Would a purge really be such a bad thing?

[Crunchy Frog]

I got to thinking about this issue while reading a thread about some of the so called moderate Republicans.

There are indeed some Republicans who are moderate and who take reasonable positions on choice and many other issues, but when push comes to shove, they always back their party rather than their principles. Why is this and how did it come to be? It was not always like this.

People on here often get hysterical over talk of a Democratic "purge", but the fact is that the Republicans did that with their party a long time ago, and it's worked out great for them. There was a time when there were truly independent Republicans who would vote their principles over their party but they are long gone. They were purged through highly organized campaigns to get rid of them in the primaries, or at least threaten them into submission. It didn't matter to the Repubs that they were getting rid of "electable" candidates that appealed to the "center" and replacing them with radicals. They were even willing to sacrifice seats to get rid of them when they had to, as they did when they got rid of Lowell Wiecker in favor of Joe Lieberman.

I don't want us to have a lockstep party the way they do, but we do need a far greater level of unity than what we have right now. In my opinion, we need to begin giving serious thought to replacing some of the Dems who don't act like Dems and who don't stand with the party when push comes to shove.

[oasis]

1. Let's purge the 60% of "centrist" American voters while we're at it.

The Rethug ultra right hijacked their party. Dem leadership will not allow extermists to do the same to our party.

The middle is where the voters are and that's where Dems need to be to win elections.

[Crunchy Frog]

2. I'm not talking about purging "centrists"

I'm talking about purging Democrats who will not stand with their party when it's really needed. I'm talking about purging the Democrats who are constantly undermining their own party and sabotaging those Dems who are out there excercising leadership. There seems to be a great tendency here to misinterpret calls for a greater degree of party unity for calls for a takeover by frothing at the mouth leftist radicals. That is not what I am talking about. Let me repeat myself, that is NOT what I am talking about.

The Rethugs seem to have managed to get a fair number of centrists on board with them, despite being hijacked by the extreme right. Is it possible that we could win some of them back by simply acting like we have some principles and having a party that presents itself as a relatively united front?

Once more, I am not advocating a takeover of the party by extremists, only a replacement of those Democrats who will not work cooperatively with the party as a whole or who actively undermine it. Maybe you think that is extremism. I don't.

[oasis]

4. With the possible exception of Joementum, I can't think of any Democrat

currently in office who is "constantly undermining and sabotaging Dems who are exercising leadership".

No other Democrat comes to my mind. Maybe you have a few you can name.:shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

8. The ones who voted for cloture?

The ones who actually voted for Alito? The ones who undermined Kerry's attempts to rally a fillibuster? Evan Bayh talking about the Democratic party's alleged weakness on national security? Democrats going on the Sunday talk shows to publicly disagree with Dean? How about the utter failure of the whole party to stand up for Clinton when he was under attack?

There so much undermining of Democrats by fellow Democrats that we don't even notice when it's happening most of the time. It's so normal and we're so used to it that it doesn't even register.

[oasis]

9. There has been differing degrees of non-cooperation among Democrats.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Evan Bayh was the worst offender. He's from a red state (Indiana), his dad was a well known senator and during the time he served, was likely a more "traditional" Democrat than Evan.

Is there a Democrat in Indiana who could present him/herself as a necessary alternative to Evan Bayh and then (1) win the primary (2)win the general (3) be re-elected?

I'm guessing that the best that Indiana Democrats would come up with is someone who would bear a a close resemblance to Evan Bayh. So why waste the effort?

[onenote]

47. So basically everyone gets the boot?

I'm confused. Byrd voted for cloture, so he's on your list even though he voted against the IWR. I guess the same goes for Akaka, Inouye, Conrad, and Bingaman. Bayh, who voted against cloture (but for IWR) makes the list for comments about national security. If your going to be consistent, then the rest of the Democrats that voted for the IWR also have to go, regardless of their position on cloture. And then any Democrats who are left who were in the Senate when Clinton was president has to go since the whole party gets the boot for failing to stand up for Clinton(although as I recall, Senate Democrats did stand up for Clinton in the impeachment trial).

Who's left?

onenote

[ClintonTyree]

10. Landrieu.........

bush enabler since day one. Even after bush gave the state of Louisiana the finger after Katrina she remains a loyal bush toady. I could name more, but I'll let others take a whack.

[oasis]

13. "Loyal Bush Toady". I've seen nothing she's done that would put her

in that category. Do you believe someone with a left leaning similar to that of Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer could beat Mary in 2008?

[Selatius]

64. A southern economic populist could probably beat her (LBJ type)

Of course, LBJ's foreign policy was as ruinous as Bush is, but his policies with respect to social programs simply left Republicans in the dust. Johnson's "War on Poverty" and his Great Society programs as well as the New Deal programs of FDR are what built the Democratic Party into the dominant party before Reagan and the loss of the House/Senate in 1994.

[PassingFair]

62. Er. What about the Nelsons

Pure DINOs

[sendero]

22. And yet..

... with all the party discipline enforced on Repubs, they own the Executive and both houses of Congress.

You might want to go back to your room and think about why that is.

[oasis]

58. I don't want any Tom Delay-enforcer types in my party. Mavericks to the

extreme left and right of center are accountable to the voters they represent. When you go back to YOUR room, you might want to include the desires of moderate voters into your equation. If you give them what they want, you may get some of what you want.

Those pesky voters, love 'em or hate 'em, they still run the show.

[Greyhound]

43. How's that capitulation thing working so far? Oh yeah, it isn't.

They are not going to vote for the D's, no matter what. Is that not clear to you yet? Will it take a re:puke: super-majority of both houses for you to catch on?

[oasis]

56. Centrists/ moderates WILL vote for a particular brand of Democrat. If we

want to harvest votes from middle America we have to sow seeds in the middle. Give and take.

[PassingFair]

61. Bull.

There are no "centrist" voters.
Only voters that vote on name recognition
or vote for incumbents.

I canvass during elections. During elections, every dem feels like
an activist dem. Just voting dem has become almost seditious in
their minds.
They will vote for the dems that the party pushes.

[Jamison]

3. Centrists are OK, but who should be purged

are the corporate whores.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Agreed.

Corporate whores are NOT centrists. I don't know where people have gotten that into their heads. Corporate whores give people no reason to vote for them at all. Most "centrists" are more conservative on social issues, but care about bread and butter issues. The corporate whores rub them the wrong way on social issues and then add insult to injury by promoting the interests of the very wealthy above the interests of the ordinary voter. They figure that if they're going to get screwed economically, they may as well get screwed by someone that they think has good "values".

Thomas Franks talks about this some in What's the Matter with Kansas?.

[justabob]

33. I agree with that too

I have no problem with centrists and more conservative dems, but it makes no sense at all to me for the party of workers rights etc to also be the party of the corporation... talk about mixed messages.

[onenote]

48. how about naming names

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. a purge is a not good idea...we just need to push to the true center

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[Peter Frank]

7. I mostly agree...

But here I don't. To attempt to purge the democratic party of dissenters is stupidly fascist.

Anyone disagree?

[ClintonTyree]

12. If Democrats ever want to win another election.........

something has to change. "Purge" is not the word I would have chosen but there has to be change. The Democratic party is bordering on irrelevancy.

[Peter Frank]

15. What word or phrase might work for you???... n/t

[wyldwolf]

11. you don't have the numbers to purge anything

[OnRee]

14. I hope I can ask you a question....yes?

I don't have very many posts here--but I've been reading here since the last election for prez. I'm curious about something--and I hope it's ok if I ask a question about it.

It regularly comes up in the posts that people say the pubbies have a 'lockstep' party. However, the few conservative sites I read at (gotta keep an eye on 'em!) don't necessarily reflect that (maybe it's such a given that they don't bother to post about it--I don't know). I don't see a huge call for mindless unity in their actions. They blog a lot like we do, have a lot of sources, and disagree with the others quite easily.

Now, maybe I'm missing it (I DO refuse to read at Freeperville...) but I have to ask, how are they any more lockstep than any other political party? (And, actually, I always thought unity of purpose, cohesion, and coordinated action were GOOD things that enabled a group to get a lot done.)

Considering the defeat we suffered today, I wouldn't mind a little more 'cohesion' among our Dems!:hippie:

[Peter Frank]

17. Welcome to the DU OnRee...

:hi:

Always be bold in your opinions. You've made excellent points.

Please continue with the thoughtfulness.

[OnRee]

18. Thank you!

I'm just commenting on some things I've seen--I sure don't have the whole picture!:blush:

[mdmc]

20. welcome to DU

as far as GOP unity... it is easy to stand united for profit... Profit uber alles... war... science... the GOP follows the money...

[RC]

19. The repugs have almost total control of Congress.

Very little of what they don't want to happen happens.

Also remember the Holiday/Christmas greeting crap? You had better, that was just a test of how well they could energize the sheeple. They did a real good job, don't you think?

They may have "their own opinions", but come vote or action time, they are lock step.

[Bridget Burke]

34. I don't think conservative websites are being discussed.

But the willingness of the Republican party to stamp out dissension in the ranks. As a Texan, I've seen the Republicans in my state morph from an assorted group of folks to a strong, unified front--unified with the Religous Right, in fact. That's how they gained control of the State. Of course, DeLay's misadventures will cost them.

What are your favorite conservative sites?

[Crunchy Frog]

36. I'm not saying that RW bloggers march in lockstep

though I understand that sites like FR have a much lower threshold of tolerance for dissenting opinions than DU does. The Republican elected officials by and large do march in lockstep. They have a vastly higher degree of party discipline than the Dems do.

I do hope that you understand that there is a difference between bloggers and elected officials.

[FlaGranny]

69. It's not everyday Democrats and Republicans

who are in lockstep. It is the Republican politicians and the powers behind them. They keep Senators and Congresspeople in line with threats and intimidation, as in funding and running a more compliant person against someone who won't vote and speak in lockstep with them.

[JNelson6563]

16. It depends

A well thought out strategy to replace the vichy Dems with real Dems could work. It would take a few years of local party building and candidate recruitment. Not the sort of plan that fits into the knee-jerk reaction many are calling for.

Julie

[KharmaTrain]

21. Circular Firing Squads Are Always A Good Thing

The freepers must be having a field day around this place the last 24 hours. Sheesh

It feels good to blame a Liebermann or Nelson or Landrieu for Alito than what really caused this...having a Repugnican majority in the Senate. As long as they had/have 51 votes, Alito was fait accompli unless there was something so bombastic that it would have had to have rivaled Clarence Thomas' pubic hair on the Coke can or Monica's dress. Alito didn't have those skeletons and trying to scream otherwise wouldn't get or make any light on the corporate media...and it didn't. Joe Sixpack might not want to see abortion sent to backrooms or a Supreme Court that will take away his guns or privacy, but the fire wasn't strong enough and "to the victors go the spoils".

I'm certain many of those "DINOs" would sure act differently had there been 54 Democrats rather than 41. Not only would it give the party leadership far more ability to keep people in line, but also to lure people over from the other side. Had there been a Democratic majority, there would have been no way an Alito would have been sent up...and if he was, the pressure would have been on people like Collins and Snowe rather than on Democrats as to making or breaking the nomination.

Unfortunately, the anger and frustration runs deep here and will need time to blow off. I'm just as angry as anyone here at what I see going on, but trying for "party purity" (whatever that is...I'll bet there are 70,000 definitions of that term here on DU) while in a complete minority status is asking to lose even more elections and dig oneself into a deeper hole.

I'll just watch things for a while around here...hopefully an indictment or other juicy scandal will come along and get people here out of their funk...

Peace...

[sendero]

23. You know...

... there wouldn't be all this anger here if this were an exceptional case. But it is not. The Dem Senate has let us all down again and again and again and again.

We're sick of it and we have every right to be. These useless fuckers have enabled Bush at every turn. Now they say "well we don't have the votes Wahh, besides there are other important issues to be dealt with."

You wait and see, they will accomplish NOTHING because they are collectively a bunch of fucking losers sucking at the corporate teat and feeling like they can ignore their base and keep their cushy-ass perk-encrusted do-nothing jobs no matter what they do.

Well, we cannot let that happen.

[KharmaTrain]

24. So More Repugnicans Should Be Elected?

So weakening a Nelson so a Kathrine Harris (shudder) could win is a good thing? Or taking down a Mary Landrieu and open the door for a Billy Tauzin? This is your answer to getting things accomplished?

All cases where our rights and liberties are endangered...and virtually every action this regime does is an exceptional case in my book. However I can count and no matter how many ways you try to turn 41 into a majority, it just doesn't work. It's time folks here get a little bit of a grip and realize this is the result not of "spineless Democrats", but 20 years of party apathy and atrophy. Where Repugnicans set their sites on these goals 20 years ago and kept their eye on the prize, now Democrats are ready to blame the weak links in their chain rather than face the bigger picture. This was losing the debate on many levels...allowing local parties to erode and now trying to play catch up against an entrenched enemy who lives off our continued self flagalation.

Instead of saying what they haven't done, I'm amazed that Democrats have been able to do some things...like stop ANWAR and stall the Patriot act. But this is rear-guard...this is playing from weakness, not strength.

If you want change, it's not gonna happen by weakening further a party right at the moment when it should be joining together to kick out the corrupt and inept Repugnicans. Hopefully the sting will subside and maybe a clearer view will emerge here.

[sendero]

25. Yes...

...it is my answer. Having a party with no discipline is no better than being in the solid minority. AT LEAST THEN YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE, right now the country looks on, WAITING YET AGAIN FOR DEMS TO WALK THE WALK, and we get yet another whimp-fest.

The Republicans are WRACKED WITH SCANDAL, HAVE LOST THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF AMERICANs, and yet Dems are making little progress. Why? Because Americans RIGHTLY PERCEIVE THAT THEY WON'T PUT UP A GOOD FIGHT FOR ANYTHING.

I absolutely think, for the long term good of the party, that we should target Lieberman and one other senator to be determined, for primary extinction. As long as there is no consequence for not standing up, Bush is going to get his way again and again. Enough already. I don't want the Dem party to be complicit in the dismantling of America. If they won't do anything about it, I don't care if they are in office, what good are they - they're just debasing the name Democrat.

BTW- I'm talking about PRIMARY CHALLENGES, not handing the seat over to the Repug. Sure, if you defeat someone like Lieberman in the primary, you run a higher risk of losing the general, but you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Extreme risk-aversion is another serious entrenched problems for Dems.

[KharmaTrain]

26. The RNC Thanks You

If you think this nomination was bad...sadly there's another a couple of Justices who could be forced to leave the bench in the next couple years and with even less Democratic votes you asking for a Roy Moore or other real right winger to the next vacancy. Not only that, forget about votes on any social programs and be assured the tax breaks to the rich will be made permanent. Help the Repugnicans gain seat or even hold them this year will be the ultimate ruin not only of the Democratic party but of our last vestiges of representative government. Imagine the message it would send if Democrats were so busy destroying one another that no one bothered to call the Repugnicans on all their corruption and intrusions...giving them a free pass on those issues and handing them further ammunition to win elections with.

Fortunately I don't live in Liebermann's state so I'll leave it to the folks of Connecticut to decide if he's serving their interests or not.

Expecting to win elections cause the Repugnicans are worse or wishing for wins aren't gonna make things happen.

Honestly, I'm upset that I didn't see more activism about the Alito situation. Where was all that Soros money? Moveon? NARAL? The Unions? Why wasn't I seeing commercials bombarding my television set all weekend long asking people to call Senators to support a filibuster? Why didn't I see people marching by the thousands so show their real concern about the threats that we both know are very real?

The problem, sadly, aren't DINOs, it's apathy.

[sendero]

27. So what?

What good does it do to have Dems in the seat if the leadership cannot count on their vote on crucial issues?

I will however concede your final point. It is indeed apathy that has led us to this sorry place. Apathy among the voters, apathy among our leaders. They say that we get the government we deserve and who could argue.

I'm just trying to deserve a better government by holding the most egregious offenders accountable.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Yes, Hold Them ALL Accountable

I feel your anger and frustration. Apathy is what created the minorities that Democrats are facing now. Many here still aren't realizing how far in a hole we are and how far we have to come back. They want to strike out from weakness, not strength and to strike at any and all who get in their way. A friend one day becomes a foe the next. I've seen it happen over and over again out here and each time it creates more problems, it never advances Democratic causes.

Read John Aravosis take on this situation on Americablog...he surely is no friend of Liebermann, but he sums up my feelings very well. There are other problems here that many here are avoiding to address and looking for scapegoats and others to blame for the losses and problems.

Frankly, I'm not sure what is more of an embarassment...the poor effort at really putting up a solid opposition to Alito, or all the blaming that has been going on as part of the post-mortum.

Peace...

[sendero]

35. Ok....

... well you have thought out your position, and there is no question that there is a lot of anger around here, but I honestly think it is justified. Anger can motivate one to take needed but unpleasant action, just as it can motivate one to take rash and counterproductive action.

And I don't think sacrificing a couple DINOS would be bad for the party and our shared goals.

I'll get over my anger as soon as I see our team doing something right. I'm just tired of them throwing interception after interception :)

[onenote]

52. We do win some "crucial" issues

ANWR drilling, for instance. Narrowly blocked by a "filibuster" (defeat of cloture motion). Led by, among others, Lieberman. He's been pretty consistent on environmental issues.


onenote

[Greyhound]

46. Fear! Terror! OMG if we don't do what the 'leadership' wants things

will get even worse! Scalito is the worst case scenario, and they've let him right in. A committed party would threaten, and follow through if necessary, to shut it all down. To maintain the filibuster until the elections and beyond if necessary. Do you not understand this was it? That this is what we were supposedly saving our shot for? This is *s legacy and this country will suffer under a right wing SCOTUS for the next generation, if not longer. :banghead:

[OnRee]

59. This is sad...

"I'll just watch things for a while around here...hopefully an indictment or other juicy scandal will come along and get people here out of their funk..."



Let's hope something GOOD happens to bring the people here 'out of their funk'--NOT something bad. An indictment or scandal means that somebody gets hurt--usually somebody innocent, or one of us common folk--and that's lousy.

THIS is a big part of what we need to fix in OUR party.

[fujiyama]

28. An organized primary campaign against those that voted for cloture

and the bankruptcy bill and other measures might be effective.

But the problem is at the moment, the numbers are so low, there is little to purge.

We'll probably end up losing a seat or two in '06 anyways. I don't see the Dems picking up eithehr House. They aren't exciting moderates or independants and they aare turning off the base. I'm clueleess about thte current Dem strategy.

One of the reasons repukes were able to gain so many seats yet lose any moderates was because of the changing party affiliation particularly in the south. A region that was dominated by Dems is now virtually all republican. This is due to several losses as well as retirerments. Somee of the Dem seats were held due to individual popularity alone. Meanwhile, the northeast's affiliation hasn't changed as quickly and some of their senators aare younger (like Collins, Chhafee, and Snowe). If all goes right we'll atleast boot Santorum out.

Whaht I don't understand about the corporatist Dems is how they can act that way, often representing the poorest states (take La for example). It is inexcusable thaht Landreu votes for things like the bankruptcy bill and Alito, because ultimately her constituents will be hurt more than most. It is neither good politics, nor morally sound. It is IMO theh sleaziest backstabbing behavior.

[Greyhound]

49. Agreed. The Dem strategy is to make sure there are no alternatives

They are the blue side of the same coin. Don't forget how much of their agenda was made possible by the Clenis administration.

[Jose Diablo]

29. A examination of what "You are either with us or against us" really means

This phrase, "You are either with us or against us" has one purpose, and that is to create a highly polar society.

The purge within the Republican Party, like you have pointed out, made for a united, single purpose highly partisan entity. And sure, it does get its platform passed with a simple majority, but at what cost?

If we look at the legislation that has been passed, it doesn't represent the true majority of the people, it only satisfies the wants of an actual minority that has somehow taken advantage of an anomaly in our current electoral law to gain this 'majority status'. Couple this with election fraud, and the right-wing radicals are in.

Now the biggest problem in countering these posers that have captured the Republican Party, is it forces the opposition party into the same mode of operation of purging it's moderates to counter balance the Republicans. So in effect, the moderates are purged from both parties.

This sets the stage for a highly polar society, ripe for a civil war. What was the stabilizing force within our political system, the moderates, would be gone. And a civil war is just what the wealthy, powerful elites want. They want the people to revolt as this will create a police state to suppress all dialog at the political level, and allow them to steal everything thats not nailed down, leaving the middle class poor and without recourse. They resulting society would be similar to China, before the 17th century, an Imperial class, a Warrior class to enforce the will of the Imperial class, a large bureaucracy to tax the poor and a large peasant class (75-80% of the people).

People say Bu$h is an idiot, a moron. Don't believe it. He and his cohorts know exactly what they are doing. They are traitors and are working at the foundation, to destroy our country.

As for the 'external' force urging this along using Bu$h as a puppet, I'd say it's the elite in China/Japan, in our western culture here, in Europe and South America have formed an international cabal to implement this agenda of suppression on all the people of the world. This is the true opposition. It is a class war on a international scale. And for these elites, they are well hidden making it all seem so baffling. It's a war using your enemies to fight each other. This is what the 'New World Order' is all about. An elimination of the nation states in favor of the international cabal of elites. Unelected elites leaving the people with no representation or any prospect for representation as the world security apparatus is firmly controlled by the elite as is the taxing keeping the people in sustenance style of living.

Once we understand who are the real enemies, then all the things that have happened are happening and will be happening become all to clear.

So in this context, it doesn't matter who 'wins' in the civil war, the right-wing or left. In both eventualities, the main objective, removing the moderates from power has been accomplished, as have the agenda of setting-up a police state with a corresponding removal of civil rights of the people. Democracy would be over and an authoritarian state be in place allowing the elites complete power over the political landscape, back to feudalism.

[Greyhound]

50. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. While I think you give far too

much credit to the frat-boy (he's just the distracting window dressing, the idea that he's an architect of the plot is hilarious at best), you've hit the proverbial nail. The real ruling class (the same one we've labored under for hundreds of years) think in terms of generational change, and the scenario you lay out is the real agenda, planetary servitude.
I'm glad I'll be dead before they complete it.

[Jose Diablo]

54. No, I don't think you will be dead

We will see and experience the die off, unless these people, the elites, are stopped.

[Greyhound]

55. You may be right, but I choose to be optimistic.

As for stopping the elite, they have been very successful in discrediting each attempt to warn people about their designs and I see no reason to believe that will change. Look at how many here refuse see what has happened even when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

[Totally Committed]

30. It's been time for awhile...

if we don't find the guts to shake this Party up, but good, right now, we never will.

They out and out told us we didn't matter in their scheme of things, AND WE ELECTED THEM! Their job is to REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS, and they told us to get lost. That deserves repayment in kind as far as I'm concerned!

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Thank you.

So many people seem to be willfully misrepresenting what I'm proposing, and putting words into my post that aren't there. Our party needs to have some kind of coherence. It needs to actually REPRESENT the interests of a substantial bloc of voters, and corporate interests are not the interests of ordinary citizens. It's very clear that something isn't working with this party, and that a shakeup is necessary.

Ordinary voters naturally gravitate towards a party that appears coherent, cohesive, and standing up strongly for a set of values over a party that doesn't. I think it's just a part of the human psyche.

[Bridget Burke]

32. Hey, "Blue Staters" -- Purge Away!

If you've got so many safely electable Democrats that you can pick & choose, please do so.

Here in Texas, we just want more Democrats in office. My Senators did NOT disappoint me; I know what to expect from Hutchison & Cornyn.

[onenote]

53. Thanks!!

[quinnox]

38. Not sensible

Who would determine the criteria for this "purge"? For example, what issues and what sides do we have to subscribe to in order to be part of the new order?

It just isn't feasible to enforce a rigid structure and beliefs on a whole group of people who disagree on things.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. "Sensible" has not been working out very well for us lately.

I don't want to see a rigid structure or beliefs enforced either, but I would like to see a greater degree of group coherence and cohesiveness in the Democratic party. The criteria for selecting elected representatives to target might be based on how egregiously they have gone against what are generally regarded as core Democratic values, or who have clearly undermined the party as a whole.

At any rate, something like that seems to have worked out very well for the Republicans. I think it's a good idea to examine new strategies to have a more effective party.

Do you have any ideas on how to move our party from a perpetually neutred minority party? I think all ideas should be on the table.

[whododayis]

39. purge or prosper

the "come to Jesus" moment for the Repubs was when they told the Pat Buchanan wing of the party to take a hike. Buchanan and his bunch temporarily left the tent, but they came back to vote Repub soon after when they decided that losing sucked. Since then, they have probably held their noses while the voted. Do you think we're headed for a crossroads like that?

[applegrove]

40. We have nothing to learn from the tactics of neocons.

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Nothing to learn except possibly how to win?

I'm not suggesting that we become a clone of the current neocon party, but there may possibly be some useful things we can learn about effective tactics from looking at what has worked for them.

[applegrove]

42. In case you had not noticed, punching through to the truth, acting

like compassionate adults during Katrina, wanting governance to succeed, et all - have Bush at 38% in the polls.

That is how you win.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I think the 38% may be more related to Bush's incompetence

which was quite glaring in the case of Katrina. I want to see that 38% get translated into a substantial number of seats won by the Democrats this November. It should at least translate into winning control over one of the Houses. I then want to see us actually use that majority in a much more effective fashion that we did last time we had it.

[applegrove]

51. Glad you are feeling better. 38% is pretty good news.

[janx]

57. IF the DNC does a very good job at its 50-state strategy,

we might see some interesting things happen in November. It wouldn't be a purge, exactly, but it would be a far better and more representative kind of government than we have currently.

[mmonk]

60. Not if you want to save this country.

[Throd]

63. You could have picked a better word than "purge"

Maybe it is just me, but that word has a whole "throw their corpses in a ditch" ring to it.

[wyldwolf]

65. start with the 2% or so...

..who defected to Nader and often (for example, on DU) threaten the vote third party. Now THOSE are "the Dems who don't act like Dems and who don't stand with the party when push comes to shove."

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. may I respectfully inquire Mr. Wyldwolf

and I do not mean this with any disrespect or confrontation whatsoever. I sincerely would just like to know.

If it should happen (even if you think it unlikely)that over the course of the next so many years that the progressive left becomes the dominant force within the Democratic Party or at least someone from the progressive left becomes the Presidential nominee (not in 2008-that I agree is extremely unlikely) would you continue to support the Party with the same degree of enthusiasm you do now? Do you think that others from your wing of the Party would still support the Democratic Party zealously? Again no disrespect or confrontation intended.

[wyldwolf]

67. Yes to both questions

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. I am very glad to hear that

I only voted for a third party once in my life and that was in 1980.

Ronald Reagan cured me.