A Message to All Republicans Here...yes, I'm back for the next 24 hours only...

[The Duke]

Mark,

I was going to wait until after Bush won to send you an e-mail with a question that's been on my mind.  If you could trade Bush beating a ninny from Massachussetts for the Yankees beating nine ninnys from Massachussetts (wait, make that eight, because Schilling's the ing man), would you?

[The Duke]

We only call it a war on terrorism, but its actually a war against Jihadism, which can actually be defeated through the proper political, social, and military initiatives.

[The Duke]

Ben,

Of course you are 100% correct. Moderate to conservative Democrats (Carson, John, etc...) in the South have to carry the national Democratic Party around their necks in any race. One of the big rallying cries of Republicans in the South has been to tell Conservative Democrats that if they vote in a Democratic rep, no matter how Conservative they might be, that rep's first vote will be for Speaker Nancy Pelosi...or Senator Tom Daschle. This is a VERY effective and impactful statement.

On an interesting note, I have been fascinated by the last few responses from you and Nym. Here we have two Democrats who are really not all that far apart on substantive policy beliefs, yet you reach two incredibly diverse conclusions about what actually took place in the South.

In my opinion, you have a classic example of the difference between a legitimate centrist Democrat (you) who is open to positive AND negative views of your party, and Nym, who despite his seemingly moderate views would march off the cliff, drinking his cool-aid, with the Left Wing of your party.

I know what you mean.  I was almost rooting for Carson in Oklahoma, but in the end it was just an almost, since it would have meant Majority Leader Daschle Reid.

[The Duke]

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

I'm not really sure if repudiating Moore would help.  I've repudiated liberals who are on the extreme end of things many times and tons of conservatives still claim that they represent every liberal in existence every single time they open their mouth.  I don't really know what else I can do.

That said, I do personally feel that the Democratic Party needs to shift itself in from the left.  Nominating someone like Bill Richardson instead of Dennis Kucinich would be a good start.  Whether we like it or not, those in the left wing of the Democratic Party probably believe a lot of things that the large majority of Americans don't and probably won't help the Democratic Party's image if nominated as our candidate for president.

We shouldn't just be "GOP Lite", though.  It's possible to be a moderate Democrat and still definitely be a Democrat.  I personally think the main thing we need to do is shake our image of being a directionless party that attracts tons of extreme leftists from the lunatic fringe and do our best to establish what we really stand for, which is probably something that Americans can be much more agreeable towards than what they currently think we stand for.

That said, however, if we do nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going anywhere.  I don't identify with the Democratic Party to win elections; I do so because I agree with its platform more than any other party's.

Excellent post. The Democratic Party doesn't need to lurch far to the right; the election was close, after all, so we don't need to make massive changes in order to win. And if we go too far to the right, we'll lose the base, which is an essential part of the party and necessary to have in order to win. Both parties need their base, and neither can afford to abandon them.

What we mostly need is a slightly more moderate position on cultural and foreign policy issues, so that it is clear to the American people that we stand on the side of social responsibility and firmly and absolutely against terrorism, and are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it.

Make it clear that on both social issues and foreign policy, we agree with the Republicans on the problems confronting America, but we merely disagree on the solutions to those problems. We already do believe this, so it's not like we have to make massive changes, but we have to repudiate the hateful elements of the party that make it seem as though we do not stand for these things.

For example, on the issue of abortion, Democrats should stress that we want as few abortions as possible, but that we don't feel that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce abortion. "Safe, legal, and rare" should be our slogan here. Make it clear that we acknowledge the problem, and that we want the same solution as the Republicans, but that we disagree on tactics; make it clear that it is more of an economic problem, and that we will stress solutions that require responsibility and that reward it with economic upward mobility.

I think a big part of the problem is that many swing voters perceive the Democrats as not even being willing to acknowledge that problems exist in some areas (as I said, social irresponsibility, and combatting terrorism). Obviously if someone can't admit that there even is a problem, they can't find a solution. Democrats must do our best to emphasize that we do feel that while we support social freedom, it must be accompanied by responsibility, and that while we firmly oppose terrorism with every fiber of our being, we feel that America should not have to, and in fact does not have to, bear the entire burden in both costs and lives for defeating it.

In a similar fashion, America needs to convince our allies on foreign policy that we view them as allies, not as enemies, in the war on terror, and moderate our foreign policy so that it is not so heavily biased towards corporate interests; in other words, so that we support democracy EVERYWHERE, and oppose all dictators. But that's for another thread.

So yes, we need to move toward the middle somewhat, and nominate a pragmatic yet principled moderate who can connect with the American people on a personal level. Someone who people feel cares about them and their needs, and genuinely puts America's interests first, ahead of ideology.

You've aready started to lose your base.  Hispanics, blacks, union members, jews, women and the elderly.  What do they have in common?  All groups that Bush improved with in 2004 over 2000.  You are hemmoraging your base because your party advocates cultural values that these people find abhorrent.  Moving rightward on social issues may irritate the educated professionals who are the Democrats fastest growing contingent, but it will save you the groups that still make up the bulk of your voters.  It's only the white, educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, scientists, academicians, teachers, and highly educated government employees) who agree with the far left on social issues.

I've got a story for you guys.  A female friend of mine (no, not like that) was cleaning up her apartment last night and I was over there and she has some flower vases sitting around taking up space.  She doesn't have much free time, but she'd like some flowers for the vase.  So today, I got buy some nice flowers for her apartment and bring them over.  Her and her roomate are there, and one of the friends, a loony lefter, who lives in their apartment complex.

The loony lefter asks me if I'm happy about the election, knowing I'm a Republican.  I say, "Of course".  She snidely asks if I think she should have her right to choose taken away.  I snippily, and quickly respond, "Yes."  She then asks my friend (who I just got flowers for without being prompted by anyone to do that) "How she can be friends with someone who doesn't support women's rights."  Loony asks if I'm unhappy about prop 71 passing (the stem cell bond in CA).  I say I'm happy about it, because I support stem cell research.  She points out, in a condescending fashion, that she wouldn't think I'd support stem cell research because it isn't "Christ like."  She has no idea what my religious beliefs are, and dutifully pointed out that I am not a Christian nor am I justifying my abortion or stem cell views on any kind of religious basis.  I oppose abortion because it devalues the individual and support stem cell research because none of the embryos involved will ever be allowed to fully develop anyway, and opposiing this research is akin to oposing organ donor programs.

Loony seemed not to care that my old boss, Congressman Duke Cunningham, is a very pro-life Republican and is one of the best advocates for stem cell research in the House, nor does she care that Orrin Hatch, another pro-life Republican is one of the Senate's top spokespeople for this research.  Nor does she care that George Bush, not Bill Clinton, was the first President to approve federal funds for stem cell research.

She claims that there is no secular justification for being pro-life, and that it is all religious extremism, even though my very existence proves her point wrong.  She then leaves the room.

So, in short.  Don't be friends with pro-lifers because they hate women, the only justification for being pro-life is radical Christian fundamentalism (any orthodox Jews in the house?), and supporting stem cell research is incompatible with being pro-life (someone should tell the President that, I guess).

Do any Democrats wonder why we shallacked you on Tuesday?  The level of vitriol and condescention rubs people in middle America wrong.  Most Democrats detest middle America.  Well, on Tuesday, middle America let the Democrats know the feeling is mutual.

[The Duke]

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

[The Duke]

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

I'm from middle America, and I sure as hell don't. The people you hear me trashing most are upper class yuppies who live in the cancerous pit that is suburbia.

You also are not a real Democrat.  You are a self-avowed Marxist who votes democrat because you don't like wasting your vote on the candidate that is closest to you ideologically.

[The Duke]

I'm from middle America, and I sure as hell don't. The people you hear me trashing most are upper class yuppies who live in the cancerous pit that is suburbia.

You bash on my kind of people a lot, and I live in the Suburbs, and I am NOT upper class....I wish I were....   

Psst.  Son't tell him that the suburbs are part of middle America.

[The Duke]

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

So? If I moved all of 50 kilometers to Port Angeles, I would certainly join the Democratic Party. I don't see what the big difference is being a few kilometers north of the border.

I don't claim to speak for the majority of Democrats now and I wouldn't claim to speak for the majority of Democrats if I was born and raised in America. I am who I am and I speak for myself. However, I don't see how my being Canadian invalidates my input. Are we really that different?

Canadian political culture is different than American.  Even ifyou moved, you'd still not have grown up in the American political culture and would still be more Candian than American.

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe it is different where you live than where I live, but I have encountered very few middle America hating Democrats. Of course, I live in middle America, but yet my area is Democratic, so I guess people up here haven't gotten the message yet that Democrats hate them.

If Democrats hated middle America so much, Kerry wouldn't have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois, and come very close in Ohio and Iowa.

Unless the people in these states are just stupid and haven't been properly "educated" yet as to what Democrats are really about.

Sure, there are middle America hating Democrats, but there are just as many Republicans who hate the Northeast and West Coast with a passion. A lot of Republicans from the South believe that we should saw California off and let it float out to sea, and that everything north of Pennsylvania should be nuked. Are they the majority within the party? Of course not.

Middle America is not red states, its red counties and precints.  Kerry won Michigan because of Detroit, which has a heavy black population, and the surrounding areas which are heavily union.  These groups are not representative of the intellectual firepower behind the Democrats, just the voting power (see my earlier post about the Democrats and their base).  Take Wisconsin for example.  Its a blue state, but if you go to Madison and then to Green Bay, you find two very different Americas.

When I say this tuff about Democrats hating middle America, I'm not talking about the voting base of the party.  They're too stupid to have independent thoughts anyway, as is the base of the Republican Party.  I'm talking about the intellectual base of the party.  The editorial boards of most newspapers, most network newsooms, college campuses, Hollywood, upper income areas of major urban centers, and the like.

Just look at Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, and Paul Krugman and their most recent NYT columns, and then tell me they don't hate middle America.  Its right there in print for all to read.  This isn't conjecture, and its not something reasonable people can disagree about.  The intellectual elite of your party has exlicitly stated their hatred of middle America.

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

I'm from middle America, and I sure as hell don't. The people you hear me trashing most are upper class yuppies who live in the cancerous pit that is suburbia.

You also are not a real Democrat.  You are a self-avowed Marxist who votes democrat because you don't like wasting your vote on the candidate that is closest to you ideologically.

Am I a real Democrat?

No, you're a facsist who has believes in social and economic laissez faire, and for now thinks that social laissez faire and the destruction of organized religion takes first priority.  Until a few weeks ago, you even had a blue avatar.

[The Duke]

I'm not expressing any hate towards the voting base of the Democratic party, I'm the one pointing out that they don't have the animosity towards middle America the elites have.