A three-point success strategy for the Democratic Party

[Clarkie1]

1. The Democratic party has to fight in the Red States and be a "full service" party

2. Democrats must not cede states or issues like national security to the Republicans.

3. We must speak out for values, as WE define them.

[Devil Dog Dem]

1. F%@k the South

I say we move to end the TVA. Let 'em read their bibles in the dark -- assuming they can read.

[Clarkie1]

2. That would be the antithesis of the strategy I am proposing

We need to have this discussion.

I understand your sentiments, yet I think dialogue and finding common ground are the key. I'm not sure continuing idealogical civil war will win us any converts or elections.

[janx]

4. That's not very helpful...

[zacho]

3. My Three Tiered Strategy

1. Be a party opposed to deficits, and a party in favor of reducing government spending.
2. Make poverty and threats to poverty (i.e. a sales tax or a ban on abortion) keynote issues again. Use the phrase 'incongrous idealism'to describe Republican views on Social issues.
3. Come out in favor of more local control and add a college work for tuition program into the party platform.

[Clarkie1]

6. Those are exactly the kinds of values we need to own

Ownership of key values is key.

Responnsible, efficient, streamlined, and technologically advanced government, lower deficits, and open government.

An opposition to government programs and policies that promote poverty, and a support of government and private sector efforts to reduce poverty through empowerment, not simply handouts. Promote jobs for all as responsibility for all.

Some sort of civil volunteer program for young people, which may be used to help pay for college; keep stressing values of responsibility, work, education, fairness...

[Cheswick2.0]

30. I am sorry, this all sounds like blah blah blah to me

Can you get a bit more specific? Jobs for all...that would be great, shall we all move to china where the jobs are?

What do you mean by programs that promote poverty? What kind of private sector efforts?

[The Doctor.]

5. Point #4 - get rid of unverified voting...

Look - Democrats didn't 'lose' the election.

There is know way to know who 'won' or 'lost' so long as these machines are around.

I, for one, will make that the biggest of my concerns.

Sure the Democrats need broad appeal - but we have no way of knowing if that was the issue or not because of these machines.
The fact is that without knowing whether the results are fair or not, the party is in the dark about what it needs to do.

[Clarkie1]

7. Whether we really lost or not, we still need to broaden our base

Not doesn't mean ceding our values, it means defining them more effectively, getting our message out more effectively, and acting in a way that will encourage others to be more open to our message.

[Clarkie1]

9. I agree- every vote is sacred; that is a value we need to own

We should also start using words like "sacred," more often and when appropriate.

[janx]

22. There you go again with the language of the religious right.

I happen to like the term "sacred," and I use it myself. But why do you want to drag it into politics?

Are you suggesting that this is a way to garner votes from the religious right--or is this a joke?

I cannot think of a more transparent, unimaginative, or capitulative tactic, frankly. And it insults me as an American who is horrified at the precipice we're already on regarding the separation of church and state.

[Pepperbelly]

8. No, no, no!

The pros HIDE the real reason for their losses: the organization is pitifully prepared to refute the other side's crap. When our people go on the shows, they are absurdly unprepared for what they will get. They are rarely in command of the specific facts, they try to stick to lame assed talking points that do not get to the point in a way that actually clashes with what the gop says and even the pols themselves have tin ears about what people want to hear.

Just once in the debates ... just once, when Georgie brought up that LAME fucking $87 billion, why didn't Kerry ONCE point out to Georgie's face that Georgie had delivered a veto message if he didn't get every bit of it his way. "Who is the flip flopper, George? Both of us maybe but only one of us depends on people not knowing the full record. You should be ashamed for clouding the record with deception, half-truth, and zero responsibility."

Easy as shit and Georgie's $87 billion is gone.

Virtually every single issue had a way that it could have been handled in such a way as to make it radioactive for Bush to continue yet, they did not manage it with a single one of them.

They are drawing their professional paychecks and they are so homogenized that their advice is worthless and when they cash their paychecks, they should do so looking at least vaguely ashamed, like the hound dog caught trying to swipe fried chicken off the table.

These guys that the party PAYS should tighten the fuck up and run the thing the way it needs to be run. They act like rubes and incompetents.

[Nay]

17. Amen, Pepperbelly. How hard is this for people to understand??

Our leaders have been WORTHLESS in this fight, in any fight, and people here have the nerve to expect Joe Dem to quit his job and take to the streets for weeks of protest. That is stupid.

As you say, they are drawing professional pay and do such an astoundingly poor job that it is a disgrace that they take the checks to the bank and cash them. A disgrace.

Kerry had many chances to chew Bush up, and he did not. The pundits have many chances to chew RWers up, and they don't. Is it any wonder that some of us think this whole shittin' thing is a dog-and-pony show, and we want OUR lEADERS to act like leaders before we throw away our whole lives in "protests"?

[Cheswick2.0]

31. You are correct

They are so affraid of what the media will say or that republicans will say that they are practically frozen in place.

[janx]

10. Can we please ditch the term VALUES once and for all?

Thanks!

[Clarkie1]

12. I think that would be a mistake

People are attracted to one politcal party or another primarily because of the values they feel the party's core political philosophy represents.

If we had no values, there would be no reason to vote.

Also, the Republicans have hijacked the word itself, and that is a problem we need to address and remedy.

Values are the key, we can't run from the word or replace it with another of equal strength.

[janx]

21. Co-opting the religious language of the right wing

is NOT going to win us any elections.

[Cheswick2.0]

32. values is an almost totally meaningless word these days

We don't need to coopt their motivational speaker language. There are much better ways to get our message across.

[mattclearing]

11. We need to fight class warfare.

The MSM went crazy when Gore came out with populism, because he was on to something. Notice how the DLC pooh-poohed him afterward. He won the election, though.

Fighting for the poor against the powerful is an obligation.

Red State/Blue State, like Black/White before it, is faulty division to cloud the real issue: Rich/Poor.

[Clarkie1]

13. Yes, but we need to avoid the perception of "class warfare"

Why cede the rich and the powerful to the Republicans, either? Remember George Soros?

There was a candidate in the primaries who proposed, in addition to Kerry's proposal of rolling back Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000, raising taxes by a modest amount on those making over $1,000,000,000. From the best I can gather, this candidate valued a balanced budget and concluded Kerry's limited tax reform would not balance the books.

Whether a proposal like that is interpreted as "class warfare" depends on the messenger as well as the message. If the message is those rich cats have too much money and we are going to take it from them, that would be popular with many, but if we argue the benefits having a balanced budget, less poverty, etc. would bring to ALL Americans, we might even get a few more of those rich and powerful folks who sharre our values or can be led to share our values to vote for our side or even donate some of those big $$$.

I do think we must focus on the values which define us, but also always focus on ways to convince others to come to our side and embrace our values. Getting the message out how ending poverty benefits all Americans, rich and poor, is a step in that direction.

[mattclearing]

14. A play on Clintonism: A rising tide lifts all boats.

If it is framed as prosperity based on Keynesian tax credits here and there, not unlike Clintonism, it can work and be marketable without ceding the wealthy.

[Clarkie1]

15. Exactly

[Cheswick2.0]

34. we can't avoid the appearance of class warfare

forget the rich people. Those who are going to vote democratic are not worried about class warfare because they are smart enough to see that everyone must benefit from a healthy economy. George Soros isn't going to be fooled by us avoiding class warfare. The other rich and powerful will vote for republicans anyway.

I say put a big freaking billboard up and anounce the war.

[ElectroPrincess]

19. Yes, don't let them shout us down ... it's CLASS WAR indeed!

Why? Because that term is the most accurate to our present situation of the move to two economic classes, The "very rich" and "the poor."

Besides if it must be war, that's the most noble type of war:

[mattclearing]

24. This is the only distinction of the Democratic Party that matters.

If we don't fight for lower and middle class working people, then Ralph Nader is right and we are all Republicrats.

[Cheswick2.0]

33. absolutely the issue really is rich/poor

Gore was more than poo poohed by the DLC, they blamed him for losing a race he won (but they wanted to conceed)because he was too populist.

[ElectroPrincess]

16. Primary goal - kick out all the IDIOTS who are kissing republican butt

in the DLC.

[FightinNewDem]

37. A challenge for you

This is getting absurd.

OK, cite me three specific instances of the DLC "kissing Republican butt". I want specific examples with cites (not "someone on Kos said so").

I await your answer.

[brentspeak]

18. We SHOULD be the party that refuses corporate donations

We should make it abundantly clear that while the GOP is the party of wine-and-dine corruption, the Democratic Party is not.

[zulchzulu]

26. Unfortunately, it will never work

This country was bought off by the "landowners only" club when the Founding Fathers started up the American Experiment. It has always had to do with special interest "corporate" interests. With democracy comes capitalism. The ones with the most money always get the last word.

But hey, thanks for playing!

[brentspeak]

29. Uh, you're welcome. (I think) n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

35. oh nonsense

Politics has always been corupt, however there has always been a populist reformer every generation to pull things back into line. There is no reason we can't do exactly as the other poster suggests.

[bklyncowgirl]

20. Responsibility, Respect and Reality

Responsibility:
A government which does not pass costs along to future generations.
A government which tells the truth
A government which encourages and expects responsible behavior in individuals, corporations and other nations.

Respect
A government which respects the rights of the people.
A government which respects the environment
A government which respects the constitution and the traditions under wich this country was founded.

Reality
A government which realizes that people are our greatest asset.
A government which knows that government cannot solve every problem but can help people to solve thier own problems.
A government which understands that there is evil in the world and is ready to fight it.

[Clarkie1]

23. Good meme

We are the party of responsibility, respect, and reality.

The "Three Rs"

I like it.

[zulchzulu]

27. That will never happen

I can't imagine a real democracy that actually does what it says it is supposed to be about.

Imagine a government telling the truth. Really... It's impossible. It's almost like having a boss that tells you that he is going to fire you tomorrow, but needed to let you know now.

There has never been a time when a government completely respected all its citizens. It seems that someone has to be in the stoning pit for a government to get everyone to join together. Even democratic governments are soiled by this human weakness.

Thinking that a democratic government doesn't shade toward one part of the spectrum of the Haves and Have-Nots is not real. The Haves always stomp on the Have-Nots until they get caught. And then they do it again.

But hey, your slogan is better than Schrum's stuff.

[janx]

28. You're right, Zulch.

This is sweet, because when I was little and asked my mother about politics, she basically said what you wrote above. She said it always came down to the haves and have nots.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. Ummmmmmmm

Responsibility:
A government which does not pass costs along to future generations. (good)
A government which tells the truth (first you need a candidate who tells the truth)
A government which encourages and expects responsible behavior in individuals, corporations and other nations. (meaningless moralizing sound bite)

Respect
A government which respects the rights of the people. (good..sound like civil right to me, why not just use that word?)
A government which respects the environment (good)
A government which respects the constitution and the traditions under wich this country was founded. (what traditions? Whoes traditions? Whoes interpretation of the constitution?)

Reality
A government which realizes that people are our greatest asset. (meaninless sound bite..it sounds like a Sears commercial...customers are our greatest asset...blech!)
A government which knows that government cannot solve every problem but can help people to solve thier own problems. (sounds like cutting social programs...lets leave that to republicans. How about a government which protects and promotes job growth?)
A government which understands that there is evil in the world and is ready to fight it. (YIKES..that is the government we have now! Evil in the world? There is no more evil in the world than there is evil here. Shall we fight ourselves? Gosh no thank you.)

[mandyky]

38. The word evil gets to me too

How about -

There is terrorism in the world and we have to fight and work to overcome it. I think we need to reframe the whole idea of War on Terror, truth be told. A war on tactics doesn't work.

[mandyky]

25. 3 more points

1 - creating our own media - print, online, TV and radio.

2 - be a populist party - no we can't please all the Dems all the time, but we don't have to sell out the gays and the atheists and pander to the African Americans and Latinos with empty promises.

3 - we really need to work on a better strategy for timing in the Primaries. I'd like to see Democratic primaries held within a month.

And most importantly we HAVE to make sure there is no fraud or suppression at the polls in the General elction.