If a Democrat doesn't understand how dangerous Bush is, they have to go.

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: If a Democrat doesn't understand how dangerous Bush is, they have to go.

Talking about professional politicians who are "Democrats." It seems to me this is the single most important criterion for being a Democrat these days. If you forgive the Republicans for impeachment, for Selection 2000, for the Iraq war, for Abu Ghraib--even for 9/11--in my opinion, you're part of the problem. If you want to "move on" and "work with Republicans," you have no business running for chair of the DNC, for Congress, for President, or for dog catcher as a Democrat. But that's just me.

[imenja]

1. Knock off the purges

This is so tired.

[BurtWorm]

3. I'm talking about purging them electorally.

Actively keeping them out of positions of power in the DNC. Not Stalinistically purging them. :eyes: I don't have the power to do that, do you? But I do believe that the number one criterion for being a Democrat should be resistance to all things Republican. Without that, the Dems are nothing. That much ought to be clear to anyone since Thursday.

[imenja]

12. Might I suggest a change in approach?

Rather than presenting this as a litmus test for qualification in your version of the Democratic Party, perhaps you might frame a question or poll that asks posters to articulate what they key values, policies, and issues that they see as central to the Democratic party. Then, how you can go about furthering that agenda?
Rather than telling others to move on, promote an agenda that you see as central to democratic values and pressure politicians to support those goals. If they don't, work for primary challengers who do represent the democratic values you believe most important. It's a more positive approach that ultimately might be more productive.

If anyone is interested in working on changing the election system, sign up through this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[leesa]

21. Yada, yada, yada. This has worked so well in the past.

[imenja]

24. excuses?

Oh, and when has being nasty persuaded someone to your point of view? Is this an excuse to sit back and promote animosity rather than actually doing anything? The favorite sport of some on these boards seems to be whom can we hate more. I prefer to work to get something done.

[Redleg]

52. Your comment is quite dismissive. Couldn't you try to understand

what this person is trying to say?

[w4rma]

27. I am in full support of a purge based on this issue. (nt)

[JohnLocke]

2. Why don't YOU run for office, then? See who the voters want.

[BurtWorm]

4. Why don't you just answer the question?

It's a poll question. Just answer the fucking thing, okay? Or don't. Thanks! :hi:

[JohnLocke]

5. Why don't you stop posting unproductive flamebait? (nt)

[BurtWorm]

6. Why is this flamebait?

Do you have a better criterion for being a Democrat? Do you not believe the Bushists are dangerous? You think Dems should "work with" them?

[JohnLocke]

9. Answers

1. "Why is this flamebait?" -- It causes division and is pointless thread #11621.
2. Do you have a better criterion for being a Democrat? -- Anyone who is a member of the Democratic Party and in general votes with the party, e.g., people to the left of Lieberman.
3. Do you not believe the Bushists are dangerous? -- No.
4. You think Dems should "work with" them? -- I think Democrats need to have balls, while also recognizing that we need to work with Republican congressmen on issues that are generally non-partisan. Yes, even if we have to make sacrifices.

[BurtWorm]

10. Thus far the "division" this topic allegedly has caused is along the line

that one person finds such topics "tired" and another seems to be incensed by it. Everyone else seems to "strongly agree." It was not my intention to offend anyone, but to propose an energizing criterion for the party, which seems to be flagging in energy and spirit lately. With all due respect, your criterion won't energize anyone.

If you don't think the Bushists are dangerous, is it because you're not paying attention? I don't see how anyone could not find these people the most serious threat to American democracy since Nixon. Did you not find Nixon dangerous?

As for working with Republicans, to me it's as though you're recommending the Social Democrats work with the Nazis in 1933. Set aside the fact that the Nazis were homicidal, racist maniacs and the Republicans are just constipated twits. Both share a drive to weaken the democracy and take more and more power for themselves. Doing anything "nice" for and with these people is collaboration, pure and simple. They don't deserve an ounce of cooperation from us or our leaders.

[Slickriddles]

38. John Locke wins Burtworm has called him a Nazi

or at least a Social Democrat who would work with the Nazis.

[BurtWorm]

39. Nice misreading.

:eyes:

[IronLionZion]

43. haha

"the Nazis were homicidal, racist maniacs and the Republicans are just constipated twits."

That's the funniest comment I've heard all day!

[Guns Aximbo]

7. I'm taking the tack that....

this is literally a cold war, that is warming up. Better choose a side because it's gonna get worse.

[Katarina]

8. Strongly agree

if you're not part of the solution than you are part of the problem.

[imenja]

11. The question is how

what are you going to do to change things? The focus needs to be on taking action, not expulsions.

[BurtWorm]

13. Expulsion of useless politicians who label themselves Democrats

is a form of action. Working toward their expulsion and their replacement with Dems who get it is a guide for action. Short of expelling them, we can certainly express our contempt for them when they say idiotic things like Schumer said about the protest on Thursday. Or when they say idiotic things like Joe "I love you, man" Biden said to Alberto "Torture is okay" Gonzales. These guys need swift kicks in the ass from the grass roots.

[imenja]

16. It is WE who need to take action

If you focus on that which you want to promote rather than those you despise, you'll ultimately be more effective. A strategy based on hostility does not readily persuade others to your point of view.
Since your concern is human rights, form a group that pressures law makers to make decisions in keeping with those values. Writing Biden and telling him why you oppose Gonzalez and how his demeanor in the confirmation hearing disappointed you because of x, y, and z....that you expect more.... will likely be more effective than telling him you have nothing but contempt for him and want to kick him in the ass. Such a letter would be discarded immediately. A more thoughtful letter will have a greater influence. There are a number of human rights groups active in the Gonzalez confirmation, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo that would be thrilled to have your passionate assistance. Assuming, of course, that you want to help change US human rights policies.

[BurtWorm]

19. You seem to be gainsaying me for the sake of gainsaying,

as are the others here who don't get THIS. Do you think I'm really suggesting we write to Biden "I have nothing but contempt for you. I want to kick your ass?" :eyes: I'm saying we don't reward them for bad actions; we punish them with angry communications when they play the part of the nice guy insiders who just want to work with the Republicans. The strategy of trying to play to the middle is NOT WORKING. Get it?! (Hint: If it worked, Republicans would not CONTROL the whole fucking government. Get it?)

Do you agree or disagree with my basic point: The Bush people are dangerous to democracy. This is not business as usual. Either you get it and fight it or you're collaborating.

[imenja]

20. " kick his ass . . . w hole fucking government, get it...."

Given the level of your discourse, how would I imagine anything else?
Obviously I believe Bush is dangerous for democracy. If I didn't, I wouldn't have volunteered hundreds of hours trying to defeat him.
My goal is to see something done to move this country in a better direction, so I suggested you channel your anger in a positive direction. Behaving intelligently and taking positive action is not "playing to the middle." It's tragic that you see it as such. It is further evidence that Republicans and the right wing media have succeeded in transforming American political culture into a series of bar fights. I suggest that such behavior is indeed collaboration, for it simply adds to the level of noise and accomplishes nothing of benefit.

[BurtWorm]

32. They're not bar fights. They're battles for the future of the democracy.

And the Republicans are winning. Maybe we should just ignore them and they'll go away.

[imenja]

44. hardly, but be smart about it.

That is what my post says. Adopt effective tactics.

[BurtWorm]

46. Who could disagree with that?

I'm all for effective tactics. I'm also for losing the ineffective tactics that have been losing Dems elections in the last decade.

[IronLionZion]

14. If you want to solve this problem

then YOU solve it. Run for office. Talk is cheap, especially on a message board.

on edit: I voted disagree

[BurtWorm]

33. So what are you doing on a message board?

;)

[IronLionZion]

40. Would you like to purge me too?

:P

I just want less infighting and more good people running for office. Somebody has to replace the folks you purge. ;)

[BurtWorm]

41. Are you in office now? Have you sucked up Republicans while in office?

Then yes! ;)

[BurtWorm]

45. Change that to "sucked up TO Republicans"

No indecent charges intended. ;)

[IronLionZion]

50. Well there was this one Republican girl...

:evilgrin:

[orpupilofnature57]

15. Along with that word,PROGRESSIVE. Sam Nunn types, getalongs

[Poppyseedman]

17. even for 9/11 ???

Reality check here.

9/11 was not the fault of any party.

Bush can and should be blamed and held accountable for many things. 9/11 isn't one of them.

Years of government shortsightedness is to blame.

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II all were part of the problem as well as several European nations and the Arab world.

Turning 9/11 into a partisan issue will most assuredly cause the terrorists an opportunity to try it again.

It is a sign of weakness.

[leesa]

22. Bush knew 9-11 was coming and did nothing. There is soooo much

evidence that Bush was involved in 9-11 it's impossible to ignore. He IS responsible. Completely.

[Poppyseedman]

29. Prove it with real evidence

I'm no fan of Bush, but to say he was involved in 9/11, that he was completely responsible just because you say so, simply ignores reality.

Carter let Iran fall into a major fundamental Islamic state, they support terrorism world wide still to this day

Reagan hightailed out of Beirut when the Marines were bombed, capitulated to the terrorists. He did stop Iran from over throwing Iraq and turning that into a Islamic state. Bush junior is well on his way to help that actually happen.

Bush I throw Saddam out of Kuwait and put troops in Saudi Arabia, fueling the Wabbis nut jobs and disdain in all the Arab world.

Clinton almost did nothing to retaliate against several attacks against us, even helped the Muslims in Kosovo, expecting some respect from the Muslim Arab world, all we got was split in our eye.

Bush junior was in office four months. He didn't have time to be responsible and screw it up.

All in all our government have been ignoring this threat for 20 years.

Let's pin Bush with some real issues. Things that can be proved to the American people.

[BurtWorm]

34. The 9/11 Report does assign much of the responsibility for the failures

of the intelligence and security structure to limit the damage on 9/11 to the Bush administration's incuriosity about, even hostility toward counterterrorism programs developed in the preceding 8 years. Of course Bush is not wholly responsible for the actual events of 9/11. But he does bare more blame for the failures than it has become polite to say in public. It's probably fruitless to harp on about Bush and 9/11, but just as 2000 lingers in the nation's subconsciousness unattended to, Bush's unspoken responsibilities for 9/11 linger as well and will for a very long time. The least a Democrat can do--and this is my main point--is not pretend (out of fear of upsetting conventional wisdom) that Bush has served us well since 9/11, because he certainly hasn't done that either.

[Poppyseedman]

18. For democracy to work

representatives need to work together. Not to cave in put their hands under the chairs and pout.

The general population likes for the government to work. Most of them are moderates on either side of the spectrum or are disinterested as long as the government is functioning.

Look at what happened when the repukes shut the government down during budget battles? It cost them big. We should not make the same mistake.

As much as it seems oblivious to people posting here, Bush will not be in office in 2008. There are battles still to be won!!!

The party cannot come across as obstructionist as surly we will be painted, if we don't work together and continue to put forth a good fight and be a positive voice for our positions.

[BurtWorm]

35. No one but you has used the words "cave in and pout."

That is certainly not what I'm suggesting is needed, in fact quite the opposite. Democrats have to act as though their leadership on these issues is necessary, even if they're out of power in the government. They need to represent the nearly 50% of us (or more) who disapprove of the direction the Republicans are taking the country. This is not obstructionism at all. It's constructionism, as opposed to what the Republicans are up to, which is destructionism, if you will.

[Jim__]

23. bushco is a disaster

I can't support asnyone who can't see that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

25. Strongly agree, but it's not just "Bush", it's the entire treasonous......

....neocon agenda which is now swallowing the "leadership" of this party just as it has the GOP.

[formernaderite]

26. Don't be so naieve....

do you actually think there are any politicians in DC who talk more than just a good game? These guys and gals schmooze and booze together regardless of party affiliation. The biggest blowhards are the biggest after hours buddies with the opposition.

Cynical perhaps, but politics is their game.

Now I agree we should vote out anyone who has decided politics is their career path. If we had term limits, voters would have to educate themselves, and the job would appeal to people actually engaged in change.

[InvisibleBallots]

28. You cannot support the GOP agenda and be a Democrat

We have our own agenda, and it's not the same agenda as the Republicans. If you want to change our agenda to be more like theirs, then you aren't a "real" Democrat in my opinion.

[greenohio]

30. Screw that united we stand stuff. Lets beat up each other.

Then we can really start winning!

[Eloriel]

31. You really should have had an "other" category -- I agree BUT

You will be hard-pressed indeed to find anyone that fits your criteria beyond, say, Cynthia McKinney.

I said to several people on Friday (when I went into town to see Howard Dean) that I really doubted that even Congressman Conyers "gets it" about voting problems -- fraud, etc., -- and indeed I was proved right today. How? By the report that he is planning to sponsor legislation to allow immigrants to run for Prez after 20 years here (or hopefully 20 years as a naturalized citizen? -- no matter).

Why is that such a big deal? Because Conyers does this, he will have handed the Presidency in '08 to Arnold Schwarzenegger on a silver platter -- and yes, vote fraud will play its part as well. I really can't imagine that's what he wants, and yet he's not thinking past the end of his nose on this subject. He doesn't GET IT. And if Conyers doesn't get it about vote fraud, hardly anyone does. (McKinney does, because she worked with some GA activists prior to her successful recent campaign.)

[BurtWorm]

37. It really does show you how far we are from having an effective

Democratic party--really, an effective resistance to the right wingers from any quarter! The day of the Boxer rebellion, some of these idiots were actually using the words "sore" and "loser" when speaking to the media. Some continue to use the words "get over it" when talking about 2000. They don't get it!

[kentuck]

36. We should have cleaned house a long time ago...

and we might not be in this mess today..

[rucky]

42. It's easier to bail, ourselves.

and a bit more realistic.

The only thing keeping me from going to the DMV to change my registration is the faint possibility that Howard Dean will get the DNC job.

[dolstein]

47. Well then, I guess a lot of DU'ers are going to have to go

All those DU'ers who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 certainly didn't understand how dangerous Bush was, even though it was pretty obvious to a lot of us.

[Senator Lamb]

48. Bill Clinton is gone then

[BurtWorm]

49. Presumably they've already gone.

[Sterling]

51. I will go further.

If the "Dem" thinks "working with" the Nazi's is a good idea they need to go. If they think our current power structure in the party is not enabling Bush they are dangerous at this late hour. We have to fix our team before we take the field again. If that does not happen before the next selection I won't be involved.