This message was self-deleted by its author

[Douglas Carpenter]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Douglas Carpenter) on Wed Nov 19, 2014, 05:42 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[djean111]

1. At this point, I believe "the Centrists" must honestly believe that the rest of us have

no logic skills. Or no Google skills. Or no reading comprehension skills. And that we are easily cowed or confused by long long lists and little charts. The arrogance of pushing the meme that Democrats need not consider any other candidate is appalling.
It would be understandable if part of a primary campaign, but now it looks like the primaries are not wanted at all. Because that did not work out so well last time? Because campaign blather during primaries lives on youtube forever?

[brooklynite]

2. Treason? Over-react much?

As a support of John Glenn, I remember a very robust primary process that went on for months.

And once, again, name a Hillary supporter who says we should have competition.

[cali]

4. Vanilla Rhapsody.

[pangaia]

6. :>)))))

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. yes it went on for months because Gary Hart came out of no where and made it a race

John Glenn never got anywhere though. That campaign floundered from the beginning. As far as the party bosses were concerned - the race was already over before it started and Mondale was the inevitable nominee.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. The 'choice' we have today is an illusion.

The party showcases the people we're allowed to choose from, who are a rather homogeneous group. Then the media decides who they'll invite to the debates. We can have it the old way with party bosses sitting in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms and hashing out who the candidate will be, or we can have Wall St. and the media give us a lineup for us to 'choose' from. Is the result essentially any different?

[billhicks76]

7. Exactly...Its all theater for FOOLS...even democrats have STUPID.

Its also obvious that today is different in that information moves faster and the fools in our party don't necessarily outnumber those who can question authority and think for themselves. Hillary is a more conservative Mondale.

[billhicks76]

8. Hillary Was President Of The College Republicans

Nothing has changed but her title.

[bigwillq]

11. Her and Liz Warren were planning the repub takeover

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Actually and factually, in 1984 Hillary was Democratic First Lady of Arkansas while Elizabeth Warren

was an ardent member of the GOP, voting for Ronald Reagan because she liked his economic policies. Of course in addition to Reaganomics, she was voting for anti choice candidates who were running racist campaigns and pushing homophobic policies.
In 1984, Warren was still 10 full years away from becoming a Democrat. 10 years during which thousand of Americans would die of AIDS while her President snickered about it and took no action.
By the time Warren first votes for Democrats, Bill and Hillary are in the White House. Warren voted for Bush. I very happily voted for Clinton.

And here's actual Bill Hicks in 1984. I bet he did not vote Republican....

[djean111]

26. The choice some of us want is not between Hillary and Liz Warren - it is a choice between

Hillary and someone who is actually a lot more liberal/Progressive.
The attacks on Warren herself are meaningless, really. It is not like those who love Warren's current beliefs will just say oh, dang, I guess I will just support Hillary, now that you have pointed out Warren's previous affiliations.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. You know my point is that it is shitty and incorrect to claim Hillary was a Republican in 1984

as part of an advancement of a person who really was a Republican until 1994. It's a freaked out double standard and I do not care for that no matter who gets the hit or the advantage. Warren supporters are also prone to calling Hillary 'Goldwater Girl' when Warren was a Reagan Woman, a Bush Adult. If it was bad to be a 'Goldwater Girl' how is it not worse to have been a Republican for much, much longer and deep into career and adulthood and the making of a vast fortune?
Look. Warren was a Reagan Republican during the AIDS crisis. I lived through that and protested that fucked up Party endlessly. For me that counts. She has not talked about it. I'd like her to.
But I'm not going to play with any people who think it is ok to bash Johnny for having a beer while praising Jack for drinking a case a week for 20 years. People who play double standard games will do that to me as well. That's what I assume. They have no visible scruples.
I don't give a shit if Hillary runs and if she does I assume I'll be voting for someone else in the primary like I did last time. But I don't care for mendacity and dishonesty. Nor for Reagan Republicans.
I like Bernie. I expect to hate the eventual nominee, as that nominee is likely to be a recent supporter of my rights and a long time opponent of equality, be that nominee Hillary or Elizabeth, either one is just another politician I've seen try to prevent my happiness. It's just not that appealing.

[HereSince1628]

9. IMO, that consideration of the problem is way too simple.

I don't remember it clearly, but I remember that primary season

And it doesn't take into account the details of issues on the ground, the following are just a couple of things I remember...

There was a huge democratic field, of whom at least 5 candidates had a decent shot at the presidency.

Hart was seen as the 'golden boy' but he had a problem on his lap, and he also ran into difficulties with delegate assignment because of convention rules that Mondale's cronies had manipulated earlier.

Mondale won the nomination but wasn't really an appealling or overwhelmingly popular choice. His running mate made history as the first woman to run for VP, but her spouse was clouded with legal difficulties.

As a public speaker, it was hands-down Reagan over Mondale.

Moreover, and this general pattern was very influential...preventing a president from a second term is hard to do, if the president wants it.

I've lived under 12 presidents only 2 elected, living presidents who sought 2nd terms were denied second terms.

There is a tendency in the US for voters to stay with what they've got for 2 terms, and it's pretty hard for a party to control the WH for 3 terms. That's only happened once in my life.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. it was made absolutely clear from the beginning that Mondale was the inevitable nominee although

his support was a mile wide and an inch deep. When Gary Hart made an impressive second place showing in the Iowa caucus - he suddenly benefited from a bit of attention. Then came the New Hampshire primary where in spite of polls showing Mondale easily winning - Hart trounced Mondale in a landslide and then proceeded to win a number of primaries in a sudden burst of Hart mania that caught on in media pop culture. Sure Alan Cranston, Earnest Hollings, Reuben Askew, George McGovern and Jesse Jackson were all in the race. But none of those contenders were taken seriously by the media or anyone else as possible nominees. There was the thought at one point that John Glenn might possibly be a competitive challenger to Mondale - but his campaign completely floundered from the beginning. The word from on high was always that Mondale was the inevitable nominee and to challenge him was to disrupt the party. Gary Hart spoiled that a little bit and was within striking distance - but the proclaimed inevitable nominee did get the nomination. And though we all know how that election turned out - even in 83 virtually all polls showed Mondale trouncing Reagan.

[HereSince1628]

12. Mondale had establishment backing and was positioned to play rule changes

because of that.

Inevitable? Only if you want to see it that way. Truth is the field was large because stronger candidates without blemishes from losing earlier primaries weren't available.

The size of the field in 1984 (and again in 88) contributed spreading out voter interest in any candidate and made coming together again, with enthusiasm, rather more difficult.

Which, imo, was the reason for the Ferraro VP pick. It was a somewhat obvious attempt to bring in voters who wanted someone more liberal.

and on edit: Whatever the internal politics of the democrats were, there was also a very high hill to climb in trying to unseat Reagan.

[wyldwolf]

13. Thanks, brooklynite, for questioning this OP

Once again, a 'progressive' tries to revise history with no source material or evidence to be found. If bullshit like this isn't questioned, it becomes DU-accepted truth.

'treason.' LOL!

1984 was very competitive. And Gary Hart was as centrist as they came.

Hart: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19840229&id=MUdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vQIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6802,8725749



And, one more time - WHO (of consequence) is declaring the nomination process over in 2016?

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. you're showing exactly what I pointed out above - Hart's charge disrupted the Mondale inevitability

that the "centrist" of that time were proclaiming. Everyone who was politically aware at all at that time knew that the whole establishment party had proclaimed Mondale the nominee before the process even begin. When Hart made a surprise impressive second place showing in Iowa followed by a completely unpredicted win in New Hampshire - the establishment center of the party was completely caught by surprised. That is what made the 1984 nomination process open at all. It is not what the establishment center of that time had in mind. I don't know why it is considered such a bad thing to have an open democratic process in selecting a nominee. I don't know why it is considered such a good thing to consider the issue all settled years in advance. Who knows? - Maybe in 2016 the inevitability of Hillary will be disrupted too.

[wyldwolf]

17. what centrists were proclaiming Mondale's inevitability?

Look, at some point you have to get off the field and let the players play.

EVERY election has a favorite, a front-runner, who gets hyped. And every election has upstarts who get hyped. Everyone makes their case. No one to my knowledge has ever said other candidates shouldn't run or doing so would be 'treason.'

We simply can't revise history to fit a 2016 narrative that hasn't been proven itself.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. first of all in 1984 Mondale himself would have been considered centrist in that time

He was a Hubert Humphrey protégé and pretty much was in the middle of the Democratic Party as it was in 1984. The entire labor establishment as well as the party regulars - state chairman, most elected office holders had pretty much all lined up behind Mondale in advance. No one else was taken seriously except an outside possibility of a serious challenge from John Glenn which never materialized. The Gary Hart rise was completely unexpected. Until the surprise New Hampshire upset hardly anybody had ever even heard of him. He may now be considered a centrist in contrast to a more traditional New Dealer like Mondale - but at that time - such parlance was simply not in use. I was actually involved in both my union and to some extent local politics in liberal San Francisco at the time. It was considered somewhat bad form to break from the Mondale pact. It was suggested more than once that supporting Hart or McGovern or Jackson or whoever would simply weaken Mondale and set him up to lose to Reagan. The Hart phenomena happened completely outside of the party establishment. I don't think there were many party regular at all who backed him at the time. And for the record because of my horror at Reagan -I worked harder in the general election for Mondale than I did for just about any other candidate in my life including McGovern and my neighborhood and my city at the time did go for him by a very wide margin.

If you agree that the 2016 nominee is an open question that cannot be settled until the primary and caucus process - then I don't know that we disagree.

[wyldwolf]

20. "in 1984 Mondale himself would have been considered centrist"

in 1984 Mondale himself would have been considered centrist

Says who ... and by who? The Weather Underground? Mondale came from the Democratic tradition of Senator Humphrey and labor unions. His only sin against 'progressives' was a 1980 meeting with the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (the DLC forerunners) in his attempt to cobble together a Democratic voting coalition. The Coalition for a Democratic Majority expressed "nervousness" about Mondale's credentials - which hardly sounds like a ringing centrist endorsement.

John Glen and Hart were much more centrist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. frankly, it was a more liberal time - the center has moved

Mondale was certainly not running on any sweeping liberal agenda or pledges for major expansions of the New Deal. He really wasn't running on anything except a vague notion that he would move in a different direction than Reagan. I would agree that John Glenn and Gary Hart were slightly to the right of Mondale. Although Gary Hart's appeal was more of a pop culture phenomena with the only message of "new ideas." Few people at the time would have pegged him as being either to the right or left of Mondale - although I would agree that he would have been slightly to the right.

[wyldwolf]

22. there you go again.

Without any evidence, you making 'facts' up and revising history to fit your narrative.

Regardless of what you 'think,' the centrists at the time did not endorse Mondale in the primaries, no matter how liberal or non-liberal the times were.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. what you are not getting is that Mondale was a "centrist" of that time - the people

you are talking about would have been considered conservative Democrats at that time. . Maybe, they would be called centrist today - but not back then. Mondale was certainly not considered left-wing at least in Democratic Party circles in 1984. I don't recall anyone calling him that back in 84 except the Reagan campaign. And yes, the entire middle of the Party - the establishment of the party - maybe not some group that nobody ever heard of - but the party establishment - the mainstream party regular were rallying behind Mondale from the beginning and proclaiming him the inevitable nominee. Anyone who was politically aware at the time would know that. I'm not saying anything even remotely controversial for those following politics in 1984.

[wyldwolf]

24. except he wasn't. And besides, that isn't what your OP alleges.

The centrists of the early 80s did not rally around Mondale, they did not consider him a centrist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. you're defining conservative Democrats as centrist - political realities of today

might make that true as far as the professional class of the party in concerned. IN 1984 Mondale was in the center of the party - even the party establishment. That is not the case in 2014. But it was in 1984

[wyldwolf]

32. No, actually I'm not. Conservative Dems had already bolted for Reaganland

Conservative Dems had already bolted for Reaganland. Centrist Dems (like the before-mentioned Coalition for a Democratic Majority) wanted to steer the party to the center to take on the Reagan behemoth.

Mondale was a traditional liberal. Not in the party's center. As my first link demonstrated, the ADA agreed. Sorry. But I'll let you continue your exercise in historical revisionism. If it's anything, it's entertaining.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. can you not at least TRY to be a little bit civil? after all if Hillary wins the Democratic

nomination - for which she is currently the front runner - I will support her in the general election.

Just how old were you 1984 anyway?

[wyldwolf]

41. It's difficult when someone keeps stretching their 'theory' to counteract...

... introduction of new facts:

"Mondale, regarded as a liberal with strong support from organized labor..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1906&dat=19760716&id=xdchAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bp8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2112,4035060

Take Jimmy Carter’s selection of Walter F. Mondale in 1976. Mondale was accurately regarded as one of the most able members of the Senate. He was a relatively new face on the national scene who reflected Carter’s themes of excellence, generational change and integrity. Carter’s politics were largely undefined. The selection of Mondale thrilled the Democratic base by suggesting that its views would have a champion...

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/debunking-some-myths-about-vice-presidential-selection/

I have very little patience with historical revisionism. It's dangerous.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. recognizing that liberalism was once in the mainstream center of the Democratic Party is not

historic revisionism - it is a historic fact. Recognizing that in the context of the time Walter Mondale was in the center and the middle of the Democratic Party and supported from the beginning by the entire Democratic Party establishment is not historic revisionism - it is a historic fact.

To suggest that it might not be a good idea to suggest a nominating process is all over a few years in advance may not be a good idea - is not revisionism - it is being reasonable.

[AgingAmerican]

62. Mondale courted conservatives

He was no 'traditional liberal'. The OP is spot on, as proven by this article from that time period.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/15/us/mondale-woos-his-party-s-conservative-wing.html

[wyldwolf]

75. quote the relevant parts that prove the OP

[OilemFirchen]

28. Maybe in "liberal San Francisco".

Though I doubt it... and the OP's personal history.

Nationally, Mondale was a solid liberal. Only Jackson (for whom I voted in the primary) was to the left of him. And the DNC wasn't married to a soul - had Hart not been buried in scandal he may well have won the nomination.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. The Hart "Monkey Business" scandal did not take place until June 1987 - that was a non issue in 1984

Actually both McGovern and Jackson would have been considered to the left of Mondale. In reality Mondale was not running on a particularly liberal agenda other than to curb some of the more conservative aspects of Reaganism. He may have had a history as an old style New Dealer and Hubert Humphrey protégé. But by 84 that was no longer his message. But only the Hart campaign materialized into a serious challenge and that was completely unexpected and took the party establishment by complete surprise. The fact is in 1984 Mondale would have been pretty much in the middle of the party and supported by virtually the entire party establishment from the beginning.

[OilemFirchen]

35. My mistake.

My central point, nonetheless, stands:

The Harvard Crimson, March 12, 1984

Not in the last twenty years has the party been offered so clear a choice of a candidate who can bridge all its concern and constituencies. A candidate who is a true-blue liberal. A candidate who has a keen, working understanding of how government works, of its potentialities and limitations. And one who, despite what all the pundits say, has as solid a chance as anybody in the race of being elected President in November.

That candidate is Walter F. Mondale. That the liberal electorate in this country is not rushing to his banner is testimony to the power of fabricated images and the ability of his opponents--namely Sen. Gary W. Hart (D-Colo)--to pull a snow job on the American people.

During his more than twenty years in public series, Mondale has staked out a clear position for himself as an unreconstructed--but thinking man's--liberal, taking the right stands on issues ranging from civil rights and health care to defense spending and labor problems. And he has done it the hard way--not by acting or sitting in some law office, but by working the political battles from the ground up, fighting tooth and nail over hundreds of issues on his way up from Minnesota attorney general to senator to vice president.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. but those ideas were mainsteam and in the middle of the Democratic party at the time

taking the right stands on issues ranging from civil rights and health care to defense spending and labor problems. And he has done it the hard way--not by acting or sitting in some law office, but by working the political battles from the ground up, fighting tooth and nail over hundreds of issues on his way up from Minnesota attorney general to senator to vice president.

[OilemFirchen]

44. Debatable and irrelevant.

Your OP proclaims that the "Centrist" Democratic establishment had ordained Mondale as the inevitable candidate. If, as you suggest, the party's center was liberal then what, exactly, is your point?

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. there seems to be a group of people who seem to think that to suggest any candidate other than

Hillary is somehow or other an act of disloyalty as if the race is already settled. My point was not how liberal or how centrist Mondale was - but that perhaps it is not a good idea to proclaim the race for the nomination already over three years in advance.

[OilemFirchen]

53. I doubt it.

Your OP is entitled "Back in 84 the party's "centrist" of that time considered any challenge to Mondale to be treason". That is, of course, utter nonsense. The party supported Mondale because they felt he was the most electable candidate. Had the "centrists" (a nefarious group, presumptively) held sway, they would have backed Hart.

You're attempting to rewrite history (as I did, mistakenly, and for which I owned up) in order to frame the present political climate as a rerun of the past. It's no secret why you've made the attempt, but the contemporaneous facts upend your argument.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. in 1984 the party establishment did in fact for the most part rally behind

Mondale from the beginning. That is a fact. And they would have been in the middle and center of the party at the time. Is Centrist some absolute word now that defines a very specific ideology? I was under the impression that it meant someone in the center. Those in the center of the Democratic Party - at least most of them - were backing Mondale early on. That is reality.

[OilemFirchen]

57. Pull the other one.

"Is Centrist some absolute word now that defines a very specific ideology?"

Yes. That's why you used it pejoratively.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. I am defining the word as implying someone is in the center or middle range

I thought I made it clear when I pointed out that the center in 1984 is very different than the center in 2014. I didn't realize that it can only mean a specifically defined ideology. Although, I suppose it is used that way sometimes.

[OilemFirchen]

59. Except that it wasn't.

The "center" of the Democratic Party was, arguably, Hart. Who, by today's standards, would be... a centrist.

[wyldwolf]

40. It's the very reason Carter selected Mondale

"Mondale, regarded as a liberal with strong support from organized labor..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1906&dat=19760716&id=xdchAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bp8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2112,4035060

Take Jimmy Carter’s selection of Walter F. Mondale in 1976. Mondale was accurately regarded as one of the most able members of the Senate. He was a relatively new face on the national scene who reflected Carter’s themes of excellence, generational change and integrity. Carter’s politics were largely undefined. The selection of Mondale thrilled the Democratic base by suggesting that its views would have a champion...

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/debunking-some-myths-about-vice-presidential-selection/

[wyldwolf]

36. There's historical facts, then there are Douglas Carpenter's version

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

On display today, folks. Step right up.

I think it's your way of "centristising" Mondale because he was a liberal who lost a national election. By stripping him of his traditional liberalness, you can further your case the 'progressives' would win if they could somehow get the nomination.

[aikoaiko]

43. And the jury results are in....

On Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

There's historical facts, then there are Douglas Carpenter's version
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5833399

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

it is not proper to personally attack a long standing DU member - one can argue with facts as much as they like - but personal attacks are not acceptable

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 18, 2014, 11:06 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed, personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Snarkiness is not a personal attack.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You gotta be kidding me with this alert.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Mondale was a centrist.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who the hell is being personally attacked here, you big cry baby!? Geez, all these mollycoddled entitled narcissists need to get a clue.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[AgingAmerican]

63. According to this article, you are wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/15/us/mondale-woos-his-party-s-conservative-wing.html

[wyldwolf]

73. quote the relevant parts that prove the OP

[unrepentant progress]

47. The facts are not on your side

Mondale supported the ERA, a nuclear freeze, rejected Reaganism, pledged to raise taxes, and nominated a pro-choice Catholic Italian-American woman as his running mate despite other Democrats wanting the proto-neoliberal Gary Hart, or the conservative Democrat Lloyd Bentsen. Sorry, but even by 1984 standards he was liberal. The only "centrist" aspect of his campaign was a pledge to reduce the budget deficit by a third. Sadly, misunderstanding how fiat currency works, and why a federal budget deficit is a good thing in a time of recession, knows no ideological bounds.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. he was supported by virtually the entire party estabishment from the beginning

he was not proposing major sweeping New Deal type changes - just rather basic things that were quite mainstream at the time.

[unrepentant progress]

50. Okie dokie. I'll leave you to your ideological fantasy.

I agree with you about Hillary, but you're totally ignorant here. Mondale was not as far to the left as Eleanor Roosevelt, or MLK, but the fact remains that he is the last true liberal this party ever nominated.

[AgingAmerican]

64. Mondale courted the conservative wing of the Dems

nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. yeah thanks a lot for that article

MONDALE WOOS HIS PARTY'S CONSERVATIVE WING

By BERNARD WEINRAUB

Published: November 15, 1983

Nonetheless, in his drive for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Mr. Mondale is pressing hard to embrace the conservative wing, whose best known member was Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington, who died Sept. 1. Aides to Mr. Mondale say that groups such as the coalition are a ''natural constituency'' for him because of his ties to the tradition of Hubert H. Humphrey, the endorsement of his candidacy by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and his strong support of Israel. .

Both men are to outline their views about the party at a Tuesday meeting on Capitol Hill sponsored by the coalition. The group was set up by Senator Jackson, among others, as an alternative to the McGovern wing of the party, and some of its members have already sided with Mr. Mondale.


''It startled me that there's amazingly little support in our organization for Glenn, and, frankly, I think the support of Democrats who think as we do is up for grabs,'' said one official of the coalition. ''Nobody strongly appeals.'' The official said there was ''enormous uncertainty'' about Mr. Glenn's position on Israel as well as ''a lack of knowledge about what this guy really stands for.''

'Don't Worry About Fritz'

Peter R. Rosenblatt, president of the coalition, said that although there was ''appreciation of some of Glenn's positions,'' the group retained ''a strong sense of community with Mondale'' because of his association with his fellow Minnesotan, Mr. Humphrey, viewed as the classical traditional Democrat. ''A lot of us think Mondale, in his heart, is really centrist,'' said Mr. Rosenblatt.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/15/us/mondale-woos-his-party-s-conservative-wing.html

[wyldwolf]

78. You're basing your ENTIRE argument now on the opinion of Peter Rosenblatt.

Peter R. Rosenblatt, president of the coalition, said that although there was ''appreciation of some of Glenn's positions,'' the group retained ''a strong sense of community with Mondale'' because of his association with his fellow Minnesotan, Mr. Humphrey, viewed as the classical traditional Democrat. ''A lot of us think Mondale, in his heart, is really centrist,'' said Mr. Rosenblatt.

You're basing your ENTIRE argument now on the opinion of Peter Rosenblatt who, despite Mondale's 'classical traditional Democratic" status, is (said in a mocking voice) in his heart really a centrist. :ROFL:

[Bluenorthwest]

87. That's called politics....is Obama a Blue Dog? No....

October 15, 2008|Posted by William Gibson at 4:25 PM

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama already is laying the groundwork for enacting his agenda next year by courting moderate-to-conservative Democrats in Congress.

While campaigning, Obama contacted Florida Congressman Allen Boyd, leader of a faction known as the Blue Dog Democrats.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2008-10-15/news/0810160075_1_sen-obama-blue-dogs-allen-boyd-obama

[wyldwolf]

76. but never enacted their policies.

[AgingAmerican]

77. Now you are saying the OP is incorrect

...because Mondale lost the election?

Who is twisting and turning in the wind now?

[wyldwolf]

81. The OP is incorrect

The article clearly states Mondale was trying to build a coalition.

[AgingAmerican]

82. With Centrists of the time

nt

[wyldwolf]

84. to include centrists. That's how coalitions are built.

[MineralMan]

16. Well, nobody is declaring the nominating process over.

There's plenty of time for candidates to declare their intentions. So far, no serious candidate has done so. Those who have someone in mind that they'd like to see as President should be encouraging that person to declare. There doesn't seem to be a rush to make those declarations, though. Even Bernie Sanders hasn't yet declared.

I have written numerous times that I will vote in the primary election for Bernie Sanders if he is on my primary ballot. I live in Minnesota. I don't know if he's actually planning to run, but he gets my vote if he is on the ballot. Following the nominating convention, I will actively support the Democratic Party candidate for President, as I have done every year since JFK in 1960. I was a high school sophomore that year.

I also actively supported Mondale in 1984, despite it being quite clear that Reagan would win a second term. At least one of the candidates being discussed as a Democratic Primary candidate, though, supported Reagan. That's seems very strange to me, but it is the case.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. 1984. I voted for Mondale, while others chose to extend Reagan policies. On election day 1984 there

had been 7,699 AIDS cases and 3,665 AIDS deaths in the USA. Reagan had done absolutely nothing about it. Not even a word from him.
By November 1985 15,948 cases of AIDS had been reported in the US, 20,303 cases of AIDS had been reported to the World Health Organization.

Those who chose to extend the Reagan policy of ignorance and death made heinous and selfish choices.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I'd say everyone does the same thing.

Everyone pushes their desired nominees in advance, and makes claims about the defects of other potential nominees. The problem lies more in the choice being a result of too few people actually having a say in who nominees will be. The fewer people involved, the more wildly their idea of the 'good choice' can vary from that of the electorate in the general.

[Rowdyboy]

30. I was 30 that election and no one outside of New York, San Fran or LA considered Mondale a centrist

Mondale was clearly the representative of the "Democratic" wing of the Democratic party-an unashamed liberal who argued from tax increases. Your op is badly flawed from that basic incorrect assumption.

That doesn't mean I want to crown a nominee this early-just that you can't draw a rational parallel between th two elections as comparable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. he was certainly in the middle of the Democratic Party at the time - I don't recall any liberal or

liberal or left-wing enthusiasm over Mondale like you did over McGovern in 72, or Udall in 76 or Kennedy in 1980. The party establishment was solidly behind him from the beginning. He certainly wasn't running on any sweeping liberal agenda either -

[Prophet 451]

33. Fair point

Who do you see as having a viable shot at winning the nomination?

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. frankly I agree Hillary is the front runner just as I would have agreed Mondale was the front runner

before the primary process started in 1984. I would say that I would support Sen. Sanders if he were to run as a Democrat - Does he have a chance to win? Yes, but just barely a chance. He would be a long shot. What a Sanders campaign would have a real chance at doing is broadening the range of the debate. As we see on this thread - what was once the center of the Democratic Party establishment is now considered the liberal/left-wing of the Democratic Party base. I would like to see the range of debate both within the Democratic Party and the country as a whole pushed back to the center - the real center.

[Prophet 451]

38. I don't disagree

Looking at the US from over here (UK), you have one centre-right party (Dems), one extreme-right party (Repubs) and one sub-party (Teabaggers) who are just outright Fascist. There is no left-wing equivalent to the Teabaggers. Of course, brainwashed by the propaganda, they would claim that the entire Democratic party is further left than they are right and CommieSocialNazis besides.

[greatlaurel]

45. Facts are pesky things, which is why the GOP hates facts. Your premise of the OP is without merit.

From Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale
"Mondale ran a liberal campaign, supporting a nuclear freeze and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). He spoke against Reagan's economic policies and in support of reducing federal budget deficits." (I bolded the text for emphasis)

Mondale was not elected because Reagan ran an incredibly racist campaign pushing such ideas as poor people are living high off the hog while middle class were paying for all the welfare programs and the evil EPA was destroying middle class jobs. The middle classes were getting the first taste of the neocon economic policies that are still being used today to rob the 99% for the benefit of the 1%. In addition, the middle class was getting hit hard thanks to the economic impact of having to pay the Vietnam war debt. The Democrats could not run on that issue ,as the war was considered a Democrat war. Reagan's campaigns were classic divide and conquer by cleverly conflating protections for minorities, women, and the poor with taking money from the middle class to support such protections. Middle class voters were fooled into voting against their interests by being convinced "those people" were getting benefits they did not deserve.

Mondale's loss had nothing to do with him being too centrist and everything to do with Reagan running an incredibly effective propaganda campaign based on appealing to ordinary Americans' racism and class bigotry and appealing to American male's insecurities concerning women's rights. The right wing was already in possession of much of the American main stream media, who all clearly worshiped Reagan, thanks to his deficit spending that enriched Wall Street and defense contractors, so there was no discussion about the damage Reagan's deficit spending would cause or the horrendous failures of all his other policies.

Nice try on the divide and conquer effort. Like the Rev says, we gotcha.

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. this is divide and conquer now?

to point out that proclaiming a race all over a few years before any primaries or caucuses have even started may not be a good idea.

To point out that at one time liberalism was in the middle and center of the Democratic Party

That is divide and conquer?

[greatlaurel]

52. You stated that Mondale lost because he was too "centrist", which is clearly not true.

Why would you make such a false claim? Trying to pit one part of the Democratic Party against another faction is a divide and conquer strategy. Hopefully, in future posts you will post positive items about the candidate(s) you are backing, but refrain from the tearing down other candidates.

It is proper and good to speak of your chosen candidate in supportive terms and point out the potential candidates' outstanding qualities. To actively work to tear apart another potential Democratic Party candidate is doing the work of the GOP and their dirty tricks operatives for them. The gleeful attacking of Democratic candidates has been the greatest downfall for our candidates since Richard Nixon first started his vile campaign strategy. We need to wake up and smell a lot of coffee and stop getting played so easily.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. no, I did NOT say that Mondale lost because he was too centrist. I said nothing of the sort whatsoev

in any way, shape or form or even remotely imply that. I certainly don't believe that. So why would I say such a thing?

I pointed out he was a liberal whose views were considered in the middle and center of the Democratic Party at that time.

I pointed out that he was backed by almost the entire party leadership from the beginning.

I pointed out that much of the leadership proclaimed him the inevitable nominee from the beginning

I pointed out that it may not be a good idea to proclaim anyone the inevitable nominee long before any primaries or caucuses even happen.

No, I do not think Mondale lost because he was too centrist. That would be absurd and preposterous if I had said that. But I didn't say anything of the sort.

[greatlaurel]

60. Backtracking from your OP.

"He was liberal but neither too far left or too far right."


This statement has proved to be patently false, too.
"How did that work out? Maybe declaring the nominating process over three years before it starts is not such a good idea."

You are loosing style points the more you post.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. "He was liberal but neither too far left or too far right" describes how most Democrats saw Mondale

at the time. Are you suggesting that he was either not a liberal or that he was too far left or too far right? Almost the entire Democratic Party establishment saw him that way too and most saw him as the inevitable nominee - That is what happened.

I just don't think it is a good idea to proclaim anyone the inevitable nominee long before a single primary or caucus is held. I don't see how making that point is divide and conquer. I would call it being sensible.

[greatlaurel]

70. Definition of centrist from Mirriam-Webster

": a person whose political opinions are not extreme : a person whose beliefs fall between those of liberals and conservatives"

You were the one who used centrist in quotation marks and implied that being a centrist it is bad.

No one in the Democratic Party has publicly announced that there will not be a primary for the Democratic Party for the nomination to run for POTUS in 2016. If you are falling for the right wing media claims and dirty tricks, you need to spend some time studying how the GOP has worked tirelessly to discredit and destroy Democratic Party candidates long before they win a nomination.

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. I was trying to make the point that let's not proclaim the 2016 nominating process all finished

MONDALE WOOS HIS PARTY'S CONSERVATIVE WING

By BERNARD WEINRAUB

Published: November 15, 1983

Nonetheless, in his drive for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Mr. Mondale is pressing hard to embrace the conservative wing, whose best known member was Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington, who died Sept. 1. Aides to Mr. Mondale say that groups such as the coalition are a ''natural constituency'' for him because of his ties to the tradition of Hubert H. Humphrey, the endorsement of his candidacy by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and his strong support of Israel. .

Both men are to outline their views about the party at a Tuesday meeting on Capitol Hill sponsored by the coalition. The group was set up by Senator Jackson, among others, as an alternative to the McGovern wing of the party, and some of its members have already sided with Mr. Mondale.


''It startled me that there's amazingly little support in our organization for Glenn, and, frankly, I think the support of Democrats who think as we do is up for grabs,'' said one official of the coalition. ''Nobody strongly appeals.'' The official said there was ''enormous uncertainty'' about Mr. Glenn's position on Israel as well as ''a lack of knowledge about what this guy really stands for.''

'Don't Worry About Fritz'

Peter R. Rosenblatt, president of the coalition, said that although there was ''appreciation of some of Glenn's positions,'' the group retained ''a strong sense of community with Mondale'' because of his association with his fellow Minnesotan, Mr. Humphrey, viewed as the classical traditional Democrat. ''A lot of us think Mondale, in his heart, is really centrist,'' said Mr. Rosenblatt.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/15/us/mondale-woos-his-party-s-conservative-wing.html

[OilemFirchen]

90. It's hilarious that you and AgingAmerican are pimping this article.

Especially since your argument had devolved into one requiring your insistence that Mondale was, in fact, perceived as a liberal. So now he wasn't?

The next paragraph is enlightening:

Part of the reason for this is that some of Mr. Mondale's closest friends, Max M. Kampelman and S. Harrison ''Sonny'' Dogle, had been associated with Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Jackson, and are members of the coalition. Besides, when one coalition Democrat expressed reservations about Mr. Mondale to Lane Kirkland, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the labor leader said, ''Don't worry about Fritz.''

(My emphasis.)

Does your memory remind you that Labor was not liberal at the time?

[greatlaurel]

91. At least you are all working off the same agenda for consistency.

No, your post was a thinly veiled attack on the potential candidacy of Hillary Clinton. It is a shame you are buying into the divide and conquer tactics of the GOP. Read up on the GOP dirty tricks and Karl Rove, so you do not fall for their propaganda.

Advocating for a candidate is great and strengthens the Democratic Party. Attacking the opposing candidates is not a particularly good idea. Hopefully, HRC learned that hard lesson from 2008. It was not a good idea then and is still a bad idea now.

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. I am attacking the idea of the inevitability of Hillary a year and a half before a single primary

or caucus is held. Okay, I plead guilty to pleading for a little bit of sanity.

[AgingAmerican]

65. "We gotcha"

Mondale openly courted the conservatives of the Democratic party.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/15/us/mondale-woos-his-party-s-conservative-wing.html

[wyldwolf]

66. so how did is translate into his policies?

Oh, I forgot. He wasn't elected, so it DIDN'T translate into his policies.

[AgingAmerican]

67. You just moved the goalpost

Try reading the article.

[wyldwolf]

68. No, I didn't let YOU move the goalposts

The goalpost were set in the OP. Try reading that and then I'm sure you'll find a creative way to twist and turn.

[AgingAmerican]

69. Read the article

...instead of running away from it. It proves the OP correct.

[wyldwolf]

72. I posted the article. I read it. It doesn't address the OP

[greatlaurel]

86. Your article does not prove the OP.

Every candidate in the Democratic Party has to try to coalesce enough support before they try to run for POTUS. No doubt O'Malley, Webb, Richardson, Cuomo(ick!) and others are maneuvering right now to get enough support to run a primary campaign. Good for them and good for HRC to look to get the Party organizing for the next election.

The ridiculous premise of the OP that Mondale lost due to his centrism has been proven false, just like all the other anti-Democratic Party postings are proven wrong over and over. It unfortunately works to suppress the vote of the overly gullible which is why the GOP does all the negative campaign propaganda. The party has a lot of work to do, but this divide and conquer stuff has to be stopped.

[AgingAmerican]

88. The article outlines what Mondale did

Which lines up perfectly with what the OP says

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. no one here has even suggested that Mondale lost because of his centrism - that is something you

have created in your imagination. And any divide and conquer notion you have is a preposterous paranoid fantasy.

What is so bad about showing a little caution about proclaiming anyone as the inevitable nominee long before any primaries or caucuses have even started?

[yellowcanine]

51. I was around in 1984; I don't remember any of that. Care to cite something to support your claims?

Seriously, I do not remember things that way.

What candidate do you think would have done better against Reagan that year? As I remember it, it was a very competitive race, with Gary Hart giving Mondale a good run of it and Mondale not getting enough delegates until June to secure the nomination. Jesse Jackson was also a factor and won a couple of states.

Reality: The economy had pretty much recovered from the stagflation of the late 70s. I don't credit Reagan with that but I only had one vote. The overwhelming majority of voters did give him the credit and he was the incumbent. Case closed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. oh that is hard to say - probably Hart might have done a little better just being a younger

fresher face.

My point is not that Mondale should or should not have been the nominee or even how liberal or centrist he was.

My point is that it may not be a good idea to proclaim ANYONE the inevitable nominee long before a single primary or caucus takes place.

[yellowcanine]

80. My point is that Mondale was not seen as the "inevitable" nominee. It was a competitive primary.

Also I do not remember polls showing that Mondale was going to trounce Reagan. As I recall, the only polls showing Mondale ahead of Reagan were after the first debate when Reagan looked flat and befuddled. Reagan did better in later debates and pulled away in the polls. Hart did very well in some of the primaries - particularly in the West but he never really recovered from Mondale's parody of a Wendy's ad directed at him in a debate - "Where's the beef?" In fact, Hart did little except talk about "new ideas" without much in the way of specifics. And as the front runner in 1988 he completely imploded with the Donna Rice scandal. You don't taunt the media and tell them to "follow me around" and then shack up with a woman who is not your wife. That is stupid and it fed into the notion of Hart being something of a flake. He had changed his name, he lied about his birth year, making himself one year younger for some reason. That kind of behavior will sink you in a national campaign and it would have sunk Hart in 1984 just as it did in 1988.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. once the Hart charge started a lot of that inevitability certainly evaporated -

but until then that was very much the official point of view. I was speaking of polls done a year, two years and three years before the election - Mondale was certainly ahead of Reagan then. But of course once it became the widely accepted notion that the economy had recovered and it was morning in America again - that changed - It basically changed in late 83 or early 84.

[yellowcanine]

94. I don't remember Mondale ever being "inevitable." Certainly John Glenn, Alan Cranston, Jesse

Jackson, and Gary Hart didn't think so. There were some others also. You don't get a full field like that when one candidate is inevitable. Certainly party leadership favored Mondale and he had the most money but Democrats especially rarely have let that stop them. In 1968 McCarthy knocked off a sitting President who had won by a landslide in 1964. Jimmy Carter won in 1976 as an outsider in a year when Republicans were ripe for the picking after Watergate.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. I was around and in California at that time, I remember it like the other poster, not as you do.

I voted for Jackson in the Primary. The final delegate count went Mondale 1,606 Hart 1,164. Pretty close.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. once the Hart campaign started soaring - ABSOLUTELY yes a lot of the inevitability notion

disappeared over night - but before the caucuses and the primaries started and really only after the New Hampshire primary where Hart completely defied all the polls and trounced Mondale - until then the official word was that Mondale was inevitable with only an outside chance that maybe John Glenn might be able to mount a serious challenge.

[greatlaurel]

93. This OP is a classic Gish Gallop.

[yellowcanine]

95. Agree. Lot of backing and filling going on. And still no citations to back up any of the claims.