DLC: DEMOCRAT PARTY SUICIDE BY ANOTHER NAME

[ulTRAX]

Don't you wish the Democratic Party actually stood for something? It would rather game a dysfunctional 2 party system than push for democratic reforms. It moves to the Right and further alienates the Progressives. It confuses constituency issues with principle.... in fact I can find no positive reason to be a Democrat except as the lesser of the evils.

If the DLC gets its way this trend will only get worse.

At SOME point the dolts at the DNC have to realize that it's a strategic blunder to NOT try to educate the American People on a progressive agenda because it increasingly forces Dems to work within a framework created by the Right. It's suicide by a thousand tiny cuts. Where are their brains?

Take the last election. Kerry worked almost entirely within the Right's framework of fiscal irresponsibility. He did nothing to expose the Right's strangle the beast agenda... he did nothing to explain the shell game that is the federal budget... he did nothing to explain how we MUST get to a true budget surplus to pay back SS IOUs... and Kerry did not even use the true Bush deficit numbers because he was playing the same dishonest numbers game with his deficit reduction plan.

Essentially Kerry and the Dems thought it better to pander than educate. They conceded these issues to the Right and failed to inoculate the American People about what the Right is truly up to. This gives the Right a pass for two maybe four years.

HOW IS THAT GOING TO BUILD UP THE PARTY? HOW IS THIS GOING TO STOP THE RIGHT?

Too many are taken in by the DLC's call to moderation... ie a move to the right. Yet let's not forget that this certainly did NOT help Clinton win a majority in 92... he only won about 43% in a three way race... and Dole wasn't much competition in 96.

It's a strategic blunder of historic proportions NOT to push your agenda and to inoculate your political base against the nonsense from the other side. Yet this is what the Dems are foolishly doing.

[kentuck]

1. It's definitely a mistake not to push our own agenda....

I agree.

[Lostnote03]

2. lmao....Hello Ultrax!!!.....I hope to be the first to reply...

....Life is too short to be a Dem By Default!!!!......I feel that I will be repeating that slogan often because I too am fed up with Democratic timidity.....Election Reform/Health care and btw an Illegal fucking invasion that absolutly distracts from the long term security of our nations energy reform....In any case best wishes

[Lostnote03]

3. Kerry is such an eloquent spokesman as well as a track record...

...I feel that he should have used the liar/fraud words a lil more often....Yes we are in Historical Days and the current salespeople for the Party appear to be hanging out at the water cooler instead of unifying a coherant oppositional strategy and demanding to heard....

[ulTRAX]

6. Kerry May Be Eloquent.....

Greetings LN... ;-)

Kerry may be eloquent but what good did it do him if he censored his own message? Generally I thought he ran a terrible campaign.... and his refusal to deal straight on the issues I mentioned are just a few examples.

What I want is a politician to deal straight with the People. Yes, it's easier to evade, pander, mislead, or lie but it's all for a short term gain. Sabotaging the political intelligence of the American People over the long term is a dangerous game in which we all will lose because it leads to even MORE evasion and pandering. We see that now in all the issues Dems are afraid to touch. The moral cowardice of this Party is already sickening. And the DLC wants to move further down this path?

[Lostnote03]

8. It's easiest to simply tell the truth!!!!.....Kerry attempted to clarify!!

...the media enhanced version of his waffling on the Iraqi resolution however I believe did him in!!!....He should have publicly demanded media accountablity.....Dean attempted to softly preempt the medias compliance however he was out early on.....Kerry had the Populist Pulpit and fell short by not directly challenging the media as well as Bush as co-conspirators so to speak by silencing all oppositional voices.....

[ulTRAX]

11. when I mean tell the truth.....

Leaving aside Kerry's bizarre Iraq contortions... I'm thinking about simple issues like high drug prices. Kerry's plan avoided the main problem... that the pharmaceutical sector has run amok and is using more resources on duplicative research, promotion and overhead then is used to develop new drugs. So Kerry instead evaded the real issue and pushed for a lame program to speed up generics and legalize reimportation.

So if the Democrats don't tell the truth about this issue... then they are giving up ever building up a large constituency to truly solve this problem.

[pinto]

4. Thanks for your post. Expand on "constituency issues (vs) principles"

(from your post) as you see it.

I love your statement about us working under the "framework" of the right's agenda. I agree, we need to take back the debate.

(aside: the alleged suicide of the Democratic Party may be premature)

[ulTRAX]

7. where I see the difference..

I think the Dems have concentrated too much on constituency driven issues... issues important to teachers unions, women's rights, gays, trial lawyers, pro choice advocates, etc. While they are important issues... the Party is being identified more with its constituency groups and what's lost is an emphasis on more fundamental values that define the Party.

The idea that Dems can say they are for equality or democracy is meaningless unless it permeates ALL their thinking and proposals. I believe our two party system is inherently corrupting. The Dems... the Left generally have to undergo a periodic values clarification process to identify core values and build a coherent paradigm upon them. Here's a possible web model: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

[pinto]

10. I think I see your points. What are your suggestions, leaving the

two party system issue aside?

[ulTRAX]

14. the 2 party system is irredeemable

There's nothing sacred about our two party system. It's merely is an accidental byproduct of the politics of early federalism. Since everything was state-based... all elections were based on set states or districts within states. This means a political minority that makes up a sizable percentage of the US population is forever disenfranchised because they can never win a seat in any state/district. This, plus our winner take all elections, creates the dynamic that prevents third parties from developing.

Where's the nobility in this? Where's the nobility in a system that prevents a person from voting their conscience and being guaranteed some representation for those beliefs? Where's the nobility in a system that taxes citizens yet denies them representation?

If you think you believe in democracy... you REALLY need to think this though.

[pinto]

16. I hear you. I don't hold the 2 party system sacrosanct, tho I'm committed

Dem. Political parties are local things, in many ways. If you feel strongly about supporting a third pary, work locally. That's where it begins. And (advertisement inserted here ;-) ) I'd encourage you to check out your local Democratic Party folks to see what they're up to. Some, like all volunteer org's, need some fresh blood. Thanks for your posts. Gotta go.

[ulTRAX]

27. we need a 50 year plan to bring democracy to America...

I think the dynamics of our system doom all third party efforts. Given the immense legal and ideological obstacles... I think the battleground to dismantle this system has to begin in the states. Here's some thoughts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

[RealDems]

5. Agreement

Couldn't agree more.

The good news is that I think the DLC is at a disadvantage right now because they have lost the advantage with their three necessary tools: money, organization, and media.

You should take a look at my blog -- www.therealdems.blogspot.com. It's about that topic. The blog is for the website RealDems.org, which basically makes the case that the DLC has killed the Party, and is antithetical to everything the Party stands for.

[janx]

9. The "dolts at the DNC" ?

The DNC has members in every state! They're not dolts. I'm no fan of the DLC leadership, but I think you're giving them far too much credit and power.

Wait and see what the whole of the DNC will do.

[ulTRAX]

12. they are dolts because...

Actually the DLC is only an extreme example of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that afflicts the Party. You missed what I REALLY wrote: "At SOME point the dolts at the DNC have to realize that it's a strategic blunder to NOT try to educate the American People on a progressive agenda because it increasingly forces Dems to work within a framework created by the Right. It's suicide by a thousand tiny cuts. Where are their brains?"

[dolstein]

13. The DLC -- Artificial Resperation by Another Name

The McGovernite-Mondale Democratic Party had already attempted suicide by the time the DLC came onto the scene. The DLC was a noble effort to keep the Donkey alive despite overwhelming evidence that it was already brain dead. And Bill Clinton did appear to breathe new life into the party for a while. But since he left, it has become increasingly apparent that the delusional Democratic lefties have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from their disastrous efforts to drive the party off the political cliff in the 70s and the 80s. They are absolutely determined the finish the job and kill the party off once and for all.

[ulTRAX]

15. nonsense........ where's your creativity?

This notion that Clinton "proved" the DLC strategy correct is nonsense. Clinton did not get a majority vote in 1992. You confuse a plurality of 43% with popular appeal.

My position has never been a simple move to the Left... even though it that's essential to build up support for a Progressive agenda. I've always advocated that the ideological pie could be cut in new ways to attract voters that are currently voting GOP... but done in a way that does NOT move to the right. One wedge issue I suggested to the Kerry forum was to sell off some hard to manage marginal public lands in the west and use the proceeds to buy up threatened land in the rest of the nation. It appeals to both the Sagebrush Rebellion mob and environmentalists.

[dolstein]

17. Bill Clinton did something the fringe left never managed to do

He won a presidential election. In fact, he did so twice.

You can bitch and moan all you want, but the fact remains -- the left-wing of the Democratic Party has a pretty disastrous record in presidential elections.

[ulTRAX]

18. 50% of US citizens sit out elections

The DLC strategy just plays the cards on the table. Even then I think they could play a better hand.

50% of US citizens sit out elections. Tapping just a small percentage of them can win an election. Carl Rove knows that. Why should the Dems be blind to it?

Why are you so opposed to building a constituency for true Progressive ideas? Can it be you believe we need two Republican Parties.

[dolstein]

40. That doesn't change the fact he WON when the left couldn't

The left-wing fringe always talks about the people who don't vote, as if there's this huge vein of socialist pacifist sentiment just waiting to be tapped.

If half the people don't vote because the major parties aren't offering them left-wing red meat, why doesn't the left wing do it themselves? If you're right, then pretty soon the left-wing will have taken over the entire government.

I think it's time for the left-wing to put up or shut up.

[ulTRAX]

19. isn't the REAL issue what do we believe in?

My original post was not about winning elections in the short run... but creating a constituency for ideas we REALLY believe in the long-run. I'm sorry this simple point eludes you.

[ulysses]

20. yup, and he did so

on the fact that he's the most charismatic, capable politician of our time.

None of which has anything to do with his political stance.

[MontecitoDem]

21. We ARE the democratic party...

assuming that since you are here at DU you are a dem? We are just as much this party as anyone. Take over your local party, as we have done in my community. Some dems are more conservative then me, definitely. A few are more liberal. And yet, I want them all in my party. In fact, I NEED them in order for us to win a freaking election. See, it's 50% plus 1 that wins. And you can't do shit to change the system if you have no power to govern.

go dems!

[ulTRAX]

23. so what are you doing to reform our dysfunctional election system?

MontecitoDem wrote: "See, it's 50% plus 1 that wins. And you can't do shit to change the system if you have no power to govern."

What I see is someone so lost in our dysfunctional election system that they have forsaken such basic democratic values such as the right to vote one's conscience and get some representation.

At SOME point I'd like to think that we'd place democratic principles before our traditional blind respect for the Founders who died 200 years ago. But I know we've all been brought up to validate what the Framers did... and never question it... even if it can't deliver morally legitimate government as was the case in 2000... and 1992 for that matter.

[MontecitoDem]

25. So what should we do? Scrap the Constitution?

Is that your plan? And who will rewrite it - I'm guessing that the people holding elective office will unless you are planning some sort of revolt?

Seriously, I want to know your plan.

You can vote your conscience everytime; that is what I do as well, in every election I have voted in. (Please don't assume that people who may vote differently than you have any less belief in their choices.) But getting representation requires a majority vote, no?

Truly, I agree we need electoral reform. We need to get the money out - and we need to have a system that is reliable. We need to deflate the power of the media and political consultants and corporations. But we can't get any of that done until we hold office. Thus, my 50% plus 1 requirement!

[ulTRAX]

34. scrap the anti-democratic elements....

If we in the US claim to value democratic principles it would be evident in our behavior. We would try to flesh the concepts out and push for democratic reform consistent with those principles. If such a commitment to democratic principles is not evident... but democracy is used as window dressing then there is something higher on our hierarchy of values. In the that has been a secular religion that refuses to revisit the issues the Framers of the Constitution dealt with. Now give the problems at the time, they probably did the best they could... and there is some genius in the document. But they also created a system that perpetuated the primitive politics of 1787 and even today we have not moved past that.

I think it's time the US government moved into the modern era. There are anti-democratic elements to our Constitution that should be reformed.... the EC, the Senate, the amendment process etc. This does NOT entail gutting the Constitution. I'm generally most opposed to the concept of state suffrage. In practice it's nothing but a system of vote weighing schemes which are illegal on all other levels of government. Federal politics made the Constitution became the nation's first Affirmative Action plan handing out special power and privilege to some citizens at the expense of others based on state residence.

I'd like to see the Senate become a national parliament based on national party elections. Proportional representation is the ONLY way to break the back of the two party system. I'd like to see us move to a popular vote for president with a run-off provision so citizens can vote their conscience with out throwing the election to the minority. I'd like to see Gerrymandering abolished. The amendment process is ludicrous. Currently states with a mere 4.5% of the population can block any reform. Generally, I believe that self-government is a farce when citizens can't vote their conscience without being guaranteed some representation, when a divided majority can lose to a united minority, when 50% of the voting age population sits out elections, when up to 49% of citizens don't get any representation in a winner-take-all system.... and when some citizen's votes weigh more than others. How's that for a start?

As for a strategy to acomplish the above.... here's one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

[w4rma]

37. …

[MontecitoDem]

52. I read through the strategy you linked to but you leave out

how to accomplish the changes you want to make. Although many of your ideas I find interesting, how do you achieve them in practice? You ably point out the problems and propose solutions to those problems, but no way to make those solutions happen. That's the rub!

Also, I think you might get further in convincing others of the points you raise if you stopped accusing those of us that call ourselves Democrats of not caring about democracy (as you did in the thread you linked me to). It's both untrue and unfair. I know you are just trying to get your point across, but instead it gets lost in your tone.

I appreciated your thoughtful response to my message above. Thanks!

[ulTRAX]

104. In US we're brought up to define our anti-democratic system as democracy

MontecitoDem "I read through the strategy you linked to but you leave out how to accomplish the changes you want to make. Although many of your ideas I find interesting, how do you achieve them in practice? You ably point out the problems and propose solutions to those problems, but no way to make those solutions happen. That's the rub!""

I believe that we have to reinvent the Progressive movement... and it should start by revisiting core values. I proposed a mechanism for that here a few months back. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

I also proposed a loose model for grassroots activism: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2752753#

They go hand in had with this approach: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

As for where to start... I'd like to think it would be at a place like DU... but it's pretty clear to me that too many DUers are stuck in the Catch22 of wanting to believe they support democratic ideals yet have loyalty to a Party that opposes them. It's right up there with war=peace in Orwell's 1984.

MontecitoDem "Also, I think you might get further in convincing others of the points you raise if you stopped accusing those of us that call ourselves Democrats of not caring about democracy (as you did in the thread you linked me to). It's both untrue and unfair. I know you are just trying to get your point across, but instead it gets lost in your tone."

How many ways do I have to come at this point to prove it IS true? My frustration is understandable given the dense ideological blinders most Dems wear. In the US we've been brought up to define our anti-democratic system as democracy. Most don't think much past what they learned in 4th grade history.

That's why I keep trying to urge readers to revisit more basic democratic ideals and critique our system through THAT lens. How blind can Americans be to live in a world FULL of nations that DO take the concept of democracy seriously enough to want to improve it... while the US plods along with an anti-democratic and dysfunctional 2 party system that gives some citizens a heavier vote than others... deprives citizens the right to vote their conscience and be represented... and allows for minority rule? Hell, most Dems still blame Kate Harris and the USSC for Gore losing in 2000 when the FULL blame goes to the that anti-democratic star chamber called the Electoral College and not having a provision for run-off voting.

[zulchzulu]

22. More clueless Kerry-bashing wankerisms

Read this about Kerry's stance on the deficit:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0408.html

This clueless, cross-eyed tendency on DU to bash Kerry when the person has no clue what they are talking about or are too lazy to do their homework before they spew lies is getting tiresome.

What's even funnier is that thinking that if the DLC moves more "to the left" (which is an utterly vague and subjective prologue) that the Democrats will win more elections. America by most assumptions is pretty moderate...

[ulTRAX]

24. Kerry's deficit reduction plan was a joke

I was a regular at the Kerry forums and I repeatedly advocated that Kerry use the correct Bush deficit numbers. When I realized this would never happen I understood that Kerry also wanted to use the same bogus "unified deficit" numbers for his deficit reduction plan. By not including the 155 borrowed from the federal trust funds, Kerry gave himself a 155 billion cushion to pretend he'd balanced the budget.

Aren't you yet tired of your candidates deliberately misleading you?

If they can't tell the truth about a matter as clear as the federal deficit... why should they be trusted on other issues?

[zulchzulu]

31. OK...so what would you suggest?

I'm guessing you want universal healthcare (which would cost trillions) and want to cut the defense budget in half (it would never happen) and possibly balance the budget (which is now skyrocketing and out of control)...

Kerry's plan was not perfect and he would have inherited Bush's boondoggles, but he did have a plan...which is completely counter to your suggestion that he didn't have one or didn't talk about it...

So what would you suggest on the deficit...what would you cut...what would you fund... then let's compare that with Kerry's plan.

[ulTRAX]

35. I didn't say he Kerry didn't have a plan...

I didn't say Kerry didn't have a plan.... I said his plan was a joke. He planned to cut the deficit in half in 5 years... but

1: Kerry was NOT using honest deficit numbers. He was using the unified deficit numbers which didn't include 155 Billion being borrowed from the federal trust funds. That's just sleazy to play this game. If we're EVER to pay down the debt it has to be from a surplus in ON-BUDGET revenues. After 20 years of trying to fix Voodoo Economics Clinton only got to a grand total of 90 Billion in on-budget surpluses before Bush sabotaged debt paydown. So even if by Kerry's plan he got rid of the deficit... we'd still be borrowing some 155 Billion.
2: the economy was certain to pick up increasing revenues...
3: there were immense one-time expenditures on Iraq. So the deficit baseline was further skewed upward.

I'll get to your other points later.

[zulchzulu]

42. Maybe if Kerry had hired Rubin...

...either way, I think Kerry did what he could with a deficit plan that offer some solutions as well as was regarded as a realistic effort that would obviously have to relooked at if Kerry had gotten in this time.

If Kerry had run on a platform where he was going to cut everything and cut some more (like he'd have to if he wanted a balanced budget in 8 years), he'd have gotten hammered for that by all sides.

You should check out this story and audio link:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/economics_7-26.html

[ulTRAX]

96. we have to demand honesty from Dems.....

The issue I raised is that Kerry refused to educate the People about federal budget issues. By using the unified budget numbers he not only gave himself a cushion to CLAIM a balanced budget when it was still 150 billion in the red. In doing so he also gave Bush a get out of jail free card. Since debt paydown and repaying those SS IOUs depends on a surplus in ON-budget revenues. Kerry should have been out there bashing Bush using the REAL numbers to wake the American People up... that since about 1960... we've only had about 90 billion in true on-budget revenue surplus in FY99 and FY00. That's it! Yet Bush's on-budget deficit just for FY04 was about 570 Billion... not the 413 Billion figure used in the news.... or by Dems.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[OneBlueSky]

26. tain't suicide, McGee . . . it's murder . . .

the DLC is nothing but a BushCo/corporatocracy back door into the Democratic Party . . . their way of insuring that the Dems don't oppose them on the really important stuff . . . and, if necessary, for destroying the the Democrats as the opposition party . . .

[ulTRAX]

29. not all stupidity need be a conspiracy

I can understand why some Dems felt that after defeats in 72 and 84 that the liberal message was flawed... but it might have been bad delivery... or weak candidates. Better to rethink those issues than rush to give up the soul of a Party. We can't forget the DLC strategy did NOT deliver Clinton a majority in 92. He only got 43% of the vote.

[MaineDem]

28. DemocratIC Party

I know it appears to be a small issue but the GOP make Democrat an adjective and we can't stoop to their level.

[ulTRAX]

30. I think it'd be GREAT if Democrats Finally Stood For Democracy

But, alas, Democrats use the term for window dressing. They actually prefer gaming a dysfunctional two party system... thus maintaining an anti-democratic system.... than working for common sense democratic reforms such as abolishing the EC and Gerrymandering... IRV and proportional representation.

[Q]

32. The DLC's 'battle plan' for 2004

"...New Democrats have a battle plan for 2004. It's based on the three-part strategy offered by Bill Clinton -- the last Democrat to beat an incumbent president -- for how a candidate could do it again:

1) reassure voters that he'll keep what they like about George Bush;

2) tell them some things they don't know about George Bush -- and wouldn't like if they did; and

3) show what he'll give them that a second Bush administration won't.

This formula means matching Bush's strength on national security; making him run on his dreadful record on just about everything else; and offering a progressive agenda to meet the challenges of economic growth and social progress that this administration has ignored.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=251947

[eg101]

33. The Democratic Party DOES stand for something

You have a good idea of what the party is all about just looking at what has happened over the past 24 hours: Ted Kennedy gave a speech that was widely reported in the media. I posted the google news URL here. Over 100 news stories covering his speech. Everyone in the party knows about it. In his speech, he called for Democrats to do some very specific things and support some very specific goals, things which almost ALL other industrialized Western nations have been doing for YEARS, even decades, namely: universal healthcare and tuition-free college. THat is what Kennedy called for in his speech a day ago.

And what has happened since then? NOTHING! Have any other prominent Democrats risen to the challenge of Kennedy's clarion call? Have any prominent Demcratic activists or bloggers risen to the challenge? Has anyone of that type said so much as a thing about it?

No! Not a thing! You have the irrefutable evidence right here in front of you. So now you can see what the party is all about, and what it stands for. This is what the party is all about. Empty campaign speeches. Lies. Hypocrisy. Holding onto power.

[ulTRAX]

51. did you notice..........

Did you notice that of all the things Teddy mentioned there was not one word about true democratic reforms? But hey... Teddy belongs to one of the most anti-democratic representative bodies on the planet.

Just because he's corrupted by the anti-democratic paradigm of US federalism doesn't mean we have to be.

[eg101]

68. I am not sure what you mean

Are one of those voting fraud people? You want kennedy to put that before all else? I disagree. I do not think there was voting fraud. The final results were perfectly in line with the nationwide polls right before the election.

[ulTRAX]

86. I mean TRUE democrtatic reforms........

I mean reforms that put into practice some basic democratic principles such as

* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.

[Zhade]

36. Kick

kick

[marcologico]

38. Where are you getting these totally uninformed talking points? KOS? nt

[ulTRAX]

39. please give some thought to your posts........

ya you!

[marcologico]

41. Your characterization of Kerry is completely uninformed. Did you watch a

single debate? I'm serious, where are you getting this crap?

p.s. Kerry talked about jobs, outsourcing, health care for workers, raising the minimum wage, the whole nine yards EVERY SINGLE DAY of the campaign. What were you listening to?

[Tinoire]

43. An imbroglio of flip flops that Kerry supporters kept calling "codespeak"

There wasn't enough kool-aid in the tent to decipher that codespeak. Some drank it all leaving none for the rest of us ;)

[marcologico]

46. What are you talking about? n/t

[Tinoire]

47. Not to worry.. Those who suffered all the weak translations understand

;)

We outright had Kerry supporters saying he was "speaking in code". The most hilarious translations were while pushing the very embarrassing conspiracy theory that Kerry was going to challenge this election and have a last minute "surprise" for everyone ;)

[marcologico]

50. He might surprise us yet!

:toast:

[ulTRAX]

48. DIRECT CHALLENGE

This is what I said: "Take the last election. Kerry worked almost entirely within the Right's framework of fiscal irresponsibility. He did nothing to expose the Right's strangle the beast agenda... he did nothing to explain the shell game that is the federal budget... he did nothing to explain how we MUST get to a true budget surplus to pay back SS IOUs... and Kerry did not even use the true Bush deficit numbers because he was playing the same dishonest numbers game with his deficit reduction plan."

So let's see.... you are ignoring the issues I raised... presumably because you can't find any evidence to prove what I said is wrong... and you are and diverting attention to issues I did NOT raise.... presumably because you can't deal with Kerry's faults.

DIRECT CHALLENGE... please show me ANYTIME Kerry or Edwards used the correct estimates for the TRUE Bush04 deficit. Back in September it was estimated at about 574 billion. Here's some posts of mine on these topic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x762606
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x584889
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x769290

[marcologico]

49. I guess you didn't watch the debates. Kerry talked about the deficit, he

explained his plan to fix it (closing corporate loopholes and rolling back taxcuts on families with incomes over $200,000), and he talked about NOT screwing around with Social Security.

Anyway this stuff is still up on his website last time I checked so why don't you get informed?

[ulTRAX]

53. you have ignored my challenge.......

I know damn well what Kerry's position was.

I issued you a direct challenge... and you have failed to meet it. Instead you continue your lame diversions.

[marcologico]

54. You're quibbling over the estimate? There's a bazillion estimates. n/t

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[ulTRAX]

65. more claims... still no proof

Usually this sort of nonsense goes on debating RR'tards who make claims they can't back up... or when they are cornered, they become like quicksilver... stuck between the facts and not having the integrity to admit they are wrong. Thanks for proving a point I've made here numerous times: the Right has no monopoly on irrationality.

[ulTRAX]

72. more nonsense

By September 04 the estimates of the FY04 deficit were VERY accurate because there was only a few weeks left to go in FY04. So this objection is your reason that explains why Kerry refused to mention the TRUE Bush deficit during the campaign? THIS explains why Kerry gave Bush credit for 155 billion being borrowed from the trust funds and pretended it was revenue?

[Tinoire]

44. Because the DLC thinks that if it's nice to corporations,

corporations will dump the Republicans in favor of the only other party.

DLC Centrism assumes that if Democrats move to the right the Republicans are going to stand still. Somebody, please get me the name of their dealer!

[marcologico]

45. Nothing to do with corporations. And if Dean has a better way to get swing

votes he's keeping it a secret. Hint: Iowa.

[Eloriel]

67. Sorry, Iowa was a rigged game -- as you've been told before

So quit trotting it out.

I don't know how well Dean would've done on his own, but I'd like to see it once, wouldn't you? Or perhaps not. Perhaps you aren't one of those Dems for whom Fair Play, Honesty and Integrity -- EVEN in running elections -- are key values -- ????

They are for me. I agree with Jesse Jackson, Sr. 110%:

We can live with winning and losing. We cannot live with fraud and stealing.

Not even when the fraud, dirty tricks and stealing on our side.

[marcologico]

84. Iowa rigged? Get your terms straight. Legal politicking is not "rigging"

it's politics. There were no voting machines, no "fraud," just retail on-the-ground politics, and in that game Dean got flattened. Sorry to be blunt.

[ulTRAX]

59. right on!

If the Dems keep moving to the Right... it only undermines a Progressive agenda because it fails to develop a constituency for it. Instead it validates a framework created by the Right because increasingly their assumptions underly the political debate.

[trezic]

55. Last I checked, the DLC had won 2 elections and leftists 0

You can have a problem with the DLC's economic premises. I do.

You can have a problem with them toning down the rants on social issues. I don't.

You can't deny the fact leftists lose, and lose convincingly. McGovern = took one state. Mondale = same. Even Alf Landon, running against FDR in 1936 took TWO.

Social issues kill the Democratic party. It's time to recognize that gay marriage, affirmative action, and abortion are critically unimportant issues when placed next to economic elitism. You won't pass shit if you don't fix the fundamental economic problems. At least the DLC recognizes this little tidbit of wisdom, which too many leftists refuse to do.

[eg101]

56. are you familiar with the word "pyrrhic"?

Just for you, I am gonna put a real fine point on it: Clinton's wins were losses for America, just like the wins of Bush I and 2 and Reagan were losses for America.

I really don't give a tumbling, flying monkey-crap whether the Democratic party wins or loses. What I want is a better country. Can ya dig that?

[trezic]

61. Question for you

Leftists hijacking the national party from the 70s onward is the definition of pyrrhic. Ideological purity and a record string of losses for all!

What's better, some of what you want or none?

[eg101]

76. yeah yer right! Git that there LBJ back in office

He killed millions of them there vietnamese! We need a rightwing Dem like him in office.

Your conclusory statements are just that. Saying that Leftists have been in control of the party since the 70s has no basis in reality.

[trezic]

78. Eh?

Leftists haven't been in control of the party, eh?

See, to my mind, there's 4 main divisions of the political spectrum (note I said main, there are subdivisions of each). You have the left, the center-left, the center-right, and the right.

1. Left. Outgrowth of the 60s. More interested with ideological purity than with reality. Focuses on social issues almost exclusively. An example of the focus of the left is the caucus system in congress which has a place for business, women, gays, blacks, etc. but no place for people like me (irish catholic southerner). The left rebelled against the then-dominant wing of the Democratic Party, the center-left, and effectively purged most of their chairman in the mid 70s. The dominant issues of the left are abortion, affirmative action, environmentalism, gay issues, and the like. The issues the left tends to be less interested in are economic, other than issuing pro-forma denunciations of corporate greed. Dovish in the extreme. Examples = Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton (halfway, story of his life), Jesse Jackson

2. Center-left. Associated with the golden age of American liberalism (1932-68). Some mix of economic and social policy, though weight is primarily given to economic. Defined by the old Democratic alliance of the South and northern Catholics. Socially moderate-conservative and economically moderate-liberal. Fairly comfortable with the necessity and use of the national security state. Dominated American politics for two generations until overthrown by the left in the mid 70s. The center-left was willing to trade social policy for economic policy if the economic policy was threatened. Examples = none are left

The accomplishments of the left in the last 30 years are negligible. Nothing compares to Social Security, AAA, GI Bill, home ownership, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, or Medicare. The party has lost for 30 years running on social issues. I only argue against more of the same.

P.S. Center-right = Republicans you can work with. Right = Republicans with a direct pipeline to God.

[ulTRAX]

66. since when is 43% a win?

Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 92 in a three way race against an unpopular president is hardly an endorsement.

There are many variables other than the LDC strategy in play. For instance I don't think Mondale, Dole, Kerry were effective candidates against an incumbent. Any incumbent would probably have lost in 80 given how the shit hit the fan.

[trezic]

73. The fact remains

that no leftist candidate has yet to win any presidential election. Moving to the left is reinforcing a failed strategy, not the formula for a winning one.

The way to win is to capture the middle and hold it vigorously. This is how presidents from FDR to LBJ won. Rather than run middle, govern left, the Democratic Party needs to focus on win middle, govern middle. Neither extreme works very well when it comes to governance.

[ulTRAX]

80. have to disagree

The trick is not to rush to the middle... it's to attract the middle WITHOUT selling your soul.

[ulTRAX]

81. I have to disagree 2

The other trick is to have a compelling enough message that attracts more voters into the system.

If the DLC strategy was such a slam-dunk... Clinton would have received a majority of the vote in 1992. In reality he got about 43% of the vote in a three way race. It represented 55.1% voting age population.... so Clinton got about 23% of the VAP... or about 33% of the total of registered voters.

Is THIS your idea of a successful strategy?

[klyon]

58. Enough Republican Light color me green

KL

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[ulTRAX]

90. WHY was this message removed?

I archived this thread and there was nothing wrong with it.

deignan (146 posts) Sun Jan-16-05 04:26 PM
Response to Original message

62. On that line ..
I was wondering the same thing myself.

There is the beginning of my look at the problem with replies at Reforming the Party http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=296x58 to Win with a test poll of the feasibility of bringing along the most problematic constituency at A Hypothetical Choice http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x615 with a follow up poll at Party Support http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x756

There is a very interesting context that frames the problem presented in a political affiliation-personality study at Info Theory http://www.info-theory.blogspot.com/. In short, the core of the parties think differently (and so process information/arguments differently).

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[eg101]

69. All these bush-obsessed haters around here are driving me crazy

I agree with you. What we really should be doing is what you said--creating an economic plan for moving America forward, and not an economic plan that is simply a pale copy of the GOP plan. We need a plan for the Left, not the right. The problem is that the Democrats who get on TV are all rightwingers economically, almost without exception.

[ulTRAX]

91. WHY was this message removed?

Here's the original.... I see nothing wrong with it:

deignan (146 posts) Sun Jan-16-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
63. More radical thinking

It's not the point to "stop the right"; the point should be to make the right an irrelevancy.

There is a different line of thought that needs to be adopted. You essentially have to be of two minds to see it, but the possibilities are great. In fact, it is the only lasting winning solution in the US.

Concentrate on meaning and let meaning drive the logic.

[Redleg]

70. Is this your only spiel? Or do you sometimes criticize Rethugs instead of

just Dems?

[ulTRAX]

71. why do I want to help the GOP?

My record of bashing the GOP is pretty well established. Want some links? But this isn't a mixed crowd. It's mostly Dems.

I'm here to advocate for those progressive ideals I believe in.... not to be a cheering section for a Party I think is morally and intellectually bankrupt and stands in the way of what I believe in. I'm not going to give the Dems a get out of jail card on its lack of principle, manipulation of voters, or hypocrisy just because philosophically I'm closer to being a Dem than a GOPer. I want the Party to confront its faults, dig itself out of its own rut, and stand for something.

So what's YOUR plan? What do YOU put first... dedication to progressive ideals or dedication to a dysfunctional political party that has forsaken those ideas?

[Q]

74. Don't concern yourself with those who intimate...

...that you're a GOP 'plant' or 'Dem basher'. They do this to anyone who dares challenge the party they think can do no wrong. And like the Right calls anyone against the Iraq invasion a 'Saddam lover'....the Left does the same thing sometimes in questioning your loyalty to the party.

You're where I was about two or so years ago on this board. I started out defending everything the Dem leadership did...no matter how destructive to the party or our nation. But four years of Bush with little or no opposition has led me and many others to believe that something is seriously wrong with the leadership.

There will be no confronting of faults as long as those in control of the party and their followers believe that they're faultless.

[ulTRAX]

79. It's hard to have any respect for such people

It's hard to have any respect for people who place loyalty to a dysfunctional and anti-democratic two party system or a morally bankrupt Party above true Progressive principles.

[Redleg]

82. How the fuck do you know what I value?

I get tired of you "I'm more liberally pure than you" types out there who think the rest of us have no values worth considering.

[ulTRAX]

85. OK.... then just what DO you value?

Let's put this to the test... do you believe in the following principles:

* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.

I don't mean do you CLAIM to value each.... but are you actively working toward the implementation of each, seeking to identify and overcome obstacles to implementation? Please post links to posts where you place those values over Party loyalty.

[Redleg]

87. I don't have to make any profession of faith to you...

But I will tell you what I stand for- but I don't insist that all "real Dems" think the same way.

1. To save time, I agree with the points you listed regarding voting.
2. I also believe that we need to do more to help people in poor communities vote without having to wait 4 hours or to use broken-down machines.
3. I believe we need to strive to make our economic system much more fair to working people. Virtually all of Bush's economic "plans" reduce the tax burden on the wealthy and place it on the middle and poor Americans. I do not support "free trade" as I do "fair trade." I believe we should bolster Social Security by removing the cap on FICA or at least raising it to $200,000 or more. Supply-side economics are a bunch of bullshit and almost always benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor and working people.
4. I support reproductive rights.
5. I believe in separation of church and state.

I could go on and on but my baby is crying.

[ulTRAX]

88. sounds like evasion

You asked how did I know what you believed and though it was obvious from your first post, I gave you a chance to prove me wrong. Instead you EVADED the central issue here... party loyalty vs loyalty to principle.

Here's my challenge again... let me highlight some words to make this even more clear

"Let's put this to the test... do you believe in the following principles:
* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.

I don't mean do you CLAIM to value each.... but are you ACTIVELY working toward the implementation of each, seeking to identify and overcome obstacles to implementation? Please POST LINKS to posts where you place those values over Party loyalty."

You're refusing to come to grips with your core contradictions: you can't REALLY support those principles AND be comfortable in a Democratic Party that rejects them. The sad fact is Dems only give lip service to democracy and democratic values. It's like the Right pretending they believe in Original Intent even as they bastardize the Constitution. It's a rather common pathology. Most want some great principle they can wrap themselves to give themselves the illusion of nobility or credibility... even as they work to undermine that principle. The true test is in their behavior not their claims.

[Redleg]

92. How dare you stereotype Dems this way.

I quote: "The sad fact is Dems only give lip service to democracy and democratic values." This is an outrageous and spurious statement about Dems and suggests to me that your negative attitude towards Dems causes you to selectively attend to information that confirms your hypotheses. Implying that my own beliefs underlie a pathology is not only insulting but begs a damned good thrashing.

I owe you no explanations- and besides, who are you to determine what principles Dems or anyone else but yourself should strive for politically?

My work for democracy occurs outside of the DU forums and is no business of yours.

You may vote for any candidate you wish to vote for. I don't give a flying god-damn. I support your right to support third-party candidates, to give them money, and to vote for them if you dislike Dems so much. Perhaps you would then feel more comfortable at a site other than Democratic Underground.

[ulTRAX]

94. thanks for proving my point.......

Thanks for proving my point that people who place party loyalty over principle rarely can admit that. It's a classic battle between self-esteem and intellectual integrity. Everyone wants to believe they stand for the right things. Typically the internal contradictions get papered and they are never challenged. When they are they have two choices... to deal with the contradictions or bury them deeper. Evasion mixed with aggressiveness is a sure sign of the latter.

[Redleg]

101. And you proved mine- you don't really care what we have to say.

You didn't address the points I made- you simply said that my response confirmed your beliefs.

I think your attempt to psycho-analyze would be laughable if you weren't so earnest about it. You see pathology where none exists- we all, including you, engage in all kinds of perceptual defenses and cognitive shortcuts in order to maintain cognitive consistency and to reduce cognitive dissonance. These actions are not pathologies but rather ways of coping with difficult realities. Certainly one can be quite out of touch with reality (as subjective as reality is) but I believe I am not one of them and will disagree with anyone who suggests otherwise.

I think you and I probably have a great deal in common, at least in terms of how we see the direction of the Dem party. I have often pointed out my disagreements with particular Democratic officials. I do believe that Dems who seek to be "Republican Lite" will ultimately end up losing elections and compromising any principles they shared with the progressive aspects of the Democratic party. As much as I am angry and frustrated with the lack of spine and progressive vision in some of our Dem elected officials, I am not convinced that the many detractors at DU have the right answers either.

It is very easy to criticize, I have done so myself, but it is very hard to convince people that you know a better way. Perhaps instead of dismissing us as people of low self-esteem and as out of touch, you might try some less divisive methods. As you probably know, when you make personal attacks on a person's beliefs or social identity, you should expect that they will respond in kind. When you attack the Dem party as a bunch of losers, Republican Lite, delusional, or whatever, how do you expect Dems to respond to you? I will try to take my own advice in the future.

Peace

[ulTRAX]

102. that was most amusing

Redleg: "And you proved mine- you don't really care what we have to say. You didn't address the points I made- you simply said that my response confirmed your beliefs.

Your points? Oh... you mean those made to divert attention from my challenge to you? Here's the exchange:
=================================================
ulTRAX (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-17-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. It's hard to have any respect for such people
It's hard to have any respect for people who place loyalty to a dysfunctional and anti-democratic two party system or a morally bankrupt Party above true Progressive principles.

Redleg (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-17-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. How the fuck do you know what I value?
Edited on Mon Jan-17-05 12:10 PM by Redleg
I get tired of you "I'm more liberally pure than you" types out there who think the rest of us have no values worth considering.

ulTRAX (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-17-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. OK.... then just what DO you value?
Let's put this to the test... do you believe in the following principles:
* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.
I don't mean do you CLAIM to value each.... but are you actively working toward the implementation of each, seeking to identify and overcome obstacles to implementation? Please post links to posts where you place those values over Party loyalty.
==============================================
I gave you a chance to prove me unfair with a simple challenge. You evaded the challenge and raised some diversionary issues. Now you're claiming that my not falling for the diversions and merely trying to get back to the original topic somehow vindicates you?

That is most amusing.

[Redleg]

105. Did you read my post? I offered an olive branch and you slapped me across

the face with it. You once again failed to respond in a meaningful way to my last message.

Another point- you said: "I don't mean do you CLAIM to value each.... but are you actively working toward the implementation of each, seeking to identify and overcome obstacles to implementation? Please post links to posts where you place those values over Party loyalty."

Are you saying I can show how I "actively" work toward those principles by posting links to my posts at DU? How in the world is posting at DU actively working on anything?

I see no purpose in posting links to my posts dealing with those matters. You are the accuser- it is therefore up to you to prove me wrong.

I don't need to answer to your litmus test- you are not the arbiter of what it means to be a Democrat, progressive, liberal or anything else. I will waste no more time addressing your pseudo-intellectual ramblings.

[ulTRAX]

106. If you truly wanted a truce

I didn't see the peace offer as genuine. I felt if you truly wanted a truce you would not have begun by rewriting the history of this thread. Once you did I had to respond.

My point about claiming to value X and actually valuing X is a simple matter of behavior. Maybe it will be clearer using the Right as an example. The Right claims it's against Affirmative Action because it believes no group should be given special advantage by the government at the expense of another. Yet if they TRULY believe that principle... it would become a filter in which to evaluate their other positions. They would soon come to the realization that the Constitution is a giant Affirmative Action plan granting special rights and powers based upon state residence. That they do not recognize this contradiction means their state reason for opposing AA is a smokescreen for some other explanation.... and we know what that is: racial politics.

Similarly, the Democrats can claim they value democracy... yet there's just no evidence they care enough to even define it. It's just a badge of honor that groups like Dean's DFA wears. If they DID value democracy... we'd see it in their critique of the system and the goals they set for themselves. But the DFA goals... and those of the Democratic Party are to game a dysfunctional system... not to bring true democratic reforms... at least not in the sense of other advanced industrial democracies.... proportional representation, IRV, multi-party systems etc.

I'm no arbiter of what it means to be a Democrat nor have I pretended to be. I'm only pointing out people, groups or Parties that claim to value democracy yet support an anti-democratic system are as rife with contradictions as is the Right. How much is due to cluelessness vs outright hypocrisy is another matter.

I hope that helps explain my position.

[Redleg]

107. I get your position- espoused values must be backed up by enacted values.

I agree with you on that point that it is a matter of behavior. I disagree when you seem to imply that all Dems are guilty of not backing their words up with deeds. Surely there are Dems who work very hard to ensure democratic processes work in this country? I do agree that many of our Dem "leaders" have abandoned some of the key principles of what it means to be a Democrat. We need to kick them in their asses or kick them out of office.

I hope to god that Dems take the opportunity presented by this year's election debacle to strive to fix at least the voting situation- reduce voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, get better machines that can be verified, etc. The proportional representation issue will have to be resolved through a constitutional ammendment.

[ulTRAX]

108. we differ in our definition of democracy

Democracy is more than working to avoid voter intimidation and to insure there's enough voting machines. It's more than trying to limit big money in campaigns. It's a doctrine about the moral legitimacy of government. All the Democratic Party is working to do is smooth the rough edges off an anti-democratic system. It prefers to game this system than reform it. There's no real commitment to democratic values we see in other advanced democracies.

Yes... proportional representation, instant run-off voting, and ensuring all votes weigh the same on the federal level would require a constitutional amendment. I think the legal and ideological hurdles are so great that Progressives need to develop a 50 year plan and begin the process in the states http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

If there were an inkling of real democratic sensibilities in the Democratic Party they would have these issues on their platform and you'd hear these issues come up in ads/speeches/debates/. What is the most we've heard? Dean and Hillary talking about the EC? No President since Carter has called for abolishing it. And where the mention of reforming the Senate or the amendment process... or state suffrage generally? The Party cares so little about democracy they don't even try to define it.

So how can this shameful record on pursuing REAL democratic reforms be reconciled with how democracy is have become such a popular buzz word in Democratic circles? It can't.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

[Redleg]

109. I guess they don't see the problems as you do.

Or perhaps they don't see how they can change the "system."

I agree that these initiatives you speak of are important and will take 50 years to accomplish.

[ulTRAX]

112. A journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step

And in the US that journey toward a more democratic system begins with the Democrats, the party where such reforms SHOULD be coming from, confronting its own contradictions. The Dems and even their progressive wing really need to revisit basic political values... build a paradigm upon which to critique the current system and propose reforms... set goals and identify the obstacles. Problem is that the Democratic IS an obstacle to progressive reform.

BTW... we seem to have had this discussion before:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430548#1431811

[Redleg]

83. Did I say you wanted to help the GOP?

Go read what I wrote.

[ulTRAX]

89. I know what you wrote......

But it's obvious you have no idea why I responded as I did.

I criticize the Democratic Party because the way to strengthen it is NOT to excuse its hypocrisy or gloss over its contradictions... and to oppose its moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

The way to strengthen it is to get it to reinvent itself... to find some core values it supports. I'm not talking about paying lip service to values. But to build a internally coherent paradigm around those values upon which policies are built. The Party has to have a vested interest in the intelligence and rationality of the American Voter... not in the opposite. It has to be a Party that stands for principle and honesty... not a Party that tries to hoodwink voters as Kerry did... especially budget issues.

My original post in this thread is consistent with the above.

[Redleg]

93. How did Kerry try to hoodwink the voters?

By the way, there is a 10-year moratorium on using the word "paradigm."

[ulTRAX]

95. Kerry wasn't honest about....

Kerry wasn't honest about budget issues. For instance he refused to ever give the correct Bush deficit number... referring to it as "record deficits" or at his site they used the unified budget numbers. Why is this important? Because debt paydown and being able to pay back all those SS IOUs has to come from a surplus of ON-budget revenues. Since about 1960 the only on-budget surplus was under Clinton and totaled only about 90 Billion. The way Kerry was calculating his deficit reduction plan was to pretend that the unified budget WAS the budget. So he gave himself 150 billion cushion by pretending it was not not a loan. That's not an oversight... this was deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. In the process Kerry missed a chance to educate the American People on budget issues. Now that he lost, there will be that much less public resistance to Bush's budget lies.

[eg101]

75. yeah! Why does he Hate America!?

tell him to get in line and support the party. Never mind that they don't support him unless he is a yuppie.....

[CWebster]

77. I hear you

Gore actually beat Bush--with the burden of the Clinton scandals, a rabid Rightwing attack machine--and a lousy campaign that didn't gear up until the closing hours. Kerry lost the popular vote AFTER we experienced the extent of the damage of the Bush administration.

[mattclearing]

97. Democrat is not an adjective.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=296x186

[ulTRAX]

98. where's the democracy in the Democratic Party?

You wrote in that other thread: "Democrat is not an adjective. I keep having to say this, so maybe it should be its own thread. It's the Democratic Party. Always has been, always will be. Republicans snidely refer to it as the Democrat Party in order to imply that we are somehow less than democratic. It's important that we avoid letting their language creep into our speech. It legitimizes their warped point of view."

Gee... I thought it was Dems who were calling themselves the Democrat Party to avoid the confusion that they might actually support democracy.

The problem is that the word democracy has been reduced to a buzz word that Dems can use even though they don't practice it. Those who DO value democracy or democratic principles will at least go out of their way to define what it means... then base policies upon it. In other threads I've offered a few basic democratic principles such as:
* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.

If one actually believes in the above they'd see that the Democrat Party is AWOL on democracy. It would rather game our anti-democratic and dysfunctional 2 party system than push for real democratic reforms.

[mattclearing]

99. I agree with some of that, but saying "Democrat Party" is insulting.

People in the Democratic Party have actually expressed support for those things you have mentioned, which is more than you can say for the Republican Party, which is the one that tends to refer to us as the "Democrat Party."

If the Democratic Party weren't in the minority right now, there's a decent chance some of those reforms would be supported, and might be made.

Calling it the "Democrat Party" is insulting and rude to those of us in the Democratic Party who agree with you and actually support the kinds of reform you are referring to.

Please try to understand that just because our Party doesn't represent us perfectly now doesn't mean that we don't support Democracy. Institutional change takes time.

More voting reform has come from the Democratic Party than anywhere else in American history. I believe that will continue to be the case in the future.

[ulTRAX]

103. you're missing my point

tasteblind wrote: "People in the Democratic Party have actually expressed support for those things you have mentioned, which is more than you can say for the Republican Party, which is the one that tends to refer to us as the "Democrat Party."

This issue is not whether a few people who happen to be Democrats advocate these democratic reforms... it's whether the PARTY does.

tasteblind wrote: "If the Democratic Party weren't in the minority right now, there's a decent chance some of those reforms would be supported, and might be made."

And the proof of you hypothesis is where? Did the Dems advocate these reforms when they had a majority? Carter talked of abolishing the EC... but not making the Senate or amendment process more democratic. And if somethings a good idea... why wait until one is in power? There's NO good time to stop working on progressive ideas.

tasteblind wrote: "Calling it the "Democrat Party" is insulting and rude to those of us in the Democratic Party who agree with you and actually support the kinds of reform you are referring to."

I'm currently a Dem... though not for long. I personally believe it's Orwellian a party that supports anti-democratic government to describe
itself as democratic.

tasteblind wrote: "Please try to understand that just because our Party doesn't represent us perfectly now doesn't mean that we don't support Democracy. Institutional change takes time."

And when will the PARTY ever stand for these principles? You continue to present as "evidence" a few voices claiming they speak for a party which, in fact, opposes what they advocate.

tasteblind wrote: "More voting reform has come from the Democratic Party than anywhere else in American history. I believe that will continue to be the case in the future."

Under our system you can 100% voting age participation, 100% vote count accuracy, 100% public financeing... and the vote loser can STILL be imposed upon the American People. The Democrats are doing NOTHING to deal with the anti-democratic aspects of our federal system. I think it's safe to say that since the nation was founded... NO aspect of this system has been truly reformed. So where's the reason to hold up hopes when these issues are STILL so outside the bounds of acceptable thought that mainstream Dems never even hint at them?

[HoosierClarkie]

100. I agree

that Kerry and the Dems thought it was better to pander than to educate. I am wondering if the American people would have taken time to listen. Do we as a society have to hit rock bottom (deficits, health care, SS and etc.) before soundbites are not enough. What is rock bottom anyway? Aren't we already there? I just think as much as the Kerry camp and the Dems are to blame for the message and the framework, so are the people who do not sit still long enough to hear it.

[txaslftist]

110. Good work, Ultrax.

[Roland99]

111. Put Garrison Keillor in charge!!

Everyone, go read Homegrown Democrat.