Do we need to rebuild our Party from the bottom up ?

[kentuck]

If so, we can do that in two ways: We can weed out the fringe groups, the vocal left, and build up our Party as the workers Party, not opposed to 2nd Amendment rights, not opposed to certain restrictions on abortion rights, and supportive of the "war on terror" and in-step with the Republicans on the issue of a strong defense. We can speak out against the Janet Jackson-type incidents and present a more moral stature for the American public. Also, we can distance ourselves from the gay-rights groups and the gay-marriage issue. Plus, we can present our Party as the Party of fiscal responsibility.

Or, we can challenge the more "moderate", Republican-types of our Party in the primaries. We can speak up for the oppressed and the minorities in our society. We can be for strong worker rights, healthcare for all, and a vocal proponent of separation of church and state. We will speak out against the military industrial complex and the needless war in Iraq. We can speak out for opportunity for all and the continued right of women to choose what they do with their bodies. We will continue to support some type of "gun control" for automatic military weapons on the streets. We can speak out on morality as being about more than sex or gay rights.

Which Party would you prefer? Even a better question, which Party do you think would best compete with the Repubs? Those seem to me to be the choices facing us.

[msgadget]

1. I propose something more straight-forward

Instead, why don't we all work diligently to get third parties on the ballots and behind the debate podiums? Without true dialog the nation doesn't hear real alternatives, just variations on whatever theme will win the current election cycle.

[notadmblnd]

2. No, but we do need to identify the Mepublicans in democrats clothing

and boot the buggers out.

[NMDemDist2]

3. from the bottom up is the only way we can rebuild the party

and we need to re-frame the debate big time, which means we need some lefties to get a hold of some MSM companies ala Sinclair Broadcasting

if you haven't noticed, the Carlyle Group has been buying up media outlets for the last 5 years and we are WAY behind

as far as the party platform I fall in the the latter choice but whether or not it's the best to "compete" makes not a wit of difference to me. If I compromise my principles to win, I am no better than BushCo

[Career Prole]

17. "If I compromise my principles to win, I am no better than BushCo..."

Thank you for saying that. I couldn't agree more. :)

[FormerDittoHead]

95. Politics IS Compromise...

I thought the whole PROBLEM with Bush what that, when they win by the smallest margin, they play this "winner take all" game, they fail to "reach across", and represent ALL Americans?

Good or bad, smart or stupid, we should respect what most people want and think, not just 50.00001% of them who happen to win elections...

I'm not saying to adopt the Bush Doctrine, the exact opposite.

But when we're not willing to compromise, when we want to simply gain power and ram what we believe down the throats of the other 49.99999% who lose, we're no better than THEY are.

I firmly believe that there's PLENTY that the Democratic party stands for that the vast majority of Americans believe in and want, only they've failed to get that message out in a way that penetrates today's voter.

[ClassWarrior]

4. They're both the same thing.

Progressive is Progressive.

NGU.

[kentuck]

5. Please explain, ClassWarrior??

How are they both the same?

[ClassWarrior]

6. Both of your examples amply represent Progressive values...

Responsibility, opportunity, hope, caring. The rest is detail.

NGU.

[kentuck]

9. So we can compromise on the details ?

Of abortion, gun-rights, gay-rights, etc, and we will still be the Progressive Party?

[wyldwolf]

11. who are "we" and who decides what "progressive issues" are?

2nd Amendment rights? Boot Dean out of the party.
Abortion rights? Boot Kucinich out of the party.

[kentuck]

16. "We" are all those that are not "they"

"They" are not in agreement with you if you are part of "we". "They" are the capitalists and the war-mongerers, the tax-cutters, the Social Security reformers, the people that worship at the altar of the free market. It's really not that difficult to tell the difference between "we" and "they".

[wyldwolf]

20. ok..

I see...

Tax Cuts: Let's disassociate ourselves from John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. They cut taxes for upper income brackets.

War Mongers: Let's get rid of the FDR tradition, who built our military up tenfold and entered WWII.

Social security reform? Kennedy again.

"The Social Security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in times of stress. But it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -- JFK, June 30, 1961

[kentuck]

25. I could have sworn I heard that on Rush Limbaugh?

To argue that since John Kennedy cut taxes from 90% to 70% is the same as Reagan cutting taxes from 70% to 28% is pure Repub bullshit. Are you a firm believer in the miracles of the free market also?

And the same goes for the comparison of the Iraq War with WWII. They are not the same and have nothing to do with maintaining a strong defense. The issue is do you preemptively invade another country in an act of raw aggression? And then compare it to WWII?

[wyldwolf]

30. Did I provide those stats?

... as always, those of your political persuasion love to hear themselves speak, yet dodge, divert, and spin when challenged.

..then ultimately resort to strawmen.

You said "We" are not tax cutters, yet history clearly shows Democrats have cut taxes that have benefited the wealthy.

You then throw a new point in - free markets - without answering to anything previously posted. (By the way, capitalism is a liberal concept - it just isn't a soialist/communist one.)

You made ZERO comparisons between Iraq and WWII but said Republicans are for strong national defense when in fact Democrats have been more so.

[kentuck]

34. I re-read your post...

and I don't know what the hell you are trying to say, if not what I responded to. I thought I responded quite well. :)

[wyldwolf]

39. I simply said, and I was clear...

..that Democrats have cut taxes to the benefit of the wealthy.

Certainly not to the extent Bush has, but they still have cut taxes.

However, your point was that only Republicans are tax cutters, which is absurd.

Perhaps you can figure out how much Democrats can cut taxes and still be a democrat, then edit your post and include that info.

[kentuck]

40. Sorry you misinterpreted.

My illogical response.

[ClassWarrior]

49. I didn't say that. The details - the issues - are battles to be fought...

...amongst ourselves. If we're talking about reforming the party, then first things first: we need to take down the Radical RW. And that battle is fought on values.

Responsibility, opportunity, hope, and caring.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

72. What Unites Progressives, by George Lakoff...

“Progressives tend to talk about programs. But programs are not what most Americans want to know about. Most Americans want to know what you stand for, whether your values are their values, what your principles are, what direction you want to take the country in. In public discourse, values trump programs, principles trump programs, policy directions trump programs. I believe that values, principles and policy directions are exactly the things that can unite progressives, if they are crafted properly. The reason that they can unite us is that they stand conceptually above all the things that divide us.”

(“Don’t Think of an Elephant,” Chelsea Green Publishing, http://www.chelseagreen.com)

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

81. No response, ken?

NGU.

[kentuck]

85. "...if they are crafted properly...."

the key phrase, in my opinion. I see it as an ineptness of Democrats to communicate, call it "framing" or whatever. It shouldn't be that complicated. Sometims it seems they have been in Washington for so long, they are afraid to speak in plain terms, that are not couched in political protectiveness....

[ClassWarrior]

89. But the first step in good framing...

...is realizing that this battle is being fought over values, not issues. Which brings us back to my original point. It really doesn't matter how good you are at crafting a message - if it's the wrong message.

NGU.

[VioletLake]

12. They're not the same from an ethical perspective. n/t

[leftofthedial]

7. yes, we need to rebuild from the bottom up

the "top" has become so corrupted by corporate cash and by sleeping with the enemy that they are incapable of being the opposition party.

We need to stop trying to "convert" repukes by running right of center. We need to engage the half of Murkans who no longer vote because there is no longer any reason for them to vote. We can only do this by recommitting to our progressive ideals.

[Kahuna]

96. The half of Murkans who never vote, never have voted to my knowledge..

Or to anyone else's. The half of Murkans who don't vote don't want to vote. Period. Stop trying to spin reasons why half of America chooses not to vote. You have no way of knowing why they don't vote. Therefore, it can only be assumed because they just don't want to.

[wyldwolf]

8. or...

we can build up our Party as the workers Party, not opposed to reasonable 2nd Amendment rights, not opposed to certain restrictions on abortion rights, and supportive of the "war on terror" and in-step with the Democrats like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson on the issue of a strong defense. We can stress moderation on Janet Jackson-type incidents and present a more moral stature for the American public. Also, we can stop allowing the right to frame the debate on issues like gay-rights groups and the gay-marriage issue. Plus, we can present our Party as the Party of fiscal responsibility.

In addition, we can continue the strong Democratic tradition of Church state seperation, speaking up for the oppressed and the minorities in our society. We can be for strong worker rights and healthcare for all. We can speak out for opportunity for all and the continued right of women to choose what they do with their bodies.

We can challenge the fringe elements of the party to contribute without giving into their demands of "our way or we hit the highway."

Yeah, that's the party I want to continue to support.

[kentuck]

10. Can we also support Bush's judicial appointments?

Or do we compromise and support only half of them?

[wyldwolf]

14. was that in your post?

Why not speak to the points I raised?

For example, your against a strong defense? Then you oppose the policies of every Democratic president since at least FDR.

[kentuck]

18. Is speaking out against "military industrial complex" anti- strong defense

Is that what you interpreted as "anti- strong defense"?

[wyldwolf]

21. that isn't what you said

You equated a strong defense with Republicans.

Democrats have a much stronger national defense tradition.

But, of course, you keep avoiding my points.

[kentuck]

27. I am not avoiding anything...

I am simply trying to keep up with your points. Yes, the Democratic Party has been much stronger than Repubs on defense. And I can give you examples. Look at how the Repubs criticized Clinton for not doing anything about the Khobar Towers or the USS Cole. Look at how many Americans died. Look at how Reagan stupidly put the Marines into Beirut and saw 241 of them massacred in the car bombing. Look at how George W Bush was asleep at the wheel, and even after a warning, permitted the WTC and Pentagon to be attacked, killing about 3000 people? So, yes, I think there are numerous examples that we can show that prove Democrats are better at maintaining a strong defense than Repubs. As for the appointment of judges, that was not in my initial post, so we can pretend that is not a reality we will have to deal with...

[wyldwolf]

36. you're doing a poor job of it then...

I am simply trying to keep up with your points.

Let's review, then:

In your first post, you implied that "real" democrats were not opposed to 2nd Amendment rights, not opposed to certain restrictions on abortion, not supportive of the "war on terror," and in step with Republicans on a strong national defense.

I replied and said all of those points you consider not democratic traditions were, in fact, democratic traditions.

You ignored this in your next reply, went off topic, and mentioned Bush's judicial nominess.

I then pointed out, the first time, that you had ignored my points.

You then tried to change the subject again - and what you meant - on defense and mentioned the Military Industrial Complex - which isn't the same as a strong military.

So, finally - if you're only concern is Bush's judicial nominees - why this strawman broadbrush approach to arriving at it?

[kentuck]

42. I hope everyone was not as confused as you ....

by my post. It was a juxtaposition of viewpoints, not a discussion of one is right or one is wrong. You chose that interpretation.

[wyldwolf]

46. and you resort to ad hominem again

I think when people post divisive posts, the temporarily forget that DU is a big tent and there is bound to be someone who will disagree.

Your post was very clear on where you believe issues are divided - left and right.

[kentuck]

48. And you chose the right side to defend...

Fair enough.

[wyldwolf]

50. and you choose ad hominem again because you simply...

..cannot debate on facts.

[kentuck]

52. It's the liberal media's fault....

Mommy, he's calling me names agian.

[wyldwolf]

53. easy

Just like the far right - get called on your facts, I mean, "opinions" and you buckle.

[kentuck]

55. Distort and deceive....

Have you thought of the Republican Party?

[wyldwolf]

60. I've demonstrated where you have buckled in this thread

..now show me where I've distorted and deceived.

Remember: We can only go on what you have posted, not what you might now say you MEANT.

[kentuck]

62. You have demonstrated nothing.

Let the readers decide for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

67. right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1453087&mesg_id=1453232&page=

Obvious you couldn't stick to your convictions once scrutinized, so you kept dodging.

[kentuck]

70. does a little comma "," matter to you?

Here is what I wrote:
"...and supportive of the "war on terror" and in-step with the Republicans on the issue of a strong defense.."

There is no comma after "war on terror" as you put in your post - attempting to make two issues out of the one in my post. My point being that Dmeocrats that support the "war on terror" because they believe somehow that makes them "strong on defense" like the Repubs pretend to be. Perhaps I need to spell it out more clearly?

And in the juxtaposition, I mention Democrats that against the military industrial complex and against the "war on terror". Do you interpret that to mean they are weak on "national defense"? I did not mean it that way at all. Just for the record.

[wyldwolf]

74. does the word "and" matter to you?

Apples and oranges? Two things
war on terror and strong defense? two things.

[kentuck]

83. Nuts and bolts are not the same as apples and oranges....

They are inclusive - not exclusive. Just as the "war on terror" and "strong defense" have been used inclusively, not exclusively. But at least, you are thinking.... :)

[x_y_no]

69. Well, just one reader's opinion ...

I think you helped him demostrate it admirably.

[kentuck]

71. Thank you x_y_no.....

I will remember you next Xmas... :)

[Ken Burch]

33. Does being for "a strong defense" HAVE to mean

being for everything the Pentagon wants without question? Does it have to mean supporting any military intervention without question?

[wyldwolf]

37. of course not. Who is saying that here?

The original poster equated a strong national defense with Republicans. Period.

[kentuck]

56. Wrong.

Again.

[wyldwolf]

61. Correct... Again

Quote from you:

"...supportive of the "war on terror" and in-step with the Republicans on the issue of a strong defense.

Remember, we can only go on what you've posted, not what you might have MEANT to post.

[kentuck]

64. supportive of the war on terror in-step with the Repubs....

on the issue of strong defense does not mean there is a "real" war or that either is "strong on defense". It's the "issue" of a strong defense - not a strong defense per se... and "supportive of the war on terror does not make one "strong on defense"...There is a differene. sorry if it is too nuanced.

[wyldwolf]

66. wrong

Again.

You framed the war on terror and a strong defense as two seperate issues.

Which they are.

But they are both legitimate issues.

[kentuck]

73. Incorrect...

I meant it as one. I intentionally did not put a comma between the two - as you did in your response.

[wyldwolf]

76. but you put "and"

apples and oranges, two things.

[kentuck]

87. See post #83...

The "and" does not automatically make two separate issues...for example, nuts and bolts, devils and demons....not necessarily two different issues....but, if I put a comma between them such as nuts, bolts, devils, and demons....they are all individualized.... :)

[Ken Burch]

57. That was the old LBJ/Scoop Jackson assumption

That supporting a "strong national defense" meant unquestioningly supporting the hardest-line most inflexible notions of "strong defense" possible. That it meant destroying the village to save it. That it meant sending the Marines into Santo Domingo. That no one was considered a supporter of a "strong national defense" unless they checked their mind and their conscience at the door.

I'm saying we need to find a way to be strong without being psychotic.
Without doing the kinds of things Johnson and Daley did in Chicago.

[wyldwolf]

63. I agree 100% with you

I don't, however, equate a strong defense with agreeing on the Iraq war or that a strong defense is a Republican issue.

[Ken Burch]

78. Good to hear that.

But now we need to come up with a strong, but progressive, defense policy.

[Ken Burch]

113. Which we need to couple with a redefinition of "American interests"...

I propose that we define America's global interests as being

Economies of all nations being open to trade with justice and with decency.

Our interests should be based on achieving a world in which people throughout the earth have a right to

1)A living wage

2)Decent working conditions

3)A full education for their children

4)Dignity and respect for all

and
5)A clean environment,

so that

with that living wage they may purchase goods and services from our country, as well as other countries,

which all will produce while being treated with dignity respect

and that a clean environment and safe working conditions they would

also be guaranteed that they will live to go on producing and

consuming, and creating and living in dignity, for many years to come.

For these economic interests, we should be fight, rather than the interests the US has traditionally fought for.

And on the question of terrorism

We should define our interests as being the elimination of terrorism and also its root causes, with the achievement of a just and unbiased peace in the Middle East as the primary objective.

We should support local efforts at democratization, but on local terms and without imposing our notions of how it should be achieved and what it should include (for example, the western notion that democracy must be accompanied by Western-style capitalism and privatizion.)

These are just a few ideas to start with.

[ElectroPrincess]

13. Regrets but after carefully considering your posts over the

past month: I must admit, even "my ass" isn't buying what the DLC has to sell.

Yes, I know - "Don't let the door hit me there." LOL

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElectroPrincess]

24. "When will this glorious left wing coup occur?"

Perhaps it may take as long as 2006 ... after you and your DNC buddies have your political asses handed to you?

I sincerely hope (and privately pray) that there will be enough left of what was The Democratic Party to renew it's TRUE values.

Yes, it will take years for us to get back to caring about "the little people" (the lower 98% economically), but the passage of time balances all movements toward the center.

[wyldwolf]

26. HA! It WASN'T your final comment!

Perhaps it may take as long as 2006 ... after you and your DNC buddies have your political asses handed to you?

So, the left wing will orchestrate this? How so?

I sincerely hope (and privately pray) that there will be enough left of what was The Democratic Party to renew it's TRUE values.

I think you have a misguided and romanticized impression of the Dem party history.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

116. On the gun thing...

part of the problem is that the pro-gun people are completely
unwilling to compromise. Most Democrats, I suspect, would probably say,"ok, we don't really want to make people give up their hunting rifles and stuff. It's the semi-automatic and automatic weapons and the heavy duty handguns we want to crack down on."

But the NRA types start going into the "slippery slope" thing, where
and ground given up on their part is seen as tantamount to surrender.

The only thing they will accept is complete capitulation to everyone having the right to have an armory big enough to keep a Third World junta in power.

As the political tradition that has suffered more from assassainations
than any other in this country, could we ever give in and go pro-gun without dishonoring JFK, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, RFK, John Lennon and so many others?

This is a tough one, folks.

[outraged2]

22. populism

The party needs to remember the People - the workers, minorities, women, children, and what matters to them - affordable housing, decent schools child care, safe food and agriculture, job protections, civil liberties, tax issues, healthcare and the like. These things have all been completely ignored for far too long. If the party would stop reacting to the wedge issues and put some time and energy on the things that affect people directly, I believe it would make a HUGE difference. Most of the stuff that ordinary people care about is never mentioned by the politicians and so these folks don't even bother to participate or are forced to decide on these emotional issues (abortion, gay rights, et al) that have little bearing on their lives and reality.

[Cheswick2.0]

79. I agree, it is all about populism

[Moderate Dem]

29. When did the far left decide who is a Democrat?>

Last I heard, the Democrats were for looking after the Working Man, Civil Rights, and helping those less fortunate contribute to society.

When did this universally appealing philosophy get hijacked into a party that seems more concerned with Nativity Scenes than national defense, and pissing off the vast majority of the people who are natural Democratic voters?

What many here fail to see is that the far left is seen by most Americans as a corresponding fringe to the Judge Roy Moores and the Jerry Falwells.

Do you want to win for a change? Become Democrats again, highlight every rightwing loon out there just like the right highlighted every leftwing loon out there. They did it a whole lot more effectively than we did.

One more thing. Whether you agree with Micheael Moore or not (I did to some extent), send him an engraved invitiation to join the Green Party, it will win us millions more votes next time.

Face it. The right made the left look like a bunch of whiny communists. We failed to make them look like Storm Troopers. That in a nutshell is why we lost, and it is why we will continue to lose unless we get it together.

[kentuck]

31. The far left hasn't decided....

History and the issues have decided. Although I see a lot of merit in what you say, you frame it in a very Republican way. For example, you say, "When did this universally appealing philosophy get hijacked into a party that seems more concerned with Nativity Scenes than national defense, and pissing off the vast majority of the people who are natural Democratic voters?"

Since when have we become more concerned with Nativity Scenes than with national defense? And do you think the Iraq War is part of our "national defense"?

[Moderate Dem]

38. Respectfully, I frame it in a realistic way...

No, I don't think that Democrats care much about Nativity scenes, but I am speaking about the way we were framed as a group by the right wing. My view of Iraq is probably more in line with John Kerry's than most people here, but that's not my point.

Here's my take on it. Did America as a whole recoil from the BS spewed by Limbaugh, Hannity, Falwell and Pat Robertson? No, they didn't, at least not all that much. Did America as a whole recoil from Michael Moore? Not completely, but a whole lot more than they did from the right wingers. Why is that? The answer, in my opinion, is that we got outplayed and out hustled by Karl Rove, et al.

The Dad who sued to get God taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance? That was a really small, insignificant issue, but by the time Rove was finished, all Democrats wanted to outlaw Jesus. See my point?

Again, that's why we lost. I think that we could have won on the issues, but we got pushed into a very unsavory corner, and we'd better take steps to stop that from happening again.

[kentuck]

47. It sounds as if you think we may need to change the way we frame...

the issues?

But if that is the case, why would we need to change the issues in any way? By the way, I agree that we are handicapped when it comes to communicating with the American people. I cannot understand why our elected Representatives are so inept at defining the issues. They sound like they have an anvil tied around their tongues.

[Moderate Dem]

54. Thank you vey much for the debate...

Our core issues are fine, I believe in most of them, and most Americans would too, if we could rely on only the issues.

However, when we are made to look like we represent every crackpot out there throwing Molotov Cocktails at a WTO meeting, we lose even on the "good" issues we champion.

Example: Why didn't we hear much from Judge Roy Moore this year? He's one of the craziest Republicans out there, but he virtually disappeared. I contend that he was told to shut the fuck up until after the election. Maybe he understood that he IS an extremist, and the best deal he could get was when his "moderate" friends won the election. After the election, he announced that he will consider running for Governor of Alabama. Funny how that works, huh?

I am merely saying that we need the same kind of party discipline. I admire Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, for example, but they allowed themselves to be vilified by the right wing to the point that they became poster children for the "scary left wing freaks". I'm not saying it was right, or fair. Next time they need to work in the background, raising money, support, or whatever.

We need to put Roy Moore on the front page this time.

[Geek_Girl]

111. John Kerry allowed himself to be Vilified by the right wing

as a baby killer and opportunist who shot himself to get out of Vietnam, perhaps we should tell him to shut the fuck up. Perhaps we should tell Clinton to shut the fuck up since he was vilified by the right wing as a pervert and sexual degenerate. Perhaps every single democrat thats been vilified by the right should just shut the fuck up and stay out of politics. :eyes:

I guess the point is Republicans are very good at vilifying democrats in general.

[Zhade]

75. Framing messages like Kentuck's as "far left" IS a Republican framing.

NT!

[greenohio]

80. Ahh, the old, you sound like a republican...

because you disagree with me tactic. Never saw that coming.

[Moderate Dem]

88. I most certainly did not

"frame" Kentuck's answer as "far left".

[Zhade]

110. I reread your post, and you're right, you didn't.

I think I replied to the wrong post! You have my sincere apologies.

[ulysses]

100. we got outplayed by Karl Rove, so the answer is...

to ask Michael Moore to leave the party?

That'll work. Sure.

[wyldwolf]

44. why do you continue..

... to equate national defense with the Iraq war?

Why not just say, "I'm for a strong military but not the Iraq war?"

[Moderate Dem]

51. You've got Kerry's picture in your post...

But you seem to disagree with his stand on the Iraq War.

The way I see it:

There was indeed a conceivable geopolitical strategy for going to war in Iraq that had nothing to do with WMDs. You know, create a democracy in the Middle East, a nation friendlier to Israel, etc. I'm not saying it was the BEST strategy, but it did make a certain amount of sense, since Saddam was a (sort of) world pariah, who had thumbed his nose at the UN and others. That being said, I believe (as does Kerry, who was still a Democrat last time I checked) that the War, for better or worse, was screwed up right from the disatrous diplomatic failures in the prewar period, all the way to the horribly planned post war strategy.

I also believe that this is the mainstream Democratic view of the war. Am I wrong?

[wyldwolf]

65. good explanation

I, too, recognize the truth in what you say.

Where I differ is that we had more important things than Iraq.

And there was probaby a much better way to achieve the desired goal.

[Moderate Dem]

68. I agree that we had more important things than Iraq...

For one, we should have done more in Afghanistan, and against terror worldwide.

I was just saying that there was indeed a strategy there, for better or worse.

[Ken Burch]

35. Bullshit on the comment on Michael Moore

People who hate him are right wing on everything. None of them are even going to ever think of voting for us.

[Moderate Dem]

41. That is flat out untrue...

How can you judge a manipulated public perception and twist it like that? Many Democrats were embarrassed, not by the things he said (well, the conspiracy stuff was pretty nuts), but by the way he was MADE TO LOOK like an arrogant, America hating traitor.

Remember nuance?

[Ken Burch]

58. Nuance? Fine. The answer THEN is

to defend Michael where he is right and rebut the attacks on him. There is no reason to think kicking him out would gain us a single vote. No one will be an enthusiastic, passionate Democratic voter if the party is not a passionate, active movement.

[charlie]

43. Ol' Mike gets hosed coming and going

People around here used to get all goggle-eyed and spit at the mention of his name, because his support for the Greens "cost Gore the election." This time he goes balls-out for Clark and Kerry and for that crime he's getting a crapload of nasty disinvites from the party.

[Turbo]

91. Lifelong Democrats who work in my office think Moore is....

a raving lunatic.

While some might agree with his enthusiasm, they cringed with embarassment at many of the things he said, I'm afraid. And these people are dyed in the wool, lifelong Democrats, I kid you not.

Especially when he calls the US a terrorist nation, and that maybe more causualties in Iraq is what's needed to teach us a lesson.

We will never become a mainstream party again unless with learn to control people like MOore, who tick off many of the older rank and file union types with his anti-American diatribe.

[Obviousman]

45. I don't like the first option

The best place to start is to pick up the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Dare we even call it fiscal conservatism? If we want play the name game, lets call it that and fool the sheeple. I know many are opposed to giving up a pro-choice stance, but if we did, Democrats would be the true Pro-Life party.
We could be anti-war,anti-death penalty, anti-gun. I don't want to start an argument over abortion, all I'm saying is that from a purely political perspective, this would allow us to paint the republicans as anti-life (which we know they already are) and irresponsible when it came to money. Add to this our continued support for workers rights and personal freedom.

[Q]

59. You just described the two factions of the Democratic party...

...but only one has a chance of being the 'party of the people'.

[Zhade]

77. And it sure isn't the first faction.

I'm actually glad the DLC is showing its true colors via the pro-choice debate. I see more and more people waking up to their sellout nature, and all the DLCers in the world can't stop them from being pissed about it.

Good growing pains, IMIO.

[greenohio]

82. Hmmm, must be the 2nd one then.

Thanks for the hint.

I really appreciate Dean saying we need to embrace pro-lifers. Do you think he is a DLC plant? Of course now Pelosi is saying the same thing. Maybe she is DLC too. My God, is there anyone left?

[w13rd0]

84. To quote many a pastor or priest....

...you can embrace the sinner without partaking in the sin. We can embrace those who are TRULLY pro-life, and see opposition to abortion as one facet of their being pro-life (along with strong education, health care, child welfare, quality of life for the sick and the elderly, anti-war), without compromising on our platform support of protection of womens reproductive rights.

Dean talks about embracing those who are trully pro-life (as above).

Some in the DNC, and the leadership of the DLC, are advocating adoption (no pun intended) of those embraced as leaders of the party, and letting them dictate policy on these matters.

[greenohio]

86. Uh huh. Keep the separation between church and state...

So Al From is saying this? Is this posted policy on the DLC website? Link please. I want to learn.

Give it up. If a DLCer said we should "embrace pro-lifers" the "hate fellow Dems" crowd would be screaming bloody murder.

[w13rd0]

94. And like most of you DLC interns...

...you fail to mention that Dean added TRULY into that statement, as in TRULY pro-life (anti-war, anti-death penalty; i.e. consistent), thus making it a perfectly acceptable statement for the, as you call them, "hate fellow Dems", or as I call them, the "fed up with losing due to the neodem no-principle having Republican enabling DLC" crowd...

[greenohio]

97. Ahh, how some Dean interns only see what they want

to see about H. Dean:

"Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, said the Democrats should "embrace" antiabortion voters and expand the term "pro-life" to such social issues as providing for children's medical care. "I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. . . . We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue,"

Whatever.

I can only assume that he pays well.

[w13rd0]

98. MY F'N GOD MAN!

You quote the passage, can't you read? "embrace" and EXPAND. It's like M$ "embrace and extend". Yeah, embrace them, and say, "we'd like to see those that claim to value life treasure the entire life cycle, not just pre-birth and post-death"...

you know what, no, you can't read. "embrace and extend" vs. "embrace and adopt". If you can't recognize the difference, nothing I say is going to change that.

You only assume he pays well because you consider principles for sale apparently, I do not.

[greenohio]

108. Who Dean? Figures.

"as in TRULY pro-life (anti-war, anti-death penalty; i.e. consistent)"

Dean wasn't talking about anti-war (because he is not, he is just anti Iraq war), anti-death penalty, or any of that. The post clearly states

anti abortion, which Dean says you should embrace. Have you been embracing them?

[w13rd0]

112. FOF n/t

[greenohio]

114. Friend of a Friend? Fell on the floor? Feeling over Feisty?

Feasting on Fritos?

[Turbo]

90. In your first paragraph, you ...

advocate a party not opposed to 2nd amendment rights, and in your 2nd paragraph you advocate support for "some type of gun control for automatic military weapons on the streets (which by the way are already illegal)

You also advocate building a party not opposed to restrictions on abortion rights, but also advocate letting women continue the right to choose what they do with their bodies.

In one breath, you are open to the idea of distancing from gay rights, and in the next breath you think morality has nothing to do with gay rights.

In other words, you are promoting "two ways" to build up the Democratic party, both of which are diametrically opposed to each other.

No offense, but how are we to be believed if we simply flip a coin and choose which stance we will take.

[kentuck]

93. Exactly !

"In other words, you are promoting "two ways" to build up the Democratic party, both of which are diametrically opposed to each other."

I'm glad you picked that up... :)

[Lizzie Borden]

92. NO!

I'm sick of this.

[StopDiggingTheHole]

99. No, just shake off the fringe elements that scare the electorate

I personally know about 7 million voters that feel they are being locked out of their recreational choices by public land closures and other limits that restrict their access to motorizing on the many unused forest roads and other trails that have been tank-trapped to keep them out.

Seven million votes can go a long way in an election.

[ulysses]

101. ROFL!

You personally know seven million people? :D

Keep posting. You're fun.

[StopDiggingTheHole]

102. No, not personally...I just read the off-road mags and other press you mis

There has been a growing crowd of off-roaders that have been losing mile after mile of land they used to be able to traverse.

I'm only sharing an observation here and not trying to start a fight. Please be polite.

[ulysses]

103. you just called folks who want to protect wilderness areas

from ATVs "fringe". I *am* being polite. :D

I could start a fight if you like. We have the raw materials at hand. :evilgrin:

[StopDiggingTheHole]

104. No, I'm not discussing wilderness areas

They should be protected as always. If you see where I mentioned wilderness areas then please point it out. I am discussing areas where existing motorized access is allowed but being closed parcel by parcel based on lawsuits with the most ridiculous reasons possible used to keep the most quiet four-stroke clean vehicles out.

[ulysses]

105. ok, my bad, but what

the hell does that have to do with the Democratic Party and "fringe elements"?

[StopDiggingTheHole]

107. It's hard to describe to someone that does not not enjoy motorized

recreation but I'll try...

I grew up in a 100% Dem family and was also your basic motor head off-roader that loved traversing the state and federal lands on my dirtbike and snowmobiles. Over the years folks like me have seen our access closed due to too many nitpicking reasons that local judges have ruled were good enough to lock us out.

One simple and easy to understand case was the Teton and Yellowstone asphalt roads that are left with snow on them in the Winter so we could ride the 40 miles to see Old Faithful in the Winter (it's beautiful).

It was decided that snowcoaches (polluting 10x the amount of the new modern 4-stroke snowmobiles) were to be allowed to used the roads and the newer and cleaner snowmobiles were to be banned. No logic, no reason and only hatred toward snowmobilers was used to make this rule. he millions of snowmobilers I mention are being educated to this fact by many of the off-road mags that normally stayed out of politics. In this case it was so obvious that we are getting railroaded by mostly Democrats pushing this foolishness that it is hurting our party by pissing off millions of our voters.

It's time to step back and really ask why we are doing something as foolish as banning people that are doing less harm than that which we approve.

[Skittles]

109. aw, shame we won't let those assholes ruin land for recreation

and voters who vote based on whether or not they can snowmobile or not are always gonna be stupid enough to vote repug

[Ken Burch]

117. OK, but do those 7 million voters

have any views that aren't right wing? aren't most of the people who want to take ATV's into public lands the same people who want to clear cut the old-growth forests and drain all the wetlands?
And aren't the people who want that also basically radically anti-union, anti-gay and anti-feminist?

I'd like us to get 7 million more votes, but are these particular 7 million reachable without us going to the right of George Wallace?
If so, what would the approach to them be?

[eg101]

106. to change America, you have to alter the political zeitgeist

Politicians do not alter the political zeitgeist; they leverage it.

If you want to change America, change the political zeitgeist. Make rural swing state and early primary voters think that a progressive candidate can win. THe primary voters in 2004 voted for DLC Dems like Kerry, dean, clark, gephardt, et al because they thought they could win.

Forget about changing the party.Change the political perspective of early primary voters, and the politicians will follow. They are opportunists. THey run to daylight. The media and the rightwing propaganda machine created daylight to the Right. So that is where all succecssful politicians run--to the Right.

If you want America to move Left, create daylight to the Left. And if early Demcratic primary voters think a really progressive candidate can get nominated and can win, they will vote for him. After all, we do know that most Democratic voters are more liberal/progressive than the candidates and the politicians.

Just convince swing state and early primary voters that progressives can win. But you have to do this totally independent of any campaign or politician. Start now. Go to these particular voters. THe Democratic party voters in the big cities in the swing states and blue states are already on board. We just have to convince enough rural swing state and early primary voters that progressive, liberal Democrats can win.

Enough idolizing and white-knighting of politicians. PLease!

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.