I can't get a handle on what today's Democratic party is about

[brentspeak]

There just doesn't seem to be a cogent, easily understandable, Democratic party platform that is being plugged by today's Democratic politicians. Is the party for or against or tolerant of job outshoring? For or against major league campaign finance reform? For or against or tolerant of the D.C. lobbying culture? For or against a humongous effort to revitalize America's domestic manufacturing base?

I'm a member of the increasingly disappearing so-called "radical middle" Democrat, which used to be the majority in this country: interested mostly in common-sense bread-and-butter issues, but not so interested in social/cultural issues like abortion rights, gay rights, etc.

It's not like I'm opposed to abortion rights, gay rights -- it's more like I recognize that the Democratic party's fortunes have -- undeniably -- decreased in the thirty years since the party platform has apparently become linked to "liberal" social issues. Republicans love the social issues of abortion and gay rights, because they've enabled the GOP to take control of the country. But the funny thing is, while the Democratic party has never even made it clear on exactly where it stands on abortion and gay rights, the GOP has successfully made the public believe that the Democratic party has a clear stance on those issues.

Socially liberal but economically-conservative Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have apparently been doing the GOP's bidding all this time without realizing it: they supported and enabled the expansion of free trade which has decimated much of the Democrat's main base of blue collar and - increasingly - white collar middle class voters. And where have a large portion of these increasingly downwardly-mobile working class Americans turned to for political leadership? A significant minority have been suckered into voting Republican after buying the "Democrats want to kill babies and turn your children gay" GOP propaganda; while the majority is simply confused as to what happened to the FDR/Truman/LBJ working American Democratic policies of before.

Due to a strange, unwitting alliance of clever Republican propaganda and well-off, neoliberal enablers (Bill Clinton, talking heads like Thomas Friedman), America's working and middle class are being turned into 2nd world citizens. Yesterday's Democrats like FDR and Truman would not have tolerated that.

(End of rambling, poorly-constructed, unfocused rant).



:rant:

[MADem]

1. Start here--click on the AGENDA sublink, there's a wealth of info

http://www.democrats.org/

[sandnsea]

3. hehe

:applause:

That warmed my heart.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Now run the entire site through the Faux-inator so it can be distilled...

...into soundbite size pieces because concepts like equal rights, worker rights, targeted tax cuts, clean air, renewable energy, etc are just way too highbrow apparently.

[brentspeak]

6. An agenda posted on the Web isn't going to do it, Westie

When voters see images of John Edwards or Mark Warner or Nancy Pelosi talking on CNN, they have to know instantly that these politicians have their best interests in mind, and where they stand on major issues. They shouldn't have to go to the library's computer to do Web research on the topic.

[MADem]

9. You said the problem was YOU, and I responded to your concern

You said YOU couldn't get a handle on the matter. I offered you a tool.

Take that tool and use it to do some grassroots work. The message is spread one voter at a time.

[brentspeak]

11. No, the problem is not me

I appreciate the advice to speak to people on behalf of the Democratic party, but my "problem" of not getting a handle on the direction of today's Democratic party -- a problem shared by numberless other rank-and-file Democrats all around the country -- is one that has been both caused and unaddressed by the Democratic party and its elected representatives in the first place.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. Get fitted for a horse collar...

Really. If what you're looking for is elected leaders who will set an agenda for you, and then you simply follow along without thinking about the alternatives or the consequences, then you'd probably be more at home in the Republican Party.

Do the Republicans offer a "focused" message to the voters? They sure do, as did the National Socialist Party in Germany once upon a time.

The Democratic message will always lack focus because, despite the Republican's attempt to appear to be a "big tent" party, we're the real deal. We have constituencies whose values are sometimes in conflict -- I have great Democratic friends who are pro-union, and they don't give a damn about the environment if it means creating more jobs. My great Democratic friends who are environmentalists, obviously, disagree strongly with that position.

Any Democratic officer holder must, by necessity, be the mediator between these two factions. As much as they would like to make sweeping generalizations that would marginalize a large swath of the electorate, Democratic lawmakers just aren't going to do it. In an increasingly complicated world, answers to policy questions must themselves be increasingly complicated. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats tend to formulate policy decisions that can't be summed up in a bumper sticker.

P.S. Our policy decisions tend to actually work (Social Security vs. Star Wars).

[MADem]

19. Look, I don't want to get into a discussion about semantics

but I invite your attention to the subject line of your post.

I foolishly assumed you were actually looking for platform material.

[flyarm]

27. here i will post numerous times if you need it!!

PLEASE PASS AROUND..AS THE REPUBLICAN MEDIA WON'T TELL YOU!!

DEMOCRATIC Six-Point Plan for 2006
-Real Security
-Based on telling the truth to our soldiers, our citizens and our allies
-Protecting America; leading the world.
-Energy Independence 2020
-Creating a cleaner, greener and stronger America.
-Honest Leadership, Open Government
-Restoring a government as good as the people it serves.
-Economic Prosperity and Education Excellence
-American jobs that will stay in America.
-Keeping America number one; Restoring opportunity and innovation.
-A Health Care System that Works for Everyone
-Like 36 other industrialized nations.
-Making the wealthiest nation on earth, the healthiest.
-Retirement Security
-Ensuring dignity for older Americans.

[leftofthedial]

14. even that link does not answer the OP's questions

protecting Social Security is good, but

their commitment to economic strength is undercut by their apparent support for the kind of "free-trade" thinking that gave us NAFTA, plus, their commitment offers no plan for accomplishing or changing anything

their commitment to health care is similarly vague and couched in feel-good, but noncomittal language

in fact, in their ten-point agenda, there are pretty much zero specifics, lots of apple pie and blue sky, and enough contradictory "commitments" to sow doubt among even die-hard lifelong Democrats like me.

What are three absolute principles the party holds? I don't know.

To win control of the country, it is not enough to sit idly by while people begin to hate the repukes. The Democrats must identify, reconnect and motivate their true liberal base (which has been abandoned almost entirely in favor of corporate interests) and they must give the 80% of the people who are apathetic a reason to care. I don't see either of those things in the "official" Dem agenda.

[MADem]

20. Well, the idea here is to put out the policy points, not write a

dissertation. Their position on Social Security is unequivocal. No way will it be dismantled.

As for fair trade, what's more straightforward than this? Good paying jobs, balance the budget, pay down the debt, and expand trade while pushing for better standards for workers worldwide, as well as enfrcing existing agreements:

If you want job creation, a strong economy, and a fiscally responsible federal government, there's only one choice: vote for Democrats. History has proven that Democrats know what it takes to keep our economy growing.

Expanding economic opportunity. Democrats believe that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. We are committed to expanding economic opportunity to all Americans and creating the new jobs of the future.
Fiscal responsibility. The Democratic Party believes in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt, while Republicans continue to put huge burdens on future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations.
Fair trade. Creating jobs at home means opening markets abroad. The Democratic Party supports fair trade agreements that raise standards for workers abroad while making American business more competitive. We will also fight for stronger enforcement of our existing trade agreements.

The health care policy points are similarly focused--everyone should have it, and it needs to be affordable. We can argue about how to get there--the VT model? The HR Clinton model? The MA model? The Canadian model? Still, the essential point remains.

I'd rather not have a party who blueprints everything out without permitting a bit of public discussion about how to get from here to there. The primary debates for the 08 contest will serve as a public forum for that 'compare and contrast' exercise.

I prefer a bit of scrapping to how the GOP does business--don't think, don't discuss, we'll do the thinkin' for ya and make the decisions behind closed doors, and announce our findings with one lockstep voice.... we make the decision, and you go along with it, or else.

[leesa]

2. It's not hard. They are funded by corporatists even though they may

have personal opinions on these things, they must do what their owners tell them to do/say. They cannot come out against war because GE and the other war toy manufacturers will knock them down. GE et.al. also own the media, who owns the GOP social messages of abortion, anti-gay, all the hate messages...you ALSO can't buck these or you lose the corporate backing, or they destroy you in 24 hours, like Dr Dean.

[ewagner]

5. Not to be flippant,

but what seems to be happening is pretty well summed up in the old saying:

"...when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remind yourself that your initial objective was to DRAIN THE SWAMP!

In other words we have been playing "defense" from the baby-killing, homo brand that the Repubs have been throwing out all these years that we haven't been able to tell the American public that we stand for Real Family Values. Values like:

Assuring that all Americans have the education and/or skills to secure gainful employment that will provide a living wage which also provides high-quality health care. Assuring that America is strong enough to secure her position in the world but not perceived as Imperialistic or Colonialist. Assuring that the Constitution is preserved and protected. Assuring that capitalism is conducted in a fair playing field.

There are other things I could add of course but, in a nutshell, that's what we stand for and what we need to articulate to the voters.

[brentspeak]

7. Right. And the Democrats need to make REAL family values a mantra

They need to make Americans believe once again that the American Dream of upward mobility can still exist (right now, it doesn't exist). They need to get out there in unison, and tell the people how the GOP has been undermining the People's livelihoods by playing on their cultural and social fears.

[Norquist Nemesis]

84. Yes! And not just 'Real Family Values' but more excatly...

AMERICAN Values. American values include everything you stated so well! :thumbsup:

[msgadget]

8. Not unfocused at all but ...'without realizing it'??

Why you do suppose that? Clinton very, very deliberately pursued his path to power and even while the results of his actions are impacting us severely is encouraging numbers of his party to continue on it via the third way. He and his kind will do WHATEVER it takes to win no matter the affect on us. It's about the winning.

When Clinton out-maneuvered the right to win the presidency and proceeded implement policy that veered right socially and was corporate friendly he ripped the rug out from under the democrats. Now they can't rail against those policies because one of their own DID it. For a while many on the left have forgiven him by saying, "he had to...we lost the majority...they were attacking him", while ignoring the fact he RAN on NAFTA, his closest advisors still have NAFTA tattooed on their craven, soul-less asses. Rubin, Reich, Albright...all of them are out there loud and strong and everything they propose for us includes some goody for big business. We were duped, sold out and finding someone who can raise enough money and survive attacks from within the party is gonna be damned hard.

That's not to say there aren't democrats who oppose this but they now have two foes - the GOP and their own party 'leaders'.

[brentspeak]

10. I hate to agree with Michael Moore on this

because I consider Moore to be a shameless propagandist who plays fast-and-loose with the facts, but he's more-or-less right when he wrote that Clinton was essentially a "Republican president". Where would the Wal-Mart Waltons be without Bill Clinton? He was their knight in shining armor.

[msgadget]

12. But he and his brightest homies have the remarkable gift of making folks

believe they're for 'them'. I hear and read Reich and if I didn't know better I'd think, 'here's a true liberal'... And, to this very day, when I hear Clinton speak I'm impressed. But, they're strictly POLITICAL machines, it's about the game, the power. And, I'm sure he and his think they're the answer else they couldn't be so charismatic.

:hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

13. The DLC - The Other Republican Party (TM)

The problem is the DLC. All they ever do is triangulate, i.e., stay in between the Left and the Right. As the Right went very, very far Right, the DLC started staking out territory that was far right. Clinton was a little to the right of Nixon and Regan, and far to the right of Eisenhower.

The Democratic party pulled this stunt in the 1920s - it worked for a while, and then they were almost knocked out of the game by the Communist Party. To avoid obliteration, they finally put forward a far-left candidate - FDR. And the rest is history.

[msgadget]

17. Thank you, Manny

Welcome to DU!

[paulk]

29. Clinton was to the right of Nixon and Reagan?

And far to the right of Eisenhower?

And FDR was a far-left candidate?


are you for real?

[wyldwolf]

35. like I said in my post below yours

...often repeated leftwing points, void of any factual basis.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. EIsenhower vs. Clinton, FDR

Yes absolutely for real - a triangulation-free zone.

Eisenhower vs. Clinton is easy: see my blog http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

As to FDR - just historical fact. For example, see http://www.hooverdigest.org/011/lipset.html Take a look at his first innaugural address - very, very socialist.

[wyldwolf]

34. your post is so wrong on so many levels

I realize the points you make are often repeated by the far left, but they are void of any factual basis.

The problem is the DLC. All they ever do is triangulate, i.e., stay in between the Left and the Right.

If you haven't noticed, the majority of the American people rest somewhere between the left and the right.

As the Right went very, very far Right, the DLC started staking out territory that was far right.

For example? Not that you're really going to answer...

Clinton was a little to the right of Nixon and Regan, and far to the right of Eisenhower.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The Democratic party pulled this stunt in the 1920s - it worked for a while, and then they were almost knocked out of the game by the Communist Party. To avoid obliteration, they finally put forward a far-left candidate - FDR. And the rest is history.

Sounds like a communist fan boy's wet dream.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Right-Wing Policies Include

In short, going for the jugular of the middle class in order to appease the Rich.

NAFTA
Cutting Welfare
Dropping barriers to Chinese trade
Union busting
And so forth...

(No wet dream involved - just hard facts, DLC-boy)

[wyldwolf]

43. hard facts?

Give me factual documentation to support these assertions by you:

1. Clinton was a little to the right of Nixon and Regan, and far to the right of Eisenhower.
2. The Democratic party was "almost knocked out of the game by the Communist Party."
3. FDR was a far-left candidate.

We'll then discuss FDR's strong belief in free trade, reduction of trade barriers world wide, and his goal of cutting welfare.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. I posted two links above

I posted two links on another post, above.

Also, I really don't appreciate being called a wet-dreaming communist, or your other insults. Very uncool.

[wyldwolf]

45. yes you did, but neither support you contentions

Your links were your personal blog and the (Herbert) Hoover institute :shrug: -- interesting. A leftist who is a fan of Eisenhower and Hoover, and is sympathetic to Nixon and Reagan.

The Hoover one is the more interesting because it contradicts your contentions. It says FDR co-opted the left's rhetoric but only it's policies to "some extent." (sounds like triangulation!) The gist of it was FDR tricked the left into believing in him while continuing to promote free market capitalism.

Just to remind the few following this, here are your contentions:

1. Clinton was a little to the right of Nixon and Regan, and far to the right of Eisenhower.
2. The Democratic party was "almost knocked out of the game by the Communist Party."
3. FDR was a far-left candidate.

And here are a few facts I offered up on FDR, which you ignored, probably because they cause problems with your theory on FDR.

We'll then discuss FDR's strong belief in free trade, reduction of trade barriers world wide, and his goal of cutting welfare.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. most points covered

Try reading slowly and carefuly.

1. Clinton was a little to the right of Nixon and Regan - Not covered, left as a (trivial) exercise for the reader

2. and far to the right of Eisenhower - for example, Eisenhower defended the 91% top tax bracket against a Republican-controlled Congress, was pro-Union, was against the military-industrial complex, and so forth

3. The Democratic party was "almost knocked out of the game by the Communist Party." - reasonably complex answer - many of the details are in the link, such as Upton Sinclair's EPIC takeover of the party, and so forth

4. FDR was a far-left candidate - Again, the link discusses how he was able to bring the communists and other farther left parties back into the fold - you're thinking that he did this with right-wing policies?

P.S. - just curious, are you on the DLC payroll?

[wyldwolf]

49. all condescending comments aside...

1. Clinton was a little to the right of Nixon and Regan - Not covered, left as a (trivial) exercise for the reader

Of course it wasn't covered, because it cannot be sustained.

2. and far to the right of Eisenhower - for example, Eisenhower defended the 91% top tax bracket against a Republican-controlled Congress, was pro-Union, was against the military-industrial complex, and so forth

You assume that the three issues you mention are some sort of litmus test for being "left" or "right."

Do you really want to put his two terms up against Clinton's and see who enacted the more liberal legislation?

3. The Democratic party was "almost knocked out of the game by the Communist Party." - reasonably complex answer - many of the details are in the link, such as Upton Sinclair's EPIC takeover of the party, and so forth

No, they're not. Several states had socialist/communist party successes, but came no where near knocking out the Democratic party.

4. FDR was a far-left candidate - Again, the link discusses how he was able to bring the communists and other farther left parties back into the fold

No, he was not.

He was for welfare reform.
He put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.
He was a proponant of free trade.
He dumped a VP for being too liberal.

The link, from the Hoover Institute, details how FDR co-opted the left's rhetoric but only their policies to a lesser degree. In other words, he let them into the club to shut them up. Any unbiased reader of the link will see this.

Also interesting you would say "BACK into the fold." Far left parties were never in the fold of the Democratic party.

P.S. - just curious, are you on the DLC payroll?

No. Are you on the Green Party/Communist party payroll or do you just subscribe to their newsletters?

[MannyGoldstein]

51. own private idaho

Son:

You're living in your own private Idaho. Marginally-clever word games amd cherry picking the facts will not make your hopes match the facts.

Good luck!

[wyldwolf]

53. well, take me up on my challenge, then

Let's compare the records of three two term presidents - Ike, Reagan, and Clinton - and see who has the greater liberal credentials.

Ready?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Okay, wyldwolf, I have to ask:

2. and far to the right of Eisenhower - for example, Eisenhower defended the 91% top tax bracket against a Republican-controlled Congress, was pro-Union, was against the military-industrial complex, and so forth

You assume that the three issues you mention are some sort of litmus test for being "left" or "right."

Hmm, would you support a Democratic candidate who held those three policies, or would you come onto DU and make snide comments about how he was "too far left," as you have in connection with other Democratic candidates who veer from the corporatist line?

[Aaaargh]

69. The key question is: why are these DLCers Democrats at all?

Obviously, there's already a major party which strongly and thoroughly represents the corporatist line promoted by wydwolf and others of his ilk on this forum: the Republican Party.

Could it be that their real goal is to undermine the competition so that voters don't really have a choice between the two major parties, in a system which scarcely allows for alternatives to those two parties?

No, you don't have to answer that. In fact, please don't. We're not allowed to "go there" directly on this forum.

[wyldwolf]

73. The key question is: Why ask such an irrelevent question to the thread?

No, you don't have to answer that.

I would ask you to prove your ridiculous "represents the corporatist line promoted by wydwolf and others" and "their real goal is to undermine the competition so that voters don't really have a choice between the two major parties" charges, but asking a leftist to actually prove something is an exercise in futility.

[wyldwolf]

72. Lydia Leftcoast , in all honesty

Do you actually believe Clinton was to the right of Nixon and Reagan?

Of coruse I support those positions, but that isn't the point.

As I asked MannyGoldstein twice, Let's compare the records of three two term presidents - Ike, Reagan, and Clinton - and see who has the greater liberal credentials. Not just three issues. Or four. Of five. Their WHOLE records.

Ready?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. I believe that Clinton was to the right of Nixon

not to the right of Reagan.

I'm comparing their actions, not their rhetoric.

But that's someone else's conversation. I'm not going to be sidetracked.

If you actually support the positions of high taxes on millionaires, reducing the power of the military industrial complex, and so forth, then why do you consistently lambaste candidates who hold these positions as "too far left"?

[wyldwolf]

77. ok, let's compare their actions

Ready?

And it has become your conversation because you came into the middle of it and, speaking of sidetracked, sidetracked it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Answer my question first

If you're for high taxes on millionaires, reducing the power of the military-industrial complex, and making the world safe for unions, why do you consistently disparage candidates who support these positions and talk up those who side with the Republicans?

I asked first, and I won't go off on your question, which is a diversionary tactic, until you answer mine.

[wyldwolf]

79. actually, you didn't ask first

You came into a conversation and tried to change the discussion. But I did answer you in post #72.

If you're for high taxes on millionaires, reducing the power of the military-industrial complex, and making the world safe for unions, why do you consistently disparage candidates who support these positions and talk up those who side with the Republicans?

Do I do that? Where have I done that?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Okay, if you're going to

pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm through.

[wyldwolf]

81. I'm not pretending. But your escape route is typical

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Also..

I'm not a fan of Hoover, nor sympathetic to Nixon and Reagan - my comparison of them to Clinton was not to show them in a favorable light, but rather to show Clinton and the DLC in the correct light.

I am a big fan of Eisenhower, though.

The Hoover post was easy to find on Google, and is factually correct, but badly slanted in how it presents the facts.

FDR did not trick the left - were the New Deal, the WPA, the TVA, the NRA, the AAA, and all of those other "socialist" programs an illusion? I think not - or perhaps Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon was also fake? FDR was a Capitalist, but a very, very Leftist Capitalist. While the Hoover article may try to make FDR sound like a triangulator (and he was to a very small extent), he was really more a far-left candidate put up by the Democrats in order to stop their leakage to the farther-left parties.

[wyldwolf]

50. also

...the article speaks for itself. You hold it up as a reference but now say it is slanted in how it presents the facts? LOL!

Your take is a very revisionist.

[brentspeak]

58. It's looking more and more like Ike was one of our better presidents

If it was at all possible, I'd vote for Eisenhower the Republican over Clinton the Democrat in a heartbeat.

Of course, if Eisenhower were alive today and wished to run as a Republican, the GOP-Powers-That-Be would probably have him smeared faster than you can say "Mission Accomplished". No way would the GOP's (and the odd DINO's) corporate puppet masters allow an honest man like Ike, a president who would not allow himself to be on the take, anywhere near the White House -- or near any elected office, for that matter.

[Aaaargh]

70. FDR channeled by Al From - fascinating!

Your attempts to claim that FDR anticipated and supported 'globalization' are an exercise in pseudo-intellectual posturing. If you wish to promote a position on contemporary issues which you favor, do so by discussing the details of those issues. Clearly, that's a difficult enough task for you.

[wyldwolf]

74. You snide remarks show some naivety. FDR was a proponent of free trade.

I know history before 1972 is a difficult concept for many on the left.

Roosevelt's President of the National Industrial Conference Board, Virgil Jordan, put it like this on December 10, 1940:

"Whatever the outcome of the war, we have taken the road of imperialism on an economic plane as on all other planes of life. Yes, some fear this word imperialism so well known and, to some, menacing. Most people prefer to mask this under the more vague expression, 'defense of the Western Hemisphere;' but we are destined by our need, by our capacity by the exigencies of rule in our own society to follow this road."

Roosevelt signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act on June 12th, 1933, that established a commitment to open markets and trade liberalization.

Roosevelt ran on a platform of free trade against the protectionism of Hoover.

In 1936, Roosevelt was speaking in Argentina, and said:

Our present civilization rests on the basis of an international exchange of commodities. Every nation of the world has felt the evil effects of recent efforts to erect trade barriers of every known kind. Every individual citizen has suffered from them.

His next-to-last message to Congress requested authority to begin tariff-reduction talks with the other Allied states. Roosevelt observed that with the end of the war, "the world will either move toward unity and widely shared prosperity, or it will move apart. ... We have a chance, we citizens of the United States, to use our influence in favor of a more united and cooperating world. Whether we do so will determine, as far as it is in our power, the kind of lives our grandchildren will live."

Unity and cooperation, to the aging New Dealers, meant a deliberately integrated world economy.

On 14 August Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill issue the 'Atlantic Charter', a joint statement setting out eight "common principles ... for a better future for the world". Drawn up at sea, off the coast of Newfoundland, the charter included commitments to national sovereignty, democratic government, free trade, and other economic points.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. The DLC is triangulating, but not as you describe.

They're not trying to stay between the left and the right, they're trying to stay between left socially and the right socially while occupying the same corporatist economic space as their republican bretheren.

Although I disagree with the contention that the DNC has no message, I think that the OP has a point; we place too much emphasis on social issues with which the Republicans successfully chip off sections of the electorate that, if the party had a clear commitment to economic justice, SHOULD vote Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

83. I haven't described it

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

15. Since Dean and Kerry spoke out Saturday on TV...the posts all over.

Saying the Democrats don't stand for anything. I have said it was going to be obvious, get more obvious as November nears.

When Democrats speak out, when a great Democratic event happens...here come the "Dems stand for nothing" posts.

Told you so.

[brentspeak]

16. I don't have TV, and this is the first I heard about Dean & Kerry comments

What exactly did they say?

[MADem]

23. You might be able to find it on the CSPAN website, they reran Kerry

this AM.

[YvonneCa]

40. Here's a link to the speech text...

...C-Span will probably have it on their website in a couple of days.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2723


This is s DO NOT MISS SPEECH, if you think Democrats don't have a message.:patriot:

[leftofthedial]

21. you are wrong

Kerry spoke for Kerry.

They can preach to the choir all day every day, but until they present a concise, understandable, repeatable set of principles, most Americans won't pay attention.

I just asked 15 relatively random people at the coffee joint what they thought of Kerry's speech. Not one of them knew that Kerry had given a speech. Not one of them still supports Bush, but not one of them has the slightest idea whether or not they will vote for a Democrat.

[MADem]

24. You're missing a huge opportunity, talking to that many people, and

not taking time to spread the word. We really don't need coffee shop surveys, we need advocates. Take the opportunity and talk up our candidates; urge them to catch the reruns on CSPAN. Grassroots is one arrow in the quiver; use it.

[flyarm]

28. i wholeheartedly agree..i don't wait for talking points..haven't we had

enough of that shit for 5 years now??

be agressive in your own town..speak for your values..as a democrat..tell the truth...

go up to people and start dialog..ask people are you better off today??/

ask people what are you doing to protect your constitution..it says we the people ..so what are you going to do about being lied into a war?? being spied on by our own government?? having medicare for the pharmasuticals instead of we the people?


i ask people every day,.when will you stand up to your responsibility of "we the people"??

i ask when are you going to stand up and protect separation of church and state ..the very reason our forefathers fought for our republic??
i get in peoples faces...

do not wait for any talking points..thats bullshit...thats an excuse to do nothing!

ask people when they will stand up and fight the fascism these bastards are taking our nation into??

i ask people when they will be real patriots and stop the bullshit of division..this admin has brought upon our nation...

i get asked what are the dems going to do..and i say..i am a dem and i am doing it... by educating other americans !

iam sick of this crap..what is the message???..if you, as an american and a dem..don't know by now ..that this country is bankrupt..and we have the worst failure of a president in my lifetime of 54 years..well then i don't think you care enough!

or you are not edcuated enough to what is happening to this precious nation of ours!

get some facts and get out and start talking to your fellow americans..embarrass them if you have to.. that they are not informed..what ever means nessesary..if you don't do something..this may be the last chance we have to save the democracy we have known since this republic was formed!

do not wait for someone to hand you some pretty talking points...

make copies of the so many articles that prove the corruptness of this administration..i do it all the time and i hand them out when i go to the grocery store ..or mall ..or anywhere..

be agressive..be active..be informed...be in their faces..

no time for excuses..

fly

[leftofthedial]

38. I can tell people what's wrong all day and all night

and sometimes I do.

What I can't tell them is, specifically on many issues, what the Democrats propose to do differently, or even on what core principles the Democrats stand.

"Economic strength" is not a principle. It is a bromide. Taken in the context of a generation of corporatist sell-outs, it is a disingenuous bromide.

"Affordable health care for everybody" would have some resonance if there was any Democratic track record on delivering on that promise.

That's not an excuse; that's a problem.

[flyarm]

52. this is what democrats stand for!

the middle class!!


By CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article
March 28, 2006

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law a higher minimum wage this morning, calling it a victory for workers and a boost to Michigan’s economy.

The law lifts the minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour to $6.95 an hour on Oct. 1. The hourly base wage will then rise to $7.15 in July 2007 and $7.40 in July 2008.

“Forget about George Mason, this is the Cinderella story this year,” Granholm said of the new law, referring to George Mason University, whose team is an unlikely contender in the NCAA basketball tournament’s Final Four.

Granholm’s signature capped the unlikely passage of the bill by a Republican Legislature that in the past stymied Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage.

[leftofthedial]

62. good for her!

:bounce: :toast: :applause: :woohoo:

does that mean if people vote for Dems in Congress, we'll get an increase in minimum wage?

[leftofthedial]

30. the reason I was talking to them was to "spread the word"

but I'm not sure what 5 specific bullet points to pass on to people. The dem website is vague, full of contradictions (for example, we support wage earners, but we also support global free trqade and "competitive markets"), and once you sell someone on an idea like universal health care, the Dems backtrack and abandon the issue.

These are neighbors, some of them friends.

Perhaps you could elucidate--what is the "word" we should be spreading?

[MADem]

31. The example you cite is not at all contradictory

They want to stop the practice of paying people dogshit for their work, all around the WORLD. That doesn't mean that everyone should get the US minimum wage, but get a liveable wage. The reason we aren't as competitive as we could be is that workers around the world are living in Dickensian poverty. The idea is that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Go back to the site I cited above, and click on the LOCAL tab. Then click on your state. You'll find PLENTY to talk about, stuff that resonates with your neighbors. All politics, as my former neighbor Tip O'Neill used to say, IS local....

[leftofthedial]

39. do Democrats stand for workers?

do Democrats support unions?

do Democrats oppose usurious, predatory financial institutions?

Or do Democrats craft a feel-good message that seems to imply "yes" answers to the above questions, but really just provide the cover necessary to allow them to answer "no"?

[flyarm]

54. yes and yes!!

By CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article
March 28, 2006
snip:
Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law a higher minimum wage this morning, calling it a victory for workers and a boost to Michigan’s economy.



snip:

“Today is a tremendous victory for our working families and all of Michigan,” Granholm told a gathering of assembly of Democratic lawmakers, union leaders and advocates.

“It is a victory for hundreds of thousands of citizens in our state who pay the rent and who fill up their tanks and who put food on the table for their kids at $5.15 an hour. Not anymore.

“Today, Michigan, you are getting a raise, and it’s about time.”

Granholm and union leaders present said the higher minimum wage would help the state’s economy because low-income workers spend virtually all their paychecks on subsistence – money that goes directly to stores and services.

[leftofthedial]

66. is a promise to riase the minimum wage nationally

somewhere in the Democratic agenda?

I didn't see it.

I'm not claiming that no Dems support workers. I'm pointing out that since NAFTA (really before then) the national Democratic record on labor and financial well-being of workers and the middle class is spotty at best. What changes for the better for workers can we "promise"? Dems have not forcefully opposed king george's domestic economic agenda--with the sole exception of protecting Social Security.

The Dems are seen in the country as "just as bad" as the repukes. Dems have favored the financial industry on health care (insurance), bankruptcy and credit card deregulation. When they were in charge, they did nothing to solve the health care crisis.

Big kudos to Granholm!

[MADem]

76. ABSOLUTELY--Listen to the Democrats in Congress as well as the DNC

They have ALWAYS pushed this issue. I can't believe you never noticed it, to be honest. Turn the volume up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042201128.html

The Democrats came to New Orleans this week to highlight what they want the midterm elections to be about: a referendum on Bush's leadership and competence. Just as Iraq symbolizes Americans' disenchantment with Bush's foreign policy, New Orleans stands as a poignant reminder of the breakdown of government after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. Democrats intend to use that imagery as a partisan weapon between now and November to argue that Bush has failed the American people on multiple fronts....

The proposals include raising the minimum wage, ensuring tax fairness for the middle class, rewriting the Medicare prescription drug plan, enacting recommendations from the commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, overhauling ethics and lobbying rules, and pushing the Iraqis to take greater responsibility for defeating the insurgency.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-minimumwa0420apr20,0,1647772.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who earlier this year compared Congress to a plantation, said Thursday that lawmakers should know what it feels like to be working poor and going years without a raise.

Democrats and Republicans have been at loggerheads for years on raising the federal minimum wage, which has stood at $5.15 an hour since 1997.

Clinton, D-N.Y., offered a novel approach Thursday, saying she would introduce legislation that would prevent congressional salaries from increasing unless the minimum wage rises by the same percentage. ...

Let's go back in time, before BushCo, when we had a real president:
http://www2.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/24/cq/minimum.wage.html

At a news conference attended largely by labor groups and advocates for the poor, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. David E. Bonior, D-Mich., announced the introduction of bills (S1805, HR3510) to increase the minimum wage by 50 cents in 1999 and again in 2000, raising it from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour.

President Clinton endorsed the wage increase March 18 and National Economic Council Chairman Gene Sperling attended the news conference to reiterate the administration's commitment to it. Clinton had called for an increase during his Jan. 27 State of the Union address.

The administration's backing buoyed Democrats' hopes that they could persuade successive Congresses to raise the wage. But it is unclear whether they can attract the Republican support that was crucial to passing the measure in the 104th Congress. All current cosponsors of Kennedy and Bonior's bills are Democrats, although Sperling predicted that "by the end of 1998, it will be bipartisan legislation again." ....

[leftofthedial]

85. I know that Democrats have supported minimum wage increases

and repukes have opposed them

but it's not in the agenda. Am I supposed to tell my neighbors that they should vote for Dems so the minimum wage will be raised? I got burned on health care in the early Clinton days. I got burned on support for labor by NAFTA in the 90's. I got burned by lukewarm (better than repukes, but still lukewarm) environmental support. Etc.

It is hard to motivate previously lifelong repukes and/or apathetic non-voters with the argument that they should vote Democratic because Dems are somewhat less bad than the repukes or that Dems will (insert vague feelgood generality here).

Why doesn't the website clearly say, right there on the homepage that Democrats promise to:

raise the minimum wage to $x.xx
implement universal healthcare
eliminate tax breaks for corporations that ship American jobs overseas
implement wind-fall tax increases on oil companies and other war profiteers and price gougers

Why don't the Democrats have a clear, understandable agenda. The Democrats. Not a particular individual possible Presidential candidate in 2008, not some individual member of Congress--the Democratic Party. Put us in power and we will x, y and z.

[MADem]

86. Well, why don't you sign the petition, and ask your friends to do so too

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/fairwage

And have a look at the link to Ted's fact sheet about the issue: http://www.tedkennedy.com/content/686/raising-the-minimum-wage-a-fact-sheet

And see what Howard Dean had to say about the issue, just a couple of weeks ago, and that is posted on their site:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/04/dean_on_the_nee.php

Republicans in Washington continue to undermine the economic security of America's working families. The Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly blocked attempts to raise the federal minimum wage, which was last increased a decade ago in 1996. The current federal rate of $5.15 per hour represents only 33% of the average hourly wage of American workers, the worst ratio since 1949.

While Republicans in Congress have sat idly by as the value of the minimum wage has declined steadily over the last decade, eighteen states and the District of Columbia, as well as a number of cities around the country, have all enacted their own higher minimum wage rates.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement on the need for Republicans in Washington to raise the federal minimum wage:

"Republicans in Washington continue to undermine the economic security of our nation’s working families. It is time to raise the minimum wage so that no American family is forced to live below the poverty line despite working full-time jobs, and so that no child in America has to go to bed hungry at night. Ensuring a living wage for our families is a moral issue. Americans want change, not more of the same failed policies that have kept the minimum wage stagnant. Democrats will continue to fight to provide the American people with a government that will look out for the best interests of every American."

It's all there, if you look. It's not a static site, it changes often.

Your glass is half empty, I think.

[Sparkly]

36. Here's a suggestion

Instead of asking what they thought of a speech, why not ask them what problem or problems bother them the most? Then address those.

I think Democrats' stands on issues are pretty clear in broad terms -- most variations are in "how-to's."

[MADem]

22. Interesting analysis, that --and I agree with you

I think we stand for something, and for the life of me can't understand why people think otherwise. There is, as an astute poster said above, a huge difference between policies that work (social security) and policies that don't (Star Wars).

If folks cannot lead, by pushing the agenda, challenging the points they find wanting with real alternatives, or follow, by supporting candidates, talking to their neighbors, and doing a little grassroots work, they need to take the third option, and get out of the damn way. Carping and griping without offering alternatives is a tired old technique, and not very productive. We need people who are proactive, not whiners. The old saw "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" applies!

[Sparkly]

37. It's a rightwing talking point.

"Democrats don't stand for anything."

"Democrats criticize, but don't have any plans of their own to offer."

"Democrats have no clear platform."

:eyes:

[opihimoimoi]

25. Most True Democrats have one thing in COMMON...doing whats best for the

People...

Benevolent

Altruistic

Civil Rights

Better management of the Lands/Budget

Caring for our Environment:


Working for the COMMON GOOD for all of us.

Addressing Global Matters like in pollution, trading agreements, etc

Energy efficiency

Infrastruture

Defense/Offense

Peace Making

Advanced Education ..war on Ignorance

More Parties/entertainment/Intercultural Bonding


and many more thats sure to emerge on the Platform coming up...

[flyarm]

26. I GUESS YOU MISSED IT THEN...HERE LET ME HELP YOU!!

FIRST.. and this doesn't take much help with..this current admin has broken international laws, USA laws< constitutional laws, Geneva convention laws..and they are war criminals..

now this was put out about a month ago...i have it on all my emails as my signature line..perhaps you can do the same..and help yourself learn what dems stand for...

PLEASE PASS AROUND..AS THE REPUBLICAN MEDIA WON'T TELL YOU!!

DEMOCRATIC Six-Point Plan for 2006
-Real Security
-Based on telling the truth to our soldiers, our citizens and our allies
-Protecting America; leading the world.
-Energy Independence 2020
-Creating a cleaner, greener and stronger America.
-Honest Leadership, Open Government
-Restoring a government as good as the people it serves.
-Economic Prosperity and Education Excellence
-American jobs that will stay in America.
-Keeping America number one; Restoring opportunity and innovation.
-A Health Care System that Works for Everyone
-Like 36 other industrialized nations.
-Making the wealthiest nation on earth, the healthiest.
-Retirement Security
-Ensuring dignity for older Americans.

fly

[skeeters2525]

32. Here's The Problem

They have a media that like to suck Bush's wang. They are owned by defense contractors just like Bush.

Also security is a problem. They can call Bush a liar for wars all day, and guess what. One day a Bush stooge like Bin Laden will launch another CIA funded attack and they are back in the sewer.

I do believe there is a lot of hope. And a lot of that involves supporting and backing the progressives. There is no chance of a third party, so we have to take back the Dems. Just look at Gore, Kerry, Feingold, Durbin and others to know it is working.

They have a plan, but they need to get through to many brainwashed idiots that only watch cable news. If only everyone in the Country read DU

[kentuck]

33. We have seen the enemy and it is...

us. We are the Party. There's a lot of indecision within our Party. Butthat will disappear soon, I am sure.

[yurbud]

47. hard to tell because they are trying to please two conflicting interests

regular people, and big business.

Most of the things that require legislation are when the interests of the two conflict, so Democrats want to figure out a way to not alienate either, which is about as successful as trying to decide a rape trial without offending the rapist or victim.

The GOP doesn't have this problem as much because their rank and file care about symbolic airy fairy issues that rarely cramp big business. What does a flag burning amendment or prayer in school cost a corporation? Nothing.


The DLC wing of the Democratic party wants to be known as essentially the business party without religious nuts.

That's not going to take care of the rest of us though. We need a party like the one Paul Wellstone wanted:

"I don’t represent the big oil companies. I don’t represent the big pharmaceutical companies. I don’t represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what? They already have great representation in Washington. It’s the rest of the people that need it.”

http://www.ourfuture.org/onmessage/borosage/borosage_oct30_02.cfm

[Agony]

55. None of this frigging matters...

If you haven't figured out yet that the only difference btwn a Democrat and a Repugnicant is the speed with which their knees hit the floor in front of a lobbyist then you are beyond redemption! :sarcasm: illegal codesmilie_remote(':sarcasm:')

(_I_ haven't figured out yet how Ralphie can be so right and so wrong all at the same time)

[AtomicKitten]

56. Dems need to talk about freedom.

And getting government out of our lives. A good start would be talking about the hypocrisy of Republicans who say they want small government but, in fact, want government to take away the freedom of those people and activities THEY don't approve of.

Rather than getting into the muck with social wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage and adoption, Dems need to talk about freedom and equal treatment under the law. They need to emphasize that government must not be allowed to interject in one's private life. Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor; the government has no business in that equation. Gay Americans should be afforded the same liberties as straight people. These issues must be discussed in a matter of fact way.

Most of all religion MUST be separate from government. History has provided example after example of why mixing the two isn't a good idea.

And whether some here at DU admit it or not, life was much better and freer for most under the stewardship of Clinton/Gore. Mistakes were made, i.e., NAFTA executed under Republican leadership has been disastrous. However, all in all, I dare anyone to say (with a straight face) that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. The constant influx of anarchist chatter of some leftwing talk radio hosts is repeated verbatim here at DU which accounts for much of the Dem bashing. I think people need to make a hard decision, and that is whether or not they are going to roll the dice with the Dems or continue to always invoke negativity.

I trust Howard Dean. Just about everything he has done and said has led me to believe that he knows what he is doing. Having witnessed the dirty tricks of the GOP Wrecking Machine, I wonder why some here at DU parrot the same divisive and derogatory mantra they hear such as where's the Dem plan? or what do they stand for?

That's my opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

63. self-delete

[Odin2005]

57. Politicians fell for the "End of Ideology" meme when the USSR fell.

Neo-Liberals claimed that the fall of the USSR "proved" Capitalist Democracy and Free Trade the final political theory for all time, and anyone who disagreed was an ideoluoge. This is where the DLC came from. Thatcher was the Right-Wing form of Neo-Liberal while Clinton was the Left-Wing version.

[brentspeak]

59. s/d

[brentspeak]

60. self-del

I was going to go off on a neo-liberal rant, but figured I already said too much.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. I think your statement basically sums it up well

Reagan/Thatcher were the right wing of neoliberalism/pax americana

Clinton/Blair the left wing of neoliberalism/pax americana

But many of us on the liberal/left and many traditionalist and libertarian conservatives as well and MOST PEOPLE - The vast overwhelming majority-don't believe in neoliberalism/pax american just as most people could not accept authoritarian marxist-leninism.

But this whole discussion is now shut out of the political process and at least in the so-called mainstream media it has been removed from the market place of ideas.




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[AtomicKitten]

64. I hate to argue semantics, but ...

Reagan was a neoliberal with his trickle-down theory of economics.

Clinton was not a classic neoliberal outside of his free trade scheme. I realize much has been written by far-lefties categorizing him as such (and repeated here as lore), but Clinton deviated much from the more traditional DLC core neoliberalism and doesn't really fit into that classification.

[Imagevision]

65. Democratic party is about regaining control by letting Bush self destruct

As far as plans? Bush's only plan was Regime change, if we can believe Kerry, we'll give Iraqi Parliament a 45 day notice to shit or get off the pot -- however, Bush recent plans to build a billion dollar US. Embassy and we've got 12 US. bases built as of 6 months ago which Rumsfeld claims it's for the Iraqi to have after we leave - whenever his plan would permit.

[Aaaargh]

68. Carter and Clinton were cheerleaders for abortion- and gay-rights?

"Socially liberal but economically-conservative Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have apparently been doing the GOP's bidding all this time without realizing it: they supported and enabled the expansion of free trade which has decimated much of the Democrat's main base of blue collar and - increasingly - white collar middle class voters."

In fact, both Carter and Clinton gave only qualified and compromised support to abortion rights and gay rights, largely in accord with majority opinion among the American public. Furthermore, lumping these two concerns together is misleading, because abortion rights are strongly (if not enthusiastically) supported by the majority of Americans, while gay rights have significant but lesser support. The Repigs put the two together in a feeble attempt to undermine support for abortion rights.

The overall notion that Democrats represent an agenda that undermines so-called family values comes from Repig propaganda, which Americans are fed every day by the corporate news media, and which attempts, very deceitfully, to expand upon the supposed cultural split that emerged in the era of the late '60's and early '70's. The nomination of George McGovern in '72, and the spectacle of the Democratic Convention in that year, exemplifies this, as it's propagated - though in fact, McGovern was both a traditional Democrat and, generally, a 'cultural conservative.'

Few Democratic office-holders and -seekers today, or Repigs for that matter, stand against "free trade," and the usual line from those in the Democratic Party who affect to bemoan Democrats' focus on 'social issues' (the DLC ilk) is that Democrats need to move further in a corporatist direction - as if that 'cultural conservatism' and the corporatist agenda, which is utterly at odds with the traditional Democratic principles associated with FDR, Truman, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey et al, were of a piece.

In the near-future in American politics, a new form of populism will become extremely important, in face of the decline of our standard of living due to "free trade," globalization, and the destructive, budget-busting imperialist militarism our government is engaging in today - all the consequences of the corporatist program embraced currently by most politicians in both parties. That populist trend will be dominated by people who hold to the agenda which today is called 'paleo-conservatism,' unless there's a determined movement of Democrats striving to return to the traditional principles of their party.

It's vital, however, that we understand that those traditional Democratic Party principles exist outside of the gimmicked-up cultural conflict which both Repig and DLC-ilk propagandists have emphasized for the last 30-some years, as a useful distraction from the most important matters facing us.

[crispini]

71. I see this all the time when I train people do to blockwalking.

It's understandable. People want "bite sized" feel good platitudes and we Dems aren't good at that yet. I tell my blockwalkers that they need to come up with their own-- that, if asked, they need to be able to speak from the heart about three reasons why they are Dems. This goes back to George Lakoff -- we like "platform" and "policies" too much and we don't talk about our core values-- which we DO have, we just need to articulate them better.