assume the party took a significant left turn. would centrists bolt?

[ulysses]

[ringmastery]

1. it happened in the early 90's

there are many parts of the country that are culturally conservative. You bet.

[ulysses]

8. "culturally conservative" - so who do we ditch?

Gays? African-Americans? The poor? We're obviously not up to the task of *changing* any minds. So who loses?

[sangh0]

13. Boy is that uncalled for

YOu asked a question. Someone answered it, so you attack them with a leading question about who we should ditch.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. yeah but who should we ditch? How about women's rights?

?

[sangh0]

25. How about you?

I can't tell you how many independents have told me that they'd vote Dem if only we ditched Cheswick. But don't worry, I'm sticking by you.

[HFishbine]

49. As for me

I'm voting dem only if we keep Cheswick.

[sangh0]

56. Well, I'm sticking with Cheswick

despite your tempting offer

[Cleita]

96. Why would a bunch of entitled males care about women's rights?

eom

[Chuletas]

10. I have to agree

It depends on what progressive means. I think there are a lot of fiscally conservative Dems who fear what a move to the left may look like. I also think that the Democratic Party has a wide range of political beliefs. It is also important to appeal to the working class Catholics that have been the backbone of this party.

I tend to lean more towards the DLC side and get roasted for it by my more leftist friends. Don't care anymore, too old to care about it.

[RapidCreek]

59. What does culture have to do with anything?

RC

[phantom power]

2. I say no

My sense of things is that the GOP has alienated centrists by their own hard-right shift.

[LSparkle]

12. I agree

If the GOP weren't SO far right, I'd be more concerned, but where are centrists going to go?

[Alerter_]

47. are centrists going to vote for Bush?

If the Democrats decide to be center right, McCain will win.

[jpgray]

3. No, they would be replaced with Republicans

There are districts and states where there will not be an elected Democrat unless that Democrat is to the right on the political compass. The question is whether such Democrats are so ineffectual in Congress that it's not worth the seat. We keep the Republicans from a majority this way, but we also are divided on policy, and increasingly alienating our base. I don't know how to fix that, without either giving the Republicans a majority or keeping the centrists. Hopefully there will be a general leftward shift in the public after Bush, and then we will be able to clean house during the primaries.

[ringmastery]

7. I doubt it

not the way the congressional districts are gerry-mandered where they make 90% african american districts that put all the democrats in certain districts and spread the pool in the other districts to maximize republican gains.

[RapidCreek]

68. I would suggest the Democratic Party leave being Republican to

the Republicans...and stick with Democratic principle. If people want to vote Republican they will....and when they do they will pay the price...and after they have paid it, it will be clear to them who it is they have to blaim for getting screwed....Republicans for doing the screwing and themselves for asking to get screwed.

Seems pretty simple to me. I'm no longer a Democrat....the SD Democratic committee called three months ago and asked me to campaign for their candidates as I always have.....I laughed and asked if they were kidding. I told them when they actually put up a Democratic candidate to give me a call.

RC

[jpgray]

78. But a Republican majority pushes the country further right

Whoever is in charge of the FCC, the DoJ, et al has considerable power in shaping the debate across the country. Having a Republican Congress would only accelerate the problems, and then the divide settles on whether or not you think going faster into a disaster is good or bad. In my view, authoritarian right wingers have too great an ability to consolidate power, and once there is no more need for pretense, there won't be much of an opportunity to kick them out. But who knows if I'm right or you are?

[ithacan]

4. the DLC would rather see Bush in power than true progressives

They would do all in their power to torpedo a truly progressive candidate. They are the creatures of their corporate masters after all.

[wyldwolf]

30. "true" proooogreeeesssiiiives would rather Bush win than the DLC

They would do all in their power to torpedo a moderate candidate - like run Ralph Nader. They are the creatures of their idealogical rigid purism after all.

[ulysses]

31. there are a great many "proooogreeeesssiiiives"

voting for Kerry, not so many voting for Nader. The "purist" thing is still a lie, flat out.

[wyldwolf]

43. There are a great many who are not voting for Kerry

The "purist" thing is the truth, flat out.

If it were not, we wouldn't see (for example) all the "I won't vote for Kerry" threats, all the "Bush-lite" labels, and all the "Kerry won't change anything" lies here when the ADA has given Kerry one of their highest lifetime liberal ratings.

[ulysses]

64. but as has been pointed out so often, by your own campmates,

DU is not real life.

[wyldwolf]

66. but it does have a certain population of "progressives"

..unless they're really make-believe progressives.

[ulysses]

87. that would be "door # 2", methinks. n/t

[wyldwolf]

89. and #'s 1 and 3

[JanMichael]

32. Not true. Whilst the DLC are assholes now, I'd still take em' over Bush.

Talk about a creature of inflexible ideology:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

39. why not check post #4, to which I was replying to....

... seems to be OK to insult DLC DU'ers but not "true" proooogreeesssiiives.

Whilst the "true" proooogreeesssiiives are elitist rigid idealogues now, I'd still take em' over Bush.

[RapidCreek]

77. No it's ok to insult whores.

it's not ok to insult those who refuse to sell their asses to the highest bidder.




RC

[wyldwolf]

84. no, what you mean is...

It's not OK to insult "prooooogreeessssiiiiveees" because their tender little feelings will get hurt.

[PeaceProgProsp]

5. If they did it too far ahead of the curve.

There are times to lead, and times to follow, and you have to make sure you strike the right balance.

If you go ahead of the curve, yet you don't have the arguments to persuade people to follow, you're screwed.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. I think the spin machine has more affect than ideology

We have to losen the right wings grip on the media. We also need public financing of campaigns.

[salin]

9. Funny thing during the last local elections

one dem decided not to rerun for county council. Primary has a so-called "green dem" (as opposed to "greens" which we have as well) and a "trad. dem". The green dem wins the primary.

Another seat a green dem unseats the traditional democrat.

So - one retired county council dem, and one defeated county council dem. What role do they play in the upcoming election? Well they wrote letters to the editor on behalf of the REPUBLICAN candidates... and then went to (and worked) the fundraisers to help elect the republicans.

Indicated here, at least, that the old message of "work within the process, use the primary process, then let the overall voters will prevail"... just didn't hold true when the moderates didn't win in the primary.

The republicans went on to take over the County Council.

The next round of local elections (city council) saw a much more unified dem party - as did the most recent county council races.

I just no longer believe that it is only the left that is likely to bolt with the center being the party stalwarts - sometimes the reverse is true. Ah - we are a hard bunch to keep moving forward, together.

[ulysses]

20. imagine that.

Well they wrote letters to the editor on behalf of the REPUBLICAN candidates... and then went to (and worked) the fundraisers to help elect the republicans.

A hard bunch - true enough.

[Sapphocrat]

11. True centrists?

I sincerely doubt it. The shoe would simply be on the other foot, and centrists (rather than leftists) would be forced to choose between another four years of Bush*, or holding their noses and voting Dem anyway.

I don't think I'm giving centrists more credit than they deserve -- I simply believe a person would have to be absolutely brain-dead at this point to back Bush* in any way, shape, or form.

And even those who haven't been paying much attention for the past 3.5 years know from the Nader fiasco that a vote for anyone except the Dem candidate is a vote for Bush*.

[MAlibdem]

14. I think that if it happened right now it wouldn't cause much commotion

Mostly because people are gonna stay with us, not go to BushCo Hell...

However, I think it would make it harder for Kerry to govern effectively.

[denverbill]

15. That's ridiculous.

You can't seriously think centrists would bolt because Democrats support national health care or something, do you? Or because they support a balanced budget?

Exactly what sort of 'left wing lunacy' do you think would cause moderates to bolt?

[ibegurpard]

16. Electing a moderate who wasn't beholden to them

I think that would have done the trick quite nicely.

[denverbill]

17. That mighta caused the DLC to bolt, and the Zell Millers.

Which represent about 1% of the populace, tops.

[Darranar]

18. Probably not. n/t

[rinsd]

19. Depends on the turn, examples perhaps?......(nt)

[ulysses]

21. ok, national health care. n/t

[sangh0]

28. Dems already support it

so supporting it wouldn't represent a turn to the left

Ironic how someone who criticizes the Dems for being too centrist doesn't realize that those "centrist" Dems already support the one issue that comes to his mind when asked to name a policy that would represent a "significant shift to the left"

[Mountainman]

22. That's how we got Reagan and how we lost Congress in 1994

If you want to keep the Republicans power, make a significant left turn.

[SharonAnn]

62. How do you figure that? Carter was working the economy,

lowering inflation (much needed from the Republican givewaways), dealing with Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and theocratic takeover of Iran.

How was that
running to the left"?

[redqueen]

90. I'd like to see an answer to this as well

I thought Carter was a centrist Democrat, actually.

[Padraig18]

23. 'Significant', or 'radical'.

It could turn significantly left on some issues and be OK, especially as regards health-care, education, repairing infrastructure, tax-relief, etc.; but a radical left turn would cost us votes, IMO...

[ulysses]

27. what qualifies as "radical", Paddy?

Not to steer things toward my own pet issue of late, but would pushing - and pushing hard - for a level of public investment in education that would at least begin to dent the problems facing public education be considered "radical"?

Where do we set that marker?

[Padraig18]

33. No, that wouldn't be 'radical'

Our schools are crumbling and falling into the 'financially-troubled' category at a breath-taking pace here in IL (and, I assume, elsewhere), so I don't think John Q. Public would see that massive investment as anything but a Godsend, or close to it. Now, taking total federal control of the schools would be seen as 'radical, e.g. .

I think anything that Joe Sixpack can look at and say 'yes, I see how I (or some I know) need(s) that' can, at minimum, be tolerated by the centrists/moderates within the party. Sort of a 'reasonable/average man' standard. People are now beginning to see the REAL effects of those Bush policies that sounded so good on paper, but have sucked in practice, and they're ready to listen to some viable alternatives.

[ulysses]

35. who on earth

is advocating "total federal control" of public schools?

[sangh0]

37. You asked for "radical"

and so "total fed control of public schools" was suggested as a radical policy.

Increased fed funding for schools is not a radical liberal idea. Bush* increased fed funding for schools.

[Padraig18]

45. Exactly!

I was just using that as a 'for instance', uly. :hi:

[ulysses]

52. "exactly" what?

The ignore function, doncha know...

[sangh0]

54. Allow me

You asked for "radical" and so "total fed control of public schools" was suggested as a radical policy.

:evilgrin:

[RapidCreek]

82. What's radical about it?

I'll give you radical.....Kid's in Barrington Illinois have a planetarium in their middle school. Kid's on the West Side of Chicago don't have text books.

Then again...I guess that's how it should be, eh? White kids, whose parents are rich deserve a better education that Black kids whose parents are poor. Yep I gotta admit that's pretty mainstream. Definitely a laudable scenario.

RC

[Padraig18]

58. I was using that as an example

More $$$$ for the schools, even a new program or 2 or 3, would probably be considered a significant 'left turn' (but acceptable), but taking control of the schools would be 'radical left turn'. I just used that for purposes of illustration, uly. i know no one is advocating that. :)

[ulysses]

61. but why bring it up

if you know no one is advocating it? I'm not asking an abstract question here.

[sangh0]

71. Because you asked for a radical proposal

the one you have suggested are already supported by the Dems.

[Padraig18]

72. Because it was a clear example.

You asked what would be a reasonable distinction between 'significant' and 'radical', and I used that as an illustration of where I believe most people would 'draw the line', so to speak.

Again, it was for purposes of illustration only, uly. :hi:

[ulysses]

81. A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHAT?

Sorry to shout, Paddy, but what the hell? Was it meant to be a clear example of a "significant left turn" when no one extant is pushing it?

[Padraig18]

86. LOL! *smack*

A clear example of what would be a 'significant' left turn (butt loads more $$$ for local schools), as opposed to what would be considered a 'radical' left turn (taking federal control of local schools). Again, uly, I k-n-o-w that absolutely NO ONE is advocating taking federal control of local schools---- I just used that to illustrate the difference, as it would be seen by Joe Sixpack.

I don't know how to make it more clear, swear to Koresh I don't. :P

[ulysses]

93. you asked the question, my friend.

Let's back up - by "significant left turn", no, I don't mean total federal control of schools. Why you'd ask, when no one is advocating such, is still beyond me, but no.

Does that help?

[Padraig18]

100. In post #27, you asked me to illustrate the difference.

That's exactly what I did, bro. Check it out. :hi:

[RapidCreek]

79. That is radical to a DLC'er

Padraig.

RC

[wyldwolf]

26. of course not

Our goal is to defeat the enemy - the GOP.

If the party took a significant left turn and were winning, then, mission accomplished.

[ulysses]

29. ok...

If the party took a significant left turn and were winning, then, mission accomplished.

If the party took a significant left turn and *weren't* winning, wouldn't it mean that the center had bolted?

If the party can take a significant left turn and not risk seeing the center bolt, then why shouldn't it?

[wyldwolf]

36. IMO

If the party took a significant left turn and *weren't* winning, wouldn't it mean that the center had bolted?

Not necessarily. It could also mean swing voters and independents were moving to the GOP. Last I checked, the Dems currently hold an advantage in that department.

If the party can take a significant left turn and not risk seeing the center bolt, then why shouldn't it?

The DNC couldn't just have a big pow wow and declare it was moving to the left. Shifts in party ideology happens gradually. You already have one conservative Dem (Miller) complaining that the party is too left (he even cites Clinton as one of the architects of moving the party left.)

The reason it shouldn't (or should) move left will only be revealed as voting trends and public opinion shifts. If the country as a whole moved left, then we would see more candidates of your political stripes mounting more successful campaigns.

You and I can argue all day over what is "left" and what it "liberal" and what is "progressive."

[ulysses]

40. you're going to cite Zell Miller???

:D Go on with your bad self.

You and I can argue all day over what is "left" and what it "liberal" and what is "progressive."

I suppose we could, but I have no intention of getting sucked into yet another discussion of what words mean. Perhaps it's the height of political discrimination in your world to assign no particular meanings, but it's not in mine.

[wyldwolf]

41. Yeah, I'll cite Zell Miller

He is an example of a life long Dem who suddenly feels the party is too left.

As for political meanings, I believe it is YOUR way to assign such, since you take great pains to make distinctions between who and what is liberal and not.

[Q]

44. Miller has been voting against Democrats...

...for a long time. There was no 'sudden' conversion. It's a joke to use Miller as some sort of a barometer that shows a 'need' for the party to move to the right..

[wyldwolf]

46. Hey, Q - as is your habit, you fail to read a thread before replying

I wasn't using Miller as some sort of a barometer that shows a 'need' for the party to move to the right..

Sorry.

[ulysses]

57. ok.

He is an example of a life long Dem who suddenly feels the party is too left.

At a time when the party has, arguably, never been further to the right, Zell Miller, a Democrat who hasn't met the GOP initiative that he hasn't liked since he hit the Senate and who has endorsed George W. Bush this year, merits consideration as a representative of the centrist Dem crowd?

If this is true, why aren't we going whole hog on assimilating the GOP platform in the interest of wooing the center? Zell certainly wouldn't complain. Why are we even running a candidate?

As for political meanings, I believe it is YOUR way to assign such, since you take great pains to make distinctions between who and what is liberal and not.

I do, in fact. Words have meanings. Your way is to deny that, evidently.

[wyldwolf]

76. I recall a Zell Miller who whole heartedly endorsed Bill Clinton..

...and who now blames him in part for the democrat's move to the left.

I gave Miller as an example of a life long dem who moved to the right and feels the Dems have moved to the left - an opinion contrary to yours.

Not an endorsement of Miller, just a simple fact.

I do, in fact. Words have meanings. Your way is to deny that, evidently.

Meanings that you rigidly assign them - black or white. Us or them. Another indicator of the simon-pure left (and right) ideology.

[ulysses]

85. would that Zell Miller have endorsed Bush?

(Please note that agreement here soundly endorses the "no difference" argument from Nader.)

I gave Miller as an example of a life long dem who moved to the right and feels the Dems have moved to the left - an opinion contrary to yours.

Not an endorsement of Miller, just a simple fact.

Ok, another simple fact: Zell Miller has announced that the most centrist version of the Democratic Party in his or my lifetime is too far to the left.

Just a simple fact.

Meanings that you rigidly assign them - black or white. Us or them. Another indicator of the simon-pure left (and right) ideology.

Ah, yes. I'm a rigid ideologue because I resist the migration of linguistic meaning. Woe is me. How I long for the day that I can back centrist policy and still call myself a progressive.

[wyldwolf]

88. Not in 1992

Bush SR. was more moderate than Bush Jr.

and, yes, if you rigidly assign meanings to words like "liberal" and "progressive," and effectively exclude many who do not fall into your definition, then yes that is a characteristic of a rigid ideologue.

[ulysses]

95. note that the difference between Bush 1 and Bush 2

only buttresses my argument.

and, yes, if you rigidly assign meanings to words like "liberal" and "progressive," and effectively exclude many who do not fall into your definition, then yes that is a characteristic of a rigid ideologue.

You'd have a point if I were to exclude those who are not "liberal" and "progressive" from the pool with which I will work. Since I don't, you're welcome to try again.

[wyldwolf]

97. it only buttresses mine

Bush I, being more moderate than Bush II, would have been a more logical endorsement for Miller had he wanted to endorse a republican in '92. But he whole heartedly endorsed the man who he would later accuse of taking the party to far left when, in fact, it was Miller moving in an opposite direction.

You'd have a point if I were to exclude those who are not "liberal" and "progressive" from the pool with which I will work. Since I don't, you're welcome to try again.

Yet, it is what you do. By trying to define who and what a liberal is, and what issues constitute liberalness and progressiveness, you do indeed exclude many who fall into the school of thought that you exclude.

Trying to be cute with things like "you're welcome to try again" really adds nothing to your point.

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. True centrists wouldn't. As for the neocon posers....

....don't let the doorknob hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!!

[Guava Jelly]

38. yep

eos

[Q]

42. I wish someone would (finally) define...

...what 'turning left' would mean. No matter what the GOP-Lite Democrats may tell you...'turning left' would simply mean a return to the GRASS ROOTS of the Democratic party. DLCers use words like 'purist' for liberals and progressives who want the party to stop giving lip service to issues important to a majority of Democrats and most Americans.

- "Turning Left" means nothing more than finally keeping the promises we made to the people. Choice. Worker's rights. Environmental protections. Civil rights. Open government. A military used for defense instead of empire. Public education for ALL. Health care for ALL. Social security...and to take care of the less fortunate among us.

- The so-called DLCers must come to the realization that we will NOT allow them to pervert the party of the people and transform it into a second Republican party.

[wyldwolf]

48. I wish some people would get it out of their heads that...

'turning left' means a return to the GRASS ROOTS of the Democratic party.

[sangh0]

50. Who said that idea was in their heads?

I thought it was coming from another part of their anatomy

[wyldwolf]

51. good one!

[ulysses]

60. what *would* it mean, then? What is left, what are the grassroots?

:shrug:

[sangh0]

63. It's a shame how some don't even know the basics

It's a shame that someone who's been arguing that the Dems should move to the left doesnt even know what "left" means.

grassroots - not organized by the parties, but by themselves.

[wyldwolf]

65. dunno- but I'm not trying to define it or make grand statements

... as to what it is.

For Q to say, 'turning left' would simply mean a return to the GRASS ROOTS of the Democratic party he would first have to show that the GRASS ROOTS of the party (I think he is implying "base") is or has been his version of what "left" is.

[Q]

69. Call it the base then...

...but don't play naive. You know exactly who is in the base. It's the very people the DLC ignores and even smears in order to keep in favor with status quo conservatives.

- You MUST know by now that much of that base is VERY pissed off at the party for EXPECTING their VOTE instead of trying to earn it?

- The 'base' are those who have always supported the Democratic platform..right up until the time the DLC started perverting it.

[sangh0]

73. word games

Call it the base then...

Giving it a new term doesn't help when what's being asked for is the definition of the term

The 'base' are those who have always supported the Democratic platform..right up until the time the DLC started perverting it

The Dems have been getting more votes since the DLC came into the picture

[wyldwolf]

74. OK, let's

People of your political stripe have never been the base of the party.

Seems to me that even when the DLC gained power (and won three straight presidential elections), the base STILL supported the Dem platform.

[Q]

91. My political 'stripe'? I'm a Democrat...

...without stripes. The Democratic party USED TO BE known for their unwavering support for the 'base' of the party. Most of that base no longer bothers to vote. They're the working class and minorities...who think the party has abandoned them. I happen to think they're right.

- The DLC has depended on Blacks and workers to support the party out of habit. But certainly you can see that's about to change? The base is fed up. They're not going to continue to support a party that's moving AWAY from the issues they feel are most important and relevant to their lives.

- The DLC is lost in space because they're not LISTENING to those who don't want to see the party become a mirror of the right. Standing on principles and upholding convictions is more important to many of us than...gasp...winning. What good is winning if we have to give up what we've fought so hard to achieve? The DLC just doesn't get it...which is what makes them so dangerous to the 'party of the people'.

[wyldwolf]

92. stats

The Democratic party USED TO BE known for their unwavering support for the 'base' of the party. Most of that base no longer bothers to vote...who think the party has abandoned them.

Proof?

The DLC has depended on Blacks and workers to support the party out of habit. But certainly you can see that's about to change? The base is fed up.

Proof?

Proof of anything you say?

[ulysses]

70. you're willing enough

to deny that the grassroots is left. Surely you must have *some* idea of what it is if you think you know what it isn't.

[sangh0]

75. The grassroots is moderate

.

[WillyT]

53. Isn't It The Other Way Around ???

The question this election year should be, "SINCE the Republicans took a significant turn to the RIGHT, will Centrists stay?"

I mean, if the rePukes were running Bob Dole for Prez, and had Lugar as Senate Majority Leader, and "you name it" for Speaker of the House, I could see Centrists staying the course if they voted rePuke last time.

But if you ARE a Centrist and voted for Bush last time, you've been 'hood winked' with the rest of America, and ya might wanna let 'em know that that is not acceptable by voting Dem this time, no???

:shrug:

[sangh0]

55. And the centrists are bolting the Repukes

In 2000, Bush* ran as a moderate. He can't do that in 2004, which is one of the reasons why he's going to lose (again)

But if you ARE a Centrist and voted for Bush last time, you've been 'hood winked' with the rest of America, and ya might wanna let 'em know that that is not acceptable by voting Dem this time, no???

Yes, yes and YES...but only so long as we don't get to far to the left for them.

[Exgeneral]

67. your definitions are key.

what many call "significant left turn" to others is a return to reasonable centrism.

We hear here all the time John Kerry is "left" of many democrats. Is that what you mean? Left of Kerry?

[ulysses]

80. a definition of "significant turn left"

There are several possibilities, given different issues. By way of an example that encompasses both the economic and the social, though, let's posit a turn that includes a $1 billion investment in public education over 5 years, an opposition to trade agreements that send living-wage jobs overseas and a reaffirmation of affirmative action.

This is pretty mild, btw.

[Nlighten1]

83. Hopefully they will.

[JHBowden]

94. Not this election, but I'd be more open to the GOP in the future.

Though Bush sucks bad across the board, he is extra-strength bad on where he can do the most hurt: foreign policy and judges.

If it is between a Kucinich and a moderate Republican like Jim Edgar, I'd pick Jim Edgar every time.

[buddhamama]

98. some would, sure

the argument i've heard for three yrs on this board is that,
the party can't go too far to the left or the DEMs will lose votes/support, that we must appeal to the moderates to win elections. in actuality Centrists are no more loyal to the party than the leftists who have bolted because of the party's rightward drift, and the arguments, statements of the past three yrs have been nothing more than personal musings or projection-take your pick.

[salonghorn70]

99. My Opinion

How is everyone doing tonight? :hi:

The original question was. "assume the party took a significant left turn, would centrists bolt?" Centrists who are party activists would not bolt. Senator Miller doesn't count. I believe he is doing his thing for some other agenda. Now all those voters out there who aren't activists, who are just average voters, and who say they are Democrats - that is another story. This group bolted to Nixon in 1972. Bolted to Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (Reagan Democrats) and Bush in 1988. Why? Many of these average voters felt the party had drifted too far left. Clinton and his centrist appeal brought them back. American voters have always been centrist in their politics. Radicals don't win. Average Americans are conservative in their temperment. The mood of the country came very close to something else during the 1930s but FDR was able to control the most radical elements by his personal popularity and actuall exerted almost a centrist pull.

Now one kind of interesting issue is whether there would ever be a centrist third party in an environment where Republicans are still far to the right and Democrats have drifted to the left? In 1992 there was almost a feeling of this. Lots of Perot voters were tired of left-right arguments (God Bless Him but I still think Perot is crazy as a loon). This also had something to do with Ventura's success in Minnesota.

If the Party drifted left, then what would happen? It would only happen for a couple of election cycles that resulted in defeats, then there would be a drift back to the center.

I've rambled on for long enough. A toast to all of you.
:toast:

[salonghorn70]

101. This Was A Pretty Good Discussion

That got bumped by Bush. So, KICK