What do we progressives want ... purity or a winner

[Coastie for Truth]

Paul Starr asks some very provocative questions in "Winning Cases, Losing Voters" at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/opinion/26starr.html?

"Under these circumstances, liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied party that can win at the polls? The latter, it seems clear, is the better choice."

or

1. Does being too far out in front imperil achieving our goals?

and

2. Do we want the virtue of ideological purity or the thrill of victory?

I would suggest we look at the new Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein and Joe Leiberman and Harry Reid and Tim Roemer with those questions in mind. None of them are "Bush Lite" and I would prefer any of them to Bush!

[Osamasux]

1. I think we need to focus on gaining a majority

before we can get picky about how great our team is. Lieberman has been an incredible disappointment this term. The rest I can live with. We'll be playing defense for the next four years.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. But we won't gain a majority

by shooting people who win elections just because we don;t agree with them 100,00% of the time.

My family is from Cleveland -- and there's lots I don't agree with Kucinich on.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

4. I'll take a "minority party" that represents my politics,

over a majority party that represents big money. Why should my political
opinions have no voice in government? Who is calling for "political
correctness" now?

[Demeter]

15. AMEN!

If there is nobody talking truth in politics, and nobody making GOOD suggestions and generating perspective, then there is no party, no opposition, no democracy.

[OHdem10]

5. Good question but I do not

believe we anser it fully until: all wings of Dem Party come together
once and for all come up with --"what it is we stand for as a party".

This means all wings DLC, Progressives, Liberals etc.

When you speak of purity, I do not see Democratic Party Purity --I
see various grups with their own interests. This is good--groups
should have interests and goals which drive them. However, the
party should have certain phiosophy and principles on which it stands.

As things stand now, IMHO, we end up with laundry lists of programs
ie, health care, . This is not a principle.. We need an overarching set of beliefs or principles which identify us as democrats. Then we could see how each group and their interests fit into the whole of the party. We could establish priorities. Common sense tells us each groups interest cannot be the first on the list. If Activists from each group could participate, there would, I believe much more willingness to cooperate.We could begin to realize that each groups turn would come.In the meantime all groups support each other.

Some of the people you list , by their record you would have to admit can be difficult to distingquish from Moderate Republicans.
No they are not as radical as Bush. Here is my test--when it comes down to the crunch will they most likely come down on the side of Corporate America or will they consider the American People first.
Did they vote with the Drug Companies in the Medicare bill or
did they look out for Middle America??

I do not think it is Purity . Many Democrats evaluate differenly.
Social Justice is my "thing". I also believe we have to be fair to business. You can be fair to buiness without being their slave.
You can be fair to business without conisistenly harming the "little guy" In other words I will forgive a vote on the part of a Congressman or woman if it is occasional. I have a problem when
I sit here with a list of Democrats whom I could bet and win the bet-
they will cave because Wall Street is salivating over SS Privatization.

In conclusion< I think we need to come together make a statement of beliefs. The Leaders could get Newstime to go no TV as well as a
few commercials promoting the Democratic Party.

Americans have to be able to state what Democrats stand for if we are ever to win again. Any American Dem or Republkian can tell you what the Republican party stands for. They cannot do the same for Democrats. This is our Achilles heel.

Very good question.

[norml]

6. The "New" Hillary Clinton? You've been listening to too much nonsense

from the right wing repub infomercials, hosted by insult comics, all reading off of the same page.

[enki23]

7. ooh... i'll take the red herring, with a side of false choice!

.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Since I started this with Paul Starr's NYTimes OPED

I have been a Dem all of my life -- been a political junkie since I was in high school.

Also, I grew up in a union household -- one of my grand dads was a classical Leftie clergy who preached that a Republican could not get into Heaven.

We had a wake when FDR died -- just as if a family member had died. And our house was truly a "House In Morning" when Stevenson lost - both times, and when Hubert Humphrey lost.

And I am getting a little bit tired of "Non-Victory" Parties on election night. Kerry was not my first choice -- but I kept up same tithing and same volunteering after Kerry was nominated.

If you think Diane Feinstein is a "neo-con" -- just wait till she faces San Diego County Republican State Senator Tom McClintock in the General Election --- there's a neo con.

And, if you think Hillary Clinton is a "neo-con" -- just wait till Rudy announces -- good old Rudy of "Thank God Bush Was President" and "Bernie Kerick" fame.

[bpilgrim]

9. pfft... the old fashioned way brought in over $300 m in $10s and $20s

more than the reTHUGs though they never talk about that on the teeVee...

NEWSFLASH: doing it reTHUG-lite has earned all these recent loses so maybe we need a CHANGE to a STAND-FOR-THE-PEOPLE agenda instead of their own personal cults :shrug:

peace

[KissMeKate]

10. dems who stand up will always win.

no more rollover and play dead democrats!

[Coastie for Truth]

11. I have been to too many election night parties at "Headquarters"

that turned into wakes.

Plus Victory Parties are a lot more fun.

Plus Democrats make better appointments then Republicans. You may have seen Democrats vote to confirm Condi --- but you can be darn sure that neither Kerry nor Dean would have nominated Condi - or Rummie - or Ashcroft or Gonzales.

And you can be darn sure that Kerry or Dean would not be Piratizing Social Security to turn it into Social INSecurity, or giving the drug companies immunity from negotiating with Medicare, or letting a Secretary of Defense set up his own shadow/dirty tricks CIA (does "Iran-Contra" ring a bell).

[KissMeKate]

12. I too, my friend,

have been to victory parties that turned into wakes. we should swap war stories sometime.

My experience is, the moderates lost repeatedly.

[bvar22]

13. I don't understand.

Are you saying we should vote for republicans if we want to win?

What is the benefit if I gain the World but lose my soul?

[ClayZ]

14. I want to see the Children of Iraq

in a hell of a lot better shape than this!
God Have Mercy this has to be stopped!

www.zonaeuropa.com/01467.htm

The Weight of a Snowflake
"Tell me the weight of a snowflake," a coalmouse asked a wild dove.
"Nothing more than nothing," the dove answered.
"In that case I must tell you a marvelous story," the coalmouse said. "I sat
on a fir branch close to the trunk when it began to snow. Not heavily, not
in a raging blizzard. No, just like in a dream, without any violence at all.
Since I didn't have anything better to do, I counted the snowflakes settling
on the twigs and needles of my branch. Their number was exactly 3,471,952.
When the next snowflake dropped onto the branch--nothing more than
nothing -- as you say -- the branch broke off."
Having said that, the coalmouse ran away.
The dove, since Noah's time an authority on peace, thought about the story
for a while. Finally, she said to herself, "Perhaps there is only one
person's voice lacking for peace to come to the world." - Source unknown

[n2doc]

16. the two are not mutually exclusive

We can have both! Why is it that the pukes can be as ideologically divisive as they want, yet the burden is on us dems to "reach out"? Frankly the "reaching out" crap hasn't done much good, has it? Perhaps if we start acting like a real party with beliefs that we stand up for, no mater what the MSM or hate radio say, then we might, just might, start to be looked upon as a party that is "forthright" and "honest" by a majority of folks. Yeah, I know the pukes are the farthest thing from these concepts, but they control the media, so we will have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Doesn't everybody remember the ridicule Kerry faced for (apparently) changing his positions on things? Even though much of that campaign was a lie, there was more than a grain of truth to it. Too many dem "leaders" are willing to change their positions to "compromise" or not even stand up for anything if they might get some hate from the right, even when it gains them NOTHING. Are you listening, Obama and Salizar?