People who want Dems to move to right - what issues do they have to drop?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I hear them mindlessly bash liberals like me all the time, but they seem to be short on specifics. I want you to present real changes on real issues, not mindless GOP propaganda.

[Beet]

My biggest is foreign policy. I don't see changing the party's focus in foreign policy as "moving to the right." Compared to most countries in the world, especially the developing world, the U.S. is still relatively liberal. A strong and assertive foreign policy that builds alliances with moderates and liberals in the developing world and comes down hard on nationalists, authoritarians and religious fundamentalists in those countries can hardly be called moving to the right.

Projecting American power would only be equivalent to projecting conservative power if one has already given up and accepted the inherent conservative nature of America. In that case, you might as well just stop contesting elections because you can never win anyways. If you don't accept that America is inherently conservative, then I don't see how you can forbid the possibility that projecting American power can one day also mean projecting a liberal, progressive power into the world. And I think that would be on balance a good thing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My biggest is foreign policy. I don't see changing the party's focus in foreign policy as "moving to the right." Compared to most countries in the world, especially the developing world, the U.S. is still relatively liberal. A strong and assertive foreign policy that builds alliances with moderates and liberals in the developing world and comes down hard on nationalists, authoritarians and religious fundamentalists in those countries can hardly be called moving to the right.

Projecting American power would only be equivalent to projecting conservative power if one has already given up and accepted the inherent conservative nature of America. In that case, you might as well just stop contesting elections because you can never win anyways. If you don't accept that America is inherently conservative, then I don't see how you can forbid the possibility that projecting American power can one day also mean projecting a liberal, progressive power into the world. And I think that would be on balance a good thing.

If you mean attacking countries like Iraq for no good reason, while letting Bin Laden get away in Afganistan, HELL NO. Is that what you mean?

[The Duke]

I'd suggest instead of moving the party platform to the right you should do what the PA Democratic party has done for years, which is tolerate and support candidates who don't always agree with the party platform.  The Caseys are hardly social liberals, but the state party backs them.

The Republicans win because they have a big tent.  Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, and hopefully soon Tom Keane, Jr all find a home as Republican Senators.  Its a very big tent when Lincoln Chafee and Tom Coburn are both under it.

The Democrats on the other hand have Ben Nelson.... uh.... Ben Nelson, and Ben Nelson.  Smaller tent.  This is what I'd work on if I were a Democrat.

[Beet]

My biggest is foreign policy. I don't see changing the party's focus in foreign policy as "moving to the right." Compared to most countries in the world, especially the developing world, the U.S. is still relatively liberal. A strong and assertive foreign policy that builds alliances with moderates and liberals in the developing world and comes down hard on nationalists, authoritarians and religious fundamentalists in those countries can hardly be called moving to the right.

Projecting American power would only be equivalent to projecting conservative power if one has already given up and accepted the inherent conservative nature of America. In that case, you might as well just stop contesting elections because you can never win anyways. If you don't accept that America is inherently conservative, then I don't see how you can forbid the possibility that projecting American power can one day also mean projecting a liberal, progressive power into the world. And I think that would be on balance a good thing.

If you mean attacking countries like Iraq for no good reason, while letting Bin Laden get away in Afganistan, HELL NO. Is that what you mean?

No. Iraq should have been the least of our concerns as it was a very weak, contained country, and attacking it was exactly what Bin Laden and his allies would have wanted, for it served their interests. Their main goal is to draw America into a misguided clash of civilizations with Islam, so that they can then carry the banner of Islam. The only way to prevent that is to separate moderate Islam from fundamentalist Islam, and affirm the former. We should not forget that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd suggest instead of moving the party platform to the right you should do what the PA Democratic party has done for years, which is tolerate and support candidates who don't always agree with the party platform.  The Caseys are hardly social liberals, but the state party backs them.

The Republicans win because they have a big tent.  Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, and hopefully soon Tom Keane, Jr all find a home as Republican Senators.  Its a very big tent when Lincoln Chafee and Tom Coburn are both under it.

The Democrats on the other hand have Ben Nelson.... uh.... Ben Nelson, and Ben Nelson.  Smaller tent.  This is what I'd work on if I were a Democrat.

What bullsh**t, Ben Nelson is actually closer to the extreme right than extreme left, and Chaffee is more conservative than him.
As you can see here, there are 41 Senators with a Progressive score less than 10 vs. only 16 with a Progressive score higher than 90.

While 51 Republicans have a Progressive score less than 16.1 only 26 Democrats have a Progressive score of 83.9.



http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=5&y=15

My biggest is foreign policy. I don't see changing the party's focus in foreign policy as "moving to the right." Compared to most countries in the world, especially the developing world, the U.S. is still relatively liberal. A strong and assertive foreign policy that builds alliances with moderates and liberals in the developing world and comes down hard on nationalists, authoritarians and religious fundamentalists in those countries can hardly be called moving to the right.

Projecting American power would only be equivalent to projecting conservative power if one has already given up and accepted the inherent conservative nature of America. In that case, you might as well just stop contesting elections because you can never win anyways. If you don't accept that America is inherently conservative, then I don't see how you can forbid the possibility that projecting American power can one day also mean projecting a liberal, progressive power into the world. And I think that would be on balance a good thing.

If you mean attacking countries like Iraq for no good reason, while letting Bin Laden get away in Afganistan, HELL NO. Is that what you mean?

No. Iraq should have been the least of our concerns as it was a very weak, contained country, and attacking it was exactly what Bin Laden and his allies would have wanted, for it served their interests. Their main goal is to draw America into a misguided clash of civilizations with Islam, so that they can then carry the banner of Islam. The only way to prevent that is to separate moderate Islam from fundamentalist Islam, and affirm the former. We should not forget that.

That sounds reasonable, but what exactly are you suggesting that the Democratic party change?

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you mean attacking countries like Iraq for no good reason, while letting Bin Laden get away in Afganistan, HELL NO. Is that what you mean?
[/quote]

No. Iraq should have been the least of our concerns as it was a very weak, contained country, and attacking it was exactly what Bin Laden and his allies would have wanted, for it served their interests. Their main goal is to draw America into a misguided clash of civilizations with Islam, so that they can then carry the banner of Islam. The only way to prevent that is to separate moderate Islam from fundamentalist Islam, and affirm the former. We should not forget that.
[/quote]

That sounds reasonable, but what exactly are you suggesting that the Democratic party change?
[/quote]

Stop empowering the radicals and weakening the moderates. Leave Israel and the Palestinians to solve their own problems, for example. Stop giving aid to one side or another. Channel money into pluralist muslim scholars and organizations, and build alliances with pluralist muslim countries like Malaysia and Turkey.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop empowering the radicals and weakening the moderates.

Who is the radicals, who are the moderates, and how do they differ?
Do these "moderates" spend more time bashing liberals than the far-right who runs this country?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wouldn't be moving the Democratic party's platform to the right at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Electorally [and quite crudely] speaking the national Democrats problem is pretty simple; it's perceived to be out of touch with it's traditional base (ie; working class (especially ethnic) voters) and is perceived to be in bed with what (for want of a better word) can be described as out of touch liberal elitists (yes, it's a cliche. So?).
In general adopting policies that appeal to the former and dropping the pet policies of the latter, would be a good idea.

[The Duke]

Stop empowering the radicals and weakening the moderates.

Who is the radicals, who are the moderates, and how do they differ?
Do these "moderates" spend more time bashing liberals than the far-right who runs this country?

He's talking about radical and moderate Muslims.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Electorally [and quite crudely] speaking the national Democrats problem is pretty simple; it's perceived to be out of touch with it's traditional base (ie; working class (especially ethnic) voters) and is perceived to be in bed with what (for want of a better word) can be described as out of touch liberal elitists (yes, it's a cliche. So?).
In general adopting policies that appeal to the former and dropping the pet policies of the latter, would be a good idea.

I hear them mindlessly bash liberals like me all the time, but they seem to be short on ]specifics. I want you to present real changes on real issues, not mindless GOP propaganda.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop empowering the radicals and weakening the moderates.

Who is the radicals, who are the moderates, and how do they differ?
Do these "moderates" spend more time bashing liberals than the far-right who runs this country?

He's talking about radical and moderate Muslims.

Well, I'm not sure what that had to do with this thread. Obviously liberals realize that Turkey has a better government than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[Beet]

Stop empowering the radicals and weakening the moderates.

Who is the radicals, who are the moderates, and how do they differ?
Do these "moderates" spend more time bashing liberals than the far-right who runs this country?

He's talking about radical and moderate Muslims.

Well, I'm not sure what that had to do with this thread. Obviously liberals realize that Turkey has a better government than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

It's one thing to realize A is better than B, it's another to do something about it. What this has to do with this thread is that liberals seem to have few ideas about how to use American power proactively, and I'm suggesting that putting resources into promoting pluralist muslim theology and/or politics is one way to do it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd suggest instead of moving the party platform to the right you should do what the PA Democratic party has done for years, which is tolerate and support candidates who don't always agree with the party platform.  The Caseys are hardly social liberals, but the state party backs them.

The Republicans win because they have a big tent.  Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, and hopefully soon Tom Keane, Jr all find a home as Republican Senators.  Its a very big tent when Lincoln Chafee and Tom Coburn are both under it.

The Democrats on the other hand have Ben Nelson.... uh.... Ben Nelson, and Ben Nelson.  Smaller tent.  This is what I'd work on if I were a Democrat.

The Senate Minority Leader is pro-life. Would the Republicasn ever have a pro-choice caucus leader?

[Frodo]

It's not so much about changing specific planks of the Democratic Party platform (although that too) as it is about changing perceptions. It would be a good start to let pro-life advocates speak at the Democratic National Convention with millions watching (i.e. Rev. Jim Wallis and others like him), and speak not just on issues pertaining to social and economic justice, but also on those moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, and prove that we really are a big-tent party as those here boast.  We Democrats have always prided ourselves on standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves -so why not the unborn?  It would be a gutsy move, and one which could make an enduring impression on those swing voters who may be watching. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Electorally [and quite crudely] speaking the national Democrats problem is pretty simple; it's perceived to be out of touch with it's traditional base (ie; working class (especially ethnic) voters) and is perceived to be in bed with what (for want of a better word) can be described as out of touch liberal elitists (yes, it's a cliche. So?).
In general adopting policies that appeal to the former and dropping the pet policies of the latter, would be a good idea.

I hear them mindlessly bash liberals like me all the time, but they seem to be short on ]specifics. I want you to present real changes on real issues, not mindless GOP propaganda.

Dropping that sort of attitude would be a great start

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Electorally [and quite crudely] speaking the national Democrats problem is pretty simple; it's perceived to be out of touch with it's traditional base (ie; working class (especially ethnic) voters) and is perceived to be in bed with what (for want of a better word) can be described as out of touch liberal elitists (yes, it's a cliche. So?).
In general adopting policies that appeal to the former and dropping the pet policies of the latter, would be a good idea.

I hear them mindlessly bash liberals like me all the time, but they seem to be short on ]specifics. I want you to present real changes on real issues, not mindless GOP propaganda.

Dropping that sort of attitude would be a great start

Hey, dumbsh**t, I asked for specifics, not for mindless liberal bashing.

[A18]

They should adopt the Democratic Platform of 1892, preferably.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hey, dumbsh**t, I asked for specifics, not for mindless liberal bashing.

Dropping that sort of attitude would be a great start

But in all seriousness... abortion is an obvious one. Cultural issues in general (especially religion related). At the same time a move to the left on certain issues (healthcare for example) would be a good idea.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop empowering the radicals and weakening the moderates.

Who is the radicals, who are the moderates, and how do they differ?
Do these "moderates" spend more time bashing liberals than the far-right who runs this country?

He's talking about radical and moderate Muslims.

Well, I'm not sure what that had to do with this thread. Obviously liberals realize that Turkey has a better government than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

It's one thing to realize A is better than B, it's another to do something about it. What this has to do with this thread is that liberals seem to have few ideas about how to use American power proactively, and I'm suggesting that putting resources into promoting pluralist muslim theology and/or politics is one way to do it.

I'm pretty sure that Dean, Kerry and whoever have said a fair amount about this.

It's not so much about changing specific planks of the Democratic Party platform (although that too) as it is about changing perceptions. It would be a good start to let pro-life advocates speak at the Democratic National Convention with millions watching (i.e. Rev. Jim Wallis and others like him), and speak not just on issues pertaining to social and economic justice, but also on those moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, and prove that we really are a big-tent party as those here boast.  We Democrats have always prided ourselves on standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves -so why not the unborn?  It would be a gutsy move, and one which could make an enduring impression on those swing voters who may be watching. 

As BRTD said, Senate Majority Leader Reid is fairly pro-life. However, 65% of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, so it would be dumb to side with the bigots on the other 35%. Do you really want to go back to bloody coathangers just to score some political points with a minority of the population?

Hey, dumbsh**t, I asked for specifics, not for mindless liberal bashing.

Dropping that sort of attitude would be a great start

But in all seriousness... abortion is an obvious one. Cultural issues in general (especially religion related). At the same time a move to the left on certain issues (healthcare for example) would be a good idea.

So what do you say to the fact that 65% of Americans think that Roe vs. Wade should be upheld?  Here in California, a Proposition to have parental notification (not permission) when a minor has an abortion was voted down.

What other cultural issues are you talking about? I need specifics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So what do you say to the fact that 65% of Americans think that Roe vs. Wade should be upheld?

Most Americans seem to think that without Roe v Wade all abortion would be illegal (which is o/c not the case).
Most Americans certainly do not support unrestricted abortion on demand; something that the Democratic party is associated with by a lot of people. Being thought of as NARAL's bitches isn't a great electoral selling point.

You should note that back in the early '80's the House Democratic leadership put a lot of effort into stopping abortion becoming a *major* issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

California is more socially liberal than average and the proposition was apparently associated (at least in some way) with an unpopular governer etc.
Besides *notification* isn't the problem to a lot of people...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Religion in general (especially the sneering at deeply religious people). Association with counter-culture stuff in general (and yes, I know you asked for specifics. But specifics aren't the problem).

The best thing to do would to officially not even *have* a position of cultural issues...

[The Duke]

I'd suggest instead of moving the party platform to the right you should do what the PA Democratic party has done for years, which is tolerate and support candidates who don't always agree with the party platform.  The Caseys are hardly social liberals, but the state party backs them.

The Republicans win because they have a big tent.  Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, and hopefully soon Tom Keane, Jr all find a home as Republican Senators.  Its a very big tent when Lincoln Chafee and Tom Coburn are both under it.

The Democrats on the other hand have Ben Nelson.... uh.... Ben Nelson, and Ben Nelson.  Smaller tent.  This is what I'd work on if I were a Democrat.

The Senate Minority Leader is pro-life. Would the Republicasn ever have a pro-choice caucus leader?

Harry Reid being pro-life is a fairly laughable suggestion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So what do you say to the fact that 65% of Americans think that Roe vs. Wade should be upheld?

Most Americans seem to think that without Roe v Wade all abortion would be illegal (which is o/c not the case).

Got a poll or are you just speculating? Anwyays, what would stop activist right-wing judges from ruling exactly that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The majority of California voters do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which really helped them out in '94.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

California is more socially liberal than average and the proposition was apparently associated (at least in some way) with an unpopular governer etc.
Besides *notification* isn't the problem to a lot of people...
[/quote]
What is?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Religion in general (especially the sneering at deeply religious people). Association with counter-culture stuff in general (and yes, I know you asked for specifics. But specifics aren't the problem).

The best thing to do would to officially not even *have* a position of cultural issues...
[/quote]

You're being extremely vague. I want specific issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd suggest instead of moving the party platform to the right you should do what the PA Democratic party has done for years, which is tolerate and support candidates who don't always agree with the party platform.  The Caseys are hardly social liberals, but the state party backs them.

The Republicans win because they have a big tent.  Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, and hopefully soon Tom Keane, Jr all find a home as Republican Senators.  Its a very big tent when Lincoln Chafee and Tom Coburn are both under it.

The Democrats on the other hand have Ben Nelson.... uh.... Ben Nelson, and Ben Nelson.  Smaller tent.  This is what I'd work on if I were a Democrat.

The Senate Minority Leader is pro-life. Would the Republicasn ever have a pro-choice caucus leader?

Harry Reid being pro-life is a fairly laughable suggestion.

Look at the issue ratings.

[Frodo]

It's not so much about changing specific planks of the Democratic Party platform (although that too) as it is about changing perceptions. It would be a good start to let pro-life advocates speak at the Democratic National Convention with millions watching (i.e. Rev. Jim Wallis and others like him), and speak not just on issues pertaining to social and economic justice, but also on those moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, and prove that we really are a big-tent party as those here boast.  We Democrats have always prided ourselves on standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves -so why not the unborn?  It would be a gutsy move, and one which could make an enduring impression on those swing voters who may be watching. 

As BRTD said, Senate Majority Leader Reid is fairly pro-life. However, 65% of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, so it would be dumb to side with the bigots on the other 35%. Do you really want to go back to bloody coathangers just to score some political points with a minority of the population?

It is true most Americans support Roe v Wade -however, most do not support abortion on demand, and (according to the same polls that you cite) they strongly support restrictions on its availability including -but not limited to- parental and spousal notification laws, as well as banning partial birth abortions.  That is also the position of Rev. Jim Wallis.  There is no reason not to move to the mainstream on hot-button issues like abortion, and to show that we share the same values as most Americans.