10 Points in DEFENSE of DEMOCRATS!!!

[Sparkly]

:rant:
In defense of Congressional Democrats, as well as the DNC, Democratic leaders who aren't in office, and Democratic voters everywhere... This is a general response to accusations of "chickenshit" Democrats, suggestions that we "label" Democrats we disagree with, and charges that Democrats don't stand for anything, agree on nothing, and that the party's positions are difficult to know.

TEN POINTS:

1. Democrats are in the minority in DC. Things would look a LOT different if we could even take back one house of Congress.

2. This IS a "big tent" party -- sorry! We don't have a Karl Rove who writes scripts that everybody else happily parrots. Democrats honestly have differences of opinion, and honestly say so.

3. Democratic voters believe different things, too, and our representatives in Congress are responsible to their constituents. Act locally.

4. There's a LOT more money in being a Republican than being a Democrat, in anything related to politics (ask David Brock); and there's a LOT more money in the private sector than being in Congress. I dare say most Democrats in Congress aren't there to "line their pockets."

5. Democrats who aren't in office -- Al Sharpton, Wesley Clark, Paul Hackett et al -- are working their butts off for our party and our causes. I suggest there's a lot for us all to learn by listening to them when they speak for and about our party; and when they differ with Democrats in Congress, listen to how they express it.

6. The party is NOT without a "message" or "positions." For cryin' out loud, go to Democrats.org and do a little research!!

7. The party DOES form agreement on key issues, contrary to the popular spin. It was significant that the Democratic agenda on national security was released last week, and they went to significant effort to get it out there -- yet the MSM treated it lightly, even comically; ignored it; and has returned today to the old memes about "divided Democrats."(See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2548843&mesg_id=2548843)

8. As long as I've been voting, the Democratic party has proven its commitment to important issues. These are broad beliefs, including things like (off the top of my head):
- Constitutional right to privacy
- Freedom of religion; separation of church and state
- Lifting people UP, providing equal opportunity, protecting the weak, equal protection under law
- Affordable Healthcare
- Workers' rights, unions, legal access
- Balanced budgets, fair taxation
- Science, whether it's evolution, global warming, renewable energy, stem cell research, etc.
- Environmental protection
- Social Security
- Veteran's benefits, education, women's rights, urban renewal, and the list goes on...
There may be disagreement on what the goals look like, or what will get us there, but this is a VASTLY different view of the role of government from what Republicans believe. At at this point, not only the role of government at home, but also the role of our nation in the world is at stake, and in ways that threaten all our founding principles.

9. No ONE person's opinions define what is and isn't "DINO." Hillary Clinton, for example, has been attacked as too "DINO," yet today she embraced gun control, "moving left." But many DUers claim gun control is NOT "progressive." So who are the DINO's? It's often all in the eye of the beholder.

10. Back to #1: "Democrats are in the minority in DC. Things would look a LOT different if we could even take back one house of Congress." That's not going to happen by railing over the fact that certain elected leaders aren't mirroring our own particular views on certain issues.

Get the "D's" by those names, and Democrats can control the agenda, chair committees, decide what will and won't be debated and voted on, etc. etc... ANYthing that enables more "R's" there means we can't even BEGIN to take steps toward the goals we all want.

Our Representatives DO know what we want. They know what's going on even more than we do. They know what they need to do to keep their seats and add others. They know the stakes; and they know what it means to be "minority" as a party, and then some. There is power in numbers -- and right now, we need to focus on the numbers, not rant, label, or knitpick what Democrats need to do to get them.
:rant:

[UrbScotty]

1. THANK YOU FOR THIS POST, SPARKLY!!! K&R. (nt)

[Stinky The Clown]

2. This was written by my wife and I endorse this message!

So sayeth Stinky the Clown.

K&R

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. recommended and

kicked :kick:

[FtWayneBlue]

4. You make some excellent points - I wouldn't even call it a rant.

However, I do have a problem with Democrats who:

1. Are not in favor of impeaching the current administration for lying us into war and authorizing illegal wiretapping.

2. Think we should NOT immediately pull all military forces and bases out of Iraq.

3. Continue to vote yes for programs like CAFTA and NAFTA.

I am sure there are those that can think of more things to add. Politicians claiming to be D but not following the majority of at least what you posted in point (8) ARE dinos.

[Sparkly]

9. Let's look at that.

This goes to what I'm trying to say. I have disagreements with some Democrats on some strategies about some issues too -- even on some issues themselves.

But I don't for a moment think that these Democrats WANT presidential power to illegally wiretap Americans, or that they WANT to see innocent civilians killed abroad, or that they WANT unfair trade practices, job losses, corporate corruption, harmful labor practices, etc... Do you?

[electropop]

5. Not being in the majority is insufficient excuse for not speaking out

and insufficient excuse for not voting Democratic values. I don't care if every effort fails; the message is sent by acting anyway. Lack of efort and lack of spine will keep us in the minority forever.

[Sparkly]

10. I don't see it as all a lack of "effort" or lack of "spine"

I'm sure there's a share of human laziness and fear among Democrats in Congress, BUT, I think we're talking about our OWN emotions when we ascribe things like "no spine" to them. That is, we're angry, and we want to see our leaders grab these corrupt, incompetent, greedy, warmongering, lying asswipes by the balls and hurl them across Capitol Hill. That would feel great! But it'd DO nothing -- largely because we are in the MINORITY. (Not only are Democrats the minority on the Hill, DU is a minority of the constituency.)

I don't think we can assume it's about "spine." I don't think we can assume that these representatives -- who LIVE the insults and unfairness and lies against them daily and personally -- are simply weak. If they all went ballistic and vented what they feel on the floor tomorrow, what would happen? How far would they get? What would be the result?

To paraphrase JFK, let's think not of what they can do for us, but what we can do for them. If we can fire up the base, convert fence-sitters, get out the vote, and get active locally in any other ways, large or small, we can do the two things that will enable, even push, our representatives to effect change.

First, we need a majority. SOMEwhere.
We need not just a vocal Democratic constituency, but a LARGER one.
Second, we need that large vocal constituency to encourage and support our representatives to do what we want.
IN THAT ORDER.

What we do NOT want right now is for them to lose elections, and they don't want that either. They know, better than we do, what will and won't "keep us in the minority forever."

[electropop]

13. I completely agree with you on what WE should do.

I write lots of LTTEs, I have campaigned for Kerry, I even contribute from my meager funds on occasion. I shall redouble my efforts.

I still intend to support only those Dems who will support the Constitution. If Dems are so wise about how to win, why are they in the minority in all 3 branches of the Government? They've tried "keeping their powder dry," laying low, playing the middle, using meek measured words, reserved for the most egregious of crimes, for 12 years. It's time to try a different strategy. Like taking strong positions based on Dem values, and consistently acting to support these positions regardless of the insults hurled by their slimy opponents. The Pukes didn't grab control by playing "Democrat Lite." Their positions are unscrupulous, greedy, cruel, and foolish, but they are strongly and loudly held. People "get it" when they think of Pukes. What do people think when they think of Dems? I dunno. A few will occasionally say something. Most meekly stand by as our Constitution is shredded and our nation is stripped for parts and pawned on the free market. It's not working. Voters can't respect a party in disarray. Voters need to know what Dems stand for; need to see it consistently and daily. They are not interested in a party that does everything it can to look just like its opponent.

[Sparkly]

18. And I think it's great what you're doing, too.

I do think Democrats are the only hope for our Constitution's survival. It's nothing short of that.

So it made me crazy when, in 2000 and 2004, people were screaming about their version of Perfection on specific issues, when we had the whole Supreme Court to consider... for example.

You asked why the Democrats are a minority-- now THAT is the kind of question we should be asking!! We could fill up a whole forum on that (and it'd be more productive than the kind of infighting that goes on).

I think it's complicated. Two days ago, I started to write a post about the recent history of it (40 years) which I think many don't remember, and it got too wordy to post. But some keys, in my view are:

- It has LESS to do with what politicians say in speeches or vote for on the floor, and MORE to do with what people at the very grassroots believe.

- Most people at the very grassroots believe whatever they HEAR, and what they hear are their neighbors, coworkers, and media soundbytes.

- The GOP has worked for decades to set up the machinery that controls the message today. Clinton's election was a virtual fluke along their path, and they made sure the media got fully aligned in the 90s.

- Recent history has everything to do with what we're seeing today: the social upheavals epitomized by the clash of the 1950s vs. the 1960s, and the memes propagated against Democrats during Vietnam, have taken on MORE strength as leverage for the GOP. That's a huge part of their design.

- The really critical moment when the Democratic Party backed down, in my view, was in 1999/2000 (and to a lesser extent, 1992). The leadership didn't seize the moment, didn't know what they had when they had it, and misread the other side's power.

What they're up against now is a tsunami of lies, stereotypes, machinery, messages, media propaganda, and villification that the GOP has spent 40 years and billions of dollars establishing.

It takes a LOT of might and effort to cut through those lies at the grassroots level of precincts. This country is virtually brainwashed into believing outrageous lies about Liberals and Democrats on everything from national security to religion to families to life itself. And we have no real microphone. This is a struggle of magnitude, and significance, that I don't think we've ever seen before. And the best microphone we have is our own voices talking to other voters, not harrassing politicians.

(Harrass them when they can do something about it -- meanwhile, they need the power to be ABLE to do something about it.)

[Kingofalldems]

6. You are right on the money

This is Democratic Underground, a site that is supposed to be by and for Dems. I am EXTREMELY suspicious of posters who trash Dems. Particularly for something they have no control over, e.g. the impeachment process. The chickenshit business you refer to reads like a GOP dirty trick pysop. Reading that particular thread makes me think of the word 'disruptor'.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Thank you! K&R

Your awesomeness abounds.

[mzmolly]

8. Yes, but I'm sure there is a progressive party that would never disagree!

:P

Another K and R for ya.

:kick:

[depakid]

11. Have to disagree with several assumptions

The first one being that things would necessarily look all that much different with the Dems in control of one house of Congress. I don't think it follows that all of the DINO's who've been crossing over party lines to vote for far right legislation and nominees will magically stop doing so.

Until the Dems clean their own house, I don't see too much changing- though it would be nice to hold the committee assignments. I also don't see the Dems being anywhere close to being able to nationalize a campaign- for precisely the same reason.

Too many DINO's (or handfuls of others with agendas) cross over (repeatedly) and betray their party's positions- its traditional principles and the public interest. A LOT of people out there see very little difference between the parties (on matters like ethics, for example) and until the Dems manage to forge a contrast against the far right- they're going to remain in the minority.

2006 isn't going to be any different in that regard than the last 6 congressional elections. Nor will 2008, unless by some miracle, the Dems get a clue by then. They won't win simply because they don't have an "R" behind their names.

[Sparkly]

12. Well, I have to disagree with several of yours.

1. Whether things would or wouldn't look different with Dems in control of one house: That would make it POSSIBLE for things to look different! It's a completely different ballgame when there's some power vs. no power.

2. They can't "clean house" until they HAVE a house. Congress is elected by, and responsible to, their constituents. If they "cross-over," get them out in your primaries but make SURE the support is there for the Democratic candidate to win the general. A "cross-over" Dem is still far, far better than a Republican of any stripe, if only for the "D" beside their name.

3. Not sure what you mean by "nationalize a campaign," but the DNC has been working hard to get a 50-state, grassroot structure on the ground. Dean has been great at this.

4. People see very little difference between the parties -- WHY? Because there is no difference? NO. Because the RNC has spent millions propagating that meme, along with many others.

5. Forge a contrast against the far right -- You don't see any contrast? Really?!?

6. The Democrats DO have a clue. But in the end, it's all about every answer to every poll, and every (verified!) vote in every precinct. Let's do what WE CAN do to expand the possibilities of what THEY CAN do.

[electropop]

15. Lack of a difference.

When Feingold proposes the mildest imaginable action to address the innumerable grave crimes of George W. Bush, he is met with silence and even active criticism - from his own party! This is inexcusable. Impeachment is not nearly adequate to deal with the terrible threat posed by the Fascist takeover of the White House (and the whole Government). And Dems can't even get behind a censure? The meekest little scolding, and they can't support it? So what if Pukes would vote it down. At least Dems would be on record as giving a damn about the Constitution and the American people.

When Boxer and the CBC stood up to oppose the certification of the stolen election of 2004, would it have killed Dems to stand in support of the right to vote? Would it have killed them to act in (if nothing else) self-preservation, to recognize that they can protect our votes now, or have their jobs stolen too, down the road?

The inability to enact everything they would like to do, does not excuse defeatism. By trying, they could demonstrate that they are worthy of our votes, and give us a taste of the positive enlightened future that the Democratic Party could help us achieve, so we have a reason to give them the chance?

[Sparkly]

19. I hear exactly what you're saying.

But you and I are part of "the base."

I, too, wanted to see the Democrats rise up and create a unified STORM against this regime on censure, on the USSC appointments, on election fraud... My knee-jerk reaction is ALWAYS to hurl 'em across the Hill.

I think Feingold knows what he's doing, and knew what he was doing when he began it. He's not stupid. Things go on that we don't see -- politicans make deals and tally scores. He succeeded in getting the debate going; he's positioned himself as a fighter; John Dean contrasted Chimpy with Nixon, with Chimpy the loser; the spectre of impeachment contrasted Chimpy with Clinton, with Chimpy the loser; Republicans had to go on record as backing down on the Rule of Law in an election year, cowering in fear of the Chimp with an approval rating in the 30's... That alone hurt THEM.

Let's say all Democrats backed the censure motion. Would it have passed? What would the media, and the rest of the GOP, have done with that? "Desperate Democrats tried to censure the preznit, knowing they don't have the votes -- what are they thinking? Why are they wasting time grandstanding for political points when they could be working on issues that matter to the American people, like border security and support for our troops?"

I sometimes think these things are set up within caucuses. Perhaps Feingold wanted the points with the base (and I'm happy to give them to him!). Other Democrats get to show their constituents that they're willing to "wait for the evidence." The media and the rest of the GOP don't get to paint the party with one brush. Similarly, the GOP "splits" by design, imho. The WH going out on a limb is never what it seems -- it's an opportunity for Republicans up for re-election to go against an unpopular president for points as "strong, principled" and "not a sycophant." ("Coattails? What coattails?")

Yes, there's genuine infighting within the party. But I do think politicians know that some can afford to get a strong message out (their constituents will LOVE them for it) and others can't.

Let's work to give them ALL the constituencies to fight the power.

[depakid]

17. We have fundamentally different philosophies and strategies

First of all, the Dems DO have power. It's progressives who have no power. And the reason for that is that it takes 41 votes to uphold a filibuster- and there always seem to be 5 or 6 far right allies among the Dems ranks. High time to fold up that "big tent" and institute a measure of accountaility.

That's why there's NO CONTRAST- and people don't see one either (except that the Dems consistently are described with adjectives like weak and ineffectual). The Dems have passed evenry single piece of far right legislation the Republicans have offered- no matter how egregious. They've cleared EVERY SINGLE NOMINEE and punted on every issue that could highlight the far right's extremism.

Until they deal with that- they won't be going anywhere as a party. Worse- those handfuls (and sometimes quite a few more) DINO's hurt the Dems by reputation and perceptions on the state and local level.

Absent some shift in "strategy" there is no particularly good reason to believe that a repeat of the last 6 congressional elections won't happen again. Same "don't offend anyone in the ephemeral middle" play for Republican leaning votes, alienate the base and make cynics out of independents and those who aren't inclined to vote- same result as 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004. Wait and see.

[Sparkly]

22. Yes, we do.

It seems to me your philosophy is that the political continuum runs not left to right, but "ideal" to "disastrous," and there is only ONE absolute truth about what's "ideal."

It seems to me your strategy is to make a lot of noise about that "ideal," and somehow that will garner votes. (Nevermind that in many states, districts, and precincts, those loudly-spoken ideals have NOT carried votes.)

In many areas, the people you call "DINO's" are HELPing the party, not hurting them. Run my great Maryland senators in rural Alabama, and I don't think they'd win. They can take the stands they do BECAUSE the voters of Maryland support them.

In many races, Democrats are outspent by their Republican opponents 10 to 1. That creates a HUGE media message, villifying the Democrat in the worst ways possible, that is extremely difficult to overcome.

The LAST thing Democrats should be doing is griping about "there is no difference." There is a HUGE and very important difference!! And it's more important now than ever.

From whom do you hear this "Theory" that "If Democrats would just get louder they'd win??" Who, in the media, do you hear this from -- and how much do you trust THEM?

[rockymountaindem]

14. Great post!

You're probably going to get a lot of flack for it, but I'm in your corner!

[Adelante]

16. YAY!! Sparkly!!

You tell 'em :)

[welshTerrier2]

20. "we need to focus on the numbers, not rant, label, or knitpick"

fine ... 2300+ dead Americans, 17,000+ wounded Americans, tens of thousands if not more than 100,000 dead Iraqis, somewhere between $300 billion and a trillion dollars spent on the war depending on whose lies you believe ...

and virtually every single Senate Democrat voting for more and more war dollars to keep bush's war going ...

or is this ranting and "knitpicking" ...

it's interesting that the OP provided some "off the top of her head" issues (see #8) and forgot to "knitpick" about the war ... apparently some of us are feeling a bit more included in the "big tent" than others ...

[Sparkly]

23. Your post is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about.

With all due respect... What your post implies is that Democrats who don't hold your exact views on strategy don't CARE about dead Americans, wounded Americans, dead Iraqis, treasure wasted, etc.

Do you think all who disagree with you LOVE seeing photos of dead babies?

Do you think Democrats in Congress WANT to see the war continue, for some reason??

Do you think people who agree with you on strategy are the ONLY people who think and care about the tragedies of war?

Because it seems to me that whenever there's an opposing point of view -- even if it's about supporting the party -- a post like this pops up: "Yeah, well what about all the tragedy? Huh? Ever think of that? Huh?"

To which it seems we're supposed to go, "Oooh, that's right... I forgot all about the tragedies involved. I wasn't even thinking about peace or justice. How can I be so uncaring?!?"

[welshTerrier2]

24. your hostility will do nothing but cost votes

with all due respect, you demonstrated none whatsoever ... and this was truly disgusting: "What your post implies is that Democrats who don't hold your exact views on strategy ..."

yeah, that's exactly what i implied ... everyone has to think EXACTLY the way i think ... that's a bunch of crap and you know it ... where in my post is there no room for different strategies?? where does it say or imply people have to think EXACTLY as i do ... nice arguing technique there ... make the other guy seem like an inflexible extremist ... it's total bullshit ... there's a world of difference between your abysmal failure to even mention Iraq in your list of important issues and insisting that people agree with my exact position ...

did you just forget to mention the war in your little list of issues?

put away your cheerleader outfit and recognize that many in the anti-war movement and tens of millions of non-voters don't feel represented by very critical aspects of the Party's agenda ...

instead of calling for real dialog, you like to pretend there's openness, inclusiveness and responsiveness under the Party's "big tent" ... many don't see it that way ... disrespecting these alienated voters and non-voters as you've done will not win votes ...

and please don't put words in my mouth ... that's a bullshit way to argue ... i never said nor implied you were "so uncaring" ...

and since you asked, i'll answer your questions ...
1. Do you think all who disagree with you LOVE seeing photos of dead babies? No

Do you think Democrats in Congress WANT to see the war continue, for some reason?? i think they keep voting more funding for bush's war ... that's not a good way to end it ... i believe they are playing politics with the issue ... and yes, i do think most of them believe the war should continue until some pipedream is achieved ...

Do you think people who agree with you on strategy are the ONLY people who think and care about the tragedies of war? No

[Sparkly]

25. MY hostility? Funny....

What exactly was your point in your previous post? Tell me why you felt a need to say: "fine ... 2300+ dead Americans," etc. Who said it was "FINE?" Are you claiming somebody thinks it's "FINE?" What was the meaning of the word "FINE" in that post?

What I read -- and do correct me if I'm wrong -- is a "tactic" to make anyone who disagrees with YOU "seem like an inflexible extremist." One who never gives a thought to the consequences of war. One who's so unaware, or so uncaring, that it's forgotten.

Did I really need to put "peace" on my "little list of issues?" Is there any Democrat who believes our party RELISHES war? Would any Democrat even IMPLY that? Who thinks that doesn't go without saying?

As for my "little cheerleader outfit" -- :eyes:... Welcome to reality: Democrats are the only HOPE for the "anti-war movement." The only representation we can HAVE in DC is from Democrats. If you disagree, then what's your solution?

"Many don't see it that way." Why don't they? Who's being "uninclusive?" Representatives are called representatives because they represent constituencies. If you want a change, change the constituency. Whining about the representatives themselves, because they don't meet YOUR every standard, doesn't change anything.

If you didn't imply others are uncaring, why did you bring up the tragedies? Did you think I just forgot? Think about it, and tell me why you felt a need to say that.

Think about why these questions bother you so much.

And think about and old Liberal motto: "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Are your gripes part of the solution? If so, how? How does your hostility against Democrats help those wounded children in Iraq?

[welshTerrier2]

26. Did I really need to put "peace" on my "little list of issues?"

the war is destroying the country ... yes, it should be on everyone's list of "most important issues" ... do you think many Senators will call themselves "peace candidates" or will they be afraid of the label?? i think they're so busy looking tough that they cower at the mere mention of the word ...

you also asked "who thinks that doesn't go without saying" ??? is your point that it's so clear where Democrats stand on the war that they don't need to "say it"???

you asked the absurd question about whether you need to put peace on your list ...

is there something about peace that makes it "go without saying" more than "Constitutional right to privacy", "Freedom of religion", "separation of church and state" and all the other things you did "say"??? i strongly support all the issues on your list but stopping the tomorrow's deaths seems the most immediate to me ...

and as for my use of the word "fine", it was written in direct response (see the subject of my first post) to your statement "we need to focus on the numbers, not rant, label, or knitpick" ...

"fine" meant an acceptance of your stipulation that we need to focus on "the numbers" and not "knitpick" ... my post did exactly that ... it focused on what i consider to be critically important numbers about a critically important issue ...

and finally, as for your "welcome to reality", here's a little reality for you: if you want more votes, be more inclusive ... i will not be voting for candidates who keep VOTING for more war funding... your statements about "RELISHING" war and all the other accusations are nonsense ... i neither said nor implied any such thing ... but VOTING for more of bush's war is not going to earn my vote ... whine about that all you want to ... when the Democrats finally awaken to the reality that nothing can be "won" in Iraq except more oil contracts and a puppet government and they finally call for the fastest withdrawal troop safety allows, perhaps then the Party will be able to reunite ... but with the current bullshit, no ... no thanks ...

[Sparkly]

30. So your plan is to withhold your vote. That oughta work. nt

[welshTerrier2]

33. and your plan is to vote for war funders ...

yeah, that sounds like a great plan ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Jesus God, thank you so much

Every DUer needs to READ THIS POST. Awesome!

:kick:

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. recommended

[MrBenchley]

28. Well said!!

I'm tired of hearing our "progressive purists" screaming for party purges and howling for blood.

[leftstreet]

29. Mrs. Clenis embraced gun control? What an IDIOT

"Hillary Clinton, for example, has been attacked as too "DINO," yet today she embraced gun control,"

Do you have a link for that?

[Sparkly]

31. Here

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/61903.htm

Discussed here (scroll halfway down): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12150693/

[blm]

32. Great post, Sparkly - K&R.

.

[OhioBlue]

34. Kick

Great Post!

[SeattleGirl]

35. Excellent post, Sparkly

You make very good points in the OP, as well as in some of your posts in response to others. I get that you are passionate about what you posted about, yet you also used logic and reasoning, not just emotion, to convey your thoughts. I'm very impressed by your thoughtfulness in your posts, and will definitely recommend your post. :thumbsup: