Why should we be happy that Kaine won?

The Corzine win is great, fantastic!  But why are we happy Kaine won?  He's a conservative and basically ran for office claiming to be more conservative and more religious than Kilgore.  So why are we, as liberals, happy that he won?

Even on abortion he is a waffler.  He admits to being "personally opposed" to abortion but says he won't "oppose abortion law as it is" but also says we should work to "make abortion more and more rare".  He is vehemently opposed to what the right has propaganda-named "partial birth abortion".

Kaine is a conservative in every sense of the word.  Are we so desperate for victory that a conservative in Democrat clothes makes us happy?  I'm afraid that for a few of the very red states this is the future of the Democrat Party.  More and more conservatives running as Dems.

Let's face it, the conservatives keep winning and winning.  Dems won in Wyoming and Colorado by claiming to be more conservative than their Reep opponents last cycle and the trend continues.  

Thank God for Corzine, at least there is finally a win by a true liberal!!

Tags: (all tags)



You're an idiot
by zt155 2005-11-08 06:34PM | 0 recs
You must be a troll...
Only a troll would pretend that a victory by a very, very Conservative Democrat is any kind of win for liberalism.  Kaine's a conservative.  His stands on the issues are EXACTLY identical to Conservative Republicans except for his waffling issue-straddling on Abortion.  And he's very, scarily lukewarm in support of abortion rights.  You can tell he really would like to see an end to abortion which he admits is his "personal view".
by Blue Dreams 2005-11-08 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You must be a troll...
You're an idiot because you think he's conservative.

You on the otherhand are turning a Democratic victory in a red state into a negative. You think enjoying a Kaine win makes me a troll? You've got to be some kind of comedian.

If there was a "conservative" Dem on the ballot it was Creigh Deeds for AG. He lost to a guy who went to Pat Robertson's school in Va. Beach. I guess you're thrilled that we came up short in that race.

This is a pro-Democratic Party blog. I belong here, you don't. Troll.

by zt155 2005-11-08 08:36PM | 0 recs
Correction: MyDD is a progressive blog
Daily Kos and My Left Wing, which have declared themselves to be Democratic blogs.

Chris and Jerome have not declared that MyDD is a Democratic blog. They are currently both active in Democratic politics and MyDD leans Democratic.

I believe it is more accurate to describe MyDD as progressive, rather than Democratic. Jerome and Chris maintain the most wide open standards for political dissent of any site in the blogosphere that I am aware of.

Greens, conservative Democrats and even left wing loony commies like myself are wecome to participate in the national political dialogue at MyDD.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction: MyDD is a progressive blog
Gosh Darn Commie!!!!  ;-)
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You must be a troll...
Funny how this is exactly the same message from the Republicans' fraudulent 'Democrat and Progressive Voter Guide'...
by Scott Shields 2005-11-09 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You're an idiot
And you're no liberal.  You're just an arrogant punk that has no understanding of consensus politics, and as a result is doomed to be part of a permanent, frustrated minority.

Go vote for Nader, you loser.

by paul minot 2005-11-09 05:37AM | 0 recs
Thank you
I feel better all ready!
by Paul Goodman 2005-11-09 06:24AM | 0 recs
Nader is fine
I voted for Nader and have no regrets. I will vote for Nader again in 2008 if the Dems run a warmonger like Hillary or Biden.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You're an idiot
It's sad that a troll as obvious as Blue Dreams has sucked you in so easily. Wake up! He's a pissed off Republican serving you a sour grape sundae and you're eating up every last drop.
by zt155 2005-11-09 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: You're an idiot
He has been posting for 2 months albeit not that often.  I don't know if he would really be a troll.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 12:13PM | 0 recs
Why didn't you fight him in the primaries
if you live there, or otherwise find someone in VA to do that for you?

Once whoever wins the nomination from our side, as far I am concerned, I will support that nominee (except for the promoters of the Iraq War, unless the opponent was an equally or more guilty promoter).

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-11-08 06:43PM | 0 recs
This makes the Dem power structure MORE cons.
You are taking what would seem to be a logical position:  if a conservative HAS to win an office have him at least be a Democrat conservative so at least its not a Republican.  The problem with this is the Dem party is becoming more and more conservative.  The only Dem bright spots for Dems in 2004 were conservative Dem victories in Wyoming and Colorado and now tonight (except for the very expected win by true liberal Corzine in NJ) we have a conservative Dem elected in VA (aw shucks folks I'm even more conservative and religious than mah Republican opponent)and the RON measures getting trounced in Ohio and the Governator doing much better than expected with his in CA.  The trend is unmistakable... liberalism continues to get trounced.  Why don't any of you care???
by Blue Dreams 2005-11-08 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: This makes the Dem power structure MORE cons.
The problem with this is the Dem party is becoming more and more conservative.  The only Dem bright spots for Dems in 2004 were conservative Dem victories in Wyoming and Colorado

Didn't you forget this skinny kid with a funny accent

that articulated The Audacity of Hope.

Have you forgotten the Dean movement that is the reason we are here (and millions elsewhere) talking and pitching in for the cause today?

liberalism continues to get trounced.  Why don't any of you care???

I disagree, IMO, a great progressive era is about to dawn upon us, election by election.

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-11-08 07:13PM | 0 recs
I love and voted for Obama...
But this is Illinois, a very blue state that will remain that way.  But the worry is the national trend.  What makes you think a "great progressive" era is about to dawn?  The fact that that most Dems that can squeak out a weak our conservative?  Obama winning in Illinois and Corzine winning in NJ is no surprise.  But in many other places the Dems think the way to win is to just give up and try to out-conservative the conservative Republicans.  Everything Kaine in VA stands for is diametrically opposed to what Obama stands for, and the Kaine's are becoming more and more powerful in the Dem Party while the Obama's look like accidental throwbacks to the old liberal days of the 60's.  We need to seize our party and return it to its liberal roots or soon the Republicans will be considered the "liberal" party.
by Blue Dreams 2005-11-08 07:18PM | 0 recs
Do your complaining in the primaries
instead of whining thereafter.
by NeuvoLiberal 2005-11-08 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I love and voted for Obama...
You seem to have a problem with religious politicians, yet you love Obama.  Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, too (and voted for him in the primary), but he's pretty religious.
by Fran for Dean 2005-11-08 07:34PM | 0 recs
Um, shit . . . where to start?!
So, let me get this straight:

Kaine is pro-minimum wage.
Kaine is anti-death penalty.
Kaine is going to continue Warner's tax hike.

It sure sounds like you're just bitching about abortion, which is actually a rather marginal issue.

In fact, it strikes me that Tim Kaine is taking the old Bob Casey, Sr. "no one can ever say he isn't pro-life" stance.

BTW, even though I'm opposed to abortion, I actually see where Dems could reap a huge reward if abortion were outlawed: it would become a single-issue button like guns.

Dems could pound all over the map for a federal privacy amendment (frankly, long overdue) and for various state laws.

Dems could win back a ton of those female voters they've lost to the GOP on security.

And it would allow the far right to sound even nuttier.  After all, there's a difference between being religious and trying to incite the apocalypse.

by jcjcjc 2005-11-09 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I love and voted for Obama...
Um, ILLINOIS IS NOT A VERY BLUE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a moderate state.

Daley and Blago are not really liberals.  Blago was the first Dem governor in decades.  Yes, Illinois has gone with the Dem guy the last 4 presidential elections, but look at the competition... all very solid conservatives...

Stop assuming this is a solid blue state.  Otherwise we will lose this state.  Chicago is a Blue city.  THe burbs are either Blue or red.  After Joliet, the other 2/3rds of the state land wise are SOLID Red.  Check out the voting map sometime.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I love and voted for Obama...
I know you claim to live in Illinois, but if you think this is a solid blue state you either do not know very much about the state or are lying and don't live here.  Either way, as I said before, Illinois leans blue right now.  But at this point, we could lose the governor's mansion because of the POS governor we have who won't face a primary challenge... I only pray that Oberweis wins the GOP nomination, as he will be an easy victory for whichever Dem runs against him.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I love and voted for Obama...
I see some GREEN behind those ears. Looks to me like a picture of a GREENHORN. Let him cut his teeth another term. He's too young and inexperienced to do anything 2008.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-09 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I love and voted for Obama...
Agreed.  2012 or 2016 Obama will be a force.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: This makes the Dem power structure MORE cons.
Funny Accent?  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 06:25AM | 0 recs
OK: skinny kid with a funny name :)

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? ... I'm not talking about blind optimism here--the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!

Thanks for the correction.

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-11-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: OK: skinny kid with a funny name :)
Ooh, I forgot that line.  I couldn't figure out why you thought he had a funny accent... of course being from Illinois, I am used to the midwest style of speech, so I always think Boston, southern, new york accents are funny... I figured it was something like that.

Obama rocked on Daily Show.  Find a copy to download and watch.  He gave some of the best answers I have seen a politician give.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: This makes the Dem power structure MORE cons.
It's a little late in the day to worry about this election. There's not much I can do about Virginia anyway. I do what I can in my own back yard and hope everyone else is doing the same.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-08 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: This makes the Dem power structure MORE cons.
Interestingly, some liberal site, sorry I forget which one, had the headline this a.m. stating that "Liberals Sweep Election" the point being that that Corzine, Kaine and Bloomburg are either liberals or more liberal then their opposition.

Actually, I would agree with you if your premise was right, that Kaine is exactly like Kilgore and the only difference was the party label.  In West Virginia, our Governor is actually a conservative Republican that calls himself a Democrat.  

However, Kaine was clearly better then Kilgore on taxation, treating immigrants, the death penalty, transportation, education and on controlling growth/sprawl.  Further, I think it is a mischaracterization on your part to say that Kaine claimed to be more conservative then Kilgore.  By every definition of the modern conservative movement, Kilgore was much more conservative.

Kaine, like Warner, will try to get the national party to move to the right if he has national ambitions.  Any southern or western (non west coast)Democrat would.  While I disagree with that advice, like you I believe we as a party must be firmly progressive, the alternative is to leave all the statewide positions in the hands of Bush clones.  

Ultimately, Warner, Bayh, Salazar etc are not the people I want leading the Democratic Party, but I would much rather have them be elected statewide then some Bush clone.  Not recognizing the difference between a moderate Democrat and a far right conservative Republican is inaccurate IMO.

by Andy Katz 2005-11-09 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: This makes the Dem power structure MORE cons.
News flash--the general public is more conservative than you are.  The majority will vote for who it wants to.  

Face it--a candidate that agreed with you would lose in Virginia, big time.  That would make the Democratic power structure more NEUTERED than it is now.  

Would THAT be good news for you?  

by paul minot 2005-11-09 05:51AM | 0 recs
Breaking News!
The general public is actually quite liberal on most issues. Even in Virginia the general public is not as conservative as pundits and talking heads pretend. If they were then Kaine would not have won.

Kaine would have won even if he were farther left than he is. Conservative and liberal labels are are false political dichotomy. It's about personal charisma, taking clear, principled positions and having a backbone.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:22AM | 0 recs
What state are you from ?
Blue Dream, I understand your personal view that Kaine may be too conservative for you. I certainly understand your point that Dems who won in CO & WY are too conservative for you.

But again, who exactly defines what a Good or Bad Democrat is? The popularity among Democrats living in CA or MA in their strong support for Liberal Democrats Boxer or Kennedy is NO DIFFERENT or any BETTER than a very popular Moderate/Conservative Democrat among Democrats who live in IN, VA or CO like Evan Bayh, Mark Warner or Ken Salazar.

In other words, your personal Definition of what a Good Democrat should be is NO BETTER or MORE DEMOCRATIC than the point of view of rank and file Democrats in  Indiana who give Moderate Evan Bayh a 75%+ favorable rating or rank & file Democrats in Nebraska who give Moderate/Conservatuve Ben Nelson a 75%+ favorable rating or rank & file Virginians who give Moderate Mark Warner a 75%+ favorabla rating among democrats.

As Democrats we all have COMMON shared views & values when it comes to protecting Social Security, Affordable Healthcare for all americans, Strengtening the Public Schools, a balanced budget, investing in learning new skills for our workforce. etc etc.

These views keep us all together during National elections.

However, our diverse social, cultural, religious & geographical backgrounds & experiences in life is were we as democrats share our differences.

Majority of Democrats in the Rocky Mountains/SouthWest such as CO,UT,MT,WY,AZ may find more common  ground with Democrats in the midwest or even the south such as IN,OH,MO, TN, AR,VA when it comes to social, cultural & even religious issues.

While majority of democrats in the West Coast such as CA, OR, WA may find more common ground with Democrats in the Northeast such as NY,NJ & MA

These are Legitimate, normal, & acceptable differences that people will always have in such a large & diverse country like the USA.


Deciding on what or who a Real Perfect Democrat  especially on social or cultural issues will always be in the eye of the beholder.

Wyoming Democrats love Conservative Democratic Gov. Dave Fredunthal while Massachusetts Democrats love Liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy

by labanman 2005-11-08 06:52PM | 0 recs
What defines good or bad Dems?
In a word: labor.

A conservative Dem has every right to be one as long as he finds the right ground on the core issues: minimum wage, health care, fiscal responsibility,  etc.

It is OK to be a Christian and a Dem.  It would not be OK to oppose the minimum wage.

It is OK to be anti-abortion and be a Dem.  It would not be OK to oppose a balanced budget.

There are core issues that unify left, center, and right in the Democratic Party.

Foremost among those is the belief that the average working America deserves a fair shake.  

We believe that just because a person wasn't born rich or hasn't been as able to manufacture ridiculous wealth in their lifetime, that doesn't make their vote count any less.

That's the difference.

by jcjcjc 2005-11-09 03:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What defines good or bad Dems?
Um.  Im opposed to a balanced budget in many circumstances, being one of the last 12 people in the world who think Keynes was right.  Yet, Im a good Democrat.  

I agree with everything else you said.

by Andy Katz 2005-11-09 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What defines good or bad Dems?
Keynes was right . . . to a limit.

The difference, IMO, is that the nature of currency has changed since Keynes' time.  Today, currency floats completely unteathered, and its value depends entirely on the willingness of the government to pay back its debts.

Therefore, any budget deficit is a devaluation of the currency.  That steal buying power from the consumer, and therefore constitutes nothing short of the government stealing from the average person.

by jcjcjc 2005-11-09 05:03AM | 0 recs
Neverending deficits are bad
Keynes never favored or defended long term structural deficits.

A temporary budget deficit that funds infrastructure improvements or meets short term vital goals stimulate the economy and are no different than a family that invests in a home mortgage.

Good examples would be the Apollo Project or investing in education.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Neverending deficits are bad
Im not an economist so you may be right Gary but I think he advocated defecits to stimulate the economy, particularly, but not necessarily solely, when the economy is in a recession.  If I remember correctly, the rational was Keynes' belief that there is a "hole" (I think he called it) in the economy where aggreggate demand "leaks" out, and thus becomes less then aggregate supply.  I think he said this occurred because of people saving money.  

I agree somewhat to the point made above about the connection between defecits and a weaker dollar, though I will make the obvious point that we currently are running high defecits, relatively low interest rates and a relatively strong dollar.

The importance to me (as an old Keynsian) would be what the money is being spent on.  If it is infrastructure, like Gary suggests, or construction spending or anything that creates a "high velocity" for the dollars spent or otherwise directly helps the middle class, working poor, defecits would be worth any bad effects on the dollar or interest rates.  Certainly I think this is true if a balanced budget is created by cutting programs for the poor or middle class or raising taxes on the middle class, the most typically used measured for a balanced budget.

by Andy Katz 2005-11-09 07:26AM | 0 recs
Good point
A lot of folks make the mistake of believing that Keynes advocated a permanent, structural deficit.

This is far from true.  In fact, Keynes merely advocated whatever intervention was necessary, including building a gigantic surplus through massive taxation if that were needed to cool down the economy.

My point, though, was that in Keynes time currency was not as important as it is today.  Internationalization has increased the need for a stable currency, where Keynes argued that a stable currency was in many cases meaningless or even counter-productive.

That simply isn't the case any more.

Look at oil trading.  About 1/3 of the current cost of oil is actually a product of the weak dollar.  With a strong dollar, oil would be trading between $40 and $45.

That's a huge difference.

Therefore, it can be argued that modern fundamentals require a strong dollar policy.

by jcjcjc 2005-11-09 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Good point
I think you make a good point about the dollar.  We went off the gold standard in 1933, but I dont think the dollar was allowed to float until like 1971.  As you noted originally, this is not something that Keynes was able to consider.
by Andy Katz 2005-11-09 05:18PM | 0 recs
Balanced Budget?
That isn't a core Democratic value.

Jobs. Education. Healthcare. The environment. A foriegn policy that works.

Though I prefer a balanced budget, I don't expect others to value it over the above.

by Paul Goodman 2005-11-09 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Balanced Budget?
I think Balanced Budget is becoming one though... at the very least Fiscal responsibility.  THe big difference is we don't want to FORCE a balanced budget and we would rather cut corporate welfare than social programs to achieve it.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 10:34AM | 0 recs
It is now a core value
Not because we may or may not want it, but because by January 2009 fiscal discipline will be as necessary to the future our nation as the battles of Gettysburg, Midway, or Yorktown.
by jcjcjc 2005-11-09 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: What defines good or bad Dems?
To be fair... it is not really ok to oppose the minimum wage if you are a Christian... GOP or Democrat.  Jesus would not be a happy camper at the politicians who claim to follow in his name while not actually following his teachings.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 07:03AM | 0 recs
It's not OK, period
But I know a lot of folks who oppose it.  Although, in fairness, most are rather isolated and have a "hooray for me" view of the world.

And all are Republicans.

by jcjcjc 2005-11-09 05:17PM | 0 recs
Is Blue Dreams
paid for by Virginians for Kilgore? Maybe not, but it sounds like he read their brochure!
by Paul Goodman 2005-11-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Blue Dreams
I thought the same thing
by Alice Marshall 2005-11-09 08:26AM | 0 recs
yeah, he's conservative...
he supports fiscal responsibility, as opposed to Kilgore's anti-tax, borrow-and-spend Gilmore protege-ness.

and that's more important for a governor than anything else.

by johnny longtorso 2005-11-08 06:54PM | 0 recs
The issue is Liberalism vs. Conservatism...
The issue is liberalism versus Conservatism.  And Conservatism has clearly won.  Even with most of you!  You don't care whether a candidate is conservative or liberal, as long as they are a Democrat.  More and more all the Dem Party has become is Republican-lite, and in some cases even MORE conservative than the Republicans.

The trend is disgusting but unmistakable.  I've watched it all of my adult life.  Conservatism started taking hold in the 70's and it continues to get stronger and stronger each year.  Just as it has this year... sigh!

by Blue Dreams 2005-11-08 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The issue is Liberalism vs. Conservatism...
Ah, the "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" argument.  Haven't you learned already/

I welcome moderates, with whom I have many policy difference, into the fold.  If we believe in progressive taxation--greater consideration for the downtrodden, like an increased minimum wage--universal healthcare as a principle, even if we have yet to hammer out the system--then we all can be of use to each other as allies to turn this country in a positive direction once again.  Hell, being against Bush is enough for me nowadays.

Party affiliation is as much about who you're willing to hang with, as much as what you believe.  A moderate Democrat will customarily support the Democratic party, and a moderate Republican will support Republican causes.  Harry Reid's a moderate--you pissed at him right now?

Get a clue--this is how politics works in America.

by paul minot 2005-11-09 05:45AM | 0 recs
You're ignoring history
There have always been conservative Democrats.

The reason we have such trouble in the south is that most Democrats there were conservative on the issue of civil rights, and they left the party in huge numbers when LBJ signed the laws expanding civil rights.

The reason FDR didn't push civil rights is because he knew that what happened to LBJ would happen to him.

The first successful anti-communist was Truman. He started the cold war. He beat a liberal Republican when he won against Dewey.

Bloomberg is a liberal, and he won yesterday. That puts the lie to your vision of the conservatives inexorably taking over. What, aren't you happy that Bloomberg won? I'm not. If the issue is solely liberal versus conservative, you should be happy about the New York mayoral election.

There aren't any real conservatives in the Bush white house. The  dichotomy of liberal and conservative doesn't help us to understand the neocons much. The neocons are some soft variation on right wing totalitarians. Calling them conservatives, like that is the worst thing that someone could be, is going easy on that crew.

I want the liberal democrats to succeed, but they are just one segment of the party, and it's never been otherwise. Your vision of the conservatives taking over is just going to give you an ulcer, and you are fearing a group that has always been in the tent with us.

by thief 2005-11-09 06:00AM | 0 recs
Can't I be
a conservative liberal? I.E. someone who wants to conserve the New Deal, and the Enlightenment? I think the modern world is really great because of socialism and liberalism? We don't need to change, just undo some of the recent erosion caused by the loss of the south.
by Paul Goodman 2005-11-09 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Can't I be
You can be Batman if you want, but I actually think you've articulated the basic position of most currently elected national Democrats.
by thief 2005-11-09 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Can't I be
I would guess that at least 50% of voters are buffet Democrats or buffet Repubicans. By definition all Independents are buffet voters who are up for grabs by either party.

My personal estimate is that 75% of all voters are buffet voters who pick and choose between candidates and issues based on factors other than "liberal" or "conservative."

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:17AM | 0 recs
You have got to be joking.
First of all, it is Democratic, not Democrat. Newt Gingrich started calling it the "Democrat" party. Second, since when is having faith/religion a bad thing?

Look at what Mark Warner did for the state. Kaine can carry on Warner's work, which is a great thing.

Finally, why are you so gung-ho about Corzine? I like the guy, I'm glad he won, but I wouldn't in a million years say that the victory of a self-funded millionaire in a blue state, whose original qualifications for the senate seat were dubious is better than a true leader winning a gubernatorial race in a red state.

by JRyan 2005-11-08 07:15PM | 0 recs
What plays in IL doesn't play in Virginia.

Both Warner and Kaine are moderates.  I'm a moderate myself.

I am happy that Tim Kaine won.  If Kilgore won, I'd be depressed.  At least one state next to KY is thinking correctly.

We have to win everywhere next year!

by kydem 2005-11-08 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: You have got to be joking.
The mispronounciation "Democrat" Party has been around a lot longer than Newt.  Joe McCarthy used it regularly.  I think it got started in the 30's.
by drlimerick 2005-11-09 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: You have got to be joking.
Incidentally, I think we should change it to the Patriot Party.
by drlimerick 2005-11-09 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You have got to be joking.
think about that. suppose we did. So, if a states interest are best served by conservatism, and in the national sphere we are at least federally united to pursue diplomacy, and less freaking stress - if we're going to uphold what America stands for..

Please, let me quote Richard Feynman -

"So what do you care what other people think, anyway?"

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-09 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: You have got to be joking.
I know, but Gingrich made it popular. I assume he did it to separate the "new" democratic party from the "old" one that most conservative southerners were loyal to.
by JRyan 2005-11-09 06:54AM | 0 recs
That's not what people in Colorado did
And Ken Salazar is a great representative for our state.  He also is a leader when it comes to smacking down James "SpongeDob" Dobson.

Also, Dems in the State Legislature got control in 2004 by saying they would be competent at the job.  That's important right now, to end the "Gov't is the problem" mime Reagan began.

by pacified 2005-11-08 07:28PM | 0 recs
If you think Salazar is great...
If you think Salazar is great, than you are a conservative.  That is your right.  But let's not pretend that he isn't a Republican in Democrat clothing.  He votes conservative and is clearly not liberal in anyway.  Contratulations, a win for Salazar was one more step towards the Dem Party being the "Me, too" Republicans.  Why not just change the party name from Democrat to "Republican, too!"?
by Blue Dreams 2005-11-08 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: If you think Salazar is great...
Conservative Ken Salazar:

Abortion decision should be between a woman and her God

Wrote brief defending U.Michigan affirmative action case

Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment

Make sure students can skip Pledge if they so choose

Take next steps toward universal health coverage

reform estate tax

Opportunity for undocumented workers to gain legal status

NATO needs to be a bigger part in US war policy

Protect and preserve our land and water

Medical marijuana partly allowed

by zt155 2005-11-08 08:46PM | 0 recs
What I said
Ken Salazar is a great representative for our state

We could have run Mike Miles, and had Pete Coors as the Republican Senator, with a 56-44 majority in Senate.  Imagine just how much more the GOoPs could push through w/o Ken there.

Ken will not piss you off so much once GOoP majorities shrink, or Dems control the agenda.

by pacified 2005-11-08 09:56PM | 0 recs
Roger that
Also, Dems in the State Legislature got control in 2004 by saying they would be competent at the job.  That's important right now, to end the "Gov't is the problem" mime Reagan began.

Reagan's "guvmint is the problem" theme was well established for years before the Democrats even knew what they were up against.

Limbaugh and the RWNM was even pushing the "guvmint is the problem" theme as a defense to FEMA's incompetence. The problem is incompetent Republican governance and that's an idea Dems must hammer home.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-08 07:36PM | 0 recs
Kaine's religious views
What is so wrong about being personally opposed to abortion and wanting to make it rare?  I think if you asked Americans, the vast majority would tell you they're personally opposed to abortion and would like to see it become more rare, even if it should remain legal (hey look, Tim Kaine agrees!).

And the other place where religion plays a role for Tim Kaine is the death penalty (which I see you chose to forget about).  Tim Kaine willingly admits that he's against the death penalty because of his religious views (religious views which, again, won't stop him from carrying out the law of the land), and yet he still won in Virginia by 5%.  Anyone who can go on TV in the state that loves the death penalty almost as much as Texas and say he's opposed to it and still win decisively should be given some credit.

by Fran for Dean 2005-11-08 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Kaine's religious views
The same abortion stance that Hillary has espoused, if I am not mistaken.
by paul minot 2005-11-09 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Kaine's religious views
Hillary has been fudging her position on a woman's right to choose. It's not at all clear exactly what her position is.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Kaine's religious views
Yeah, but the position she put out in one of her speeches was a good one.  Filled with common sense.

Don't limit abortions because of the health issues.  Instead improve adoptions, improve birth control availability and education, strengthen rape laws etc.  

So allow abortions and don't limit them, but work so the number of unplanned pregnancies are reduced significantly and those left over have other options easily available.  Personally, I think this is a great idea...  It doesn't paint abortion as bad and keeps it as a health choice, so that should please most liberals.  It is common sense enough to not offend the majority of people who don't place abortion as a major issue.  The only people who won't like this are the hard core Army of God type people and the "mainstream" theocons, but what they want isn't in the best interest of the public and nothing short of a constitutional amendment banning abortion will please them.

Otherwise, I say this type of approach to abortion neutralizes it as an issue for 70% of voters... basically anyone who is pro R v W, even if they support putting limitations on abortions.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 10:47AM | 0 recs
You seem to want to control what people think
I personally don't give a shit about what Kaine feels personally about abortion so long as it remains legal. That's what politics is about. Not how you feel- but what is actually done. That's not liberal versus conservative, that's the way politics and power is. Look at FDR, look at other liberal Democratic leaders. I think you problem is that you can accept that someone differs with you in personal beliefs. And my response to that is that you need to get over that. For example, I am gay- I can sit around worrying about every person who doesn't want to go there with my sex life, or I can realize that I don't need them to accept my sex life to believe that I am equal under the law. I have evangelical friends who think on some level what I do is against the bible, but they also think that I should have the right to civil unions because that's what this country is about. People disagreeing in their personal decisions, but understanding in the public sphere we don't ahve the right to harm others. You don't seem to be able to separate those things out. And that is the most Republican thing that any Democrat can do. To think that our personal views should be the end of the disucssion- we have values greater than that. That's why Kaine can think what he wants personally- so  long as he agrees with the public values that Democrats share.
by bruh21 2005-11-08 09:32PM | 0 recs
So what??
I am a moderate - liberal on some issues, conservative on other.. Why shouldn't i rejoice???
by smmsmm 2005-11-08 11:07PM | 0 recs
Blue Dreams, looking in from the outside you seem to be a very strange liberal. You seem to reject diversity within your party. Surely that is the very essence of true liberalism. I thought it was only conservatives who sought such narrow uniformity based on their own image and 'values'.

Are you really saying that southern Democrats like Kaine are more conservative than their predecessors prior to the 70's. That takes some believing.

by UKLIB 2005-11-09 02:04AM | 0 recs
Where were you
when Leslie  Byrne needed you? You know why we don't have more progressive candidates? Because when they put themselves forward people like you won't fight for them. You want to know why Democrats are weak? Look in the mirror.
by Alice Marshall 2005-11-09 02:46AM | 0 recs
A Liberal Who is VERY Glad Kaine Won
Im a progressive Democrat and Im very happy that Kaine won.  While he is probably too moderate from my tastes, the guy is from Virginia.  You have to make allowances for where he is from.  That doesnt make "moderate" policies better then progressive ones, in my mind, but you have to be moderate to win in the South.

I dont give such a pass to Salazar, Lieberman or Feinstein.  I dont have much respect for them, though I do appreciate the former's willingness to take on the far religious right.

More specifically about Kaine, I think he has progressive instincts.  For him to stand against the death penalty in Virginia was very brave.  I think I read that Virginia executes more people then any state not named Texas.  He stood up for his position as a matter of faith, which I respect too.  I bet every one of the prominent Christian conservative are "pro death."  He also, I believe, worked as a public defender.

So, yea, I like Kaine personally and recognizing the reality of Virginia politics, appreciate his political bravery.  Im glad he won.  

by Andy Katz 2005-11-09 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: A Liberal Who is VERY Glad Kaine Won
That about sums it up for me as well. All in all a good day for Democrats AND Liberals.
by Curt Matlock 2005-11-09 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: A Liberal Who is VERY Glad Kaine Won
How about if recruit or nominate Democratic Candidates based on individual states or Districts.

In Blue States- CA,CT,DE,HI,IL,ME,MD,MA,NJ,NY,RI,VT and WA
We nominate Liberal(Progressive)Democratic Candidates in those States- Liberal on domestic,economic,social,and foriegn policy issues.

In Purple or Red States
We nominate Moderate Democratic Candidates.
In States from the Missouri River heading east to the Applachian Mountain(including PA and OH)and the Bible Belt). We nominate a Democratic Candidate who is liberal on economic and foriegn policy issues, but moderate on social issues.
In States in the SouthWest and the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains- We nominate a moderate on economic issues and libetarian on social issues.

In the US Senate.
New Jersey
Rhode Island
are blue states,we nominate a strong Liberal Democrat in those states
New Jersey- Dick Codey,Frank Pallone,Rush Holt
Maryland- Ben Cardin- less liberal than Paul Sarbanes but still has a 90% Liberal voting record from the American's for Democratic Action
Vermont- Bernie Sanders- The only Socialist in Congress.
Rhode Island- assuming Chafee wins we should nominate a mainstream liberal like Sheldon Whitehouse.

That leaves us Senate Candidates in Purple States
Minnesota- Amy Klobuchar or Patty Wetterling- Both are strong Liberal Democrats.
Tennesee- Harold Ford Jr- Fiscal Conservative and a social Moderate.  
Pennsylvania- Bob Casey- a Moderate
Ohio- Sherrod Brown- Liberal on Economic and Social Issues. Paul Hackett- Moderate on Economic but Libetarian on Social Issues
Missouri-Claire McCaskill- Moderate
Montana- John Morrison- Fiscal Conservative,Social Liberal- John Teser- Strong Liberal
Arizona- Jim Pederson- Fiscal Moderate and a Social Libetarian.


by CMBurns 2005-11-09 06:17AM | 0 recs
Pennsylvania- Chuck Pennacchio - a reform Democrat.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction
In the ideal world, I would support a candidate like Chuck Pennachio. I wish every Democrat in the US Senate is like Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold. But Not all Democratic Voters are Progressive Liberals like Gary Boatwright except in The North East or the Pacific West Coast.

Chuck Pennachio-much as I like him or agree with him on the issues- does not stand a chance of winning the Democratic Nomination. Bob Casey Jr- has high name statewide name recognition- The Casey name is popular in the State of Pennsylvania. Casey lost the Democratic Nomination for the 2002 Pennsylvania Governors Race because his Democratic opponent was the popular former Mayor of Philidephia- Ed Rendell.
Pennachio is an obscure candidate who has a weak campaign account.

Wellstone got elected to the US Senate from Minnesota in 1990 by defeating an esteamed. Republican Incumbent US Senator Rudy Boschwitz.
Boschwitz was a wealthy incumbent who had a huge campaign war chest. High profiled Democratic Politicians decided not to run against Boschwitz. Leaving Wellstone as the sacrificial lamb who surprisingly defeated Boschwitz.

Unlike Boschwitz- Santorum is the most vulnerable Incumbent Republicans facing re-election. This allowed Top tier Candidates- Bob Casey to enter the 2006 Pennsylvania US Senate Race.

by CMBurns 2005-11-09 09:03AM | 0 recs
Primaries are the time to vote your convictions
If we surrender our values at the ballot box how are we ever going to win? The conventional wisdom was that Hackett didn't have a prayer in Ohio. Look what happened.

Casey is opposed to a woman's freedom to make her own medical decisions. Would you want Bob Casey making medical decisions for your wife and daughters?

Bob Casey is a poor campaigner and may be the only candidate that Santorum can beat.

Here's what happened when Casey ran against Rendell:

Democratic primary matchup--Likely Voters:
Casey: 44%
Rendell: 27%
Undecided: 30%

Final Results:
Rendell: 56%
Casey: 44%

That's a 17 point lead he blew, a 29 point swing in a total of six months.

Bob Casey Jr. the campaigner:

"It's the worst campaign I've ever seen," he told one interviewer. "The worst ads in the history of Pennsylvania politics" and "one of the worst campaigns in American political history."  - Ed Rendell on Casey's Campaign

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- May 21, 2002 Tuesday (SOONER EDITION)

PA Grassroots is not happy with Casey:

The Bob Casey Jr. smoke and mirrors tour continued this week in an interview with Capitolwire.com bureau chief Pete DeCoursey. In the interview, Casey bemoaned federal efforts to "cut" important programs like WIC (Women, Infants and Children) and Head Start.

Unfortunately for Bobby Casey, the facts just don't bear him out. In 2000, federal funding for WIC stood at $4 billion, while in 1990 Head Start received $1.5 billion. Today, thanks in large part to the efforts of Republicans like Senator Rick Santorum, WIC funding has gone up over 25% to $5.5 billion and Head Start has seen a whopping 453% increase to $6.88 billion. Time and time again, Senator Santorum has stood up for these and other critical programs.

But the Casey trail of distortion didn't end there. Casey was quoted as saying he had, "a very strong record on the environment." (Capitolwire.com, 5/23/05) As Auditor General?

A quick check of Casey's official state website lists only two audits dealing with environmental agencies and entities during his eight year tenure, one of which was to try and give credence to his efforts to dismantle the state's successful Growing Greener program, with a proposal to add more waste collection fees for our working families. (A similar proposal put forth by Governor Rendell was wisely rejected by Republicans earlier this year.)

Comparisons to Paul Wellstone are very apropos. Chuck is cut from the same cloth as Wellstone and will serve the good people of Pennsyvania very well when he becomes their Senator.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Primaries are the time to vote your conviction
Casey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Chuck is a work in progress but I'll do what it takes to help him along.  I think the establishment in Pennsylvania does a good job but I don't need another Hillary Clinton out there..
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-09 11:41AM | 0 recs
More Casey v. Pennachio?
Hmm, funny how so many threads end up Casey versus Pennachio.

I actually think your post supports a Pennachio run. The way you describe Wellstone is what the situation would be if Bob Casey weren't running and only Chuck Pennachio were in the race. The only difference is that Boschwitz was well regarded, Little Ricky is not (giving Pennachio even more of a chance).

At this point, I'm behind Casey since I don't think Pennachio is a serious candidate. But if he can get a decent campaign together, I'm open to a more liberal candiate than Casey any day.

by LiberalFromPA 2005-11-09 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A Liberal Who is VERY Glad Kaine Won
Illinois is not a strong blue state.  Progressive can win, but Moderates do the best.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 10:50AM | 0 recs
ReYes, that should be the case anyway
Recruiting candidates based on the issues , culture, values & views in their respective state or town should always be the way to go.

Choosing a Liberal to win in Indiana or Wyoming is just as worst as choosing a Conservative to run for California or NY.


by labanman 2005-11-10 10:23AM | 0 recs
This isn't unusual, nor is it new.
A VA Democrat is very different from a NY Democrat.  A TX Democrat is very different from a CA Democrat.

Democrats can't demand ideological purity- even with the candidates we have now, we're not in the majority. If we excluded or discouraged all of those Democrats who had ideologies that didn't fit a liberal ideal, then our party would get very small, very quickly.

There are some states where an ideologically pure Democrat would never win, such as in Virginia.  If we ran the perfect Democrat there we would lose by a significant margin.  He would be painted as an out-of-the-mainstream liberal and he would be defeated quite handily.  In fact, that was a line Kilgore tried to use on Kaine, even though Kaine is quite moderate (as has been stated above).

To win in a district, you have to fit with that district's ideology, to an extent.  People will vote for you if they agree with what you have to say.  If you have a candidate in Virginia saing they want to make all abortions legal, and put a moratorium on the death penalty, and legalize gay marriage, then he would lose because those beliefs do not mirror the beliefs of the people of Virginia.

The same goes for the GOP as well.  A TX Republican is very different froma  NY Republican.  New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg won re-election, even though he's pretty moderate (and probably would be considered liberal by Republican standards- he did change his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in order to run for mayor).  To win in a district, you have to fit the ideology of that district, and since ideologies change depending on where you are, so will the local versions of "Republicans" and "Democrats."

But this isn't anything new.  It's how politics have always been- you swear alleigance to a national party, to liberalism or conservatism, but you also have to identify with your voters.  If people feel you're an out-of-touch ideologue, they won't vote for you.  As it is, our candidates are attacked for being too "liberal;" unfortunately, conservatives have turned the concept of being a liberal into a negative, and we have to start reversing that idea.  We have to go back to the days where "conservative" is the negative ideology, not "liberal."  

But those days aren't close.  We first have to get Democrats elected, we first have to get into office before we can produce progressive results.  We must have offices, we must have victories, before we can demand a more refined ideology from our candidates. Still, the Democrats are a big tent party- we can't demand the same discipline the GOP does, because then we would lose a lot of people.

The race was between Republican Jerry Kilgore and Democrat Tim Kaine.  Kaine was better than Kilgore.  He may have been a conservative, in your opinion, but as governor he will be more progressive, in comparison, than Kilgore would have been.  It's not necessarily about conseravtive versus liberal, but about which candidate will be more progressive.  Believe me, I certainly wish we could have ran a Democratic dream candidate, but the ideological bent of VA would not have allowed it.  

This is how politics has always been.  People elect someone they agree with and they think will work best for them.  They don't vote for party-wonk ideologues who stick to a political agenda.  If that means fielding some moderate candidates here or there to win, so be it- to me, a Democrat in office is always, always better than  Republican, unless that Democrat is corrupt.  

by Neimad 2005-11-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't unusual, nor is it new.
A Democrat in office is always, always better than  Republican, unless that Democrat is corrupt or named Joe.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:23AM | 0 recs
I forgot Zell
Never vote for a Democrat named Zell or Joe. People named Joe should stick to being car mechanics or quarterbacks.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I forgot Zell
Come on... not all dems named Joe can be bad.  

Zell, I will agree with you.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I forgot Zell
Name a single Democratic officeholder named Joe who is worth a plugged nickle.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I forgot Zell

Joe Biden.

Looks like a surfer.
Sharp as a scimitar.


by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-09 11:46AM | 0 recs
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-09 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I forgot Zell
I will have to think.  I will give you that there aren't a lot.  Joe is just too common to completely distrust.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't unusual, nor is it new.
Actually, I disagree with this.  I think a Republican-lite (aka DLC Democrat) gets elected, that would be terrible for the country.  That person will be a failure, Democrats will be blamed and there will be another reign of terror unleashed.

Arugably this is true for Congress because of the importance of party control.  Still, as good ol' Zell showed (as well as Lieberman), even then more harm often occurs if Dems are elected that are little different then the Republicans.

by Andy Katz 2005-11-09 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't unusual, nor is it new.
So you're willing to throw out the fact that the McCain-Lieberman Intelligence Reform act that implemented nearly everything America needed to fight Al Qaeda without any of that Ashcroft AG white noise - is a bad thing?

Lieberman heard the cries of the families of 911 and he responded. Zell is telling you what you don't want to hear, about the party - and you're blaming him for it?

Liberman gets re-elected time and time again because he's one smart jewish son of a bitch. Get used to it. He plays the center.

Bush is the liberal.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-09 11:49AM | 0 recs
Great comments up and down this thread, but I'm afraid we've all been used. If I were trying to cause "mischief" on a Repub blog the day after a big win, this is the kind of diary I'd post.

Won't work. For once, Democrats are getting more united, rather than spinning apart. No amount of crap from the other side will change the momentum. And the reason for our unity: George Bush.

End of story.

by ColoDem 2005-11-09 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Mole
I disagree.  I think he is a young kid who doesn't really understand the whole political process.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-09 10:54AM | 0 recs
Nothing wrong with Kaine

First of all, Kilgore was a nutcase (and unethical- given his campaign).  There is something to be said for Dems simply representing RATIONAL, GOOD GOVERNMENT.  Period.  

Frankly, is it Conservative to insist on balanced budgets?  Because someone is going to have to restore fiscal sanity- remember, deficits work as a nice smokescreen and excuse for underfunding social and progressive programs.

And we as Dems should have NO PROBLEM with people of faith who say "my religion is opposed to abortion, but we should not legislate our individual beliefs"-- that is what we ALL believe.

And abortion being rare- anyone who has had an abortion will tell you, that is a good thing- if we could support babies born into poverty wih universal healthcare and early education, and provide continuing education for young mothers, that is less traumatic than having the procedure-- it needs to be legal and accessible and cheap, but that doesn't mean its something to be shrugged off.

by jgkojak 2005-11-09 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing wrong with Kaine
Democrats have always reduced abortion MORE than so called Republicans. Clinton dropped the abortion rate a whopping.. are you ready for this.. 39%

Thats right folks, 39%. If you want to go against abortion, go for a Democrat. Think Harry Reid is going to disagree? Democrats are lethal when it comes to abortion. only god knew how many were there when it was illegal.

I trust a higher authority in all things, but when it comes to tracking down and eliminating evil, I trust Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson - and they work much better when they can see

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-09 11:54AM | 0 recs
Just think of it this way.
Who do you want Kaine or Kilgore?
by Liberal 2005-11-09 11:28AM | 0 recs
You know whats funny about this post
The funniest thing about this post is that this person is saying that Kaine being personally opposed to abortion is a bad thing as if it were a bad thing to be opposed to the destruction of an unborn child regardless of how many tough women are out there in the world.

If your vote is going to be to treat abortion as a public health issue. And if you want to throw up when someone talks about the procedure. Then you qualify as someone who deserved to win.

Oh yeah. And he did win.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-09 11:43AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads