A Salute: sangh0 and dolstein, the DUers who had it right

[Walt Starr]

I have to salute you two guys. I admit I am incredibly liberal and I don't agree with you guys on a lot of issues, but you had every problem with the Democratic Party pegged dead on.

The Democratic PArty has to evolve and do it quickly or things are only going to get worse.

Thanks, sangh0. I have ordered three books by George Lakoff as well as a DVD. I will be devouring these books, getting involved at a local level in my county's Democratic Party (Will county Illinois, we went red on the presidential election), and working diligently to write to every Democratic Senator, Representative and Governor in the United States. Your opinions about the direction we must take were dead on, I recognize that, and will move forward with this in mind.

Thanks dolstein. I will never again bad mouth Joe Lieberman. Although I believe he would have been a disastrous nominee mostly because he lacks the necessary charisma, you are dead on about how much he brings to the Democratic Party.

Again, thanks to both of you! I'll be looking into membership in the DLC soon.

[mzmolly]

1. Dannng Walt!

:wow:

I'm not ready for the DLC, but Lieberman is sounding quite tasty about now. ;)

[Ripley]

2. WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE?

Joe Lieberman...the guy that hugs Smirk more than McCain? :puke:

[KoKo]

90. I think the stress has gotten to some of us. Is this Walt Starr?

Lieberman? What are you talking about? Has someone stolen your DU name? Second post of yours that just doesn't sound like the Walt Starr on DU that I've read before. :shrug:

[Individualist]

96. Apparently not

I always thought the pod people were a myth; guess not. :shrug:

[Walt Starr]

107. This is the same Walt Starr who has been here for nearly four years

I will not speak ill of my fellow Democrats.

That shit has been the root of a lot of troubles within the party. Lieberman is one Senator out of 44 we have currently and we cannot afford to piss off a single one of them.

[charlie]

113. No offense, Walt

Really, I'm not intending to offend. But you've had these whiplash conversions before, followed by a fervent and public proclamation of your new position. A couple of times a month during the primaries. Don't you think you ought to stew on it for a while before once again declaring This Is IT?

[Walt Starr]

129. Nope, not enough time

Seriously, we must unite as a party and we must redefine the debate.

What is wrong with either of those two core issues? Keep in mind, in most cases I am not advocating the jettisoning of issues (gun control being he only issue I advocate being jettisoned), just the fucked up rhetoric we put on the issues. Redefine the issue in rhetorical terms that produces imagery the average person can relate to and we move a liberal issue to the center while picking up Joe Sixpack.

What the hell is wrong with that?

Joe Lieberman, wile being wrong on several issues, is far more liberal than any Republican Senator you can name and is also far more liberal than Jim Jeffords when you look at the record of both men, yet Jeffords is a hero on DU while Lieberman is a goat.

Why the fuck does DU raise a conservative to hero status while reviling a liberal? One move by the "hero" outwieghs all the moves by the "goat"?

One thing I am 100% certain of, Karl Rove lead the Democratic base to utilize the terminology we use. "Gay Marriage" was rhetoric that fit into his plans precisely. It could have been framed better and coupled with multiple other issues under an umbrella of "personal freedom" and would have been beneficial rather than detrimental to our status with the overall electorate.

Are you beginning to see where I'm coming from?

[charlie]

154. Nothing wrong about reframing the debate

Nothing new about it either, it's been discussed plenty of times here. I think it's safe to say most of us think it's a good idea. How is this such a revelation to you?

Jeffords earned a lot of gratitude for chucking everything to oppose Bush and lend some support to Democrats when we most needed it. As for his lionization as a role senator, I haven't seen it. Are there people calling for his elevation to important posts in the party or some such?

As for Lieberman... he's his own worst enemy. When he lends his happy face to initiatives Republicans are hot for, Repubs get bipartisan credibility. "Faith-based" programs, missile defense, relaxation of corporate accountability under the law, running to the right of Dubya on Iraq, Homeland Security's TIPS program (!!)... You wonder why so many are tired of him?

[Ladyhawk]

177. Zell Miller your hero, buddy? nt

[Redleg]

3. Are you kidding?

Lordy lordy.

[Democat]

4. This thread should be fun

:)

[Wat_Tyler]

5. Your irony is a little dry, Walt, but LOL!

[Walt Starr]

8. I'm dead serious

These two DUers are more in tune with what's been going on in this nation than all the rest of the DUers put together.

[Wat_Tyler]

14. That's OK, Walt. I'm sure this is just your way of dealing with the grief.

[rockydem]

21. the nation is not in tune with Lieberman

if you want a book that truly will change the way you look at this thing go read "what's the matter with Kansas" by Thomas Franks...

[Walt Starr]

30. I never said the Lieberman was "in tune" with the nation

I said sangh0 and dolstein were. They called it dead to rights and have done so for several years.

[Zensea]

71. Ditto

I thought everybody would have already read Thomas Frank by now, but obviously not.

[KoKo]

91. Could you give links to what they said which has peeled the scales off

your eyes? I'm serious...I must have missed the posts...I'm very curious to see this..

[robbedvoter]

6. Now you've been through ALL of them - right?

I remember a few days you were doing a furious pendulum between Clark and Dean, I am sure you went to Edwards 'cuz Dean said so", then Kerry....
You are furiously confused

[Walt Starr]

12. Say what you will.

Tuesday opened my eyes. Lieberman brings a lot to the party. He cannot be a presidential nominee, but dolstein is 100% correct about his record.

[TruthIsAll]

33. Its amazing what another stolen election has done to ypur reasoning, Walt.

Now you embrace the mentality which has brought it about.
Are you saying: If you can't beat them, join them?
An evil Right Wing/Diebold combo beat us because they cheated. What else is new?

We need a Harry Truman in our party.
Liberalism is forever. It is sacred.

You are headed to the dark side at your peril.
With all due respect, you are joining the enemy.

Stick to your liberal roots.
They have kept this nation sane for 200 years.

Don't forsake Jefferson or Lincoln or FDR or Truman or JFK or RFK or MLK.

Remenber we won the last three elections (2000,2002,2004).
They were stolen from us because we are too nice.

We need to get tough.
But be a tough liberal.

[Walt Starr]

41. Platitudes dont win elections

Show me the proof we had a stolen election. There is none. We got our asses whipped and we had better get in tune with that fact wuickly or we will only get our asses kicked even more.

[robbedvoter]

36. dolstein has some principles - I disagree with - but consistent

You, OTOH should ask yourself - what keeps you here? What do you believe in? Not today, always.

[matcom]

7. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:eyes:

Lieberman.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

fucking PATHETIC

[autorank]

77. matcom, you rock

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[Ladyhawk]

180. Thanks, Matcom.

Some of our fellow DUers have gone to the dark side.

[Cats Against Frist]

9. Are you schizophrenic???

Or are you totally cracking me up?

[DrWeird]

10. LOL. Don't forget Carlos.

Or is that you, Carlos?

[Democat]

We need Jacinto back

His time has come. :)

[foo_bar]

49. his legendary coping mechanisms would go a long way here

[wellstone_democrat]

174. I miss fighting with Jiacinto-- did he help Indiana go Replicant?

Old Carlos was especially entertaining when he bought the Honda Element. Hilarious. I can't wait until the archive is open again. I need to revisit some of our more colorful arguments from 2001 or so...

[charlie]

178. Go sign up at dailyKos

He's doing his mechanical bot schtick over there, same old cut-and-pastes he splattered all over DU, hasn't changed a bit.

[KoKo]

98. There's NO WAY that Walt is Jacinto....Have you guys all gone nuts?

I'm sort of on the edge groping my way back but between Kentuck's post today going for "family values" and Walt's two posts...my sanity is getting frayed...I might start to fallllllllllllovvvvvvvvvveeeeerrrrr...

[Generator]

11. The Democratic party needs to learn how to get every vote counted

.

[dolstein]

13. I don't think Lieberman would have been a good nominee

Not so much for the charisma, but because (a) his position on Iraq made him unacceptable for too many Democrats,(b) he's from New England and (c) he's too liberal on social issues.

Some of you may laugh at (c), but the fact is, Lieberman IS very liberal on many of the hot button social issues -- abortion, gays, gun control. And while he is devoutly religious, he's still a New Englander, an urbanite and a Jew, and I doubt he'd be able to connect with enough voters in the South and the rural West.

Frankly, I'm not sure anybody in the Democratic field could have beaten Bush. Even my preferred choice, John Edwards (who I voted for in the New York primary), would have had a difficult time carrying states in the South. People who say he'd win North Carolina are being awfully optimistic. And he's still way to the left on the key social issues.

Wes Clark might have had a chance, if he had a year or two to put an organization togethera and formulate a platform. But his late start meant that he needed federal funds, which would have crippled him financially against the Bush juggernaut.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

I was thinking Clark too.

But you are right about the late start.

But its really tough to defeat an incumbent. I was looking at some of Alan Lichtmans stuff on 13 Keys to the White House, and using that predictive methodology it seems Bush was going to win.

Even so, look how close it was. Bush won he popular vote by only , what, 3.3%? That was the worst incumbent victory since Wison defeated Hughs in 1916. That was a pretty good peformance given what Kerry was up against in negative ads and such.

[Walt Starr]

27. You've nailed it again, dolstein

Absolutely.

I'm going to be consistently writing to Mark Warner and Mike Easley over the next couple of years in hopes of them throwing their hats in the ring.

[dolstein]

42. One or the other

The last thing we need is for BOTH of them to get in. I'm not sure that either Clark or Edwards could have stopped Kerry after he won Iowa, but having both of them in the race clearly made it far more difficult to do so than if only one of them had been in the race.

[Walt Starr]

59. Yep

It can only be one. If they were both in the ring, we'd be stuck with another New England Liberal.

I figure we're at least five presidential election cycles away from being able to nominate a NE liberal and possibly get them elected, and that can only occur if we do absolutely everything right.

The biggest disaster in '08 that could possibly happen would be a Hillary Clinton nomination.

[geek tragedy]

194. I agree about the governors.

Governors are almost automatically better able to relate to the great unwashed masses.

They deal with "real person" issues on a daily basis, unlike the patricians in the Senate.

[Protagoras]

161. someone needs to rent a motel room

nt

[KoKo]

102. I believe that Gephardt has a better Liberal record than Lieberman...but

I'm not going to check in the archives for it. I do know that Lieberman and Dodd were responsible for loosening SEC Regulations and cramming them down Clinton's throught which has led to the financial disaster that's coming soon down the pike for us.

That and Lieberman's lack of support for Gore and opportunism..makes me :puke: over him. Otherwise he's a likeable guy.

[Walt Starr]

130. I agree, Gephardt has a more liberal record than Lieberman

Lieberman is in office. Gephardt is leaving office. Lieberman is more important to the Democrats now than Gephardt.

[KoKo]

105. DU Bug Glitch...dupe

[Capn Sunshine]

195. Looks like we could make a lotta money selling plugs

or to quote from the Who's "Tommy"


"You know where to put the cork"

That should keep you all safe from the gay liberal threat.

I thought Joe-mentum was a bad case of food poisoning, and here it's actually been cancer all along.

[Q]

15. This is sarcasm....right?

- It may be okay for YOU that a small group of DLCers have taken over the party against the will of the majority...but many of us don't like it...especially when they have joined the other side in collecting millions of dollars of campaign cash from corporations in exchange for 'custom' legislation.

- Hayzeus! You'd think Democrats would have learned something from the religious right takeover of the GOP.

- You're flippin out, Walt.

[Amaya]

16. You being funny again, Walt?

[Walt Starr]

17. To everybody dissing me because I've been awakened

sangh0 recommended the writings of George Lakoff yesterday. Read this article from Buzzflash that was posted on their front page today:

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/04/11/har04007.html

[DrWeird]

20. You say "awakened"

looks more like an unmasking to me.

[geek tragedy]

192. Yes, he'd rather help the party win elections.

As opposed to those who would rather be whiny losers.

[rockydem]

26. Lackoff is great - most of us have heard of him B4

But that doesn't mean we go the DLC route - that's the route of the same failed rhetoric - can't you see that?

[Walt Starr]

32. We MUST go the DLC route

It's an organization of power within the Democratic Party.

Think of how the religious right took over the Republican Party. Members of the religious right infiltrated the power organizations within the party.

[Lars39]

43. Right wing think tanks are behind the DLC.

Can't believe the things I'm reading here today.

[sangh0]

159. Walt's wrong about the DLC

Not only is it not about reorganizing the DNC, it's not a power center of any sort anymore, and it's not a good example of what Lakoff is saying either.

DFA and DU are better beta sites for this.

[rockydem]

46. Please read "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Please - it will explain some things. It seems to me you are talking about infiltrating the DLC to change it - fine. But I do think the rhetoric of the DLC is not working - they are not selling themselves - and they seem to be somewhat incapable of doing so...

[Walt Starr]

53. ABSLUTELY the rhetoric of the DLC is flawed

The key will be rewriting the rhetoric of the liebral ideas and pushing them as centrist.

It can be done and it must be done, but a power organization like the DLC will be required in order to push the talking points out to the troops.

If we want the Democratic Party to win, we must work within the framework we've been handed.

[sangh0]

The DLC's concept is flawed and the results prove it

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the DLC is far from the best analogy. I suggest you take a lesson from Lakoff and frame your argument in a way that's more suggestive of nurturing than the DLC.

In addition, the DLC wasn't about changing the way we present and frame ideas. They want the DNC to actually modify their stances, which I disagree with. Clinton successfully changed the image of the Democratic Party on two of the most important issues that the DLC identified - fiscal responsibility and crime.

[Walt Starr]

89. The DLC is a power framework to work from, though

It's time to redefine the purpose of the DLC. If that doesn't work, move on to a new power organization within the party, DFA comes to mind as a potential power base to work from.

Either way, we reframe the debate. That's the key to success.

[KoKo]

118. Well....DFA...I can agree with you on that...you've not gone totally Loony

Tunes...

[sangh0]

137. Walt, if you think I'm a supporter of the DLC

you need to adjust your meds. Though I think most DUers beliefs about them are way out of line with their influence, which had been waning even while Clinton was in office, I have never thought of them of being the direction we needed to go in and I think it was inappropriate of you to start this thread in a way that misleads people about my position on this.

To be honest, I've seen you go back and forth, from one position to the next, and I suspect this nothing more than the latest incarnation. I understand the enthusiasm that comes along with a new idea, but I think you need to sit down and relax.

[Walt Starr]

139. Nope I don't think you are a DLC supporter

and I agree, they don't have a lot of power, but they are a power organization that can be used. That's all I'm saying

[HootieMcBoob]

162. In addition to the DLC

Progressives need to get more out of some of the other organizations and new institutions that we have like Center for American Progress, The Rockridge Institute and People for the American Way. Getting these people on TV and holding Republicans accountable for their own rhetoric is important.

For example: They want lower taxes.

I know it sounds nuts but what about: No federal taxes at all! Just raise the prospect on a cable news show and see how they react. Suggest that we eliminate federal taxes and let state taxes pay for all of our needs.

[Djinn]

143. well the repugs won

by spouting off about God, denigrated gays, invading and occupaying a foreign nation and terrorising Muslims - hey why don't the Dem's follow suit - after all we wanna get elected :crazy:

[no name no slogan]

183. Indeed, the last 12 years have been SO GOOD for Democrats

* Losing control of the US Senate AND House,

* Losing more governorships,

* Having the lowest number of Democrats in state legislatures since 1964,

* Abandoning populist economic ideals, and kowtowing to the new corporate sponsors of the party,

* Do I REALLY need to say more?

If you really want a country with one party that represents the haves, and the other representing the have-mores, by all means knock yourself out. But if you expect working- and lower-class Americans to get behind the party of Wall Street, you're in for a rude awakening.

(Why oh why did the religious wingnuts force the Rockefeller Republicans out of their party)? :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

196. I disagree about the DLC.

The Republicans didn't go soft after 1964.

Progressive values are what's right for this nation. We need to articulate a core ideology and set of values.

Those values are right for America. We need to stop pretending we're too good to have to explain it.

We need to be Democrats, not anti-Republicans.

[Bread and Circus]

28. Fuck dissing, I think it's delirium to think Liebershit is good for...

anything. That's just far-fetched horseshit and I can't believe
it's even been said by anyone. Even the RW media isn't talking like
this.

[Walt Starr]

35. Lieberman is one of 44 Democratic Senators

He's extremely liberal on social issues like gay rights and abortion.

I'm sorry, but Lieberman is more valuable thanat least five Democratic Senatorial candidates I could name from the South. They lost, Lieberman holds his seat and will retain it handily.

We do not have the numbers to be picky because the guy supported the war. You require the level of power the Republicans currently hold to pick off the guys you think are disloyal.

We are at least a generation away from being able to conslidate that level of power.

[Ripley]

29. You know I'd take you more seriously if I hadn't seen your shoes.

Flip flops. How can one person's recommendation of one book turn you from Dean to Joementum?

[Walt Starr]

37. I'm not saying "Joementum"

I'm saying I am not going to bad mouth the man because I disagree with him on a few issues.

I can say I agree with the man on more issues than any Republican Senator I can name, Chaffee and Snowe included.

[ulysses]

34. how many "awakenings" have you had in recent years, Walt?

There've been several, I know.

[Walt Starr]

50. Actually, until Tuesday I;ve been asleep for four years

and I'll tell you why.I was ready t stand on my liberal principles no matter what come hell or high water regardless.

That level of immovability is a recipe for disaster as demonstrated by Tuesday.

I can say, I have never voted anything other than Democratic in my life, and I will continue down that road in all elections to come. What's more important to me is, I fully understand that politics is the subtle art of compromise within the party. I don't have to agree with everything a candidate espouses to support them. My bitching and moaning about this candidate or that candidate was detrimental and should not be done.

Ronald Reagan issued the 11th commandment for the Republican PArty and we had damn well better rewrite it for the Democrats.

THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF THY FELLOW DEMOCRATS!

[ulysses]

55. don't be such a drama queen.

"My awakening", "I've been asleep for four years". Whatever, Rip van Winkle. You're grasping at straws.

[Walt Starr]

72. Okay, screw the platitudes. For the past four years I've been selfish

It was all about MY values and MY principles. I'm overcoming that selfishness.

Selfishness does not allow for pragmatism.

[ulysses]

78. oh, good lord.

It's like the Stepford Starr. THINK.

You really believe that the DLC is about subsuming our individual idealism for the greater good, as revealed to Al From on the altar of pragmatism? Do you really believe that?

[Walt Starr]

79. No, I sincerely believe the DLC is a power organization within the party

Without the power, you get no nominations.

No nominations mean no positions.

Work within the framework of what you've been handed.

[ulysses]

80. I suppose that's one option.

Personally, I like the "build a new framework" option.

[Walt Starr]

82. Then the new framework becomes a competitor to the old framework

Now we're dividing an already outnumbered minority.

I prefer to move into the existing framework and buld a majority there, much simpler and faster. The funding mechanism is already existent as well.

[ulysses]

87. indeed it does. that's the idea.

I prefer to move into the existing framework and buld a majority there

Whatever trips your trigger. Not for me, nor will it be.

[Walt Starr]

93. I;m open to a new power base

I'm just looking for what oculd be the fastest and easiest methodology.

[sangh0]

160. Walt, the DLC is not that power base

and after this election I doubt it's going to be any sort of power base, though I could be wrong. It's also, given the hostility to the DLC on DU, a very poorly chosen example to use.

DU would be a better beta site for this.

[TruthIsAll]

164. Walt, you really stepped into it in this thread.

Good heavens, man, have you come undone?

Are you drinking?

Get back to reality. Bush stole it. There was no mandate or move to the right.

Stop falling for the latest media Rovian talking points.

And don't even mention Carlos. Let me tell you a story. I will never forget this. It was about a year ago. I was trolling at Free Republic and came across Carlos on his knees with two freeps telling them how he was so good at disrupting at DU. It absolutely sickened me to know that I wasted so much time trying to talk to the SOB.

Cheers. Hope you come back to your senses.

[Walt Starr]

176. TIA, I hate to say this, but take off the tin foil hat, this election was

legitimate. It was not stolen.

[KoKo]

119. Walt....you are sounding like Jacinto....have you been invaded? (eom)

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

123. But my values and principals

aren't about selfishness.

Were yours?

If you were a big liberal, I doubt they were.

So this doesn't make sense.

[Walt Starr]

131. No, I was being selfish about accepting only my values and priciples

and not accepting those who did not hold all of them.

I got pissed off at Demorcats for taking a stance on an issue that I disagreed with and openly spoke ill of them for it.

I was wrong.

[KoKo]

114. I read it..it was okay but didn't transform me...what specificially about

it turned you on??? I have a better article posted here about the Media by Robert Parry...check it out...

[DancingBear]

18. Dream ticket '08 - Lieberman and Miller!

Joe-men-tum and Miller Time!!!!

Oh yes, yes, yes,... YES!!!!!!!!!!!

[Amaya]

23. HAHAHAHAHA!

Yes! Woo hoo! Now that's something I can get behind!

[Walt Starr]

64. Now that;s just plain silly and was never suggested in any post by me.

:shrug:

Oh well. It must be lost on you.

[Carni]

135. OMG I am voting for Nader

Sorry, Lieberman is an ass.

[rockydem]

19. I understand the Lakoff thing

but I don't get why you are into the DLC now?????

Check out Thomas Franks too...

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

25. Who is Lakoff?

New one on me.

Tom Franks book on Kansas was pretty sobering and scary for me.

[rockydem]

47. look him up

he talks about reframing the political debate to our advantage...

[sangh0]

158. rockydem, I don't think the DLC is important as Walt seems to be saying

The DLC's argument was the because the RNC had been so succesful at misportraying the Dems as tax and spend, tree-hugging, etc we had to do something to reverse that image. I agreed with that diagnosis, and still do. However, I do not agree with their prescription, which was the DNC had to change their positions on a number of policies. Some of them, I do agree with (tax and spend, and crime were succedfully countered by Clinton) but others (particularly their hawkish positions on national defense, and their corporatism) I strongly disagree with and would be a disaster for the party.

Basically, the only reason to include the DLC in this discussion is because the DLC recognized that the DNC had to change. However, the other aspects of the DLC, along with the hostility it's very name arouses on DU, made it a poor example to promote this idea with. I suggest not getting too hung up on the DLC part of this, and concentrate on Lakoff, who thinks we don't need to change our policies. We just need to change the rhetoric we use to promote it.

Instead of "budget deficits" we complain about a "baby tax". Same positions. Different words.

[smiley_glad_hands]

163. Gov. Warner, Va successfully argued tax increases

under the guise of "tax reform". You are right we need to define our own terms and shape the debate to suit them. We need to control the argument before we can win it.

[sangh0]

170. The repukes are MASTERS at this

They campaigned for a decade on balancing budgets and then turned around and said "Deficits don't matter" and "It's your money" even though the truth is "It's YOUR BABY'S money"

We need to get some of that

[Bread and Circus]

22. I'm gonna Puke, Liebershit is just a Pro Israel melting waxwork

What kind of a bullshit thread is this?

[ContinentalOp]

24. Hmm, I think the operative word here is "RIGHT". -nt-

[andym]

31. Idea of moving the party rightwards is based on a wrong assumption

I am not convinced that social issues lost this race. Typically the incumbent runs on his record, and people's perceptions of whether their family is better or worse off. This may have decided the election, independently of other factors.

Look here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1322827
for a quick analysis

[Walt Starr]

63. Not move the party rightwards

Seriously, you ahven't been paying attention.

Move the Party to the center by redefining the issues.

"Gay Marriage" is a loser. It presnets imagery that, quite frankly, is repulsive to the overwhelming majority of the electorate.

"Personal Freedom" is a winner. Every centrist wants their personal freedom and Joe Six Pack doesn't want the government getting involved in their personal lives.

By redefining "Gay Marriage" as "Personal Freedom" we remove the visceral repulsion from the equation and personalize the issue for the average voter.

It looks like we've moved to the right but we've really gone nowhere while we paint the GOP as the Party opposed to personal freedom!

I'm trying to make my statements as simply as possible within the format we have here, but I'm sure you start to see the picture here.

[Pushed To The Left]

70. I see what you're saying

Get conservatives and moderates to vote for very liberal ideas by redefining them as moderate ideas. That's what Republicans have been doing for years with their radical right-wing ideas. They redefine hardcore social conservatism as "traditional values" and people fall for it. They redefine not giving gays and lesbians equal marriage rights as "protecting marriage".

[Walt Starr]

74. PRAISE THE LORD!!! YOU'VE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!

See how that works?

;)

[andym]

83. redefining the issues is a good idea, but it will only work to some extent

The same was done years ago with abortion. The phrase "pro-choice" was coined to avoid the phrase "pro-abortion". It may work with moderates on the borderline. it won't change the hard-core believer, but it may help postiively influence the status quo.

[Walt Starr]

88. The center is all we need so long as the base understands the

"code words"

George Bush vehemently supported the anti-aborition stance in the debates by associating his judge choices with the Dred Scott decision. That was a code sent to every last member of the Evangelical Fundamentalist base, but it was lost on the vast majority of America. The Left got it, but they didn't care about the left, they wanted to solidify their base while appealing to the middle.

They were extremely successful at both.

[SayitAintSo]

84. How do you address gun control within the personal freedom mantra...

In a way that doesn't sound manipulative ? Just curious.

[Walt Starr]

92. We must jettison the issue of gun control entirely, IMO

We have to give up some issues. Gun control is the easiest because, quite frankly, it hasn't worked any way to solve the problems.

I'll probably get some grief for that one but I am a bit biased and this was one issue I've always been at odds with most Democrats over anyway.

[SayitAintSo]

95. Thanks for your response.... I tend to agree ...

What other areas should be jettisoned do you think ?

[Walt Starr]

103. I think we need to jettison a ton of rhetoric

and combine multiple issues under the single rhetorical umbrella of "personal freedoms".

By defining the Republican Party as the anti-personal freedom party, we can win on multiple issues with a single shot.

Abortion, Gay rights, medical marijuana, and a host of other issues currently defined as "fringe" and "out of the mainstream" can qucikly become mainstream by redefinition.

[KoKo]

109. Praise Jesus! Let's go get them Martha Stwart Bitches and throw them

women and gays in the river for Baptism....I see it coming and it's good !

[Walt Starr]

117. Who ever said shit like that?

Not I.

For the record, the day Martha Stewart's sentence was handed down, I ordered a subscription to her magazine for my wife. I love her products and read her magazine.

I'm saying jettison the rhetoric, not the issues. Redefine the issues under new rhetorical phrasology that hits Joe Sixpack at a visceral level so he can get on board for it.

This is how the Republicans have gained overwhelming support for their radical agenda with Joe and they have been incredibly successful with it.

[MissB]

132. You are dead on, Walt

You're talking Lakoff and that is good. I may well disagree with you about joining the DLC, but I understand the need to work within the existing framework.

[Walt Starr]

141. The primary reason I want to join the DLC is

to infiltrate it and use it as a base of operations.

There isn't much to choose from in the way of power organizations within the Democratic Party, so I'm willing to take whatever I can get. If you know of another one with a funding base already in place, I'm up for anything.

Whatever works to be able to start the morning faxes of talking points, ya know? Know your enemy and learn from his successes. You have to admit, the GOP is dead on outstanding at getting the talking point rhetoric to its troops on a daily basis!

We have to have some power organization in order to accomplish that. Unfortunately, the pickings are slim in the Democratic Party on that count.

[MissB]

157. I figured that was your reason

Although infiltration has such a negative connotation. :evilgrin:

It is going to take a long time. I hope the party doesn't get disheartened in another 4 years. We're in for a long, rough ride.

[HootieMcBoob]

172. I see what you're saying

The irony is that you've failed to "frame" the discussion in a way that is palatable to DU. And in doing that you've managed to make your point even clearer.

Just by saying something positive about the DLC you've managed to short circuited a lot of peoples brains. Forget that you didn't say anything positive about what the DLC stands for, just saying DLC has people thinking that you're nuts. And saying something good about Lieberman had a similar reaction.

It shows the power of framing language beautifully. In the same way that the words "gay marriage" short circuited a lot of folks in the middle of the country.

I agree with what you're saying.

[The_Casual_Observer]

38. Speaking as a guy who worked in the heart of rw OC Calif

on the local level, making phone calls and going door to door really made a difference! I got my ass, mind and ego kicked for 3 months - and I was calling on dems only. I think we probably increased it from 80-20 (B - K) to 80-20 (B -K) in the precinct! Success is at hand!

I will never do that again as long as I live!

[Democat]

65. I want to make sure I understand your post

When you started working on the campaign, the vote was Bush 80, Kerry 20 in your area. Three months later, when you finished working on the campaign (and dealing with assholes), the vote was Bush 80, Kerry 20 in your area?

Is that what you said?

[The_Casual_Observer]

198. Just about.

It was like punching a brick wall.

[T Town Jake]

39. Agreed. I've never seen a post of sangh0's that I disagreed with.

...dolstein, either.

[TeacherCreature]

61. And I have never seen one that I could agree with.

Big tent indeed.

[IronLionZion]

40. Big tent party right?

I thought all kinds of view points were welcome in the Democratic party, from the conservative views to the far left? hmmm...and Holy Joe is pro-choice! God help us if we get a pre-presidential Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich!


We need to run more moderate or even conservative candidates in the red states if we want to accomplish anything. This country is taking a hard right turn and the Democratic party needs to be the sensible alternative.

[DrWeird]

45. Yeah, appealing to the middle works real well, doesn't it?

:eyes:

[IronLionZion]

52. it does

how else can we win people who are in the middle and know the Republicans are scary?

[DrWeird]

58. You're right. It's won us the WH the last two times, hasn't it?

Oh, wait...

[Walt Starr]

75. The Democratic Party hasn't appealed to the center in years

We didn't in 2000, we didn't in 2002, and again we didn't this year.

The beauty is, we don't have to jettison a thing, just the rhetoric that produces negative responses. We'll have to accept some short term losses on some key issues in order to achieve long term strategic goals, but we were going to lose those anyway.

[GreenArrow]

44. ha hah hah hah hah ha hah hah hah hah ha hah hah hah hah

ha hah hah hah hah ha hah hah hah hah ha hah hah hah hah

Joe Lieberman, that's good. Though to be honest, I'd have preferred him over Edwards and Gephardt or Bill Graham. He never would have won though.

DLC...

Why not just join the Republicans?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. The problem with most folks on this site are they are ideologues not

pragmatists...


It's one thing to hold a lot of progressive views and another thing to get a plurality or majority of the American people to share that vision...

[Sterling]

145. If I was a pragmatist I would be a republican

I am white with money. Why should I care about anybody else. That's just not practical.

[no name no slogan]

173. Pragmatism's great-- it makes you look like a flip-flopper

One thing about the diehard liberals who have beat Republican challengers is that they have STOOD UP for their principles, no matter how 'unpopular' it may have seemed at the time.

Paul Wellstone got lots of votes from Repubs who were diametrically opposed to him. Why? Because, unlike his opponents, voters knew EXACTLY where he stood on an issue, because he TOLD THEM SO in no uncertain language. He STOOD FOR SOMETHING other than winning his next election.

Russ Feingold, too. And Dennis Kucinich. And a slew of other progressives at the local level who REFUSE to flip-flop or dillute their message for political expediency.

Hell, if Martin Luther King was 'pragmatic', blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus. If Gandhi was 'pragmatic', schoolkids in Bombay would sing "God Save the Queen" every morning before class.

Pragmatism doesn't change the world-- standing for your principles in the face of adversity does.

[Straight Shooter]

51. Walt has been one happy surprise after another since the "medals" issue

I don't think he's jerking our chain, I think he's serious. This election has affected all of us in different ways.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. He Put A Lot Of Effort Into The Medals Thing...

but we needed a bombshell...

like how AWOL's first born was aborted and left in a garbage can...

That was a winner...

[KoKo]

111. He did great work on that...and it was a worthy effort...One day someone

will put it all together...but freaking out is what some of us do...and there's been enough strees it's amazing we aren't all in the same asylum...or maybe we are! :D

[sangh0]

171. We all have our days

even me. Some more than others, but I don't think Walt has any bad intentions. Maybe just an excess of enthusiasm

[manic expression]

54. Lieberman is a neocon

he has no place in the Democratic party. He is absolutely base.

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. Sorry, you've flipped your lid

Why don't folks like you and Joe Lieberman and the rest of the DLC go re-register has repugs. There really isn't any difference. Anyone who supports the agenda on the PNAC is no friend of mine. Maybe you can get a job shining W's metals?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. I'm not a big fan of Joe

but at least he doesn't want to put gays on cattle cars like the fundies do...

He's pro gay rights...

pro choice...

pro affirmative action....

doesn't that count for anything with you...

[DoYouEverWonder]

66. No

He reminds me of a Jewish man I knew growing up named Jerimiah. Jerimiah had lived in one of Hitler's camps. Other people that I knew who also were in this camp told me that he was the kind of Jew who made friends with the guards and would tell on other Jews to keep his own ass alive. Joe Lieberman would have been just like Jerimiah if he was put in the same position.

[TeacherCreature]

60. What have you been drinking, Mr. Starr?

To go from strong progressive to a passionate embrace of the most reactionary elements in the Democratic party (not to mention DU)?

I suggest that you try changing brands or something.

[sendero]

67. I really don't think...

... trying to be as right as the right is the ticket. Sorry, there's just no evidence to support that idea.

I know this will sound like sour grapes - but IMHO our problem is simple. The world is complex. The reason tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy cannot be explained in a 4-word sound bite, and tha't all we get to explain anything.

Americans are simply going the way all great nations do. We're fat, we're lazy, even the "news" we watch is nothing more than entertainment - and that's fine with us.

We do not want to put any effort into electing leaders, just like we don't want to work hard at anything.

Success has a way of taking the fire from your belly, and America has had a lot of success. It's no surprise that the Red State Man has no fucking idea how close to sliding into an economic morass this country is. No idea that it is nearly inevitable over the longer term.

This country, like a drug addict, is going to have to hit rock bottom before anything can change - we simply can't change it. The only bright side is that with Bush** in charge, this will happen sooner rather than later. :(

[rndmprsn]

68. just ordered my book...excited to read

i think most of us have been kind of floating around for a new democratic intellectual mooring...sounds like this book might be it.

[MissB]

134. It is!

Enjoy the book. Seriously.

[greatauntoftriplets]

69. Where is SDS when I want to join????

The DLC??? Never.

[madfloridian]

73. Walt, Walt, wait until your grief has healed.

I am not sure how much of this is serious, but come on now.

[Walt Starr]

81. I grieved for about twelve hours

I reevealuated the situation and came to some realizations about the basic reasons for our loss.

It's not so much about the issues we support, but the way in which those issues were framed within the debate.

Joe Sixpack is repulsed by gay marriage. That doesn't mean the issue is wrong, just the imagery inspired by the words "gay marriage" is a loser with the vast majority of heterosexuals.

[madfloridian]

85. So you will define our issues by the views of Joe Sixpack? Walt, Walt!

Dear man, what has happened to you.

[Walt Starr]

99. IT;'s either that or continue to lose

You can take your pick. Joe sixpack decides all elections. He always has and always will. You cannot buld a large enough coalition of hard core liberals to win the numers required to maintain a power base in American politics.

This is a basic fact of life. Liberals at best are 1/3 of the population while your hardcore rightwingers are at best another 1/3. Both sides are fighting for the 1/3 made up of millions of Joe Sixpacks.

Frame the debate in a way Joe Sixpack can identify with it or lose the election. Thos are the only options open to us.

[TeacherCreature]

104. When you become one of them to WIN, you have already lost...

It is also an insult to the millions of progressives who actually voted for Kerry and worked long hours on the GOTV effort--I know because I was one of them--in PA!!!

To callously turn your back on these loyal people and align yourself with the reactionary cabal really is the END.

[Walt Starr]

115. How am I becoming one of them?

I will use terminology like "birth tax" to describe deficit spending.

This initiates an imagery within the mind of Joe Sixpack of a little baby being born and then being handed its tax bill by Uncle Sam. HUGE WINNER, we attack the issue of deficit spending at a visceral level and Joe Sixpack is on board.

I'm not saying jettison every core value we have, just the ones that do not work and are easily jettisoned, like gun control. We jettison gun control and we have just defanged the NRA. Now the NRA no longer has a hold on Joe sixpack's opinions and we have a seat at his table for the debate.

Next stop, we start talking about "personal freedom", which appeals to Joe because he doesn't want the governement prying into his personal life (Joe overwhelimgly looks at pornography but won't admit it). We make certain that the base understands this is "code" for the abortion issue, gay civil rights, and other issues and BANG, Joe's on board because he can identify at the basic level and we still stick to a core value of human rights.

Can you see my stance now?

[KoKo]

124. You were unclear in your posts that it's the "terminology" you want to

change. I'd agree with you on that, but don't see where Sangh0 and Dolstein have been advocates of that on DU for years...

There have been many posts on DU about how Gingrich redefined words to use in dealing with Democrats and gave the talking points out to them. That's why the Repug folks all sound like Robots now when you hear them.

No wonder the Chimp wears a "translator pack." He has to remember the right words to use to fight with the "talking points."

I would hardly say this is "eye opening" info though, here on DU or new. :shrug:

[Walt Starr]

133. The redefinition of the rhetoric is how they moved righwing ideology

into the mainstream.

Sorry I was unclear earlier. This sort of forum is difficult to get these ideas across.

We move to the center with the terminology, not the issues. It's all values based, but it's core values we hold dear that we redefine in a way that appeals to the center in order to push our values back into the mainstream.

Same thing the Republicans did, but we will be more successful at it because we actually hold moral values that are, in fact, mainstream. We can swing the pendulum back, but we will have to accept the fact that because we are doing this so late in the game, we will suffer some hard losses on some key issues. That fact is sad but true, we do not have the power to attack on those issues at this time.

Fortunately, the fact that we have to lose on these issues can work to our benefit by speeding the process of the pendulum swing.

[Pushed To The Left]

127. I don't think that's what he means..

I think the strategy is to make them THINK we are like them and to get them to support progressive ideas by redefining them as moderate ideas.

[Walt Starr]

136. It's not even so much making them think it

It's more of a methodology that lays out the issue in terminology that allows them to identify with the issue at a personal level.

The ideas we are currently calling "progressive" ARE, in fact, moderate. All we are doing is framing the debate in a way that allows the moderates to see that.

[sangh0]

146. No, Laskoff's point is that "we" *ARE* like THEM

Propoganda is basically the science of persuasion. People are persuaded to believe certains for certain reasons, and Laskoff argues (as the science does) that the overwhelming majority do not become persuaded solely on the basis of facts and reason.

People are more likely to be persuaded by people they trust, and people are more likely to trust people who seem like themselves. People who think and believe much as they do. Persuasive people know how to gain people's trust because they KNOW about human nature. Left, right, middle, religious, atheist, it makes no difference. You are still ruled by your nature, and it's a human nature.

If we ignore what is persuasive, and insist on sterile recitations of facts and statistics, we may feel very bright, but we're only going to "persuade" those who already agree with us, because no one else wants to listen to that crap.

Values are persuasive. Everyone has them, and most people share many of them. Left or right, you value "freedom" even if you may have a different idea of what the word means. Religious or not, you value "integrity". If you can show someone you share their values, you've gone a long way towards earning their trust, and a long way towards persuading them.

[Walt Starr]

150. THANK YOU!

We do not have to jettison our values and "move to the right". We simply have to alter our rhetoric and move the center to us because, quite frankly, they are already there they just don't know it because we haven't used the correct language to describe the issues.

[madfloridian]

106. Ok, I getcha.

:evilgrin:

[MisterP]

76. fine, then the abomination will reign for ever and unchallenged

[slutticus]

86. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...

... right walt?:crazy:

[Mike L]

94. Lieberman is not the answer--

pro-war; pro-Chimp judicial appts; tort deformer.

But we must move to middle America's position on Guns, God and Gays.

[baldguy]

97. Don't turn the Democratic party into "GOP-Lite"

NADER was right. We have to offer people a real choice.

[Cleita]

112. The Democratic Party is GOP lite and has been for a long time.

I'm joining the Green Party. In spite of Nader,(I know he's a registered Republican), it hasn't had a hundred years to become corrupted yet and business as usual. I think we liberals can accomplish a lot through the Green Party at a local level that the Democratic Party is reluctant to do.

[leesa]

100. Wrong. The answer is not to become like them. Lieberman is a

warmongering shill for Israel and he is wrong to behave that way. Why are you wanting to be like these unethical Republican assholes?? THIS is your goal?? It's better to lose.

What's the difference if your dictator is labeled Republican or Democrat? Sheesh! What crap!

[Union Thug]

101. Just join the Republican party, for Christ's sake.

Geezus, man.

[ezekiel333]

110. No, not yet...

He isn't done ego posting or pissing on anyone who wanted to fight.

[Walt Starr]

125. Please, describe precisely how I am being "Republican"

Redefinition of the core issues is an absolute requirement or we are sunk as a party.

Ceasing the incessant bickering within the party is an absolute requirement or we are sunk as a party.

I don't agree with Lierman on a lot of shit, but I can agree with the man on far more issues than I can with any Republican. Lieberman is also much better on nearly all issues than a certain independent Senator I could name and he is a hero on DU.

[Union Thug]

138. of course, it's a subjective opinion...

But moving the party to the right (after we've already been sucked into that trap since the raygun devolution) guts what little remains of our progressive principles.

If that's the direction that you and others feel the party must travel, fine. Do it. But you'll be losing me and many others to the Greens or other, more progressive, parties. I'm already a spider's thread away from abandoning this party.

[Walt Starr]

147. I have not advocated moving the party to the right

I have advocated dumping silly ass rhetoric that actually works against us in favor of rhetoric that can move the progressive issues from the left back to the center where they belong.

I sincerely believe that basic human rights is a core value of the majority in this nation, but getting granular on that issue and specifically talking about "gay marriage" turns off the majority of the nation at a visceral level so you lose the debate before it even starts.

Couch the debate in teminology that hits the vast majority at a personal level and you affect the outcome of elections. You do this in a negative light for your opponents issues and a positive light for your issues.

So, deficit spending is an abominable practice that leads to years of servicing a debt when those funds can be better utilized in other programs. Using that terminology in the debate is a loser. Saying the Republicans are passing a birth tax eery time they increase deficit spending is a winner and hits the electorate at a visceral level. Now a core principla is no longer a liberal issue, it is main stream. We have not jettisoned the issue, we've simply reframed the rhtoric utilizeed in support of the issue.

Instead of gay marriage use personal freedom and you turn a losing liberal issue into a winning mainstream issue.

[Union Thug]

155. So then, you think Lieberman isn't a major rightward step?

Listen, I agree that we have not properly framed our issues (for example how willingly our reps use the term 'tax relief', etc). I agree. But I will not rephrase my support for my gay and lesbian fellow workers because I'm afraid it might turn off some knuckledragging bible thumping morons. I guess if it means compromising my own values, I don't fit the party anymore. It's fine either way, Walt. More power to you. But it's certainly not my way.

[sangh0]

169. No, Walt has confused and conflated a few ideas

1) Lakoff's argument that we need to change the way we talk about issues, but NOT CHANGE the positions themselves, in order to appeal to the middle. (which I strongly agree with)

2) The DLC's argument that we had to change the way the middle perceived us (which I agree with)

3) The DLC's argument that the changes we needed were changes in our positions (which I disagree with, for the most part)

4) The idea that Dems like Lieberman, who stray on a few issues, should NOT be considered and treated like Dems

5) The idea that changing our rhetoric to include values, as Lakoff recommends will result in our becoming closer to the middle by making the middle move to the left instead of having the left move to the right.

Because the DLC did do a good job in recognizing the DNC's need to change it's image in order to appeal to the middle, Walt is using this as an example of an existing organization that we can use to make this push to left. However, I think the DLC's main reason for existence is to promote a corporatist agenda and so I don't think they are an appropriate vehicle for this or a very good example to use. It only makes people hostile to Lakoff's idea, which really has nothing in common with the DLC except that both have recognized the need to appeal to the middle.

[scornful]

142. Well, for starters...

1. Inappropriately invoking God ie: "PRASIE THE LORD YOU'VE SEEN THE LIGHT" sounds alot like YOUR President to me.

2. Adopting a "flavor of the month" platform reform you don't necessarily agree with to appeal to the less educated, up for sale voters. ( the 1/3 Joe Sixpacks )

3. Turning against the "unpopular ideals" to further your own interests.( Hide the gays, get a gun, and find God)

4. Using the term "liberals" as if it were a four letter word. Might I remind all of you it came from the term "LIBERTY" because those of us who wear the label proudly prize our freedom and that of all law abiding, tax paying, American citizens above all else.

5. Continuous repitition of a talking point. ( If you say it enough they'll start to believe you)

[Sterling]

149. looks like a duck.........

nt

[Walt Starr]

165. Well, for enders

1. God sells. That's a fact, and that post was a joke. Sorry you didn't pay attention to the emoticon.

2. Nope, no flavor of the month. Actually, rhetoric of the moment to describe the issue in terminology that Joe Sixpack can get on board with. My base assumption is Joe Sixpack would agree with my issues if Joe sixpack was spoken to in terminology he can personally identify with. That's not altering the issues, it's altering the language used to convey the stances on the issues.

3. Sorry if it offends you, but using terminology that offends Joe Sixpack is a loser. Joe could get on board, but the phrasology of "gay marriage" invokes viscerally based imagery of homosexual sex, and that repulses Joe (Joe is a heterosexual male and the closest thing to homosexual sex he can relate to is the idealized fantasy lesbian sex Joe watches in pornography. Gay marriage invokes imagery of male homosexual intercourse and Joe is repulsed by that. Sorry if it offends, its simply a fact that Joe is turned off by the idea of having sex with anther man). Couching it under the umbrella of personal freedom puts the issue in a light tha Joe can personally identify with and gets him on board because he can now relate to the true, underlying issue. Joe wants his personal freedom and wants the governement to stay out of his personal life because Joe overwhelmingly looks at pornography though he wouldn't admit it openly to somebody he doesn't know.

4. "Liberal" is a nasty word to Joe sixpack and he reacts viscerally to it. Tell him you're a Liberal and you've lost him as well as the debate. Sorry, but by using the very techniques I've described here, the GOP has conditioned Joe to this response in a fashion that's been more effective than the conditioning of Pavlov's dog to the bell. Dump the term, not the ideals. Couch the ideals in terminology that Joe can identify with and Joe's on board, thus the once "liberal" ideals have become moderate because they are now overwhelmingly accepted by the mainstream. Working on reversing the course with the conditioned response to "liberal" takes one helluva lot more time and time is a luxury we simply do not have. We get back to that at a later date.

5. Yep, because we either change the paradigm or we continue to lose elections. The Republicans are counting on us continuing to go down the road we have been on or, better yet, reacting with hostility and resistance by claiming "we're here, we're liberal, and you better get used to it." In fact, that reaction is a Rovian wet dream. They've conditioned the masses well and nothing would cause further losses quicker than that sort of reaction, it's up to us to recondition them. The one thing we have going for us is we are right at the core level and the Republicans are wrong at the core level. It will be easier for us to recondition over time than it was for the Republicans to do the initial conditioning. We must pick our fights well and push the correct rhetoric at the corret time. This means we must accept the inevitable losses we will experience on some very key and core issues, but that was decided in the election. Attacking an overwhelming force from a position of weakness is the fool's task. don;t go down that road.

For my part, pushing the birth tax rhetoric at this time is probably the best start to this entire reframing of the debate. At least, that's my opinion.

[ezekiel333]

179. Here's your ender...

Now that you gave up without even a fight and while your out jousting with birth tax rhetoric real damage is being done.

"This means we must accept the inevitable losses"

Allow me to invoke some visceral imagery

[Guaranteed]

108. This is insane.

You've gone off the deep end.

[Walt Starr]

116. Please look into a mirror

Seriously.

[Pastiche423]

120. lol!

If you do not agree w/this Walt...

Not to worry!

He'll change his mind next month. Then again next month. Then again next month.

Et cetera et cetera. et cetera...

:crazy:

[jpgray]

144. I like Walt

But I think he is as wrong about this as he can be. The good thing about him is that if he decides he has made a mistake, he WILL change his mind.

[bvar22]

121. Hey, I get it!!!!

In order to defeat the enemy, we become the enemy!

What profit if I gain the World, but lose my soul!
Fuck the Corporate OWNED DLC/DNC!

[Walt Starr]

168. Nope, you don't "get it"

Read some of my answers in this thread, you might get it then.

[Doctor Panacea]

122. Oh, no, not Joe!

Lieberman was just Kerry Lite. This party has got to regain the high ground. Some adjustments - major ones - are necessary, but Lieberman is not the way to go. I am thinking about writing an article ...

I know this will get lost in all the other messages ... but I have been a member of DU for a long time, though I do not post much, and I have to hit that 250 mark! :P

[Carni]

166. I see no similarity between Kerry and Lieberman

I may not agree with everything Kerry did.... but Lieberman being led around by the balls in the early days of bush's faith based shit doesn't have anything to do with Kerry.

I think Lieberman is just another faith based extremist and IMO being Jewish doesn't give him some special pass because he isn't a bush "Christian" type--WTF was he thinking on the faith based issue?

Speaking for myself only... I am sick to death of having religion in any form, referenced, or pounded up my ass by government, and if the Dems have to lean that far into fundy/RWer country to get elected then what the hell is the point?

I am sick of all of this mainstream demands this or that and us "fringe" are supposed to accept it - screw that.

[nomaco-10]

126. The very people you admire are the very people that.......

drove such a wedge in this board that people like myself and many others fled du months ago. Some of us are back, not to tell you "I told you so", but to once again have open discussions and a free flowing exchange of ideas about what direction this party should now take. The dem party is at a crossroads and I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel just yet thank you very much.

[Sterling]

148. "The very people you admire are the very people"

No shit. Why was that allowed to go on anyway?

[jpgray]

128. Totally disagree. Please read my thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1324647

[Bush was AWOL]

140. Being Centrist is key and it is what is best for this country

Why should one side be unwilling to compromise with the other?

[Sterling]

153. Not when "they" define what the center is.

that is our current situation.

[sangh0]

175. That's why WE should be defining the center

After all, we're a heck of a lot closer to it than the pukes

[RapidCreek]

151. Hey WALT save yourself some time and vote REPUBLICAN

RC

[LoZoccolo]

152. sangh0 is a moderate gangsta.

I am glad to have him around to tag team on many threads I am on where he shares my center-left viewpoint.

[mitchtv]

156. how about a Bronx cheer instead?

?

[ibegurpard]

167. And so it goes...people continue to chase their tales looking

for the magic bullet.
The magic bullet is good old-fashioned hard work and grassroots building.
If you subscribe to the theory that the fundamentalist turnout was the factor that tipped this election then you need to realize that these are LOCAL relationships and LOCAL infrastructure that the Republican party has been cultivating for YEARS AND YEARS!
That's what we have to do. The red states keep getting redder because the party has neglected doing this kind of outreach and work at the local level in favor of chasing corporate money and expecting the old workhorses like labor unions (which are fast disappearing) to pick up the ground-work.
We're looking at national shut-out for years. FOLLOW THE REPUBLICANS' PLAYBOOK. Start building the machine and start building it NOW.

[sangh0]

181. No magic bullet

It will take years and years to move that herd we call the middle. But if the repukes can make them think that the repukes share their values, then certainly we can do it.

The pukes built those relationships because the people they have relationships with trust them, and they trust the repukes because the repukes have conned them into thinking that they share their values. They've done through the masterful use of propoganda that constantly promotes their policies under the rhetorical cover of values.

It works! Getting people to see that you share their values makes them trust you and enables you to get them to understand the policies that you support.

It works, and we have to do it too. And we don't have to changed one position to do this. We just have to find better language to use when talking about the issues. Language that communicates more than just facts and figures. We need language that communicates OUR values, not theirs.

[ibegurpard]

185. You are correct

And the reason that MANY of us have continued to rail at organizations like the DLC and DNC is because they DON'T understand what plays at the local level. They rely on polls and strategies conducted by people in the Democratic bastions who think they know what's going to "play" in the "middle" and they don't have a clue. Montana adopted medical marijuana by a very large margin...MONTANA! We elected a Democratic Governor for the first time since the early nineties. And yet we gave Bush a 20 point lead.
Grassroots is the answer. That was Dean's message and that was why so many of us here were borderline fanatical about him.

[sangh0]

187. You're absolutely right about that

In one of my posts above, I say that the DLC did a fine job of diagnosing our problem (our need to change the way the middle perceived us) but a terrible job of prescribing an antidote (changing our policies) and I do believe that terrible antidote is the result of how disconnected those corporatists are from the values of common people.

They rely on polls and strategies conducted by people in the Democratic bastions who think they know what's going to "play" in the "middle" and they don't have a clue.

They're political operatives, and they can't help but see things the way they have always seen things; as little slices of demography that can be appealed to with a boring recitation of our superior position.

And Dean was on to something. He really does know how to arouse passion, and that certainly comes from his connecting with people's deeply held values. However, the way he framed it appealed to a slice of the electorate. A somewhat wide slice, but not the one we really need - right down the middle.

IMO, the main benefit that Dean achieved was to bring a lot of people into politics who might have otherwise sat out the election or voted third party. However, I don't think he converted people. He energized them, but I don't think he changed their minds.

[Ladyhawk]

182. Thanks for pointing out the people I will put on ignore in one easy post.

Do you know where your local Republican headquarters is? Look it up. Go there first thing in the morning and change affiliations. I don't want the likes of you in my party.

[sangh0]

188. Too bad

We here and we're not going anywhere.

[Nederland]

191. Brilliant

You know, that's exactly what I was thinking. What we really need right now is fewer people in the party.

</sarcasm>

[Susang]

184. "incredibly liberal"?

You can actually type those words in the same post with Lieberman's name?

I think my keyboard just threw-up. Blood.

[FubarFly]

186. You're making a degree of sense.

I do believe the terminology should be changed.

I do believe we should appeal to JoeSixPack on a visceral level.

I do believe we have to maintain our progressive values regardless.

Bush is an extremist yet his language appeals to moderates. He has code words to reassure his base. Got it.

However, if you truly want this to to work, you have to initially win over the base before you appeal to moderates. It's time to let our activists out of the closet. In addition to politicians coaching their language, we need no holds barred LIBERALS on television, and in the spotlight, talking directly to the people. People who entertain the base and say all of the things that the candidate is thinking, but never can say. People who aren't afraid to call a whackjob a whackjob and a bigot a bigot. It's time to stop hiding our passionate voices. Get them out there. Counter the damaging rhetoric directly. When election time rolls around, The unabashed LIBERAL will endorse the candidate, and the candidate doesn't even have to acknowlege this. The parts of the base the advocates represent will be on board, even while the candidate appeals to the middle.

The issues should stay relatively the same. Our values are fine.
The terminology can move to the center.
But the debate should be forced to the left.

[sangh0]

190. Yes to no holds barred liberals

but they have to learn some new rhetoric.

We have PLENTY of old-school no-holds-barred liberals. They don't get airtime! What good is another one going to do?

This is NOT about changing our positions. We keep the same liberal positions. We just talk about them in a way that actually works.

The only thing republican about changing our rhetoric is that like the republicans, we'll win more elections.

[FubarFly]

193. Part of the reason they don't get airtime is because the Party

does it's best to keep them from the public. They are afraid of embarassment. The candidate should talk about things in a way that actually works, and the candidate will keep the same liberal positions. But it's the activists who have to frame the debate.

No one in the middle confuses Ann Coulter with George Bush. She can say whatever the fuck she wants to. The given is that her loyalty to Bush is unshakable. Our activists should be freespoken, but undoubtably loyal- even while the official party appartus disassociates themselves from them.

In this way we can work the center, WHILE securing the base.

[Nederland]

189. What a great thread

Like you, this election was a wake up call for me. I've always been socially liberal and economically conservative. Heck, I'm probably one of the only people here that will defend free markets and free trade to the wee hours. Like most people, I liked to believe that if only the party nominated someone who thought like me they would win. If Democrats would only ditched those psuedo-communists in our midst and stick with our cherished social liberalism we would win.

Now I'm forced to admit that was naive. Social conservatives swung this election. Gay marriage pulled evangelicals out of the woodwork and we got beat fair and square. What does it mean we should do in the future? I have no idea, but I'm open.

BTW, I've always liked Dolstein too. A real voice of sanity here.

[Citizen Kang]

197. Is it wrong...

to ask those who shouted us down, forced us out, jeered us and mocked us to ask for an apology? Many of us knew Kerry was a dud and wouldn't get it done. But we were shut out. We were mad but we voted for him anyway. Will these people listen next time. I doubt it.

The DLC is a cancer that must be destroyed if our party is to survive.

[Moderator]

199. locking...

a member's position has been misrepresented in the opening post.