Explain this to me: Some tell us we need to change to the right...

[Lerkfish]

..and if we don't, we're straying from norm or not conforming enough to suit them?

wu-what? If they are telling us to change, arent THEY the ones not conforming or straying from the norm?

I'm referring to the DLC, Hillary, et al, and anyone who objects when I object to the DLC.

[slackmaster]

1. It's not necessary to go to the right to abandon excesses of the left

We should embrace personal liberty, diversity, justice, tolerance, and equality.

[flamin lib]

2. I thought we already did that . . .

[MisterLiberal]

14. Not another one

Always, it's "move to the right" "move to the right" "move to the right".

I'm tired of it.

We need to make a STAND where we are, if not move to the LEFT! There's more than enough right wing in the Repukes little party. Americans need a CHOICE!

And that means US, while we are still a party of choice. Some here want us to move to the right on guns or abortion or gay rights.

Pardon me, BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT THE REPUKES WANT????

[Lerkfish]

3. some clarification needed:

what excesses of the left?
why do we need to abandon them?
why would abandoning them NOT be a shift to the right?
Why do you feel liberal ideals incompatible with liberty, diverstiy justice, tolerance and equality? (if you do, its a little unclear)

[slackmaster]

10. Left vs. Right is not the only meaningful political dimension

You also need to consider the size and scope of government.

I'm for smaller, more efficient government that is less involved in peoples' private lives.

Why do you feel liberal ideals incompatible with liberty, diverstiy justice, tolerance and equality? (if you do, its a little unclear)

True liberalism IMO is not incompatible with those principles. I feel that people who call themselves "progressives" tend to look for government to answer every issue, every problem. The knee-jerk reaction is to make more laws. That's not always the best solution.

[Debs]

31. I would point out

That corporations have tremendous power in our society. They have become immortal persons with even MORE rights that people have. With NAFTA a corporation can go to Mexico and demand the same rights as a Mexican corporation, while a person cannot go to Mexico and demand all the rights of a Mexican citizen. Individually we have little sway over corporations which are by nature organizations that operate from dictates from the top without regard to opinion or what their workers believe to be important. The only real power that can stand up against corporate malfeasance (when they find the stomach to do so) is government. I understand the libertarian urge but this dynamic must be taken into account when you start talking about smaller government. There is a finite amount of power in a society. What the government gives up will not necessarily go to the people but often will go to the other big player, corporate power. Thomas Dewey called politics the shadow cast over society by big business. Was he wrong?

[MisterLiberal]

15. .

You know, gay rights, since gays aren't "normal" and don't forget! We want everyone to have a gun!

Oh and yeah, a womans body is not her own. If the government wants her to have a hundred babies, then they have that say. Its like government sponsored rape.

[Catamount]

16. You are so right Lerkfish!

I am proud to be a liberal in every way!
Being so does not disqualify one from caring, quite the opposite is right.
As someone said yesterday, I wish I could remember who, but it went like this:
The left has moved to the right so much, that it's become the center!
How scary is that?






:patriot:

[OneBlueSky]

8. precisely what "excesses of the left" are you referring to? . . . n/t

.

[slackmaster]

11. See reply #10

n/t

[markus]

27. If you think we need to walk away from gay rights, just say so

Its a discussion we have to have and get over, so we don't have it in the middle of an election.

Should the party be identified with gay rights? Should the party be identified with the secularist "seperation of church and state" movement?

I am a strong supporter of both of those ideals. I also think the Party needs to be talking about economics, be on the offensive about it, and every time the GOP says "gays, gays, gays" or "God, God, God", we need to say, "Why are you changing the subject? What are your trying to hide? Are you personally profitting from these (tax cuts, benefit losses, job outsourcing, whatever).

I'm not saying the party should cave on these issues. It should just say, "I'm not going to amend the constitution to single out any group for any reason, except to expand Democratic liberty" or "I'm not going to use the government to tell people what they should believe or which church they should attend." Always reply with a negative characterization of the GOP's views on these issues.

On the other hand, if you are talking about "national security Democrats," I will accept that the party must be seen as strong against terror. I think the way to do that is to expose the Iraq War for the political and economic sham it is, so we can free up resources and focus on the war on terror.

"We can't really focus on the war on terror in the way we should until we extricate ourself from Mr. Bush's misadventure in Iraq."

[slackmaster]

28. I think we are on the same side here

Should the party be identified with gay rights?

The party should be identified with rights for everyone.

Should the party be identified with the secularist "seperation of church and state" movement?

The party should be identified as accepting of all religious and secular viewpoints.

It should just say, "I'm not going to amend the constitution to single out any group for any reason, except to expand Democratic liberty" or "I'm not going to use the government to tell people what they should believe or which church they should attend." Always reply with a negative characterization of the GOP's views on these issues.

That is exactly what I have been saying since I have been posting on DU, though not quite so eloquently.

On the other hand, if you are talking about "national security Democrats," I will accept that the party must be seen as strong against terror.

A strong stand against terror does not require sacrificing the freedom of people who are not terrorists. My own Senator Diane Feinstein lost me several years ago when she and then-FBI Director Louis Freeh proposed a bill that would have outlawed use of strong encryption over the Internet for any purpose, unless the federal government was provided with a key. Is DiFi on the left because she supports public education and strong environmental protection? (And I do agree with her on those issues.) Or is she on the right because she supports police state policies? The answer is she is both. Pushing too far to the left or to the right ultimately takes you to the same place.

[Festivito]

4. My view: We either conform to the media, or fight the media.

And the media is right wing.

But, how will you get word out if you fight the media? Our media is like a huge pedantic churlish vindictive FILTER. Make it mad, and it'll getcha.

Personally, I think it's controlled and it won't matter if we move right to placate them or not. They'll just push RepubliCONs and don us anyway.

So, I say it's time to fight them, head on, harshly, boldly, and force them to kneel. Then we break their monopolies with the public mandate, or like all the other great nations after a few hundred years -- we die.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Well, it's a matter of perception.

They think that because Bill Clinton won by moving to the right. I think that theory completely ignores the fact that Bill Clinton won because he's the most charismatic candidate anyone's seen since Kennedy and because Ross Perot took 19% of the vote. People forget Clinton only got 42% of the vote in 1992 (by way of comparison, Kerry and Gore each got 6% more than Clinton did). In fact, here's a few states Clinton won largely thanks to Mr. Perot:

Georgia
Clinton - 43.5%
Bush - 42.9%
Perot - 13.3%

Ohio
Clinton - 40.2%
Bush - 38.3%
Perot - 21%

Montana
Clinton - 37.6%
Bush - 35.1%
Perot - 26.1%

Then, of course, in 1996, the country started going pretty well and Clinton was an incumbent, so he didn't need Perot's help all that much.

[zbdent]

6. Hmm, kinda like the New England Patriots telling the Pittsburgh

Steelers how to beat them in the AFC Championship game.

Whatever advice you get would be full of --it.

[cestpaspossible]

7. Some are such a small minority that it is a waste of time

and energy to focus on them.

[Bridget Burke]

9. Please explain....

Which "minority" should be abandoned?

[cestpaspossible]

13. What I mean is that we should spend our time attacking Republicans

not the 1% of Democrats who think we should be more like Republicans.

[Lerkfish]

17. sorry if you construed this thread as an attack...

more was meant like a "wtf?" is up with their logic.

[cestpaspossible]

19. I'm sorry that I can't use the word 'attack'

without people getting defensive.

[Lerkfish]

20. um...........

I"m not getting defensive, I'm apologizing if my post were interpreted as an attack...i wasn't thinking you were attacking ME, so no need for me to be defensive.

You were implying I was attacking someone else. I felt that was a wrong term to use. If anything, I was responding to their attempts to change my point of view. so....not really attacking, see?

[cestpaspossible]

22. No

You were implying I was attacking someone else.

No, actually, I meant what I said, nothing more. If I wanted to say that you were attacking someone, I would have just said so, I wouldn't need to 'imply' it.

[Lerkfish]

23. huh? do you read your own posts?

let's look at what you said:

----------------------
What I mean is that we should spend our time attacking Republicans not the 1% of Democrats who think we should be more like Republicans.
----------------------

then you said:

---------------------

You were implying I was attacking someone else. (quoting me)
No, actually, I meant what I said, nothing more. If I wanted to say that you were attacking someone, I would have just said so, I wouldn't need to 'imply' it.
---------------------

hunh.

well, push me over with a feather. when you said we should not attack someone, and I thought you were implying we were attacking someone, by gum I was totally off base, huh?

:eyes:

[cestpaspossible]

24. Yeah I guess you were off base

because I did indeed mean what I said

What I mean is that we should spend our time attacking Republicans not the 1% of Democrats who think we should be more like Republicans.


What I did not mean was anything other than what I said. For example I did not say that you were attacking anyone, and that's because that is not what I meant.

[Nikki Stone 1]

12. Liberals should create enough outspoken "targets" to keep the MSM tripping

over its own feet in a desire to keep up. The problem is that so FEW liberals and lefties are willing to be outspoken, that those who are get the media death ray focused on them and get burned beyond all recognition. I say let's have all the left/liberals/non-neocons get out there and start making noise. We can play a game of "Look, over here! No over here! No, wait a minute, over here!" to the point where we drive the media bonkers.

We could also play the neocon game of "Look at our loonies like Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps and O'Reilly, so that you are NOT looking at the Shrubmeister and what he is really doing."

Doesn't Shrub look a little less harmful next to Ann "McWidows" Coulter?

[Lone Pawn]

36. Michael Moore?

[ComerPerro]

18. Exactly

Best example: Abortion debate.

DLCish stance: The Right Wing wants abortion to be illegal. We must compromise, or else we will look like radical extremists.

Common sense: Some members of the right wing wants the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade and make all forms of abortion illegal, for any reason. They seek to overturn a standing Judicial decision from the highest court in the nation on the whim of a very small minority, some of whom are so totalitarian in their beliefs that they are willing to commit acts of terrorism and murder in the name of their cause.

Conclusion: Who is the radical extremist here?

[bvar22]

21. Someone from the "move to the right" crowd....

please explain to me again the part about how I need to support politicians that will advance the agenda of THE RICH at the expense of LABOR and the WORKING CLASS?

[cestpaspossible]

25. Good luck finding someone from that crowd.

It is basically a Republican driven media myth that there is some large group of Democrats who want to move the party to the right.

Which is why you will have such a hard time finding anyone on DU arguing that the party should move to the right.

[Lone Pawn]

29. You don't.

Most of what I'm willing to drop are political liabilities that Americans don't see as being necessary to liberalism. Affirmitive Action? A major irritant to quite a few Americans, and utterly unproven in effectiveness. Some studies show it actually increases racial tensions.

Abortion? If running pro-life Democrats in the South is what we need to do to win local legislatures, I'm not above doing it.

War? I'm not for pulling out of Iraq before it's so calm that I could walk naked through Baghdad with Qurans as sandals and hundred-dollar-bills taped to my chest. Somehow I don't get the idea that destroying a nation, then leaving them angry and in the hands of religious fundamentalists is beneficial to America. This doesn't mean I was in favor of the war. But remember how we destabilized Afghanistan and left it in the hands of radical extremists in the '80s? Wasn't the best idea.

Gay rights? Of course I'm for gay rights. But am I for proposing Gay Marriage as a party platform? Oh, dear God, no. Quiet down the rhetoric on gay marriage. Hell, be silent on it, or even come out against it. Because while gay marriage is an even split among Americans, among voters the homophobes kick ass. And no, it's not 'just freepers.' And yes, coming out in favor of gay rights would alienate more Dems than not. And yes, regardless of the rhetoric on both sides, when Republicans have power gay rights backslide.

Are any of these the Agenda of the Rich? Not really. I don't buy into the War Profiteers argument; neoconservatives have been jumping over the chance to invade Iraq for a decade,

[Debs]

32. This argument

War? I'm not for pulling out of Iraq before it's so calm that I could walk naked through Baghdad with Qurans as sandals and hundred-dollar-bills taped to my chest. Somehow I don't get the idea that destroying a nation, then leaving them angry and in the hands of religious fundamentalists is beneficial to America.<

By simply changing the words religious fundamentalists to communists could have been used to keep us in Vietnam until YESTERDAY

[Lone Pawn]

35. Not really.

You're missing one easy-to-forget but exceedingly important fact:

Iraq has three major factions and hundreds of minor factions with hundreds of years of history of violence between them. The majority of violent deaths are actually Sunni-Shi'a violence, not Insurgent-American violence.

whereas

Vietnam has no factionalization and no internal strife. There was no religious feuding. Nearly all violence was either aimed at SVA, NVA, VC, or US members.

So the worst case scenarios are

IRAQ: CIVIL WAR ENDING IN OPPRESSIVE, AGGRESSIVE ANTI-AMERICAN FUNDAMENTALISM.

VIETNAM: ANOTHER NATION OF RICE PADDIES WITH NO POWER ASPIRATIONS HAS A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT.

Yes, I see how the argument is the exact same :eyes:

[Debs]

38. As far as Iraq ending up with an anti American

Fundamentalist gov, that monster is already out of the box. How in the world are they going to come to love us because of our illegal invasion and continuing occupation. The differences between Vietnam and Iraq are real and a decent point. I still remember the calls on not abandoning the Vietnamese until the job was done, not only COULD the same basic argument be made it WAS made. Therefore your attempt at sarcasm really falls flat

[yurbud]

26. What dems need to learn from right

have a handful of issues that you don't compromise on, make sure everyone knows what they are, explain them simply, and never ever deal them away for anything.

That handful should be primarily economic and expressed in terms of helping people with their day to day life--brass tacks instead of the empty symbols the GOP offers.

It would also help to be right on those issues.

[Lone Pawn]

30. By the 'norm' I believe they mean

"the norm among people that aren't going to vote for us anyway, because the people we've been getting, while perfectly nice, simply haven't carried an election for us since '96, so why the hell should we pander to them even more? Are liberals going to start voting twice? Maybe we'll go for the 1% Green crowd, even though Dems are one-quarter self-identified conservative. That'll shore up victory! Oh, wait. That's a terrible idea. Maybe we should instead think about that moderate third of the nation and get them to vote for us instead."

[Debs]

33. As I have said before

Moving toward the center, while the rightwing keeps moving the center to the right. Is a prescription for political suicide. It reinforces the perception that Dem's have no principles and only care about winning elections

[michaelwb]

34. Cost savings

Because of the enormous cost saving the Democrats can gain in elections by simply endorsing the Republican candidate rather than actually running a campaign. :-)

[robcon]

37. I think we have to move to the center

But it's a simple disavowal of the wackier parts of the left.

For example, when Michael Moore calls the Iraqi insurgents/bombers/throat slicers "Minutemen" we should immediately disavow that idea.