Derwood

I'm a voting Democrat and consider myself to be a Liberal. Yet I am very disappointed in some Liberal's stance on entertainment and media and it's affect on society. From Tipper Gore and the PMRC to Senator Clinton and the Grand Theft Auto fiasco, politicians who claim to be liberal have acted extremely conservatively with any form of entertainment that doesn't adhere to puritanical niceties. "Will someone think of the children?" is not a strong political platform.

So why are (some) Liberal's like this? Why can't these bogus issues be left to the Jerry Falwells and Pat Buchanan's of the political spectrum? When will Liberals actually act like open-minded, forward thinking people as their title suggests?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Ustwo

2000, 2002, 2004

But a bit more seriously, liberals want to control your life as much as any conservative does. There is no more freedom in extreme liberalism than you find in extreme conservatism.

Likewise US liberalism is not related to the original definition. There is nothing forward thinking about it. Its a different mind set than us evil conservatives, but no matter how you label it, even when they try to call them selves 'progressive' its still the same old tired ideas and rhetoric.

Finally its an easy sell. The democrats have been on the ropes since 1994. Its a lot easier to talk about a non-issue that sounds good than tackle real problems which might piss off one of their major interest groups.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

politicophile

The Democratic Party specifically (I'm not trying to speak for liberals in general) has a very inconsistent stance on "openmindedness", as you term it. They get the right answer on issues like flag burning (some of them, anyway) and early term abortion. But they don't support other freedoms that would seem to merit as much protection as the ones they fight for. These include, but are not limited to: violent video games, guns, freedom of (not from) religion, and many economic issues.

I'm no libertarian, but I would like to see a party that understands that it is not the role of the government to protect people from themselves. Mrs. Clinton, along with a host of other politicians, has yet to realize this.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

joshbaumgartner

One of the factors to consider is the more fractous nature of the Democratic Party. Despite the platform, candidates are very much on their own to develop and promote their issues and positions. There are significant groups within the party such as the DLC that will support certain views, while others within the party will oppose them.

This is not to say that the Republicans don't have their own divisions, they certainly do, but the Republican Party as a whole has been much more capable of presenting a unified front, if you will, to the voters.

Put 10 Democrats in a room and you will have 10 totally different approaches to an issue. Democrats aren't comfortable with a monolithic party, and so I don't expect this to change any time soon.

Now what does this have to do with Dem candidates going conservative on issues? On one hand, the candidates, like the rest of the party, have their own views. They may agree with 90% of the platform but the 10% they disagree on is likely to be magnified. Lets say a candidate simply doesn't agree on abortion for example, this will likely be the subject of a lot of focus during the campaign and can lead one to think they are a conservative candidate, while in reality they are in agreement with the rest of the platform outside that one issue.

Additionally, the Dem Party still has a number of conservatives in its ranks (this number has begun to increase actually in recent years), while the progressives are gaining a lot of momentum within the party as well. Add in the more corporate DLC and you can see there are a lot of people pulling the party different ways, and pulling candidates different ways as well. Each candidate has to plot their own strategy for their particular situation and consistant with their own beliefs. This leads to a wide variety of candidates running under the (D).

Josh

pan6467

It's pretty simple, the GOP and Dems (mostly Southern Bible Belt) have constituencies that are wanting censorship. It's a case of protecting your political life and it's an easy issue to back. And in some areas this is a very strong political platform.

It's the same reason some Southern Dems are very much against AA or Gay Rights and why some Western state GOP are for AA, Gay Rights or StemCell. Their constituencies demand those prerequisites.

If a GOP wants to win any office in San Francisco for example, he has to break away from his party on the Gay Rights issue. That's one reason why McCain is called a maverick, Az. is a conservative state in some ways (wanting less Federal interference) but is very liberal in some aspects when it comes to rights (unless you deal with Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa (Phoenix)County).

If a Dem wants to win in Mobile, Alabama, chances are he should be pro-life and religious.

I believe this is why we see the 2 parties as much the same entity. They cross over lines as their constituencies demand and sometimes the differences between the parties is blurred because of this.

It's like Voinivich is a fairly social liberal GOP, his conservativism is more based on fiscal policies. Hence the trouble he has in Washington, but how he can garner support in Ohio.

The one thing parties really keep people from trying to realize are that, we, the people are not as a whole that far apart politically. I believe as a whole this nation is socially liberal and fiscally conservative in most areas. We are a Centrist nation, that's why presidential elections are so close, why the Congress is so close. Why politicians are "flip-floppy", they have to by their virtual nature be able to represent those that put them there if they want to get reelected.

However, the parties and the media representing them (the Limbaughs, Moores, etc.) cater to the extremes. To show the differences be able to harp on them and to try to gain ground. This is a double edged sword though. In some cases the extremes are wronfully defining the parties, and it is also very divisive and hate filled to the point where we are seeing politics truly rip us apart.

We have this media machine that argues you can no longer be socially liberal/fiscally conservative. That you have to be one or the other in both, and by nature we aren't, so we are at odds within ourselves and allowing our extremes to define us........... and that is a very, very dangerous path to undertake. It's divisive and as we are seeing it leaves the middle frustrated and torn.

In the end politicos have to be true to their constituencies and themselves. Unfortunately, the parties aren't seeing things that way as BOTH are trying very hard to erase the regional differences and dictate to the people what they want. We are allowing the extremists too much power and they are truly evil. They feast on themselves (moreso the GOP right now then the Dems.) we see this as they attack Frist, Voinivich, Dewine, McCain and so on, simply because they represent those that elected them and are being true to themselves but the party only see them as "breaking ranks" and being disruptive to the plans of the party.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

You mean Southern Bible Belt types like Joe Lieberman?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Derwood

But Senator Clinton's consituency is New York (supposedly), which is usually a fairly liberal state, no?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

pan6467

Connecticut is a fairly fiscally conservative state, as is Lieberman. It's basically a NYC suburb state where the more conservative city denizens go, hence Connecticut is a more conservative area. But overall it is still a liberal state in most aspects.

There's also other factors, funding, who the opposition is, the mudslinging, the candidate perpetrating to be more liberal/conservative than he truly is and so on. Then once elected incumbants truly have a tremendous advantage. And this is also why you'll see incumbants maybe being more one way when first elected and then as reelection nears they all of a sudden shift back to what their constituency expects ...... to get reelected.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Jocose

Well, most of New York (outside of the city) is conservative and that is who Hillary is going after. Democrats aren't going to vote for a conservative no matter what, so she doesn't have to worry about getting democrats to vote for her. She needs to get 3-5% of conservatives to vote for her, just to make sure she keeps her seat.

__________________
"There is more selfishness and less principle among members of Congress than I had any conception of, before I became President of the U.S."- James Polk

Elphaba

You've made an excellent point Pan. I have met many people who use the shorthand of "Republican" or "Democrat" to describe their political views, when they are actually the Centrists that you have described.

In another thread, I grouse about pork barrel spending in a small town for an unnecessary tunnel. This same town is in desparate need for addiction treatment centers that I believe would be a better longterm investment for the community. I believe you would call me a Centrist?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

pan6467

I'm sure both could be equally needed...... the small town probably has little economic growth (as many small towns do) and by building a tunnel you have workers coming in spending money there, locals getting jobs to help out and because of the boom in business.

Pork is not in and of itself a bad thing. It can provide an economic stimulus.... such as this case the new found business and work will bring in tax monies so that there maybe more construction and a rehab center made available because of this.

In answer to your question.... I think you see what is needed (the rehab center) but do not see the benefits to the tunnel. So I'd say you lean more to the socially liberal/fiscally conservative side. Which most people do.

However, when explained as above people can see the need for the "pork" and are more accepting of it..... it is a necessary evil.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

I'm liberal. I watch NIP/TUCK, Rescue Me, Democracy Now, and Liberty News (shows I consider to be reasonably liberal) on TV. I watch pretty liberal movies, too. I read books so liberal they'd make Jon Stewert vote for a Bush.

If you mean our representatives, yes! It is because both sides are trying to control us while simultanisly trying to figure out what we want from them and pandering to it. What wonderful irony. It just happens that they think we want more conservative entertainment (see the success of the conservatives over the last 5 years), and they see an opportunity for control.

pan6467

The media goes with what sells. We are very diverse and schizophrenic as a nation. We have many that stick by our puritanical/biblical roots and many who see that as a hinderance.

Entertainment has to consistantly raise the bar in order to maintain shock value and sell. To the puritanical/biblical side this is the signs they point to as a Godless society. Yet the movies and entertainment sells.

These same people argue about sex and love making and yet violence they can never get enough of.

The media in my opinion does a great job of balancing it and offering whatever you want...just a question of finding it sometimes.

Bans in small communities may work, and fining Stern off the air may work for small periods of time but in the end all censorship truly does is opens the door for other forms of media. (Stern, and company goes to satelite..... Cable replaces over the air stations...... porn movies are sold over the internet instead of local sleaze stores in bad neighborhoods.)

So while there maybe movements to ban something or to pander to a constituency.... the reality the politicians know is the lip service truly means nothing. Although the hefty fines are a nice source of income.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Locobot

Cmon, these are the exceptions that prove the rule (T.Gore, H. Clinton). The rule being that Conservatives support a bigger more invasive federal government that controls what people are able to see and hear. I'd be surprised if the 700 club hasn't already dedicated a few hours of showtime to GTA and other video games. Jerry Falwell couldn't handle Teletubbies, so I suspect those close to him have kept him insulated from GTA and other pop culture lest his head explode.

When it comes to actual censorship with consequences for our democracy there's no doubt about it, Conservatives lead the way. "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that," Ari Fleischer. I can't think of another quote so drastically out of line with my concept of what America is.

maximusveritas

Obviously Hillary is thinking beyond New York. She's trying to show that she's a moderate by taking on these conservative positions.
I'm not sure why you think Hillary is a liberal. Like her husband, she's a politician first and foremost. To them, ideology means little, power means everything.

I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Tipper Gore for a liberal. I've always just seen her as a simple-minded soccer mom who happens to be married to Al Gore.

I don't see the logic in looking at what they did and somehow attributing that to liberals. It's just wrong.