Newbies and Lurkers Speak Up: What would you advise for the Dem party?

[Q]

We've heard from nearly all sides on this issue...except for those new to DU and those who lurk but seldom post.

Left? Right? Conservative? Liberal? Moderate? Centrist? Drop the labels? A more aggressive stance against failed, criminal Bush* policy? More compromise / concession? Give more or less power to the DLC? Go back to the 'party of the people' grass roots?

In which direction do YOU want to see the party go? (Keep in mind that the country seems pretty evenly split in terms of party affiliation.)

[GH0ST]

1. If there's one thing that beats Republicans at the polls...

It's a pincer attack by Dems and a third party that peels off their votes.
What's the alternative? If we keep to the left we forfeit the center, and if we take to the center we don't get enough of the center, because that's moving to the right and voters who vote on the right will vote for the true rightwing, not our imitation.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. concise and correct...well stated

[Donald Ian Rankin]

157. Ahhh....

A pincer attack... wouldn't it be lovely! Anyone up for joining me in the foundation of the Even Further Right Party? We pledge:

To make failing to concieve and bring to term at least one child every ten months whilst being female and of childbearing age a criminal offence.

To introduce capital punishment for trespassers.

To abolish taxes for those earning over $100,000 a year.

To prosecute with ever greater vigour our glorious war with Abroad.

To ban all anti-American speach, including all speach supporting those politicians who do not support banning anti-American speach,

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we could be onto a winner here. Who is with me?

[GH0ST]

162. Remember Ross Perot?

Sure you do.
Remember his ideas? Ummmm...errrrr...
It was the man (and his money) that cut into 41's share. The ideas weren't as important. Sad fact. Sickening, really. And Perot wasn't a pretty sight. His voice was like from a cartoon. He said downright stupid things and he believed in I don't remember what. But between him and Bill Clinton, they took down Incumbent 41 and America had some decent years.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

178. Just about,

although I was only 11 at the time, and live in the UK. But didn't the Reform party get taken over by someone else, and then go extinct? Is there any chance of something similar starting again - the libertarians, maybe? Do Badnarik or Peroutka stand any chance of getting anywhere in 08?

[brindis_desala]

206. Good idea- maybe progressives should jump ship

If the leadership doesn't help to expose the fraud it may be time for progressives to dump the Democratic party and fall in with Nader and the greens. If we can convince the democratic wing of the democratic party to defect the centrists would be forced to win over the Republican moderates a dying breed already targeted for extinction.

[K to the YLE]

208. Greens Need An Image Change

I was just thinking that today, basically the Green party represents my beliefs (and I believe the beliefs of many of the people who voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush), but in order for the Greens to make any real progress they need an image change. Until they shake the tree-hugging, over-the-hill hippie image (not that I have anything against tree-huggers, but middle America might) they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell. The Greens need some major PR help. Incidentally, Democratic cries of a vote Green is a wasted vote haven't helped either. Right now the Green party needs to start focusing on 2006 elections, getting strong candidates elected and building a foundation to build on. Currently they have no one in the Senate or the House, yet they have a Presidential candidates? Baby steps guys...I'm getting kinda worked up, ya'know when you are thinking faster than you can type...sorry if this doesn't make any sense...long story short, I agree with the people in this thread, maybe some of the progressive Democratics should bring their numbers and efforts over to a party you can agree with more, the fact is the democratic party is getting more and more watered down and the green party has some good ideas but not the numbers and people shy away from them because of the lack of supporters...the sooner we support the Green Party the sooner it will be a stronger force and we need it...

[brindis_desala]

209. I agree completely

the greens are not a viable party as currently structured but their overall goals are on target. The environment HAS to be the number one priority FAST which is why a progressive party built around Dems like Kucinich, Boxer and the Black Caucus might get this issue to forefront in time to be meaningful. Money of course would be a problem but I'm sure that the bulk of the grassroots movement that worked their butts off for Kerry are 70% progressive and probably could do an even better job with the under 30's which are already trending left. But we need the resources for the research to make alternatives economically viable.
N.B. Do not think that the radical right is completely oblivious to this issue- they just have a far more sinister solution that we currently see unfolding to our horror.

[Ready4Change]

2. Don't fight AGAINST Repubs. Fight FOR Americans.

When you fight against Repubs you tend to move more Left, which further alienates moderates. It makes it easy for the Right to label Dems as elitist, ultra-liberal radical, whining snobs. I know that's not true, you know that's not true, but it's been the media message for the last year and it's brainwashed the moderates, even while they are being fleeced by Bush2s tax "cuts".

You've got the left vote. It's the moderate votes you need to win. You can TRY to do that by lying to them as the Right does, but since the Right controls mainstream media, good luck.

Or you can go more Leftist, and fit yourself smack into the meme-box the Right has built for you.

Or you can do what Dems do best, and what the Right has abandoned in all but words. Work to serve, protect and strengthen moderates and the middle class.

Just this one persons opinion.

[pbartch]

136. I WANT THEM TO FIGHT TO MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT

I want the DNC to ACTIVELY work in Florida and Ohio to make the re-count MANDITORY --- watch over the recounts like a hawk and bring in WHATEVER LEGAL MEANS IS NECESSARY TO GET IT DONE.

If there are other states that have had voter fraud during the 2004 election, FIGHT FOR RECOUNTS ---- AND INVESTIGATE Voter Fraud.

[From the south]

204. Take a lesson from the Repiblicans

Dont speak to your base.

Last election Bush stayed right in the middle. His base knew where he stood, but he never really addressed his base.

[noordinaryspider]

3. That must be me....

A more aggressive stance. More inclusiveness.

I'm still learning and trying to avoid spouting off about things I don't know enough about to form a valid opinion. I always considered myself too far from the mainstream to identify myself as a Democrat before Black Wednesday and too poor and powerless to do anything about it.

The internet changes that. So does the threat to my country, which affects me in very personal ways on a day-to-day basis. So does the intolerance the repugs show to even middle-of-the-road Dems who do not want to talk about politics on parenting/computer tech/knitting discussion forums and are flamed for not echoing the "Rah rah Bush!" sentiment of the majority.

[Tanuki]

4. What I want

I just want the party to tell the truth and to work tirelessly to enact policies that provide a positive life for Americans and our fellow inhabitants of the planet. This means peace, freedom of conscience, employment, education, food, a safe and clean environment, and access to health care, in no particular order. I don't want compromise or concession on such vital issues. I don't want us to cave in to pressure to pander to religious, corporate, or any other special interests. I don't want to see us split up by regional or other factional squabbling. I am a southerner and a Baptist, by the way, so I would also hope that those of you who are inclined to write off those of us who may fit this or any other demographic to please keep in mind that we can and must all work together. We have truth and justice on our side, and we must never forget it! Thanks for being here, DU. :hi:

[Zhade]

31. "I just want the party to tell the truth..."

THANK YOU.

That's all I ever wanted from ANY elected official. STOP LYING TO ME!

Stop telling me that Hussein was a threat to America and his neighbors.

Stop telling me that Iran is going to nuke us.

Stop telling me that offshoring jobs is good for the economy.

Stop telling me that the War On (Some) Drugs works and is worth fighting.

Stop telling me that America is the beacon of freedom in the world.

Stop telling me that corporations can do no wrong.

Stop telling me that health care is not a right.

Stop telling me that I can't get married.

Stop telling me that being pro-labor rights, pro-equality for all, pro-We The People is "far left".

Stop telling me that we need to compromise with fascists like b*sh.

Stop telling me that we can win in 2008 without taking care of the electronic voting machines.

STOP TELLING ME LIES.

[sangh0]

48. Then you will always be disappointed

.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[JHBowden]

6. Stay liberal

I'd like to see a Democratic Party that frames their own issues rather than always reacting to and copying what the Republicans are doing. A party that is pro-science, pro-technology, pro-growth, pro-defense, and pro-liberty is something I'd like to see.

Democrats also either need to shit or get off the pot on controversial social issues. Either actively defend these issues, or jettision and have nothing to do with these issues. For instance, saying "abortion really sucks, it is an abomination, and I'm personally totally against it, and I'm pro-choice" is the worst of both worlds and is *not* the way to sell social issues.

We're still got 48% of the national vote even with Bush's 9-11 advantage. Sometimes in life one can do everything right and still lose, so I think the Democrats should keep a "stick with it" attitude instead of searching for the magic pander our leaders seem to be looking for.

Lastly, since the Republicans control most of our government, why aren't the Democrats running on an anti-Washington anti-special interests agenda? We can frame almost every Democratic issue under this theme (environment, health care, corporate handouts, outsourcing, etc.).

[Hatchling]

73. So well stated!

Especially: "Democrats also either need to shit or get off the pot on controversial social issues." If the Democratic party no longer stands for these issues, then I am no longer a Democrat.

[JeffInRick]

84. What JHBowden said...

...pretty much makes my point better than I could.

[desertalien]

141. I agree with JHBowden

Isn't this the platform Dean was standing on until the media and Washington Dems pushed him onto the tracks in front of an oncoming train? :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

200. I agree, except for the abortion part.

That is the position of a majority of Americans. Most are pro-choice, and virtually nobody is "pro-abortion."

The Dems instead should bolster their pro-personal freedom credentials. Dumping gun control from the national platform would do wonders for this.

[patomime]

203. Yes... I agree w/JHBOWDEN

Stay liberal. And.... most importantly - say that we are the party by the people, of the people and for the people --- all the people.

Liberals want to liberate and set the captive free ... that's what we wanted to do and did do with slavery!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[ConcernedNonpartisan]

8. Get off the defense and on the offense!

Stand up proudly and shout it out, "We are the Democratic Party and we have served and will continue to serve our country well!"

There is nothing wrong with the word "liberal". There is no conflict when liberal is mentioned in the same sentence as "conservative". It IS possible to have some liberal AND some conservative leanings.

[noordinaryspider]

17. Abortion, JMHO

"Restrict SOME abortion procedures; Late term, parental notification, federal funding of, etc."

Actually, I'm one of those namby-pamby "anti-abortion but pro-choice" folks out there.

That's because I had an abortion.

I still grieve over that potential child and feel that I did not have a choice. I was 19 years old, poor, in college and supported by my parents because I was unemployable. The child's father told me point blank that he would leave and leave me with the full responsibility of the rent on the apartment we shared if I didn't abort.

If abortion had been illegal, the child/fetus/cell would not have been another vote for Kerry on 11/2 because I would have performed the abortion myself with a coathanger if that had been my only choice; I probably would have died and neither of my now-living children would ever have been born.

Pro-choice means giving women like myself a viable choice of providing our children with a life that goes beyond sitting in the welfare office filling out forms and flagellating ourselves for "getting knocked up and disgracing your family when you could have been somebody". It means valuing parenthood.

Do I know how the United States could acheive this? Of course not. I got knocked up again a few years later and was not able to complete my BA. My living children's father had substance abuse issues and we divorced when my youngest was two. I've had to do without certain luxuries like proper medical care and a balanced diet in order to raise these children to adolescence and rather predictably my health and economic situation will not allow me to resume my education when they are independant adults.

Before you flame me, please understand that I have never taken a dime in welfare and of that I am proud.

Okay.

I'm done.

I'll shut up now.

[msgadget]

94. I appreciate your position

and thank you for sharing your personal story. Unfortunately, every further limitation proposed has been open to interpretations that could actually prevent a woman from being able to choose. Instead, I think we should brainstorm a phrase other than pro-choice because the other side only hears pro-abortion. I'm thinking of something without the pro- prefix that indicates we're for limiting the amount of abortions performed yearly and aren't selling the procedure.

[Newshues]

112. That would be sensible choice

and sensible would actually be a pretty good word to describe most progressive/liberal positions.

It is sensible to restrict abortion to fetal viability. somewhere around 24 to 28 weeks a fetus becomes viable and will likely live with appropiate medical care. It is also sensible to include provisions that adress the exceptions to the general restrictions - health of mother, court determination that notification of parent is not in the interests of the minor, etc. These are all sensible things that most Americans agree with.

87% of all abortions are performed in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. Limiting abortion "on demand" to 26 weeks covers 98% of all abortions, providing for sensible exceptions to sensible restriction would cover the remainder. In most cases, it is nearly what is already codified in law amongst the states. Not only would Democrats get to campaign on sensible choice, but they wouldn't have to lift a finger to implement that sensible choice.

[newyawker99]

113. Hi Newshues!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Warren DeMontague]

148. The debate needs to be reframed, in my opinion.

Why is it, if we're talking about abortion, people think that the only option is criminalizing procedures and the decisions that individual women make with their doctors? I'm one of the people who believes that the "late term abortion" argument is a pro-life red herring. I don't think that there are a great number of women running around pregnant for eight months and then deciding to get an abortion at the last minute because they "look fat". However, when you talk about criminalizing abortion, you automatically have to adopt a de facto patronizing position towards pregnant women, i.e. that you (or your legislators) know better about what they should do than they do. What about women who are significantly pregnant and discover their baby has serious birth defects? Where is the panel of judges who is going to decide just when and how a woman can do something in that situation?

Far better, in my mind, if one is truly concerned about women and reducing the incidence of abortion, to not only support better, safer birth control with universal access, but to also work for things like a Single Payer Health Care system, so all women would have access to prenatal care. A liveable minimum wage, so poor single women wouldn't be facing the daunting prospect of raising a child on six bucks an hour. These are bedrock MORAL positions that ought to be a part of any debate, in our society, on the ethics related to abortion-- but with the hard religious right driving the agenda, they sure as hell won't be any time soon.

[AmericanLiberal]

177. So turn the agenda

impeachbush,

I completely agree. We should support better, safer birth control, give all women access to prenatal care, and improve the prospects of poor single women. Other possibilites in this area might include federally funded child care and some paid maternity leave as every other industrialized nation in the world has.

More importantly this would be the key to reframing the debate, in my opinion. Studies show that the biggest reason that women get an abortion is financial reasons, which is no surprise. In the past 4 years, the abortion rate for statistics that are available have increased, and increase led by the poor. It's no coincidence that abortion & poverty move in the same direction.

So, these policies would REDUCE the demand for abortions. From the pro-life perspective, they would actually save lives. At the same time they would not touch abortion RIGHTS. So IMHO, that is why you have hit the nail on the head.

We should refocus the debate away from abortion RIGHTS, where we do not want it to be since we are perpetually on the defensive, and towards abortion DEMAND, which is an economic issue, which allows us to address morality, and which is also gives us a proposal that Christians AND pro-life groups should support. Conservative Republicans opposing a social welfare policy designed to reduce the number of abortions would just have mud over their faces and their hypocrisy would be plainly exposed for all of America to see.

[emdee]

9. The first step is to be more agressive....

and expose the Right for what they are --- liars and cheaters.

AFTER that, then get back to the grassroots of what liberalism is all about.

But, while that propaganda machine is allowed to function we will not advance.

emdee :hi:

[Starlight]

76. I agree Emdee! I'm so tired of the pandering to the right.

I don't understand why most Dems are so quick to back down on virtually EVERY issue. That totally infuriates me!! :grr:

[Ms_Mary]

109. I agree. I think Kerry should have come out much stronger

and directly addressed some of the accusations against him. He should have been more direct about the problems with Bush from the beginning. When he did stake a stronger stance, it was too late in the election to pull him far enough ahead.

How do we address the red states, though? The Gods, guns & gays voters? Kerry never brought up gun control, but in my red state, I heard over and over how Kerry would ban guns and hunting forever. He ever said anything of the sort, but NRA said he did.

The Swift Boat Vets hurt him too. A lot of stupid people fell for that hook, line and sinker. It's a real shame and it pisses me off. I wish he'd stopped just once and clearly refuted the allegations rather than just letting them hang out there.

[nebraska007]

10. Gravitas.

I might get smacked down for this, but I think first of all we lack strong and credible national leaders that have broad appeal... The republicans have the Bush clan... McCain... even people like Guilliani and Schwarzenegger are nationally recognized and people tend to "like" them regardless of what they may believe. The national face of the democrats is what? Tom Daschle? Ted Kennedy? Al Sharpton? Hillary Clinton? Al Gore? and now what Harry Reid? Nothing against these people, I share most of their political beliefs. But the problem is that they are either polarizing figures or lack gravitas. Because of this, I think the rights campaign to define liberal as a bad word has been for the most part successful. And already the names are popping up for who to field in 2008. Tom Vilsack or Bill Richardson come to mind. I don't dislike either man. But do most people outside of Iowa or New Mexico identify with those two? I would wager that the majority of people identify themselves with Jeb Bush though. Who is the answer? I don't know, maybe someone like John Edwards. Maybe not. The key I think is getting someone that is likable and a good leader and getting them good national exposure in the off-election season.

[rolleitreks]

11. I'm an Independent and will remain so.

I voted for Bush against Gore, regretted it about the time Ashcroft was nominated, and turned to the left when the drums started beating for war with Iraq. A fiscal conservative, social liberal and internationalist, I now have a bookmark where I can hear "The Internationale" sung in twenty languages. That's what Bush has done.

While not ignoring the domestic issues, for me the big concern is the future of our foreign policy (I'm a former State Dept FSO). Against the background of Iraq, I think the Dems should come out strongly against the militaristic policies of the Bush Admin, explain the weaknesses and essential futility of "empire", and develop a coherent policy based on international cooperation. This would involve detailed strategies for Israel/Palestine, nuclear containment, and anti-terrorism which can be directly compared to the neo-con approach. We're stuck in Iraq, but we needn't repeat the mistake.

[Tanuki]

13. great song

how about giving us a link to the "Internationale" site?

[rolleitreks]

15. Internationale Link

As requested: http://www.vad1.com/anthems/internationale-collection.html

Enjoy!

[newyawker99]

114. Hi rolleitreks!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[nebraska007]

16. I have to take issue here.

I have to take issue here. Lets admit defeat when we lost. As ridulous as most people on this message board think it is, Bush's speak LOUDLY and carry a big stick (then use it) policy resonated with the masses. I think it will be at least one more presidential cycle before we can talk credibly to the public about using soft hegmonic power instead of the hard variety. Unless Iraq REALLY goes south for Bush, I don't see this changing. Regarless that John Kerry is right that the war on terrorism is akin to dealing with the mafia, I think right now "I will kill terrorists" is what the masses want to hear. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we field candidates that want to be miltaristic, instead I just don't think it is wise to actively engage that discussion.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

28. Iraq is going south. Can you say quagmire?

[nebraska007]

18. to elaborate a little more...

I was taking a shower after I posted this and got to thinking about this more. It seems we get too caught up in. "Who will appeal to latinos/women/union workers/swing state voters/etc." that we lose sight the broader question of "Who is appealing?"

[animuscitizen]

12. More charismatic personality and exposure of the truth

It would be refreshing if the Dem party exposed this presidential administration, the corruption, and the manipulation in a more direct, effective manner. The Dems have truth and information on their side. But they do not effectively convey that truth and information to the public.

The Dem Party needs more charismatic leaders and more clever campaign strategists to sell the message to the public. They should be--and most likely are-- in recruitment mode.

Regarding the vote for "morals and values" in this past election: This should be a wake up call for Dems. The majority of religious people throughout the US do NOT agree with the extremist policy of the wacko Christian right. During the Presidential campaign, reasonable, yet uninformed, religious people heard talking points, were manipulated by strategy, and were persuaded by the rhetoric. Some surveys show these same people are uninformed about facts, policy, and nuances.

The extremist Christians need to be exposed for their Dark Ages, isolationist, racist, misogynist views. The goal should NOT be to persuade the religious right to come over to our side. Why bother--they are a small, nutty, irrational segment of the population. There are clever ways to expose this without laying it in a particular politician's lap. The Dems could learn a thing or two from Karl Rove in this regard.

There should be an effort to educate the uninformed, Christian, red state voter--and all middle of the road/undecided/uninformed voters. These people have the potential to be rational--they just do not have the facts. With the right message and messengers, this administration and the Rep Party would be exposed. The good news is--more people are paying attention to politics now than in the recent past. So there are more opportunities to educate the people

If the Dem party focuses on being "more moderate" (and I question, how is that possible?!)it runs the risk of sounding phony, wishy washy, flip floppy, cowardly. I believe that being "more moderate" plays into the hands of the Rep strategists.

I am optimistic that things will eventually change for the better. These things always go in cycles. It is time for the Rep Party to start crumbling at the seams. And we are watching that happen--moment by moment--everyday.

[Kahuna]

102. Great post. Welcome to DU!

Welcome to all newbies! :hi:

[Q]

14. Great responses so far...

...but let's keep it going. I KNOW there are hundreds of Newbies/Lurkers/Observers out there. Give it a shot.

[RafterMan]

26. They are excellent responses

Much-needed medicine.

Keep 'em coming.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

19. Watch the splinter fester in the Republican party and pounce...

Hope you don't mind a moderate Republican talking about your party but I am obviously unhappy with my own party or I wouldn't be here typing.

I know MANY moderate Republicans who found Kerry to be intelligent, honorable and articulate...he had our vote FOR HIM, not just against Bush. I also know moderate Republicans who don't believe that Bush will really overturn Roe v Wade via justice nominees or got sucked into the fear factor card...they will wake up (a rude awakening).

As this administration and Republican congress pander to the right wing, the divide within the party will widen. I, along with displaced moderate Republicans across the country (especially in the blue states)will be looking to support the Democrats.

One thing I do note about the Democrats is that you guys seem too eager sometimes to eat your own. I hope that your party can compromise within in order to present unity/strength in time for elections. PLEASE we need the Democrats to restore sanity!!!

[JohnnyCougar]

139. I certainly understand

I actually used to consider myself a Moderate Republican. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, and thought he was going to win. I never, ever liked Bush, but I especially hated him after he got into office and started opting out of treaties, and starting shit with China over Taiwan.

I was one of the "10 percenters" that didn't approve of Bush even after 9/11. I knew his arrogance was going to hurt us, I just didn't expect to see it so soon. He went around in true cowboy style, ignored terror warnings, and ignored the cause of terror. Empire building has it's costs, and one of those costs is terrorism. You don't see terrorists striking Canada, Mexico, or Japan. Why? Because they don't go into foreign lands and take what's not theirs. What I don't get is how some Americans think that people in foreign countries are supposed to ignore this fact. I dunno what people are thinking now, I guess. True conservatives don't build empires, because it costs money and expands the power of government. But I knew long ago that Bush was a fascist, and not a conservative.

His actions have driven me full force to the Democratic party, although I almost became a Libertarian due to the Democrats feeble resistance to the war.

I still am a fan of small government, and I think the Republicans have left the back door wide open for the Democrats to steal this issue. I wat to see fiscally conservative Democrats up for election in 2006. The Republican party sure doesn't stand for that anymore. And you can be fiscally conservative and still have a left wing ageneda: look at Dean. I think alot of young people have this same political makeup today, too: fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Nobody wants a big, all powerful government (except for Bush drones) and the Dems need to take advantage of this while they have the chance.

and BTW, Welcome to DU!!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

184. Thanks for the welcome

Wonder if the Dems will look at starting up an aggressive 'Take a look at us now' campaign aimed at moderate Republicans??? I'd be willing to work with them on that campaign in my state (PA).

[jocapo]

20. Re-frame the issues

There's much talk about re-framing the Democratic message and I think that's a start but then we have to incorporate the message into the democratic fabric.

An example of this would be how I would like to see the Dems frame the "morals" or "values" issue.

We should be the party with real American values. We should embrace the ideals ("values" & "morals") that we fought for in the revolutionary war and invoke those images. I think we should be for freedom of expression; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; etc. We should re-introduce Americans to our own history: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paul Revere, the Liberty Bell, etc. This very secular America is America at it's core. It is a place where anyone can be who they are without fear of recrimination.
It would also give the Democratic party a very powerful positive message; an affirmative message of hope and understanding and inclusiveness. At the same time it would frame the Re-pubs as the opposite.

I DO NOT think we should try to be evangelical democrats. I DO NOT think we should use the republicans definition of moral and try to prove we are as moral as them. It makes us look weak and opportunistic and it's superficial.

[chapel hill dem]

21. First post

Thanks for asking us to post.  I really have enjoyed being a
lurker for several years and recently joined and donated.

I would suggest finding Presidential candidates in the
Governor ranks.  Being an executive is different from being a
Rep/Senator.  A Midwest state would be best.  The blue
counties would probably go along for the victory and the red
counties could relate more to the Midwest "values".

BTW, there was a very vulgar thread here earlier regarding
"F the South".   That sort of stuff doesn't do
anything to encourage us here in NC to do much, now does it?

Thanks for the opening to post.

[newyawker99]

116. Hi chapel hill dem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[carolinalady]

22. OK here is my view:

Begin now to shape our image to the world:

1.Change our parties name? Remove the Liberal stereotype that Repub PR machines use so effectively.

2. Define our platform clearly and inclusively including foreign and domestic issues and minimize the "moral" hot buttons ( I have never understood anyone who wants to legislate personal choice be it gay marriage, censorship, abortion, marijuana, religion etc. Everyone in this country can choose or not choose their way of life. Why do people insist on imposing their choice to others?)Somehow this party needs to present our opinions as such that shows respect for all points of view and do not feel a need to make it a legislative agenda item. I do not honestly have an answer how to do this or if I am even getting my opinion across right here. I think our platform should focus on size of government, elimination of Pork items to sponsored bills--now that should be a constitutional amendment-- Special interest lobbying, election process reform. Jobs and health insurance. Quality education. Outreach to foreign partners including the UN and the EU. Open dialog with the Middle East, but a removal of enforcing our cultural norms. A Middle Eastern advisory council in our government that shapes and defines our policy. Addressing the trade deficit and the value of the dollar. Strengthening our borders and providing resources to our first responders. It might even be possible to keep the tax cuts if all the gov. waste was truly eliminated as well as the cost of fighting unnecessary wars.

3. Work with 527's NOW to continue the mass media campaign exposing Republican idiocracies every time they happen. One of the big things the Bush campaign had on their side was the 3 year Fear message that was imposed on us daily. They played it to the hilt in the end. We need to continually impose our views on people as well.

4. Finally expose the lies--show that alot of us go to church and teach our children morality and inclusiveness. Again use the 527's to the fullest and bring out the best and brightest to champion our causes--new blood not controversial but knowledgeable on the subjects that matter the most.

[muse]

23. Offer positive solutions to the absolutely wretched problems

that the Bush administration has and will continue to heap upon us. Do this by listening to people in the heartland, cities, suburbs, etc. and create solutions based on proven techniques of leadership that involve assertiveness, relationship building, an understanding of issues and opinions, finding common ground, and rejecting and marginalizing extreme positions. People know and recognize ideas that make sense and leaders that inspire confidence. Ideas that are extreme and leaders who advocate positions too far to the left are not going to be acceptated by a majority of the electorate. Our party needs to marginalize the far right by utilizing sensical talking points that address our core principles that are mainstream.

[Old Mouse]

24. realize the nature of the conflict

The Democratic party leadership needs to recognize that a rogue criminal element has hijacked the republican party and act accordingly: Re-framing of issues or candidate personality will not win against a tightly run propaganda machine and media consolidation.

The Democratic party has spent most of its think tank energy on social issues, rather than human nature. Republicans have done the opposite, mastering the manipulation of human emotion rather than spending any time on even the slightest cause and effect of civil engineering or basic economics. If the Democratic party wants to reach its understated goal of raising the national consciousness bar, it must spend more effort and time to understand the fragile and overestimated state of human awareness.

We should challenge every breach of law in court, and tie the hands, finances and attention of the Republican leadership in this fashion.

We must stop attacking religion. It is done in a constant and misunderstood form. Do we respect the religious questioning of stem cell research? It is valid and complex question, but only championed by those whose eloquence is challenged by the social environment of their faith.

We must spend more time subtly introducing social evolution via entertainment. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is more important to the average American than Judge Moore's granite block.

But this is all moot if we do not achieve a victory with the recount efforts...

[KT2000]

83. Oooh - that's good!

especially the part about the think tank money going to issues rather than human nature.
And really liked the suggestion of occupying the repub leadership with court etc.
You have a gift for getting to the heart of the matter. Hope you post more.

[Old Mouse]

96. Thanks

for the encouragement!

[newyawker99]

117. Hi Old Mouse!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mojavekid]

25. A Clear, No Nonsense Agenda for the Democratic Party

I have lurked here for a while and have thought about jumping in to the discussions many a time. I must say that the information and multitude of perspectives - all with merit, has at times been overwhelming, and I Thank everyone who posts here for that!

* has polarized America, a divided country IS what they needed to win, and keep winning, Clinton did say this a few different ways during the campaign and I agree.

A clear and strong Agenda is what we need, starting with pointing out to America why this war was is wrong for us, in lives, in cuts to social services and perhaps show them who is really benefiting, Repeat that America was lied to, and this our elected officials need to be saying as they seem to be able to grab the Media's ear, if only for a brief moment.

Not try to beat the Republican's at their religion game, we will lose to them on this and in the long run we all lose when religion becomes a permanent part of politics. I agree that Democrats, Greens and all other Independent thinkers are more Spiritual in the real sense than most Republicans who wear it on their sleeve, but this is not what America stands for, and religious freedom means in part that you do not force it upon others.

Democrats need to emphasize that we have a history of working for the people, in Civil Rights, Social Security, Education, Diplomacy, The Environment and even Fiscal Responsibility and that these are values, and are at the core more spiritual, humane and dignified than the neo-fascist state religion that the Republicans are pushing now.

I do believe the Democratic party carries with it a little of the stink of being just slightly less onerous than the Republicans, still Washington insiders, and afraid of the Kuchinic's, Dean's, Sharpton's, Clarke's, stc. who advocate clear positions and genuine reform who might threaten the Status Quo. I feel that a big reason Kerry got as far as he did, and as close to winning was because of the groundwork and positions laid down by the above mentioned candidates, and their supporters. Almost predictably, because we lost they have quickly determined it was because we moved too far to the Left, and they have once again begun to downplay the liberal and the grass roots. This looks flaky to people sitting on the fence.

Having read the above it sure looks like I advocate a shift to the Left.

I must also add that I am a business owner in Southern California, I employ 7 people, and am being suffocated by rising Worker's Comp and Health Ins. premiums. I do not feel that the Democrats want to increase my premiums, (I do know there is a tremendous amount of fraud however) The perception out there is that the Democrats are anti-business, and this is simply not true. But we need to get that message out better.

I suppose I could go on for ever...!

[natureman]

27. This is critical. PERIOD!!

From "don't think of an elephant"

"Back in the 1950s conservatives hated each other. The finacial conservatives hated the social conservatives. The libertarians did not get along with the social conservatives or the religious conservatives. And many social conservatives were not religious. A group of conservative leaders got together around William F. Buckely Jr. and others and started asking what the different groups of conservatives had in common and whether they could agree to disagree in order to promote a general conservative cause...

There are six types of progressives. Socioeconomic,Identity politics, Environmentalists,Civil liberty, Spiritual, and Antiauthoritarians.
The problem is that many of the people who have one of these modes of thought do not recognize that theirs is just one special case of something more general, and do not see the unity in all the types of progressives. They often think that theirs is the only way to be a true progressive. That is sad. It keeps people who share progressive values from coming together. We have got to get past that harmful idea. The other side did."

This is so key to our success. This talk of third parties will kill us. We will not win by using the Republican "frames". We must unite and have a unified vision that frames progressive issues. We should pitch in money and give each member of the DNC a copy of "don't think of an elephant".

I was actually leaning towards a more centrist democratic party until I read "don't think of an elephant". I am from Texas and I struggle with the abortion issue. I am an environmentalist and although I don't necessarily agree with the pro-choice issue, I have more in common with pro-choice voters. There is a common frame that we can both agree with. A set of values that we do not waiver from. We don't have 40 years to develop this but we must start now (the internet will help). Buy this book. It is eye opening.

[Q]

29. To my fellow DUers...please keep this kicked throughout the weekend...

...so that we can learn from these different perspectives. And please...don't flame people in this thread for their opinions. It's not meant to be a debate forum...just a means to express different opinions.

Thanks.

[loupe-garou]

30. Be as pugilistic as the REbugs, but have the integrity they don't

STOP BEING INGRATIATING!!!!!! CALL A SPADE A SPADE!!! INVESTIGATE AND ANNOUNCE LOUDLY VOTING IRREGUARITIES AND DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF VOTERS, ESPECIALLY MIN0RITY GROUPS, FOR THEY ARE WHAT MAKE US A MAJORITY!!!! PLAY HARDBALL!!!!! I COULD GO ON , BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING????

i AM A LIBERAL INFORMED BY MY FAMILIES FAIRLY RECENT IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND, THEREFORE PRACTICAL ABOUT RESULTS.....

I HAVE TO SAY THOUGH, MY GRANDMOTHER DIDN'T EVEN START HIGH SCHOOL, BUT SHE KNEW AND PAID ATTENTION TO POLITICS, AND WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE, SHE WAS A RABID DEMOCRAT......

WHAT IS WRONG WITH LARGE PORTIONS OF THE WORKING CLASS TODAY??? THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR OWN DEMISE, AND HAPPILY!!!!

[nutshell2002]

32. I have thought a lot about this since 11/2

First, here's a little about me for some perspective. I have always been progressive on social issues, maybe not quite so much on fiscal ones. I am a physician, and a gay one at that. While I have always voted, this is the first year I registered as a Dem (previously Ind.) and donated and worked on Kerry's campaign. So here goes...

1. I do not think it matters so much, geographically speaking, where the next Dem Presidential candidate comes from. What matters is that they have a strong progressive message and actually believe in it. It took a while for me to warm to Kerry; and while I truly believe that he is an intellegent statesman who would have made a terrific president, it is clear that voters were not able to connect with him on a visceral level.

2. The media spin on the "values" vote is pure crap. Lots of red states with Dem governors and state governments. For example, both NY and CA have at least one very liberal senator and Repub governors; this is because in each case, the individuals and their core beliefs transcend party labels so that the electorate doesn't care which letter (D or R) is next to their name.

3. We will not get anywhere as a party by moving further to the center/right.

Just my $.02

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

33. Longtime lurker here

I am in favor of going back to a more progressive, honest 'party of the people' grassroots movement. We need more dems like Kucinich.

Look what has happened to this country as the democrats have tried to mold themselves into 'republicans light' - people have left the party in disgust, going third party.

I mean just look at all the scads of indictments and felony charges that could be brought against the Bush administration and supporters in office. Nixon was a candystriper compared to the crimes committed by these thugs - but they remain in office.

The repukes weren't afraid to rabidly attack Clinton on any little thing, blowing millions of taxpayer dollars in the process. They tore him to shreds, when in fact Clinton was very good with pushing through stuff that republicans actually wanted. (Think welfare 'reform', NAFTA, etc.) Fact is, Clinton was GREAT for them, if only they had the brains to realize it.

However - Bush has burned that 'bridge to the 21st century' to the ground, and then nuked the burnt remains for good measure. There is SO MUCH material to attack the Bush admin with - it needs to be done aggressively and with a (deserved) vengeance.

I know it's hard to get crap done, what with the uber-secretive nature of the Bush Regime, but there are people here and there who are doing their damndest to do right by the people. (Such as Dennis Kucinich.) There's a difference between 'go along to get along' and betraying your constituents and essentially selling out. We have too much 'selling out' going on and where has it gotten us? Yeah.

We are under seige, so it's unconscionable for me to even consider capitulating to the reichwing assholes. FIGHT DIRTY. Turnabout is fair play, I say.

[coolhandlulu]

34. Accentuate the Christain Left Stance

Remind people that our values are aligned with Christ's teachings...We are New Testament supporters. Inclusiveness and forgiveness are our values. Peace, not war...Love, not hate...
Feed the poor, heal the sick...

[RumpusCat]

35. Be a Party for the People not the Corporations

I think one thing that has brought the Democratic leadership down is their hunger for the kind of $$ that pandering to large corporations brings. On the one hand, this is not really their fault--politics has always been about soft money a little bit, and Democratic candidates have to keep up with Republicans to even be able to afford to campaign! On the other hand, this has really hindered the Democrat's ability to be the people's party. Dems & Repubs get money from the same or similar sources--fed on the same diet, it only makes sense that they will start to resemble each other.

Solutions? I'm afraid I'm more of a political philosopher than strategist. We did learn this last election cycle that it's possible to raise large amounts of money from small donors--perhaps those small donors can't take you out for steak dinners on their private company yachts, but they can help get you elected!

I would like to see the Democrats get active for people that don't have yachts, especially on the most local levels. Do not move to the right! No one can out-game the Republicans on that level, unless his name starts with a C and ends with a -linton. Reach backwards to the values that progressive and populist candidates used to stand for, especially worker's rights and civil rights. I would like to give all the Dem party members/candidates a copy of Zinn's The People's History of America so they could learn what power the populist movement used to have, and how much it frightened the Enrons and Halliburtons of their day.

Also, please don't abandon us queers just to appeal to the 'red staters.' As a big dyke and a born-and-bred Tennessean, I can tell you that people can learn to understand, but only if you talk to them. Dems don't need to stuff us back in the closet to win elections.

[seafey]

59. I agree completely!

As for strategy, I think people like you and people like me should actually get involved with local Dem party events and be the rock in their shoe! Go to platform events, go to regional meetings, ask questions you KNOW they don't want asked. This is the only way strategically, but no one wants to do it because it's not easy or fun. Plus they think they should be a perfect speaker or have a perfect grasp of every issue- NO- it's everyday people who need to go in and take the steering wheel, or at least do a little polite backseat driving. :)

[natureman]

81. Repeat Democrats - Party of the people; not the Corporations

Since we do not have the "think tanks" that the conservatives have, this is a very simple and effective matra that works. We need to repeat this over and over and over and over and over..... Why? because corporations will continue to drive towards profits at the expense of workers and the environment. THIS IS A FACT! The workers will eventually understand this and if they have seen the Democratic party say this, they will vote for us. Unfortunately we will have to give up quite a bit of corporate sponsorship money to do this. This is where we take full advantage of the ineternet. We must take a stand. It's not that I am anti-corporation. There must be checks and balances. Look at the Republican party today, it is catering to the corporations. Higher health care premiums, outsourcing, layoffs, relaxation of environmental rules, stagnation of wages, etc.. These are only things that benefit the corporations. Therefore I can stand behind the banner; Democrats - Party of the people; not the Corporations.
P.S. I could care less if you are Gay. I'm drunk right now. HeHe!!

[evilqueen]

36. Here's a few suggestions...

1. Tell the truth. I don't care how ugly or hurtful it is, tell the truth... about everything.
2. Accept the diversity within the party (acceptance is different from tolerance, learn the difference).
3. Be inclusive. Don't shut people out or refuse to hear their voices. Don't label them either, that only leads to division and divisiveness. 4. Stop alienating large swaths of supporters with stupid public statements that show that you don't really understand the underlying issues or haven't "accepted" the diversity in your own Party.
5. Return to your roots. Review the stances of past leaders and learn from them. In particular: the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King Jr., Harry Truman, FDR, and Eleanor Roosevelt, too. Do you still support the issues they did? If so, frame your language in those terms. Create the narrative that will appeal to the diversity that is inherent in America itself. (Pay attention to Lakoff and Chomsky as you do this.)
6. Put Party representatives inside the online forums of your supporters so that you have someone listening to what's being said by average people within your party. Take notes and make sure Party leadership knows and is aware of the daily pulse of our own Party supporters. DU and CommonSenseCommonGrounds.org are good places to start... but don't forget the bloggers.
7. Don't just ask for money and then abandon your supporters. Don't use our email addresses solely for fundraising. The Party doesn't quite *get* what online activism and campaigning can be, but they need to learn this "new media" and learn it well. We can BE the media, but it would help if the Party takes an active role in helping that along. This is a two-way street... this is not like television or newspapers, which are one-way only. Study it, figure out ways to use it properly.
8. Go on the offensive. Stop letting the opposition put you in the corner defending. Expose the corruption, pursue the prosecutions, don't make backroom deals with the opposition... put it out there in the public eye. Put the MSM on the defense, as well. Expose their bias.

I could go on and on. There's lots more...

[The Wielding Truth]

131. I've seen it in other words and feel it is the crux of trust----"Truthout"

Thank you EQ.I hope you will come to Frame the Debate Group Forum. All these posts are great. I can see a much brighter future here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. These are terrific, thoughtful responses, even if I don't agree

with all of them. What a great crop of newbies! :thumbsup:

I'll happily kick this thread.

[DeminGa]

47. great topic!

I'll start off with what I think the Repubs do 'right' Without stooping to their level, I believe there are a few things we can learn from them.....

*They had a clear message that each and every member of the party reiterated every chance they got. I was as though a memo went out to each member of the party and by noontime, every repub representive was spouting the exact same message, the exact same stance on an issue. They came across as a united front! I really think that made a huge difference in the realm of public opinion

*They were the 1st to attack and therefore put the democrats on the defensive. This got us off message and wasted much of our time. We had to explain ourselves and prove ourselves innocent of the lies and spin of the repub party.

*They were masters of labeling! Labeling their party as protectors and patriots and the dems as 'liberals' and the party of the 'weak'

*The most important tactic they used.....
Planning ahead. I believe the repubs have their battle plans already set for 2008! It was obvious this year that they had a well thought out strategy in terms of targeting voters, timing events to help with either getting out their message or diverting attention from their message, sparking the debate about gay marriage legislation which inturn brought conservative voters to the booths etc etc.

I predict the Cheney will soon 'retire' due to health concerns in order for the repubs to get a viable candidate for 2008 in office!! Mark these words.....I give them about a month to start talking about it. And admit it, it would be brilliant

What I think the dems need to do

*Create a united front like I described above

*Initiate voter rights bills NOW. We need set standards for everything from the ratio of registered voters to number of polling booths in each precinct, to across the board rules for provisional ballots, voting methods, recount procedures etc etc

*Plan AHEAD!!!

*Use the next four years to prove thru actions that they are the party of the people. They can do this by initiating bills that protect our rights. Even if these bills arent 'extraordinary' they would make great references and sound bites

*Maybe the most important tactic they can incorporate....
Remind the country every chance they get about our founding fathers, our constitution and the reasons we fed from England in the 1st place! I personally believe that people these days have NO clue what our country truly stood for and therefore, dont realize that we are getting further and further away from our founding beliefs.

Anyone know how to get in touch with Speilburg!?!? I think he could do a GREAT movie (ala Shindlers list/Saving Private Ryan) about our country's beginning. Without it sounding like propaganda, it may teach some people about our constitutional rights and potentially sway the vote to our side come 2008. This is what I mean about 'planning ahead'

Sorry it was soooooo long. Too many thoughts these days for my own good!!!

[m berst]

39. great posts

Thanks Q for starting the thread and thanks to everyone who posted their ideas and observations.

[Boswells_Johnson]

40. Be clear, and offer a contrasting vision

to the Rebublicans. It's quite obvious that every time the Reps take power, the economy tanks, so they can't run on fiscal responsibility/management.

You should focus on a vision of a responsible, compassionate government that understands that you can't run a country like a business.

The US was at it's best when it was open to new ideas, and looked outwards. When it closes itself off, it stagnates.

[Midnight Rambler]

41. Grow some balls

No matter what they do to try and correct their failures, it's all useless with out a big pair of cajones. Because the problem as I see it is that the Dems are just too nice to the Repubs. It's time for them to take the gloves off and bury this "wimpy liberal" shit once and for all.

[Turn CO Blue]

173. Yes, grow some cajones!

What I mean is that we have to learn to take advantage of every opportunity.

While we are the opposition party, it should be the Dem duty to expose every single error, mistake and crime of the Repubs.

Examples:

The Dems should have had HARD-HITTING major talking points and ads out with 8 hours of:

- Bush using tax-payor money to buy back that Presidential yacht
- The Repubs changing their own rules to help out soon-to-be-indicted Delay.
- two Senators or Reps being named in the budget bill to be able to view anyone's tax records (will be omitted, but a glaring attempt at malfeasance and a faux-pas to say the least)

We should have TV ads on air for the most aggregious of these kinds of issues by the next day and WE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO NAME NAMES.

[Kingofalldems]

42. They should state the obvious

That the GOP with the guidance of the RW think tanks want to bring the US back to the nineteenth century. They basically want to cancel the New Deal and anything that helped working people. These people believe that 'property owners', meaning corporations, should rule. I think the Dems make a big mistake when they they the GOP is wrong on economics. That is a weak response, since it is obvious the RW wants to change the face of America to an oligarchy which they believe is the natural order of things.

[merkins]

43. Prog Pop: Go with Howard Dean and the DFA

"Pray for a Secular Future"

[cire4]

44. Focus on the Latino Southwest instead of Evangelical South

We came very close to taking Nevada, New Mexico, and the whole Colorado statehouse went Democratic. Arizona could possibly flip as well. As more Hispanic voters become eligible to vote, these states have an increasingly better chance at becoming solid blue than many of the Southern/midwest states. The only problem is that the Democratic Party has to get a solid 60-65% of the Hispanic vote everytime out, which means we have to make a concerted effort to appeal to them.

I think Rove recognizes that this demographic is the biggest key to establishing his pet dream of a permanent Republican majority (as evidenced by his little Guest Worker immigration bill and I'm sure that Gonzales' race played a major role in the decision to make him AG.

[Quixote1818]

82. YOU ARE 100% RIGHT!!!! Hispanics are growing in the South West

and in four years Nevada, Arizona, Colorado will definately be more in play. I predict New Mexico will be back in the Blue but it's the other states we could snag! We need Bill Richardson as VP next time!

[NEDem]

45. Obsevartions from a Red-State Dem

The Democratic party needs to ignore the Republican party and start takling about the people, quit attacking the party and start attacking their actions, or lack-therof. The great middle class wants an honest moderate voice that they can trust, once that person steps forward, we're on our way.

I personally would like a more liberal leader, but it is not going to happen right away, we need to start out moderate and then slowly, very slowly, move left.

[btyarbro]

129. Ideas on Political Strategy

Thanks for the thoughtful responses here and elsewhere.

I was hoping I wasn't alone in hearing hob-nailed boots duck-marching across the country.

One thing we ARE doing and must continue to do is Write and Talk.
In February 2004, after he had won the primaries and became the official Democratic nominee, John Kerry promised “a real conversation with America.” Promise made; promise kept. And those in the blogosphere have been chatting furiously ever since.

Given the outcome—a deeply divided country—and the heated reactions on both sides during the final weeks of the election, only one mandate seems clear: how do we talk with one another rather than aboutone another? Without ideological barriers that prevent our conversations from succeeding, can we open up possibilities for understanding, for exchange, for discussion, and perhaps diplomacy? President Bush, in his first post-election press conference, initiated the first overture: “The campaign gave me political campaign, and I intend to spend it.” This inspires a divided nation to unite?

On a virtual terrain, the territory is uncertain, and reliable maps are not yet widely available.

That terrain is an attractive destination to those who pursue truth in politics and its politicians, democratic (small and large D) dialogue, progressive ideas, and a love for the written word. Most importantly, the written word. We respect language’s flexibility, precision, complexity, and power. Oddly enough, those same qualities mark good political strategy.

Look for ever-evolving maps and typographers on these pages and on http://www.politicalstrategy.org for more thoughtful and progressive ideas.


:yourock:

[slay]

46. Forget labels like "left" and "center" and let us do what is right.

We must cast aside labels and focus on the deeper truths that are truly important such as freedom, equality, and justice. We must be honest. We must never compromise these values. We must protect freedom, equality, and justice even for those we do not personally agree with. We must speak the truth based on logic, reason, understanding and compassion. We must never back down in our quest to make this country a better place for all citizens, not just those who are currently in power. We must be passionate in our beliefs and work hard to explain them while still supporting the rights of those who may not agree with us on each and every little detail. We must accept that we are human and that none of us are perfect. We must put the best interests of the country above our personal interests. We must reach out to each other, embrace our freedom to be different, yet put aside those differences in order to ensure that freedom, equality, and justice apply to every single person in this country.

[nutshell2002]

49. I remember when I first heard Bush

talk about his support for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I thought how stupid it was to alienate moderates/swing voters. Just goes to show you how wrong I was.

Point being, believe in a political idea(l) and don't be afraid of who it might offend. Appeal to your core constituencies.

[mikh]

168. Plain speaking

Bravo! I agree 100%...
We have succumbed to a degree of rigidity and intolerance, and allowed idealogues to dominate the debate. In the UK Blair has articulated a "third way" forward that rejects old left values. This has allowed the UK Labour party to emerge as a vibrant 21st century political force. (Which will regain power in the next election.) Credit where it is due, reason where it is lacking and tolerance for opposing views...these traits will guarantee genuine progress to social justice.

[MoonWomyn]

50. Have an identity

Don't just be repub-lite! Whatever happened to
- a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body
- moving people out of poverty through training and support
- providing access to health care
- improving education, including making quality child care available to everyone
- respecting and validating ALL families
- valuing diplomacy over invasion
- respecting individual liberties
- valuing science!

It's about time the dems stood for something again,

Cyndi

[aneerkoinos]

51. Here's my opinion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1376882

[katsy]

52. Despair into action...

I've gone through the entire spectrum of emotions following the election.

Initially, I bought into the "values" branding of this election and thought move more to the center-right to grab back some voters may be prudent. I no longer believe the "values" bs to explain the loss of the election. And a friend changed my mind about that centrist position I was thinking about.

For the most part, as progressives and maybe a few idealists, we can come up with a thousand reasons why Kerry lost this election. Reasons that may range from the stupidity of the red states.... to the ? of the religious right.... to Kerry's remark about voting for the war knowing what he knows today... which I don't think cost him any votes.

What sent a chill up my spine had none of the complexity, and probably none of the merits of the arguments above. But here's my .02 FWIW:

When Kerry stated he'd roll back the taxes on those making $200K or more I thought the race over. I still think this election was lost because of $$$. Not the "morals" or "gay marriage" even as a bloc. Money and money alone.

Think about this. You have a family of 4 or 5, don't know how many years before your job is outsourced, healthcare costs shooting through the roof, the price of gas and heating oil up, all costs up even milk, college tuition up, private school tuition up. You make $200K and your family, in spite of living well on a day-to-day basis, have saved little and SS looks like a pipe dream. In that context, rolling back taxes on people making AT or SLIGHTLY higher than the $200K would be disasterous for them IF THEY WERE FACING the same bush-onomics had Kerry been elected. Did Kerry do much to address the fears of the future for these voters? Not in any specific and reassuring way IMO.

I don't know the answer. But when he picked $200K as the magic number.... I winced. $200K under bush-onomics feels like the buying power of $150K or less during the Clinton presidency. Call their concerns superficial or selfish if you wish, but I believe many of these voters were voting their pocketbooks with an immediate urgency. In other words, they couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Would Kerry have won had he chosen say.... $300K or $350K as the magic number? I can't say. But I suspect the popular vote would have been more evenly divided. AND HAD THIS ELECTION HAD ANY VALIDITY.... Kerry may have won the popular vote.

I do not believe the election is valid. END OF STORY. Any time ANY party seeks to supress voter turnout (like 2 machines for umpteen thousand voters) or not make a paper trail LAW..... well the election is not valid in my eyes.

Sorry for ranting. But I've settled into my own little world of I'M NOT BUYING $hit FROM RED STATES. I use the internet and that's where I'll shop for most essentials. I must buy some things here in FL as I have children but most of it I can get at a local (LIBERAL) organic market and NOT ALL THAT MUCH is necessary when I plan well. And I have so far planned well since the election. We no longer go out to eat EVER. I may move back to my mother state (blue) in the near future just because I look at everyone now with suspicion and disdain (especially my customers).

I want to get more info about boycotting all republican businesses and campaign donors. And no, I don't own a DELL puter.... only MAC for this family. Why would I piss away my $$$ on a dell when that flaming idiot CEO supports bush? m. dell won't pick my pocket and hand it over to the RNC!

Okay - one last rant - this is all about $$$ and wealth redistribution in my mind. And I'll fight back by withholding $$$ while screaming that I'm a flaming liberal and proud of it. I have a shop online and at the point it breaks even with my brick & mortar, I'm closing the shop and going strictly online. FL can kiss my $weet a$$ and their sales tax bye-bye.

Let the republicans bring it on.... let them.

[pffarrell]

53. personally i'd like to see it go green

but I think that's unlikely to happen. But it seems to me that the resaon repubs get elected is because they appeal to people's desire for lack of change. When the great labour movmenet were founded, they succeeded because the life of labourers was so appalling that any change was seen as desirable, but that's not really true anymore. A skilled labourer can make a lot of money and have a decent life. So they haven't got much reason to want change, and people inherently resist change. So now everybody is harking back to times past, and when you throw something like gay marriage at them, they just go 'AAACK'.

My personal feeling is that the majority of people are so overwhelmed by the modern world that they're trying to backpedal and that's the why the repubs are winning. People are desperately wanting to feel safe and secuire, not embrace some brave new world. Maybe the democrats need to promote local conservation, in the sense of promoting local communities in a way that makes people feel less disconnected and more empowered. I mean, if local democratic parties worked to provide benefits to communities, then there'd be a certain amount of loyalty on election day. This would particularly work in those samll rural communities that currently vote R.

Or, as an easier option, get George Clooney to run.

[aneerkoinos]

56. Jackpot!

"Maybe the democrats need to promote local conservation, in the sense of promoting local communities in a way that makes people feel less disconnected and more empowered. I mean, if local democratic parties worked to provide benefits to communities, then there'd be a certain amount of loyalty on election day. This would particularly work in those samll rural communities that currently vote R."

There is great amount of healty suspicion towards central governement ingrainde in American society. Progressives should respect and use that sentiment against controll freakism.
Medical Marijuana and states rights is good example of issue uniting what is good in both left and right.

[littleleaguemom]

58. What a terrific thread - thanks for asking us for input

Lots of good stuff above, just my thoughts in no particular order:

1. I think national security was the big issue in this election and I still don't know what Kerry would have done. A lot of people think prompt "bad" decisions are better than nuances and pondering. Does anyone here really think John Kerry would have been as decisive as Truman and dropped the atom bomb on Japan? Even though waiting would have let the war go on for years and kill hundreds of thousands more?
2. 48% still loses, so does 49.9%. This is a bigger loss than some here want to admit.
2. Zell Miller had some good points. There isn't going to be another Bill Clinton because "they don't make them any more." Virtually no Democrats of stature in the south or midwest.
3. Stop with the class warfare. I think the $200K stuff is deadly. As noted above, that is hardly wealthy for a family in California or New York. In any case, Kerry's actual plan, if you read it, raised taxes beginning at $80K for married filing single and well under $200K for families. Even if you taxed ALL such incomes, it wouldn't be enough for national healthcare, eliminating the defict and other stuff we want to do, so stop fantasizing. People know they aren't going to get something for nothing. Plus really wealthy people tend to be Democrats anyway.
4. Stop telling people their lives are terrible. Listening to Kerry and Edwards could get really depressing. Maybe the Bush voters don't think their lives are terrible.
5. Stop thinking people are stupid because they don't vote the way you like.
6. Stop thinking most women think abortion is a critical right - they don't - they care about other things like schools and security more.
7. I'm a Christian myself and I don't think the religious thing is all that big personally. Just need to stop offending religious people with "in your face" stuff - see #5. I'm surprised how much men especially do not like the SSM stuff - maybe they feel threatened somehow.

[rucky]

128. Wow. That was some great insight.

rings true.

[fnottr]

54. rephrase the debate, and stand firm on our issues

I think these two things have a lot in common. For example, the right wingers defined being against gay marriage as a 'moral issue'. Logically, being for gay marriage must then be immoral. This places our candidates in an awkward position since they certainly don't believe themselves immoral. Therefore they act as if they must apologize for having an 'immoral' view. The problem is they buy into this definition of the word 'moral' and don't challenge it. We need to not allow them to label our posistions as immoral, then we will have an easier time standing up them.

[Truman01]

55. I'm a newbie

I don't think we were consistant enough about what we believe. Kerry said the war was the wrong war, but didn't say pull out. Kerry was afraid of being a liberal instead of wearing it like a badge of honor. The red states aren't that red. Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, all of those states could have been won with a consitant, clear, liberal, message. We aren't freaks, we are well-thought out educated, LIBERALS. How dare anyone run from that?

We don't believe the war in Iraq is right. It was started on the pretext of a lie and it is ABSOLUTELY doomed to failure. Tax gifts to the rich are immoral when we are giving our children a CRUSHING deficit. Kerry wouldn't just say, I believe that Gay couples have the right to be happy. What was it, some 15% or more of GAYS voted for BUSHIT? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

Anyway, I'm new here and I don't think I have all the answers, but I don't want Democrat light, I want DEMOCRAT LIBERAL. When people are presented with an intelligent, clear, unapologetic, vision they will respond favorably.

TC

[newyawker99]

118. Hi Truman01!!

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[mikh]

170. Yes, yes The KISS Principle

Right on! Keep It Simple Stupid....it applies across the board, in our classrooms, to our computers and to our politicians.
We all should demand clear, consistent principles. We have inherited an activist international organisation that clouds its message. Our ideology is quite clear; we are Liberals - capital L! We cloak our messages behind a veil of "progressive" newspeak; when we talk of tolerance - we should mean it - not just to views that are similar to our own - but to opposing views also. When we talk of our abhorrence of racism we should mean it too, and not pander to it in any way. When we despise sexism we must be consistent and condemn religous bigotry that treats women as chattels and objects.
We are winners - truth always wins - but we are not consistent.
For a historical view on this go to the writings of Adlai Stevenson...

[seafey]

57. Permeate the media with the phrase "SOCIAL MORALS"

Take the word "moral" back, then start working on taking the word "liberal" back. We let them steal words from us by not framing our arguments correctly. Using the phrase "social morals" will force these morality police types to rethink their use of the term. They just might wonder if refusing to question the genocide of the people in Iraq is immoral. Or letting homeless people go hungry is immoral. Or complaining about the taxes required to educate our children is immoral. Nevermind LYING, cheating, etc. etc.

[villagechild]

61. platform

1. reduce military expendatures, invest in America

2. cease arms trading with rogue states

3. patronize honest allies

4. reduce government secrecy, expand FOIA

5. champion Bill of Rights, Human Rights, protest regressive Supreme Court Decisions, reward honest lawyers with great applause

6. seek Constiitutional Amendment for Voting Integrity

7. reward politicians who say "I'm sorry, I made a mistake"

8. more to come ;-)

[BlackVelvet04]

60. Grow a set

and stand up for the people.

Set an agenda that gives rights back to the people.....quit supporting ANYTHING that takes rights away, be it anti-smoking legislation, mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. If they give the power back to the people to determine the course of their own lives they will win the people's devotion. Americans are SICK to death of government intervention. Can I get an amen on that? ;-)

And TELL THE TRUTH. Please, tell the truth. Expose any and all crooked politicians no matter what side of the fence. Separate from the lobbiests and represent the best interest of the American people.

[DavidFL]

62. I think the party should return to its populist roots...

in the tradition of FDR and keep principled positions. If you ask most people, they support programs like Social Security and Medicare and other programs which help the needy, a return to progressive taxation as long as their money is not spent wastefully, programs that create well-paying jobs with benefits so they can support their families, workers' rights like the ability to unionize and collective bargaining, penalties for corporate offshoring of jobs and of money in Carribean "tax shelters," strong curbs on bad corporate behavior and enforced criminal penalties for executives that screw their employees and the public. Most would also support regulation and market controls which protect consumers against predatory businesses and business practices in the marketplace. I'm also sure many would not have a problem with healthcare being considered a right guaranteed to every American, rather than a privlege, as those that still have health insurance are realizing that the way things are going under the current system, they won't be able to afford it much longer. This, of course, would mean taking another look at universal healthcare.

These all happen to be Democratic populist positions, yet many people don't know that's what this agenda is called because the Right has been so successful in defining the terms of political debate and demonizing anything which benefits the masses. I think Democrats share part of the blame for this because some of the Right's success comes from the tepid opposition Democrats have given them and the Democratic Party drifting away from the principled positions it used to hold. I noticed this phenomenon acutely a few months ago when I received an e-mail from a right-leaning friend in which he expressed his agreement with the e-mail's call for abolishing payroll taxes and Social Security itself. He was convinced by the text of the e-mail, which was nothing but a litany of lies, distortions and half truths about payroll taxes and who Social Security benefits. How in the hell did we get to the point that people are supporting ideas which only screw themselves over for the benefit the well-to-do?

In terms of my own personal political positions, Democratic populism is still not far enough to left for me. I believe government, as well as those of us that do have, have a moral obligation to help those that do not. I believe that no one should ever want for their most basic of needs. Thus, I support governmental programs that would provide clean, safe and liveable housing; a guaranteed liveable income for the elderly, disabled, unemployed and underemployed; universal healthcare, which would include dental care; universal public schools and colleges; and truly public utilities. Those sectors of the economy which I would not nationalize would be regulated for the purposes of evening the playing field between business and consumers, employers and employees, and between businesses themselves to encourage competition and reduce the capitalistic tendency toward monopolization. I am not registered with a party, and I realize this puts me in line with the Greens more than it does with the Democrats. I also realize that some Democrats would probably put me on par with Che Guevara, even though my ideal of government is far to the right of what he ever imagined, and in Europe and some Carribean and South American countries, I would be considered mainstream center left.

I am on the Democrats side though, even though I don't agree with all of their positions, because it's the party that has the possibility of returning the country back to the FDR-type populism I mentioned above. Once you all get there, this puts someone like me closer back to the "mainstream," and then I can talk about my vision for government and be taken seriously without being mariginalized as a hippy, Commie radical.

[Newshues]

63. This will rile people, but it's how I see it and Q did invite it

I'll apologize in advance, I know this will royally tick a number of vocal people here off. Might I suggest take it at face value rather than an attack. It is how I see the democratic party and based on my observations locally and around my wide traversals of the net each point has the ring of truth to it at the least. In the interest of you understanding where this comes from, I'm center right in my politics. I wouldn't cast a vote on a gay marriage referendum since I don't care either way. I'm pro-choice with limits, pro-gun with limits. I do not send my son to public schools because the school here does not set high enough expectation and I believe the social atmosphere would be detrimental to his growth. I sacrifice much to give him that and don't resent it in the least. On with the show as they say.

"Stop telling me that Hussein was a threat to America and his neighbors."
Threat to America, no, not directly and not clearly. A threat to his neighbors - with sanctions breaking down......convince me that wasn't going to be the case in 5 years.

"Stop telling me that Iran is going to nuke us."
They wouldn't if they could, but they would nuke Israel.

"Stop telling me that America is the beacon of freedom in the world."
Actually, it is. You may think you have less freedom then you do, but I would make the bet that America is freer than any other country you would care to live in.

"Stop telling me that health care is not a right."
And where in The Constitution For The United States of America is this spelled out? What I mean is, if you are going to claim the right you had best be making the case that it is indeed a right. You're working from the assumption that everyone thinks as you do....I think the last election made it pretty clear that everyone doesn't think as you do.

"Stop telling me that being pro-labor rights, pro-equality for all, pro-We The People is "far left"."

Depending on how you define Equality, it is. The Constitution For The United States of America does not ensure comparative equality, it ensures equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Again, you are assuming everyone thinks as you do....
Corporations are viewed as citizens in the eyes of the law, you would argue that government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body yet you would argue that same government has the right to tell another citizen has to pay for services rendered? Either you believe government has no right to interfere with its citizens own private matter or you don't. Which is it?

"Stop telling me that we need to compromise with fascists like b*sh."

Stop calling Bush a fascist and maybe, just maybe, someone who doesn't think like you do will listen long enough for you to make your case so that they will think like you do. Bush may have fascist leanings, but that doesn't make him a fascist.

I've lurked here for years. I believe in knowing all the facts and relevant information. Since the first poster invited comment I'm giving it.

You guys want to win elections again than you *must* quit assuming that everyone thinks like you do. I cannot stress that enough. The majority, at this time, do not think like you do and *you*, every single one of you, need to make the case for positions that you take for granted.

You live in this echo chamber of Democratic Underground and the like, you've fallen victim to entrenched group think and you don't seem to have a clue about the difference between America's Jeffersonian Democracy and Europes' vastly different style. Saying democracy is dead in America is like saying you don't understand American democracy in the first place. And anyone should listen to your views on American politics when you don't understand the basics of American democracy why?

1) You need to get out more, interact with people who do not agree with you and re-learn how to make the case that your position is the stronger while not resorting to aggressive argumentation. Been failing miserably at that for 3 election cycles now.

2) You need, I seriously cannot stress this enough, to quit thinking that everyone thinks as you do. They don't. Clearly they don't. If you are not going to make the case from start to finish that your position is the stronger position than you have absolutely no right to be surprised or upset by the results you get. No right to run around calling people rednecks, hicks, bigots, homophobes, uncultured, etc. You haven't been making the case because you believe it is self evident - it isn't for most people.

3) In the Red States at least, the ideals of the Jeffersonian Democracy are very much alive and well. At the very least you need to pay lip service to it, at best you would work within those ideals honestly. You haven't been so you are out of touch with the foundations of this country and as such out of touch with the very people you need to convince to move forward with you ideas of social justice.

4) be reasonable. Have any of you considered what would happen, realistically, if everything you wanted actually came to be? What happens if oil is eliminated? Do any of you know the honest answer to that question? What happens if sprawl is stopped and we force more people to live on the same amount of land? Neither of those futures is something that the majority of Americans are keen on.

5) Instead of blaming America for taking a stupid action - yes, blame the victim, that makes sense, brought it on ourselves like a woman wearing a short skirt brings a rape on herself /sarcasm - Suggest the positive solution to the problem. You're so busy blaming someone or something that people are turned off to the positive alternative that comes along after the blaming. Stop it.

6) Recognize that a good number of people in your circle of buddies here at DU are not Americans. That does not make their opinions any less valid but it does force the application of those opinions to take a different shape. Half of the "spew" I see in here is a direct lifting of how Europe sees America, not how America really is. You guys rant about how the US news is biased, try keeping an open mind and forming an honest opinion about the US when the government subsidized and government censored news spews for anti-Americanism day after day after day. You guys claim the right believes a pack of lies - pot meet kettle.

Don't fake things. Don't fake a move to the right, don't fake getting religion and don't collectively attack America as being the one to blame for all the worlds ills. America isn't and even in those cases where America is the majority contributor to the worlds ills no one wants to listen to someone who blames Americans in the collective sense.

You want people to vote for you again, you need to present positive alternatives. When presenting those alternatives you should not start the presentation with a blame America opener. While making the presentation you need to lay out concisely why it is that yours is the stronger position. Some where in that presentation you need to accentuate the positive impact it will have on the life of the every day Americans.

At all times you must remember that America is not Europe. Any claim that we are similar beyond the very basics is insane. As such, if you are going to lift a European idea for application to America you had best repackage it for America rather than try to sell it "as is" to the American people.

Explain to us why 200 acres out of hundreds of thousands of acres is so important that drilling shouldn't be permitted. I understand the argument, but a lot of people have no clue and you guys don't make the case at all. The majority of the electorate will not seek out any more information than a party and it's activists spoon feed them. Again, make your case. Bring out the spoon, feed it to them.

Lack of political voice leads to militant fundamentalism. In light of this, explain in detail how it is you propose to provide voice to the "Arab street". Explain, in detail, how it is that you are going to reform Arab governments. Keep in mind that Jordan has been on the path to democratic reforms for decades and they still aren't there yet and nearly fell apart in the process.

Quit thinking Europe is going to act in America's interests or any interest other than her own. Europe isn't, she won't and an objective look at the history shows that while Europe is in the right in terms of global good more often than America is, she is in the right out of her own selfish interest not some idealized global community.

No one wants to hear their country put down. No one wants to hear they, in a collective sense, screwed up. No one wants to hear that some other country is better than their own. No one wants to vote against an incumbent without also wanting to vote for the challenger - so saying how bad the guy in charge is doesn't cut it unless you can sell the guy running against him. Kerry didn't make the sale.

People do want to hear positive messages. People do want to be given a message of hope. People do want to understand what it is you are saying. People do want to hear exactly how they can do better and why it is better to do it that way. People do want to hear how they will be impacted positively in their daily lives. People do want to be better people and a better nation. It's obvious to you how Kerry would have made a difference in your daily lives, it was not, however, obvious.

Problem is you guys have been assuming everyone thinks like you do when you craft your message and when you try to connect with people. You haven't been making your case from start to finish and when you do get to the finish you don't explain why the finish is better.

People will vote for what they understand before they vote for what they don't know. People will vote if they are convinced there will be an impact to them directly.

Convince me higher wages are worth the inflation that comes with them. Convince me that militant Islamic fundamentalism isn't a long term threat. Convince me that militant Islamic fundamentalism can be dealt with without upsetting the Middle East. Convince me that drilling in ANWAR is worse than not drilling. Convince me that humans are the cause, not the magnifier of, global warming. Mars is warming too, explain it. Convince me nationalized health care will actually work as advertised when state run Medicare/Medicaid programs are a joke, not only in terms of patient care but also in that the re-reimbursement rates to health care providers doesn't even cover malpractice let alone cost of supplies and treatment. Convince me that peace is possible in a world where countries, not just America, are willing to force their views on other nations militarily. Convince me that the world really wanted to stop America from going to Iraq when the only measure they took were ones that had no cost to themselves. Convince me that European Union is a good idea for America. Convince me that China isn't gearing up to an eventual confrontation with America both economically and militarily. Convince me that letting people come to America, legally or illegally, and not learning English and our culture is a good thing. Convince me that it makes sense for hospital to be performing an abortion on a 28 week fetus while down the hall doctors are saving a premature baby delivered at 28 weeks.

I'm not some far right wing nut job and if you think I am it's a testament to how far out of touch with center right America you folks are. The fact that Kerry came as close as he did isn't a testament to Kerry, it's a testament to how bad Bush is.

You guys want to save social security while taxing the hell out of the rich, here's how. Cut the payroll tax for everyone, down to just higher than current years expenditures. Put in the automatic adjustments for inflation plus a "fudge" factor to reflect the increasing demand on t he system from baby boomers. At the same time remove the cap on taxable income for payroll taxes. Problem solved. Social security remains solvent, the poor get a real tax cut they can actually use and the rich not only get soaked but companies have an incentive to actually higher people who perform at top levels of the company but also to keep those high level wages *down*. Toss in the closing of a few "accounting" loopholes to ensure that all gain is taxed and Social Security gains new life and Bush's plan to privatize it falls by the wayside. While you are at it, convince me that owning a portion of my allotted social security "nest egg" that I can pass on to my children or grand children is a bad idea.

You want to win on abortion then recognize that most American's want reasonable limits. Convince me that a woman who does nothing to control whether she gets pregnant in the first place is somehow capable of making an intelligent choice about abortion after the fact. Further convince me that a woman who puts off the decision to have an abortion beyond fetus viability is somehow capable of making an intelligent choice about abortion. Lord knows when I don't want a pregnancy in my life we double up on the contraceptives and after you've skipped the second period it's really time to check things out.

You want to win on guns, the start by re-affirming the second amendment at every opportunity while recognizing that there are reasonable limits. You made the case once to get the assault weapons ban, but when it came time to re-new the ban you didn't even try to make the case. Convince me you only want to limit the worst guns not all guns. Convince me that a gun is responsible when a child gets a hold of a gun rather than an adult. Convince me that one class a year on basic gun safety wouldn't cut the accidental death and injury rate for guns. A gun is *always* loaded until you check it yourself, they are not toys to be played with, if you find one get away from it and tell an adult. That's basic gun safety that all those rural Red Staters know about the same time they learn to read. It's why they think gun control measures in the name of preventing accidental shootings are insane.

Convince me that more money for schools is the answer when it hasn't been in the past. Convince me that smaller class sizes are the answer when it hasn't been in the past. Hell, convince me that the Democratic party can admit that some of its solutions from the past just do not work in the real world. Go look at your local schools budget, student to teacher ratio and then student to administrator ratio. Compare that to ten years ago, fifteen years ago. The more money that schools are getting is not, by and large, going to reducing class sizes or actually improving the students education. And while you do that keep in mind that rural red staters face higher costs to run a school district than urban blue staters. Property tax revolts are breaking out all over.

Convince me that immigrants to this country through out its history didn't get ahead by the sacrifices of the original generation coupled with high expectations for the first generation born here. You want to pass on a better socio-economic class to your children in America then you have to bite the bullet and sacrifice you own personal wants and desires so that you can give a better opportunity to your children. Doing so makes you have a higher expectation of your children and children have a remarkable capability of meeting parental expectations. Convince me that isn't the recipe for success in America.

Convince me that issues like abortion and gun control and generalized environmental policy have to be dealt with at the federal level. I can see setting federally mandate minimums with free reign for the states to go further but I cannot see the federal government telling the state governments how to go about implementing those minimums. Roe v. Wade gets overturned it doesn't make abortion illegal, it returns that decision to the states - where it always should have been.

Make the case, make the case, make the case. Start to finish and then tell me how the your finish is better for me and mine.
Make the message positive, leave the blame game to the surrogates and show me how it will have a positive impact on my life.

I've voted Democrat before, I likely will again, but the Democrat has to make the case strong enough that I will accept the bones thrown to the far left that comes with him.

[natureman]

71. You didn't rile me one bit !

Actually I live in Texas and the fact that you might entertain the idea of voting for a democrat is more than what I get with my conversations here. Listen, I agree with you that the democratic party needs to show their case. They have done a piss poor job of that through the years. The democratic party is so far behind in "think tanks" that it will take a while to solidify our policies. I could go into details but this is not the forum.

For example, I am an environmentalist who votes for democrats because I don't trust corporations to do the right thing. I work for a major chemical company and I know for a fact that they would irresponsibly dump waste streams if the EPA and State regulatory group wasn't there to oversee them. Hell, Nixon started the EPA. I have more respect for Nixon than Bush jr. The Republican party is not what it used to be. What happened to the "True conservatives" Teddy Roosevelt & Eisenhower. I don't want these regulations weakened. I want my national parks and forests protected, not sold to private interests. I don't know how to state my case any clearer. If you don't agree, well I don't know what else to say.
I honestly believe that the Democrats will have to learn how to disagree in order to form a party that is viable in the future. Since I am for more restrictions on abortion, I have to give a little. I hope other democrats can do the same.

[carolinalady]

74. Well said! Wordy....but well said!

Welcome to DU.
:hi:

[katsy]

86. re: rile people

<<<< "Stop telling me that being pro-labor rights, pro-equality for all, pro-We The People is "far left"."

Depending on how you define Equality, it is. The Constitution For The United States of America does not ensure comparative equality, it ensures equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Again, you are assuming everyone thinks as you do....
Corporations are viewed as citizens in the eyes of the law, you would argue that government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body yet you would argue that same government has the right to tell another citizen has to pay for services rendered? Either you believe government has no right to interfere with its citizens own private matter or you don't. Which is it? >>>>

——————————————————————————————————————————

Before I comment on your statement above, let me address your message as a whole.

Your characterizations of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives as being out-of-touch with the foundations of this country and the ideals of Jeffersonian Democracy are pure bunk. Jefferson promoted a small, simple government geared to average citizens NOT the wealthy. Jefferson was a champion of State's rights and INDIVIDUAL civil liberties. How does that square with bush trying to write discrimination against gays into the Constitution? Do you not know that homosexuality has been around as long as man? No sir. Jefferson and our greatest Statesman did not address the issue because IT WAS NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS and certainly not the kind of issue that belonged in our Constitution or politics. How does "GROUP THINK and LEGISLATE" regarding abortion square with INDIVIDUAL civil liberties? Jefferson tried to eliminate the national debt. bush is like a dysfunctional child in a candy store.... charge & spend charge & spend... it's "OTHER" peoples money.

WHERE sir... by your interpretation of Jeffersonian principles... are these principles alive and well in the "RED" states or bush's administration? Jefferson didn't want enormous power concentrated in the executive branch. How does that square with bush's reign?

And if bush is the champion of the "RED" state voting majority... WHERE in the devil is bush's aversion to LARGE government and the national debt? For that matter, how has bush exemplified the Jeffersonian frugality and aversion to pompous presidential galas funded by the taxpayers? Isn't bush's people in congress trying to buy back the presidential yacht sold over 3 decades ago?

Puhleeeeeeze! You feign civility and understanding and an oh so ever helpful hand. Try again. It is not the Democratic Party that is in need of your helpful suggestions. Take your own advice and study the Jeffersonian Principles of Democracy.

To address your statement quoted above:

Where in Jeffersonian principles is it found that a corporation should even be viewed as an individual? And what role does this play on the point you're trying to make above? Are you addressing pro-labor groups? Don't make me laugh. If you're serious, I hope you have a child young enough to someday be put to work in chinese-type sweat shops because if it were left up to your corporate gods..... they have just the place for your kid. NOT MINE. People - individuals make up pro-labor groups. Profit defines the existance of a corporation.

As for abortion.... you quibble about having to pay for someone's abortion? Excuse me, but you were paying because someone had an abortion that was botched before Roe v. Wade. There are less abortions today because of abstinence education and availability of birth control. And while it would benefit everyone not to have to pay for this procedure by way of taxes..... it would PERSONALLY BENEFIT ME AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS LIKE ME NOT TO GIVE CHURCHES TAX-EXEMPT STATUS. Do you understand me? If your in for a dime (so to speak) you're in for a dollar as an American FIRST. I don't want to pay taxes for some playground going up in Nebraske sir.... but I'm an American and thus can bear the burden for the well-being of other Americans even if I don't personally agree with their point of view. You want abortion to be decided at the state level? The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendament to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right to personal privacy, includes abortion (with some restrictions).

Look if you object to paying taxes, of which a fraction of a penny may go to providing safe abortions... more power to you. Get it done. If people who think like you want to pass legislation that withdraws funds for safe abortions and you have the votes necessary to get that passed.... more power to you. If your representatives have the necessary ovaries or balls to try to overturn Roe v. Wade in the courts.... by all means show us your stuff! I would venture a guess that all your pro-life reps have been hoodwinking you because for 4 years of bush and republican majority... more is said than done. At the end of the next 4 years, if nothing is done I would say you've been had by these scoundrels!

Would you also join hands with me in trying to get a refund for all the pork tax dollars your "RED" states have taken from me? There's just so much I object to personally... would you go on the limb and help me get that dime back because it's just so.... not fair. Then we'll all sing kubaya and be happy.

Regarding comparative equality and equality under the law. Get the corporate lobbyists out of washington and we'll then chat about how right you are.

[Newshues]

87. Thank-you for proving my main points.

You're out of touch and cannot conceive of a world view outside your own. Show me where I once mentioned my, or anyone elses, taxes paying for abortions either explicitly or implicitly. You read but you do not comprehend because you assume anyone who doesn't think like you do is not worth your time except to attack.

The alternative explanation would be that you aren't making the case from start to finish. Maybe it's actually both.

The primary concept of the Jeffersonian Democracy is that government is a necessary evil. As such it should be, as you correctly noted, "a small, simple government geared to the average citizen". You also correctly noted that Jefferson believed strongly in states rights and individual liberties, not civil liberties - there is a difference. Please, square all that you have admitted to with all aspects of the New Deal, with federal environmental regulations that dictate what property owners can and cannot do with their properties, with federal gun control, OSHA, Department of Education and on and on and on......none of it squares with Jeffersonian principals, all of it should have been left to the states which would be in line with Jeffersonian principals.

The idea of our Union was to have separate states in competition while all working for the common good. The people, it was thought, would punish with their feet states that lagged behind in whatever passed for modern standards at the time. But again, thank-you for proving my point about how out of touch some people are with the very people they need to win over to their side. I rest my case that you, in particular, are quite out of touch with Jeffersonian principals.

As to your railings against Bush...I think you'll find many a conservative who did not vote for him. Bush isn't conservative, sorry if that is news to you. As such Jeffersonian principals are not much of a concern to him. Or have you fallen into the fallacy of thinking that each party is a monolithic structure in its beliefs? Each party is a coalition. Remember, I cannot stress this enough, not everyone thinks as you do and interpreting Bush through a worldview that say all Republicans are conservatives and adhere to Jeffersonian principals is rather absurd.

I'm sure the majority of Bush voters would happily give you back every dime you paid in taxes so long as you take the federal mandates that go with them. I'm very sure of that. I'm also very sure that just because something is allowed for in The Constitution that does not make it a federal issue. I believe there is even a clause in The Constitution that specifically says that the federal government shall over over the powers enumerated within The Constitution. You have failed to make the point that abortion is a federal and not a state issue.

Prove that there were more abortions pre roe v. wade than there are today. You're claim is false on it's face. While you are at it, please explain how any population can survive a greater than 40% infant mortality rate and remain viable. That is the situation blacks are in if you include abortion in the infant mortality rate. Again, you have your view of things, unfortunately it isn't borne out by the facts.

lemme see, Bush and the Republican Congress, with defections from the dems no less, passed the partial birth abortion ban. And then there is the language in the omnibus budget bill that would make it that no level of government can withhold federal funds from health service providers who will not perform an abortion....Seems to me that they have done something - which is counter to your claim of "more said than done". Again, thank you for proving my original points.

I stand by my original assessment, you specifically, and the progressive/liberal factions of the Democratic party in general, are out of touch.

BTW: the comparison of keeping government out of a woman's ovaries with keeping government out of corporations was entirely lost on you. Both are viewed as citizen entities before the law, both have the right to conduct their affairs as they see fit. and it would be British common law that gives us the tradition of viewing business entities as citizens before the law.

How about we get *all* lobbyists out of Washington. That just seems like a much more elegant answer to me. I'd much rather have my elected representatives more attentive to me than any lobbying group, don't you agree?

[katsy]

93. You have proven nothing.

<<<< You're out of touch and cannot conceive of a world view outside your own. Show me where I once mentioned my, or anyone elses, taxes paying for abortions either explicitly or implicitly. You read but you do not comprehend because you assume anyone who doesn't think like you do is not worth your time except to attack.>>>>

That is how I interpreted your statement: "Corporations are viewed as citizens in the eyes of the law, you would argue that government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body yet you would argue that same government has the right to tell another citizen has to pay for services rendered?"

You have clarified for me by stating that both corporations and women have the right to conduct their affairs as they see fit. It is agreed that women have the right to privacy which includes abortion.

You state: <<<< The primary concept of the Jeffersonian Democracy is that government is a necessary evil. As such it should be, as you correctly noted, "a small, simple government geared to the average citizen". You also correctly noted that Jefferson believed strongly in states rights and individual liberties, not civil liberties - there is a difference. Please, square all that you have admitted to with all aspects of the New Deal, with federal environmental regulations that dictate what property owners can and cannot do with their properties, with federal gun control, OSHA, Department of Education and on and on and on......none of it squares with Jeffersonian principals, all of it should have been left to the states which would be in line with Jeffersonian principals. >>>>

Jefferson was committed to the Bill of Rights and civil liberties and even more so after civil liberties were threatened by the Alien & Sedition Laws.

As for the Federal mandates you mentioned about... how do they square with Jeffersonian Democracy? Wasn't it Jefferson that stressed that the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man? By that reasoning, if the will of the majority mandates a federal education system, so be it. And if the pendulum swings the other way, mandates can be discarded.

I once thought that Jefferson could not have possible conceived of anything like the Fed coming into existence, or that Congress would no longer mint coin as dictated by the Constitution... or that corportions would write legislation for the people we elected to represent us in Congress. Re-reading that powerful message... "the will of the majority" assures me that the crafters of the Constitution were far greater Statesmen and far wiser than the charlatans (both dem and rep) we now have in Congress.

You are correct that bush & company passed the partial birth abortion ban. And they succeeded in their omnibus bill. They have been in power for 4 years with 4 more years to go. They had 4 years to ban abortions. Why have they not ban abortion? An answer please.

You state: <<<< I'm also very sure that just because something is allowed for in The Constitution that does not make it a federal issue. I believe there is even a clause in The Constitution that specifically says that the federal government shall over over the powers enumerated within The Constitution. You have failed to make the point that abortion is a federal and not a state issue. Prove that there were more abortions pre roe v. wade than there are today. You're claim is false on it's face. While you are at it, please explain how any population can survive a greater than 40% infant mortality rate and remain viable. That is the situation blacks are in if you include abortion in the infant mortality rate. Again, you have your view of things, unfortunately it isn't borne out by the facts. >>>>

I cannot prove there are less abortions today than there were pre- Roe v Wade because there is no way of knowing how many abortions were performed illegally... that's the nature of that beast and I should have been clear about the data that was in my mind at the time. My apologies. In 1990, the number of abortions performed peaked at 1,430,000... and that rate declined steadily to 858,000 in 2000. Those numbers are on the CDC website and there's no numbers for 2001 to present as yet. Abortions were trending down from 1990 to 2000. Whether one is pro-choice or against abortion... that is good news.

As to your assertion that I failed to make the point that abortion is a federal issue... I did not have to make the point at all. The point was IN FACT made by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade.

And what are your qualifications to "assess" whether the progressive/liberal citizens of this country are out-of-touch? A statement totally devoid of ny substance. Let me guess... arrogance is your strong suit? On the otherhand... I agree that I, specifically, am out-of-touch in that I have my own bloody opinions and will keep them to the death. Preferably the death of people who disagree. And what's wrong with that? I'm not running for office or hoping to win a popularity contest. In fact, after all this talk about Jeffersonian Democracy... I may buy some land in Wyoming, pitch barbed wire around it and start shooting those damned federales should they dare tread on my property.

We do agree that it would be best to get ALL lobbyists out of washington. Impose term limits also.

I'm gone until Tuesday but woud be interested in your take on corporate welfare.

[Newshues]

111. see ya Tuesday.

Jefferson believed that the majority could be just as oppressive as any monarchy. Jefferson's defense of liberties was a defense of individual liberties, not civil liberties. The two over lap but there is a clear and distinct difference between the two. Said difference is highlighted by his belief that the majority could be an oppressive force to the individual.

Keep in mind that the basic premise of Jeffersonian democracy is that government is a necessary evil. As such government must be kept as small as possible. In that vein of thought individual liberty is far preferable to generalized civil liberties - protecting the individual's liberty is far easier then enforcing generalized civil liberties.

His abhorrence of the Alien and Sedition Acts was not entirely based on their threat to liberties but more so on their threat of diminish the capacity of the governed to express their distaste of the oppressions of government. The right of the individual to rise up against the injustices of his government was sacrosanct to Jefferson. Again, individual liberty was the threatened critter, not a generalized civil liberty. The foundation of civil liberty is individual liberty, as such individual liberty is the corner stone that needs protecting, not civil liberty which is derived from it.

Abortion cannot be banned until the Supreme Court reverses itself. Once that is done abortion will return to the realm of states' rights. All Roe v. Wade did was claim a right that states could not take away, it did not remove the issue from state regulation - if such was the case no state would have abortion laws as such would be in usurping of federal power by the states. The federal government may try to ban abortion shortly after any over turning of Roe v. Wade but such efforts will be met with the re-assertion of the long neglected tenth amendment. Which, if you think about it, opens up a much bigger can of worms. Your pendulum doesn't swing the other way because of a change in heart of the majority, it moves elsewhere because the rights of the majority must be protected from federal intrusion by assertion of the rights of the state. More than the issue of abortion changes if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Many other mandates will fall by the wayside over the course of time and courts should Roe ever be overturned.

Nearly 150 years after fighting a war to determine the upper bounds of states rights, we're finally seeing a re-assertion of them. Evidence of such can be found in the efforts of the Northeast and Atlantic states to implement the core principals of Kyoto over the objection of the federal voice. The states have been very careful to ensure that no one action or piece of legislation abrogates the federal right to speak for the nation with one voice, but the cumulative effect of their actions is to do precisely that. It would be an interesting case to watch wind through the courts in regards to a challenge that a set of laws violates The Constitution while no single law of the set does. I'm not aware of such a challenge having been made before. But my point is, states are re-asserting their rights and I believe, that in a republic such as ours, that can only be a good thing. For starters it removes many issues from the federal level to the state level which, at least in theory, should lead to better attention to the real wants and desires of the citizenry.

Jefferson also believe that public opinion, even when it was wrong or misguided, ought to be respected to some degree.
The majority is of the opinion that:
there should not be severe restrictions on guns.
Gay marriage should not be condoned
That there should be restrictions on abortion
That Social Security will fail if drastic steps aren't taken
That welfare should come with strings that require the recipient to improve their own condition.

Whether any of these is right or not isn't the point. The point is that this is how the majority feels, rightly or wrongly. These fly in the face of standard progressive/liberal positions. I do not think it is an unreasonable assessment to say that progressives/liberals are out of touch with the center of America based on this, the results of the last 3 election cycles and particularly the message of the last campaign. Couple that with a general disbelief that Bush could have won and I think the case is pretty much nailed shut.

As to corporate welfare, I do not believe that the tax code should be used for anything other than taxing. It should not be used to encourage business or individuals to do anything other than pay their taxes. If a business needs help to compete or stay in business than by all means, if it is in the national interest to do so, subsidize it. But doing so through the tax code hides it from public view, conceals who are the actually beneficiaries and discourages debate as to whether it is needed at all.

[DireStrike]

156. "The majority"... 51%.

51% is barely a majority. Is there really enough data to say how many people in that group even feel a certain way?

"Out of touch" applies to politicians overall, and perhaps Democrats to a greater degree than Republicans lately, but I don't see any reason to apply this to liberal ideology in general.

[Newshues]

161. you miss the point

It isn't liberal ideology that is "out of touch" It's liberal marketing of that ideology. People have built a better mousetrap, they just haven't found a marketing scheme to overcome the entrenched bias towards to old ones.

here, let's take Social Security as an example. Bush wants to reform it. All we heard from Kerry is that it needed to be protected, as in the status qou. Now, I don't know where you have been but around here we've been hearing for the last 10 years how SS is going to go broke. It was even one of the major campaign issues for the 2000 election. So here, I'll post the jist of '06 congressional campaign issue.

Wouldn't it be far better, and serve the people better, if the Democrats came up with their own plan to get to Bush's goal. You know as well as I do that left alone the Republicans in Congress will do exactly what Bush wants and no more - 2% to private investment funds. The Democrats could show some bold leadership of their own. Instead of letting the Republicans dictate the how's of getting to the goal the Democrats could come out saying, ok, the President wants this, now we need to decide how to get there. And getting there in a way that is acceptable to progressives/liberals isn't that hard. Quite simply the Democrats could win this issue entirely.

Remove the cap on what income is taxed for Social Security.
lower the tax rate - providing a real tax cut to working Americans
provide the 2% the Preisdent wants
close some of the loopholes that remove some forms of pay from income all together
turn around and sell it to labor as sticking it to the executives that make 28 times what the lowest paid worker in the company makes.

Done deal. You've worked with the Republicans to give the President what he wants but you've done so in a way that provides a real tax cut to those at the bottom, a real tax hike to those at the top, a real benifit to people who do not believe Social Security will be there for them and you have something to bring home to labor on top of the payroll tax cut.

The issue, presented like this, provides hope to the 30 something and youger crowd who believes SS won't be there for them, validates in a real way that you are for the lower class/Working American and address a real political issue as opposed to the usual fluff. A democrat can at once say that he is willing to work with the President to provide what the president has stated the goal is while at the same time answering to his own base in a meaningful way.

And that's the way Bush works, he states the goal and invites people to help determine how to get to that goal. Bush will sign whatever piece of legislation gets to his desk that meets his stated goal. The goal is the part that Bush will not negotiate, how to achieve that goal he will negotiate on.

Give me a somewhat or better charismatic speaker in a rural district that is either open or the incumbent is at risk and I'll give you a winner. :) And I'm not concerned about losing this issue by putting it out there. The Democrats aren't capable, at this time, of massaging the media to get it done. I do so miss the days of Daschle calling frequent press conferrences. The talking head shows were so much more interesting.

[EGisJUICE]

165. well

Your use and understanding of Jefferson, and his political beliefs is incorrect.

You can say "jeffersonian democracy" all you want to frame your feelings on issues, but you should actually use the principals and beliefs of Jefferson (there are many books of his writings available) if you expect anyone to consider your use of "jeffersonian democracy" as anything other then rehtoric.

[katsy]

218. out-of-touch

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

I believe Jefferson championed both individual freedom and civil rights as necessary. Individual freedoms preceed the power of government. Civil rights being enforceable through legal action.

It is to your assertion that progressives/liberals are out of touch that I take exception on at least 2 grounds:

1. This is not the government of Jeffersonian principles to say the least. There is corruption on every level beginning with elections. It is my firm stand that until such time that a paper trail is produced, I will not acknowledge election results whether the declared winner is democrat or republican. There is no reason or excuse for not supplying a paper trail for all votes cast. This has nothing to do with "belief" systems. I will never say that bush has won or lost. It can not be proven either way.

2. Voter's motivations to support one side or the other is at best a guessing game. Is it "morals", abortion, gay marriage, money/taxes, the efficiency of the winners to get out the vote? I do not assume to know the answer. In any case, defining progressives/liberals as "out-of-touch" meets no objective standard of measurement. Even in the face of losing 3 elections... you have not accounted for redistricting to benefit the republicans, the lack of adequate voting facilities in urban areas, the newly mandated provisional ballot etc. You have not addressed the sheer numbers of voters who went to polls, appx. 120 million. Is it possible for 3 million of those to be single-issue voters and those issues benefited bush? Maybe. Who really knows. We can go on forever debating these fine points and many others like them but... there is no objective standard of measurement for your statement. It's a "touchy-feely" kind of statement, a guess, an opinion. One can debate an opinion 7 ways to sunday.

Had Kerry won, I would be hard-pressed to make a statement that the republicans were "out-of-touch". I would offer my "opinion" on why they lost based upon the issues they presented.

We agree re: corporate welfare.

[bobbyboucher]

197. Rubbish.

Stop posting.

[leanin_green]

64. A third party would be nice, but. . . .

since it seems that the only way to influence the present through the established power broker system that is place, here are some of my ideas:
It's time for us to be proud of our liberalism. We need to look in the face on the Repugs and fundies and say FUCK YOU!!! We have become the 'new Jew' in this country. We speak of fascism on the rise and don't realize the role we are being pushed into in this new play.
We need to embrace religion. Our vision of who Christ is. We need to understand the role that religion plays in middle America and the south without treating it as if it is some cute, quaint thing that the uneducated do(Knowledge puffeth up, but love teaches). I think this will be the hardest thing for us to do. I know I don't go to church anymore, however, I still believe in Christ but not as is taught today. Believe me, I get a chance to express my beliefs a lot here in Utah, I get lots of practice.
GET OFF THE GUN THING!!! If you look at the recent maps of all the counties of the USA and how they voted after the election you will see that most, if not all, of the major cities in all states are blue. What does this tell you? Gun violence is a city phenomena. Out here in the rural communities gun violence is a rare occurrence. We live with guns, are raised with them and understand their use. Believe me, if fascism begins to really take hold and our greatest fears are realized, you'll be glad for many of us gun totin' liberals here in Republicanville. If we need to, let's focus on where most of the gun violence is located and deal with it on that level. Kind of like old Tombstone, "We're not saying that you can't have a gun, we're just sayin' you can't have one while your in town!"
We need to get out of the cities and really discover liberal thinking in the rest of the country. There's a lot of us and we're beginning to feel disenfranchised from our own party. Many of us are(as my name implies)looking afresh at the other parties. I, for one, listened with great interest to Ralph Nader's message. I believe he is right on track and feel hopeless to make an impact. We need to address this issue and embrace it as our own.

Enough from me, I've got tons of other stuff that I'll save for later.

[natureman]

78. One thing I agree with

Get off of the gun thing. As a deomcrat, You better feel very strong about gun control. I believe it is a major source of more blue collar votes going to republicans year in year out. I work with these guys every day. They worry about their jobs, healthcare, and the environment (they love beautiful places to hunt); However they vote Republican because the Democrats are going to take their guns. I deal with at least 20 electricians and field operators with this mentality.
Here's an idea, tell these guys that the democrats will protect your right to have a firearm, but if you don't have a natural area to go hunt whats the point?

[AusTexDem]

65. liberal propaganda machine to match the repuke echo chamber

[mikh]

169. More M Moore?

Isn't Mr Moore a propogandist? Did his efforts help or hinder John Kerry? I'd suggest they were a massive hindrance, and turned middle America's stomach.
More of that?
No way Jose...

[m_welby]

66. wow, there's soo many good comment here

I'm not sure I have that much to add (but I do ramble on). primary for me at this point is to stop compromising. The Republicans smear us in the media and we do not respond effectively, the Dems just roll over and take it, and when they dont they get portrayed as angry (Gore) or inciting a 'class war'. Well it is a class war and every Dem should be angry, defiant, and not give on inch of ground.

The Republicans haven't gained ground over the last decade because of what they believe in, they've gained ground because they 'redefined' what a 'democrat' is. Too many Americans already discount anything a democrat says to be a lie. I remember when everyone though all politicians lie, now many republicans wont believe anything a democrat says (or anything the media says for that matter) if it doesn't already fit in with their view (much like GW).

I think that the democratic party does need to put on a play for the media; the soul searching,etc but they NEED to spin the media once it's done so they get the concept of a 'new democratic party' when they come out of it. If used properly it can be an effective way to get the eyes and ears of many to listen again.

and of course Democrats need new stars, another poster mentioned schwarzenegger and giulliani, they're the 'new blood' of the republicans (even though they're only for show), The Dems need that new blood too. I think Edwards and Obama are good possibilities, as well as Dean (who got shafted in the primaries).

My location on the political spectrum tends to be socially libereal and fiscally conservative, but thats not completely accurate because I don't believe in unrestricted capitilism. I believe that democracy is about insuring 'opportunity' for everyone and without some controls capitolism (like anything) creates oppressors and oppressed. Capitolism is like a horse, without reigns you might get the horse to do what you want, but it isn't likely and people are likely to get trampled. Part of the problem with the Democratic party is that we are 'portrayed' as killing the horse, when in fact we only want to put reigns on it. We have to portray the Republicans as not being willing to put reigns on the horse because the horse doesn't like it.




Thats enough rambling,passing the soapbox to the nest newbie...

[recovering democrat]

67. Accent our Common Values

Just one person's opinion. Democrats talk about respecting diversity and I am one and believe it. However, we are not always credible with the rest of the population because of our own words and deeds. Are we getting good marks for questioning the incompetence of Dr. Rice in a rational and truthful debate, or are we taking the blame for racist, sexist intolerance within the media? I think you know the answer. Are we framing the human rights debate in pro-choice language, or are we taking the blame for criticizing good religious people for their personal moral belief? The Republican convention featured speakers from its moderate center, and not from its right wing fringe. It is a party of far less diversity than the Democrats. It gave each of its elements enough of a comfort level with the others to hold them together toward the goal of winning the election. Democrats also came together, from a wide range of beliefs. Don't you believe that if the Democrats had won, the Republicans would be sitting around today debating what they did wrong and what they needed to do to get it back? I am not sure they would be doing it with the "eat your own" aggressive criticisms of the various facets of our party, but they might! Keep in mind for the first time in a long time, they have to take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming Democrats. They are used to whining about Democrats.

Other than telling the truth, being who we are, and being tolerant of differences but focusing on what we have in common - I have only these recommendations. Focus on winning local and state elections and building local and state constituencies FOR 2006. What about Secretaries of States? Governors?

[IowaGuy]

68. There are a number of areas we need to improve in.....

Structurally.....we're getting hung up in a lot of discussion re: the strength of the DLC relative to other factions within the party. A lot of this is just inside baseball crap. There is plenty of room in the Dem party for the DLC type and people with other varying opinions. There are some things I agree with the DLC faithful with and some that I don't...and I got to believe its the same with a large majority of not only Dems, but Americans in general.

The republican party is much more fractured than the Democratic party on just about everything from economic and taxation principles to values to foreign affairs. Their one unifying factor is hatred of their intentionally framed image of what Dems are, somewhat of a cartoonish vision of a purple-haired tree-hugging spaced out commie, Saddam loving, gun hating vegetarian, Lifetime PETA membership hippie from the 60's thats going to threaten their marriage by legalizing marriage between pedophiles, burn their bibles and rape their pet poodles. Its' very much a fear-based philosophy of us against them - and them is just plain evil. A number of us sadly, buy into that whole framing of the image and even react the same way to them, thinking that just because somebody is Republican, they are necessarily evil and racist.

The reality is much more complex, and yet much simpler than that. We all have a lot of commonality that is not leveraged to our benefit, particularly, when we all we do is just focus on the framing of our differences.

On Economics...job creation, workers rights, economic fairness of trade, the Dems have a lot better track record than the Republicans. We often lose the framing of it by concentrating on the minutia of the policy wonk stuff, rather than just focusing on a simple message of justice and fairness for all.

On Foreign affairs...the message once again got framed as us against the rest of the evil world, allowing all sorts of really nuts decisions to be enacted, rather than focused on us using our considerable economic and military might to enact a positive change in the world for again...justice and fairness for all.

On Taxation....we again got too hung up on the minutia of one policy wonk thing after another, and did not frame the issues in a simple form of...of justice and fairness. We're always arguing up or down about one tiny aspect of taxation policy and letting the Republicans frame themselves as being "tax-cutters"....and then never really calling them on their own hypocrisy of actually raising taxes by increasing deficits (a deferred tax-hike that is patently unfair to the middle-class, a fairness and justice issue).

On Values...we have let ourselves get boxed into a corner where the conversation is framed as being for or against religion. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I just cringe when I hear the intolerance that a lot of Dems express for Christians. Its as bad as some of the crap that comes from the ultra-right winger types against blacks, foreigners, Muslims and homosexuals. Such disrespect for others beliefs only undercuts our message of Justice and fairness for all. Most people that go to church would consider justice and fairness for all an important part of their faith and believe in themselves as being that way...and yes, they actually are committed to that. To attack them or even do anything in the slightest way that would lead them to believe that you are disrespectful of their core beliefs is no way to convince them you are actually on their side re: justice and fairness for all.

We also have to retool intensely and in a big hurry on our party-building apparatus. We are too focused on a geographical model for voter turnout rather than a common values based community model. By that, I mean...we seem to concentrate all our efforts where we already have an advantage. All our volunteer efforts tend to be door to door knocking, local phone bank kind of stuff. That does not need to be dispensed with, however it does tend to just preach to the choir. We need to extend our message through other means. Right now the Republicans have virtually cornered three community based structures...churches, gun owners and radio. I call these community based organizations, because the people that are based in these communities are largely insular in who they interact with, to a great deal largely just people from those communities. It's who they trust and have a feeling of commonality with.

We need to develop better models of detecting and interacting with not only these groups but other demographics too. There was talk of the young single female voter, this year...and yet to my eyes there was really no concerted effort made to identify those voters and relate to them. We need to study the various demographics such as those and understand, where do they shop, what do they read, what kinds of cars do they drive, what are the places they eat, etc. etc.

If Home Depot can develop databases such as this on their potential customers, so that they can target them with specific messages in specific forums, then why can't we. The old party building models of door knocking (and I did a lot of it over the past 18 months)are just not efficient enough in todays fast-paced world where your neighbors are not necessarily the people that live in your neighborhood ...(consider the DU neighborhood)...

Just my 2 cents worth from an, admittedly, political rookie. Thanks for taking the time to listen.

[Old Mouse]

97. You have a very good point

About the Republicans unifying behind a collective hatred. We need to better understand the nature of this manufactured bigotry.

[blackangrydem]

69. Convince Ross Perot or Patrick Buchanan to run as an Indy in '08

[montieg]

70. STAND. STAND

Stand for the little guy. Stand for the Single mother without insurance. Stand for the elders living on a Social Security pittance. Stand for the under-paid teacher in the over-crowded classroom. STAND for leaders who stand--like Wes Clark.

[Hatchling]

72. I became a Democrat during the Civil Rights Movement.

We are and have always been the party that supports personal liberties and rights. Get that message out there! Quit being ashamed of the word Liberal. Be proud of it, take it back, make it mean what it really means and not just a Repub epithet. Unions, civil liberty, the concern for the regular people, not the elite. Leave gun control alone. That's messing with a personal liberty,IMO. I know of quite a few that voted Repub on that issue alone who otherwise wouldn't have. So many people refer to us as "Repub Light." Let's return to OUR roots and OUR moral values. Prove that WE are the party of the people for the people once more.

[lcbart]

75. Become Democrats again

Stop trying to lure centrists and moderates. These are weak converts at best.

Publicize the party for the values we really have - not the ones that will connect us with the "mainstream".

In short - Make more Democrats.

[Krupskaya]

77. Quit taking labor for granted.

And on the other side, labor needs to stop rubber-stamping Democrats. I don't mean endorsing Republicans; I mean getting their own people running at every level.

More generally, this party needs to quit being so goddamned reactionary. Every time we're attacked, no on hears our defenses. Nor do we ever seem to attack. That's gotta change.

[mtnsnake]

79. We should cause division in the other party but we need to be focused

and ballsy about it. I really think it would help, and I don't have enough time tonight to describe what I'm talking about, but you can take a look at this idea which I posted here yesterday. It's something specific I think our party should do: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1375008

[carolinalady]

80. Does anyone have links to the DNC?

This whole thread needs to be forwarded and nominated for the home page--I did please help.
This has been extremely insightful and refreshing. Thanks.



:kick:

[Q]

100. I agree that it has been refreshing...

...We've learned many things on this thread. Sometimes just watching and listening brings us a whole new perspective on a situation that's so close to us that we 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

And once again...thanks to the 'old timers' on DU for allowing others to share their thoughts without fear of reprisal.

Okay...let's keep it going.

----------

http://www.democrats.org/

[The Straight Story]

85. Be more like Pat Robertson and the 700 club

And no I am not insane.

Here is a guy who lost his bid to become president, and yet he now wields a lot of power.

He organized well. Stays focused on core messages. Works at all levels he can to make things happen. He and his group have a lot of members because people who thought alike pulled together instead of pushing apart on the things they don't agree on.

Get our core issues ironed out. Get together how we can make those core issues work, with specifics that are clear. Get the dem base together on those things. Have a site with news, commentary, alerts, and relevant things to the base. Evangelize your ideas, one on one if need be. Do charity works as much as possible which is one method of meeting a large amount of people face to face to spread your message.

Have one central place where people analyze legislation, congressional records, speeches, media, and so on. Make the entire thing into a mission to Restore America and it's freedoms. Call out those of both parties on all levels who do things which run contrary to the goals.

Have a common enemy that is not a person, but and idea or philosophy - we fight against tyranny and loss of rights. Ditch the big tent and make a big gateway instead - we welcome your group, but you enter through the common gateway which houses our base values that we will not compromise on and that we all will fight for together.

Write articles that unite instead of attack. Instead of beating on christians and yelling about how evil they are write things which show, in a well thought out way, how their interests as a group are best served by us (example: the amish live the bible in a more true sense than many others, they shun the government and don't get too involved as long as the government does not work to take away their core rights to live in their communities their own way - in like manner it should not affect or bother them if gays, et al, do the same - the core value is freedom to live as we see fit and once we bring the government into regulating things we cede power to them to do the same to christians and others).

and so on :) Just a few random thoughts.

[sunnybrook]

88. Thank You for asking for our ideas

The success that the RW has had is usually attributed to discipline. They are said to be more focused. They run an incredible PR operation. We DEFINITELY need more voice within the media, however that can be accomplished. It is fine and dandy to say "reframe the message," but the receptiveness to the "message" has plenty to do with the messenger. People on here were complaining the other day about Clinton's words about Bush at the opening of the Clinton Library. He said something like "I sometimes think I am the only person in America who likes both Kerry and Bush and just think they have different ideas about how to lead the country." (paraphrased) Anyway, there were DUers who were LIVID that Clinton would say that. Let me say first, I am no fan of Bush, and that is the understatment of the year. I see him in the same light as most DUer's. But what people don't realize is that this kind of above the fray politicking, really does impress people who are more moderate than us here. Those who think we only need to reach out to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party are living in a fantasy land. We don't necessarily need to capture the hard wing Republican base, but there are many voters who could go either way, and we DO need those voters. I am all for reframing issues, for example the whole "moral values" BS. It is immoral to do about 90% of what Bush has done since he took office. To sum up the Democrats need to balance many demands. It is a priority that:

1. The media needs balancing, especially the right wing media such as talk radio. Air America is not enough, we need to be on regular radio, including local liberal and moderate shows.

2. I agree that Democrats should focus hard on the Southwest as I believe it could be trending our way with a friendly nudge. How much do we invest in States like Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado? We should also NEVER give up on Texas because it could be trending our way within a few years.

3. Must keep the base energized. The Howard Dean element of this party is EXTREMELY important! So were all the 527s that worked so hard and people like Michael Moore.

4. We need charismatic and brilliant communicators. Clinton was so great because no matter what was coming at him HE TALKED ABOUT ISSUES and he often gave people a new way of looking at things, such as saying it is wrong to think that the only choice regarding timber issues had to be either destroying the forest or putting people out of jobs. He would talk about the OTHER jobs that could be created and my point is, that he reframed MANY issues with a VISION that made the American people open to his ideas. If these kind of people are not running for office, maybe the Dem's need to FIND talented people to recruit for the good of our country. A message is worthless if it is going to get lost in the clutter, therefore we must have enormously talented communicators putting forth our message.

5. Don't forget what we stand for. Don't neglect women or African Americans. Do more to recruit talented people of all sorts to run for office.

6. Fight back aggressively. I believe John Kerry fought against MANY obstacles in this campaign, but I think 2 things happened. Sometimes he got so enmeshed in playing defense by defining Bush that people felt that they did not know him well enough. Friends would say, what does he stand for, where is he at on the issues, and I would refer them to his website. Another thing that was done was that Bush was allowed to literally get away with murder. I realize that alot of this was done with the complicity of our so call "free press," but one thing that really irked me; At the debate when Kerry said that Bush had said he was not concerned about Bin Laden and Bush said that he had never said that and that it was an exaggeration. I had seen the video where Bush did in fact say that. I don't understand why the Democrats did not run a commercial with him saying that, then at the debate denying he said that. This was a great opportunity missed because not all people are political junkies like me and did not KNOW Bush said that. This would be a good example of a
great opportunity missed and such basic, obvious material should NEVER be wasted in the future.

Most of all to my fellow Democrats, don't lose heart and keep hope alive. Like Martin Luther King said "No lie can live forever."
Thanks again for asking for our ideas.

[madrigal]

89. very random thoughts

Well, here goes....

Don't kiss up now. Stop acting like "the loser". Get up, stand up and fight. (I'm hearing Bob Marley in the back of my head now)....Be loud, but be optimistic.

Publically challenge this administration. Rinse and repeat.

Change has to start at the ground, people's movements, and move up. Not the other way around. That's the source of real change. I've never experienced anything like this year - the people's mobilization - it keeps me hopeful that change will come.

Promote a foreign policy focused on international cooperation, advancing peace, human rights, and sustainable development. I think security will come from addressing these issues first. I think we're doing things backwards - destroying environments and rights and basic needs and then later trying to "rebuild". How about just rebuilding and skipping the destruction part?

Don't resort to the same fear tactics that they're using.

Address corporate influence on US policies - the war, free trade, the environment..

Be honest.

Don't think you have to be like them/act like them to "win". That basically concedes them ownership of the system, rather than effectively trying to change it. (You might as well be them then.) Don't play by "their rules" - make our own, it's not their gameboard. Move left, not right.

And as for religion and policy "do unto others" and "love thy neighbor" suffice in my book.

Those are my general thoughts.

[sunnybrook]

90. Do unto others is good advice

I remember that in the 92 campaign Ross Perot was asked about religion and he said that the best religion of all was the Golden Rule. That's my religion too! I think people would like that message. It is extremely moral and does not push a particular dogma down others' throats.

[sunnystarr]

92. Oh I'm so glad you brought up Perot ...

After writing a too long comment, I forgot to mention him. Now there was a great example of man passionately telling the truth which connected with American people. The truth always resonates.

[sunnystarr]

91. Please don't flame me...

I've voted Democrat all my life, well after my first vote for Pres when I voted for Nixon because my Mom told me we were Republican, but I soon learned about political philosphy and knew I was a Democrat and convinced her she was too.

In my lifetime, I, as well as many others across this country, have seen things get ridiculous and the Republicans use it against us, fairly or not. For example the lawsuits by the ACLU against the Boy Scouts. Now the Boy Scouts are as American as apple pie and when you attack them (the left wing liberal nut jobs as the right describes the ACLU) you're attacking attacking a huge percentage of Americans who were either boy scouts or have a son or grandson in the scouts. I have two cub scouts at home.

Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state should refer to religious organizations and not holiday symbols like the manger scene at Christmas in the town square. Our history and foundations being attacked doesn't help Democrats and liberals sure get the blame. There's nothing wrong with our Christian/Judaic origins or a tiny cross in a state flag. We get ridiculed whenever another of these stories are aired.

These things are American and when they're attacked Americans feel personally attacked on personal moral grounds because the very values that are at their core, the values they want to instill in their children, are in jeopardy. It's who we are as Americans.

Which brings us to family and same sex marriage. Ideally all people should have equal rights and personally it doesn't matter to me who gets married. But I didn't feel that way initially, I arrived at this position after months of reflection. My first reaction was outrage and an emotional response that demanded preserving the family. You don't have to be a right wing religious fundamentalist to have that reaction. Tolerance is a moral value but when it threatens to redefine something as basic and emotionally instilled as marriage and what defines family, you experience outrage from otherwise very nice people. However, a majority of these people can accept a new term, civil union, and agree to provide all the legal benefits for those entering into it. You just can't change people all at once. In my lifetime homosexuals were still in the closet. We've come a long way. The hardest thing for all people is forced change. So why are we asking for everything at once? By doing so we've placed right wing fundamentalist neocons in office, many of whom believe in the death penalty for homosexuals. I don't see that as advancing our goals.

I remember how years ago I didn't consider myself racist, but it took Oprah and the Bill Cosby Show to bridge a divide I felt. But even then I was against inter-racial marriage, while now with my son engaged to wonderful African American I have no issues and embrace her and their future union. Social/cultural changes take time, but they happen.

I do agree with the charge used against us, that we take the African American community for granted. We have to be more concerned with their issues, as well as other minorty issues. We also need to develop more leaders in the minority community and get them engaged.

Abortion is another huge issue. I'm very pro-choice, eventho in my youth, when connected with a legitimate doctor who would give me an abortion at 17, I chose to have the baby and give him to a family who could provide all the love and a life that I couldn't. But it was my choice. We can't continue being the party that condones the absence of personal responsibility. There is no justifiable reason for a late term abortion unless offered by a doctor to save a woman's life. With the drugstore pregnancy tests any unwanted pregnancy should be terminated in the first tri-mester and no later. I don't view this as a religious issue. As a moral issue it's not any different than the moral base of most of our laws.

As far as the Democratic Party is concerned, I have to agree that viable leaders haven't emerged to the spotlight. I'm not saying we don't have any, but they haven't risen to the top as of yet. I was an Edwards supporter, but have to admit that after Kerry grew on me and I fully supported him, it was obvious that he had greater depth than Edwards. I also have to agree that he didn't connect. There was always something that fell short of seeming genuine -- a certain lack in conviction, a passion. I do believe he would have made a good president and that many of our past great presidents wouldn't have had the charisma for television and would have never been elected.

We need a platform to restore honesty and integrity in all the offices, state/federal reps and senators, governors, the Presidency. Candidates who aren't afraid to tell it like it is. I agree that our candidates have to stop being against things and instead being for things. There should be enough surrogates who can take the against position in the media.

We have the method - after all what American would reject a call for fair and open elections? By auditing the 2004 election and insisting that the public know what happened, and calling for legislation on state and federal levels that will eliminate the possibility of voter suppression and voting machine fraud or manipulation, we'd have the support of all voters. What voter would agree that counting all the votes doesn't matter? Diebold and ES&S have to be eliminated along with their voter machines. Surrogates can attack the Repugs on their voter suppression and vote manipulations and reveal the party's disregard for our democracy. There'll be plenty of ammunition to fire off.

Potential candidates need to offer and create a public demand for the best machine out there that was developed by an African American, Athan Gibbs. He was killed in an automobile accident earlier this year after demonstrating his TruVote system which allows voters to touch their candidates' names on a computer screen, view a printed ballot before confirming it and receive a receipt of their vote at the end of the process which had a validation number. They can then go to a Web site, punch in their voter validation number and make sure their vote was recorded. His son is carrying on father's vision. We need to get behind this system and campaign for it to be used in every voting precinct.

This administration and Congress will offer up more material than we can use to get them out of all branches by 2006 and 2008, but only if we get the voting system changed. After all a fixed election is impossible to beat. So it's imperative for the DNC to get behind that effort.

The Republicans did organize well. There's no reason that Democrats can't also utilize church congregations. Not every church is evangelical. I'm sure the majority aren't. Reforming our elections is a great door opener to many organizations. I mean what's more American than the integrity of our elections? Since it's not endorsing any candidate, local candidates can talk to congregations and other organizations that are limited the same way. It's a grass roots effort that can unify people and get Dem candidates known.

This effort can create a huge database to spread the party vision. But the party has to stop asking for contributions twice or more a day - it's really annoying and diminishes the effort. There has to be better organization and planning because after a while you don't bother reading the email and delete them since you know it's another donation request. It makes me think of my psychology experiment in college with the rats ... the ones that didn't know that food was coming every time they hit the lever, hit the lever at a much higher rate than those who did get food each time they hit the lever.

This left, right, center labeling bothers me. If it's possible for a liberal to use common sense I would love to see it. Notice that Bush doesn't offer his real beliefs and vision. If he did people wouldn't vote for him. There's a lesson in this. We want same sex marriage and you know the majority of people don't ... so you can't say you want it. Instead you promote the moral value of equality, fairness, and tolerance and promote civil unions. The gay community can still have a ceremony with all the trappings. With time this will result in tolerance for same sex marriage. The culture will change through things that affect it, like books, TV, and movies.

We need to promote liberal radio shows across the country. The DNC has the money from Kerry so put it to some good use. At least one liberal news station on TV would be refreshing and spread our vision.

Lastly, stop picking on Michael Moore (I've seen it on DU many times). The Repugs want to neutralize him because he's so effective and I can't believe some DU'ers have taken it in and believe it.

I'm sorry for going on and on -- and I have so much more to say lol.

[Old Mouse]

98. Thank you

I can't tell you how moved I am by your post. Social change must sometimes happen at what seems a glacial pace. Thank you, and Oprah and Bill Cosby too.

[DenaliDemocrat]

95. LEAVE THE GUNS ALONE

I can't tell you how this issue hurts Democrats. Look, we already have background checks, closed most of the loopholes, etc. We have good laws, very little can be done now that does not involve "banning" some gun rights. OUCH. That word hurts us.

Now leave the guns alone. For those of you who do not hunt or own guns, you cannot understand how strongly people associate with their guns. For many, it is a part of life.

We cannot continue to put men with F ratings from the NRA (and I do think the NRA is a bunch of kooks myself) and expect to win any "red" states.

[psygone]

99. remarkable

The Question:

" What would you advise for the Dem party? "

I say the Democratic Party must return to its roots.

Have we forgotten who we are? Have forgotten where we came from?

Here's a reminder of who we are. Remember this?

* 4 generations ago an exhausted west watched President Woodrow Wilson
- a Democrat - deploy, engaged, fought, and the won World War 1. He
turned the tide! This victory brought democracy to 11 nations and hope
to 150 million people.

Then he went on to propose the novel idea that Europeans should
stop slaughtering each and settle their disputes in a forum called
the "League of Nations". Yes, it may have failed, but even UN
historians consider the effort its predecessor.

* A few decades later, a fearful, beaten, losing world watched
President F.D. Roosevelt - a Democrat - mobilize the industrial
might of the USA and galvanized an entire generation to fight
and destroy world fascism. 60 percent of our soldiers & marines,
materiel, and effort went to fight the Japanese Imperial Navy.

That victory brought democracy to 22 nations and hope to half a
billion people. Along with Labour PM Sir. W. Churchill, they birthed
the United Nations.....

* Suddenly, the rebuilding and reconstruction wasn't going well.
Much to our horror, the very people we liberated or protected
were suddenly starving to death. Germany, France, China, The
Philippines, Japan - were all sliding into chaos, despair and
hopelessness...until another Democrat, George C. Marshall saw
the probability of losing that victory. He proposed - that the
US, led by the current Democrat Administration: that we, simply
put "save the world". He proposed the Marshall Plan - 10 percent
of our GDP......

...and boy did the Republicans howl! "With what money? What about us?
You Democrats are crazy!!?"

Has anyone ever asked a European or any Japanese 55 or older
who was wrong?

* Just few years later, a surprise world watched President Harry S.
Truman - a Democrat - mobilize the first test of the United Nations
to halt the advance of North Korea and a Red China. Today, 45 million
Korean people are quite happy not being born in the darkness of a
Stalinist Korea.

* Since then, we Democrats bravely fought the Cold-War, President
Kennedy - a Democrat - stood up during the Cuban-missile crisis,
he gave hope to the brave people of an encircled West Berlin. We
too stood with them and we too, are Berliners.

We had Senators Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn - who gave nightmares
to Soviet Empire.

The 1990's were a time of great prosperity and hope. This time led
by President Clinton - a Democrat - Let's admit it. whether we are
at peace or at war - we Democrats are good at what we do. Because
we always held to our core values of Jeffersonian liberty.

* September 11th, 2001 - the world once again changes. It always
does. But our core values did need not ever change. But somehow
they did. Somewhere we Democrats have lost our proud heritage.

The world is now confronted by the specter of Islamic-Terrorism
and Fascism.

How did we get here? Who do we blame? Do we blame Halliburton/Israelis
right-wingers or FD Roosevelt historic acknowledgment of the House of
Saud or the Jewish-American congressional lobby (who largely vote
Democrat) or we can blame failed European colonialism - those
re-drew nation maps through tribal and ethnic lines then raped and
exploited the region into today’s resentments?

Today, 56 nations with 1.6 billion Muslims live in the sewage,
despair, squalor and hopelessness of the 3rd and 4th world. It is
enslaved under the "sandal" of Islamic-Fascism of emirs, princes and
mullahs. 65 percent are under the age of 35 and they are very
frustrated and angry. Most are unemployed withour a future.

Whatever the reasons, like it or not, the USA is now fighting a 2 to
3 generation war against an Islamic ideology - called Salifism. It
wishes to "reunite" the Muslim Ummah (world community) into a single
Kahlif. It will destroy the West if need be in order to bring about
a holy and united, Islamic state. Their choice of weaponry is not
by massing tanks but by using asymmetric warfare.

For better or for worst, the American electorate inherently seemed to
understand this challenge to our way of life.

Somehow, somewhere we Democrats have failed to understand the nature
of this new challenge to the ideals of Jeffersonian Liberty so
championed by Wilson, Roosevelt and Kennedy.

Let history remember that we Democrats need not embrace "Republican values"
Because, in an attempt to emulate our victories, it is they who have
embraced and "stoled" our values and called them, "theirs".

I believe that if John Kerry, Howard Dean and the DNC could articulate
who we are, what we are and where we are going - That we will defend our
God given, individual unaliable rights of liberty - that we will
bare any burden for the cause of freedom - That democracy and liberty
will bring hope, peace and prosperity and thus prevail over Islamic
Terror and Fascism - That it was our "values" that won WWI, WWII and the
Cold-War bringing hope to billions around the world and - That we will
once again, prevail over Salifism & al-Qa'eda,

-- we would have won by a landslide.

Thank you, moderators of Democratic Underground for allowing this forum
and thank you Q for opening the thread.

May God Bless the Democratic Party and the United States of America.
.

[LadyinRed]

101. Thanks Q..great idea n/t

[newyawker99]

120. Hi psygone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ticapnews]

103. I've been writing up a new strategy since election week...

that originally centered around the "Bleed the Red States" notion but has moved more towards the old GOP model. We need people in local government - from city council to dogcatcher. We simply need Democrats to fill these positions. Run for something in your home town. I am planning on getting a spot on the Conservation Committee in my town, since it is not elected and there is an opening with a 3-year term right now that no one else wants. It's not elected office, but it will give me some experience, so in two years I can run for school board and be able to show the voters I've actually done something in town government. Who knows, I may end up running for the Legislature in 10 years. By getting into local government now, we cultivate the next generation of leaders in the Democratic Party. The more people we can get into office around the country, the stronger our base will be. This is what the GOP has spent the last three decades doing.

But there is another reason we need as many Democratic leaders as possible in towns and cities throughout the country. We all know what is coming from Washington: more unfunded mandates for education, cuts in social programs, laws invading our privacy and so on. The only chance we have to counter those laws is going to be through local government. It isn't going to be done by posting angry comments on a message board. It is good to share information, but to make a real impact, we need to get up off our collective asses and get involved.

This is especially true if you live in a "red state." Imagine what the electoral map would have looked like if we had had just a little more support, a little more organization, a little more of a base to work from in some of those southern states (and yes, it would help if the national candidates spent a little time there, too).

I have all but given up on the DNC for now, and told them as much when they sent me their questionaire. It is up to us now. If there is going to be a change in this country, it's going to be the foot soldiers, not the generals, who make it happen.

[Catchawave]

104. The DNC's new chairman?

Great thread, thanks Q !

Remember kids, in a few months only "427" party leaders will select our future DNC gran poo-bah. And that's where the party will go.

Do we have a list of potentials? Maybe we should be brushing up on their positions, then start supporting the one that best fits our "wish list".

::sigh:: I'd just like to know our party leaders care about my opinions as much as my checkbook:shrug:

[Nightwing]

105. The Key to Stopping the Far Right Grip

First and foremost we must demand that the FCC break up the monopoly of far right wing media. He who controls what people see, hear or read controls the way this nation moves. If the Feds could break up Ma Bell, they sure as hell can break up the media.

But we have to begin organizing and marching on Washington to demand change. We must also not be silent; Write letters of complaint to the major media outlets, do not purchase products of companies that advertise with them and hit them where it hurts the most; Their pocket books.

There is nothing at all wrong with our party; The major problem is how the media portrays our party and the simpletons that eat it all up as though it was gospel. Before we can make any headway in changing this nation, we must stop the far right grip on the media and the sooner the better.

[No_Mor_Dumya]

106. Fight Fire with Fire

Lie, Lie, Lie

[Triana]

107. I can say what we SHOULD NOT DO...

...and that is we should NOT move further to the Right.

If the Dems do that, I will NOT support them. I'll support The Progressive Party.

[Q]

108. Anything more to add?

- This is your chance to speak up.

[Chili]

110. What a fantastic thread

...and thank you for requesting newbie input. I’ve been reading here since February, and have joined in some of the discussions, but not the debates about philosophical shifts. Here’s my chance, LOL. This is long, so forgive the mental diarrhea, I am verbose. :P

There are a lot of issues at stake: should the party move left or right, reach out to the Evangelicals, concede the South, abandon the eloquent rhetoric, talk in a down-home language all can understand… what should we do?

(1) Shift in philosophy, right or left. Neither – stay right where we are, I believe the Democratic party is exactly where we need it to be, but we need to say it with more force – with more emotion. And back it up with action. Don't just campaign in poor neighborhoods during the election season, show up ALL THE TIME. Be visible to the base. Keep them close. I strongly disagree with the idea that we should abandon abortion rights, or back-pedal on gay marriage, or concede to the NRA. That would be abandoning our principles, and since I happen to think we’re right, I will never give in. Most of the nation agrees with us on all of the issues – but we’ve been so afraid to push the issues, so afraid of losing any ground with moderates, so afraid of losing elections, LOL - that it makes us look unresolved and weak.

(2) We need to say, loudly and with conviction I as a LIBERAL will fiercely protect the rights of all people to love whom they choose; I as a liberal will fiercely defend the right of a woman to have control over her own body and her own future; I as a liberal will fight to keep guns out of the hands of children and out of the hands of criminals; I as a liberal will stand elbow-to-elbow with people of color and the young and the aged and will defend their rights to the bitter end; I as a liberal do not believe in unilateral attacks on other nations and will defend the right of our weaker neighbors in the world to coexist as long as they do not threaten the United States or her allies; I as a liberal believe that the planet we have been given dominion over (I used that verbiage intentionally) should be protected and restored to its pristine state with as much vigor as we can muster, in as many places as is practical, as soon as possible; I as a liberal strongly believe that alternative energy sources must be found, and the sooner we end our dependence on fossil fuels, the stronger we will be; I as a liberal believe that every man, woman and child has a right to life – not talking about wombs, here, but real living breathing people – they have a right to a job, to be housed, to fair and equal education, to fair and equal healthcare – it is a right, not a privilege; I as a liberal staunchly defend American union workers and their right to fair negotiations and contracts with the industries that employ them; I as a liberal believe that every human being has the right to worship their choice of deity in their own way – or not; I as a liberal fiercely believe that religion should stay out of government, and government should stay out of religion; I as a liberal am firmly committed to a lasting peace in the Middle East, and will strive to work as an honest broker between Israel and her enemies until it is DONE; and most importantly, I as a liberal will always tell the truth and can be trusted to do what’s right in accordance with the belief system inherent in our party.

(3) Should Democrats reach out to the Evangelical right? In my opinion, no. I believe they are lost to us, they are so completely brainwashed, and their ideas are, in many ways, alien to our own. But I also believe that their numbers have been misrepresented: I believe they are a much smaller segment of the population than we’ve been led to believe. I think that many Christians who vote Republican are winnable. They’ve been persuaded to believe that we are all godless heathens, whatever a “godless heathen” is. I myself worship in my own way, outside of any organized congregation or church, and base my own “value system” on the teachings of Jesus Christ (I’ve really come to dislike that word, ‘values’). I believe there’s a way to embrace some of the “we are a nation under God” philosophy and winning some Christian hearts and minds without offending secularists of our own party. I think that many secularists – and many Jews and Buddhists and Muslims as well – believe that a persuasive man named Jesus once lived – or was said to live. Many believe that Jesus’ teachings are a map of how to live an ideal life and, in some form or other, every liberal embraces it. Love thy neighbor as thyself; he who is without sin, cast the first stone; do unto others what you would have them do unto you. I mean, look at the Beatitudes, it’s like a Democratic convention speech: blessed are the meek; blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; blessed are the merciful; blessed are the pure in heart; blessed are the peacemakers; blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake… We’d have to leave the “turn the other cheek” out of the foreign policy debate, but you get the idea. We could emphasis how much the Democratic party is in line with those basic teachings without pounding it to death, without exploiting it, and most importantly, without offending our own non-Christian compatriots within the party. This is crucial, because I believe that all of us on the left – and our philosophical brethren who call themselves moderates – are tied together by many of these beliefs, and we should never allow a difference in opinion about ONE policy trend or another to “tear us asunder.” I believe we can do this – make this compromise on the language of our message - without seeming to “give in.” Giving in would be to give in on policy issues; this is not giving in, it’s embracing what’s already there. Since many Christians on the left believe that Jesus was the first liberal anyway, I don’t see how this is equivocating. There’s a subtle way to do it; we don’t have to pound our chests, just persistently use the ideas that we genuinely believe in, and, every once in a while, remind people where they came from. That’s not changing the message, it’s just slightly changing the language of the message.

(4) Should we concede the South? An emphatic NO. I was hoping that Kerry or Edwards or both would take at least one long swing into the deep South, maybe two… but money and time didn’t allow, since the time spent in the Midwest was apparently crucial. But I think it would’ve cut into the popular vote in the very least, and put a real face to the ticket instead the filtered sound bites that CNN allowed the country to see (bastards). No matter what anyone may think of his post-election responses, I believe that Kerry truly does care about the nation, and all it’s citizens, and that despite what that insipid Candy Crowley says, he DOES exude that warmth in person. Had he gone into the South – thereby forcing Bush to follow at least a few times himself – I believe his genuineness would’ve shown through to at least those who bothered to come out. And I do believe people would’ve come out. Not just Democrats and hecklers, but people who might simply be curious. It may have made a lot of difference. So I think we need to start NOW, LOL. Liberals in the South need to be more visible NOW. I know there’s no campaign season yet, but there’s got to be a way to get some face-to-face PR with Southerners. Those town hall meetings seem to work well. I don’t know under what pretext they could be initiated, but start the dialogue and the interaction and exposure NOW… so that, when 2008 comes around, people in the “Red” states and the South will be used to hearing the message, and maybe the word “liberal” won’t be quite so scary *rolleyes*

(5) On looking “weak” militarily: this is the most ridiculous scam that those on the right have fallen for. How anyone can call the party of Lyndon Johnson or FDR – or Bill Clinton, for that matter - “weak” is beyond me. They forget that Vietnam was Johnson’s war, not Nixon’s, and any defense of the war in Vietnam is, in effect, a defense of the aggressive policies of the militaristic left. That’s not to say we should suddenly embrace Vietnam, but we should remind them of the reality of history – every single time they distort it. Every single time. And every single time the lie is repeated that Bill Clinton allowed the WTC to be attacked without reprisals in 1993, clear up that bullshit too. With force and precision and conviction. WE are the party that has defended the nation. It’s a pity that this even has to be said, it’s puerile to have a pissing contest about who’s blown up the most bodies, for cryin’ out loud. But such is the political climate today, and such is the mentality of those we want to convert. If it comes to that, then don’t be afraid to pull out that political truth. Which leads to the almost next last point (LOL!)

(6) This elitist thing. It’s silly, but there is something to it. True, the party of “moral values” loves nothing better than to flex their superior moral muscles, Bible in hand, and tell the rest of us how to live, who to love, how to worship, who to make war on, and to do it all while telling us we’re all going straight to hell anyway. Well, piss on that. So we counter with how much more intelligent liberals are. Well, it’s true, LOL, but maybe we should stop saying it quite so much. I think a lot of their self-righteous blustering comes from a genuine inferiority complex, NOT one of superiority. They cling to the Bible because that is the one “Truth” that they believe trumps anything intellectual we have to say. And when they’re faced with real truths, they don’t listen, they shut their ears and dig into their trenches. I think the only way to keep them out of there is not to push them into it. If it were me shaping party policy, my strategy for engaging the winnable, convertible Christians on the right is to appeal to their belief in what is good. Not all of them get pleasure from blowing up Iraqis; not all of them hate minorities; not all of them have disdain for the poor. The ones who don’t – they’re the ones we can reach with an appeal to the common ground we share: a belief in what is good. If we can emphasis what we have in common, and stop pointing out what we do not, it’s a start to at least getting that segment of the Christian population to listen to us. Because we DO have the better ideas. Maybe here is where “turn the other cheek” comes in, LOL.

(7) Lastly (yay!), hold onto the anger. Get MAD. That may sound contrary to everything I just said, LOL, but it isn’t. It’s not the Bush voters we need to get mad at, it’s the repulsive wing of the Republican party that distorts, twists, lies, cheats, and shrieks it’s right to get away with it. Get mad at them and step up the responses to each and every lie. Each and every lie needs to be answered. Demand a press conference, and expose each and every lie until we’re blue in the face, then take in some oxygen and say it AGAIN. MAKE CNN and ABC and CBS air our justifiable indignation; I don’t know how this can be accomplished, but it needs to be done – find a way to snatch the spotlight. The voters on the right are brainwashed because they never hear the truth. The longer and louder we are about disputing each lie, the more the sound bites get played. The media is lazy and complicit, but they like high ratings. THEY helped to create this Blue State / Red State thing, and if they want a fight they can air and pundit themselves to death over, then let’s give them one. Every time that pathological liar Tom DeLay swaggers up to a microphone and smirks, “the Democrats (fill in the lie of the day),” I want to see a Democrat step up to a microphone and hold up a piece of paper and say, “NO, Tom DeLay LIED, THIS is the truth, and here is the proof” – EVERY TIME. Stop being namby-pampy, stop couching our defense in these nice little words, don’t whine, don’t rant, be direct and forceful. Speak straight and loudly and strongly and make the point. For this reason, I believe that either Wes Clark or Howard Dean would make excellent DNC chairmen – either one, I don’t care which. They have power in their words, and passion in their voices. Power and passion – THAT’S what we need. Be angry, and be right, dammit, and don’t be afraid to say so! No Republican ever had to regret their strong words, and we Democrats are begging – on our knees! – for someone to show passion for the cause. If we have to – and I’m laughing hysterically at the thought, but hell, it might work – teach it. Teach Nancy Pelosi to get that stick from out of her butt and show some real passion. Let’s have a Joe Biden Passion Retreat Weekend. I know some of you don’t like him or his policies, but, dammit, when he gets mad and bears his teeth, he does it with honesty and grit and people listen. I’ll never forget when he nailed Oliver North in the Iran-Contra hearings, told him off but good, and ended it with his teeth-bearing signature “PE-RI-OD!” Yeah! People admire conviction – let’s show some. We’ve got it in abundance.

Okay, I’ll shut up now, LOL. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to spout (and thanks to all who said it all better than I, and with fewer words).

[Cruzin]

115. Thank You for Finally Asking

I have sat here as a lurker for a very long time.

Its my first time to speak out. I am agnostic. I am pro-choice. I am pro gay marriage/ union. I recycle. I am red state. I voted for Bush. Did I want to, NO. Did I want a better alternative? Yes. I am libertarian by most accounts. Very socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.

What did you do wrong?

1) Have no real values. No, not bible value. Remember, I am agnostic. The Democrats have no REAL values. This is not speaking to the spirited in your party, this is how I perceive your party. You put forth to me a man you found "electable". Not someone who is what you want to lead us. Screw nuances. Seek VISION. I may not agree with GWB, but I know he has a core. He has his vision. Might not be mine, but he has one. The democrats need a person who people know, right or wrong, has a vision. You're killing of Dean was sad. He had a vision.


2)ABB. This KILLED you. Still is killing you. If Bush walked on water, you guys would say he couldn't' swim. Let that anger go. Its what is separating you from the masses. We see a flawed guy, but who has his own convictions. Whether I agree with him or not, he has them, and that is a point on his side. The venom aimed at him as a person killed any message you could have had. It makes people say "they will say anything because of the hatred" and it muted your message.

3) Let go of partial birth abortions. No one of any rational thinking believes it is OK to kill a viable fetus unless it endangers the mother. NO ONE.

4) GUNS are a right . Laws are in place for "bad people". LET IT GO

5) Social Security. I am a GEN Xer. Most of us feel we will never see it even though we pay into it. Maybe privatization is not the answer, but it damn sure beats what we have. Realize you are losing "youngish" voters with you meltdown hold on keeping this institution AS IS. It has to have reform. You be the party to show us how.

6) Keep the fight for Gay marriages/unions. Its the only place where you actually look like democrats.

7) Stop hating on the minorities in the Bush Administration. You have particular venom for them. It makes us looks around and say WTF??? Adults of varying colors and religions CAN vote something other than democrat, and be good people.


8) Finally GLOBAL TEST. We don't care what the UN thinks. WE DO NOT CARE. Put America First, WORLD Second. I know, this goes against most of the posters on here thinking. But you want to win. I am telling you how to.


Sorry, I have been lurking here a long time. I have watched you guys degrade Kerry. Then I watched as you deemed him the second coming. Some of you guys are brilliant. Most of you drink Koolaid. Kerry should have never been your man. He wanted to be president. He was a nice enough guy. He is not a leader. Get yourselves a leader.


And Finally. HE LOST. Bush did not steal the election. KERRY LOST. Even KERRY accepts this. Tin Foilers, let it go. Learn. Please Learn. PLEASE PLEASE LEARN. Some of us want something other than what the Republican Party is serving up. But honestly, you have not given us "lurkers" any vision.


Flame away or call me a freeper.
Whatever.

[Q]

119. No one should 'flame' you or call you a FReeper in this thread...

...it's for ALL opinions. Other posters may not agree with you...but this is your opportunity to 'get it off your chest'.

Thanks for posting.

[Cruzin]

121. Thanks

I appreciate that Q. Honestly I do. I know I come off as a bit peeved. I have watched this place for so long. And I have watches how people sorta "delude" themselves. And for a long time I have wanted to post, but since I am not a progressive, I have not. But I have honestly known you guys would lose even as you were posting "Will we Gloat when the election is over?" posts. Then you got mad at Republican gloaters. It honestly floored me.

I would love for the Democrats to become a party I can vote for. People who want real change. You were historically the party of change. You have lost your way as a party. But its not too late to get it back.

[Chili]

123. Not going to flame you...

First, honest question: you didn't say why you voted for Bush. The closest you came to it was his "vision." What is his vision? Can you describe it? I want to know what you see.

To your other comments: we absolutely have values. Please see my long-ass probably unreadable post above. Not to be flippant, but world peace and love thy neighbor - just to name 2 - are pretty basic "values." What, then, is your definition of "values?"

ABB - when we had the chance to complain about the unrelenting venom spewed daily against Bill Clinton - which continues to this day - Clinton, my legally elected president, what would your answer have been?

I have never met a single person who is for partial-birth abortions. Not one.

Guns in the hands of bad people kill people, and guns in the hands of children kill children. In fact, some of the people who agree with you would llike to kill me. This is not something that is negotiable.

John Kerry won the young vote, handily.

Agree on gay marriage and unions.

Minorities on the right... no comment.

There was nothing wrong with John Kerry that 136,001 votes in one state couldn't cure, LOL. I have 56 million people who agree with me. The campaign strategy was flawed, but much more so than the man. And you're right, George Bush can't swim.

We have to live in the world. It would help a lot if we weren't so deeply detested that the rest of the world feels the need to blow us to kingdom come so THEY can feel safe.

I won't call you a "freeper" or any other name or flame you. But there is one thing that must be said, and it's this: it's not you or what your opinions are that separate us; in my opinion, it's the nature of the people who have taken over the Republican party that continues to divide us, and the way they operate. Their modus operandi. It's deceitful and sucks sewer dregs. I will never capitulate. LOL.

Welcome and thank you for your comments - from one liberal who most certainly does have VALUES. My own.

[Cruzin]

124. Call me a Cynic

Thank you for your response. I asked a gay friend of mine "Who did you pull the lever for?" His niece is currently in Washington with a soldier husband who will never be the same due to this war in Iraq. He will have to work to walk again, if he does. I asked his gay man, "Who did you pull the lever for?" because both he and I said earlier "NOT BUSH". He said "I couldn't do it, in the end I had no idea what Kerry would do, I voted for Bush."

A gay man, with a hospitalized nephew from the Iraq War...voting for Bush. Your problem is not just with the evangelicals. That is what I am telling you.

I am not a Clinton hater. I think it is wrong he used business time to approach a woman sexually. If it is on company time, i have no problem with it being researched. But I am a woman and I dont expect my bosses to approach me for sex. That is just me.

As for young vote, you are correct. I said Youngish vote. Us thirty year olds who know we wont see SS.

Bottom line, I am trying to tell you how to win me. I am not affiliated with any party. The party I am closest to is libertarian, and they are famous for running whack jobs. My alliance is up for graps. I am telling you as a person who is not "typical republican" how to get my vote. And your crew might want to stop with demonizing Bush voters...IMHO. Not everyone who voted for him were evangelicals. And not all of us demonic red staters are lost to you. I am just giving you an opinion on how to get us back.

[Chili]

126. we are much closer than you think

I would love to win you. I know you didn't ask us to try, LOL, but the first thing to ask is, what is it that made you distrust Kerry? The "flip-flop" thing was manufactured and repeated again and again until, like spaghetti on the wall, it stuck. Kerry didn't change opinions any more than Bush did (don't make me list them all!). Since you read here a lot, what didn't you believe about Kerry that his supporters believed?

For what it's worth, I believe it was Kerry's inherent need to reach out to all people - and therefore have a dialogue with them - that was a detriment instead of being a virtue (and that includes all the disparate members of his own party, LOL!). Put another way, it's the curse of liberals to try to understand other people. Doesn't work, we're called "weak" and "indecisive" for trying to see both sides of an issue. Bush never reached out to us, never once considered the other 50% of the population he took an oath before God to protect and serve. For him, we don't exist and never did. To Kerry, YOU existed. That should not be a disavantage, but in this warped political atmosphere, it was. It's not a matter of "flip-flopping" or "saying anything to get elected;" it's a matter of trying to relate to the issues that different people feel are important to them. That's what a president does, or rather, a good one. He represents us ALL, or tries to.

About Clinton: he was absolutely wrong. But he didn't chase Monica; Monica chased him. He was weak and paid dearly for his indiscretion. More than he should have. I'm a woman too, and it would never have occurred to me to flirt with my married boss, scheme to get him alone, and then pull down my pants so that he can see my thong. It was stupid and his wife should've - and probably did - slap him silly, but the rest was none of our business. I'm not blaming Monica, she was young and had a terrible crush on him, which was her sole motivation. Silly school girl crush that Clintion should've kindly rebuffed but couldn't. But his humiliation should've been the end of it - not his impeachment. One of the great gulfs between the left and right is that the right has yet to guage the deep resentment that the impeachment debacle caused.

Thank you for interacting. I hope you continue to talk to us.

Edit... meant also to say: I have never been one to call Bush a name: not Chimp, not anything derogatory, not even Bush Crime Family, though I do believe the Bush family is steeped in corruption. I don't call him names because I believe it dissipates the message, it gives the right an excuse to say "SEE? SEE? HATRED!" and I'd rather slit my own throat than give Marc Racicot any kind of ammunition whatsoever. If there's anything I hate, it's what this administration has done to this country and to our standing in the world. And, I admit it, I absolutely LOATHE the fact that other people can't see him for what he is. It bugs the hell outta me.

[Cruzin]

127. We Are Much Closer

We can be much closer than we are. Honestly, the only reason I posted is because the question was asked finally. Someone actually wanted to what I thougt. And having read this board a long time, I wanted to let you know.

Clinton....whatever. I find it repulsive he preyed on young girls while married. Hate me. And I know some will. I think it wrong. Nothing will probably change into me saying "fcking young girls on the pay roll is OK"
And the funny thing is I know I will get some hate. I am am so liberal here, that it is funny but I find marriage something you should take seriously. But he made a stupid bed, and he will lie in it.

What made me distrust Kerry? Kerry is Clinton without the charisma. He wanted to know what I think before a decision was made. He even worried about how osama tape would affect his run? He has a PLAN? What Plan? He just wanted to be president. And you put foward a guy whose only goal was this. Nothing else.

Run guys like Dean. People who really have true convictions. People who may not have me on every issue, but have me totally on some.
Its you only chance.

[Chili]

133. we or I always wanted to know what you think...

...but it's hard to have a conversation with so many stereotypes getting in the way - from both sides. I think it'd be fun to dispel some of them.

(1) Not all Democrats feel defensive or protective of Clinton. Many just don't like him. I do, and I thought he was - because of our prosperity during his 2 terms - a great president.

(2) The "ABB" feeling was deep, and there are very real reasons behind it. Very defensible reasons. It wasn't just "hatred" of Bush, it's much more complicated than that and shouldn't be dismissed. It's the reason why many Republicans or conservatives - an incredible list of them, actually - ultimately endorsed Kerry. It's why even Tucker Carlson said he might not vote at all. It's not just propaganda.

(3) That "Global Test" comment was twisted by the RNC, repeated by the media, and is still misunderstood, as were most of the things he said. All he meant was that we should be able to say "we are bombing / attacking Country A because of X, Y, and Z, and here's why," and be BELIEVED. It will be a long time before any one ever believes us again. And if you don't think being believed or trusted is important, think what effect that may have in us getting North Korea to disarm - or Iran.

Oh, forgot to say about Dean - I love Howard Dean! I admire him greatly, he put his heart into the campaign - both his own and Kerry's - and did as he promised. But he would've been massacred by the media and the RNC would've demonized him out of all recognition. He didn't stand a chance. They were already calling him "unstable" by the end of the primaries. By June, they would've convinced you that he needed medication. It was ridiculous and mean-spirited and totally in keeping with the political atmosphere tolerated and encouraged by the media. It was disgusting.

[Cruzin]

134. I understand where you are going

I dont think all Democrats loved Clinton. Some seemingly can not tolerate any criticism of him at all however. Being a dyed in the wool feminist, I am really appalled at the number of women who seem to back him. But hey, to each their own. To me, he is a man who abused his position of power when it comes to the ladies. And there are no shortage of those on either side of the party. Personally, I would have backed Hillary for President before she "stood by her man".

The ABB? That is the problem. You needed a real alternative, not just to hate Bush. Hey, I hate Ashcroft's ways. I dislike the bigger governernmet. I hate the deficit. Didn't care for many of Bush's policies. But the Democrats as a party needs to offer me solutions....not ABB.

As far as GLOBAL TEST, I am aware of what Kerry meant. What I meant by my rant is honestly, Americans do not care what the world thinks. I know that sounds harsh, but we are self centered. We bear most of the burden of cost for global peace and execution of it. We are a lil' uppity about that position. So most of us, for good or naught, really dont care what Europe thinks about what we do. Where Kerry messed up is by thinking that we do. Americans, as a large, never see ourselves having to go before a tribunal to defend our actions. And quite honestly, with crooks like Koffi Annan at the coffers of the UN, I don't think the progressives with do well with the "global test" to the american electorate.

[Chili]

138. we do have a gulf here, though...

...and that's this: you and those who agree with you say you don't care what the world thinks; I and those who agree with me think we should. There's no bridge I can think of that will cross that gulf.

Let me just use the UK, the British Empire, as an example. When the sun did set on the empire, they began granting independence to some of their colonies, and accepted the backseat role they were forced to take to the emerging powers on the continent. They were still hated for their arrogance, but respected. We are not at that point, where we have to worry about the sun setting anywhere. But if we're not careful - if, for example, the economy completely collapses - and we are indebted to China and other countries for unbelievable amounts - how, do you think, the rest of the world will treat despised America, America who lies and invades weaker counties and bullies the rest of the world? I shudder to think.

[Cruzin]

140. It's not that bad a gulf.

At least not to me. I see the collapse of hegemony at the crux of this situation. I understand why we are hated. We are, at this moment, all powerful. We are to be hated.
But I truly believe capitalism is the best system of government. Your view of the world, to me, is very romantic. We are the bad guys who need to shape up in your view. I dont see it quite that way. But that is what is so cool about differences of opinion. I know that for every "me", we need a "you". Ying and Yang. Its why I come here and read the varying views that are so different from mine by and large. I appreciate Q for asking for our "lurker" inputs.

[Chili]

149. I'm glad you posted too

...and I too am a capitalist. But I think we can be both powerful and respected. We don't have to be liked... you're right in essence, we don't need to be liked - but right now, the respect and trust is lacking. I'd like us to get that back.

I hope you can hang around, or come back and talk some more. Maybe we'll wear you down, LOL!

[Newshues]

143. fact not in evidence

Is America really a "colonial" type of power? I don't think that case has been made, certainly not convincingly. We're certainly not analogus to past colonial empires. Make the case.

I agree with Cruzin, by and large Americans really don't care at all what other countries think. I think you would have a hard time convincing a majority of Americans that the world acts in America's interests at all. I do think you could convince a majority of Americans that the world acts against or burdens the US with their demands. Think kosovo - what legitimate reason was there that Europe couldn't solve that problem on her own? Take Solmalia - why was nothing done until America stepped up? Take Darfur now, take Magabe ( sp? ) take any number of smaller problems around the world. Why doesn't the world act without America? And in their inaction the world frequent heaps criticism at the US for doing nothing. Kinda hard to take criticism from someone who won't do what they are critical of you not doing.

And the French putting a 50 cal round through the head of a civilian in the Ivory Coast is met with what outrage and moral indignation?

Something is quite wrong with the world when our critics can do very similar things to what gets us condemned and not be met with condemnation.

[Chili]

146. obviously the world is a different place than it was 100 years ago

...or even 20 years ago. Or even 2 years ago.

And I guess it depends on who you're asking, about whether we're a colonial power. You might get a different answer from a resident of Baghdad. But then, who cares what they think...

[Newshues]

163. My point was that you're not making the case for

America being a colonial power in any sense of the phrase that is meaningful to the average joe voter. Just because a fact isn't in evidence doesn't mean that the fact doesn't exist, it means it hasn't been brought before the court, in this case, of public opinion. One of the ( many ) reasons that lawyers are good politicians is that they are used to making the case even if that case is obvious to themselves. Then follow up the making of the case with a concise summation. That would be the issue statement and the sound bite, respectively, in politics. Colonial power is the sound bite, where's the issue statement?

As to caring what the guy in Iraq thinks....with my ass in this chair I have no way to find out whether it's just that one guy in Baghdad or whether it's a thousand of them or whether it's ten thousand of them. I read the blogs and it doesn't help. For every blog that detests America being in Iraq there is one begrudgingly thankful for it. Sunni blogs are more likely to see America as occupier, Shia blogs are more likely to see America as the devil that must be endured as the price for being rid of Sadam. Kurds and Christians are more likely to view American involvement positively on the whole.

Keep in mind, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed under Sadam, the Sunni were the rulers. Near as I can tell with my ass in this chair is that most of the 'insurgents' are sunni and foreigners. Now, I can understand the position that the 'insurgents' have a right to boot an occupier out, but I can also see the position that the 'insurgents' are just sunni ba'athist who want to get their power back. Beats me as to which is the more true. Likely a good mix of both. But like I said, with my ass in this chair that's a little hard to determine with any confidence. And no, I'm not accepting invitations to go find out first hand.

Information is only useful if it is accurate. Saying we never should have gone to war doesn't change that we did. Dealing with that reality in a way that leaves behind a viable Iraq is a pretty tough nut to crack. Certainly doesn't help that end with certain European countries choosing to stay on their high horse of justifiable righteousness rather than deal with the reality of Bush's blunder as it is now. They'd rather see Bush fail than Iraq succeed. Now tell me how that makes the world any safer?

[Chili]

174. I wasn't making that case...

...that America is a colonial power, I was merely making an analogy to explain why I think it's important that we be respected and trusted by other nations and their leaders, using a hypothetical "what if" situation that, God forbid, ever comes to pass. However, surely you don't doubt that people see us as imperialists, with some justification?

And I'd be interested in reading those Sunni and Shia blogs. Can you provide links?

[aneerkoinos]

183. some links

American authentic journalist in Baghdad:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000128.php#more

Best blog IMHO, girl in Baghdad:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Meat Raed and his sunni-shia family:
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

More:
http://www.wordsfromiraq.com/

[Chili]

193. thank you for the links

(though I can't get the first one to open)

I've heard of the riverbendblog before, but never had the link.

THANK YOU again.

[aneerkoinos]

215. Try this

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/index.php

[mikh]

188. Colonial Power?

France is a colonial power.
The USA is not.
Adlai Stevenson, that GREAT Democrat, said that the USA never wanted anything for itself that it did not want the rest of the world to have.
I'm from NZ. Left of centre, but I nevertheless revere the ideals and constitution of the USA.
Those Americans who revile their country, its values and their own heritage, (and the Democrats used those propagandists shamelessly - ie, the loathsome Michael Moore) - in their phobic hate campaign, repulsed many left of centre voters.
Democrats should be endorsing what we hippies chanted in the 60's and 70's, and chant it again, for the whole world:
What do we want - Freedom! Now!

[Hatchling]

147. Your statement:

"I have never been one to call Bush a name: not Chimp, not anything derogatory, not even Bush Crime Family, though I do believe the Bush family is steeped in corruption. I don't call him names because I believe it dissipates the message, it gives the right an excuse to say "SEE? SEE? HATRED!" and I'd rather slit my own throat than give Marc Racicot any kind of ammunition whatsoever."

made me stop and think. You are so right. I have been guilty of demonizing by calling names and being derogatory. It makes me seem childish and therefore makes my message seem suspect. I resolve from this moment on to quit name calling and address the issue instead.

[Chili]

150. I didn't say that to criticize others libs who do call him names...

(and I know you didn't take it that way, you took it in the spirit it was intended), and I've never said it before on here because I totally understand the frustration. But I also get pissed off when I hear the right-wing pundits dismiss our very justifiable disagreements with the things he has done and pass it off merely as "hatred for Bush." It's not a personal thing, it's a strong disagreement about policies and actions that are necessarily tied to his personality - but that's not the same as a personal "hatred." When they take our anger over policy decisions and make it personal - defining us once again - it makes it easy for them to demean our criticism. We play right into their hands.

But I'm glad you understood what I meant. :)

[aneerkoinos]

154. Values

Lurker didn't doubt that Democrats have values, he said that Democratic Party does not give impression that it has values it is willing to fight for. I think he has a point.

[Chili]

175. Cruzin made a generalization about a lack of values...

...while, yes, acknowledging that there were some who are spirited. I disagree with that basic premise, that John Kerry DIDN'T have vision, and that the party doesn't as well. That may be true of the party leadership - and hopefully that will change in the near future. But the party's not dead. And say what you will about Kerry's campaign, about his advisors, about his approach to the electorate, about his "charisma" or lack thereof, or anything else you want to about the man, but there were enough of us here, and out there, who DID see his vision. To say he didn't have one is just as inflammatory as saying that George Bush didn't have one. And in fact, I didn't say that; instead, I asked what was George Bush's vision.

And for what it's worth, Howard Dean would've been my pick had I had the chance to vote for him in the primaries. But Kerry won me over with what came across to me as sincerity... which can easily translate to "vision." It did for me.

[Old Mouse]

153. You point out our real failure

All of your issues are ones that were felt passionately by the electorate, and these are the very issues the Democrats allowed the Republicans to frame, to control the discussion of. Issues I think became the rationalization to accept the marketed dislike for the Democratic party.

1) Values - this speaks to the power of words and concepts. This almost impossible to define quality had never been a serious electable issue before. A good spin doctor can turn anything into a plus or minus "value". It's doublespeak wherein Bush's mistakes were transformed into positive character strengths. It requires emotional speaking to counter this sort of argument, and we failed.

2) Bush is a criminal and should be impeached. That should have been our major issue. Instead of finding a way to articulate and convincingly prove this, we insulted and berated those who didn't believe, those who needed help to make the personal and painful conclusion that we have made a criminal the most powerful man in the history of the world.

3) Partial birth abortions was a Republican created issue. Again the words framed the issue... "partial birth" The Dems only fought to include language that made sure the procedure could be used to save a woman's life, but the public perception was something else entirely. It was a no-win issue for the Dems. They had to fight that law as written.

4) Gun control was not an issue in this election, but yet seemed to be. How did this happen? BTW, laws are in place "to keep honest people honest"

5) As a trailing end boomer, I'm sorry you Xer's got the short end of every stick this country has to offer. That's the damn sad truth of it... Social Security is a Democratic issue, how we allowed "destruction" to be called "reform" is another mistake of ours.

6) We did look pathetic on the issue of Gay Marriage. A case of bad timing. (Even Bush was flopping back and forth just before the election)

7) The venom against the minorities in Bush's cabinet is because they purposefully misled the American people, causing incalculable loss of life and global turmoil. It was their performance in office, not their color. Again, we failed to make a convincing argument on what was a truly important issue, and even worse allowed the party of civil rights to appear racist.

8) When a country puts their own desires before that of world opinion, they are a Rogue Nation, subject to sanction and reprisal. We are not a self-sufficient nation. I don't think there is a simple way to approach this subject, and the powerful message of "America First" perhaps should have been ignored rather than argued.

Thank you for posting. You have really helped me see how out of touch the Democrats have been. I don't think we should change on these issues, but the fact we could not convince you, an articulate and curious person, of our positions even though we had years and spent millions of dollars shows a monumental flaw on our part.

[aneerkoinos]

155. Wellcome to DU!

There's lot I agree with you, and I am ultraprogressive, Green democratic socialist in reality-based way but anarcho-syndicalist in my heart. In other words anti-capitalist libertarian. :)

To me your basic point seems to be that Kerry ran a bullshit campaign where he didn't stand for what he believes in (what ever that is today) but cynically went a fishing for center votes like the spineless politico that he has become in the Senate, and people saw through that and couldn't trust him. Couldn't agree more, Dean would have been much better candidate that could have reached people by telling what he sees as truth and standing by his ideals.

[HoosierClarkie]

167. I agree with you on this point...

"The venom aimed at him as a person killed any message you could have had. It makes people say "they will say anything because of the hatred" and it muted your message."

We tend to blame the right wing for muting and distorting our message, but the fact is our hatred did mute our message. We need to run someone on hope and what he/she can do for our country, not just what bush has failed to do.
imho

[bobbyboucher]

198. Your post has no values.

Your are a walking, talking, typing repube talking point. What you said is not hard to refute. You could have done it yourself before the election and a long time ago if you would just do some research and quit listening to corporate-owned faux media.

Man, this thread is a motherlode of Repube bullshit. Get your facts straight and come back then. Quit sqwalking, it's annoying.

[IndyPriest]

122. A Summary, perhaps

At the ends of a spectrum, political parties can be organized movements of ideas and values or they can be institutionalized groups simply dedicated to preserving their power. You can build a strong political party at either end of thiis spectrum. You can build a powerhouse if you can combine ideas and values and harness those to effective, institutionalized power. The trouble with the Democratic party is that it is late coming to either end of the spectrum at the moment. The Republican party is a powerhouse because it has combined both at the moment.

A lot of comments in blogland tend to see the rescue of the Democratic party coming from one or the other end of the spectrum -- either becoming clearer about values and ideas or better at consolidating institutional power.

I think we need both. But of the two, the first is really more important. The second will follow. The first is the fuel of, the rationale for, the second.

What are the ideas and values - the fuel - of the Democratic party? For a lot of reasons, they have been and need to continue to be progressive. Three of them are key: 1) a decent respect for reason (as opposed to ideology); 2) a decent respect for the opinons of others (hence an emphasis on fair process, level playing fields, inclusivity); 3) a desire for strong, nurturing communities (hence an emphasis on responsibility, honesty, compassion.)

Consolidate institutional power to benefit those ideas and values and you have a powerhouse of a political party.

[neohippie]

125. Hope instead of Fear

Our party needs to offer a message of hope, and I think we try to do that now, we just need to be better at it.

I agree that the Republicans win by dividing the country. They play on peoples fears and emotions, and use trigger issues speak to specific groups, and then try to link all of those different trigger groups under an umbrella like moral or family values. On the surface these moral value issues, seem to be related, but in reality they are actually contradictory.

An example of this is the hypocrisy that we here at DU see because we look below the surface of the moral value triggers.

You cannot be a party of Christian values and promote pro-life issues, and then logically support using horrible weapons like depleted uranium in our munitions, or the white phosphorous shells against women and children.

You cannot be pro-family, unless you support all families, including the non-traditional family units, like single parents, same sex parents, gay marriages and civil unions. A loving relationship between adults with a commitment towards a future togehter should be the only requirement here.

Clearly the fear and emotion that some of these issues trigger is what keeps us divided as a nation. Our party needs to find a way to bring hope and emotional stability back into the hearts and minds of our own citizens. We need a strength though unity message, we need the big tent.

I hate all the infighting and backstabbing that is going on inside our party since the election. We don't need blame, we don't need to look backward for answers, we need to look forward, it is hope that can keep us alive.

We need to think about what emotional triggers are being used against us, the invoking of patriotism, the fear of an uncertain future, the play on the intolerance of groups within our society and disarm these bombs, with messages that can overcome them.

We should be proud of our nation's policy not ashamed of it, we should reverse our isolationist empire building, that has only served to create more enemies for us across the world. We should be looking at the reasons that terrorism exists in the world instead of declaring messages like bring it on, and your either with us or against us.

We need to remind people that our once bright beacon of democracy and hope is almost extinguished. We need to make sure that we have fair and accurate elections here at home, before we go and try and create them in other places around the world.

We need to offer alternative solutions to problems like energy. In the 70's when alternative energy had its greatest momentum, the thing that held it back was it's cost, Oil prices would have had to be over $44 a barrel back then for the alternative programs to be cost effective, well, we have seen oil rise beyond that now, and there was hardly a peep about that in this past election.

Until we can break the spell of fear and disarm the emotional triggers that are being used by the right to divide our country then we will sit here and talk amoungst ourselves, because we have failed in getting our message out to the public and the media

[indigo32]

130. Kick for a cool thread

[KT2000]

132. this is a great thread

:kick:

[Cherie59]

135. stay on message and...

change the voting system!!!!!

[PrisonerLazy8]

137. Speaking as a NH snowmobiler and off-roader

I personally know hundreds of snowmobile and ATV club members that will never vote for another Democrat until they get out of bed with the so-called "environmental" groups that support shutting down the existing public snowmobile and ATV trails. As it stands they have lost hundreds of miles of existing trails due to closures based on politics alone.

I'm not a single issue voter but it would help if the Democrats that allow existing trails to be closed would support the local off-roaders and not let the enviro wing make the rules without sound logic. IMHO.

[dfgrbac]

142. Drop corporate sponsorship and the money!

We need to become again the Party of the people, as others have said. The Democrats will not regain power by following the corporate money.

One way is to reject the corporate lobbyists and run our campaign with the people's support. Howard Dean proved it could be done over the Internet. With a little more energy, we could easily get enough money to counteract the corporate financial bulge. Imagine if each Democrat just sent in $5 to the Party. The people would support the Party if they heard the words of truth we all long to hear again.

The other option is the National Initiative for Democracy! I believe this option is the best since it empowers people to respond to political issues.

Check out what may happen if we don't - The Grand Deception.

[Diotima]

144. Be First, Be Free, Be Clear, Be Unified, Be Organized

Well, I'm definitely a newbie... so here's my stab at it.

BE FIRST: Perhaps this speaks to the "be more aggressive" sentiment, but not necessarily. As someone who studies argument and persuasion, one of the problems that the Kerry campaign encountered was trying to overcome the labels that Bush & co. threw at him -- flip flopper, liberal, no senate record, etc. Once these "labels" take hold, its all the harder for the candidate to overcome. (It's the whole premise of burden of proof and overcoming presumption) So, its vital for the candidate to define himself, or the party to define itself first. Such definition gives a better foundation to fight such claims. Second, be quick to fight and speak out against the attacks, so they don't take hold.

BE FREE: I think the Party needs to stand up for what it believes in. The Party seems to have some traditional values, such as "protecting freedoms, not taking them away", etc. I think the Dem's need to stand up for the issues they believe in and go for it. I'm not a democrat "light" I don't want to be. Now this doesn't mean that the "MESSAGE" cannot be honed or modified for particular audiences, but the party needs to stand up for the core values and the core issues.

BE CLEAR: Perhaps the most important of all. I don't think the problem is with the issues that the democrats espouse. I don't think the problem is the candidate. IT'S ALL ABOUT A CLEAR MESSAGE. In 2000, Gore went into detail as to how Bush's economic policies were infeasible, illogical, etc. Bush Responded with "Fuzzy Math" and dismissed it. In 2004, Kerry would have had a much easier time with so many things, with a simple clear message. Kerry had really great ideas and really great perspectives on a bunch of issues. But CLARITY goes a long way with folks who don't follow politics. The campaign got better at this by the end, but I'm afraid that it may have been too late at that point.

BE UNIFIED: I'm really tired of the apparent political infighting that seems to be happening. Al Gore was practically eaten alive after Election 2000 and the recounts...even after winning the popular vote. Similar attacks already seem to be flying Kerry's way. The Party needs to be more careful about the image it portrays or that it lets out to the media, as a whole. If the public perceives that the Democrats can't agree on anything among themselves, then why should they support the democratic candidate if they as undecideds vote for someone that the Dem's themselves are lukewarm to? I think that this sort of thing also potentially hurt the Kerry campaign mid campaign. I remember the month of August there being a chorus of "what's wrong with the Kerry campaign?" in the media, but also from what seemed to be the democratic party. At a time when the campaign needed a unified voice speaking out against the spin, instead it had a chorus of voices contributing to the criticism. And then it got really confusing for the public. I remember watching 10-20 different campaign reps and Senators and Dem. figures speaking on these news shows... and as a result, THE WATERS TURNED MUDDY. I was following closely enough to figure out what was going on. The average Joe voter probably didn't stick around to watch... SEE ABOVE ON CLARITY.

BE ORGANIZED: As someone who volunteered for a political campaign for the first time in my life at age 30 (proudly and glad I did), I have to say that I witnessed a lot of disorganization from the get go. It seemed that local offices weren't getting the yard signs or the buttons or the basic stuff that everybody wanted. And this stuff didn't start coming in until the final weeks. There were troubles with contacting volunteers for various events. There seemed to be lots of disconnects between the local and the national organization. This all got better by the end. But I can't help but think, that if the organization is shored up from the beginning, then it gives the Democratic party, and subsequently their candidates... that much more power to accomplish the tasks that need to get done and convey the messages that need to get out. CLEAR ORGANIZATION also does wonders for enhancing one's ethos, and one's credibility to millions of outsiders. It helps all the way around. When folks see disorganization, they say, is this how this candidate will manage his 'office' or his 'presidency'?


All said and done, I think these are some key things that the Dem's need to focus on. I'm not trying to criticize Kerry or his campaign, or the Party. I'll be a Kerry supporter to infinity and beyond, and I'll always be a Democrat. I just think these are areas that could make a world of difference to the party and to all future candidates.

[Q]

145. Note:

Some DUers are complaining that this thread gives 'trolls' a chance to spout off about Clinton and get pot shots in at the Democratic party. I'm indeed sorry that some are getting upset at the idea of having ONE thread where everyone's opinion is welcome...even for a short time.

There is much to learn from our opponents and 'enemies'. If nothing else...it gives an opportunity to look at ourselves through the eyes of others.

I would like to invite other DUers to join in and provide an opposing point of view...trying their best to do it without flaming or anger.

[Threedifferentones]

151. My advice would be to

move to the left and fight hard. The fundies never give an inch so neither should we. We also need to stop pretending that the majority of people make decisions based mostly on logic because they obviously don't. We have to work emotion into our campagins, whcich imples being aggressive and attacking the other sides views.

[elderly man]

152. Competitive shooting sports

for young people sponsored by Democrats.
Reinstatement of compulsory military training.

[Newshues]

164. EEEEK!!!! run away run away

"Reinstatement of compulsory military training."

political suicide.

Now if we want to talk about a compulsory national service program that has military training as one of its options we might get somewhere. Still be a tough sell while a war is going on. hmmmm, maybe not such a tough sell. Rebrand AmeriCorps and include the military options. Let the republicans sell the military options, let the democrats sell the Americorps options. Might sell. I'd have to research the public on that one but I'm certianly not sold on it being politically viable at this time.

[meganmonkey]

158. REBUBLICANS ARE BAD FOR YOU!!!

Well, I'm certainly not a lurker, but I am a relative newbie (with an embarrassingly high post count). So many excellent things have been said here, straightforward, honest responses. THANK YOU TO Q FOR STARTING THIS THREAD AND TO ALL WHO TOOK THE TIME TO POST!!! I don't have much to say (in retrospect, apparently I have a lot to say ;) ), but I will say this:

I am not a democrat. The runup to this election made me feel like a desperate, powerless person, and I had to vote for the dems. I felt like I had no choice. I went to a Dean house party, that made me optimistic, that maybe I could feel represented by the dem party. But when Kerry became the candidate, I knew I would only vote for him as a vote against Bush. I was dangerously optimistic that he would win, and heartbroken that he didn't.

What made me really optimistic was having discovered DU in the beginning of October.
What made me think I might actually be a democrat was the DU message board. Sometimes I have to remind myself that DU may not be the average face of the Democratic party.
BUT IT SHOULD BE!!!!
Democrats need to remember what they (we?) stand for.
Democrats are NOT elite, but they are liberal, and that is a good thing - look it up in the dictionary.

Is there something wrong with me because I don't think anyone, especially kids and the elderly, in America should go hungry? For god's sake, what kind of world are we in that that should even be a question?

How is wanting peace a bad thing?
How is wanting a livable minimum wage a bad thing?
How is wanting health care to be affordable (including to business owners who want to provide it to their emplooyees) a bad thing?
How is wanting clean water a bad thing?
How is keeping the government out of your a bedroom a bad thing?
How is wanting good lower education and affordable higher education a bad thing?
How is wanting to know my shirt wasn't sewn by a child with a 15 hour work day a bad thing?

HOW IN THE HELL DO THE REPUBLICANS MAKE THESE THINGS LOOK BAD?!?!?!
Especially given the twisted, fraudulent, ominous things they do on a regular basis (I am referring to the politicians, not the people)?

Most people voting republican are voting against their own best interest. It is simple, and it is abusrd, and if the democratic party can't make it obvious, they will never capture another new vote, from a republican or an independent or a green. Maybe including mine.
The next candidate for the dems?
Progressive - YES
Populist - YES (without all the baggage attributed to that word)
Positive - YES

Not a centrist.

It is absurd that Bush won again. There are a lot of powers hard to compete with - our mainstream media is a nightmare. I don't know how to counter the spin machine. But it has to happen.

Sorry - poorly flowing, rambling post. Couldn't help it.

[Spector]

159. Thanks for the thread Q,

I’m a long time lurker that only recently started posting. Because I am a recently retired soldier, it may be assumed that I am conservative. On many issues I am conservative, though on social issues I am mostly liberal. I think of myself as a moderate. I have voted Republican in the past, but I voted for Kerry because of his stated views on how he would handle Iraq. I fear that bush’s policies are just going to get a lot of servicemen/women killed.

As far as what I think we in the Democratic Party should do to correct our course; God, guns and gays. Please hear me out.

Most people in this country are moderate. We are going to continue to lose elections until we learn that fact. Most Americans have a strong sense of justice and are firm believers in common-sense. Most people believe in separation of church and State. Most people believe in freedom of religion not freedom from religion. It is perceived by many in this country that the Liberal Left is out to expunge our nation of religion, the Christian faith in particular. Right or wrong, the numerous lawsuits against Christian religious symbols give the wrong impression of our intentions and are frequently taken as a direct attack against their church and faith. We must be fair-handed in our protests and not alienate Christians that believe strongly in their faith. Demonizing Christians will not help our cause. There is room for people of faith in the Democrat Party. As long as a person’s beliefs are not forced upon others, why does it matter who they pray to? As long as our government doesn’t establish a ‘national religion’ or keep you from following your own beliefs, they are within the confines of the Constitution. Why are we so offended by another’s personal beliefs?

We on the Left feel strongly about the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, though not the Second Amendment for various reasons. We must be consistent. If it wasn’t for the notion of personally owned firearms, we wouldn’t be a country today. The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect our right to hunt or sport shoot. It was specifically put into the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against an oppressive government. It was put into place so we would have the means to throw tyrants out of office. Every time a Democrat in office proposes a bill that weakens the 2nd Amend, we are cutting our own throats. The ASW Ban was idiotic. It achieved absolutely nothing but lost seats in the House and Senate. Many people do not vote Democrat for this reason alone. We have enough gun laws. It is time we Democrats acknowledge that and vocally support the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Until we recognize this inconsistency in our views, the Democrat Party is doomed to play an ever-shrinking role in our government.

As far as gays and ‘gay marriage’; I think this is an easy fix. The government should get out of the “marriage” business. The government should only be able to codify and recognize ‘civil unions’, which are non-discriminatory. If, after obtaining ‘civil-union’ status, you wish to be “married”; you proceed to the nearest church that ascribes to your beliefs and get “married”. In this way, separation of church and state is maintained and doesn’t cloud the issue. Most American’s are against “gay marriage”, but are not against ‘civil unions’ that give the same rights to all. Take the religious aspect out of the picture.

Keep the Faith...

[elderly man]

160. I like your thinking on guns and marriage

[FloridaCrat]

166. Future direction for the party - recount all the votes

Thanks for all the great thoughts. I am a new member, but have been following for a few weeks.

How can we make any sense out of statements about where the Democrats would like to see this country go, when there is such a debilitating problem with the voting systems. I don't trust most Florida voting results, much less all the bogus pre-election polls that oversample Republicans. Having lived through Florida elections under Jeb Bush - first in 2000, 2002 and now this fiasco, given the current course of Bush's re-election standing, I don't believe there will be a chance at an honest or fair election in 2006. Let's get to the bottom of all the problems, but mostly, let's get the corporations out of the voting process, because by definition, they are biased to the party that doles out the big $ contracts.

Boycott Network TV News: The big corporate TV media is a huge problem for us, relative to Democracy. The airwaves belong to the American people, but due to deregulation, corporations only heed their corporate greed and are not interested in fairness or equal treatment for two points of view. I stopped watching all network news in 1998 because I couldn't stand to watch the $100 million witch-hunt of President Clinton. For me, there are enough other sources for news, especially on the Internet. Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio is doing a great job. But TV is where most people get their news. Other technologies must emerge to fill this necessary function and become available to average, non-cable TV viewers. How about a "TV Air America" along the lines of "Radio Free Europe" which was directed to Communist countries to help spread "truth and democracy" during the cold war. It could be blasted to American TV's from Satellites, from the BBC or Canada? How about it Air America, can you make this happen? by next week? I have a feeling there's going to be very important news coming out about the election, I am not optimistic that the Network media will treat it fairly.

With the Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, the Judiciary AND the Executive, we are one step away from a one party government. Does anyone see any parallels to Germany in 1933? Don't get me wrong - I am sure the Republicans are not all criminals, but the party does vote as a single block, consistently. The reason is not because of total agreement in the legislation, but rather due to intolerance of dissension by the party. This is a matter of organization - and Democrats need to learn how to more effectively organize. There are a lot of people who have a need to express their feelings about this president, we must organize, organize, organize.

[Turn CO Blue]

171. Here is my pissy bad-attitude post from earlier tonight on this

The opening post was: "As polarized as our country is right now, what we need in 2008 to heal this divide is somebody right smack in the middle."

My response was:
Do you all really think the voters give a $h*% about whether we move farther to the left or right?! They don't give a flying fu^$!

WHAT WE NEED IS A SHINING ROCK STAR. Someone with mega-personality and charisma. I am sorry, but I am feeling blue and a little bit pissy tonight, and I am now convinced that the presidential election has deteriorated into nothing more than a popularity contect.

So the Dems had better get smart. We need a sexy, smart, ultra good-looking Harrison Ford type who commands the room and oozes leadership and sincerity.

We can hire all the brainiacs underneath him who understand policy, nuance, and diplomacy -- but we need a star at the top.

We also need to f'ing FIRE the dinosaurish DNC, and hire a top New York advertising/branding company instead. The new political scene is all about:
1. mastering the soundbite
2. mastering the imagery of success
3. marketing and branding (making people have an emotional connection to the product). We need better logos, much, much better ads, better TV spots, better psychology techniques, and trendier scripts/speeches.
4. plugging into demographics and direct marketing of the voter

Come on, wake up! A commercial doesn't just sell furniture polish - it is selling the idea of SUCCESS by showing a $4000 hardwood table with the polish. And make no mistake, we are selling something here!
The sheeple are so dumbed down that they have all been reduced to CONSUMERS. The Dems will have to learn to lead them around by their pathetic need to appear successful and trendy.

Nobody understands motivations and what drives people better than ad agencies!

With today's society, you can't win on the ISSUES anymore! People on DU may understand every little nuance of the arguments, but the majority of voters are persuaded by the cult of personality and the politics of EMOTION.

From a Marketing perspective, people want to associate with something that makes them feel good or that is supposed to make them look better or appear trendy. Don't believe it? Why do people pay $5 for a coffee at Starbuck's when they can get coffee at the gas station for .79 cents? Because they like the way buying at Starbuck's makes them FEEL. They want to be seen with the Starbuck's cup. Now, that is quality branding. And that's what the Dems need.

I say we hire an actor to play our presidential candidate. It worked for the Reagan era. The aides and cabinet can do all the work of running the country.

________________________
Snippy in Colorado

[BlkAces16]

172. here are some of the little things that can be done, at least imo

Well, its not really a problem, but it is in aroundabout way.

The democratic party encompasses people from ALL different shades of color (not the best way to say it, but its a good discription of the dem party) that its so hard to speak for all of them at the same time.

Each group has their own wants and needs and they all want the dem leader to speak for just them. And if one group thinks the leaders are ignoring them they get all in a huff and start voicing it. And that in turn gives off the impression that you all can't even get along in your own party.

First thing, always tell the truth. No matter what, truth always wins out.

And do not be afraid to say ha ha I told you so if someone on the republican side does anything that they shouldn't. Even though it isn't nice, you still have to play that same game that we republicans play against you. Taking the high road is a moral victory, but it won't get you votes now because Limbaugh and Hannity don't care and will lie to ruin you.

What i think they need to do is get a few peaople from each group that makes up the democratic party. Like a few from labor, african americans, women, gays, and so forth.
Get them all together for a meeting and pick or choose 1 or 2 things from each group that they feel is important to them. After deciding what each goupr feels is important, then as a WHOLE make that list your agenda.
Put each of those on a list. That makes up your agenda for your group.
After deciding on what those things are, hen you need to push hard to promote them. Don't allow your leader to vary from those top main points or ideas that you have all decided on. Stick to these things day in and day out, everday, 24/7.

Dont make the list a long list, cut it down to something managable so that you can just stick to these main issues.

If you have to have that long list of issues as your agenda don't make up some long ass speeche that will please everyone. Come up with something that you can all agree to. Like no more than 5 or 6 words.
Always K.I.S.S, keep it simple stupid.

And, if your party has a change of mind on an issue, then make it perfectly clear why you changed your position. Say that after further information gathering and advice from the professionals in whatever fields, that you have come to the conclusion that you were wrong. Be open and say that there is nothing wrong with changing ones position. Pound it into the citizens head if you have to, repeat it and repeat it until you dont think you can say it again, then repeat it again!Tell the citizens that there is nothing wrong with changing your mind and that we as humans do it every day of our lives. But never ever hide the fact that you did change your mind. Be firm, consistant and truthful about it.

Fight back when we republicans attack you!.
Do not be afraid to sound like whiners. We did it year after year after year. It was always republicans vs democrats. We made it seem as if the democrats were out to get us.
But never make it sound as though its "we" democrats, say we the american people are tired of this or of that. say that we americans have a right to do this or that. When speaking as democrats, never say we democrats, replace democrats with the word americans.

Also, you need to get some political mouth pieces that are there just to reinforce what you are pushing as your agenda. I know the media is a right wing media, but you have to find your mouth pieces and make them work with you, not against you.

So, narrow down the list of issues. Don't be afraid to fight back.
When speaking about democrats, replace the word democrats with the word americans. Talk about your values and morals. Don't ask how you can beat or compare yourselves with the red states. Your morals and values are just the same as theirs. And then keep repeating it.

Repeat it, repeat it, repeat it, and repeat it again and again and
again!
These are not major things. These are the little things that can easily be accomplished. And i think if you can do these little things the big things will fall into place.

[Chili]

194. this is a great post

I agree with every word you typed. Wanna join the party? LOL, just kiddin'... :)

[EGisJUICE]

176. After thinking about it for a bit

I have a few ideas.

First off the Democratic party needs to stop assuming it has the 'liberal' and 'left' votes in it's pocket and taking those people for granted. Especially when it insists on running a canidate that in essence echoes the talking points and views of the right wing, republicans, etc. When you offer nothing but the same on the War (add more troops, no make it international) Taxes (tax those making over 200,000 more, while continuing to allow corporations to do whatever they want in regards to taxes) or Terrorisim (kill terrorists everywhere) then you offer no reason to vote for you over the incumbent/republican, since those stances on those issues are and have been used as much as possible by repubs already. Offer an actual opposition, not the same things in different words.

Second, stop undermining 3rd party canidates, especially when they have offered to help you win. In response to offering Kerry help defeating Bush this election Ralph Nader got democrats fighting to keep him off ballots and lying about him being a republican shill for having $112,000 donated to him by repubs, as opposed to the 10.6 million Kerry had donated to him by repubs. Nader was blamed for 4 years for making Al Gore get 500,000 more votes then Bush. In fact without Nader on the ballot in Florida in 2000 chances are the discrepancies there probably wouldn't have been noticed, his being in it made it close enough by having people choose to vote for him (Nader stole 0 votes, don't assume Nader voters would've voted for Gore, or at all) that the overall count came into question.

You can't use "anybody but Bush" as your informal motto if you mean "anybody but Bush but only Kerry." That's one thing the repubs never bitch about is 3rd party non repub/dem canidates being on the ballot. If you are going to attack someone for trying to offer a viable 3rd choice at least have the decency to get the facts right.


Last I'd suggest looking at a persons stance on the issues, and not his "electability". Dean and Kucinich were both anti war, and pro unions etc, yet the "more electable" guy got the nomination. Turns out the more electable guy couldn't (or wouldn't) attack when there were openings that a bus could be driven through, and who thought the whole reason he was qualified to be President was that he wasn't George Bush. The more electable guy 'conceded' before the votes were finished being counted and dissapeared.

I guess that skull and bones connection may have a little more to it then just being a "frat" (btw what are the odds that the 2 guys running for pres not only both went to Yale, but were both members of the seniors only super exclusive club whose purpose is to help one another get ahead in the buisiness and political worlds?) I saw it brought up here, and people used the tired old "conspiracy theory" line to dismiss it and ignore it.

Try actually looking at the issue instead of driving people off by saying they are making too much of it or that they should blindly support the canidate that has 'Democrat" next to their name, just because someone says they are something doesn't mean they are. Calling people stupid, or conspiracy theorists or uninformed when you refuse to look at things that might be hard to swallow yourself is hypocritical and drives people away like you wouldn't believe. It comes off as being unreasonable and unwilling to listen to different points of view, and unwelcoming to those with different opinions. You can't expect people to unify with you if you essentially call them stupid or crazy and then tell them who they "need" to vote for. A lot of those people are more informed then those blindly waving a Democrat or Repub banner (vote bloods or crips) and voting based on party when the parties are damn near mirrors of one another.

[empathy]

179. what the heck, Im a newbie

So I guess I should respond to the Q posed by Q.

First a little info on me: I live outside the U.S. I consider myself pretty far to the left of the Dem party but figure they are as good is its going to get right now, and I have supported them a lot since I was able to vote in 1992.

What do I think? I think the Dems have totally sold out. I have always voted dem, so I guess that makes me guilty of helping them sell out. We have been trying so hard to give ourselves a chance with each voter, that we no longer speak with conviction on our issues. Where have our issues gone? Why arent we able to be STRONG in our views? A lot of people I know who voted for Bush did so because they think he is strong in his beliefs, even if they dont agree with all of them. I think of him as simple minded and stubborn, but I was never going to vote for him anyway. Many view him as a strong statesman with a knack for saying stupid things. I know its hard to believe, but some of those who view him favorably, are intelligent people. He has an image that works with enough people that he can get elected. (note: maybe he only REALLY got 47% or whatever, but that is sad enough, isn't it?) Meanwhile, it seems we have become so afraid of turning voters off by having a different view on one issue, that we no longer have any clear views. At least, thats how Rove and company are able to make us look. I can tell people "Democrats believe in equal opportunity, in helping those who need help (bigger Gov't doesnt have to be bad!), in not giving advantages to people simply because they are born wealthy, etc, etc..." But they respond by asking what makes me think Democrats stand for this? Where are the politicians who should be out there saying this? Where are the politicians who say, with confidence, "Its not right to persecute people because they are gay." Where are the democrats who stand high on moral ground? Our morals dont have to be based on the bible alone - they are based upon fairness and equality for all. Shouldnt that be easy enough to speak about with power and grace?

Okay, Im rambling (and I am just a newbie). I know there are people in the democratic party who believe in the things I do - I know the party generally does, I just think we are too eager to conform to what we think people want and in doing so we are making our ideas seem bland and making it seem as if we have no convictions.

[Starfury]

180. Sad truth, the neo-cons have shown a good game plan...

I think the Democrats have the superior position on issues. If you lay out the Dem and Rep positions in a logical fashion without saying which party was associated with which issue, few people would support the Rep's positions. So I don't think moving to new issues is going to win very many new voters, it'll just emphasize the Democratic party's desperation and alienate current members. And how many voters are going to suddenly fall in love with a party that's willing to throw out core values and issues when they're perceived as inconvenient?

No, IMO, what Democrats need are better management, public relations, tactical support, and leadership. Without those qualities, we can rail against the Reps like we have for the last 4 years without significant results.

The Reps have the support mechanisms in place to churn out messages (think tanks, effective pundits, media support) They have a consistant message that is well-suited for soundbites, easily digested pablum for the audience (tastes good but not particularly nourishing!)

They know what they want to achieve and how to accomplish their goals. They already have their roadmap for the next decade-plus. They have the "killer instinct," taking advantage of circumstances whenever possible.

They have effective central coordination and leadership. Whatever else one can say about the Rep party, they've got focus. We can insultingly call it stubborness, imperviousness to logic, etc., but it makes them a relentless opponent.

They've got a more impressive "ground game" than a lot of Dems have given them credit for. Remember all those "outraged" voters pounding on Florida's BoE doors in 2000? They were called up on short notice by Baker, where did they come from? And that's just one small but vivid example. Take a look at the sheer number of people needed for voter suppression across the nation. As repugnant as those actions were, they required considerable organization and local support.

In short, we have more grassroots support and better issues, but Reps have numerous critical advantages that the Dems need to match if they're to have any real success in the future. (And that doesn't even touch on the e-voting issue, which is a whole 'nother topic.)

Anyway, sorry to ramble, there's my 2 cents.

[Q]

181. Good morning everyone...!

Looks like we HAVE a think tank going on in this thread. Although there is a wide variance of opinion...it seems that many wonder how GOPers get people to 'vote against their own interests'. The answer to that may be very simple: they lie. The lies are echoed through a corporate media that has put their own self-interests above that of the people.

I frankly never expected such a great response on this thread. It would benefit the party if they would take a look at all of these ideas and see that there is plenty they could do to become the party everyone is waiting for. The OPPOSITE of what the Republicans are offering: a party of the people.

[Q]

182. Another invitation...

...for new posters and 'lurkers' to post their opinions and insights.

[L0cke]

185. excellent thread

i've been lurking for a long time, and this is the best, most thought-provoking thread i have ever read on here. glad to see some tolerance for different perspectives without (as many) flames.

[Q]

186. Most threads represent...

...by their very nature...opposing points of view. I think we've seen a different kind of results when posters are asked for their opinion and not to debate for their 'side'.

[L0cke]

196. opposing points of view are good

and so is debate. it's the mindless crushing of them that i object to. i'm very happy to see this thread.

[carolinalady]

187. Kick

:kick:

[pdxblue]

189. WHAT DEMS NEED...

THE DEMOCRATIC NOISE MACHINE!

until we have a counterpart to what david brock describes in his great book, no matter what the dem's "stand for" it will be ripped apart by the right wing repuke media.

[aikanae]

190. republicans are good campaigners, not politicians

1. campaigners know how to use Orwellian language i.e. 'clean air' (vs dirty air act) and so on, then the 'truth' doesn't matter.

both bush and arnold got into office based on campaign skills, not that they were good politicans, leaders or what they've done (obviously). WE need to wake up to the tricks and not necessarily do the same, but not be trapped by them.

I've started looking up various forms of propaganda, and leave it to republicans, they use it all plus some. everyone needs to know what it is and not get suckered in, then teach our neighbors. it's not a right/left, or red/blue thing. it's just 'smart'.

they aren't arguing logic, so common sense has nothing to do with it, either - we need to learn how to use those tools to our advantage. Bush repeating "it's hard work" eventually paid off for him, but how?


2. I'm craving news. i can not stand watching or reading the local paper anymore .... what's a person to do? all the articles, the headline and opening is about one subject and the last line is a negative about democrates. that's not news, that's opinion.

we need our own press - a weekly, something that is a quick read, reprints, summaries and where to go for more info, i can't watch all the sites. the facts. we need to get the truth out there and stay connected. the internet is too FRAGILE to depend on it solely.

i lost count of how many times I've felt a chill realizing that dissent = terrorist in this country, Gov. bush has made it well known he didn't like 'dissention' that probably won't change, but could get worse.

the right had 40 years to organize - and they main difference is they had it. i don't see right being as tolerantt with the left organizing. not many of us have skills in being 'clandestine', just never had to before.

let's face it, the right had alternate sources of information, alt publications.

we need a serious effort at getting public access shows up, like getting democracy now! and a couple of others on the air.

WE need to stay informed, and not use contaminated information, either.

Bush has limited leaks this time around.

3. support each other. ever see those little fish in the corners of telephone page ads? most of the religious tithe 10%+ every month and now, that includes political issues too. we need to 'tith', not once in awhile, but long term, steady.

i know i didn't know who the 'progressive' think tanks were, or what they did before i got involved this last year.

we need to know who to support and who not to. stop supporting companies that work against us - Disney, citi bank, walmarts, the power of the buck - even if they think they are beyond that. they are kidding themselves.

we need to know who is 'safe' and why. burger king pulled their ads off sinclair and were one of the first to do it (that i heard) who else? (i loved watching their stock nose dive after that) the left does have power of consumerism. build a database of local orgs, progressive companies, etc.

the fastest way i could think of to 'humble' this administration, is to call for a world-wide boycott of all U.S. products. there is no distinction between govt and corporations now. humble the corporations and you humble this admin. let them become the plague. 'conservative' becomes a dirty word.

just looking around me, i can see that's not an easy thing to do.

i still would like to call for a world wide boycott of U.S. corporations. i have a hunch, it'll probably happen anyway - so might as well use the momentum.


4. this 'values' stuff is just more republican crap. there was no 'values' question on 2000 exit polls. everyone was blazing about Dem's sulking and rethinking 'values' - NONSENSE. did Kerry think it was worth campaigning on anti-gay marriage? NO. it wasn't honest, but bush did - so WHO'S GOT VALUES!!!

we need to learn the 'lemons to lemonade' approach that the republicans have seemed to have gotten WAY to confident doing.

5. let bush have his mandate, and well have our MISSION.
HOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS? that's where i think dems blew it. the government should be for the greater good of ALL it's citizens, not a few.

ever notice the slavery states are way too similar to the red states? since when does 'freedom of religion' mean we teach 'intelligent design', 'creationism' and school prayers? how did we LET them twist that around?

that is NOT for the greater good of all it's citizens - what is this neo-nazi, white supremacist, white - power bull as 'founding fathers'? i sorta consider native americans as 'founders'. i have no doubt they don't think 'latinos' belong. that's dividing and we can't let them get away with twisting the truth.

every time someone in the media (minus fox) skews a story, there needs to be a deluge of letters, calls, faxes, emails. columbia journalism offers media info, this site has media info, one letter can go to all of them.

they need to be embarrassed into doing their jobs. there needs to be an 'alert' header, when a an issue comes up, that needs letters. we need to participate, in addition to being informed and tithing.


5. I'd like to see a briefing on what the right is saying. that's part of being informed - make this a safe place to vent frustrations, develop effective arguments.

I'm not up on my copy write laws, but something needs to be done about 'a few' coming in here and taking private posts, publishing on their websites forever. i don't know if that means some legalenforcement, tighter restrictions (no lurkers) or what, but that needs to stop.

6. we need ELECTIONS THAT CAN MEET STANDARDS OF FAIR INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. the case can be argued, we aren't even a representational govt. that includes NON partisan over site.

7. START LOCALLY - make sure local 'progressive' candidates are elected and never, ever vote republican. that's a vote for bush's mandate. i don't think dems ever realized that before, or voted a straight party ticket. stop redistricting not in our benifit.

8. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES. why didn't the dems take up a collection to send body armour to iraq? they need to get 'free' publicity, learn how to use controvery to their advantage.

the momentum from loosing was a great opportunity for organizing and getting foundations going, republicans for kerry lined up, and keep it going. use the controversies.

i united 4 yrs ago and look what happened. it got worse. we need to keep talking about, not forgetting, not loosing our resolve, and not buying into the rhetoric. i've pretty much learned that no matter what republicans say, they mean the opposite.

9. stop letting taxes and liberal be dirty words or unmentionable. participate on the local level. get local canditates elected. run for office, even if it's school board.

the wealthy do have perks that low income doesn't. without those taxes, the wealthy are get those perks for free, and workers get to pick up the tab. most of this change happens 'under the radar' - through barely noticed regulations. make an effort to get unbiased info and let others know, when you do.

an example is corporations don't pay for super-fund cleanups, the wealthy don't, we do. there's tons of that stuff going on now.

10 - STAY CONNECTED - as much as bush would like us to believe we are a minority, we are a VERY BIG minority and i still believe, the Majority. so don't doubt it. don't let them bully you.

12. IF ALL ELSE FAILS, SUCCESSION. i don't think there's a specific law against it. maybe we can trade with their conservative party, i've heard they cause some troubles too.

[lgardengate]

191. Liberal,Left Wing. Centrist dosen't seem to work anyway

[KakistocracyHater]

192. Which direction?

Aggressively inclusive, forcibly linking what is obviously in common & keeping focus on those common goals. Clean air, safe drinking water, sustaining life on Earth; as an example: Louisiana. What has Mother Nature ever done for you? Well, if you're a crawdad hunter, back in the 1970s, maybe you bought a house, a truck, enjoyed the holidays with your family-all because Mother Nature had a wild place where you just went & hunted things. None of that troublesome, more intensive farming stuff. The Demo Party desperately needs to be complex enough to keep the short-term goals in sight & the long-term goals in mind, simultaneously.

[madmadmad]

195. embrace liberalism, equality and true democracy- EVERY VOTE COUNTS!

we have to make people realize that our values are moral values too. taking care of the poor, educating our children, providing every american with healthcare ARE ALL MORAL VALUES. higher income equals greater opportunity, but also greater responsibility to provide for those less fortunate- that's A MORAL VALUE. we can even quote jesus on that one.

we can embrace christians, sure, but NOT BIGOTS, which we all know that the majority of the christian right are. inclusivity is a good thing. bring everyone that feels that don't have a voice into the democratic party- the left, the fringe, the crazies- eveyone! we can do more with more people, and we know, that unlike the repugs, we CAN compromise for the greater good.

but none of this is important unless we get the electoral process straightened out. i think that a lot of people wil not vote next time, because they've seen, even when we turn out the vote- it just doesn't matter. so we need to fix the process so people once again think thier vote will count. this needs to be priority NUMBER ONE, or nothing else matters.

[Mutley]

199. We need to be

less concerned with how to beat the republicans and more concerned with what is right for everyone - democrats, republicans, and everyone in between. Many in this thread and others are right (in my opinion) when they say that Kerry was nominated because he was "electable" but he is not really a leader. I don't know if we should move right or left, all I know is that a major change is needed in our party.

[JT4]

201. I am a newbie......

I think we need to be more aggressive, but also attach ourselves to a candidate in '08 that is strong. I liked Kerry, but he didn't come across as a decisive leader. Middle-of-the-road is good if you are a white line.

[rniel]

202. Be patient

The pendulum will swing back as it passes you get a quick chance to jump on it and go for the ride.

[lurker5]

205. Since you asked.....

I think there are a few things we could do....

#1: Republicans keep their most extreme/idiotic supporters on talk radio(aka Rush Limbaugh) and late night cable tv(Dennis Miller) while we have ours directly in the public eye (aka Madonna/Michael Moore). Madonna/Moore may sway high-schoolers to our side, but we need people who actually vote.

#2: No more conspiracy theories! Instead of telling your impressionable, independent friends about how Bush knocked down the Twin Towers, you should have been telling them about how Kerry will fight to lower prescription drug prices and keep jobs at home.

#3: For all of you in Massachusetts, stop voting for Teddy Kennedy. For that matter any democrat who has drinking/babysitter issues past or present should be avoided, they do more harm then good. I know his name is Kennedy, but honestly.....

#4: Pick the right guy to run. Edwards would have won.....Kerry did not.

#5: The current strategy of knocking the "red states" needs to go. Making fun of them will not draw them to our side.

[flaminbats]

216. Is this supposed to be advise for us or you?

#1: Republicans keep their most extreme/idiotic supporters on talk radio(aka Rush Limbaugh) and late night cable tv(Dennis Miller) while we have ours directly in the public eye (aka Madonna/Michael Moore). Madonna/Moore may sway high-schoolers to our side, but we need people who actually vote....ohh yes and most people have cable now!

#2: No more conspiracy theories! Instead of telling your impressionable, independent friends about how Bush knocked down the Twin Towers, you should have been telling them about how Kerry will fight to lower prescription drug prices and keep jobs at home. Conspiracy theories? I have never heard a Democrat argue that Bush knocked down the towers, I've heard some strange right-wing theories about how the World Trade Center was conspiring with bin Laden.

#3: For all of you in Massachusetts, stop voting for Teddy Kennedy. For that matter any democrat who has drinking/babysitter issues past or present should be avoided, they do more harm then good. I know his name is Kennedy, but honestly..... but honestly what? Should we run someone who votes for every Bush policy? And if not for Kennedy-Kassabaum, how would health insurance be portable?

#4: Pick the right guy to run. Edwards would have won.....Kerry did not. Why nominate someone who can't win his home state? If Edwards had been the nominee, we wouldn't of won in North Carolina..or many of the blue states.

#5: The current strategy of knocking the "red states" needs to go. Making fun of them will not draw them to our side Knocking blue states works for them why not for us?

[jesusq]

207. Pro-gun, States Rights Progressive Party

Scrap the Democratic Party. Shitcan it. The Republicans have done an extraordinary job of demonizing democrats for the last 30+ years and the Dems have done nothing to counter the attack. Most dems can't even figure out how "liberal" became a dirty word. Face it, the brand is damaged goods. Dump it and never speak the word again.

Here is my solution. Create a new Progressive Party that is pro-gun and pro states rights. This new party would be opposed to NATIONAL GUN CONTROL, but Progressive Party members (on the state level only) could enact reasonable gun control measures as deemed appropriate in each state.

After all, why should someone living on 1,000 acres in Montana be restricted by the same gun laws as someone living in 400 square feet in Manhattan? A return to states rights makes sense, mostly because it would serve to preserve the rights us blue-staters hold dear, and the (repeal of civil) rights that Red-staters hold dear.

Abortion? Again, a state issue. Each state should hold a state referendum on the issue and get if out of national politics. Better that the pro-choice folks lose reproductive rights a few states in the south and midwest than all 50 states.

Gays? STATES RIGHTS. Perhaps the Blue States could offer some sort of political exile status to gays to encourage them to move away from Red America (instant in-state status at state universities, free marriage licenses for new resident gay couples, etc.).

Progressives would focus nationally is what Progressives do best. Social Security, the economy, jobs, environment and education. These are bread and butter issues with no "values" attached. BUT, what if the deep south states want to teach creationism in public schools? LET EM!!!

The New Progressive is so open minded that he/she is willing to allow the people of each state determine thier own cultural values and beliefs without judgement or comment. If the Red-states that ban civil unions, ban abortion, teach creationism and worship guns succeed or fail, it is their own device.

If the Blue States enact a socialized medicine cooperative amongst like-minded states, expand civil rights, reproductive rights, legalize pot and give gays the right to marry, succeed or fail (and at least 50% of all new ideas fail, so let's not get cocky), it is our own device.

Take away "moral values" and what do the Republicans have to run on?

National Security? That would no longer be a weakness because the new NATIONAL Progressives LOVE guns, (although progressives in the northeast and California generally favor some restrictions). The major difference is, PROGRESSIVES, as a matter of policy, don't go to war unless ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, because war is expensive and Progressives DON'T WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES.

Why didn't any of these genius democrats figure out this angle? WE DON'T WANT TO GO TO WAR (not because we are unpatriotic, French wimps, etc, but), BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO RAISE YOUR TAXES TO PAY FOR IT!

What do the republican have to run on??? NOTHING! What if John Kerry were able to credibly say in all three Presidential Debates, when asked about a moral issues, "That is an issue for each of the states to decide for themselves."

The RNC would be at a loss.

Who would be the leader of this Progressive Party? Howard Dean comes to mind, but he has become a whore for the machine lately, IMHO. The established names are afraid to "split" the party, which means they are unable to "reinvent" the party.

It comes down to a revolution. If you need leadership for a revolution, I am in, but like my hero Ernesto Guevarez, I am better at causing change than navigating it once it is underway. I am available for conversation, debate, hypothetical plans, firearm training and safety and instruction in motorcycle maintainence. I am not available for more of the same conservative jive BS

[I_Love_Oregon]

210. My 2 cents

More than anything else, IMHO, the way back to Pennsylvania Ave. lies in re-connecting with average Americans... Joe-sixpack yes, but also those vast tracks of suburbia that tend to get villified far too easily around here.

I know I'm new (2nd post), but I've been lurking around DU for some time now, and I have a pretty good feel for the vibe here.

The Democratic message is inherently strong, easy to understand, and compassionate. The "message" is certainly not the issue. The problem, quite frankly, is the attitude many on the Left have for "Middle American" values, and to be honest, this disdain is detectable by many non-political types, and it turns them off.

[Q]

211. I'd like to know...

..where you see this 'disdain' coming from? Since many on the left also live in 'middle America'...could it be a misperception on the part of the right? Could it be that the Bushie leadership is intentionally labeling the left in such a way? Is this an observation or are you writing from personal experience?

[I_Love_Oregon]

214. Hi Q

This is simply my opinion based on life experience, as well as my observation of the pulse of society.

I enjoy listening to as many voices as possible concerning the great issues of the day. Here in the Portland area, I can tune into KBOO Community radio, Air America, and NPR (and I do), as well as a multitude of voices and articles on the Right (and I do).

As for me, I'm in the middle... with a strong sense of libertarian, but with other influences as well.

I find listening to both sides greatly improves my overall sense of the forces driving political, social, and the cultural debates in America. I think it behooves us all do stay informed.. even if that simply means, in the timeless words of Lao Tsu, "know thy' enemy".

As for the disdain, I could point to DU as an example, but one should expect to find that here.. and the Right has its own on-line communities with similar disdain for the Left. The Right also has Michael Savage, but he kind of falls into his own little category. Nonetheless, I'll count him as a "Right-Wing bomb thrower". However, the disdain that comes from the Left is more insideous and raw, and it comes from both average joes who are my friends and accquantices, as well as from, say, the Universities. Both have worn away at a large block of the people in this country, and in my opinion, has hurt the cause for the advancement of the Democratic agenda.

[Laurab]

212. A more aggressive stance

would probably be the only thing that would help the Democratic party. Aggressive in the Kenneth Starr type way. I am encouraged by all the grassroots things that are popping up, but really, I don't believe that anything else would help the Democratic party. I believe the election was stolen, and I'm not sure anything can convince me otherwise. We have sat and watched our democracy stolen from us, and the only thing that's going to get it back is to fight against the lying, cheating, stealing republican machine. Who's to say the term limit will remain? Who's to say there will even be another election? God only knows what is going to happen in this "mandate", but I for one am terrified. I truly believe that only by going after Bush & Co, starting yesterday, will anything change. I'm hopeful that it's happening now somewhere under the radar.

[Razorback_Democrat]

213. Redefine the term "Liberal"!!!

What the hell is wrong with being a liberal?

I was doing phone calls for Kerry and I called a household where the woman said "I could never vote for him, he's too liberal", and I asked her, so "what's wrong with being a liberal?" and she had no answer.

Liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call us should start promoting the fact that every progressive law in this country was pushed for by liberals.

Conservatives, or "Regressives" as I read someone else say we should call the other side, by definition are for the status quo or reversing it.

On the other hand, if * gets his tax reform passed that includes provisions to eliminate the deductions for state and local taxes and to eliminate the deduction for employers to provide health insurance, then the public will be clamoring for change.

Just IMO

[Q]

217. Try asking them the definition of a liberal...

...Most people don't have an answer. They usually just accept whatever they're told about liberals without ever bothering to do the research and find out for themselves. Better yet...why don't they simply ask a liberal or progressive to explain it to them?