Should the Democrats adopt the agenda of Robertson and Falwell?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

...and jump around and say, "I'm not REALLY a San Francisco liberal, I'm a moderate!"

I'm really starting to doubt that you're a Democrat. You have nothing constructive to offer, and instead are telling the 63% of America that wants strong Democratic leaders to go  themselves.

[Alcon]

Oh, that lovely old "moderateness = timidness" argument.  Always wonderful to see.

[MODU]

How am I an "our way or no way" liberal?

How?  By marginalizing the majority of your party.

Time to ditch the spineless "moderates".

All I'm asking for them is to have a spine and stand up to the Republicans. Here's an opinion poll.

"Which of the following roles would you like to see the Democrats in Congress play? (A) Work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to help pass President Bush's legislative priorities so that we do not have gridlock. OR, (B) Provide a balance to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans do not go too far in pushing their agenda."

63% provide a balance
30% help pass Bush plan

I say that we should pay attention to that 63%, and tell that 30% to go screw themselves.

Yet maybe the 63% agree on many of the things that Bush has tried to get through Congress, such as Social Security reform (and I don't necessarily mean personal savings accounts, I'm talking about true reform).  Currently, the majority of Democratic politicians have taken the "don't touch it/we're against whatever your propose" stance, rather than accept the open invite Bush made to accept all proposals.  Those 63% want to see progress, not just the status quo.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How am I an "our way or no way" liberal?

How?  By marginalizing the majority of your party.

Time to ditch the spineless "moderates".

All I'm asking for them is to have a spine and stand up to the Republicans. Here's an opinion poll.

"Which of the following roles would you like to see the Democrats in Congress play? (A) Work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to help pass President Bush's legislative priorities so that we do not have gridlock. OR, (B) Provide a balance to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans do not go too far in pushing their agenda."

63% provide a balance
30% help pass Bush plan

I say that we should pay attention to that 63%, and tell that 30% to go screw themselves.

Yet maybe the 63% agree on many of the things that Bush has tried to get through Congress, such as Social Security reform (and I don't necessarily mean personal savings accounts, I'm talking about true reform).  Currently, the majority of Democratic politicians have taken the "don't touch it/we're against whatever your propose" stance, rather than accept the open invite Bush made to accept all proposals.  Those 63% want to see progress, not just the status quo.

The 63% is calling for the Democrats to have a spine and not be a rubber stamp. None of the people I've been arguing with seem to be in that 63%. We've heard enough from you 30%.

[Virginian87]

...and jump around and say, "I'm not REALLY a San Francisco liberal, I'm a moderate!"

I'm really starting to doubt that you're a Democrat. You have nothing constructive to offer, and instead are telling the 63% of America that wants strong Democratic leaders to go  themselves.

What the hell is your problem?  Why do you persist in insulting me?  Just because I'm not a liberal, you automatically assume I'm not a Democrat.  I'm trying to stop the Democrats from losing election after election.  I'm not spineless.  I was against the War in Iraq, against No Child Left Behind, and against ANWR.  I wasn't really into CAFTA either.  Do you think I like these huge deficits?  Of course not!  But because I'm more conservative on social issues and because I'm religious you think I'm a closet Republican?  Because of people like you, we've lost Congress and have continued to lose the White House.  You better realize that not everybody in this party is like you.  It continues to appall me how ignorant you are about matters and the political culture of states outside California.  Come visit the South sometime, talk to people, and you'll see why we continue to lose.

[phk]

Moderate = "I support gay marriage between a man and a woman"

Pick a side folks, you can't have it both ways.

[MODU]

Pick a side folks, you can't have it both ways.

That's an extremist point of view.  There is more than two options to any issue in government.

[MissCatholic]

Hell no.  This is not what is meant by moving to the center at all.  Robertson and Falwell are two of the craziest people in this country today.  Anyone who blaims 9/11 on gays and abortionists has completely lost it.  I actually met Falwell when I was at Boys State.  It was held at Liberty University in Lynchburg, the college he started to mold other people into likenesses of himself.  It's almost as bad as Bob Jones University, but the campus is uglier.  I'm embarrassed that these people hail from the great state of Virginia.

I ciompletely agree with every single word you have just typed.

[Citizen James]

Oh, that lovely old "moderateness = timidness" argument.  Always wonderful to see.

Yep, can you imagine - someone who actually bases thier opinions on careful observation and reasoning of a situation, rather than simply staking out opposite ends of the spectrum.   If anything, that takes a certain amount of moral courage.   

I can understand the frustration with Bush's seeming successes using a "my way or the highway" approach and pandering to some of the more extreme elements of his party.   It takes two to compromise, and if he's willing to compromise on anything he's starting off with ultra-high bids to haggle from.

Thus far the Democratic party is marginally still under the control of the moderates, while the moderates have become pariahs in the GOP (which is part of the reason I left in 2000).   On the political specrum (flawed as it is), we have two party system - conservatives, and moderates.  Sure, there are some moderate Republicans, and a few token true leftist Dems, and some left leaning centrists.  But for the most part it's far right semi-authoritarian, vs centrist slightly authoritarian.   Meanwhile, the left and right "libertarain leaning" parties (the Greens and Libertarians respectively) get little traction and are stuck in the catch-22 of not getting votes because they don't win, and hence not winning because they don't get many votes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

...and jump around and say, "I'm not REALLY a San Francisco liberal, I'm a moderate!"

I'm really starting to doubt that you're a Democrat. You have nothing constructive to offer, and instead are telling the 63% of America that wants strong Democratic leaders to go  themselves.

What the hell is your problem?  Why do you persist in insulting me?  Just because I'm not a liberal, you automatically assume I'm not a Democrat.  I'm trying to stop the Democrats from losing election after election.  I'm not spineless.  I was against the War in Iraq, against No Child Left Behind, and against ANWR.  I wasn't really into CAFTA either.  Do you think I like these huge deficits?  Of course not!  But because I'm more conservative on social issues and because I'm religious you think I'm a closet Republican?  Because of people like you, we've lost Congress and have continued to lose the White House.  You better realize that not everybody in this party is like you.  It continues to appall me how ignorant you are about matters and the political culture of states outside California.  Come visit the South sometime, talk to people, and you'll see why we continue to lose.

Do you have any constructive ideas? We already have one Republican party, we don't need a second. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how we have to move to the right on social issues. The Democrats have the support on a lot of these social issues, and things change anyways. Connecticut went from Griswald vs. CT to gay civil unions passed by the state legislature and governor in just 38 years.

[opebo]

I'm with Pnkrocket and jfern on this, of course.  All you intolerant Dems should feel much more at home in the Religious Party.

[A18]

Yeah. Another 10 years, and everyone will think sleeping five year olds is fine. In fact, incest will probably be common place, right opebo?

[opebo]

Yeah. Another 10 years, and everyone will think sleeping five year olds is fine. In fact, incest will probably be common place, right opebo?

No, such is wishful thinking, philip.  And what does that have to do with my post?