Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Nearly all of those loses came from one state, Texas. The very same state the Republicans jerrymandered to insure their victory. Without the jerrymandering it was a wash.

The Republicans have been jerrymandering Texas since '94?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


The Republicans have been jerrymandering Texas since '94?

But the rejerrymandered it to a much more extreme case before the last election.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Centrism is wrong. It makes no stands, only compromises.

Extemists love to say that. They want you to think that you must be one extreme or the other and there is nothing inbetween. That's wrong.

Most people in the political center have a great many standards they just refuse to be bound by one size fits all policies. You judge each case on the merits.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Admiral


This is actually points to the fundamental problem of the Democratic Party. In the past thirty years, the Democrats have won some elections, but overall, have been on a downward trend. Republicans like to think that this is the "silent majority" rising up at last against a party not in touch with the country. In reality, this is due to the serious infrastructure advantage that the Republican party has built up.
My main claim is that the Republicans dominate the language of politics. Think about it. Phrases such as the "death tax" and "tax relief" were used frequently in the political debate leading up to the latest election. Now, this is not impartial language. It is language that sets up a right and a wrong side, with the side that eliminates the death tax, and provides the tax relief, as the good guys. But, this language was used by Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Why was that? Why didn't the Democrats counter with their own language? Most importantly, how is it possible that the term "liberal" is an insult?
This language came about because of Republican infrastructure. For the past thirty years, the Republicans have been funding think tanks, and conducting long-term research so that they could dominate the political scene. They have been conducting a unified approach, with weekly meetings between the important think tanks, and have been incorporating the media into their strategy in a fashion that the Democrats have not been emulating. 80% of tv pundits come out of conservative think tanks.
Some people have been asking, "how could the Democrats have lost the last election?" I think that its incredible that we did as well as we did.
So, in response to the topic, moving to the center is pointless. They made liberal into a dirty word, and we are currently responding by calling ourselves progressives. But how long is it going to be before "progressive" becomes just as dirty as liberal is now? Howard Dean, in fact, is the perfect example. He has an A+ rating from the NRA, is a supporter of states over the federal bureaucracy, and probably wouldn't have signed the civil union bill if he was not forced to. He is also a fiscal moderate. And yet people like Lincoln call him a crazy left-wing nutcase. Now, I'd like to just say that Lincoln is an idiot who wouldn't recognize reality if it walked up to him and was like, "yo, i'm reality, go make me a sandwich," but that would be kidding myself. Of course Lincoln believes that. The Republicans just have such an infrastructure/media advantage that they can, right now, define the language.
Really, our only option is to follow suit. We know what the Republicans have done, but right now, there is only one left-wing think-tank actually dealing with the issues of framing the debate, as opposed to a host of conservative groups. In the strictest sense, our positions do not matter, so much as how we frame them, and if our party is to have any success in the future, we will work on the language and media-savviness on a level that we have not yet begun to consider.

Use paragaphs and I'll read your longer posts.

[Dis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes, Diss, but you change your mind like some people change their shorts.

Not saying the guy is a far left nut bar, I think the scream was a very unfair adventure in media manipulation, just saying that you have the steadfastness of a limp noodle.

what can I say. I used to be a conservative. I still am in some respects. Bush has shattered all my conservative dreams. I have become disillusioned with the system. I'm looking for radical change right now.

[Sikander]

Dean gets characterized as more left wing than he is because his rabidness is more typical of the left wing than his policy stances are. Plus he only ran in the primary where everyone was busy destroying their chances in the general election by getting to the left of one another so that they stood a chance of winning the votes of the extremists who make up the voters and caucus goers in the primaries. Had he won the primary he would have tacked back to the center for votes and we'd have a different impression of him.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Very simple. Clinton got elected and moved left away from the center. He started pushing for National Health Care and ending the ban on gays in the military among other things. These are nice ideas but it was more then enough to convince the center that Clinton, and by reflection the Democratic Party, was leftist instead of centrist. Bam, we lose election.

Hello? Clinton actually promised to do both those things during the election, Oerdin. If anything, Clinton campaigned to the left of where he actually governed.

And let's face it, if running like a moderate was all it took, we'd have just re-elected President Gore.

Clinton was Clinton, and that's all. People didn't vote for his policies; they voted for him, in all his poor-boy-makes-good, I-feel-your-pain, look-I-met-JFK schmaltzyness. Urging other Dems to campaign like Clinton is like urging other NBA players to play like Michael Jordan.

And, again, even Clinton wouldn't have won a head-to-head with Bush; it took Perot to put Clinton in the White House. There's simply no easily replicable lesson to be learned from the '92 election.

[Lincoln]

The Democrat party is seen as rabidly pro-abortion. All of the candidates appeared in one segment emphasizing their mutual stand on the 'right' to kill our offspring at any stage of pregnancy. People in both parties do not see that as a great moral position requiring great courage. They see it as exploiting the innocent who have no voice in the debate and promoting a culture of morbidity. Many Democrats see this untoward emphasis as destructive to their other legitimate interests but they lost the debate. So the Democrats are seen as the abortion party. What a great platform...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The Democrat party is seen as rabidly pro-abortion. All of the candidates appeared in one segment emphasizing their mutual stand on the 'right' to kill our offspring at any stage of pregnancy. People in both parties do not see that as a great moral position requiring great courage. They see it as exploiting the innocent who have no voice in the debate and promoting a culture of morbidity. Many Democrats see this untoward emphasis as destructive to their other legitimate interests but they lost the debate. So the Democrats are seen as the abortion party. What a great platform...

I doubt anyone sees the Dems this way except for rabidly anti-abortion conservatives who would never vote Dem under any circumstances. So why shoudl teh Dems care about them?

[Lincoln]

Well I would vote Democratic and I am anti-abortion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Yes, you are right. Clinton was an election losing idiot. Extremism is so much better.

He certainly lost the Congress, three successive elections. Woo boy, you really want to keep emulating that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I suggest Clinton wasn't an anomally and that he won because he was a centrist. There is a lesson there if people will listen.

I would suggest you don't know what you're talking about. Bush one lost because Ross Perot sucked Bush I's support and the conservatives in the GOP pulled their support because of the tax increase. In 96, Clinton was running against Dole. That's like running against Mondale. It was an easy victory.

Clinton is also an amazing politician. The man can talk you into believing anything. I heard him on Democracy Now, being interviewed by Amy Goodman, and Clinton just made her sound like a fool, when she normally sounds quite intelligent. Part of it was she was unprepared, as she took advantage of an unexpected opportunity when he called WBAI (a Pacifica radio station) to stump for Gore, but most of it was the fact that this man was really damned smart, an excellent politican, and a damned convincing speaker. As my wife says, she hates the guy, but five minutes alone with him and he'd have her panties off.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well I would vote Democratic and I am anti-abortion.

I think there is a lot of voters like you. I wish the Dems would turn anti-abortion and go more for the religious people who support more liberal economic programs, and less war. That leave room for the feminists and others for a left wing party.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Clinton is also an amazing politician. The man can talk you into believing anything. I heard him on Democracy Now, being interviewed by Amy Goodman, and Clinton just made her sound like a fool, when she normally sounds quite intelligent. Part of it was she was unprepared, as she took advantage of an unexpected opportunity when he called WBAI (a Pacifica radio station) to stump for Gore, but most of it was the fact that this man was really damned smart, an excellent politican, and a damned convincing speaker. As my wife says, she hates the guy, but five minutes alone with him and he'd have her panties off.

Yeah, he's also a real *****.

edit: And remembering back on that he wasn't so smart. He was just evasive.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think there is a lot of voters like you. I wish the Dems would turn anti-abortion and go more for the religious people who support more liberal economic programs, and less war. That leave room for the feminists and others for a left wing party.

You forget that woman make up a majority of DP supporters. Once the DP drops reproductive rights, the DP becomes a permanent minority party.