What Do Democrats Need To Do?

Cross-posted at JoeHoeffelandFriends.com.

What is wrong with the Democratic Party? Why do some commentators and many voters believe we are losing our soul?  Why are the Republicans in control?
We face two great national challenges:  getting our fiscal house in order and keeping the country safe.  Republican policies are failing miserably to meet the first challenge, and many of us feel that our mistakes in Iraq are creating more terrorists than we've killed or captured and are making us less safe.
But the Republicans are winning elections anyway.  Why?  Maybe because they have a simple, understandable and popular two-step program:  cut taxes and shrink government.  They even have a snappy name for it, "starving the beast".  
But when they starve the beast while spending more on defense and security, a fiscal meltdown is unavoidable, resulting in higher taxes, higher interest rates and economic stagnation.
But Republicans are still winning.  So what is wrong with the Democrats?  What do we need to do to start winning again?
First, let's advocate our own two-step program:  balance the budget, then invest in people.  Can it be done?  See Bill Clinton and his budget surpluses and booming economy.
Second, we must acknowledge that we have a real problem.  Too many Americans feel that the Democratic party is soft on national security,  has weak moral values and dishonors religion, and is too liberal on cultural issues.
Now, those accusations are bogus, but perceptions can become reality in the minds of voters, so we should start by fighting back.
We are not soft on national security.  Democratic presidents have led this country valiantly in wartime, and members of both parties in Congress - to this day - vote for the money to wage those wars and fight terrorism.  And Democrats also know that we are even safer when we work with, not against, our traditional allies and when we embrace a multinational approach to foreign policy, not a go-it-alone, cowboy diplomacy.
Weak moral values and disrespectful of religion?  Not the Democrats I know.  Most of us are people of faith, just like most Republicans.  We are guided by the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed and the Jewish prophets.  It's just that we don't campaign against the other guys claiming God favors only our platform.  And Democrats have the most moral and traditional of values underpinning our policies:  feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, caring for the elderly.  Those are biblical values, for heavens sake, that should make us proud.

Are we too liberal on cultural issues?  No, but maybe we are too tolerant.  We care most about growing and sharing the economic pie.  So we champion not just the successful and well connected but also those that struggle and toil every day, and the least, the last and the lost among us.  Some of those people and some of those causes are unpopular.
But do Americans really want their national elections fought over abortions, gun safety and gay rights, as Republican operatives seem to think?  Those issues attract a lot of Democratic support but they don't define our party and we shouldn't let the Republicans claim otherwise.  Let's face it:   Democrats won't make you have an abortion, take your gun, or turn you gay.
Back in power, what would the Democrats do?  We would ask all Americans, particularly the successful and well connected, to pay their fair share of taxes and bear their share of sacrifices in restrained spending to get our fiscal house in order and continue to keep the country safe.  And we would invest any restored budget surpluses in health care,  public schools and job creation.
The fact is that we embrace, just like Republicans, the beauty of individual liberty and the economic magic of the free marketplace.  But unlike the governing GOP, Democrats also believe in public action for public good.  We know we are all in the same boat.  We see government as a necessary and positive force that, when properly used, will improve the quality of everyone's life.
So how do we turn things around?  Let's start by facing the facts, fixing mistakes and fighting like hell.
We need to listen to the voters who have been rejecting our message.  We need to sharpen that message to respond to the real concerns of Americans, not to the spin of the other side.  And we need to believe in our message and in ourselves.
If  Democrats respond to the demands and the hopes of the public marketplace with simple authenticity and passionate conviction, then we will win.



Display:


What message? (none / 0)

We need to listen to the voters who have been rejecting our message.  We need to sharpen that message to respond to the real concerns of Americans, not to the spin of the other side.  And we need to believe in our message and in ourselves.

What message would that be?

If any voter has tuned in the last two years what message would they have heard from the Democrats?

Security:
Democrats agreed with Bush on Iraq and overwhelming voted for this bogus war...and still do not have the guts to own up to the truth. How can Democrats claim to make Americans safer when then can't even stand up to this administration?

Morality:
Voters would not have seen a single Democratic leader denounce Jeff Gannon a male prostitute in the midst of the Whitehouse presscorp. But instead they would have heard so-call leaders denounce Micheal Moore instead.

Dishonors religion:
They would have heard so called Christian Democrats like Edwards and Obama lambast Dean for pointing out the overt hypocrisy of the Republican morality. Therefore, any voter paying attention would have seen Democrats praising the Republican morality. They would have also heard Dem Leaders like Pelosi and Reid parrot the wingnuts talking points on "Values Voters"

Too liberal on cultural issues:
What you mean like Hilliary and Kerry joining forces with Sanatorum in limiting access to contrapception. Now if a woman is raped she may find herself in a predicament of running around town to find a pharmacist "willing" to sell her the morning after pill. This is a farce... Since Harry Reid has been in leadership position the Democrats for Life crow loudly that they have made more "progress for their cause" than the last five years combined.

Voters would have seen Democrats vote that female soldiers would be refused the moring after pill if the were raped.

So please tell me where the heck do you see Democrats "but maybe we are too tolerant" ... what that ALL people should have civil rights...?

The Democrats have no message...

What people see and hear is that the Democrats in Washington DC will sell the vote to the highest bidder. they see the Democrats trying to "out right the right" on socalled moral and values issues and at the same time sell out on all of the traditional Democratic Issues... People are not blind... they say Democrats vote for NAFTA and CAFTA, The Banruptcy Bill and Iraq war... for all intents and purposes this party is useless and mean nothing and stands up for even less.

Now there are new memes being floated for the party to have mass amenesia and forget the past and forget it's constituencies least they be "single issues" but by all means embrace corporatism and stand up for nothing (aka be non-ideogolical).

Voters have not been "rejecting our message" they have been rejecting our pathetic politicians who have NO MESSAGE...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 10:47:05 AM EST

change begins at home (2.75 / 4)

If  Democrats respond to the demands and the hopes of the public marketplace with simple authenticity and passionate conviction, then we will win.

You need to tell that to Bob Casey, Jr.

by blogswarm on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:02:46 AM EST

Re: change begins at home (none / 0)

I am telling that to Bob Casey.
by Joe Hoeffel on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: change begins at home (none / 0)

Joe if you have a moment please check out my new diary... I think afterwards surely you will see that "morality" is in the eyes of the beholder.
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This trolling brought to you by Brigham Inc. (2.00 / 1)

Really? WTF are you talking about?
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:30:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This trolling brought to you by Brigham Inc. (none / 0)

The guy trying to draft a Republican to run as a Democrat is asking me WTF?
by blogswarm on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This trolling brought to you by Brigham Inc. (none / 0)

Yes, the fuy from Philly who actually knows PA (unlike Mr. Brigham who hails from the great swing-state of CA- the ultra Conservative Berkley to be precise) is asking you- WTF?

And yes, I also am trying to convince Republicans to switch to the Democratic Party. Oh, the horror!

Bob- why not take a walk through S. Philly, Kensington, the NE, or any of the Suburban counties and and ask the people of PA why they are so friggin stupid to believe in things like religion. Any other Philadelphians or Pennsylvanians care to explain to Bob what the reception would be? It's aight, I'm sure Bob wouldn't dare say these types of things to real people without hiding behind the saftey of his computer. If he would, more power to him, he could probablly use a little bit of a beatdown.

Actually, Bob, I want to invite you to the next Eagles talegate party, or how about a day at the mummers parade after NYE? You can wear a big sign that says: "Don't vote for Bob Casey, he's Catholic. And, he believes that crap!" They'll show you what Philly Phriendly is really all about.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This trolling brought to you by Brigham Inc. (none / 0)

Let me make something clear- I'm not trying to insult Berkely. I just returned from a trip to the SF area (which I used to visit quite ferquently as a child, when my unlce resided in Berkley) and I LOVE SF, Berkley and Oak-town!!!

That said, I do think that spending too much time in the liberal oasis can make you a little rigid when it comes to dealing with the rest of the nation. When you're dealing with political outreach, that can turn into a toxic mix.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 03:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the funny thing is... (none / 0)

That the PA marketplace is largely Catholic, a group which Bob lovingly refers to as "theocons," along with any other group of people that is morally opposed to stem cell research and abortion (regardless of whether they support abortion legally).

Bob is exactlly the type of Democrat we need to keep the hell out of swing state politics (ironic given his website, aint it?)- an obnoxious know-it-all who will come in and tell half of PA why they are so bass-ackwards.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:37:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the funny thing is... (none / 0)

Have you been watching Hannity & Colmes Alex?

That the PA marketplace is largely Catholic, a group which Bob lovingly refers to as "theocons," along with any other group of people that is morally opposed to stem cell research and abortion (regardless of whether they support abortion legally).

Bob Brigham says a lot of things. Has he really said that all Catholics are "theocons"?

In the right context, I might agree with Bob even if he did say precisely that. Do we have any polls on PA Catholics? Do all PA Catholics want to outlaw all abortions? Do all PA Catholics really believe that condums and birth control pills are immoral?

The last I heard there was a word for a woman who only practices the rhythm method of birth control. They call them "Mother." Probably about twelve times over.

Unless all PA Catholics have twelve or thirteen children, we have a major disconnect going on here between the religious practice of PA Catholics and what they vote for.

I've said very clearly that I would never vote for Bob Casey if I lived in Pennsylvania. I will also not support or contribute to his campaign. Are you aware of the rest of Bob Casey's positions?

Do those positions really reflect the beliefs of PA Democrats? If that is the case and they want to impose their narrow religious beliefs, even the ones they do not practice themselves, on every citizen of Pennsylvania and indirectly on every citizen in America, the Bob Brigham may be right about PA Catholics being theocrats.

I always thought thecons was a term that referred to foreign policy, not abortion and stem cell controversies. Bob Brigham may be guilty of using loose terminology or his position may be somewhat different than you have indicated Alex.

I await further enlightenment.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the funny thing is... (none / 0)

yeah, I've been watching Hannity and Colmes- while I eat small babies and worship the devil.

Has he really said that all Catholics are "theocons"?

Well, he points out positions which are the ones that are central to the Catholic Church and proceeds to say that anyone who holds these positions is a theocon.

Do all PA Catholics want to outlaw all abortions? Do all PA Catholics really believe that condums and birth control pills are immoral?

Gary, read what I wrote a little slower, you missed a fundemental point I was making. Most catholics morally oppose abortion, as do I in many cases (I am not Catholic). However, many, if not most, of those same people wouldn't want Roe v. Wade overturned. You can both oppose abortion on moral grounds and support freedom of choice- it comes down to what role you think gov't should play in people's lives, as well as a difference in opinion over how to reduce abortions (i.e. education and access to birth control). I believe that almost all Catholics in PA are for access to birth control, which is against the church but common sense, but I may be mistaken.

What exactlly would a theocon position on foreign policy be? I would guess that if you were using it in this way you'd be referring to those who want to bring on the "final days." Bob is most definitely using the term to signify Casey's stances on abortion and stem cell research.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 07:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: change begins at home (none / 0)

What would you prefer?  That Casey change his positions on issues to satisfy you?
by Adam B on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: change begins at home (none / 0)

Yes he would. You see, Bob is the supreme commander of the Democratic Party and he, and only he, decides who is a real Democrat and who is a theocon.

He would also prefer all Catholics and other Christians in PA to renounce their "theocon" faith, or at least admit that they are partially retarded.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

faith is good (none / 0)

Using government to impose religion on others makes one a Theocon.
by blogswarm on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:35:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Catholics (none / 0)

Really? Huh.

While you're enlightening me as to the Ten Commandments of being a perfect Democrat, handed to you when you climbed Mt. Sinai during your years traversing the desert on your way to the promised land, can you tell me what we should call a Democrat who knee-caps every Dem candidate who's religious beliefs they disagree with? And how about a person who has no friggin idea about the political or cultural landscape of an area who comes in and tells you how things "really" are and what you should really believe?

I await your wisdom old wise one!

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

Okay, let's get rid of Social Security then, because what's more Love Thy Neighbor than that?
by Adam B on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

Let's not. Social Security is about "Love Thy Neighbor," because loving thy neighbor is a nice thing to do, not because an invisible man in the sky says to love thy neighbor...or else.
by craverguy on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 03:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

And they don't mention that anywhere in the "good book" now do they?

Craverguy- are you a student of history at all? What part of human history gives you even a modicum of faith that human beings do anything nice to their neighbors with out at least some threat of "or else?"

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

My eternal faith in the human spirit, without which I would have said "fuck this" and walked off a roof sometime during the Reagan administration.
by craverguy on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

So, basically, you don't study history? I know, history is a bloody, tumultuous mess- ignoring the realities that it teaches will get you nowhere.

There's a difference between faith and blind faith. I also have eternal faith in the human spirit, unforunately I also have eternal faith in the aggressive nature of mankind.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 06:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

Actually, I have a master's in history.

My point is that I don't need to study history to find examples, because I am an example. I do nice things for other people without being extorted into it all the time. And if I can do it, so can everyone else.

by craverguy on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 07:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

What part of human history gives you even a modicum of faith that human beings do anything nice to their neighbors with out at least some threat of "or else?"

I don't know about human history, but if you remove the concept of the Golden Rule from the Bible, there's not a whole lot of substance left.

Since we are being intentionally offensive, I hope your shallow faith is not representative of the faith of PA Catholics Alex. If that's the case, both you and they are in deep doo doo on judgment day.

The simple truth is that not only Social Security, but the concept of Jubilee as well. The Bible is full of all kinds of social do gooder ideas that we might be better off if we took them more seriously.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:26:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: faith is good (none / 0)

Since we are being intentionally offensive, I hope your shallow faith is not representative of the faith of PA Catholics Alex. If that's the case, both you and they are in deep doo doo on judgment day.

I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about. What about my stance leads you to believe that either my faith or that of PA Catholics is shallow? Because I believe that someone can be both Catholic and a Democrat? Because I believe that you can be morally against something and still not want the government to interfere in people's lives?  

The simple truth is that not only Social Security, but the concept of Jubilee as well. The Bible is full of all kinds of social do gooder ideas that we might be better off if we took them more seriously.

I fully agree with you, and I bet, judging from his record and his stances, that Bob Casey does as well. Democrats need to start focusing on these things and stop with the name calling and the purposeful insults of people of certain faiths.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 06:47:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe you mean 'theocrat' bob (none / 0)

Isn't "theocon" primarily a foreign policy reference? Maybe I've got it wrong.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: change begins at home (none / 0)

I would prefer that the Democratic power structure stop backiing a lost cause. Bob Casey is the most likely candidate to lose to Rick Santorum. Bob Casey is the least likely candidate to help move the Democratic Party back to majority status.
by Gary Boatwright on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: change begins at home (none / 0)

I would have prefered a better Presidential candidate then Bush, unfortunately, that's what we got. Unless a viable alternative (which Pennachio is , unfortunately, not) with buckets of cash comes forth in the next few months the candidate will be Casey. And if and when it is Casey I hope that he isn't so badly damaged by hacks within our own party that we lose to Man-on-dog.
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:59:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Been thinking about that very question, Joe (3.00 / 1)

HONESTY, RESPONSIBILITY & A FAIR SHARE ECONOMY

Recently (Wednesday, August 24), the Dianne Rehm show featured a number of national-level progressive luminaries. At one point they were asked to give a snapshot of what the Democratic party stands for.....Much to my amazement and dismay, they proceeded to spew a laundry list of specific issues, instead of voicing a coherent set of 'frames'. As a result, listeners were left with the same old fuzzy, contrarian picture of the un-GOP, I mean the Democratic party. Unbelievable.

As a songwriter (and progressive activist and teacher and dabbler in communications and advertising), I have a fascination with this question and, I humbly submit, at least something of a way with words. So here's what I've been kicking around for the past few months. Hopefully, parts of this construct will spread to where it'll count:

Ahem. What do we as progressives &/or Democrats stand for?

We stand for HONESTY, RESPONSIBILITY & A FAIR SHARE ECONOMY.

That's it.

Thin on details, yes? That's fine. Pick an issue, then drop it into the appropriate frame. Simplicity is good for those with short attention spans and/or those with complex messages.

Honesty and Responsibility are the overarching themes.

RESPONSIBILITY (Here DEMS can state `positives' about their agenda while, conveniently, slamming the GOP!)

  • Fiscal RESPONSIBILITY means a balanced federal budget. Compare the huge deficits piled up under Reagan and both Bushes to the massive Clinton surplus.

  • RESPONSIBLE federal government will provide for the protection of its citizenry by maintaining a strong (but not disproportionate) military. Whimsical military actions (see `Iraq') will be avoided.

  • Caring for veterans is a federal RESPONSIBILITY.

  • Keeping health care costs down and retirement programs stable for the elderly is the government's RESPONSIBILITY.

  • Providing our kids a Headstart is a federal RESPONSIBILITY.

  • RESPONSIBLE federal government will protect the natural environment (and, hence, the people).

  • RESPONSIBLE federal government will encourage innovation and forward thinking in dealing with the challenges of energy consumption and the use of natural resources.

  • Adequately funding federal programs (instead of placing the burden on states) is a RESPONSIBILITY of the Congress.

  • Providing equal opportunity for those citizens who have been trodden upon, exploited, or otherwise discriminated against by our society is a RESPONSIBILITY.

  • RESPONSIBILITY is an indicator of MORALITY.

HONESTY (This conveniently allows for a blanket repudiation of many things GOP):

  • 'States Rights v. Federal Intrusion' is a bread & butter theme for the GOP. But between the reality of (or call for) federal action re: education (NCLB), gay marriage, prayer in school, right to die, medical marijuana, etc. the GOP in fact advocates stepping all over states rights, when it suits their purposes. NOT HONEST.

  • How about the Bush administration (the face of the GOP) and their penchant for naming programs that do the opposite of what they claim: Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, etc? NOT HONEST!

  • Killing 100K Iraqis in the name of 'freedom' is NOT HONEST (that 'culture of life' thing). The war, of course, was marketed on a deception. NOT HONEST. Claiming 'progress' in Iraq is (generally) NOT HONEST. Claiming that 'the `terrorists' hate our freedom' is NOT HONEST. Saying we'll leave when the Iraqis are ready to run their own country is also NOT HONEST (given those pesky military bases we're building...).

  • That GOP politicos pay lip service to making abortion illegal but don't in fact intend to outlaw it is NOT HONEST. This is, by the way (as Molly Ivins points out) how the GOP continually suckers the religious right.

  • That GOP politicos pay lip service to staunching moral and cultural decay but have no answer for same, and no stomach for dealing with the rot that is primetime television programming (Fox is as raunchy as they come) is NOT HONEST.

  • That the Bush administration favors policies aimed at further enriching the rich while destroying the middle class, meanwhile extolling the virtues of the `small business man,' is NOT HONEST.

HONESTY is the foundation of MORALITY. Dems &/or progressives will not sugarcoat and mislead in order to gain votes (but we WILL work on a clean, persuasive message).

A FAIR SHARE ECONOMY

This is our answer to the GOP's `tax relief' frame.

Those who have gained financially from what the United States offers (opportunity and infrastructure) should feel GREAT about giving back significant portions of what they`ve earned. This includes both corporations and individuals making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Those who are `comfortable' but not affluent should feel GREAT about giving back a portion of what they earn in order that services (schools, law enforcement) and infrastructure (roads, power) will be maintained.

Those who work at the Wal-Marts of the world should be paid a working wage and be offered health benefits as part of their employment package. The cost of living has gone up in the past thirty years; the minimum wage hasn't come close to keeping pace.

The phrase FAIR SHARE ECONOMY avoids the word `tax' altogether.

SUMMARY

Being Dems &/or progressive thinkers, you'll want to add your two cents, to elaborate, to fine tune, to disagree entirely, to sing some random folk song, etc.

Whatever.

The point is this: in order to `clean House in `06' - to send Tom DeLay back to the MINORITY party in CONGRESS (or, better yet, back to Houston) - we need to come together NOW with a message that the masses can comprehend and embrace. We need a message that all our people can deliver. The message must be simple and brief, and the points need to be embraced and then POUNDED OUT by all!

That Ben Brandzel (Move On), Donna Brazile, and Matt Bennett of Third Way couldn't articulate a focused message during a national radio broadcast this late in the game is ASTOUNDING. Let's get it together folks, please. Talk to your leadership about adopting this message: "HONEST, RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AND A FAIR SHARE ECONOMY".

Time is much shorter than you think.

Lea Jones
Progressives of Northern Maryland
The Swing States Road Show
www.LeaJonesMusic.com
Lea@LeaJonesMusic.com
443-413-6826

* http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

by Lea Jones on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:15:03 AM EST

Re: Been thinking about that very question, Joe (none / 0)

Some good thinking here, thanks for sharing.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Been thinking about that very question, Joe (none / 0)

There are all kinds of dynamic progressive platforms and frames available to a Democratic candidate. I have never heard a rational reason why the Democratic Party refuses to adopt them.

The Democratic Party continues to pursue the myth of electabiliity. Against all evidence to the contrary, the Democratic leadership continues to pursue the failed strategy of triangulation and centrism.

R.I.P. Democratic Party, we hardly knew ye.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:17:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I just finished writing this about Hill.&dems (3.00 / 0)

Hillary's support for the war in Iraq is disgraceful.  The party can rationalize it all they want,we are sick and tired of Hillary and the rest of the Democratic elected officials playing it safe, playing both sides of the fence.  We have learned from the last two presidential elections that the DLCs version of a good candidate and a winning candidate are two entirely different things.  The democratic base is not going to work for the strongest female supporter of this illegal war.  HILLARY CAN NOT WIN.  In fact those of us on the more progressive side of the democratic party will not vote again for the lesser of two evils... we've done that twice, it's time to vote our conscience.  If the democratic candidate doesn't act like a democrat,if the party leaders don't get honest about this war and get our American ass out of Iraq, there will be a third party anti war candidate.  I think the DLC & those who take our votes and work for granted are setting up exactly what heppened 1972 and the McGovern campaign.  If the party doesn't start promoting a presidential candidate with a good relationship with the grass roots, then we'll find our own candidate.  Clark/Richards sounds like a winning combination to me (I actually think the BEST and most honest candidate is Dean, but the DLC & the Kerry folks made damn sure that could never happen).

So, without an unforeseeable surprise (i.e.:  John Kerry acting like the hero he once was and asking: "who will be the last man to die for a bad idea", or unless Hillary says, " I was lied to, this war was a war of choice and if I could change my vote, I would", ) I am very tired of Democrats who are so afraid of losing their seat they allow the Republicans to define them.  They keep their mouths closed out of fear the McCarthy style slime machine will turn on them.  It took a quiet, simple woman, a grieving mother to finally voice what so many of us have been trying to get across, who finally called the president on his lies, who says we want this war over.  Cindy Sheehan makes the democrats look like wimps, all of them.   The only person with the gravetas to pull off the next election is Clark.  He's not afraid to tell anyone  what he thinks, check him out on yesterday's "Meet the Press" you'll see a man who's not afraid.  If it turns out that Clark is just a very good liar.... I'm not sure that would make a difference to me .... we have a mentally ill moron running the country, we watched 2 presidential campaigns where a guy who couldn't teach kindergarten, mowed the democrats down.  We watched the democrats give him power the constitution states belongs to the senate only.  The democrats did this knowing what a catastrophy this war would be, the mess in Iraq was all predicted.  When protecting ones job is more important than protecting ones integrity.... you've lost me.

I'm done working for a group of wishy washy spineless fools.  Who ever tells the truth gets my money, my time and my vote.  

by bluecayuga on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:18:28 PM EST

Re: I just finished writing this about Hill (none / 0)

Are you talking about Ann Richards?

She rocks!

Blog.RyanvDewine.com

by FDRDem on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to explain your complaint Alex (none / 0)

You have some kind of feud going with Bob. I understand that. What I don't understand is the nature of the disagreement.

Do you think Casey's positions are essential to win in Pennsylvania?

If the Pennsylvania Catholics insist on a Bob Casey/Rick Santorum position on abortion and stem cells, then I would agree that they favor a Catholic theocracy, where their narrow religious views are imposed on everybody.

If their moral beliefs and values are geniune, then they should all have twelve or thirteen children. If they don't have twelve or thirteen children, then they are moral hypocrites who do not practice what they preach or the moral values they wish to impose on others.

If I have it wrong, I wish you would clarify your argument for me. I suspect you have guessed that I am not Catholic. Catholics are free to believe whatever they wish and live their lives according to their beliefs. They are not free to impose their religious or moral beliefs on me and my family. Especially if they are not living their own lives according to the moral beliefs they wish to impose by law.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:38:48 PM EST

Let me try another approach (none / 0)

How would you like Pat Robertson to legislate his morality and impose his religious beliefs on you and your family? Would you be OK with that?

I don't understand the unholy alliance that Catholics and Jews are making with Robertson and Falwell. Jews agree with the theocons on foreign policy because of their support for Israel. Catholics agree with the theocrats because of their agreement on a narrow range of social issues.

Do you realize that Bush and the theocons and theocrats will turn on both groups at the drop of a hat? Whenever it is convenient and Catholic or Jewish votes are no longer necessary, they will impose their radical moral and social agenda on everybody without a second thought.

I think it is a dangerous game making deals with the devil for short term benefits. Where is my reasoning wrong?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:40 PM EST

Re: Let me try another approach (none / 0)

If I am mistaken then the Jewish leaders and groups that are opposed to Bush's war need to become more vocal. Bush's policy is the Middle East is largely driving by Likudite interests and factions. There have been numerous articles about the support for the Iraq war from the Jewish community.

I haven't seen any polls, so it is very possible the reporting has been flawed, but I am not inventing something out of whole cloth.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Judiith Butler? (none / 0)

Let's see. Judiith Butler, Precarious Life

That wasn't so hard, was it? Looks interesting. It might be helpful if those who are familiar with her book helped publicize her message, instead of complaining that the M$M doesn't do enough.

I can't read every book about everything. I can't know everything about everything. Perhaps you could write a diary about her book.

Educate me metonym.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Educate me (none / 0)

I wrote this diary about Bizarro Anti-Semitism looking for answers. I also wrote this dairy looking for answers.

Do you have any?

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What, no free-masons? (none / 0)

Gary, I'm going to answer your other questions in a seperate diary, but come on man, you're getting a little creepy here. There is no "the Jews and Catholics"  siding with Pat Robertson, there are some Jewsish and Catholic groups that side with the neocons. I know that this is a small distinction, but the way you have it written comes off as anti-semetic. I've been around long enough to believe that this isn't what you meant, but really, be careful.

"Jews" aren't making deals with devils or Pat Robertsons or any other of the devil's minions. Likudnik Jews, an actual group of people (unlike an ethnic or religious groups, which are usually a very loose collection of other groups) on the other hand, have been cozying up to the Christian Zionists for years, which may be what you're referring to. But what percentage of America's Jewish population supports Likud (i.e. what percentage of America's Jewish population is very conservative)?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 07:08:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

where or where are Democrats with spine (none / 0)

I am 53 years old and remember what happened with McGovern. And as a female I never thought I would say this but I won't support or vote for Hillary because
of her position on this war.

Didn't the last election show the powers that be in the Democratic party  what happens when you dilute the
message and the candidate?

you lose....

by cybermome1207 on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:49:18 AM EST

The Politics of "Me" (none / 0)

There's been a lot of debate about what the Democrats should do in order to become more successful at winning elections. While there are many strategic moves we can make to improve our team's chances of victory, there's an imperative paradigm change that must infuse the way that we articulate our message; we must translate the politics of "we" into the politics of "me". What does this mean? First, let's say what it doesn't mean; it doesn't mean that the party should turn its back on communitarian ideals, progressivity, and concern for others. It means explaining to voters - clearly and effectively - why our policies (to the extent we can agree on them) make sense to them personally. This won't apply to every policy, but we need to do a better job of appealing to self-interest of the enlightened variety. The Republicans have been great at telling voters how they'll be personally served by conservative rule and it's one of a number of reasons they've been able to knock us around so much lately.
by Friedman 19129 on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:09:50 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.