The Democrats are ready for some big changes and you may not like them

[kentuck]

It's been in the birthing stage for several elections. The last two or three elections have convinced the Party "elders" that they need to make changes to appeal to a broader "base". They believe we are losing votes to the Republicans that we should be winning - namely votes on abortion and gun rights, to name just a couple.

If you believe this is a time we should be going in opposite direction from the Repubs, then you may be left out of the "new" Democratic Party. They see the Repub "radicalism" as being successful and will attempt to compromise our Party to appeal to some of that radicalism.

When, in fact, we should be running against the radicalism with a more "left" agenda, such as healthcare rights, more worker rights, increase in minimum wage, more standing up for minority and women rights, standing behind our Constitution and against Patriot Acts and illegal wars, rather than following the Republicans with a more "lite" agenda.

The Democrats are on the verge of making a big mistake in strategy. Rather than oppose everything the Repubs stand for, they are ready to capitulate on abortion rights, on gun control laws, on the necessity to fight the "war on terrorism" and, no doubt, other areas of present disagreement.

If this is the direction the Party goes, should we maintain any loyalty to it? Understanding that some will say, "that's the only Party we have", it should be noted that we may no longer have a Party. After all, if a Party cannot represent your interests, it is no longer "your" party.

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. Divide

and rule. Excellent policy.

[kentuck]

4. Does that mean we should go along with SS "reform" of Bush?

Only because we don't want to "divide" the Party? Where do we draw the line..individually?

[IndianaGreen]

12. It was the DLC that wanted to marginalize the liberal base of the party

It is no accident that DLC leaders such as Al From, Bruce Reed, and Will Marshall put out their own version of PNAC, the ironically named Progressive Policy Institute. Their view of the Democratic base, the people that work hard to elect Democrats, is a rather condescending one:

But the great myth of the current cycle is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites. The mission of the Democratic Party, as Bill Clinton pledged in 1992, is to provide "real answers to the real problems of real people." Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas.

DLC | Memo | May 15, 2003
The Real Soul of the Democratic Party
By Al From and Bruce Reed

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690

[FizzFuzz]

63. DLC peddling Kool Aid?

"Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas."--

I thought real mainstream values WERE honest pay for honest work (not slave wages, as evidenced by Puke balking at raising min. wage), right to safe/fair utilities and services (regulations that protect public health, or worker protections for example), right to equal treatment and protections (race, gender, sexual orientation, freedom of religion, etc)----

I may not have all the right words here, but you get my drift--THESE are the values I thought mainstream america wants. Actually, they are, it's just that the Pukes have attacked and twisted perception by means of fundamentalist fanaticism, monopoly of media, negative attacks and other bully tactics. And now The DLC thinks that the Puke agenda is what Americans want?

Oh great. Well, I'm not interested in Repuke Lite. We can't win by deciding to imitate the Dark side, even if it SEEMS like they're winning at the moment.

(I hope I didn't just repeat what's already been said. I just went ahead and typed even though I haven't read all the posts ahead of me)

[Joe Chi Minh]

85. My point

is that what the DLC plan or don't plan is a distraction and an irrelevance. Kerry is the man, period.

If anyone's policies and actions should be the focus of attention, it is John Kerry's; and its too early for doubters to fret about his determination to carry out the policies he has promised - which are anything but Republican.

[IndianaGreen]

101. I'll bet you that Kerry will NOT challenge the Ohio results

by joining the Congressional Black Caucus when it challenges the Bush Electors when Congress counts the Electoral votes. And neither will Evan Bayh!

[MercutioATC]

2. Will we then be "Independent Underground"?

I'm thinking a lot of people will be leaving the Party if it continues to move right...especially after its recent abyssmal failures.

[Bronco69]

3. What is that saying about "I didn't leave my party, the party left me?"

"If you believe this is a time we should be going in opposite direction from the Repubs, then you may be left out of the "new" Democratic Party."

I guess I should look elsewhere to see who wants my vote.

[NYC]

5. Let me know when

they hit a point farther right that the Republicans. It shouldn't be long now.

[imenja]

6. death nail in the coffin

It's hard for me to imagine the party "elders" can be so out of it. If people have a choice between fake Republicans and real Republicans, obviously they will choose the real thing. If we don't offer a distinctive message voiced with conviction, we are done for.

[kentuck]

7. If they surrender ground, someone will step in to take it over...

Never fear. And it sounds like they may be ready to surrender some ground?

[ldf]

90. they (demo leadership) may be ready to surrender some ground?

you mean WE are once again (4th time now) "compromising" with them towards the middle, which has now been firmly placed by the right wing republicans, and our democratic enablers, as just to the left of jerry foulsmell.

i am not willing to "compromise" this time. we have compromised to the point of being a pale imitation of ourselves, not even recognizable. and that is why we as a country are in the position we are now in.

at this point we (the base) needs to coalesce and pull a gee w and say "you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem" (with us, or agin' us).

in this case, the democratic leadership has made it clear that they are not interested in being a part of the solution, but would rather compromise to the point of becoming the same as the problem. and they have the delusions that THAT will help them win.

that would leave us with a choice of "a part of the problem, or a part of the problem".

well, sorry, but i see no choice there, except a choice elsewhere.

[Cobalt Violet]

8. I for one will NOT be part of this "New" Democratic party.

I will vote 3rd party and accept any loss as for the good of the Democratic party. If we don't stand up for our own values I will go with the party that does. This is a huge mistake.

[mazzarro]

21. Same here!

I am no longer waiting to see if the democratic party can be saved. I am going for the green party or any other progressive/liberal 3rd party.

[xerenthar]

31. Ds need to abandon the gun issue.

[Cobalt Violet]

49. That I don't mind doing that either.

I sure don't want an unarmed left. Not when we have a armed right.

But on economic issues that party has already move too far to the right and has abandoned the lower and working class.

[Harry S Truman]

86. Embrace Guns Now

The gun issue should be ours - we lost in 2000 because elistist Dem leaders can't see how many blue-coller, swing state male voters have been lost to the gun issue. Guns are our right! We should advocate a re-write of the 2nd Amendment to clarify that guns are our right. I've met too many people who are "All Dem," yet vote Repuke because of a "perceived" Dems-hate-gun-owners feeling that we have not fought to overcome. I'm a gun owner and I know the NRA does care a flying f*ck about gun owners. The NRA only cares about the Repuke party.

[yorkiemommie1]

95. me too

i will not 'go along to get along' and if the Dems want to cozy up to their new masters and encourage the rightward thinking trends in the country instead of taking a clear and principled and courageous stand against the reich then i will vote for some other party.

i am sick to my stomach of this cowardliness and craven copycat thinking. they are like whipped dogs and the GOP must be snickering in their brandies every night. The GOP knows, by this type of 'accommodation' that they have not only won over the 51% but they have won over the Dem. party's policymakers too! In other words, the GOP has it all.

[itzamirakul]

111. I think the Dem. policy makers

ARE members of the GOP. I think they are Republican "plants." After all, any group of people who would stoop low enough to steal national elctions are ceertainly not too "moral" to hesitate at sending in "ringers" to subvert the Democratic Party.

[InvisibleBallots]

9. Vote third party locally, Democratic nationally

For all local offices, perhaps it's best to vote third party - Green, hell even Libertopian. Voting third party nationally seems mostly pointless, at least right now.

If the Democrats found the ground beneath their feet crumbling and votes being taken by the third parties, they will straighten up pretty damn quickly I imagine.

If we continue to fall for this "at least the Dems are slightly better than the GOP" and the "ABB" scam, we'll never accomplish anything. Plenty of Democrats are stealth Republicans - that's worse than an "honest" Repuke in my opinion.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Vote for those that represent your issues best

It is the Beltway Democrats that are most out of touch with our issues, not the local Democrats, so why should we reward the Beltway bandits.

[InvisibleBallots]

17. good point, I hadn't thought of it that way

It seems pretty hopeless to me, I don't really know what to do? :shrug:

[Geek_Girl]

57. This is what we need to do

1. Vote for progressive democrats in the primaries that represent your values.

2. Do not give any money to the DNC, give campaign donations directly to progressive candidates or organizations that represent your values.

3. Purchase products from companies that donate to progressive candidates and causes. Avoid buying products from companies who support centrists or conservative candidates.

4. Do not vote for or support any candidate that is not progressive or a candidate that does not reflect your values.

We are the democratic party not the DLC not the DNC not the corporations. We the people are the democrats without our support the party will die. It's that simple.

[floridadem30]

10. I will not remain loyal to a party that doesn't represent my interests.

[Southsideirish]

11. Last time I checked there already WAS a republican party

why do we need a Democratic version of same?

Sounds like a big loser to me and if I'm going to lose - I'd rather do it on my terms in a party I believe in. If the Dem's do go more sickeningly "centrist" This 40 year Democrat is going Green, no doubt about it.

Only thing that would make me change my mind is if Howard Dean would start a new party but I don't think he will.

[unblock]

13. so silly. we win on issue after issue after issue after issue

we do NOT lose on issues, we do NOT lose on left/right anything.

we lose by election fraud
we lose on character attacks
we lose on emotional manipulation
we lose on lies
we lose because we run a great candidate in an echo chamber that amplifies his every mistake and flaw while they run a rotten candidate in an echo chamber that consistently insists that their guy is perfect.

moving to the left or right won't address ANYTHING of consequence.

we need a marketing team, we need brilliant tacticians, we need an organization that believes an imperfect democrat is better than a perfect banana republican AND demonstrates this during the campaign by playing along with the kind of marketing campaign that really competes against their marketing campaign.

THAT will bring us victory.

shifting left/right is an exercise in futility. at best, it gives ammo to the other side's argument that democrats don't have a consistent, reliable message.

useless.

[drpdx]

16. well said, unblock

[President Kerry]

20. yes! terrific post!! Merry xmas n/t

[Eloriel]

22. Absolutely, 100% gold-plated truth

and VERY well said.

[impeachthescoundrel]

23. Good points unblock

I haven't seen this often but I am going to say it--There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Democratic party.

And if I hear, see, dream about or imagine the word VALUES one more time, I will explode.

The Democratic party has REAL commitment to seeing the ideals of a better world unfold. It's as simple as that.

Can't wait for it to hit the fan.

[montieg]

24. Preach on, sister/brother!

Amodest suggestion to add:
we lose on candidates with the personality of cardboard

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. We won? I must've missed that part. What did we win?

We lose because of "marketing"? Does that mean that we don't lie as well as the Republicans?

We lose because of "election fraud"? Funny, I don't see any indictments.

We lose on "character attacks"? Seems to me we slung as much mud at the Boob as they did at our "electable" candidate.

We lose on "lies". There I agree with you. Our lies weren't "marketed" as well as theirs.

We lose because we run a "great candidate"? We ran a sell out who tried to defend his IWR vote by claiming he was too ignorant to vote against it.

What we "need", instead of a "marketing team", are candidates who have the courage and principles to tell the American public the truth even if it isn't popular.

[ldf]

91. valid points, unblock, but Tierra_y_Libertad has valid points also.

who in the democratic party has the power to address those issues you listed? you wrote:

<<we lose by election fraud
we lose on character attacks
we lose on emotional manipulation
we lose on lies
we lose because we run a great candidate in an echo chamber that amplifies his every mistake and flaw while they run a rotten candidate in an echo chamber that consistently insists that their guy is perfect.>>

i know that we members are supposed to be the real power of the party, but that just isn't the case.

our party leaders should have addressed all those issues, and they would have had 100% of our backing.

but they didn't. and in the new world of corporate political parties, we party members are pretty much muted.

money talked, and our party leaders walked. when they weren't walking the money walk they were conspiring to defeat our own.

they have blown it, and they should now give the party members a chance.

oh wait! they have no intention of doing THAT. it's even more compromise and more sell out.

our party leaders are so smart. you can't say they don't learn a lesson, once their nose has been rubbed in it three times already.

oh wait, again! they had ADD, and apparently can't pay attention long enough to learn ANYTHING.

(never mind the fact that we WON the 2000 election, AND the 2004 election, - you wouldn't know that by the responses of our party leaders AND the 2004 candidate.)

:grr:

[0007]

38. Well said kind Sir/Madam

[MISSDem]

41. Bravo! You said it while I was sitting here trying to think how to.

Thank you.

[bunny planet]

44. Very well said unblock. I agree.

[Kurovski]

47. Add me to the "Amen" corner.

To that I would add: The press as it stands is an enemy of freedom and to the Democratic party, which it hopes to bludgeon into a tool of the Republican party.

[Pushed To The Left]

48. Excellent points!

The right-wing has done an excellent job of marketing their extreme stances. Democrats need to do the same with progressive stances! That's why I really like what I've heard and read about George Lakoff's framing strategy. Has anybody considered Lakoff for DNC chair?

[peekaloo]

51. Thank you.

:toast:

[FizzFuzz]

65. amen. And we need a large media outlet

to get that great tactical strategy into the public consciousness.

We need to pour funds into AAR, since we already have a start there. I've thought for awhile that we have a great message, but the media-teat-suckling public gets only what the RW Corp whores put in the baby bottle. That and bunches of Fundamentalist Religion shows bought with RW promises (and $$$$, but that's off the record, wink wink)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

100. Hear hear. We have been robbed blind and beating ourselves up is silly.

We won the last 4 prez elections despite 24/7 propaganda from the right. Still, we must tell a better story just as M. Moore said to Leno.

Exposing the theft and learning how to be heard is the key using psychology and COURAGE.

'The strong must protect the weak' is the basis of 'family values.'

This is what Lakoff is pointing at in his 'Strong Father model' of language framing.

The strong mustn't PREY on the weak. That is what Repubs really do.

[drpdx]

14. Kentuck- I already don't like

a lot of what the Party has done- what I see as distancing themselves from the "core values" as you describe (livable minimum wage, rights to health care, etc). I worked hard for Kerry primarily because the thought of 4 more years of Bush was horrifying. If we don't have a tangible evil on the other side to unite us, the Party will lose a WHOLE lot of folks unless their agenda is clearly different from what the R's offer. Before I abandon the Party (or accept that it has abandoned me) I will let everyone in any position of local Democratic leadership know how I feel. When I am done screaming my fool head off I will look at the other options if I can't live with the direction of the D's. I don't feel any obligation to remain loyal for loyalty's sake.

[HereSince1628]

18. Isn't it odd that a _democratic_ party is ruled by elite elders?

Seems like everyone ought to get a vote, not just the professional politicians. The influence of the DLC isn't so transparent.

And once again the same party elders who lost their grip on the tiller by trying to out triangulate the republicans on issues are yet again, going to define the party by "ME TOO, ME TOO!" positions on a handful of issues.

Personally, I think it would be better to get back to basic principles, figure out what they are, and select positions on issues based on underlying widespread and shared beliefs.

I'd prefer that to doing the opposite of Republicans which lets them define us, or by chosing populist positions wherein the population of interest is left wing republicans.

That isn't to say positions on guns and abortion might not look different but at least they could be principled positions of our own construction.

[satori]

19. I would agree under the condition they change the name of the Dems

I am all for it as long as the party changes it name to the Democratic-Republican Party so that it reflects Rove's and his DLC values (sacarsm)

Democratic-Republican Party (United States)

The Democratic-Republican party was a United States political party, which evolved early in the history of the United States. In addition, some refer to the party as the Jeffersonian Republicans since Thomas Jefferson belonged to the party and had a major influence on its ideology; it is also referred to as simply the Republican Party, not to be confused with the modern Republican Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic-Republican_Party

[Lostnote03]

26. Are They Hoping For Media Compliance???

...The idiots are hoping for media exposure I guess?...They are playing within a rigged system and feel this is a way of softning the constant media barrage against them...What a bunch of dilussional egos, rather than stand up for individual liberty and the common goodness of our "grand experiment" they prefer the "strategery" concept embraced by the GOP....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. It's time to leave the appeasement party to those that destroyed it.

Green for me.

[Pithy Cherub]

28. The Dem "elders" may be ready, but willing & able did not get

invites to this pronouncement. The 'Elders' need a broader based by retaining what they already have - that would be strategic thinking circa 1960... best the "elders" can do.

[cacambo]

29. We need to get a clue

Well, the continuous defeats both locally, at the gubernatorial, congressional and presidential levels should be an alarming sign that the majority of Americans have rejected some of our party's extremist positions. Most Americans do not support partial-birth abortions or gay marriage. If we want to continue being the minority party, then we should continue this path of self-destruction. We have always been the party of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity. We cannot and must not turn our backs against pro-lifers, gun rights Democrats or Republicans or those who oppose gay marriage. The answer is not "going left". By accepting and embracing more moderate views does not mean we are caving in to the Republican party. It simply means we are going where the voters are. We need to be sensitive to the fact that a large part of the country (especially in the South and mountainous states)is moderate to conservative. If we want to be a viable alternative to the Republicans we need to appeal to them. If we moderate our positions on those hot button issues, we will send the message that the Democratic party is not this group of left-wingers who want God,and the Ten Commandments out of our lives, or want to impose gay marriage on others. Recent losses should be a big clue to all of us.

[ecoalex]

30. Veering Right is a Big Mistake

What is needed is to expose the repugs for failed policies, division of this country from lies and propaganda. The Dems need to educate, not change their core values.To veer right is to lose the core self of a progessive party. Veering right will only cause the repugs to jerk even more right becomming pure fascists.

What the Dems need is to have a strong determined leadership. For now we see weakness and second thinking. #1 the party needs to get new leadership, outside the beltway. The assination of Dean, Clark, shows the entrenchment of the DLC, DNC washington insiders, who derive their power from contributions from the corporations, it's dirty money. We need new leadership and out of the beltway grass roots candidates, and money. How quickly some have forgotten Dean's rise. He was an independent, and sparked grass roots funding, a true populist. Until the yokes of Washington insiders running the party are broken, they are just repug lite.

I suggest the PDA. They fought for us before anyone else said a thing after Nov 2nd. They are showing up the insider DLC DNC with a true grass roots structure, what is needed. They will stand up to the repug lies, and challenge them immediately, not do a rope a dope like Kerry. The DLC DNC is the enemy, when will the true dems see this? If we all band together , there is strenght to blow off the DNC DLC. http://www.pdamerica.org

[rman]

34. hot button issues are created by repubs and spread by the mass media

We should present some hot button issues of our own.
Such as corporate personhood and the consequent lack of accountability for corporations, tax evation by big corporations, poverty, environment, outsourcing of jobs, and in general how the far-right wing of the republican party screws over everything they touch, including much of the republican base.


btw what's with "impose gay marriage on others"?
Is that what you think not outlawing gay marriage is?

You make it sound as though we want to force people to engage in gay marriage, while all we want is to not have it outlawed.
If two gay people marry it's *their* marriage; no marriage of any kind is being "imposed" onto anyone.

[Bridget Burke]

40. So, are we going to impose gay marriage on the straights?

I'd definitely agree that breaking up happy het families & forcing the partners to pick same sex partners would be going too far. But that's not what's happening. The Democrats did not put Gay Marriage on the ballot in any state; it was chosen as a wedge issue.

If we give up on gay rights, women's rights & any gun control at all--we'll then be asked to give up something more. Social Security & Medicare? Civil Rights? Education, the Environment? Resistance to unending war? We've got lots more to give.

Please--tattoo the 10 commandments on your forehead & continue your career as a Republican. You're supposed to post a few non-traitorous messages if you wish to pass yourself off as a Democrat.

[cacambo]

61. I'm a proud Democrat

Well, it's interesting that you call me a "Republican". I say it's interesting because on conservative forums I'm called a "liberal" and here I'm thought as a conservative. I guess there is no room for moderates any more. For your info, I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I don't intend to do so any time soon. Having somewhat different views on certain issues does not mean I'm a traitor. On the contrary, I want for us to have a serious discussion about these issues so that we can stop losing every election cycle.

I agree that we should not give up our fight for gay rights. But I don't view gay marriage as a "right". Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Whether we like it or not, that's the way that it's always been. Redifining marriage would be like changing history. I support civil unions (but not gay marriage) and same-sex partnership benefits. But actually redifining marriage is a totally different thing. These kind of views are hurting the Democrats. If John Kerry had forcefully come out against gay marriage, he probably would have won. Gay marriage is a loser for any candidate.

[CTLawGuy]

84. if Kerry had come out forcefully against gay marriage

the 72% of gays who had voted for him would have stayed home.

the fundies would STILL have voted for Bush, since he is also against gay marriage.

[itzamirakul]

112. "Gay marriage is a loser for any candidate"?

Well, so was the Civil Rights Act. Remember how hard it was to get a Democrat elected after that? Do you think we should reinstate segregation since that would undoubtedly bring a LOT MORE southern voters back into the Democratic fold?

The Democrats have ALWAYS had HUMAN RIGHTS as a core value. To back off of those values is to lose what the Party has always stood for.How many of those core values do you think we should compromise on in order to get "OUR CANDIDATE" into the White House? And what satisfaction would we have after giving up what we REALLY believe in?

[MISSDem]

42. Yes that is caving in. We only lost by 3% . My God. That is

hardly a landslide. I have read that instead of the Democrats moving to the right the Republicans will, in the future, have to move to the left. The move is on for gay rights and for abortion rights. They will not go away or backwards. In spite of what the loudly vocal American Taliban says, most Americans are tolerant.

[TankLV]

43. "Our"? "We"? I doub't you are either.

Nice try though.

Now get lost.

[eridani]

80. Tough shit

The majority used to support slavery and Jim Crow. And BTW, there is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion'.

[IStriker]

32. I am a "born" Democrat and old besides...

but it is not my problem if the party leaves me. I will just find a new home no matter that I will always feel like I've been robbed of my "birthright." And there will be NO TURNING BACK once I leave.

[s-cubed]

33. My Repug brother's answer to the DNC:

I have lots of repugs in the family & actually got some of them involved in a discussion on our family forum of the failings of our election process. We even managed to avoid getting too mad at each other.

Anyway, my very repug, homophobic, conservation brother wrote:

"And by the way I voted for a democratic hispanic gay woman as the Dallas County sheriff because I thought she was a much better choice than the republican running. By the way she won the election."

If he will vote for a GOOD candidate, regardless of the other strikes against her, that ought to tell the dems where to go: good caandidates.

[Jose Diablo]

35. What's this jazz about "party elders"

They think they have a golden key to the crapper? Throw the bums out.

"Party Elders"...sheesh. 'Elders', thats a term the fundamentalists use. Who are them shits trying to fool.

I don't know whats worse, the neocons or our own high-sniffin snobs we have right in our own party.

Don't leave the party, get rid of the ones that don't belong.

[kentuck]

36. Perhaps a good start would be those that support Bush's SS "reform" ?

If they cannot support a program that defines the Democratic Party, then I have no use for them. Period.

[Been Fishing]

53. Why not start with Zell Miller?

[Geek_Girl]

60. Who are the party elders?

I would like to know.

[gizmo1979]

37. Bad timing

The longer the war in Iraq remains a fiasco the more left will swing.I don't think the war is going to get better anytime soon.If the Elders can't recognize this then it's time to create a viable third party!

[bush_is_wacko]

39. Exactly what abortion rights and gun control issues are they willing to

compromise. I question this because I, for one do not agree that partial-birth abortion should EVER be a right. The fact of the matter is, at THAT point in a pregnancy, it would be far MORE reasonable to perform a C-section on the mother than a partial- birth abortion! If the mother then wishes to give the baby up for adoption, so be it. For ANYONE to continue to support this barbaric method of torture upon both mother AND child is IMHO a travesty!

As far as gun rights go. I am firm on my beliefs that NO ONE needs an automatic assault weapon of ANY kind to uphold the intention of the Constitution OR to hunt wild game! Assault weapons are for WAR and WAR alone! The unfortunate part of that is that these weapons ARE being used against our police on the streets right now! How do we insure that those brave men and women have the means to protect themselves against those that use these weapons? I don't know the answer. I do know however, that MANY democrats, liberals, and independents do not wish to have their guns taken away from them any more than these idiot gun toting Neo-Nazi types that support the NRA!

[slackmaster]

87. So-called "assault weapons" were NOT automatic

You're misinformed and regurgitating propaganda.

Assault weapons were by definition semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull) and in general dumbed-down copies of selective-fire military weapons. The only real difference between a rifle that was for 10 years classified as semiautomatic "assault weapon" and a semiautomatic hunting rifle or target rifle was its appearance.

The "assault weapons" ban made no measurable improvement on public safety, and it cost Democrats millions of votes. I say good riddance to a bad law!

[bush_is_wacko]

92. Look, I had a man shoot the crap out of my neighborhood with a so called

semi-automatic weapon! He then committed suicide by cop right next to my car. He had managed to make a few minor changes to that gun apparently and it sure as hell looked and sounded to me as if he had the capability of shooting at a much faster rate than any rifle I've been around. I am not spouting propaganda, I have seen it first hand. I can't even remember the round count after all was said and done, but it was astronomical. Something in the neighborhood of 70 rounds. What about the Columbine killers? I live in Colorado, but I must admit, I don't remember what their weapons of choice were. They sure managed to do an awful lot of damage though. I am not for banning guns altogether as you can see. I do believe it is a protected right of a free society. The arguments about our Constitution providing for a militia are just not germaine anymore. Those that want guns have them and they ALWAYS will. No politician would EVER be stupid enough to try and take that right away completely. It would cause a civil uprising and they know that! I am for controlling access to weapons of WAR.

I think it is propaganda to say the Democratic Party is falling apart because they are considering working with Republicans. The ONLY way to have a government for the people is to have politicians willing to find a happy medium.

Don't judge me as a "moderate" because I say this. The reality is I am no where near as moderate as ANY politician, regardless of their affiliation, in my beliefs. Stubbornness is NOT a noble or productive quality! In fact it is a childish quality. Some of the arguments I see being flung around sound EXACTLY like a two-year-old temper tantrum. I have raised enough of them to know this when I see it.

[slackmaster]

93. You're going off on a tangent here

Did the unfortunate incident you described have any connection to the federal "assault weapons" ban that expired on September 13? Was the weapon involved covered by the ban, or was it not? I'd bet a pint of Guinness Stout that you can't answer those questions because you don't have enough information.

The arguments about our Constitution providing for a militia are just not germaine anymore.

I agree with you. The reason I generally oppose banning one type of gun or another is that since fully automatic weapons were regulated in 1934, there hasn't been any solid evidence that laws controlling types of guns reduce use of guns in crime. Automatic weapons do get used in crimes, but with only one or two exceptions for the last 70 years every one has been a weapon possessed illegally.

Restrictions on personal liberty must be justified by some kind of return in improved quality of life or safety or something for the public in general. Restrictive laws that give us nothing in return are fundamentally bad.

The "assault weapons" definition invented in 1994 was a Bogeyman designed to be used as a wedge. It didn't make anyone safer and it backfired politically.

I'm not suggesting working with Republicans, just getting away from the notion of ever-increasing restrictions on what people can own, say, or do. That's the essence of what a lot of people call a "progressive" society, and I think it's a big mistake. Big decisions should be made on sound information.

[bush_is_wacko]

94. You are correct that I do not know the exact weapon used, My ONLY concern

at the time was getting my 18 month old daughter OUT of that madman's line of fire, since she was in her crib directly in front of the guy and up two stories. All I can tell you is that the paper (understand this was 14 years ago) later reported it was a semi-automatic weapon that had been modified. I did not keep a file on this incident, so I can not give you much in the way of information.

I can tell you what I witnessed and that my 18 month old child had nightmares and went around saying "drop your weapon" at the top of her lungs for several weeks.

Criminals will always find a way to get access to illegal weapons. Banning them for public sale only helps keep them out of the hands of people who would not otherwise have any connection to criminals with these guns. In this particular incident, this man would not have had access to this type of weapon. He was a "normal" guy who had NEVER been connected with ANY criminal activity. He became suicidal over the death of his brother and the loss of his job. He then went into the local pawn shop and bought, from what I read, was the ONLY weapon he ever owned in his life. He modified the gun with the clear intent of suicide by cop. They found suicide letters in his home and on his body. His mother watched him die. The 48 hour wait and background check would not have prevented the situation. He had had the gun in his possession for several months. It was and still is my opinion that banning the sale of that weapon would have prevented him from his suicide attempt and the possibility of hurting someone else (No one, thank God, was hurt aside from him) He seemingly was unable to commit suicide on himself.

I am not all over the place on this issue. I believe the banning of these weapons can prevent some of these things from occurring. We do need to work with Republicans on gun control issues. It is unproductive to do otherwise.

It is not a "big decision" to ban semi-automatic weapon. You can accomplish the same goal with regards to hunting and legal activity without a semi-automatic weapon! People that want to own semi-automatic weapons want them because of what they stand for, not because they produce better results for their hunting expeditions!

When the government puts a blanket ban on ALL of something, (such as drugs) I agree with your point on government controls 100%. Promoting less government control just for the sake of being able to say we are a free society is an irrational argument.

I do not tell my kids you can do whatever you want because I want to promote a free household, just so they will like me. Even with my liberal beliefs, I give my children absolutes! I will not tolerate certain things!

[slackmaster]

104. Thanks for the clarification - Let me offer something to consider

People that want to own semi-automatic weapons want them because of what they stand for, not because they produce better results for their hunting expeditions!

You would ban all semiautomatic firearms, not just ones that look scary. As a side note I disagree with your broad-brush assessment of the state of mind of people who own semiautomatic firearms. All of the ones I own are for target shooting or collector's value. I keep them securely locked up in a safe when I'm not using them. But that's not what I'm here to preach.

I understand and respect your point of view, but I have to say that position would be considerably worse for the Democratic party than our current one which favors an "assault weapons" ban something like the one that was in effect from 1994 until this year.

In a nutshell, the more guns you ban the more gun owners you alienate.

Try this Gedanken experiment: Replay the Presidential campaign and election of 2004 exactly as it happened except for one policy change on the part of the Democratic candidate. Let's call him Kerry Prime.

George W. Bush was on record as saying he favored renewing the old AW ban. He said if it got to his desk he'd sign it. In all likelihood Bush was confident it would never get to his desk, but that put him in a position to play both sides of the issue.

Suppose Kerry Prime came out with a statement like this on September 13, 2004:

"Today a 10-year experiment with gun bans has ended. I favored trying the assault weapons ban we wrote in 1994, but today we must face the fact that it failed to deliver on its promise of a safer society. Criminals still have access to any kind of weapon they want. The gun makers did what they felt was appropriate - They removed features like bayonet lugs and folding stocks from their guns and kept selling them in order to meet the legitimate market demand for certain types of semiautomatic guns. These were not military weapons we banned. They were specifically designed for the US civilian market, and their use in crime is and has always been rare.

Our experiment was a failure of public policy. We had good intentions but went after the wrong people. If Congress sends me a reauthorization of the assault weapons ban or anything similar, I will not sign it.

My opponent says he'd reauthorize the assault weapons ban. We know that's not going to happen because certain prominent members of the Senate have said it won't ever reach the President's desk. My opponent is trying to pander to people who favor gun control, but he's not fooling anybody.

Our Democratic values tell us that efforts at reducing crime should focus on the root causes of violence: Poverty, inequality, injustice, substance abuse, poor education, lack of access to good health care, and unemployment. When you give people good jobs and opportunities to elevate themselves, they don't become criminals.

I'm John Kerry Prime, and I approve of this message."

If our candidate had made such a statement he might have upset a few people who think we must have an "assault weapons" ban, but how many of them would have believed and voted for Bush?

How many people who reluctantly voted for Bush and strongly favor gun owner's rights would have taken Kerry Prime's statement as an assurance that he would not pursue gun bans, and been able to vote for him over Bush?

Something to consider.

[bush_is_wacko]

105. Do you know how religious the parents who's children died and/or

were injured at Columbine are? Despite the fact they, for the most part, attend evangelical style churches, they were outraged * let the ban expire. Many of them sent the "moral message" to * he no longer represents them! Since you were willing to admit it, I will also admit it. We own SEVERAL guns. I would have no problem burning the one that fits the description of semi-automatic. The only reason it is still in my house, is because I think it should be kept off the street. It was an inheritance from someone that believed as you do and it does have some sentimental value, but not enough for me to promote the legalization of it's availability to people who would otherwise not have access to it. It does not resemble a military weapon but it can still do the same amount of damage as one. It is also far less easy to handle accurately than some of the other guns we own.

BTW, I totally agree that focusing on poverty, health care, education, etc, etc. will produce better results, than making criminals out of everyone by creating more laws. Even agreeing with you on that, I would still tell you, I have lived in KKK stronghold states and they are VERY strong in allot of places. They have changed some of their tactics over the years, but they are still a growing entity in this country. The mentality of those people will not change because we give them access to health care and improve their standards of living. They are far more widespread than a lot of people want to believe.

I know you will probably consider that off topic, but I have made the connections to the way the political winds blow right now. I think way too many people have been living in dreamland regarding this issue. I don't know what the solution is to these people. These are the type of people that voted for Bush. Nothing Kerry or any other Dem or Liberal can EVER say to them will change the way these people vote. They want a bigot in office. Their crimes will be spoken of less and less by MSM as long as a bigot maintains office. And again, they are GROWING in numbers.

[slackmaster]

107. I'm not talking about the hard-core right

Anyone who actually believed Bush wanted to renew the "assault weapons" ban was gullible.

I'm suggesting that there is a subset of people who place a high value on their right to own guns, are unhappy with Bush because of Iraq or his religious conservatism or any of several other reasons, who held their noses and voted for Bush; who might have voted for Kerry if he had done SOMETHING to distinguish himself from Bush on an issue they care deeply about.

I think that group may number in the millions. The margins by which Bush is taking the battleground states are razor-thin. Like you I wouldn't expect a KKK member or wild-eyed evangelical to vote for a Democrat no matter what he or she says. But I know personally several moderates who voted against John Kerry specifically because of his track record on gun control. My mom is from Iowa. She said several Midwestern cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. have told her they laughed at Senator Kerry's attempt to appease hunters by tromping through the woods toting a shotgun. He looked to them just like a fancy New England liberal pretending to be an earthy sportsman.

Lawful gun owners are just as concerned about misuse of firearms as anybody else. Maybe more so. I'd like to see the Democratic Party offer us solutions to crime that don't involve mucking with our gun collections, target rifles, curios and relics, self-defensive weapons, etc.

[bush_is_wacko]

109. If your mom saw me "hunting" she would probably say the same thing

about me. I go for the peace and quiet, not the meat! I have never been able to stand the taste of wild game. Believe me, I get your point. I just don't think it will make the difference you think it will. Those that are willing to re-elect someone on the basis of a meaningless piece of legislation in the big picture, instead of the far more meaningful piece of legislation like the Un-patriot act are not willing to look at the big picture. That legislation has the potential to remove ALL power from dissenters by throwing their butts in jail for an indefinite time period on ANY trumped up charges the government wants to come up with.

Personally, I think the banning or partial birth abortion would draw far more people to this party than the gun issue. Those of us that own guns legally are well aware we don't need to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons to use them the way they were meant to be used.

[beevul]

106. Well said, Slack...

Well said indeed.


Agree 100 %.

[Pepperbelly]

45. why do you do this?

Can you not find something bad about the gops?

Look, my view is this ... if I disagree with them, I will vote against them and their ideas in the primaries. If there are enough people like me, they will lose and what they stand ready to capitulate will be meaningless. If they win, then more Democrats agree with them than with me.

Anything else smacks of chickenshit ultimatums ... which are immature and begging to be told 'ok, them, since you force a choice.'

[welshTerrier2]

46. "Can you not find something bad about the gops?"

is it not an implicit criticism of the gop to complain that democrats are becoming too much like them ??

[kentuck]

50. Well, they could write a nice letter to their Dem congressperson...

and let them know they disagree with their decision to back the Bush taxcuts, or to "reform" Social Security, or to unilaterally invade another country? I'm sure that would have a great impact...

[Pepperbelly]

52. old friend kentuck ...

there are only two languages that politicians understand: money and votes. Outrage here has little impact on either.

If they piss you off, put your energies into putting people in of whom you approve or defeating those whom you disapprove. It is really as simple as that.

And if it seemed as though I was snappish with you, I apologize. The only defense I can raise is my utter dismay at at the "If X does this, I am history" and "If Y does this, I am GONE" threads. I guess I am reacting to what I perceive as the egocentrisim of many posters in their shouting ultimatums to the wind.

[welshTerrier2]

54. "shouting ultimatums to the wind"

i've seen this theme posted on DU before ... the argument suggests that those who speak out about how they will decide whether to remain in the party are childish and manipulative ... they are seen as saying something like "if i don't get my way, i quit" ... and there also seems to be an undertone that these "complainers" are just quitters and that they are doing nothing to help ...

well, i can't speak for every example of those who define what it will take to keep them in the party ... perhaps some have been "egocentric" or immature ... but fundamentally, i strongly disagree with you ...

i am very torn about whether to remain a Democrat ... right now, i see many good reasons for both staying and leaving ... and as i try to make this decision, i've spent considerable time reflecting on those things that would keep me in the party and those things that would cause me to leave ... i certainly see nothing wrong with posting these criteria so that other DU'ers, pro and con, could comment ...

to suggest that those who leave are doing something other than "put your energies into putting people in of whom you approve or defeating those whom you disapprove" is nothing more than your opinion ... many who have left, or will leave, believe deeply in the struggle they're engaged in and have put great energy into doing just what you're calling for ... they just did it from outside the Democratic Party ...

one last theme ... you seem to put a lot of stock in seeing how the vote turns out ... you said something to the effect that the voters will either support a more progressive agenda in the primaries or they won't ... well, my friend, i see speaking out with your positions BEFORE the Party makes decisions as a form of voting ... and I think that's one of the real contributions that DU and other online sites make to the political process ... why are you so afraid of a little free speech? if Democrats want to proactively speak in a public forum to try to influence policy, that's just fine and dandy with me ...

[Pepperbelly]

59. do what you want, Hamlet.

That is my point. Your choice is yours.

[welshTerrier2]

62. no, i don't think that was at all your point ...

it sounds to me that the point you've been making is that the choice is mine but i shouldn't write about why i'm making it or try to influence others to see things the way i do ...

let's take the abortion issue as an example ... explain to me exactly what objection you would have (not whether you agree or disagree on the issue) with someone taking a position that said that they could not remain a Democrat if the Democratic Party dropped its support for a woman's right to choose ... explain to me what's wrong with hoping to influence other Democrats to join them in speaking out loudly and clearly in a public forum (and elsewhere) to let the party know that weakening support for choice is unacceptable ... would it be better to just say nothing and work for a pro choice candidate in four years?

there's this "whining and complaining" label that some seem to like to toss about ... sounds like good old free speech to me ... i've yet to hear anyone make a good case for muzzling DU'ers who are often outraged at the actions of some in the Democratic Party ...

the ball's in your court ... i don't think you've at all made the case for the criticisms you've levelled ...

[Pepperbelly]

64. What case?

It irritates me. Why do I have to make a case for that?

And, just like the Hamlets, I have every right to register my own irritation although I admit it does not amount to the hyperventilating outrage and hyperbole I often see in those posts.

Which is why I do not double-click on those threads. But this one was from my old friend Kentuck and we needed to talk.

What else do you need?

on edit: what next? Will I be purged from the party? Those threads irritate me as well.

[kentuck]

67. I know these threads are irritating to many....

but it is irritating also to read about Democrats that are thinking of voting with Bush to destroy SS. That is where my irritation comes from. I do not think any Third Party will be successful. However, at the same time, these Democrats should not take all our votes for granted, as if there are no consequences no matter how they vote. That is not acceptable. It's not a loyalty test. But there are certain issues that Democrats stand for and certain ones tha Repubs stand for and never shall the twain meet...

[Pepperbelly]

68. for me, all of the people for whom I can vote are ...

fighting him on SS and everything else as well.

Perhaps I am lucky.

[kentuck]

71. But that is not enough...

if Bush is successful because we were not united as a Party. Is there nothing we can unite on? Is there nothing we can stand up for as a Party? What should we say to those that plan on voting with Bush and the Repubs? It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear weasels like Ford and the others say they are thinking of voting with Bush. It's not OK. No matter if he is in my district or not.

[Pepperbelly]

70. one other point real quick ...

The 'leaders' are leaders only by virtue of winning the Democratic nominations and THEN the general election. The only place to fight these battles is in the primary process. Then, if you win or lose, you will know that the primary winner has the support of the party (ie the voters who vote in the Democratic primary) and can decide to go or stay with confidence.

[welshTerrier2]

69. no problem ...

you don't have to make any case ... yes, you can just say things like "I guess I am reacting to what I perceive as the egocentrisim of many posters in their shouting ultimatums to the wind. " and you don't need to explain anything ...

but i've questioned why you have the views you have ... i see no basis for the criticisms you've made ... i certainly have not questioned your right to have any damned position you want to have ... i think you're dead wrong on this issue ... i've said why i think that and i've asked you to clarify ... if you don't want to, no problem ...

[Pepperbelly]

72. no offense intended ... it looks like you, me, Kentuck are the only ones

here tonight.

Maybe we should ... smoke or something since the teachers are all gone.

:evilgrin:

[kentuck]

73. It's not the size of the dog in the fight (or the number)

it's the size of the fight in the dog... :)

[welshTerrier2]

74. works for me ...

what are we smoking ??

i appreciate your "no offense intended" ... me either ... look, save this up for another day and get back to me ...

the struggle for the hearts and minds of Democrats, the struggle for the direction of the party, the reality that people are suffering and dying today based on policies and strategies that are chosen, makes the battle even more urgent ... there's none of this waiting four years business ... no one is allowed to call a timeout ... i can't get my head around the idea of: "The only place to fight these battles is in the primary process."

the time is now ... we've waited far too long already ... those planning to leave the party (and i might), should give fair warning of their reasons ... perhaps the party does not care ... perhaps it will not listen ... but to leave without explanation, to leave without giving a chance for remedy, seems like a poor way to conduct business ... if i have "make and break" criteria, i owe it to the Party to say what they are ... yes, i'm just one voice ... but if the chorus grows loud enough, perhaps it will be heard ... i see it as the right thing to do ... i don't see it as egocentric ... is it a scream into the wind? perhaps it is ... perhaps not ...

no need to debate this here ... or now ... i consider this mature, responsible thought on the issue and only ask you to reflect on it ...

ok, i've said it ... now where did i put those matches ...

[Pepperbelly]

75. it's worse than that ...

there is only one weapon available to us in government at this point --the Senate fillibuster.

We have nothing else.

We are a minority in the House.

We are a minority in the Senate.

We do not have the White House.

The courts are long gone.

The fillibuster is it and they think they have a way to take that.

Most of what is good and noble hangs by that very slender thread and that is good for only a limited number of uses before the knife turns in our hand and cuts us deeply. That is why we had better do some damned careful battle selecting.

SS is one of those places.

The courts are another, with the attendent women's issues involved.

[welshTerrier2]

77. on this we agree ...

well, actually, i don't think the Democrats have any weapons left "in government" ... i'll be amazed if the republicans don't eliminate the filibuster rule ... the battle "in government" is hopeless for now ... it's time to start rebuilding for the future ...

anyway you look at it, the Democrats are at their weakest point ever ... it's time for a major overhaul ... some think it's about choosing different policies ... i don't ... i worry that those steering the good ship Democrat have bought into the idea that they have to "move the Party to where the voters are" ... i don't ...

i think the problem is more with communication, style, marketing, image, etc ... i also think that the Party has not developed a clear, consistent platform ...

so, we have one group that says "move right" and another that feels abandonned ... as i've written many times on DU, this is a very dangerous time for the Party ... if Party leaders choose to move right without a real openness to the party's activists, both left and center, i think they will cause a very damaging rift ... and from where i'm sitting, it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen ...

some will criticize the "complainers", but many of these people worked damned hard for Kerry and many gave their hard-earned dollars to help him ... speaking just for myself, without getting into all my reasons, the Party would be mistaken if they think my help is guaranteed ... they may not care but they would be mistaken ... this isn't an ultimatum; it's a fact ...

[Pepperbelly]

81. i don't think moving right is any answer to anything. What I do think ...

is the problem can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1441133

And no, I do not for a minute defend the party bigwigs at this point in our history. I think they are rubes.

[kentuck]

58. Good friend PB..

I understand. And I agree it is useless to say "I am gone" or something similar...However, if we can get the message to a few good congressmen, we may be able to save them from themselves. Obviously, if they are voting with Bush on the war and SS destruction, we owe it to them to give them (Congress) a warning. If they do not heed the advice, perhaps we should look elsewhere for a better Congress person, is all that I am saying. We agree on that, I think?

[ulysses]

82. this is certainly true.

there are only two languages that politicians understand: money and votes.

So, isn't threatening to withhold your vote - especially if you don't have much money - simply speaking their language? I'm just sayin'...

:hi:

[Pepperbelly]

83. it certainly would be if they are listening ...

and if it was when it actually mattered (i.e. during an election).

My point re: money and votes ... I have pretty much given up on the people whom Kentuck is complaing of, thinking that they are lost causes. To get rid of these guys, it needs to be done in the primary. If they support the current Democratic structure, they are supporting the problem.

I don't think that any of their problems can be solved via policy changes. We OWN policy as it stands now. If we moved a bit to the left, we would own it for a long time. If the leadership is misjudging why we lost ( see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1441133 ) then they should be replaced. The place for that is the primary.

:D

[greenohio]

96. Excellent post.

"egocentrisim of many posters in their shouting ultimatums to the wind. "

Well put.

[Clarkie1]

55. It is not the purpose of the democratic party to "oppose everything the

Republicans stand for." That is not responsible leadership or government.

We should find common ground wherever possible without compromising our principles. At the the same time, we must put forth a liberal, progressive agenda of our own and present it it in a way that will open minds, not close them.

[paulk]

56. who are the Democrats?

You talk as if the party is some kind of monolithic organization with someone (or some group) at the top telling everyone else what to do.

The party isn't that at all - it's a loose coalition of sometimes disparate groups banding together toward some common goal - and that goal might not be the same for everyone in that group. And it's a constant battle between those groups in the coalition to get the items most important to them to the forefront.

One of the reasons the more conservative factions in the Democratic party have been successful in getting their POV implemented is because they can deliver money and votes, and like Pepperbelly says upthread -that's what matters in politics. If you don't like it, then you need to find a way to provide the party with money and votes. It's really that simple.

All else is pissing in the wind, and DU has become a veritable deluge lately.

[NightTrain]

66. Looks like I'll be joining the Green Party for Election 2006!

I didn't leave the Democratic Party; it left me!

[w4rma]

76. I am in full support of moving *away* from gun control.

On abortion I believe that choice is the choice for the majority of Americans and the least oppressive and best way to reduce (and maybe even eliminate abortions) is through social programs and education.

Imho, "left"/"liberal" on gun control means more liberty. More freedom. Less (gun) control. But I have the impression that you believe thatthis is "right"/"conservative" on gun control.

[hollowdweller]

97. Me Too

If we convincingly move away from Gun Control we will have the margin to win.

[okieinpain]

78. I don't like the DLC, but the more left agenda is dead also.

you propose more anything, all the repugs have to ask is how will you pay for it. Once the word taxes come up you're done, game over. we need to have a sensible platform that appeals to that liberal group. push for a smaller government, close down some of those bases in other countries, use the money at home. speak out on gay rights, but allow the states to decide on marriage or civil unions. push for lower taxes, better education, and healthcare.

[LynnTheDem]

79. If Dems become rethugs, then I won't be a Dem.

Simple.

[slackmaster]

88. You're about half right

The right thing for us to do get back to our libertarian roots and stand up for people's rights.

It should be about freedom of choice as much as possible. People who want to oppose abortion should be free to not have one and free to speak their minds about it. You're free to not have a gun in YOUR home if you don't like them, but I'm free to keep them in mine.

When, in fact, we should be running against the radicalism with a more "left" agenda, such as healthcare rights, more worker rights, increase in minimum wage, more standing up for minority and women rights, standing behind our Constitution and against Patriot Acts and illegal wars, rather than following the Republicans with a more "lite" agenda.

There's nothing "lite" about supporting liberty and justice for everyone. It's exactly what we should be doing. Social issues like abortion and guns are traps. There's never a position on those that guarantees a net gain in votes. The ONLY viewpoint that always wins is giving power back to individuals.

[kentuck]

89. Liberals need to regain their libertarianism ?

There is a lot of merit in your thoughts, in my opinion. Personal and individual rights and standing up for "liberty".

[hollowdweller]

98. Yes. Maximum personal freedom with a social safety net and worker rights!

[welshTerrier2]

99. "maximum personal freedom"

this is not as black and white as some libertarians would have you believe ... there are many situations where one person's freedom imposes on another person ...

for example, if you make your kids stay in the house because there's so much gun violence where you live, should we make it easier for people to get guns? if you drive your big F%^&*ing SUV and use more fossil fuels than necessary, is that OK just because you have the money to pay for it? if you can become wealthy enough, either through inheritance or earnings, to influence government policy more than a poorer citizen, is that OK?

"maximum personal freedom" is a good place to start when defining any policy ... but we also shouldn't view severe restrictions on individual liberties as "all bad" ... when the real intent of those restrictions is to protect the liberties of the less powerful and the less wealthy, there's a good case to be made for government regulation ... your freedom to swing your fist in the air ends at my nose ...

[beevul]

108. If I only had...

a nickel for every time I read that...

"your freedom to swing your fist in the air ends at my nose"

There should have been a second half to it, I think.

Your AUTHORITY to regulate how I swing my fist in the air shall extend no further than your nose.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. DEMOCRATS NEED TO STOP GETTING THEIR UNDIES IN A BUNCH

Sorry for the capslock, but I'm really sick and tired of this shit.

The first thing that we should've done after the 2004 election (hell we should've done it after the 2000 and 2002 elections) is taken a few weeks to sit back, catch our breath, recover from the shock, and just chill out. That way when it came time to looking at what we discuss what went wrong this time, we could've approeached it relaxed with clear heads.

Of course, instead... we get people from ALL wings of the party at each others throats on November 3rd. You have people bitching at Kerry for his decission to concede early, you have people saying "I'm going green, I'm never voting with this weak party again", you have people saying that Dean should've been the nominee, you have people saying that Clark should've been the nominee, you have people saying that we need to soften our stance on abortion and appeal to religious conservatives, and you have people saying that it was all Michael Moore's fault.

What we have is a bunch of people yelling and screaming at each other like babies instead of a group of people willing to sit down and have a CIVILIZED discussion about the future of our party, something which is LONG overdue. Frankly, the DLC needs to reach out to the progressives more and dare I say it, the progressives need to reach out to the DLC more.

Now we're at a point that's almost as bad as primary season, over election of the fucking DNC Chairman. The DNC Chairman, the guy whose job amounts to shaking hands, speaking at dinners, and kissing asses of wealthy donors. Everybody is going apeshit about whether this virtually meaningless position will be held by Dean or Roemer.

We need to STOP getting at each other's throats and start having a CIVILIZED discussion about the future of the party, and preferably before the midterm elections.

And while we're on the subject of the discussion of the future of the party, I'll add my 2 cents. I basically agree with Unblock. Kerry was a great candidate. Kerry's message was distorted because he had a crappy team helping him deliver it. We need our own Karl Rove and personally I think we already have one in James Carville, but that is debateable.

[in_cog_ni_to]

103. Then we need a new party to support!

I'm ready to support the Green Party. Just waiting to see how Kerry handles the election fraud issue. If the Dem party moves more to the right...I'M OUTTA HERE!

[seekinguniqueness]

110. We should do as the Gopers do

Disregard our fringe constituencies (they have nowhere else to go) and make a sincere effort to appeal to mainstream Americans.

[mmonk]

113. We are on our own

as they try to move to a one party state.