The "ideal" Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

They would always stand up for the little guy against the corporations.

They would always stand up for principle and our Constitution.

There would be no "blue dogs" or "conservative wannabes" in our Party.

They would always stand together on important votes.

They would pass laws to help the working man - easier to unionize, better wages, and healthcare for all.

They would prosecute anyone and everyone that broke the laws of our country and who broke our international treaties.

They would have backbones and stand firm for what they believe.

They would be proud to call themselves "liberals".

[TwilightZone]

1. It would be significantly smaller than the current one.

That's the tradeoff, of course. Big tent and some level of national prominence or small tent and irrelevance.

The Republican Party managed the transition from one to the other in relatively speedy fashion.

[dflprincess]

31. For every Blue Dog that left

we might bring back a progressive who has left the current Democratic party out of disgust with its inability to stand for anything.

The gamble would be all those corporate dollars that might stop flowing into campaign treasuries - but a party people actually believed in might not need as many dollars to win.

[TwilightZone]

32. Blue Dog Democrats exist for a reason.

Because liberals are simply not going to get elected in many of the areas they represent.

Ben Nelson, for example, everyone's favorite conservative Democrat. He represents a state that is nearly 70% Republican, most of which is very conservative. We're simply not going to elect a liberal Democrat there in the current political climate.

Our alternative to Ben in his most recent contest was a Republican significantly more conservative than he is. Pete Ricketts would have been much worse, hard as that may be to believe.

[dflprincess]

34. So cal them populists if the word liberal scares the voters.

if the progressive message were able to get out we'd win more seats even in red seats. The problem is the conservatives (including Blue Dogs) control the message and have too many people voting against their own interests.

I would rather see the Blue Dogs be honest about what they believe and go back to the Republican party where they belong. A majority does no good if they're still voting like Republicans. All that results in is more people backing away from both parties. I see it in my area, every year fewer people stay involved because they're as fed up with both parties putting corporations ahead of people.

[TwilightZone]

36. Ok, get rid of Michelle Bachmann, and we'll talk.

When a blue state like Minnesota is represented by a whackjob like her, do you not see how other states - particularly those a lot redder than Minnesota - are going to have difficulty electing progressives and liberals?

[dflprincess]

39. Only part of Minnesota is represented by Bachmann

and that area of the state has always been a bit odd (to be polite about it). This last time she won in 3-way race. The third party candidate who appears to have been a deliberate plant to siphon votes from the DFLer got 10% of the vote - had he not been in the race the DFLer would have won.

Sadly, Minnesota is not as blue as it used to be. More and more Minnesotans do not identify with either party and view them both as corrupt and unresponsive. I know a lot of long time active DFLers who are getting fed up and have either dropped out or are thinking about it (myself included).

[panader0]

2. They would end wars-- They are evil and unnecessary

[armyowalgreens]

7. War is sometimes necessary.

[panader0]

10. Sorry, I do not agree

War is for the rich to make money on. The real people are hurt every time. You may want to cite Hitler, Stalin, Nixon , Bush. It was always about power (i.e., money) The populace are alweays the victims of the power seekers.

[armyowalgreens]

11. You are citing violent actions taken by evil doers as an excuse against war...

Yet their must be someone countering those actions.

As I said before, war is sometimes necessary. It's necessary because someone must fight against evil doers.

[Mari333]

13. evil doers? that meme sounds familiar..hmmmmm nt

[armyowalgreens]

15. I'm talking about evil in the non-religious sense

Read a book called "On evil" by Adam Morton.

It takes a utilitarian/secular stance on evil.

[Mari333]

16. the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is about money, and Oil

and pipelines. and lies. and Dems with spines would acknowledge that, but many are making too much money off of the military industrial state themselves.

[armyowalgreens]

17. I don't believe I ever said that the Iraq War was a just war...

I never said that modern warfare by the US is justified. I said that War is sometimes necessary. Big difference.

[TwilightZone]

25. I think it would be difficult to argue that countering Japan and Germany in WW2 wasn't necessary.

Someone might certainly try, though.

[armyowalgreens]

27. Well I consider that pre-modern US combat.

I'd say the Vietnam war era forward is generally pocked with inappropriate US conflict.

[TwilightZone]

29. Agreed.

I was responding mainly to the "sometimes war is necessary" statement and possible claims to the contrary.

[Mari333]

14. war is a racket

and after the last 8 yrs people should know that by now. :)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Um, did you just use the phrase "ideal political party" or is there something wrong with my eyes?

Politics is not ideal. That's why it's politics.

[armyowalgreens]

5. I think they meant in an ideal system allowing for a redress of grievences.

Not a utopian paradise.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Sorry, you're right.

Grievances should be the primary concern of any political party.

[armyowalgreens]

4. Political parties are inherently bad in an ideal world.

They foster mob mentality and ignorance.

The only reason they are necessary is because we function in a really fucked up world that only allows political participation through a party system.

[Peacetrain]

6. Blue Dogs are Democrats, just as Progressives are Democrats..

Just saying.. I would not want such party purity..leads to dictatorship by committee..no thanks

[Mythsaje]

9. As evinced, apparently, by the 'D' next to their name.

Certainly not by their voting record.

[TwilightZone]

18. Contrary to popular belief, party identification is self-applied.

Anyone who wants to be a Democrat can be one.

There is not, nor has there ever been, a requirement that candidates follow the party platform in its entirety or conform to some set of standards demanded by some mythical "True" Democrat.

[Mythsaje]

20. Some of us, however, know the difference between

ally and enemy.

[TwilightZone]

23. I have no idea what that has to do with party identification.

If the only "real" Democrats are those that vote based on your preferred stance on every issue, then I'm sure at some point, every single one of them will disappoint you. If we look hard enough, I'm sure we could disqualify them all based on one vote or another. That'll eventually leave just one "true" Democrat.

That does not, however, mean that they aren't really Democrats. It just means that they don't meet your requirements.

[armyowalgreens]

24. Excellent point. Some Duers are falling victim to the same syndrome they complain about

One strength of the Democratic party is that they welcome diverse beliefs under the blanket of being a "democrat". We understand that just because we have differing opinion, that doesn't mean we aren't all democrats.

To argue that one set of beliefs is the only true way of being a democrat is to fall into the close-minded world of the republican party.

[TwilightZone]

28. And look what it did to the GOP.

I find it odd that some are calling for what is essentially ideological purity in the face of the monumental, very recent failure of same in the GOP.

I understand disappointment and I understand wanting our Democratic leaders to pursue more liberal and progressive standards. I think that's something we all want. At the same time, I understand that a San Francisco Democrat and a Lincoln, Nebraska, Democrat can be two very different things and that we need them both to maintain a majority.

Even with 60 seats in the Senate, if we eliminate the Dems that don't fit the DU standard, we're right back in the minority.

[Mythsaje]

26. I, really, expect very little.

Unfortunately, I receive even less than that.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Is no-one but approx 100 DUers, according to them.

[Mari333]

19. you would have to assume integrity and honesty would prevail

they would have to give up huge huge kickbacks and money from lobbyists. they would have to give up their $tocks and $hares in anything that compromised their integrity. They would never be able to lie. or coverup to save themselves.
I dont think many creatures like that exist in politics.

[KharmaTrain]

21. And We've Seen What "Ideologially Pure" is doing to the GOOP...

I like a diverse party, not an insular one. I would bet that if you got 10 DUers (randomly selected) and asked them to prioritize your list or important issues, I'll bet you'd get 10 different answers...and Viva La Difference. Healthy, honest debate is good for a democracy.

[dflprincess]

35. I don't think we're talking purity

I think we're talking about a party that does have a few core beliefs rather than the one we have that stands for nothing.

[PassingFair]

38. What items in the OP's list do you consider negotiable?

To his list, I would add:

Pledged to support the public school system.

Pledged to support the separation of Church and State.

[Laelth]

22. That's certainly the Democratic Party I want. It's not the one I have.

We must all learn to deal effectively with the party we have. That's what it means to be a member of the reality-based community.

:dem:

-Laelth

[crickets]

40. mmm, reality

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

[Fuzz]

30. Mmmm, purity.

/sigh

[western mass]

41. Mmm...right-wing apologists.

sigh.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, ROBOT.