Jackson Free Press

"We don't need another Republican Party!" Democrats declared at a Take Back America rally this. Read Salon's report.

Previous Comments

ID

135983

Comment

Dems won't win with a hard veer to left. It will be another McGovern and Mondale garden party. Though Hill and Bill love the floundering. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030528-120357-7215r.htm

Author

The Anti-SidB

Date

2003-06-09T11:29:11-06:00

ID

135984

Comment

I'd much rather see a debate between honest-to-God firebreathing liberal advocates and hard-line supply-sider conservatives with the moderates and independent thinkers holding the swing vote than this whole Republican-vs-Republican-Lite dynamic where the Democrats sell out in a desperate bid to regain some power. I typically don't like what a lot of liberal candidates have to say, but I respect one who takes a stand and holds it.

Author

JW

Date

2003-06-09T11:42:49-06:00

ID

135985

Comment

I tend to agree, JW, although I don't want only the views of the extremes to get through. I do wish the left--which these days seems to be anything left of extreme right, according to many--would right for new voters who are disenchanted, rather than just trying to get the same old, undecided voters to swing their votes to them. Too many people just don't like any of the choices, so they're disengaging from the process and ceding it to a minority of people. Real discussion and debate are being sacrified to this "Republican Lite" phenomenon you call for. Frankly, I just want to see some courage and passion somewhere out there.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-09T11:48:24-06:00

ID

135986

Comment

There's lots of passion. Just not much love. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/159/nation/Opposition_research_seen_as_key_by_presidential_rivals+.shtml A better analogy of the new commonality is that the right is anything east of the extreme left. The Dems are stuck in the muck.

Author

The Anti-SidB

Date

2003-06-09T12:14:57-06:00

ID

135987

Comment

JW: If you have a firebreathing liberal vs. a hardline conservative, I would think it would be more likely that moderates (such as myself who votes for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) would be turned off from voting. Besides in politics, neglecting the middle is considered a dumb move. And being a moderate follower of politics, there are two things that turn me off-- the first one is ideological extremism of all kinds. The second is arrogance. Democtaic presidential contender Howard Dean (to give an example) has certainly garnered a lot of attention. However, in my opinion, he is too ideologically extreme and arrogant for my taste. At least there are other Democratic candidates who are more worthy of my party primary vote (Lieberman, Kerry, & Edwards-- to name three.) My disdain for arrogance also extends to GOP candidates. I did not vote to re-elect Kirk Fordice in 1995-- after having voted for him in 1991 because in my opinion I believed he was too arrogant.

Author

Ex Libris

Date

2003-06-09T12:15:58-06:00

ID

135988

Comment

Perhaps the real issue is how the word "middle" is defined. I suspect that's become one of those hackneyed words that don't mean a whole lot anymore. It's clear even from these postings how differently it's defined. But the two-party/either-or ideology doesn't allow much real debate between the extremes, which should just cancel each other out, so everyone else can get something done. I'm rambling here a bit, but I do get frustrated that we're all supposed to choose sides, and not truly be able to have an issue-by-issue dialogue.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-09T12:31:33-06:00

ID

135989

Comment

I meant to say I didn't like the "Republican-Lite" phenomenon, also called the "Me Too" effect--where the Democrat is for whatever the Republican is for--just less of it, whether it's tax cuts or defense spending. I, too, dislike extremism in all stripes. Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan scare me just as much as any wild-eyed liberal can. My point was the same as as Truman's (I think) who said that given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat that sounded like a Republican, people would more likely vote for the real Republican. I want a politician or two that says what s/he means and means what s/he says--more McCains, if you would like. At least be intellectually honest in your liberalism, moderateness, greenness, libertarianness, or conservatism. If a hard run at the Left stimulates thinking and debate in this country, I say have at it.

Author

JW

Date

2003-06-09T14:15:01-06:00

ID

135990

Comment

I agree with you, JW. I personally define an "extremist" as someone who goes along with a party or an ideological platform, no matter what. And I personally believe a "progressive" doesn't, at least not my brand. I got as frustrated with Clinton supporters who excused him no matter what he did and lied about than I do Bush supporters who turn a deaf ear to his fabrications. Imagine how many people such blind faith leaves out and frustrates in our country; that's probably how I would define this amorphous middle -- all the folks who don't want to blindly follow a party or politician. I disagree with McCain on many issues, but I sure respect him more because he has the courage to think for himself. Or Mitch Tyner here in Mississippi, for that matter. The same goes for Howard Dean for me. The same man is against gun control, but in favor of same-sex unions? Sure, disagree with him, but respect him for his willingness to honor his own beliefs.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-09T14:28:16-06:00