I hope we don't get DUers sent to "remedial tolerance" lessons

[Stinky The Clown]

The confetti's been swept up. The bunting was returned to the rental companies. The air's leaked out of all the ballons and that big check to the caterer really hurt when it got written. Most of the media satellite vans are back in the shop.

Now we have to face reality.

WE WON!

All victories and no defeats. We held every seat we defended and beat the crap out of those we challenged.

But the face and tenor of the party's changed a bit.

I've followed pretty closely not only the races, but also the faces. The people who we elected. They're really a fine lot. Every single one of them.

Let me make this clear (cuz the rest of this post is not as bright as the first part): There is not ONE person elected as a Democrat with whom I am disappointed. Not one. And I cheer each of them individually, and I cheer for our Party collectively.

But that's a pretty diverse group, those new freshmen electees.

We have several pro lifers.

We have some staunch social conservatives.

This is no bunch from NARAL or the Sierra Club or any other orgaization you might mention.

Their singularly most significant commonality is the Iraq War and their opposition to it. But they also have oppostion to some other issues some may not like. Like choice.

Please, in the days, months, and years to come, let's keep in mind that these people are DEMOCRATS. If we want to claim the 'big tent' label, then we'd damned well better be able to tolerate, embrace, and respect these people even as we find ourselves in strong disagreement with them on an issue or three.

I suspect, as time goes on and votes get made, we'll find them to be reasonable, even in disagreement.

Take choice as but one example. One can be 'pro-life' and still be tolerant of my view. That's all I ask.

I can only imagine life on DU when a Jim Webb or a John Tester or a Bob Casey casts a vote that goes against the grain.

[muntrv]

1. Let's not have a repeat of crucifying Robert Casey in 1992 Dem. Convention.

[babylonsister]

2. And I have an example. Claire McCaskill today on

Tweety said she hasn't discounted confirming Bolton. :wtf: I hope she's just laying low and doesn't mean that.

[muntrv]

3. I agree. Let's not be like the repukes who black ball their own for not

towing the party line (i.e. Karl Rove).

[Karenca]

4. You've nailed it------

It's bound to happen though.

But I totally agree with you, Husb....I'm learning. I hope more of us follow your advice.

[Warpy]

5. Yeah, that most basic right of women doesn't matter at all

so just throw half the human race under the bus.

Seriously, those guys really should be defeated in the primaries next time. We can and should do a lot better.

Until then, they're junior Reps and Senators and will only count as Democratic bodies during this term, and that's OK.

However, a party that has to struggle to get elected after selling out its working class base is not going to have a prayer if it sells out its women.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Where in the Constitution does it say that abortion is "the most basic right of women"?

Answer: nowhere.

Everyone should agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is a better solution than aborting them. Better for the women and certainly better for the embryonic or fetal lives destroyed by abortionists. The only people who truly benefit from abortions are those who get paid to perform them.

[Warpy]

10. It promises the blessings of liberty "to us and our posterity."

Let's see, forced pregnancy threatens a woman's life, destroys her ability to pursue happiness, and obliterates any notion of liberty she ever had.

And conservative men want to throw us all under the bus in the name of political expediency.

Once again, a party that struggles to get elected after it's sold out its working class base will be out of power permanently if it sells out its women.

[AZBlue]

7. Well said! Thank you.

But you know, that sort of logic and common sense won't get you far here...

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Intolerance among Democrats is no better than intolerance among

Republicans. I agree with your post. We must accept everybody in the big tent, without litmus tests. If we say that all Democrats must be pro-choice, oppose the death penalty, support gun control,
support same sex marriage, etc., we'll have a pretty small party. The Republicans have learned to live with having some diversity of views in their party; as Democrats, we should be able to live with more diversity than the GOP does.

If we ever all agree on all issues, some of us will have stopped thinking for ourselves.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. As long as they work for the people

I could care less about their other stances. As long as they are willing to push for what is good for all the American people instead of lobbyist groups that's fine by me.