When will we ever learn? The battle is for the middle.

[Perky]

Look:

1) Wingnuts outnumber Leftists and the have orfanizational infrastructure to get out the vote.

2) The only way to get power is to grab a big chunk of the middle.

3) If the loss tell us anything. We have to moce to the middle because however much we hate shrub the middle would rather deal with a known quantity. The Wingnuts are better at demonizing the opposition then we will ever be.

WTF are we gonna do if the choice comes down to HRC vs. Lindsay Graham? I will tell you what we will do...we'll lose and blame Diebold.


We have got to give the Middle something to get excited about...It can;t simply be anti-repuke. because that motivation was not enough this time

Bayh-Biden
Bayh-Ford

Richardson-Warner
Richardson-Graham
Richardson-Breaux

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Best way to get the middle is to have multiple-parties

No way two parties can accomodate such a vast number of political ideologies.

------------------------------------------------------------
Help expose the election 2004 voter fraud!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Perky]

4. Umm we get the middle by what????

Splintering the middle?

Or having a viable party on our left?

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Here, read this. It makes some very interesting points

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0617-04.htm

Now me, I think the best way to find a middle ground is to have a lot of different parties who come to the table and work out the best compromises on policy that they can.

[Perky]

23. what table? Where?

Legitimacy springs only from electability. We are a two-party country. the only way to change that is to is for more Liberal Republicans Like Shays and Jeffords and Specter to bolt the party and for Hook up with the likes of of Howard Dean and Mark Warner and John Breaux


Don't hold your Breath.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. We were never meant to be a two-party country, though.

We have to keep pushing to fix the situation we are in now.

We are making some progress on that here in Maine. We have voluntary clean elections and IRV is on the table (again). We'll see if it gets anywhere this time.

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[American Tragedy]

76. Oh, good. They can get together and debate policy

while never actually getting into a political office in which they could enact these policies. Brilliant.

[Thrill]

2. Any ticket headed by a Senator is a stupid ticket

in my opinion. Their long voting records are trouble. Dems must run a Governor like Mike Easley or Phil Breseden

[Perky]

3. I agree

Senators do not win too much of a record on public view..They get into trouble when they try and duck and weave around it. Kerry did that.

[Bleacher Creature]

15. That's absoultely right

When you have thousands and thousands of votes, you are almost certain to have "flip-flopped" (according to the Bushco definition of it) on something.

[Fifth of Five]

24. Phil Bredesen

is an interesting choice. He's popular in TN, originally from the North, successful businessman, socially liberal, more moderate fiscally.

His wife is an interesting person - successful in her own right, literally fought off an attempted car-jacker who was later convicted of murdering a woman in a car-jacking, BUT - she kept her family name when she married; she is not known as Andrea Bredesen, but as Andrea Conte. This can be problematic in some areas.

[0rganism]

5. Richardson is a poor choice to head the ticket

He's not even all that popular in New Mexico.

Visually, he's even a bit... dare I say it?... repulsive.

Both his voting record in the House and his stint as DOE head with the Clinton administration are big, juicy targets.

Warner will have a much better shot at carrying southern states, especially VA where he's quite popular, and he can't run for re-election as Gov. of VA anyway.

[Perky]

27. I do not deny Richardson has some weakeness

But the Guy's got Gravitas internationally and has a great resume.


Warner_Richrdson would suit me just fine

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Typical "middle" approach to concentrate on personalities

rather than substance.

[ulysses]

8. yup.

It's the DLC way - a pleasant face and no hard policy positions to weigh you down...or inspire anyone, either pro or con.

[Perky]

29. Bullshit

The middle is crying out for responible leadership.

They are crying out for better schools and for something to be done about Health insureance

They are not pro-gun...but they are definitely anti-crime and generally favor Three-stikes and the Death Penalty.

They are not rabidly pro-life or pro-choice. They want abortion to be safe and rare.. They are not for Gay marriage but they have no problem with civil unions.

Here is the most important thing, they are pro-wealth..pro-entrepreneur. They are not necessarly utter capitalists but neither are the attack the rich at all cost.

Leadership on these conclusions. is not wishy-washy...its populist and effective.

Moderate leadership who can appeal to those instincts.

[flaminbats]

7. to win the war we must move the middle..

one wins battles by outflanking the enemy, and forcing them to surrender the center without a frontal attack.

[Perky]

30. Right! Exactly and Amen

Attack the fundies with Scripture and call them pharisees. But just make sure you use Scripture.

Don't oppose Capital gains tax cuts and repeal of the Death Tax.

Make Education into the Silver Bullet issue it needs to be.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. "Death tax"?

Please don't use Republicanite vocabulary.

Instead of caving in to the Republicanites on this, we need to come out clearly and inform the American people that they are as likely to pay inheritance tax as they are to get their birthday party written up in Town and Country.

[Perky]

58. Ha

I don't disagree...but the inheritance tax is a perfect issue. Not a whole lot of money involved. its already been taxed and it effects hardly anyone.

Why support it and give the GOP ammo by which to claim that we are anti-wealth?

[flaminbats]

72. so sorry!

what gave you the idea I have a problem with the inheritance tax?

[rlev1223]

9. No No No

The right has spent decades----decades--in a very disciplined
endeavor to move the center of American politics so far in their direction that by the time Paul Wellstone died, he could seriously be described as "on the far left" of the party. He was about as liberal domestically as Richard Nixon, who was perhaps the most liberal domestic president we have ever had. (And who Robert Scheer has been longing for, only half joking.)

It's time for some blatant class war of words. Regardless of ideology, Americans do respond to clarity and a touch of belligerence. We need
doses of both.

[greenohio]

79. If you want way left, vote green. If you want to win, move to the center.

If all you care about is principle, then vote green. The only way win is to capture moderates. A New Democrat, DLC, moderate-abortion rights candidate will win. Anything else is just planning another defeat, making us irrelevant.

[lawladyprof]

10. Move the middle to us--three strategies

For the long haul we need new strategies. I have three. Push the nuttier Congress critters way hard to the right (create a wedge within the Republican Party, force the logical endpoints of their positions into the open)-see a thread I just started in the Oklahoma forum--targeting Coburn, help towns in red states that have closed plants due to outsourcing (tie to Bible--loving your enemies)--great man bites dog publicity and reversing some of the vitriol that has been heaped on liberals for years (kind hard to malign someone who dug deep to help you out at your time of need), and television ads that are mini soap operas/vignettes (appeal to emotion and/or fear) showing the consequences of Bush/conservative policies (remember Harry and Louise and Hillary's health care).

[Redleg]

11. I doubt it.

EOM

[napi21]

12. That's absolutely right! Neither extreme will win over the other!

I also believe most people are not strictly on any side on all issues. Sure there are some who wouldn't vote for an opposite party candidate for ANY REASON! But those folks are really in the minority.

I really think the Dems have a good shot at the mid-terms and 2008. ShrubCo will have had another 4 years to royaly screw everything up, and we all need to check out all the Dem Governors in the south & midwest, and see who makes sense. If we start now, there's plenty of time to get their face out there so the whole country knows who they are, and learn to like them.

And yes, saddly, it's is all about likeability!

[Bleacher Creature]

13. The battle is to get people to think.

70% of Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein personally helped plan 9/11.

Until we get over that hurdle -- which means a candidate who can communicate effectively with them -- it doesn't matter how far to the left or middle he or she is.

[Mike L]

66. We already know they won't think.

Education won't work.

[George W. Dunce]

14. Enough with the Evan Bayh bullshit

He is a republican, I don't give a shit what the TV puts in front of his name. The man sides with Bush on every issue, I would not vote for him.

[JVS]

16. We have to make our own wing-nuts. Winning hearts and minds.

That's the way you do it.

[Minstrel Boy]

17. You have to win the middle, but you win it with a populist.

How many Americans voted for Bush without agreeing with his policies, but because they had a vague sense that "he says what he means and he means what he says"? While watching campaign coverage I saw quite a few echo those sentiments.

The right can push its agenda not because its agenda is so popular, but because they can do it behind the facade of a "plain talking" populist; someone enough Americans preferred to have an imaginary beer with.

Give America a populist leader on the centre-left, and that leader will contend.

And that is why Rove most feared Dean.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Don't Think Lindsay Graham Could Win A National Election...

He's too much the hayseed...


George Allen

Bill Frist


Jeb Bush

[0007]

20. Any of these guys could win if the same platform is used that

junior ran on!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Allen, Frist and Jeb Bush Yes...

Linsay Graham has zero national appeal...

He puts CO, NM, AZ, and FL instantly in play...

[0007]

32. What do ya mean?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. See Post 21

Lindsay Graham is a total goober...

A hayseed...

Unlike the Bushes he's too much the hick to play outside the deep south....


George Allen , Bill Frist are the kind of Pugs who have learned to make their regionality mainstream....

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

35. Goober Graham?

Oh god.....I just pissed myself!

[leesa]

22. BS. The battle is with rampant corruption! Stop pretending it is us!

They have a huge machine that controls the media and the judiciary. Until we crush this machine it won't make ANY difference what we say or do not say.

They are a crime syndicate! This is not kindergarten politics.

[Perky]

25. OMG It is most definitely US!!

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault,"

- Big Dawg

We offer the middle nothing to get excited about and call those of faith Rubes and idiots.

We are out numbered!

[leesa]

57. OMG. You are wrong. A corporate syndicate has taken away all the media

Becoming right wing morons is not the answer. It is this corrupt syndicate, including the Big Dog you apparently blindly worship, who want to tell us it's our problem rather than our government co-opting the media. The problem is that people hear RW garbage 24/7 and have forgotten how to think.

We didn't do anything wrong and we do NOT need to move right. We need to throw out the corrupt thugs in our government and regain our media.

Why do you play their stupid self-blame games??

[pmbryant]

73. You are absolutely correct.

The Democratic Party is already in the "center". There is nothing wrong with our "values" and "morals". Pretending that there is just feeds the GOP attack machine.

What this past election showed is not that Dems need to move anywhere. What it showed is that we need to attack the GOP as viciously and ruthlessly as they attack us.

But! We need to make sure that our attacks stay focused on the GOP leadership in Washington, and not on the GOP grass roots.

We need to become the anti-Washington party. The GOP owns it and it's time we held them accountable for it.

--Peter

[deutsey]

28. The Left has to make its case to the middle

Once we do, clearly and consistently and with backing from the Dem Party machinery, and the Left's message is rejected at the polls, then I'll consider moving even further from the Left than the Dems already are.

We need to read and heed what George Lakoff is trying to tell. Do a google search on him and read some of his stuff.

[shrike]

33. You bet.

That's why I want all this talk about "faith" and "morals" to stop. We've got to find a way to reach them Re: the issues that matter.

[IrateCitizen]

40. Dammit, you have to address ISSUES from a VALUES perspective!

The majority of the American electorate approaches politics from largely an emotional context, not one of reason. If you try and talk to them on a reason level, it will have absolutely ZERO effect if the other side is approaching them on an emotional level.

The best way to reach them on an emotional level is to appeal to them in a VALUES context. It's not about adopting the Republican "values" -- I'd bolt in a nanosecond if we ever did that. Rather, it's about trumpeting our own core values, and speaking of EVERY policy in those terms. Specifics are not required. If the other side demands specifics, you simply turn the table and say, "Mr. such-and-such doesn't believe in this value, otherwise he'd be supporting this kind of policy. I know the American people believe in this value, so that's why I'm promoting it."

People don't want wonkspeak. They don't want details. They want to "feel good" about a candidate. The only way to do this is to connect with them on values that they believe in. For all the talk of religious voters, I would say that a significant number of them also believe in compassion, charity, community and so forth. If you can speak to them in terms of these basic values, then you have a chance at stealing them away from the other side.

If you're not talking about values, you just don't get it. And neither will the people you're trying to reach.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Right as usual, IC

Hey, I've got an idea. Maybe you and ulysses and Armstead and I should form a think tank!

:-)

[deutsey]

61. The Left has values that resonate with the Middle

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

We just need to know them and know how to talk about them.

Read what George Lakoff says in the article at the link above.

[Trekologer]

63. Re: "Dammit, you have to address ISSUES from a VALUES perspective!"

Exactly!

For example, "We have been fighting for an increase in the minimum wage because we believe that everyone who wants to work is able to earn a livable wage so that they can pay their bills and support their families."

[Fifth of Five]

64. This is certainly true of Bush voters.

As the PIPA study shows, the Bush voters were consistently wrong on where he stood on specific issues.

I have long contended that Bush voters are not issue voters. We can garner some votes from the more moderate Bush voters, if we appeal to them on an emotional level.

[Kazak]

31. Uh...no...

Democrats have won the last two Presidential elections.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. Thank you for...

that timely and much needed reminder.

:)

[Kazak]

39. Correction...

Last FOUR Presidential elections...

;)

[WI_DEM]

34. unless you missed it we did run a centrist campaign

with Kerry/Edwards

[IrateCitizen]

38. Nobody likes a weak-kneed sellout, perky

That is essentially the stance you are advocating.

We've lost elections in the center not because we didn't chase them enough. We've lost elections in the center because people in the center see Democrats as a bunch of sellouts who don't really stand for anything.

Ask yourself what you consider the core values are that you can connect Democratic policies back to over and over again. I'm not talking about wonkish terms like "economic fairness" or such. I'm talking about core values that everyone can relate to.

For me, much of my political belief can be traced back to the Presbyterian upbringing I had. Community, respect for others, compassion, fair play, charity and cooperation are my core values. I believe in "economic fairness" because I believe in fair play, and that some people shouldn't be able to cheat their way to success. I believe that people long for a sense of community, so policies should be put in place to enable people to re-invigorate that. Human rights are a simple matter of compassion and respect for others.

If we don't stand for any core values that we cannot easily communicate to the electorate, then why in the fuck would they vote for us? Because we're "not as bad as Republicans"? Yeah, that's worked wonders so far. :eyes:

[Perky]

74. You could not be more wrong! I will tell you why we lost!

Wrongly..but effectively the GOP paints us as ready to give a hand out to anyone... amoral and in the backpocket of Hollywood, environmental and liberal elites. Being anti-business and pro-government.

Most importantly, they paint us as against entreprenurial ingenuity and an being against people with money.


Our tired response is the GOP is for the RICH...Well Dammit the middle class wants to be rich.

So the message is we are against what the middle class wants to become. That is the resounding message of this election and that is why we lost.


We have no new ideas that Resonate with the middle class.

For instance, why should we be against partial privatization of Social Security if it saves the system in the long run and protects the eledery during the transition?

[kentuck]

41. We were the middle ??

the left became the middle for political expediency. And no one was left to appeal to the non-voters.

[JHBowden]

42. We need to stop pandering.

We need a clear, consistent, and unified message. People respect straight-talk more than pandering, as long as the message is not shrill nor ideological.

[NightOwwl]

78. Bingo!

It sickened me to watch Kerry pander to every conceivable group except his base. His very angry base. He didn't even throw us a freakin bone, like using 'The Pet Goat' video in a campaign ad.

Sorry wandered off topic a bit. But your post remined me of how Kerry didn't embody any of the characterisitics you mention. :(

[madfloridian]

43. We are already there, and we have been losing from there.

This is just getting ridiculous.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

44. Thank you for this post!!

Personally, I like the Warner and/or Clark talk that's going around, but basically, you've hit the nail on the head!!

:)

[magnolia]

45. I learned....

...that the battle is the middle when Bill Clinton won twice! And I've been saying that repeatedly to deaf ears.

The other thing I've learned is that running for president, the campaigning/election part of it, is like a game. It's like "The Apprentice" (which I've never watched..but...) They have a contest and the winner gets the job. The playing of the game, is not the job. We can hold him to high standards when he gets the job, but when he's playing the game all he needs is our 110% support. We have to nominate a man we trust (that's what the primaries are for) and once he's in the ring...let him play the game. With both Gore and Kerry, Dems criticized them as much as the "right" or the media. We expect our guy to play by completely different rules than the other guy, and then expect him to win.

The repubs put their guy in the ring and with blind faith, they did nothing but cheer. It didn't matter what he said or how he said it...he could have picked his nose during the debates and they they would have given him a standing ovation. That kind of support wins elections. Our guy was ten times better, so why couldn't we just cheer him on instead of the constant nit-picking and complaining!

[Senator Lamb]

46. we need....

populism/class warfare wrapped up in faith and fairness. centrism is not the total answer. though i think warner or bayh would be ulmost unbeatable against a person like Frist.

[magnolia]

56. I'm in Virginia...

...and I can tell you that Warner is a true Democrat but knows how to play a Republican on TV. One of the things he did in his governor's campaign is get a Nascar car with his name on it. He has an excellent record of accomplishment and a squeaky clean personal life. Born into middle class, he is a self-made millionaire. He would be good.

[Mike L]

69. Excellent. Is he "likable" too?

If so, he's our candidate for 2008.

[Onlooker]

47. The middle doesn't get excited

You have to appeal to the progressive elements in all groups and attract new voters. There are still millions of nonvoters out there. The middle will come along if the economic plan is in their interest. That's mostly what they care about.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Right

Note that Karl Rove used the strategy of appealing to the far right in his campaign. He doesn't go after the mushy middle--he counts on his zealous true believers to do the persuading on the ground.

[magnolia]

59. I don't disagree with you....

I'm not so much interested in what stand we take, although, like I said, middle worked for Clinton. I'm more concerned about making our choice during the primaries and then giving that person 100% instead of using campaign time to critique him. How are non-voters or new voters going to choose our candidate if we aren't even sure about him??????? Once he's nominated all conversation about whether he was the right choice (which serves absolutely no purpose) should cease!

We could have picked Dean and appealed to progressives. But...from spring to election day their would have been conversation among Dems as to whether he was the right choice. It's this lack of focus and support that kills us.

[American Tragedy]

77. Even if this mysterious progressive non-voting base exists, they don't

seem very concerned about having the most right-wing president in modern history in office. What the fuck would it take to wake them up? Clearly they think that taking an hour off the first Tuesday of November every four years is far too much to ask.

[m berst]

48. the "middle" is an illusion

I have never met a person in the middle on any of the great issues in front of us, and in my conversations a year ago with conservatives, they were very interested in the "leftist" ideas of Dean, Clark and Kucinich. As unhappy as many of them are about the war, the patriot act, outsourcing, corporate corruption, they could not and would not consider Kerry and were disgusted by the "centrist" campaign that he ran, which they saw as spineless and unprincipled pandering and catering to them as though they were stupid children.

Left wing positions are not put forward by the party because of opposition within the party, not because of opposition from those outside of the party.

If you strongly state where you stand - for the poor, for liberty, against illegal war, for universal healthcare, against the corprate domination of our society, for education - and speak from the heart and don't back down you may alienate some people, sure. But if you wishy washy around you are CERTAIN to alienate just about everybody sooner or later.

How much further to the center can we possibly go??

On edit - It would take a pretty bizarre concept of left wing positions IMHO to place HC on the "left" fringe. If we mean "most hated and polarizing" then perhaps HC is on the left.

The image of the candidates and the platfroms of the xcandidates are two different things. Clark and Dean and Kucinich had very left wing platforms when compared to whatever it was we wound up with - give coporations tax breaks or something - yet those candidates were appealling to conservatives and moderates. Why? Because they had guts and courage and took stands and didn't demonize the right wingers.

It is the wishy washy corporate lackey Democrats who rejected our strong liberal left wing candidates, not the electorate. We went for "electable" instead of taking strong moral stands on liberal principles. We lost both practicality AND principle.

One defintion of insanity is to keep repeating the same actions over and over again hoping to get different results.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. You list those particular candidates and say that they will EXCITE

the middle?

Using "excitement" and the names of any of those guys in the same sentence...I don't know.

Before talking about candidates, let's talk about principles. Remember those?

Politicians excite voters most of all when they themselves are excited about a vision, not when they list a set of programs.

[Killarney]

50. I agree.

People say we need to move further left and to them I ask, "what state did Kerry lose that we would have won if we ran Kucinich?" None.

Unfortunately, Americans in general have moved to the right. Hopefully, if we take back the media, we can move the pendulum the other way but until that happens we will never win with a far-left candidate.

I think Warner's a good idea.

[m berst]

54. Kucinich is a bad example for this

Dennis had less national appeal for reasons other than his platform.

Get off this phony "left-right" supposed dichotomy that the media and the RNC have created. I say that Clark or Dean BOTH would have taken many states that Kerry could not have. I am certain of this personally.

Which ones? Clark would have taken NC, VA, WVA, AR, AZ, FL, OH, NV, IA, and possibly TN.

Dean campaigners can better answer this for Howard.

We worry about the Reps winning on one or two issues. We had the opportunity to use one of the greatest issues of all time and failed - an illegal war enetered into on lies. That issue is what got so many people involved originally and that issue would have trumped all of the supposed moral issues Bush pandered to.

[Killarney]

55. As an ex-Clarkie, I agree with you on Clark

but then again I think he's more centrist than Kerry so that doesn't really fit within this argument.

However, I don't think Dean would have carried more states than Kerry. Merely because of his tax plan. Whereas Kerry was only going to raise taxes on >$200K, Dean was going to remove all the Bush tax cuts therefore increasing taxes on everyone. Even though it's the most fiscally responsible thing to do, people wouldn't have gone for it and they would have PUMMELED him with ads for it. No Democratic candidate in history has won the presidency on a platform of raising taxes on the middle class.

[magnolia]

60. Again...I repeat...

...it isn't about what position we take or even what person we pick. Every single person who ran in the dem primaries...including Al Sharpton...was way more qualified than Bush. Bush didn't win* because they had the right message and God knows he wasn't by any stretch the best candidate. They won because they were behind their candidate 100%...every step of the way.

*By win, I'm taking into account voter fraud, media bias and outright lying.

[m berst]

62. where do you get that idea?

I actually talk to many prominent Republicans and nothing could be farther from the truth according to what they are reporting to me.

There was very little enthusiasm for Bush. Why do you think he had those little staged and closed rallies?

The RNC is saying that they motivated their base. We don't have to help them spread that idea.

[magnolia]

65. Where do I get the idea?

I live in a red state. I live with these people. They are not wishy-washy in their support. I made hundreds, maybe thousands of phone calls all summer...nobody was "leaning Bush". If they were for Bush, it was all the way. When I checked out Free Republic they prayed everyday for their beloved president instead of picking him apart....the way we did Kerry. They defended and excused everything.

There is a mass of undecideds out there and they simply aren't interested in investing the kind of time that we do in politics...so they go with the group that has conviction, confidence and is solid. Not the wishy washy...we're not sure...maybe he is a flip flopper...group. How many threads on this board were based on asking everybody to stop bashing Kerry.

We were all ABB at one point. Once we had nominated Kerry, what was the point of bashing and criticizing him...it wasn't like we could have a do-over. It wasn't like we were considering voting for Bush. Why not stand solid behind him and then when he wins we can bash to our heart's content.

Like I said before...it's more than this. It's most likely voter fraud, media bias, fear mongering. But we didn't help. It annoyed me in 2000 when so many people here claimed they would vote for Gore holding their noses. How many undecideds did they win over??? "Hold your nose and vote for Gore"...now that's a winning slogan!!! If you consider the qualifications of Gore and Kerry, against Bush...they BOTH should have won by a landslide!

[m berst]

70. "red state" tells us nothing

"I live in a red state. I live with these people."

Right there you are betraying a lack of understanding, because red state - blue state is a distorted way to look at the electorate. Look at the county by county red-blue divide and you will see that no one "lives in a red state" and therefore knows something that others do not or could not. I would suggest that your sense of living in a red state is prejudicing the way you are looking at things. I recently lived in a very blue state for 4 years, but there wasn't another Democrat living within 100 miles of me (slight exaggeration, but not by much).

In addition, calling your neighbors "these people" betrays a prejudice that is probably distorting your analysis.

"They are not wishy-washy in their support. I made hundreds, maybe thousands of phone calls all summer...nobody was "leaning Bush". If they were for Bush, it was all the way."

A call from Kerry HQ, especially from someone who calls Republican voters "these people" would surely get a quick "I am for Bush" response, but that tells us nothing. I believe that was more a function of opposition to Kerry than it was enthusiasm for Bush. In any case, it doesn't on its face support your contention.

"When I checked out Free Republic they prayed everyday for their beloved president instead of picking him apart....the way we did Kerry. They defended and excused everything."

I would strongly caution anyone away from citing anything at Free Republic when attempting to analyze the opposition.

"How many threads on this board were based on asking everybody to stop bashing Kerry."

Yet you said that the fact that on the Free Republic they tolerated no criticism of their candidate was a failing on their part? The use of the term "bashing" mischaracterizes the tone and sincerity of the vast majority of the critics of Kerry, too.

"We were all ABB at one point. Once we had nominated Kerry, what was the point of bashing and criticizing him...it wasn't like we could have a do-over. It wasn't like we were considering voting for Bush. Why not stand solid behind him and then when he wins we can bash to our heart's content."

Tens of thousands of us were never ABB, sorry. That talk started right after Iowa, and the suppression of criticism began, so it is a revision of history to say "once we had nominated" the criticism should have ceased.The same people were opposed to criticism before the nomination, during the campaign, and still are today.

If ABB hasn't been discredited by the recent events, I don't know what ever will discredit it. Given the horrible pressure on people to get into lockstep, and the complete bait and switch the DNC did to Democrats, I thought that there was remarkable unity. This idea that if we had all just "stood solidly" behind Kerry that would have produced more votes for him is completely unsupportable. How is that idea more valid than this one - had the candidate stood solidly on liberal principles we would have done better?

No one criticized Kerry because we didn't like his hairdo. The criticisms were valid and reasoned and as it turns out - right. And they caused no votes to be cast for Bush. In my personal experience talking to Republican voters, they were much more open to hearing my criticisms of Bush BECAUSE I was willing to criticize Kerry. That is common sense and easily seen if one gives it even a moment's thought and is serious about politics. Being quiet about Kerry served one purpose and one purpose only - it allowed some Democrats to feel better about themselves and to remain in a state of denial.

In spite of having the worst possible candidate on the worst possible platform and a poorly run campaign, Kerry still won, and NO Democrats to speak of were unmotivated, failed to get to the polls or switched to vote for the Republicans. So where is this supposed damage that could have been prevented by more unity?

Now the calls for unity are beginning again, in a new incarnation. "Move on and argue about 2006 and forget about the stolen election" we are being told.

The true coming battle is between freedom and tyranny, and it is fast approaching. It is not between red and blue. People who have an overwhelming compulsion to get other people into lockstep - for whatever cause or team - are not helping the cause of freedom.

[Mike L]

67. I agree. We must move to the middle on cultural issues.

Stop being anti-gun. Stop fighting little stupid battles like taking "God" out of the pledge of allegiance. Stop pushing gay marriage (for now).

What are Mark Warner's positions on these issues?

[ibegurpard]

68. This whole argument is an enormous fucking waste of time

until everyone can agree on what CONSTITUTES THE MIDDLE VS. THE LEFT. Everyone has their own ideas.

[Perky]

75. Well that is the issue isn't it

How the hell do we define ourselves in a way that is palatable to both sides. of the coin?

This is what I fear the most. We can't. And unles yopu can find some one out there who can unite the lefties anf the DLCers and attract lots of moderates who voted for the otherguy... We are sunk.

It takes the Charisma of Big Dawg and the the COurage of RFK.

ANd there is no one out there like that!!

[ArkDem]

71. I know this:

I've been having a battle with the middle for years.

[Bridget Burke]

80. What are your other suggestions--besides tax relief for the rich?

That was certainly not one of the issues in the "exit polls".

Yes, the Inheritance Tax affects relatively few; this needs to be pointed out to those who think the Feds will come for Granny's china collection. And, yes, taxes have already been paid on it. That happens all the time. My taxes are withheld from the paycheck before it's deposited in the bank, but when I buy something with that money I often pay sales tax. But canceling the inheritance tax favors the old rich, having nothing to do with entrepreneurship; it also removes motivation for much charitable contribution.

"Entrepreneur" popped up in a form letter sent by my Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson. What business successes have begun under Bush? Where are the inspiring tales of startup millionaires?

[lawladyprof]

81. There is a concrete do-able way to grab the middle

It involves pushing the Republicans all the way to the right and doing it now. PM me if interested.