Are liberals killing the Dems?

[Slim]

An interesting article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601645_pf.html

[JEC]

Yes, they are. If they want republicans out of congress and white house, they need to put candidates that are closer to midstream America.

[Larrison]

Yes they are. While I'm not a GW Bush fan, I just couldn't consider voting for Gore or Kerry... And some of the rhetoric from the liberal side.. I mean *geeze* get a grip folks.

(And no, I don't condone that rhetoric from the conservative side either.... I'm just pointing out that doing the Bush= Hilter bit, and "No republican has ever done a honest day's labor", and "Blue states ought to succeed after the election!" etc doesn't really help convince me candidates brought forth as recommended by such folks to be folks I may want to have running my government... Similarly that "God will punish the liberals" and etc on the other side doesn't convince me that their recommended candidates would do a better job either...)

[Coup de Grace]

I am neither Democrat or Republican. But it is clear to me that the left wing of the Democratic Party are killing them. The majority of the country are moderate traditionalists and they are threatened by the liberal left. I predict that despite the recent problems President Bush and the GOP have not yet resolved (e.g. immigration, the war and permanent tax reductions) I believe the right will dig in and vote in a more conservative group in the next round of Congressional and Presidental elections. If that comes true the Dems will have to decide for once who they are, what they believe and why they believe what they believe.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Yes they are. While I'm not a GW Bush fan, I just couldn't consider voting for Gore or Kerry... And some of the rhetoric from the liberal side.. I mean *geeze* get a grip folks.

(And no, I don't condone that rhetoric from the conservative side either.... I'm just pointing out that doing the Bush= Hilter bit, and "No republican has ever done a honest day's labor", and "Blue states ought to succeed after the election!" etc doesn't really help convince me candidates brought forth as recommended by such folks to be folks I may want to have running my government... Similarly that "God will punish the liberals" and etc on the other side doesn't convince me that their recommended candidates would do a better job either...)

Yeah, how about some normal people in politics?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Coup de Grace

I am neither Democrat or Republican. But it is clear to me that the left wing of the Democratic Party are killing them. The majority of the country are moderate traditionalists and they are threatened by the liberal left. I predict that despite the recent problems President Bush and the GOP have not yet resolved (e.g. immigration, the war and permanent tax reductions) I believe the right will dig in and vote in a more conservative group in the next round of Congressional and Presidental elections. If that comes true the Dems will have to decide for once who they are, what they believe and why they believe what they believe.

I can't think of who IS the "liberal left" today... the wacky left wingers that are "killing" the Democratic Party. I don't see the pot smoking hippies, the wacky war protestors, the communal live-ins, the free-lovers anymore. Where are they? Who are the far lefters causing all this trouble for the Democrates? A few people with enough gumption to speak out at government for policies and practices? Hardly the liberal left.

On the other hand, I do see, in the news and in the office, right wing nuts... the religious almighty, the clinic bombers, the zealots intolerant of any lifestyle outside their own, the pork barrel bogarts. It seems to me that these people do significantly more damage to their own party... there has to be a point soon where the intelligent and the fiscal among the Repubkicans are going to have to break from the prominant issues in their party.

Another observation I've made is of the Christian Theocrats who've made "being religious" a bad term. It's become embarassing to say, "I'm a Christian," because of the implications that it could mean that you are small and closed minded, likely isolationist, and definitely greedy and self-centered. It's too bad. Many people find great comfort and solace in the peace of their faith, but the wacko's on the right are using it against the intention of it's purpose.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I can't think of who IS the "liberal left" today... the wacky left wingers that are "killing" the Democratic Party. I don't see the pot smoking hippies, the wacky war protestors, the communal live-ins, the free-lovers anymore. Where are they? Who are the far lefters causing all this trouble for the Democrates? A few people with enough gumption to speak out at government for policies and practices? Hardly the liberal left.

On the other hand, I do see, in the news and in the office, right wing nuts... the religious almighty, the clinic bombers, the zealots intolerant of any lifestyle outside their own, the pork barrel bogarts. It seems to me that these people do significantly more damage to their own party... there has to be a point soon where the intelligent and the fiscal among the Repubkicans are going to have to break from the prominant issues in their party.

Another observation I've made is of the Christian Theocrats who've made "being religious" a bad term. It's become embarassing to say, "I'm a Christian," because of the implications that it could mean that you are small and closed minded, likely isolationist, and definitely greedy and self-centered. It's too bad. Many people find great comfort and solace in the peace of their faith, but the wacko's on the right are using it against the intention of it's purpose.

Here are some examples of some things equated with liberalism that people I know who could be considered "independent" get really tired of hearing about:

1. Gay marrige/homosexual agenda - people resent sexuality and alternative lifestyles being shoved down their throats
2. Bush = Hitler - It's off the wall and people resent their president being equated with someone responsible for genocide.
3. Increase taxes for more social/entitlement programs - Clinton knew this and got some major points for welfare reform.
4. Removing the flag and religious images from long standing traditions - No more nativity scenes, flag burning is A.O.K., no more "Under God" in pledge.
5. Teaching manditory "Koran Sensitivity" while trying to ban classroom prayer time.
6. People like Noam Chomsky saying "911 - We deserved it"
7. The ACLU - defending dirtbags like NAMBLA doesnt do much for their image
8. Socializing health care

I'm not arguing the points. I'm just stating that out here in suburbia, the "fly over states", these are some issues that really rub the average person the the wrong way. It doesnt matter if they are right or wrong, it's usually the way in which they are presented/executed that makes people turn away. And I am sure that you can list just as many things the right wing-nuts do to get your goat.

But the dem leaders definitely know something has to give. Even Carville is out their screaming about it. If the dems make illegal immigration and spending their issue in the upcoming elections, they're in a good position to do some damage. Not enough, hopefully, but some for sure.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

[ ... ]Another observation I've made is of the Christian Theocrats who've made "being religious" a bad term. It's become embarassing to say, "I'm a Christian," because of the implications that it could mean that you are small and closed minded, likely isolationist, and definitely greedy and self-centered. It's too bad. Many people find great comfort and solace in the peace of their faith, but the wacko's on the right are using it against the intention of it's purpose.

I really agree with this --

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Slim

Here are some examples of some things equated with liberalism that people I know who could be considered "independent" get really tired of hearing about: [ ... ]

I'll add three more here, from local issues

ACLU suing the city of Los Angeles to remove a cross on the city seal, becuase it represents religion. The historical basis is that the city was founded by Spanish missionaries and missions and the cross represented that.

Suit against Boys Scouts in San Diego to overturn an existing 75 year lease for use of one area of a local park as a Scout Camp. This camp was open to all comers who wanted to use the camp, and had hosted such things as a local Gay & Lesbian leadership retreat. However, because the Scouts have a non-demoninational belief in God and restrict openly practicing Gays from being adult leaders, the city was sued to rescind the lease.

In the hills behind the city of San Diego as well, there is an old cross which was originally errected in 1919 to honor the dead from World War I. When the cross was errected, it was in unclaimed property. But now it is part of a national forest. The National Forest has been sued, and is being forced to remove this "religious symbol".

I can keep goingi for a while on this...

And while the folks involved in this are no specifically identified as Democrats, the organizations involved only support the Democratic party. Some years ago when I belonged to the Sierra Club, there was a serious position raised in the LA Chapter, as having to do with "Would the Sierra Club ever consider supporting the candidacy of a Republican if their expressed environmental positions were acceptable?" The official answer in the LA Chapter newsletter was "NO. Supporting a Republican of any type would send the wrong message, since we don't like Republican policies..." Huh? All politics are local, in the end..

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Slim

1. Gay marrige/homosexual agenda - people resent sexuality and alternative lifestyles being shoved down their throats

Does any one else find this really, really hillarious and ironic?

[telkanuru]

Quick points:

Originally Posted by Slim

1. Gay marrige/homosexual agenda - people resent sexuality and alternative lifestyles being shoved down their throats

This is, in fact, not something the Left is shouting about all that much. The constant Dem line has been "it's a state-by-state issue". It gets so much national attention is because the Right keeps it there.

2. Bush = Hitler - It's off the wall and people resent their president being equated with someone responsible for genocide.

Regardless of this being true (I don't feel like arguing it), if you could actually show me where a Democratic politician of any stature actually said this, please show.

3. Increase taxes for more social/entitlement programs - Clinton knew this and got some major points for welfare reform.

The Dems haven't been about tax hikes for a looong time, get with the picture! Of course, now opposing tax cuts is the same as being in favor of an increase...

4. Removing the flag and religious images from long standing traditions - No more nativity scenes, flag burning is A.O.K., no more "Under God" in pledge.
5. Teaching manditory "Koran Sensitivity" while trying to ban classroom prayer time.
...
7. The ACLU - defending dirtbags like NAMBLA doesnt do much for their image

Sort of the same thing. Well, to do anything but the inverse would be to be massive hypocrates. People just don't like being shown that they are, but some things must be done. I'm fine with alienating people who don't think.

6. People like Noam Chomsky saying "911 - We deserved it"

So now middle america dosn't like free speech?

8. Socializing health care

The Dems are doing what now? News to me.

In short, I find this list to be a list of impressions of the left given by a right-leaning media. And yes, the media in this country leans to the right. Deal.

[Gav]

2. Bush = Hitler - It's off the wall and people resent their president being equated with someone responsible for genocide.

Oh dear - Goddards Law - I see that this thread lasted a long time.

How ironic that a Bush supporter should invoke the big H when he is a supporter - shouldn't it be someone from the other side?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Larrison

I'll add three more here, from local issues

ACLU suing the city of Los Angeles to remove a cross on the city seal, becuase it represents religion. The historical basis is that the city was founded by Spanish missionaries and missions and the cross represented that.

Suit against Boys Scouts in San Diego to overturn an existing 75 year lease for use of one area of a local park as a Scout Camp. This camp was open to all comers who wanted to use the camp, and had hosted such things as a local Gay & Lesbian leadership retreat. However, because the Scouts have a non-demoninational belief in God and restrict openly practicing Gays from being adult leaders, the city was sued to rescind the lease.

In the hills behind the city of San Diego as well, there is an old cross which was originally errected in 1919 to honor the dead from World War I. When the cross was errected, it was in unclaimed property. But now it is part of a national forest. The National Forest has been sued, and is being forced to remove this "religious symbol".

I can keep goingi for a while on this...

And while the folks involved in this are no specifically identified as Democrats, the organizations involved only support the Democratic party. Some years ago when I belonged to the Sierra Club, there was a serious position raised in the LA Chapter, as having to do with "Would the Sierra Club ever consider supporting the candidacy of a Republican if their expressed environmental positions were acceptable?" The official answer in the LA Chapter newsletter was "NO. Supporting a Republican of any type would send the wrong message, since we don't like Republican policies..." Huh? All politics are local, in the end..

Ahh Zealots all around!

It's the same ol' - it's the fundamentalists (I mean from every angle) who give everyone else a bad name.

There is an element of media bias in this, not that right wing bias, reporting bias. Disproportionate covering of some stories leads to disproportionate views.

Example: The McDonalds case. Everyone sneers at the woman who sued, yet if you look into the details of the case it was quite justified. Peoples opinions were entirely founded on the media coverage.

[prototoast]

I disagree. I think the implication is the other way around--the Democrats are killing the liberals. In their quest to get elected and have their political power, they don't actually stand for anything anymore. They're all just a bunch of worthless political hacks. I mean, how was Kerry supposed to win on the "I'd really do everything exactly the same as President Bush, except a little better and less decisive" platform?

[Peach]

If there weren't a little liberalism in the Democratic party, there wouldn't be any alternative in the elections. I happen to be particularly attached to some of the values of the Constitution, such as individual rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, and these days the Democratic Party, even if it's nervous and timid about it, more often speaks to these values. I'm not nearly as fond of the religious hegemony, the prudery, and the confusion about the difference between capitalism and democracy which seems to pervade much of the Republican discourse. There also isn't a clear majority for Republicans in the US, as seems to be implied by the first post.

I thought I was supposed to get more conservative as I got older--isn't that the way it's supposed to go?--but the Republican Party kept running farther to the right as I progressed more slowly,

[jeff]

telk, prototoast, and Peach say it very well: (my summarization) things supposedly ruining the Democratic Party haven't been done by them (I mean, since when is Kerry responsible for Chomsky's ravings? That's absurd), and the problem the Dems have had is being wimpy and not staking out their own position. So, let's not accuse the Dems of being rabid lefties. It may be fun to smear them with the wackier antics of of the left, but it's neither accurate nor honest.

If you read the article Slim linked to, you'll see it's not called "Are liberals killing the Dems?" (That's Slim's cute little editorial point). Instead, it's titled "Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left", which is a different thing altogether. Basically, they call for centrism and for triangulation, the latter of which Clinton in particular was effective at.

The positions a party is willing to take in order to be elected are always controversial; we were just discussing this on another thread on how a lot of conservatives feel that Bush has abandoned core conservative principles. Is it worth moving your position in order to capture the center (in which case, some will say "why bother being elected if you sacrifice the very reason for getting the office"), or do you move more to the side in order to "retain the base". It's a tricky political question, and no side is immune to it. The Democrats haven't had the consensus on which way to go. A lot of people would say "why vote for the fake Republicans when the real ones are here.".

I'll add: the country is extremely divided, and it's problematic to claim it's more one way than the other. The 2000 elections were decided on the edge of a knife, with Supreme Court intervention: If Gore weren't a robot in human guise, if there were better vote collection, if there was no Nader, then he very probably would have been elected. In 2004, Bush had the advantage of being incumbent during war, and we don't tend to change horses in midstream during war.

PS: The Sierra Club used to be solidly Republican, but Republican policies turned very unfriendly towards nature. You can't blame the Sierra Club for turning away from a political institution that is against everything they stand for. There were massive internal fights within Sierra Club about this.

[annacattiva]

I find it interesting to hear that the Liberal Left is dragging the Democrats down, since I actually look at national politics and wonder what happened to the Liberal Left and when it will (please!) come back. The Democratic party ever year seems closer to the Republicans while the Republicans seem more and more fundamentalist every year. And there isn't very much out there to replace the void on the left, at least as far as valid non-psycho left wing politicians.

[pigeonmeister]

I think this is basically: 'Should the Democrats be more like Republicans?'.

The answer is, in my opinion, probably. That is because the Republicans won (in 2004 especially) by stealing the Democrats traditional base: the white middle classes. Although Mr. Bush's popular-vote margin of victory over Sen. John Kerry in 2004 was less than three percentage points. Among white middle-class voters, the gap was 22 percentage points. Why?

1. Economic policies of Republicans.
2. Social issues (like abortion, same sex marriage)
3. They didn't believe Kerry would be a better commander in chief of a nation at war.

Electable Democratic presidents have to be centerist, probably Southern, overtly religious and show that their priorities are that of the average middle class American in relation to tax, education and health. Basically another Clinton. Without doubt a Democratic presidential candidate is going to have to win back the middle classes. It is clear that a shift to the left is not going to do this, making a shift to the right the only alternative. As such there is no use in being more Howard Dean like. Not sure if this means that the Liberals are killing the Democrats. The problem is that the Democrats have always fished from a wider ideological pool than the more ideologically disciplined Republicans. The other problem is that 'Liberal' is a derogatary lable in American politics, which is very easy for the right wing to stick on Democrats of any kind.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

telk, prototoast, and Peach say it very well: (my summarizatio