Mark Warner is a centrist. Jeanne Shaheen is a moderate.

For those of you who believe that we should kick out the moderates in Congress, or keep them from being elected, what should progressives and liberals in VA and NH do? Should they work against Warner and Shaheen? Should they not vote for them in the General Election? Would you prefer to see Gilmore win in NH? Sununu retain his Senate seat? Should progressives in those two states vote 3rd party or write in the name of a candidate?

as long as they vote with Democrats on issues of accountability, war and for the constitution (and the concept of protecting it).

Thusfar the "moderates" haven't really been "moderates" at all. They've been worried more about preserving their power and maintaining corporate profiteering deals that exempt those corporations from the laws they're breaking in return for political contributions (or in DiFi's case keeping the war funded so her husband's contracting firm gets richer).

I don't need a left wing socialist to make me happy (although it would be nice). I just want someone with principles rooted in preserving civil liberties over political power or someone who values rational foreign policy and human lives over financial contributions and endless war.

The Neo-Cons have moved the political spectrum so far to the right since the 1980s that the moderates you are talking about are actually Republicans.

When those disgusted with the Neo-Cons bolt from the party, they sign up as Democrats, ride the wave of American Liberal sentiment into office and then line up with Bush on the vast majority of the issues.

We have to push the spectrum back to the left and force the "moderates" to hear and value the voice of the American majority (which is far further to the left than Congress is). If we are not able to at least push them most the way back, we are electing Republicans, not Democrats.

This should not be a battle over "should we let _______ win?" Those candidates are neo-conservative lunatics.

This should be about backing candidates that actually support what the majority of America supports or at the very least pressuring the ones we have to realize the political damage they will take if they do not vote for American Principles and against King Bush.

That's not that much to ask, really.

Rp

of not tolerating moderates/centrists in the party, I think it's a reasonable question to pose. And no, neither Warner or Shaheen are actually republicans. They wouldn't fit into today's repuke party in any meaningful way.

If they'd agree to be just one equal component, one equal voice, within the party, it would be one thing, but they expect to be first among equals and they expect the rest of us to automatically defer to them.

become simply another component. And you don't have to do what others expect.

Now how about answering the questions in my OP. Interesting how no one wants to do that.

I just don't want them in the driver's seat, and the sense of entitlement of the DLC'ers drives me up the wall.

As far as I'm concerned, they can stay but they can't dominate.

If they want to compromise, they have to meet US halfway. Not just give us the privelege of voting for their chosen candidates on their chosen platform.

And they need to admit that progressives HELPED elect them.

It makes you a sell-out. A pretender. A moderate or centrist is someone who believes in free enterprise, decent regulation that protects both the consumer and small business, American jobs in safe workplaces, reasonable firearm regulation, decent wages, affordable healthcare for everyone, a strong safety net that helps those who need it most, and questions the very notions of "pre-emptive war" and the "unitary executive." Among other things.

The dialog has been dragged so far to the right that we're not even talking about the same things anymore. A person who says "hey, these wack-job neocons are right about THESE issues" is nowhere near a reasonable center. People who support the needs and expectations of multi-national corporations at the expense of American workers and consumers are NOT moderate. A "moderate" or "centrist" is someone who says "yeah, there can be a compromise between socialism and capitalism, or between free enterprise and rational regulation, that can benefit all sides." A moderate does not spurn or mock all ideas from the "loony left" (which isn't even really "left" anyway, but just slightly left of center in any real representation of the spectrum).

You know how I know this? Because I AM a moderate. But I'm a radical moderate. I believe, oddly enough, that our elected officials should represent THE PEOPLE, not the corporations. Not the insurance, credit card, banking, and pharmaceutical companies. Arguing that these people deserve a place at the table when they're the major cause of the troubles we're seeing is NOT a "moderate" position. It's a fucking lunatic position.

And before you argue that most of America is "centrist," which is a common argument from folks like you, let me point out that, in "blind taste tests" regarding the issues, most people actually come down slightly to the left of the illusory "center." The problem is that the issues aren't really being communicated to the people in language that they can easily grasp. The "left" has a habit of over-intellectualizing some very basic concepts and therefore obfuscating some very basic facts. The ultra-rich are picking everyone else's pockets and using our own government to do it. They're manipulating the system to their benefit and to everyone else's detriment.

And more and more people are catching on to it. The Democrats are allegedly the best defense against this sort of thing and, in theory, this is indeed the case. But let's not call those Dems who seem to be firmly in the pocket of industry special interests "Centrist" or "moderate." They're appeasers, collaborators, and quislings.

Like Warren Buffet said. "There's a class war in this country and my side is winning. But it shouldn't be."

The reason it is winning is because the people are woefully misinformed about what's going on. But in their gut they know it. The question is what are they going to do about it?

No one is explaining to them that supply-side economics is a scam. No one is explaining to them that it's not government that they need to fear, but corporate control of huge segments of government.

Well, there's at least one candidate saying this on a regular basis. But you already know that. You mock him at every opportunity. Doesn't mean he's wrong.

sell out. Not sure what that has to do with my OP- which you didn't address, but by and large I think that dems who vote with repukes on any issues of vital importance, are not representing democratic ideals, even if they are representing the majority of their constitutents. In other words, that's no excuse. It's the excuse that many JE supporters use when it's convenient, but it's a lousy excuse.

I think your definition of moderate is excellent:

"A "moderate" or "centrist" is someone who says "yeah, there can be a compromise between socialism and capitalism, or between free enterprise and rational regulation, that can benefit all sides." A moderate does not spurn or mock all ideas from the "loony left" (which isn't even really "left" anyway, but just slightly left of center in any real representation of the spectrum)."

It would make a good working definition here. I'd hope we could all agree on it.

I don't know what people know in their gut- and neither do you, or anyone else for that matter.


I don't argue that America is centrist- or anything else. America is comprised of many different groups whose interests sometimes overlap and sometimes diverge. I'm unconvinced that most Americans have a political philosophy anyway.

Anyone in the pocket of special interests is corrupt. It's that simple. But I've seen completely off base and bizarre accusations of such against politicians that someone disagrees with, who clearly are NOT in the pockets of special interests.


And making shit up doesn't help your case. I never mock Dennis. Ever. Kindly post even one post of mine where I mock Dennis, or apologize for making a false accusation. I don't write that much about Dennis, but I've both defended and praised him and yes, occasionally criticized something he's done in regard to how he's running his campaign. Furthermore, I'm voting for him in the Primary. I've been clear that I'm voting more for his ideas than anything else. I live in the real world and recognize he doesn't have a chance of getting the dem nomination. But mock him, nope. Nah, I know I'll never see an apology from you. It kind of makes a mockery of all you profess when you make such slanderous statements.

Dennis is practically talking to himself, even if he IS saying the right things.

There's only one candidate on the national stage who's talking about how the corporate special interests behave when they're invited to the table. I know you think he's reinvented himself, but there are a lot of us who think that he's had an awakening. Knowing you're going to have to stand by and watch your spouse die and there's not a damn thing you can do about it can have that effect on a person.

As far as knowing what people feel in their gut? I talk to hundreds of people every day...and sometimes corporate behavior comes up in conversation. Nearly every single person I talk to, however obliquely, about how corporations are screwing the little guy, nods in agreement. If I say, "yeah, they make it like that so you'll have to buy the whole thing rather than just a replacement part because it makes them more money," I get a disgusted chuckle in response.

Oh, the people know all right. They're just not sure how far it goes or who to turn to for relief. That's what the Democratic Party SHOULD be. But often isn't.

I've criticzied him, not mocked him. I've never said word one about his haircut, though I have criticized his house. I've certainly criticized his record in the Senate and his AUMF vote- just as I've criticized HRC for her record and AUMF and Kyle/Lieberman vote. I don't give out passes, and I don't trust either Edwards or Clinton.

He's criticized some of his own votes in that respect. More than Hillary has done. She's caught Bush's "I haven't made any mistakes" bug.

Should I have a purity test against him?
I'd take a moderate any day... in fact I'd pick any SANE person.

Folks here who spout the purity line live in a bubble, a cloudy bubble at that.

I'll take the centrist/moderates. With a Super Majority, Progressive goals would be met. The true Progressives and Liberals would be writing laws and getting support, without interference from the goppers.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

Fortunately, it's still true that our votes belong to us to do with as we choose.