Specifically, when you say : "Having said, I find one point to be most interesting. A lot of folks criticizing Paine's remarks about Kerry also criticize Kerry. You can't have it both ways."
The point I was making is that people CAN have it both ways. We (the choir so to speak) can criticize the people we may or may not vote for while still demanding that our elected Dems who do the same. There is nothing at all inconsistent with that position.
Furthermore, I wasn't implying that Southern Democrats are clamoring for anything. My only implication was that most liberals in the Dem party have a hard time tolerating Dems who attack other Dems. Southern Dems on the other hand (based on the comments throughout this thread) seem to tolerate it.
Which brings me to your next point. What I mean by "accept". I thought it was fairly straight forward, but I'll try to be more clear. There should be no tolerance for dems attacking other dems for political points. Anyone who makes excuses, is an apologist, or justifies dems attacking dems is "accept"ing it. That's why so many people get mad at Joe Lieberman. Why is he so eager to get on record as attacking Dems? Because he is trying to score political points and knows that when a dem starts laying into their own, people will take notice.
Which finally bring me specifically to this incident. Ill admit I do not know much about Mr. Kaine. From what I have read he seems to be a good candidate. I am not questioning how good a politician or a person or anything. But I do expect the man running for the Chief Executive office of one of our states to understand and practice the art of discretion. There was no need for Mr Kaine to attack John Kerry. And what's worse is that not only is this Democrat repeating a republican talking point but a false one at that. He then goes on to make the false claims that the democrats attack anyone religous and that we should be embracing the Falwell / Robertson supporters because they are you know...natural Democrats? Instead of using the opportunity to take the position that the Democrats do in fact value religion, its just the EXTREMISM of people like Falwell and Robertson that concerns us, he decided to reapeat false assertions and make claims that are a bit disconnected from reality.
And for what? What was the point of attacking the Democratic party? What did Mr. Kaine gain by using this opportunity to attack his own instead of attacking his opposition or advance is own positions? Why not instead highlight his differences with the national party in a way that pushes the "Big Tent" theme or promoted tolerance for opposing views.(something that the GOP seems to be lacking)
Despite the fact that the interview was for a left leaning magazine, it's still only a google (or lexis) search away if someone did want to use it.
I just want to add one last point. You said : "If you think his comments make sense, utilize them. If you don't, ignore them." I think that the party as a whole would be better served by us letting him know directly that his comments didn't make sense or were inappropriate or whatnot. To just ignore them is to accept them and I don't think we should. I think that all of us, dems and repubs should be letting our politicos know that 1. we are listening and 2. what they say matters . It's the ignore it mentality that leads to some of the insane things many politicians do because the believe (rightly so) that most people arent paying attention anyway. And I don't think taking somone to task because the tried to score cheap political points at the expense of one of their own is "whining". It's doing whats proper.
Maybe Mr. Kaine should stop "whining" about the Democratic party and spend the time being constructive? Maybe reform from within is more effective that attacking from the outside? And maybe when donation day comes, he will have more open purse-stringa from the blue parts of the US that actually liked John Kerry, and want to support those who are proud to be Democrats despite the individual differences. (You know, big tent and all)
And how come you're so sure that Mr. Kaine was just trying to score cheap political points. It is one thing to disagree with him; it is another to just make blanket assumptions about motives.
Barack Obama made comments that could be taken as critical of the Democratic Party. Is he a whiner?
In the South, the Religious Right is not just a fringe group, it has become the most powerful group. When you drive by an evangelical church every 1 mile, this should give you a strong picture. You simplify this to Falwell and Robertson, but it is much bigger than that.
The churches occupy a lot of power politically here, and skirt the legal lines of separation of church and state (and often cross it). A lot of folks vote Republican solely on the basis of what their preacher says. There is also an accompanying peer pressure, from the top on down, within the churches that has developed on this end. It is a large network to fight.
Yet within these churches, I believe that are potential Democrats that need our help, at least from a financial standpoint. The problem is that there are a lot of Democrats outside the South who choose to ridicule their faith and intellect in a generalized stereotype. Also, in going after preachers such as Falwell, they have unwittingly increased his legitimacy in the eyes of many Southern Evangelicals. They believe that they themselves are now being attacked. And in the process, the effective counterpoint to extreme right-wing radicalism has been effectively eliminated. People don't like to be talked down to, yet a lot of California/East Coast Democrats continue to do so. And they ARE watching your attitudes. Nobody likes elitists, and this is hurting us. Quit fighting their preachers, and start giving them the principled, Democratic values that we share. Help us win them over.
Two more points:
There seems to be this general loathing of Democrats in the South in this thread. Perhaps this is understandable. The South has only given the Democratic Party its last 3 presidents (LBJ, Carter, Clinton).
African-Americans tend to Christian and socially conservative. Yet they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. We have spoken to them on economic and race issues, among others. Why can't we forward the economic case to lower-to-middle income white evangelicals. It is possible.
