. Sherrod Brown is a liberal Democrat, so your thesis is somewhat flawed.

[Perky]

29. Sherrod is a liberal but Ohio is a special case

The GOP was corrupt from top to bottom. It was very much a throw th bums out election there. But without question Sherrod brown is a liberal as is whitehouse.


but Again we got narrow victories everywhere else because we pulled moderate votes from the GOP by offering centrist and appealing candidates.

[Hamlette]

24. it will be a slow process but we can convince America it is progressive

listen to Tester, yeah, he's anti gun control but he also makes all the right noises when he talks about the middle class and health care and the little guy. And he's an organic farmer who is a huge advocate of alternative energy sources.

[blm]

25. Sherrod Brown is a liberal. And the mandate was ANTI-CORRUPTION which means

the people are tired of being conned and lied to and want the books opened on BushInc and their crimes of office.

[OzarkDem]

196. Agree, Sherrod is a great example

of sound, intelligent liberal public policy that focuses on middle class people. His message resonated well - jobs, fair wages, intelligent energy policy, health care reform - kitchen table issues w/ smart liberal solutions.

[TahitiNut]

26. Bushtards said "San Francisco values" and the voters said "Yes!"

Read http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/341

[TahitiNut]

92. (chirping of crickets)

:eyes:

[ThomCat]

213. That would be very, very nice if people

would see it as a mandate for "San Francisco values" given that those are supposed to be squishy, feel-good things like equal rights, help for the poor, education for everyone who wants it, healthcare, etc.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Jon Tester DEFINITELY is a liberal and Jim Webb is more liberal than he is portrayed

Jon Tester agrees with the GOP on one issue and that's gun control. By all other means he is a true progressive, and in particular he is a fierce opponent of the Patriot Act.

And for all of the talk of Jim Webb being a social conservative, I haven't really seen it. He is pro choice, against a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, supports civil unions, and supports affirmative action in its original form that Lyndon Johnson proposed it.

And there was no mandate to govern to the center just as there was no mandate to govern to the left. There was a mandate to hold this president accountable and to pass policies that WORK. If we can lower the costs of education and healthcare and make the economy work for working, middle class, and poor people then they could frankly care less if we do it with policies that are left or center.

[Perky]

47. I think Tester is more of a libertarian then a liberal

He is a western rancher. He believes in small limited goverment. That is the basis for being pro-gun and anti-patriot act.

[ACK]

64. You can't be pro-gun and be liberal?

Shit, does this mean I have to stop fighting for universal healthcare, a raise in the minimum wage, fair trade instead of "free" trade, good environmental law and enforcement, and a balanced budget based on fair tax laws where corporations and the rich pay their fair share?

[Perky]

66. of course you can.

But the poster was suggesting in the case of Tester that he was a liberal because he was opposed to the Patriot Act and I don't think that opposition to the patriot act is neceaasrily a liberals-only position.

[ACK]

67. Oh ok yeah I can see that lots of libertarian leaning Repukes against it too

Yeah I can see that.

[Perky]

68. From Today's AP Article about Tester's politics

Tester portrayed himself as a Western moderate who owns guns, opposes gay marriage and has a libertarian's suspicion of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

He hammered Burns over his ties to Abramoff. Burns was a top recipient of campaign contributions from Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in January to corruption. Burns has since returned or donated to charity about $150,000 he receive that was connected to Abramoff. He maintains he did nothing wrong and was not influenced by the lobbyist.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Libertarians aren't pro environment

Tester is extremely pro environment.

Pundits simply can't accept the fact that dark red Montana elected a liberal Senator and they can't accept that not all liberals have a northeast or west coast image.

[fishwax]

163. He also entered politics in the first place b/c he was upset over deregulation of uttilities

From his website: "Eight years ago, outraged by rate hikes brought on by the deregulation of Montana Power, Tester ran for the Montana Legislature."

Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. I think you're right about people not being able to wrap their heads around a liberal that doesn't mesh with the culture's caricature of a liberal.

[sandnsea]

130. He believes in EFFECTIVE govenment

Which is a whole different critter than limited government. The only place believes in limited government is at the front door of your home, which means he is pro-choice and against changing the constitution to ban gay marriage. He also said REPLACE the Patriot Act, not repeal it.

Democrats are generally going to be very happy with Tester, Republicans are going to be very annoyed with him because he's going to make sense for working Americans in a way they never did.

[LostinVA]

209. Webb is very much a social liberal

Being gay and female, I don't say that lightly.

[grizmaster]

28. It's a big tent

and there's room for dem conservatives, but as a progressive dem I'm not going to be silenced just to appease those who have just joined the party.

And the gay marriage question is a perfect case in point. Gay rights are human rights and I will not let my party go along with the hate-mongers without hearing my voice. If Emanuel wants me to hide in the dem basement, he's got another thing coming.

[ThomCat]

244. Very cool!

:applause:

[stepnw1f]

30. Sureeeee... what ever you say

[MadHound]

36. So exactly what are you saying that liberals should do?

Sit down, shut up and vote the party line, no matter who is running? Fuck that, that's how we wound up with a Democratic party further to the right than Goldwater.

Sure, conservative Dems won this time. Doesn't mean we can't replace them with more liberal ones next time. However I detest people in our party who continously try to throw the liberals and progressives overboard, except when they need our vote. This is how you wind up with the Greens and other third parties. If you expect our continued support, you have to throw us a bone every once in awhile, and it has been a long while now. Frankly I think it is about time we were thrown a bone, like, say, universal health care.

[Perky]

39. No keep fighting keep working. I am just saying that

it is wishful thinking that this election was a complete repudiation of conservativism.

I am just saying work harder

[MadHound]

48. In return for what?

So that we can continue to be taken for granted like we have for the past thirty years? Sorry, but I think that liberal and progressive Democrats have been more than patient for entirely too long, and by God it is about time that we were rewarded. I fully realize that little if nothing is going to get done for the next two years, gridlock is going to be the order of the day(but believe me, gridlock never looked so good). However, if we come back and win the Presidency, liberals absolutely have to get paid. We worked, bled and sweated through the Reagan/Bush years, convinced of our reward when a Dem got into the White House. Yet what did we get instead? NAFTA, welfare reform, continued corporate takeover of our society, aided and abetted by Clinton and his buddies, and a further rightward shift of the party. Sorry, but why in the hell should I continue to work my ass off if I will once again recieve not a damn thing in return? Sorry if this sounds selfish, but what's in it for me? Why should I work harder if, in two years, we get another conservative Democratic president who will kick me in the teeth again?

Look issues such as UHC and other so called "liberal" programs actually are supported by large majorities of the American people. Isn't it time that the so called party of the little guy gets behind these programs and make them a reality? Not only would you be paying off the base for all of it's hard work the past few decades, making us feel welcome and part of the gang again, but you would actually be taking a position that the large majority of Americans support, making it easier for the party to win.

[Perky]

50. I don't think we disagree

[MadHound]

57. Probably not, but I would like to see some solid commitments from the party

Supporting at least one or two "liberal" issues, you know, throw the dog a bone. Part of the reason that the Democratic party did so well is because the liberal base put aside our differences with moderate and conservative Dems in order to wrest control of Congress away from the 'Pugs, stop the bleeding as it were. Like I said, nothing of any great significance(excepting perhaps immigration) is going to be accomplished for the next two years, but when government is firmly back in Dem hands, the liberals and progressives in the party are overdue to be fed, and we are hungry.

This is how you keep a big tent party together, feed one group and then the other. During Clinton and Carter, the moderates, conservative and corporatist Dems were well fed. Liberals haven't been, and if you want to keep this big tent together, feeding time is here and now. Make a commitment to a couple of liberal programs and we'll be happy:shrug:

However to continue telling us to keep up the hard work, without reward, is a sure recipie for disaster.

[Perky]

69. Good Points...What issues would you suggest?

[MadHound]

91. Like I said earlier, let's start with Universal Health Care

Not only is it widely supported by the US population in general, but it would go a long way to rewarding those of us on the left, for we've been clamoring for UHC forever. Publicly financed election campaigns would also go over well with both the left and the general population, who have become bitterly cyncial about the role that corporations play in our government.

[Perky]

94. Works for me.

[nini]

40. The country is mostly left leaning moderates

with the far left and far right on both sides.


This election was about getting the far right out of control - so yes, it was change.

The key is too hold on to the middle and get things done to keep control. During this time we can get liberal values out there and prove they work for everyone.


The country may not be 'liberal' but they're not all neocons either. My take is more people are Liberal than they realize - which has been proven with surveys etc.. They have more liberal views than they think but still tote the republican line becaue they've always been republican :eyes:

We have to show them policies we have actually work, but it takes time to drive that point home and we're going to have to be careful in how we do it or the far right will step in pull the same crap they did the last 12 years.

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. Lincoln Chaffee is a Liberal? That's a new one on me. He's a MODERATE repub. Nice guy, but

a repub, all the same...and he LOST. How did being "moderate" help Lincoln Chaffee? I must have missed something.

AZ voted down a ban on Gay marriage, MO. passed stem cell research and SD voted down the HIDEOUS ban on abortion. The country wants a change and being like the republi-cons is not a change.

[Perky]

52. I will be back later folks. Got to earn my keep around the office.

[porphyrian]

45. Gay marriage is not the only determining factor of liberality.

The country is neither liberal nor conservative as a whole. There are measurable trends, but these are temporal. So, acknowledging this, what exactly is your intent in denying those who identify with the term liberal from enjoying their fair share of the victory less than two days later? Are you usually an exclusionary elitist, or didn't you realize that's how you come across with this kind of bullshit?

[Perky]

49. And I am not suggesting that is is

I am merely suggesting that the votes on sanctity of marriage issues are evidence that the the sattement that the nation has embraced liberalism is a it of a reach.

[porphyrian]

51. Well, the gay marriage issue certainly didn't hurt us this election.

We didn't lose anything. I mean, there's no proof that invisible pink monkeys won the election for us either, but I don't see the point in bringing it up, unless I'm trying to pick a fight with the invisible pink monkey faction. Comprende?

[Sapphocrat]

236. Hey, porphyrian

Thanks for that post. I really appreciate it.

[porphyrian]

256. No thanks are necessary.

;)

[Odin2005]

86. I'm getting sick of all the culture war-based exlusionist rhetoric

You can be a social conservative or moderate and have left-wing economic views.

[porphyrian]

99. Right, most people don't fit nicely into the artificially-created binary.

It's silly when people get exclusionary about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Anti-gay marriage is extreme right wing politics.

We've been given the opportunity, we've got to take it.

Not trying would be homophobic.

And unamerican.

[Odin2005]

89. Social & economic viewpoints don't necessarily coincide

A person can be against gay marrige and yet support universal healthcare, enviromentalism, stong labor unions, a living wage, etc.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. They can be.

But they'd still be homophobic bigots.

[Leopolds Ghost]

169. Nonsense.

When polled, a majority of gay people AND non-gay people in 2004 thought the "gay marriage" idea was ridiculous or unnecessary. They supported civil unions.

Which are only needed because of ridiculous federal interference in
penalizing all "non-traditional living arrangements", not just gays.

[gollygee]

61. I think it was largely a reaction to corruption

there is and always has been corruption in both parties, but wow has the Republican Party been swimming in it lately. And really the sex scandals are the least of it. The whole reason we went into the war - I still think some high-up Republicans made money off it and that was the reason. We have been lead by some extraordinarily corrupt leaders and people are waking up to that.

[gully]

71. Exactly, we won by being REASONABLE!

Period.

[readmoreoften]

80. Yes, but didn't you think that gay marriage would hurt us? It didn't.

We are winning because we are decent, not (as) corrupt, and because the American people are sick of the neo-con arrogance. Obviously, gay marriage isn't costing us votes even though the Republicans have been trying to peg us as the party of atheism and gay sex for almost 12 years. It's not working anymore. Americans aren't "for" gay marriage, but the margins are shrinking, and it no longer seems to be their top issue. They aren't fooled anymore. It's going to be a long time before the republicans will be able to get people to vote against their interest to screw over gay people again.

[gully]

81. It didn't hurt us because we didn't make it a top priority. It was their

strawman and America saw through it. My point was that Pelosi and others should not run around shouting "we plan to make gay marriage legal!!"

By the way, the issue hurt them because they are hypocrites.

[readmoreoften]

121. By "make it a top priority", I suppose you mean mention gay people at all.

No, you're right. They didn't. But now the election is over.

[LTR]

72. I agree

I think a lot of it has to do with Dean's 50 state plan.

And I do think it makes sense to run more centrist-right candidates in red states like Montana and Virginia. Look how that turned out.

Let's face it, liberals will not win big races overnight in the red states. This must be a gradual process. And above all, elected candidates must answer first and foremost to the electorate. That's why I applaud someone like Tester. He may not pass the DU test, but he won a senate seat in a very red state and is palatable to the Montana voters.

Electing true liberals in some areas is not a reality at this point. But electing moderates is a big step forward. And it gets the Dems control of Congress. That's good enough for me.

[Matariki]

73. The margin against the gay marriage was surprisingly small

much smaller than expected and considered a definite move toward the left. The anti-abortion measure in South Dakota - a very red state - is also an indicator.

I think we need to stop making these distinctions between 'liberal' and 'moderate' and work for fairness and justice for ALL americans.

[Matariki]

75. Please define your terms

what do you mean by 'moderate' and what do you mean by 'liberal'? Which policies do you associate with each term?

[PVnRT]

76. So, then, you deny that there has been a shift towards the left?

Going from center-right to center is a leftward shift. The DLCers can try to spin this all they want in their quest to shut up the liberal contingent, but it's the truth.

"The Country is not liberal."

Very well, then, provide for us a definition of what "liberal" is.

[Perky]

120. No NO NO

Yhe OP ws never an attack on liberalism. Not in the least. I was simply stating that the post saying that liberalism won are not correct in their assesment of what happened.

If a liberal beat a conservative straight up this election on the merits of the ideaology and program I would be elated. I am just saying that did not happen. Beat McConnell or Inhofe with a Tom Harkin or Russ Fiengold type liberal and then I wioll agree the nation is turning liberal. Butnthis was about the rejection of corruption and the way Bush went to war and is prosecuting it today.

[Leopolds Ghost]

171. Webb/Allen and Burns/Tester don't count?

Let's see, who came out on the campaign trail and said get rid of the Patriot Act?

Not Rahm, Not Rangel, Not Pelosi, Not Clinton. Tester. In Montana. Sounds... Feingoldesque.

No wait, Feingold's waffling on the issue, he wants to change it, not do away with it.

OK, who based 1/2 of his campaign ads on gruesome Iraq war footage saying Iraq was a mistake?

Not Clinton, not Pelosi, not Rahm... Webb. In one of the most pro-military states in the union.

Lucky Rahm wasn't the DSCC because he would probably have screwed Webb over big time. From the way he and Pelosi are treating the CBC members, tarring them as the only ultra-liberals left and vice versa, he shares Allen's views. Pelosi's friend and fellow socialite, mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, is patting himself on the back for pushing homeless off welfare rolls in a city where the middle class are not welcome.

Whereas webb said he's always believed in economic & social justice.

[HardRocker05]

77. wait and see how much 'change' you get w/o liberals. the R will change to a D;

that's all. nothing remotely substantive will happen without liberals driving it, and if dems disrespect and betray their liberal base they will lose in a very short period of time.

[trotsky]

82. Way to go, Perky!

Let's start that infighting RIGHT AWAY!

[stanwyck]

84. Hey, Perky did get every one of Jonah Goldberg's

talking points from today's USA Today column in his OP.
And Sean Hannity made these same points last night. So did Rush yesterday on his radio show. And Neal Boortz repeated the same on Faux last night.
So Perky is in synch with all the great minds.
Nobody wants to hear a bunch of uppity liberals right now.
The spin is...we're all actually conservatives. Who won. As Democrats.
Got that?

[trotsky]

88. Amazing, isn't it?

That's our Perky! In tune with the finest political minds of our generation. :sarcasm:

[Perky]

98. Wow Ok

I don't even know who goldberg is and I do not watch FOX ever.....I sure as hell would not watch it for a pig like Boortz.

I stand by what I said in the OP. Rahm emannuel wnet out of his way to fund moderates in GOP districts and with the excepetion of SHerrod Brown every seat we took away was by a moderate candidate.


All I am saying is that the election was not the triumph of liberalism as it was the triumph of political sanity. That is not in anyway an endorsement of the repukes and certainly not of conservative politics.

To suggest that liberalism was the great victor on Tuesday is to have you heard in the sand.

We whooped republican ass.

[stanwyck]

105. I'm not saying that liberalism triumphed. But neither

did it fail. You haven't mentioned how many moderate Republicans lost to Dems. And that's critical. Santorum was NOT a moderate. But what about Chaffee? Yes, moderate Dems. prevailed in some races. But so did liberal Dems. All over the country.
Where's your count? I don't think liberalism failed as much as you think.
And, given the choice between the Repubs. and the Dems., Dems. won. And this is after being demonized by this administration and their multitudes of hateradio/Faux news hacks who lumped ALL Dems. as "San Francisco liberals". ALL Dems. were going to "cut and run" and make our country unsafe and, horrors, raise taxes.
This country was supposed to be terrified of the specter of Nancy Pelosi, ultra-liberal from the Left Coast, as speaker. (her opponent got what, 15% of the vote?)And Charlie Rangel as Chairman of the House Ways and Means.
And yet. And yet.
Dems. won.
I think this country is more liberal than you, and your talking points straight from the right, would like to believe.

[Jamastiene]

178. It is such a mind fuck, isn't it?

When you get posts that are right in sync with right wing talking points (that just got overthrown in this election), it makes you scratch your head and go :wtf:???

[Chichiri]

85. I agree. Change first, then education. (nt)

[oc2002]

87. the country is more to the LEFT OF CENTER, than moderates.

but what people want most is a government that WORKS!

[Nikki Stone1]

90. The fact that Lamont couldn't pull out a victory in a safe Dem seat is telling, I think

There were Dems who voted for Lieberman because they didn't want what they perceived as an extreme candidate. Don't get me wrong: I thought Joe was out of line and damaging to the party. I think he betrayed the party by running as an independent and that he shouldn't have won. And I am furious that that neocon ass-kissing little bastard gets to go back to the Senate as a fucking loose cannon. (Pardon my French)

But the fact that Lamont couldn't pull out a victory gives some credence to the OP on this thread. I think the Dems need to pick their battles VERY carefully. My agenda would be:

1. Habeas Corpus
2. Torture/Geneva Conventions
3. Working with the military to get some handle on the civil war in Iraq and come up with a strategy for withdrawal. (This may take some years because the place is a shambles right now, thanks to Junior)
4. Separation of Church and State and abolishing "faith based" Federal programs. We need to get our Bill of Rights back in some form or another.
5. Supreme Court: Stand in the way of any neocon candidat, especially one who believes in an imperial presidency; stall, stall, stall

This may be enough for the two years until the next election.

Some bones will have to be thrown to the base, but these have to be considered very carefully. I would also make a show of bipartisanship in public, but screw these neocons to the wall in private. That will be more than they have done for us.

[chaska]

93. Lamont didn't lose becasue he was Liberal...

He's not particularly Liberal anyway...

He lost for many reasons, but primarily because the pugs had no vialble candidate and therefore voted with Dems who didn't want to throw away Lieberman's seniority.

[Nikki Stone1]

128. The perception of Lamont as a product of "left wing bloggers" was spread by the MSM

I think that put a real damper on the campaign.

[Oak2004]

132. You cannot draw a conclusion based upon one sample

Lamont is widely understood to have botched his campaign post-primary.

In fact he fell for the very worst newbie error-- not grabbing onto momentum and riding it hard while you've got it. This error has afflicted some people I've worked with and for and without fail if you get off the horse and take a break, you lose ground you'll never make back. Political momentum is ephemeral, and can't be reconjured at will after taking a break.

Lamont could have won had he done the right things, in my opinion. Instead he made beginner's mistakes.

[Nikki Stone1]

261. If the example is large enough and influential enough you can make a case

No other Senatorial race got the attention that Lamont/Lieberman did until election night when Montana and Virginia took the center stage. Lieberman's primary loss was the first major shot, the Lexington and Concord of the 2006 election cycle. It was national news and its very own soap opera as a steamed Lieberman ran as an independent against the wishes of so many in his party.

While the Republicans made noises about helping Lieberman, it was centrist Democrats behind the scenes that kept Joe connected to the party while almost grudgingly giving financial help to Lamont. Moderate CT Dems, reading the poilitical tea leaves, voted for Lieberman, maybe figuring that the Lamont win was a fluke of some kind. Lamont, on the other hand, became identified with "left wing bloggers" and the "far left": the night of his primary win, Lamont was flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both of whom are identified as far left (even though they are arguably not). I think this "far left" designation of Lamont, as false as it was, sunk him. I also think the centrist Dems in the Senate helped along the Lamont loss by damning him with faint support.

Lamont may have made beginner's mistakes--I don't doubt it. But there was an effort to make Lamont--a millionaire business owner!--look "far left". The fact that this was able to erode his support among Dems in a very anti-GOP year, combined with the drafting of more centrist leaning Dems in other states, gives some credibility to the OP.

I wish it weren't so. If I had my druthers, the Democratic agenda would be unapologetically progressive. What I am worried about is that the 2008 election cycle is already starting and we have to keep the gains we've made. By Nov 2008, the pebble in the national shoe that is Iraq may be on its way to a conclusion and the urgency of the American people will have been reduced. They will then turn their attention to domestic issues. If they perceive the Dems as too "far left" they might vote in a new GOP, which will have had 2 years to focus on changing its personnel and its message.

[Oak2004]

282. I have a different take on all of this

The battle with Lamont was much an insider/outsider battle as it was left vs. "center" (some of the "centrists" are far from the actual center). Lamont was hardly the first choice of the Connecticut Democratic machine.

Furthermore Lamont could have been elected were it not that he ran a very poor campaing in the general election, making a number of beginner's mistakes that I've seen other inexperienced candidates make (to my never ending frustration) in campaigns I've worked on.

(Having miserable flashbacks now on more than one instance where I argued with a candidate to no avail as they set their sails towards certain political shipwreck.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

172. Limousine Liberals, all of em. have destroyed the left w/their trumped-up culture wars.

Aided and abetted by their paymasters in the right-wing Permanent Government on K Street. Now they're trying to purge the remaining lunch-bucket liberals from the party.

[UTUSN]

96. K&R for EXCELLENT o.p. n/t

[omega minimo]

101. Liberals view us as a Nation with shared concerns. Repugs view us as Suckers

Somewhere in between are the Corporatists and Republican Lite. :evilfrown:

[sampsonblk]

102. Permanent Minority Thinking

Even in the majority, I see we are still the party of weakness. Oh boy...

GW Bush squeaked by in 2004 and claimed a mandate to continue what he had been doing (poorly) all along. Only people in our party clamor for moderation, which translates into doing what we believe in half-heartedly. Or doing what we believe in quietly. Or doing less of what we believe in.

Take your pick. Either way, that's a formula for a permanent minority.

If you can't stand up forcefully for what you believe in, you can never expect for a majority of voters to agree with you.

[SmokingJacket]

103. Hmmm... but if all us liberals went and voted Green, Dems would

have lost. NO election is a mandate, anyway: certainly the 2004 "victory" was not a conservative mandate. A won election is just that: many, many reasons pile together to cause one party to get more votes than another. It's never just ONE reason.

And I would argue that the country is more liberal than it thinks. Though people get touchy about the word "marriage," I'd bet the majority of people would support civil unions for gay people (or if they don't, they will after a few years of getting used to the idea). MOST people do support abortion rights and stem cell research and are frightened of global warming and want a strong social safety net -- those are liberal ideas, even though they are starting to be called moderate ideas (that's what happens when the pendulum swings...)

[Perky]

300. Yes I agree but

But liberals voted for moderate dem candidats and so did moderates, independents and some conservatives. The data probably suggest that it was in equal portions.

Given how close the races we won were, had liberals gone green or if conservatives had stayed with the republican candidate, the Dem would not have won either. So who is more responsible for the victory? Those who stayed with the dems or those who deserted the GOP incumbent?

[warrens]

104. I think we got rid of the extreme right

For now, anyway. They're in disgrace. Anyone see Coulter on the gabfests the past few days? Pigboy?

But you are right. The country voted for Dem core values, not necessarily lib core values. We would be well-advised to go for the low-hanging fruit first...the war, corruption, healthcare, etc. A lot of propositions around the country showed that dem core values are gaining popularity. South Dakota DESTROYED an anti-abortion amendment. 66 percent voted against it. We're winning on ideas, but if we move too far ahead of where the people are, the Repukes will have an easy time picking us off.

[nashville_brook]

110. uh -- what's with the broad-strokes attack?

i don't detect any division here right now. why the broad-strokes attack? why the straw man?

there were many progressive Dems elected along with the many centrists. what we DON't need is this sort of division from either side.

[T Town Jake]

112. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[Exiled in America]

113. You're right, but that doesn't make you right. (explanation:)

You're certainly correct, the vote this year was a vote for change.

That doesn't mean that liberalism is not the best course for the country. The country is not liberal - but it should be. And if it doesn't GET there, there isn't going to BE a "country" for much longer.

Every single positive thing that has ever come to pass in American has been birthed out of liberalism. Real liberalism. The fact that the American population has been indoctrinated to believe that Liberalism is a bad word and taught to consistently vote against their own best interests isn't something to be proud of, and its certainly not something to encourage.

Your post is a follower post. The country isn't liberal, therefore we should remember that and keep giving the country the half-assed politics its looking for. Wrong. It's time to lead. It's time to undo the brainwashing that has been done and remind people what they once knew: that liberalism is at the root of everything great in America.

You brought up the gay marriage issue. I turn it back on you. The people, like myself, who worked on campaigns against these marriage amendments wouldn't have even bothered getting out of bed if we had followed your reasoning. We would have said, "hey, the people are homophobes, might as well respect the will of the majority and stay home." But that would have been ideologically and morally wrong. Sometimes the majority is wrong. That is why you first identify by principle what is JUST and RIGHT and then, if people aren't with you, you fight until they are. You persuade, you educate, you campaign - you change minds one person at a time.

It is not the correct choice to say "america isn't liberal and we'd better remember that." Now is the time to say, "american isn't liberal and we better do everything in our power to change that." That's what conservatives did for decades, and its why we are where we have been for so long.

[Perky]

118. I like your response but I think you read to much into my OP

I was simply saying that this election was not a mandate for liberalism. Let's make the nest one about that though.

[pat_k]

114. It is not about Liberal v. Conservative. . .

Here's something I posted some time ago on the subject

The problem is the massive disconnect between insiders vs. outsiders.

The labels -- liberal, conservative, progressive, right, left -- have become so loaded they have lost all objective meaning.

We are not even dealing with a divide between left v. right positions on "issues."

We are dealing with fascists v. anti-fascists; insiders v. outsiders; weakness v. strength.

Insiders v. Outsiders

You may be too young to remember, but not very long ago, politics wasn't viewed as the exclusive purview of the "professionals." Countless communities had vital Democratic Clubs and other associations where Americans experienced "politics" first hand. It wasn't always pretty, but people socialized, chose leaders, made decisions, and took civic action.

Over the years, people have been pushed out of their own game. These days, the "professionals" run the show and they are VERY protective of their turf.

For the so-called "Democratic strategists" of the world, we are game pieces that they -- the "professionals" -- manipulate. Heaven forbid any of us actually get involved! They may not even know WHY they feel so threatened when folks like Dean or Hackett inspire citizens to act, but their fear has absolutely nothing to do with positions on issues or particular actions.

Weakness v. Strength

The BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. We are as pissed off as we are because, instead of fulfilling their Congressional oath and challenging their wimpy image by standing up and demanding Impeachment, they are adding salt to the wound by "laying low" or appeasing the fascists by assuring them they have no intention of Impeaching Bush and Cheney.

But the beliefs that underlie their rationalizations have been hammered into them by those around them. Countless actions are unthinkable in their world, for reasons they don't even understand.

It's About Us -- Not the Party. Not our so-called "Leaders"

The bottom line is that the insiders are protecting their turf from us. They live in a world of Republican propaganda. Their fear of "backlash" has little to do with public reaction -- what they really fear is being ostracized from the DC social scene.

WE are the REAL danger to their insular world. We are everywhere. We can insert some reality and prompt them to take action that will get them frowned on at Sally Quinn's next event.

But, we can also reward them -- like we rewarded Barbara Boxer for standing up on January 6th with a surge of support, dollars, and respect.

Our immediate goals are clear: Impeach Bush and Cheney and reject the results of suspect elections. Actions large and small will make these goals a reality. As we move forward, we need to remember that, however they fail or anger us, we can't let it just be about them. Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done.

[Elidor]

115. Emmanuel's strategy is not what won this election

From Matt Stoller:

Democrats pushing the conservative line, or giving credit to Rahm Emanuel, don't get it. Rahm Emanuel did everything he could to lose the House. His recruiting and use of money was strategically unwise, and he was bailed out by a national trend that brought us the Senate, the Governorships, state legislative chambers, and state constitutional officers all over the country.

Rahm Emanuel did his best to force Howard Dean to move money out of party building and into his terrible TV ad program that lost IL-06. He sniped at Dean, at Moveon, at George Soros, at blogs, at anyone he could. He ran scared, and he put his thumb on the scale against liberal Democrats. He couldn't even win in his own backyard, with the milquetoast Dan Seals and charismatically moderate Tammy Duckworth. Most significantly, for a good amount of time he didn't want Democrats to mention Iraq, period. If Rahm Emanuel were actually been a loyal Democrat instead of someone hellbent on sabotaging liberals, imagine how many seats we could have picked up.

It's clear that what happened last night was a repudiation of Bush and the Iraq war, and the beginning of the era of partial power for the progressive movement. It's the very very beginning. Realize that the 'victory for conservative Democrats' meme is being pushed all over Limbaugh and by the White House. It's false.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/8/13534/5744

Rick Perlstein at Joe Lieberman Weekly agrees with that assessment:

Democrats have won back the House. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), nearly tripped over himself on the way to the microphone to claim the credit. In fact, while the tidal wave in the House looks like a bit of strategic genius by Emanuel--and pundits are starting to call it that way (Howard Fineman on MSNBC noted that the Democrats even picked up a seat in Kentucky, where the 3rd District candidate was John Yarmuth--"Emanuel's fourth choice!" Fineman exclaimed, as if in awe of the power possessed by Emanuel's mere table scraps)--in race after race, it actually represents the apotheosis of forces Emanuel has doubted all long: the netroots.

In two competitive House races in the Bluegrass State, Emanuel's first choices lost by 9 and 12 points. In the 2nd District it was Colonel Mike Weaver, the cofounder of Commonwealth Democrats, a group of conservative Democratic state legislators. In the 4th, it was Ken Lucas, a former congressman whom Robert Novak recently called "moderate conservative" in a column Emanuel's "recruiting coup" in coaxing Lucas out of retirement. Both were the kind of candidates Emanuel has favored in his famous nationwide recruiting drive. Yarmuth, meanwhile, was founder of the state's first alternative newspaper, said things on the campaign trail things like "the No Child Left Behind Act ... is a plan deliberately constructed to create 'failing' schools," and called for "a universal health care system in which every citizen has health insurance independent of his or her employment."

It was a pattern repeated across the country. New Hampshire's 1st District delivered Carol Shea-Porter, a former social worker who got kicked out of a 2005 Presidential appearance for wearing a T-shirt that said turn your back on bush. That might have been her fifteen minutes of fame--if, last night, she hadn't defeated two-term Republican incumbent Jeb Bradley. For the chance to face him, however, she had to win a primary against the DCCC's preferred candidate, Jim Craig--whom Rahm Emanuel liked to much he had the unusual move of contributing $5000 to his primary campaign. Shea-Porter dominated Craig by 20 points--and then was shut out by the DCCC for general election funds.

Not all Emanuel's losing recruits were beaten in primaries. Some were beaten in the general election. Christine Jennings, a banker and former Republican gunning for Katherine Harris's former House seat lost in a squeaker to conservative Republican Vern Buchanan. Dan Seals, a black moderate in the Barack Obama mold who criticized the Democratic Party even in speeches to Democratic crowds, lost to the Republican incumbent in Emanuel's backyard, Illinois's 10th District--as did the DCCC's most talked-about recruit, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois's 6th. Emanuel poured as astonishing $3 million into her campaign. It bought her a four-point defeat. Activists say the money would have been better spent on all the promising candidates to whom Rahm wouldn't give the time of day.

Many of them won anyway. John Hall is poised to become the Democrats' version of Sonny Bono--a former environmental and anti-nuclear activist and co-author of the hit 1970s hit "Still the One," he just won New York's 19th District House seat. Chris Carney, now heading to Washington to represent Pennsylvania's 10th, beat beleaguered incumbent (and alleged-strangler) Don Sherwood. "Until Carney was ahead by double digits," complained Howie Klein of DownWithTyranny, a blog that backed his candidacy, "Rahm wouldn't take his phone calls." Larry Kissell, a high school social studies teacher, is, as of this writing, in a statistical dead heat with an incumbent Republican from of all places, North Carolina. Says Klein: "If Rahm had a little bit of foresight to see this guy was for real, and to see that he was a candidate who could have won, a little bit of money would have made all the difference for him."

http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806

We won despite Emmanuel's strategy. I'm glad we have him on the team, but his leadership has not been some miracle cure. He rode the wave and deserves some credit, but it's absurd to assert that only moderates can win seats for the Democratic party. And it's rather sleazy to imply, as you do in your first paragraph, that liberals appear unreasonable to most voters. This election was a coming together of moderates, liberals and even conservatives. No single faction or philosophy gets to claim credit for a mass repudiation of the GOP's abuse of power.

[izzybeans]

116. the country is not any one thing, which is why posts like this

are counterproductively divisive and overlook the fact that liberals and moderates (not to be confused with reasonable) won this thing together.

Let the right self-destruct with the finger pointing. They started their downfall when their different factions laid sole claim to their victories. Now is a time to be proud, one-and-all. The democratic caucus must remain a big-tent, a space for a dialogue between liberals and moderates. This requires moderation on the part of even (ironically) hard core moderates who mistakenly believe working with radical rightwingers makes them reasonable and moderate. they will have to moderate their views by working with liberals. Rick Santorum is gone. The Casey's will now have to visit with Nancy Pelosi. They'll have to broker deals within the party. Not stand and cry, like Lieberman for instance, when their constituents want them to quit recieving the kiss of death from the right wing. If the democrats are going to get the government back on track with a "people's agenda" they better damn well listen to all the people, not just the moderates. Rightwing bigots can stay home from that party or learn to play nice. This will require that folks like Lieberman be allowed to come back into the fold. But he better not expect the rest of us to broker deals with an out-of-touch rightwing. He should be expected to broker deals with us.

Coalitions with the right have turned our political culture into a carnival mirror resembling a white separatist movement. If it ever was time for a change, it is now. The culture of our country will not be the same five years from now and what we do now and in the near future will determine what it is like. We can sit and bicker about who won this thing or recognize it was won together.

now is the time for internal dialogue about platforms and policies. We don't need to agree 100%. Let us fight about that for a change. What is reasonable would be an open dialogue between liberals and moderates about these things. We've got a damn country to run.

[smoogatz]

117. Oh for Christ's sake.

Conservatives have completely controlled the national agenda since 2000. The electorate gave them more than a fair chance, IMO, and then on Tuesday they showed up at the polls in large numbers and threw the bums out. They may not be ready for gay marriage yet in Wisconsin, but nationally the majority are clearly sick to death of having conservatives call the shots. Yes, they voted for change--from conservative policies and Republican-style execution of those policies. But you don't get policy change without philosophical change--and the people that got elected may not be McGovern-style "liberals," but they sure as hell aren't conservatives, either.

[mhatrw]

119. 100% wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=245047&mesg_id=245047

[noiretextatique]

137. thanks for posting this

isn't it mind-boogling how this "americans are so conservative" meme continues to surface, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary?
in our city council race in oakland, ca a green candidate with no political experience gave the moderate democratic incumbent a real run for money. next time, she will win.
yeah...oakland is a liberal place, but this woman captured 44% of the vote because she has a vision, she is passionate, and she is a veteran and conscientious objector...and an unabashed, unqualified, and unashamed progressive.

[NorthernSpy]

122. Americans are to the right of "liberals" culturewise, but to their LEFT on economic matters...

Define "liberal", please. The average American takes a far, FAR dimmer view of free trade, globalism, and the Market than do the culturally more "liberal" elites.

Cockburn and St. Clair point out a number of races that contradict the self-serving Emanuelite spin:

(...) In the nearby district around Modesto it was a different story. Here was a ripe target, an implacable foe of nature called Richard Pombo, who had spent his entire career campaigning against the Endangered Species Act, and any enjoyment of nature other than the enrichment of cotton and rice farmers. In the primary season Rahm Emanuel and George Miller put the party's resources behind a Pombo lookalike who was duly trounced by Jerry McNerney, an antiwar foe of corporate agriculture. National Democrats chafed at McNerney's effrontery and predicted victory for Pombo.

But on Tuesday the voters leaped at their opportunity. They booted out Pombo and sent McNerney to Washington. In the upset's aftermath, the Contra Costa Times marveled, "It will go down in California history as a massive upset in a congressional district where the incumbent held a 6 percentage point party registration advantage. No other district in the state has ever flipped parties with such a large registration gap."

In northern Kentucky another progressive Democrat opposed by the Emanuel Machine, John Yarmuth, an alternative newspaper publisher, was nonetheless able to survive the primary. On Tuesday he defeated Anne Northrup, a popular Republican incumbent.

So the Democrats have taken the House, but Emanuel should not be crowing too loudly. The Democrats' victories were clearly driven by antiwar sentiment across the country. Furthermore the contour of success in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, send a very clear message that if the Democrats keep on pushing the old Clinton neoliberal recipe as now purveyed by Emanuel and the others, they will not recapture the White House in 2008, or even bolster their position in the Senate.

If you look at where the Democrats picked up their seats, there's a line running from Pennsylvania, through Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas and Montana. The common thread is economic populism. In Indiana, the most Republican state, three seats turned over to Democrats. all of whom offered roughly the same political silhouette: fairly conservative on social issue, anti-globalization, tough on illegal immigration, and helped to victory by general hostility to the war on the part of many voters. (...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11082006.html
(Count Your Blessings: NeoCons and NeoLibs Take a Big Hit, as Voters Say No to Bush, War and Free Trade)

[SwingVoter2006]

123. Excellently put, perky!

I could not have said it better myself. 2006 is a victory for us Americans who demand change. We're not demanding a shift in extremist policy: far-right to far-left. We simply want to stop the bleeding, patch the wounds, start reducing the debt, solve the Iraq occupation, etc. We did not vote Dem because we somehow agree with the finer points of far-left political ideology. Many of us do not. We just want a government that works for AMERICA, not some fringe ideological cabal; as has been the case for the last six years or so. Exchanging one cabal for another, to me, is a sure way to lose this man's vote.

[noiretextatique]

139. when has there EVER been a "far-left" in this country?

NEVER.

[Jamastiene]

179. Apparently, they count a slightly left of center

to be the far left and we are supposed to go along with it. That is not what won this election for us though. :shrug:

[rman]

240. depends on who you ask;

ask the RW and they're a minority who have been suffering at the hands of communists and socialists for decades.

My point: all these labels don't really mean anything any more (if they ever did).

[Bluebear]

157. ....okie dokie

hehehe

[noiretextatique]

134. it was a resounding rejection of bush, inc's policies and enablers

FINALLY. and, it is an opportunity for democrats to start defining issues (and reclaiming words like "liberal") vs. scrambling to respond to the rw's version of things...or not.

[mvd]

135. It was a good victory for populist Democrats

and at least the grown ups are taking over. Some of these Democrats are neither complete DLC or liberal, but I sure do feel better now.

[jgraz]

136. Sweet Jesus I'm sick of this argument

No matter who's in office, we aren't going to see a true progressive agenda unless we got out there and fight for it. No matter how left they seem to be, most politician turn into complete wimps if they don't feel the voters are with them.

If we make our voices heard, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown (both of whom you forgot to mention, Perky) et al will gain confidence to work for a progressive legislative agenda. And worms like Rahm Emmanuel and Diane Feinstein (and, I'm betting, Lieberman) will be too cowardly to fight them.

[Bjorn Against]

138. You conveniently forget to mention Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders

Sherrod Brown is a PROGRESSIVE who took a seat from a Republican.

Bernie Sanders is a SOCIALIST who took a seat that was previously filled by a Republican turned independent.

Just because Rahm Emmanuel chose a lot of conservative Democrats to run does not mean progressives could not have taken just as many seats.

Remember the biggest issue defining this election was the war in Iraq, and who was criticizing the war FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. Hint: it was not the "moderates".

[jgraz]

141. Then why were all Dem INCUMBENTS re-elected?

If it was about change, I'd expect to see some Dems tossed out. But all those lefty, obstructionist, terrorist-loving Dems got sent back to Washington.

[jgraz]

142. And don't forget the ballot initiatives

Minimum wage hikes and stem cell research approved, abortion bans and TABORs crushed. Yep, sounds like a centrist agenda to me.

It just depends on where you define the center....

[Perky]

144. Actually I mention Brown in several post subsequents Post

No doubt that Brown is a true liberal. And he wonmy the largest margin of anyon in a contested racel. I think SHerrod is great...but I think Ohio was unique befause it very much a throw the repukes out atmosphere. If the scandal had not been there. SHerrod wold have had a much toughter time with Dewine. WOuld have loved to see him regardless though I was a fan of Paul Hackett as well.

As for Bernie. Vermont was already a Democratic seat. And the OP was about seats we took away from the GOP all of which, with the exception of OHIO were extremely close.

[Bjorn Against]

150. Actually Jeffords won election as a Republican

Yes he went independent and caucused with the Dems later, but he was elected as a Republican.

Bernie Sanders is not afraid to call himself socialist, and he won by a huge margin. You can not ignore the significance of an avowed socialist winning a landslide victory in ANY state.

And while there was certainly a lot of corruption in Ohio, but you can not give any evidence that would suggest that a progressive could not have won that Pennsylvania race just as easily as Casey could.

This election was won because people are disgusted with the war, and it was the progressives who were standing up to oppose this war from day one. They were ultimately the ones who this election.

[otherlander]

143. We wouldn't have won without the votes of

Goldwater conservatives who were tired of the corruption, but that doesn't mean we should try to be their party. Who knows? Maybe, now that neoconservatism has been rejected by the people, traditional conservatism will come back into the Republican party.

Or maybe not. Personally, I don't think that a two party system can work all that well. People who favor imperialism, socialists, and libertarians all have very different views, and if any two of those three have to be in the same party, everything becomes rather ineffective.

[LWolf]

145. That's true. So what's the point?

Are you making a point here?

How about this: since the republicans weren't replaced with liberals, then liberals didn't win, and we must continue to act for liberal change, regardless of which party holds power.

Was that your point? That we need to get behind the new majority with pitchforks and herding dogs to get them to make their left-hand turn and head down the better path?

If so, I've got a couple of pitchforks in the barn and an aussie at my feet who's ready to go at a word from me. Where would you like to start?

[Perky]

146. When this threed started it was in repsonse to a couple of threads

I saw on the triumph of liberalism...I thought it was a bit of a reach because of the type off olks who won the Sentate races, their slim margins and the fact the Lieberman won so handidly in a blue state.

It was not a knock against liberalism or meant to suggest that they were not valuable contributors to results. I just don't think that is what the election was about.

We could not have won these six Democratic seats without liberals moderates and repulsed conservative. But I think repulsed conservative would have stayed home or held their nose and voted from the incumbent if our candidate had been sucessfully painted as a liberal.

[jgraz]

252. Aaaaargh

I'm sorry, Perky, but it's this kind of reasoning that drives me crazy. You aren't actually saying that you disagree with ANY left-wing position, you're just afraid that if politicians actually support your values, that they'll be called a "liberal".

THIS is why the Dems have been out of power for so long. People don't respect them -- and rightly so. This election was won by a HUGE turnout of people brought into the process by true progressive candidates who finally had the courage to advocate for real American values. If we go back to the cringing, spineless, "oh please don't call me liberal or I'll cry" mentality, the Repugs will be back in power in '08.

Who the hell do you think has held Congress for the past 12 years? Advocates for moderation and bi-partisan cooperation??? These thugs stayed in office because they weren't afraid to speak their minds, no matter how many left wingers vomited at the sight of them.

YES, we can do better than the twisted politics of the right. YES, we can be more honorable, compassionate and competent in governing. BUT, if we don't stand up and clearly advocate for our beliefs, we deserve to be shoved back into the political margins.

[Perky]

266. You are reading waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy to much into my post

[jgraz]

269. No, I'm just *reading* your post

I think repulsed conservative would have stayed home or held their nose and voted from the incumbent if our candidate had been sucessfully painted as a liberal.

I believe the political term for this is "bullshit". Candidates who painted themselves as liberals (Sherrod Brown, John Tester, Carol Shea-Porter, Jerry McNerney, Deval Patrick, etc etc etc) won handily -- often after beating center-right primary opponents supported by the DCCC. Centrists like Tammy Duckworth and Lincoln Chafee were sent packing.

The more we run away from the Liberal label and the liberal heritage, the more we seem like spineless dissemblers to mainstream voters. We are who we are and we believe what we believe. Voters respect us a helluva lot more when we stop trying to pretend otherwise.

We also have the advantage of being right. But we can only make the argument if we stop caring about how the far-right sees us.

[Iris]

149. This makes sense, LWolf.

I think this is the right approach. We've moved forward an inch and we just have to keep going forward, maybe incrementally, but in the right direction nonetheless.

on edit - or should I say "towards the left nonetheless"?

[tlsmith1963]

151. I Think the Country Has Had Enough of Extremism

So we need to be careful & not follow the path of the Republicans. Whoever gets the moderates wins. I don't want the neocons & fundies back in two years:scared:, so *please*, don't blow it.

[SPKrazy]

152. How About Sherrod Brown?

liberalism is needed to correct the imbalance of power that has been in place for the last 6 years.

We have to use what we got.

Rahm didn't win these elections.

The people who got out there and worked for the candidates did.

Fuck Rahm

[Jcrowley]

153. The people are much further

to the left than are the politicians. This is of course a generalization but it holds true for the most part.

Universal health care? The people want it.

End of corporate rule? People want it.

End of corporate media? People want.

Distrust of the media? People got it.

Get big money out of politics? People want it.

Cut in military budget for social programs? People want it.

The way the whole political game is played precludes progressive candidates from getting in. again there are exceptions but that's pretty well the rule.

[mhatrw]

154. Liberalism would be a welcome change. n/t

[Bluebear]

155. Yeah, you gay marriage proponents & uppity liberals shut the fuck up now.

Thank you for your help and votes, now pipe down. :sarcasm:

[NMMNG]

161. We are what the Religious Right was to Republican Party

They want our help and support, but they don't want to actually do anything for us. Sure, they might throw a "f*cking gay rights thing" at us once in a while, but otherwise we're to stay under the bus where we belong.

[Perky]

174. OP here....I was actually seeing a bit of the parallel myself

Look I think Liberal are incredibly important to the Deomocratic part and cetainly a very important elemet of the base. All I ever meant to say in the OP is that it wold be an over reach to suggest that this election was a mandate in of itself for liberalism. It was not about that.

Now lets go govern and see what we can do to pay you guys somehow back for standing with us. You have earned it.

[Sapphocrat]

241. So you are going to support full equality for us, Perky...

...including full civil marriage rights?

Do I have your word on that?

[Perky]

264. I have no real poblem with that. in the least.

Ahh the vagareis of language. In my OP I was only suggesting that the defeats of Gay rights issues were evidence that this election was not a mandate for liberalism. I was not commenting on whether or not I agreed with those votes. I voted against the amendment here in Virginia.

[Sapphocrat]

275. What caught my eye was...

"...pay you guys somehow back for standing with us. You have earned it." I think we've earned it, too.

Thank you for voting against the Virginia amendment.

[terrya]

265. Yes, it's "get to the back of the bus" time for us uppity homos.

"Thanks SO much for those campaign contributions, but could you just shut the fuck up now? We really appreciate it." :sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

308. .

[sweetheart]

156. it depends how you define liberalism

It is exactly a mandate for classic liberalism:
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants.<5> It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism<1> which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Immanuel Kant, and their precursors, such as Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[NMMNG]

159. Oh, looky--another vote for "STFU and get under the bus you homos"

If I only had a dollar for every one I've seen recently I could retire.

[Bluebear]

165. But we had a whole 2 days to feel included this time!

Count your blessings!

[NMMNG]

168. I suppose I should

I had just enough time to get the axle grease out of my hair before it was time to get back under the bus.

[Jamastiene]

184. Are you getting a nasty cough from the fumes too?

I was wondering if that was just me or what.

[NMMNG]

284. Yes

And I keep getting hit by road debris too. x(

[Jamastiene]

183. Make it a nickel and I could retire.

Of course, the cost of living is cheaper where I live... :hi: Right on, BTFS. :pals:

[nolabels]

162. You are reading too much into it..............

It was just an election for the Democrats to take over congress :woohoo:

[texasleo]

166. amen

[Bluebear]

170. Tres apropos. nt

[Jamastiene]

175. So, if the country voted extremely right wing,

we should leave the country totally extreme right wing too, by that logic. Never challenge even a new nazi movement. It's all good, right?

It is no wonder this country is BEHIND other countries on so many things including having a female president.

I guess I should just shut the fuck up and get back under the damn bus because I am female and I should not have rights because the country hates women who have opinions. I should also force myself to marry some sorry ass redneck sob that beats me because the country and God hates lesbias too. :eyes:

That ain't happening. You can file it under "cold day in hell. Fuck that shit."

[Clark2008]

177. The country IS liberal on a lot of issues, though - just not gay

marriage... yet.

The country wants a strong environmental policy. The country is pro-choice. The country wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. The country wants universal health care. The country wants is civil liberties back.

While we still are a bit purient when it comes to issues of sex and gender (and that has to do with our heritage), the country isn't conservative, as a whole.

Yes, we voted for change, but we still do like our candidates liberal on issues of environment, civil liberties and health care.

[SouthernBelle82]

182. I agree

I said the same thing in the General Politics section. That it was about right vs wrong and not liberal vs conservative. We all came together to do what we know is right and that is accountability. That is what this election is about. It's not about people embracing either liberalism or conservatism with democrats.

[Toots]

185. Yes a change from Conservatism to Liberalism

People want the government to care for them for a change instead of the huge Corporations and foreign nations.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

191. It Was A No Vote On The Iraq War

I don't know what else we can infer from it.

[SwingVoter2006]

193. A message to all "noob" and "moderate" haters!

These are, of course, rhetorical. Food for thought.

Do you want this Revolution to succeed, or fail?

Is Progressive Democratism a Big Tent operation or an exclusive, members-only club?

Do you want to alienate the middle, or include the middle?

Do you value authoritarian heirarchy more than truly open and egalitarian expression?

Do you want to reach out a welcoming hand to your fellow Americans, or punch them in the face because you think they're undeserving of your respect?

Good questions.

[Bridget Burke]

204. "Authoritarian hierarchy"?

As I stated before, it's not the number of posts but the CONTENT of those posts.

Where's your welcoming hand? When someone joins DU only to scold & threaten us, they invite criticism.

[SwingVoter2006]

217. Ignore moderates, you lose!

That's not a threat, it's just a fact.

I'm here at DU to see how open the more progressively radical portion of the internet is to moderates being fellow travelers in changing course in America.

Seems like you want us moderates to go fuck ourselves.

Fine.

[ThomCat]

224. No, we want moderates to stop taking credit

for what other people do. Moderates come in after we've done the work to build the organizations and fight the battles to make progress seem simple and mainstream. Moderates come in and vote to approve our years of work and then pat themselves on the back as if they did all the work.

You clearly love to think of yourself as more intelligent and responsible than anyone else, but what do you stand up for? What's your vision and what do you do to make it happen? So far you haven't sited anything. Your only accomplisment is switching parties and voting.

Sorry if we're not impressed. :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

226. Please be specific about your non-"Liberal" concerns!

Which beliefs do you hold that you fear being trampled by us, the elite?

If you want to change course in some ways but maintain the status quo in others, details would be useful. We can argue those points with civility.

Please point out any obscenity in my posts. (I use those words, but save them for special occasions.)

[Kerrytravelers]

278. Well, not all moderates. Only insulting, inflammatory ones who like to disrupt.

:evilgrin:

[Bluebear]

283. You said it. nt

[ThomCat]

214. Do you want teh revolution to succed or fail?

And if you want it to succeed why you piss on the base that does the hardest work?

Is progressive democracy a big tent, or are only "moderates" allowed inside?

Do you want to alienate the base, or keep using them without respect for what they do?

Do you value your ego and patting yourself on the back more than you value the actual goals we fight for?

Do you want to reach out a cooperative hand to your fellow Americans, or punch them in the face because you think they're undeserving of your respect?

Unfortunately, I think you've already answered these questions. :eyes:

[jtm111]

228. bravo

I dropped out of politics shortly after the 2000 elections. I just couldn't take it, the nastiness, the disrespect on both sides.

Tuesday was a ray of hope to me, for the very reason you cite: it appears the moderate way won the day.

I look forward to a true third-way in politics. I believe the democrat party is uniquely qualified to make it happen.

I understand the passion on the left; I was that way when I was in college. But I hope the young whippersnappers take a deep breath and trust that the voice of moderation will be carry liberal principles to the finish line. Anger doesn't win hearts and minds.

[Sapphocrat]

242. This young whippersnapper...

...is 45 fucking years old.

Anger may not win hearts and minds, but spineless appeasement never wins rights.

[Kerrytravelers]

279. So, basically, after all the hard work has been done, all the activists

that made that happen are suppose to shut up? Because, that's basically what Swingvoter2006 said to Thomcat and he's said basically the same thing on another thread as well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2665838

And, please, it's the Democratic Party. The "ic" makes a difference, take advice from a young whippersnapper.

[Marr]

310. It's called the DemocratIC Party.

And if you're going to lecture a bunch of activist "whippersnappers" about how you're more important to the movement's success than they are, you might want to get the name of the party straight.

[Kerrytravelers]

276. Oh, you are too funny!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Really have the rhetoric down, don't you?

[Bluebear]

291. :)

[WA98296]

199. BULL. Dems won because of massive CORRUPTION of GOP & Administration.

[stepnw1f]

223. We All Won

But I have to say, the left was already out marching way before anything hit the MSM. Let's not forget AAR's role in this too...

[orpupilofnature57]

210. It is a mandate against mandates ,liberalism Did win ,what were the

first orders of business in the New govt. Minimum wage ,Health care, not capital gains ,Liberal issues ,STOP running away from what made Dem's loved by the world ,LIBERALISM!

[Burma Jones]

216. Liberalism is Change - tell me Perky, what is a Liberal?

Is a liberal person what the sound bite tells you?

Are Liberals all about attacking people's religion and their narrow social beliefs and getting beaten????

To far too many people, Liberalism means either a frothing at the mouth person flipping the bird at everyone that doesn't toe their line or a passive elitist. Both stereotypes are about as true as painting all conservatives as either Tim McVeigh or Ken Lay.

As for me, I'm just looking for folks that have not sold out to the highest bidder, and that leads one to Liberalism because the guys with the deep pockets do not want to lose that extra ten million bucks a year that makes them better than the guy that only gets an extra five million bucks a year, and so on......


Liberal=Liberty=Liberate=Freedom

[jgraz]

257. Liberal is a Moderate who's not afraid to stand up for their beliefs

Seriously -- thousands of people are DEAD because moderates were too craven to stand up to this criminal regime. Now that the parade has started you want to jump in front and pretend you were leading it all along? Give me a fucking break.

[Burma Jones]

258. "You" I hope to hell you are using the "editorial" you

I've been against Iraq from Day One and put my money where my mouth is......

[Name removed]

225. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

230. Still no discussion of actual issues....

It's people like you who give Moderates a bad name.

There'll be many a dry eye.

[LostinVA]

245. If bullying you is sticking up for Democratic principles, good

Nice spin, btw -- you totally left out all your little err... slips from up thread.

on edit: I take it your definition of "bullying" is anyone who calls you on your poo.

OCH, AYE, YOU'RE SCREWN, LADDIE!!!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

255. .

:spray:

:rofl:

[donco6]

259. If five people are hammering you . . .

(and I would have been sixth - not in small part because of your offensive posts elsewhere), maybe that should tell you something.

But I doubt it.

[Kerrytravelers]

263. People were hammering you because you are inflammatory and insulting.

And you're getting mad because you have nothing of interest to say, just more inflammatory and insulting nonsense. And you look incredibly ridiculous.

And, I, frankly, am glad to see you gone. I hope it's a permanent decision.

Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

And, as always, you will exit stage right.

[orpupilofnature57]

267. see how you just used the word instead of Generous? my consensus

[Bluebear]

268. BULLIES! Hahahaha ... try being gay and on the receiving end of bullying

Thanks for playing though.

[screembloodymurder]

233. Agreed.

And choice. There were only two choices - one good and one evil. If the Democrats don't deliver, new choices will be necessary.

[stepnw1f]

239. Sorry, But It is a Mandate for Liberalism

Liberals have been demonized for too long and after 6 long years it turns out we were right all along.

"Keep that Powder Dry".

[elehhhhna]

248. That's a VERY offensive post you've made there, step.

Edit that "Sorry" out. Please.

;-)

[stepnw1f]

262. I Can't Edit Anymore......

:yoiks:

[Hippo_Tron]

270. Perky if this is the case, how would YOU suggest that he democratic congress governs

Give me some specific examples of policy that the Democrats should not pursue because they are too liberal for the American public. Impeachment aside, because we're debating that in about 100 different threads.

[Perky]

281. I do not think any liberal issue should be off the table

but I am not really sure what is a liberal issue. I think someone ought tooffer a consitutional amendment on the right of privacy. I am not sure about the gay marriage issue largely because it is a stateissue in my mind and Ithink the courts would probably stike it down. But give me a couple of "liberal" issues and I would be happy to tell you what I think.

For the record I am like most Democrats. I agree with the majority of the party on 80% and disagree on the other 20%, but I am also very much a pragmatist and want to make sure we develop the chops to be a pemanent majority. That means soft-pedaling some issues, not giving up on them and not necessarily ignoring them but also not giving the right something to demonize us with. It not so much I think the deonization wins the day on its own...we just have neverdone a particualrly good job at responding to the attack.

[Hippo_Tron]

286. Okay, but you're the one that started this thread

I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible, so don't take it as I'm being hostile. You are suggesting that governing in a liberal manner will make us lose favor with the American people as though people here (or in Congress) are already proposing far left policies that the American people will reject. I want an example of one of these policies. If you can't think of one, I don't see why you feel like you need to inform us that we shouldn't govern from the left. What exactly do liberals advocate that Americans don't like?

[Perky]

297. I never said that we should not goven from the left. Did I?

I have actually given your post some real thought. I think the liberal challenge is not what they advocate nearly so much as what they are silent on. For instance:

Criminal activity and pushishment of offenders. Liberal will rail against the the enrons of the world or corporate polluters, but have nothing to say about gang violence or organized crime or drug trafficking or illegal drug use.

And I think that dovetails with the "perceived" liberal position on Gun Control that no one should own guns. I think their is a mythology about that but the left has done little to change the perception. (I don't own a gun and probably never would)
I think, however that if the left was seen as being "tough on crime" they would get back a lot more NRA white males.

[Sapphocrat]

304. Oh, liberals have plenty to say about crime.

Liberal will rail against the the enrons of the world or corporate polluters, but have nothing to say about gang violence or organized crime or drug trafficking or illegal drug use.

Maybe you perceive it that way because the popular notion of being "tough on crime" has more to do with punishment than with prevention.

Liberals have plenty to say about gang violence and organized crime and drug trafficking and illegal drug use -- but curtailing any of these problems is a longterm (even generational) process; it should be obvious to everyone, no matter what their stance, that long prison terms and the death penalty do nothing to lower the crime rate, except for the criminal who's been locked up or put to death.

The answer lies not in such "quick fixes" as imprisonment and execution, but in investing in courses which break the cycle of violence in our culture, education -- early, continuous, and quality -- being the number-one method. You pull people out of the cycle of violence and crime by giving them a better way to live, and then you keep giving them every opportunity to have the fullest, richest life possible. (I don't want to start in on the whole class-war issue here, but that's what's at the heart of the problem.)

It's poverty and hopelessness that creates criminals -- and terrorists. Unfortunately, our society takes the same approach to domestic crime as it does international terrorism: Forget about addressing the causes -- just punish the perps, fast and hard. And what does that get us in the longterm? More criminals -- and more terrorists.

You may as well beat a child black and blue for hitting his little sister, all the while screaming, "You NEVER" - whack! - "NEVER" - whack! - "EVER" - whack! - "HIT anyone else!"

Lot of good that does.

The problem is that too many people believe in revenge over prevention.

Side note: As for the "traditional" methods of preventing crime, never forget: Liberals are not the ones to blame for cutting funding to the nation's first responders. And when it comes time to bulk up our police and firefighting forces, who is it that balks at forking out their precious tax dollars at every turn? Not liberals, but the "fiscal conservatives."

Re drugs: Decriminalize marijuana, and you'll empty half the prisons in the nation. How does that fight crime? Easy: Prison is Crime University. If you don't want a lot of otherwise nonviolent people to become graduates, then stop throwing pot smokers and growers into prison.

(Another effect of unreasonable drug laws: Take a look at just how well California's misguided Three-Strikes law has worked out; our prisons are overflowing with minor offenders to the point that we are now sending inmates to serve their terms in other states!)

Re guns: It's a myth, all right. I don't hunt, I don't sit up nights with a shotgun on my lap waiting for the terra-ists to invade, and I believe the NRA has devolved from RKBA defender into a bunch of paranoid lunatics -- but when you want to take my gun, you will have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.

The answer to soothing the NRA's hysteria is not a lot of lame-sounding promises that we'll never take away their guns -- that's a defensive position. The answer is to point out that it's not liberals who have been gutting the Constitution, but are the ones fighting to the death to preserve it -- especially the Bill of Rights (can you say "habeas corpus"?) which includes the Second Amendment, as it stands.

In the end, liberals are not silent on any of these issues -- it's that our solutions are not what the "revenge is sweet" crowd wants to hear.

[Kerrytravelers]

305. Hats off to you. Very well written.

I have nothing more to add but: Yes. Exactly.

[Perky]

306. Very well stated.

But remember. you have to sel thse things to the middle of the roaders in order to win the election. And the minut you mention letting folks out prisinyou get tagged as soft. The liberal problem in large measeure is that that the average american has the attention span of a lightning bug. Its is terrible but true that we lose or win in 30 second sound bites.

[Bluebear]

307. Bravo. Exactly right. nt

[kath]

290. "because it is a state issue" - CLANG, clang, clang - this statement always

sets off alarm bells with me. During the fight for civil rights in the 50's and 60's, this was the mantra of all the racist asshole Southern governors, police chiefs, etc.
Everyone, if you missed "Eyes on the Prize" when PBS showed it last month, rent it, borrow it from your library, whatever. It's incredible. Or read Melba Patillo Beals amazing autobiography "Warriors Don't Cry".

[Perky]

298. Your point is completely valid.

and I think a fair comparison. My concern is that overreaching federalism plays both ways. If we heve a Federal policy on gay marriage we can have a federal policy on just about anything. Guns. abortion whatever. Which migh be fine except that the policy could change as the White House changes occupants. Unless you enshrine liberal policy in the constitution. And the problem with that is these issues are incredibly polarizing and used to stir various bases in a number of ways. A consitutional ratification process on gay marriage however framed would be very ugly and probably unsuccessful.

Winning at the state level on the other hand allows for the nation to see how it works and to not be ferdul of it. It may be a much slower progress. but I think it would be far more succesful.

[Geek_Girl]

274. In TN, VA, MO those candidates are considered Liberal

Harold Ford is viewed as a liberal in TN and I'm sure in those reddest of red state where we won with moderates, they are considered liberal by the majority of the population. So in a sense this was a vote for liberalism.

[Cleita]

285. Yeah, we know. The country belongs to a certain demographic

who aren't liberal but compassionate oh, well business people? Do I have that right? Damn those liberals. Don't they know the country belongs to the business people and no one else?

[Perky]

293. So an entrprenuer can't be a liberal?

That is as about as silly and presisumptive and exclusionary as the fundies saying that a Democrat can not be a Christian.

[Cleita]

302. I guess I thought you would recognize euphemisms.

Like "business people" = "Republican corporatists". It was presumptive of me.

Sure there are lots of liberal entrepreneurs. Actually, liberal entrepreneurs practice true free market values because they don't have access to the corporate welfare trough that conservatives have legislated for themselves and their corporate masters.

[Cobalt Violet]

296. The country is liberal.

The country wants universal healthcare.

[Perky]

299. The Devil is in the details however

I think that the nation want betteraccessand much cheaper insurance rates. Translating those pocketbook concerns into "universl healthcare" is tough.

The insurance industry is quite deft at arguing that it would take away choices and create long lines and rationing.

The big issue is how you overcome those barriers and keep the national consensues on the issue.

[onenote]

301. governing "coalition"

The Democratic majority in the House and the Senate is not monolithic. Its a coalition that covers a wide spectrum of positions on a wide array of issues. Demanding ideological purity and insisting on an agenda dictated only by one part of the coalition is a recipe for failure.

Coalition governing requires compromise and horse trading. The progressive wing of the party will get some things, but will have to defer on others. The same goes for the centrist, moderate, and conservative elements of the party.

That is the reality. There is no alternate reality.

[Marr]

309. Change... away from Republicanism. Most of your

"moderates" are Republicans when it comes to economic and foreign policy. People want to leave that crap behind, and said so quite clearly.

People want national healthcare, better wages, and a shifting of the tax burden away from the poor and the middle class. That's called liberalism- and it won.

[Generic Brad]

311. We voted for change applied liberally

There was nothing conservative about us taking over Congress.