Dems should look to Repubs for our strategy, platform, and leaders...

NOT!

It is so fucking weird whenever we have some conversation about Democratic leaders, strategy, positions, etc, that our SDMB conservative contingent come along and tell us what a bad idea X is…we should actually try to be more like THEM and then we’ll be ok! The position seems to be: “We are the only ones who have winning ideas, and in order to win you must be like us. Do whatever you need to win, even compromise what you believe in, you silly geese!”

I don’t need to link around, any political Dopers know this happens all the damn time. (Most recently, though, I noticed it in the “Dean for Chairman?” thread in GD, and Manhattan was the first to pop in and tell us what a disaster that would be, I’m sure more righties followed but I closed the thread to write this one) Maybe I’m just not paying attention, but I don’t see this happening in reverse. What is it about? Why would the right think this works? The whole point is that we * do not believe as you do* . We do not respond as you do, we do not want what you want, why do you insist on constantly telling us that we must be more like you? And by “we” I mean the half+ of the country that agrees with a majority of liberal-progressive-Democratic ideals/positions.

I know you guys would really like to believe in or create a nation of pod people that all march in lockstep, but it’s not the reality and you aren’t going to make it the reality, and it’s just fuckin creepy when you try. Ick.

It’s too bad more of “you” didn’t show up to vote last week. Since you obviously have the majority, you could’ve cleaned the Republican Party’s clock.

So sad.

I think we’ve seen some solid evidence that a good chunk of the people who voted for Bush agreed with Stoid, so there may be solid ground for that comment.

It is, terribly. But we’re working on it. Getting better at getting them out all the time.

“Half+,” eh? Did some of them oversleep and miss the election last week? Where the “Half+” of the country THAT VOTED suggested they maybe weren’t so happy with a Democrat in charge of the White House, and, just by the way, that they wanted the GOP to have an even BIGGER margin of control of the Senate, and, incidentally, an even bigger margin of control of the House.

Must have been a real bummer for the “Half+” that agreed with you and didn’t vote. Maybe you can motivate them in 2006.

In any event, my feedback has been generally sincere. I haven’t suggested any changes in Democratic ideological positions, because, as you say, that’s for you to figure out. The only thing I have suggested, repeatedly, is that you discourage the middle when you call them idiots for not seeing things your way. I initially mentioned this because, frankly, I thought it was pretty obvious, so I wasn’t giving away any really important secrets. I’ve come to realize that this is, in fact, an important secret – so important that it still eludes you guys. Which, frankly, is fine by me.

  • Rick

Well, no, it actually hasn’t eluded all of us, although I am continually struck by the hypocrisy of maintaining that Dems must be courteous and demure in defending their positions, yet the Pubs seem to view the name-calling antics of Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Neal Cavuto, and Bill O’Reilly as perfectly acceptable.

The Dems don’t need to be polite, but we do need to be adult. To do so, we must focus on key subjects that affect Americans–Jobs, Security, Health Care, Environmental Safety–delineate clear positions with easily understood sound bites, and speak sincerely (no dressing up in fatigues to pander to the rural voters).

So, repeating “Bush is stupid,” No.

Hammering on "Bush’s policies are failing the average American family, and here are our clear, practical alternatives, " Yes.

As a proud and confirmed independant who has voted for candidates from both parties in presidential elections (though not in the same year!), this is what I heard during and after this election:

Republicans: You Dems need to change your strategy. Obviously your platform and/or candidates do not appeal to mainstream America. You need to move more toward the center of the political spectrum. Why, your candidate is a liberal, flip flopping, traitorous, self serving aristocrat who will say anything he thinks the audience of the day wants to hear. He has no moral fiber and did absolutely nothing in his 20 years in Congress. Get real.

Democrats: You Repugs need to get a dose of reality. You are supporting a murdering, megalomaniac, brainless Jesus freak who will not even consider admitting to a mistake. Hell, he doesn’t believe he’s capable of making a mistake. He’s irrepairably tarnished America’s reputation amonst the nations of the world and split this country in half. Four more years of this will be the equivilent of Armageddon. And the sad part is that you are too thick to see it.

Anyone with half a brain knows that the truth lies somewhere in between. The retoric on both sides, however, has grown far too thick to allow for the vast majority of partisans to admit that truth. Why, admitting that Bush has a good idea about anything is tantamount to admitting that Kerry is a loser! Feel free to switch the surnames depending on your political affiliation.

Meanwhile, we independants sit on the sidelines and whine plaintively “Please, somebody put forth a candidate that’s worth voting for. We’re tired of having to guess which of the candidates will do the least amount of damage over the next term.”

I know the concept has not eluded you, gobear. Butyou are in the minority amongst your fellow Democrats on this issue.

And there is a difference between the rhetoric of O’Reilly, Coulter, and other denizens of the right, and the folks on the left.

Coulter, for example, is probably the worst of the bunch. But she doesn’t attack the center. She attacks LIBERALS viciously. So, too, with the rest of them. Their attacks are always against the left.

In contrast, the attitude I’m pointing out is the “Middle America hicks didn’t vote for us - they’re idiots.”

See the difference, Democrats (except for gobear)?

You’re misinterpreting my remarks. This is unsurprising as a) in that thread I was kind of flip and b) you’re desparately stupid.

In fact, I advocated no change in principles. Strategy? Sure – in politics, strategy is just a way to get ones principles to the front of the line. Leadership? Well, I didn’t advocate any changes in leadership, but I did criticize a proposed change.

And you know what? I’m right. Both about Dean and about my advice of what a liberal should do. I offered and continue to offer the advice in good faith and without suggesting any changes in principles because I think that pluralism is good for the system and that Democrats are in danger of letting the idiot terror-appeasing left take them right out of relevance. Those of us trying to get the Republican party to soften on some social issues ain’t ever gonna succeed if morons like you continue to control the rhetoric of the Democrats, because the Republicans won’t have to work for centrist votes.

You may not have noticed this, but similar advice is coming from Democrats of the center/left - that the party should embrace more middle-of-the-road positions in order to gain support from the electorate.

Just a couple of examples that come to mind: Barney Frank arguing that the mass gay marriages in S.F. in defiance of state law hurt the Dems at the polls, and that more incremental changes are advisable; and Nicholas Kristof’s latest column urging the party to drop (at least for now) the push for gun control, and to pick its fights wisely against the Repubs, i.e with court nominees, so as not to seem wildly obstructionist.

I’m not at all sure that the party should emulate Groucho Marx (“Those are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.”).

I do know that if Dems rely on the influence of the Stoidesque wing of the party, I’ll be voting for another gaggle of losers in '06, '08, '10…

If you would like to conduct your threads without ‘interference’ from Republicans who like talking politics, go to Democratic Underground. I’m sure they’d love to have you.

If I could somehow increase Stoid’s influence on the actual Democratic party, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Stoid-esque leaders are the GOP’s greatest asset.

So is attacking a entire segment of the population okay if it’s only a particular segment of the population? Are liberals more fair game than “middle America” just because they’re liberals, or because they’re further from some hypothetical political average? Or is it okay to insult a large group of people if it works to your political advantage instead of your political disadvantage?

First of all, regarding the “stoidesque” comment, I will make the same invitation to you here that I did in another thread: point out what’s so wacky about my politics, please. Anything, anywhere? Something? Just one little wacky crazy out-there lefty thing that I have advocated in 6 years and 6000+ posts that is just so off the charts lefty that it is bringing the Democratic party down. Just ONE? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Secondly, I absolutely agree with Barney Frank, sadly. There is no question in my mind that now is NOT the time to be pushing for gay marriage rights. Yeah, it sucks, but it’s the way it has to be. I’m not going to see everything that counts sacrificed on the altar of gay rights, sorry. Sometimes some things just have to wait, and that is definitely one of them. Such is life.

Gun control, I don’t know that I agree with that. I think that’s another problem of message clarity. The right, and the NRA in particular, has a remarkable ability to convince gun owners of things that just aren’t so to freak them out.
Which reminds me… yes, it is half+. Back to the infamous PIPA study (which is just the easiest example, hardly the sum total of the evidence) , a MAJORITY of people DISAGREED with Bush on a variety of issues, and agreed with Kerry. They just didn’t know it. They thought Bush agreed with them. Message problems on both sides…BushCo being MUCH better at promoting their lies (and you are all so proud, aren’t you?)than we are at promoting our truths. That needs fixin’ for sure.

And finally, I’m going to do something I have almost never done here. In fact, I am pretty sure that this is a first:

Manhattan, go fuck yourself.

(A momentary lapse brought on by election stress, not the start of a trend.)

I guess I don’t see a problem.

If you feel things are going generally well for you, it would be stupid to make changes.

If you think you are right, then carry on. By all means. And I speak in all sincerity when I wish that the entire Democratic leadership en masse speaks and acts exactly as you have, at least until 2006. Beyond, if possible.

Go for it! Stick to your guns! Never doubt for a minute in your ultimate triumph!

Regards,
Shodan

Wow, I didn’t reply in the middle of your post in that little double-spaced opening, so you must be correct in assuming that there’s nothing I could possibly say about your brand of politics damaging the Democratic Party.

Except, most obviously, that you exemplify the paranoid, no-documentation-needed, shrieking partisan accuser that turns off so many voters. As in your threads alleging sweeping election fraud, and about how Bush supporters *** LIED*** to win the ELECTION and ideas had NOTHING to do with it and JOHN KERRY’s backers merely proferred REVEALED TRUTHS handed down from ON HIGH. There is also the throw-anything-up-there-no-matter-how-ludicrous-and-see-if-it-sticks technique (Reeder has a considerable lead on you there, it is true). as exemplified by the thread in which you dramatically showed that a weak economy under Bush meant that anti-abortion rights activists would be best served by voting for Kerry. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Your help in future elections is urgently not requested.

Stoid, you and your ilk make it so hard for those of us who really want to extend an olive branch and be more inclusive. I don’t think you realize how much you stir those wonderful feelings of realizing that you’ve not only won, you’ve CRUSHED the competition.

And speaking of half+: Isn’t it nice to know that Mr. Bush managed to line up a majority of the voters behind him, something that Mr. Clinton was never able to do?

For once, I find myself entirely in agreement with friend Shodan. His advice is cogent sound and perceptive, and after I lie down for a moment and press a cold compress to my head…

Point the first: If you cast your mind back a year (or so) ago, you will recall that the election was already over, so far as our tighty righties were concerned. Victory! Mission Accomplished! GeeDubya’s approval rating was through the skies, it was all over… Well, not exactly. His approval ratings have been dropping ever since, mostly for one reason: Iraq. But heres the thing: they’re not going back up. If it quacks like a lame duck, and hobbles like a lame duck, it doesn’t matter what the calender says.

Barring a miracle, that is, Kurds, Sunni and Shia dancing about the maypole while singing the praises of The Leader, what prospect have we of improved conditions? Zip, zero, nada. Indeed, we might well take comfort that our candidate did not inherit the impossible situation, that we are not in a position of praying for Divine Intervention. They broke it, they bought it. We tried, they didn’t listen. Now they can try to find a way to blame it all on Clinton. Jolly good luck with that.

Second verse, similar to the first: a policy of starting an expensive war while simulataneously cutting taxes has a special, highly technical term in formal economic theory: its known as “batshit crazy”. You simply can’t take all your money, pile it in the street and set it on fire, then go borrow some more. We are paying our rent with our Master Card, at 20%. Maybe we could grow our way out of this mess, but not with Count Iraqula sucking our blood until we’re bled white.

Policy changes? Why? Gay marriage was never our issue, it was an issue thrust upon us by our enemies, and it means almost nothing. Sure, they’ll pass their amendment, by way of throwing a sop to his base. And then they start the process of ratifying, which can take damn near forever. Of course, passing the amendment is all they really want, its for bragging rights. Does anyone here, thinking back a year or so ago, remember thinking about gay marriage as a big hairy ass deal? Of course not, it was a wedge issue cooked up by the Pubbies. This amendment is nothing more important than defining the word “marriage”, which properly ought to be the concern of Mr. Webster, not Mr. Bush. Arrangements can be made, liberal churches will peform ceremonies, and Americans will gradually get used to the idea that it is not a big deal. Because it isn’t.

Gun control? Forget it, it never had a chance, because the guns are already here! Nobody reading this post couldn’t leave their house with a wad of cash and fail to purchase a gun, one way or the other. We are awash with guns, and no legislation is going to change that. So Uncle Lem’s constitutional right to empty a clip at full auto into Bambi’s mom is secure. But the clincher is: even had we totally won on the gun control issue, nothing would have changed. The guns are already there, they will only be gone when they rust away.

Abortion rights? Well, that’s going to get ugly, no doubt. But the thing is this: the consequences of legal abortion are apparent, everybody can see them. But nobody is “pro-abortion”, we are pro-choice. Abortion simply isn’t nice, and that’s that.

But we won’t see the consequences of an anti-choice agenda until it actually happens. I mourn in advance for the pain and suffering, but it appears unavoidable. But when young women start bleeding to death from back alley abortions…and they will, or at least poor ones will…then we will see the consequences. We have forgotten those consequences, those of us who are too young to remember those consequences. And when that happens, there will be a pro-choice backlash that will wipe this issue out, once and for all. Bet me.

And of course, the young. Too obvious to articulate, I’ll just leave it at that.

The money is theirs, the power is theirs, but the future is ours.

Almost forgot my offering of advice of our backward brethren: please do keep answering arguments with gloating. Splendid idea.

And you still haven’t*. You’ve bitched about how I express myself, and my opinions of the party in power. You have failed to show that MY POLITICS (you know, the actual positions I hold and agree with about governance, foreignpolicy, etc,) are so radical and wacky and horrible and damaging to the Democratic party.

The reason would be…they aren’t.

I’m just striving for clarity and accuracy here, Jack. There’s nothing strange, strident, excessive, commiepinkoleftistwhackjob about my politics. Not even a little. What I want for this country and my government, what I believe in, what I think is reasonable… is in fact, quite reasonable.

A lot of people around here find my passion annoying. Find the fact that I believe the absolute worst imaginable about BushCo annoying. Fair enough. But neither of those things constitute my politics. All I’m looking for is that people stop confusing the two. Lack of clarity, inaccuracy, and conflation of completely unrelated things have been a HUGE problem with our understanding of politics as a whole lately, I think we should all strive to be precise, accurate and clear in both our ideas and our communication of our ideas, don’t you?
[sub]*The closest you’ve come is the abortion thread, which wasn’t in any way a radical idea (ideas…many folks on both the left and right believe, not without some reason, that the president and his policies have some effect on the economy, fancy that, and economics plays a significant role in choice for abortion…ask the women who abort.) and it wasn’t mine to begin with, I was sharing the conclusions of some leftywackjobcommie prolifers.[/sub]
And by the way, don’t you think think you are reading an awful lot into a couple extra carriage returns?

(Whatever happened to our ability to make teeny tiny fonts? I’ve been struggling with my footnote text for ten minutes, and no size makes it smaller than it starts with. Is it just me?)