If you could vote to have a certain issue dropped from the Dem agenda...

[ecstatic]

Is there an issue (or group) that is somewhat or mainly associated with Democrats that you wish you could disassociate from our party?

[JohnKleeb]

1. How is PETA associated with democrats?

[ecstatic]

3. well, they're certainly not affiliated with Republicans! LOL nt

[JohnKleeb]

4. that doesn't make them associated with us

NAMBLA isn't associated with either party.

[Toucano]

15. I agree with you.

Let's let the Green Party have PETA and NAMBLA. :hi:

I'm just teasing, now!

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. They're Republicans

Of course most Republicans aren't child molestors either, but let the Freepers run with that one a while ;)

[Piperay]

27. Don't be so sure of that

I personally KNOW more repukes that are in PETA than Democrats!

[Stinky The Clown]

38. It doesn't matter if they're *formally* associated with Dems

They are certainly *perceived* as such.

So are the environmental terrorists who were so active a few years ago.

Just like all the upper Midwest militias and skinhead groups are *perceived* as being part of the Republicans.

[LimpingLib]

45. Yea animals just have so many advocates in our party.

Its not like the mega corperate farms cram a ton of pigs into stalls so small that they cant turn around.

Not like we let egotistical "breeders" and irresponsible jerks keep having litter after litter of puppys to the point that an endless amount gets put to death every years DESPITE many kind and generous people going bankrupt trying to rescue and feed an endless amount of animals that would otherwise get killed.

Not like we dont have laws that require people to go get a dog out of the death row before driving up demand for more litters by only getting a "cute little puppy" which will in a year be dumped once they get bigger , ahrder to take care of, more expensive, and less cute.

[Jackpine Radical]

128. People Eating Tasty Animals?

Sounds like a good Dem group to me.

[Runcible Spoon]

150. hardy har.

jeebus, that one NEVER gets stale, huh. :eyes:

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

2. Other...drop the Hilliary as president idea...

[BringEmOn]

5. Let go of your ankles and stand tall!

[gottaB]

6. millionaires

[DireStrike]

7. I voted gun control but want to change my vote to CORPORATE ASS-SUCKING!

I still think we need to calm down with the damn gun control. Frankly I've been considering buying one myself lately. A powerful one.

[against all enemies]

8. Come on 999, make 1,000 a good one.

[nickzen]

14. Gun control is killing us

I am not a hunter, nor do I have a gun in my home, but I do enjoy target shooting at a club. Gun owners registered to vote, do so about 95% of the time, and there are how many million of them. 2nd Amendment people are well organized and know the position of the candidates. Think not, ask Gore and Dashell if they wished they had the vote of the gun nuts in their last election? Pick any red state and it could be swung in any national election with the gun vote. The sad part of all this is that the criminals don't care a whit for what are well intentioned laws that affect only law abiding gun owners.

[Neoma]

19. It just needs to be changed not destroyed.

Its not Gun control thats the problem,its the bullet control (i guess)
but i do think certain military weapons and assault weapons should be banned. a regular gun for target practice or protection is fine.

[nickzen]

37. Oh, come now

Unfortunately that is not the position of our party, and its costing us elections. Your very reasonable position is quite at odds with the law here in Chicago, and in many other Democratic cities. It took the Republicans in the Illinois state assembly to over-ride Blago's veto of a bill to protect a person that shoots in self-defense from their municipality. None other than President Clinton said that Gore lost to the gun vote, and DUH 4 years later we do it to ourselves again. We are going to be along time repairing 4 more years of Bush, and for what? This was worth stopping the war, the Supremes, drilling in ANWR, the deficit, education, jobs, and a rational Homeland defense.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Gun control laws in cities is an excellent example of why

issues like gun control should be off the national agenda and ON the local agendas as appropriate.

I am all for gun control in cities. In fact, if pushed I would love to see outright gun bans - total and complete citizen gun ownership bans - in cities.

In the rural areas? Whole other issue. I think these are the kinds of things that should be left to local dems to campaign for. They have little value on the national scene.

On the other hand, issues like choice *are* national issues (IMHO).

[formernaderite]

42. Ever noticed they've tried that in DC?

And they still have more murders than any of the urban areas next door.

[spooky3]

82. and how many more murders would there be without gun control?

There needs to be careful review of the evidence rather than emotional decision making on these issues.

In DC's case, there are large areas of extreme poverty, poor public schools, a history of misadministration and poor use of funds for programs, and other factors that contribute to crime. There is an inadequate tax base for programs because there is no state to help or richer suburban areas to contribute (because they are contributing to Virginia and MD) and much of the real estate is tax free because it is occupied by the Federal government. Although current officials are working hard to address these problems, there is a long way to go.

[LiberalFighter]

110. In addition, there has been a reduction in the number of law enforcement

due to cutbacks by gw*

[LiberalFighter]

113. In addition, there has been a reduction in the number of law enforcement

due to cutbacks by gw*

USAToday -Police, fire departments see shortages across USA - 29 Nov 2004
Many big-city police departments such as Cleveland also are bleeding officers. Nationally, the number of police has remained stagnant in recent years, despite federal help from the Clinton-era COPS community-policing program, which spent $9 billion to help put 118,000 more officers on the streets. The Bush administration, which has emphasized training and says staffing levels should be largely a local responsibility, is phasing out the program.

Staffing problems are being felt coast to coast. New York City, with 23,000 police officers, has lost 1,000 a year for the past three years. Minneapolis cut 38 positions from its police force last year. The Oregon State Police laid off 129 troopers from its 600-member force. "It's almost completely budget-driven," says Gene Voegtlin of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

[nickzen]

143. Missed the essential point entirely

The COPS legislation as originally crafted by President Clinton was a 5 year federal augment to municipal budgets. It was meant to cover the high cost of training and turnover in the 1st five years, after which cities were expected to have budgeted for the out years. When we 1st saw the grant requests go in, we wondered where the out year money was going to come from? The answer, get while the gettin is good! So as much as I loathe Bush, it's not his fault, the mayors are to blame for poor budget skills.

[LiberalFighter]

108. Anybody know their history?? Like in the wild west?

If we go by the movies they had gun control back then... enter a town you had to leave your guns with the sheriff (wasn't in every town of course).

[cattleman22]

132. I disagree

Would you accept it if free speech was banned in cities but allowed in rural areas? To me, there is no difference between a person who wants to ban guns or ban free speech.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

165. Huge difference

most people in this country can't afford to own a gun. But all people in this country value free speech.

You sure a subtle-NOT! :eyes:

[nickzen]

157. Nice try, your record will follow you when you seek national office

and the result will be the same, unless you find some new undiscovered constituency. They need to vote more than 95% of the time, and on a single issue, and number in the millions. And while we are at it, how about a little backfilling on the union vote, FreeTrade is eroding that base as well. Oh yeah, I don't see any reason for coalition building either, seek consensus on things, nah things are just fine!

[Neoma]

65. Agreed!

[Ima]

67. Gore lost my area because of gun control.

Gun control will just take them from honest citizens. The crooks will still get them.

[Harry S Truman]

118. Gun issue kills us

It's not just the gun issue, but our lack of communication in the face of the NRA's info-tornado. Doing my own D politicking, I have personally spoken to hundreds of people over the last five years who have said "I voted for Bush because Gore/Kerry is going to take away my guns."
We have totally blown this issue because we are not up front telling these voters that no one is ever going to take their guns.

Gore started to say this too late in 2000, after W.Va.'s 4 electoral votes (that would've made Fla. moot!!!) came down to "my union or my gun" and my Mountain State friends voted for what they thought was keeping their gun. Kerry preferred the nuanced approach of the goose-hunting photo-op, which was good, but people on the NRA side of the gun issue need more clear, basic communication than that.

I asked a guy in central Pa., "Clinton was pres. for eight years. How many guns did you lose in that time??" He said "none." He thought about it. The man then voted for Kerry.

We can take the lead on this issue!!!!

[woodybsa]

31. very well put

[newyawker99]

88. Hi woodybsa!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[salin]

78. call me skeptical,

but how many folks really would change their vote - or would they just shift to someother hot button issue being echoed by rush/roveco.?

[greenohio]

89. I don't think gun control was even an issue in this campaign.

Nobody really talked about it. The assault weapons ban expired without a whimper.

[LiberalFighter]

107. 2nd amendment people do not know the position of the candidates

they only know what the NRA and others tell them.

All they hear is that candidate * is going to take our guns away and right away they will vote against the candidate.

[nickzen]

163. So a reasonable response would be?

nominate a candidate that has a voting record not calculated to alienate so many people, and we win. We can both have values and win, its not even hard, look at who we are running against. "It hurts when I do this, so stop doing it"

The NRA is less a factor than you think, it a rich guy elitist group, with alot of gun industry money. All it would take is a reasonable position on lawful gun ownership and you will find that most gun guys are blue inside.

[Q]

9. I see these 'what should we give up' to please the Republicans threads...

...all the time. But seldom do they ask what the Republicans should give up. Why is it that it's always the Democrats who must give up their principles?

[sendero]

12. What if...

... what we are talking about is giving up an unpopular position that is out of sync with the majority of voters.

Nominally, we still get elected or not elected by the voters, not "Republicans".

BTW - I voted for Gun Control, easily the most ruinous and foot-shooting position the Dem party generally takes.

[Q]

13. But the only reason anyone is considering throwing away a position...

...is because the opposition uses them as 'hot button' issues. And I may be wrong...but nearly all of the issues you list are Not out of 'sync' with a majority of Democrats. Thus...you're left with getting rid of issues that piss of either Republicans or conservative-leaning moderates.

We shouldn't have to 'give up' anything...just state our positions clearly and make sure the other side isn't allowed to distort them.

[sendero]

21. That is a good point...

... one some issues. I claim that on gun control we're well past that.

Folks on the "other" side of the issue are well convinced that any regulation you enact is merely a foot in the door to a ban on guns.

You may find that idea absurd, and you may think that by articulating a sensible modest set of restrictions, you will win hearts and minds, but I claim you'll never convince large numbers of people that you don't want to ban guns with the current strategy.

[Toucano]

26. You're hired!

I'll put you in charge of making "sure the other side isn't allowed to distort them."

Our actual positions aren't nearly as important as the distortions.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Seems like Moby Dick was a minnow when we started that tactic ....

and we're still 'splainin' our positions.

How about one overiding master position .... like maybe ... I dunno ... Common Sense?

I don't think any one in this entire thread is advocating taking a different position on these issues. Rather, it seems to me the advocacy is for simply ignoring for now what have been long standing losers for us. Some battles are best fought later .... like maybe when we have some power? Like maybe when the country gets its collective head out of its collective ass?

[Ima]

72. Q

"We shouldn't have to 'give up' anything...just state our positions clearly and make sure the other side isn't allowed to distort them"


Do you realize plenty of Democrats do not want gun control? They are dropping out of the party because of that one issue.


This is a fairly new issue, we did not used to be anti gun.

[Q]

85. Okay...but how many is 'plenty'?

I won't accept the premise that more than a few Dems are 'dropping out' because of that one issue. And if they are dropping out...could it be because those who now control the party don't have an interest in defending that issue?

The Democratic party isn't 'anti-gun'. They've been LABELED as anti-gun as a wedge issue by friends of the Republican party like the well-funded NRA. And it seems they even have many Dems believing it.

On the other hand...do you realize that many Dems and GOPers WANT some kind of gun control? Shouldn't the issue be determined on common sense instead sensationalism?

[Ima]

120. Look at all the red states

This gun control was not a Democratic issue years ago. It sould not be one now.

[RegexReader]

40. BINGO! We have a winner

If we keep compromising, what we will have stood for in the end? Nothing but a bunch of broken promises to those that believed and trusted us.


RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;

[imenja]

10. PETA is on the Democratic agenda?

I don't think so. They are a world unto themselves.
I've never heard it articulated by Democratic politicians. If that truly is part of the Dem agenda, it gets my vote.
If it's going to remain an issue, I'm going to start an organization to protect the rights of tomatoes and broccoli. They are life too.

[imenja]

11. Hollywood

Stop campaigning with movie starts. It contributes to the idea of Dem's as "cultural elites"--BS as far as I'm concerned, but it's a matter of image.

[Toucano]

16. I'm not gonna say your wrong,

but how many times have the Democrats offered a Hollywood person as a candidate?

How many times have the Republicans?

I don't think it hurts as much as it helps.

[imenja]

18. The Republicans get away with all kinds of stuff that hurts Dems

like Schwarzenegger's philandering. The problem with the stars is that contribute to the idea of the Dem's being cultural distant from the rest of the country. I know it sucks. I suppose it's part of the Rights domination of cable news, cause people like O'Reilly and Buchanan go on and on about it. I suppose the real solution is to start to take over news stations.

[Toucano]

23. There you go!

And the other real solution is to point out the "conventional wisdom" bull shit whenever we hear it.

The Dem's are "culturally distant" from the rest of the country is part of this, actually. No offense, but these stars -- Whoopi Goldberg, Streisand, Ben Affleck, Janet Jackson, Springsteen -- were made stars by the "rest of the country". Every $100 million movie gross is achieved by tickets sold in the heart(less)land. Violence, sex, humiliation. Give 'em what they want.

Our bigger problem is we don't lie as effectively as the right does. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

43. I do NOT wanna get in a pissing match about Hollywood stars

but seriously, look at the stars the repubs attract ... Ahnuld, John Wayner, the "red white and blue" country music stars, even Nascar .... the testosterone crowd, the lunkheads.

We get the stars who *think* and stars who *care*.

They get the Daddy stars, we get the Mommy stars. Sorry, but our stars generally play to the right's stereotypes of us.

[w4rma]

25. No. That's very poor strategy, imenja. Dems have a hard enough time

getting media coverage from the corporate media as it is. Giving up one of the reasons that big media covers Dems is a BAD IDEA.

Repugs make hay about that because they are jealous, not because they really care. They have to come up with some reason that popular actors don't tend to support Repugs. You want to talk about cultural elite, take a look at all the ultra-wealthy CEOs that support Repugs and not Dems.

[welshTerrier2]

17. the most important one: Appeasing republicans

democrats have got to become a real opposition party ... it's not a left or right issue ... we need to be combative ...

when we blur the line between the two major parties, the incumbent party will win every time ... the problem isn't our policies; the problem is that we don't draw clear lines in the sand (e.g. the sand in Iraq) and then fight for our beliefs ...

[donheld]

20. Gun Control

i really believe guns do not kill people. People kill people. We may need all the guns we can get to rid ourselves of the fascists.

[greenohio]

90. Wow the NRA has joined DU!

That was right out of their playbook. Do you think people need automatic weapons and grenade launchers?

[nickzen]

100. I can't be DU and NRA?

Shocking, Democrats that own guns and have more than a passing concern for the 2nd Amendment And No, they don't need machine guns and women don't need abortions. It's a matter of choice, the free exercise of human law. There are how many 100,000 legal full auto machine guns here, and they are almost never used in a crime. They cost thousands and are very well secured. One-shots or semi-auto can be purchased anywhere and are used in crime by people we keep letting out of jail. Not many 1st time offender blasting away with AK's. I fully support your reproductive rights, sexual preferences, hell even Rev AL is growing on me, now how about a little quid pro quo?

[greenohio]

102. Welcome to DU?

Awfully new to pushing for dropping Democratic issues.

Even abortion has regulations on how it can be administered. NRA types are against even the most reasonable restrictions, like a ban on assault weapons. Are you against ALL restrictions on firearms?

[nickzen]

121. Does 30 years as a registered Democrat count as new

No I am not against ALL restrictions, I'm not even against reasonable restrictions. The gun crime I see at work is ALL handguns with the rare knife thrown in. So your assault weapons ban will have what positive affect in the community, almost none according to the ATF, and my personal experience. You can't ban handguns, they are used by single women, the elderly, and homeowners, to protect their lives in desperate circumstances in high crime communities. We don't look very hard to find the shooter, when gang-o wont cop to how he was shot, it comes on the wind that he was stealing or worse in a day or so. The Party being down with the base, so to speak, understands all this.

So we have lost 2 in row, no reason to listen to new voices. I'm not the least offended that my Party has been taken over by zealots, hellbent on ruin. Please do let unbridled idealism trample the tiny voice of pragmatism. See that big, long line up on top, I'm just a little piece of it. And the damnedest thing is we probably have 98% commonality on beliefs. And I unlike you, respect your right to differ and still be Democrats.

[greenohio]

138. Your 30 years Dem, but a new voice.

If you aren't against all restrictions, then you are for gun control (whether that is banning weapons class, or background checks.)

[nickzen]

154. Yup, a new voice, but now I have a gold star, so proud

Yeah Green, logically your right, but give the old hot button a couple of pokes, and see if it don't cost us votes aplenty. Gun ownership is kind of like religion, it's a very deeply held feeling by many. It links generations as a male bond, fathers hand down their 1st rifle to their sons. It involves rites of passage, for some the hunt, others the protection of the home and family. I often wonder how many rape survivors buy a gun as a cathartic experience?

So anyway if the Party were to approach this in a more sensitive manner, with an eye toward consensus, we could win. With just a bit of empathy it should be obvious, that we shouldn't be screwing with this powerful mojo. Forcing gun control with gun owners, is no different than the Confederate flag with African-Americans, the severity of the offense is in the eye of the beholder.

[greenohio]

155. I believe that dropping issues for expediency

is a bad plan. First it tells all of your other issue supporters that they may be next, depending on the coming election. The same logic you site... of deep help beliefs and what not, could be applied to abortion, gay marriage, or others. Some believe based on the values polls that we should be dropping those.

I really think it is a bad plan in general.

[nickzen]

161. I must live in a parallel universe

because I believe in all those values, as do most I know. But I don't know anybody, except DU folks and Kerry, that hold gun control as a core value, something worth losing an election for. It strikes me as elitist at its very core, go into any gun shop, look at the clientele, there Democrats. At some point in time, the next candidate will have to do the math, scratch their head, and decide "screw em" it's costing me millions of votes. We're supposed to be the Party of the people, why are we taking as a core value a position opposed by so many that should be in our party, AND TO WHAT GAIN. The gun laws have accomplished nothing, except to make it harder for honest people to buy a gun. Gang-o has no problem. So what chu gonna do

[MrBenchley]

135. You will notice that most of the trigger-happy

harbor this peculiar fantasy about plugging their fellow citizens in some glorious revolution. After years of listening to gun rights loonies, I've decided it's because even they know their arguments are horseshit.

[bklyncowgirl]

22. Unconditional support for free trade nt

[Toucano]

24. That's not part of the Democratic Party platform.

Nice try, though. :hi:

[Leilani]

28. Gun Control & not because I think we should be appeasers

but I just think the Dems are wrong on this issue.

I believe the 2nd Amendment provides a pretty strong case for letting citizens be armed against a tyrannical govt.

And it's a personal privacy issue & personal rights issue.

[woodybsa]

33. thats absolutely correct

the last check in the checks and balance system is the people. what can the people do without a way to defend themselves against a tyrant. the first item of business in a despots agenda is to disarm the public.

[Ima]

68. Thats exactly correct!

The Democrats didn't used to be anti gun.....when did it start? Who started it? Why? This has been in recent years.

[Zynx]

36. Correct. The left-wing stance on gun control is simply wrong.

Most gun owners are responsible, decent people and those on the loony left don't understand that.

[Cats Against Frist]

148. Thank you -- thank you

It's not about appeasement, at all, but Constitutional clarity -- Right now, the GOPTARDS have the tenth and second amendments, and we have all the rest -- this could give us the second, too -- and I'd be willing to support federalism, and let the red states rot in shit. And sorry for those blues who live in reds -- move. Nothing says we all have to be one national consciousness -- in fact, it IS precisely the idea of national consciousness that has chained us to the TV and corporations, and shut down local retailers and moved our jobs over to Bangalore. We should go regional, and concentrate on buying and producing goods for ourselves.

[PrisonerLazy8]

29. Other. Stop the attack on snowmobilers

Winter is long enough without having to fight every day to keep our trails open. I'm tired of seeing "Snowmobilers for Bush" stickers on the trucks of buddies that had voted Dem all their life until their trails started getting closed by narrow minded snowmobile haters with political clout.

In 2008 I expect to see snowmobilers courted by the Democratic party. There are over 7 million avid snowmobilers in America.

[Runcible Spoon]

59. are you serious??!!!

people who vote solely on the issue of whether they get to pollute out national parks with their selfish, noisy contraptions deserve Bush. They'll learn the meaning of irony when Bushco sells out the parks to logging outfits, oil speculators, etc. Soon there won't BE land to enjoy. This is what I would tell the idiot whose main issue was snowmobiling.

[ecstatic]

83. LMAO! nt

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

97. If someone seriously voted for Bush because...

they thought he'd keep their poor widdle snowmobile trails open, then THEY'RE TOO STUPID TO VOTE.
That has to be the most ridiculous "one issue voter" I've ever heard of, and I'm sure they're out there. The idiocy of some out there amazes me sometimes.

[orpupilofnature57]

30. FUCK IT CAUSE I'D WANT BEN, TOMMY, GEORGE AND JOHN

To know one group remained true to the idea that,liberty and freedom are the reason for our country.

[sonicx]

32. Gun Control is fine with me...

(giving it up that is)

[Bush was AWOL]

34. Gun Control

[Zynx]

35. Gun Control first, but we must refine our stance on abortion.

Our stance on abortion is not a majority stance. Most Americans are not enthusiastically pro-choice like many on this board are. Our aim should be to reduce the number of abortions by two thirds in the next ten years.

[fujiyama]

46. We have to explain our pro choice stance better

We have posed it as a freedom/civil liberties issue, which may be true but doesn't appeal well enough.

I don't think we need to change our stance one bit, but we need to explain WHY we are pro choice - and ironically being pro choice IS the best way to decrease the number of abortions. Clinton's safe, legal, and rare was the way to go. If abortions are not available in a safe and regulated environment they will happen in back alleys or we will have instances like where a pregnant girl had her bf hit her stomach with a baseball bat.

Also we need to take on the religious right on this issue. People have to be reminded that how outrageous their stance is - like in opposing birth control - which is one way to reduce the number of abortions.

One of the problems is that the society is so puritanical and we can't discuss sex freely - and instead rely on such idiotic programs like "abstinence only" education. If people aren't educated about contraceptives and birth control, abortions are more likely to occur.

If we stress the idiocity of the RR and are more active in promoting adoption (I think Hillary Clinton was big on this earlier), we may have a better chance.

Then again, if people are brain dead and don't look at things logically - and they certainly didn't with regard to the war in Iraq, then it may not make even the slightest difference.

As for which issue can be dropped easiest - that of course would be gun control. The current position simply is inconsistent with what I would consider a pro civil liberties platform.

But I'm cynical and don't think any of this will be enough. I'm afraid too many have drunk way too much kool aid already.

[LimpingLib]

47. Civil liberties issue?

Yea , every opportunistic schmuck who runs for any kind of Democratic nomination takes a pro civil liberty position?

I must have missed that in my expierence of watching local , state , and national Democratic primarys.

I do know that they take a stance on ONE civil liberty issue , abortion , and it always goes something like "Im personnaly opposed to abortion but...bla bla bla" abortion abortion abortion. Then all the fetus freaks in our party (who couldnt give a flip about the other 1 trillion civil rights already gone or at risk)shut up and take their bone.

"freedom/civil liberties" is a none issue or way on the back burner. If not for the horrid Orwellian Patriot Act then there wouldnt even be a few candidates here and there paying the "we need to change SOME parts" lip service to the few civil libertarians left in our party.


I guess our party is now too "pro civil libertys" now? Funny , I thought all voters ever heard was "abortion abortion abortion" from our nominees and not a word hardly about civil libertys. Infact due to the total lack of any mention of civil liberty violations (historicaly we havnt had rights to be sure , but starting with Vietnam we HAD opportunitys to create movements) from our candidates I bet most voters (who havnt be come for YET)dont even know there are any civil libertys to worry about aside from abortion.

[fujiyama]

49. I actually don't disagree with you

I'm just as disgusted and outraged by the PATRIOT Act and the invasions of privacy and deterioration of our civil liberties over the last decade or so...and I'm just as disgusted and disappointed that Dems rolled over on that issue.

I wish the PATRIOT Act and other civil liberties were mentioned nearly enough as abortion. Unfortunately too many people in this country are brain dead and believe the PATRIOT Act is necessary to catch terrorists and that the "babykillers" don't want to catch them.

[mattclearing]

66. Funny, but...

Isn't that exactly what Kerry did? He unequivocally stated in the second debate that it was a Constitutional right as defined in Roe V. Wade, even if Dubya didn't understand it at the time.

Clinton said, "Safe, Legal, and Rare." I still don't see what the problem with that is. Abortion is horrible. Most people agree on that. The only thing worse is the lives of parents and children who aren't ready to become families.

Every girl I've known who has had an abortion has had their doubts, and their regrets. However, none of them seemed ready to be mothers, and none of them were willing to give up their lives to become mothers. I'm not willing to pass judgment on them.

I still think that option should be available, even if I feel like I could never be a party to it without some serious reservations.

And I am glad that the Democratic Party fights for it.

[American Tragedy]

92. I don't see what is wrong with appealing to individual freedom

It was a good enough basis for argument for Goldwater. In fact, I don't think that the Democratic party appeals to civil liberties nearly enough.

"I... believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right." - Barry Goldwater

[Runcible Spoon]

60. the only realistic way to reduce abortions

is to have sensible sex ed and birth control widely available. You tell me whether or not this is a "losing" issue. Rethugs don't give a shit if abortions go down or not. They have discovered a divisive issue to milk. If your only aim is to pander to the anti-choice "majority" (and I'm not entirely convinced the majority is anti-choice), then the only thing to do is advocate stricter laws, which means restricting freedom for women. Sorry, I won't sell out that one. Gun control, yes, I'll budge a bit in either direction, but gay rights, women's rights, CIVIL RIGHTS are too important.

[Zynx]

76. However, we shouldn't push our cultural issues in everybody's face.

If we do that during a campaign, you're just asking for an asswhopping. Be pragmatic. How is it not as powerful to achieve equality quietly, but surely while in office as it is to campaign strongly on it. You have to win in order to get our agenda and I wish the far left would recognize that. We are not going to convince Americans that our positions are correct during the course of a campaign. We must win first.

[Runcible Spoon]

151. I'm sorry, but I see these as CIVIL RIGHTS issues, not "cultural"

and letting the Right define "cultural" issues is letting them frame the discourse.

[robbedvoter]

44. Other. Dropping issues from the Dem agenda. ARE YOU NUTZ?

How about we drop everything YOU care for?
What was that story - first they came for the communists. I said nothing, because I wasn't one. Then they came for the trade unions and I said nothing - it wasn't me. Then they came for the Jews and I said nothing.
Finally, they came for me and no one said anything - because there was no one left.

And so go the Vichy Democrats.

[Senator Lamb]

48. my take

drop gun control as much as possible
embrace faith base iniatives
remain pro-choice but come up with a coherent pro-active, agressive strategy to help limit the need for abortions.

[robbedvoter]

52. Your take is giving in. We were robbed, We won. Why change ourselves

and not the election system?

[Senator Lamb]

57. well....

i know we won in 2000, not so sure in 2004, but the fact that its too close, and we are losing entire regions, and we dont have the congress. gun rights has been eroding, even howard dean is pragmatic with guns. as far as abortion, keep it legal, but unlike the GOP who uses to wage cultural war, lets think of ways to keep it legal but minimize it. since i dont think abstinence education works, i suggest some other suggestion.

[robbedvoter]

58. I know, you want so much to throw stuff overboard, it's inconvenient

to accept we won. But we did.

[WithStamina]

50. Taxes, taxes, DEFICIT

Become the true fiscal conservatives. Bush has put the deficit through the roof. Propose a new, balanced budget that does *not* hike taxes to an extreme amount. Alienated conservatives will come over to this side. This is coming from a former Bush supporter. After 9/11, I was a huge fan of Bush. I thought that he was a strong leader who was taking America in the right direction. After more probing, his fiscal choices scare me. However, I'm not completely convinced that the Democrat party is a viable alternative to Bush's spending frenzy. If they prove that they are, they'll win elections no problem.

[LimpingLib]

53. That would require us to take on corperations and the military industry.

Thats where all our spending is , in the form of subsidies , tax loopholes , corperate welfare , etc. and then military ,prison , CIA, FBI ,homeland "security" , etc.

Heck if we just told the truth about where the income tax revenue is spent on then we could propose across the board spending cuts that only hurts right wing interests.

Not THIS Democratic party sir.

[robbedvoter]

54. We already were the fiscal conservatives. We won. No need to become

them. On anything.

[robbedvoter]

55. Let's drop rolling over stolen election. Change the voting process

rather than who we are.

[MelanieArt]

125. I agree with everything you've posted here, Robbedvoter.

Very well put. It's the voting process that is flawed, not the Democratic party's "values". The Republican party has a similar mixed reputation among moderates, Dems are just more sensitive to how others see us and are more willing to bend over backwards to please. If anything needs to change it's the way so many of us are willing to change our values just to gain votes. Who can respect that?

In my opinion, the Democratic party is the party of tolerence towards those who just want to live their lives the best way they can without being trampled by those who would do them harm to further their own agendas. Do we need more than that? By refusing to associate with those who might "tarnish our image" we totally demolish all that this party stands for.

We don't promise anyone laws based on their personal agendas, liberal or not. We promise everyone a voice and consideration and respect. We are the party that embraces people for who they are, and helps them to help themselves. That is an ambition to respect, and what brings people to the Dem party. Shunning those who aren't "popular" will ruin the Democratic party. If we do that, we become hypocrites, and we become a paler, weaker version of the Republican party.

Please, my fellow Democrats, don't do that to us.

[Sugarbleus]

56. #9 a few

*Stop asking to have the word "god" removed from old documents and buildings,coins, and songs/pledge etc. It freaks believers out. (though I'm still against prayer in school and creationism)

Hey, let's allow all the "religious"/non religious holidays do their thing.. Nativities, Kwanza, Hanukka, whatever else...think of the fun we could have partying with all these different groups during their celebrations. ;)

*Drop some of the more radical/militant elements of the Enviro movement and use common sense in terms of growth and industry.

*Let the gun control issue rest awhile.

Um, I forgot what the other catagories were...Just my opinion.

[Runcible Spoon]

62. ummm show me ANYWHERE "radical" environmentalists

have made any serious inroads in the democratic party??!! The most "radical" action I've seen of late from Democrats is the blocking of ANWR drilling, which was noble but barely more than a gesture. If that is seriously your definition of radical, then nobody "speaks for the trees, for the trees have no tongues", I guess the trees don't vote so fuck 'em, right?

[Ima]

73. Your darn right!

And I'm sick of Dems getting a bum rap because of them.

[Sugarbleus]

160. Reactionary drivel....so typical...no hostility eh?

No dialog.......just attack

[Runcible Spoon]

164. Well now, two can play at that game...

so give me a detailed discussion, starting with the definition of "extremist". Now, I want you to give me at least 3 examples of environmental extremism in the democratic agenda, with links. Now, I want to see polls reflecting what percentage of Americans think environmental extremism on the Democratic platform makes them vote Republican. I just love how your first post had absolutely no substance, yet you call mine "reactionary drivel". I'll be awaiting your assuredly well-researched and thorough response.
:eyes:

[I_Love_Oregon]

61. something to pick up

School Choice is an issue that falls naturally into the Democratic camp. The school unions are holding us back on this one.

[DemBones DemBones]

69. So we should smack down the union? So what

if union membership as a whole is way down? So what if income across the board goes down when union membership goes down? So what is unions are good for people?

[nickzen]

103. Unions, we don't need no stinkin unions we are FreeTrade

Yo Brother, As a union man, the 1st thing I looked for was a Union forum on a Democratic website. Nada, go figure, kinda like our party, just mail us your money, or else.

[intheflow]

63. Other.

The Dems have to stop whoring themselves out to business like the Repukes do. In some ways, the Clinton years did us in because we got too cozy with big business, putting profits before people. I want a party that works on behalf of all the voiceless people in America--"the least among us."

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

64. The gun-control crew, and PETA.

I've never been a big gun-control person myself.

[Ima]

70. peta isn't Democrats.

[Zynx]

81. He means that group should be quiet in the election season.

When they are out there making the assoiciation between PETA and liberal candidates, that turns a lot of people off.

[Runcible Spoon]

152. Fine. You get the industrial agriculture lobbies to shut up

during elections and I'll do what I can to shut up PETA. PETA! PETA! PETA is the DEVIL!!!!!!! Sitting around debating the menace of PETA is ridiculous.

[ever_green]

71. Gun control. If the government can have guns, so should we.

We need a way to protect ourselves from the government.

[Must_B_Free]

74. I vote for Abortion

I don't have a good solution; its a lose-lose issue, but it is killing us politically. The idea that we support anything other than a culture of encouraging potential life is out of step with progressive humanism. Technology may make it a moot issue - of the fetus could be grown outside the host, it could be removed to grow.

[Runcible Spoon]

75. I guess when that happens women will be completely

irrelevant in the neocon world....all fat white corporate pigs cloning each other :scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

[Bush was AWOL]

93. Majority of Americans want Roe Upheld

The problem is that we hide from it. Democrats need to explain why it is necessary, and what things were like for women pre-Roe.

[greenohio]

111. I am surprised that abortion got any votes.

Are you saying that you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned?

[hollowdweller]

77. Gun Control turned WV from Blue to Red

Ever since Clinton proved the Republicans right by passing Brady and AWB our state, which the Democrat policies have helped in every other way have voted their guns instead of their wallet.

[Bridget Burke]

79. What a great way to "out" all the Republicans!

I congratulate you.

[Zynx]

80. You really don't want to win, do you?

If you kick out everybody who wants one of these positions changed, you are going to have a party that gets 25-30% of the vote and will only win DC. Oh sure, you'll have purity, but you'll give the Republicans the majority for the next century at least. Democrats are much larger than abortion or gun control. We are about equality of opportunity economically and socially. That is our core. If it has become a litmus test on whether or not you are liberal on every single one of these cultural issues, then a lot of people are not Democrats.

[gottaB]

84. "larger than abortion or gun control"

Democratic positions on abortion and gun control are not unpopular. A majority of the public feels that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, and a majority support gun control, including the assault weapons ban. (see http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm ). However, a majority of the electorate chose Bush/Cheney over Kerry/Edwards. The relationship between issue positions and electoral success is anything but straightforward.

[Bridget Burke]

98. Women's rights are nothing, as long as they have their guns.

For a certain minority. I'm not enough of a Freudian to go into the symbolism.

[nickzen]

106. Nothing could be more untrue

The greatest majority of us are loving husbands and caring fathers to our daughters. I am a fireman and care for all of the women in my community with kindness and RESPECT. I seen to many rapes on duty to ever let anyone argue that Choice is ever a choice. We understand their faith, but this about much more than that. Please stop with the misogynist stick, and the penis envy thing, it hurt our feeling.

[gottaB]

122. "castration anxiety" is the term that describes what you have in mind

It is extremely relevant if it helps explain why many men fear voting for Democrats even though they largely agree with Democrats on the issues, including issues of gun control.

How is it that spectre of the Democratic gungrabber is more influential than actual positions on matters of public policy?

Can the nexus of abortion and gun politics be explained without reference to vagina dentata? Sure, but why sidestep an insight? Consider this passage from Carroll Smith-Rosenberg's The Abortion Movement and the AMA, 1850-1880:

The role played by mass-circulation newspapers only grew in complexity. Not only did abortion advertisements dot their pages; newspaper editors, in their battle for increased circulations, transformed abortion into sensationalist news. The New York Police Gazette, in particular, turned abortion into a scare issue. Women, its headlines cried, had begun to disappear from respectable homes. What had happened to them? Why did their husbands not lead in the search for their whereabouts? Abortionists, the Gazette claimed, sold the bodies of aborted babies to medical schools for experimentation. Would the affronts to Christian decency never cease? The discovery of the bodies of two women who had died in Boston from abortions heightened the tone of hysteria. The Gazette always focused on urban examples, usually involving well-to-do women. One front-page illustration showed a fashionably dressed and attractive woman whose arms were transformed into devil’s wings. From her pelvis emerged a devil’s head with fang teeth gnawing on a plump baby.

This illustration is critical for understanding the early manifestation of anti-abortion rhetoric and imagery. On their cover, the editors of the Police Gazette had created a dense composite symbol. First, their illustration had invested the image of the new and affluent bourgeois woman with psychologically primitive male fears of the aborting mother and with the even more primitive male dread of vagina dentata. It had then merged this sexually cathected and dangerous female figure with the problematic issue of commercialized abortion and hence with the urban economy itself. The result was a new male metaphoric language. Commercialized abortion symbolized commercialization, the unnatural woman, an unnatural world.

Let us carefully examine the construction of this mythic discourse. Their picture first associated abortion exclusively with women, and, most significantly, with the bourgeois matron, portraying her not as an oppressed and abandoned victim (the female vision, as, for example, in the rhetoric of the Female Moral Reform Society) but as an unnatural and monstrous woman, lethal to men and babies alike. The aborting woman, not the complicitous husband or the deceiving male lover, became, in the male-controlled mass-circulation literature of the 1840s and 1850s, the dangerous and destructive figure. The papers then refined the well-dressed and unnatural female aborter into a metaphor for the commercialized city itself. She was urbane, she was affluent. She rejected God’s and nature’s command that she bear and multiply. She, not the men in her life, threatened social order and the future well-being of the race.

The editors of the Police Gazette and of other sensationalist newspapers had creaed a metaphoric language that expressed in a psychologically covert and distorted manner the many alarms that beset the new men of the new cities: their uncertainty concerning the new bourgeois matron herself; the sexual demands and restraints birth-control practices had suddenly placed upon them; the fears abortion may always induce in men; and, far more generally, the fears of the uncontrollable and irrational new world. All these concerns constituted but fragments of a disturbing whole. Furthermore, by making the bourgeois wife, not the bourgeois husband, responsible for the evils of spiraling abortion, they displaced responsibility for everything the abortion symbol represented – family limitation, the industrial cities, the bourgeois revolution itself – from themselves onto the women in their lives.

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=89570

[nickzen]

126. You make a very good point

All joking aside, its penis envy when I gaze longingly at my buddies big rifle. Its castration anxiety we feel when we are confronted with gun bans that effect us at a very visceral level as men. The tremendous cultural dislocation for men, associated with the positive social changes in the last generation, leave some of us little refuge or outlet for very deep seated issues of dominance. You are more than a little right gottaB, but how does emasculating me make things any better? Its not enough to hold us up as objects of scorn and ridicule, we need to have our boy toys taken away from us. For what, Sarah Brady's rage against a lunatic, we don't let the survivors sentence killers, so why us?

Going to have to get a blowup of that picture of Diane Feinstien and the girls, with blood in her eye and her finger on the trigger of an AK47. Castration issues, you may be more right than you think. Thank you

[blindpig]

131. boy, did you ever nail it

this thread is as creepy as the secession threads we so love.

[ecstatic]

86. I think we can remain for most of the things BUT

we have to do a lot of work in changing the way we are perceived. For instance, we can't let them label us as the party of the "baby killers." Most Dems are pro choice, but that doesn't mean we're all out here getting abortions left and right. Also, it makes many of us uncomfortable to hear fringe elements advocating abortion up until the baby's due date (yes, I know, it is rarely done and only for the health of the mother).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the majority of voters feel a certain way, we can't come across as "shoving" a certain philosophy, legislation, or lifestyle down the public's throat. Specific dem politicians should run on issues dealing with the economy while appearing to be in step with the American public on hot button issues. Dubya does this quite well. How? By not directly answering the controversial questions... When we regain power---THAT is when we can quietly push our legislation through, sort of the way Bush is *quietly* doing now.

[ecstatic]

87. I honestly though Affirmative Action would take more of a beating

It is great to see that most DUers are not willing to compromise civil rights. I do believe, however, that institutional racism is a growing factor in why some Americans vote the way they do.

[greenohio]

91. Gun Control? Gun Control WASN'T an issue and we lost!

I cannot believe that people at DU all of sudden have changed their mind and now think gun control is expendable. Look people, gun control wasn't even an ISSUE in this campaign. Kerry barely made a whimper about the weapons ban elapsing. Lets jettison a belief "just because". If you have to drop something, drop something that was a major issue in this election. Learn, don't repeat.

[nickzen]

112. Oh, but it was, we're just not in touch with other undergrounds

The second thing I do everyday after checking my email, is say Hi to my Spanish rifle friends on-line. All the gun boards were flaming for months with Kerry's lifetime voting record on gun control, by the way 100% against guns. I don't care if you hunt, fish, like Nascar, or are a shooter or keep a weapon for personal protection, if you were on-line on any of hundreds of high bandwidth guy site, Kerry was getting roasted alive for his gun control positions. 4 years ago it was the same thing for Gore. Went to a gun show in Louisville middle Oct, 25K people a day, not a single Kerry sticker that I saw and I was looking. These were all people I would think of as Democrats if I were running for election. Just hardworking blue collar family men with their sons. Hell, you cant contain your contempt for us here, how do you think it plays in Peoria?

[greenohio]

140. Welcome to DU

Wow lots of new people joining. Apparently they like guns. Anecdotal evidence does not a trend make.

[nickzen]

158. Thank you Green

I didn't think Bush would win, after he did I started to poke around to see why and ended up here. So we can ponder together, wont change a thing in my opinion. I would not call Bill Clinton statement that Gore lost to the gun vote, anecdotal. Our response 4 years later, run a candidate with an even worse gun control record. Well at least we made it through the election without hating our fellow man, unlike some. The level of rancor here, makes the gun guys seem like kittens.

[Ima]

117. yes he did

On TV Kerry said he would get the weapons ban back. My station played that news clip several times.

[greenohio]

141. How many speeches did he mention it in?

[TnDem]

133. gun control

If you think gun control was not an issue in this election, then that just shows how out of touch that you are with the issue.

Let me explain to you how this works. John Kerry and his supporters think that by posing with a shotgun and a dead goose that he is then inoculated from the gun issue. Here's a clue to all hardcore gunbanning liberals:

"HUNTING" AND SIMPLY ADVOCATING HUNTING DOESN"T MEAN SQUAT TO 85% OF ALL GUN OWNERS.

Gun owners are inherently distrustful of people like John Kerry especially when advocacy groups present voters with their voting history. For anyone that thinks that this issue was not on rural folks minds...Read S.B 1431 that Mr. Kerry sponsored this last session. If passed it would have been the most Draconian gun law to ever have hit the books. The NRA made voters aware of the specifics of the bill, what it said and who advocated its passage, (in this case John Kerry). The Kerry and Gore methods of thinking,(in their minds), that by doing some hunting, that they are safe from the "anti-gun" label, shows their lack of understanding of the gun culture and rural and some suburban voters. They are RABID in their defense of their right to keep their guns. Many people DO NOT HUNT. These people may collect guns, like to target shoot, combat shoot, plink, trade, be amateur military historians, be an advocate of self defense, etc, etc..

Many, many thousands of voters don't give a damn about hunting, but love guns. Right away when they see Kerry hauling a goose out of the woods in his new camouflage, they think, "Fake bullshit, he's trying to look like one of us, but he's far from it". Show me a Democrat that likes shooting and talking about his H&K MP5 and has a Senate record to back it up, and I'll show you a Democrat that will cut DEEPLY into the Republican ranks during an election.

When northeastern and California liberals can stop attempting to read rural voter's minds, then the issue can be resolved.

Here's the key to winning the white house. Shut the Hell up about guns PERIOD. The party should disown the issue nationally and thoroughly discourage anyone with the shitty record,(like Kerry's), on guns from winning the nomination. Shut the Hell up about "reasonable restrictions". That may sound moderate to some. Most rural people here that and say "bye-bye".

Drop gun control totally and if you don't agree, then at least STFU about it, or I can promise you that we will lose more and more of the elections. Every election, more and more gun owners realize that Democrats= gun control. The more that realize that, we will NEVER get those people back.

Take it from me, I have saw this happening over the last 20 years and I have been screaming for someone to listen, but all the while, liberal people keep thinking that they mean well by moderating their tone with "reasonable restrictions". It's a loser folks, trust me.

[cattleman22]

139. Well said. n/t

[greenohio]

144. Welcome to DU

We did not lose because John Kerry supported gun control. Anecdotal and other points aside. To even imply that gun control was a major issue in this campaign, is just horse hockey.

[cattleman22]

134. Rural urban divide

Wether the media picks up on it or not, gun control is ALWAYS a big issue in rural areas and among people who value the Constitution.

[MrBenchley]

136. And you'll notice

that it didn't stop the "They're going to take our guns!" crowd from lying their ass off about Kerry anyway.

But then the hardcore gun rights crowd hates blacks, Jews, minorities, gays and uppity women as much as they love their little phallic toys. They haven't voted Democratic since Strom left the party.

[cattleman22]

142. "little phallic toys."

And you just showed why so many rural people think of democrats as condescending liberal elites? Do you enjoy losing Presidential elections?

[MrBenchley]

146. Hand me another laugh....

"you just showed why so many rural people think of democrats as condescending liberal elites?"
And why so many urban or intelligent people think of gun crazies with such derision.

"Do you enjoy losing Presidential elections?"
Hey, if all you want to do is win at whatever cost to anything else, the GOP will be happy to take you.

[Rockerdem]

94. Other -- I feel a little bit filthy for saying this . . .

. . . because it has been such a good political club over the years. But if both parties decided to join to raise the SS retirement age a little higher, I would have no problem. In fact, it seems to be the progressive thing to do. The mark of being progressive is being intelligent and flexible enough to change with the times. And face it -- people are living better and older now.

That little move would cure about 95% of the SS problems, and free up other tax funds to go to other good causes like hunger or the environment.

[Bridget Burke]

96. No, remove the FICA salary cap.

Let those who make more continue to pay more. That would supply plenty of funds without making so many who've hoped to retire change their plans.

[nickzen]

114. See Bridget we agree on most things

I think a means test might be more equitable. How about anyone with less than 50K in retirement income, is eligible on a sliding scale down to whatever a locked and then fully funded Social Security trust can pay?

[Bridget Burke]

119. Explain further, please.

Not sure how your plan would work.

[nickzen]

123. OK, the rich get nada, nill, none, zip, zilch, zero

I my book this is social security, a safeguard in the event of a impoverished retirement or disability, not pocket change to pay for tee times. If you have more than $50k in retirement income, congratulations on your success, have a nice life, thank you very much for your contributions that we will spend on the truly needy. The sliding scale gives an increasing amount in benefits as we go below $50k, and caps where the fund payments are at solvency, and that would be the minimum for all. There would be no cap on withholdings, this is not an annuity, it to secure the wellbeing of your people. So with a retirement income of $45k we pay $100, $35k maybe $200, and $25k gets $300 and somewhere just below should be about the bottom and all are made whole, maybe $24K. This would require us to stops robbing the trust, which we seem to have become accustomed to.

[Rockerdem]

149. Uhh . . .

Bridget:

The premise of the thread was giving up something politically or philosophically, not just repeating old policy planks. In this case, my suggestion yields very little in substance, although it yields quite a bit in a rhetorical sense. So what if someone retires at 65 1/2 or 66 instead of 65? Is that a major deal breaker?

What it would do is remove the Pube argument that liberals are against SS reform. Heck -- WE are supposed to be the reformers. We have the codger vote sewed up. All we need to do is attract only a few more middle aged people and we win elections instead of losing them. I think that this is a very minor concession when compared to gun control, the environment, or GLBT issues.

[LTRS]

95. Gay rights is part of the dem agenda? Since when?

Saying something is an "agenda" item implies that somebody, somewhere, in the democratic party actually gives a crap about it enough to give it more than lip service in order to get gays and lesbians to vote for dems.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

Want to know why Dems lose? Because they are the "lip service" party that is too cowardly to ever actually go to bat for what they say they believe in.

[mainegreen]

99. I know I'm going to take a beating on this...

but hear me out. I never liked affirmative action because its race based. If the whole point of affirmative action is to help poor minorities, why not just go the extra step and set up the program to help poor people?

It always seemed to me this program was kept as race based as opposed to solely needs based to help keep minority votes away from the repukes. While I like that aspect of it, as race based program is still race based. There is no way around that stumbling block for me.

I'm done now, so feel free to flame me..

<cringes in anticipation>

[ecstatic]

101. gender based, disability based

Why is race the part that you singled out? White women have benefitted the most from AA.

There are different aspects to AA also-- when it comes to hiring and employment, race usually is an issue. When it comes to college admissions, wealth is usually the determining factor in who is/is not qualified.

[mainegreen]

104. No particular reason.

I guess I should say that I would only whole-heartedly support an program that is solely economically based and/or disability based.
I just cant bring myself to like the concept that race and/or gender should be an issue in any decision. If we consider race and/or gender, why not other factors like home state? I'm sure West Virginians are at a particular disadvantage. I just seems like you should draw the line here early: Economic disavantage and disability.

I understand why AA was necessary at one point, given the historical context of this country, but I say that time is gone.

[ecstatic]

105. yeah. racism no longer exists. Alabama is great proof of that!

:eyes:

[robbedvoter]

109. So, I guess you can imagine then how gays feel when you want their rights

shat upon so maybe the lilly white Republicans let you win the next time, huh?

[nickzen]

116. Oh come on, this isn't Selma in the 60's

Want an example, the Chicago Fire dept. Men of color and courage took the haters to court in the 60's and won, Thank God for justice. The city signed a consent decree and they received the redress they justly deserved, monetary compensation, accelerated promotion, and hiring quota's. So what you ask came of the new hires, the head of the line guys that never suffered the wrongs of the past? Well, they still get redress for wrongs they never suffered, yup its accelerated promotion as far as the eye can see. So who cares, the men of color and capacity that can and do pass the test straight up. They are forced to accept quota promotions so that the city can meet it's consent decree numbers. Not a good way to earn respect, when your ability as a firefighter involves life and death.

[mainegreen]

130. I guess I just dont see

why we shouldn't just enforce current laws barring racial/gender descrimination. Its often very obvious when it happens. Mandate enforcement of the existing laws.

The two are seperate issues. One is racial/gender discrimination which is against the law. The other is to help those who are come from disadvantaged circumstance. Race and gender should not be codified in law as being disadvantaged.

If companies or organizations engage in illeagle racial/gender discrimination then they should be brought to justice. Thats what the legal system is for. If the DA doesn't do anything about it, vote him out or organize a rally. But quotas? Wrong-o.

[UpsideDownFlag]

115. trying to be repube-lites. nt

[Lenape85]

124. In order of priority (what we could get rid of to what we shouldn't

1. Affirmative Action (Make it more economically instead of racially based so that poor rural white children will have the same opportunities as minorities in the inner city. Could play well in the south and the plains)
2. Gun Control (We could get rid of most gun restrictions, such as the waiting periods)
3. Religious issues (Institute a period of meditation instead of school prayer, allow students to take that opportunity)
4. Abortion (Come out against partial birth, hell, even such figures as Kucinich are against it)
5. Gay Rights (Should not get rid of this, its a civil rights issue)
6. Taxes (hell no, we need a more progressive taxation system, like what FDR had)

PETA was never associated with Democrats in the first place.

[MelanieArt]

127. My vote was for none, but I'd like to elaborate.

It's the voting process that is flawed, not the Democratic party's "values". The Republican party has a similar mixed reputation among moderates, Dems are just more sensitive to how others see us and are more willing to bend over backwards to please. If anything needs to change it's the way so many of us are willing to change our values just to gain votes. Who can respect that?

In my opinion, the Democratic party is the party of tolerence towards those who just want to live their lives the best way they can without being trampled by those who would do them harm to further their own agendas. Do we need more than that? By refusing to associate with those who might "tarnish our image" we totally demolish all that this party stands for.

We don't promise anyone laws based on their personal agendas, liberal or not. We promise everyone a voice and consideration and respect. We are the party that embraces people for who they are, and helps them to help themselves. That is an ambition to respect, and what brings people to the Dem party. Shunning those who aren't "popular" will ruin the Democratic party. If we do that, we become hypocrites, and we become a paler, weaker version of the Republican party.

Please, my fellow Democrats, don't do that to us.

(BTW- I apologize for the double posting, but I feared it may get lost in the middle of all of this and i'd like to know if others feel the same way as I do about this.)

[JaneQPublic]

129. "Other": Free Mumia

Just once I'd like there to be an anti-war rally in D.C. that doesn't include speeches to free this guy.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

137. And so we drop one or two of these issues...

What changes?

Do any of you honestly think that the GOP would not immediately find a NEW "Dem" issue to claim is un-American and beat us incessantly over the head with?

We could drop every single one of those issues AND THEY WOULD STILL FIND SOMETHING, while the "new" Democratic Party wouldn't be worth shit. Face it, the GOP of today is an amoral group who would paint Ghandi as a radical freak who needed to be trotted off to Gitmo if it meant winning them an election.

(As an aside, we Democrats already compromise on each and every one of those issues. There is no need to do so further.)

[Vincardog]

145. PETA SUCKS I do not want to get rid of all domestic Animals

[nickzen]

147. Lenape, you rock

1. AA, make it needs based, we win big
2. Gay Marriage, gotta stay, it's an equality issue
3. Abortion, gotta stay, for early term and lets get RU486 rolling, but the late term is monstrous, ever see a film, it's indefensible savagery. Dont let them steal this one, KISS, "if your daughter is raped?"
4. Gun Control, keep the "cooling off" period, limit it to a gun a month, close the gunshow loophole, be responsible. Just don't make decent people into criminals.
5.Religion, if we can not sell ourselves as people of faith well enough to get elected, then we don't deserve public office. It not as though we are running pagans and atheist.

[Runcible Spoon]

153. no. we're running against Satanists in sheep's clothing!

eom

[Forkboy]

156. I'm straight...fuck all you all

I think we should drop anything and everything that's making us lose OVER and OVER again and again.Who needs principles and values anyways? I say we become the Al Davis of politics and "Just win baby!".

[PurityOfEssence]

159. I'm with y'all on the gun control thing.

I hate them, I don't own them, they're NOT guaranteed by Article 2 (that's for a militia, when we needed to defend ourselves from hostile natives and backwoods British) and they're a complete and utter disaster in a modern society.

Nonetheless, it's not worth fighting about. Lest we forget, many of the gun nuts are one issue voters, and we could have many of them with us who also hate big corporations, economic monarchy and the erosion of civil liberties.

I absolutely loathe violence, but this is not an issue worth destroying our future over right now.

Nice to see others thinking the same way.

[Sparkly]

162. I'm not sure dropping the issue (or any other) would create a win

I think on issues, the Democratic party is more in line with voters own beliefs and wishes than Republicans are. I think it's much more about the stereotypes and packaging and framing...

I'm definitely not with a lot of DUers on this one. Gun "control" doesn't necessarily mean banning all guns. At the risk of getting flamed, I think a lot more could be done to ensure that gun owners know how to store and use them; I think child access prevention laws are important; background checks should be comprehensive as the 'instant' ones don't suffice. I don't think it needs to be a front and center focal point of a party platform, but I don't think it should be completely written off in the long run, either.

[TnDem]

168. Guns

Folks, ANY mention of guns and "reasonable restrictions", "safe storage", "background checks" and other such bullshit immediately get my radar going as someone that doesn't understand the culture. Mention of any of these tells me that you need to go back to the woodshed on the issue.

SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT GUNS PERIOD. Go back and read post number 22 in the other post about guns. Let it wash over you. Try to completely understand it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1400320#1400626

Whenever so called "moderate" Democrats try and seem "reasonable" on the issue and moderate their stance, they immediately are viewed as just as big an enemy as the Feinsteins of the world. Do you want to eliminate the issue and score tens of thousands of moderate Democrat and Republican union voters back in the fold? Then TRULY advocate gun ownership, shooting, self defense, target shooting as WELL as hunting. Just because someone goes to Cabellas and puts on some camouflage for a photo doesn't mean diddly to thousands of gun owners who have a keen sense of who is on their side and who is not. To the uninformed, Kerry looked like he was a "reasonable" gun owner. To the millions of non-hunters but gun owners, he looked like a pandering idiot. None of these people voted for him but I am sure many would have if his record and actions matched his bullshit photo-ops.

Bill Clinton learned how to triangulate and steal these elections from Republicans. This issue is just RIPE for someone to steal because every time Democrats try and seem "reasonable" in their mind, they are immediately flushed by hundreds of thousands of would be voters.

This issue is black and white with NO GRAY AREA for millions of people. Many of them won't vote Democratic anyway, but thousands would...if you gave them a reason to. You are either on the gun owners side PERIOD or you are not. The words "reasonable restrictions" and other such things are immediately branded as an enemy lying in wait by millions of gun owners. Completely shutting the Hell up about the issue will help if done for several election cycles. However, embracing gun owners they way the understand will WIN elections.

A little Tennessee idiot like me could have garnered someone with a clean voting record thousands and thousands more votes this year with some simple advice like this. The whole issue is completely misunderstood by millions who want to seem "reasonable" and in doing so, are immediately branded as the enemy.

[ecstatic]

166. So 82% of us would like at least one issue dropped

Where do we go from here?

[rfkrfk]

167. foreign opinion

If you don't like what shrub does, say that.
Making France's or Germany's disapproval into
an issue by itself,
IMO, does not make any friends.