Are the Democrats making a mistake by not going for the center?

Great Debates
41

Some of the ideas floating around in here seem very strange to me. For instance:

The Republicans are moving hard to the right. Is this a joke? The Republicans have been moving left for a long time. Republicans used to be for a flat tax. The ‘Gingrich Revolution’ Republicans wanted to abolish the Department of Education. Bush gave it its biggest funding increase in years.

When is the last time you heard a Republican say we should abolish the NEA? That used to be a standard theme. The religious right used to have 10x the influence it has now. Haven’t heard much about school vouchers lately, either.

The other screwy notion I don’t get is that The people are hopping mad about the economy.

This is NOT a particularly bad economy. By any standards other t han the recent peak of the Dot-com boom, this economy is just fine. 6.1% unemployment is relatively low by historical standards. Inflation is low, interest rates are low, Teh economy grew at an annual rate of 3.1% ln the last quarter, and is predicted to be about 4.5% next year. If so, that will create considerable job pressure. If next years’s economy has a 5.8% unemployment rate, and 4.5% growth, the stock market will no doubt be well over 10,000 again. Those are pretty good numbers to run for re-election on.

And for national security, Bush has a natural advantage: If there are no major terrorist attacks in the U.S. by next year, he’s going to run on a platform of, “I have protected you.” If there IS an attack, that usually causes an upsurge in patriotism and anger that plays into Bush’s strengths.

Here’s Bush’s Achilles’ Heel: The deficit. This is the one issue the Democrats can legitimately hit him on. But the problem is, the Democrats are going to have to have an answer for it, and by then a lot of the tax deductions will have taken effect, and rescinding them will be seen as a tax hike. I’m not saying a tax hike is good or bad, but that it’s damned hard to win an election on the platform, “Vote for me, and I’ll raise your taxes.” The last person to try that was Walter Mondale, and that winning formula got him exactly one state.

42

I am hoping that after what happened in Florida, people will realize how important even a few votes can be. If that leads to more voters, I think that will favor the Democrats. Just a hunch.

I don’t think that honest and intelligent Republicans can be very pleased with the Bush Administration’s lack of planning in Iraq. As much as they may like President Bush personally, everything seems to be going downhill.

Forget Dean for a moment and look at Wesley Clark. He’s a Washington outsider at a time when a lot of voters are sick of both parties in Washington. First in his class at West Point. Majored in philosophy and economics – what a combination! Taught economics at West Point. Rhodes Scholar, four star general, head of Nato.

Frankly, with that resume, as long as he is a decent human being with real compassion and some measure of integrity, I don’t understand why anyone would still vote for Bush.

After what this country has gone through and is still enduring, the last thing that concerns me is whether the Democratic candidate is a centrist.

43

Well I don’t see how honest and intelligent Democrats…wait, nevermind.

44

The Democrats need to listen to the DLC. I know the Old Democrats don’t like them much, but the Old Democrats havent’ won a Presidential election since 1976 and aren’t likely to win one anytime soon.

45

I would suggest that the fact of the matter is that both parties have moved toward the center.

Bush had what I understand to be an extremely weak amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on the Grutter v. Michigan case, and after that truly regrettable decision (which leaves affirmative action alive) made pro-affirmative action noises. That’s not your dad’s Republican.

Clark, who seems by far the strongest of the Dem contenders, is nonetheless anathema to the hard left. The loony Cockburns and their minions have argued that he is a war criminal, and some of their fellow thinkers at that fringe suggest that Waco was in pertinent part his responsibility.

46

The only guy that will satisfy the Chomskyites and Cockburns is Kucinich. Even Dean is not dovish or socialist enough for them.

47

Agreed. And happily no one apart from a few college kids and a couple of Berkeley sandalistas listens to the Cockburn/Chomsky fringe when it comes to picking a chief exec.

Though McGovern DID carry Massachusetts…

48

And the voters of Massachusetts turned out to be right.

49

Haven’t Americans become a lot more cynical about the practice of political “labelling” over the last few decades?

Conservative Republicans calling Dean, or Clark, an ultra-leftist means just about nothing to those not already emotionally committed to the proposition that ANY modern Dem is, approximately, Joseph Stalin.

Equivalent remarks apply to the opposite side.

I wasn’t kidding when I mentioned TV in my all-too-overlooked post above. Most Americans “support” George in the sense that they “feel good” about the daily program he and his team is producing re Afghanistan and Iraq. The feeling (I’m paraphrasing) is that we’re rescuing those scuzzy wimps from bloody tyrants and anti-“Modern” zealots or anti-American maniacs–and if they don’t have the sense to appreciate it and welcome us with open arms, hey, maybe we’ll just kick their butts.

But programs get stale. (Remember “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”?) Dean has created an interesting story for himself (in very much the same way as John McCain did) by being a little rambunctious and pugnacious. Clark doesn’t need to do too much to create the story, as he’s pretty much lived it. (And: he’s taller.)

Let’s say you get to sell ad space for one of the following series concepts:

(1) The main character is a privileged son of a big shot who gets promoted to the top through a series of peculiar–some say suspicious–accidents. He’s linguistically challenged, has an irritatingly nasal voice, is stubborn and rather cocky, claims to have reformed his wastrel ways due to conversion to a somewhat extreme religious know-nothingism, and never wanted the job all that much to begin with, but went for it out of a need to uphold his family’s claim to the job and avenge his Pa’s getting forced out before his time. Each episode begins with him having a meeting with his circle of advisors, who obviously hold him in contempt and more or less dictate his every move. A few weeks into Season One, the firm’s NYC office (staffed by characters we have gotten to know as nice, appealing people) is blown to smithereens by stop-at-nothing competitors from one of those countries that doesn’t speak English, shave, or use deodorant. Needless to say, the appealing characters having been written out, the rest of Season One consists in stories of Boy George becoming something of a celebrity as he takes credit for increasingly bold (if increasingly reckless) moves against the company’s ruthless competitors; which moves, by the way, seem to be dictated by a mysterious billionaire whom we never see in the light. The Season One cliffhanger is to involve a crucial meeting of stockholders in which someone stands up with a big envelope and says, “Excuse me, sir, but in fact someone’s been cooking the books during your watch, and the truth is–sir!–that AmeriCo hasn’t made a penny of profit in four years!!” Gasps. Big hush falls on the crowd. Boy George, in closeup, starts to sweat and stammer. Glances are exchanged among faces we’ve never seen before–presumably people who will appear as regulars in Season Two. In the shadows we hear a throaty chuckle. TO BE CONTINUED. The series proposal tells us that Season Two will be all about The Shadow Man and a series of bizarre coincidences that manage (barely) to keep Boy George from having to face the consequences of his (in-) actions.

"And we think this show will have real heat. What American can’t identify with an annoying jerk who always escapes getting called to account week after week? It’s “Everyman” meets “The X-Files” meets “My Mother, The Car.” "

–OR–

(2) Something else.

Which do you choose? WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE?

It’s true that you can’t beat something with nothing. But it’s more-true-than-not that you CAN beat near-nothing with almost-anything.

Click.

50

Actually, Elvis, I think the the voters of Massachusetts turned out to be LEFT.

Forgive me. I couldn’t resist.

Scott, I am not ignoring your post or being rude, I am just trying to think of some way to respond to it.

51

Scott Dickerson, I have only three words.

That’s My Bush.

52

McGovern is substantially to the right of Dennis Kucinich.

53

It’s not just them. I was in a waiting room while Rice spoke about Iraq on the TV. Everybody in the room started grumbling out loud about the mess there and how we had no business there. Had this been anywhere but rock-ribbed-Republican Dupage County, Illinois, I might’ve written it off, but to hear such things here can mean only one thing: Bush has lost part of his core constituency and is dead meat in 2004.

54

The center hasn’t moved left. The right has moved even farther right and is leaving the center behind. They have become intoxicated by their success and will push matters too far. That is how US politics seems to work.

55

Dammit! Every time I think Dogface really is the loony he pretends to be he says something that

A. makes sense

B. is true :wink:

Best regards,

dropzone, the former Liberal Republican from back when that wasn’t a total oxymoron

56

He’s just trying to throw us off-stride, dropzone. But he is right about that. Political leadership IMHO consists mainly of moving the center to coincide with your own position.