The changes in the party are happening very fast now.

[madfloridian]

Faster it seems than before. Just since the election they are calling for Michael Moore's abandonment....shame on them. They call for getting Hollywood out of our politics...that is silly.

They are saying we need to go to church more...that was the Christian Coalition lobbyist who is now a revered DLC member...well, I thought religion was my personal choice...not the party's.

No one in our party is speaking out much on the horrible things in Iraq which they enabled to happen. It is just not done.

They are of course talking more about being better and more moral people. Heck, I am already.

I guess today the ultimate is the endorsement by Pelosi and Reid of Tim Roemer, and the announcement a website that a pro-life candidate for chair is now available.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1044.html

It is pretty well known now that Howard Dean was not acceptable to the party because he signed a civil unions bill in VT.

It is depressing.

[madfloridian]

1. I was right. Roemer is to draw in more conservatives.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-0/11028363516300.xml

SNIP..."Democrats look for new leader

Add another possible candidate to replace Terry McAuliffe as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Former U.S. Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., a member of the Sept. 11 commission and the son-in-law of former Louisiana Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, is getting a push from some centrists who oppose the candidacy of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Roemer, like Johnston, is anti-abortion, which would be a problem for abortion rights groups that actively back the Democratic Party. But Roemer supporters are arguing that his selection would help the party draw culturally conservative voters."

[zonmoy]

16. this guy

sounds like even more reason to vote for the green candidate next time or at least to fuse the two parties together into one warmongering right wing party.

[BattyDem]

21. I don't want to draw conservative voters if we have to

give up everything we stand for!

The Chairman of the party will influence the direction and platform of the party - and I am NOT fine with a pro-life platform for the Democratic party. If the DNC doesn't even think enough of me to protect my right to control my own body, then what's the point of even supporting them? I'm tired of my rights as a woman always being the "negotiable" rights.

If Roemer becomes chairman, I'm becoming an Independent and I'll vote Green in 2008 or not vote at all. And I don't want to hear, "If you do that, then we'll never get rid of the Repugs - you'll just be throwing your vote away." Who cares? What difference does it make if a Dem or a Repug is elected in 2008 if they both stand for the same things???

[calimary]

33. "Pro-life" platform? That's it. I'm outta here.

That would be it. I'd have to reregister either Independent or Green. MY right to have the last word over MY body is NON-NEGOTIABLE. Sorry.

[rabid_nerd]

2. Howard Dean is OK with Pro Life Democrats

at least the list I'm on...

Howard Dean was on Meet the Press this morning talking about the future of
the Democratic Party and his bid for DNC chair. He had this to say about
being more inclusive of pro-life Democrats:

"I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats.
The Democrats that have stuck with us, who are pro-life, through their
long period of conviction, are people who are the kind of pro-life people
that we ought to have deep respect for. Not only are they pro-life,
which, I think, is a moral judgment--I happen to be strongly pro-choice,
as a physician--but they are pro-life more moral reasons. They also, if
they're in the Democratic Party, are real pro-life. That is, they're
pro-life not just for unborn children. They're pro-life for investing in
children's programs. They're pro-life for helping small children and
young families. They're pro-life in making sure adequate medical care
happens to children. That's what you so often lack on the Republican
side. They beat the drums about being pro-life but they forget about life
after birth. And so I do embrace pro-life Democrats. I think we want
them in our party. We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop
demagoguing this issue."


There's more -- the full transcript is here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6702005/

[madfloridian]

4. Right. Pelosi and Reid just endorsed Roemer today.

How about that? They are going to be more like the other party. Is it just coincidence the day after Dean reminded them he was pro-choice still?

[rabid_nerd]

5. Yeah, because the Pro-life dem list

the official pro-life dem list, is nothing but positive on Dean since the "olive branch", because they are few and far between from anyone near the party.

This is all beltway insiders.

Is Pelosi Pro-Life?

[madfloridian]

7. Yes, the blog has had very supportive mail since Sunday.

So they have to move in to take care of it their way. I am sickened.

[rabid_nerd]

11. You can listen to Republican Pro-Fundie posting on the DFA blog

or you can think Pro-Life Democrats are so strong they can get a chair (yeah, right - they can't even get a website link)

or that this is a conspiracy but take off you're f'n tin foil hat here for a minute.

I'm a Pro-Life Dem and I want Dean for Chair.

I'm a Pro-Life Dem and I want the votes counted in Ohio.

Are you OK with that?

[madfloridian]

13. Not sure I know what you mean. I don't understand.

Are you critical of me or agreeing with me. :silly:

:hi:

[rabid_nerd]

19. I'm just saying that in the discussion groups

they were already discussing Dean, and this helped some of us close the deal for some.

Of course NONE OF US MATTER, since we don't have a vote..

(I was for Dean anyways, and pushed dean in the primaries after Gore endorsed him...)

[madfloridian]

27. Gotcha and agree our voices don't count.

:hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

20. Are you for making abortion illegal?

Because I am not alright with that.

[BattyDem]

14. The majority of this country is pro-choice ..

so why would they want a pro-life chairman? Do they think they're going to pick up the Fundie vote? Dream on, guys!

[rabid_nerd]

18. The majority of this country is NOT PRO CHOICE, OR PRO-LIFE

it's in between.

That is if you take a pro-choicer's pro-choice of abortion on demand at 8 months and 30 days,

or a pro-lifer's pro life of no contraception or not in the case of danger to the mother, rape, incest, etc.

A MAJORITY - say should be "legal in most cases" or "illegal in most cases"...

only about 20% each say "legal in all cases" or "illegal in all cases".

That is if you FRAME THE QUESTION WITH SHADES OF GREY.

As to why?

THEY ARE BELTWAY INSIDERS and as such, are just BLINDLY TRYING TO PANDER AND GIVE THEIR FRAT BUDDIES SOME PERKS.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. "abortion on demand" is a ridiculous term

It is an anti-choice and anti woman phrase for something that doesn't happen. Abortion is only legal until viability with the exception of the life or health of the woman. WTF is abortion on demand except another bullshit anti-choice smear on the character of women?

[rabid_nerd]

28. You sound like a grey arearererer...

Perhaps it's from having pro-choicers who are college students that demand the right for 8 months 30 days and on demand, and YES there ARE pro choice activists who demand that right to it WITHOUT regard to "viability" and solely based on "choice" and not on unusual risk, as they say "there's always risk"..

Maybe that's from this county having the former president of NARAL Kate Michelman as a resident (although ABSENT as a DEMOCRAT, thank you VERY much) that the thought of demanding of the right to abort a fully developed and viable child (one could argue if you are late term, say 9 and a half months along, they would still...?) just sickens me to a reactive state. However it made me reflect and forced me, especially as I consider higher office someday, to truly think about my position from a legistlative point of view.

I believe the man and the woman makes the moral choice to be a parent at the same time. This should be equal. Once they take the risk no matter the precautions, the choice has been made.

As far as any exceptions, the exceptions would be spelled out between the woman and her doctor and noone else.

I do believe in exceptions for when the choice was stolen. Rape, incest, or statutory situations.

But NOT for backup to birth control.

I am open to emergency contraception, and for medical risk.

(on edit: I realize on reading this that being open to emergency contraception but not for backup to birth conrtol sounds very flip floppy of me.. I know the "night after" measures don't always work, and I am not up on them, but "night after" anti-implant measures do not concern me as much as post-pregnancy test. I'm definately pre-viability, though.)

DESPITE ALL OF THIS, because I severely distrust beuracratic interference, I would hesitate in many cases, preferring instead to promote Pennsylvania type laws in more states.

[gottaB]

41. I can't tell if you're missing the point, or demonstrating it

We all have a right to privacy, to not have our every decision subject to government scrutiny.

Demanding that right and demanding an abortion are two different things. Confusing them, or making the latter a talking point in place of the former, only serves to infringe upon a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

There are exceptions. The state has a compelling interest in viable fetuses. Some pro-choice advocates are also pro-abortion, and will always value the rights of a woman above all else. But that's not the position of the majority of pro-choice advocates, so why should they have to defend it? Because they demand their rights?

[MaineDem]

42. Let me make a wild guess here...you're male, right?

Just wondering...

[BattyDem]

25. A poll was taken recently ...

I'll see if I can find the link (if anyone else has it, please feel free to post it). The poll showed that the majority of the country does not want Roe v. Wade overturned.

On edit: Here's the article .. from Fox News!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139841,00.html

59% support appointing judges that would uphold Roe v Wade.

If 51% is considered a MANDATE for Bush ... than 59% is MANDATE for choice!

[rabid_nerd]

29. Citing Fox News aside (doesn't help credibility, you ARE TALKING TO A DEM)

That is STILL a black or white question.

When given shades of grey, the country screams GREY! GREY!

[BattyDem]

31. I posted the Fox News link to make a point

If the GOP propaganda channel is reporting that 59% want Roe v. Wade upheld, then you know it's real because they would never make up something that doesn't support the GOP agenda.


Let's just agree to disagree on this topic, ok? :toast:

[madfloridian]

30. Whoa, are you saying what I think?

When you talk about the 8th month that way, it worries me.

QUOTE:...."That is if you take a pro-choicer's pro-choice of abortion on demand at 8 months and 30 days,

or a pro-lifer's pro life of no contraception or not in the case of danger to the mother, rape, incest, etc...."

I can see you are saying something in between, but there is not any abortion on demand that late. What are you talking about? Then it would be done in an emergency situation, most likely to save the mother's life.

Don't even go there....there is nothing like it "on demand" at 8 months. That is right wing spin.

[PassingFair]

3. F this!

People, its time to donate to DFA again. And make DAMN sure that the DNC knows how much and WHY!

[blackangrydem]

6. If Dean accepts the DNC chair, does this mean he

is out as a candidate in '08? Or does he look to step down after a successful '06 election for the dems and then run for President?

[madfloridian]

9. If Pelosi and Reid endorse Roemer, they are sending a mesage.

The message is " no Howard Dean". They will not let it happen.

Suits me. Howard Dean can build DFA and elect more grassroots to office. The group is growing now.

www.democracyforamerica.com
www.blogforamerica.com

[rabid_nerd]

12. Exactly...

This is the beltway brass telling us to kiss their ass.

[madfloridian]

15. Exactly! And then bend over and kiss our own you know what.

That is it exactly.

[NoPasaran]

35. On MTP Sunday

Dean said that if he became DNC Chair he would not be a candidate in 2008.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. He has already said that he would not run in '08 if he becomes DNC Chair

[Generator]

8. What's most frustrating is they are wrong!

It's not "moral values." It was fear. There was a very convincing article in the New Yorker magazine last week. (or maybe two weeks ago) It basically said all the exit polls confirmed nothing of the sort that moral values was the reason for sticking to Bush. It was fear and it pointed out that when you have an electorate that says it supports the war but also believes the war is going to hell, how do you run against that? Kerry was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

The whole campaign was terror terror 9/11 and more 9/11.

[BattyDem]

10. "They are saying we need to go to church more.."

Who's church do they want us to go to (as if I didn't know). :eyes:


"They are of course talking more about being better and more moral people. "
F*ck them! I already am and I don't need ANY politcal party defining morality for me.

If the Dems insist on taking a turn to the right ... AGAIN ... then we need to start building another party because they'll never be a place in this one for people like us. These idiots ignore the fact that 50 million people voted for Kerry! They're going to alienate most of them in order to pick up a couple of million votes (if they're lucky). Brilliant strategy, guys! :eyes: Someone needs to remind the Dems that it wasn't a grassroots coalition of right-wingers that did all that work and raised all that money for them. :mad:

An idea ...
How about a "DFA" party with Dr. Dean as chairman? :evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

17. Hey, I am all for that kind of party. Go DFA.

:hi:

[Geek_Girl]

22. And to Top it Off

I got to listen to Harold Ford tonight speak about how Democrats need to get right with values and how he supported an amendment to band gay marriage. I'm tired of this. My party is going down the toilet and so is our country. What ever Howard Dean wants to do he has my full support. If he wants to fight for this party I'll fight, If he wants to start a third party I'll do it. I'm tired of feeling betrayed by my party and political leaders.

[DaveinMD]

23. Personally

I'd like to see Ron Kirk. I think having a minority as chair sends a good message to the base and isn't on the opposite side of most of the party ideology wise.

[yurbud]

26. Get the suck ass, weak kneed, corporate teat sucking DLC types OUT

This reid guy is bad enough.

Their candidate for chair sounds like a lieberman wannabe.

We have to flood these idiots with Support for Howard Dean.

[madfloridian]

32. I think abandoning the base like this will be disaster for the party.

In fact, I think they intend it to be that way. I firmly believe the Democratic leaders are pulling us toward one party deliberately, toward a one-party system.

A few here at DU will say there is really no Democratic base, or that there are not enough of us. Oh, yes, there is a base who wants to stand for equal treatment for all. There are many of us who see that it is only women whose medical treatment is being put under government regulation. No restrictions on men at all. We see that the equal treatment for all is not on the Democratic agenda for the gay community either.

And it is our "leaders" who are not fighting for our right to vote in a fair election. I don't see many senators standing in line to help the recount.

We jumped for joy like little children when Harry Reid said that sometime next year he might investigate the White House. Does it take so little to make us happy?

It was NOT a coincidence that the day after Howard Dean said he would welcome pro-life Democrats but that he himself was pro-choice...on MTP....that Reid and Pelosi contacted Tim Roemer to run for chair.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party, you are welcome to it....but if this continues we continue our lack of support.

We will work with DFA unless they grab hold of it's message as well. Our donations go there.

I am going to write to both of them to express my concerns, and I am very sure they will fall all over themselves giving a damn what I think.

[Rambis]

34. I thought the schism would be on the right?

If we split up forgetaboutit- With that said, I am not thrilled with the way the Iowa DNC turned away from my candidates who could have won with a little financial backing. Money talks and bullshit walks! It is to bad.

[Walt Starr]

36. Well, if Roemer becomes the DNC chair

I'm outta here. I'll seek Greener pastures because the Democratic Party will have left me.

[Geek_Girl]

37. Their New Strategy is To attack the Grass Roots

From Michael Moore to Move On to Act. Forget about Dean for DNC chair I doubt it will happen. They're propping up pro-lifers and candidates that support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Unless we fight this hard this is the beginning of the end of the democratic party. I'm not sure what to do. But it seems like it is happening fast.

Here's something from Salon. I'm canceling my subscription.

Three days after the election, I called Ellen Malcolm, founder of the influential advocacy group Emily's List and president of America Coming Together, to ask her where she'd screwed up.

The question wasn't as provocative as it sounds: 2004 was supposed to have been the year of the activist. For months, progressives had been extolling the possibilities of groups like ACT, which -- by bringing together Hollywood money, Silicon Valley tech wizardry, Washington know-how, and the passion of an army of volunteers recruited from Berkeley to Burlington -- seemed to be forging a new and quite powerful force in American politics, a movement that liberals promised would not only win this election but might also rewrite the rules of the game. ACT and its sister groups were to have been the Democrats' silver bullet, the one trick -- people power! -- Karl Rove could not match.



But as the returns streamed in on Nov. 2, the promise of ACT and the other third-party liberal groups fizzled. ACT had invested heavily in mobilizing voters in Florida and Ohio, and John Kerry lost in both places. What happened? I asked Malcolm. Why had ACT failed?

Salon

[NYCGirl]

39. I just read the article and it's quite hopeful...and not dismissive

of the groups.

Excerpt:
There's much to criticize about ACT, MoveOn, and the constellation of liberal groups that attracted so much attention and so many volunteers, and raised so much money and so many hopes, in the months before the election. They certainly weren't the silver bullet. But many critics are too quick to dismiss the very real successes of the advocacy groups, the political, financial, logistical and emotional achievements that were required to bring hundreds of thousands of volunteers and paid staffers into battleground states, and to use these people in a way that boosted turnout.

Yes, John Kerry lost. But an amazing thing happened this year -- grass-roots activism, online and in the real world, invaded the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Ordinary people, folks who'd never before expressed the slightest interest in politics, suddenly developed an abiding enthusiasm for the game. And personal contact, the online connections and the doorstep conversations of millions of citizens, became a primary method of campaigning.

There were, to be sure, many logistical snafus in the get-out-the-vote operations mounted by the various third-party groups -- some major, most relatively minor. The most serious limitation seems to have been built into the design of the campaign: Because the third-party groups were barred under campaign finance regulations from coordinating their efforts with John Kerry's official campaign, the entire liberal get-out-the-vote operation could never have proceeded as a coherent whole. Unlike the GOP effort, the Democratic campaign was intrinsically divided, split between two sides who weren't allowed to speak to each other.

Despite those limitations, though, the core gambit worked: Hard as it may be to believe (and it is hard), the numbers prove that that San Franciscans and New Yorkers met with some success in their attempts to persuade Clevelanders and Miamians to go to the polls for Kerry. As Democrats remake their party, it would be a shame for them to discount the work of the activists, or to fail to keep the activist spirit kindled. Glitches can be fixed, and logistical failures can be addressed. Imagine what might have been had these groups not become involved in this political cycle.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Then fight for IRV at your local level so that you can vote for

a party or candidate that you respect.

------------------------------------
Join the NEW Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Gloria]

43. Majority Report last night had a "conference" with Atrios,

Ej Dionne, the Editor of the Nation (Van den Heuvel...sorry, senior moment), etc. etc. Donna Brazile, also....even she made more sense than what the Roemer crowd is espousing...

I found myself agree with her 100%...embrace the base all the time, not just in the runup to the election, stop polling and really state Democratic core positions!!! Van den Heuvel basically said the same thing....get the core values in focus and state them CONTINUOUSLY!

EJ Dionne said the get out the vote thing was great, but the Repugs went into Democratic areas and found any Republican votes there. We have to refine our efforts and do that next time. He said we have to catch up on that technology...(Previous post above move mentions how our efforts were split...next time, they have to be integrated into the party).

My thoughts....
For example, on Social Security...Bush is going to start his "campaign" next week...where is the Dem voice on this?? Not just arguing in the Senate over the bill...where is OUR campaign NOW?????

[KoKo]

44. Pelosi stated in her Press Conference: "Democrats are open to looking

at any new ideas about Social Security reform as long as it doesn't break the covenant that exists with SS recipients." It's not an exact word for word, but close, because she said the same thing several times in the Press Conference.

What annoyed me was her compliance that Democrats are open to any new ideas as long as....

As long as..what? We know that Dems will be outvoted, but she's there still offering olive branches and welcoming whatever the Repugs put out there knowing that they will get what they want in the end unless the Dems pull a stunt like walking out in unison when the vote comes up!

The time for this "kissy-kissey" stuff is over. But, they never learn and WHY? Because they are all in it together. And, the handwringing and whining our Dems do is falling on deaf ears with some of us...

[yurbud]

45. Joe Trippi --Dean's first campaign manager

This guy knows his shit.