Yeah, I’m a Democrat. You got a problem with that?

[TwilightZone]

Some people around here use “Democrat” like it’s a curse word. A word worthy of contempt and derisiveness. An identity to be mocked.

Well, I got news for ya, folks. I am a Democrat, and I don’t care who knows it. And, GASP!, I even support Democrats for office! Oh, the humanity!

This election is not just about the presidency, it is about all levels of government. We need to get Democrats (yes, DEMOCRATS) elected at all levels – national, state, city, county, and local. We cannot hope to push for a more progressive agenda if we don't get elected in the first place.

The only realistic alternative to electing a Democrat, in the vast majority of races, is ending up with a Republican. I’m just not all that interested in that alternative, thanks.

So, Democrats it is.

Since I know that there will be objections to my proclamation, I’ll address some of them before the inevitable occurs.

“You’re just a blind party loyalist”

Well, at least I’m consistent. I guess that I could emulate others and wander from cause to cause, staying with my current “hero” only until I am dissatisfied by some minor quibble, then scamper off to find my next hero/victim. I could also lump all of the Democrats together in some oversimplified, silly assertion. The entire Democratic Party is right of center. All Democrats are spineless. All Democrats cave to Bush. All Democrats eat kittens. Blah, blah, blah.

I think I’ll stick with trying to get Democrats elected.

“This is a website for progressives only.”

Huh. It looks to me like the name of the website is DemocraticUnderground.com, not…something else. The rules say something about supporting Democratic candidates for office. On DemocraticUnderground.com. Wow, I never would have made that connection. What a concept!

If that doesn't work for you, feel free to start Democrats-who-agree-with-me-on-everything.com. Number of members: 1

Democrats come in all sizes and flavors. You can try to label all Democrats, but you will fail. Democrats aren’t all liberal. They’re not all progressive. They’re not all weasels.

Ok, Zell Miller is a weasel, but not all of them are.

Bad news, folks. If we’re going to win Congressional races in all parts of the country, we need nearly all of the Democrats, even the moderate and conservative ones, because what works in one region of the country doesn’t necessarily work anywhere else. There’s a reason why Ben Nelson has a 70+% approval rate in Nebraska, and it’s not because he’s a liberal. I disagree with him on many, many issues, but trust me…Pete Ricketts would have been significantly worse, hard as that may be to believe.

If we want to keep the majority in the land of (D), we’re going to have to realize that not everyone shares our opinions on every issue. And, horror of horrors, we might even need to appeal to a few Independents and Republicans.

“Loyalty oath! Loyalty oath! You're too demanding! Stop telling me what to doooooooooo!"

When a Democratic official actually knocks on your door and demands that you sign an oath on the dotted line while there is a gun pointed at your head, feel free to send me a copy. Otherwise, try out the phrase, “No, thanks.”

On a side note, does your knee hurt when it jerks like that? Loyalty oath – ow! DLC – ow! Hillary – ow, ow, ow!!! Stop that!

Er, where was I….

“If we nominate X and X becomes president, nothing will change”, aka “The Democrats are just like the Republicans”

Yes, I agree. I’m certain that a Democratic president will nominate someone just like John Roberts to the Supreme Court, will provide the rich with massive tax cuts, and will gut social programs. Then, they’ll privatize Social Security, push anti-choice legislation, and waive environmental regulations. And, that’s just the first week.

I’m just *positive* that will happen, right down to my bones. It’s the truth, simply because I believe it. Nothing else matters. Like facts, for example.

“Everybody I know hates X candidate, so we’re just going to lose, lose, looooooooose!!”

Well, I have some bad news. Your own personal worldview is not indicative of the voting public. Not even close.

Besides, your mom is just being supportive, and your dog doesn't get a vote.

[cali]

1. Resistance is futile.

You WILL be assimilated into the DU borg.

You will mouth the conventional wisdom:

Truth to power, democrats same as republicans. Hillary Clinton bush lite. Corpocracy. Dennis Kucinich + one other elected dem (currently Pete Stark) only good dems. Impeachment is a legal obligation. Building 7. Fascism. Police State. Martial law. AIPAC. PNAC. DLC.
Centrists. Enablers. Nazi nazi nazi.

[TwilightZone]

57. Sorry, I thought that I responded to this earlier....

I just wanted to say that I love your list. That pretty much sums up recent history at DU.

[PhD]

91. This is probably one of the best posts I've ever seen on this site

Resistance is NOT futile!

[Labors of Hercules]

2. Yeah, I got a problem with that...

My dog should have every right to vote. She's a hell of a lot smarter than any Republican out there.

AND she's a rock hard democrat (she can detect a Repuke by scent and has learned to bark at them).

:yourock:

oh... edited to add K&R, by the way. :thumbsup:

[TwilightZone]

16. Well, ok. As long as she's 18 in dog years...

she can have a vote!

[Labors of Hercules]

21. She's 28!

Been voting for a year now!

[TwilightZone]

22. Cool.

We probably need all the votes we can get!

By the way, I'm glad to see that someone got to the end of my rather wordy rant! :toast:

I love that picture. I still laugh every time I see it.

[Ravy]

89. Dogs are all born as Republicans.

But after a few days they open their eyes.

[stlsaxman]

92. hahahah!

:rofl: -"I gotta remember THAT one!"

[sufrommich]

3. Great rant.

Off to the greatest. k&r.

[lostwilderness]

4. i

lean in the middle,don't know what taht makes me

[sufrommich]

7. Welcome to DU,lostwilderness.nt

[Froward69]

9. Welcome to DU!!

nothing wrong with bieng centrist. Around here sometimes, it is the voice of reason. labels are not nessisarilly a good thing. as When I do the political compass I find I am a conservative Democrat. however the term "conservative" can, and usually will be, interpreted as bieng a mole, or a lurking freeper. beware of that. otherwise express yourself freeley without degrading others,(harshly) or using vile language. funny thing around here is how a vast portion of people don't realize that no one has a right not to be offended. this is a free country after all. :party: :toast: :hi: :hi: :kick:

[TwilightZone]

13. It makes you whatever you want to be.

Labels and stereotypes don't work in politics, as much as we try to use them. Who knows what "liberal" or "progressive" or "moderate" really mean in the context of our current political climate? I think that all you can do is see how your own personal beliefs line up with various candidates, and make decisions on that basis.

[...of J.Temperance]

42. You'll be fine

I'm a Centrist Democrat myself....and despite what a SMALL number of people might think here, Centrist Democrats ARE welcome at DU.

[TwilightZone]

38. Thank you.

Just trying to add to the discourse. :)

[mzmolly]

68. !!!!

:toast:

[classof56]

5. Well said, TZ, and here's another K&R!

We really have to band together to overcome, prevail and save our country. That's an imperative that cannot be denied, IMHO. Thanks for posting.

Tired Old Cynic but proud to be a Democrat!

[TwilightZone]

24. Thank you.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that we can't hope to push for a more progressive agenda if we can't get elected in the first place. A solid majority in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House would make things significantly easier.

[LWolf]

6. Of course I have no problem with your being a Democrat.

I'm sure that you also do not have a problem with the fact that I am a Democrat.

A Democrat who believes that the party exists to move issues forward, who believes that issues are the top priority, and who does not worship at the altar of party politics.

A Democrat who understands that not all progressives are Democrats, and that group-think and gang mentality drives away potential allies.

A Democrat who will vote for the candidate most likely to honor democratic principles. A democrat first, and a Democrat second.

A Democrat who believes that the best way to keep the Democratic party healthy, vibrant, and relevant, is to hold the party to high standards, and hold reps accountable for representing voters and democratic principles.

A Democrat who has no problem, therefore, calling the party out on corruption and dysfunction, because I don't want those characteristics ruling my party.

A Democrat who has no problem with criticizing and withholding support from, Democratic reps or candidates whose platform, conduct, and record don't meet those high standards.

That's how we get Democratic reps we can whole-heartedly support.

You have no problem with that, right?

[TwilightZone]

10. No problem.

A Democrat who understands that not all progressives are Democrats

And, by extension, not all DUers are Democrats. I am surprised at how often that assertion is objected to.

A Democrat who will vote for the candidate most likely to honor democratic principles. A democrat first, and a Democrat second.

That is your choice, and I reserve the right to disagree. I'm not going to support someone like Nader if it means giving up a seat in Congress or giving the White House to a Republican.

A Democrat who believes that the best way to keep the Democratic party healthy, vibrant, and relevant, is to hold the party to high standards

Agreed.

I largely agree with much of what you said. I suspect where we may differ is in whether or not the ends justify the means. I firmly believe that the only way to push for a more progressive agenda is to keep the majorities in the hands of the Democrats, even the ones with whom we adamantly disagree. If those Democrats cannot be replaced in the primary process, they are still a better alternative than Republicans in those same seats.

[LWolf]

30. I believe that you've isolated

the unrest and discontent at DU. We have way more common ground than not. The contention is about how to achieve the goals we all want to see.

I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me. I'm certainly not infallible, lol.

Perhaps what is really needed is more listening to one another.

[TwilightZone]

40. More listening....

As I said elsewhere, I think that we tend to forget why we're here in the first place. In my opinion (and it is only that), most of us are here because we share the same "big-picture" goals - doing what we can to ensure that our government pursues a more progressive path and to help them understand that having a social conscience is a good thing.

The differences of opinion are often most pronounced in the area of tactics. The desired end results are similar, but how we get there is the main focus of the debate.

I think that building strong Democratic majorities and having a Democratic president are the best way to accomplish the above goals, even if it means putting up with a lot of Dems with whom I disagree vehemently. If we can't filter them out in the primary process, or it's not politically feasible to replace them with more progressive politicians (see Ben Nelson), then they're still better than Republicans in those seats. I'm aware that that's a poor tradeoff, but I think it's a realistic one.

[...of J.Temperance]

47. We do have more common ground than some people like to think

I've been saying this for ages....that we should concentrate on the issues that unite us, the issues that we agree on....instead of some people insisting that we polarize on the issues that divide us, the issues that we disagree on.

We can't agree on things 100% of the time, but there's many issues that we can agree on:

That we want a Democrat in the WH come January 2009, that we want abortion to remain legal, that we want gay people given the SAME rights as everyone else, that we don't want Social Security privatized, that we don't want troops STILL being in Iraq come 2009, that we certainly don't want a war with Iran, that we believe that church and state should be separate, that we want Stem Cell research including Embryonic Stem Cell research to be fully funded....these are just a few of the things that I think we ALL as Democrats agree on.

Of course we do need to listen to each other more, personally I'd like some people to just acknowledge that Centrist Democrats are ALSO a part of the Democratic Party....as you say, we ALL WANT the same goals, it's just that sometimes we might have a different approach on how to achieve those goals....and there's nothing wrong with that, it's certainly not a reason for civility to get tossed out of the window.

[countingbluecars]

17. I am a Democrat

who agrees with you LWolf. Nicely said.

[creeksneakers2]

64. I don't see gang mentality or group think

I see mature cooperation between those who know that we won't agree on everything but if we stick together we'll all get more of what we want. Everybody sacrifices and compromises toward the greater good. Without common sense loyalty there is nothing.

[LWolf]

101. You may not see it. I do.

I see it in nationalism disguised as patriotism. I see it in religious competition for followers. I see it in racial and ethnic groups, different cultural groups, professional groups, socio-economic groups, and, yes, in political groups.

I certainly recognize it when I see it within any group I'm a part of.

I am actually quite good at compromise, and sacrifice. I've done so much of both in my life, you see. My experience also leaves me clear about when I'm getting value for that compromise and/or sacrifice, and when I'm not.

Compromise means finding common ground and working together to achieve common goals. It doesn't mean giving up the goals. It doesn't mean moving backwards. The purpose of working together politically is to achieve the greater good, not to "win" if winning means giving up the goals.

When the group sees "winning" as occurring without gaining a goal, when the group sees anyone who holds the group to high standards of conduct and integrity as disloyal, that's gang-mentality.

[Toots]

8. Just saying you are one does not necessarily make it so

I seem to recall Karl rove said he was a Democrat also. There is such a thing a DINO (Democrat in Name Only). I won't grant a DINO my vote. What has Ben Nelson done for the Party? Would you vote for Zell Miller?

[TwilightZone]

11. Zell Miller was mentioned in my post.

I think my opinion of him was clear.

As for Ben Nelson, I voted for him for reasons I stated in my post. His opponent was significantly worse. It's a tradeoff - vote for Nelson, who votes with the Dems about 50% of the time, or vote for Ricketts, who would vote with the Republicans 100% of the time.

Not a difficult decision.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. When Did Rove Say He Was A Democrat?

This is the net so finding documentation should be easy...

Here's what I found:

In 1960, at the age of nine, Rove decided to support Richard Nixon in which he got into physical fight with a politically-motivated girl and lost.<2>

His family moved to Salt Lake City in 1965 when Rove was entering high school. While at Olympus High School, he was elected student council president his junior and senior years. He became skilled in debate.<3> He says "I was the complete nerd. I had the briefcase. I had the pocket protector. I wore Hush Puppies when they were not cool. I was the thin, scrawny little guy. I was definitely uncool."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove


People just throw stuff out there to make a rhetorical point...


As for Zell Miller he said he has broke with the national Democratic party but won't change his party affiliation because he contends it is they and not he who has changed...

[TwilightZone]

41. If he did say it...

I suspect that it was a joke.

[mondo joe]

14. Maybe you're the DINO.

Maybe you're not really a Democrat, but a Green, or an Anarchist, or a Socialist, or a Communist.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of those things - but they're not Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Maybe he's a Catholic, or a vegetarian, or a capitalist, or an environmentalist.

Are they Democrats?

[mondo joe]

19. Some members of all 3 of te groups you menioned are.

Some aren't. They are not political groups. In the US, Democrats, Greens, Socialists are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Enviromentalists, Catholics, capitalists don't have political power?

As groups, politically? How about unions? Corporations? Evangelicals?

Socialists, Communists, Greens, even Anarchists (like me) are often "Democrats" in the "lesser of two evils" sense.

Democrats have often voted for Republicans. Remember the "Reagan Democrats"? Democratic politicians frequently vote for Republican bills, or seat Republican appointees.

[mondo joe]

26. Please don't make shit up.

There is nothing in the groups you mentioned that make them party exclusive. There is nothing about being Catholic, for example, that limits your party affiliation.

But since you say you are a "Democrat" - your quotation marks - it looks like you are in fact a DINO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Yes, I am.

So?

[mondo joe]

28. So? Thanks for acknowledging it.

:-)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I thought it was rather obvious.

Now, if you'd tell me what a Democrat is?

[mondo joe]

32. Technically? Someone who is registered in the party.

But since this is in the context of DINOs, I assume you mean something other than that.

So I'd say the non-technical answer would be something like: Someone who is committed to the Democratic Party and its platform.

Of course one can change over time. I am a Democrat. If the party veered in some way that I found unacceptable, I would not longer be committed to the party or its platform, so I'd no longer be a Democrat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Well, I'm a non-technical Democrat.

[mondo joe]

34. That seems rather at odds with your earler post.

It sounds like you have for some time considered the Dems to be only the lesser of two evils, and actually feel more aligned with some other political group.

I don't mean to tell you how you feel - that's your call. But since you earlier said you were a DINO, I don't know how to reconcile your messages.

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. You're right it is at odds because I mistyped. Make that "technical" Democrat.

[TwilightZone]

31. Voting for Democrats and being a Democrat are two different things.

You can vote for a Democrat without being one. Perhaps that is your point, though I think you may be combining voting Democratic with self-identifying as a Democrat to create one entity. Voting for a Democrat doesn't inherently make the voter a Democrat, just like voting for Reagan didn't make Reagan Democrats Republicans, though many of them switched parties at a later date.

I'm a Democrat in the party sense, and I have no problem with that identity. As you noted, you tend to vote Democratic out of a lesser of two evils sense, but I don't think you really self-identify as a Democrat, based on the distinction I made above. I could be wrong, and if so, I apologize for the assumption.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. I'll agree with your synopsis.

I see a political party as a vehicle towards an end, or more realistically, a vehicle that moves in a general direction. Not as an "identity". I drive a car to get to the library but that doesn't make me a '94 Toyota.

As an Anarchist, I'm not overly fond of political parties, or any other device that gives people power over other people. And, generally speaking, I'm even less fond of politicians who wield that power. Because "our" politicians aren't as bad as the other politicians is a poor reason to support them.

[TwilightZone]

37. Understood.

Because "our" politicians aren't as bad as the other politicians is a poor reason to support them.

This is, of course, accurate, but also open to interpretation. You may see the Dems as a not-quite-as-bad alternative. I see significant differences in the party platforms and believe that the Dems are a lot closer to my own personal beliefs than the Republicans.

I'm also something of a realist. I think that our choices in many major political races boil down to two: R or D. That being the case, the only way we can push for an agenda with a social conscience is to elect more of the D candidates.

Elsewhere in the thread, I provided the example of Ben Nelson. Outside of Zell Miller, Ben is probably the Congressional Dem most likely to give everyone heartburn, including me. But, in Nebraska, the choices were Ben Nelson, who votes with the Dems roughly 50% of the time, according to people who analyze records, or Pete Ricketts, who I pretty much guarantee would have voted with Bush 100% of the time.

In that context, 50% is better than nothing. Lousy choice, from a progressive's perspective, but an obvious one in the end.

[TwilightZone]

20. I'm not sure how that's related.

Members of the Green Party and fairly easily identifiable as non-Democrats, specifically, they are not members of the Democratic Party.

Environmentalism is not a party-identifiable trait.

[...of J.Temperance]

45. You said it

Greens, Anarchists and Socialists really shouldn't be making comments about the Democratic Party or Democrats....I mean why are they so bothered with what the Democratic Party and Democrats are doing?

The Democratic Party has never been a Green Party, nor an Anarchist Party, nor a Socialist Party....we've always been a Liberal Centrist Party.

Greens, Anarchists and Socialists certainly shouldn't be bashing and posting articles that are bashing Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi et al....I don't think it's really appreciated on a forum that's primarily for supporters of the Democratic Party, to be doing that sort of thing.

Communist? I simply can't believe that Communists are around anymore....surely not? I've never met a Communist in my life!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Even if they're Democrats?

[...of J.Temperance]

48. Under what

Scenario would a Green or an Anarchist or a Socialist be a Democrat?

I should elaborate....if a Green or an Anarchist or a Socialist could not categorically state that in November 2008, they they will DEFINATELY vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee, no matter WHO the nominee is....then could they say that they're a Democrat?


On Edit: Added comment

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Of course.

I'm Anarchist who usually votes for Democratic candidates. I'll probably still be a Democrat if I don't vote for the nominee...although, I may write in a Democrat who isn't the nominee. I know a lot of Socialists, a few Communists, and at least one other Anarchist that are Democrats.

[...of J.Temperance]

53. Okay n/t

.

[ulysses]

51. "then could they say that they're a Democrat?"

Ever heard of "Reagan Democrats"? That was before your time, but not only are they still out there, your friend Al From founded an entire organization to cater to them.

[...of J.Temperance]

54. I'll tell

Al From that you said that, when I see him in a couple of weeks, see what his reaction is....somehow, I don't think he'll agree with your comment!

:)

[ulysses]

55. if he doesn't agree, then he's lying.

The DLC was founded in 1985 in direct response to Reagan's second election. You'll let me know, yes?

[...of J.Temperance]

59. Primarily

The DLC was founded because we couldn't keep nominating candidates from the Left, such as Veep Walter Mondale and thus continue to lose in such an awful fashion like Mondale did.

It would have been totally unacceptable....actually 1988 was a mistake as well, I think if Senator Al Gore would have got our nomination in 1988, then he might have had a very good chance of winning that election, as opposed to Governor Michael Dukakis.

The DLC wanted to give an outlet for Centrist Democrats to take a more prominent role in shaping and deciding policy, which I'm glad that the DLC has succeeded in doing this.

The first DLCer to get the party nomination, did win, Governor Bill Clinton not only won, but he became the first Democratic President since FDR to win a second term in office.

The second DLCer to get the party nomination, I believe also won, Vice-President Al Gore in 2000.

But of course I'll let you know what Al From says, I'm sure he'll be glad of the discussion.


On Edit: Spelling error

[ulysses]

61. ok, and why could we not keep nominating candidates from the "left"

(Fritz Mondale being such a radical leftist :eyes:) according to that "wisdom"? Hint: Reagan Democrats.

[...of J.Temperance]

88. Why would you say that

Veep Walter Mondale lost in 1984?

What would your analysis of the 1984 election loss be? Why didn't people go for him, why did he only win one state, his own state?

[ulysses]

95. two things:

1. It's not likely that Jesus H. Christ himself would have beaten Reagan in 1984. Mondale was a sacrificial lamb, much like Dole in 1996.

2. "I will raise your taxes." True, but not the best political statement.

[Toots]

52. I am not a Democrat

I am a registered Independent, always have been and always will be. I don't tow anyone's Party Line.. I am an issue and person voter

[mondo joe]

58. Thank you for your response.

And I take no issue with your position. I respect it.

That said, it seems to me there are a lot of people who are Democrats in Name Only - including a lot of people who call others DINOs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. I've been a "lesser of two evils" Democrat since 1965.

I owe no allegiance to the Party, and have no problem voting 3rd party when the Democratic candidates abandon common humanity in the name of political expediency and gaining or holding on to their seats.

There are issues and issues. I've spent most of my life holding my nose for Democratic candidates who name bridges for Reagan or roads for Bush. I'll shrug on most issues that they "compromise" on as the best we can get.

But there are issues that count for more. When they vote for an illegal and immoral war, or threaten war, when they "compromise" a woman's right to choose, when they vote to seat torturers and murderers in office, I will not vote for them.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Sneaky Sailor]

25. *Puts up my flame shield*

I just thought you might need this, telling people all Democrats are welcome is not looked upon kindly here.

[TwilightZone]

39. Thanks.

I think we tend to lose sight of why we're all here in the first place. Most of us, anyway.

[...of J.Temperance]

43. That was fantastic!

My goodness, I couldn't have put any of that better myself, you summed everything up in a nutshell.

You're on 15 votes I see, here's number 16 ;)

[TwilightZone]

56. Thanks.

I will be very happy when the primaries are over, and we can all (mostly) focus on the general election!

[...of J.Temperance]

60. Word, you and me both

It's going to be like such a huge relief when the Primaries are over and we can focus on the Big Picture and the Big Prize!

[TwilightZone]

62. Prize(s) :)

We need the presidency, of course, but gains in Congress are key, as well, especially considering the general opinion of our current thin majorities.

Filibuster-proof would be helpful.

[...of J.Temperance]

82. Yeah

Solidifying Congress is crucial and picking up more Senate seats.

At this time, that's the best I can do, a simple comment, I can't do an in-depth comment right now about this....Jindal winning in Louisiana has sort of put my brain out of sync....*sigh*

[TwilightZone]

83. Yeah, looks like he won big, too.

I must admit that I haven't been paying a lot of attention to that race. I know that Blanco had decided not to run and that Jindal and a couple of other candidates had raised big money. Was his win attributed in part to what I guess could be termed as Blanco backlash?

[...of J.Temperance]

85. Blanco backlash and

Jindal ran last time against Kathleen Blanco, and the Jindal campaign ran this new campaign on a sort of "buyers remorse" thing geared at those who last time voted for Blanco instead of Jindal.

The other thing the Louisiana Democratic party really didn't field a heavy-duty candidate against Jindal, why I don't know.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Recommended! n/t

[ulysses]

50. of course not. I am as well.

Like LWolf, I'm a democrat first, but I've always been a Democrat too.

[ruggerson]

63. If dogs could vote

we'd probably get better results.

k/r

[TwilightZone]

74. That's probably true.

Maybe I should reconsider. :)

[vademocrat]

65. "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

Will Rogers said that. My 80 year old father reminds me of that quote on a regular basis and we laugh because it's still so true!

Here's another good one from Rogers: "You've got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you've got to be a humorist to stay one."


"I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket":dem:

[TwilightZone]

66. Two of my favorite quotes.

I quote the "organized party" one quite often.

It's amazing how little some things change. :)

[vademocrat]

70. They're classics!

I really relate to and agree with your point of electing democrats at ALL levels. It was during the 1980s that the radical right started running candidates for office - school board, sheriff, voting registrar...we democrats have a lot of work to do in cleaning up the mess of the last 25-30 years.

This is why I love Howard Dean's 50-state strategy so much - he's putting back into place local party operations that had been in place until about 25-30 years ago (hmmm...coincidence? probably not!)

Excellent rant btw! :thumbsup:

[TwilightZone]

73. Thanks.

I spent much of my adult life in Nebraska, and I will readily admit that I was skeptical about any Democratic plan that, as I put it, "wasted time" in Nebraska. It seemed like a waste of resources.

Then, strangely enough, I actually saw some progress in the '06 elections. Races that should have been Republican blowouts were much, much closer than expected. Republican incumbents who had previously won races with 70% of the vote still won, but the wins were in the 55/45 range. Definitely unexpected. Nebraska is a very red state, so if we're making inroads there, we can make them just about anywhere. Except Utah, perhaps. :)

What I found interesting was that a lot of the local races were being won by Democrats. Democrats in Nebraska tend to be fairly moderate, but any Democrat winning in a state that is 70% Republican is impressive.

We're not going to turn the state blue anytime soon, but I think it's indicative of the trend we saw elsewhere in '06 in that there was a solid shift to the blue side of the equation in much of the country. That gives me hope for '08, and I hope that the trend continues. The feeling the morning after the '06 elections was incredible. No incumbent seats lost, big gains in all levels of government. Repeat in '08, please!

I definitely agree with your point about cleaning up the mess. If we do win the presidency in 2008, the new president is going to face some serious challenges. The next several presidents, in fact, will be dealing with fallout from the Bush reign. For that reason, they need all the support they can get, which means solidifying leads in Congress. A filibuster-proof majority would be helpful!

[creeksneakers2]

67. Excellent thread!

Full of good points that ought to be said.

[dave123williams]

69. Hmmmm. Here's my problem with your posting:

"Yes, I agree. I’m certain that a Democratic president will nominate someone just like John Roberts to the Supreme Court, will provide the rich with massive tax cuts, and will gut social programs. Then, they’ll privatize Social Security, push anti-choice legislation, and waive environmental regulations. And, that’s just the first week."

Yeah, well *most* of the Democrats a) confirmed Roberts b) voted for the massive tax cuts for the wealthy c) have been complicit in gutting social programs. To their credit, they stood up on social security. I wouldn't crow too much about supporting pro-choice legislation if you're also voting to confirm Roberts and Allito.

[TwilightZone]

71. With a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress...

none of those things would have been introduced. That was my point.

Re: "most of the Democrats" - I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

a) 22 of 44 Democrats voted for Roberts. Half does not equal "most".

You also mentioned Alito. Only four Democratic Senators voted to confirm Alito.

b) Incorrect. The votes were usually along party lines. Most Democrats voted against the tax cuts.

Sources from a quick Google search: http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC107H20
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/bush_signs_70b_.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09cong.html

I'm sure you can find more through Google.

c) The Republicans were in the majority in Congress until January. Stopping the Bush budgets would not have been an easy task. Perhaps you can explain how we, as the minority, should have accomplished that. The votes were often along party lines.

[dave123williams]

103. Perhaps you can explain to me how THEY have accomplished it.

[ellisonz]

72. K & R

:applause:

[tandot]

75. Love your post! Thanks, TwilightZone!

:hi:

[ooglymoogly]

76. But, but, but, if for example, Ben Nelsen were a republican and voted for more war

we and the American people could understand it and scream bloody murder at him...but if he parades as a democrat and votes for war and other pug issues then the war and all else becomes bi-partisan and all the bloodshed and ignorance rests on our collective weak democratic heads...am I missing something here?
Tell me is it better to be in the minority and vote with honor and know the votes are from the heart of the democratic party or have republicans in democrat drag sacrificing the honor of true democratic values? Sorry to rain on your parade but Jesus H. Keeeriste.

[Daphne]

77. You're right. My own personal world view is not indicative of the voting public.

Therefore I must be wrong.

Right? (no pun intended)

[TwilightZone]

79. Not at all.

The danger is in assuming that your (or my) personal worldview can be extrapolated to Democrats, in general. Democrats have a wide variety of stances on a wide variety of issues. One person simply cannot be representative of the whole.

[Daphne]

86. Seig Heil!

[ooglymoogly]

100. It is not about what one believes, it is about the truth

One might believe the earth is flat or evolution does not exist; It is about who is closer to the truth and who is lying his/her ass off for an agenda, in this case an agenda by and for the rich and hoodwinking as many bumpkins as possible.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

78. Repubs like to turn "Democrat" into a dirty work or associate it with Socialism

and its up to us to set the record straight. A lot of my relatives are republicans so I go through that a lot. Media certainly doesn't help.

When I hear the Democrats are 'socialist' crap my response is to associate republicans with fascist to turn the word game against them.

'That's a heck of a choice you lay out - voting for socialists or fascists'

[TwilightZone]

80. I like that one.

Socialism or fascism - pick one!

Yes, I bet that that does present an interesting challenge for them.

[UrbScotty]

81. YES!! Right on!!!

Thank you for posting this!

[Norrin Radd]

84. Bullshit! If a chimp can be prez, my dog can vote.

[TwilightZone]

97. Ok, ok....

I've reconsidered my stance. As long as your dog is 18 in dog years, he/she/(it?) can vote! :)

[pissnoffrethugs]

87. I do have a problem with blind loyalty to a party

Zell Miller claims to be a democrat, should I vote for him or someone like a more centrist republican like Chuck Hagel. Of the 2 I would vote for Hagel, at least he would be against the war. Sometimes blind party loyalty is not always a good thing.

[TwilightZone]

96. You might want to actually read my post.

I mentioned Zell Miller. I think my opinion of him was made quite clear.

[johan helge]

90. Freepers lurking here probably attack "party loyalists"

- to demoralize. They love the Greens etc. (remember Florida 2000, the very thing that got us into this mess?).

[acmavm]

93. So exactly what is it you're saying? People sick and tired of 'secret

trade deals' and giving the telecoms blanket immunity and bush** being given billions and billions more for Iraq (while they don't have enough to help the poor with heating bills) are NOT democrats? No criticism allowed? No disgust at the collaboration of the people we sent to Washington last Novermber?

I'm here to tell you that I'm a Democrat with a capital D. And I demand the my representatives fight this criminal administration.

Go and check out the latest verified treason from this administration. Valerie Plame WAS working on WMDs and Iran. And then tell me what hearings you see in the near future about her outing (other than the one we got that snagged Scooter Libby when we all know there were bigger fish to fry in that mess).

It would be nice to be content with the status quo, to not feel the need to demand that OUR party do something about all these crimes, to just be able to go with the flow and not recognize their complicity in these criminal acts? How are they complicit? By cover-up. By enabling. By providing cover and money for them to keep on doing what they've been doing for the last few years.

If you think you're a Democrat and I'm not, I'm here to tell you differently.

[TwilightZone]

99. That's a rather curious interpretation of what I said.

I basically said that I want to ensure that Democrats get elected to office and that we need virtually all of them (liberal, moderate, conservative, etc.) to be competitive as a party on a national scale.

You somehow turned that into "I'm a Democrat and you're not."

What? If I believe that even Ben Nelson is a Democrat, do you really believe that I think you're not?

Honestly, your response has so little to do with my OP that I'm not sure where to start.

[Danger Mouse]

94. I think it's safe to say that we disagree strongly on the issues...

but I wouldn't dream of telling you you shouldn't be here.
Personally, I think the Dems need to do something and hold Bush accountable for his numerous crimes.

[TwilightZone]

98. Accountable....

I agree. Just because I want to get Democrats elected doesn't mean that I don't think they should accomplish something once they get there or that they shouldn't pursue indictments of the Bush clan. Far from it.

My observation of what we've done (or not done) with thin majorities thus far that is part of my insistence that we get more Democrats elected at all levels. Lack of action has obviously been a problem, but I also think that Republican obstructionism plays a factor. Making further gains in the House and Senate should make that obstructionism significantly more difficult to maintain. A filibuster-proof majority would be very helpful.

[Danger Mouse]

102. Getting the white house and a larger majority in Congress...

would do great things for us. Agreed.

[truedelphi]

104. I endorse your idea of voting for Demcoratic candidates locally

And offer this as well - if you think the grey matter is still working, and if you have a little time and a little money - try and be a candidate yourself.

I kept myself from running by thinking the same old negatives over and over - I don't ahve a Master's Degree, I'm not in with the "in" crowd in my local town, I don't have what it takes etc.

All that is nonsense. (I learned that by running for office.) Often the type of "in" crowd that exists ought to be thrown out. You do need persistance, patience and organization. You proabaly also should be a "people" person. And a team of people who believe in you is essential.

You also need to evaluate the position that you could reasonably expect to win and to reasonably expect to succeed at should you win. Start small - local school board, or town council.

For people with an interest in the environment - your local water board is going to be under pressure to "privatize" the local water supply over the next three to ten years. We need progressive style Democrats in that office pronto - before Bechtel, Halliburton etc gets their guys in.