I went back to "moderate", when I would much rather be "liberal".

[madfloridian]

Though I still question and post about the things the DLC does that I don't like, I have really tried to moderate my posts. If I do post about them, I present a lot of reasons for posting and sources that use their own words.

I realize that many here are doing what I did for a while, criticizing most everything the Democrats do in an attempt to make them more progressive or liberal or whatever word you use.

But I see the seriousness of the situation in our country, and what I do post now is cautiously constructed criticism. I see too many on anger overload, and the anger is not directed toward those who deserve it. It is directed even toward the Democrats who are doing the right things.

It is an unreasoned form of attack. This type of criticism lacks any tolerance at all. It is the type of criticism that ignores good things and emphasizes the bad. I see it endangering the party in 06, and I will not take part.

I want so very badly to be speaking out more on the progressive/liberal side, but I am afraid of what the unreasonable attacks will do to the party in November.

There are many who feel like that, not just me.

Here's an example. I can actually understand the stance the party is taking on pro-choice. I don't agree with running certain candidates and their being handpicked....one who are anti-choice. But I do understand the party policy....emphasize safe legal and rare. I don't like it but I won't let it keep me from supporting them.

I know that 06 decides Dean's fate as party chair, thus I will vote Democratic in the general election. I think it is the right thing to do. I don't know what I do in the future.

I will not do anything to hurt the party's chances to win. Our country is in too much trouble for that. I guess I hope that if Howard Dean is forced to step down after November 06 that he is free to do what he wants with his political future.

I am working up a post with the party agenda, trying to word it carefully. It shows that the plans are there, have been there for a decade... the think tanks are setting the policy. We are not strong enough yet in number to demand a part in the planning. If the Democracy Bonds grow and prosper, we will be soon.

I came here a moderate in 2002, became more liberal, and now because I am scared of some of the impractical demands on a party that must answer to everyone....I am becoming the moderate I used to be. But I won't hurt the party this year at least...even at the risk of being called a Good German again.

Peace.

[NoodleBoy]

1. no one should be attacked for "moderation" or "moderate-ness"

and the absolute truth is, running a purely left-progressive campaign will only work in certain parts of the country, and suggesting that we run Dennis Kucinich in every race--and believing we'll win every race if we do--is extremely naive.

seems to me the best thing for the party to do is to have some general guidelines set by the DNC, such as preserving public government and not initiating wars based on questionable intelligence, but then let each state party run itself. Barbara Boxer likely wouldn't win a statewide primary in Pennsylvania, and Bob Casey probably couldn't manage the same in CA, but that doesn't mean the two of them don't agree on many, many more issues then they disagree on and it doesn't mean they won't put up a united front when very serious legislation is presented or to support national candidates.

[w13rd0]

2. Moderate...

...isn't a bad thing. Kowtowing to a corporatist agenda and playing footsie with corruption IS a problem. I myself am trying to avoid criticizing those that walk a "moderate" line, but only insofar as it means those that are attempting to make principled compromises between two AGREEABLE positions. Compromising with extremists is not an option, and there ARE extremists on "both sides".

[leftstreet]

3. Could you please define "moderate?"

:shrug: