Democratic (Party) Direction

also:

seriously, give the culturally-conservative folks SOMETHING -- and by something, i mean some sense of economic well-being and security

give that to them how? who has it to give? Oh, but there's the rub.

that said, you're right that it would do a lot of good for the Democrats to focus on the economy--not by deliriously proclaming it damned, which doesn't pass the laugh test--but by presenting novel solutions to agreed upon problems. The deficit gambit is wide open for the taking once again, and it's very curious that Democrats have not united to declare Republicans budget busters. VERY curious. Beyond that, there is real opportunity for Democrats to take the lead as being a pro-growth party; education is NOT an economic issue to the general public and pointing to "free college for Bs" is too much conflation to gain any traction.

As for #3 in your list Blount, that's totally a waste of time campaign-wise.

"alternative energy" isn't doable for a campaign or strategy because it's too long term and has been exposed as the green version of Star Wars. Every form of alternative energy that has been proffered since the 70s oil crisis hasn't made it to the reality-based community. That doesn't mean that we should give up on it but once again, it's much more of a tactical solution. Jacking CAFE standards won't do it either. Or are you intimating that Dems should get friendly with nuclear power and start fostering serious natural gas exploration again? Those are two alternative fuels who have been basically blacklisted but present credible solutions to Middle Eastern oil.

okay, sure.

For your edification, but also because this captures so much about what I think is right about the Democratic party and where it should be going: Obama's 2004 convention speech.

Read it. Why did this move me so much?

(HInt it's not because, "People like Obama have mass support from the Left if only because they know how to "talk the talk" about believing in an "AWESOME GOD!" and they can (hopefully) fly leftist policy in under the radar when they are in power. Whether Obama is a devout Christian or not isn't the point, the point is that the rhetoric is wonderful in getting non-liberals to think that the Left is all about Jesus as much as the next guy and in ways they correlate their religion with. Why else would people who normally couldn't care less about mainstream American Christianity (if they don't already disdain it) gush over rhetoric like that?")

where did i say that friedman's economics were nonsense? i dissed "friedmanesque dogma" -- by which i mean, the kneejerk application of friedmanesque ideas (such as, for example, automatically favoring monetary policy over fiscal policy or automatically favoring privitization and/or the private sector over the public sector) by BOTH parties; not to mention the right's "starve the beast" mentality wr2 taxation (which is really in part an outgrowth of friedman's ideas) -- and not necessarily friedman's economic ideas in toto.

i did call "supply-side economics" nonsense -- which it is. and it is an opinion which i share with most academic economists, ben stein (tell all the "bueller bueller bueller" jokes you like, he's 100% OTM in the linked column), and (at least once upon a time) dubya's dad (mr. "voodoo economics.")

http://danzhaus.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/batdancestrip.jpg

Kingfish, do you ever think about what you're accomplishing with some of your posts besides looking smug?

The great thing about health care free at the point of provision (you thought socialized medicine was bad) is it can be painted as an economic stimulus measure a lifting of a burden from business and the middle classes.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060531/nyw075.html?.v=52

Dixie Chicks Become First Female Group Ever To Have Three Albums Debut In Top Slot

...remember when they were, careerwise, left for dead because they, gasp, made public statements against Bush?

certainly. i try to put just as much effort into the smarm and snark categories as well. it's hard work making sure each post contains such multitudes.

remember when they were, careerwise, left for dead because they, gasp, made public statements against Bush?

does anybody have access to their 2003 sales figures? folks like al franken have mentioned that they lost concert attendance and top 40 country airplay, but ended up selling more in the end.

you set up Friedman as the antithesis of Keynes for a reason, as if Friedman's theories it toto were comparably inferior (something that is decidedly NOT a universal academic conclusion.) In fact, I'd venture to guess that it's the same kneejerk application of Keynesian ideas that get socialism attached to his work.

Also, the Chicks battled cries of sellout long before Maines shot her mouth of at Bush. Their career is alive and well, although saying that they are making up popularity on AAA or pop isn't quite accurate. They don't chart well in either of those formats.

Talk about an over-reaction.

But that's beside the point. Cunga, on principle, I agree with you that we should meet civilly and exchange ideas ernestly, but frankly, I've heard that bullshit before and I think your post is so far off in the areas of comprhension and civility, that I don't have to treat it with respect.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0530-31.htm

"Today in Washington, positions that are way to the right of where the American public stands are regularly called 'centrist' or 'mainstream. That's no accident - it is a deliberate strategy employed by Big Money interests that run the Establishment to effectively marginalize the vast majority of the population from its own political debate and political system....

"Paul Krugman says we can see that in today's Washington 'A Democrat is considered centrist to the extent that he does what Mr. Lieberman does: lends his support to Republican talking points, even if those talking points don't correspond at all to what most of the public wants or believes.'"

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/paul_krugman_talkshow_joelieberman_lies_with_the_right.htm

Oh wait, that's all of us. Luckily, I'm not a blogger. I post on an internet chat board.

Furthermore, dude was linking to a Krugman article about Lieberman (posted on a *gasp* web log), which seems pretty relevent to the subject of this thread.

"chart" "formats"

-- Fluffy Bear (el.jeffe.bonanz...), May 31st, 2006 4:50 PM. , without merely linking to yet another blog.

gabbneb there are definitely pop radio stations and pop charts.

gabbneb and o. nate, we all agree that the Democratic party needs to appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans, but my main argument is not that the party needs to go left in order to do that, but that this concept of "centrism" that many Democrats have mythologised is dogmatic and reactionary, as evidenced by the tone-deaf (and irrelevant) Lieberman, who I believe has done more damage to the party than your Sen. Kennedy's and your '60's and your McGoverns.

Also, the Dixie Chicks are doing smashingly, arent they? At least in record sales. Haven't they been playing to mostly sold-out shows?

gentlemen, gentlemen, let us remember that we arere wanking over politickin' here. let us not devolve into discourse more suited to the other side of the aisle. Can we agree to just refer to it as "Top 40"(or somesuch) and leave it as that?

and i'm still linkin' to Krugman & news articles, since the shit can be relevant.

top 10 of the current Billboard top 200: Chix, High School Musical OST, American Idol, Angels and Airwaves, RHCP, Rascal Flatts, Don Omar, WWE: Wreckless Intent, Tool, Carrie Underwood

can you name a radio station that plays all 10?

sure, but that's a format characterized by an audience that doesn't much listen to the radio

Well, I think there's smart centrism and then there's dumb centrism. Dumb centrism means triangulating to the midpoint between the GOP position and the standard liberal Dem position. That's mindless and robotic and probably won't get anybody elected who's not already running in a safe district. Centrism is not some mathematical problem of finding the midpoint of the political spectrum, such that if the GOP moves to the right then the center also moves to the right. It doesn't matter so much what the GOP does (except on a case-by-case basis, when it might be smart politically for someone running against a GOP opponent to try and neutralize them or even get to their right on a particular issue (only if it makes smart policy sense or is harmless, of course) for short-term tactical reasons) but what the voters think. And strategically, being centrist means finding a position that still makes good policy sense (or is at least an improvement over the status quo ante) and is also palatable to enough voters to make the thing politically possible. This has to be done on a case-by-case basis. At least that's how I see it from a campaign perspective. Then there's another kind of centrism, assuming you get elected, which is the process centrism - ie., how you're going to work with people across the aisle. When you're living in a 51-49 country, centrism of this kind is probably a necessity if you're going to get much done.

i agree with this, but i think that calling it "centrism" shifts it more into the mechanical process/framing. i see it akin to some lazy media report of he said/she said/"the truth is somewhere in the middle".

I think that there should be a better name, and there probably is, but I can't think of it right now. Something akin to the difference between the mean & the median.