Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does anyone still think the Democrats should be going to the right?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
catbert836 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:59 AM
Original message
Does anyone still think the Democrats should be going to the right?
And if so, why. Please, don't flame anyone who responds in the affirmative. I just want to know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. yes
1. The choice of the minority leader
2. The probable selection of the attorney general
3. Most important the last four years giving * everything he asked for

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Clinton was a winning model.
Gore and Kerry ran left to protect their left flank from the Greens and Nader. He need someone perceived as a moderate who runs as a moderate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catbert836 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. So, you're in favor of having a moderate, not a liberal run?
There's no problem with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Southsideirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Clinton won the first time because of Perot splitting the vote.
The second time because he was an incumbent, 'had a weak opponent and everyone hated Newtie Gingrich and the "Contract on America". It couldn't happen again in a million years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. We'll never know..
Clinton was winning in the polls even during the period where Perot dropped out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. I love the Big Dawg...
but his major shortcoming had nothing to do with Monica...but his selling out to the right on too many issues: Nafta, Gay rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. No true
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 12:28 PM by Cheswick2.0
Clinton won becasue of Perot and because he was Clinton.
Gore WON (in other words whatever he did worked) when he moved to the left. More people voted for him including in Florida

Kerry ran to the center and nobody could figure out what he stood for. He might have won, but he won't fight it...perfect.

I think it is hysterical that you DLC types are now trying to say Kerry lost because he was too liberal, when in fact he sold out most of his liberal values to get the nomination and shoot for that imaginary swing voter. Way to stab the guy in the back for trying to make you happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. Clinton never even came close to getting the percentage of votes
that Kerry did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Didn't Clinton have 49% in 96?
Kerry's at 48% right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. No
We've already lost most of the fundamental concepts of liberalism and Jeffersonian democracy upon which this party was founded. Don't see how abandoning the rest in order to become fully Republican-lite will improve either our appeal (since we do have half the nation) or our moral authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. If by "right" you mean the current DLC rightwards drift?
NO.

Democratic leadership needs to be listening more to guys like George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute and the rank and file than focus groups and consultants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
signmike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. Dem should be Dems
I'd like to see the Dems take a stand as Dems, stay with it and quit trying to pretend to be Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. I think they are Dems. But they've also been non-players.
They've spent much of the last 4 years sitting on the sidelines.

Can't win the fight if you don't step into the ring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't think its a matter left v right
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 12:11 PM by DaveinMD
Its populism. Its reframing the issues. Its finding a candidate who is comfortable appealing to rural communities as well as urban ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes.
Most Americans are more moderate than either party.

That was one of Clintons strengths, and one of the reasons he had so much support, even in the middle of his impeachment. 8 years worth of full force attacks from the Right and he STILL had better approval ratings than Bush2.

Let the Right go more Right. Just means there's more moderates for you to woo away from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Wha?! My Dem Congressman, whom I personally like...
...and who I've met more than once, is a so-called Blue Dog Democrat. Blue Dogs are a group of Congressional Dems who are socially conservative. I think the leadership in my state is to the right of the rank and file.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasBushwhacker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. Not no but HELL NO!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. The point about this is
Bill Clinton pulled it off because he's got charisma. That was a one-time phenomenon. Historically, dems do better if they represent The People rather than business. We could put Mussolini up front (he'd barely qualify as being to the right of chimp) and he'd lose because the neither the dems or the repubes would vote for him.

Moving "right" is not a winning strategy for the democratic party. The dem party is pushing the meme only because they've got a bunch of DLC holdovers in control, a pack of conservative potential candidates that they know they can "work with" (ie, control), and no leftist candidates they think they can "work with".

Gyre
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. I'm a Clinton Republican.
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 12:22 PM by Ready4Change
I voted for him because he better represented my moderate views than my own party.

If Dems run candidates who are much further left I STILL can't say that I'd vote for a Bush2-like candidate instead, but I might choose to not vote at all, which would be one less vote for the Dem candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrishBloodEngHeart Donating Member (815 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hell no
Besides Clinton's wins in 92 and 96, running to the right has lost for us every midterm and presidentail election cycle since 1992.

1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 we lost seats in congress.

The party needs to have a compelling seperate vision from the republicans and can't continue to respond to their agenda. We will never win this way. We need a Barry Goldwater moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. we gained seats
in 96,98 and 2000. We lost seats in 94, 2000 and 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. We gained seats in the house in 96 and 98.
After losing a ton in 94. We gained four seats in the Sentate in 2000. When gained one more in 2001 when Jeffords switched. Then we had the majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrishBloodEngHeart Donating Member (815 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. my bad
sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. No!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorgatron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Barbara Boxer wins in California all the time,
there must be some way to transfer that kind of winning liberal strategy to the rest of the country...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. People would like to believe it's only because California is so liberal
IT's because..Californians are active in the party and the party has a well established presence. I would HOPE John Kerry has a SAY in how the money he turned over is spent and I would SQUANDER that money building a PRESENCE in Alabama, Mississippi and states where we do POORLY. We should NEVER concede a state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackie97 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
22. No.
Democrats lost a lot of their popularity because they had been kneeling down to Republican agenda for years. Politicians like Dean woke the party back up, and a lot of people started respecting them more after that.

What I think the Democrats and the left in general needs to do is to play fire with fire with this "morals" issue. It's time we showed why our leftist ideas are moral and why their fundamentalist Christian right type morals are not.

For example, take the gay marriage issue. I think it should be shown that homosexuals don't hurt the heterosexual community, and that they don't threaten heterosexual marriage. There's no evidence that it would threaten heterosexual marriage. Let's start declaring the right to be anti-marriage for denying gays the right to marry; because right wingers against gay marriages are anti-marriage.

Let's start calling those against gay adoption out as what they are; anti-family. Basically, these people are saying that children who need parents should be deprived of a family because the people wanting to adopt them are gay. In one case I read of, there was a family in Florida about to be broken up because there was a possiblity that the state would break them up for being headed by a gay couple.

Here the story is. This story was a special case because these kids wouldn't have been adopted by most "loving" heterosexuals.

http://www.lethimstay.com/loftons_kids.html

There's noting pro-family about breaking up families.

And let's look at the abortion issue. Stop threatening it. Stop trying to make it a state's rights thing for the most part. I say we start digging up all the immoral ways that the individual states try to stop abortion, and expose them.

And then say "There's nothing pro-life about putting women's lives in danger".

Then, let's do the stem cell research thing. Let's make it abundantly clear that the cells used for stemcell research are the same type of fertilized eggs that are probably washed out through regular birth control. And if these are cells that are about to be thrown in the garbage anyway, then show that. Then, let's how how moral it is to use these cells to save lives. Then, let's say "There's nothing pro-life about preventing life saving research".

And let's take a close look at something Bush did a while back when he spoke for I think it was Journalists of Color (I'm not calling them colored. I'm saying that "color" was in their name). Basically, an African-American journalist brought up how some African Americans were deprived of the right to vote based on the false accusation of being a past criminal. He asked Bush if he would pass an amendment guaranteeing voting rights. He said he would "think about it". I think we should look at that and scream out "There's nothing to think about regarding ensuring our democratic voting rights!".

Let's use the same tactics that the right is using; morality. Let's not play a game of ignoring their accusations that they're more moral than us anymore. Let's prove it the other way around. And if you're wondering where my "There's nothing" comment from from, it comes from Bush saying stuff like "There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops". Now, Kerry did explain that the reason he chose not to support it was because it was taxing the middle class and poor, and not the rich (which would make things harder on the middle class and poor). But Bush thought there was nothing complicated about it (at least he pretends not to understand, I think he sometimes just plays dumb). Well, let's talk about areas where we think there's nothing complicated about, and throw it up for the world to see.

Let's do no more bowing to the right. They don't bow to us for the most part, and that's what earns them the "respect" that they do have. They have their social agenda, and they supposedly don't cave in. They know they can play the moral highground and win. They're also very self-disciplined about how they approach their issues; meaning they don't back down easy. Let's do the same thing. Let's get a really strong sense of self-discipline and not back down from it. Let's knock them out of power the way they're knocking us out. In other words, let's beat them at their own damn game.

If we move more toward the right, then what purpose if there of having a Democratic Party?

I do think that getting in the center might be a good idea right now, so people on the right will listen to us and trust us more than they do now (which will eventually build up our side). However, most Democrats are already in the center. I'm just saying don't move more toward the right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
27. absolutely not.......we have moved way to far to the right already
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC