Step #1 . . . can we all agree on SOMETHING? . . .

[OneBlueSky]

as we approach the 2006 election, and then 2008, everyone's putting forward their ideas for a Democratic platform . . . they're as diverse as the party membership and are the issues we'll be discussing/arguing over in the coming months and years . . .

as these discussions proceed, I believe it would be helpful -- maybe even essential -- to have a brief set of guiding principles that EVERYONE can agree on . . . principles that will undergird the positions we take and the platform we create . . . if we can all agree on SOMETHING, we'll have a hell of a lot easier time working together to win in November and in 2008 . . .

I'd like to see a short, concise set of three principles that ALL Democratic candidates will be asked to subscribe to . . . three ironclad pledges generated by WE THE PEOPLE and forwarded to our candidates with the message "This is the minimum we, the people, expect of you":

1) PROMISE . . . To tell the Truth.

2) UPHOLD . . . The Rule of Law.

3) CREATE . . . A Government Of the People, By the People, For the People.
(a concept first articulated by a Republican president, btw). . .

just a suggestion to try to bring ALL Democrats, Independents, and thinking Republicans together around something that upholds three traditional American values -- values that are essential to any chance of recovery from the BushCo disaster we might have . . .

[Ecumenist]

1. Yes, I agree that all the things you've

stated aren't even a choice to be made. It's the basis for any kind of structure to work, be it, Government, homes, families, etc..

[OneBlueSky]

2. exactly . . . and I believe it's important to make the statement . . .

because, quite obviously, BushCo is violating all three principles on a daily basis . . . this is a way to distinguish us from them right up front . . . people reading it will understand immediately, imo . . .

on edit: I also believe this can serve as a weeding out process for our candidates . . . because I am sure there are some (i.e. those deeply in the pockets of corporations) who will NOT agree with #3, . . .

[rucky]

3. Con's love to make/enforce laws that don't apply to them.

gay marriage
abortion
election-related stuff
regulations


I don't think we can see eye to eye on these points. Punishing others makes cons feel special.

[OneBlueSky]

5. upholding the Rule of Law encompasses overturning those laws . . .

which are unconstitutional or not in the best interest of the nation . . . a lot of them have been passed under BushCo and the Republican Congress and need to be overturned . . .

[rucky]

6. there's the rub.

No common ground with them on which laws should be tossed out. This is what's so frustrating about them. They're not interested in fairness to others.

What we really need to be shouting for is justice. Fair laws, and equal, unbiased enforcement of them.

I know that's what you're talking about, but when I hear "rule of law" my mind automatically jumps to something that's used to quash civil disobedience as a measure to change unjust laws.

[OneBlueSky]

7. good idea . . . come up with a replacement principle that . . .

speaks to justice . . . my list is just a starting point for discussion; I'd not wedded to it in any way . . .

[Mythsaje]

4. Clear, concise, and simple...

Perfect.

Kicked and nominated.

[LWolf]

8. I can agree on those 3 things. n/t

[Octafish]

9. Now THAT's a Contract with America I believe in!

Thanks, OneBlueSky for putting it into words.

The "platform" and contract and blue prints and all that stuff can be Part II.

What you said is what DEMs need to make clear as day.