idealism, ABB, Democrats and DU

[welshTerrier2]

there is a great myth afoot right here on DU ... the myth is that idealists are not practical; they are not politically pragmatic; they are outside the mainstream with their ideas; they don't have the right views because they alienate the center where most of the voters are ... these are myths, my friends ...

there are some very insulting, disrespectful phrases used to refer to us idealists ... we are called "purists" (i.e. we will never compromise); we are a "circular firing squad" or dem bashers (i.e. our criticisms hurt the Party rather than help it); we are "fringe" (i.e. our views do not represent the mainstream) ... these are myths, my friends ...

many of us idealists signed on to the so-called ABB movement last year and fought very hard for Kerry's election ... perhaps instead of seeing us all as inflexible purists and all the other criticisms, why not applaud our flexibility on coming through for a candidate who was not our first choice and violated many of the ideals many of care about very deeply ??

frankly, i am sick and tired about feeling like the Democratic Party no longer represents me ... i hate that i don't love the candidates i've financed and worked for ... i wish we did have candidates whom i felt inspired by ...

but that hasn't been the case in national elections since McGovern ran in 1972 ... the argument is made far too often on DU that idealism means extremism ... that idealism means unconventional, non-mainstream thinking that won't sell to the center and is thus not pragmatic politically ... it never ceases to amaze me that so many so-called pragmatists have helped lead the Party to a minority status ... is it just possible that a bit more courage and a few fresh ideas based on a deep passion for a set of idealistic beliefs might actually make the best political strategy? those who criticize idealists seem to believe Democrats should do or say whatever is necessary to get elected and then, after we're in office, we can tell Americans what we're really going to do ... this "winning at any cost as long as we win" is truly a naive vision ... how's that been working out?

idealism is nothing more than having a vision and working towards it as effectively as you can ... it says you define what you believe in FIRST and then you build a political strategy around it ... listening to some critics on DU, they actually believe politics is nothing more than a big, phoney, marketing campaign ... well, wake up folks ... ultimately what you're selling really does make a difference ... can slick marketing sell a bogus product? perhaps sometimes it can ... but don't expect me to be part of it ... the country has real problems and we need real leadership; not market-tested bullshit ...

the truth is, leadership and vision are not about settling down in the comfy center ... good ideas are good ideas regardless of where they are slotted on some imaginary political scale ... we do a real disservice to the country by running every play between the forty-yard lines as if everything is about winning and nothing is about solving the country's problems with creative solutions ... there's a whole lot more field out there worth considering ... the myth of centrism is that it will have the greatest political appeal ... sometimes it might ... but overall, what will have the greatest political appeal is plain old good ideas and the courage of candidates, and parties, to put them before the American people ... the courage of fighting for your deeply held convictions is what idealism is all about ...

idealism is not dead but it is certainly in grave condition in the Democratic Party ... it makes good policy sense and good political sense to help idealism recover from its long illness and stop seeing it as something that hurts the Party ... i thought having passion for a vision that could make all our lives better is what being a progressive was all about ... without passion for our deeply held beliefs, we are reduced to being nothing more than political technicians and calculating political hacks ...

let's find a way to help the Party recapture the idealistic spirit it once held ... it will set our country on a path to renewal and it will restore Democrats to their rightful place as the majority party ...

[DanCa]

1. My new slogan is as follows

I would rather be a democrat in a wheel chair any day of the week if it meant being ronald regan on his high horse.

[Mythsaje]

2. I have a lot

of Centrist views...but I'm also something of a firebrand. I think appeasement is one of the Democratic Party's WORST traits. This constantly being on the defensive is a ridiculous position and it'll never win over anyone.

REAL conservatives (a vanishing group, it seems) have a lot in common with the more radical liberals...belief in personal responsibility, self-determination, and distrust of authority.

But the way to win them isn't by cow-towing to the Republican quislings in the Democratic Party. It's by fighting back and hitting the Repugs where it hurts, making people sit up and take notice.

And playing to the corporate base alienates many working class voters, who can't see any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans EXCEPT that the Repugs give lip service to their religious beliefs.

[Nite Owl]

3. Well said

and fully agree.

[me b zola]

4. How did that country song go?

'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.'

Good post:)



:kick:

[Donna Zen]

5. Excellent post!

Although I consider myself a pragmatist, which I think that most progressives are. Progressive movements historically have drawn from a wide spectrum of movements to assemble coalitions.

Take for instance the women's suffrage movement which first worked with a coalition of abolutionist and temperance groups. That was a progressive movement. Later forces working against child labor would also join the suffrage movement.

These factions developed across party lines and often with different motivaitons.

I think we misunderstand progressives and their pragmatic history.

Idealism is the formation of a more perfect union, that is each American's charge. We have worked towards that through progressive movements in the past. Now, I'm not sure that progressives understand what they are working towards. Elected someone...anyone just don't call it liberal. I am a liberal in the text book sense.

My problem with the Democratic party is that they don't listen to the base. Someone on this board chided me just today because they thought I was pure walking dumb for thinking that a serious presidential candidate should acknowledge the base. (Clinton)

My point is pragmatic: if with our votes, we reward those who ignored our pleas, and voted repeatedly, not once, but repeatedly against the country's best interest, why should they change? Why would they vote any differently in the future? In fact, I would think that someone like Feingold, would be better off to vote for the next war, or next Patriot Act or next whatever. Why not? There's no downside and hey, the country loves ya'.

So it would seem to me that at some point the people have to begin to make a serious decision without being threatened with "Oh rove will love you...or your such a purist." At some point, we will either just say no, or we will lose it all. Now is the time for all anti-war, anti-patriot act people to come together and tell the machine to taking a flying fuck.

I don't know if we'd win the general election, but since we keep losing, it would be hard to do worse.

Will it happen? I've already said that I'm not an idealist, so no. But I'm also not fool enough to keep voting ABB.

[welshTerrier2]

6. "pure walking dumb"

got a pretty good chuckle out of that ... never heard the expression before ...

i'm not sure whether i really said it or not in the BP but you hit the nail on the head ... i, as a flaming idealist, very much see myself as a pragmatist ... i was trying to emphasize this with my belief that idealism, passion and commitment to the right values is the most politically pragmatic position to espouse ...

i almost posted the following but realized that, while it may have made a good point, it created a false dichotomy between idealists and "pragmatics" ... the reality is there is no difference or at least need not be ... the point i was trying to make is that those who criticize idealists on DU and see themselves as so pragmatic are, in reality, not very pragmatic at all ...

here's what i decided not to tack on to the end of my post:

pragmatic: the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step ... you have to walk before you can run ... we have to win before we can do all that idealistic stuff ...

idealist: yes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step ... yes, you have to walk before you can run ... but you will not win elections if you do either of those things by going in the wrong direction ...

[Donna Zen]

7. A giant step outside your mind~Taj

idealist: yes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step ... yes, you have to walk before you can run ... but you will not win elections if you do either of those things by going in the wrong direction ...

Exactly...know where you're going.

If the founders had not envisioned democracy, how could they have written the Declaration or the Constitution? Sure they were a flawed bunch, but they created a great road map. If MLK had not had a dream, how could he have even pointed out the mountain? Sure we are still trying to reach the top, but his idealism inspired us to climb.

If a politician's only vision is election for themselves, then how will they lead? Triangulation is often touted as baby-steps of progress, and sometimes it is, but just as often, it amounts to talking-left and governing-right. Where's the direction, the vision, in such a practice? Good politicians can get elected; however, if that means negating ideals, then why bother? If "yea" was a safe vote on the IWR, what was the hope since an elective war is a nightmare not a dream?

It's not about the "who," it's about the "what," the "why" and the "how." To me, Kerry always spoke with clarity about the environment and alternative energy as opposed to his position on the war. His idealism about the direction of the former comes through. We may not share bush's vision of a dog-eat-dog, xenophobic, Dominionist America, but people do indeed know where he stands.

A word from WKC:

The America I believe in is the America that's daring. It's the America that never fears to ask the tough questions, no matter how daunting the answers. It's the America that sets lofty goals and pursues them relentlessly. That's who we are. It's who've always been. And that's what makes us proud to be Americans.


That's who we were when we set our sights westward and settled the frontier.


That's who we were during the Great Depression, when we refused to let poverty and despair break a fragile nation.


That's who we were after World War II, when we rebuilt Europe from the ground up and halted the tide of communism in its tracks.


That's who we were in 1969 when Americans gathered in living rooms across the country to watch as Neil Armstrong planted our flag on the moon.


It's who we were in 1963, when Dr. Martin Luther King told a divided nation about his dream for America. And who we should be until we overcome.


I believe in an America that leads by caring and listening -- in the America of the New Frontier, the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, and the moon shot. The kind of America that inspires all of us to embrace the future, to feel excited at the dawn of a new day, and to view the past as prologue, not a prison. In short, I believe in an America that is determined to do good and dares to be great. One that pushes the frontiers of human potential in the sciences and education ... in health and the arts.


As we look beyond the next election cycle, we need to ask ourselves: Where will the passion and character of America lead us? We settled a new land, broke the back of the Great Depression, maintained our freedom, preserved the peace during the Cold War, and put a man on the moon. But there are still new frontiers of science, of human potential, of human understanding, and of the human spirit.


If we aim high, and make the right choices, these next twenty years will open vast new frontiers that today may seem like story book fiction, but, in reality, are just over the next hill. They will take us toward the America we should be aiming for a century ahead...

In a poem commissioned for the 2002 Olympic Games, Waddie Mitchell wrote, "Since mankind started walking, it's been swifter, higher, stronger, as if pushed by some deep need to keep limits unconfined. Almost thriving, always striving, for things bigger, better, longer, in some unrelenting pursuit of perfection redefined." And that's the America I believe in. An America that takes risks, that dares to be bold. One that looks to the next frontier, ever swifter, higher, and stronger than the day before. ~Wes Clark "Twenty Year Vision" (not a politician)

^^^^^^^^^

signed,

A proud member of the pure walking dumb

ps Sorry to include the long Weswords, but often, he does speak for me.

[1932]

9. The lyric is "Take a giant step OUTSIDE your mind."

However, for an ABB'er, "take a giant step inside your mind" is a better description.

[1932]

8. I thought "ABB" was very cynical and nothing to be proud of.

First, the differences between Kerry and Bush were sufficiently obvious that I don't understand how a lot of people couldn't have been "for" Kerry much more than they were "against" Bush. It's one thing to be disappointed your candidate didn't get nominated. It's another not to realize the VERY different visions Republicans have for America when compared to even the most conservative Democrats (and Kerry was not even close to being a conservative Democrat).

Second, it was the people who claimed to know the most about politics who were most cynical about the differences between Kerry and Bush, yet those are precisely the people who should have been smart enough to know that no politician wins an election by running on what they're against (Bush) and that you only win by telling people what you stand for -- it should have been those people who bit the bullet and, at the very least, pretended (and advertized) all the things they thought were so much better about Kerry -- that's if they really wanted to win. If they didn't really want to win, then ABB was just the right groove to get into.

[Donna Zen]

11. Corrected and thank you.

As I pointed out, there were many aspects of Kerry's positions that did inspire me including and especially his visionary commitment to alternative energy/environmental issues which is what I enthusiastically talked about to voters. Unfortunately, that same inspiration did not come through about the war in Iraq.

I don't demand that "my" candidate be nominated, I did feel that the ticket's stance on the War was not reflected of the Democratic base, and lacked a rationale.

It is all well-and-good for candidates to make promises, but when those promises are made without vision and purpose, then the ring is gone from the bell. To point to others as idealists who care little for political pragmatism, is to fail to address the political rhetoric shaped by focus groups rather than by ideals. It is the ideals that lead, and by leading win the hearts and minds. All the rest is cynical posturing.

This last election was about "what they're against" rather than "what you stand for," but to put the burden on the educated voter is a one-sided equation. Whatever one calls it, third-way or playing it safe, voters intrinsically understand the difference hedging of bets, and a bold calling. The inability to clearly articulate a message about the war on everyone's minds had a price.

The war is but a single issue, but an issue of such magnitude that its true cost results in lack of this country's ability to pursue its future needs and ideals. (Have you read Krugman today?) We live in a global economy, and thus, our global decisions will effect our ability to make strides in health care, education, the environment, research and development, human rights, and an endless list of domestic and international issues. This war, this bloody war, exists outside of our minds, and its death and destruction will cloud our path for years to come.

[1932]

13. To me, all the issues fit within a single theme:

what was the war, the tax breaks for billionaires, the environmen all really about?

It was about shifting the wealth of America from the powerless to the powerful. On that issue, Kerry was 100% progressive. Talking about the IWR vote (or even the enviroment without fitting it into the bigger picture of the power shift) distracted voters from the truth.

It should have been very easy for Democratic supporters to articulate that more accurate frame of what's going on in America without turning the election into a referendum on whether a single vote told the whole story of a candidate.

My problem wasn't that Kerry didn't care about turning the flow of power in the other direction (which I'm sure he would have done). My problem with Kerry was that he never looked like a guy who cared to reverse the flow of power (because of his biography and because of strategic choices he made in how to campaign). But still, it was easy enough to make the arguments for Kerry even if he was having a hard time doing it for himself.

Thus, I'll never understand ABB.

[Donna Zen]

19. Even Jefferson warns of the lure of power

It is difficult for the powerful to reverse the flow when they would be the very ones to have relinquish power. In some cases this would be to "a people" that had not crossed their paths for years, or whose interests they had long lost sight of.

In Kerry's case, I cannot judge his ability to connect to the people. Nevertheless, if what you say is true, that Kerry was a flawed vestal for the cause, then he, given the subject of this discussion, was not the pragmatic choice. The frame didn't fit.

The vote on the war illustrates a willingness to accept the unacceptable. This was/is a war of choice. That tells us quite a lot about a candidate, but more importantly, limits the words of that person to speak truth to power. Without that truth, the rest becomes window dressing.

Kerry indeed may be a person who would reverse the flow of power. As for all democrats, I am not as quick as you to accept that a "D" after someone's name insures that person's willingness to represent the people. In fact, historically and increasing contemporaneously, the nature of "D" has become more a of mime of the "right stuff" and less of symbol of doing the right thing.

We have been over this turf many times, and deserve to be commended for even caring about it. Too many Americans never get past the bling-bling. Money talks and commitment walks. Those walking ideals are what we as a party and as a nation have lost. ABB is gone, bush will not run again, but we still may be trying to beat something with nothing unless we can articulate a vision that people do not have to reach by remembering what Democrats once stood for, but can trust in by hearing the words and believing in the dreamer. Call that purist, call it idealism, but I call it pragmatic.

[MoonRiver]

10. Thanks so much for this WT!! Nominated!

It's a very sad day indeed when Democrats are constantly pressured to "stuff it" regarding our deeply held beliefs and ideals. I no doubt will vote for whomever the party nominates in 2008, but I would love to be casting my vote for a candidate who fearlessly stands up for this party's base and it's traditional principles. I am fed up with having to support corporate sell-outs and Repuke kiss-ups.

:thumbsup:

[jonnyblitz]

12. great post!! worth nominating...

:thumbsup: :hi:

[meganmonkey]

14. Thank you for saying that.

I only hope someday we have the luxury of being a little more "purist". Until then, I will continue to have faith in my idealism, and continue to compromise when necessary to support candidates that aren't my first (or even second or third sometimes) choice. But I will not give up on my idealistic vision, and I will not give in to a self-defeatist attitude.

:patriot:

[Q]

15. Well stated...as usual...

...but it seems even you are having a difficult time identifying the "calculating political hacks" of the party. ABB was all about handing the party over to these political hacks...those still in control of the party.

It may take the rank and file another couple election losses to finally realize the lessons the GOPers learned after 40 years in the desert. That is...you have to fight for what you believe and never give up.

It's called 'bashing' on DU to tell the truth about the TWO Democratic parties. One party wants to keep alive a government of, by and for the people. The other wants the party to abandon their progressive roots and adopt a 'third way' that plays both sides against the middle.

Kerry was advised by the DLC to claim that he wasn't a 'redistributionist' Democrat...code words to describe a candidate that no longer felt obligated to help the poor and disenfranchised.

The problem is that as long as the DLC controls the inner workings of the party from behind the scenes...every future candidate/nominee will have to tow the corporate line and support their wars for profit.

[welshTerrier2]

17. my position on ABB

several in this thread have commented on my statements about ABB so i thought i should clarify my position on the issue ...

i referred to ABB in the BP not as an endorsement for it but rather to highlight the point that many who consider themselves idealists (and are idealists) sometimes compromise ... some of us worked damned hard last year to get Democrats elected even though we did not believe the Party represented us ... for the so-called centrist pragmatists to be critical of idealists and use terms like "purists" is proved wrong by ABB ... a little gratitude should have been in order ...

HOWEVER, my personal view of ABB has changed significantly since the election ... in my view, ABB IS DEAD !!

i had hoped, perhaps naively, that the Democratic Party would have realized after the election that they had to reach out to ABB voters to truly strengthen the fabric of the "big tent" ... they haven't and i don't believe they ever will ...

ABB voters seem to have arrived at two very different approaches to dealing with this post-election reality ... PDA and DFA are fighting for power against the Party establishment; but many others, i believe, will vote 3rd party in elections when there are no progressive Democrats running ... btw, this has become the PDA position as well ... if the Democratic Party turns its back on progressives, progressives will not show up for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 ... ABB IS DEAD ...

[Q]

23. I understand your position...just got off on a tangent...

...but you're right about ABB being DEAD. I've voted a straight Dem ticket for 30 years now and I'm ready to join you and millions of others in voting for ONLY progressives.

Moderation is not the problem. The problem is taking a moderate approach when drastic measures are needed in a political world polarized by RWing fascists.

The 'centrist', 'third way' DLCers will keep control of the party at least until after 2008. You can count on them pushing for and getting another nominee that touts the so-called 'moderate' corporate line. They will help the Right demonize anyone to the left of Lieberman and label them as evil liberals if they oppose unnecessary wars, plundering of the treasury for the rich or the 'downsizing' and elimination of social programs.

[blm]

16. personally speaking....I think you're way too smart and too grounded

to let anything said by another, whether it be a forum poster or a politician, change the way you are and the way you think.

Admittedly, I wanted to post quite a few general slapbacks in my time here. It's hard to resist.

But, I will single out the ABB position...I always thought it was spun far too widely to diminish the impact of who our nominee would be. The media played that up while they were able to lie every step of the way about who Kerry was and what he has accomplished in his public life.

[undeterred]

18. I give up- what's ABB?

[welshTerrier2]

20. ABB = Anybody But Bush

ABB voters mostly came from people opposed to bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq ... they voted (and worked for and funded) Kerry's campaign even though he did not meet their ideals (e.g. they strongly disagreed with his IWR vote) ... ABB voters also placed a huge emphasis on the corporate strangehold on our democracy and did not believe that Kerry was the best candidate to represent that position ... but ABB voters supported the idea that anybody was better than bush ...

btw, i like your:

Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly.

[undeterred]

21. Thanks. Poem is by Langston Hughes

Here's the whole thing:

Hold Fast To Dreams

Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly

Hold fast to dreams
For when dreams go
Life is a barren field
Frozen with snow

Langston Hughes

[DrGonzoLives]

22. I have no problem with idealists

What I do have a problem with is anyone who berates others for not subscribing 100% to their beliefs, or the people who accuse someone of being a DINO because of one thing (see: Dick Durbin) and so forth.

Idealism is great, so long as it doesn't cross over into fanatacism.

[Nothing Without Hope]

24. I have been racking my brain to figure out why they would go along with

the GOP treason - which stealing the election was. At first I thought they might be secretly gathering evidence, intending to fight back. But this does not seem to ever have been the plan.

As more time passes with no evidence that they will ever budge from their stated position that although there were "problems" with the 2004 election, they were not of great enough magnitude to affect the result, they continue their silence about the massive, widespread electronic vote fraud that was the central engine of the treason. Oh, the long lines and dirty tricks were back-up measures of the GOP in case the electronic approach didn't work, but it did and I imagine the GOP would be quite willing to pretend to be "honest" and hand out more machines now that they know they could manipulate the votes made on them. After all, that way there would be less incriminating evidence of their crimes and they could make loud noises of "helping the minorities" and "voting for clean elections."

Nauseating, and it would work as long as the American public remains ignorant of what really happened last November.

The fact is, the evidence that fraud did happen and that it was of great enough magnitude to steal the election is clear. The Dems continue to deny it and speak only about those long lines, which most Dem voters know about - can't deny them when there are movies and news has leaked out. But fixing the long lines will not fix the central machine of fraud, and the DNC leaders must know that.

So WHY? WHY? WHY? Why don't the DNC leaders speak out on what really happened and will happen again unless the whole electronic voting system is drastically overhauled? (And it will NOT be changed without an aggressive public campaign backed by evidence of the proven consequences of the existing system.) Why not insist on voter-verified paper ballots, surely an obvious and fundamental necessity for clean elections? Why not mention that the existing paperless, trackless system, owned and operated in secret by GOP allies and with hackable "back doors" into the central tabulators, is a deliberate setup for fraud and was used as such? Why not do more to prevent the treason machine from being put into place during these past years?

Instead, we have gotten from the DNC silence except on those "long lines" and some miscellaneous matters. Not on the central machinery that has been installed and tested, piece by piece, and is now poised to determine every future election without the voters. (Remember that double-digit - I think it was 14% - last-minute "swing" from Cleland to Chambliss? How loudly did the Dems complain about that? Where were the calls for investigation? That was a trial run of the election-stealing machine.)

Not wanting to face the alternative, I have persisted in giving the DNC the benefit of every doubt. Surely they couldn't be THAT corrupt, I reassured myself. But the electronic voting companies wield massive amounts of money and influence - and do you think they'd ignore the Dems in their blandishments? The GOP have every reason to promise more toward Dems who would secretly promise not to fight. And there is always blackmail, and I'd be very surprised if the Bushies didn't have whatever dirt existed on every congressperson of any persuasion. Those people don't miss a trick and they are totally cynical in their machinations.

As "innocent" possibilities have become untenable because of the elapsed time without any sign of plans to oppose the GOP treason, I am forced to look harder at the "non-innocent" possibilities. The simplest is that some - a critical number - of the top Dems have secretly agreed to hold back from opposing electronic election fraud too strongly or saying anything about how the election outcome might have been determined by fraud rather than the voters.

And then there are the votes on the horrible Bush nominees and policies. Negroponte, Rice and Gonzales. The Bankruptcy law, so much other craven, corrupt legislation that they supported. The Iraq invasion and its continued support by many Dems. And of course, only Boxer in the Senate and a few brave souls in the House dared to contest the certification of the Ohio vote. We all have our own lists of infamy. What if it isn't just spinelessness? What if it's corruption too?

I don't want to believe this, but as all the other possibilities fall away, old-fashioned corruption is harder and harder to dismiss. I find myself remembering the statement of RFK Jr that 95% of the GOP and 75% of the Dem congresspeople are corrupt. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2999611)

And I'm finding that after months of denying it to myself, I fear he may be onto something. If so, only the most outspoken, huge public pressure will have any effect at all on Congress or the DNC. Investigating the voting machine-associated corruption links will need to be followed wherever they lead. And we must NOT be silent and simply assume that the Dems are the good guys so we can trust them. These are dark times, and we have to keep our eyes wide open. We have to investigate, expose, and pressure for the truth and for fair elections or democracy will not only be gone, it will be gone forever.

I would be greatly cheered if someone can argue effectively for a different conclusion, because I can't see one. There is just too much time and too many pieces in place. And too much silence from the DNC leadership all along. Now the new DNC Ohio Election report shows that that silence on the stolen 2004 election and the machinery that allowed it to happen will continue:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380878
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380494
Silence in the face of such crimes implies complicity.

I am not suggesting we give up. In fact, we must be louder and more determined than ever in getting the truth to the American public. We have to pressure the DNC to do what is right, and if these dark suspicions are correct, we need even more public pressure than ever to make a difference.

[welshTerrier2]

25. once around for the night crowd ...

kickeroooooo ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Great post *hugs*

[geniph]

27. Idealism and pragmatism don't have to be at odds

There are some principles on which you should not compromise. On the others, strive for perfection, but accept that sometimes you have to take baby steps.

It's easier on a local level. It's much easier to have a real, visible effect on a smaller local election. And remember, the candidate for the state legislature that you work so hard for and admire so much today is tomorrow's candidate for U.S. Congress.

The courage of one's convictions is the key, but you have to identify a core set of beliefs on which you will not sway. You can't set every single thing you want in stone. There are some lines in the sand that must not be crossed. For me, one of those is Social Security. If we abandon (or allow to be diluted) the safety net for our most vulnerable citizens, we are not progressives.

[LightningFlash]

28. When I hear idealism, I hear corporate elitism.....

....And then I vomit. :puke: :puke:

If it's ever to be ressurected, it must be done from here.

http://www.pdamerica.com

[bonzotex]

29. so much great thought in this thread...

As Democrats we are famous for squabbling among ourselves, but look at how Democrats think. Look how thoughtful and reasonable these posts are. Some have more vitriol than others, but in general everyone is respectful even if they disagree. Try to imagine a thread like this at Free Republic?

This is one reason Democrats govern better for the everyone, not just those we agree with. We will win in the end. We listen. We think. We're smarter and we care not just for ourselves but the whole country.