A question: Are we concerned with stopping Bush’s agenda or purity?

[The Lone Liberal]

Once again it would seem that we of the left are more hide-bound to purity of dogma than we are in stopping a true evil. Speaking for myself I will accept anyone if they can drive a stake through the heart of the neo-con, ultra right-wing agenda. For too many years the left has mindlessly pursued purity of thought with such steadfastness that they have lost the war of political power. At this crossroads of history the question is do we continue such a self-destructive activity or do we return to a strategy that is required for the art of realpolitik.

[OrdinaryTa]

1. Purity of Dogma

we of the left are more hide-bound to purity of dogma than we are in stopping a true evil

This is a false dichotomy. It implies that to win the White House we have to act like Republicans. But that's just not true.

We don't need "purity" as much as we need to present a real alternative. The rich are getting very rich, while the poor are left to die on the streets. Why shrink away from saying so?

The war was unnecessary, and we were tricked by phony evidence. People should be up in arms about it. We need candidates that assert the right of the people to informed consent.

What has Bush done to the economy? Everything he touches turns to shit. How about some New Deal programs to get people working again?

And on and on .... We don't need to choose between two Republicans, give us a real Democrat!

[The Lone Liberal]

How do you define "a real democrat?"

and must they always have been or be a real democrat?

[ComerPerro]

4. A real democrat

Is someone who votes straight Dem, no matter what.

[Lefty48197]

2. Excellent Question!

Personally, I'm for kicking yet another economy destroying Bush out of the WH. Some others are more interested in keeping their political purity, and allowing Bush yet another term. I disagree with those people, almost as much as I disagree with Bush.

[jbeam]

3. Must...Remove...Liars

We have to do everything we can to get rid of those lying liars. I'm afraid my bumper stickers aren't going to hack it this time...

[noiretextatique]

5. how about both?

and btw, i don't think "purity" is the issue...i think sanity is.

[JVS]

12. I'm with you!

[Armstead]

6. False choice

This argument about "purity" versus winning is foolish. It's why the Democrats are heading towards permanent minority status.

It's not "purity" to demand basic changes in an economic system that is screwing everyone but the upper classes. It's not "purity" to oppose scams like privatization and deregulation to the etent that there are no protections for average people anymore.


It's not "purity" to believe we need some trust-busting, anti-monopoly regulation to restore a competative economy.

etc.

Until Demicrats stand on real issues again, instead of centrist platitudes, winning will be a remote concept anyway.

[The Lone Liberal]

7. The statement is well made, if anyone subscribes to those goals

No matter what their actions in the past and they can win, then I shall support them. When I speak of “purity” I am referring to the tendency that the left displays of wanting absolute and unswerving adherence to political dogma. To me it is more important to win, if we do not win, then there will be a continuation of the current right wing agenda.

While winning is not everything, that is our candidate must at least hold out hope to us of achieving some of our agenda, but, losing is being denied the opportunity to enact any aspect of our agenda.

[Padraig18]

8. Well and succinctly put!

"When I speak of “purity” I am referring to the tendency that the left displays of wanting absolute and unswerving adherence to political dogma."

If we do not win THIS election, then we will not have the LUXURY of debating who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' ideologically, because there will not BE an election in 2008! This election is about a gut-level, down-in-the-trenches, ear-biting, ball-kicking, eye-scratching BRAWL to wrest the political machinery away from the neocon, crypto-fascist SWINE who stole our sovereign right to be a self-governing nation! I welcome ALL generals (no pun intended) and their soldiers to our righteous cause!

*edited to correct typos

[noiretextatique]

9. this seems a more accurate assessment of reality

it's the adherence to the centrist strategy, and the insistence that moderates/centrists display of wanting absolute and unswerving adherence to centrist political dogma.

seriously...isn't this the ideological "purity" problem that continues to make the greens an alternative...for some?

the persistent drumbeat about the insistence of the left on "purity" doesn't mesh with recent political realities. clinton DID co-opt some neo-con issues...the party HAS moved to the right. the DLC and New Democrats continue to promote triangulation a viable stategy.

i'd appreciate some honest discussion about this...for once.

[w4rma]

10. Stopping Bush. Dean has the best chance to do it, IMHO.

Are the other nine Democratic candidates riding Dean's coattails?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=417033

[Padraig18]

11. Kick

:kick: ABB! :thumbsup:

[laruemtt]

13. i don't believe it's purity as much as

not wanting to jump from the frying pan into the fire (sheesh - as if that's possible!). IMHO people are just paranoid, justifiably so after waht's been done to us, and want to be sure we don't get fooled again! once bitten, twice shy. i think people are jumpy & afraid (sorry dennis) because of waht's at stake this time, which is possibly the whole friggin planet.