Our party did not speak against the war, so the right wing is.

[madfloridian]

This is so frustrating to me. The lines are so blurred now that this article just hit me wrong. This is why the Democratics must again take their place as the party of civil rights for all, the party of Medicare and Social Security, and the anti-war party. Folks, as soon as we cede our positions to be like them.....well they just take up our positions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07kirk.html?ex=1100408400&en=422b24935883c687&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

SNIP..."The euphoria of Mr. Bush's victory postponed the battle, but not for long. Now that Mr. Bush has secured re-election, some conservatives who say they held their tongues through the campaign season are speaking out against the neoconservatives, against the war and in favor of a speedy exit.

They argue that the war is a political liability to the Republican Party, but also that it runs counter to traditional conservatives' disdain for altruist interventions to make far-off parts of the world safe for American-style democracy. Their growing outspokenness recalls the dynamics of American politics before Vietnam, when Democrats first became identified as doves and Republicans hawks, suggesting to some the complicated political pressures facing the foreign policy of the second Bush administration.

"Clearly, the war in Iraq was a drag on votes, and it is threatening to the Bush coalition," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a strategist close to the administration who had not spoken up about the war's political costs before. He contended that the war reduced Mr. Bush's majority by 6 percentage points to 51 percent of the vote....."

Is this ironic or what?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Yeah, but they still wanted their guy to win, to get their tax cuts.

Held their tongues. Screw 'em.

[madfloridian]

2. I noticed that.

But it does prove a point I have tried to make here....that our party should have taken a stance on the war. I think it would have drawn a lot of conservative votes....true conservatives.

[lanparty]

5. Ya know this is a LOT different Dem party !!!

This is a LOT different Democratic Party than the one Roosevelt commanded. This party is a LOT more socially liberal. And I daresay if it wasn't for the high minded social attitudes, we'd probably STILL be in power!!!

A LOT of Republicans would LIKE to vote Democrat if it wasn't for the abortion and gay issues. I'm not saying we SHOULD drop this, it's just food for thought.

Somehow the pukes have gotten America obsessed with these two issues. And SOMEHOW we have to find a way to overcome or neutralize these issues!!!!



PS. This is probably all rubbish since the pukes can now manipulate the vote at will with BBVs.

[StickNCA]

6. Careful

you're treading awful close to being called a gay basher.

I agree 100% with your thoughts, but the consensus here seems to be that even if we believe in the abortion and gay rights issues it's not enough. We have to SHOUT our support of these and in doing so, alienate the big part of the population who doesn't agree with us.

Kind of like shooting yourself to prove the need for gun control.

[lanparty]

10. Coming close ...

Dang, I've been called a gay basher hundreds of times because I think we need to adopt gay marriage bans and get the issue OFF the table!!!

Look, there are some people of color out there who will accuse ANYONE of racism for crossing them in ANY way. Likewise, there are some gay people who will accuse you of gay-bashing on any hint that you won't back gay marriage.

Personally, I think alienating friends because they wont back you 100% is a STUPID plan. And I think the gay community will eventually really regret whats happened in Massachussetts and San Francisco.

Every action has a reaction. And the reaction to recent Gay Marriage events has been swift and resolute!!! Americans are overwhelmingly AGAINST this.

The reaction has been swift because the ultimate aim is NOT pragmatic, it's symbolic. Civil Unions have been on the table. Yes the fundies oppose these but it doesn't spark such a firestorm. But deep down I sense that the supporters of gay marriage want to FORCE middle America to accept their same sex unions as marriage.

There is seems to be a disagreement over whether the term "marriage" has ALWAYS applied to same sex couples. The gay marriage advocates claim that its their natural right and marriage ecompasses what they are. Therefore it should be codefied into law.

Most of America sees gay marriage as a new phenomenom and doesn't accept legal redefinition of the term "marriage" to accept them. Nor would they accept legal decodification of marriage in lieu of secular civil unions and parochial marriage.

I think civil unions are 100% appropriate. I also think the issue has been COMPLETELY overblown by the fundies. But like my red-state neighbors, I don't think it's right to FORCE others to accept same-sex unions as "marriages" through legal codification. And I KNOW that this has alienated MANY voters who fear voting Democratic is supporting gay marriage despite Sen Kerry's stated opposition.

At the end of the day, I think that gay folks need to accept the progress that has been made and realize that we've hit a wall. We can make no progress while the Republicans are in charge. And the gay marriage issue postively stupifies voters and makes rational thought on other issues impossible.

At the same time, all those mass-weddings take away air time from issues that we can WIN on. Jobs, economy, the plight of the poor, the war in Iraq and most prominently BLACK BOX VOTING.

Those are issues we ALL have in common. This is the common good. It's also in the better interest of gays since empowering Republicans means turning back the clock on equal rights for gays.

The voters have spoken. The gay rights bans are passing with massive margins. And I daresay the Republicans will be able to amend the federal constitution without help from the blue states!!!

Cut your losses and move on.

[gavodotcom]

13. I agree 100% percent.

I know, I've been called a racist hundreds, if not thousands of times because I think that we shouldn't have won Brown v. Board of Education.

There's plenty of gay people out there who will accuse ANYONE of homophobia just because we don't think they should be entitled to all of the benefits we are in ANY way. Likewise, there are some black people who will accuse you of racism on any hint that you don't back desegregation.

Personally, I think alienating 'friends' because they won't back you 100% that they're entiteld to the same recognition of their relationships, and all of the legal entitlements conferred to them that I have is a STUPID plan. And I think the black community will eventually really regret what's happened in the civil rights movement.

Every action has a reaction. And the reaction to desegregation was swift and resolute!!! Americans were overwhelmingly AGAINST this, then they realize they were wrong and only complete fucking idiots are left to oppose it, and they're marginalize in society.

The reaction was been swift because the ultimate aim was NOT pragmatic, it was symbolic. Segregation of schools was on the table. Yes the KKK opposed even this but it doesn't spark such a firestorm. But deep down I sense that the supporters of desegregation want to FORCE middle America to accept their white children into the same schools as black children.

There is seems to be a disagreement over whether the term "equal" has ALWAYS applied to different races. The desegregation advocates claim that it was their natural right that the same school that was good enough for whites was good enough for blacks. Therefore it should be codefied into law.

Most of America saw desegregation as a new phenomenom and didn't accept legal redefinition of the term "seperate but unequal" to accept them. Nor would they accept legal decodification of "seperate but unequal" provision in lieu of shitty ass schools for black kids.

I think "seperate but unequal" schools are 100% appropriate. I also think the issue has been COMPLETELY overblown by the KKK. But like my red-state neighbors, I don't think it's right to FORCE different races to go to the same schools as "equal education" through legal codification. And I KNOW that this had alienated MANY voters who fear voting Democratic is supporting multiculturalism despite the Govneror Wallace's stated opposition.

At the end of the day, I think that black folks need to accept the progress that has been made and realize that we've hit a wall. We can make no progress while the Republicans are in charge. And the desegregation issue postively stupifies voters and makes rational thought on other issues impossible.

At the same time, all those black kids being escored by the National Guard into their schools takes away air time from issues that we can WIN on. Jobs I want, economy (especially my portfolio), the plight of the poor (kinda), the war in Iraq (I don't want to serve in the military) and most prominently BLACK BOX VOTING.

Those are issues we ALL have in common. This is the common good. It's also in the better interest of blacks since empowering Republicans means turning back the clock on equal rights for blacks.

The voters have spoken. The desegregation bans passed with massive margins. And I daresay the Republicans will be able to amend the federal constitution without help from the blue states!!!

Cut your losses and move on. I think if our side had lost Brown v. Board of Education, there wouldn't be any racism today.

The 'Mericans have spoken. All less than half of them. No need to convince them that they're wrong. No need to stick to the principles that have guided people since the Enlightenment.

Ad-Libs are great. Just for fun, you can also substitute "women" or "unions" for "blacks", and "Civil Rights Act" and "National Labor Relations Act" for "Brown v. Board of Education."

Democracy is dead. Long live democracy.

[lanparty]

21. Whatever ...

Ya know what, your arguments that gay marriage rights is the same as the civil right movement of the 60s is outrageously ridiculous!!!

We aren't talking about:

* Voting rights
* Education rights
* Rights to facilities
* Employment rights

The plight of minorities in this country was a COMPLETELY different scale. Gay rights have come along way. And you should be THANKFUL that Democrats spent political capital on you!!!!

Instead you seem ready to deep six your defenders in a bid to get EVERYTHING you want!!!!

Face it, you've made a LOT of progress and run up against the face of a mountain. Best to hunker down and pick a night with a new moon rather than trying your assault announced in broad daylight.

You display a shocking lack of political sense that will ultimately hurt your movement.

You accuse others of not empathizing with you. True they don't comprehend the roots of a gay lifestyle. They assume it's a choice when it is not. But at the same time, you refuse to comprehend the deep seeded reasons for their fears and apprehensions. Without that understanding you can go no farther.

You must UNDERSTAND Archie Bunker in order to bring him around. You must understand that MOST of those homophobes are just victims of misinformation. They have decent hearts, those hearts simply must be exposed to these situations in a compatible way.

You cannot FORCE someone to accept you. And trying will only provoke defensive mechanisms! Doing so displays the same shocking lack of sensitivity that the neo-cons display in Iraq. Granted, on a greatly different scale!!! But your still being aggressive and pig-headed!!!

You choose, I think I'm tired of trying to pry the revolver from the side of your head. I think I'm just content to let you shoot. But I'll make sure to stand on the other side of the room so you don't get blood all over me!!!

[gavodotcom]

26. Why did you reach the conclusion that I'm gay?

Because I support gay marriage? Your lack of understanding, Archie, is of how many people truly support the gay rights movement. That we're apparently still the minority is apparent. However, let's look at the real support of gay rights in the 11 states which had a referendum on the issue: 33% of the 20 million people who voted on gay marriage supported it. Or, at the very least, voted against banning it. I'm sure these 6.6 million people are all gay, a slight statistical oversampling anomoly of approximately 230%.

[madfloridian]

8. No, we should not drop these issues.

.

[democratreformed]

3. Nice sentiment, but I wouldn't screw one of them in a million years.

Sorry, I just couldn't help that. He he.

[lanparty]

4. If the pukes didn't hole the voting machines ...

If the GOP didn't hold all those BBV vote stealing machines, I'd say we were ready for another political realignment!!!

The moderate Republicans ARE NOT HAPPY. The Democrats ARE NOT HAPPY!!!

The moderate Democrats AND Republicans are VERY close (little difference between Lugar and Bayh) in their ideology. The SOLE sticking point is the abortion question!!!! If they could live and let live, they could form a "centrist" party and push both the right AND left wing out of the picture!!!!

[janx]

9. We're ready regardless. It's bound to happen. n/t

[janx]

7. Not ironic--it's to be expected.

But we're all due for some major firestorms in the next few years, beginning now with the uproar about Specter, one of the last standing moderates in the Republican party. The wingnuts have almost completed their takeover now and are kicking what's left of the moderates out. Even non-moderates are horrified at the sudden emboldened uproar, because after all, who is next?

DFA is the way to go. The Democratic party must, by neccessity, make adjustments for all of this. If DFA is patient and persistent (as I believe it will be), continuing to support fiscal conservatives who are socially sane, it may well be the last refuge of the majority of thinking, caring people.

Edit: See my thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1336339

for more about it.

[xequals]

11. moderate libertarian is the way to go

Fiscally responsible (balanced budgets, efficient social saftey net) socially libertarian (no federal gun control, legalize marijuana, no patriot act), traditional foreign policy - think Dwight Eisenhower - that would bring in all of the moderate and libertarian Republicans, as well as the Independent McCain types. The far left economic liberals won't like it - the Greens can have them. Americans will never accept Euro style social democratic policies.

It's very simple to frame all of the controversial social issues from a libertarian viewpoint than a liberal one, mainly because our country was founded on secular libertarian values. Liberalism simply has too much baggage of being identified with 60's culture and urban welfare.

Although I don't think he can win, Howard Dean is the only Dem in years to come up with fresh ideas - very responsible yet libertarian sounding. Even though a Democrat, he is from that moderate Northeastern Republican tradition.

[lanparty]

24. People forget what the root "liber" means ..

LIBERTY ... yep the roots of liberalism is libertarianism!!!

Somewhere along the way we screwed it up with ridiculous speech codes and PC language.

Here is where we need to go ...

SOCIAL LIBERTARIAN ... Do your own thing as long as you don't violate the rights of others. Get rid of the gun control, it doesn't work anyway and alienates the rural vote. All the speech codes, etc... has to got.

Hate crime legislation is unnecessary since those actions are ALREADY crimes. Drop all initiatives to make firing gay people illegal. It DOES effectively add special protectin that straight people DO NOT have!!! Any worker protection legislation should be RACE NEUTRAL and focus on ameliorating "fire at will" clauses. ANY legislation shuld be a blanket that protects ALL WORKERS including minorities and gays.

Civically PROGRESSIVE ...
Government does what the private sector is unwilling or anable to do effectively.

The conservatives bandy about the term "socialism" too easily. We need to challenge them and ask if the Democrats want government control of:
* Supermarkets
* Retail shopping
* Industrial materials
* Automotive
* Software Development
* Services
* Yard maintenance

etc...

No O' really. We just want to add a civic health insurance policy to cover preventetive and catostrophic care. Well, thats a lot different than what YOU were talking about then .... huh????

What about welfare. Well we don't want people getting money for making babies either. But we DO NOT want to create indentured servants and drive down wages for other workers in the process. We need to stress is that the benefit is for the kids, not for the parents.

We need to trade a measured amount of PUBLIC SERVICE for welfare checks (20-30 hours). A LOT of that public service can be child care centers. Other portions can be doing service for a countless number of non-profit organizations that could use the extra hands. ONLY NON-PROFIT orgs would be eligible!!!

We need to stand firm on keeping contraceptives available. And we should make the implantible (Norquest???) contraceptive available to ALL welfare mothers. No charge, just please don't have any more kids while your on public assistance!!!!

Drop the smoking ban legislation!!! Yes, in Restaurants it's disgustina and should be banned. But nightclubs, casinos and bars are something different ENTIRELY!!!

Economically Moderate ...
The role of government in the economy is that of a referee. Regulation is there for the same reason as rules during a basketball game. A Lassiz-Fair basketball game would end in murders. Market Moderation is there to ensure that ethical producers and service providers can compete in absence of charletons who milk their customers dry and destroy communities and their environment.

Tax policy should be simplified by slashing the number of deductions in the tax code. A hard cap should be placed on the number of rules in the tax code. This will force legislators to prioritize. Corporate welfare should be AGGRESIVELY cut. No more sucking off the public tit for corporations!!!

Laws against corporate subsidies. No more subsidization of factories through special tax breaks. This is a violation of the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal treatement off all rate payers. Civic entities can pay for the roads, the sewers and other utilities, but the corporation MUST pay it's fair share in taxation.

Elections:
EVERY vote should be counted and audited as a matter of law!!! We are spending about 120 billion on Iraq every year now. We can afford to spend a little money at home to verify and audit our vote. Otherwise, we hold the sacrifice of our soldiers in ill regard!!!

[xequals]

27. Agree with most of your ideas.

I would add that we need neutralize poor white anger by removing affirmative action based on race, and instead maybe put something efficient in place based on income level only. This would ensure that poor whites and poor minorities get the opportunity to break the cycle. Affirmative action as official policy does far more harm than good. We should always stress diversity to be the goal, but not legislate it. Equal opportunity laws are enough, IMO. And I say this as a minority.

Agree completely with your point about government being a referee that only steps in when there's a problem. On economics, the conservatives want to be indifferent while the private sector beats you up and steals your money, and the liberals want to be too involved like an overbearing mother. The reverse is true for other policies with conservatives being overbearing and liberals being indifferent (crime, defense issues, etc).

What most Dems need to realize is rightly or wrongly liberalism has been highly marginalized. It will take a drastic overhaul -- and not just a simple left/right shift -- if Democrats ever hope to challenge the conservative majority. Americans simply don't agree with liberalism and associate it with failed policies of the past. Even minorities are moving away from it. Once Dems lose their lock on minorities, liberalism will truly be dead, if it isn't already. Equal opportunity and equal rights with government as a referee should be our goal - not government sanctioned equality (which is really inequality for the people who do more and deserve more).

ps. I wouldn't completely get rid of basic PC speech codes because they help to maintain civility among all the different groups. Even if people truly have some bigoted feelings, there is still an obligation to treat all people in a respectful manner. Manners are what the PC codes are about more than anything, IMO, not any real resolution of group differences. PC codes do go overboard though, especially when someone doesn't say something exactly according to code but doesn't really mean anything prejudiced by it. Intentions and deeds are what should ultimately matter. And all of these group difference problems -as long as no one's rights are violated-- should be handled in the private sphere (boycotts, public pressure, by activists, by artists, etc) not government. People have the right to feel how they want, as long as they treat everyone with respect and respect their rights. Government can't realistically accomplish more than that anyway, no matter what some on the left say.

[madfloridian]

15. I agree with your thoughts on how to go.

I like your terminology. "Socially sane, fiscally conservative, thinking, caring people."

Yes, we are.

[Julien Sorel]

12. The Democrats weren't the anti-war party

until Vietnam, and it's because the Democrats are perceived as the "anti-war" party that people think twice about trusting us with national defense.

No, thank you.

[bread_and_roses]

17. Yep, let's embrace slaughtering children

after all, we have to be "mainstream." Since that's what the majority of our country seems to think exemplifies "moral values" we should get with the program.

[Julien Sorel]

18. I hadn't realized the choice was between

being the "anti-war party," on the one hand, and "slaughtering children," on the other, with nothing in between. Thanks for pointing out the black and white nature of the world.

[bread_and_roses]

19. Why are references to killing children always treated

as some kind of extremism? Since it is a simple statement of reality, and not some sort of exaggeration?

Since this thread began with a post that references the Iraq war (or at least I so presume) and you say "no thank you" to the Dems coming out against "the" war, again, presuming referencing the Iraq war, and you also reference the Vietnam War, another war in which US forces committed wholesale slaughter of civilians, including children, I have to ask what sort of war might you think it legitimate for the Dems to oppose? If Dems should not be "anti-war" against an illegal invasion of a sovereign state posing no threat to the US, a war in which civilians were deliberately bombed from day 1, then I guess the Dems should support any war, for any reason, just so they can garner a few more votes? I seriously don't know how else to interpret what you say.

And anyone considering the Dems an "anti-war" Party must be living in some alternate universe, given history.

[Julien Sorel]

20. What I said "No, thank you" to was the idea

of the Democrats being the reflexively "anti-war" party. We're already too close to it as is, and that image actually hurts the party's ability to rationally argue against wars.

Re-read the OP's post. It says, "We need to get back to being the anti-war party," or words to that effect. You want an "anti-war" party? Join the Quakers.

[lanparty]

22. Remind them of WWI and WWII ...

Remind them that the Democrats DRAGGED the US into these conflicts to pre-emptively save our allies overseas and save our trading partners!!!

The converse of this argument is that we should have acted before Hitler ever got so strong. But that is EXACTLY what we did do under Clinton. We boxed Saddam Hussein in and spanked him EVERY time he tried to test our resolve to KEEP him in the box!!!

Democrats just do a SHITTY job of explaining themselves. CARVILLE should be made chairman of the Democratic party. He's the ONLY won who seems able to put up a fight!!!!

[madfloridian]

23. Is that the same Carville working with the Chavez opposition?

In Venezuela? To overthrow an elected leader?

Someone needs to do their research on Saddam Hussein. He was effectively weakened after we built him up.

This was an invasion of a helpless country. Our Democrats voted for it. Now our Democrats are still for it, but the conservatives are coming out against it.

[sampsonblk]

25. We were RIGHT to oppose bad wars

The difference isn't that we oppose all wars. Its that Republicans support all of them - no matter how stupid.

[ComerPerro]

14. It's bullhshit. This is just their way of covering

for why Bush didn't get his mandate, and for why the election was so close despite all of the free airtime and campaign opportunities the president had.

Plus, it makes it look like Bush is willing to sacrafice political capital to take a stand and do the right thing, which in this case apparently was going to war.

What they don't want to say is that Bush needed the war, desperately, to win this election, because it was the only way he could get Americans to feel obligated to back him, and it was the best way to silence his critics.

[madfloridian]

16. So in this thread, I see all of this.

I see that we should be pro-war....

I see that we should be anti-gay...

I see that we should not support a woman's right to choose...

What a crying shame that is.