See, I think worries like that are misplaced.
We can’t get * everybody’s * vote, and we should stop trying. The kind of fears you are talking about are fears that are going to come primarily from people that are disinclined to vote Democrat in the first place.
Apathy is an affliction of the left. We can only counter it by giving them something to get excited about. As long as it’s all just some bland flavor of right/center-right, why bother?
Welcome to the party. Now sit down and stay quiet.
:rolleyes:
Yes! That’s exactly what the liberal party members have been hearing for years! Enough already, time for the centrists to sit in the back.
I’m with Stoid 100%! I think the Democrats should surrender to the left wing of the party. Good plan. Stoid for DNC chair!
Think that over carefully, Sam Do you really believe that the Pubbies are populated entirely by clear thinking, righteous people? No opposition is ever desireable, these are the very best people ever. Every thing they come up with, from war to privatizing social security, to placing our environment under the care of business interests…All of this is entirely beneficial. Always. And will always remain so.
Really?
Bullshit.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is for you to even claim that centrist leadership has so much as attempted to tell the liberal wing of the party to shut up. How many liberals were in Clinton’s cabinet, Stoid? The correct answer is “plenty.” Is Tom Daschle a centrist? No. Gephardt? No. The fact that the party hasn’t come up with a coherent message is the fault of the generally liberal party leadership, not of your ridiculous claim that the party has been coopted by pseudo-Republicans.
What the hell is a “centrist”? Anybody got any definitions? Minty, I think both you and Stoid have unwittingly exaggerated each others valid points into nonsense.
With 60% of our people not even voting we have a dilemma that exceeds petty concerns about what ever “centrism” may mean. There is no center worth knowing about, the center is made up of persons too apathetic to respond, it is the committed wings on both sides that are battling it out.
Are there worthy issues? Sure. Top of the list is campaign finance reform. The Pubbies have more money. They will do anything short of public murder to keep that advantage. They keep that advantage by promising the corporate interests, most recently best typified by the pharmacuetical companies, that they need fear no interference from government, as long as they keep the bucks flowing to the Right.
Other than the obvious right, who gets business money? Well, the “centrists”, the “pro-business” Democrats who are virtually indistinguishable from moderate Republicans. Characterizing these people as psuedo-Republicans may be an exaggeration, but not by much.
White guys in suits have plenty of representation, its a buyers market, and they have pretty much made thier choice. They hedge thier bets a bit by contributing money to Dems that aren’t threatening. Just in case. They have perfectly sensible reasons to do so.
What about the rest of us? Who speaks for us? Monsanto? WorldComm?
Just before Wellstone died, before the Pubbies started drizzling crocodile tears about the “indignity” of his memorial, business interest threw in a million bucks in a last ditch effort to sabotage the only real Populist in the whole rotten crew. And they were going to get away with it.
But who contributed to Wellstone? People. Labor unions, who are also people. If you can find a man who scares the crap out of the same people who hated Wellstone, tell him to report for duty. We need him.
The interests of business are valid, and needful. But thier interests are thier own, they cannot be permitted to rule. If that is a “left-wing” position, so be it. Enough, already.
elucidator: I was joking. Trying to inject a little pointed humor. Actually, I agree with Minty almost 100%.
Canada is a good lesson in what happens to a government when it has no effective opposition. Our government has become a laughingstock. Our prime minister is an arrogant asshole who rules with an iron fist, ignores the public, and appoints cronies and relatives to lucrative government positions and contracts.
It’s healthy for a Democracy to have effective opposition. The Democrats need to get their act together, and if they move to the left, it will be a disaster for them.
What happened to the Democrats this time around is that they allowed Bush to occupy the center, where the bulk of the electorate is. The Democrats responded by either issuing a lukewarm ‘me too’, or by refusing to take a position for fear of alienating their ‘base’. So they stepped back, and allowed the Republicans to define the debate. Really, really bad idea.
For the Democrats to come back, they will have to win over the center. That means they have to figure out what it is that independents and moderates don’t like about them, and fix it. And right now, the biggest thing is that they are perceived as waffling on the war on terror.
In my opinion, the Democrats have sold their soul to special interests. Hollywood, Trial Lawyers, Unions, etc. And the sad thing is, aside from unions these aren’t even ideological positions. They are marriages of convenience. There’s nothing about being a liberal that means you should support big record companies who screw over artists. But Fritz Hollings is in their pocket. There’s nothing about being a Democrat that means you need to support every stupid lawsuit that comes down the pike, but big Trial Lawyer money keeps the Democrats silent on those issues, which really annoys the center.
The Democrats can’t move to the left. But they can re-define themselves in a way that is more palatable to the center and even the right.
If you want to see the face of a Democratic party that could win, wander over to www.thenewrepublic.com. And have a read of Peter Bienart’s lead editorial there. From the editorial:
Emphasis mine.
Sam, the job is already taken. Business already has its whore, why would it want two? Whats the point in having two parties that represent essentially the same views? “Lets sell Phillip Morris our kids!” “No! We will rent our kids, but firmly keep title!” Well, whoop-de-fuck-a-doo!
NO! Not just no, Hell NO! Haven’t we learned a goddam thing! “Lets get government off the back of business” Well, we sure as hell did that, didn’t we? Sure turned out to be a terrific idea, huh?
Remember the big hoot and holler about corporations avoiding taxes by incorporating overseas. Big news, hot air spouting out of every porcine orifice. And whats been done? Nothing. Big hoot and holler about Enron and other energy giants stealing Californias money in broad daylight, old ladies frying in thier houses cause they couldn’t afford air conditioning. They actually killed some people! Whats been done? Nothing.
Of course, after a year or so, Ken Lay is a very unpopular fellow, and some other guys have had to hire lawyers. Trial lawyers, irony of irony. Possibly facing weeks of hard time at Club Fed. Steal a million, do six months. Steal a thousand, do six years. Hell, we got guys in California doing life for shoplifting!
So now we should have two parties, one that wants to preserve the status quo precisely as it is, and the Loyal Opposition pressing strongly for a new paint job. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Fuck that shit!
When do we get to put Barbara Streisand on Mount Rushmore?
‘bout fuckin’ time, Boris. I was startin’ to worry about you.
I have to agree with E.J. Dionne, Jr.:
I believe the Democrats have plenty “to say about things that matter” that centrists and liberals agree on, and that distinguishes them from the Republicans.
Some subset of that is what they need to remind the American people of, over and over again, from one cycle to the next. They can think about which such things are the most essential, and do polls and focus groups to decide which have the most traction with the American public. But it needs to be primarily a list of broader principles (e.g. preserving our wild places) that will tell you about where they’re likely to stand on specific legislation (e.g. no drilling in ANWR), rather than a list of specific legislation they’re for or against. Because the legislation being fought over will change from one election to the next, but with a handful of exceptions, the same major issues keep recurring.
In one of these threads, someone pointed out that Mondale stood for something in 1984, and got taken to the cleaners as a result; standing for something isn’t good enough. I’d say that part of the problem is that what the Democrats project as their core issues changes from one election to the next. Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Clinton in 1992 - they all pressed very different-seeming themes, even though the four of them would probably agree on about 80% of the issues debated in Congress over those 12 years. Carter’s main theme down the stretch was that Reagan and his crowd might bring us into nuclear war, fercryinoutloud.
The Democrats have issues that are their issues, year in and year out, under centrists and liberals alike. What they haven’t done is to consistently reinforce those distinctives with the voters. So in a close election, a whole bunch of those Democratic distinctives, whether it’s equal rights for gays, consumer/worker/investor protections, the environment, the minimum wage, a woman’s right to choose - get lost. The voters wind up voting on something else, because the Democrats have failed to remind the voters of who they are and what their core distinctives are.
In Marlyand this year, an awful lot of voters who are for all these things, voted in a governor who’s against most of ‘em. Why? Because the issues didn’t even get on the bloomin’ radar screen. Townsend tried to paint Ehrlich as an extremist, which wasn’t true, or necessary to do. What the voters needed to be reminded of was that he’s a mainstream conservative Republican, and what that means on the core issues, rather than letting the election be about the Intercounty Connector and slot machines at the racetracks.
I love this assumption that the sheep like voters of Maryland will return to the Democratic flock if only they can be made aware of just how awful the big, bad Republican wolf is.
I don’t think the voters of Maryland made the choice they did because they were clueless about Bob Erlich’s political pre-dispositions. They chose Erlich because they wanted a change from Glendening’s uninspired leadership, and many were disappointed and somewhat disgusted by his personal behavior regarding his affair with his aide. Kathleen Kennedy “indispensable destiny” Townsend was a clumsy campaigner with an ineffective campaign and the baggage of Glendening’s administration only made it worse. That she got as many votes as she did is a testament to Maryland’s predisposition to vote democratic.
Glendening was my one of my Government Professors at the U of MD, College Park, and in occasionally discussing issues with him after class he always seemed like an extremely intelligent and thoughtful man. When he acquired the Governorship in 94 (and I voted for him) I wanted to see him make good but the Machiavellian way he played politics made powerful people reluctant to trust him and (IMO) compromised his effectiveness in the long run.
The voters of Maryland were well aware of these issues and the reason they chose Erlich over Townsend was not because they were ignorant of the fact that he was a “mainstream conservative Republican”, but because they were well aware that he was not a poor campaigner with a Glendening affiliation and they decided that he would probably make a better Governor and was more suited than Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for this office.
elucidator: "The Jesus Right is allied with the Money Right, but they don’t have that much in common. The Money Right doesn’t really care that much about gays, abortion, and the Decline of Western Civ, as long as theres a buck in it. The Jesus Right ignores the plundering of the commonweal by the corporate fat cats because they dont care. Thier alliance is shaky at best.
“The Jesus Right is going to present thier bill. They have been frustrated by years of promises about God in schools, an affirmation of stern public values, hippies and gays lined up and shot, or at least deported to Canada. It ain’t gonna happen 'cause it can’t happen: you cannot legislate a social change that has already occured, it can’t be repealed.
Notice how Trent Lott is already talking about the “partial birth” ban? They’re throwing them a bone because its the best they can do, its way, way too late to criminalize abortion.”
elucidator: While you are correct in your analysis, you are wrong in your prediction. The Jesus Right isn’t going to turn on Bush.
Many, if not most, members of the Jesus Right are ignorant and are not capable of the analysis you did. Remember, these are the people who believe Brother Jack Chick when he tells them the Pope is the AntiChrist and the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and yet they adore Ronald Reagan, who appointed am ambassador to the Vatican, signed one of the most liberal abortion bills in the country while governor of California, and had a wife who consulted astrologers.
As long as Bush thumps a Bible and praises Jaysus as his political philosopher, the Jesus Right will adore him. Those members of the Jesus Right who notice they are being screwed again will be assured by the Money Right that the Money Right is doing all it can, but was thwarted by those liberal judges who are still on the bench, or those pesky liberals in the media, or the Clintons, or maybe even tree-hugging homosexuals from Mars. And the Jesus Right will believe them.
Trust me, Bush & the country club Republicans and their agent, Rush Limbaugh, know what buttons to push to manipulate the Jesus right. I’ve lived in southern Indiana, which is in the heart of the Bible Belt, most of my life, and I know how the loons on the Jesus Right think. An anti-Bush rebellion isn’t going to happen.
elucidator: "The Jesus Right is allied with the Money Right, but they don’t have that much in common. The Money Right doesn’t really care that much about gays, abortion, and the Decline of Western Civ, as long as theres a buck in it. The Jesus Right ignores the plundering of the commonweal by the corporate fat cats because they dont care. Thier alliance is shaky at best.
“The Jesus Right is going to present thier bill. They have been frustrated by years of promises about God in schools, an affirmation of stern public values, hippies and gays lined up and shot, or at least deported to Canada. It ain’t gonna happen 'cause it can’t happen: you cannot legislate a social change that has already occured, it can’t be repealed.
Notice how Trent Lott is already talking about the “partial birth” ban? They’re throwing them a bone because its the best they can do, its way, way too late to criminalize abortion.”
elucidator: While you are correct in your analysis, you are wrong in your prediction. The Jesus Right isn’t going to turn on Bush.
Many, if not most, members of the Jesus Right are ignorant and are not capable of the analysis you did. Remember, these are the people who believe Brother Jack Chick when he tells them the Pope is the AntiChrist and the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and yet they adore Ronald Reagan, who appointed am ambassador to the Vatican, signed one of the most liberal abortion bills in the country while governor of California, and had a wife who consulted astrologers.
As long as Bush thumps a Bible and praises Jaysus as his political philosopher, the Jesus Right will adore him. Those members of the Jesus Right who notice they are being screwed again will be assured by the Money Right that the Money Right is doing all it can, but was thwarted by those liberal judges who are still on the bench, or those pesky liberals in the media, or the Clintons, or maybe even tree-hugging homosexuals from Mars. And the Jesus Right will believe them.
Trust me, Bush & the country club Republicans and their agent, Rush Limbaugh, know what buttons to push to manipulate the Jesus right. I’ve lived in southern Indiana, which is in the heart of the Bible Belt, most of my life, and I know how the loons on the Jesus Right think. An anti-Bush rebellion isn’t going to happen.
Oops: sorry about the double post.
Hell, Peyote (love the cognomen, by the by), I was born and raised in Waco, TX, what Molly Ivins calls the Baptist Vatican. I don’t just know these people, I’m blood kin! I’ve got a cousin who was bit by a rattler during snake handling ceremonies (he made a complete recovery, and is currently a Unitarian).
Nonetheless, you may be right. Anybody who truly believes he knows what these guys are gonna do is probably deluding himself. Granted. But it wouldn’t take all that much, despite the cries of avalanche and landslide, the electorate is pretty much evenly divided, and the advantage of the Right is thin.
As well, there are deep fissures that are not obvious. The God that most of them want in public schools is a Protestant God, icons of the Virgin Mary isn’t in thier agenda, and so on. Ever heard a Pentecostal argue with a Baptist over the correct procedures for communion? You think internecine battles within the Left are stupid. Well, they are, companero, but they ain’t exactly unique.
I think the opportunity exists, but will reserve judgement on the degree of probability. But if a younger, savvy, sexy version of Jerry Foulball should arise, well…
Oops: sorry about the double post.
The double post was an accident. What you should be sorry about was the intolerant, bigoted drivel you spewed in your message.
If someone posted the same crap on this board, but substituted Muslims for Christians (i.e. “Many, if not most, Muslims are ignorant and are not capable of the analysis you did.”), you would be roasted for it. But intolerance towards American Christians always gets a pass with some.
In fairness to Peyote Coyote, he didn’t paint all Christians with that brush; rather, he mentioned only the “Jesus Right.”
I’m not sure what the Jesus Right is, exactly, and whether he’s correct or not depends completely on the answer to that question. For example, if the Jesus Right is “That group of Christians for which the majority is too ignorant to suss out political details…” then he is, my definition, correct.