The MoveOn.Kos/Nader-like,

Far left wing of the Democratic Party must decide which is more important: 1) Failing to elect a President that strictly follows the far left puritan doctrine or, 2) Electing another President from the Bush community. Everyone on the right of center is (completely) intolerable. Some Democratic candidates have expressed broader based views than is permissible in left land. So which will it be in 2008? A president from the Right who is antithetical to every interest of the Center and the Left? Or, will it be a president who will preside over policies that are mostly acceptable to the Center and the Left? No candidate is perfect.


There is an alternative. Members of the Party should begin the work of establishing the best candidate and the best running mate to gain the first objective …election, beat the Republicans. Some seem to have the notion that any Democrat will beat any Republican in 2008. I wish that were true, but I doubt that argument will be sustained. The Democratic Party must field the candidate (and a running mate) who will appeal broadly to the Party and to the Independent swing voters who typically make the difference at general election time. If the Party chooses to select a candidate who espouses only far-left rhetoric, the election is in jeopardy.

What is far left.

  • Broad-based increase in taxes, equitable redistribution of the tax burden to all people / corporations.
  • Defunding the troops in Iraq.
  • Complete, immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq.
  • Abolishment of the current health care system and substitution of a single-payer, government provided health care system for everyone.
  • Continuation of the current social security system.
  • Registration / control of guns.
  • Empathy for illegal aliens currently in the country.
  • Discontinuance of spying on Americans without a court order.
  • Truthfulness in government, political and corporate leaders.
  • Rebuilding of our international relationships; political, economic, trade, cultural, etc.
  • Public funding of elections.
  • Non-ideological, secular judges for the Courts.
  • Term limits for all elected offices.
  • Shorter election cycles, primary seasons.
  • Equal rights, under the Constitution, to all.
  • A home for every individual.
  • Freedom from hunger.
  • An education (to the heights of one’s desires and ability) for everyone.
  • Opportunity for each to attain his/her dreams.
  • A livable environment for ourselves and all succeeding generations.
  • A boy named Dick, a girl named Jane and a dog named Spot for every home.

And, I suppose a Play Station for the boys, a Molly Make-Up kit for the girls, a motor bike or a set of wheels for the teenagers, work and transportation for the adults.

Damn, I consider myself Centrist, but I could go for most of these far-Left views. When will the Democratic Party began to come together on a consensus to elect the next President of the United States? Must it wait for Iowa, New Hampshire, February 5th?


Skip to comment form

  1. While I agree with it all, to me, the list reads as a Constitutional restoration, and not leftist movement.  What am I missing?

    I confused as to the title of the post.  Please remember that not all of us here are familiar with Kos there.

    Thanks for writing this.  If only it weren’t pie in the sky.

  2. at this point in time….who do you think Hillary CAN’T beat on the right?

    Because that is how it is shaping up.

    Unless we finally get a break and something TRULY good happens. In which case…..

    Who do you think Al Gore CAN’T beat on the right?

  3. that these ideas are viewed by the country as a whole as far left, then I must respectfully disagree. I believe if you ask many (most?) people about any of these issues (Dick, Jane & Spot notwithstanding), they would agree there is some room for debate/compromise/improvement. Many would agree with the Democratic side of the argument, if the “liberal” label is simply not attached. I believe that any objection to progressive ideas, held by a noticable number of people, is simply knee-jerk and without substance. What we need to do is attach a similar negative stigma to ideas labeled as “conservative”.

    If, on the other hand, you are saying that all we have to do to win in ’08 is to run a republican, then I must take my leave of you.

    In the end, I’m left with the distinct feeling that I am misunderstanding the point you were trying to make. If so, many apologies.

    • pico on September 23, 2007 at 20:01

    Members of the Party should begin the work of establishing the best candidate and the best running mate to gain the first objective …election, beat the Republicans.

    Yes and no: it isn’t that simple.  We live in a country where elections are decided by a slim margin, and, as all tendencies seem to indicate, will continue to be decided by a slim margin for at least the next few cycles.  So this election, you’re saying the single most important goal is to get Republicans out of office, and next election you’ll be saying the single most important goal will be to keep our slim majority, and to keep our slim majority, and to keep our slim majority… Jump ahead a few cycles, and the Democratic party is back out of power after a lackluster term of non-change. 

    Federal election strategy is short-sighted by nature.  The most important things the “far left” (what the rest of the world would call “moderate”) can do right now is grassroots work and reformation of local party structures.  That’s painfully low-gain work in the short run, but it’s the only hope that we can start dragging the country back to the middle where it belongs. 

    The other thing I’d ask is, how are you coming to the conclusion that each of these represents a far left agenda?  Some of them, I’d agree: gun control is a complete non-starter, and won’t win the Democratic party any moderate or independent allies.  But universal healthcare is polling extremely well, to the point that even Republicans are grudgingly talking (only talking) about possible healthcare reform.

  4. in the interest of “electability,” then spend the next four years riding herd on some centrist weenie who refuses to stand up to Republican thuggery? 

    Been there, done that – see Salazar ’04 – and all’s I can say is that it won’t be happening again.  At this point, I’d rather burn my vote on principle than cast it for someone who’s unwilling or unable to stand up to conservative idiocy.  Gravel ’08, baby!

Comments have been disabled.