To all the "Democrats have moved to the center "people

[BL611]

Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson- two highly respected liberal political scientists have come out recently with a book called "Off Center: The Republican Revolution & the Erosion of American Democracy". While the main thesis is how far to the right the Republicans have moved, the book also contends that over the last several years also moved to the LEFT (although again not nearly as far to the pole as the Republicans). While the obvious explanation for this is the disappearance of the conservative southern Dem's, it still shows the ridiculousness of the Nader/Moore 'Republicrat" theory.

[NoodleBoy]

1. really... well then, I'll just forget the fact that every Presidential

candidate we've run since 1992 was a member of the DLC. Or that thing about NAFTA. Or DOMA. Or voting for the Iraq War. Or the bankruptcy bill.

[blm]

2. Kerry was the furthest left Dem nominee of the last 50 years.

He was always further left of the DLC and further left than most nonDLC members.

Guess you were unaware that Kerry's lifetime rating was more liberal than Kucinich's lifetime rating and just 3% different than Wellstone's lifetime rating. And Kerry's was over a 20 yr period.

[NoodleBoy]

11. really, more left then McGovern, Mondale, and Humphreys?

One advocated a guaranteed income for all Americans of $1,000 per month, one advocated a nuclear freeze and passage of the ERA when most of the party had moved beyond those things, and one was the scion of midwestern liberalism.

Lifetime ratings as recorded by who?

[BL611]

17. Lifetime ADA ratings

Is that liberal enough for you?

Humphreys-78
Mondale-90
Kerry-92

Mcgovern's lifetime link is not working but if you look at him year by year its definitely under 92...

[NoodleBoy]

21. I have a hard time believing that.

[BL611]

22. Well then go to the website

and look yourself. Its always annoying when rude little disturbances like facts get in the way of believing what you want to believe. If you want the link I'll get it for you...

[NoodleBoy]

23. whatever dude. nothing would make me believe Kerry is more liberal then

McGovern. Remember, they didn't have the chance to vote on all the same things, so comparing their voting records seems a little ridiculous.

[BL611]

25. Yes thats the whole point

that nothing will make you believe something that all objective evidence points to being the case. Again you believe want you want to believe, facts be damned, I'm don't mean that to be nasty, but you've said so yourself in so many words. As for Mcgovern your point would do nothing except help Kerry, Mcgovern was a Senator during a period of "liberal consensus", Kerry has presided during the right wing ascendancy, if anything that should give Kerry an excuse to be more conservative.

[NoodleBoy]

28. whatever dude. just keep repeating that to yourself, and ignore the

massive influence of the DLC.

[BL611]

30. I'm not repeating anything

I'm giving you EVIDENCE, which I have asked you do, and instead you've just chirped unsubstantiated platitudes.

[blm]

33. DLC was against public financing of campaigns and Kyoto. Kerry helped

craft the Clean Elections bill as a longtime adocate for public financed campaigns, and also worked to craft Kyoto for 10 years with other world leaders.

Did you even know that there is no lawmaker in modern history who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry did in IranContra, BCCI, and the illegal wars in Central America?

But you are welcome to try and name one.

[blm]

31. And Kerry also helped to END 3 wars and expose government corruption

that many senators refused to consider - why on earth would anyone doubt his credentials?

Being a senator isn't even ALL about votes, you know, even though Kerry's voting record was very much in line with Wellstone's and Kennedy's.

[bunkerbuster1]

44. As taken out of context for a single year by the Nazi Review and others.

That's a bullshit number being given.

More here if you're interested in how this "most librul Senator" nonsense was started:

http://politicalechochamber.blogspot.com/2004/08/how-liberal-is-john-kerry-really.html

[Tesha]

20. You know, when I think "Liberal", Fritz Mondale comes to my mind...

> Guess you were unaware that Kerry's lifetime rating was more liberal
> than Kucinich's lifetime rating and just 3% different than
> Wellstone's lifetime rating. And Kerry's was over a 20 yr period.

You know, when I think "Liberal", Fritz Mondale comes to my mind
rather than John Kerry. I guess it was just something about him
actually having the 'nads to stand up in front of the American
people and say, *IN A SIMPLE, DECLARATIVE, UN-NUANCED
SENTENCE* that he would raise taxes to pay for his programs.

Tesha

[blm]

32. Fritz Mondale was a great liberal.

And I am pleased that Kerry followed his tradition when he said that he would repeal the taxcut Bush gave to the wealthiest.

[yngliberal]

3. Well...

The so-called "swing voters" want Democrats to actually stand for something instead of copying Republican policies and moving more to the center each time. If you have two parties supporting the same thing, who do you want to vote for? I would vote for the real thing instead of the fake.

[Wind Dancer]

40. I'm not sure what you mean.

Would you vote Republican because you think they are the real thing?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

45. Not exactly...

I think what they meant is something like that saying: give people a choice between a republican and a republican, they'll pick the republican every time.

[newyawker99]

43. Hi yngliberal!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BL611]

4. Guess what?

Not every Dem has voted "Liberal" on every issue in the history of the Democratic Party, your logic of because the Democrats do something I don't like, they are no better then the Republicans is ridiculous on the face of it. As far as Bankruptcy again the Senate roll call proves the point Dem's on the bill- 25 Ney 18 yea, Republicans- 55 yea 0 Nea, same thing right?

[NoodleBoy]

16. no,

that's not my "logic," it's what you think it is. what I'm trying to say is, yes, I believe the Democratic party has moved to the center on things, with their most obvious impact being on our Presidential nominees. I didn't say anything close to "the two parties are the same," and if you'd taken the time to read my comments and not assume everything I had to say you might have noticed that.

[MadHound]

6. Or the prescription drug bill, or the '96 Telecom Act,

Or welfare reform, or the Patriot Act, or the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act, or the Real ID Act of 2005, on and on ad nauseum. Sorry, but this book is just trying to put lipstick on a pig. Yet no matter how much they try to dress it up, the record, sadly, speaks for itself.

[BL611]

8. The Patriot act?

Wellstone voted for the Patriot act, I suppose he's a right winger too? Look at the roll call for every single one of the votes you mentioned and tell me which ones the Democrats and the Republicans were identical on....

[MadHound]

14. I'm not sure what your question is friend,

Perhaps you could restate. And just because Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act doesn't mean that the PA is a desirable piece of legislation, nor does it mean that it is a progressive piece of legislation, in fact it is just the opposite, a very, very regressive piece of legislation. I realize that Wellstone was a leading light of progressive politics, but he let himself be stampeded, just like many other Dems did, and rather than showing a spine and calling that piece of excrement for what it is, he caved for political reasons, as the Democratic party has done time and again. And thus, with this party wide continous cave on such issues, the party moves itself further and further to the right.

And then there is the legislation sponsored, proposed or supported by our last so-called Democratic president. How can you say we are moving to the left when we sell out part of our base, the poor, with such BS as welfare "reform"? How can you say we are moving to the left when our voice was muffled by the '96 Telecom Act? Sorry friend, but the record is clear for all to see, the Democrats have, and are moving to the right.

This is simply one book out of many, by an author I've never heard of before, and it flies in the face of other books written by much more renowned scholars and journalists. It would be interesting to find out who is backing the author in these endeavors. I think if we followed the money trail we would find some pretty incriminating things.

[BL611]

18. The record is not clear

All of the bills you just mentioned were passed by a REPUBLICAN congress, Clinton is the executive not a dictator, he cannot impose his will. How many times did he veto welfare reform? The point with the Patriot Act is not that it was a progressive piece of legislation, but that the political realities of the tome were what they were and even someone with as unquestionably liberal impulses as Wellstone voted for it.

The party is moving to the right from where, show me the voting records, where there was this united vastly liberal Democratic Party?
The facts are that the Democrats have always had conservative and liberal wings, and that the liberals have always had to deal with the realties of the current political climate, if you are aware of some golden age of history where this was not the case, again I'd love to see the evidence...

[MadHound]

34. And all of those bills had substantial Democratic help

Hell, Clinton was promising welfare reform as early as his first presidential campaign back in '92<http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N31/clinton.31w.html>, and while yes, he did veto it twice, he finally, in the end, during his re-election campaign, signed it into law.

And just because these bills were passed by a Republican Congress doesn't mean that the Dems had to go along, nor does that exonerate them from their actions. Gee, they could have shown a spine, used the bully pulpit, joined with moderate Republicans in order to oppose such onerous legislation. Instead they voted for such POS's, and thus should be held responsible.

And let us see where exactly the Democratic Party has moved from. Sixty years ago we were the party of the New Deal, the party that put the common man, the working man first. Then we were the party of the Great Society, which looked out for the rights and the concerns of minorities, the poor, and again the common man. Now, since Clinton, we have become the party of NAFTA, which takes away well paying jobs from the common man, and the party of welfare "reform" which throws the poor to the wolves.

And please, don't trot out that excuse that 911 somehow magically changed everything. The Patriot Act was and is an obscene piece of legislation, and it was the responsibility of Wellstone and every other Democrat on the Hill to be truthful and call it for the POS it was. Instead, they rolled over and cave, looking out more for their re-election prospects than what was best for the people of this country. And now, thanks to their traitorous political chicanery, a large part of our Constitution has been torn out and tossed in the trash.

Oh, and here is a link of some of the more recent voting records of the dispicable Dems who decided to join with the 'Pugs. Read it and weep friend<http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2005/050524.asp> Note that these are just some of the votes from '05. If you want further records, I suggest that you bone up on the Congressional Record, I haven't the time to do your research for you<http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/>

[BL611]

36. Clinton's conception of Welfare Reform

was VERY different then the bill that passed. The New Deal and Great Society were passed because the Dem's had MAJORITIES not because they were further left, all of that legislation was passed with votes from CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS from down south, seats that have been taken over by Republicans. The fact that some Democrats voted for republican bills is nothing new, there were Dem's who backed Taft-Hartley too, the fact is on all of those bills the roll call vote was very different between party's, I've done the research, I suggest you do the same....

[MadHound]

41. Then why in the hell did Clinton sign it?

Gee, he had a veto proof number in Congress. He had vetoed two previous versions. So why the hell didn't he send this one back to the drawing board. Look friend, no matter how you spin this one, the facts boil down to Clinton pushed for, and enacted a horrible piece of legislation, certainly not a progressive piece of legislation.

What you are basically doing is excusing the Democrats because you believe they have no power. Well gee, the Republicans were out of power for a long power, and yet they still managed to find a spine and fight back. Why aren't the Democrats doing this? But instead of fighting back, many, many of them are actually agreeing with, and voting for much of the legislation that the Republicans approve of.

Apparently you haven't done your research, and from your questions it seems that you haven't even looked at what I've linked to. I would suggest that you do, it is rather eye-opening.

[MadHound]

24. Upon further digging, it looks like Hackert is well entrenched in the DLC

He is a regular contributor to one of the DLC's propaganda arms, The New Republic<http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=recentart&contactID=364> He is also a fellow at the New America Foundation, who specialize in what is charitably called "radical centerist politics". Sounds to me like the man is providing cover for the DLC.

Paul Pierson also seems to be something of a DLC shill. His book "The New Politics of the Welfare State" laid much of the ideological groundwork for Clinton's later proposition of welfare "reform".

Sorry, but I think both of these authors have a bit of a political axe to grind, and that their book is influenced by their previous contacts and their own particular mindset that they carried into this endeavor. I would, of course, have to read the book to back this up thouroghly, but on the face of it I am pretty damn suspicious of two such frontmen claiming that the party is actually moving to the left when all the evidence of the past thirty years flies in the face of their assertions.

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Nice Catch!

:yourock:

[BL611]

29. Then provide evidence!

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a DLC shill is ridiculous, show me the EVIDENCE in Democratic voting records that it is not the case.

As for NR being a "DLC shill" while the general editorial slant is neo liberal, not everyone who writes for it is of that persuasion, there are many who write articles for NR that also write for The Nation, and other magazines....

[MadHound]

35. What more do you want

I've provided bios of the authors, who they're affiliated with, what these contacts and fellowships mean in real world politics, who've they written for, what they've written, etc. etc. Sorry friend, if that isn't good enough for you then go and do your own further research.

And no, not everybody who writes for the NR is a DLC shill. However when you write for the NR, and write DLC talking point pieces elsewhere, I think that does qualify one to be a DLC shill.

[BL611]

37. Show me all of these

congressional votes were there are identical votes on both sides of the aisle, saying that someone's view is illegitimate because of citing organizations that they are affiliated with that you have an ideological disagreement with is not sufficient, where is the proof is the voting records?

[MadHound]

39. Look friend, I've shown you as much as I'm going to show you

I've shown you the records on the most important bills of '05, I've given you a link to the Congressional Record where you go look up all the voting records that you want to. I'm not going to do any more of your work for you, if you want records, you know where to get them.

And to continously respond to my arguements and points with more and more requests of proof is bad form, and idicative of how weak your position is. So, let me ask you, where the fuck is YOUR proof?

By the by, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying a person is illegitamite because of their organization affiliation. What I am saying is that their affiliations, especially combined with their writing, is a good indicator of where their true mind-set is.

[izzybeans]

5. Nope the whole damn political field has jumped far right.

You can't even have a decent critical conversation about power any more. The new PC is acquiescence to fascism. I would suggest that these political scientists get their data from the real world and not the pollsters.

[DanCa]

7. It's all labels anyway.

Left right center it's just all in the eye of a beholder.. I mean why is Arnie considered a moderate when Senator Kerry supports the same social issues and is considered a liberal.

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. Did you get that from the book? Or a review of the book?

A recent McCain article in The Nation quoted that book I noticed.

[BL611]

10. No I read the book.

For some reason the book's citations are not as extensive as one would expect from them, however these are two HIGHLY respected academics.

[robbedvoter]

12. Maybe they refer to the voters as opposed to their reps

I don't feel I have representation anymore (Schumer, Clinton?) - and I loathed Nader and waved the donkey flag (literally). 2 stolen - and ignored - elections later - and a war - I know better.

[BL611]

13. No they are talking about the reps

I live in NY too, I am very happy with my Senators. If it wasn't for Nader there would be no stolen election and no war.

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. I will check it out, it's on my reading list.

[BL611]

19. Quite honestly

Its somewhat disappointing for all the hype its received, the last couple of chapters are pretty good, but the rest of is like a collection of Krugman editorials without the humor. Its not at all bad, but doesn't cover very much new ground.

[robbedvoter]

49. Believe me, I am the last person to defend Nader. He helped W.

Still, to think they wouldn't have done it anyway is to be very naive, The senators you love so much helped W get his war as much as Nader did get his "election" and aren't even able to read the polls to acknowledge that they were wrong. (mind you, I'm past asking for integrity, principles - at this point simple political shrewdness would lead to the proper action)

[Lorien]

46. A recent study showed that NO Democratic Representative is as far left

as the majority of Americans. When the labels are taken out of a poll ("do you believe that corporations should be held accountable for polluting air and water"? as opposed to "are you an environmentalist"?), the majority of Americans answer to the left of the positions taken by every rep. The right has done a brilliant job of framing the issues and conditioning people to react to labels instead of issues.

My guess is that the authors of these books are either very young or came from a very red state. Every democrat save Kucinich is far to the right of every democrat I knew growing up in the '70s.

[Wind Dancer]

47. You are exactly right.

This country has moved so far to the right, Kucinich is considered extremely liberal. George Lakoff has written extensively on these issues.

More from Lakoff:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

[Catchawave]

27. Centrists get elected, don't they ?

I'm thinking swing voters here. For instance, Va Gov. Mark Warner is very much a centrist but plays by the liberal handbook. His record proves that.

In this day and age, with 24/7 news channels and other corporate MSM venues, not to mention the Rovian politics of fear, loathing and lying Swifties, going too left is the kiss of death.

Look what happened to Kerry :(

[insane_cratic_gal]

38. Ya look what happened to Kerry

He got this biggest democratic vote ever.. (even with swift-boat) how awful!

If you look at the information from the GAO, fraud was rampant in 2004 election.

Thing is It's not center people respect, it's someone who doesn't fear speaking their minds. So one who leads not follows. Someone who doesn't give into Corporate hacks and the "typical" politician. You have to be fearless not cautious, that is what people respect.

Mark is not growing a spine and listening to what public opinion om Iraq is saying, but he's in good company. The other half of the democratic party is too afraid to come out against it as well.

Who else is backing Murtha? The man spoke the truth, he won my respect for that, for just listening to the troops and to the people at home. Enough is enough.

If the DLC wants to run a candidate that is against the war, then do it, but I can tell you they won't.

(btw this isn't directed specifically at you, I'm just ranting about the thread in general.)

[Catchawave]

42. Oh sweetie, I understand !

I live in Pat Robertson's voting district of the holy rollers and that ilk, my one good, bestest friend is our republican VA BEAcH city councilman......and he won his seat by listening to the left! Yes, a centrist repug, and that's a good thing for our local, state and national electorate !

This is very inspiring to me....not all repugs are clueless :hug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. The Dems would have to move very far left to reach the center.

Right now they are the moderate wing of the Republican Party.