General Discussion of Discussions

[liberalmike27]

Clearly a segment of the Democratic Party is further left, and we want a voice. I wonder why you guys keep shutting down discussion from those, like myself, who entertain very real speculations of similarities between the parties.

Not allowing discussions of very real possibilities of the flight of the left-most in our party, searching for other alternatives, does us all a disservice. Examining the effect of the election one of the right-most, like say, Lieberman, on those of us on the left of the party is essential debate, which you should allow us to all have. Those on the right shouldn't shut down debate of this kind.

While I think the moderators decisions on these almost painfully narrow, new rules, are probably well-intentioned, I feel like they may actually "cause" the very thing they are intended to prevent, the flight of a substantial segment of the Democratic Party voters, to other choices. Please rethink, and allow an active open debate. I think the 2000 election showed that we matter.

[PATRICK]

1. Not the liberalism fight

against the wrongly perceived "need" to sell out pragmatically- which is a gutless loser on most fronts, all the worse if it "moderately" works. I think, if I even dare breathe the NAME, it was all those Green and Nader flame fests, most of which had much less to do with liberal issues than any of the participants believe. Then it morphed into the anti-war issue among others where unity turned into showering splinters when it was absurd not to be united in face of dire need.

The needs now are reaching a crux. issue wars pale to insignificance except as they help some to swing their crutches at each other while the GOP smilingly takes aim at our good leg. I think anyone who cares about the issues has the ability to take their case into forming our platform, a job for which Kucinich has been doing heroic and outspoken service.

The discussion of whether the party will remain the same after 2004 in a slide to DLC doldrums or worse, win or lose, is rather premature, though with the top candidates remaining, I think those days of feckless calculation will be over.

I further believe the defeat of a GOP superparty or its ugly and unjustified triumph, will both result in the birth of new (really effective)parties better able to represent the clarity and range of issues and people in a more healthy and productive manner. In other words, we are fighting for a new beginning, not a universal hopeless seal on a deadly ineffective status quo. But without a Dem win it would be nigh impossible, as Nader hopes, for a Liberal Phoenix to rise from the ashes without being shot down, much less that even a right center Dem party survives as anything other than a convenient joke. We fight here for the possibility of having an effective voice as truth and idealism deserve.

Democracy means we get to debate our future and our ideology. This election however is for democracy itself, and many of the means that will be brought to bear against the Dems will by lies and crimes. Yet that has not stopped our healthy or otherwise bickering and dissatisfactions as far as I can tell.

[liberalmike27]

2. Well

I've had a couple of clearly innocuous posts shut down.

My point is this: If you want Green Party type runs to continue to occur, the Democratic Party need only continue to elect the right-most members of its huge-tent. They will continue to lose voters on the left, both to apathy, and to other more progressive candidates.

As far as Nader's positions, he was absolutely more liberal than Gore, or Bush. It is unfortunate that both the Democratic establishment, and many who both post, and run these boards haven't realized this.

Some of the best, most actively debated posts I've clicked on today, both involve Dean, and discussion of these matters, and were Locked (which I guess means the discussion was stopped). Moderators can certainly make it go away on the boards increasing the frustration of the left-most, like myself, but only by discussion can you perhaps allow all from the most liberal, to the most conservative in this party, achieve full-debate and make an informed decision. People should be aware that when they make a choice of the rightmost in the primary race, they will lose a substantial subset of the Democratic voters. I understand that if we were to elect the leftmost (K) we'd lose centrist voters, but perhaps there is someone in the middle.

This censorship on this particular board seems so out of character. I understand the reason for stopping Republicans, but excluding fellow-Democrats who support someone other than the candidate being pushed, you can make up your own minds as to the merits of these actions.

By the way, I am an avid Dean supporter, and I noticed you had "Deaniacs" on the negative list. I suppose it can be used negatively, but I don't view it as a negative term any more than I see liberal as a negative word. It only shows a maniacal level of support for Dean. I think I was one of the first to use it in my emails to my meet up group. I see it as totally positive, and as far as I'm concerned, a compliment to be referred to as such.