Strategic question: is supporting conservative Dems a good thing?

[Lerkfish]

This conversation started within another thread, and someone complained it was off-topic. I DO think its a valid topic on its own, though.

I welcome all thoughts, from all directions on this. I have a point of view but dont' think everyone has to agree with me. Further, my intent is not to be divisive, but to examine a strategic philosophy that I question. I wish to express my concerns about that philosophy in an analytical way, and I hope contributors to the thread can express their own ideas on strategic methods to resolve this question:

QUESTION: HOW do we regain power and numbers for the democratic party, now and in the future, in light of the conservative stranglehold the republicans enjoy at the moment.

ONE SOLUTION: Some suggest that in order to fight the republicans, we need to nominate right-leaning dems in order secure dem positions.

MY OBJECTION TO THAT SOLUTION:
Having a right-leaning dem is no better than having a republican, and in fact dilutes the democratic platform, and when I say I'd rather have progressive dems in their place. As long as right-voting dems exist, they will continue to erode the strength of the party because they continue to strenghten the opposing party by siding with them, and they continue to offer the public a nonchoice, reinforcing that concept of why vote for dems if they are only there to be either coopted or bullied by republcans?

Why should the only two choices be republicans or dems who vote like republicans? As long as people accept that as inevitable, we will never break free of this continuing cycle. At what point do those who support the idea of keeping conservative democrats, ever decide that enough footholding has taken place to start supporting progressive dems instead?

IMHO, The problem is the current democratic power structure in conservative areas will never nominate progressive candidates, as long as they continue to feel the only way to fight republicans is to emulate them.

And as long as we're willing to accept political leftovers and compromise with the enemy in order to stay at the table, we will find out ability stay at the table diminishing. As long as we say "submission is the key to dominance" we will continue to become less and less powerful. As long as we tolerate dems who vote like republicans, we have gained nothing at all.

MY SOLUTION: instead of rolling over and nominating conservative dems, do a better job of selling progressive dems. Sure, that means we will not always win immediately, but I think in the long run, if we offer voters a true choice rather than "republican or republican lite" enough people will vote AGAINST republicans who are middle of the road. I think too many swing voters go republican in these instances because they shrug and think "why vote a party who doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of what their platform is? at least with republicans you get what you vote for".

what are your thoughts?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Besides Lieberman And The Two Or Three Remaining Southern Democratic

Senators Are There Any Conservative Democratic Elected Officials Left?

[benburch]

2. No.

We work to destroy all DINOs in the primaries, and use whatever tactics will work, regardless of the consequences.

We make the ones we fail to destroy so afraid of us that they will vote like democrats even if they are spineless.

We give them a spinal implant;

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Right

We should purge all moderate and centrist Democrats from the party and make them give self critical speeches before we show them the door....

Like Lenin said "to make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs..."

[benburch]

6. You really don't get it, do you?

The only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow line and dead possums.

If we allow Republicans to use the Democratic Party as a flag of convenience to get elected, we have lost.

[Deep13]

60. "yellow line and dead possums"

Nice aphorism, but it doesn't have much to do with governance. Simply following a political philosophy without looking at the evidence will get you squished every time.

I fully agree that we must represent our Democratic constituency and not try to take a middle path. The question is who are our constitutencies? Here in the Mid-West they are largely church-going wage earners. They believe in America, shop at Walmart, own guns, drive passenger trucks, don't use foul language, believe the police and know more about football than they do about state politics. For the most part, they do not include liberal activists (like me) who espouse flashy social causes.

[Toots]

67. If they hated blacks would we still want them on our side?

America has taken the wrong path and needs to get back on the right one. That doesn't happen by accepting the wrong path and hope we somehow end up where we want to go. If we know we are on the wrong path we make a stink about it until we get back on the right path. It doesn't matter what people in the Mid-West do at the moment. When our direction is wrong it is wrong and no coddling the "Middle" will make it right. We have to convince these people of the right path and nothing less. Or they have to convince me that their way is for the best. I think it will be harder to convince me than it will be to convince them. They are not completely stupid they just want very badly to have faith in America and because of propaganda they believe we are doing right. They know that our financial house is not in order and that our reputation around the world is slipping but they haven't yet been able to put two and two together because they are constantly bombarded with propaganda. You can't fool all the people all the time..or as Bush* says fool me once well eh uh eh uh I can't be fooled again..

[Deep13]

73. They don't hate Blacks.

So, the question is irrelevant. Frankly, our advocacy of civil rights is what cost us the South. We did it because he had to, but we cannot afford that kind of sacrifice of political capital now. We need to do what is possible, not what is perfect. If we continue to do what we have been doing for 30 years, we will grow in irrelevancy.

>>>>>We have to convince these people of the right path and nothing less.

How do you know they are wrong? They believe they are right. Supposing only your point of view is right is the hight of hubris. Ultimately, you have to ask, do we believe in democracy or not. If so, we need to accept the judgment of the people.

I am not suggesting we coddle to the middle. I am suggesting that we release ourselves from the baggage of a few hot-button cultural issues that we cannot win anyway. We should not compromise on Social Security, national health care, the environment, fiscal responsibility, tax equity, civil rights, union rights or any of our other core issues. I will tell you, however, that gay marriage and late term abortion rights are not and have never been amoung our core issues.

[Bridget Burke]

90. But Gays & Women are expendable....

What a lot of newcomers have advised us to jettison these issues!

[Lerkfish]

93. exactly!

this is part of what I am worried about. In order to supprt DINOS to retain a seat, don't we have to look the other way at their anti-gay, misogynist, warmongering voting records?

I am not happy with that compromise.

[Deep13]

114. You're overstating the matter.

Anyway, we have to be in a position of strength to compromise. Right now the issue is will we be completely defeated by those who openly embrace the fundy/corporate agenda, or do we begin to claw our way back from irrelevancy?

Women generally do not vote on the abortion issue, unless they are fundies in which case they vote in opposition. A majority of married women went for Dubya last year. There are more women's issues than just abortion. Roe does not protect late term abortions and Bush is ready to pack the court. Did Stevens just sneeze? We have already lost on this issue. Do we then compromise from a position of strength on late term abortion, leaving women with six moths to change their minds after conception? Or, do we loose it all and fight for an exception for a total ban to save the life of the mother? Remember, the people who are now in the majority think that frozen embroys are people!

Gays were making slow progress since the 1950s. Last year they blew it. The country was not ready for it and the gay activists tried to push it down the country's throat anyway. The new Ohio constitutional provision against not only gay marriage, but recognition of any non-marriage relationship that approximates marriage was passed 3 to 1. That means about half of those who voted for Kerry also voted for the ban. We can only do what is possible. There will not be gay marriage in this country for fifty years. The real issue is whether anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and other places will remain in effect. In most countries in the world and traditionally, homosexuality has always been a criminal offense, often a capital offense! Two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that criminalizing homosexual activity is contrary to due process of law. Consequently, it is a gross overstatement to suggest that we are expending gays.

I have been fighting this fight for twenty years. A friend of mine remembers seeing the whole country go red except for MA in 1972. What has changed since then? It has gotten worse. I am not going to spend my life waiting around for this country to get its head out of its ass. We need to change our whole perspective from the professional consultants in the North East who have been leading us to defeat to regular people in regular places. I case you have not noticed, that idea is the central principle of Howard Dean's agenda.

It is not newcomers who urge compromise on cultural hot-button issues, but those of us who have been educated in the University of Hard Knocks. You can talk about ideals and Dinos and R-lite all you want, but I know we cannot afford to tilt at windmills. It is axiomatic in war that one must attack the enemy at his weakest and not pit strength against strength. The Rs are stongest on cultural wedge issues. We cannot fight them at their weak points if we sacrifice our efforts attacking their strength.

[Lerkfish]

13. but is the reason we support conservative dems

because we're a big tent party, or because we're afraid of losing?

[charlyvi]

18. You're right---

The minute we became afraid of losing, we lost anyway. We have to stand up and defend our rich heritage--a progressive heritage. Too many conservative dems seem to shrink at that--they need to change parties or retire and do whatever.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Like LBJ Said

"I rather have my "enemies" inside the tent pissing out then outside the tent pissing in...."

[Deep13]

125. Yes

We are a big tent party because we are afraid of loosing. Any party big enough for a majority will have divergent views. That is the same reason the industrialists put up with the religious right in their party. Plus, places that support conservative Ds are pretty backward. Look at Fritz Hollings. Think he was a reactionary? The other Senator from that state for a long time was Strom Thurmon. Of course, that does not explain Lieberman.

[Deep13]

3. "do a better job of selling progressive dems."

In other words, convince people in red states why they are wrong. That strategy has put us where we are.

Conservative Ds don't usually vote like Rs. Even Hollings had a far better record than most of the Rs. Politicians need to be responsive to their own constitutents regardless of the national platform.

[charlyvi]

16. I agree completely with you.

Most people, in any area, are progressive. Some don't realize this, but they are. A good example is the current Social Security debate--a new WP/ABC poll shows concern across generations for shrub's plan.

The problem we have is that the repubs, via RW radio, MSM control, etc, have demonized progressivism to the extent that casual political observers, who are the majority in this country, have come to identify progressivism with hot button issues like gay marriage and abortion. They are just beginning to realize that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Worker's rights are programs stemming from progressive thinking. We have to constantly push the point that anti-progressive, or anti-liberal, means anti-human rights. We were very lazy while the right wing grew--perhaps not realizing that people could be so brainwashed into a belief system so against their own interest.

We can't do this with repub-lite. We must offer a concrete alternative. Call me a dreamer, but the ideas of FDR didn't steer US society for 40 years for no reason. I think people probably took for granted that the programs established by Dems were the bedrock of our society and could not be dissolved. Now that these programs are threatened, we need to drive home the fact that Democrats--progressive Democrats--passed these programs for the average citizen, and they are the ones who will nurture them. The husbandry of our social compact can be trusted to Democrats, not Republicans. If we don't run with this, we don't deserve to speak FDR's name.

[Deep13]

54. There thou said it.

Once you have said it all, there is not much to add.

I may say that you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one. B-)

[podnoi]

74. EXACTLY! Half the country are followers

We do not need to shrink away from a fully progressive platform. What the conservative wing of the Democratic party fails to understand is that a good part of the populace are too busy to think critically. They need to have everything presented before them.

If we move entirely progressive in unison and present our case the Nation will climb on board. It doesn't work the other way. That is how the Republicans did it, they understood this and swayed public opinion and perception with leadership (crooked leadership, but leadership).

[Lerkfish]

81. thank you!

that is what I'm trying to suggest, only you said it better.

others are saying we can never go progressive...but I think its time to strike and be decisive!

[wallock]

83. Russ Feingold

Like encouraging Russ Feingold to run in 08!

[wryter2000]

121. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[QC]

5. Yes, we must purge all kulaks and counterrevolutionaries!

It's not like we need House or Senate seats or anything like that.

[benburch]

7. That sort of thinking is why we're so fucked up.

If we have a House and Senate full of DINOs, what exactly does that buy us other than an sunshine enema?

[QC]

14. Please see post #8 for some common sense on this issue.

It's often useful to be reminded of the real world in which other people live. Nice antidote to the mindless purism that would have us believe that victory lies in running liberal candidates in districts where they have no hope of winning.

Look, we all would like liberal reps from every district. I would also like to win the lottery, wake up tomorrow morning with a 12-inch penis, and lose weight while eating nothing but ice cream and pizza. But those things are not going to happen. There are, believe it or not, places in this country that are very conservative. I live in one of them. I know that if we nominated someone here liberal enough for my tastes he or she would lose 80-20. That's the reality of the situation. But by electing a conservative Democrat, as this district does, we at least have someone who is voting for the Dem leadership and will help us get a majority. Without that majority, as you might have noticed these past few years, we are irrelevant.

[Lerkfish]

15. so...only your own view is common sense or reality? ...er...ok.

Look, we ARE doing your solution NOW. Ask yourself...is it working? Do we have an increasing presence or a decreasing presence?

[benburch]

21. Amen, brother.

We need to preach the gospel to the choir, because they seem to have forgotten its lessons.

[QC]

23. Well, my view is the only one taking account of the facts on the ground,

which I guess is the same thing.

Tell you what: give me a realistic scenario for how we can elect Cynthia McKinney or Barney Frank here in the Florida Panhandle. Base it on current information about voting habits, demographics, etc. Tell where we can get the funding for a sufficiently intensive campaign to undo the area's century-long habit of political conservatism and compensate for the large number of freeper transplants streaming into the area from places north of here.

Then we might have something real to discuss. But all I see here, as in your hijacking of that other thread yesterday, is wishful thinking.

Besides, you are the one being ahistorical here. Think back more than ten years and you might recall that Democrats had the majority back when we had a broad coalition. (Think FDR and Truman.) It was when the purist faction started nominating the likes of Dukakis and Mondale that we began circling the drain.

[Lerkfish]

24. thank your for your input.

I enjoy having a diversity of viewpoints expressed, I think it benefits us all to be open to the views of others and carefully consider their arguments.

Let's address some of your points: in those conservative areas you mention, like the florida panhandle, have progressive democrats ever been tried? Or have there only been conservative democrats running? Do the dems parrot the policies of the repubs? If so, was there ever a strongly delineated choice, or was it always republican or republican-lite.

I think we are all going to see that in 2006, whether we like it or not, the foothold seats we compromised to keep will evaporate anyways. It will be a pyrrhic victory in the short term.
It think we've hit the limit of benefits from emulation.

IMHO, the current republican/neocon movement is as great or greater evil than the rise of fascism in Italy or Germany during WWII. At what point does compromise or emulation become complicity?

I foresee the "keeping a place at the table" will be a moot point, and soon. I understand your reasons for that strategy, but I think the playing field is changing, in an extreme direction, and the old strategies will no longer benefit us. What good is it to have a football team with 11 members, if 9 of those members keep making goals for the opposing team? Sure, you get to have the right number of uniforms...but in the end, after the dust settles, you still lose, IMHO.

[benburch]

27. You couldn't be more wrong.

Gore was the sort of candidate you prefer.

Kerry was the sort of candidate you prefer.

And we see how well that worked.

An operational definition of insanity is doing the same failing thing over and over again, but expecting different results next time.

[QC]

28. You better not give up your day job for that Psychic Friends Network gig.

You clearly have no idea which candidates I prefer. They sure weren't Gore and Kerry. Since I believe we should go for an old-fashioned class war approach to politics, I certainly would not have nominated a billionaire Brahmin in a Turnbull & Asser shirt.

And, of course, one could apply your cliché about insanity to your own position, as we lost the presidency repeatedly by nominating candidates seen by the public as excessively liberal. Do you remember the 80s?

[Lerkfish]

29. But why were they seen as "excessively liberal"?

Hmmm?

Because the republicans were better at campaigning and framing the issues to their advantage, accurate or not. After all, how can one be "excessively liberal" but no one refers to a republican as "excessively conservative"?

If we packaged a progressive candidate correctly, aggressively, and intelligently, there's no reason why they can't win, even in more conservative districts. Republicans have learned this lesson...are we immune to it?

[benburch]

31. And they were not particularly Liberal guys, either.

They we only JUST to the left of center.

It is the Republican Echo Chamber.

If we run a very Progressive Candidate, the actual contrast this will make will be so stark, that the echo chamber will sound like what it is; One old guy behind a curtain, pulling levers.

[qazplm]

36. here is the problem

roughly a third of respondents and this goes back decades, give or take identify as conservative.

roughly half of that number identify as liberal and the rest identify as moderate.

you can call it an echo chamber or propoganda or whatever you want to, that doesnt change the reality, most people do not identify themselves as liberal, in fact, roughly 4 out of every 5 people identify themselves as something other than liberal.

so making that argument that if we just make someone much more clearly liberal that will make them more appealing seems rather not based on anything we have seen over the last 30 years.

Dukakis was liberal, i voted for him, liked him, he didnt win. Mondale was liberal, would have voted for him if i wasnt 14 at the time, he got creamed, Kerry was one of the most liberal senators we had, he couldnt pull it off either.

nothing wrong with running liberal candidates for president quite frankly, thats not my point, my point is that it clearly is not the case that we havent been running liberal candidates but too republican like candidates and thats why we are losing.

we are losing in some places, winning in others, on different themes and with different types of candidates, it just so happens that right now we are losing slightly more than we are winning and that bare margin has produced the repub majorities we suffer through now.

tell ya what though, if we were magically able to replace 5 Republican senators of any kind, with 5 lieberman clones, i would do it in a heartbeat and things would be MUCH different right now on a whole host of areas. Perfect? no. Better? hell yes.

[benburch]

38. What good did having Joe Biden do the other day?

We lost a major American Freedom.

[qazplm]

55. last time i checked

very few politicians get it right 100% of the time, and to be honest while i would have voted much differently on the bankruptcy bill, easy bankruptcy is NOT a major American freedom. (I assume that is what you are talking about?).

You are talking about days, and I am talking overall.

[benburch]

58. I disagree.

Bankruptcy was one of the major reforms that differentiated the USA from Britain when we gained our Independence. Look into what sort of Hell debtor's prisons were! And as I read this law, there IS room again for imprisoning people who cannot pay their debts and who cannot qualify for bankruptcy.

[qazplm]

63. bankruptcy has not been gotten rid of

it has been made harder to get completely out of debt.

do i agree with the law? no, i am an attorney and i like the idea that people get one free shot to wipe out their debts at some level and start over again, but let me tell you from experience that people DO abuse the system so reform was not totally crazy but i thought the manner they went about it was way too excessive and a paen to the credit card companies.

having said that, we STILL have bankruptcy as an option and i highly doubt poor people will be thrown into debtors prison and if they are then you will definitely see voters/people rise up and vote for change because too many people realize how easily they could be facing bankruptcy.

again bad vote, but it is one vote and does not make biden evil and it does not mean that he hasnt made some GOOD votes in the past or wont in the future.

[benburch]

65. Understand...

that as somebody who went Chapter-7 under a quarter million in medical bills, I am very touchy on this issue.

[qazplm]

69. Like i said,

its not a good bill, and a lot of exceptions should have been carved out for medical bills for example that werent, and i think quite frankly that biden is wrong on this one.


then again, he represents delaware, and where do many of the credit company companies operate out of? and who do they employ?

[bvar22]

128. "who do they employ?"

They employ thousands of people that will be HURT by this bill. Biden could have gone to his electorate and said,"We need some reform here, but this Bill is SOOOOO bad, I couldn't vote for it because it would have HURT YOU!

Biden would have lost his bribe from MBNA (maybe), but he wouldn't have lost votes. Most of those people punch a clock just like the rest of us.

[QC]

96. Bingo!

The Republicans have spent the past forty years relentlessly propagandizing the electorate while we have...well, you know...OK, not done much. OK, we did take over the English Department.

I think many are operating on the "if you build it they will come" theory here, and they won't necessarily come. There is simply not fertile ground for liberal/progressive ideas in much of the country right now, thanks to our relative nonresponse to the GOP's very skilled propaganda campaign.

We have to create that fertile ground. I agree with you that people prefer our ideas, once they know what they are. So we have to educate them, which will not be a two-week process.

So if your point is that we are dealing with a long process here, then I agree. What disturbs me is the notion that all we have to do is just nominate liberal candidates and that silent leftist majority we keep hearing about will rise up and sweep them into office. It would be nice, but I don't see that happening.

Going back to the example of the place where I live, there is a lot of resentment among working people about the rapid increase in the cost of living and the low wages. People are really getting squeezed here. I think the right candidate could get a lot of mileage out of that, but it would take a while to counteract the right wing training people have received.

[Lerkfish]

100. thanks for your thoughtful post...thanks for bearing with me...

yes, I agree this is a long haul project, but it will be even longer if never begun.
I'm more talking about STRATEGY, so yes, that includes long term planning.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I meant merely running progressive candidates will fix the problem. I've tried to make the points that intelligently pachaging and campaigning for them is absolutely key to success with this alternate strategy. That includes, as you point out, educating the masses.

The problem with the status quo, is that I fear we will never attempt to educate the voters on how much better progressive solutions are. As long as we throw up our hands and say, voters will vote conservative no matter what, then I think we might as well give up.

[QC]

106. I'm sorry to have misread you.

There have been many arguments here, over the years, based on the idea that there is a vast majority of liberal voters out there who just aren't voting but will if we put up some liberal candidates. I've yet to see any evidence for that hidden liberal majority, though, so I get impatient with the idea that all we have to do is build it and they will come.

It's definitely going to take time. We've got to return to our roots as a working people's party, which will involve dealing with our own class prejudices. We are also going to have to emphasize economic issues more than we have before. And yes, working people are going to have to begin thinking more in terms of their own interests, rather than taking the bait over and over. There's a lot of work to be done.

[Lerkfish]

109. no problem, my flaw is that I dont' always explain well...

I sometimes speak in shorthand, because I know the underlying points behind what I say, and forget that those are not always evident to everyone else.

Also, in discussions like this, (which is why I enjoy them), it helps crystallize my concepts with greater clarity in the interchange with others. In other words, I might have a rough idea of what I mean, and in the discussion, others reminds me of points that could help flesh them out better, or point out flaws that need to be addressed.

This is why I'm the type who ENCOURAGES other viewpoints, because they help me with my own. The only thing I don't like is when people discourage people they disagree with. Often, people I disagree with either help verify my points as correct, or point out when they aren't.

so, again, thanks for the discussion.

[benburch]

30. My "Day Job" is political activism.

And I intend to use that as a pulpit to push my DINO-busting agenda. I reach 9000 people on a daily basis, with 10% month-to-month growth.

So, you can do your own thing, but we WILL bust DINOs in '06, and thereafter.

[QC]

32. Yes, I am familiar with your work.

I think what you are doing is great, but honestly, when you use it as a means of smacking anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, as you are doing here, well, it's a misuse of your good work. It reminds me of those prim old ladies at church who used their work with the Missions Committee as a weapon against anyone who did not grovel before them sufficiently.

[benburch]

35. I feel that if I don't use my position to push what I think is right...

THEN I have abused it.

Right and Wrong are not relative.

We are fighting an evil fascist regime which intends world domination and enslavement of us all, and I cannot see what good electing appeasers does in fighting that. I simply cannot.

Answer me this; What good did having Joe Biden do for us the other day?

What good was Zell Miller?

Wolves in sheep's clothing eat the sheep still.

[wryter2000]

122. Gore and Kerry

Gore won. And I believe Kerry did, too.

Of course, if those elections hadn't been so close, they might not have been stolen.

[lojasmo]

51. Nor do we need votes that represent democratic ideals

:eyes:

[QC]

98. Without a majority, those ideals and a buck won't even get you

a cup of coffee. If the past few years have taught us anything it is that when the majority is sufficiently determined and ruthless, the minority is irrelevant.

[lojasmo]

118. and if the minority is sufficiently capitulating

It won't get you a cup of coffee either. Having milquetoast democrats on our side is not helpful. I will never again vote for anybody who bent over for bush.

Kerry, Edwards, Clinton....are you listening?

[ktowntennesseedem]

8. I'll always support the DINO in a general election,

because even a conservative Repub-in-sheep's-clothing is better than a right-wing extremist. As long as they caucus with the Dems I'll take it, because having the majority means we determine the schedule for debates and votes.

Aside from that, however, I'll back the most progressive Dem I can find in a primary campaign. Here in the south that probably still means a conservative candidate, because a true liberal would probably only get three votes: his/her own vote, his/her mamma's, and mine. But I think there needs to be room at the table for many different viewpoints, because I still believe that there is great strength in diversity. And I also believe that even the most liberal positions and viewpoints can be appealing to even moderates and conservatives, because such positions aren't just for liberals, they're for everyone.

[benburch]

10. Yes, but in the primaries, it is hammer and tongs.

The DINOs that survive the primaries, we elect. But we make sure they are so afraid for their jobs that they will never fail to vote for our cause.

[ktowntennesseedem]

17. Good point; "remember who elected you."

(Reminds me of Cosby in his old comedy sketch about parenting: "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!")

[flpoljunkie]

9. Am not sure "conservative" is the word to use to describe these Dems

who vote with Republicans--they are neocons and corporate shills. This is why they vote with Republicans. Of course, many Republicans are not "conservative" either, as we well know, right-wing corporate shills who use values issues as wedges to get themselves returned to office so they can vote against these folks economic interests.

We need a way to communicate with Americans that Democrats are the real daddy party, the responsible party, and that Republicans are not voting in their best interests.

However, allowing the bankruptcy bill to come to cloture, and thus get passed in the Senate, does not help the Democrats in this regard one iota.

[benburch]

22. "Pigs" works, too.

But DINO is a bit nicer in polite conversations.

[Felix Mala]

11. According to Harry S. Truman:

When you run a Republican against a Republican, a Republican always wins.

[benburch]

19. Give 'em HELL, Harry!

He was the sort of Democrat I think we need to elect.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. He Wasn't So Liberal As To Not Drop The Big One On Japan

He was a fierce anti-communist and so one can infer he would be fiercely anti-terrorist...

[benburch]

39. And I would have done the same in his shoes.

You do know that Stalin had nearly completed the movement of his armies to his Eastern coast, right? And that had the war not ended in August, he would have taken at least the Korean Peninsula and the northern Japanese islands by the end of September. And he would have kept them.

Stalin was as big a monster as Hitler, and Harry knew it.

Truman made the right call in using the A-bomb.

[benburch]

41. Note also...

That nobody knew then what we know in retrospect about the actual effects of the bomb or the world stability issues it would cause.

We had been firebombing Japan right along, and the A-Bomb seemed like a much better way to do this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Agree...

We can't go back sixty years and rewrite history...

My point is that Truman was a hawk and a nationalist... He wasn't as rabid as the neocons but was a hawk nonetheless...

[benburch]

45. Hard not to be a "Hawk" when you become President during a World War!

Had he NOT been a "Hawk", what sort of position would that have put us in???

No, a real Hawk is one who seeks out wars, fighting a war you are already in is simply duty.

[Felix Mala]

116. My ultra liberal mother still supports its use

She says people were just plain sick of the war and all the young men dying. Adding another million men was really a high price. It's too bad that people don't realize that all of our casualties in WWII were the price we paid for our policies between the wars, including failure to approve Treaty of Versailles.

[DrGonzoLives]

53. While I love Truman

The purists here, if he were around today, would probably deride him as a DINO as well.

[charlyvi]

68. Okay. A small point

but there's no period after S in Truman's name. His middle name was S--just S--it's not just his middle initial, it's the whole name.

[Mend]

12. Make an example of Lieberman

just Lieberman, and the others will get the idea. Just one to unelect by the gathering of the entire population of liberal/progressive people.

[benburch]

20. Make an example of as many as possible.

And make the rest sweat.

[quaoar]

25. Yes, it is

Do you see the Republican Party attempting to purge Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee?

They would prefer more conservative senators who toe the line better than Chaffe and Snowe, but they are willing to take what they can get in states that might otherwise elected Democrats.

And they do it because they are reliable votes when it comes to who controls the Senate.

So, even though we don't like Joe Lieberman, we damn sure would thank God for him being there if he was the 51st Democrat in the Senate.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be challenged in the primary. I think he should. But even though he votes contrary to how we would like him to a lot of the time, it's better to have him than another true-believing Republican.

[qazplm]

26. well to be honest

you are saying in effect, only progressive democrats are worthy democrats.

I consider myself moderately progressive (more progressive than most, more moderate than some) but that to me is not only wrong on its face its strategically wrong.

progressives make up somewhere around 18-20 percent of the country. They have hovered around that number since before I was born historically. There is little to think that there will be much of a change in those numbers in the next decade or so.

So what that means is that the left will again (like to a lesser extent the right) have to fight to win over enough of the middle to win power.

Does that mean giving up on principles? No of course not, but it does mean recognizing I think that progressive principles are not the ONLY respectable set of principles out there.

I think it a little disingenuous to call conservative or moderate dems as voting "like republicans", seems to me that there is a continuum. Hillary votes a little too conservatively for my taste on some issues but on others she is just fine, and on most she is better than 90% of Republicans..same for just about any other centrist or conservative Dem you can name with the exception of the now thankfully ex-senator miller.

I really dont think centrists voters shrug and say go for republicans instead of republican light...to be honest, I think centrist voters just go with their gut, or flip a coin, or go with the guy they like the best at the end of the day personally (but that's a story for another thread).

The bottom line is we need to get attractive democrats as candidates in all sectors, and "attractive" may mean less progressive than ideal for some areas, but guess what at the end of the day, we get 51 senators on board, and we are going to have a LOT more progressive ideals flowing than if we have 49...and that is the bottom line, power isnt everything but no power isnt much, and the only way to show America that progressive ideals work is to actually IMPLEMENT them, and to do that, you need the power, and to get that, you need to win elections, and progressives arent going to win in Oklahoma or some of the other places we need to pick up to get back in power sadly and no amount of wishing will make it so.

I personally think the way to go about it is to say, look, when it comes election time, we pick the dems with the best shot of winning in each state. It's about taking baby steps and not trying to win it all at once.

we arent going to bring about progressive ideals in one fell swoop, its going to take decades.

[adwon]

34. Interesting

To begin, the Democratic Party is really the conservative party today. Conservatism, in reality, is concerned with defending the traditions of the past. The current GOP is not conservative. They are radicals who share more with Lenin than Burke. The irony of the goals of the modern GOP, the destruction of the welfare state (descriptive term, not derogatory), is that by achieving those goals, the radicals will cause their own downfall. To embellish a little, if the GOP is successful, we'll see Democrats carry Texas 87-13 like FDR in 1936.

With the question of whether or not conservative Democrats belong in the party, I'd have to say yes. I don't often quote Jesse Jackson, but he did say, at the 1988 convention, "The Democratic Party needs both its left and right wings to fly." For the party to confine itself to simply one-third of the spectrum would be self-defeating. If only for the purpose of wargaming elections and governing policies, conservative Democrats are necessary.

There have always been conservative Democrats. The great period of Democratic hegemony, from 1932 to 1968, was a period of great internal division within the party. There were at least 3 definable groups of Democrats during most of this period: Truman Democrats, Wallace (Henry) Democrats, and Dixiecrats. Each made considerable contributions to the party. All three groups were behind the codification of the principle of parity in farming. All three worked to make Social Security a reality. When the Dixiecrats were wrong on segregation, the Wallace and Truman Democrats opposed them and passed real civil rights legislation. When the Wallace Democrats were wrong on the Cold War, the Truman Democrats and Dixiecrats opposed them and began the policy of containment (as opposed to the loony idea of rollback that was offered by Republican radicals). The Truman Democrats were never as dead wrong as the other two groups on a given issue.

Consider two Democrats from the hegemonic period as an example. The first was Henry Wallace. Wallace was the most dynamic Secretary of Agriculture ever seen. The man knew farm policy inside out and put programs into place to end the depression that farmers had faced since the end of the Civil War. Wallace was also a strong civil rights advocate. He was wrong on foreign policy, however. He was sympathetic to the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe and their demands for buffer states. While it is understandable that the Soviets would be concerned about invasion, it is not understandable that anyone would condone their imposition of brutal, tyrannical satellites.

Richard Russell was one of the leading senators, perhaps the leading senator of the period. He was a strong advocate for the farmers of Georgia who didn't differ much from Wallace when it came to farm policy. He also supported most of the New Deal legislation. Russell chaired the MacArthur hearings in 1951 and used his power as chairman to repeatedly cut down the general's delusions of grandeur. Russell was advocate of containment as well. The huge problem with Russell was that he was a racist segregationist (as opposed to George Wallace, who was more of an opportunist segregationist). Russell firmly believed that black Americans were inferior and that they should be separate from whites 'for the good of society.' And yet, Russell worked hard to make LBJ president while knowing the key to a Southern president was civil rights legislation. Maybe he saw the end coming and wanted a president who would be firm but not zealous (the legacy of the Radical Republicans was still very strong then). Or maybe it was a case of cognitive dissonance. Sometimes I just have to throw up my hands and say 'Who knows?'

These are pretty extreme examples. I used them to show just how divergent the range of opinion in the Democratic has been in the past. I don't really think the range is nearly as great now as then. I'd say that most conservative Democrats are probably closer to Nixon (who described himself as a practical liberal) than Reagan or Goldwater. Today, thank God, we don't have to deal with racists of the Russell vein because overt racism is definitely not mainstream (notice I said overt).

I guess my idea of a modern conservative Democrat would be one who makes private retirement accounts, that are independent of Social Security, more accessible. Someone who uses the bully pulpit to attack the crudity of popular culture (starting with Fox, the creator of tabloid TV) without feeling the need to legislate that attack. Someone who believes in a coherent, nonpartisan redistricting plan that makes it possible to actually throw the bums out. Someone who believes transparency in government is not a convenience, but a moral duty that should be obeyed as if God Himself came down and decreed it. Someone who believes that displaying opposing opinions instead of just telling people what's going on is not neutral reporting or 'fair and balanced.' Someone who believes that poverty is an unacceptable drain on the economy and therefore must be ended. Someone who understands the difference between an assertive foreign policy and an aggressive foreign policy. Someone who realizes that what's good for business is not, by definition, good for everyone. Someone who understands Glass-Steagall was put into law for a REASON, not just because Congress was bored and wanted to monkey with finance (sorry, pet peeve here :P).

Anyway, sorry to ramble and I hope this makes some kind of sense.

[Lerkfish]

40. thanks for the very thoughtful post...

I didn't consider it rambling at all.

I think the problem with the original post is that I used "conservative" only because I'm not really comfortable with more derisive terms.

I recognize there is a spectrum of thought within the democratic party.

My objection is to the STRATEGY of supporting right wing dems over left wing dems in the (IMHO) misguided notion of doing so ONLY to keep from losing a place at the table. If the only way to secure a place at the table is to emulate the enemy, is that a victory?

I find that a different issue than whether there is a natural spectrum of opinion within the party. That strategy I refer to attempts to override whatever natural spectrum exists and supplant with a a right wing only in order to keep seats idea.

I object to that strategy because I don't think its working that well in the short term, and I especially don't see it helping much in the long term.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I'd Like You To Define Your Terms...

I am pro choice, pro gay rights, pro affirmative action and pro safety net...


I am also for a robust military but one that is used prudently....

[Lerkfish]

46. Sure, but I don't think my terms have to determine the discussion

as I said in the original post, I welcome all ideas and thoughts, so therefore I don't want my terms to limit anyone's input on the topic.

further, I think the terms I used in the originating post were intentionally vague, and somewhat unintentionally vague....to wit: I dont' think "conservative" is the best term, but it was the least derisive one. In another thread someone used "blue dog dem", and some use DINO, etc.

I think my attention is to the STRATEGY of supporting a dem that we know is supporting a majority of republican issues: anti-gay, pro-preemptive war, anti-safety net, anti-civil rights, anti-election reform....etc. Not all dems vote consistently or completely in the republican direction...but again, I'm objecting to the STRATEGY of saying we should suffer the repub-voting dems in order to secure a position. My point is that such a strategy only erodes our power and ultimately eliminates our position.

You're free to define terms however you wish in order to make your own point.

[adwon]

56. Depends on the electoral race

Different states have different preferences in their candidates. I'm not trying to be glib by saying that. A Texas Democrat who ran a race that attacked the oil companies would probably lose, just as a Delaware Democrat who attacked credit card companies would probably lose. Sometimes candidates actually believe what they say and sometimes circumstances force them into positions they personally aren't happy about, but consider part of the price to accomplish other things.

I'm guessing that when you talk about an electoral strategy, you have Congress in mind. With the current system, in which Congress is elected via geography, there is no way to get a consistently liberal/progressive/supply your own term party into power. The only way to do that would be to have a slate of national candidates that all voters shared.

My suggestion is work with the conservatives when they're right and oppose them when they're wrong. The current setup pretty much guarantees that conservatives will get elected, so make the most of it. Besides, Zell notwithstanding, conservatives will caucus with the liberals/progressives and will work toward building and retaining a Democratic majority. After all, if conservatives are still Democrats after the last 30-40 years, they're definitely yellow dogs.

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. It depends upon the definition of conservative. I will never support a

Dem who votes against Democratic values on big issues or over 50% of the time, because that ain't a Dem. :hi:

[MissMarple]

129. Exactly! It depends on what you mean by conservative.

[kentuck]

47. Perhaps in their Districts but not nationally....

or by the Party as a whole.

[Can o Beans]

48. Don't make good the enemy of perfect

The fact is that there are some places in this nation that will never elect a true liberal democrat. So, in those places, we have two choices:

a. Concede them completely to the GOP, and never think about them again.

b. Consistently run likable and popular conservative democrats in those areas; people that are generally left of center but stray to the right somewhat regarding a couple of critical issues that are "hot buttons" for the citizenry of that area.

If we opt for (a), we forfeit the fight in red states and counties, and GOP has to spend no or little resources to keep them. We as a party then die of a thousand cuts as they gradually tighten the noose over a generation or so in the blue areas through mass marketing and public relations campaigns with more resources than we have to battle them. In other words, we'd lose Alabama by default and get SwiftBoated in CA, OR, etc. every chance they got.

If we opt for (b), we have the chance to populate places like Montana with Dem governors (a DINO is still better than a hard-right theocrat), get those areas used to the idea that the left is not all that bad, and then we slowly cherry pick areas to "overhaul" with left-spectrum ideas and initiatives (i.e., Nevada and Arizona). Over time, with option (b) we win due to sheer numbers of elderly and motivated grassroots activists in strategic positions.

Our strategy is not unlike that of a regional retailer attempting to go national. You gain a foothold in markets where there is questionable hold on market share, gain name recognition and brand equity through discounting (DINOs) and sales (moderates) while maintaining a perception of product/service quality, and only launch nationwide when you have the capital to back the maneuver.

[Lerkfish]

50. thanks for your post...

I agree that is the present strategy.

I disagree with this portion of your post particularly;

"Our strategy is not unlike that of a regional retailer attempting to go national. You gain a foothold in markets where there is questionable hold on market share, gain name recognition and brand equity through discounting (DINOs) and sales (moderates), and only launch nationwide when you have the capital to back the maneuver."

My contention is that this strategy never gets to the point of moving away from the posture required to gain a foothold. In other words, if you have to put up a DINO to get a seat, is there ever a point, once you have the seat, that you then put up a progressive dem? The short answer is no. Because once you do that (as a strategy to gain a seat), there will never be a point where you think you should do differently. So, under this strategy, you will ALWAYS have a dino in that seat, voting with the republicans...so what, in effect, do you truly gain?

What should happen is for the dems to NOW support (as an example) a progressive dem against a Lieberman or a Zell Miller in their district. THAT would be saying: ok, we have a DINO in place, but we don't want someone to continue to vote that way. We want to support a progressive candidate, instead. But realistically, how is that going to happen?
The way will be difficult, because the existing Democratic party structure in that district is already predisposed to support a DINO, and will therefore aggressively discourage anything that runs counter to that. Because they already have that precious foothold, why should they give it up for a more progressive candidate? The problem is, it will be difficult to return the voter to a clear choice in those districts, ever. So its moot to know if they could or could not support a progressive candidate, as they will never get the opportunity to decide.

[Can o Beans]

52. Consider this

This strategy DOES get away from DINOizing SOME areas...it's called acculturation. After the DINOs we place in office in red areas have time to exert some cultural shifts in local thinking by passing some more liberal and thoughtful legislation, local cultures in some areas will gradually shift to the left, and the DINOs can then be replaced by little Babs Boxer clones in those places. I suggest starting in AZ, OH, CO, NM for this part of the strategy.

But as I mentioned, some areas will NOT culturally shift - they will forever be red areas tolerating DINOs because the DINOs share an important core belief (i.e., WY, SC, KS). In that case, the DINO victory is maximized simply by virtue of keeping an all-out theotratic bigot out of office. No matter how good you are, there are some markets you can never compete in because the deck is so stacked against you. Even Microsoft has trouble in Singapore, for example.

In sum, our job is to exert cultural shifts where we may, and hold our own assets in every state where we currently possess majority. We only need to capture 8-10% more market to be dominant in the political industry...

[Lerkfish]

57. we disagree, but I respect your arguments.

I think that strategy made sense, up until now.
But I think the political landscape has reached a tipping point. I think that strategy is no longer going to work. I think if we continue to employ it, and use DLC strategies, 2006 will be a watershed election for the republicans.

I no longer think its merely one party against another. I think its a fight against fascism. I don't think you can successfully emulate or compromise with fascism without being coopted or eliminated. I don't think grading on a curve is going to work any longer, but instead we approaching a pass/fail.
you know, the dog has a place at the table...but it doesn't run things...It is no longer going to be good enough to settle for political leftovers and scraps from the republican's table. I think they will take the loyal dog out back and shoot it.

I wish I could be more optimistic, but I see winter coming, and I don't see a spring. I don't see that we should be compromising or emulating what is patently evil. Its time to take a stand against facsism, because if we don't NOW, there will be no opportunity to do so later.

IMHO.

[qazplm]

62. we are not that far off

with all due respect, while i think it critical that we fight hard in the next two to three elections to forestall anymore repub gains and make gains of our own, this is still a 50/50 nation and much of what has led to repub gains has been the cult of personality associated with Bush.

I see a very different crystal ball as its well past time IMO for the pendulum to swing back and we are overdue for a recalibration in american politics.

I think right now we are IN winter and spring is on its way if we are just smart and patient about it. I think we have the advantage from 2008 and beyond both in the congress elections and in the presidential elections.

[Lerkfish]

66. with respect, I think you're being naively optimistic.

I don't mean that as an insult, just that I see a darker picture than you do.
I've been right so far, unfortunately.

I don't wish to rain on your parade, though, and I really hope you are more correct than I.

But, I think its a mistake to keep going forward with the current strategy, because I think the current strategy depended heavily on two things that are fast evaporating:

1. That both sides valued a bipartisan solution
2. That the mechanism of checks and balances was robust and working.

neither of those are true any longer. Therefore, the idea of maintaining a place at the table in hopes that somehow the future will be better than the present, is IMHO be a bit pollyanaish...again, not cutting you down, just saying I think that world view will prove to be inaccurate.

[qazplm]

70. one, dont see how i am being optimisitic

this has nothing to do with faith in people, but the practical reality that the pendulum swings back AND forth, and that I see signs that it is starting to swing back the other way.

heck, there is a whole website called the "emerging democratic majority" based on this idea, not as if its something i just made up out of wishful thinking.

younger voters tend lately to swing more to the left, they arent voting now but will as they grow older, they are more tolerant to homosexual rights, they are more left on many issues than their parents are.

the kids of the 80s were alex keaton, the kids of 2000 are a little more progressive, one suspects that keaton will return somewhere around 2020 ;)

as for your 2 points:

1. huh? has nothing to do with what the other side values, the whole strategy deals with trying to combine progressive votes with enough centrist votes to create a majority, it has nothing to do with bipartisan anything
2. checks and balances would work just fine with a dem senate, as long as they utilize the filibuster and fight hard, it will still work well enough to make the repubs have to scrap and fight for every inch of change, and the supreme court is still rational enough to make some surprisingly decent decisions the last 4 years.

i dont assert everything is sunshine and puppies but my goodness it isnt armageddon and hell on earth either.

[Lerkfish]

82. not sure you understood...

I'm saying the the republicans are quickly moving away from interest in bipartisanship (you're either with us or we'll cull you out), and that the checks and balances of government (judicial, executive and legislative branches) no longer function as checks and balances. So, therefore, if three groups that were supposed to keep an eye on each other, give the executive branch carte blanche to be fascist...what is there to prevent it?

given that, compromise or emulation is pointless as a means to obtain advantage. There is no leverage....you dig?

[Can o Beans]

85. Guys, I am NOT saying we have to be bipartisan

I am saying that the way to victory in the political poker tournament is NOT to push your chips "all-in" on every hand. Sometimes you have to play slower.

Reminds me of the story about the 2 bulls over the pasture with the cows. Little bull says, "Dad, let's run down there and (fornicate) one of those cows." Dad bull says, "I have a better idea, son. Let's WALK down there and (fornicate) them ALL."

[qazplm]

86. republicans

havent been interested in bipartisanship since...well, man i wanna say the 70s, so whats new there?

check and balances are working to some extent because we were able to successfully filibuster the worst of Bush's judges and we certainly seem ready to do the same come round two and the supreme court.

checks and balances are working to at least some extent because we still have a supreme court that upheld miranda, roe, got rid of the dp for juveniles and passed a few other fairly progressive rulings.

we certainly have been subjected to a dark couple of years with Bush's inexplicable popularity, but thats t he way the pendulum swings.

I also think it a bit hyperbole to toss around the word facist, certainly i find what the current crop of repubs are doing to be reprehensible, wrong, bad policy, and in some cases just plain evil but if you think fascism has occurred one would suggest you talk to people who have lived under the real thing and they will say you havent quite gotten there yet here.

you talk about compromise being pointless (of course you keep making the false assumption it is about compromise with republicans), but the reality is the path you offered will ensure that all conservative dems lose (which is clearly your goal) and will without a doubt ensure that republicans take their place.

I dont see how that helps. I dont see what places you have identified where there is a burgeoning progressive movement just waiting to bust out...have i missed something in oklahoma or kansas or nebraska or georgia or some of these other red states that at least have a slim chance of electing conservative dems?

because i have lived in several of them and let me tell you, progressives there are not a lot of there.

[Lerkfish]

89. you misrepresent me...

when you say:

"you talk about compromise being pointless (of course you keep making the false assumption it is about compromise with republicans), but the reality is the path you offered will ensure that all conservative dems lose (which is clearly your goal) and will without a doubt ensure that republicans take their place."

I do not have the goal of ensuring that all conservative dems lose and get replaced by republicans. If you had read my posts more carefully, you'll see that is a gross mischaracterization. I"m hoping to generate a discussion on the relative merits of different STRATEGIES. My contention is that to support a DINO democrat in order to retain a place at the table dilutes our power rather than consolidates it or advances it. I am, however, very open to opposing viewpoints when expressed cogently. I am free to disagree with those viewpoints, though.

What I am suggesting is an alternate strategy: to aggressively support progressive dems across the board, become more saavy in packaging and campaigning them, and be leaders instead of emulators. I'm discussing the STRATEGY origin of who to run for office in the first place, at the primary level, of how to run campaigns, and of how to present americans with a clear rather than a muddled choice at the polls.

Further, it is my opinion that emulating a republican just to get elected is not much better than electing a republican. I understand the numerical advantage in your arguments for holding seats...but I disagree that the ends justify the means.

[qazplm]

94. again

what kind of "packaging" do you think is going to work in places like oklahoma or nebraska of a progressive candidate?

if you support progressive dems across the board, does that not mean you are therefore NOT supporting conservative dems? You cant do both seems to me.

therefore at the end of the day, you are talking about running progressive dems EVERYWHERE which means ou ARE talking about replacing conservative dems with republicans because that is what is going to happen.

you also blur the lines in talking about emulating republicans...pick any conservative democrat and i GUARANTEE you that you can find several things they stand for which are much more appealing to progressives than what a republican would stand for in their place.

ok zell miller doesnt count, but otherwise the vast majority are certainly much better than the republicans that would replace them...remember, these are conservative areas, the republicans that would be replacing them would NOT be moderate repubs.

once again, you talk about the ends not justifying the means, so you are then going back to saying the only true dems are progressive dems, and if thats the strategy we apply, well, we can enjoy our purity while the reps rack up a large numerical advantage and ruin america.

[Lerkfish]

97. my bad, I explained poorly...

what I meant was for the democratic party, across the board, to give equal footing for progressive and conservative democrats at the primary level, instead of putting all their support for conservative candidates in conservative districts.

That way, if dems vote for the DINO, then fine, they had their chance to choose.
What happens NOW is that the DINO is the only candidate viably supported in those areas...right?

please, in the future, don't worry so much about making my arguments for me, you're not going to be the best person to do that...hell, I"M not the best person to do that as I don't often explain myself well. Instead, just concentrate on your own points.

My purpose in starting this thread was to encourage a variety of inputs from differeing views, not to set myself up as king of the hill for people to knock down. Even if you succeed at that, it doesn't really address the purpose: to discuss STRATEGIC plans and relative merits of each.

I have appreciated your posts, thanks.

[qazplm]

103. the DINO

as you quaintly put it (again suggesting that the only good democrat is a progressive one) is the only one that is viably supported because they are the only ones that can win.

if a progressive wins, then you are left with a progressive who wins the primary and loses the general election.

as for making your arguments for you, i am simply telling you what your arguments are coming across as, and what the apparent result from my pov of those arguments will be.

at the end of the day, you want to run progressive dems against conservative ones in conservative areas...

either the progressive loses and the conservative dem is weakened by a tough primary fight..

or the progressive wins and the republican wins.

I dont see either option being a winner.

[Lerkfish]

105. then we'll have to disagree, then.

I've appreciated hearing your point of view.

[qazplm]

59. you seem to be making the assumption

that in those areas a progressive dem is a viable choice...that's just not realistic in many areas.

When we have to scrape and hope and beg to get a conservative dem elected in some areas, how in the world do you think we will get a progressive one???

look at the recent senate race in oklahoma, we had a likable, moderately popular conservative democrat in Brad Carson who couldnt beat a guy who was running as an openly far right wing loonie and who had forced sterilized a teenager as a doctor while now running as an anti-abotionist and who made several wacky and downright stupid and/or offensive comments during the election, and he still won.

tell me how a progressive wins there? they dont, plain and simple, no way no how.

so the truth is, in places like that we either concede or we run conservative dems, there is NO other option that has any realistic chance of success.

[Lerkfish]

64. yes, I'm making an assumption. but I have a question for you...

does low voter turnout benefit republicans or democrats?

You are also making an assumption: that because you had a hard sell with a republican lite dem, that therefore a progressive dem would be even harder...that's an assumption.

I disagree with that assumption, and I'll do some analysis:

if you are a progressive democrat, and faced with republican or republican lite, do you:

A: vote dem
B: stay home because you're disgusted with the choice.

if you are a progressive democrat or a moderate republican, and faced with right wing republican or progressive democrat, do you:

A: vote dem
B: stay home because you're disgusted with the choice.
C. vote repub

The problem is, I'm suggesting a different strategy, and making an assumption it will work because it will draw out people who've given up on the elections thus far and who have been disappointed with their choices thus far. You're assuming that won't be the case...but the catch is, one strategy precludes the other, so there's no way to know for sure unles you adopt one or the other. So, for you to say the existing strategy works, BUT you have to scrape and hope and beg for it to work, therefore its the best strategy?

maybe you're having to beg and hope and scrape because its NOT the best strategy.

[qazplm]

72. lets deal in facts then

only 18% of people consistently over decades here, maybe a difference of a few percent here and there but roughly 1 in 5 have identified themselves as progressive, this goes back to the 60s!

many progressive dems DO vote for conservative dems in those types of districts because they realize its the best they are going to get.

do you seriously believe that progressives outnumber conservatives in Oklahoma? Georgia? I mean seriously do you? Have you lived in those places?


the fact is we are having to beg and hope and scrape because right now the numbers are not in our favor, while 1/5 identify as progressive, 1/3 identify as conservative, thats not an equal fight...thus we are left to fight for the middle and having to get MORE of the middle just to come out even!

with all due respect, if you think there are more progressives than conservatives in many of these dark red states, i have to wonder what reality you are basing that on...just saying it doesnt make it so.

what proof do you have that progressives are a substantial voting block in these areas cuz I will tell you, it seems to me there is a ton of proof that conservatives are!

[Lerkfish]

80. unwittingly, you have pointed to the crux of the problem...

"many progressive dems DO vote for conservative dems in those types of districts because they realize its the best they are going to get."


pause to think about that for a moment.

[qazplm]

84. OK..pausing...

still coming up with the same answer, most of these people vote for the conservative dem...

ergo,

you arent missing out on a large percentage of progressive voters who arent voting because they dont like the conservative dem...

therefore,

it is beyond highly unlikely that running a progressive dem is going to increase the progressive numbers to a point that it counteracts the conservative numbers you wouldnt get anyways added with the moderates who are now turned off by the progressive candidate.

I dont care if every last progressive sits on their hands, you are talking about, in places like Oklahoma MAYBE 10-15% of the voting population, while conservatives in places like that could be twice that or likely more.

so tell me again how even if you pull in every last progressive with a far left candidate you are going to win in these places?

[Lerkfish]

104. ok, you didn't pause long enough...

"many progressive dems DO vote for conservative dems in those types of districts because they realize its the best they are going to get."


if that is true, then why isn't this also true:

"many conservative dems DO vote for progressive dems in those types of districts because they realize its the best they are going to get."

[qazplm]

110. because

conservative dems are more likely to be receptive to the republican siren call than progressives are.

you yourself call them "republican emulators", certainly then you must agree that they are more likely to vote for republicans, certainly moreso than progressives.

and even if you combine conservatives with progressives in these areas you are still left with democrats plain being outnumbered by republicans in these areas.

you need someone who will catch a maximum number of dems with a decent number of "moderates" (which in red states is a very loosely used term).
A progressive is not going to do that. A conservative Dem has in several areas and at least has a chance.

[Lerkfish]

112. so, as long as you believe this...

then holding up conservative dems as placeholders for future progressive candidates is a sham, right?

So, therefore, arguing that their presence there will eventually return us to democratic principles is also incorrect...right?

So, that makes my point that as long as we throw up our hands and say the voters will always vote conservative, therefore we will only give them conservative candidates, it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy, right?

[qazplm]

115. huh?

no what i believe is that you take what you can get and you are practical.

what i believe is that 60% is better than 0%.

what i believe is that there is a spectrum of ideas and principles and there ALWAYS will be, so yes there WILL be always be some voters who vote conservative, and in some areas, they will be the majority. This has been so for the last 30 years, I fail to see you have made any case that is set up to change anytime soon.

what i know is that it is not the case that a majority of people are just itching to be progressive if only we could communicate our wisdom to them properly.

so therefore because i know that to get ANY democratic ideals in play nationally we have to be in power, and i believe that that will include at least a few conservative dems in certain places, then relying on idealism solely will not help in this endeavor.

[Lerkfish]

117. you believe voters are static, this is where we disagree.

Republicans have shown they can convince moderates to vote conservative. They believe voters are more fluid. They aggressively and proactively seek to persuade voters to their point of view. They have succeeded with that model, why can't we?

As long as as one believes the voters are rigid and fixed, they will not see the value in progressive campaigns.
As long as one believes the voters are rigid and fixed, they will not see the value in educating voters on how progressive issues benefit them.
As long one believes the voters are rigid and fixed, they will not see a reason to ever promote progressive candidates.

It becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

As I've stated in other posts in this thread, I am suggesting an alternative STRATEGY in how we approach supporting progressive candidates. A strategy means a long term plan, intelligently executed, that involves smart, agressive packaging and campaigning for progressive candidates and that involves educating the public (and thereby accepting their fluidity) in how progressive issues benefit them.

You disagree that that strategy would be effective. Thank you for your input.
You appear to support the present strategy, which I disagree is working. We disagree.

and that's ok. This is a discussion of differing viewpoints.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Support them? Never. Use them for our own purposes?...

Of course. Until we can build a Progressive majority - and we WILL build a Progressive majority - it only makes sense to use the DINOs to hold onto what power our caucus still has. Once Progressives dominate our caucus, then we can prune away the conservatives aggressively.

NGU.

[Norquist Nemesis]

61. "Conservative" Dems have a propensity to vote against the left

on issues. Thus, the label "conservative". Given that propensity, they are only a step or two away from dropping the "Democrat" association from their resume. If their constituency registered Republican as a majority, my guess is they would already have dropped it and embraced their new found freedom.

If you're talking 'moderate' Dems, I'd say Yes! without question. But, 'Conservative' is a non-starter with me even if one tries to add the Democrat behind it.

[Blue_Tires]

71. I would like to ask a related question:

is supporting liberal republicans a good thing?

[ClassWarrior]

75. Our conservative Dems are more Progressive than their...

...centrist Republicons. I'd say the same concept applies here. I would NEVER support a centrist Republicon, but I'd USE him or her for everything we as Progressives can get.

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

78. can you expand on that a little?

thanks.

[Blue_Tires]

113. as in say,

Chafee versus Biden/Lieberman

[Lerkfish]

119. LOL, no , I mean, expand how that relates to this discussion.

Saying it would be worse to vote for moderate republicans does not address strategies on regaining power for democrats. It ony says that conservative dems are the lesser of two evils.

[Blue_Tires]

123. i guess i'm talking about political ideology

I mean, which would you rather support, if it came down to this choice: a Dem, no matter what his political leanings (could be extreme right or extreme left), or a liberal, no matter what his political party (gop or dem)---because dem=liberal is not always the case...

and as far as control of congress, lets say for example in the senate the dems had a majority of 52 seats...35 of whom are moderate, and their views overlap with many of the GOP, 10 hardcore liberals, and 7 hardcore conservatives that ally themselves with the GOP on every vote, and do everything they can to destroy and humiliate the party from the inside (see Zell Miller)....is that really true control? will an authentic liberal agenda really get through that senate?

[antigone382]

76. I have a conservative Democrat representative: Lincoln Davis.

There's a LOT that he says and does that I don't agree with...especially his stance on gay marriage and Civil Unions. I don't believe we should sacrifice our stance on key issues, especially regarding people's liberties, simply for the sake of votes. However, I vote for him, holding my nose, because at this point, there's no way a Dennis Kucinich or a Barbara Boxer could win in Tennessee, and there are important things that he DOES defend, like social security, etc., that I don't want to see lost. The fact is, he's better than a Republican alternative, and I think he truly does try to represent his constituents.

On the other hand, we do need to encourage leaders who better represent our beliefs to run, and to loudly express our dismay when we are betrayed by the leaders who don't represent those beliefs. But there is more to it than purging the party. Before we can effectively demand more...um..."liberalness" from our Democratic officials, we need to defeat the cancerous belief that liberal=bad. We're starting to do that, with Air America and other rising liberal voices, but we also need to find ways to overcome inherent disadvantages to our side, like corporate media bias and the political manipulations of big business. We need to balance the scales, and build an infrastructure in which a true liberal can succeed in mainstream America.

Leaning the Democratic Party, and America itself, more to the left, is not just possible, but is absolutely necessary to the futures of both. However, it's a longterm process that is going to take a tremendous amount of work. We can't just stand up and say "moderates and conservatives, GET OUT!" because, like it or not, we need them at the moment.

[meow2u3]

77. It depends on where the Dem is

If you're talking about states where there's a large number of conservative Dems, I say yes. But not where conservative Democrats are a small minority. Our goal is to beat the repukes at their own game, ideological purity be damned.

Insist on being a purist at your own peril.

[Can o Beans]

87. Amen to this.

Insist on being a purist at your own peril.

Damn straight.

[Lerkfish]

92. ok, but peril of what?

losing a seat? yes, I understand that.

but isn't there an equal peril if the DINO votes republican anyways?

Isn't there a peril in compromise your principles?

[Can o Beans]

99. You're misinterpreting the issue...

Establishing a weak Dem in a red position is not compromising your principles. It is the conscious choice to move toward them slowly. There is a difference.

[Lerkfish]

101. possibly, but STRATEGICALLY, I question its efficacy longterm.

I don't see the opportunity for movement in the status quo. I see DINOs elected who continue to vote like republicans on important issues.

At what point, and by what mechanism, is the present strategy going to move slowly towards the abandoned principles?

Honestly, I'm asking. Because whatever that mechanism is, we need to get right on it.

[Can o Beans]

126. You can't change a culture (or subculture) overnight

And DINOs voting Republican sometimes in Oklahoma are better than Kooky-Christers voting uberconservative all of the time in Oklahoma.

You have to pick your battles to some extent, Lerk, and in Oklahoma it's an improvement to have a DINO that one day could grow up to be a Dem than a Falwell that never will.

That;s why I said we need to cherry pick our spots and then hit them with surgical precision. It's like an international soccer tournament...you just need to get a tie in some matches to claim overall victory. If we could tie in OK, SC, MT, WY, etc. and win where we are supposed to (CA et al), then only 1-2 upsets makes us the huge majority.

If I were Howard Dean, I'd spend every nickel we have in 3 states (OH, AZ, MO), play defense in the red states while trying with grassroots support to install DINOs here and there, and defend the blue castle with matching funds as the election nears. The only way to effectuate cultural change is a few select places at a time.

[Lerkfish]

130. I'm not suggesting overnight..that's why its a STRATEGY...

strategy means a plan, looking ahead, long term.

[amazona]

79. sometimes it is

I wish to God we could have held onto John Breaux in Louisiana. He was bringing $$$ to the state. All his Republican replacement will bring is scorn and pity the next time or ten he's caught with his pants down.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[fujiyama]

88. Supporting conservative Dems

is ultimately necessary, as much as I might dislike them and their records I'd still rather have the seat belong to a Democrat over a republican.

I do think they should be held accountable though. That's why I think running a primary opposition is healthy, regardless of whether they have a shot or not.

But when the primaries are finished we ultimately have to hold our noses and vote for the dem, DINO, or not because in the end the puke will almost always side with the administration, regardless of how "moderate" they are.

[Lerkfish]

91. thanks for your post...I agree, the primary is the battlefield

that is why I'm talking STRATEGY, which implies planning from here on out.
I think we should support progressive candidates against DINOS at the primary level, and make sure the democratic party structure gives them equal resources and support, and then allow dems to make that choice fairly.

[BlueInRed]

95. I think it depends on the situation

I think it boils down to whether they are representing their own constituency.

I know many here don't agree with the "pragmatic" approach, but I always ask myself whether the particular Senator's or Rep's constituency would have supported IN THE LAST ELECTION the vote made by the "conservative". I ask myself did we have any chance of getting a more liberal Democrat elected in that position. If not, I MAY give the conservative slack, depending on the subject matter. (I do view some subjects as non-negotiable, such as SS and the bankruptcy reform, other things I'm more flexible on.)

I also think you have define conservative. Do you mean conservative on social issues? Do you mean supporting corporate issues over average people? I am adamantly against the corporatism aspect. On social issues, I may not agree with a conservative, but I also recognize this is what it may take to get any Democrat elected in a particular locale. And I don't buy this stuff that a Republican is always better than a fake Democrat. Controlling the agenda is very important too and that depends on how many Rs and Ds there are, regardless of the vote.

I also think in the long run, the big problem is many self-labeled conservative Democrats have lost all allegiance to the average working man. And I wonder why they even call themselves Democrats if they won't protect the little guy.

My hope is that as Dean works on building up Democratic parties in red states, we'll be able to replace corporate Democrats with a different kind of moderate Democrat who has some allegiance to the working man. I know Bill Clinton repeatedly refused to sign the kind of bankruptcy laws that just passed and that is the kind of distinction I'm talking about.

This issue is multi-faceted and can't be resolved by simple labels of conservative/liberal or Democrat/Republican.

Now, if a person is from a liberal leaning state or district, AND they vote much more conservatively than that state or district, we ought to oust them. They are not representing their constituents and should be replaced with someone who will represent their constituents. (I am thinking of some East Coast corporate leaning Democrats when I say this.) We ought to let Democrats in liberal areas know their constituents want them to support their interests, not their contributors interests.

[Lerkfish]

102. thank you, excellent points.

if there is a disconnect between the constituents and the DINO, they should be facing opposition in the primary.

but also, even if the constituents are conservative, is there anything wrong with running aggressive progressive campaigns and attempting to persuade them? Do conservatives have a problem with coming into moderate areas and attempting to pull them to the right? Why do we have a reluctance to do so? why do we view voters as static, but republicans view them as fluid?

Shouldn't we reassess our worldview in that case?

[qazplm]

107. ok

name an area where a conservative republican is representing a district that is more progressive.

I cant think of one.

[BlueInRed]

108. that's what I hope Dean will do

I'm not reluctant to run progressive campaigns, but when push comes to shove in the final election, we need to go with the one who will win. I think we need to look at it on a state by state level and say, well, we've built up the party enough to support a more progressive candidate here, but we're not there yet in this other state.

I do agree that progressive values can sell and that is where I hope local parties will come into play. I also think one reason Democrats are losing a lot of races is people no longer believe them when they say they support the little guy. Losing 18 Democrats to the dark side on the bankruptcy vote in the Senate is just unconscionable. And it hurts our credibility when people who are supposed to be solid Democrats vote for such anti-consumer legislation.

[Lerkfish]

111. good points..I think crediblity is one of the casualties, here.

[wryter2000]

120. I'm having a real struggle with this one

One of my Senators, DiFi, is a real Dino. However, she did have enough integrity to vote against the bankruptcy bill and was quite involved in filibustering one or more of Bush's attrocious judicial appointments.

Whenever she does one of her Dino things, such as fawning over C. Rice, I think we ought to just get rid of her, that a Republican wouldn't be any worse. But then, a Repug would have voted for the horrid judge and for the bankruptcy bill.

So then, I think "sink her in the primary." And I think that's right, but I still have to wonder whether replacing her with a more progressive dem isn't tantamount to giving up a sure thing for someone who might get beaten in the general election.

So, I don't have any answers. I'm a lot of help, huh?

[Lerkfish]

124. no, that's fine...

I think you've coalesced the dilemna quite succinctly.

I'm suggesting that the current strategy does not accomplish what it intends in the long run, but others have artfully argued their side as well.

[Stop_the_War]

127. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO CONSERVATIVES! WE ARE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!