Daily Kos

View Story | 565 comments

  •  Yeah!!! And nobody from Illinois ... (3.85 / 21)

    ...either. Let's get us a ...a... a Texan next time.

    Jeezus. I am so sick of this fucking move it to the right, move it to the right mantra.

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:37:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't you get the memo, MB? (3.88 / 9)

      We need a southern governor.  They're the only Democratic candidates who can win.  For all practical purposes, that means Warner or Easley; otherwise, forget it.  And we should take a lesson from our last southern governor to get elected and throw gays under the bus.  Maybe even abortion, too.  Whatever it takes to out-Republican the Republicans.

      Maybe rename ourselves the Democratic-Republicans and say we're the "Party of Jefferson" to trump all that "Party of Lincoln" crap.  That should confuse those values voters.

      "We need a southern governor."  Lather, rinse, repeat.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

      by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:44:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As Armando noted at length ... (none / 0)

        ...last night in his Diary, Digby over at Hullaballoo has a terrific analysis of the South. Already we barely have a difference between NeoImps and DemoWimps in foreign policy, if we're going to keep edging up to the Republicans year after year, why not just merge altogether?

        I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:47:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, the Repocrats (none / 0)

          Is it me or these guys are still fighting the Civil War? or some such?

          by Italtransit on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:49:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Digby is dead-on (4.00 / 2)

          I'm far from a seasoned political expert, but in the aftermath of this election people seem to be getting about 50% of the lesson right.  Sure, we need to sell our ideas better in certain parts of the country.  What we don't need is to abandon our ideas for neo-GOP ideas that we think are "winners" in any given election cycle.  That's what's lost us the last three national elections.  The so-called values voters will smell the calculation a mile away, anyway.  People can always tell when someone's hawking something he doesn't believe in.  

          And if we do win, then what?  Move left, alienate the voters we converted, and get tossed out on the next go-round?  Or follow through with the center-right agenda we promised but don't actually agree with?  Either way, what was the point of winning via selling out?

          The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmm (none / 0)

            The political calculation thing seems to be working fairly well for the Republicans.

            Maybe we should start calling them on it?

            (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

            by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:03:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What calculation? (none / 0)

              They actually believe all that garbage.  The calculation part is in the negative ads, the smattering of wedge issues, the race-, woman-, gay-baiting, etc.  On the issues, they believe it all: tax cuts, destroying Social Security, preemptive war, hatred of the UN and especially France, all of it.  

              Their only calculation wrt the issues is in framing the steaming pile of excrement that is their set of policies and making it look like a Christmas present, all wrapped up with a pretty bow on top.

              The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

              by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:08:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Calculation (none / 0)

                As far as calculation goes, he means things like the Medicare bill, No Child Left Behind Act, etc.  Yes we rightfully criticize those efforts because they didn't go far enough, helped drug companies, weren't properly funded, etc.  But they were calculated attempts by Bush to neutralize Democratic issues, and largely they worked with voters.  He got away with collaborating with Ted Kennedy on an education bill and seeming like he honestly was trying to work with Democrats to help kids.

                Obviously Bush and those Repug a--holes didn't want to help anyone but themselves.  But he did successfully blunt some of our issues.  We should do the same with them ... and we did, when Clinton was in office.  Remember the COPS program to put 100,000 cops on the street?  That was all about neutralizing a Republican issue, and it worked.

                by Philosopher on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:21:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Have you not been paying attention? (none / 0)

                The Republicans don't believe all that garbage, until they are told so by their email distribution list.

                Watch 'em... some of these issues don't become issues until Rove/Bush brings them up... and then suddenly they are rabidly behind them.

                The Iraq war was their biggest political calculation, and it worked for them.

                (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

                by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:30:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not Repug voters (none / 0)

                  Repug leaders (Bush and Rove) believe it.  And GOP voters fall in line because of the "strong and steady" leadership.  Any calculation behind it is backed up by belief, which the voters like.  They'd rather have "strong and wrong" blah blah blah.  The suggestion that we should have a leader(s) who panders to a particular constituency/geographic region by taking stances he/she thinks will win by getting to the elusive 270 is precisely the problem with the Democratic Party.

                  The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

                  by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:34:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Party & lib hate > ideology (none / 0)

                  They'll shift w/ the wind ideologically.  It's mostly about winning and spiting libs.  They're petty people.

                  by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:40:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Wow (none / 0)

        Let's pretend we know who the electable guy is in advance via telepathic invasion of red state brains, pick that guy, and win big!

        Let's nominate another guy who 90% of the convention delegates disagree with on the major issue of the day!

        Lather, rinse, repeat.

        by pletzs on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:55:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Midwest or Southwest (none / 0)

        Apparently, there's more citizens in that area than Vermont. :) F the south.

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:05:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No opinion at the moment just curious (none / 0)

          What do westerners think of Janet Napolitano? A southwestern Democratic Governor in a repub state with a repub legislature? I don't really know her principles, just her demographics...

          Anyone can blog local races. Anyone can raise money.

          by bonobo on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:10:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "don' tknow her princples" (none / 0)

            maybe we should start voting for candidates based on who has the most of those instead...

            by ihlin on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:30:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ideally, both (none / 0)

              I want to vote based on principles. I want 51% of America to vote with me. If Demographics help, I'm all for finding a candidate who's got them. Right now, as I idly try to figure out who I'd like to see make a run, I have a lot more information available about demographics than about principles. I've got news stories with partisan rhetoric on both sides, precious little substantive information on the process and content of AZ legislation over the last few years. I can understand why you might prefer to look first for principles, but it's a question of available info, not priority. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

              Anyone can blog local races. Anyone can raise money.

              by bonobo on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:44:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I know that's a joke (none / 0)

        But Mike Easley would probably win. He took a bankrupt NC (thanks to Bush) and fixed it. And he landed big corporate deals to bring FedEx and today - Dell. And he has a great education record. And he's a great debater. He tore Republican Patrick Ballantine to shreds...

        "Mr. Ballantine, you have no idea what your talking about or what it takes to run this state."

        Mike Easley would be a good choice...not trying to give credence to the 'we need a southerner' nonsense.

        by silverbax on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:05:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't mean to dis Easley (none / 0)

          I don't know anything about him, and if he'd be a good candidate, I'm open to it.  I've just seen one too many threads where someone mentions none of the things you just brought up, but instead says "hey, this guy Mike Easley is a Democrat from the south; let's nominate him!!!"  

          The real bottom line is it's way too early to have any idea what '08 is going to look like for either side.

          The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:10:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes...nominate Zell... (none / 0)

        ...a true Southern conservative, former Georgia governor, still (at least tangentially) considers himself a Democrat...ideal candidate.  Probably even electable.

        Of course, how, exactly, this differs from having a neocon Republican in the White House, I don't know...

        We need someone who is 1) progressive and 2) can connect with the Red-staters.  Dean was right that we need a candidate who can speak to the people in the pickup trucks with the Confederate flags on them; Dean just wasn't the one to do it.

        We need somebody, actually, like Lloyd Doggett.  Unfortunately, we probably don't need Doggett himself, because standing representatives just don't get elected.  But Doggett is really the epitome of the electable Democrat.

        "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

        by DC Pol Sci on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:08:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What about Vilsack? (none / 0)

        I don't know much about him. But don't discount the mid-west. We need Ohio, Iowa and we need to keep Mich., Wisc. and Pa. I'm sick of southerners.

        by crazymom on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:13:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like Vilsack (none / 0)

          I think we should take a look at Vilsack.  Also Warner from Virginia.  And maybe even Bill Richardson or Tony Knowles (yes I know he lost for Senate, but he was an ex-Governor--he has the same qualifications Dean had).

          Ken Salazar also looks great for VP, in my opinion.  He was a rancher for many years, campaigned in a cowboy hat and a rusted-out green truck, yet is a good Democrat.  Plus I imagine that he would help us win the Latino vote, which Bush cut into this time around.

          by Philosopher on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:23:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Vilsack- my thoughts as an Iowan (none / 0)

            I don't live there anymore but still keep track of politics there.  He is likeable but not exciting- Edwards' looks and charm with Kerry's demeanor from what I have seen.  But he was a small town lawyer turned state legislator who won an upset victory for governor and became Iowa's first Dem governor in a generation, getting reelected handily in '02.  

            He is really liberal and has stood up for gays (job discrimination, not marriage) but manages to be popular in a rural state with few Dem govs in its history.  I think he is solid material for us, geographically, culturally, politically.  

            I am concerned about nominating another Catholic being that the church comes out harder on them (and has a better case for saying they are hypocrites) than it does for non-Catholics who are pro-gay and pro-choice.  I think this burned Kerry (not that they should allow pro-war catholic politicians to go uncriticized, but they are hypocrites themselves).  But hopefully the atmosphere will just be different next time.

            On a side note, people keep saying Dean is unelectable because he isn't religious enough- at least they can't say he is a hypocrite as he does come from a very liberal, pro-gay denomination.  

            The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

            by DemDachshund on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 05:26:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I threw that memo in to the garbage (none / 0)

        No, we don't need a Southern governor. We need a good, solid candidate, preferably outside D.C., as senate records and such are easy to attack and to define candidates.

        Kerry had a credibility problem. Which was greatly due to the fact the repukes did deliver their message so well.

        We just need candidates that aren't so lackluster. Screw the South. It's unlikely we can carry any southern state for a while, it's more important to focus on VA, CO, OH and NV in the next elections to come.

        How about the governors in PA, MI or WV? Those are valid candidates and NOT from the South.

        With this logic, we could just ask Jeb Bush to run for us.

        The Bush Administration: Delivering Pain, Suffering, Destruction and Death Worldwide since 2001

        by Jonesyboy on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:14:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm (none / 0)

          Well, my post was meant to be sarcastic.  Obviously I botched that one a bit...

          As for the PA, MI, and WV guvs, MI is out since Granholm was born in Canada (unless, of course, the Repugs push the Ahhhnuld amendment thru at some point).  Ed Rendell, from PA, could make a good candidate, though he's a bit too enamored with the DLC for my taste.  He also has a ton of salacious moral skeletons in the closet, I'll guarantee it.  I'm from the Philly burbs, and we all just know there's mountains of dirt on the guy.  Worse than Clinton.  As for WV, I'll be honest, I've got nothing.

          I agree with the rest of what you have to say, though to me VA is in the south.  Not that we shouldn't focus on it; I think we can get it to turn blue.  It's never useful to write of whole swaths of the country, but we don't need to hyper-pander to particular regions, either.

          The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:23:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  MI Governor (none / 0)

          Jennifer Granholm is very well liked in Michigan, solid Democrat, and she's got charisma to spare. However, she was born in Canada. So unless Ahnold's constitutional amendment goes through, she's not eligible.

          by lpackard on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This anti-South shit is not just ignorant... (none / 0)

        it's not very strategic either. To look at the south as monolithic and backwards is falling right into the Republican briar patch. The fact is that the south is considered so important because it is the fastest growing region in the country. It is going to be increasingly difficult to piece together an electoral vote majority without at least a few southern states. This doesn't mean we have to sacrifice our values on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But if it means we have to act a little more country in order to get 35% in the rural areas instead of 25% so that we can squeak out a victory by winning in the urban and suburban areas then no I don't think that's much of a compromise.

        "If there is no struggle, there is no progress ... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -Frederick Douglass

        by kitchentable on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 01:15:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely right (none / 0)

          Why should be keep trying to be less than a national party when we know that Democrats can win in Southern states.  Well, we don't win national races -- but we routinely win state races including governors' seats.  We have Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma (which votes like a Southern state), and Louisiana, and until the most recent elections we had Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Alabama.  That about covers it.  Some of these governors are more moderate than others, but most have progressive agendas.  We need to compete -- using candidate time and campaign dollars -- with a message that connects with the voters who have been splitting their tickets.  The last thing we should be doing is saying a pox-on-red-states-and-that-means-the South-especially.  

          by Elizabeth Edwards on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:38:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Where is it growing from? (none / 0)

          Because if it's taking voters from the North Eastern states, it's impossible for the South to remain heavily Republican.  

          Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

          by Asak on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 05:28:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  ROTFLMAO (none / 0)

        Maybe rename ourselves the Democratic-Republicans and say we're the "Party of Jefferson" to trump all that "Party of Lincoln" crap.  That should confuse those values voters.

        "We need a southern governor."  Lather, rinse, repeat.

        My 10-year-old can't figure out why I'm laughing so hard.

        Thanks, I needed a chuckle.

        BTW, I agree completely.  Or maybe a Senator from Indiana.....

        by MilitaryWifey on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:09:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not moving... especially not to the right! (none / 0)

        Did anyone read Molly Ivins' Mourning in America?  Love her!  She talks about curing a chicken-killin' dog by wiring a dead chicken to the dogs neck until it stinks so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself & will never kill another chicken again.  Love this Texan's twang.  She then goes on to say...

        The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.

        So don't worry about it!  The stink is going to be so bad that we won't have a problem electing a Democrat in 2008.

        And now for something completely different... always look on the bright side of life --Monty Python

        by goldilocks on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 09:16:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  LOL (4.00 / 2)

      Picking Kerry was a move to the left.  

      by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:53:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Define right (none / 0)

      Let me know if you think Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy were left wing or right wing.

      Better yet, just define what you think left means.

      Frankly I still want someone like Roosevelt, but in order to get that the Democratic party has to shift to what I think you regard as the right-wing, which is troubling.

      (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

      by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:00:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (none / 0)

        Ideological zealotry hasn't helped Bush much.  It nearly cost him this time around, as this election should not have been close after all the post 9/11 goodwill.  Bush could have taken 400+ electorals.   He won in 2004 due to 9/11.  Not because of "values."  

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Economically speaking, I don't think ... (none / 0)

        ...I would call FDR right-wing. Certainly his Republican foes at the time didn't.

        On foreign policy, certainly, Truman was further to the right than many, but, remember, to the real right, he lost China and went for the sell-out containment policy of George Kennan instead of rollback. On economic policy, he had a mixed record, mostly leftward.

        Kennedy came at a cuspish time in American politics and never got the chance to show what he might have become. Bobby, despite his years as AG, was definitely a good deal to the left of his brother by the time he was - sigh - assassinated.

        I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 09:15:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm. But... (none / 0)

      Does saying "no Dean, Hillary," etc. really mean "move it to the right"?

      For me Hillary represents her husband's legacy of Republican-lite welfare "reform," NAFTA, don't ask/tell, etc.  And Dean was much further to the right on policy than his revolutionary image would suggest.

      Why can't we find someone who's new to the scene  and really progressive?

      by MarkDQ on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:28:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey! I know! (none / 0)

      Let's nominate Zell Miller!

      That's the ticket!

      Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

      by Andrew C White on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 08:15:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 565 comments