Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Good luck with that Paul…They need to adopt something…

After losing elections, declining union membership,and even with all the talk about the subject, you STILL don’t know (or can’t accept) what is wrong. Your party is losing because you have the WRONG message. Your message is that President Bush is wrong. Everything you say is negative. I believe the American public want a positive message.

Try offering a few solutions to problems instead of just blaming the ones who are working on them.

tomd, the majority of Americans know Bush is wrong and has been wrong on the majority of his attempts to play President.

Paul is right, and you are too! They need to reframe their message. But, more fundamentally, they need to restructure their platform in a way that accomodates the reality of the times we find ourselves in.

The need to slam the public in the face with their committment to end, not lower, deficit spending and begin bringing down the debt WITHOUT hurting workers and their families and without tanking the economic growth necessary to keep unemployment low.

They need to slam the public in the face with a rejection of minority politics - stating that we have huge problems with security, national debt, education, infrastructure, and Soc. Sec. and Medicare and immigration, and these need to be addressed first and foremost because they affect us all. When the day comes that they have rectified these issues, then they may turn their attention to minority politics (gay marriage, abortion, colonies on Mars).

Only by restructuring their platform to conform to addressing the major reality issues of the day, will they offer a more promising choice to voters than the GOP has.

I only hope they will follow your advise David. Maybe we can get 8 more years in.

I should be quite jealous here. These are the notions I should be getting across. No matter, I’ll beat you to the punch on something else.;-)

Tomd-
I think people are going to be quite exhausted with Republican government when this is all over. Bush is lousy salesman, he just doesn’t realize it. He thinks he can sell us on privatizing Social Security. No groundswell on that. He thinks he’s got any kind of real trust on the war. He doesn’t. He passed that special law for Terri Schiavo, a move he couldn’t even justify to most Republicans. And now he’s threatening to use his first veto to tell his own congress not to pass stem cell research.

By the time everything is said and done, I think even Republicans will be tired of the leaders of the GOP. Maybe not you, but I think enough to turn the tide if things go my party’s way.

Stephen, All I see is negative comments about President Bush…That’s my point and you are verefying it.

What nasty misspelled advice, Tomd. Don’t you people pay attention in school? Or is it too “elitist” for you to figure out the spelling of your own language?

What’s the deal about looking at the nation as a community? What’s the problem with it? Does it threaten some ancient male urge for competition? Does it too accurately reflect the realities of life upon this planet? Or do you just want to snarl your way into more years of Republican-bred conflict, more death, more bloodshed, more pain (for other people, I mean). Five years of Republican rule have left this country and two others in a shambles.

Democrats need to formulate a way to present themselves as strong but deeply interested in the good of the community. But first they need to define the community, remind people of what we hold in common as principles of our common life. This may be difficult to imagine at first because we are so fragmented, but it can be done in many ways. Movies can be made that show accurately the many ways in which we support other people in trouble; books can be written about the melting pot reality; attention can be drawn to the increasing and beneficial cross-pollination of our races and cultures in the process of Americanization. We can start looking at the magnificent experiment that is America. We can start deriding the ridiculous notion that it is possible to go back in time to the intolerant ’50s, the war-torn ’40s, the desperate ’30s, the foolish ’20s.

We have to show America how to chart a fearless course into a future that we cannot know, but which we can influence by wise decisions taken in common—with input from every slice of society—towards a better and more responsible America.

Tomd—and George Bush— manhood is not beating up your neighbor. Manhood is raising your kids right. It’s responsibility, not rage.
It’s the Democratic approach to adulthood.

David:

Well said, though I disagree with your examples of minority politics. Each of the things you cite has broad implications that reach far beyond minority groups. Abortion and marriage go to the rights of all, not just the rights of the minorities themselves. Colonies on mars go toward the future of the entire human race, the same as the rush to the moon did.

Paul:

This is a very well written article, and you make good points. The only thing I could add to what you have said is the following quote:

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably in themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hopes and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with growing intensity. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. -Daniel Bumham

Just something that came up on a random quote program I downloaded that seems so very applicable to this discussion, and to the Democratic party in general.

Sorry about the spelling, I guess I didn’t pay enough attention in school. I haven’t said anything about community. All I’ve said is that Democrats only spew negative thoughts. If you want to be sucessful you have to be positive. Is that so hard to understand?

It is nice to have other people describe what you are.

As a Republican I believe in community and I believe we are all part of the same community. The compliant I have against Dems is that they divide Americans into groups. They ask how this or that policy will affect blacks or women or labor or gays. I only want to know how it will affect Americans.

As a Republican I believe in freedom. Freedom means that people will make different choices and produce different outcomes. So if you have freedom, it is foolish to expect equal outcomes.

As a Republican I believe in equality of opportunity. So I oppose affirmative action programs that judge people by their race or gender, rather than the content of their characters.

As a Republican, I believe in individual NOT group rights.

As a Republican I am optimistic about the future. I believe the United States is the best country in the history of the world and I believe it will get better. On the other hand, I don’t rely on people’s virtue alone. I trust, but verify. Competition and the free market disperses power and creates checks and balances. It also brings out the best in people.

As a Republican, I don’t think of the world as zero sum. In a free market, both parties to an agreement win. That is why competition is good. It grows the pie. We are all richer than we were a generation ago and we will be better off a generation hence.

As a Republican, I am convinced Democrats keep losing elections because they are deployed against an enemy that doesn’t exist. Their concept of Republicans is an amalgam of outdated stereotypes of capitalism mixed with bigotry of the past (as practiced by mostly Democratic officials in the south).

Finally, I don’t believe the state should be like a family. A family is hierarchical. It depends on a type of structure the government doesn’t and shouldn’t have. Parents make decisions for their minor children. In our great country, who will play the role of the minor children and who the parents? A much prefer a concept of a team, where we all have duties and responsibilities. I will hold up my end and I expect you to hold up yours.

Perhaps democrats are currently negative because we’ve spent 5 years ranting and raving in attempt to call attention to the current neocon tyranny.

You want something positive? I’d vote for John McCain in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, he’s a tiny minority of the GOP. He has a spine, doesn’t take bribes, and naturally he votes with the democratic senators more often than the crooks in the republican party.

Tom Delay, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, these are the type of people that represent the GOP—-ignorant crooks. No wonder democrats are so negative.

First of all, I agree that the Democrats need to have a positive agenda, and not to simply spend time lambasting things we don’t like about the Republicans. On the other hand, I would argue that Kerry (for example) did have a number of very positive policies that he put forward in the presidential election (e.g., a healthcare plan to significantly decrease the number of uninsured) — but which were given scant attention because of attack ads that monopolized the country’s attention. I’m not trying to get the Dems off the hook entirely here, but I think something is greatly off about our political system when the details of a combat 30 years ago become more important than a plan to fix the healthcare problem in our country.

Also, Jack, you wrote: “I don’t believe the state should be like a family. A family is hierarchical.” (Please insert expression of shock and amazement here). Wait a minute. Did you support Bush? Do you support his policies vis-a-vis gay marriage, stem cell research, gays in the military, etc? Come on. This is the most paternalistic, morally self-righteous administration in modern American history. You want a nation of “partners”? Partnership can only exist in a state of equality. Bush and the extreme religious right don’t want that — not for gays, not for anyone who opposes them on issues with which they disagree. They want a society dominated by the moral dictates stemming from a literal interpretation of the Bible. They want to set the clock back to the middle ages in the sense of making all important moral decisions based on revelation (e.g., the Bible) rather than reason and experience. How much more “hierarchical” can you get?

The Democratic framework should be “cooperation.” We do not want to win as Democrats but to win for all Americans, not merely an elite few. We abhor polarization.

You can’t be serious?

We do think of America as a family. We do believe we have to work together. We do conceive of the common good as something that benefits the country as a whole. We do want people of all religions and of no religion to live in harmony. We prefer to have people exercise their own religious consciences, rather than being coerced by a dominant religious group. We do believe in diplomacy first in all international relations. We do think that security comes from making friends and not from making enemies.

“We’re in this together” is our big idea. “Let’s talk it over” is our motto. “The common good” is our goal.

I hope Democrats adopt the framework of cooperation. By placing all our issues - minimum wage, Social Security, healthcare, free conscience, helpful diplomacy, peace - within the framework of cooperation, American citizens will begin to realize that Democrats favor a better democracy both at home and abroad. We’ll win elections!

That’s all fine Paul, but in practice the left is not about cooperation. In politics, the left is all one direction. As long as you define ‘cooperation,’ ‘working together,’ and ‘the common good’ as only things that can be government administered, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion as well as vision of what working for the common good translates to.

You’re correct that Lakoff is just rationalizing his own preconcieved prejudice against conservatives. The very premise he articulates demonstrates that he still has no idea what conservatives believe or what they’re arguing.

I think what you’ve articulated is a basis for common agreement, as far as it goes, but it’s pretty hollow when you get beyond the generic call for goodness and light. The number one obstacle for the left is getting over the fact that Republicans are not against these things as you believe they are. They are against the actual plans you come with in order to ‘be together’.

Jack:

It is nice to have other people describe what you are.

As a Republican I believe in community and I believe we are all part of the same community. The compliant I have against Dems is that they divide Americans into groups. They ask how this or that policy will affect blacks or women or labor or gays. I only want to know how it will affect Americans.

Thank you for presenting your beliefs as a republican, it provides a useful means for us to examine them directly, rather than speculate about what we perceive your beliefs to be.

The difference I see in how I look at policy and how you look at policy in this regard is not whether or not america is divided into groups, but what causes the division and how we react to it. You see it as Democrats dividing the country into groups and pandering to the interests of the group rather than to americans as a whole. I, and I believe other democrats, see it as legislation (and/or society) dividing the country into groups by treating people unequally, as if one group of persons was not Americans, and attempting to close that rift. I do not fully understand how you can say you simply look at how a policy affects Americans if you do not also consider that it may affect a subset of Americans differently from other Americans, perhaps harmfully so.

As a Republican I believe in freedom. Freedom means that people will make different choices and produce different outcomes. So if you have freedom, it is foolish to expect equal outcomes.

I am not sure what you are discussing here… it is an interesting abstract principle, but I am unclear on the specific application of it in modern republican politics and cannot really comment on it yet. Could you give examples of applying this principle to your politics, please?

As a Republican I believe in equality of opportunity. So I oppose affirmative action programs that judge people by their race or gender, rather than the content of their characters.

Sadly, experience has shown that absent affirmative action programs, people are not judged by the content of their characters. These programs try to work against inherent biases and level the playing field. I do not believe they are fully successful in this endeavor, but there has never seemed to be a viable alternative. Going back to letting people discriminate in employment if they wish to surely can’t be the answer, can it? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this problem.

As a Republican, I believe in individual NOT group rights.

I am not sure what this is directed towards. Could you give examples of this as well, please?

As a Republican I am optimistic about the future. I believe the United States is the best country in the history of the world and I believe it will get better. On the other hand, I don’t rely on people’s virtue alone. I trust, but verify. Competition and the free market disperses power and creates checks and balances. It also brings out the best in people.

I largely agree, actually. But I would add that it can also bring out the worst. Were not the Robber Barons an example of the free market at work? Granted, so too was Henry Ford, but it seems that far too few have followed his model with respect to their employees, and far too many have gone the other way.

I also lament the increasing privatization of the common wealth of america, and those things which should be public domain. This has largely come about because of the free market, and the search for profit. While I do not see capitalism as an evil, it does have negative sides that may need to be addressed more than they have been.

As a Republican, I don’t think of the world as zero sum. In a free market, both parties to an agreement win. That is why competition is good. It grows the pie. We are all richer than we were a generation ago and we will be better off a generation hence.

That is an interesting perspective. I’m sure that both parties to an agreement can win, in theory, in the free market (bartering, in particular, has this potential since one can trade something one does not want for something one does) however I cannot accept the idea that the free market does not include elements of a zero sum game at all. If that were so, then where are all the Mom and Pop stores of the past? They’ve largely been driven out of business by larger corporations competing for customers. Isn’t this an example of how some aspects of the free market are zero-sum? There’s also the fact that the two winners of an agreement may win by screwing others… if two companies agree to artificially raise the prices of their products, and no other companies supply those products, then customers lose. These are just some examples.

For a more concrete one: I have agreed to work for an inventory company. I give my hours and skills to the company, and it pays me in return. Win-win, right? Well, sort of… I do make more money now than I used to… but I can’t help noticing that no matter how consistently early I show up to get my auditing machine turned on and programmed and fill out the day’s paperwork, and hear from our boss what we’re supposed to be doing for the day, I’m not actually allowed to clock in until our “official start time”… but if I get there at the official start time, I’m counted as late for the day because we’re supposed to get there early to set up, and actually “start working” (translation: start the inventory) at the official start time. My boss equates this with other companies not allowing cashiers to clock in until after they’ve taken off their coats and such and are ready to begin working, but in truth it is more directly analogous to a company requiring a cashier to count out their drawer, sign in on the cash register, and fill out some paperwork before allowing them to sign in. It’s a very shady business practice, and a way for the company to avoid paying more to its employees. This is an example of the free market in action… companies want to make money, and so do their employees, and they are put at odds to do this. Yes, companies also want people to work for them, but they rarely have a shortage of willing bodies so there is no real check against such practices in a truly free market, short of regulation.

As a Republican, I am convinced Democrats keep losing elections because they are deployed against an enemy that doesn’t exist. Their concept of Republicans is an amalgam of outdated stereotypes of capitalism mixed with bigotry of the past (as practiced by mostly Democratic officials in the south).

You may be right. Since moving further south, I find some of my own stereotypes being challenged… however, I think it is equally true that the Republican concept of Democrats is divorced from the reality. The sad thing is, I’m not sure that the majority of Americans know the reality anymore…

Finally, I don’t believe the state should be like a family. A family is hierarchical. It depends on a type of structure the government doesn’t and shouldn’t have. Parents make decisions for their minor children. In our great country, who will play the role of the minor children and who the parents? A much prefer a concept of a team, where we all have duties and responsibilities. I will hold up my end and I expect you to hold up yours.

I agree, but it seems to me that the Republicans want to act in the parental role in some respects, and treat Americans or certain subsets of them as if they are minor children. The gay marriage debate is a prime example of this, I think. Homosexuality is largely considered sinful by the religious right, and they are taking all the steps they can to prevent it from being an option. Rather than stating their beliefs and then allowing people the freedom to choose lives of virtue or sin (under the Christian paradigm), they act to restrict people’s choices to those they find virtuous. And the Republican party is the party which seems to be supporting these moves away from personal choice in marriage. Essentially, we are putting the government in the role of a parent giving its minor children permission to marry, or denying them permission if it does not find the match suitable. Shouldn’t that be a personal choice?

Jack said: “A much prefer a concept of a team, where we all have duties and responsibilities.”

I didn’t know you spoke ant, Jack. The fireants out in my garden were saying the same thing just the other day as they rallied themselves up for another attack upon my dog, daughter, or any other living thing that happened by their mound.

To tell you the truth, I think ants will always be better at duties and responsibilities, since they don’t have to think about it, it is hardwired into their physiology. To get that kind of society, one needs a good Hitler or Stalin to dictate what each person’s duty is, and enforce their responsibility with the harshest threat and punishment. Worked real good for Nazi Germany. I know though, that many folks on the right, desire such a well regulated and defined society where each person knows their role and place and acts accordingly.

That is one of the reasons I could never, ever, be a Republican far right conservative. Too much order and not enough creativity.

David, isn’t that comparison a little over the top?

In some ways, I see this discussion as an attempt to grapple with (or, perhaps better, to put words around) one of the major political issues we’re likely to face in the near future. Bush’s election strategy was basically to sell-out to the extreme religious right in exchange for ridiculous turnout from Christian conservatives. But even given the success of that strategy, even given the fact that we’re in a time of war, even given relatively upbeat economic news at the time, the election was still remarkably close.

My point is this. We as Democrats need to take heart. We’re acting as if we lost the last presidential election by 30 points. But we didn’t. We don’t need to change our message to appease the extreme right wing. We just need to portray ourselves as strong enough on defense issues to get moderates to listen to our domestic agenda (which is our real strength).

Also, I believe the Republicans have gone too far overboard in appeasing the extreme right wing of their pary. Their positions and tactics are starting to lose them support among moderates. Mark my words, they will lose support in the 2006 elections, even if they do somehow manage to maintain control in Congress.

Steve

That last paragraph is an example of what I mean about deployed against the wrong enemy.

I disagree with the President about gay marriage and wrote a post on the red side in support. BUT I am in a minority of ALL Americans. Most Americans oppose gay marriage. When three quarters of Americans oppose gay marriage, you can’t blame Republicans. And I oppose the way the courts are taking the lead in pushing this agenda.

Moral decision should not be based on revelation, but they are all ultimately based on beliefs that are religious in nature. Explain to me in neutral terms why you support abortion rights, for example. All our morality is based on values that cannot be supported rationally. They are like the postulates or axioms on which all other morality is based. Of course Christians would base their morality on their beliefs, just as you do.

If you want to see religious fervor in action, look at the aftermath of Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that we might explore the possibility that innate differences helped explain why women were underrepresented in the sciences. No fundamentalist has been able so effectively and rapidly cut off debate and stigmatize the opposition.

There are true believers on both sides of the equation. The Republican Party is tolerant of many views. I disagree with many of the party’s ideas. They let me stay in the tent. The Republican convention featured pro-choice speakers. Do the Dems allow pro-lifers to address them? We have a broader view on school choice, a more diverse position on opportunity and more variety on business. When you see Republicans as ONLY Bible thumping fools, you are employing a stereotype. And if you act on that stereotype, we will keep on beating you at the poles because you don’t know your opponents.

So go ahead, make our days (I know Dems are impressed when we say things like that)

When three quarters of Americans oppose gay marriage, you can’t blame Republicans. And I oppose the way the courts are taking the lead in pushing this agenda.

Would you have likewise opposed the courts taking the lead in pushing the “agenda” of mixed race marriages, when the majority of americans opposed them as well? I am not asking this to be cute, I am really interested in knowing if you see a large difference between the current issue and that one, and if so what that difference might be.

Jack,

First of all, I wanted to send out an apology if my comments came across as a personal attack. I assure you they weren’t meant that way.

Secondly, please don’t be so presumptuous as to assume that I’m pro-choice. I was raised Catholic, even got a minor in theology at the Catholic university I attended. I certainly wouldn’t call myself “pro life” given the tactics and leadership of that group, but so long as we’re working to avoid assumptions about each other….

Third, I do think it’s fair game to look at the role the far religious right is having on the Republican agenda today. I would certainly agree that this doesn’t mean all Republicans agree on every issue (or agree with the extreme religious right), but it doesn’t seem sensical to me to argue that because there are reasonable republicans (and you sound like one) that the Republican party is immune from criticism for being so heavily influenced by the extreme religious right.

I also believe that the real issue here is public perception. And the perception here (in my opinion) is that the Republican party as a whole is more and more promoting an extreme religious right agenda. That is what will cause a loss of support for Republicans in the next election, in my view.

Steve

Don’t worry. I don’t take things personally. I didn’t even perceive it as a personal thing.

But I stand with my contention that Dems don’t know their opponents. They take solace in the idea that it was fundamentalists who made it all happen. There are not enough fundamentalists in the U.S. Would Bush have won without fundamentalist support? No. Just like he would not have won without the support of business, or married women with kids, or …

You can’t tease out one part and call it decisive. The Dems would not do well without their teachers’ unions, feminists and civil rights establishment.

The Republican Party has been able to appeal to a wider base. That is why they have been winning. The most recent election was very interesting in that turnout was so high. Both sides did very well in getting out their bases. Both sides played a good game. Neither side had a really exciting candidate. Both Ronald Reagan and JFK are dead. That is why it is significant. This was the Pickett’s charge of the culture war. Just as Lee almost won, but the last day of Gettysburg represented the high water mark of the South, this election was the high water mark of the Dems for a while to come. And Democrats just can’t believe it. Until they understand that the fault lies with them, not with bad luck or Karl Rove, they will not be able to reorganize and win.

Think Clinton. He was successful because he ran to the right. Welfare reform, NAFTA, support for the death penalty, he didn’t give poor Republicans any traction. Of course in return for that, the country actually moved to the right.

I would like to further clarify an earlier comment:

In my view, and I believe the democratic view as a whole, the following is true. The common good of the majority of Americans, and the common good of Americans considered as a whole, are not necessarily synonymous. For it may be to the good of the majority at times to impede some minority, but the minority remain Americans as well.

It doesn’t matter what identity or frame the Democrats take so long as it has an aura of strength, not weakness. The more assertive and clear they can be with their messages the better. To be quite honest, the Republicans are much better at getting their messages across to the American people than the Democrats are.

It’s high time the Democrats leveled the playing field.

tomd-
Do you have anything nice to say about democrats? You tell us that we’re out of touch. I merely observed that you have a president who’s not so in touch himself.

Democrats are not saying nice things. Good grief. What does it matter whether I say negative or positive things, as long as they are true? Truth matters more than preference. In the long run if you rely on positive information that is wrong, you will act wrongly. If you rely on good information that is negative, you can still improve things.

This whole thing about attitude only works if you have to play things by ear, and the choice is truly difficult. My choice with Bush was not that difficult. Either he would rise to the occasion or not. He has not earned my admiration by his actions. He has lied to me, and not redeemed those lies by apology or by dealing with the consequences of his deception well. He has used his leadership position to further the political gains of his party at my party’s expense. He has turned what I see as practical issues of manpower and security into ideological issues, clouding a debate already fraught with tough issues.

I’d rather have something positive to say about him, than to have to list this mind-numbing catalog of failures, but I don’t think it’s in our interests as a country to overlook the chronic problems of this administration. It genuinely think they’ve endangered the public by their actions, and that they’ve abused the trust of the American people sorely.

Why should I be positive?

i cant even think of anything positive to say about our “president” bush!

This talk about framing the message is all well and good, but I believe that the democrats must change the issues that are being discussed. History shows us that the democrats do well in elections when the issues are “non-emotional” in nature. Things like war, abortion, and family values usually end up with republicans in the winners’ circle.
When the issues are more intellectual in nature, such as the budget deficit, education, and infrastructure, the democrats usually win.
It’s my belief that the democrats have to take charge of the issues and prevent the republicans from making them emotional. Get away from the values and family arguments altogether. Instead, talk about what the domination by big business is doing to our country in economic terms. Show that the excesses of the republicans prevent us from fixing our infrastructure and providing defense here at home. Make the messages simple, in short phrases, like; “Republicans in power means fewer jobs.” Do it like the GOP did in their successful bids. Change the issues, make the messages short, and keep hammering away.
Let’s face it; nobody really knows what “family values” means, except maybe the right-wing christians. But when it comes down to it, the overwhelming majority of families have some sort of dysfunctionality and their share of problems.
The idea of family values has to be demystified and debunked. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about the family living comfortably so that they don’t have all of these outside stresses tearing them apart. That will come from plenty of good jobs and financial security for their future.
Whenever the republicans come up with a plank in their platform like “law and order”, the democrats should just answer, “of course EVERYBODY is for law and order. It’s not an issue. What is an issue is how are we going to pay for it?”

Stephen said: “Democrats are not saying nice things. Good grief. What does it matter whether I say negative or positive things, as long as they are true? Truth matters more than preference. In the long run if you rely on positive information that is wrong, you will act wrongly. If you rely on good information that is negative, you can still improve things.”

I wasn’t talking about being nice to each other. I was talking about having a positive agenda instead of only attacking Republicans. All I’ve heard from the left is that “Bush can’t do that” “The elections in Iraq won’t happen” “Bolton is a meanie” I see cartoons portraying Condoleezza Rice as an Aunt Jamima” I think the american people want to see a positive future with a real agenda.

Do I have anything “nice” to say about Democrats? Hmmmmm…no. Not at this time I don’t. But I’d rather talk about the positive things the right is doing than to demean the things the left are doing.

Tomd is right about the positive thing.

The Democratic strategy for the last couple of years has been negation. The last presidential election was about NOT being George Bush. I wrote at that time about this problem. Democrats mistakenly believed that most Americans hated Bush or at least disliked him enough to vote for any alternative. They were mistaken.

They are doing the same thing now on issues such as SS or Iraq. Just say no is good advice for drugs, but bad advice for persuasion. It is an attractive trap, however, because negation is always easy.

Whether you agree with the tenets or not (or whether you believe the promises were kept) the Republican contract with America was instrumental in helping them win control of the House.

When your second you have to try harder. Democrats have to come up with something. The onus is on them. They have to give the America people a reason to change.

Now my Democratic readers are thinking something like “but the Republicans have screwed up so much of course people want change.” Wrong. That is what you thought in 2002 and that is what you thought in 2004. If you think that in 2006 and 2008 you will have similar success.

Americans have become more conservative. They distrust government and institutions. You can’t sell them solutions that increase regulation. Democrats contend that Republicans are pushing morality issues. Again wrong. They are defending. It is democrats who are on the offensive (and offending).

Think of the gay marriage debate. The vast majority of Americans was and remains content with the traditional situation. Liberals want to change something that most people think is natural and self-evident. But they don’t want to make the case to the people. They want to dictate through the courts. They assume the people are behind them. No, they are not. Maybe this is a good idea whose time has not yet come. There are many others.

I believe we need a strong competition in politics to keep our system healthy. I take little satisfaction in seeing the implosion of the party that produced Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman. Come back to the middle and hold up your end of the American world.

I’ve noticed, every time the Republicans propose a “solution” to the problem of Democrats losing elections, it basically boils down to this: stop being Democrats, and adopt more Republican ideals, because “obviously” with just over half of the country voting for Bush, Democrats are far too liberal in their ideology and need to moderate themselves. Does that strike anyone else as a rather self-serving answer?

The idea of good ideas whose time has not yet come also disturbs me… for most of human history, good ideas have been resisted when they first came. When has an idea ever succeeded simply by waiting and biding its time, just waiting for people to accept it? In 1776, our founders had among them men who had already learned that slavery was an abominable institution, but to preserve the new nation they wished to forge they set that issue aside, it was not time for such thinking. In 1861, almost a hundred years later, society as a whole still had not become ready to accept the truth about slavery, but this time the issue was not put off… it was fought over.

Pragmatically, Jefferson and the other founders may have had the right idea. They gained a nation, at the expense of some men living their lives and dying as slaves. What would we be gaining by putting off the debate on gay marriage until a later time? And at what expense?

Paul!! Excellent article. Welcome to the team. :)

The Democratic strategy for the last couple of years has been negation. The last presidential election was about NOT being George Bush.

Jack, that’s such a load of BS. I remember you saying Kerry’s problem was that his policies - especially on things like Iraq and terrorism - were too much like Bush’s.

Thankfully, the party of Kennedy, Truman, and Roosevelt isn’t imploding. In fact, it’s being tested and becoming stronger. Our positive and progressive strengths are embedded in the first ten key pieces of legislation we introduced this year, “The American Promise: A Future of Security, Opportunity and Responsibility.”

After last November, I argued that Democrats need a creed they can point to and say, this is what I stand for. Here it is,

• Stand with our troops
• Target terrorists more effectively
• Fulfill our duty to our veterans
• Expand economic opportunity
• Ensure quality public education
• Make healthcare more affordable
• Make sure every vote is counted
• Strengthen Medicare
• Enact measures to ensure fiscal responsibility
• Make abortion unnecessary

Howard Dean gave an excellent speech at a recent California Democratic Party convention where he spoke about Democratic values in plain English. It’s worth a listen - even if you have to give them a fake email address.

Here is my small contribution to the Democratic message: I am not pro-abortion; I am against government-enforced maternity.

What I’m getting from this whole discussion is that the real problem is simply that people are different. We just don’t all believe the same things. A large number of people believe one thing, and an almost as large number of people believe something completely different.

Right now, the Republicans (or more precisely, the Religious Right) have the majority, so they push their agenda. But some day (hopefully soon), someone else (hopefully not the Democrats) will be in power and they’ll push their own, completely different agenda. This isn’t how democracy (or at least not OUR democracy) was supposed to work. 51% of the population was never supposed to be allowed to oppress the other 49%.

So, we have two solutions:

1) We do what we’ve been doing. Whenever one party gets even the slightest bit of power, they use it to push their agenda at the expense of the (slight) minority. Everyone’s happy when their party’s in power, and everyone’s miserable when the other guy’s party is in control.

2) We can admit to ourselves that our differences aren’t just in how one group frames their message. We can admit that people do have fundamental, ideological differences and that forcing someone to accept your views on these fundamental issues will only make them angry. Then maybe we can understand that the problem isn’t with one party or the other, but with a gigantic federal gov’t that forces everyone to think the same way. A gov’t that forces southern conservatives to accept gay marriage and abortion. Or that forces northern liberals to accept low taxes on the wealthy and the death penalty. We already have the greatest system in the world, with the ability of the states to regulate themselves. To allow disparate regions of the country to follow different laws that best suit their particular population. But as long as we let the feds get involved and force us into a homogeneous set of beliefs, 49% of the people will always be unhappy.

OK, I give up…I don’t know why I tried to explain why the Democrats lost and can’t regain power. It benefits me if you all stay in the dark, so I’ll keep quiet while I smile at your remarks.

AP

You are saying the same thing I said when you admit that Kerry’s message was not that far from the President’s. We discussed this during the election. Kerry’s message was that he would do things Bush would do, but he would do them better.

What was the major disagreement, the major issue of the last election? What did John Kerry offer, besides not being Bush? You are exactly right. His positions were close to Bush’s.

Jarin

I will say again that I support same sex marriage and have written in this blog to that effect. The problem is that proponents don’t seem to want to debate it. They want to go the civil disobedience (as in SF) or court (as in Mass) route. You have to convince most of the people that same sex marriage is a good thing. You can’t just assert it and take win the case in court. It creates acrimony.

Democrats also did not debate this issue. Kerry opposed same sex marriage, although everyone implied that he did not. I don’t know what his real position on the subject was, because he didn’t bring it up.

So, you and I support the idea. Most people are opposed to it. Nobody is debating and neither party has come out in support.

Jack:

I do understand that aspect of your position. However, as I asked before, do you also think that it was wrong of the courts to impose mixed-race marriages at a time when the majority of americans did not approve of that? I want to know what, if anything, you see differently about the issue of homosexual marriage now and the issue of mixed race marriage then, and how they can be handled. Do you think that mixed race marriages was an issue that should have been either debated in the legislature and voted on, or even set aside for the future as a good idea whose time had not yet come?

Jack:

What was the major disagreement, the major issue of the last election? What did John Kerry offer, besides not being Bush? You are exactly right. His positions were close to Bush’s.

… then why are you telling us the problem is, in fact, that our positions are not close enough to Bush’s, and we should moderate ourselves by moving to the right? This seems contradictory.

Mixed race marriages were not nearly as radical as same sex marriages.

Race is an artificial category. It is defined differently in different social and cultural contexts. There was a continuum and a variety of opinions. Historically there had been interracial marriages long before the laws. Beyond that, many marriages were “mixed” in other ways. What about an Anglo American married to a Mexican, or a Korean war bride? Race is a fluid category; gender is not.

The other thing has to do with the size of the populations affected. Gays make up about 5% of the population. Those gays who want to get married are a minority of that minority. While most heterosexuals were (and probably still are) married to people of similar race or ethnic background, their general experience with marriage allowed them to understand the problem.

In short, interracial marriage had a history and was not a big departure.

The other thing about the courts striking down interracial marriage is that the idea’s time HAD come. It was a regional issue, but the majority of Americans did not oppose it, at least not in theory.

I have come to approach most democratic ruminations of the past 7 months as variations on the theme of “what do we do now?” The choice is essentially between a Clinton/Blair move toward the center or what some have called extended polarization. Alas, I struggle with the choice almost constantly. That is, until recently. Lately I have read fewer blogs and more texts, and I have come to glimpse the tectonic shifts of globalization that render quaint our Democratic hand-wringing. As we debate with and spew at eachother, the global titans must be amused (if they even care to pay attention at all) by our pretension that we have some say in the matter — whether as neo-cons preaching against abortion or as liberals clinging to the vestiges of affirmative action or as the majority of us in between. They operate without boundaries and largely without rules, and are free and able to persuade ours and other governments to meet their needs. I suspect they have no preference with either Democrats or Republicans, and will work with whatever party is in “power” to further the advances of globalization. That is, until globalization no longer serves their purposes. Then they will work with the party in power to increase tariffs and renegotiate free-trade treaties. All the while, will we toil on with our recycled arguments against eachother. Or will we recognize what the titans should fear: that we collectively still have a grasp (though an increasingly tenuous one) on the purse strings? Without our dollars — both in the form of our personal spending and our tax liabilities — they are, in quick time, renderd obsolete.

So I end by suggesting that we quibble less about whether Senator Clinton should be the next candidate, and discuss with more thought about how we can promote economic policies that simultaneously contribute to the long-term economic security of individual Americans. After all, wouldn’t that provide the straightest path to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Humbly submitted.

That’s not the way I’ve understood the history.

At the time of Loving, fourteen states had repealed their miscegenation laws… through judicial means, I believe, though I’ve been unable to find each and every case so far. I know the oft-cited first case of California was decided in the courts. Sixteen other states, at the time of Loving, had anti-miscegenation laws on the books, and many of those had acted to toughen those laws after other states acted to make it legal for their citizens. Sound familiar?

Additionally, not as many marriages as you think were or are mixed. According to the statistics I’ve found, as of *1990* mixed-race marriages make up only 3 percent of the nation’s 51 million marriages. That sounds to me like a subset effectively comparable to Homosexuals, even if we accept that gay marriage would likely only represent 1 to 2 percent of all marriages in the country, tops.

As for the radical nature of it, Virginia’s own legal argument included the idea, popular at the time, that God himself had a plan for the races to remain separate, and that such marriages violated this plan. Other parts of it offered statistics about the harm such marriages would do to society, especially to the children of mixed race marriages. To me, this all sounds very familiar again.

Sadly, I can’t find real raw statistics on public support or opposition to same-sex marriage for that time period, but I’ll keep looking. It’s possible political polling was not as widespread then, I suppose, though that seems unlikely. Just need to locate the data, if it exists.

Kerry?s message was that he would do things Bush would do, but he would do them better.

I was talking about certain issues like Iraq and terrorism. Kerry’s position was similar, but more comprehensive and consequently more effective.

Kerry said of Bush’s handling of Iraq, “Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.” On foreign policy, that was it in a nutshell for me, too.

The big differences - as anyone who pays attention would expect - were on domestic issues. Where Bush was against gay anything, Kerry was for gay unions. Kerry had better ideas on health care, the environment, and energy policy. And where Bush gave lip service to quality public education while simultaneously undermining it, Kerry was sincere.

As for character. Bush is a liar. As far as I can tell, Kerry isn’t.

I believe the main theme of the campaign was holding Bush accountable for his errors by not electing him agains, and presenting Kerry as the wiser, more reasonable alternative. It is simply GOP talking points that we are just being negative. You cannot speak of holding somebody accountable without laying what they’ve done wrong. You just can’t.

Of course Americans want something positive. But if the only thing positive about Bush and the Republicans is their rhetoric, the positive nature of their message will rightly be seen as a smokescreen shielding them from accountability.

The thing is, you guys are constantly downplaying some serious damn mistakes. You’re hurting us out there with this war you didn’t have to start, and with the deception you used to justify it. You’re hurting us out there with your “f*** you” approach to diplomacy with Europe. Bolton will hurt us because he’s one of those idiots in the administration who can’t keep his foot out of his mouth, and can’t keep his temper even. Do we really want somebody out there that an opposing side could goad into an international incident?

Your side is ignoring the problems your side created, hoping they will just go away. They won’t, and we’ll be dug deeper into the crap because of us. You’re squandering our military strength, wrecking our reputation, and undermining the alliances that have kept full-scale regional conflicts under wraps for the last half century. What’s nice to say about that? What’s the purpose of even being nice about that?

The quickest way to lose sight of the will and the support of the people is to take for granted that you represent it. I don’t think this country is as conservative as the conservatives make it out to be. Perhaps they’ve bought into one or two of the more seductive planks of the GOP platform, but sooner or later, the ill effects of those policies is going to dispel the glamour of those positions. Tax cuts, I think, are rapidly becoming politically untenable with the intimidating size of the deficits. One catastrophic terrorist attack here, or the perpetuation of troubles in Iraq will suck all the oxygen out of Bush’s foreign policy. Bush’s social security reforms, stem cell research position, excessive spending, and other political goals have gone over like lead balloons.

All the spin about the election missed a very crucial point: Bush had to fight a difficult campaign on all fronts to even break even and squeak by into the presidency again. He acts like he had a lot of political capital, but the truth is, he spent most of it to become president again, and aggravated many of the concerns that brought strong opposition against him in the process.

The Republicans, for the sake of a mediocre president have turned their party inside out with political contradictions, alienated significant parts of their constituency, and further enraged the other half of the country’s population. They have yet to really count the cost and balance the political checkbook. They may find their fund of influence with this country has diminished.

Jarin

My point was not about the particular time in America. The point is race is fluid and the definition of race changes with each generation since it is cultural, not scientific. I lived in Brazil, where race is based only on color. Prejudice can be very strong, but it is different from the U.S. where race is based on ancestry. Many of the people we Americans would call black would be white or almost white in Brazil. In fact, “scholars” had to work hard to put some people into racial categories. Race is not a natural category. Gender is. People in different times and places will classify races differently. Gender is universal.

In any case, in the past and in places other than the U.S., what we would call interracial marriages had a history. People had done it before and heard of it before. Literate people would have read about it. And of course interracial mating was very common.

Same sex marriage is (was) commonly practiced nowhere in the world at no time in history. It is a radical departure from all previous traditions in a way that no heterosexual marriage could ever be. Imagine trying to win popular support for polygamy.

If you look at precedent, polygamy has a lot more than same sex. It may be an idea whose time is coming, but it is a very radical idea and it is not hard to understand why most people are surprised by it.

I am on what I think is your side. I have convinced many of my friends and acquaintances that pro-family conservatives are the ones who should support same sex marriage most strongly. Given my known ideological preferences, I believe I am particularly effective in bringing around the oppostion.

But I don’t approach it from a rights perspective. That only creates defensive barriers. I explain that it stabilizes lives and gives the individuals involved and society the benefits of this stability.

The courts can deal the final blow to an outdated idea, but they have no business standing in the vanguard.

Same sex marriage is (was) commonly practiced nowhere in the world at no time in history.

I’ve given examples on this blog that refute that, previously. The same-sex “berdache” marriages of the native americans are a prime example. There are tribes of Zuni in africa where a prosperous woman can take the role of a man even to the point of claiming other women as wives. The Sifra, a jewish rabbinical commentary on the old testament talks about Egypt and Canaan once promoting homosexual marriage. “A man would marry a man, and a woman would marry a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, a woman would be married to two men.” The roman emperor Nero married men, including Pythagorus. These are just a handful of examples, I would direct you to http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1a.html for more. Yes, polygamy has a broader history, but the idea that same-sex marriage has none is simply in error.

Race is not a natural category. Gender is. People in different times and places will classify races differently. Gender is universal.

I doubt those who are born intersexed would agree with you. There are many people who are born of indeterminate sex whose sexes are surgically assigned by doctors, even if their genes indicate an opposing gender. http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/Fall01/ethics.html The fact of the matter is, gender is not so simple as male or female, xx or xy… there are many conditions where you can have traits that place you between the poles of this spectrum. It is possible, and theorized by some, that homosexuality is one aspect of this… an intersexual state manifesting mentally rather than physically. I don’t know. But I do know that gender is much more fluid than a simple two state system, even speaking purely of the physical mechanisms involved.

Jarin

Your examples prove the point. All of them are reaches.

Consider Nero. He was a symbol of depravity and evil even in his own time. That is like justifying something by saying Hitler approved. I would keep that example to myself if I were you.

The Old Testament describing Canaan and Egypt? How many good things does the Old Testament have to say about these places or the people in them? It was mean to be an insult to these peoples.

Then you have Indian and African examples from people without written history.

The point remains that most people would never have heard of these examples. (I am a little suspicious of the Nero example. Is that from Seutonious? Some of the Roman historians would write for tabloids if they were in business today.)

These examples would make you less likely to accept same sex marriage. Who wants to be like Nero?

What can I say about gender? Gender is scientific. Race is not. You have a Y chromosome and you are a male. Some few individuals have a genetic anomaly. If you have are XXY you have Klinefelter’s Syndrome, which causes developmental delays. If you have XYY you are more active and maybe more aggressive. Sometimes the Y is defective and a male has female characteristics, but genetic tests would still identify him as a male. I suppose these are the cases you are talking about. But these things affect less than ¼ of 1% of the male population. Not enough to make a big difference and in the case of xxy, most of them are unable to live normal lives.

Jack:

You’ve rather significantly changed the bar with this latest argument… rather than proving a history of same-sex marriage exists, we must now use only examples that modern people will think well of, from historians who describe those arrangements in positive lights, from cultures with written history at the time of the arrangement, and that people have heard of? Well yes, by those terms, I suppose there never was same-sex marriage in the world before. Neither, though, has polygamy… even if it passed the second, third, and fourth conditions, it fails against the first. Mormonism, Islamic polygamy, we’ve heard of these… biblical polygamy, we’ve heard of this too and it’s been written down… but never would these be considered positive examples for modern peoples, and the examples which are positive would not surmount the latter three conditions.

As far as sex, yes we are talking about those who are genetically deviant, who have a genetic anomaly. There is research which indicates homosexuals do too, so I think this is not too far of a stretch. Does this mean that we should ignore the anomaly as if it did not exist, and treat only those who are heterosexual men and women as valid, and force those who do not fit that mold into it whether they wish to be or not? And the calculations I’ve seen say that it is more like 1.7% of all births which involve physical intersexual characteristics.

Actually, is not the idea of race itself genetic variation to some degree, even if in nothing more than skin pigmentation? Could minority races be considered genetic anomalies that were allowed to flourish and gain greater representation in the human genome? Just some thoughts.

Jarin

My point remains as it was. In order for an example to be relevant, it has to be known.

A lot of people would have been (and are) familiar with interracial marriage. Not many people would be aware of your examples and – as I wrote – they examples of Nero and the Canaanites would be negative in most people’s eyes.

You can find examples of most things if you look. In some cultures, most prominently in ancient Egypt, brothers and sisters married. In fact this example, because of Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy, was well know. This idea remains repulsive to most people and the idea never spread.

I am not trying to argue AGAINST same sex marriage based on historical example per se. What I am saying is that historical example was clearly a factor in interracial debate and not in the same sex debate.

There is also the personalization that doesn’t exist in the gay debate. Heterosexual men of any race could imagine themselves attracted to someone like Halle Berry. No such empathy exists among heterosexuals for gay marriage. I don’t say this as an example of a valid reason, but I think it is a reason.

Anyway, we are getting off the debate.

Race is just a cultural conception. It has no meaning at all in any real sense. Genetic variation itself is useful for a species. It is what drives evolution and protects against challenges such as new diseases. The problem with the races as we define them is that they are not grouped by genetic variation. For example, east Africans are more genetically related to Gulf Arabs than to west Africans. Our eyes lead us to different conclusions.

Paul,
Good post, well written. Hmmm, Republicans are from Mars, Democrats from Venus…
The keyword is ‘cooperation,’ and it could be very effective.

In terms of a general political strategy for the midterm elections, it’s not necessary at this point for Dems to promote a postive mesage. Negative should work extremely well, especially going on the attack over Social Security.

2008 is different. I’d like to see the usual tried and true strategy used by both sides; the presidential candidate promoting a positive vision, with the minions going on the attack.

As for an overall message, AP, I think you’re on the right track, but I’d like to see a shorter list, something punchier. A golden opportunity is available.

1. Get OBL
2. Deficit hawk
3. Geo-green

1.) It could be OBL, it could be Zarqawi; hard to tell in ‘08. Something simple, aggressive, and easily understandable would make a good slogan, something addressing one of the most obvious failures of the Bush administration.

2.) Everyone, Republican & Democrat alike, recognizes & agrees the budget policies of the Bush administration are a ‘miserable failure.’ Would anyone care to defend the spending policies of the Republican Congress, or Bush’s inability to provide fiscal guidance, or use a veto? Taking a hard nosed approach to federal government- reducing spending, increasing revenues- is obvious, yet again, the Bush administration seems utterly bankrupt of ideas on how to approach the budget.

3.) Geo-green. Address national security, energy policy, and Global Warming in one stroke. Advocate an extremely aggressive policy of cutting US reliance upon fossil fuel.

I’m anticipating SSI will be resolved by ‘08. I’d suggest an open tent policy on the culture war issues. And I’m guessing job creation will fall under the deficit hawk category.

As for an overall message, AP, I think you’re on the right track, but I’d like to see a shorter list, something punchier.

Heh. Thanks phx8, but it’s not my list. That’s the Democratic Party’s key legislative agenda. It’s the positive Democratic alternative that Republicans absolutely must continue to deny exists.

As a Republican I believe in freedom.

This is one of the logical conundums that you’ll find on logic tests.

“If A is true, and B is true, then can both be a true statement?”

In this case, the answer is no. Republican actions speak louder than words. One can believe in freedom OR be a Republican. One can’t do both.

One can’t possibly believe in freedom and also be in a party that maintains that how one practices consensual sex in the bedroom determines one’s right to serve in the armed forces.

One can’t possibly believe in freedom and also be in a party that literally keeps people from the freedom to form legal unions as they wish.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that literally wants make decisions about the inner-most recesses of your own body.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that wants to keep people from making their own decisions about life and death in their final days.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that consistently gives the State more rights and the individual fewer rights, as with search and seizure procedures.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that wishes to set up cameras linked to face recognition software and put it in public places.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that consistently puts the interests of corporations over those of individuals.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that consistently hides what should be public information from its citizenry, as with the Cheney energy policy meetings.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that consistently defends the death penalty even in light of DNA evidence showing innocent people are regularly killed by the State.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that continues to place the U.S. armed forces all over the world in a textbook example of military overreach, sometimes in authoritarian states that detest freedom.

One can’t believe in freedom and be in a party that wishes to stop people from smoking marijuana even though it’s the one medication that will diminish their pain or save their lives.

Or, if one can, then one must be willing to live in an Orwellian world where freedom is actually something else.

Reed,

If you’re trying to start the freedom party, I’ll offer a few more planks for your platform.

One can’t believe in freedom and try to trash the 2nd amendment and ban guns.

One can’t believe in freedom and try to ban sport hunting and fishing.

One can’t believe in freedom and deny the right to work and force union membership.

One can’t believe in freedom and deny schools of choice and vouchers.

One can’t believe in freedom and deny a willing employer to pay any wage they wish to a willing employee.

AND..One can’t ever start a freedom party and include only the freedoms that fit your ajenda!

Beagle~
Everytime I go to make a post, I scroll down to find the end remark by you and it always makes me smile! I think I may be crushing on you…..Just Kidding but you really do make me laugh, keep up the good work, I believe we may just be in the same corner!

As for this here thread….it is amazing that so many can not see their hypocracy in accusing the Republicans of alienating and dividing while they themselves spew hate and secularist ideals! If you are fighting the fight of being a nurturor you can’t accomplish that with hurtful words……..I.E. “We are so accepting and loving blah,blah,blah,but those f****** Republicans are pieces of s*** that needed to be rounded up……”
It just dosn’t make the case hold water now does it?

Beagle,

I agree with gist of your statement. It’s part of the point I’d like to make. We shouldn’t say we belong to a certain party because “we believe in freedom.” The question is always, “freedom to do what?” Every political party wishes to restrain certain freedoms while protecting others. We pick our parties not because they believe in freedom but they believe in the freedoms that strike us as most necessary and moral. By the way, I also support the 2nd amendment, while maintaining that people shouldn’t have their own nukes. And I like the idea of school choice. Those also fit my “ajenda.”

Reed,

My point exactly, for voters, in the end it comes down to issues.

For political partys it comes down to tryng to sell a bag of crap and hoping nobody looks inside before they vote yea/ney on the contents.

Don’t argue with this tomd guy. For all we know it could be Tom Delay! Arguing with him over points just wastes resources. I’m a Democrat and I actually admire the way the Republicans win. That should be the goal for Democrats, WINNING!

I do not agree with the “cooperation” framework since that means cooperating with Republicans who are trying to destroy the Democratic party. Cooperation with them is like cooperating with the guy who is car jacking you.

Sdiddy,

If you can respect what is working, you don’t have to agree with the opinions of the party you oppose, thats why they call it politics.

sdiddy said “Don’t argue with this tomd guy. For all we know it could be Tom Delay! Arguing with him over points just wastes resources. I’m a Democrat and I actually admire the way the Republicans win. That should be the goal for Democrats, WINNING!

I do not agree with the “cooperation” framework since that means cooperating with Republicans who are trying to destroy the Democratic party. Cooperation with them is like cooperating with the guy who is car jacking you.”

Well, My last name isn’t Delay but I have to agree with you on cooporation. I think we should all lay our cards on the table and have a “war”….May the best party win.

Traci,

“We are so accepting and loving blah,blah,blah,but those f****** Republicans are pieces of s*** that needed to be rounded up……”

The loudest liberals are not necessarily the majority…

“”The common good” is our goal.”

I think what is most needed to promote the common good is for Democrats to become concise, no nonsense, truth tellers. And to not always worry about being perfectly polite when doing just that.

For example: the nuclear option

Republican’s mantra has been “up or down vote!”, and “we must stop judicial activism!”
To the average person that actually sounds reasonable. And it’s so concise, even a dimwit can immediately understand exactly what they mean.

Democrats on the other hand, have been describing how this isn’t constitutional, how it goes against the intent of the founder’s ideas of checks and balances, how it is unfair to ignore the voice of minority, how they never tried to do this when they were in the majority, etc, etc.
That’s too much information — and sounds a lot like whining. It certainly doesn’t speak to the people in clear terms.

What they’ve been needing to say is this:
“Republican’s seek unlimited power and control — that’s not American.”
And:
“Religious extremism controlling the Supreme Court for the next forty years? No Way!”

See what I mean?
Gear things toward the lowest common demominator while telling the complete truth.
Start calling: “a spade a spade”, rather than: “a long handled shovel that is an extremely useful implement for scooping up small quantities of earth and transporting it to a separate place by exerting ones arms in a swinging motion.”

Just my opinion.

Zeek~
Very true of both sides, it just irritates me when people try to prove their points using the same tactics they are dissaproving of!

“We are so accepting and loving blah,blah,blah,but those f****** Republicans are pieces of s*** that needed to be rounded up……”

Hmm… I’ve heard anything like that from Democrats here on WatchBlog. Frankly, when you guys get all defensive like that for no reason, it just makes you look kooky.

Well, I really hope that the Democrats realize how much the frame has shifted regarding the Democratic and Republican parties. The old frame, which was revived by Edwards in his “Two Americas” stump speech was one of economic division, or rich vs poor. At that time, the Democratic party was broad based and very inclusive,far left to far right, from Kennedy to Thurmon.

The new frame is of culture or “values”, and include discussions on gay marriage, which in reality directly affects a small number of people.
The Republicans would rather fight battles on the culture war front rather than the economic war front. They cannot justify their economic actions to mainstream America and how these economic policies are helping Americans except in the most broadest, “trust me” terms.

The Democrats need to get back to the broad based inclusive party where economic actions benefit all Americans, left to right, not culture wars, which usually don’t benefit the great majority of Americans.

I believe in as much freedom as possible for all Americans. I also believe that investments in all Americans will make this country strong and lead the entire world in the correct direction.
The Democrats can do this by having strong convictions and not be wimps.

AP~
There are many examples of it in the above posts if you read them! This statement only gets pointed out to the Dems because they are so damn quick to believe that they are a better person than the Repubs. Is it not a true statement that most Dems believe they are way more compassionate than the right? I’m just saying that the vile spews of Dems against the right do not seem to be compassionate by any means!! Do not come back with what the right says also, because I’m very well aware they spew hate also but they are not trying to run on a hearts and candy, 60’s style love/peace campaign!!
Lead by example and maybe I (a conservative) could even sway to the other side!I would truly love to see the party of turn the other cheek and take the high road.(In a verbal debate, anyways)!
Everyone loves the notion of a feel good/compassionate universe- but NIETHER side comes off as Little Bo Peep!

I’m sorry Traci. I scrolled back up through the posts and still didn’t see anything like, “those f****** Republicans are pieces of s*** that needed to be rounded up……”

All I see is you making a rabid attack on Democrats with no justification.

AP~
I suppose “attacks” are in the eye of the beholder- but if you can HONESTLY say they haven’t occured in this blog I suggest you go for an eye exam!!(Or a psych. exam because I would be led to think you’re delusional)!

Once again, the people that say “get out of the victim mentality” to paraphrase one of the true Republican leaders, El Rushbo, are complaining about being a victim of Democratic vitriolic attacks. Democratic compassion is about those who are downtrodden, not towards people who are trying to emasculate them!

I do believe that the Democrats should reach out to conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives.
I would also love to hear from a conservative, why they are a conservative.

but if you can HONESTLY say they haven’t occured in this blog

Ahh… Now I’m supposed to search the whole blog, rather than “the above posts.” When does it end, Traci? When I get to the Earth First website? Please.