I am tired of attacks on the Party

[DemDogs]

I just read another thread where there is attack on the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has always had a range of opinions and a wealth of characters. Quit blaming the Democratic Party, quit attacking other Democrats as "bad Democrats", quit suggesting that if a candidate doesn't share a particular position on a particular issue that he or she is a coward or a sheep. No one, no one has sole claim to the Democratic agenda and that goes for the right of the party, the left of the party, DLCers, and former DLCers. If "Divide and Conquer" is the way someone wins this nomination, we are cooked. We lose the White House, we lose even more seats in Congress, and we will lose big on the state level, too.

What candidates can unite the entire party? Because we are going to need every vote.

[Terwilliger]

1. what candidates can unite the entire party?

are there any?

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

6. General Clark

Liberal, smart, and tough. Appeals to the entire spectrum of the Democratic party. Basically, the Anti-Bush.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. I don't support the people behind Clark's campaign

They WERE definately in favor of cooperating with Bush, and advised the dems to support the Iraq war resolution. If he wins the nomination fine, but I really want those people to be sent a message along with Bush. I don't want Terry McCaullif or the DLC to maintain there jobs, and I want more progressives to have a voice in Washington. The Tony Blair Dems won't make room voluntarily. Anyone who wants new faces in Washington rather than the old establishment should Vote For DEAN!

[artr2]

26. Basically the DLC canditate

nt

[Renew Deal]

Back it up.

Please

[Classical_Liberal]

40. He really does look like recalibration on the part of alot of war hawks.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/franke-ruta-g-09-25.html

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/meyerson-h-09-25.html

[Renew Deal]

33. Back it up.

Please

[Padraig18]

2. Be prepared!

The leftist ideologues will flame you mercilessly for suggesting that we nominate someone who isn't 'ideologically pure' (by their standards), and instead nominate a candidate who can UNITE the party and lead us to an electoral victory in November 2004. :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

20. "pure"...clark JUST became a DEMOCRAT

i'd settle for someone who has been on the team for more than two weeks.

[Padraig18]

31. How many times?

How often will he have to repeat that he voted for Clinton AND Gore, before you hear him? Unless you have proof to the contrary, I am prepared to take him at his word.

[JVS]

3. Can you tell me what the party stands for?

Or are you just calling for unity around an empty shell of a party?

[dad]

4. Can you tell me what the party stands for?

Nice. I'd like to know that as well. Zell Miller meet Al Sharpton .. you both stand for ____ ?

[sandnsea]

12. Well I can

Labor/workers
Family
Environment
Equality
Opportunity

But every single person doesn't have to approach every single problem with the exact same solution. And the Democratic Party isn't bad because they aren't the Socialist Party. I think people are confusing the two.

[JVS]

14. A good part of that list is who

also the Repubs claim to be for those things.

What are the principles of the party and how does the party propose to advance those principles?

[JasonBerry]

5. Shill Post For Clark....Sorry, We're Not Going ANYWHERE

Nice try....shilling for Wesley Clark. Let me re-interpret IN MY OPINION what you really mean:

Please, please, please, quit these posts that show Wesley Clark to be something other than his carefully coordinated campaign is attempting to portray him. Please let him get away with saying one thing one day and yet something completely opposite the next. Please quit revealing his background (for example, the fact that that shows Clark took in $300,000 sitting on the board of one of the most notoriously corrupt companies - the Acxiom Corporation - which exists off selling PRIVATE DATA on our fellow citizens.) Please, EVERYONE, just ignore Wesley Clark's background and flip-flops. ANYBODY who doesn't portray Clark as Saint Wes should go away or fall in line because ---- WE ARE HERE!

And some of us will not allow the Democratic party to go down the road with this opportunistic man WITHOUT A FIGHT!

By the way, Democratic Underground is NOT just a "Democratic Party" board.....it is a discussion board for PROGRESSIVES. (See DU rules) and only in Orwell's America could someone attempt to seriously portray this man as a progressive.

In short - we won't be shut-up.

[roughsatori]

7. Thank you, my thoughts exactly

I noticed how many of these: "Let's not pick on our candidates" posts are by Clark supporters. Clark is already dividing the party--yet they continue to sound the "he's a uniter, not a divider" nonsense. Where did I hear that "uniter not a divider" stuff before?

[JVS]

8. good post

[RichM]

9. Exactly right, Jason.

I think it's getting near time to face facts: there is very little that the party's progressive wing has in common with its (for lack of a better word)(though "appeaser wing" comes to mind) "centrist" wing. The centrists want to ram their position down our throats & force us to accept in the name of "party unity."

I certainly haven't the slightest intention of accepting.

[SWPAdem]

11. You know

I go through cycles with message boards. I just returned to DU after a 9 month absence. Well, nothing has changed since I was last here. The ideologically pure, holier-than-thou progressives, are busy pointing out what sellouts the rest of us are, how corrupt and phony our candidates might be, and threatening to leave the party. GAWD'S FRIGGING NIGHTGOWN!!!!!!! This is like being stuck in "Groundhog Day".

Why is it so f**king impossible for the party of tolerance (supposedly) to respect the opinions of others? Right now, I am liking Clark immensely but I still want to see more of him. However, the ferocity of the attacks on him, especially based on info leaked by the RNC only makes me more suspicious of the attacker and whatever candidate he/she supports.

[Terwilliger]

13. tolerance?

How long do I tolerate the party that continually appeases Bush and his right-wing minions so that we lose civil rights, freedoms, constitutional guarantees, peace and freedom, justice for the people of the world, justice for the people of Iraq, Democrats with enough backbone to stand up AGAINST the BFEE machine?

How long do I wait?

Oh, I see...just vote for the Dem and go back to singing kumbaya...got it.

[JVS]

15. Let's just agree to ignore the problems with our party

;-)

[SWPAdem]

19. I repeat myself

This is the same old tired sh*t from the 2000 election. How does anyone's "conscience" vote for a PURE candidate stack up against what Bush is doing to this country? Did my parents somehow err in teaching me that I will not get everything I want or always have my way? Life is a series of compromises. That is reality.

[Scairp]

16. One of the candidates said this at the debate

I don't recall which one, maybe Dean? I completely agree. That is the biggest problem the party faces. The politicians and the ordinary citizens should heed this advise. It's the only way we will get Bush out of the White House this time around. Otherwise, we will be stuck with the ejit for another four years.

[KFC]

17. General Clark is the cure

A liberal, tolerant candidate with a solid military record. And he can beat Bush.

What's not to like?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. I like to know what's in my medicine before I take it.

[carpetbagger]

18. What candidate can unite the entire party? George W. Bush

Any democrat who sits this one out, either on the right or left sideline, should seriously question what they're doing in the party.

[eileen_d]

23. Yes, good answer! n/t

[jiacinto]

21. Dean is the one I can pick

But realize something, Dem Dogs, there are a lot of people who really could care less about the Democratic Party or advancing its agenda here. I realized that a long time ago. What I would do is put these idiots on ignore and not respond to their drivel. I think we both know who they are.

There are some people here who just want to divide and re-elect Bush. And I would just ignore them.

That's my advice to you.

[Forkboy]

25. It's kind of funny

You call people "idiots",what they say "drivel" and then claim THEY are the ones seeking to divide.

Have I got this right?

[noiretextatique]

29. lol...by jove, i think you've got it!

:thumbsup: i still believe most DUers will vote D come 2004, including the "idiots"...including those who really don't want to vote D...and including those who will not like the D nominee.
this is what "voting" has always meant for me...most of my votes have been AGAINST the other guy, and i will definitely be voting AGAINST the occupant in 2004.

[Ardee]

37. Carlos the uniter swings into action

and then wonders why his opinions bring no approbation.....

Apparently any opinion that differs in any way from the truth as you see it is really some detestable attempt to defeat the democratic party, and your solution, to ignore anyone not in lock step with you, seems a bit less than the way to win votes and minds.

[jiacinto]

41. Ardee, it's a realization

There are some posters here who are hostile to the Democratic Party, will not support any of its candidates, and will do anything to defeat it next year by either not voting or supporting a third party ticket. These people aren't interested in getting rid of Bush, nor do they really care.

And yes I've put certain people here on ignore because I don't have time to deal with their idiocy.

[Ardee]

47. your statement worries me, frankly

I have seen that you are a rather serious person, not without resources and having strong beliefs.But I am under the impression that you lack a certain tolerance and the ability to abstract yourself from those beliefs and judge the merit of other opinions dispassionately.

I,too, am strongly opinionated, and I know full well that many of my opinions are not generally popular, and that some political figures I support are not well thought of by some, as in the case of Ralph Nader, who I know full well you have a low opinion of yourself.Likewise I simply cannot share your enthusiam for Howard Dean, based upon, I assure you, much research into his governorship and some soul searching as well...my political beliefs are further offered later on in this thread.

I have seen some silly posts here, it is, after all, a public place and the general public contains some silly folks. I have not yet seen the need to put anyone on ignore as I prefer to turboscroll past such silliness. Also one never knows where one will unearth a sparkling truth.......

[noiretextatique]

48. some people are supporting kucinich and sharpton

and i believe they are Democratic candidates.

[chookie]

22. Me too

I believe strongly that America is a representative Democracy. That is to say, all kinds of voices and ideas are welcome. That includes people I don't agree with. We can agree to disagree, but we must work together to achieve a consensus that is for the best interests of our country and its people.

I don't think that the current crisis can be remedied by further polarization or insistance on ideological purity. The house is on fire -- not a time to disagree about the pattern of the wallpaper.

We're going to need the support of every sane American, and that includes sane Republicans and conservatives (as opposed to the radical ideologues which have hijacked their party and co-opted their title). A lot of them are appalled by the Bushista radicalism, and we need to find a way to work with them for a common goal -- to save our country by evicting His Chimperial Highness from the White House.

It pains me to see the vicious infighting. Hell -- discussion and sharing of diverse ideas is one thing, but the viciousness is counterproductive, to say the least.

You can rest assured that our factionalism will be used against us, and that we will be encouraged to engage in infighting. I urge everyone to think about strategy, and not ideology. And if that is against DU Rules, as someone has suggested in this thread ("PROGRESSIVES ONLY!!") -- well, let my ass get banned from here.

Gee -- for 3 years now we have been commiserating about Repuke ideological lockstep and how wildly successful it has been in the hijacking of our nation -- but instead of coming together, we're going to meet this behemoth challenge by continue the infighting? Wow, that's really smart. Wow. So. Smart. Hell, it helped hand the White House to the extremists in 2000, so why wouldn't it work in 2004?

[noiretextatique]

27. we all know that when the time comes, most DUers will vote D

so, i am not particularly bothered by criticism or 'bashing.' the simple fact of life in these united states is: what other choice do we have? the answer: none. personally, i don't need unity at DU to make the right decision in the voting booth, nor are any of the discussions here likely to change my mind. come november of 2004, the choice will be between a democrat and a republican...no votes for any other candidates will change that (if we have a fair election this time). most of us will likely vote for the democrat because: WE HAVE NO CHOICE.
until then...everything and everyone is fair game.

[Forkboy]

28. A-Fuckin-men!

:thumbsup:

[AmeriCanadian]

30. Hold on there, not necessarily so ...

... I don't trust him.

... My vote goes for Clark. If not him, then Nader or???

[Padraig18]

35. A vote for ANY 3rd-party candidate is a vote for Bush

What part of the coup d' etat of 2000 DIDN'T you understand?

[AmeriCanadian]

42. So are you recommending I cast my vote for ...

... Someone I do not trust over someone I believe in? :eyes:

[Padraig18]

44. It's far simpler than that

If you want to be ABLE to cast a vote for someone you trust in 2008, you'd better cast a vote for a Democrat in 2004; if you don't, there may well not BE an election is 2008!

[AmeriCanadian]

50. Not a flame, but isn't that a bit extreme?

... I just don't see it

[Ardee]

43. with all due respect, noiretblu

I am thoroughly sick and tired of the course of american foreign and domestic policies.I am thoroughly sick and tired of politicians who are responsible only to their own self interests by way of soliciting corporate campaign funds at the expense of so many necesary programs. I am thoroughly sick and tired of politicians who campaign on issues and policies that they have absolutely no intention of seeing through, once elected, who represent themselves as someone they have never been in their political careers so far.

I will not vote for any centrist candidate in bed with the corporations that ruin the peace of the world and sacrifice the domestic economy in a ruthless search for ever more profit.If we are to have a country that I am ashamed of then let it be the worst leadership rather than the smarmiest in the WH.If it takes, as Nader stated, an apocalyptic event such as the reelection of Bush to continue to awaken people to their chains, then so be it.

We are at a turning point ,one in which people of conscience must understand that the Liebermans, Gephardts, Deans and Clarks will not do what is necesary, will make flowery speeches that appease the masses while signing on to backroom deals that further destroy the economy,will, in effect, continue on the path we are on, continue to allow the government to answer only to the corporations while ignoring the real needs of all the rest .

Bush has awakened what may prove to be a sleeping giant and i do not want it put back to sleep by liars and frauds.

[noiretextatique]

45. all respect to you, ardee

just look at the post that started this thread. i think most here will vote D, regardless of who the candidate is. you, and nader are right: it may take another bush term to awaken the giant, because i think it's just stretching and yawning now. but then again, i'm not particularly optimistic these days.

[RandomUser]

32. So basically, to summarize

The left wing extremists think the party is too much to the right.
The republican-lites think the party is too much to the left.
And unless they get their way, they're both leaving the party (or rather the party left them).

Anyone who is to the left of Bush or to the right of Nader isn't welcome in the democratic party (depending on who you ask). Because that person would pull the party in the wrong direction? Color me confused.

Anyone ready to come to their senses yet?

[RandomUser]

34. Ooops...n/t

n/t

[Padraig18]

36. WELL SAID!

:toast:

[RandomUser]

38. Oops...heh

Sorry...that was an answer to another thread...got it mixed up....heh

[Padraig18]

39. It was still well put!

:)

[RandomUser]

46. Thanks

I would link to where I reposted it under the correct thread, but I'm not sure I know how. Tried something like that to link from there to here but couldn't get it to work. Still somewhat new to DU.

[RandomUser]

49. Repost

I couldn't get the link to work right, so decided to just repost it here as a text paste, for the interest of anyone who wanted to read it.

----------------------------------

In anser to the topic question, I'm a democrat because I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative (i.e., the social programs need to be funded on something other than deficits or ever-increasing taxes).

I'm a democrat because I'm pro-choice (but support banning late-term abortions with medical exceptions).

I'm a democrat because I'm pro-affirmative action (with a 20 year deadline, as per Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion).

I'm a democrat because I believe in progressive taxation and balanced budgets (not tax and spend or tax-cuts and spend).

I'm a democrat because I support multilateralism (not retreating from the UN and the WTO).

I'm a democrat because I support quality labor conditions and standards and good wages (but not to the point where labor interests impede business development).

I'm a democrat because I support free/fair trade (but not protectionism or pulling out of NAFTA, renegotiating it maybe).

I'm a democrat because I support civil unions, also gay marriage if America is ready for it, and the right of gays to live without prejudice.

I'm a democrat because I believe in strong separation of Church and State.

I'm a democrat because I support protecting the environment (through the use of business and technology). Old growth forests have their place, but so do tree farms.

I'm a democrat because I believe in using military force as a last resort and only if the circumstances are dire (but I want our military to be well-funded, well-trained, and prepared).

I'm a democrat because I believe government has an obligation to help the poor or those in need and should spend money on social programs instead of prisons (but these programs need to be part of a balanced budget).

I'm a democrat because I believe in supporting education and experimenting with competitive education reform (i.e. pilot programs of mixed systems in troubled areas. There was a city, might have been philly, that was doing really well under a mixed multi-competitor program).

The republican-lites would call me a left-wing extremist.
The leftwing extremists would call me a republican-lite.

I just call myself a registered democrat (who votes republican, green and 90% democratic). Of course, some would say I should join the republicans, or join the greens, or just go independent.

[Ardee]

51. Not to be a didact

but it is not the party as a whole that draws most of the ire but the leadership of the party as represented by the Froms and McAuliffes......at least from this lefty. Remember the fine and proud history of the democratic party championing the causes of minorities and labor, ending wars that the GOP started, and now remember the ousting of Alvbert Gore for refusing to toe the DLC line, remember the refusal of the leadership to allow a concerted effort to educate the public on the Bush lies and deceits.......

There has always, up until now, been room within the party for a broad range of ideas and ideologies, but this is no longer the case and ,despite the debacle of the mid term elections, the leadership is acting like the captain of the Titanic......what iceberg?