Forget moving to the center

[Robbien]

Think about this: when Republicans choose a VP candidate, they never worry about moving to the center. Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew -- none of them were accused of being a compromise candidate.

So why can't Obama pick someone as far to the left as Cheney was to the right? Sure the pundits will slam the pick, calling that person "left-wing" or "liberal." But standing up for integrity might impress the MSM.

I would love to see Russ Feingold. The Feingold of McCain-Feingold would make a great symbol in the campaign. Feingold has experience, but is still seen as an agent of change.

Another great pick: a former presidential candidate who lives in a key state (Ohio) in November. Someone with experience but truly is for change: Dennis Kucinich. You could have a candidate with a "Muslim name" run with a VP candidate with a British wife - a melting pot of opportunity.

Or how about Bernie Sanders - Independent Socialist Senator from Vermont. How about either of the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- Lynn Woolsey or Barbara Lee, both from California?

The pundits never criticized Cheney as being too far to the right for Bush. Cheney voted against Head Start. Cheney voted in 1986 against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela and recognition of the African National Congress. Wouldn't it be great if Obama could pick someone who is as far to the left as Cheney or Quayle are to the right?

So don't worry about the center. Go off on a tangent of your choosing.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/178

With the voter registration for Dems outnumbering GOPers in almost every state, energizing Democrats and forgetting going to the center seems like a great course of action.

[magellan]

1. Great idea

Going to the hard right has cost the GOP big time. The last thing the Dems need to do is keep following them.

Kucinich for VP (I'd be very happy with Feingold or Sanders too).

[nels25]

5. I think that Feingold would be acceptable

but go hard left and chose a Sanders type and watch what happens.

Magellan you have it correct, why should we replicate the mistake's of the GOP.

THe nation is not as progressive as we would desire, that is simple fact.

While we will win this fall, the victory will be to some limited degree a rejection of all things GOP because of their massive screw up's over the last several years, not some deep seated longing for the Democrat progressives to move to the progressive hard left in a rapid manner.

We have to establish our competency in governing and measure our moves, some moves like a large to complete overhaul of national health insurance policy will actually be quite easy since it has broad public support.

A broad restructuring of energy policy while needed may not be as easy as we think, when the price of fuel gets high enough, and the nation as whole notes that other nations have no qualms about accessing oil, than the demand to drill will grow not diminish.

We think that the drilling issue will not be a problem, I think the exact opposite, if we fail to handle this correctly we are rapidly going to find our selves on the wrong side of it.

[magellan]

14. Heartily disagree

This country is more progressive than the Dem leadership thinks (or wants to believe) it is. That's because the Dems have been letting the right control the message for too long, and people will parrot what seems reasonable when they aren't being told the whole truth.

But dig deeper -- give Americans the unvarnished facts -- and you find a nation that overall is as progressive as anywhere else in the world.

This is where the Dems have fallen down. Instead of doing the hard work of countering the Repub propaganda machine they've taken the easy route and kept silent. Instead of calling the GOP on its thinly veiled imperial agenda and its anti-worker, pro-corporate schemes, the Dems have slowly shuffled over to stand near them so they can share the misguided love.

Instead of courting the progressive base of the party, the Dems listen to the faux outrage from the right's minions and cuddle up to conservative Dems, who by any stretch of the imagination would have been card-carrying Repubs 15 years ago and who do nothing but further stymie what this nation wants and needs.

I'm sad to say that it's the policy of compromise with the right and in many cases the proximity of the two parties that will let the Dems down, much as it's screwed the Labour Party in the UK. As you pointed out yourself, November will be more a rejection of the GOP than an embracing of the Dems, when by all rights the GOP should be off licking its wounds for at least a few election cycles. And they would be if the Dems had done any number of things differently.

As it stands, I fully expect the GOP to be back in power in 2012. And the Dems will have only themselves to blame for it.

Don't take the tough love lesson if you don't want to. But mark my words. The Dems are cutting off their noses to spite their faces by believing this isn't a progressive country. And it WILL catch up to them.

[nels25]

18. Oh I think that the populace is by some degree

quite progressive. But when you read some of the out there IMHO ideas like completely doing away with a market economy (which while it may work, I do not claim to be smart enough to understand if it would). The nation as whole simply would not agree with that kind of in their eyes radical approach.

If we are going to govern in a much more progressive way then the nation has been used to for a long time, then we would be well advised to explain in simple and comprehensive detail why it is necessary.

I learned in the Navy that when it is possible you should explain why you are directing those under you to perform a certain duty that here to fore they had not performed on a consistent basis. Failure to do so would more time than not lead to discontent problems for the person in charge, either in lower morale or reduced productivity which would in turn cause disciplinary problems.

In short we as senior enlisted men were taught to only give a direct order with no room for discussion when safety or simple time factors were of such a situation that no other approach would be appropriate.

Maybe we should consider Woodrow Wilson's approach, he knew he had been elected by some what of a fluke (he was also able to carry in a small Democratic party majority in both chambers) and that while he would try to keep it from happening, it was very likely he would lose his majority (especially in the House- which he in fact did) in 1914. So he went about passing legislation of some magnitude (Income tax for example) with the hope/dare that a future GOP majority would not have the will or political power to repeal it.

Wilson had both for sight and leadership in how he conducted this part of his presidency (and he was considered quite progressive for his time).

I also agree that handled properly the GOP should not be a serious factor on the national level until 2016 or 2018, it all depends on our approach to governance, which in the end is what it always comes down to.

I am all for tough love and I would be pleased to be wrong, but the historian in me has made pragmatic.

I had the pleasure of looking over some books about the 68 and 72 presidential campaigns recently and I came to the conclusion that the more progressive/liberal acted in ways that were sure to cause a Democrat loss in both elections.

There would have not been as significant a law and order issue for Nixon to exploit if the Chicago non sense had not happened. How far toward stopping the war did all those demonstrations/riots get toward the true objective??

I know it might be supreme heresy on this site to question the anti-war approach of 40 years ago, but I believe the approach taken this time around has been much more effective.


Thank you for letting me converse with you via DU.

Also what are your thought of Arizona Gov Napolitano as Baracks choice, it seem like a strong one to me.

[Lasher]

2. This very thought has occurred to me many times.

The well has been intentionally poisoned, by Cheney more than any other person. We are divided, red and blue. Too bad for the GOP when they find themselves in a world with fewer red shirts than blue ones. Compromising and making nice with these people is not wise. Look what it did for Bill Clinton.

[HereSince1628]

3. Keep yer hands off my senator!

The D's need to extend control of the senate so that they can get near veto proof.

The progressive movement needs progressives in the mix in the senate. There really isn't a prospective progressive replacement for Feingold among potential folks who would run in Wisconsin. We'd likely end up with a DLC leaning candidate if not a DLCer proper.

I say go west young man and pick a governor.

[Robbien]

6. Ha. True your state does need him

There are plenty of good lefties out there.

Here's hoping that Obama's picking a leftie is even in the cards this time around.

[cynatnite]

4. Feingold as VP occured to me today...

I just love him and was disappointed he didn't run for president. I think he would have done very well.

Anyway, I think going too far to the left would hurt our chances for winning the WH. To win, we need those folks in the center. We have to have them...just like we need the independents and the conservative Dems. Without these groups we won't win.

[Vincardog]

12. We can not head to the middle when the radical reich has pushed the right soooo far into the fascist

right. Calls for the "Center" are a ploy to go along with the police state.
Look at the budget to see exactly how far wrong our national priorities are.
80% of the budget is already for military and that does not count the special items like the Illegal occupation and black budget of the CIA.

[cynatnite]

15. I'd love to see our party on the far left, but realistically...

it will not get us in the WH.

I'm not disagreeing with you about how screwed up our priorities are, but we can't win without the independents, centrists and conservative dems.

[HereSince1628]

16. The FAR left? Surely you jest

The far left is made up of people like the Dali Lama.

There is no democratic politician who is anywhere near the far left.

The use of "FAR" is a rightwing tactic to scare the ignorant.

Look over the Global news for the 1960's and get some perspective on what FAR LEFT really means.

[cynatnite]

17. If you read what the OP posted you'll see that it mentions...

the far left which is what I'm responding to.

[HereSince1628]

19. What the OP posted mentions "as far to the left"

The link may mention something else, but I've not gone there.

Cheney is actually pretty much just right-wing in the current climate. He and Hitler aren't far right wing, just right wing.
The position of Feingold is left wing, not far left. That's just crazy-assed FAUX newspeak.

If we measure against the last 50 years Feingold is a center left. There is nothing FAR LEFT to the democratic party, now the socialist worker's party--they are getting there, the communist party--they are pretty close to there. But even very left organizations like the DFL isn't as left as it once was.

[cynatnite]

21. I understand what you're saying...

and I probably misread the intent of the OP. Thanks for the clarification. :)

[Perry Logan]

7. I agree. They always say our candidates are the most liberal people ever anyway.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Kooch would be great!

I hope he does play a big role in the next Administration.

[bobbolink]

9. "So why can't Obama pick someone as far to the left as Cheney was to the right?"

Because Obama is right of center.

He certainly couldn't have a "leftist", now, could he.

[Vincardog]

10. How about NAder for VP? Or at least AG or a spot on the SCOTUS?

[lutefisk]

11. The sad thing is, far left today is the center of 30-40 years ago.n/t

[HereSince1628]

13. So true. Of course, that's the baby boomers fault.

Why? Because everything is the fault of the boomers.


Sure some Boomers have become members of the greedy ass-hole establishment. But, I wonder how many boomers are simply shell-shocked by the failure of ALL generations to come together to save the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I remember the regional war protests as being characterized as undertaken by grey haired boomers trying to recapture their youth. Could it not have been boomers simply trying to express the values they had lived by for 40 years?

[Mountainman]

20. C heney picked himself. I think that was the plan from the start. They needed a sock puppet to be

president while in the background Cheney led the take over of all government agencies and install his neocons.