• on a comment on Anti-South Backlash over 9 years ago
    I'm talking strictly pragmatically.       We could maybe run a secular NE'er again.....but it's clear that that has big handicaps.    So why not look at the cultural alienation from the northeast and west coast and go where there's possibilities to give Americans somebody to identify with?      

    what are those few other things?  and your sarcasm?  FYI,   I'm from NY.   Not religious, never was.   Live in CA now.    Always a Democrat.    Have no problem with sin whatsover.   The concept doesn't exist for me.    

    Those 'other things', in varying combinations, would be pretty obvious.....having foreign policy, military, or national security credentials;  having an ability to identify at least symbolically with 'regular people';  being roughly centrist or moderate fiscally; having sellable positions during (and prior to)  a national election.    Are you going to ask me what sellable is?    Nobody who comes out and says I'm going to raise taxes, nobody who lectures citizens in any way, nobody who can't  say why he or she believes something, nobody who is not comfortable with religion etc.      

    I don't like kowtowing to those less openminded or liberal than me.....but that's politics.  

  • Oh, I disagree strongly that Edwards doesn't appeal to urban voters.    I think the question is does he really have that strong of an appeal to rural voters.

    I agree that going Southern candidate-wise is no lock - but it's nothing to be afraid of  (as NE is).    I also agree that a "dull" midwestern type is probably not nearly as dull to the people we'd like to appeal to.    I will never again roll my eyes at a Gephardt-type  (though not Dick himself)

  • MN?   Are you currently working with the party?

    and are you the same Sara who frequently  posted on donkey rising?   I've always found you to be one of the very best posters in the entire blogosphere.

  • I don't get how you've conclusively determined that Kerry's cultural baggage did not hurt him with rural and suburban conservative voters in NON Southern states that we need to win.  

    Like Christopher in the top thread, I think you're performing gymnastics to reserve a place for secular intellectuals on the ticket because you feel a strong affinity for them.     And by the way, I'm a coastal secular intellectual.    

  • comment on a post Anti-South Backlash over 9 years ago
    How can you possibly imply that  we need to respect their values.....but we can't become religious, because we're not fundamentalists?

    This seems to be the gist of what you're saying.    There are degrees, man, degrees.     We don't have to wave bibles.     We just have to cool it on the secular intellectual national candidates (probably leave out NE candidates for a few cycles), and the guns, and a few other things.....

    But don't do mental gymnastics to avoid any commitment to a greater place for religion in Democratic politics or candidates.    

  • on a comment on Anti-South Backlash over 9 years ago
    In his campaign, he certainly didn't have a clue how to talk to people in the South.   He said "I'm gonna talk to them" and he talked about God in such a way that it was a political bargaining chip, not the foundation of people's lives.

    I dearly hope that he is good enough to learn lessons and not repeat mistakes, because he can be useful.    But he's got some learnin' to do.

  • comment on a post Using 2006 to set up 2008 over 9 years ago
    I think McCain made some kind of deal with Rove.   McCain would be a dangerous nominee regardless of age.

    I fear nobody but a Rove-enabled McCain candidacy.    

    I think George Allen would also be very strong for them, as would Frist, and I think the Relig Rt likes these two.     For Allen and McCain, you can't do anything in '06, really.    Is it true Warner wants to run for WH?

  • I agree completely.
  • comment on a post Post Election Strategy Memo, Part Two over 9 years ago
    You and many are misunderstanding this.

    It's about discussing your policies in terms of  moral values - and not exclusively.   You can talk numbers and policy outcomes, too.      It's about having an underpinning for your policy choicesthat isn't strictly rational or economic.    It's about stating...or framing....why it's "right" to make the choices we do.

    You don't even have to use the word 'God'.     Though it's nice once in a while.

    Don't belittle this idea by throwing it in the bin as a call to merely "become religious".

    And you're right, we CAN demonize the intolerant right.    There's a value right there:  tolerance.    The human family is deep and wide, and we have a great country where all are welcome, where all must have freedom and an equal chance at success, and will be rewarded for good effort....etc.

  • comment on a post Kerry in '08? over 9 years ago
    It is so early it's absurd.   And it's irresistable.

    The big question for 08 is this:   Will whatever deal Rove cut with McCain grease the way for his nomination?    Because if he pulls that off and we face him  he takes independents away from us.    I don't think he's beatable unless economic conditions are truly awful.

  • We don't need to appeal to the whole of the religious right.    Just a tiny, tiny piece of it, the leftward edge, if you will.     And simultaneously this will help with immigrants - whom we need long term - for many of them are religious.

    We cannot dismiss the need to communicate a political philosophy and express it a) in moral terms and b) to not be or appear to be hostile to the religious.       This is what people are really saying.      This doesn't mean that the nonreligious get thrown overboard.   I'm not religious.

    Think about the civil rights era, think about how religion played a part in that progressive moment.  

  • Maybe not so much take it back but claim moral grounding for our political views.    Not just enunciate them in an abstract objective, rational way.

    Sara said,
    What we are talking about here is indeed about getting the language right so we do achieve ownership of a political moral argument that appeals to precisely the kind of people mentioned in the posted memo -- the folk in coal country...... we've alienated too much of the working class base, and become untrustworthy. "

    I'm thrilled that this idea is getting around in a big way.    It is true.    

  • comment on a post Please, No More Gimmick Strategies over 9 years ago
    Good post, but come on, voters will always, always make strategic choices of candidates.    It won't mean we're "finished" when that inevitably happens again.

    One thing is for sure, in my opinion:  no more overtly secular candidates.     That's not to endorse false religiosity, of course.     And no more automatic rejection of "boring" candidates from the midwest by coastal excitement seekers.   I myself have fallen into this trap and won't again.    

    I wonder if I would have seen Harry Truman in the 2004 primaries as some uptight midwesterner.    

    And the press will slap a label like "electability" on it, and supporters of candidates who are shortchanged by voters will howl.    In the end, votes will determine a primary winner.    Yeah, I know I'm a fountain of profundity here.

    And for the poster who said Kos is overrun with DLC Goons, not only is that absurd and incorrect, that is exactly the attitude that will prevent increasing the size of the coalition.    


Advertise Blogads