Too Far Left = Lose in 2004
Political Eclectic
Mon Jul 28, 4:52 PM ET
By David Morgan
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A group of centrist Democrats who helped
elect Bill Clinton to the White House warned on Monday that the
Democratic Party will lose the 2004 presidential election unless it
can win over suburban voters who feel the party has become too
liberal.
In language critical of left-leaning positions, the Democratic
Leadership Council urged party leaders to avoid policies that voters
may associate with big government and special-interest groups,
including labor unions.
"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."
The council released the results of a survey by former Clinton
pollster Mark Penn that showed President Bush as vulnerable on
domestic issues including the economy, health care, the federal
deficit and education.
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.
In 2000, it criticized former Vice President Al Gore's unsuccessful
campaign for being too populist and abandoning some of the
pro-business themes that helped elect Clinton.
In May, the group trained its sights on former Vermont Gov. Howard
Dean, criticizing the White House hopeful for his anti-war rhetoric
and other positions it castigated as self-interested liberalism.
"Democrats are only going to win in 2004 if we make very clear to the
American people that we're tough on national security, that we're
tough on economic growth and that we have a better alternative for the
country," said DLC President Bruce Reed, the former Clinton domestic
policy advisor.
S Sheldon
"Political Eclectic" <rwl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5865905.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects
> Mon Jul 28, 4:52 PM ET
> By David Morgan
>
> PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A group of centrist Democrats who helped
> elect Bill Clinton to the White House warned on Monday that the
> Democratic Party will lose the 2004 presidential election unless it
> can win over suburban voters who feel the party has become too
> liberal.
Which is why the New Democrats Declaration is so refreshing.
Now if we can just get Clark to run, this election will be over with.
--
Help Draft General Wesley Clark for President 2004
http://www.draftclark2004.com
Political Eclectic
> "Political Eclectic" <rwl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b5865905.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects
> > Mon Jul 28, 4:52 PM ET
> > By David Morgan
> >
> > PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A group of centrist Democrats who helped
> > elect Bill Clinton to the White House warned on Monday that the
> > Democratic Party will lose the 2004 presidential election unless it
> > can win over suburban voters who feel the party has become too
> > liberal.
>
> Which is why the New Democrats Declaration is so refreshing.
>
> Now if we can just get Clark to run, this election will be over with.
>
>
current pull in the other direction, it would be damned refreshing.
Unfortunately many centrists may see it as mere camouflage.
Clark might be a viable candidate in the future, but from what I've
seen he needs a bit more grooming. He would, however, help to dispel
the belief that the Dems are incapable of protecting us.
SupaKlute
I continue to fail to see "the current pull in the other direction"
that PE refers to, seemingly in reference to all the "Dean = McGovern"
rhetoric that is coming around.
Now, I'll be honest. I never voted for Clinton, I did vote for Gore
and I have no idea who I will vote for this time around. But, when I
see Howard Dean I see an angry centrist who is using his anger on one
issue, Iraq, to mobilize a liberal base w/o having to pander to it.
This guy got 100% rating from the NRA, saw huge job growth under his
watch, left his state with a large budget reserve and cut taxes.
If he was from TX he would be running as a Compassionate Conservative.
He did sign the "civil unions" legislation, at court order. But the
gay marriage issue is a loser for both sides so I can't imagine it
will really get much play. The R's don't want to Buchananize the party
and lose the "compassionate" part of the label. The D's don't wanna
pander to the gay lobby.
But, other than being able to mobilize liberals, what has Dean done to
"earn" the label? As a centrist, I sure don't see him as a liberal.
Political Eclectic
unprecedented losses by the Dems in the '02 off-year cycle, to replace
Gephardt with Pelosi. The move was purely in response to criticisms
that the Dems were failing to motivate the populist left end of the
party.
Dean's antiwar stance has motivated the left end as well. His overall
politics may differ from McGovern's, but the analogy was referring to
the '04 election result, which would likely be the same.
While Dean's gubernatorial record may appeal to some centrists, his
antiwar posturing will do little to dispel the belief of many
centrists that the Dems are unwilling to do what is necessary to
protect us.
As long as the economy continues to improve, no Dem has any viable
shot at the Oval Office.
Gilly
"Political Eclectic" <rwl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5865905.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Mon Jul 28, 4:52 PM ET
> By David Morgan
Anybody else notice how desperately the far right wing is trying to convince
Democrats to be moderate, bipartisan centrists?
Tom Jong Il
Yes. I marvel at the goodwill of the right wingers to take such an
active interest in the wellbeing of their left wing bretheren.
Thanks,
- Tom
Political Eclectic
and watch them lose even more elections. You'll have the courage of
your convictions, but little more.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Political Eclectic" <rwl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5865905.03081...@posting.google.com...
'Course, in an election between a Repuglican and a Republican, the
Repuglican will always win. The Dems are not going to win elections by
moving to the right - and there's every evidence that they've already moved
too far in that direction.
SupaKlute
No, that was in response to the even greater erosion of seats in the
House. Pelosi, due to tenure and ability, was well-positioned to
succeed Gephardt, who was an abysmal failure. If you are correct,
where is all the "San Fransisco Liberal" legislation that was
predicited under Pelosi? Reality is, the D's are introducing bills
that attract a fair bit of attention from the less than rabid R's.
>
> Dean's antiwar stance has motivated the left end as well. His overall
> politics may differ from McGovern's, but the analogy was referring to
> the '04 election result, which would likely be the same.
Why? Because someone else in the media said so and you believe it?
Have seen the polls? Bush is hovering around 50% overall approval and
his hanlding of the economy gets barely 33% of the folks to approve.
McGovern ran as an anti-war candidate, I don't see any of the D's
being that kind of one-trick pony.
> While Dean's gubernatorial record may appeal to some centrists, his
> antiwar posturing will do little to dispel the belief of many
> centrists that the Dems are unwilling to do what is necessary to
> protect us.
So long as American's continue to die and Saddam and Osama continue to
roam free, who is protected and how?
>
> As long as the economy continues to improve, no Dem has any viable
> shot at the Oval Office.
Continues? You mean it has started to? When I went to go hear a press
briefing by the "Economic Team" that came through a few weeks ago what
I heard was, "Tax cuts good. Will work soon. Wait." Not a very
compelling or strong message. With interest rates rising, a complete
loss of confidence in Greenspan by the street, an impending natural
gas crisis and a huge budget drain called Iraq - what is improving and
how? Did you miss the news last week that noted "mortgage refi's and
military spending are keeping the economy afloat"?
The Fortune 100 retail firm my spouse works for is predicting, "the
worst Holiday spending in the last 10 years." They are hiring less
than 1/2 the number of seasonal works they usually hire.
Improving, hah!
Gilly
But pleeeeeeeeze don't throw me in dat briar patch!!
S Sheldon
"Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vjq12am...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> 'Course, in an election between a Repuglican and a Republican, the
> Repuglican will always win. The Dems are not going to win elections by
> moving to the right - and there's every evidence that they've already
moved
> too far in that direction.
Interesting considering every Democrat elected in the last century was a
centrist, if not a conservative. You claim the Dems aren't going to win
elections by moving to the center, yet we did in '92 and '96 so I don't know
where the hell you are coming from.
The Democrats who ran on a leftist platform all lost, in big ways.
McGovern
Mondale
Dukakis
For Christ's sake. We live in America. As such all those who vote for the
President share common American Values, so it is inevitable that the two
parties overlap in many ways, and it is in our nations best interest that
they do so. Anybody who thinks the only way for Democrats to win is to be
polar opposites of Republicans has been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.
Anybody who thinks that they way they are going to have their leftist
viewpoint heard is by voting Bush into office needs a new rock for a brain.
What is fundamental today is that we pick the best candidate that can win in
2004 and re-unite the nation. Someone who shows leadership, someone who has
vision, someone who can show up on Meet the Press and talk with
intelligence, can appear on Scarborough Country and make the host sound
petty, someone who can bring people together and foster an open discussion
of what America should do to solve it's problems...
It's already clear who that candidate is.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"S Sheldon" <use...@sodablue.org> wrote in message
news:mBA0b.100991$VG6....@news02.roc.ny...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:vjq12am...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > 'Course, in an election between a Repuglican and a Republican, the
> > Repuglican will always win. The Dems are not going to win elections by
> > moving to the right - and there's every evidence that they've already
> moved
> > too far in that direction.
>
> Interesting considering every Democrat elected in the last century was a
> centrist, if not a conservative. You claim the Dems aren't going to win
> elections by moving to the center, yet we did in '92 and '96 so I don't
know
> where the hell you are coming from.
>
> The Democrats who ran on a leftist platform all lost, in big ways.
The Dems have moved too far to the right and need to move back to the
center. The Repugs have moved everything so far to the right that center
now appears to be left. What I'm saying is that the Dems can't beat the
Repugs at their own game - they have to show that they're different and that
the do stand for the average guy (who is not right/conservative).
Spread Eagle
> The Dems have moved too far to the right and need to move back to the
> center. The Repugs have moved everything so far to the right that center
> now appears to be left. What I'm saying is that the Dems can't beat the
> Repugs at their own game - they have to show that they're different and that
> the do stand for the average guy (who is not right/conservative).
You're so full of it that you've got shit-brown eyes. Are you capable
of holding and processing a thought? Nationally, conservative
Republicans running as conservative Republicans virtually always win
(Nixon in 1968, Reagan, Bush in 1988, and the last one to lose was
Goldwater in 1964, as you should know, since you claim to have been a
Goldwater Republican back then). Meanwhile, moderate Republicans
almost always lose (Dole, Bush in 1992, Ford), as do Democrats who are
ostensibly liberal (McGovern, Carter in 1980, Mondale). But Democrats
who **at least pretend** to be moderate win (Carter in 1976, Clinton).
The point: conservative leaning candidates win and liberal leaning
candidates lose, except in leftwingnut socialist outposts like
Oregroin, a decided fringe minority.
Spread Eagle
SupaKlute
First, how does your theory then explain Bush in 2000 or do you too
believe he didn't win? He certainly ran as a moderate.
Second, do you realize there are a lot of other elections, not simply
Presidential ones? Your analysis doesn't do a thing to explain those.
S Sheldon
> news:mBA0b.100991$VG6....@news02.roc.ny...
> >
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:vjq12am...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > 'Course, in an election between a Repuglican and a Republican, the
> > > Repuglican will always win. The Dems are not going to win elections
by
> > > moving to the right - and there's every evidence that they've already
> > moved
> > > too far in that direction.
> >
> > Interesting considering every Democrat elected in the last century was a
> > centrist, if not a conservative. You claim the Dems aren't going to win
> > elections by moving to the center, yet we did in '92 and '96 so I don't
> know
> > where the hell you are coming from.
> >
> > The Democrats who ran on a leftist platform all lost, in big ways.
>
> The Dems have moved too far to the right and need to move back to the
> center. The Repugs have moved everything so far to the right that center
> now appears to be left. What I'm saying is that the Dems can't beat the
> Repugs at their own game - they have to show that they're different and
that
> the do stand for the average guy (who is not right/conservative).
I agree the Republicons have moved too far to the right, but the Democrats
are just fine where they are in the sensible center they don't need to be
moving any further to the left.
S Sheldon
"Spread Eagle" <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
news:7059619f.03082...@posting.google.com...
>
> You're so full of it that you've got shit-brown eyes. Are you capable
> of holding and processing a thought? Nationally, conservative
> Republicans running as conservative Republicans virtually always win
> (Nixon in 1968, Reagan, Bush in 1988, and the last one to lose was
> Goldwater in 1964, as you should know, since you claim to have been a
> Goldwater Republican back then). Meanwhile, moderate Republicans
> almost always lose (Dole, Bush in 1992, Ford), as do Democrats who are
> ostensibly liberal (McGovern, Carter in 1980, Mondale). But Democrats
> who **at least pretend** to be moderate win (Carter in 1976, Clinton).
> The point: conservative leaning candidates win and liberal leaning
> candidates lose, except in leftwingnut socialist outposts like
> Oregroin, a decided fringe minority.
Bush in 1992 ran as a conservative wingnut. Turned a lot of people off with
his accusations against Murphy Brown and other imaginary cultural problems.
And Bush in 2000 ran as a moderate. He's governed somewhere right of Calvin
Coolidge, but he ran as a moderate.
Bob Tiernan
S Sheldon wrote:
> Bush in 1992 ran as a conservative wingnut. Turned a lot of people off
> with his accusations against Murphy Brown and other imaginary cultural
> problems.
It was Quayle who brought up Murphy Brown. I doubt that
Bush had even heard of the show.
Bob t
Pat Humphreys
Ahh, yes, Dan Quayle, the Indiana chickenhawk extraordinaire
and second only to our current President in his command of the
language:
I don't watch it, but I know enough to comment on it.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle defending his opinions
about the TV show `Murphy Brown' (Las Vegas RJ 21 May 92)
Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 5/20/92 (reported in Esquire, 8/92)
Murphy Brown is doing better than I am. At least she knows she still
has a job next year.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/18/92, (reported ｷ荏BRXX News)
p - o - t - a - t - o - e
He was no Jack Kennedy.
Bill Shatzer
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
-snips-
> It was Quayle who brought up Murphy Brown. I doubt that
> Bush had even heard of the show.
Proally - he displayed a wonderful non-familiarity with supermarket
optical scanners.
Peace and justice,
Bob Tiernan
Pat Humphreys wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > It was Quayle who brought up Murphy Brown. I doubt
> > that Bush had even heard of the show.
> Ahh, yes, Dan Quayle, the Indiana chickenhawk extraordinaire
> and second only to our current President in his command of the
> language:
[snip]
Facts which do not counter my correction to the
previous poster.
[snip]
> He was no Jack Kennedy.
That's true. But Senator Jack Kennedy was no Jack
Kennedy, either. Contrary to what the Camelot Myth
has taught us, Senator JFK was nothing special as
a Senator and would have remained so had he not had
a very wealthy and ambitious father.
Bob T
Pat Humphreys
> Pat Humphreys wrote:
>
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > > It was Quayle who brought up Murphy Brown. I doubt
> > > that Bush had even heard of the show.
>
> > Ahh, yes, Dan Quayle, the Indiana chickenhawk extraordinaire
> > and second only to our current President in his command of the
> > language:
>
> [snip]
>
> Facts which do not counter my correction to the
> previous poster.
>
> [snip]
Nevertheless, I like them, so I'll put them
back in, thank you anyway:
I don't watch it, but I know enough to comment on it.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle defending his opinions
about the TV show `Murphy Brown' (Las Vegas RJ 21 May 92)
Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having
it.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 5/20/92 (reported in Esquire, 8/92)
Murphy Brown is doing better than I am. At least she knows she still
has a job next year.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/18/92, (reported ｷ荏BRXX News)
P-O-T-A-T-O-E
> > He was no Jack Kennedy.
>
> That's true. But Senator Jack Kennedy was no Jack
> Kennedy, either. Contrary to what the Camelot Myth
> has taught us, Senator JFK was nothing special as
> a Senator and would have remained so had he not had
> a very wealthy and ambitious father.
Oh, his history as a genuine war hero, his
incredible oratorical powers, and his track record
as a U.S. Senator might have had just a smidge to
do with his ascension to President, don't you think?
Then, of course, there was his actual performance
as President.
Jack Kennedy was no George W. Bush, I'd say.
Dan Quayle may have been a George W. Bush,
though.
Pat Humphreys
Nevertheless, Poppa Bush defended his little protégé,
whom he had plucked from obscurity, on the Murphy
Brown stuff. Then he (Bush) made it clear he had
never been grocery shopping in his life. But I liked
throwing up in the Chinese laps the best.
And you, sir, are no Don Homuth. Not getting your
ass kicked enough over in or.politics?
Renee Dauven
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
>
> > He was no Jack Kennedy.
>
> That's true. But Senator Jack Kennedy was no Jack
> Kennedy, either. Contrary to what the Camelot Myth
> has taught us, Senator JFK was nothing special as
> a Senator and would have remained so had he not had
> a very wealthy and ambitious father.
Also convinently forgotten is the support that he gave Sen. Joseph
McCarthy.
Renee L. Dauven
Bob Tiernan
Pat Humphreys wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > It was Quayle who brought up Murphy Brown. I doubt
> > that Bush had even heard of the show.
> Nevertheless, Poppa Bush defended his little protégé,
> whom he had plucked from obscurity, on the Murphy
> Brown stuff. Then he (Bush) made it clear he had
> never been grocery shopping in his life. But I liked
> throwing up in the Chinese laps the best.
That would be *Japanese* laps. You guys
are really good with the facyt, aren't you?
> And you, sir, are no Don Homuth.
That's right -- I was born here.
> Not getting your ass kicked enough over
> in or.politics?
Where do you think I'm reading this? Besides,
it's not getting kicked anywhere.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
Renee Dauven wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > [someone wrote:]
I don't know enough about his years in either
House of Congress (because I think there wasn't
much there), but I do know Bobby worked for
Tailgunner Joe (not to be confused with Crazy Joe,
and just plain Joe, all played by Peter Boyle
at one time or another).
The Kennedys were never apologists for
Communists, unlike others in the Democratic
Party at that time.
Bob t
S Sheldon
"Renee Dauven" <pro...@web-ster.com> wrote in message
news:3F44E8E1...@web-ster.com...
I think you mean Bobby Kennedy. He was involved with Joe McCarthy before he
realized Joe was a wingnut.