Does Davis in California better explain the dangers of Centrists?

[TheDonkey]

It happened in the 2002 election when Democrats tried to furiously be closer to the right wingers and now Davis has fallen into the same trap.

Everyone knows this recall wouldn't of even been brought up it Davis wouldn't of alienated the democratic base (women, minorities, unions, etc). But of course he did not and spent the last month playing catch-up.

When will those self-proclaimed "centrists" who are nothing but Democrats with not friends on the left or right realize what is happening!

[SharonAnn]

1. I was just thinking the same thing. Arianna Huffington was

explaining, on The Daily Show, that people were tired of "business as usual" and what did you expect when someone like Arnold used all the Populist rhetoric that people want to hear, had plenty of money and the "groping" allegations came out too late to make a difference.

She said that people really do want a change.

Unfortunately they've elected someone who is surrounded by Wilson's crew and the usual Republican operatives so they probably won't get what they want.

It made me think of how much this election fiasco is like Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Clark, presenting the same-old, same-old DNC/DLC crowd. Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun are representing the "change" that people want but the DNC/DLC just doesn't get it.

Not sure where I think Clark and Edwards fit.

[KittyWampus]

39. Did Dean Bring Up Enron's Role In the Recall?

And the budgetary hole in California?

I'm just curious...

[Capn Sunshine]

110. Yes

In his speeches in support of Gray Davis, Howard Dean mentioned the energy company thieves such as Enron as a major cause of the problems.

He also mentioned that the budgetary problems were due to this and continued attacks from the Bush White House.

[Paxdora]

113. People want change, BUT....

do they even know themselves what that change should be? I know what I want to see change, but other people seem to be so inarticulate when it comes to what they really want. I can only guess at what they might want, based on the assumption that they have good instincts about what's fair and what isn't. But when the media keeps spoon-feeding garbage about "what's what", there isn't much chance that alternative views will get the decent coverage necessary for people to see that there really are available options. Deep down, I really think that what people want are more OPTIONS than "either this or that". They can't even vote for a third-party candidate because that is tantamount to a "wasted" vote in our current "either-or" electoral system. Maybe now is a good time for progressives to start pushing hard for the IRV movement (Instant-Runoff Voting), where nobody's vote is completely wasted.

:think:

Paxdora

[hedda_foil]

2. It certainly does to me.

The only DLC-style "centrist" to have made any inroads in terms of popularity was Clinton ... who would have been at least as popular and probably much more so if he hadn't toed the DLC line. DLC'ism sucks the life out of any campaign right along with the issues.

[janekat]

73. No the country is going more and more to the "right" - that's NOT the

reason.

[Tinoire]

106. Bull- the only people going more & more Right are the fucking Republicans

and their infiltrators in our midst who are trying to push our Party to the Right to make sure they have no real competition.

Progressives are tired of the DLC and their catastrophic gambles in the interest of appeasing the corporations who get a better deal from the Republicans anyway.

You want to be Republican-lite? Go hang out with the Republicans. I am taking my Party BACK.

Signed,

One PISSED OFF Californian for whom the DLC and all it's lame horses just became Public Enenmy Number One.

[tjdee]

3. BORING centrists, maybe.

Business as usual, or whatever...it's not the centrism that's the problem (Arnold appears to be one)--Scott McClintock didn't get a huge chunk, neither did Camejo. It's that people don't want policy wonks who ACT like policy wonks.

Arnold wasn't running AGAINST any Dem principles, and IMO it is wrong to take a "centrism is bad" thing in this instance. Arnold was running on "change". He never really defined what the "change" was.

[NashVegas]

5. What I Was About to Say - But Nicer

If Californians had to put up with Don Sundquist - TN's former ineffective governor ...

[TheDonkey]

8. moderate democrats are not bad

But those who feel they are more gifted *cough*DLC*cought* style centrists are.
They feel that some liberal stances sounds good, but lets not try to seem liberal because that's socialist and bad.

That is wrong and they are tearing down this party.

[villager]

4. exactly

6 years of chickensh*t "leadership" on Davis' part left him with no passionate base to defend him when the chips were down...

[jiacinto]

6. How on earth can you spin this as a mandate for the far left?

I really want to know.

[tjdee]

7. There is no way.

Just because D&B were BORING centrists....I really don't think the original poster's theory applies in this case at all.

Arnold is running as a centrist.

[Tinoire]

54. Yes and Centrism is Repulbican-lite which is who it attracts

DLC supporters just don't get it because the DLC is too wrapped up in its ego and tactics to exploit voters into voting AGAINST the other guy that they can't energize anyone to go vote FOR anyone.

Bustamante- tagged one of the top 100 to watch this season- another DLC FLOP.

As a Californian, I am really PISSED at the Democratic Party! When Davis was fighting ENRON- where the fuck was the Democratic Party and where was the DLC? They weren't there because DLC people like Lieberman were too busy trying to keep anyone from noticing how much Enron money was lining their own pockets! NOBODY came out to help Davis BACK THEN. And later the DLC was all excited as Bustamante broke ranks even as the AFL-CIO BEGGED him not to- something the man of la Mecha probably did with the DLC's full blessing.

Some of us warned about this! That Bustamante would NOT get the vote because he's nothing amazing- he had a pissed off Black community to deal with because of his Mecha ties, debacle with the word NIGGER, Indian Casino contracts going to his brother, his known opportunism, and his total LACK-LUSTER centrism.

No one said a god-damned word as night after night Davis fought this and explained to Californians what he was doing as we were being raped and plundered. And now... now it's a tragedy ain't it? Just like 2000, 2002, and soon to be 2004 because partisan hacks just don't get that people see NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DLC.

BUT ONCE AGAIN THE DLC KNEW BEST! Because it thinks the Democratic base is going to go all ga-ga over Centrists and that Republicans are going to vote for some light pukish version of the real thing. And what did it get us? A TERMINATED STATE.

[dolstein]

9. Don't you realize? These people are DELUSIONAL

Davis wasn't recalled because he wasn't liberal enough. If that was true, the voters would have replaced him with someone who was more liberal. That didn't happen. And it's not as if more liberal candidates weren't on the ballot. There was Bustamente, who was widely perceived as being more liberal -- so much so that when it looked like Bustamente might win, Darrel Issa (sp?) considered coming out against the recall. And what about Arianna Huffington, the left wing's wet dream of a candidate? Her support was so miniscule that her dropping out of the race caused nary a ripple.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. If the campaign had gone on longer, I believe Arianna

would have built and organizations and pulled ahead. I also believe the DLC would be a thing of the past with public financing of campaigns.

No this isn't a referendum on centrism given both major players were running as centrists.

[dolstein]

22. I rest my case

NT

[Julien Sorel]

26. Jesus effing Christ.

And not one hint of irony.

[Booberdawg]

36. That is just absurd and not grounded in reality but wishful thinking

[Classical_Liberal]

41. That is your opinion

They have it Arizona which means public financing can be done in California too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I

don't think our cause is assisted by creating our own alternate realities....

It didn't help the Lakota Sioux at Wounded Knee and it's not going to help us wrest the country from the right....

"We must take man as he is and not the way we want him to be."

-Edmund Burke

[birdman]

52. Arianna couldn't get arrested

I like Arianna but this campaign was never about issues. It was
about name recognition.

Davis being a "centrist" (his gay rights and licenses for illegals
policies don't seem all that centrist) in no way explains what
happened here. The state was bankrupt the economy was in the
toilet and Davis, frankly, seemed like a creep.

[jiacinto]

19. I agree with you

good post.

[lifelong_Dem]

21. You're looking at it the wrong way, Dolstein

It's not about the "far left." The fact is, Davis got scapegoated for the blackouts instead of Enron. And Davis didn't do a damn thing to counter it. The lesson to learn from this is that when Dems are silent on corporate corruption, we will end up getting blamed for their crimes. This is why the pro-corporate faction of the party is dangerous.

[w4rma]

37. I agree with you, lifelong_Dem

Republicans are causing the problems and then telling everyone that it's the Democrats' fault. Well, Democrats need to tell folks whose fault it is really, over and over and over again until they get it through their thick skulls. And Democrats need to tell folks *clearly*, over and over and over again whose fault it is so that folks will understand and won't fall for propaganda, later on.

[Julien Sorel]

28. Delusional is far too kind a word.

[cprise]

64. They're blaming Davis for letting corps get away with energy-sector fraud

He even pointed out the fraud, but was afraid to assume control of the generators or declare the energy debt to have been negotiated in bad faith, because he was afraid it would ruin his big-business-friendly reputation. All we heard about that robbery after the fact were a few anecdotes about evidence of fraud and some flaccid legalisms in the courts. He needed to impress the public that a line had difinately been crossed, and then taken decisive action.

I would not have recalled Davis because there was hope of resolving this in the long-term. But average people needed to see action on a problem that severe.

In the end, Davis ended up saddling businesses with hostile energy suppliers anyway. His reticence to 'interfere in the market' only helped the power companies.

[IranianDemocrat]

30. They're not dellusional, they're insane.

.

[Terwilliger]

63. why do you people keep losing?

you can talk about the left all you want

why do YOU people keep losing?

[Nederland]

122. Which people?

Which losing 'people' are you talking about?

[TheDonkey]

12. Not a mandate for the far left??? thanks for putting words into my mouth

I said Davis ignored the Democratic base (not liberals) but minorities, unions, women, and other groups and struggled to get there support this last month. That is what centrists have currently been doing lately.

As to not appear to be "weepy and liberal" they ignore issues of the base and that leaves them vunerable to right wing power grabs. 2002 mid term elections, now California Gov. recall.

I hope for the 2004 presidential election the nominee appeals to the BASE and is not afriad to be painted a liberal when all they are is doing is what a democrat should be doing.

[cprise]

67. Well that's some fine right-wing TV programming

This is similar to the media running around saying "they" (oddly enough, the media) are too liberal. The fact is, the media is always "too liberal", but in reality they start at the center-right when it comes to economics and it gets worse from there.

Liberals by definition are center-left. You'll need to look toward the Socialist party for an example of far-left.

Democrats have taken a centrist economic policy for the past decade, and increasingly they are compromising with a hard-right Republican element.

If center-left politics scare Americans, then it is through ignorance. Such a country could never negotiate an environmental treaty worth a damn, nor begin to cope with the international fallout of preemptive violence and world domination.

[Code_Name_D]

32. That IS the point. No mandate.

In this case, no mandate for Davis' defence. The GOP could smell that lack of a mandate, and took it as blood in the water.

To make maters worse, Davis and the DLC did the LA LA's in the garden while the recall patition was gaining steam. Do you remeber Davis saying "they will never get the votes," well, the got the votes. The then said "they arn't ligit votes." But they were. They were taken by surprise, by a f******* marching band of doom.

[Iverson]

115. frivolous non-answer

It certainly was not "spun" as a mandante for the far left.
It was an argument against automatic, knee-jerk centrism.

PM me if you need help in working out the difference between those two things.

[jiacinto]

118. I don't see how you can make that argument

when both Arianna and Camejo polled in the single digits.

[Iverson]

119. I don't see how you read my post.

Let's try again slowly:

The argument of the original poster is not (repeat: not) an assertion of far-left infallibility.

The argument of the original poster is an assertion of centrist fallability.

These are not the same.

Really.

That means that your introducing something he didn't say misses the mark.

I will help you if you cannot see the difference.

[Rainbows]

10. 70's Republicans

Todays centrist democrats and nothing better at botton than 70's republicans. Worse yet the centrists keep moving right. The repubs see this and move further right and low and behold two years later the centrist follow their lead. Lost in this movement are defining issues and platforms of what used to be a choice between democratic and republican ideals. With the centrists movement the ideals of the democratic party have been distroyed (IMHO). And corporatism thrives. Who is left to protect the workers, maintain the entitlement programs, and keep the waring factions in check. Sometime compare a centrist democrat with Nelson Rockefeller and try to spot the difference.

[TheDonkey]

14. That's the problem! Centrists are moving right and forgetting the base

Who are not far left hippie doves that some people in this thread seem to imply. No they are hardworking Americans who would not like to be trappled on by corporate america and big special interest groups.

[AP]

17. Extreme right wingers have the sense to vote for moderate appearing Arnold

Yet, Democratic candidates have to worry about not appearing liberal enough to the far left? Madness.

And I'm starting to think the far left in the US is kinda ignorant -- they think a guy like Dean is liberal, and they don't see the importance of falling in line behind Davis when he's running agianst a SEXUAL ASSAULTING FASCIST!!!!

I know the Republicans are trying to keep us stupid, but c'mon.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi Rainbows!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AP]

13. What the HELL are you talking about? Arnold ran as a centrist.

He made Democrats think he was a moderate and sort of liberal.

All the votes are in the center. It's a battle for the center. You want to see what running for the extreme left and right gets you, look at Camejo and McClintock.

The thing is, Arnold's every bit as RW if McClintock, if not moreso.

The key is to BE a liberal and LOOK moderate. (And that aint Dean, friends.)

[Rainbows]

15. I'll bite ...

Who is it the of the nine left.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. If the key is to look moderate that why didn't Grey survive recall

The centrist vs centrist election meant that Arnold was never ever challenged on issues. It was a personality match and that isn't Davis's strong suit.

[AP]

20. IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID (to paraphrase James Carville)

But that doesn't mean is isn't a race for the center.

Proportional representation is the only way to avoid the race for the center. But for chief executives, it will always be a race for the center.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. A lot of candidates you have supported in the past

were not just retorical centrist. They actually moved to the right in practice. Look at Blair. It was his right wing actions that hurt him.

[AP]

29. Who else do you think I've supported besides Blair?

And, for a country that still has a fucking monarch and came off, like, a century of Tory rule with out more than the occassional one-term failed Labour interruption, Blair is a fucking radical anarchist.

You have to be in power to change society, and that's what Blair is doing.

I like a winner. Once we get the Democrats firmly entrenched, as they deserve, considering demographics, I'll be jumping ship for the Green Party. Until then, I'll be fighting my ass off against fascism the best way I know how, and that's by winning elections for Democrats.

[Terwilliger]

62. losing again?

that's what supporting same-ole, same-ole Democrat party will do

whatever happened to going into the street AP????? Will Democrats do that???

[AP]

71. What's wrong with supporting candidates who can win

and supporting politicies that are farther left?

FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton all did good things, and dragged the country incrementally to the left in a system that discourages anything but incrementalism. I believe they all had their eyes on the prize, which is evolving into a society in which fascism is impossible.

And why have you picked me as the emobodiement of everything you hate over the last two days?

What the hell do you want from politics and society?

[Terwilliger]

74. embodiment of everything you hate?

SHEESH AP...I dont hate you...fer chrissakes, I'm trying to figure out why this world is filled with neanderthals

You say incremntalism won't work, but then it did? Those policies will eventually stomp out fascism, yet Bush in the white house and AHH-nold just won governor. What are you trying to say?

[AP]

78. Terwilliger, what has been the history of the last 60 years?

FDR created a bulwark against fascism. Demographic shifts have worked in their favor. More and more people indentify themselves as Democrats/liberals. Two of the biggest reasons is increasing racial and ethnic diverstiy, and higher and higher levels of educational attainment. So what are the republicans to do? Do they shift their policies incrementally to the right so that they can still legitimatel appeal to 50% of Americans. Nope. They steal an election in a year in which they basically have to win, and, if they had lost, they probably would have had to change their policies. And then, once they won, what do they do? Smash and grab. Shift huge amounts of wealth to the wealthy. Push a million kids out of higher education. Destroy public schools. All undemocratically. And all so that they can interupt the demographics that were incrementally working against them so that they can have maybe 10 or 15 more good years of concentrating wealth and power.

That's the way I see the last 60 years, and especially the last 30 years. It's a dramatic shift by the Republcan party to counter incremental change. Will it work? I don't know.

I never said incrementalism didn't work. Remember, I want to take it the streets because an moderate -- Gray Davis -- was ousted in a fascist velvet coup.

As for you, again, what's your project? All you care about it finding out why people are stupid? Why are you all over every thread I'm in posting useless comments the last two days? What are you trying to achieve? What about what I'm saying is such a contradiction to your world view?

[Terwilliger]

81. I've been trying to figure out what you're suggesting

It's hard to glean.

You say we should just stick to hoping that we MIGHT gain a SLIGHT consensus by supporting these same policies that Dems have supported over the years.

Is that it? We just have to take it until the policies are understood by the idiot masses?

what's the plan, AP?

[AP]

83. Did I say same policies?

The policies are always evolving. FDR didn't fight for civil rights. LBJ didn't talk about gays in the military.

But I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Look, in the opening days of the election, Camejo and Bustamante said the exact same thing about the car tax, property tax and tax progressivity. In many ways, those are the core liberal issues, which have been relatively consistent since FDR. And I do endorse those same principles. In any event, it seems, the Greens and Democrats are on the same page there. (Then the media started defining the election as being about anything but this, the essential truth of politics -- who reaps the benefits and who bears the burdens of society.)

The difference then, between Dems and Greens then, is that the democrats have actually, occassionally, been in power and have to work within a system which is controlled by money, and which encourages incrementalism, so they have to make the compromises which are inevitable, but so easy to criticize if you're alwasy in opposition. (It's very easy to be in opposition. It's hard to be in power, unless your party is basically fascistic and people are willing to fall in line behind the promise of money and power. Who ever falls in line behind the promise of justice and and fair competion with a big safety net?)

Now, the way I read you is that you're doing the easy thing -- you're just hating and opposing everything. That, in my mind, is practically cowardly. Have some courage. Imagine what it's like to actually have to lead.

Give me one example ever of a radical opposition part taking control, and making dramatic changes to society, successfully. I was going to add to that "and then not get thrown from office, and having everything undone, as the country takes a sharp turn right", but I don't even need to add that, because I can't think of a situation in which even the first two steps have happened.

By the way, if you want society to change dramatically, the first thing you have to do is get rid of the executive branch, and let the majority party in the legislature be the de facto executive branch. Then change all supermajority voting to simple majority voting. Get rid of blue slips...etc...etc....etc. Then try to get a majority of liberals voted into office in a landscape dominated by the lies of huge conglomerates who want to keep profit-enhancing, competition-reducing Republicans in office.

[Terwilliger]

86. I understand what you're saying here

why were you about going into the streets?

[AP]

87. Why is taking it to the streets incompatible with what I just wrote

in your mind?

[Terwilliger]

90. so...

...

I don't see anyone in the streets.

[AP]

92. If Arnold got 35% of the vote, you might have.

Nontheless, I'll be keeping my eye out for the protests.

[tjdee]

18. As usual, I agree with you.

That's probably why we're supporting the same guy.

But, I think a great deal of this was personality as well. Which is why, very seriously, Lieberman should go home right now.

[Sean Reynolds]

27. Actually Camejo isn't really far left liberal.

www.ontheissues.com places him as a Moderate Liberal:

[AP]

33. Look, I don't believe the subjective impressions of politician's politics

which are expressed by most DU'ers, so I'm not going to trust those expressed by that faux-objective measure.

I listened to Camejo. He's farther left than I've ever seen any Democrat run.

[Sean Reynolds]

35. Read up on that site..........

You'll see the way they come to their conclusion.

[AP]

72. That site tries to turn subjectivity into objectivity. It's phrenology.

Don't you see that? The graph...pretending that math and science tell you something concrete. It's no much more of a science than phrenology is.

I totally disagree with their quantification of subjective measures.

Look, 90% of the debate here is over trying to convert subjective measures into a quantification of liberalism. Why do you think this website can achieve that, whereas the debate here clearly fails miserably to give a final, indesputable judgment based on the same facts?

[Terwilliger]

61. AP...how are Greens the 'extreme-left'?

Are you folks just getting more and more desperate?

[AP]

69. You don't think Greens are the left of spectrum equivalent of McClintock?

And who are "you folks"?

And what's your problem?

And what do you think you stand for?

[Terwilliger]

77. you "support mod Dem policies at all costs" people

The Greens do NOT represent the "extreme" left, so I'm REALLY tired of that that label. The extreme left wouldn't have anything in common with Democrats. Greens are slightly left of Democrat mainstream...why do you not get that?

I stand for an America that actually employs those values that (supposedly) make this such a great place to live. That's what I stand for.

[AP]

80. So do I. But you know what's going to happen first?

Democrats are going to pick up the 5 points they need to beat Republicans before the Greens pick up the 48 points they need to win elections.

[Terwilliger]

82. maybe

or maybe not

Greens may be much further behind politically, but you folks sure don't have a lock on anything

[AP]

84. Not a lock. But a way better chance. And a much bigger platform.

And, again, you keepn saying 'you guys' like you know what I stand for.

What do you stand for?

If you're going to speak like there's a dichotomy of 'you' and 'us', you could at least do me the favor of telling me what you think you are, other than a person trying to figure out why you live in a world of neanderthals. (And if you're having a hard time figuring that one out...)

[Terwilliger]

88. I stand for nothing

apparently

nevermind, AP...good luck in 04, 08, 06 and every other election that your incremntal neoliberalism fails to gain a mandate

[AP]

91. So you're a nihilist?

Good luck with the cowardice of advocating positioins which mean you'll never have to assume the responsibility of actually having to govern.

[Terwilliger]

94. that's right

by all means, blame Greens when you lose in 04 as well

[AP]

97. You don't remember me, do you?

I defended Greens for months and months after 2000. I put a certain MD'er now FLidian aon ignore because of my exasperation with the criticism of Greens.

I never blamed Greens for anything.

You really don't understand my flavor.

[Terwilliger]

98. I remember AP

that's why I'm trying to figure out what you're saying

[AP]

101. I'm not saying I have a unified theory of liberal ellectability...

...but I don't think what I'm saying is all that confusing.

In '76 Edward Kennedy ran as the liberal against Jimmy Carter. Maybe Edward Kennedy could have won. But probably not. Jimmy Carter ended up winning the primary on the message that politics isn't about sending a message and being in the opposition. It's about putting people in office and making changes.

OK, so Carter didn't make America into a liberal Nirvana, and who would have guessed the shit Republicans would do to win (negotiate with Iran to hold Americans hostage UNTIL AFTER the election to hurt the Dem!!!). But, the essense of that message is the reality of American politics.

Change is only going to come in increments, and some of the first steps are pretty obvious. Forget gay marriage and gun laws for now. Keep pushing through campaign finance reform at every chance. Get rid of comptuer voting. And push for progressive taxation so that more wealth flows to the middle and working class, and so that huge media and other corporations don't have an unfair competitive advantage over regular citizens and small businesses. That's is going to lead in increments to a society in which Greens can get elected and which shifts and slowly undermines the power of the far right. And then, maybe in 15 years, we can get that one-time wealth tax, and all the environmental protection, and universal health care, and political power in the middle and working class.

However, no matter how I vote, I'm ready to take it to the streets. I got Gramsci in one pocket, and MLK, Gandhi and Malcolm X in the other pocket.

[Terwilliger]

105. I said yesterday I'm ready to go

I don't know what protesting will do when people won't even reject a misogynist twit from Austria.

[cprise]

75. Davis acted like a pro-corporate insider, while Arnold was an outsider

...and at least socially liberal.

Davis did change his tune some after the recall started, but it was too late. People's memory of him was stuck on that time when the power was still off. The only thing that could have altered that memory would be thunder and drastic action against the power companies.

[Cocoa]

was centrism Davis's problem?

I got the idea he was just a bad and very unpopular governor.

[Terwilliger]

60. mainly because he was a centrist

[Democat]

25. Arnold is to the RIGHT of Davis - wake up!

Arnold is a centrist to the right of Davis!

Your argument should be:

Does this prove once and for all that Democrats need to move to the right to get elected?

Get real!

[TheDonkey]

40. Because Arnold campaigned as a conservative!?

NO, he didn't expand on any policy conservative or liberal. SO to say he ran to the right of Davis is false. He ran as an outsider, and outsider who would be sucessful because the incumbant had alienated the base and made a fool of himself in the process.

Don't quit your day job.

[Rainbows]

42. Have to agree

Any democrat movement farther right, might as well disband the senate and house and let the CEO's make the rules and disperse the funding. Then what would we do with all the lobbiests' that perform that very function now?

[Evanstondem]

31. No, it explains the dangers of charmless dweebs with a mean streak

I don't want faux Bush candidates, but I don't want bleeding heart left-wingers either!

[DemBones DemBones]

43. How do you define "bleeding heart left-wingers"

Just curious. . . Gan you give an example of a "bleeding heart left-winger"?

[Evanstondem]

46. Ralph Nader

You won't see me criticizing Kucinich on DU, although I do disagree with some of his supporters.

[Terwilliger]

59. Ralph Nader is a `bleeding-heart liberal'?? Just exactly how?

What makes Nader a "bleeding-heart" liberal?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Jesus

NT

[Terwilliger]

58. as opposed to the centrists who JUST LOST ANOTHER ELECTION!!

and against a NEANDERTHAL no less!

[janekat]

34. It's the danger of running intelligent candidates - need to run dumbasses

to please all of the dumb shits out there.

[Renew Deal]

38. I have felt like this lately too.

I feel like that it is possibel to be too smart to get elected. Put up some dumb shit like Bush, drop the expectations and boom, you have the next great candidate.

[roughsatori]

44. I agree with you, but those who push centrism here will not

they will tell you about their new improved centrist candidates the ones with the better personalities and nicer smiles and same old business as usual.

[Democat]

45. Arnold ran as a centrist!

He did just fine, didn't he?

[Classical_Liberal]

49. Only because his party is loony right

running the center has no value at all when you are there already. Furthermore the fact that Arnold is a centrist and Davis is one only makes the republican light problem worse for a dem. Not better. Arnold and Davis were competing for the same voters, which made it really imporating that Davis turn out more liberals.

[quaker bill]

48. No

It explains nothing of the sort.

It does explain that if you are the governor of a State in clear economic trouble and have the personality of a dead fish, you can lose to almost anyone.

Left wingers went no where. Camejo semed like a good candidate in the debate I saw. Where did he end up 1 to maybe 2 percent?

McClintock was the right winger and he ended up third, correct?

How many times more votes did McClintock get than the nearest leftist candidate?

Bustamonte ran a bit left of center, and came in second correct?

Ahnold tried to run down the middle (fiscal right, social left), came in first, correct?

Bush tried to run down the middle (yes, it was a lie) and he came in a close second.

Gore ran down the center (slightly left of dead center) and he came in first.

Nader ran left and came in a rather distant third (about 2%), correct?

What does running left and getting a quite consistent 2 percent of the vote tell you about the dangers of leftist candidates?

[Terwilliger]

57. that's RICH!

Left wingers went no where. Camejo semed like a good candidate in the debate I saw. Where did he end up 1 to maybe 2 percent?

Did you see the hatred directed at Camejo on this website? Cali liberals were told over-and-over-and-over "dont vote Camejo...you'll help AHH-nold...you'll help Bush" People didn't vote Camejo (just like 2000) because they were afraid of the alternative.

Now the Democrats show just how spectacularly out of touch they are, and it's still some belief that `the left' doesn't know what it's talking about. So much tripe.

[AP]

85. if every democrat in CA said, 'hey, let's take a look at Camejo, he was a

good debater, don't feel bad about voting for him" he still would have lost.

[Terwilliger]

89. really?

If every Democrat had voted for Camejo, he would have won going away.

[AP]

93. I'm sorry, I thought you said that Camejo did poorly

because Dems (at DU) were saying don't consider the guy. I thought you were complaining about the talk.

If you want to say Camejo would have won if every Dem voted for him, well that's practically a tautology. Of course that's true.

There's way more to voting for a guy then just having people talk about voting for him.

I'm saying we could have all made happy talk about Camejo 24-7 and he still wouldn't have won. For the most part, we made happy talk about Bustamante and Davis, and Bustamante got 32% of the vote, and Davis lost the No vote. So there's definitely more to voting than just talk. And talking positively about Camejo (or Arianna, or anyone other than Arnold) wasn't going to solve the problem of perception and RW media grip that liberals need to overcome.

[Terwilliger]

96. yes, but you don't know what will overcome it

so...

"happy talk" is all we get from Democrats

[AP]

100. That post is a little thin on argument.

I'm using a term to describe something you defined a couple posts up. You dind't like the way DU talked about Camejo and seem to think that he would have done better if he were talked about differently.

Call it happy talk, or whatever, I'm just trying to elaborate on YOUR argument.

If you think something more than they way we talk about Greens is going to get greens elected, then let's hear your argument.

[Terwilliger]

102. edit

edit

[AP]

107. Maybe the problem...

...is that you don't know what you think.

Like I said, I don't have a unified theory, but I don't think what I'm saying is at all confusing.

[AP]

114. T., why'd you edit that out?

i'll respect your desire to revoke your statement, but I don't understand why you'd remove that? You same the same thing elsewhere.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

51. exactly...nothing but DEAD critters in the middle of the road...wake up

[Tinoire]

55. Those who stand in the middle of the road get RUN OVER!

Time after time after time.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

56. Groundhog Day

[jiacinto]

99. How can you spin this election as a mandate for the far left?

By that logic then Arianna and Camejo would have polled higher than the single digits they received last night.

[Iverson]

116. see reply #115

n/t

[jiacinto]

95. Did we both see the same election?

Where is the mandate for the far left? Why did Camejo and Arianna finish in the low single digits if the far left was so popular?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

104. carlos...do you wear corrective lenes? because you also see lieberman

as a winner

[jiacinto]

108. There you go again linking me to Lieberman

I am actually supporting Dean. I don't see Lieberman as a "winner". I've stood up to him against the unfair attacks he gets here from you and other DUers. But that doesn't mean I see him as a "winner".

And I do wear glasses. But how you can honestly see the 2003 Arnold GOP victory as a mandate for the left is beyond me. Are we looking at two different elections?

If Californians really wanted the far left please tell me why Camejo and Arianna received very few votes and ultimately polled in the single digits?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. No it explains the MORONS who think NO loaf is better than HALF

As one who WORKS with UNIONS their UNWILLINGNESS to change and grow is undercutting their OWN fucking goals.

Davis signed some HUGELY progressive legislation. A poor person in Los Angeles can go to Olive View hospital and get treated for FREE no matter the diagnosis.

Davis FUNDED environmental issues and Davis ADVANCED union workers though not at the rate he could have.

There are MANY populist issues the left fronts but they never stop to look at the WHOLE picture policywise.

Please explain how a presumed CENTRIST won this fucking election? Bustamante (quite popular with liberals) TANKED!

[slackmaster]

66. Davis is perceived as having started in the center and moving left

<Cassandra>

Attempting to ingratiate Latinos by tossing bones to illegal aliens, and pandering to organized labor, are not things that centrists are famous for doing.

</Cassandra>

[cprise]

70. And he would have had half the votes without it

Davis is perceived as, at best, not having taken decisive action against large-scale corporate fraud. Feeble attempts to drag the power companies into long court battles over relatively tiny amounts of money just do not cut it for most people.

[slackmaster]

103. Thanks for supporting my Cassandra complex

Bring it on folks.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

76. Davis got the support of the hard left

The leftists came out in droves to vote against the recall. They were outnumbered by a LARGE margin. What would moving farther left have done? Would it have magically given the extreme left the power to vote twice? Would they have been able to spontaneously bear voting age children just prior to the election? Really, how many voting age true-believer leftists do you know who stayed home yesterday because Davis was too far to the center? Are you really this out of touch with reality?

Arnold is a social moderate/liberal and a fiscal conservative. He is exactly in tune with the majority of Californians and, in fact, with the majority of Americans. Hell, last time I checked, the votes for Arnold were ahead of the No on recall votes. Did ANYBODY predict that?

If Dems insist on destroyng themselves by moving farther to the left the national debate will not be dems vs. repubs but conservative vs. moderate repubs with dems playing the role of the green party. Ignore these facts at your own peril (unless it's your goal to be a member of a fringe party, in which case I say, keep on truckin').

[Terwilliger]

79. what fucking left are you talking about?!?!?

The Democrats have been moving to the right for 20 years! What left do you speak of?

[Capn Sunshine]

112. I suppose your idea of extreme leftists is Unions and students?

because a review of the voting trends shows the unions and studentes voted against the recall. However, there was a "edfection" rate of approximately 25%.

But extreme leftists DO NOT VOTE, on principle that participating in a corrupt system is meaningless.

Moderate, reasonable leftists tend to vote Green, and Peter Camejo did quite well.

So you need to tell us what your take is on extreme leftists.

Probably anyone with a (D) after their name.

[Blitz]

117. Peter Camejo did quite well???

Camejo got 2.8% of the vote. About HALF of his percentage in 2002.

Wow. Talk about setting the bar low.

[Tinoire]

120. Blitz- put away whatever you're smoking!

Do you know how many people voted

Recall Si! Bustamante Si!

or

Recall Yes! xxxx (D/G/I) Yes?

Move your little ass out here please before you start telling us what our own two eyes saw and the absolute disgust of people who felt they were being coerced (DLC-style again) into voting for an opportunistic Mecha Boy New Democrat who broke rank with the Democrats, the Left and Union when he defied everyone's request that we stick by Davis. Well DLC Mecha boy is still Lt Governor, Davis is fucked, California is fucked and you know what, you can basically kiss 2004 good-bye because instead of learning from this most recent fiasco I see that the DLC apologists are out in droves today SPINNING AGAIN

DLC | The New Democrat | August 1, 2000
100 To Watch: Cruz M. Bustamante
Lieutenant Governor, California

From The New Democrat Magazine's "100 To Watch"

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=1848&kaid=104&subid=210

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=104&subid=210&contentid=1804

Yeah DLC- watched your boy go down in flames last night because Californians refused to rally behind his corporate pandering and fuming that the DLC thought people would vote for someone whose brother has the licenses to the Indian casinos (Recall Si, Bustamante Si!) and is such a lack-luster centrist that he was going to take us even more right than Davis- all over a little ego trip.

Keep breaking ranks with Labor DLC, keep pissing off the Left. Keep placing corporate interests ahead of the people and playing these little Centrist games. You people won't believe it until there are only about 2 of you left and you'll still be blaming Nader, the media and everything/everyone but the DLC and your catastrophic fantasy that 1. people are going to vote Republican lite when they can vote Republican instead and 2. that the Left is going to keep allowing the DLC to coerce them into voting for Republican-wannabe Democratic candidates.


As a PISSED OFF PROGRESSIVE CALIFORNIA VOTER I tell you now that if the Democratic candidate for the Presidentials is a Centrist, Rightist Puke, I will NOT vote for him.

This was the LAST STRAW

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Capn Sunshine]

109. I think you're on to something

That's why a candidate should worry about being himself, and those on either side of the spectrum can choose for themselves.

Note Howard Dean repeats constantly this theme.

We're not worried about swing voters, we're bringing our own to the party.

[ozone_man]

111. Nicely put Capn.

I think Dean is himself out there and can speak naturally what he feels, off the cuff too. People relate to that.

[West Coast Democrat]

121. Republicans are the ones who moved to the Center

in California.

The election was basically about 2 Centrist candidates...one who had little flash and was stuck with the baggage of difficult job of dealing with the Bush economy, and the other with Hollywood fame who didn't have any baggage that comes with the difficult job of dealing with the Bush economy. (the sex scandal really broke too late to have much effect)

Many Liberals stayed home because they never liked Davis much in the first place, and huge numbers of Republicans went to the polls to finally get their "electable guy" into office.