How Would YOU Fix The Democratic Party?

[Totally Committed]

Poll question: How Would YOU Fix The Democratic Party?

From what I've read here in the last couple of days, I think I can safely say we all agree that the Democratic Party, as it exists right now, needs fixing.

Finish this sentence: To fix this Party and start winning elections again, ___________________ (check the one that best reflects your opinion):

[billbuckhead]

1. Democratic party is a severely damged brand name

I think the only hope in the short run is band around the only Democrats to win in 30 years, Clintons. The Clinton brand for all it's problems is stronger than the Democratic one.

In the long run we need a new brand name without the negative connotations.

[leveymg]

2. Not nearly as damaged as the "Republican" label -

those are truly damaged goods - the GOP are having a flood sale. Don't buy the linens or the electronics.

[BlueIris]

64. Heh. You can post that again.

:-)

[acmavm]

3. We need to get rid of most of these jackals who are in Washington

just for the opportunity to further themselves and their own personal agenda.

It's called 'PUBLIC SERVICE' dammit. It's not 'STAY UNTIL I CAN PAD MY RESUME AND GET A JOB WITH A MAJOR US CORPORATION. THAT IS AFTER I'VE HELPED PASS EVERY BILL AND STATUTE I CAN IN THEIR FAVOR' service.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. Other.

Some of the suggestions are great bandaids, nothing more, and simply offer some support to an ailing party that can't be bothered to stand up on its own.

WE do NOT want a Karl Rove, just someone who can point out Rovian tactics - a fireman, in essence.
WE do NOT want to mimic the GOP, for we would be destined to fail in the same way they are doing.

We need to evaluate, and re-evaluate what our country needs, to set goals, to support ALL Americans, to promote the GENERAL Welfare, not corporate welfare and the actions of generals.

We have a lot of homework to do. We have to be able to say no. Even if some federal programs are popular, but it turns out that they do no work or are counter-productive, we need the balls to say - STOP. Let's improve or change this.

We have a lot of research, writing, and groundlevel work to do. We do not need (indeed, it would be foolish to be like the neocons, and claim that we have an answer for everything) to have a complete agenda and roadmap with every detail filled in, because, circumstances always change the reality, meaning that such a detailed plan would be worse than worthless. What we need is to show direction, intent and a willingness to adapt to circumstances, using our best experience and judgment, always remembering that America comes first - all of it. All ages, sexes, races, religions, agnostics and atheists included, regardless of backgrounds and financial standing.

[Totally Committed]

5. This is a truly outstanding post, antifaschits

Truly outstanding and to the point!

TC

[radfringe]

11. other

the dem candidates have to be willing to fight, and to fight hard for people

what we see are 1 or 2 dems standing up, speaking out and then they turn around and freaking apologize

[welshTerrier2]

21. "a lot of research, writing, and groundlevel work to do"

i completely agree that we have "a lot of research, writing, and groundlevel work to do" ...

the problem is, though, that the processes and structures necessary to achieve this are NOT being put in place ... we are truly rudderless ...

we continue to witness a party that thinks it can be driven in an ad hoc, candidate by candidate manner rather than by developing a long-term vision and building a long-term "movement" ...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. exxxxellent observation. Look at the Neocons.

They started the whole idea of stinktanks, and grabbed some huge funding over decades. heritage and others were created for that purpose.

power without responsibility; attitude and talking heads without honest criticism or analysis. Of course, our current media is incapable of dealing with it. They have a simple "Let's get opposing views and let the audience sort it out." approach. That works with an extremely well read audience. It does not work with Jose Six Cuervo Pack, nor an audience too ill-educated by what today's skules.

Worse yet, the media does not realize, recognize, or report that one of the 2 talking apes, is a fucking bigotied neoconman, bent on destroying our world as we know it. For proof, just look at some recent Creationism v. Evolution crap on Boredcast or Cable MSM. They are framing the debate as competing sciences, for cripes sake.

One thing the neoconmen did was start early, and at the ground level. They invested in research, writers, thinkers and debaters. We have not done that, thinking that we had won the debate. We erred; I just hope there is time to recover.

[renie408]

30. I don't want Karl Rove, either

But I do think we have GOT to stop being afraid to tell the truth. When I say we should fight like 'them;, I am thinking less that we need to lie, but that we need to be willing to say the ugly stuff...the truth.

[bluedawg12]

46. we need a Machiavellian to play dirty for a clean cause

no more Mr. Nice guy.

[barb162]

51. Agree with everything you say except we do need a

Rove type. When the GOP starts attacking ala swifties, we need someone who will see we just don't go on the defensive, but someone who goes on the attack. The GOP keeps using the same tactics and we keep losing because we keep going on the defensive for starters. When will we ever learn?

And we have to do something about the GOP being the party of "moral values" in the minds of the people ...there are a lot of issues the Democrats aren't addressing on that end. I think Dems have to start saying we have values too, like people being able to feed and house themselves And good jobs for all AMericans. "What's the Matter with Kansas" where the rich/ corporations have found a way for people to vote against their economic interest should be a must read for every Democrat.

There are so many issues the Democrats have to address.

[rzemanfl]

6. We need to find someone who can't button his shirt, can't decide

whether he needs to use the bathroom, etc. and run him for President?

[hobbit709]

7. My theory on campaign reform:

No candidate can spend more on the campaign than what the job pays. And anybody that WANTS the job of president should have his head publicly examined while connected to a lie detector.

[glitch]

8. Election reform: get the machines out, publicly funded campaigns ONLY

AND reform the media.

And while we are reforming elections lets add proportional representation and instant run-off voting.

All at once, and just for starters.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. Count the vote!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. you wrongly assume that there is a viable opponent.

we are not doing the job getting quality candidates in there. In Illinois, our party has the house, the senate, the gov's office, the judiciary and several of the larger cities.

And outside of the past governor's criminal trial, and Stu Levine's multi-million dollar conspiracy in charge of the Hospital construction projects in Illinois, most of the pols being indicted are Democrats, or facsimiles thereof, and let me tell you - there are a LOT of indictments and convictions happening here. Think Ohio, Kentucky, and simply label it democrat, and you get Illinois. I have lost count of dems indicted, pled guilty or tried to verdict. I can count the innocent verdicts on one hand, actually on one finger.
the vast majority have pled or been found guilty.

WHAT KIND OF CHOICE IS THAT? Between a GOP criminal or a Democrat criminal?

We need a whole new class of candidates, honest, ethical, progressive and responsive.
We do not have it now. That is why DU is so important.

[AmandaRuth]

10. imho - until we get a press who will report without

political agenda, the Dem party will never be "fixed". That and the voting machine.

So i would ask that the dems fight media consolidation, fight for the fairness doctrine, and noway nohow should a voting machine manufacturer have a bias one way or another. And paper, not vapor ballots.

I have a really really hard time understanding how the national dem party could just let a organization (diebold) who is so obviously republican just make the voting machines, with no apparent fight or protest taken to the national level.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I voted for media reform, but ......

It is much more than that. You suggest that we finish your sentence with one of your phrases (the limitation of the poll format, not you or your thought processes :) ).

I selected media reform as I see that as the single most critical issue. We need, very simply, an honest media and a clear identification and separation of fact and opinion.

In truth, we have many issues and our ascendancy is dependent on a number of them. The only you list that we really don't need is another Rove. That said, if we had a Rove and he caused us to win, I suspect not too many on our side would be bitching; humans, by nature, are hypocritical - like it or not.

[Totally Committed]

13. I was hoping to stir a debate about priorities, and

maybe inspire a few ideas.

But, you are right about the format. :)

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

29. I voted for media reform too

If the media were really doing its job--honestly, independently, fairly, covering the important events--most if not all of the other problems would take care of themselves. We'd have election reform. Guys like Rove couldn't get away with their evil deeds. We wouldn't need to worry about framing as much, or at least framing favorable to our side would get fair exposure. And most importantly, the voting public could make informed decisions, and settle at the ballot box (the way it's supposed to be) the questions about whether our party should move right or left, be run by insiders or outsiders, and all the rest.

But since none of that will ever happen, I think maybe we do need a Rove of our own.

This is gonna sound incredibly undemocratic (little "d"), but I've come to wonder lately that maybe the reason liberalism made such great progress in the past but seems sometimes stymied now, is because in the past average people were almost totally ignorant of the issues and could only elect people they respected and trusted to do what was right. Now, we have the internet and 24/7 corporate news. Far too many people think they know everything, when in fact they are relying on what is at best partial information, and more often completely wrong information provided only by the sources that reinforce the opinions they already hold, and then twisted by big-money, Madison-Avenue-style advertising, PR campaigns, and corporate-owned media manipulation. And the politicians... well, they pander to the ignorance to get elected, and put more money and effort into getting on TV and looking good than in actually saying or doing anything to educate, inform, or God forbid, take care of the real needs of their constituents.

Oh, I know. I'm looking at the past thru rose-colored glasses. There have always been a fair share of politicans who were liars and criminals. And even the honest ones no doubt had to compromise their principles from time to time for political expediency.

But still I wonder sometimes... where are the Roosevelts, the Trumans, the Wilsons, the Lincolns and Washingtons? If they exist today at all, can they get elected? Given all they'd have to go thru, can anyone expect them to try?

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Those men you mentioned at the end of your post .....

..... it seems to me where good men who had greatness thrust upon them .... except for Roosevelt. He was great to start with.

So was Kennedy.

So was Clinton.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. Agreed that Clinton was/could have been.

Roosevelt (T) actually was an interesting character, and despite being supported by corpserations, he realized the danger they posed.

Lincoln was highly unpopular, yet beloved. Many cheered after his death. He alos rose to the ocassion.

Roosevelt (F) started out great, used the idea that simply promoting a program could get the Supremes to rethink their moribound decisionmaking, but he really had problems towards the end. Yalta was a disaster, one that left us in the lurch for decades in the future. The USSR and China became problems that he was warned about, but ignored or could not understand. He was incapable at that point, and might have felt that personal charisma would win out over realism. In that, he made the same mistake as our current, deadly shrub. He should have sent an awake, aware, and able subordinate. On the other hand, picking Truman was a stroke of genius.
A common man, turned into a grand president, in the most difficult of times.


Now, we have a stubborn, spoiled, selfish fool, one who has earned the trappings of office as he sought them, but who ignored the responsibility that went with them. I wonder if mommy or daddy ever told him "no" during his formative years. He too believes that personal charm and loyalty is far more important than realism. His universe is far different than ours, and I wonder if he is even capable of understanding just how far removed from reality he is.

[Jai4WKC08]

58. Agree with both of you, but...

I guess my point is that the way things are now, the "common" voters (of those who pay attention at all) come up with extreme or regressive positions on issues, bolstered or in some cases created by misinformation from one-sided sources, who then look to find "leaders" whom they think will support those positions and implement policy accordingly. When evidence turns up that these "leaders" are corrupt, that the policies are not in their own interests, they rationalize the evidence away, or go looking for arguments that none of it's true, rather than re-evaluate the quality of the leadership.

Whereas in the past, I'm hypothesizing, the voters knew they couldn't know everything going on in government and the world, certainly not in any real-time sense, and so they had to seek out leaders they could trust and give them the authority to act. If the leaders were proven untrustworthy, they were more likely to be voted out. The system failed when the evidence of untrustworthiness could be kept from the voters, but by and large, we got a better quality of leadership.

See, I don't believe that people are any better or worse, morally, than they've ever been. They tend to care only about what touches them directly: first and foremost themselves and their family (maybe neighborhood), their pocketbooks, and to be afraid of anything different or new from what they've known all their lives, especially people who are different from themselves. They're not bad people exactly, just very narrow in perspective, consumed by the problems of their own lives, and not much inclined to look at things from another point of view. Our great leaders of the past, on the other hand, were mostly men who were better read, better travelled, and had been exposed to different people with different ideas and ideals thruout their lives. Often, they made policy and implemented programs without ever letting their constituents know what they had done.

Bottom line of my argument is that when good men are chosen because of their goodness, we get liberal, progressive government... for the most part. At least you have a better chance of having those men and women in place, so they can, as Husb said, rise to greatness if/when the situation calls for it.

But when the "rabble" (and that's why I said this is undemocratic--even quite elitist--but I'm basically talking about people who are not particularly educated and either don't spend the time or don't have the ability to research all the facts or really think things thru) votes the issues as they see them... as they choose to see them... you end up with whoever has the best PR campaign and control of the media and usually not the best interests of the country in mind.

An oversimplification, to be sure. But perhaps a factor in how the country is being run lately.

[JNelson6563]

14. Other

I can tell you that on the ground our party is weak and ineffectual. The focus always seems to be on the hopes that a great hero will come forward and save us. The reality is it's going to take many years of grunt work, party building and the like to regain what we have lost.

Julie

[Burning Water]

15. I have a question.

Naturally, it is best to elect the nominees we want in the primaries, and then elect them to office in the general election.

Suppose, however, some DLC type is the nominee. Is it better to hold your nose and vote for the SOB anyway, because he is a DEM? Or is it better to not vote to punish him for his betrayal of Democratic principles? Naturally, I do not include the Presidency in this question, the stakes are too high. But what about the Congressional, state, and local levels? Frankly, we are so far down in the numbers in Congress and the Senate, that I think it doesn't really matter much if we lose one or two more, especially if it brings the others into line. And the personal satisfaction of turning one out would be high.

But there is something inside that revolts at the thought of electing another Repuke.

Balancing it all out in my mind, I'm inclined to sit out a contest between a DLC Democrat and a Republican. Maybe vote Green, or something just to register my political instincts. But I would like to hear the opinions of others to help me finalize my decision one way or the other. Thanks.

[Onlooker]

16. The Dems need to act according to principles

The Democratic Party needs to have some clearly defined core principles. Let's compare Liberalism to Reagan Conservativism.

Reagan presented his philosophy as smaller government, family values, and lower taxes, 3 simple phrases that the politically disinterested voter could remember.

Liberals presented their vision as strong government, equal rights, and safety net, 3 simple phrses that the politically disinterested voter could remember.

Right now, the Democratic positions on everything are so convoluted and confusing that even those of us who support them aren't exactly sure what we're supporting. Now, imagine how the disinterested voter (who are majority) feels. If you're a moderate, would you vote for the Party with a message you understand or a message that you don't understand?

The Democrats need a clear and simple message that appeals to the disinterested voter, the person who does not participate in DU (or freeperland), who does not watch a lot of news, who does not have strong opinions one way or another.

[Totally Committed]

18. Do you, or does anyone here think that a specific, and

well-thought out "Democratic Contract With America" would work for us? It worked very well for the Neo-Cons, and built their movement quickly and steadily, because people felt they knew what they stood for.

I also agree with Julie that thhis is going to take years EVEN IF a hero emerges, and gets us elected again. This Party is weakest at the bottom and at the top. The rest of us need to roll up our sleeves and work to grow the Party. But, I think it needs a base to grow on. Right now the few seeds we've dropped have fallen on pavement.

So, is it... Contract with America time?

TC

[Stinky The Clown]

20. I think something 'like' that might help, but the framing will not work

Newt used the contract frame and won with it. It is too soon to use it again. We don't want to appear as 'a day late and a dollar short' copycats.

However, Newt, in his recent writings, has thrown out another frame that has just started to hit the airwaves, but has yet to get to Main Street.

Effective Government.

I posted about it here. Please read it and see what you think.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2081686

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Besides the paper ballot choice

which is an obvious I chose to go by canidate. There are some canidates who are DLCers but they're okay. I personally go by checking and researching a canidate and then make a decision. That's, to me, the best way to go.

[Syncronaut Seven]

19. If we don't get a handle on the corporate owned media and

electronic, paperless, unverifiable voting, we're sunk.

These are the critical issues, all others are secondary.

We know what the country wants, look what we got instead.

Paper, paper, paper! If our Canadian friends can do it, so can we. Anyone who suggests otherwise can can move to China, this is a democracy dammit! COUNT THE VOTE!

[primavera]

22. Not so sure, I think it may be time for a revolution

I'm reading Robert Byrd's Losing America at the moment and he's talking about the deterioration of US democratic institutions:

"The Congress's primary purpose lies in its unique capacity to publicly, and under the hot lights of full media scrutiny, sort through competing interests. Congress alone can deliberate, reconcile, apportion public treasure, and forge laws, compromises, solutions, and priorities which are compatible with our general national objectives and which promote the public good. But Congress functions less and less nowadays as a truly independent and deliberative body. Consequently, the historic, time-tested, and wise constitutional order we all profess to so revere is beginning to reallign itself accordingly. I believe our constitutional structure is increasingly in peril, and that the people's branch is in the most danger of giving way. Congress is currently excessively concerned with political party matters, raising money for campaigns, petty partisanship, and the latest opinion polls." - Sen. Robert Byrd, Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency, (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004), pg. 40.

To be honest, I'm really beginning to wonder whether our existing institutional framework and system of checks and balances is strong enough to support democracy in light of modern day realities. I don't think the framers could have imagined the world in which we now live, where elections require massive media campaigns costing hundreds of millions and corporations (who at the time were scrupulously barred from involving themselves in politics) are allowed to dominate public policy as the price tag for securing the necessary funds. I'm not sure the framers anticipated the militarization of partisan politics, where the "people's" representatives are bullied by their own party into supporting laws they know to be unwise. Even crediting them with having anticipated all of these things, I doubt they themselves were so arrogant as to assume that the safeguards they tried to forge would endure for centuries without occasional readjustment to accommodate for a changing policy environment.

In sum, I'm beginning to have grave doubts of a much more far-reaching nature; that what we're witnessing, although more dramatic at the moment owing to the megalomaniacal personality of the shrub, is part and parcel of an overall decline in the strength of US democratic institutions. Don't forget, it was Clinton who pushed for the line item veto, it's not just Repukes striving to undermine democracy in order to bolster their personal power - it's a systemic problem that crosses parties and has been geting steadily worse for decades. I'm not sure we can look forward to any appreciable improvement in the state of public policy being generated by our system of government as it currently exists. If so, where would that leave us?

[Cosmocat]

37. I am on page 100 ...

Of Byrds book right now ... He is laying out what I had known in my gut all along with this crew ... They are in an ALL OUT assault on our government as we know it ...

I agree that some things occured during BC's terms, but I think it was more of the baseline erosion that Byrd is explaining ... He was doing what each preceding president did, chipping away a little more ...

THIS CREW clearly has made a complete and nonstop assault on the system ...

I agree that the Ds are complicit in the process ... However, there still is a VERY clear fundamental difference in world views, and it is just VITAL that either side of congress gets brought back to a D majority next year, and the Ds successfully gain the presidency in 2008 ...

I disagree that with those who say the D's don't have a leader ... I think there are THREE clear leaders right now ... Hillary, Dean and Clark ... I don't see anyone else in the R party who has what they have (outside of Gingrich) in terms of intellect, integrity (not gingrich) and political savvy ... Each are stepping up in their own way even as we speak ...

I know that most here won't accept this, but Hillary is the person most capable of cleaing up the disaster that will exist in 2008 ... I don't buy that she is not electable as president, but I WILL buy that Dean or Clark might be surer bets ...

I think Dean or Clark pres/Hillary vice would be a VERY strong duo in 2008 ... This is not to say that a lot of the people that folks here favor are not quality party members ... Just that right now, these three are the studs ...

[StudentOfDarrow]

23. All of the above,

except the second and third last.

[ulysses]

24. of these options, #1

People before corporations.

[dhinojosa]

25. IT'S NOT BROKEN!!!!

Sheesh. Way to give joy to the republican party, defeatist.

[Totally Committed]

28. For something that ain't broken, it sure isn't working very well!

I am not a defeatist, I'm a REALIST. And I don't think even the Republicans "peeking" here now give a rat's ass what I say... they have thought our Party broken for years now, because they think they broke it.

I don't know what would give them that idea... Maybe it's the fact that they control the three arms of the Federal Government, and are about to install a Supreme Court that will make sure their influence is felt, even if they never win another election cycle for 50 years.

DO NOT sit there and call names. If you want to live in your delusion... fine. But, let the rest of us who want our Party to govern again, figure out how to accomplish that. You have a fine mind, and this discussion could benefit from your input, dhinojosa, but if all you can do is call names and rail against the obvious, please dont do it here.

Thanks.

TC

[Usrename]

34. I think we can bend our elected leaders to our will.

I believe the sense among rank and file Dems is that their elected officials have no spine. I honestly think we may have the power to force them to grow a spine.

I think the problem is not that they have no courage, it's their sense of loyalty that is missing. It has been discussed that 60-80% of elected Democrats are colaborators with the neo-con regime. I think this is true and I believe this could be corrected by making (carefully considered) examples of one or more of the most obvious offenders.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=245208
To myself and others this move by Joe and Susan is expected to be another whitewash bullshit coverup of the horror and shame of the Katrina aftermath. THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!

What I'm suggesting is that we, Democrats and Progressives, carefully select and target an individual in our own party to make an example of. Bi-partisanship is unwise in the face of the current peril, it only lends more credibility to the failed ideals of the current policy makers. It is wrong morally. It is wrong tactically. It is just plain wrong.

I don't belive the meme that people are put off by the partisan wrangling in Washington. Anyone who feels that way has no interest in the issues. Those people will see us as strong and decisive and will love us for it. (Isn't that how Rove got people to love Republicans?)

Someone should be singled out and relegated to Zel Miller status in the Democratic party. Their destruction must be complete. No mercy.

If we must move against one of our own, this action must be considered and debated fully. To move against someone who is currently in the crosshairs of the enemy (i.e. Landrieu, Blanco, or Nagin) would be unwise tactics on many levels.

We should only do such a thing if it is absolutely necessary and it must be calculated to send the correct message to our own elected officials and an even stronger message to our enemies and the MSM.

[renie408]

31. You gotta admit it could at least use a tune up.

I think that to qualify as working in tip top shape, we would have to have a majority somewhere. And pretending that things are just GREAT to 'blow smoke' for the Repukes seems stupid.

[dhinojosa]

49. I never said it was in great working condition.

But these guys with their "fix" mentality just wanna scream in misery and give the GOP a chuckle

[Totally Committed]

52. So... what do you propose to do?

It is broken. It needs fixing. Trying to problem-solve here is all.

You could help out, too, if you ever want to see a Democrat governeing this country again, that is.

Truth is: I am tired of the misery. We cannot govern if we do not win. And this Party as-is will never win back the White House again in my lifetime or yours.

TC

[renie408]

53. Well, that makes a lot of sense.

It isn't working really well, but it doesn't need fixing.

Love that logic. My friend, THAT is the kind of shit that gives the Repukes a good chuckle. They love to watch Dems pretending that everything is just fine when all logic points to the contrary.

[Dr Fate]

32. Find out which DEMs are being black-mailed by Rove/GOP...

...and then give them a choice: "out" yourself and come clean on camera- and list the votes & issues were black-mailed over and by who.

If they refuse to out themselves, or really, in any event- I would fund a "clean" or "reform" DEM candidate to run against them in the primaries, and arm that candiate with the incriminating information to use against them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Good point, Dr. Fate

I have wondered for YEARS if the BFEE has dossiers on all the prominent Dems, either blackmailing them or threatening their families.

What else could explain their continual votes against not only the interests of the country but against their own stated principles?

I'd like them to get together, compare notes on who is being blackmailed or threatened, and reveal all in a big news conference. If the MSM won't agree to it, they should go to their home districts and make the charges there.

[Dr Fate]

60. The practice of keeping black files did not end with Hoover.

I'm 100% convinved the practive still exists. Rove has them on Republicans too.

[IndyJones]

33. Maybe a little bit from several of the above items.........

I think that they need to reach out to more voters and not just those who agree with every single talking point. Not all dems are pro gay marriage, not all dems are pro illegal immigration, not all dems are pro choice, not all dems want higher taxes, etc...

Sometimes it seems like if someone comes out and disagrees with a single issue that the dems supposedly largely support, they are called an idiot or a traitor or a "republican" wannabe. I think that the republicans have done a better job of reaching out to a broader base. I think that a "Karl Rove" type person to broaden the base would be a good idea.

Just here at DU, I had the "audacity" to point out that in CA, the gay marriage issue is not a partisan issue (meaning that it is a dem state and voters have largely been against approving it and it should be put on the ballots again to see if voter opinion had changed) and was told that I "was simply speaking the republican talking points, blah blah" by some smart ass. Simply stating a fact that an issue is not partisan got me a lashing, LOL. Isn't that mentality a bit childish and extreme? Most people have no issue with civil unions and I think that it would be easier to gather a broader base on that issue. Um...so sorry I irritated a "real democrat". Shame on me. Apparently, I am not a "real democrat".

I just think there should be more tolerance and acceptance of a wider spectrum of feelings on issues. I think that would serve to broaden the dem base.

Many republicans, including my husband, are ready to leave that party right now. What are dems doing to lure him to the democratic party?

If anyone wants to flame me, go ahead. Just presenting an honest view.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

35. so long as the broadening of the dem base includes all directions

the current Dem party seems incapable of turning to either side without apologizing and beating its rasping, phlebm-filled, empty chest while tearfully crying "Mea Culpa".

It is not a matter of going "rightward" to gather in disaffected GOPers. It IS a matter of offering honest policies, thought, rational ideas, and a willingness to state, "Hey, this does not work, so let's fix it."

I don't care what label you put on it. Here are a few ideas:

If we can build a pollution-free mass transit system that serves our needs, and anticipates a) growth, b) disaster, c) emergency needs, d) easy access for all, e) safety, f) comfort and convenience, - then, we can call it a success.

If we can design a FEMA that anticipates trouble and acts in advance and as a result of problems, and prevents unnecesary damage, while saving lives, - oh wait. We had one of those 6 years ago.

If we can build an equitable and fair tax structure that rewards success, protects the most needy and supplies adequate revenue to fund our necessary projects, then I don't care what you call yourself, (except a neoconman) I suspect that you will support it.

If we can change the way elections are run, forcing lobbying groups and their bribers to get the hell out of Dodge, if we can ease the way for third parties, destroy the Vulcan Death grip that entrenched powers have over local and state processes, and if we can lower the cost of elecctions, leaving big $$$ out of it, then, perhaps our quality of reps will improve. Right now, pols spend more than half of their time on insuring their elections. Fund-raising. becoming professional whores. That limits the pool of candidates to rich white Bushistas and people whose souls have already been sold. It is a system wrought with corruption and abuse. It is bound to fail. Let's change it now.

there is a lot more, but these alone would be a start of a platform and an outline for reform and success.

[IndyJones]

39. great ideas!

[Vinca]

38. We need to import balls for every member of the Democratic

party . . . 2 sets for those in Congress. The biggest hindrance to our winning (other than Diebold) is the refusal of the majority of Democrats to BE PROUD TO BE LIBERAL! LIBERAL ISN'T A DIRTY WORD! Liberals want everyone to have a good life, not just the megawealthy. Also note, I said "import balls." Apparently they aren't made in this country anymore.

[Guaranteed]

40. Excellent poll. I'm having trouble

as to which option to pick, here.


On edit: Ended up picking the fourth choice. I think that's the correct one, although there were a couple of others that were pretty dead-on, as well. The fourth is the most important.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. time to go back to OUR POPULIST PAST

the same that brought to us FDR and other progressives

[Cocoa]

42. clean candidates

I voted for your first option there. We should emphasize cleanliness in fundraising. Money can be raised from the grassroots these days, let's let the GOP be the party of corporate interests.

[Crazyhorse1]

43. Make an example of Lieberman

Let's make sure to nominate someone other than Lieberman for his seat and be up front as to why. Sure, it might cost us a seat, but it will save us votes on the floor.

[Don1]

54. Sorry, but it won't happen.

All who opposed him dropped out due to lack of funds. I live in Connecticut, his state, and am not too happy about it.

Plase read the last challenger's comments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=143x1812

[bluedawg12]

47. The other way to look at this is why *** won the red states?

Security. They did not want to change horses...etc.

That was reason #1.

How do we make Americans feel secure?

[Time for change]

48. There will be no Democratic victories

as long as Republicans count the votes.

[barb162]

50. that's for certain

[ewagner]

55. Had to go with "other"

Because all the other options can be solved by LEADERSHIP .

If a leader emerges who:

1. Unites the party, behind
2. a common vision and
3. engages competent personnel who
4. employ effective techniques to
5. Communicate the vision

then, we'll start winning elections, prosecute the criminals who are presently running the government and build a bright future for our children.

[GayCanuck]

56. Hang them out to dry:

Those DLC types you have down there; Lieberman, Hillary Clinton etc.. They seem to pander to any audience they are in front of. I think I will barf if I see any more church scenes.

[Blackwater]

57. Dump the PC crap

Aand get back to the issues that made the Democratic Party the majority party in the first place.

[Reciprocity]

59. Other...

We need to STOP trying to get votes from the republican pool and shore up our own base. I am sick and tied of placating our core values as democrats, in the off chance we may change some republicans mind to vote democratic. We don’t need them, if we can energize our own voters. We need fighters NOT pacifiers. Our elected officials have been eating from the same trough for so long that there’s very little differences between them. All the sides have the same slop dripping from their faces, from the “special interests groups” and lobbyists. We need to clearly show how we differ from republicans and why. We need to be prepared for dirty tricks at the voting’s booths, waaaay ahead of the elections. With lawyers on hand the day of.
Just my two cents.

[GreenPartyVoter]

61. Change the primaries. At the very least use ranked voting ballots

and leave every candidate's name on the ballot for all primaries even if (s)he is out of money and no longer visiting states.

[0rganism]

62. Other: a Dem version of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" for the midwest

1. Find a wedge issue that fractures republicans and brings people to the polls
2. Exploit the hell out of it with ads, "conventional wisdom" memes, and memorable sound bites
3. Have the Democratic candidates form a united front on the issue

If the Democrats can win a congressional election or two this way, we won't even be having this discussion.

[Chemical Bill]

63. Stop people from killing the good ones?

Or sending Anthrax letters? Make the media actually report facts and progressive opinions? There must be something we can do.

Bill

[BlueIris]

65. Drop the guns, SCREAM about the environment, DEFEND CHOICE.

I mean, obviously election and media reform are also essential, but it's hard for me to say how the Party should be directly involved in those fights. I see those things as citizens' crusades (that means all of us, kiddies). The three things I mention here are the heart of my plan.

[mestup]

66. Stop pandering to "voters." Pander to non-voters.

The answer seems so obvious to me.

The majority of Americans don't vote. There's a reason for that.

Dems spend their time pc-ing all over themselves, trying to figure out how to appeal to a diminishing group of voters. Why would anyone actually WANT the support of rabid, fundamentalist voters?

Just say no.

Come out hard. Come out swinging. Talk about national health care. Talk about labor unions.

Stop trying to appeal to a small group of psychos, and bring the "rest" of America back to the polls!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

67. now, that is a breath of fresh air. Good point!

why do they chase the fundie crowd? because they forgot their roots, and all they see is the numbers of current voters. They forgot how to energize, excite, inform, and lead.
especially the latter.