Is there one issue that 100% of the Democrats agree on?

[bobweaver]

[Meme]

1. yeah. That bush is an idiot n/t

[AllyCat]

2. My thoughts exactly n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. I'm afraid not

(although coming from the UK I'm not strictly a Democrat). But some of those malapropisms *must* be deliberate, I think. His policies are idiotic, sure, but I suspect that the man himself is brighter than he pretends to be. The sad fact is that a lot of people, especially Republicans, distrust anyone who appears to be more intelligent than they are, and Bush was smart enough to realise this. Remember that the Right uses "intellectual" as an insult.

Surely no-one could have come out with all those Bushisms by accident. No-one but someone actually quite clever could come over as that stupid.

[Kota]

That our country is heading in the wrong direction in so many

areas.

[Robbien]

3. The media

Media control and the FCC.

I disagree with all Democrats being against Bush. Congressional Democrats and some in the DLC are willing to go along with Bush just as long as their lobbyist fiefdoms are not threatened.

[Meme]

10. that doesn´t mean they don´t think he´s an idiot ;) n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

4. No.

There isn't.

And there isn't one issue that 100% of the Republicans agree on either.

[BearFlagDemocrat]

5. Depends...

Is Zell Miller considered part of that 100%?

[Ken Burch]

23. Here's what I couldn't understand about ol' Zell

Why the fuck wasn't he expelled from the Senate Democratic Caucus for endorsing Bush and speaking at the Republican Convention? Isn't there some minimum standard of party loyalty a Democratic Senator is expected to show in exchange for being considered a Democrat in good standing?

And he was a lame duck and the Dems were already in the minority, so it's hard to see how kicking him out would have done any real harm.

Anybody have an explanation for this?

[lefty79]

27. Zel Miller

The power is in the state, not in the Democratic Caucus. Each state HAS TO HAVE representation. The real issue is who is the replacement? Zel is leaving soon.

[JDPriestly]

6. Torture is wrong

and should not be tolerated by anyone in our government.

[slackmaster]

9. Sure, but is tickling torture and should it be tolerated?

There you will find disagreement.

[JDPriestly]

20. Yes. Tickling is torture.

I was extremely ticklish as a child (no more), and my siblings tortured me by tickling me until I couldn't breathe. It was awful. I'll never forget it.

[slackmaster]

25. I'm still extremely ticklish at age 46

And anyone who attempts to tickle me is likely to get his or her ass kicked. With my back problems, a tickling action to the ribs can cause a painful muscle spasm that takes days to subside.

I do not approve of people tickling children. It makes them lose control of their bodies.

But there are parents, some of them surely Democrats, who tickle their children.

[bvar22]

34. Joe Liberman disagrees with you.

n/t

[AuntiBush]

43. I strongly agree with that one!

He's the poster-boy for the Republicans. Its' rather sad to see him play such an undistinguishable role.

[slackmaster]

7. Only on broad, general issues

Like the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Issues that Republicans and Greens and Libertarians and independents would all agree on as well.

Once you try to get more specific, conflicts always arise even within the party.

[primavera]

41. Pat Moynihan once observed...

...that the difference between Republicans and Democrats was that Republicans believed that politics should reflect the will of the masses, while Democrats believed that politics could influence the will of the masses. So perhaps the distinction lies less in specific agenda items and more in the conviction that politics has a role in generating social change.

[aden_nak]

8. That Democrats disagree?

[Raster]

11. Fair elections that accurately reflect the will of the people.

Until the election infrastructure is made completely transparent and the results of EVERY election are verifiable, everything else is a moot point.

[H2O Man]

12. Iraq

I think that very close to 100% of democrats disagree with the administration on the invasion of Iraq. Though there is a wide range of opinions on what our policy should be now, I think that few democrats would say that we needed to invade Iraq to protect us from that WMD attack that was just around the corner .... you know, the one with the mushroom cloud.

[fnottr]

13. eh, I don't know

I saw a clip of Lieberman from Faux right after they announced that the WMD hunt was over, and he was trying to argue that even though we didn't find them didn't mean they weren't there:wtf:

[H2O Man]

18. As I said

a few democrats will support Bush on this. As a rule, they do not want their children to go to Iraq to support the Bush policy. I will wager that there are remarkably few people on DU that are dedicated to moving the party in Lieberman's direction.

[Lenape85]

14. Healthcare and Social Security, mostly

[Lexingtonian]

15. Hmmm....

1. Politics should be about relevant current issues and the middle future, not an unceasing revisionist nostalgia trip into the Past.

2. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This extends to economic arrangements, in spirit.

[renaissanceguy]

16. Equal opportunity

as a broad idea.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16472020

[DaedelusNemo]

17. Liberty, justice & the American Dream for all

Hey, i'm happy with anything 80% of us can agree with that doesn't violate some fundamental principle. There's always the asshole that won't even agree with himself.

[frankly_fedup2]

29. There is not such thing as "justice" in this country anymore!

The so-called Justice System of today is a total failure and disaster. This system of “injustice” is suppose to serve and protect all citizens, innocent or guilty; however, it is a corrupted, disgraceful, and dangerous example of what can happen when those that represent the core of it could care less about the assembly line of human lives they let slip through their fingers on a daily basis without any remorse. They are possibly overworked and probably underpaid; however, instead of getting out of this disaster called “The Justice System,” and starting a new job/career, they take their anger and frustrations out on those they consider “guilty until proven innocent,” with disrespect, abuse, and total disgust. It is a sickening spectacle to see, especially when your loved one is being abused, and you cannot do anything to stop it. Your hands are metaphorically tied, and you find out just how many rights you do have . . .and there are not very many.

[DaedelusNemo]

49. and the new style of 'justice' is even worse

The very idea, for example, that our government can perform some technicality that allows them to do illegal acts 'legally', as at Guatanamo, is fundamentally inimical to any respect for law and renders it a sheer arbitrary exercise of personal power.

I think people would rally strongly behind any plausible prospect of improving the quality of justice in this country - and the rule of law has to go right up to the very top.

[Blue_Roses]

19. I think there's alot we agree

on, unfortunately those things that we don't are what we hear the most about.

[Kire]

24. that God may or may not exist?

n/t

[moggie12]

21. That it's wonderful that Bob Shrum is retiring to teach at NYU

I pray no Democrat hires any of his students.

[AmericanErrorist]

22. The deficit?

In there anyone in here who is opposed to balanced budgets on principle?

(Although Clinton balanced the budget with such pro-family concepts as "Welfare reform".

[lefty79]

28. Budget

The real question to any and all congressmen and women is: Would you vote on a balanced budget amendment? This question would really tell you what the person is made of. My bet is that the bullshit would start flowing and never get the truth.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

26. We all want to win the next election.

That's the one and only thing I can honestly say we all agree on.

[Lizzie Borden]

33. Yep! Winning

is the only thing that I'm totally certain we can all agree on. Having said that, I think it's important to point out that historically, we are the party that argues with itself. I don't think it's something to fear. We thrash things out,and question all positions. That's healthy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

47. We're a very diverse group.

You have to expect us to argue amongst ourselves. Many of us are very passionate by nature. It's what makes us good at fighting for what we believe in.

I think that most of us agree on the fact that unity within the party doesn't require conformity. Having said that, I know I could get an argument from other democrats over those words. It's the way we are.

[AlFrankenFan]

30. The sky is blue

n/t

[Democrat Dragon]

31. Yet another reason why this party is broken

We need CENTRALIZED leadership and it wouldn't hurt to have a loyalty oath!

As a member of the Democratic Party, it is my obligation and solemn duty to defend and carry out a progressive agenda.

I will do what I can to defend those in need, especially those who are disenfranchised, poor, and weak.

I will defend our environment for the sake of the world.

I will defend the constitution of the United States of America by any means.

I will defend equal civil rights to minorities, homosexuals, bisexuals, the elderly, the young, and the disabled.

I will defend the institutions of freedom and democracy.

I will fight against any forces that threaten the party, the progressive agenda, and the institution of democracy.

If any other fellow Democrat breaks this oath I will extradite him or her.

I will never surrender to defeat in any election if there is even the slightest hint that I really won.

As a member I must, and will carry out the liberal progressive agenda. If I break my oath I promise to be held accountable for any damages. I will carry out my responsibility of being a Democrat.

[trezic]

32. Riiiiiiight (think Dr. Evil)

1. Centralized leadership? Unworkable, if only for the reason that different geographic regions have different concerns. A better idea is a general accord to find the maximum common denominator.

2. Loyalty oath? I'm hostile to this idea primarily because I have a good idea I'd be a victim of it. Loyalty oaths are for those who value ideology over all, which is a Republican tenet. We'd be better off with a pragmatism oath: I promise not to let idiotic ideologies get in the way of facts.

3. Defend the environment for the sake of the world? Drop world and add country and we can talk. Altruism in a politician is worse than corruption.

4. Defend the constitution? Sure, why not. I happen to be pretty fond of a document that guarantees my right to spout off nonsense.

5. Equal civil rights. I'll buy it if Democrats lose the identity politics loser. But the concept of hate crime has to go.

6. Institutions of freedom and democracy? I can't commit without knowing the specifics. To my mind, juries and the 1st amendment are key.

7. Threaten the party, the progressive agenda, and the institution of democracy. Hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but threat needs definition. Same for the progressive agenda. This isn't meant to be facetious. I dislike the word progressive personally because communists used it when they really meant slavemasters.

8. Extradite someone for breaking an oath? Maybe I'm just stupid, but what does this mean? Extradite them from where to where? Do you mean excommunicate? (As an aside, excommunication has been a key aspect of the GOP for the last 15 years or so)

9. Slightest hint. How slight is slight? We talking a snowball's chance in hell or what?

10. Once again, what is the liberal progressive agenda? And accountable for damages? You mean like a lawsuit? And, what is the responsibility of being a Democrat?

This really isn't meant to be too facetious, though I did chuckle a few times while writing it.

[Democrat Dragon]

35. Ha Ha

That was just a joke exaggerating how ununited Democrats are. The vagueness just to make the damn thing short.

But seriously, the reason why the Republicans are so strong is becasue the vast majority are united. Unity and a strong leasder who isn't afriad to borrow techniques from business is something that the Democratic party needs.

[trezic]

36. Hmm

The GOP adopted a policy of 'no enemies to the right' 20-some years ago. It's a policy that stifles all dissent and ostracizes those who don't conform the preconceived plan.

Unity of that sort just isn't likely with Democrats. It's like Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Consensus on the overall goal is nice, but what is desperately needed is a recognition that we're all on the same side, mostly. While we may disagree here and there on a host of issues, with luck we'll be in general agreement on most issues or at least the big ones.

I'm not so sure a strong leader is what Democrats need. We're a pretty independent bunch. For me, I think we need to change congressional districting. Organize the districts on a rational basis to prevent extremists of either side from being elected. I think we could get a more moderate congress by doing this. And a moderate congress should prove to be much less susceptible to ideology than the current version.

Like I said, I chuckled a lot while writing :P

[Democrat Dragon]

40. That is why

the dems don't seem to be going anywhere. And the Nazis are infiltrating every office. It's somehting called organization, think about it, which is more effective, a bunch of soldiers attacking the enemy in a very strategic way, knowing exactly what each other is droing, knowing exactly where the enemy is, and having a good commander, or a bunch of soldiers attacking the enemy, not one soldier knows what the other is doing, there is no commander, and they are running around looking for he enemy?

[trezic]

46. There's a difference

between elections and governing.

I'm not an idealist, but even I have trouble with people who want to win office just to win it. Hence, I dislike Kennedys.

What's the point of controlling a government if you have no clue how to do it or what's going on?

[Democrat Dragon]

48. It comes back to leadership and organization

Keep in mind that if things are organized, you'd have a team focusing on campaigns and you'd have the thinktanks that focus on what is to be done after winning. The candidate of course would have to listen to both sides and more importantly put his or her imput as well.

[buddysmellgood]

37. That we don't all have to agree on everything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Yes, lots of things,

but I suspect the question that you mean to ask is "Is there anything that all Democrats agree on that a non-trivial number of people disagree with".

[DaedelusNemo]

50. Good point - some attempts

That labor should never be taxed more than wealth.

That what kind of sex consenting folk may or may not be having is none of yer damn business - or whatever else they may be doing, for that matter, so long as it isn't harming any non-consenters. That we do in fact have a right to privacy that is our principal bulwark against government intrusion and not to be trifled with.

That our economy today is suffering from deficiencies on the demand side, not the supply side.

That war should always be a last resort; that we are strongest when we have allies; that we can keep ourselves strong without trying to keep others down.

That insofar as we can increase opportunity, we ought to do so.

That secrecy in government affairs is inimical to democracy; that accountability is a matter of unceasing vigilance, not the affair of a 'moment'.

That no human being may be detained arbitrarily and indefinitely!

How about those...?

[ErinGoBraghLess]

42. Blacks vote Dem or Else!

I guess I am trying to raise a discussion here. It seems that the left expects all blacks to vote Dem. But I have to admit that sometimes I get the thought that this mighe be racist. Why would we expect one group of people, who just happen to be linked by the commonality of biology alone, to vote one way on all issues? If all whites voted Repub, would we be OK with that or would be accuse them of not thinking for themselves? Do we expect all Italian-Americans to vote the same? All Polish-Americans? Why just black folks? Don't blacks come from all walks of life and have all different experiences that might give them different perspectives on things?

Now that we're on the issue of race, I think a LOT more time should be spent on the issue that is really hurting black youth, and that is EDUCATION. I think Jessie needs to stop grandstanding and get his butt to the steps of every elementary school in every poor black neighborhood and start demanding answers. I'd like to see 20/20 and every other news magazine do hidden video of the conditions of these schools, as well as the funding. And instead of the occasional story on affirmative action at a law school, let's look at these kids in grades K-6 and admit that we are failing them. And this is not just to accuse Bush and the Repubs. I think we need to demand answers from our own leaders too. Everyone talks about education, but still these Baltimore and D.C. schools are deplorable.

[DaedelusNemo]

51. No mystery - result of republican policy

Race-baiting has been a part of the republican party strategy since the civil rights era, at least. Blacks aren't linked solely by a commonality of biology - they are also linked by the common treatment they've gotten from the republican party. I don't know about you, but i wouldn't vote for anybody who persisted in campaigning against me.

I do agree that an awful lot of what is treated as an issue of race is in fact simply an issue of poverty - though of course there is unfortunately an awful lot of overlap there. Nevertheless, there are still problems stemming from attitudes about race in this country, and they should be addressed.

[Malikshah]

44. No, and that's a strength.

It's called dissent, diversity, discourse.

As opposed to goose-stepping to oblivion. :)

[OrwellwasRight]

45. That people are not inferior in importance to "business interests."

"Anybody who says otherwsie is itchin' for a fight," as Michael Feldman likes to say on "Whaddya Know?"

(and don't say Liberman because he's a hack, not a Democrat)

[barb162]

52. environmental protection and that applies to a lot of

Republicans too. It is an automatic winner. Also protection of the borders is a winner for both parties and Bush is doing a horseshit job on both. The only ones who don't want environmental and border protection are business owners who benefit from screwing up the environment and hiring illegals cheap.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

53. no. but i think there are 2 broad groups.

social liberal, economic liberals. and of course those of us who are liberal about every issue.

[Obviousman]

54. That we can't agree

This is part of the problem.

[NeoTraitors]

55. The one thing we should all

agree on is that the Neocons must go. All other issues take a backseat in my mind, until they are gone.