Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So what do we stand for?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 11:45 AM
Original message
So what do we stand for?
I've been reading article after article regarding the state of the democratic party and the lack of leadership and ideas. Is this true? Are we a bunch of no-good Bush haters who are so obsessed with this president that we can't see the forest through the trees? Everyone here who navigates this forum must be politically astute as well as fairly opinionated. Can't we come up with a decent platform? Let's prove these "pundits" wrong! Let's tell them what's important to us as individuals and as a party!
At the very least this thread will give you something to do while you try to stay awake at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. What I believe in
I believe that everyone in the world has the right to life-that is, living a life where health care is available, where clean water is available, where there is enough food to eat

I believe that everyone in the world has the right to an education so that they can better understand the world and what is happening in it. This education would include the concepts of interdependence and the fact that we are all in this together, and that we must work together to keep this world going.

I believe that the way to ease world tension is to work at ending unjustice and inequality. Our troops should be used to build where things have been destroyed (and not just in war; also in natural disasters). Our scientists should be employed not developing nuclear weapons but in finding ways of making sure food gets to all people(there is enough food to feed the world; the problem is in distribution) and in finding ways to substitute cleaner ways of creating electricity and running our cars.

I believe that we should all have respect for one another, and show an understanding for various cultures around the world. If one studies the world's religions, one finds threads of similarity-in this way, we can learn to work together. Hatred and the politics of hate are destructive, and must be replaced with true compassion and the politics of hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. The rhetoric that Democrats are just bu$h haters is only used by
the right wing idiots who have drank the kool-aid and took the KKKarl Rove oath.
The truth is that what Democrats stand for is as diverse as the party, as diverse as America. Unlike the single minded republicans who are unable to think for themselves and must rely on party leadership to get their daily arguing points.

Welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. but we have things in common
sure we are all different, we each have our own little idiosyncratic tendancies that make us who we are, but the purpose of a party is to find the qualities that we all believe in. To me it seems that your comment concurs with the all the writers out there; that we can only focus on hate for the other side.

PS glad to be here, look forward to the various discusions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Been done more times than I can count over the last few years.
Some of them have been brilliant, others, not so much. The problem is that 'they' are not listening. They are not interested in making things better, they are only interested in how to convince enough of us to be re-elected without pissing off their big contributers (read big corporations). Recently the dominant strategy has been "you have no choice, vote for us or the re:puke:s win". Obviously this has achieved only limited success.
We know how to succeed, hell, we invented the model. So why won't we use it? The answer is obvious, our corporate masters won't allow it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. they can't hear us
the reason they won't listen is because we don't speak as one! We have had some success when you go back and think about it though. Several senators did change their vote on the alito nomination and that can be directly credited to the dedication of people like the DUers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Efilroft Sul Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here's what I sent to Howard Dean.
I titled this "What it means to be a Democrat." It will probably be ignored by everyone.

***

You stand for the Constitution of the United States. That means you wholeheartedly support the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, and the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of illegal searches by a President who is either too lazy or too crooked to get a FISA Court approval for wiretaps against innocent Americans not even connected to terrorist groups.

You stand against the Bush administration’s theory of the Unitary Executive. In short, the White House and Sam Alito believe the Constitution implies the Executive branch can act at will during times of war, even to the point of violating other Constitutional rights. Call the Unitary Executive theory what it is: Bush is trying to justify unchecked dictatorial powers with no sunset provision during a phony war.

You stand for the decertification of electronic voting machines manufactured by Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia Systems -- all strong corporate supporters of the Republican Party. It is far too easy to hack these machines and tilt any election toward the Republicans -- especially when there is a lack of an auditable paper trail. Until this issue is framed properly by the Democrats, the party is doomed for permanent minority status.

You stand for ending a Republican war of choice in the Middle-east. The Democratic solution involves opening a dialogue with the Arab League, requesting that they replace our boots on the ground in Iraq on a 1:1 ratio, and explaining that it will raise the prestige of the Arab League and Islam overall as forces for peace. The Arab League must also understand that a failure to assist Iraq, a fellow league member, jeopardizes its overall future credibility and that American forces will redeploy to other spots throughout the region at the earliest practicable date with or without their cooperation.

You stand for Congress having the sole authority to declare war, as stated in the Constitution. Unless there is a clear and present danger (meaning military force must be used immediately), the Executive branch must go to Congress to legally declare war against another nation or hostile entity. Congress abrogating its war powers or enabling open-ended use of Executive war powers is hereafter unconstitutional.

You stand for a new amendment granting not only equal rights but also equal pay for equal work.

You stand for a new amendment granting everyone of legal age the right to vote. As the Constitution stands, there is no specific amendment granting the right to vote. Voting rights vary from state to state, and disenfranchisement is all too easy.

You stand for a new amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy. As it stands, the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

You stand for a national effort to strike down right-to-work laws and have them declared unconstitutional. States with right-to-work laws effectively shut out union organization, and that is a violation of the First Amendment’s right to assemble.

You stand for fair trade and business practices that benefit American workers. Fair trade means American corporations are for American workers and profits first and that all workers will be paid a living wage at minimum. Fair trade means American corporations must act as good citizens in their communities. Fair trade also means punitive measures will be used when a corporation outsources employment to other nations. One such measure is imposing stiff tariffs on all imported goods of a company that outsourced American jobs. Remember, when you buy at Wal-Mart, you help China control the future of the American economy and support the continued flow of American jobs overseas.

You stand for a national effort to develop alternative forms of energy for transportation, heating, and electricity. At the heart of all this is the understanding that most of our nation’s misery can be attributed to the stranglehold Big Oil has on political power and how America is addicted to Middle-eastern oil. When you break Big Oil, you also break the power of OPEC and radical Islam. The national effort in energy reform should be as ambitious, if not moreso, than what it took to put a man on the moon. It should reward innovation to corporations, universities, and individuals. And it should have a deadline of 2020 to establish energy independence.

You stand for fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets. In short, Congress should be held to the same spending rules as all Americans. If something cannot be afforded, find a way to cut costs elsewhere or raise taxes. Cutting the deficit is a must. Part of this fiscal conservatism also involves the immediate end to tax breaks that solely benefit the wealthy and corporations. Republicans always tout that tax breaks lead to corporations hiring more employees, but has anyone seen that since Bush took office? Ask a Ford or GM employee. Bush tax breaks are not good for American workers or our national budget.

You stand for the end of corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is a term used to describe the legal fiction used within United States law that a corporation has a limited number or subset of the same constitutional rights as a human being. This has led to abuses in the justice system and exotic interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. If corporate personhood cannot be overturned, come out in support of unionized personhood.

You stand for the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine. Since 1987, when the Reagan administration eliminated the doctrine, the people’s airwaves have been dominated by only one side of political arguments, that of pro-conservative Republicans. This has led to Democrats being shut out of the free marketplace of ideas. If the Democrats want to win back the hearts and minds of middle America, it begins with the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine.

You stand for the splitting up of media conglomerates. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, contrary to its proponents’ claims, did not foster greater competition and lower prices. In fact, it did the opposite, with media giants merging with alarming frequency and prices for basic cable and Internet access going nowhere but up. The public is not served well with fewer choices, and too few corporations control content for consumption. Pro-corporate and pro-Republican agendas are standard fare on cable news channels. Network news divisions are no longer seen as prestigious; instead, they are seen as expensive and have been rolled into the entertainment division of their owners’ media portfolio and are expected to turn a profit. As a result, safe infotainment programs dominate the airwaves and hard-hitting journalism withers on the vine. If you want a free electorate, giving them more outlets for relevant information promotes the democratic process and is good for the Democratic Party.

You stand for realistic national health care reform. The United States is the only western, industrialized nation to not have national health care, and the state of health among many of our children, elderly, and poor is deplorable. People are falling through the cracks. Costs are outrageous. One such way to garner support for national health care is to lobby corporations and tell them that they can improve their bottom lines when they pass off health care costs to the government. For example, Japanese auto manufacturers considered building new plants in our country but settled on building plants in Canada because Canada has national health care. As a result, America lost the chance to gain tens of thousands well paying jobs.

You stand for the legalization of marijuana, not just for its medicinal benefits but also because people enjoy it and will pay market price for their vices. You might as well collect taxes on its legalization, because the war against marijuana is a losing proposition and fiscally stupid.

You stand for real campaign finance reform that eliminates the party funding of political campaigns and caps individual and corporate donations to candidates at $2000. So-called “war chests” are also capped at set amounts in accordance with the population of the electorate, with challengers’ caps set at 1.5 times the limit of the incumbents’ caps.

You stand for the reformation of the United States Tax Code whereby tax return forms are simplified in plain English. Part of the reformation also involves giving $100 deductions to all taxpayers who submit a receipt proving their participation in the previous tax year’s general election. Also, all faith-based initiatives are abolished as they are a clear violation of church-state separation.

You stand for a realistic funding of the Department of Defense. While this means the end to several needless pork contracts, it will, however, involve the doubling of pay for all enlisted servicemen and -women and all active reservists.

You stand for cost control with higher education. The cost for college has skyrocketed and far outstrips the rate of inflation. Middle- and lower-class students are no longer able to afford an education, and the presidents of American universities must come before Congress to testify and justify the high cost of tuition when their schools’ endowments are well past the billion-dollar mark. Furthermore, money saved on defense pork projects will now go toward Pell grants and other student loans and grants. And since so many American schools have international students dominating in the sciences, offer green cards to such exemplary students upon graduation and put their knowledge to work for our country.

You stand for immigration reform. That is, we beef up border patrols along Mexico, put up barriers where need be, deport illegals without proper papers, and impose punitive measures upon Mexico, which actively supports what is an invasion. This is an issue of national security, and the Bush administration looks the other way so the agricultural lobby has a steady stream of cheap labor. However, this policy invites terrorist infiltration, puts our citizens at risk with Mexican drug cartels, and burdens the social service systems of our border states.

You stand for marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual. And if you cannot stand for homosexual marriage in name, then stand for civil unions. When two people commit themselves to each other, it benefits everyone. What’s more, this commitment affirms the deeply held American belief that everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness. To stand against the happiness of committed couples is not only discriminatory, but also un-American.

You stand for a woman’s right to make reproductive decisions. A person is not a person until he or she is born. However, a dialogue also must be opened with the pro-life camp wherein “pro-life” is not simply defined by Democrats as “anti-choice.” This dialogue is to the benefit of children. The pro-life side must advocate and pass full and proper funding for adoption programs, birth control, childen’s health care (including subsidized immunizations for the poor), day care/head start, healthful school breakfast/lunch programs, and after-school activities. In short, the pro-life side must demonstrate true concern for children after they are born. Until then, pro-life means anti-choice, and real Democrats will not compromise with those who want to restrict the rights of anyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Efilroft Sul Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Dayum! I am the thread-killer.
Guess I was right, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teriyaki jones Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. THANK YOU AND AMEN
A pretty coherently crafted platform. I'm new to these boards, and so much of what I'm reading sounds more like a circle jerk than anything that will move us forward.

The Republicans move in lock-step and speak in one voice. I know that getting Dems to do that would be akin to herding cats, but we've got to try to find a way to move in better unison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. welcome to DU - love your screen name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teriyaki jones Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thanks for that
That's also my domain name--but don't go looking 'cause I have yet to get it together to put anything on my web page, nearly 4 years after acquiring it. Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. quite true
I totally agree. the whole purpose of any party is to unify. There is a fine line between diversity and chaos. All lot of things I read on this site have people demanding something right now! Change takes time and the best way to achieve our goals is by standing as one on issues that the majority of us can agree upon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. I'm going to loosely quote Gary Hart again.
I heard him on NPR on Saturday and appreciated what he said. He described the GOP as a Corporate Party and the Dems as a Coalition Party. It's easy to be a Corporate Party where decisions are made at the top and everyone else follows along out of company loyalty. It's a lot harder to function as a coalition and try to accommodate a wide variety of view points and priorities. All and all though, I'd rather cast my lot with a coalition.

Essentially, we don't have a two party system. We have the Republicans and the Democrats who are a coalition of other interests. That puts us at a disadvantage in many ways, but it's not insurmountable. In my opinion, the various members of the coalition have to keep their eyes on the ball. And that's functioning as an opposition to the Republicans. Given the unilaterial and extremist position of the GOP at the moment it really shouldn't be too hard for a coalition to find common ground in opposing the thugs at the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teriyaki jones Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. A Coalition of the Outraged
is what we must become, not just in spirit but in action.


(I'm too new to do anything but reply to things, so I have to ask you this publicly:

What is "DU Activist Corp" on your profile page)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. LOL! If I become any more outraged my U.S. Rep,
County Commissioner, State Rep and both of my Senators will probably have me committed. ;)

DU Activist Corp is found here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=106.

If you are interested, contact Skinner or EarlG, the site admins. It's a group of DU members who have committed to taking action on specific issues. i.e. writing letters to the editor, signing petitions, contacting media outlets, calling representatives, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teriyaki jones Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Thanks for the "directions"
I'm ready to do just about anything to save my country.

Went to DC this past weekend for the World Can't Wait protest and found myself on a bus full of communists! Yikes!

Was very exhilarating to be out in the streets protesting for the first time in 30+ years, but I'm having a hard time with the communist thing. It just doesn't look good on one's federal dossier!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. but shouldn't it be more than just GOP opposition?
We can do more than just say we disagree with the GOP! I hate it when people say that the parties are essentially the same! No we are not! Let me propose something:

The users of Democratic Underground are unique in that they are both well informed, passionate and relatively opinionated concerning the issues that we face in this modern age. I believe that we as a group should designate a portion of this forum to brainstorm and then subsequently vote on a platform. Call it what you will, the DU platform, the progressive platform, etc...

Gary Hart is correct in saying that we are a coalition party. And as such we should run ourselves like a coalition. If applied properly this internet forum can actually be a truer form of democracy than we have today. Everyone who is a member gets an opportunity to voice his or he's opinion, and everyone can choose whether or not they want to hear it. And at the end of the day we can put it to a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I couldn't agree with you more.
But as a starting point I don't see how the Democratic party can operate even as a coalition party if they do not have the courage and conviction to function as an opposition party. Of course we can do more than just say we disagree with the GOP. Unfortunately, we're not hearing much of that from key people though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. see I think being an opposition party is a bad choice
Look at it this way. The majority of voters don't really follow what is going on in congress on a regular basis. All they really want is to have the vague idea that things are working. Just listen to people talk about politics when your in the line at the grocery store. To label yourself as the opposition party doesn't seem wise. While those that do pay attention will understand the importance of opposition and will get us to the booths, the regular voter only sees negativity. Think back to the Gingrich led Contract with America under Clinton. That worked because it gave everyone something to chew on. The far, mid and center right all found something agreeable in it. Goals my friend! Intentions! Why give us power if we don't tell the people what we want to do with it. That is why as someone said earlier there have been many others that have asked this question. it is crucial to our political survival!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Is it the word "opposition" or the behavior that bothers you?
When I think of opposition I don't think of 100% negativity. It serves no purpose to say "nope, that's wrong." or "that's a bad idea." There is no point in functioning in opposition if you do not have a better solution to propose. It's something of a Catch-22, or perhaps rather a hand in glove kind of thing.

You can't function in opposition if you do not have a counter-platform. But you can't really have a coherent platform if you aren't functioning in opposition. All well and good to say we know how things should really be done but if you don't position it with respect to WHY the other side's ideas are bad than people won't see any difference between the two parties at all.

I think that's why we've got too many people shrugging and thinking one's just as good/bad as the other. It's all party politics anyway. Who cares who is in control of Congress/the White House/the Courts.

Of course, all of this is predicated on a media that actually functions as a conduit of relatively unbiased discourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. its more of a syntax issue
Your right in what you say. I do think we need to be an opposition party but I don't believe labeling ourselves as such will help us politically. As I said I think the average voter will take the word opposition as having negative connotations. To better rectify our current situation, I feel that by formulating a new agenda we can remove the stigma of "opposition party" that the republicans try to label us with, and for a new covenant with the american people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I don't care whether the word is used or not if the behavior is
present. Bottom line is that in a two party system BOTH parties are an opposition party. The only difference is that the Republicans having been acting like one and the Democrats have not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. that's not totally true
We were able to get the republicans to pull the ANWR language out of the budget recon bill last november (HR 3898 I believe). And while there have been several smaller victories the main issue is that we don't have a plan! For example, if we are against foreign oil and destroying the environment so we can fill up our gas guzzlers then we need something in its place. Sure we can gain power by constantly pointing out the flaws of the republican leadership, but that power will be short lived if we don't do anything with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teriyaki jones Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. So gently stated:
"Of course, all of this is predicated on a media that actually functions as a conduit of relatively unbiased discourse"

That's why this is the worst crisis I've seen in my 52 years as a citizen. The media is, in large part, complicit. They just take the Repug issue framing and report it as news. Yikes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. maybe but...
the press can't really argue with a platform. That is all you really need to put out there. Simply put it out for all to see and then split up the issues with various leaders to discuss with the press. If they do nothing but talk about those issues you can really spread a message. I've notice a serious lack of discipline among our leaders these days....sigh..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. They can sure bury it though. Look at the 2004 presidential election.
Kerry had a published coherent plan. Pretty darned easy to grasp in my opinion. Yet over and over and over again I kept hearing Bush supporters insist that Kerry didn't have one. Kerry held it up in his hands at one of the debates for heaven's sake!

It was entitled Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World It was available on-line and in printed form. I don't think I saw so much as a single story in the mainstream press that presented the key points of Kerry's plan. I saw less than a handful that even mentioned he had one.

Having a plan doesn't do you a bit of good if you can't get the message out.

Sadly, those leaders who do have discipline are roundly ignored. Conyers...Feingold. Hardly household names are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teriyaki jones Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. They are household names in MY house
and I think you can add Durbin to that list as well. I mostly call or write him to say thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Mine too. Well, I forget about Durbin but I know who he is. LOL!
I should probably add that I knew too many Democrats who had no clue Kerry had "a plan." Sad, sad, sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. really he did?
How many times did he hold that platform up? I watched Hannity and Colmes (Yes, I'm sorry) one night during the election and he played a montage of the second debate where Kerry said over and over he had a plan. Well being one to TIVO such things I went back and saw what Kerry said. And you know what the most F-ed up thing was? IT WAS ALL HE SAID!!!!! He would never really ruminate on what his plan's were. Granted he had a short time frame in which to make his points but that is the only real time to do it. And you're right it was a great platform. Just not articulated enough at the most important times to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I don't know what to tell you. I watched all of the debates and
caught the points of the plan without having to rewind and rewatch. Yep, he did. He also frequently referred people to where they could read more to learn about the details instead of short sound bites. Sadly we must have a really lazy electorate because it appears not many people took him up on the invitation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. absolutely lazy
All Kerry did was mention things in passing, he was more concerned with pointing out Bush's failures. Your right he did point people in the direction of the website but they should have learned lessons from the internet bubble bust; people are very fickle and difficult to gage with respect to their behavior online. How many times at work have you been diverted by other thing son the internet. I'd bet there is a simple linear trend when looking at peoples attention span with regard to platform lengths. Have you ever gone back and looked at platforms of yore? The first republican platform was mainly concerned with ending slavery! It was a page long and that was it! Many history junkies will tell you that if a politician from the 19th and early 20th century saw the campaign platforms of today they'd be horrified! Promise what you can deliver on and that's it. If it is too long you loose people. Which is why we need a simple and understandable platform that must be hammered constantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. peace
that is all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
29. Oh, we have a platform. We just don't know how to communicate it
in a simple way that even the voters in the most rural hamlet in, say Alabama, can understand it.

As many here say, we stand for civil rights, for right to privacy, for right - as was said more than 200 years ago - to live, liberty and the pursued of happiness.

We are for equality, for assuring basic necessities: jobs, schools, shelters, health care and dignified retirement for all.

We accept that a government can be good for the people. This in contrast to the hypocrisy of the current rulers who say they believe in small goverenment... except when it comes to their cronies.

Poll after poll showed that these every day issues matter to most of the voters. Yet we let Rove shove us to a corner with the "baby killing" and "perverts' rights."

We don't have to go on ABB, though we should not let negative attacks stand unchallenged, the way Kerry did for too long with the Swifters.

But we need to talk about action and results, the way we are advised to build our resumes.

As i was reading today that so many Katrina evacuees are now being tossed to the street because FEMA no longer pays for their hotels, I could not help thinking of all the millionaires this tax season making in one day what could house and feed a family for a month, at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeanike Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. your right
we need much tighter message control. Plus we need to for a consensus as to whom will represent us. For example is Howard Dean the best man to head up the DNC? Or for that matter is Hillary the best woman to be president? Is Cindy Sheehan helping us out by criticizing the war in Venezuela? Most people get only a small amount of news everyday. We need to discipline ourselves until we are a broken record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC