We do not need a Southern, Christian, military candidate.

[madfloridian]

Our party's job is to oppose, not placate. We don't seem sincere when we are so obviously trying to be like some elusive ideal person invented by the other side.

This is the mindset that will not allow the rest of the country a voice in government.

Sincerity shows. It matters. Lack of it shows as well.

Put a real Southern evangelical or fundamentalist Christian up against a pseudo one, and the real one will win every time.

We get to get on the offense. We need to clarify our own beliefs and positions as a party. Then we need to present them clearly and unapologetically.

We don't need to apologize for being Democrats, to paraphrase an outspoken candidate.

We need to be the party that opposes unjust wars, and we need to not be afraid to do so. We were afraid to look weak before the world, and now we are embarrassed before the world.

The argument seems to always be that we were not Christian enough, not war-like enough, not strong enough. We have got to stop this mindset.

[imenja]

1. Our party's job is to advance Democratic positions and values

Simply to oppose means little. Yes, extreme judges and bills need to be filibustered, but we need a positive agenda. The party needs to think about what it's core principles are and put that at the center of their actions. We then need to choose candidates who can forcefully and effectively advocate those principles.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

2. Absolutely agree.

Don't let republicans tell US what WE are supposed to be. That only ends in less than optimal outcome.

We should be who we are, Democrats, loud and proud and strong.

[Dookus]

3. I doubt any

non-Christian could get elected. Perhaps a Jew, but nothing else.

[Julien Sorel]

4. Our party's job is to win elections, not oppose.

When opposing is the best way to win elections, or it comes down to a matter of principle, then it is the right thing to do. Opposing for the sake of opposition is stupid and self defeating.

The typical straw man: Our party's job is to oppose, not placate.

Who said anything about "placating?" You did. Your fellow Angry People do. No one else does.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. great then lets just nominate whoever the republicans nominate

voila` we win too.

[robbedvoter]

5. How about if admits he is liberal, opposes war and otherwise

speaks for you? (he was there all along)
Other than that, I agree with opposing and not placating.

[robbedvoter]

18. No one answered my question - so the thread is not what I thought

Not about issues, but sticking it to someone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. What we need is to STOP the other side from DEFINING

US.

Look folks first off we need to put to rest the idea the election was stolen (yes, yes it was)

We must also stand for our principles

And now we must ACT... through any legal civil disobedience

But we must also STOP letting the other side DEFINE US

Oh and every time you place a lite republican against a real republican, the real deal (even if not a true one) will win, EVERY TIME.

Now HOLD THE MoFo ACCOUNTABLE for everything they are about to break

Oh and folks WAR is not a good thing, and should not be entered unless there is NO choice.

[Warpy]

9. Starting with the Sermon on the Mount might be appropriate

for our next churchgoing candidate. After all, Bush rarely sees the inside of a church if he's not actively courting fundy voters, and we all know he avoids the words of Jesus in favor of the words of Paul.

Our next churchgoing candidate would do well to remind the fundies who they claim to worship and what he said.

[brentspeak]

7. Our only job for now is just to get back into office

The Democratic party has never been the "opposition" party. We are the party that pulled the country out of the depression, helped win WWII, institute Social Security, created the middle class, maintained fiscal responsibility/sanity.

I don't know for sure if it will take a southern, Christian, military guy to win back the White House for the Democrats. But why should I have a problem with that in the first place? We sure ain't going to do it with a Hillary Clinton or a Dennis Kucinich.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. These days FDR would not be elected either

so don't discount DK or HC yet... even if on the surface you may have a point

Why am I saying this? FDR was a radical whose ideas were implemented ONLY because of the Great Depresion... guess what? we are well on our way to a similar shock... if not worst....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. FDR Was A Radical... Not...

Read Arthur Schlessinger's work on FDR... He convincingly argues that FDR was a conservative... He conserved capitalism by ridding it of it excesses...

Some Republicans want to restore capitalism's excesses....

They will rue the day...

[brentspeak]

12. But FDR didn't reveal himself as an unorthodox politician

until after he reached office. That's the trick to implementing one's radical ideas - appear as "normal" as possible to get your foot in the door.

Even Bush got elected/appointed in 2000 by posing as a moderate "compassionate conservative", when, of course, it all just an act.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Dispute The Fact That FDR Was A Radical

He rationalized capitalism by regulating it and providing a welfare state as a cushion to protect people from it's up and downs.....

[madfloridian]

11. Then we need to become one quickly.

It has not worked to be like them.

[PATRICK]

14. I'd hate to think what would happen

if we ran a George Washington/Jesus ticket against this machine. You might be surprised by the reaction of their rabid coalition.

[quaoar]

15. We do not necessarily need a Southern, Christian candidate

Although by your criteria, Wes Clark is now ineligible.

But we do need a candidate who will not start out by writing off the South and most of the West as hopeless causes. We've done that twice now and we've lost both times.

There are many issues that are Democratic issues that resonate with voters in the South. If anyone bothered to try to run such a campaign, it might actually prove successful.

Why do some people automatically assume that the only way to appeal to Southern voters is to sell out Democratic principles?

[madfloridian]

16. I did not rule out military....but it should not be pre-requisite.

.

[BlueInRed]

17. we need down to earth, not evangelical

we need someone who can reach the swing voters and that is someone who can relate easily to the working guy.

The evangelicals would NEVER vote for us, no matter who our candidate is. The people we are aiming at may go to church, but they're not over the top and thinking Bush is the annoited one. As for strength, military service is not necessary, but it is necessary that they don't seem like the kind to run from a fight.

I think it's essential that the party that is supposed to protect the working stiff actually picks a candidate the working stiff can relate to as a person, not necessarily on policies. All the studies show swing voters vote their identities, their gut reaction to a candidate, and then make policy excuses to justify that vote.

Southern, military, & Christian is not a requirement to reach swingers. But down to earth, easy to relate to and a man of the people is, IMO.

Just remember the Republicans didn't change their platform to win, they used killer PR techniques to spin their existing platform.

[LoZoccolo]

24. "The evangelicals would NEVER vote for us,"

33% did this time, which includes 21% of white evangelicals.

[BlueInRed]

26. point taken, 66% did not however, based on your figures

and a lot of the 66% came to the polls based on a direct appeal to them by the Rs. My point is that trying to win "evangelicals", as opposed to other types of religious and church going folks, is a no win proposition for Democrats.

They are not the moderates we need to persuade. We need blue collar workers, middle class folk who may be abit more conservative, but aren't necessarily on the edge of religious belief.

[Lone Pawn]

19. Yeah, we need a northern, non-religious career politician.

We've had such a great string of luck with them.

[madfloridian]

20. I did not say that either.

I think we need to examine our over all criteria.

[WilliamPitt]

22. Agreed

For the time being, we are a bi-coastal/Great Lakes party, and have to win with what we have. We can, too. If we try to be something other than we are, however, we will lose what we already hold.

[quaoar]

30. That's a sad assessment

How do you suggest we win with what we have, because I don't see it?

And speaking of losing what we already have, we're doing a damn fine job of destroying what remains of the Democratic Party in the South.

[WilliamPitt]

33. It may be sad, but that's the deal

Two roads:

1. Attempt to chew into the GOP base in the South and Midwest while having no power in any of the three branches of the national government. This will, in my opinion, cut our ability to defend the states we hold (PA, WI and MN were way too close this time), and will not yeild much success in converting enough people to haul in Electoral College votes from those regions we have lost. The act of attempting to chew into that Southern base will require the Party to take a hard right turn, not only casting off progressives, but also shattering formerly dependable voter blocs, specifically women. In order to make a dent in a lot of Red states, the Party will have to distance itself from its traditionally stout defense of a woman's right to choose, and women voters will be most afected by this. The list of negatives goes on and on.

...or...

2. Concentrate resources on four fronts: 1) Hold what we got - New England, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, DC, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, California and Hawaii; 2) Go hard after states we have a good chance of swinging - West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico; 3) Go absolutely bananas to get Ohio, and pretend Florida does not exist. (All sincere apologies to my Floridian brothers and sisters, but as long as Jeb and Diebold run things down there, it is impossible to justify spending vital resources to make it go blue again - one does not gamble at a table that is known to be crooked - and the money freed up will greatly assist the other items on this list). From the county committees to the state party to the DNC, go after Ohio from soup to nuts; 4) Do not ignore the South and Midwest completely, by any means. Spend some money there to get people out to vote, something the Kerry guys didn't do this time, in order to bolster the popular vote total and avoid a 'mandate' debate.

The states we got in 2004 + some or at least one of the states we can swing + Ohio = victory. I've checked the EC math. And then we begin the attempt to chew into the GOP base in the South and Midwest, with the Executive branck in our control.

Doing this will allow the party to avoid a hard right turn, to avoid stuffing things like the choice issue into a back room, and to keep the progressives on board by not alienating them with a bunch of Jomentum nonsense. The progressives, still on board, can work with the party to attack the electronic vote issue, and can help get Democrats elected to the House in places we can score seats. Both PDA and DFA are already organizing to do this. If the party turns eright, a lot of the good people working in these groups would tell the party to get bent.

I was really hoping Dean would get the DNC chairmanship. It would have been the kind of signal I've been hoping to see from the party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. West Virginia Is Now Part Of The Pug Base...

Gore lost it by six percent... Kerry contested it big time and lost by thirteen percent...


If we adopt a defensive mode that allows the Pugs to attack our base which is fragile... We won PN, and MI by a couple of percent or so and NH and WI by one percent...

Also, if we cede the south and southwest how will we ever regain control of congress


I want it all.... A pro choice, pro affirmative action, pro gay candidate who can talk to folks in middle America in a language they understand....


We don't have to win all the heartland votes to be electorally successful .... We just need a candidate who can mitigate our losses in those areas...

[AP]

38. If we defined ourselves in '92 based on where we did well in '88 we would

have lost in '92.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

23. We need a sweet, goofy, unopinionated, seeming dunce

From any part of the country. He just needs to say the same three positive things (his agenda) and one negative thing (some kind of sly, underhanded slur against his opponent) over and over and over again.

See, I'm convinced now that the electorate is stupid and respects seeming stupidity over seeming intelligence. The non-dumbfuck is not respected in Middle America, so this makes perfect sense to me.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

27. NO......

We need a truthful candidate who believes in himself/hersef and what America SHOULD represent.

We need a candidate who appeals to many factions without compromising his/her principles.

We need a candidate who can see nuance but pack them in a soundbyte.

We need a candidate who is charismatic...not just based on how he/she looks, but based on his/her intellect as well.

We need a candidate who will be a statesman and not a boring drone.

We need a candidate who has walked the walk...and not just talked the talk.

We need a candidate who can see within America's borders but understands how the world works.

We need a candidate who can be seen as tough yet caring and sincere....all at the same time. A candidate who's determination will shine

We need a candidate who can lead,take initiative and not react based on media instructions.

We need a candidate with vision and insight.

We need a candidate who the Rethuglicans fear.

We need a candidate who can be both diplomatic and at times dogmatic.

We need a fighter who can put the opposition in its place when they get out of line.

We need a candidate that America will believe will keep us safe.

If that candidate happens to be southern, military and Christian.....all the better!

[FrenchieCat]

28. self deleted

[FrenchieCat]

29. oops...dupe post!

[PurityOfEssence]

31. a non-Christian cannot be elected

Due to the hurt ego, parochial bigotry and pernicious hatred of intellectuals, someone from the Northeast cannot be elected.

Stick with those criteria, and anything goes: a Westerner, a Midwesterner, a Catholic, maybe even a Unitarian (although I think those days are gone, regardless of the ones we've had as Prez) are possible, but reality is what it is.

We should not have a snivelling appeaser, we should have a forthright progressive. That's not just personal taste, it's that people will stand with someone with strong convictions, just as they won't with those who don't seem to have any.

I like Russ Feingold, but religion has a psychotic stranglehold on this country, and that's that.

[Nestea]

32. Feingold in 08

Let's nominate Russ Feingold in 08. He's from a battleground state(Wisconsin), he's an articulate spokesman for Democratic issues, and he has tons of charisma.

He really connects to people through his ads.

He could win nationwide.

[geek tragedy]

34. Dems can't afford to be seen weak on defense.

Sorry, but if the Dems don't get hawkish on national security and especially terrorism, you might as well vote Green.

[Forkboy]

35. "...you might as well vote Green."

Well,if one is going to root for losers it might as well be losers who share the same beliefs.

and on edit-Kerry repeatedly stated he would do everything in his power to hunt down and kill the terrorists.Is it possible to be more hawkish than to have a willingness to kill someone?

[geek tragedy]

37. The Dems need to continue to talk like that.

For a lot of voters, it's only believable if they talk that way when there isn't a campaign going on.

[madfloridian]

36. You just go right ahead. We don't care anymore.

Let the party choose whomever they wish. Military, Christian, anti-everything...whatever.

We will work with progressive groups forming now, but we may vote independent on President next time.

I feel very much better tonight, because I just don't care.