Will someone tell me wotthehell 'too far left' means?

[eridani]

Asked it on about 40 threads where someone or another sez Kucinich is 'too far left.' Haven't gotten a single answer yet.

51% of Republicans and 86% of Dems would rather have universal health care instead of the Bush tax cuts. Is that 'too far left?'

80% think corporations have too much power. Is that 'too far left?'

The Texas Republican party platform is against NAFTA/WTO. Is that 'too far left?'

70-80% favor treatment over jail for addicts, and think the government should back off of hassling people for medical marijuana. Is that 'too far left?'

So just exactly what is 'too far left?'

[Webster Green]

1. Sonoma County, California

Too far left & home sweet home!

[lcordero]

2. "too far left" means that he isn't enough of a corporate whore

[mdmc]

9. your avi is too far left, lcordero. :)

Gay divorce is too far left. (Or is it?)

[mdmc]

3. If you are right, then you're too far left

correct.

[MichaelHarris]

4. far left

chaining yourself to a Redwood while a lumberjack primes his chainsaw is pretty far left.

[eridani]

14. Any of the Dem candidates ever done that? n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

19. Don't give Senator Waffles any ideas!

After 3 years of non stop Bush-enabling, he's desperate for a way to look like a "liberal".

[blackcat77]

5. In practical political terms...

..."too far left" is when the fascists on the right can make a convincing argument -- even if it's not a TRUE one -- that the person would harm the country and thus make themselves more appealing.

Key word there is "convincing." They certainly made that arguemnt against Mike Dukakis. They didn't make it against Clinton. They're trying very hard to make it against Kerry, but they've got serious credibility problems so it won't be nearly as effective as the smear campaign against Gore ("tree-hugger," "Buddhist temple," etc) back in 2000.

[tobius]

6. here is what the dlc says-

Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects
Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:52 PM ET
By David Morgan

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b5865905.0307291136.599b4ead%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
""The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far
left," U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, the group's chairman, told
reporters at a two-day DLC convention here.
"If we want to govern, we have to offer the American people more than
just nostalgia and more than just criticism."<snip>

But the poll of 1,225 "likely 2004 voters" conducted June 20 to July 1
also said Democrats faced a huge challenge attracting voters from
suburban families -- clear majorities of whom were seen to criticize
the party as too liberal, beholden to special interests and out of
touch with mainstream America.

"The poll is very clear for those who think that if the Democratic
Party just lurched to the left and showed a higher flash of anger,
that they would somehow win the next election," Penn said. "This poll
puts a laugh to that theory."
The DLC has tried for years to push the party away from the liberal
agendas of past nominees such as George McGovern in 1972, Walter
Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988.

edit for correct date

[lcordero]

10. The Democratic Party is not in danger of being taken over by

the left. It is in danger of being punished severely by the left.

[scarletwoman]

7. "People over profits" is apparently too far left.

Taking care of education and infrustructure here at home instead of initiating imperialist wars is too far left.

Government of the People, by the People and for the People is too far left.

Clean air and water is too far left.

Looking for ways to avoid violent conflict is too far left.

Bilateral trade agreements that protect workers rights and the environment is too far left.

I mean, who in their right mind would want any of THAT stuff?

sw

[jsw_81]

8. Too far left=

Department of Peace. Legalization of drugs. Kucinich. Nader. Socialist Workers Party. 'UN in and US out' etc.

[eridani]

12. Legalization of drugs

Legalization, OK. Decriminalization is strictly mainstream. Why is decriminalization 'too far left.'


http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4420

A solid majority of the American public now agree with NORML that responsible marijuana smokers should not be treated like criminals. Eight out of ten Americans support the medical use of marijuana, and nearly 3 out of 4 Americans support a fine-only (no jail) for recreational smokers. And while a majority of Americans continue to oppose the legalization of marijuana, 40% now support legalizing small amounts. Overall, this is the highest level of public support we have ever experienced, and our challenge now is to convert this public support into public policy.

[mdmc]

13. medical marijuana? Is that too far left?

yikes!

[corporatewhore]

16. gee are you larry king?

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. Libertarians are for legalization of drugs.

They're also against the Iraq bullshit. And I wouldn't exactly call them "leftists".

[KuroKensaki]

22. Ah the Libertarians...

The 'liberals' in our country could more accurately be called the libertarian left. The 'libertarians' in our country are more accurately the libertarian right. Economically, libertarians routinely agree with conservatives (real conservatives). They are for smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation. Socially, they usually agree with us. They are for equal rights, against discrimination (though they're also against anti-discrimination legislation), against censorship, for free speech, etc.

We agree with libertarians a lot more than you might think, and if it were a choice between Bush and a libertarian, I'd definitely go with the latter. People who classify libertarians as 'farther right than Republicans' are oversimplifying and glossing over the issue, and inaccurately too.

[Zynx]

34. How much are you willing to sacrifice just to "win"?

I oppose all of those things as well, but how much are we willing to sacrifice just to "win"? At what point is the price to high?

[Darranar]

11. Anything or anyone the business elite don't like.

[corporatewhore]

15. you forgot the patriot act conservatives and liberals are both speakingout

against it

[AliceWonderland]

17. Whatever it is, "too far left" is drifting more and more

to the "right" all the time. I don't even know what the term "left" means in this country. People casually toss out a series of disparate terms and beliefs, many of which are contradictory, as proof that someone is "far left." It's rather bizarre.

[jazzsammich]

24. especially since things like, say, universal health care...

...have been floating around the Democratic Party since AT LEAST truman.

--jim k.

[question everything]

18. The nanny state?

I think that too much left means that a government entity is doing the thinking for us, that this is "good for you."

I think that too much left are government programs that interfere with the running of business, especially small businesses, that saddle them with too much regulations and paperwork.

Of course, if we have a universal health care, with individuals free to purchase their own, private insurance, this would free employers from worrying about this. My personal peeve - employer has no business in employees' health, as long as the workplace is safe.

Here is an example: the FDA wants to force food producers to post not only calories and fats per serving, but also the total since, it says, the portions are unrealistic. Gee, so if a giant Coke says that it has 2.5 servings, and 100 calories per serving and if you drink the whole container how many calories have you consumed? The FDA wants Coke to have this info on its label. is this something that a government has to be involved, to require more information which could add to the cost for Coke and which would make this Coke more expensive?

[KuroKensaki]

21. No, that's not what 'too far left' is

I think that too much left means that a government entity is doing the thinking for us, that this is "good for you."
I think that too much left are government programs that interfere with the running of business, especially small businesses, that saddle them with too much regulations and paperwork.
Of course, if we have a universal health care, with individuals free to purchase their own, private insurance, this would free employers from worrying about this. My personal peeve - employer has no business in employees' health, as long as the workplace is safe.
Here is an example: the FDA wants to force food producers to post not only calories and fats per serving, but also the total since, it says, the portions are unrealistic. Gee, so if a giant Coke says that it has 2.5 servings, and 100 calories per serving and if you drink the whole container how many calories have you consumed? The FDA wants Coke to have this info on its label. is this something that a government has to be involved, to require more information which could add to the cost for Coke and which would make this Coke more expensive?

No liberals (at least none that I know) advocate the government 'thinking for us'. In fact, no responsible conservatives advocate that either.

Red tape choking businesses is a myth. We do stand for regulation--but that's because regulation makes products -safe- for us. Before OSHA came around, my father worked at a GE plant where he used to wash his hands in a carcinogenic chemical. Before OSHA came around, there were no safety regulations. And self-regulation? Nonexistent. I don't have the figures to back this up, so if somebody could post some, that'd be great.

If the government gives us universal health care, yes, it will relieve the burden off the employer. However, this also means.. If the government comes out with a half-assed ineffective universal health care system, the employer will still relieve itself of the burden, and the consumer will end up paying more. Exactly what is happening with the horrible excuse for a Medicare prescription drug bill.

As to the FDA thing. A diabetic glances at a bottle of Coke. Sees 27 grams of sugar. Says 'Okay, I can drink that without any harm coming to me.' That person does not realize that the 27 grams comes from a VERY unrealistic serving size of eight fluid ounces. Have you seen Red Bull cans? Those are slightly more than 9 ounces. Said diabetic drinks the Coke and has in reality ingested 68 grams of sugar. Can be very dangerous. And why would it be any more costly to put totals for the nutritional information? Does the ink cost more? Looking at my Coke bottle.. The top half inch of the label is covered in a promotional offer. That's about four square inches total. The nutritional information is also about four square inches total. If the redesign necessitated an extra square inch total on the nutritional info box... Does that really cost Coke very much money? Would you really see an increase in the cost of a bottle? And how about this--where do you buy your bottle of Coke? I get mine in a vending machine where it's $1.00. Do you buy it at a gas station where it's $1.27? That markup is not passed on by Coke through its wholesale price--that's pure retail markup my friend.

Don't let paranoia about government regulations get to you. They're there for a reason. And there's one other thing liberals advocate--TRANSPARENCY in government. Know what that's for? That's so that if a citizen wants to look into a certain regulation to see if it's unfair, he or she can.

That is what liberals stand for. We don't want Big Brother as in the 1984 dictator. We want a government that we can turn to when in need, one that will get us up on our feet again, protect us, and let us be free all at once.

[Mairead]

25. Nice segue there: could cost more and would make more expensive

In fact neither is true. Printing another item of information doesn't make anything more expensive. The cost is in the printing, not the ink.

The 'serving size' on a package is nearly arbitrary and is always selected by the company, generally to make the calories etc not seem so awful. The FDA only complains about serving size if it's so obviously false that people would laugh (e.g., giving a serving size of one peanut, one potato chip, etc.) Forcing them to list the total cost as well as their contrived per-serving cost is a step in the right direction.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Explain it to rest of America and maybe DK will be president...

Until then Dennis Kucinich vs. Bush + $200 million = Dennis Kucinich smeared as somebody who will disband the military and implement communism.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. Sounds Like Kerry

The only thing different is the NAFTA position. Outside of speaking about the progressive Kerry Amendment, there are several issues in which the far left and far right agree on a de facto isolationism - albeit for extremely different reasons.

As for health care, slapping down corporate abuses, and a common sense approach to marijuana, there's not a big difference. Dennis would have a single-payer, but Kerry's plan would still cover something like 97% of our citizens and 100% of our children.

[Scott Lee]

39. Kerry is a complete phony

He is speaking out of two sides of his horse face (he calls that 'nuancing') on just about every major election issue AND supported Bushhole on:

The Iraq War

The Patriot Act

NCLB

Now on ANWR drilling ("We're going to drill everywhere" - Hoffa relating Kerry on HARDBALL)


The only thing "left" about Kerrytox is his leftover and stale politics, reeking of Democrat Statist appeasement of core rethuglican planks.

[Guava Jelly]

27. to far left

Is voting for Nader because you are pissed at a few stances the dems took or votes.
To far left is trashing any dem opponent against bush because your candidate has gotten a raw deal or was Marginalized
To far left is wanting to punish America because of a few stances and votes the dems took by not voting in 04.
To far left is Picking Francis the talking Mule to run in a race against secretariat or seabiscuit and act totally suprised when your extreme left talking mule doesnt even place...to far left behind.

To far left is Hugging a tree While chained to a rock eating granola with your glbt friend singing Big yellow Taxi While smoking a bob marley and eating tofurkey(dontcha just love stupid steriotypes)

[union_maid]

28. Too far left...

..is when you have your rifle aimed directly at your foot.

[NoPasaran]

29. Anything to the left of William McKinley

Is too far left according to the wingnuts. But it's A-OK with me.

[bread_and_roses]

30. If it means one penny less of profit

it is "too far left." The American people have somehow been convinced that they (taxpayers) should educate workers, build roads, provide water, sewer, police, firefighters, etc. so Corporations can conduct business without said buisness paying a fair share of those costs. They have somehow forgotten that Capitalism without regulation was already tried, and we had child labor, poisoned food, lethal working conditions, etc. They have forgotten that without safety nets like SS and welfare people literally died from starvation, children were abandoned, elders ate cat food and froze to death in unheated apartments.

Anything that impedes private profit at public risk/expense is targeted as "too far left."

The question is how do we reframe the terms of the debate?

[KaraokeKarlton]

31. He comes off as being kinda radical in my opinion

I have said that Kucinich is too far left for me because he is. To me, he is idealistic to a fault. Many of the things he is saying he would do are things that are either impossible to do or that he wouldn't have the authority to do even if he were ever to win. The man has heart, but some of his positions and comments make him look a tad bit nutty. As for my political leanings, I am a true blue swing voter who falls somewhere between a slightly conservative Democrat and a slightly liberal Republican. Basically, I'm about as centrist a middle of the road as a voter can get. I'm a registered Independent because I don't hold either party organization in very high regards. I think they're all a bunch of dishonest, power and money grubbing cheats who don't give a rat's ass about the people of this country.

I supported Howard Dean. I used to watch every debate and follow the political news closely. Now I honestly don't give a damn about the election. I have no interest in debates, political news or voting. I have very deep bitterness and resentment towards the Democratic Party leadership for the way they treated Howard Dean. I will never forgive them and to me, Kerry represents that leadership that I so despise now.

[mvd]

37. Kucinich has put out his plans well

He just hasn't been given much of a chance to describe them. Now maybe he'd still be too far left for you, but definitely not for me. Someone who dares to dream is what we need IMO.

[Iverson]

32. insufficient cheerleading for inequities

That's too far left.
The inequities could be in wealth, could be in power, are always anti-egalitarian.

[RichM]

33. It depends who says it. There are 3 basic groups -

A member of the ruling class.
- When he says it, it means, "The idea or policy in question is directly threatening to my interests. They are trying to constrain my privileges in some way."

A cultural rightwinger, who is not herself wealthy or powerful.
- When she says it, it basically means, "This idea would be helpful to some oppressed social class or group - and I oppose that, because I take sadistic pleasure in that group's suffering. It makes me feel better about myself, to watch those bastards squirm."

A Democrat.
- When the Democrat says this, it means he is frightened &/or confused, and wishes to blend into what he perceives as the safety of the crowd. It means he wishes to ingratiate himself with the loci of power, not because he agrees with them, but because he fears them, & desperately hopes they'll like him better, if he cringes and debases himself before them.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. excellent description

you nailed it

[mvd]

35. Communism

Most anything to the right of that is good. Kucinich only seems too left to some IMO because they have been conditioned to think those things are impossible or nutty. All those conservative organizations and think tanks unfortunately have succeeded in driving debate. It's a low blow because Kucinich hasn't even gotten a chance to do them.

[w4rma]

36. Far enough to scare Democratic-leaning members of the ultra-wealthy

into taking action against a candidate, IMHO.

[tameszu]

40. For me, "too far left"

is when you stop being a liberal and become merely a leftist.

(Unilaterally) withdrawing from the WTO = too far left.

That panders purely to unions and a system of bilateral trade is the last thing developing countries want--especially if the Republicans take over, slash foreign aid, and then roll over all of the smaller countries in the world with unrestrained economic power.

Promise to get the U.S. out of Iraq within 90 days = too far left.

Yes, the UN should be in Iraq instead of the U.S., but Kucinich setting a hard timeline is no less stupid than Bush saying that there will be elections in Iraq by June 30. It is unrealistic and has pure ideology and politics in mind, and not the best best welfare of anyone. If it turns out that logistically and diplomatically, the UN will NOT be willing to replace our troops in Iraq within 90 days, what then? Do we start yelling at the French and Russians for being traitors like Bush did? Or do we just pull the plug on Iraq's security and public order and let them descend in utter chaos like just Bush and Rumsfeld did when Saddam's regime collapsed?

Neither of those planks on the platform are well-thought out liberal ideas. They may be leftist, as they seem to have been created just for the sake of opposition--there is certainly value in this, but I don't think it's a good idea to vote for it with the idea of actually trying to implement it.

[JasonBerry]

41. Very good

Those two alone make Kucinich a far-left simpleton.

[WHAT]

42. Too far left means being irresponsible...

(I'm being sarcastic)

In the past few days, I've heard the phrase "responsably moderate" at least four times. I think it's new language being deliberately introduced into the media. In other words, social responsability is deemed leftist and self-interest (enlightened?) is viewed as being moderate AND responsable...no radical consequences such as health, security, etc. crisies can be forshadowed by moderate behaviour...(sigh) no responsability for the danger of moderate positions need be taken.

It makes me dizzy...I guess I'm just irresponsable AND leftist...or?