Considering Rep. Shuler's remarks, should elected Democrats follow a Reagan-like 11th Commandment?

[wyldwolf]

Poll question: Considering Rep. Shuler's remarks, should elected Democrats follow a Reagan-like 11th Commandment?

During Ronald Reagan's 1966 campaign for governor of California, Republicans established their so-called Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

It was first proposed by State Republican Chairman Gaylord Parkinson to help prevent a repeat of the moderate Republican assault on Barry Goldwater (which some Republicans believe) laid the foundation for Goldwater's trouncing in the 1964 presidential election.

[waiting for hope]

1. No lock stepping ...

"If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag."

[guruoo]

2. Patience my ass - We want it all, and we want it now!

And,
just in case...
:sarcasm:

[Pirate Smile]

3. This is the Democratic Party so that would never happen.

:)

The quote is famous because it just fits.

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

Will Rogers

[karynnj]

4. You can err on either side -

Attacking wildly over insignificant differences - especially in a personal nasty way, questioning motives and strength is counterproductive.. I personally would love it if all the comments reflecting on spines and balls disappeared forever - they are insulting and add NOTHING to the debate - and they diminish our leaders. But the President, the Senators and the Representatives represent us - so it makes sense that we should be able to speak out and try to influence them through arguments. But, it is not just us - it is the right and responsibility for our elected officials to speak out when they disagree - though they should opt to first raise issues privately.

But, when they think something is wrong and important (and that will differ over the range of Democrats) they were elected to take stands and to add their concerns and opinions to the National debate. I predict that even the strongest Congressional supporters will find something that they need to speak against that Obama favors and they will do this very politely, though maybe passionately. This is acting our values - we do not have a monarchy or dictatorship. In addition, if their arguments are sound and they gain agreement - it could be the best thing for our democracy. We chose Obama as President, but people over the country also elected Senators and Representatives.

We do NOT want to copy the Republicans - it is easy to tell from comments at hearings that senior credible Republicans had problems with Bush's actions on Iraq. Imagine the difference if Lugar and 2 or 3 top Republicans had called for not rushing to war in 2003. It might have moved many Democrats who were silent to do so as well. It could have tipped the balance in a way that a top foreign policy Democrat saying not to rush to war couldn't.

Now, that is an extreme case - Obama is not Bush, but imagine that in the 1990s, more prominent Democrats spoke of the long term problem in the welfare bill if we encountered really bad times when getting a job would be impossible. It was promised that in those conditions there would be a safety net - but it wasn't adequately in the bill. This is a time when the Democrats should have stood up to the President - rather than trust it would be fixed appropriately. The Republicans could not have passed it over a filibuster and they likely would have passed a bill that made the changes but added the protections - because in their view it would have been better than the then current situation.

[anonymous171]

5. Depends on the democrat. The blug dogs are traitorous to the core.

They are, by nature, Republican-lite. We cannot trust them to walk in lockstep because they simply cannot do it without losing their positions. We could implement lockstep if the blue dogs went away.

[wyldwolf]

7. so void of the Blue Dogs, you'd support lockstep? Not judging, just curious

[anonymous171]

8. Yes. Or void of progressives (although I wouldn't like that)

It's all about similar interests. The GOP was able to institute lockstep because they had many things in common: They all disliked taxes, government spending, and minorities. If we can find a couple of issues (not just one issue, mind you) that the Progressive left and the Blue Dogs agree on, then we could probably do some lockstep.

[wyldwolf]

9. I understand your point. Thanks.

[liberalsince1968]

6. Not just no, but HELL NO!!!! GO FEINGOLD!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Other: Not quite Reagan style, but Dems should temper their comments.

The last thing we need is conservative assholes quoting our own people to use it against us. Choice of language has to be very, very measured. Shuler's comments are probably just barely over the threshold (in violation).

[wyldwolf]

12. ok, well...

what about "progressive" assholes doing the same?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Same deal.

We are all D's. I make no exceptions for the DU-All Stars, so to speak. I've been very critical of Feingold and Richardson on many occasions for their tendency to throw the party under a bus.

[Mudoria]

11. No. The best thing about the Democratic Party

is that it represents a diverse viewpoint within the party which is reflective of the country. To me that shows the strength of the party. Does it hurt at times, sure, but who wants robots like the Repubs? Nothing is worse than to see a party like the Republicans march lockstep, supressing any dissent, just to make a statement or be being obstructionist. That's not governing, thats grandstanding for political mantra. Give me a party that welcomes a spectrum of opinions and views any day.