Why do dem leaders try to distance themselves from the base?

As much as I despise shrub and his pals, there is one thing to be said about the repukes. They stand by their convictions. No matter how fucked up their convictions are. They are fiercely loyal to the extreme factions of the base, while the dems try to distance themselves from the major dissenters at every opportunity. I don't get it!

Look at Ann Coulter for example, this woman says the most vile things for a living and do the Repubs try to distance themselves from her? never! Dems however will distance themselves from their base constantly, Jack Murtha, Michael Moore, etc. Why do they do this? What are they afraid of? Karl Rove? Can someone please expain this to me?

Both parties spend much time and $$$ crushing their respective bases.

Their style of populism consists of appealing to racism other forms of bigotry and cloaking it all in religion.

The original Populists did that too.

Of course, the Rethug version has a right-wing political/economic angenda inside, instead of a progressive one.

We have to be something other than Populists. The Repubs have the bigot vote sewed up, and we don't want it anyway.

that is a headscratcher. There are many answers for that... at the root of which may be the fact that the Democratic party is unorganized and can't focus a message between all its members. What the means is that there are several wings of our party all with conflicting view points.

Of course, I could be wrong.

That is a reasonable explanation, unfortunatley it is killing us politically.
The recent vote on the patriot act is another major disapointment to me and I consider myself to be the base.

Damn, that just pisses me off!

Voted against it. It makes NO sense! Can't they hear "We the People"?

Democrats are everyone else.---

I have no problem saying that there are people in the Democratic party that have Ideas that I don't subscribe to. I have even voted for people that I didn't always agree with---but when you let people use their brains instead of just yes sir, no sir, whatever you require sir, then you are going to find this ---that is one of the serious messages that needs to come out, that Dems are the all inclusive party, and Repups are the lock step, jack booted, heil fearless leader type party

They don't stand by their convictions, because they don't have any!

Hells Bells - "Base" ... "BASE !?!?" I'm sure South Dakota is doing backflips now that Mr. Bush stated that he doesn't know if he supports all out abortion. Yeah, his base is just fine.

Those suckers in the administration are fighting like cats and dogs right now.

The shit doesn't seem to stick to the fan with Bush because he has the bully pulpit (we don't), we can call for independent investigations (and they're voted down) and we have -0- say in ANYTHING anymore.

We're under one party rule in this country and if the party who is intoxicated with power looks like it has its shit together to you, geez --- I wonder why !?!?

Things are headed for a change. But until then, please don't sell your party short.

Kind of hard to have a voice when the administration has taken so much away from the Democratic party, and the media has become as biased as they are.

We Dems need every vote they can get,
because we need a landslide to avoid being robbed,
and even that isn't enough in Ohio anymore.

Republicans need only their wingnut Fundie base
and DIEBOLD


"Committed to helping to deliver the electoral votes of Ohio to the President"
Walden O'Dell, C.E.O (since "retired")

But you have to blame the MEDIA again for not covering this vitally important story!!!

People are being ripped off left and right in every state that has Diebold machines and nada, zip, zilch, NOTHING from the media.

I realize people like Bev Harris are busting their asses on this Diebold deal, but how they are unable to draw major media attention is mind-blowing!!!

they parade them in front of the cameras as badges of honor.

Does anyone in their right mind believes that these extremist are mainstream?

Does anyone in their right mind believe that the right-wing came to dominate the entire political structure of the country because they are mainstream?

I suspect there are those in the Democratic Party who are obsessed with making the party a comfortable home for the stock broker, investment banker or corporate lawyer. Thus the activist core are an impediment to the image they want to create.

I'm just so glad that Daryn Kagan FINALLY dumped that racist pig Limbaugh! Now maybe I won't change the channel when she comes on CNN..

Actually, it's been more than a month now - but dayum - what the hell took her so long !!??

Rush has probably had the "up the Oxy" now that his ex-squeeze is dating another guy!!

This is it exactly!

The GOP seem to be into letting others think for them than they all go with it. This party is every place, so hard to keep it in line. The GOP is great at killing the messenger so does not even hear what they do not like. We just take news and get mad and b-----.

before the crucial New Hampshire primary vote and the media whores were all over him on that one for the full week leading up to that vote. FOX news ran the pre New Hampshire candidates debate and they ambushed Clark during that debate over his Michael Moore connections. The Moore and Clark story was on most of the National Sunday TV political talk shows, they kept trying to make Clark back away from Moore but he wouldn't do it. Clark came in 3rd in NH and was treated like he came in a distant 4th by the media. OK, that's how the media treated Clark, but a lot of progressive Democrats continue to treat Clark as if he stood by Ann Coulter instead of Michael Moore. We have a role to play in this also.

Evan Bayh has a much different constituency than Al Sharpton. Then, as someone else pointed out, the GOP has the media in their pockets, so Andy Coulter's ravings are never scolded in the MSM, while anyhting the least bit controversial from Moore ar Sharpton is trumpted and portrayed as treason.

The big base is the Democratic voters, us. I know that often people who post here accuse "us" of holding some sort of purity test for candidates; however, they are simply blowing smoke. Ask yourself: how many people in our country want a good job, want to see their kids grow up to do well, want an end to this endless war, want adequate health care, want drinkable water? The list could go on and on, but you get the idea: these are common wants, and these are the very issues that fill this board and many others.

Michael Moore is hardly a "leftist;" he is a muckraker. Good. F-911, a film that was filled with truth, may not support the senators who voted for the war, but it deserves to be witnessed. The insiders bash him because he exposed their weakness: they put their shoddy political egos before the good of the country.

The big base is ignored not because we are out of the main stream, but because we are controllable by the little base composed of party insiders and big-money. When push comes to shove, they just set our hair on fire by shouting about how not supporting them will make rovians stronger. I know because I've bought that lie again, and again.

I really don't know what to do. I know that they will never listen to me or those like me who yearn to see my country fulfill its promise. I fully expect them to continue selling us out, because historically, they have gotten away with it. The dichotomy is this: continue to vote the way I'm told I must, or break with the past, and vote the truth. I know this much: I will not vote for anyone, no matter the "D" after their name, no matter the pressure, no matter the big-money buzz, who voted for this war. This war has totally screwed my country. If the insiders' club don't care about that, I do. That includes the coven of "oopers" who now cynically say that bush lied to them. If I knew bush was lying, they knew or they are just too dumb to represent anyone.

Note: A good conservative Democrat stopped by for coffee last week. She surprised me by asking if there is any hope for a third party. I told her "no" but in my heart, I'm just wishing for a second party.

:applause:

SO many of us feel exactly the same way, Donna.

We are cut off at the knees, but we are still
stumping along, working for the lesser of the
evils.

We have a situation in this country. We have a
constituency BEGGING for a leader. My biggest
fear is that the republican media machine will
provide one for us, as the democrats seem hell-
bound to politically assassinate any dem candidate
who is not beholden to their money machine.

When Kerry walked onto the stage at the 04 convention
and saluted with that "reporting for duty" line, I
KNEW we were DOOMED.

It is from my heart and my head. Enough is enough is enough to know. The Democratic Party wants me labeled and off the ship; no thinking people need apply. Fine with me.

the question that our comrades never ever respond to, is why the hell were our fearless "oopers" in washington so _______ (fill in blank with appropriate adjective)on certain basic set of principles wrt to invasion and occupation of any nation who does represent a genuine threat to our national security.

this is truly an excellent post ... i must say, i was not clear you held the views you stated; they speak for me as well ...

perhaps we differ only on this ... you stated that: "I will not vote for anyone, no matter the "D" after their name, no matter the pressure, no matter the big-money buzz, who voted for this war."

perhaps we need to define some terms here ... what is meant by "voting for this war"? if your statement looks only to a vote on the IWR, while i share your sentiments (and then some), i am willing to forgive almost any Democrat who will help put a rapid end to the war ... are those who voted against the IWR or stated they opposed the war in the beginning in some way absolved of blame when they vote for more funding or they accept the myth that "while i didn't support going in, now we're stuck there?"

so, my definition of "voting for this war" gets broadened beyond the initial vote ... i believe that spending even one more day is wrong ... i believe that each and every day we remain causes more death, injury and suffering and only makes the situation worse ... i don't subscribe to the "we're stuck there" or the "pottery barn" propaganda; we're not stuck there unless there is no opposition party demanding that we get out now ...

i don't accept the idea that "we have to SUPPORT THE TROOPS by giving bush more funds to continue the war and the occupation ... if the US were ever able to actually achieve anything in Iraq, and they never will, only a puppet regime and the exploitation of Iraqi oil will result ... so all the talk about regional negotiations or promoting a democratic iraq or caring about the Iraqi people or training their troops so they can handle their own affairs is all total crap ... i don't accept any of it because i believe the US is a colonial power and has only the interests of its greediest citizens on its agenda ...

so, i'd like to hear your insightful thoughts on what constitutes an appropriate criteria for refusing to vote for a Democrat who has "voted for this war" ... my standard is that those who keep talking about what must be achieved before we leave are WAR SUPPORTERS and i will not vote for them ... those who see the light and demand an immediate end to American abuses in the region will have my support ... it seems to me the standard should reach well beyond an IWR vote ...

your thoughts?

really great post, btw, DZ !!

First, my post was an answer to the OP question: why don't Dems support the base? I've wrestled with this one long ago...before the 04 election. Maybe it was reading about '92, and how the republican base either sat it out or just left bush I. Whatever, it taught the republicans a serious lesson: protect the base. One would think that after 2000 (even considering the theft) the Democrats might have considered how important all those Nader votes were. I know Nader voters. Those folks are not radical nutjobs, they're not people who bought into the Dems and repubs are the same; what they are people who are sick of jobs leaving the country, and the special interest politics of globalization. I didn't agree with them about not voting "D", but I do understand the need to get them back.

Instead, the Democrats, at least the ones who get a chance to mug for the TV, are systematically pushing more people out of the party. What to do? Coming right up....


I was against the IWR vote because I knew that Saddam was not a threat. And I knew that bush was going to war. In fact, if one was watching the news of the increased bombing runs during the summer of 02, the war had already begun. Parker in "Assassins' Gate" sealed the deal when he describes the "Iraqi Reconstruction Group's" open meetings that took place all over DC during the summer of 02. Now what in the hell did senators think a "reconstruction" group was planning? They were told behind closed doors that bush wanted to go to war. It was called the "Long War" theory that was set to jump from country to country (PNAC) as we cleaned out the Middle East. All of Europe knew about these plans, as did the countries of the Gulf.

It was one thing to dump the problem of Saddam's crap into the laps of the UN. I understand that, and have no qualms about that. But that is not what bush was up to, and those senators who voted "yea" did so either because 1) they agreed with bush or 2) they wanted to be invited to the party if bush got to have a victory parade. That resolution was not a resolution meant for the UN, it was a trigger for war. Now they're telling me "oops, we didn't know." Forchristsake; adding insult to injury by treating me like my mother raised a fool. They knew!

Bottom line: the Iraq War is/was a major strategic geopolitical blunder. It has caused untold sorrow and terror to those unlucky enough to be involved. This war has provided security cover for the Chinese to actively pursue economic gains in the region, and has placed our country in the worst possible of positions to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We have lost our rights because of this, we have spent our treasure, and now face a specter of further losses in the world. I don't know about you, but living in a dying democracy doesn't appeal to me at all.

Anyone who agreed with this was stupid. Anyone who voted because of their personal political gain is too crass to be believed. None will ever get my vote. The Democratic Party, if they cared about winning at all, would respect those of us within the party who oppose this war, by nominating someone who deserves to be nominated. Gore, Feingold, Clark, Dean, ....I'm sure there is a list somewhere. Telling me to shut up and get in line or rove will get me, is a very fucked up response. Another yadda yadda election will just be another loser anyway.

Getting out...I'll save that for another time. I hope you're not sorry you asked to receive this rant...because I respect your posts. We may not agree on everything, but I know we both want out of Iraq asap. It's okay. Healthy discussion is good for the soul. Oh...one thing: the latest Quadrennial Defense Review is setting up for the Long War Theory. In other words, our government, like a drunk on a Saturday night, is looking for fight.

ps I'll be in MA next weekend for the conference on the presidency and Vietnam. It should be a hoot!

:shrug:

it's not like me smell or have bad breath.

Seriously, who are they trying to impress.

the democrats have been handed gift after gift from the repugs in congress to the white house, but still do we hear the dems. No! That is a shame.... Speak the hell up and speak the hell up, often... It is pass time for the dems to jump in and what was it tom delay said, when your opponent is down, keep kicking and keep him down.... Well, there is the jest of the repug play book, but do we have dems that will fight, kick? NO! And we cannot sit back and hope the media does anything to help. Hell, they seem to already have their play book for 08...It is McCain baaaby.... and just who in the hell is McCain? The dems need to distance themselves from this man, because once you side up to him then you give him credibility and sends the wrong damn message....Damn democrats, if you going to take a stand for something, NOW IS THE TIME, and if you gonna be a bear, then be A DAMN GRIZZLEY....

I mean, I wouldn't consider Murtha part of the base. Politically, he's far to the right of me, and, quite frankly, to the right of most Democrats. Michael Moore, on the other hand, is to the left of most Democrats, so I don't see how you can consider him part of the "base". The guy campaigned for a third party candidate in 2000, why would the party leadership not distance themselves from someone who is working to get someone from another party elected?

I hear this from the repukes, I hear this from Dems in Washington.

But, wait a minute - Michael Moore is to the RIGHT OF ME!

But, Michael Moore is the working class hero... (that makes him one my heros even if he is to the Right of me)

So, tell me please - what exactly is Leftist about Michael Moore?

I think it's fair to say Michael is left of center, though not a classical leftist. Moore is more of a leftist populist than he is radical left. Moore fights hard for the common man and woman, is pro Union, doesn't trust Corporations as far as he can throw himself to represent the true interests of America, and in general is highly critical of how wealthy interests have the American political system rigged to maintain their own hold on power and privilege. He connect dots to view a larger picture that is anti establishment. An anti establishment populist who distrusts the entrenched power of monied interests, and fights hard for "the working man" is some kind of leftist anyway.

:shrug:

When the Dem base is virtually undefinable?

Hint: If you think it is the ultra-left, you are wrong - at least in my area.

I would define "the base" as those who knock on doors, make phone calls, get sigs on ballot petitions, etc.

Many, many of those people that I know, are not as unhappy with middle-of-the-road positions as you might want to think.

They only oppose the PATRIOT Act bacause they've heard it's bad. If instead you discuss how the PATRIOT Act allows different agencies to share information and therefore make us "safer", you get a different reaction. Throw into the mix that the version just passed eliminates most of the privacy concerns, and people just aren't getting worked up about it.

As for convictions, whose convictions are you wanting them to stand by - theirs, their constituents' - or yours?

I personally have no doubt that many of our Democratic leaders stand by their convictions - and their constituents - as much as possible in the effed-up compromise world of politics. (Every bill has good and bad points. You have to decide whether getting the good stuff outweighs living with the bad, knowing that there is no other way to get the good.) Also, remember that they are supposed to be representatives for their constituents. Thus someone like Kerry who personally opposes abortion but won't support making it illegal.

As for "distancing" from Murtha, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Of course I pay more attention to Kerry than most of the other Dem politicians, and Kerry has come out strongly in support of Murtha on multiple occasions (although his own plan for Iraq, offered a few weeks before Murtha made headlines, is slightly different). If others are doing differently, I'm sorry to hear that, but for example I wouldn't expect a Joe Lieberman to support Murtha's position on Iraq - that would be going against Lieberman's convictions, for sure. Of course even Lieberman should denounce the smear tactics the republocans are using against Murtha, but I don't know whether he has.

that *uck the Unions!

Half of the Union people I know vote 'puglican, because they
were sold down the river by NAFTA, which they blame on Clinton.

We need to idealize the Union mystique and make it acceptable
for Union people to vote, AND BE PROUD TO VOTE Democratic again.

.....to your question. A requirement to win any election is that a candidate has to get a certain amount of that "undecided vote" and the vote of their own party to win. Ok, so we've established that much.

Most of the time people right here on this board can't even agree that getting rid of the neocons should be their primary goal. So, how in gods name, are we to get an entire political party to agree on anything while also trying to capture that "undecided" vote?

Neocons on the other hand will, as you rightly point out, get on board with a candidate and stay there. So getting the vote of their own party and the "undecided" vote is easy. Neocons narrow their message down to two or three things that they repeat over and over again. Whether it's the right approach or not is not the issue, the issue is it works.

So the short and sweet answer to your question is that Democrats are trying to be all inclusive to get that "middle of the road" vote as well as the vote of an entire party who can't agree on much of anything.IMPOSSIBLE!!:shrug:

stupid.

Some of them are that stupid and others don't care that he fuckswith them.

Ever hear Bush say he wants Roe v Wade overturned? No. His own spokespeople during the campaign said he won't overturn Roe.

Many o the base believes he doesn't address it directly because he can't and they accept it.

They have liberals, labor, environmentalists, most African Americans, and the DLC krew.

They choose DLC and corporations over the others all the time; them and those mythical undecided swing voters.

we smell like patchouli
we smoke
we wear tye dyed shirts



(okay, so i don't wear patchouli--but i once dated a guy who wore it ALL the time. that should count!)