We can argue and disagree about which policies benefit the general good the most and where priorities should lie but the attention needs to be directed to economic issues. If we are to win the presidency we MUST carry states where  "conservative" beliefs on social issues are prevalent. We can do it but only if we give such voters reason to vite econominc self-interest despite misgivings about the positions on social issues.

as an auditor, i had, in my younger days, the opportunity to examine many a local "family farm", nearly all of which reported losses from actual operations, for years and years. this led to the obvious question: geez, if you always have a loss, why bother continuing? answer: the gov't pays us to continue, more than we actually earn from the farming itself.

i was naive back then, i'm not now.

one of the first things on the dem "to do" list should be eliminating agriculture handouts, that are nothing more than giveaways.

farmers aren't the only ones, but that's a good place to start. go over the budget with a fine tooth comb, and start eliminating programs that have no legitimate function, other than as a transfer of tax dollars to private individuals, with no gain for the country.

There are many Democrats who agree with you and likley, BigTent as a self-professed free trader and anti-economic populist, would be among them. Cutting agriculture supports seems popular among people who have no idea about farming. Economic efficiency is given priority in almost every policy decision and agriculture along with other industries in the US have suffered immensely over the years due to the neglect of small farms and small business.

Its funny, because Americas number one export is almost completely supported by government subsidy and no one would argue that it shouldn't be. Amerca is number one in armanents production in the world, by a long way. But, we continue to be threatened by outside interests. THats another argument.

The point is our rural economies are in horrble shape around the country. They do not produce for themselves, but only for export, usually agriculture or some corporate business. Small farms are non-existent for the most part and have been driven out by the corporate model of agricuture. The small farms that still do operate only do, because they cater to the niche, but growing market for organic products.

What should be obvious to anyone is that agriculture production is the backbone of an economy. IT puts the food on the table. However, as our rising health costs are a testament to, when the food products are obtained outside of a local economy, they suffer from poor quality and low nutrition. Producing for quantity over quality, means a low nutrient content product that will store over long periods. Focusing on yields and profits lowers the quality of food to the nation and we all suffer because of it.

I have been reluctant to jump into the fray criticizing you because I agree with much of what you say, but I also agree with some of my nemesis's in the past such as Sarc and JLV that you are often beligerent and polarizing.

No, it was because bush and his republican guard govern so incompetently, arrogantly, and viciously. People finally saw the GOP for what it has become, not what it used to be.

Economic populism is all well and good, but you must remember that the greatest amount of damage done to America has been carefully hidden and "pushed down the road".

The massive damage done to our economy won't become apparent until well AFTER bush has left office. Around 2010 or 2011 if bush tax cuts survive.

Unless serious investigations are instigated we have no hope of determining just how awful the damage is, so it is not only difficult, but impossible to pursue a course of economic populism when you don't have all the facts and will have to fight tooth and nail to obtain those facts.

 My point is that is not a good strategy to acquiesce to conservative positions on economincs and simultaneously  alienate social conservatives and moderates.

  A Presidential election is actually a collection of state-level  races not a national election (ask Gore). To win we MUST carry a number of states where abortion-rights, gay rights, and emphasis-- even principled emphasis--  on the limiting religion in public affairs is a minority view.

   However, unlike political junkies,  a  lot of people who are opposed to that agenda are not fervently opposed to the extent it is a deal-breaker. If they are given overriding and compelling economic reasons to vote Democratic they will but if Democrats are "Republican-Lite" on economic issues then the social issues can be cause the deciding factor.

  BTD is,  as usual, dishonest. His posts starting threads are frequently if not usually full of hostile invective-- toward politicians, journalists, bloggers and essentially anyone who disagrees with him. He is either deluded or a liar when he attempts to portray himself as a victim of personal attacks who doesn't initiate personal attacks. He is always on the attack but whines when he is attacked.

  I do attack him because I think he is an  archetype of what is wrong with the Left in this day and age. I do seek to marginalize him and his kind-- because I think they need to be marginalized.

  If (and I don't think it will happen) those views prevail in the Party infighting we will lose far more often than we win. And, yes, I do puit winning first. this isn't a European proportional representation system. Winning needs to be the focus.

  Those who don't understand that winning and only getting 1/2 of what you want is a lot better than losing and not only getting none of what you want but also getting a lot of things you don't want hurt us. To the extent  we forgo opportunity to win power because some would rather enforce ideological purity we are failing.

It is so far to the right of anything that can be reasonably considered mainstream that it's falling off the cliff, and will get you the same results it got the rethugs

Is that the point? Hijack the dems, corrupt them so badly that the voters will rightfully toss them out in disgust in '08, and ta da, "keep on keepin' on".

  In the abstract, I agree with you, but I do believe that both economic justice and resemblance to a democracy are morel likely with a moderate Democrat as President and a moderate Democratic majority in congress than with any other conceivable outcome.

  If there were moderate Republicans in any appreciable numbers who were committed to economic justicr and (small "d") democratic ideals, I'd vote for them long before I'd vote for the type of Democrats exemplified by Edger and BTD. Luckily, for BTD and Edger there are none.

  Confronted with the Scylla of the Far Right  and the  Charybdis of the Far Left, I'd begrudgingly vote for the Far Left, even though I see the Far Left as also anti-democratic (again small "d") in its tendencies.

  Reasonable people and true belief in democracy are found in far greater numbers in the center. I want a Left/Center government but it's not only what I want.

Let it slide for now, see how it goes in future?

Then everyone can get on their soapbox for awhile and scream and shout.