Is going lefter than left the right strategy for the democratic party?

1) Lieberman wasn't blackballed from any debate. He said he wasn't interested. When he found out that Kerry & Edwards were going to videoconference, he wanted to do so also. He requested it way too late and everyone determined it wasn't fair to join at the last minute.

2) Dean is really not that far left except on Iraq. He's more moderate than some of the other candidates out there.

3) Which candidate has said terror isn't a problem requiring offensive tactics? Keep in mind that Iraq has little or nothing to do with terror.

4) All primaries - Republican and Democrat - always lean farther to the left and right than the general election. Bush went far-right to win the primaries as well before going back towards the center for the regular election.

 

Politics, like many other things in life, works in cycles.

For most of the 1990s, IMHO, there was hardly a difference between the Repubs and the Dems. Alot of this had to do with Clinton co-opting some of the Republican's favorite issues.

I believe now the pendulum has swung. If Dean gets the nomination, you will again be able to see a stark difference between the two parties, providing a clear choice for the voters.

I like Dean and his positions on alot of the issues. Unfortunately, politics is more than just the candidate's stand on the issues. Alot of it nowadays is look, style, sound-bites and memorable one-liners. Because of that, unfortunately, I am uncertain as to whether or not Dean is electable.

 

That is the problem with the Dems right now.....they are too far left of the mainstream.

What we need is a good old fashioned conservative Democrat.

That is someone I would vote for.

DD

 

Check out Major's post and do some research on Howard Dean. Outside of the war thing, he may be the candidate you're looking for.

 

As was mentioned above, every primary sees the candidates reaching out to all members of their party, be it far left or far right. They also come right back to the middle for the general election.

You really should check out Dean's website for information on him rather than listening to T_J and the like for your information about his platform. He is not nearly as far to the left as you might think. Many of the policies in Vermont are championed by the left (civil unions), but many of those were forced on Dean (civil unions were a result of the Vermont Supreme Court).

Personally, I like Clark because of his military experience and the fact that we are in two major wars right now. I think the general is a better person to lead us out of the mess we are in than our current CinC.

 

Look at their policies and positions, people. Honestly...

Lieberman ===> to the right of Nixon.
Clark ===> to the right of Ford.
Dean ===> somewhere between Ford and Carter.

Bush II ===> easily to the right of Ronald Reagan.

So who exactly is getting more extreme? ROXRAN, don't believe the hype. As others have said, read about Dean's policies, and don't listen to me or T_J or talking heads on TV. Read about him if you want to evaluate him. He's not a frothing liberal at all.

 

Out of curiosity, who for example?

If the question were reversed, I think I would have to go back to at least Eisenhower before there's a Republican I could vote for. I'd certainly vote for Teddy and Abe. However, there's nobody out there right now I would even think of voting for on the GOP side with the exception of a few local folks in local races. You miss the old fashioned Dems, I miss the sane Republicans.

 

Which old fashioned Dems are we talking about? FDR or Strom Thurmond?

 

Good post, B-Bob.
I've mentioned this before... Nixon wouldn't be able to find a place in the leadership of today's Republican Party. He would be considered "too liberal". Can you imagine De Lay and Nixon being happy together? I think not. And don't think I'm a fan of Tricky Dick. I'm old enough to have voted against him, which I did.

 

Lieberman, Gore, Hillary. They all supported the war, are part of the DLC (I think) and support free trade. And they don't support this re-regulation nonsense.

 

Wait a tick, after not finding any WMDs or proof of impending danger from Iraq, not supporting the war still makes somebody a "liberal pinko?" There's absolutely no reason to think people who were against the war might have actually had a good reason? They just did it because they don't like Bush, right? That whole thing was just petty.


I think people ought to pay attention to B-bob's post and spend a couple of minutes actually reading these guy's positions and not just believing whatever Rush or Hannitty say.

 

I certainly didn't mean to imply that! I look at the whole range of issues. The latest from Dean is "fair trade" (an excuse to limit trade) and "re-regulation of business" whatever that means.

 

Well, if you can deregulate, surely you can re-regulate?

 

I'm sorry, I'm in a cantankerous mood today. I don't mean to be jumping to conclusions or anything. But there are other qualified candidates besides Dean.