Poll 2/2: The Greatest Liabilities of the Democratic Party...

[ElboRuum]

Welcome to the Greatest Liabilities of the Democratic Party poll. Proceeding from a point of weakness is the key to losing elections, and as we know, the Democratic Party has many weaknesses (as well as strengths). In your opinion, what is the greatest weakness of the Democratic Party, it's greatest need for improvement?

Edit:

Since it won't let me edit the choices, the fourth should read:

"Defer to high road tactics to political attacks even in cases where counterattack is warranted and necessary."

[LiberalArkie]

1. What's the difference any more... I wish there was

[ElboRuum]

2. A summary truth:

Optimism may not solve many problems, but it will at least try.
Pessimism won't solve any problems, but it will at least let you see what they are.
Cynicism won't solve any problems, and will laugh at those who try.

So while cynicism may be de rigeur, it's not really productive when the immediate future of our country rests (at least from what I can see) in who will get the opportunity to enact their views.

It begs the question:

Why do only those who seem to care the least end up in office, when there is no reason why anyone who cares quite a bit can end up there as well?

[Vidar]

3. Lack of unity! Evidenced by their repeated refusal to follow Feingold

or even Kerry, both of whom are a thousand times the leader Reid is.

[Fresh_Start]

4. Can't communicate

its message. Lets itself be defined by its critics which can easily pick apart the individual threads.

Need a holistic message which Jack/Jill America can remember and "feel is right".

Unfortunately I'm not marketing type so couldn't shape it myself.

As a parent most of what I do, I do for 'the future of our children and our country'.

Thats why we invest in science and education and jobs. Thats why foreign policy and rule of law matter.

Anyway its an idea.

[patcox2]

5. Try this list:

Pandering to extremely narrow special interest groups which alienate large numbers of other voters.

Selling out the working class (the corporatist-NAFTA- Clinton specialty) by exporting jobs.

Gun Control.

Excessive dominance by environmentalists (they have a veto over absolutely everything, its pathetic).

Perception of being hostile to religion.

These are why they lose elections, not lack of guts or determination. This ain't the bad news bears or the little rubber tree plant, its about putting together a majority coalition. Feminists, LBGTA, enviro, gun control just aint a majority coalition. Used to work when organized labor was bigger, but organized labor is dying.

We need labor, not just organized labor, we need working people. Problem is that lots of them hunt and smoke and drive hot rods and do all kinds of non-PC things, so they have no use for greens and gun controllers.

[benEzra]

6. Exactly. (n/t)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Sounds like a Republican's list of what's wrong with the dems.

See #6 on Elborum's poll.

[michreject]

8. Well.......I vote Democrat

And own over 50 guns. I don't hunt. It's a major issue for me. I don't cherry pick the Constitution. Without the 2nd their would be no 1st, 4th or 5th.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Well, there you go.

And I'm not a "tree-hugging, gay, feminazi" either. But I'm a dem and damn proud of it.

Nor am I going to pretend that any of the above are liabilities.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. I'd like to know where they get that we're so obsessed with gun control.

The only people I hear obsessing about it are the GOP.

I could give a shit about taking away people's guns.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. I think it's that movie...

"Red Dawn."

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Classic Right Wing paranoia. I think the Reagan Administration funded it,

didn't they?



Here, I updated it for today's wingnuttery:



(I don't know what Carrot Top is doing in there.. but come to think of it, that IS pretty fuckin' scary!)


"If we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here!"
Same shit, different decade. Just like how after we pulled out of 'Nam, the Vietcong immediately invaded Pismo Beach.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Eh. Abramoff funded "Red Scorpion."

"Are you out of your mind?"

"No, only out of bullets. Duh!"

[benEzra]

19. The 1994 Feinstein ban would be exhibit A...

I'd like to know where they get that we're so obsessed with gun control.

The only people I hear obsessing about it are the GOP.

I could give a shit about taking away people's guns.

The 1994 Feinstein ban would be exhibit A. Plus the fact that the DLC made banning modern-looking rifle stocks the party's #1 legislative priority ca. 1994-2004. Gore ran on a strong ban-nonhunting-guns message in 2000 (and lost TN and WV, and the presidency, on that issue). Party strategists ran the same message in '04 (and went so far as to yank Senators Kerry and Edwards off the campaign trail on Super Tuesday to come vote for gun ban S.1431), which helped lose Edwards' own home state in the '04 election.

You are correct that most Dems aren't at all interested in taking people's guns--after all, a quarter to a third of Dems are gun owners themselves--but when gun-owner-haters like Dianne Feinstein grab the microphone and claim to speak for the party on the issue, everybody loses.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I think you need to define what, precisely was supposedly being "banned"

I also don't remember Al Gore saying ANYTHING during the 2000 campaign about wanting to ban ANY kind of guns.

You didn't mention that S.1431 is the assault weapons ban. I think if you're arguing people should have the right to own guns, that's one thing. I think one can make a case that people don't need AK-47s, Bazookas, or shoulder-fired missiles available at Wal-Mart.

As for Dianne Feinstein, she doesn't speak for me on a whole range of issues. Neither does the DLC. I think the way to win is to appeal to libertarian-minded voters in the GOP and in the unaffiliated voter pool. Part and parcel of an agenda of "leave people alone to make their own damn choices" - in my mind, is the notion that responsible gun ownership is not a problem.

[derby378]

24. What's an "assault weapon?"

There's no real definition of the term, even today - just a laundry list of semi-automatic firearms with certain safety and/or cosmetic features some activists believe should not be in the hands of the public.

[benEzra]

25. AK-47's, Bazookas, and shoulder-fired missiles

You didn't mention that S.1431 is the assault weapons ban. I think if you're arguing people should have the right to own guns, that's one thing. I think one can make a case that people don't need AK-47s, Bazookas, or shoulder-fired missiles available at Wal-Mart.

I agree with you--but that's not what S.1431 covered.

AK-47's, Bazookas, and shoulder-fired missiles have been controlled by Federal law ever since they were invented, by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act (passed in 1934, 72 years ago), and have absolutely nothing to do with the "assault weapon" issue. Possession of an actual AK-47 without Federal permission (in the guise of a BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony, and post-1986 specimens are restricted to police/military/government use only, no exceptions. Look it up.

An "assault weapon," on the other hand, is any civilian pistol or rifle that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds, a civilian shotgun that holds more than 5 shells, a civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, or any other civilian, NFA Title 1 firearm the Bradyites think should be banned.

Here are some "assault weapons":


preban Marlin Model 60 squirrel hunting rifle, caliber .22LR; possession of this "assault weapon" is a 5-year felony in New Jersey.


Benelli 12-gauge turkey hunting shotgun, banned by S.1431


my Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, caliber .223 Remington; banned by name by S.1431


my wife's Glock 26 subcompact 9mm pistol, with 15-round magazine (banned by S.1431)


Hammerli international target competition pistol, caliber .22LR (banned by S.1431)


my Romanian SAR-1 target rifle, caliber .30 Russian Short (banned by S.1431)

S.1431 wouldn't have affected a single Title 2 weapon, only civilian guns--including the most popular civilian centerfire target rifle in America, the AR-15. Which is particularly quixotic, since rifles of any description are almost never used criminally (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually).

Gore promised to fight hard to ban guns like the above--including half the guns in our family's gun safe--and it cost him his own home state (TN) and WV--thereby costing him the Presidency. I don't know how Senator Kerry got sucked into cosponsoring S.1431 in 2004--bad staff work? a Rovian setup?--but it helped make 2004 a repeat of 2000 in many swing states, including NC. "Gun rights for hunters only" is a losing proposition when 80% of gun owners are nonhunters.

More on the gun issue here:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Alienated Rural Democrat

[Warren DeMontague]

28. I'm sorry they want to ban your wife's glock. Really, I am.

And I'm not an expert on firearms- honestly, they make me slightly nauseous- so I can't make any statement about the weapons you posted pictures of, short of saying that with some of 'em, it looks like the Deer sure doesn't stand a fucking chance.

But here's my deal- and it's non-negotiable: The minute that the right wing gets its "freedom" act consistent and together enough to say "What a consenting adult does with his or her own body and bloodstream in the privacy of their own home, insofar as they aren't harming or endangering anyone else, is their own business: Therefore, we need to immediately end the drug war. We need to make it legal for the terminally ill to choose a dignified, pain-free exit. We need to get the DEA off the backs of doctors and pain patients. We need to fully legalize and tax marijuana, and treat harder drugs as a health issue, not a law enforcement one. Also, what consenting adults read or watch in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, so we need to stop waging war on consenting adult porn, and get government out of the censorship business entirely. And it's no one else's business if consenting adult gays want to have sex or get married, and it's no one else's business if women want to use the pill or otherwise exercise control over their own reproductive systems"

The minute I see that level of ideological consistency from "freedom-minded" gun advocates, then I will say, okay, I'm not comfortable with the level of firepower involved with some of these things, but as long as we're pursuing a broad spectrum socially libertarian agenda, I can drop objections to these so-called assault weapons.

However, it's hard for me to sympathize with the people screaming "freedom" because, as you say, they might not be able to buy Glocks anymore-- when there are literally millions of people languishing in US Prisons for things like Pot Possesion.

[benEzra]

30. I agree with you...

But here's my deal- and it's non-negotiable: The minute that the right wing gets its "freedom" act consistent and together enough to say "What a consenting adult does with his or her own body and bloodstream in the privacy of their own home, insofar as they aren't harming or endangering anyone else, is their own business: Therefore, we need to immediately end the drug war. We need to make it legal for the terminally ill to choose a dignified, pain-free exit. We need to get the DEA off the backs of doctors and pain patients. We need to fully legalize and tax marijuana, and treat harder drugs as a health issue, not a law enforcement one. Also, what consenting adults read or watch in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, so we need to stop waging war on consenting adult porn, and get government out of the censorship business entirely. And it's no one else's business if consenting adult gays want to have sex or get married, and it's no one else's business if women want to use the pill or otherwise exercise control over their own reproductive systems"

I agree with you there, as do most of the non-repub gun owners I know. I think that if it weren't for our singularly idiotic approach to the drug issue in this country, our violent crime rate would be much more comparable to that of other First World nations.

I would also point out that many of the communitarian busybodies clamoring loudest for draconian penalties for pot possession are the same ones clamoring loudest for restrictions on protruding rifle handgrips.

And I'm not an expert on firearms- honestly, they make me slightly nauseous- so I can't make any statement about the weapons you posted pictures of, short of saying that with some of 'em, it looks like the Deer sure doesn't stand a fucking chance.
...
I'm not comfortable with the level of firepower involved with some of these things

Actually, none of those guns are anywhere near as powerful as a deer gun, with the exception of the Benelli shotgun, which is just an ordinary 12-gauge that happens to have a protruding handgrip, and any 12-gauge is Strong Medicine regardless of stock shape.

Hunting rifles aren't at the low end of the rifle power spectrum; they are at the high end. A .30-06 deer rifle is ~15 times as powerful as a .22, six times as powerful as a .357 magnum, and twice as powerful as an AR-15 or civvie AK lookalike.

The last gun (the one with the scope, that resembles an AK) is about half as powerful as a typical deer rifle, and would be just barely powerful enough to hunt deer with if you kept your shots under 125 yards or so, and is comparable to an 1800's vintage Winchester Model 94. None of the others are even powerful enough to humanely kill a deer; the mini-14 would be suitable for groundhogs and coyotes, and the .22's would be suitable for squirrels and rabbits, but that's about it.

As far as firepower goes, the "assault weapon" issue is mostly about styling, not firepower. None of the above guns fires any faster than a self-loading deer rifle or an ordinary pistol or revolver, but some of them do look cooler.

A good analogy for non-gunnies would be automotive styling. Adding a carbon-fiber rear wing, 22" chrome wheels, levitation lights, and a chrome coffee-can exhaust tip to a Honda Civic doesn't make it go any faster, but it does give it a modern "look." An "assault weapon" is a cool-looking Civic; a hunting rifle is a Mercedes E55 or a BMW 750iL, comparatively old-fogey looking but it will blow the Civic's doors off.

[demwing]

12. This Tone Is My Pick For "Main Dem Liability"

We tend to be less respectful of dissent within our own party than we are of lying asshole Republicans.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Oh, we tolerant dissent.

I, for example, am dissenting against the idea that the problem with the Democratic party is all the "fairies, and tree huggers, and femi-nazis."

[demwing]

21. You only underscore my point

Here's the post we're comment upon:

*************************************
Selling out the working class (the corporatist-NAFTA- Clinton specialty) by exporting jobs.
Gun Control.
Excessive dominance by environmentalists (they have a veto over absolutely everything, its pathetic).
Perception of being hostile to religion.

These are why they lose elections, not lack of guts or determination. This ain't the bad news bears or the little rubber tree plant, its about putting together a majority coalition. Feminists, LBGTA, enviro, gun control just aint a majority coalition. Used to work when organized labor was bigger, but organized labor is dying.

We need labor, not just organized labor, we need working people. Problem is that lots of them hunt and smoke and drive hot rods and do all kinds of non-PC things, so they have no use for greens and gun controllers.
*************************************

Show me where the poster says anything about "fairies"
Show me where the poster says anything about "tree-huggers"
Show me where the poster says anything about "femi-nazis"

All of that terminology is YOURS. Actually, all of that terminology is conservative crap, and you're repeating it.

The closest you can come to supporting your stance is that patcox2 says that the party has excessive dominance by environmentalists. That's an opinion with which I strongly disagree, and I disagree more thoroughly with the "pathetic" terminology used (Patcox2 - that was truly lame) but the poster has every right to that opinion without being called--for all purposes--a republican.

Also, on one other point, patcox2 is correct. Without organized labor we don't have a majority coalition. Labor still supports the Democratic party, but labor is a declining force in this country, and within that force there are many that swung to the right for Reagan and never came back. We need to court that group honestly, by appealing to the issues that they hold highest.

So go ahead and get riled up, act the reactionary, piss off every Dem who doesn't agree with your perfect vision.

But know that this attitude is a major part of the problem, in my book.

[sandnsea]

10. If that's your list

May as well vote Republican.

[benEzra]

27. What about jobs? health care? foreign policy? education? safety net?

If that's your list...May as well vote Republican.

What about jobs? health care? foreign policy? education? Social safety nets? Are those issues REALLY less important than banning more guns, or shipping somebody's job overseas?

If taking away people's guns, sending their jobs overseas, and expressing hostility to religion are core Democratic ideals, then a heck of a lot of people are apparently in the wrong party, by your logic. Those perceptions DO exist; some of them (NAFTA, banning more guns) have been grounded in reality in the past. Saying that people who have concerns about those issues "might as well vote Republican" isn't exactly a constructive way of addressing those perceptions, now is it?

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I couldn't disagree more.

Our biggest LIABILITY in recent years has been this attempt on the part of certain party nabobs to bend over backwards to appease a thin wedge of the electorate- namely, Christian Conservatives- while in the process alienating large segments of the base, such as gays, pro-choicers, atheists, and supporters of the separation of church and state. This is done out of some ridiculous fucking delusion that somehow, if we straddle the fence on social issues, like abortion, (when the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO CHOICE) while pumping up our speeches with enough cheap Jesus references, we will somehow convince a few Republican "values voters" that we're not "hostile to religion".

So lets define that "hostile to religion", shall we? How, supposedly, are we "hostile to religion"- because we keep pushing for laws demanding that churches pay income tax? No. We want to mandate the teaching of Evolution-- IN CHURCH? No. We want to make the Pope wear a big hat?

...

For some folks, unfortunately, "hostile to religion" means this:

You discriminate against me by continually refusing to allow me to impose my religion on everybody else in this county. My religion tells me that not only abortion but the birth control pill are wrong, and you stubbornly refuse to let me pass laws criminalizing them- for everyone else. My religion says that gays shouldn't get married- so, rather than merely not having a gay wedding in my church, I feel the need to make sure that NO gays get married, anywhere. My religion teaches that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Dinosaurs were on "Noah's Ark"- and you, insensitive bastard that you are- refuse to allow me to demand that those things be taught as "science" in public schools.

THAT is how we are supposedly "hostile to religion".

If NAFTA and exporting jobs were such deal-breakers, the GOP wouldn't have the power they do. They invented selling working shmoes out to corporations. Oh, but maybe Mr. and Mrs. "Heartland Values Voter" are so blinded by our unfair "hostility to religion" that they don't give a shit.

Gun Control? Give me a break. Most Democrats don't give a shit about guns- I sure don't. Gun violence is a problem in our society, but anyone who is deluded enough to think that Americans are going to get over their love affair with weaponry any time soon is sorely mistaken. Gun control is a loss leader, which is why most members of our party don't push it. It's a common fantasy of your rightwing nut holed up in his paneled basement that the Democratic party is coming to take his big, shiny, hot lead shooting penis substitute away- meanwhile, his beloved GOP is busy upstairs shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and would like nothing more than to stick his wife in jail for having an IUD or taking the pill.

As for "pathetic" environmentalism: The defining ideological struggle of the 21st century is NOT going to be between glassy-eyed End Time Jesus Freaks like George Bush and glassy-eyed End Time Islamic Fundamentalists with box cutters, rather its going to be between the people who realize that the Environment is THE overriding security issue facing humanity, and the Ostrich-people.

Now, Here's MY Partial List:

RATHER than bending over backwards to appease socially conservative "Values Voters" who aren't going to vote for us anyway, we need to hit the jugular of the Republican party- namely, the split between those people, and the Libertarian wing. George Will understands that that's where the party is weak. So does Andrew Sullivan. Those Conservatives See that the socially libertarian wing of the GOP- and Libertarian-minded voters in the larger, unaffiliated electorate- are the people most ripe for picking up by an expanded, aggressive Democratic Party. The way to a PERMANENT Majority could be found, but it would require backbone:

Stand up strong and unapologetically for the right to privacy. For reproductive rights. For the right of people to make their own decisions about their own bodies, from pain management to end-of-life decisions.

End the Iraq War. Now.

End the $40 Billion a year Drug War boondoggle. Legalize, regulate, and tax Hemp & Marijuana. Adopt a "harm reduction" strategy for hard drugs like the Netherlands.

Call for a SPHC system. (this will win over Greens, too) This IS the Fiscally responsible thing to do, because taking the 20% overhead the Insurance Companies add to Health Costs will SAVE us ALL MONEY.

Pare the M/I complex down to something sane. Demand immediate audits of the $300 Billion spent so far in Iraq and all No-Bid contracts.

Stand up strong for the Bill of Rights, The Separation of Church and State, Civil Liberties. Fight censorship.

Bring back fairness in media, reverse two decades of corporate media consolidation.

Individuals need more protection for their rights, corporations need to display more civil responsibility.

Protecting the Environment will save money and CREATE MORE JOBS. Manhattan project for non-fossil fuel based, renewable sources of energy.

[demwing]

22. Thank You

Though I argued on patcox2's behalf (I think dissension is healthy, and dissenters shouldn't be called Republicans just because they disagree), I believe your post is:

1) A better representation of where our party has dropped the ball
2) A strong recommendation on what we can do to rectify the situation
3) A firm, but non-reactionary, reproof to patcox2's post.

So thanks.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I agree. This party is SO overdue for some real discussion

on what to do and where to go-- You can't have discussion without different viewpoints. We've had one flavor of bland play-it-safe-ism running the show (with a few notable, and positive, exceptions)- so I agree 100%, dissent is healthy.

I suspect some of the frustration others felt with that post had to do with the fact that much of it is identical arguments -some might say tired cliches- that we've been hearing for years; after the 2004 elections, for instance, it was the gays' fault for pushing marriage and thus alienating "values voters". You couldn't throw a rock in here, a couple months ago, without hitting a thread faulting "us" for being "hostile to religion" (Someone, somewhere, decided that June -I think it was June- was "Bash Liberal Atheists and Secular Whackjobs" Month) ... So I think that's where some of the frustration with those specific arguments comes from.

But me, personally, I welcome a healthy debate on where people think the party should go (and why).. I only hope the folks in charge are having similar ones.


Peace.

[terrya]

26. AMEN. Thank you.

As a gay man and Democrat, I get so goddamned weary of people in this party trying to appease the bigots who would never vote Democratic anyway.

You expressed my thinking perfectly.

Thank you.

[Bucky]

11. Don't prepare for GOP dirty campaigns, don't fire back, act "above" it all

It's not a failure of ideas, but a failure of selling our ideas. Democratic concepts of governance require nuance, balancing interests, playing fair, and listening to others in a debate, and forming cooperative coalitions amoung the country's interests. This might be good governing philosophy, but it creates candidates who respond well to outright slander.

We need to train our candidate to hammer back hard, fast, a just a *little* dirty just to show we aren't pushovers. It's pathetic that you have to do those primate dominance diplays, but that's what it takes.

[Arugula Latte]

29. Yes -- to me it's that general sense of spinelessness.

Dean has a spine, and that's why he is so refreshing.

Stand up, fire back, don't take their crap, Democratic candidates and Democratic spokespeople! Oh, and while your at it, it would be nice if YOU did the framing and put the Rethuglicans on the defensive! How long will it take until you all learn those lessons?