Once again, our party "leader" misses the point.

[SeaSquirrel]

What we need isn't a better "message", or a better campaign strategy. What we need is to actually stand for something.

It's like the party has forgotten that we actually believe in stuff. It's like we're nothing but a campaign strategy now.

No wonder we're a joke.




Dean Says Democrats Must Take Offensive
By CHRISTOPHER GRAFF
Associated Press Writer

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Howard Dean gives Republicans credit for one thing: They have put the Democrats on the defensive and forced them to fight on their turf. That, he said, is about to change.

"What the propagandists on the right have done is make people afraid to say they are Democrats," Dean told a gathering of Vermont Democrats. "We have to be out there. We have to be vocal. We have to be pushing our version of the facts because their version of the facts is very unfactual."

After visiting 30 states in the first six months as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean said Monday he has found "There are Democrats everywhere."

The key to success is making those Democrats proud of their party, Dean said, by taking the offensive and fighting on Democratic turf.

"We need a message. It has to be clear," he said. "The framing of the debate determines who wins the debate.

"Running away from issues is how you lose elections," said Dean, a former Vermont governor.

"We need to position ourselves as the party of change," he said. "I think we have learned that when big changes happen in the House and Senate, they happen because one party nationalizes the race and becomes the change agent."

Dean detailed his 50-state strategy to hire and finance from national coffers organizers in every state, saying that the party is on track to have organizers in every state by the end of the year.

"Vote by vote, precinct by precinct, door by door, year by year and election by election, we will take this country back for the people who built it," he said.

In his speech Dean talked about the growing diversity in America and how well that diversity meshes with the message and membership of the Democratic Party.

"The face of the Democratic Party is such that it looks like all of America will look in 2050," said Dean.

Dean's speech Monday night came at a fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee.

Among those attending were U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords, as well as U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, who is seeking Jeffords' seat in the Senate. Both Jeffords and Sanders are independents but both caucus in Washington with the Democrats.

State Sen. Peter Welch, a candidate for Sanders' House seat, spoke at the reception, as did Scudder Parker, who is challenging the re-election next year of Gov. Jim Douglas.


___

:mad: :mad:

[JW]

What we need isn't a better "message", or a better campaign strategy. What we need is to actually stand for something.


In very general terms, there is the left, the middle, and the right. Whoever controls the middle (or the majority of the middle) runs the country, and most Americans are somewhere in the middle. The Democrats have lost the middle because the leadership is too far left.

I'm a Democrat, but a moderate to conservative Democrat. Right now the Democratic Party has nothing for me, nor does the Republican Party, btw. I look at issues instead of party now, and I voted for neither of the major party jackasses nominated in 2000 and 2004, perhaps the worst two presidential choices America has ever been faced with.

The leadership of the Democratic Party needs to embrace the middle, rather than rejecting it (Dean) or attempting to fool (Hillary Clinton) the middle. It needs to remember the old days, when it was strong on national defense, had a strong moral foundation, was fiscally responsible, and yet drove positive social change in America. And one has only to look at the closeness of the last two elections to realize that a good candidate and a reasonable platform could have won either of those two elections.

You are exactly right in your thesis. Right now the Democratic Party, at the national level, seems to stand for little except hatred of Bush and the right. And that is a losing proposition.

[BrianD]

Is it true that most Americans are somewhere in the middle? I thought I remembered hearing during the last election that the winner would be the one that got the majority of the (I think) 10% of the undecided population. Or was your point that the middle Americans were split among Democrat, Republican, and Undecided?

[JW]

Is it true that most Americans are somewhere in the middle? I thought I remembered hearing during the last election that the winner would be the one that got the majority of the (I think) 10% of the undecided population. Or was your point that the middle Americans were split among Democrat, Republican, and Undecided?

I'm going more on political beliefs than party. There are moderate Democrats and Republicans. And I said this was very general. I would not try to argue that it was really 1/3 left, 1/3 middle, 1/3 right, though I have seen some data that would very generally back that up.

I think abortion is a good example. Most Americans according to polling data want abortion to be legal but support reasonable (to most people) restrictions on abortion like reasonable parental notification laws. But this puts them out of line with the extremists and true believers on both sides of the abortion issue, and, frankly, you wouldn't know most Americans feel that way if you didn't look at the data. So that is kind of what I mean by the middle. You're not going to see a lot of Democratic national candidates supporting reasonable abortion restrictions, nor a lot of Republican national candidates supporting abortion rights.

True, undecideds were about 10% or 20 in 2004, but many people who had made up there minds were moderates voting for Kerry or Bush who imho might have been swayed by a stronger Democratic (or Republican) candidate to switch their vote I think a lot of people in 2004 held their noses and voted. They had made a decision, but they weren't necessarily thrilled with it. But that is just my opinion.

[BrianD]

Ok, it sounds like I was thinking along a different definition than you were. I would agree that most are in the middle. Probably most people don't see things in terms of black or white (red or blue?), but rather shades of gray (purple?).

[Easy Mac]

I think to make his point, he needs to be less vocal. I'm tired of listening to Democrats giving their opinions and taking 30 minutes for a sentence. They need to be shorter and use language people understand. Bush may be a horrible public speaker, but he also know how to speak shortly and catch attention with buzz words. I mean, the Democrats ran Kerry, who goes on for 40 minutes on one simple subject. Just shut the fuck up and use something people understand. Thats what they care about. Then you had Dean who just yelled like a lunatic. People don't want a jackass yelling at them. They want someone to just tell them nicely and get the hell out of the way.

[Galaxy]

We need a third party, the "Moderate" party.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

It's far too simplistic to chart politics on a linear scale. In the Democratic party, for example both the progressive faction (which Dean tends to be a part of) and the Democratic Leadership Council faction (Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, etc) tend towards the moderate side of things, yet they're constantly clashing. The DLC folks tend to subscribe more to supply side economics (they like tax cuts even when not balancing the budget) and social conservatism, whereas the progressives are socially liberal and more fiscally conservative. Republicans as well are divided into various factions that don't map nicely onto a unidimensional spectrum.

[CamEdwards]

wow. 12 posts and he's banned? what the heck did he do?

[SackAttack]

wow. 12 posts and he's banned? what the heck did he do?

SeaSquirrel --> GroundCat != SkyDog

[Galaxy]

SeaSquirrel --> GroundCat != SkyDog

Still don't quite see how he's a troll.

[MrBigglesworth]

In very general terms, there is the left, the middle, and the right. Whoever controls the middle (or the majority of the middle) runs the country, and most Americans are somewhere in the middle. The Democrats have lost the middle because the leadership is too far left.
Too far left? Dean was a moderate Democratic governor until he opposed the Iraq war, which all of a sudden made him far left, at least to the media/GOP. Reid is a very moderate Democrat, and definitely not as far left as Frist is right (at least the way he has been acting lately). Pelosi is left-leaning, but DeLay is at least as far right. Furthermore, the Dems haven't really proposed any big time left leaning legislation lately. Meanwhile the right is proposing descriminatory amendments to the Constitution and trying to do away with SS. There is nothing moderate about the GOP.

[HomerJSimpson]

Too far left? Dean was a moderate Democratic governor until he opposed the Iraq war, which all of a sudden made him far left, at least to the media/GOP. Reid is a very moderate Democrat, and definitely not as far left as Frist is right (at least the way he has been acting lately). Pelosi is left-leaning, but DeLay is at least as far right. Furthermore, the Dems haven't really proposed any big time left leaning legislation lately. Meanwhile the right is proposing descriminatory amendments to the Constitution and trying to do away with SS. There is nothing moderate about the GOP.


It is funny how one side always sees themselves as more "moderate" and the other side all "extremist." It is always "we aren't the extremist. You're the extremist!" Both sides play to the extremes when they need money, and play to the middle when they want to get elected. It is the nature of the game.

[JW]

Too far left? Dean was a moderate Democratic governor until he opposed the Iraq war, which all of a sudden made him far left, at least to the media/GOP. Reid is a very moderate Democrat, and definitely not as far left as Frist is right (at least the way he has been acting lately). Pelosi is left-leaning, but DeLay is at least as far right. Furthermore, the Dems haven't really proposed any big time left leaning legislation lately. Meanwhile the right is proposing descriminatory amendments to the Constitution and trying to do away with SS. There is nothing moderate about the GOP.

Too far left.

As for the Republican Party, they have been able to capture just enough of the undecideds or moderates or whatever we want to call them to keep the presidency and a majority in Congress. That's just a fact. The Democrats need a centrist candidate (not a pseudo-centrist like Hillary), some more centrist policies, and a moratorium on Bush-hating to recapture the center.

[SackAttack]

Still don't quite see how he's a troll.

I'll spell it out. SeaSquirrel is most likely another persona of GroundCat, who was also banned. While I'm not sure why GC was banned, I suspect it has to do (at least partly) with the obvious parody of "SkyDog."

If SeaSquirrel is, in fact, GroundCat, then this bannination is quite likely because the user in question created another account to evade the penalty.

Which, if that's the case, whether or not he was a troll in this particular instance becomes irrelevant.

[Galaxy]

I'll spell it out. SeaSquirrel is most likely another persona of GroundCat, who was also banned. While I'm not sure why GC was banned, I suspect it has to do (at least partly) with the obvious parody of "SkyDog."

If SeaSquirrel is, in fact, GroundCat, then this bannination is quite likely because the user in question created another account to evade the penalty.

Which, if that's the case, whether or not he was a troll in this particular instance becomes irrelevant.

Ok...Thanks for explaining. I miss the GroundCat thing.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

...I love how a Governor who got an 'A' rating from the NRA, balanced his state's budget, but dared speak out against a war that a majority of Americans now believe was a bad idea is too far left, but the party of Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Bill Frist is in the chunky middle.

Democrats don't need to be conservative, moderate, or liberal. They need to have a set of balls. For example, Harry Reid is pro-life, but also isn't afraid to act like ya' know, an oppisition party. The problem is that a lot of Democratic insiders still think this is 1980, when the two opposition leaders could have it out on the House or Senate floor, then go to dinner that night. They haven't realized the Repblican leadership's definition of compromise is "complete surrender by ones opponent with no conditions for this surrender allowed to the opponent."

I don't agree with Loveless much, but he is right on one point...in politics, it is a full contact sport now. Democratics shouldn't be worried about the ten percent that are undecided, they should be focused on getting the fifty percent who don't vote.

[MrBigglesworth]

As for the Republican Party, they have been able to capture just enough of the undecideds or moderates or whatever we want to call them to keep the presidency and a majority in Congress. That's just a fact.
Technically that is true, but it does not support your idea that the GOP was appealing to the center. In fact, according to exit polls available on CNN.com, Kerry won 54% of the people that called themselves moderate, compared to 45% for Bush. More people (34% to 21%) described themselves as conservatives as compared to liberals, however, so Bush ended up winning the vote. Bush won by appealing to his base, not by appealing to the center. It is also interesting to note that in 2000 50% of people described themselves as moderate, while in 2004 45% of people described themselves as moderate. Bush had divided the country more than uniting them.

The Democrats need a centrist candidate (not a pseudo-centrist like Hillary), some more centrist policies, and a moratorium on Bush-hating to recapture the center.
If Hillary is 'pseudo-centrist', what type of candidate would you consider centrist? Zell Miller? You say that Dem's need to stand for something, then you say they need to move more to the center. So what is it that you are saying that they should be standing for, the GOP agenda? Otherwise, taking more of a stand on issues would make them more left.

[HomerJSimpson]

...I love how a Governor who got an 'A' rating from the NRA, balanced his state's budget, but dared speak out against a war that a majority of Americans now believe was a bad idea is too far left, but the party of Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Bill Frist is in the chunky middle.




Did you read Dean's presidential webpage? His ideas were all straight from the far left. He may have been a "conservative" democrat govenor, but his national ideas were pure Ted Kennedy. That had nothing to do with his opposition to the war (which I am also against).

[JW]

[QUOTE=Jesse_Ewiak]...I love how a Governor who got an 'A' rating from the NRA, balanced his state's budget, but dared speak out against a war that a majority of Americans now believe was a bad idea is too far left, but the party of Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Bill Frist is in the chunky middle.
QUOTE]

Maybe it would make some people happier if I said there is a perception of being too far left. As for Dean, maybe he is a moderate masquerading as a liberal, because he ran to the left in the primaries and is 'running' to the left in his current position, and his Bush-hating statements haven't exactly sounded moderate. And the Republicans have captured enough of the middle to keep power. You just have to look at Congress and the White House.

A good example of this is with abortion. Which party in general is seen as opposing something most Americans support, parental notification laws and a ban on so-called partial birth abortion, and which party is seen in general as supporting these things? The Republicans have captured the moderate position on this, even though we all know many Republicans favor far greater restrictions on abortion or banning abortion. But they have fought their battles for moderate positions, while Democrats in general have entrenched on the far left on any issue relating to abortion, like whether or not a 12-year-old can get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that the majority of Americans are moderate right-wingers. Accepting that axiom as true, the Republicans have done a MASTERFUL job of eliminating the middle. They realized at some point that if Americans were forced to choose between an extreme right-wing party and an extreme left-wing party, they would hold their nose and vote for the extreme right-wing party. A nose-held vote counts the same as a normal vote.

By focusing the debate on issues where there is little (perceived) middle ground. And by pushing legislation without a desire to compromise--the Republicans have really managed to just make the middle go away.

Take, for instance, Social Security. I think that most Americans would be for a plan that shored up Social Security, but did not go as far as privatizing it. But there is no middle ground on which to cling. You are either for the President's plan or for no change at all. Even in the face of the fact that most Americans seem to be against the President's plan--the Republicans refuse to open the door to a modified version of the plan. That's smart. They may not get what they want on this issue, but they also prevent any moderate voices from coming in and shaping the debate.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Did you read Dean's presidential webpage? His ideas were all straight from the far left. He may have been a "conservative" democrat govenor, but his national ideas were pure Ted Kennedy. That had nothing to do with his opposition to the war (which I am also against).

Can you elaborate? His platform was probably more moderate than any other of the Democratic candidates....

[MrBigglesworth]

Take, for instance, Social Security. I think that most Americans would be for a plan that shored up Social Security, but did not go as far as privatizing it. But there is no middle ground on which to cling. You are either for the President's plan or for no change at all. Even in the face of the fact that most Americans seem to be against the President's plan--the Republicans refuse to open the door to a modified version of the plan. That's smart. They may not get what they want on this issue, but they also prevent any moderate voices from coming in and shaping the debate.
It's smart if your only concern is for consolidating and holding on to power. It's not so smart if your goal is to do what is best for the country. Draw your own conclusions.

[timmynausea]

Can you elaborate? His platform was probably more moderate than any other of the Democratic candidates....

That's what I recall as well. His biggest issue was balancing the budget the way I remember it. I also recall that he felt gun control was not an issue for the federal government. Neither of those are far left at all.
Anyone remember anything else from his platform?

[HomerJSimpson]

That's what I recall as well. His biggest issue was balancing the budget the way I remember it. I also recall that he felt gun control was not an issue for the federal government. Neither of those are far left at all.
Anyone remember anything else from his platform?


National Heath Care plan, plus a government agent coming to the home of every newborn child to "help" the parent. Those were the two that jumped out at me, but there were more. He claimed a goal of "balancing the budget" when his projects would have ran the budget higher and higher.

[timmynausea]

National Heath Care plan, plus a government agent coming to the home of every newborn child to "help" the parent. Those were the two that jumped out at me, but there were more. He claimed a goal of "balancing the budget" when his projects would have ran the budget higher and higher.

Those are decent examples. I had forgotten about them. I still think he was closer to moderate than far left. He was nowhere near Dennis Kucinich, for example. As to balancing the budget the first thing he planned on doing was rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

[MrBigglesworth]

National Heath Care plan
The public supports a universal health care system over an employee based one by a margin of two to one. I don't think that is a far-left position. But anyway, Dean's health care plan was to the right of most other Dem candidates' plans. His was more an expansion of medicaid, not a national single payer system.

...plus a government agent coming to the home of every newborn child to "help" the parent.
From what I remember, that is a Vermont program, and I don't think he had plans to implement it nationwide. Regardless, I fail to see where offering to send, free of charge, a health care worker to visit a newborn is a far left idea, besides it increasing the budget, which is something that I don't think can be considered far left anymore after this administration.

[Dutch]

The Democrats generally paint themselves in a corner with their own rhetoric.

They call the Republicans "Christian Right" which, when you add it up, makes them look like the "Atheist Left".

They tend to bash terrorists, on occassion, when trying to remind people they are patriots.

Note: You shouldn't have to be reminding anybody you are a patriot.

But they have to. Which is an error when trying to get elected.

They tend to bash President Bush, not occassionally, but everyday. 100x more than they ever would Hussein or Bin Laden. If they were bashing him about the economy, yeah, yeah, blah, blah. But they are bashing him while ignoring our enemies. People don't want that.

They tend to bash soldiers in Guantanamo and not Terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't want to call terrorists--terrorists. Why? Because President Bush calls it the "War on Terror". That's why.

They tend to blame Republicans for deaths in Iraq and not the terrorists who plant bombs or strap explosives on their bodies and detonate themselves in checkpoints or in mosques or in town streets.

The try and make you believe that terrorism would not exist if it weren't for America trying to stand up and take action against it.

They tend to be more concerned about painting the Republicans as evil instead of rolling up their sleeves and pitching in.

Actions speak louder than words. And words ring meaningless when don't do actually do anything.

That's the perception of the Democratic Party today.

That's why they lost an election they could have won. But while they bitch and complain about President Bush, he's not bitching and complaining back. He's working, it shows. He's not on the side of some liberal arts protest group at Berkley. He's not interested in Michael Moore or Sean Penn.

Perception is Reality. Not the other way around.

The Democrats need to redefine themselves and the new definition can't be what the far left tells them it should be.

This next election will be just as important as the last two. That's for sure.

I want the Democrats to bounce back. I want them to rejoin the fight for the White House. I want to believe they want what I want. What we want. That's the only way the two-party system will work.

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch, did you just get your new copy of GOP Talking Points Quarterly in the mail or something?

[HomerJSimpson]

The public supports a universal health care system over an employee based one by a margin of two to one. I don't think that is a far-left position. But anyway, Dean's health care plan was to the right of most other Dem candidates' plans. His was more an expansion of medicaid, not a national single payer system.

No, it was the expansion of the Federal Insurance plan. It was a far reaching and very expensive plan. I'm not saying I'd be against the plan, but there is no way to paint that as anything but socialistic.


From what I remember, that is a Vermont program, and I don't think he had plans to implement it nationwide. Regardless, I fail to see where offering to send, free of charge, a health care worker to visit a newborn is a far left idea, besides it increasing the budget, which is something that I don't think can be considered far left anymore after this administration.

He said on the website that he wanted to move that plan nationally. That is a huge move to the "cradle-to-grave" socialism.

All of this on top of a complete repeal of the Bush tax-cuts paints him pretty far left. I know you don't want to admit that, which is what I was making fun of in the begining. The Right wing does the same thing with their canidates. It is a willfull blindness that comes from pure partisan politics, and it makes me laugh (or want to barf. Which ever mood I'm in).

[MrBigglesworth]

All of this on top of a complete repeal of the Bush tax-cuts paints him pretty far left. I know you don't want to admit that, which is what I was making fun of in the begining. The Right wing does the same thing with their canidates. It is a willfull blindness that comes from pure partisan politics, and it makes me laugh (or want to barf. Which ever mood I'm in).
Expanding the federal insurance plan was Kerry's idea, not Dean's.

You are moving the goalposts to make the GOP position the moderate one, which is why Dean seems far left to you. Cutting taxes during a time of war and record budget deficits is what you are trying to tell me is the 'moderate' position. I would argue that normally under those circumstances raising taxes would be the moderate position, but Dean's status quo stance can not be seen as far left. Now I am not going to argue that Dean is a conservative, but he is for sure not far left.

[timmynausea]

Expanding the federal insurance plan was Kerry's idea, not Dean's.

You are moving the goalposts to make the GOP position the moderate one, which is why Dean seems far left to you. Cutting taxes during a time of war and record budget deficits is what you are trying to tell me is the 'moderate' position. I would argue that normally under those circumstances raising taxes would be the moderate position, but Dean's status quo stance can not be seen as far left. Now I am not going to argue that Dean is a conservative, but he is for sure not far left.


Agreed.

[SFL Cat]

The Dems are perceived as liberal because the majority of the special interest groups they cowtow to are liberal - liberal to the point of ridiculousness. But the party has to kiss their feet and spout rhetoric pleasing to these groups because that is where a majority of its funding comes from (outside of China that is).

And Dutch is right about the liberal positions the party takes on most issues. Your child can swell up and pop before a doctor will treat them unless they have a signed consent form from the parents, but by gosh, that same child can get an abortion without the parents any the wiser. Also, all I've heard from the Democrats is Bush-bashing 24-7. I don't hear them offer any solutions other than the current administration is mucking it up. The only issue you can count on the Dems supporting is raising taxes. Frankly, I don't know too many people who feel like they don't pay enough taxes as it is. Gasoline prices? If the Dems really cared about this issue, they could spearhead a movement to temporarily rescind all taxes on gasoline. That would bring the current price down to about half of what it is at the pump. Of course, you don't hear EITHER party suggesting that.

Personally, I think whoever takes the tough position on illegal immigration and tightening the borders will probably do very well during the next election cycle.

[HomerJSimpson]

Expanding the federal insurance plan was Kerry's idea, not Dean's.

You are moving the goalposts to make the GOP position the moderate one, which is why Dean seems far left to you. Cutting taxes during a time of war and record budget deficits is what you are trying to tell me is the 'moderate' position. I would argue that normally under those circumstances raising taxes would be the moderate position, but Dean's status quo stance can not be seen as far left. Now I am not going to argue that Dean is a conservative, but he is for sure not far left.


No, I think the GOP is just as radical as the Dems. You're completely missing my point. Both sides are as blind is my point. The Left sees their ideas as moderate, just as the right sees their ideas as moderates, and the moderates gets squished in the middle.

[SFL Cat]

Actually, I've always thought that moderates were people too cowardly to stand up for their convictions, so they tend to go along with the majority or popular opinion so they don't rock the boat. :p

[HomerJSimpson]

Actually, I've always thought that moderates were people too cowardly to stand up for their convictions, so they tend to go along with the majority or popular opinion so they don't rock the boat. :p


Nope. A moderate is one whose soul is not sold to an ideology that would keep them from doing what's best. They stand for their convictions of what is right, not what a party tells them is right.

[Glengoyne]

Technically that is true, but it does not support your idea that the GOP was appealing to the center. In fact, according to exit polls available on CNN.com, Kerry won 54% of the people that called themselves moderate, compared to 45% for Bush. More people (34% to 21%) described themselves as conservatives as compared to liberals, however, so Bush ended up winning the vote. Bush won by appealing to his base, not by appealing to the center...
The point is, and sorry if this has already been said, Kerry failed to attract the votes of 45% of the Moderates. He could have gotten those votes, but he failed to. Bill Clinton got those votes, and he was a moderate Democrat.

[MrBigglesworth]

No, I think the GOP is just as radical as the Dems. You're completely missing my point. Both sides are as blind is my point. The Left sees their ideas as moderate, just as the right sees their ideas as moderates, and the moderates gets squished in the middle.
If your only point is that the GOP is conservative and the Dems are liberal, then I am going to have to agree with you. But you stated that Dean was a far-left liberal, which simply is not the case. You backed up your claim by giving positions that Dean has that are, if anything, slightly liberal. That doesn't cut it, especially when you ignore his conservative positions on guns, government spending, etc.

[HomerJSimpson]

If your only point is that the GOP is conservative and the Dems are liberal, then I am going to have to agree with you. But you stated that Dean was a far-left liberal, which simply is not the case. You backed up your claim by giving positions that Dean has that are, if anything, slightly liberal. That doesn't cut it, especially when you ignore his conservative positions on guns, government spending, etc.


But he did run on a far left platform, whether you liked it or not. I would have loved to have supported Dean in the last election, and I looked hard at his positions. They were way too far left to be accepted. What you call "slightly liberal" are actually "quite liberal" and were only the tip of the iceberg on what he stated his goals were.

[MrBigglesworth]

But he did run on a far left platform, whether you liked it or not. I would have loved to have supported Dean in the last election, and I looked hard at his positions. They were way too far left to be accepted. What you call "slightly liberal" are actually "quite liberal" and were only the tip of the iceberg on what he stated his goals were.
Do you consider Bush to be far right?

[Glengoyne]

Actually, I've always thought that moderates were people too cowardly to stand up for their convictions, so they tend to go along with the majority or popular opinion so they don't rock the boat. :p
Believe it or not I'm a conservative Moderate, or possibly a liberal Republican.

I'm reasonably "pro-life", but I don't want RvW overturned. Instead I'd rather see reasonable restrictions placed on abortion. The extremes say life begins at conception or at birth. I think the reasonable answer is somewhere in the middle.

I've voted against California's version of the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe that adding an amendment to ban gay marriage would be explicitly placing discrimination right back in the constitution. We might just as well declare that gays only get three-fifths of a vote.

I think we have enough gun control laws on the books, but don't really have any trouble with background checks and electronic registration and the like.

I think that Bush's position on Stem Cell research is moronic.

I am all for fiscal solvency, but at this point neither party is really interested in this.

I agree with John McCain. The Religious Right has too much say in the Republican Party.

I'm a registered Democrat. I was seriously considering changing to Republican, but when I hear that the first two planks in the Republican platform are calls for Amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage, it gives me pause.

One thing is for certain I'm closer to a Republican than a Democrat.


Neither party is moderate, they are both at the extremes. Dean is taking the Dems farther to the left, and I think that is a mistake.

[HomerJSimpson]

Do you consider Bush to be far right?


Yup. That's why I held my nose and voted for Kerry.

[Glengoyne]

Dean isn't calling himself a moderate by any stretch of the means. He painted himself as a liberal in his bid to become the head of the party. The moderates simply couldn't muster enough votes to avert his try. Some Dems, like Joe Lieberman, thought that Howard Dean wasn't the right choice, specifically because he was too far to the left.

When he ran for president, I said that he was the Anti-Bush. To me he was a candidate of demogoguery. If Bush said "left", then Dean would have proclaimed that "right" was only option worth considering.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yup. That's why I held my nose and voted for Kerry.
Ok, I think I see where are disagreement lies. You seem to think of things in extremes. Bush is not far right. Though generally far right on domestic matters, his NCLB and gay marriage amendment is a rebuke of states rights. He has never met a spending bill he didn't like, increasing the deficit to record levels. Foreign policy wise though, he has abandoned the far right Buchanonesque isolationism and instead has embarked on a goal of spreading liberty and democracy, which in and of itself is a liberal idea.

[Glengoyne]

Yup. That's why I held my nose and voted for Kerry.
I countered ya. I wasn't a Bush fan, but couldn't stomach Kerry.

[HomerJSimpson]

Ok, I think I see where are disagreement lies. You seem to think of things in extremes. Bush is not far right. Though generally far right on domestic matters, his NCLB and gay marriage amendment is a rebuke of states rights. He has never met a spending bill he didn't like, increasing the deficit to record levels. Foreign policy wise though, he has abandoned the far right Buchanonesque isolationism and instead has embarked on a goal of spreading liberty and democracy, which in and of itself is a liberal idea.


Actually I was going to say you'd say he is moderate because he spends a lot of money. That is funny. His money spending, though, is not "social spending" but pork to businesses. That is not liberal or conservative, but grossly using his position in his own self interest. He is also neo-con in his foriegn policy, which is far from the left, but more of a "new right."

[MrBigglesworth]

Actually I was going to say you'd say he is moderate because he spends a lot of money. That is funny. His money spending, though, is not "social spending" but pork to businesses. That is not liberal or conservative, but grossly using his position in his own self interest. He is also neo-con in his foriegn policy, which is far from the left, but more of a "new right."
Thus the problems with a linear political model. I would catagorize Bush as a 'special interest conservative', whose domestic policy is up to the highest bidder instead of following any specific principles of conservatism.

[Galaxy]

I hate the idea of a national health care system. A great theory, but it will hurt our quality in terms of recruiting doctors and medical researchers, nurses, ect., as well as be the most expensive health insurance in the world.

[MrBigglesworth]

I hate the idea of a national health care system. A great theory, but it will hurt our quality in terms of recruiting doctors and medical researchers, nurses, ect., as well as be the most expensive health insurance in the world.
Did you know that the AMA artificially keeps the supply of doctors low by keeping medical schools from opening and by having draconian training regimens? Did you know that we already have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and yet do not have anywhere near the best healthcare?

[HomerJSimpson]

Thus the problems with a linear political model. I would catagorize Bush as a 'special interest conservative', whose domestic policy is up to the highest bidder instead of following any specific principles of conservatism.


I think there are too many things he is inflexable on to say he is up for the highest bidder. He does work toward the best interest of those who put him in power, no doubt, but I don't think he'd moderate on many social issues even if it hurts him (and some recently have).

[MrBigglesworth]

I think there are too many things he is inflexable on to say he is up for the highest bidder. He does work toward the best interest of those who put him in power, no doubt, but I don't think he'd moderate on many social issues even if it hurts him (and some recently have).
All indications are that prior to running for President, Bush was much more moderate on social issues. The thought the religious right were crazies, and didn't much care about gay marriage, or stem cell research. Much of his support though comes from religious people now though, so that is why his public stances on those issues has changed.

What social issues are you alluding to that Bush has been hurt by recently? The Schiavo debacle? He backed off on that after public opinion turned against him.

[duckman]

I hate the idea of a national health care system.
I hate it too because I'm a part of a government health care system. It's not pretty.

[Galaxy]

I hate it too because I'm a part of a government health care system. It's not pretty.

It doesn't work well in other countries. However, it will happen when we got a trillion boomers in retirement, and the costs will be insane. The quality will fall as well.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Thus the problems with a linear political model. I would catagorize Bush as a 'special interest conservative', whose domestic policy is up to the highest bidder instead of following any specific principles of conservatism.

Another curiousity of the linear political spectrum is that usually when I hear Howard Dean placed on the far left, it's in relation to the fact that he issued some of the toughest criticism of GWB during the campaign. That seems to automatically translate in the minds of many into a shift left on the political spectrum. But there's no obvious relation that I can see between vocally criticizing an opponent and one's policy positions. Ultimately politics is about crafting policy. If the policies are moderate, why would personality traits or speaking styles impact on where those policies fall on the political spectrum? The incapacity of the linear political model to account for multiple variables (and people's simple adherence to that model), I think, leads people to illogical conclusions... It bugs me.

[MrBigglesworth]

It doesn't work well in other countries. However, it will happen when we got a trillion boomers in retirement, and the costs will be insane. The quality will fall as well.
Where are you getting your information?

In 2002 the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending. Our government is already spending more per person than any country with national healthcare. Add to that then all the private money spend on healthcare.

And what about quality?
Life Expectancy (years):

Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

United States 10.4
United Kingdom 9.4
Germany 8.5
Denmark 8.1
Canada 7.9
Norway 7.9
Netherlands 7.8
Switzerland 6.8
Finland 5.9
Sweden 5.9
Japan 5.0

Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 101.5
Japan 92.2
Norway 90.2
Denmark 85.1
France 84.9
United Kingdom 82.2
Canada 82.1
Netherlands 80.3
Germany 77.6
Switzerland 72.5
Sweden 64.7
Finland 53.3

Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 203
Switzerland 175
Canada 161
France 156
Finland 154
Norway 128
Germany 122
Denmark 120
United Kingdom 114
Sweden 109
Japan 96
Netherlands 90
No matter what metric you use, the US ranks near the bottom in overall quality of care, despite spending twice per capita of most other countries.

There might be valid reasons to not support national healthcare, but assuming it is going to be expensive and assuming it is going to be of poor quality is just not backed up by the reality around the world.

[JW]

Another curiousity of the linear political spectrum is that usually when I hear Howard Dean placed on the far left, it's in relation to the fact that he issued some of the toughest criticism of GWB during the campaign. That seems to automatically translate in the minds of many into a shift left on the political spectrum. But there's no obvious relation that I can see between vocally criticizing an opponent and one's policy positions. Ultimately politics is about crafting policy. If the policies are moderate, why would personality traits or speaking styles impact on where those policies fall on the political spectrum? The incapacity of the linear political model to account for multiple variables (and people's simple adherence to that model), I think, leads people to illogical conclusions... It bugs me.

Well, once again, I noted that what you are calling the linear model is very generalistic, and I will add that it is very simplistic. The realities are far more complex than that. But then people do develop simplistic models to provide a general understanding of politics, like red state-blue state. I've heard many political hacks including Carville use the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model as a simple way of seeing things, although as Bigglesworth pointed out, more than 1/3 are probably conservative at this point. And I'm sure you've heard politicians over and over again talking about capturing the moderate vote or the middle or middle America. It is simply a way of looking at things in a broad strategic way. But when you start thinking beyond the broadest of strategies, then it indeed breaks down.

[Glengoyne]

No matter what metric you use, the US ranks near the bottom in overall quality of care, despite spending twice per capita of most other countries.

There might be valid reasons to not support national healthcare, but assuming it is going to be expensive and assuming it is going to be of poor quality is just not backed up by the reality around the world.
I call Bullshit. I'll use the metric that shows that when someone with money needs some new miracle treatment to save their life, they come to the United States. They don't screw around in Sweden. This is the country where we are developing new techniques and technology that simply don't exist in other countries. You might be able to make a case that such and such a country provides better quality, but when the whole picture is considered it is ludicrous to paint the picture you are trying to. As for your chosen metric, well I'll just say that a lot more than quality of health care is driving those numbers.

Hell, if the same number of teens per 100,000 were shot in the Netherlands compared to the United States, a lot more than 90 would be dead. I'd even wager that there would be even more deaths than the U.S.number, precisely because of the quality of the health care system in the U.S.

[Klinglerware]

This is the country where we are developing new techniques and technology that simply don't exist in other countries.

Possibly not for long. Thanks to more restrictive student visa processes, we are starting to lose the world's best and brightest grad students to universities outside the US. America's cutting edge scientific and technology research has been built on the backs of many of these folks for some time now. America's loss will be some other country's gain...

[MrBigglesworth]

I call Bullshit. I'll use the metric that shows that when someone with money needs some new miracle treatment to save their life, they come to the United States.
That's not entirely true. Certainly, for a number of operations the best care is done in the United States. But many other countries have the lead in several different areas, most notably in cloning and stem cell research. But you are correct in that the United States probably has the best healthcare for the top wage earners. That is only a small percentage of the population, however, and even with that bringing the average up the total health stats are abysmal.

[Galaxy]

Possibly not for long. Thanks to more restrictive student visa processes, we are starting to lose the world's best and brightest grad students to universities outside the US. America's cutting edge scientific and technology research has been built on the backs of many of these folks for some time now. America's loss will be some other country's gain...
Yeap, and depressing salaries (with medicaid, the long road to become a doctor as well as the life as a doctor (insane hours, not-so-friendly patients, and the increasing student debt after graduating), its keeping out the brightest and smartest kids in my generation from wanting to get into medicine in our country.
I'm rather worry about what will happen when the Boomers retire and take up Medicaid, and the retirement of the bright doctors in the field today, ect.