The biggest problem with the democratic party?

Is that they rush around publicly on TV, in print, and just in general discussions (like right here), chasing the latest bullshit spin on why they lost, inevitably trying to figure out how they can pander to whatever slice of the electorate the TV talking heads say is the "key" to winning the next election.

First off, these pundits are idiots. There is not a single shred of real evidence that gay marriage or support for the pro-choice position (aka "values") made any huge impact on this election. It is a fictitious construct born of a single exit poll question that attempts to roll up huge and varied issues into one question and then guess what people mean by the term "moral values." (See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml for a great column on that).

Yet on such flimsy evidence there are those in the party, and their supporters, who are lickity split willing to moderate, change, and recalibrate the dem positions on their core values of freedom of choice and equality for all. Yes, just a handful of DUers advocate that, but one only has to look to TV and newspapers to see our politicians and liberal pundits buying into the sad sack idea that we need to be "more moral" - the right's idea of morals, that is (which are about as immoral as you can get). This is not new, unfortunately. The party has done it every 2 yrs since 1994 when we lost our grip on congress.

After our losses in 2002, when Homeland security, the program DEMS proposed in the first place, was used to beat us about the head, what did Dems do? They immediately returned to congress and sold out the unions and worker's rights that were at issue in creating the homeland security department. We must have lost because we stuck to our guns, the dems tell themselves. Maybe we'll win next time if we cave. The same crap is going on now -- dems wondering whether they shouldn't be more conciliatory to repugs on issues ranging from more tax cuts, to letting more conservative judges through (as if 98% isn't enough). I have even seen some here advocating DINO type candidates to run in 2008. Anything to TRY to grab a sliver of the fundie vote and get the White House, I guess.

Meanwhile, while dems recalibrate for the n'th time, the rest of the country (the 70-80% who generally pay no attention to the inside baseball of politics) is wondering what dems really stand for. And who can blame them since they often don't seem to know themselves?

Does a party that doesn't stand firm in its beliefs inspire confidence or cause the persuadable to want to be led by it? No, why would it? Instead of focusing on crafting a message that our principles are more moral, more ingrained with the country's values, and better for them overall (and they ARE) the party anguishes over how best to imitate the winning team.

My point is that being shaky and flaky on your core beliefs is not a winning strategy. Will more people vote for us if we pretend to be repugs? No, they will vote for the real republican every time. And all we end up doing is sending the voters the message that we will cave when the going gets rough. How can anyone believe the party will stand up for them, the voter, if it won't stand up for itself?

The democrats should not even consider changing its agenda, calibrating back on its core principles or caving in any fashion whatsoever. Instead it should sit down and figure out how to communicate the message of our agenda and core principles to the people in a compelling and coherent fashion. And instead of simply paying lip service to the constituents they serve (women, minorities, gays and lesbians, blue collar workers, and the middle class) they should tangibly demonstrate that they will fight for them instead of cave on them every time the going gets rough.

They should "not waver, they should not tire, they should not falter" when it comes to dem principles. Only then will they ever be admired enough to capture the votes of people who don't agree with them on every issue, but find the core beliefs compelling when compared to the republicans.

too many people in the party are willing to abandon our principles just to win--or think it is the path to victory--when it isn't. A party which doesn't stand for something is useless.

we've moved further to the right than any major party in the EU-and it's not working!

WE need to frame the debate instead of reacting to the crap they're putting out there. We need to put THEM on the defensive-they've got a lot to be defensive about!

:evilgrin:
dbt

... but why didn't we win with the largest margin ever against the worst president ever to hold office in this country? Why have we lost control of congress for 10 yrs now, with no sign of ever winning it back?

The present party stands for nothing, in truth, that will not be compromised away at the first opportunity by its self-nominated leadership. This party pays lip-service to certain ideals but its loyalty to them is very shallow and easily diverted.

This is a party of politics, not principle, and it has to be reshaped from within, the same way the conservatives did the GOP. Of course, we would like to keep from becoming prostitutes along the way like the right-wingers did.

In fact I think you're probably right in characterizing many of our politicians that way. But the party is more than it's politicians. It is the people like you and me and 55 million others that support it. We do indeed have core principles and we stand firm for them. We need our politicians to do the same, and communicate effectively why they stand firm in those beliefs.

* They should "not waver, they should not tire, they should not falter" when it comes to dem principles. *

====================================================================
It would be tragically ironic for us Dems to start taking our cues from a hollow quote from Shrub.

by the mainstream media as being "shaky" on core beliefs or "flip-floppers" for over 20 years. Now it's just commonplace to believe that, even though it's a lie. Government in a constitutional democracy is about compromise, and Dems. know how to govern. They're willing to compromise to get things done. That's a sign of strength, imho, not weakness. Problem is that the other side has been in "no-compromise" mode for a long time, and we're about to see the terrifying results of that. Should we become as ideologically rigid and dangerous as our opposition? Is that what we need right now? Perhaps.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--corrected typo.

It's the 53 million that voted for * that is our problem.

Attack that mindset which followed the lies and distortions and deceit which defeated Kerry. Dems are fine, we know what we are doing and where we want to take the country. It's the pukes who ae wrong.

Compromise is the name of the game, and we've got to find a way to bring some of those 53 million over to being comfortable with dems. That means we've got to be more understanding of their fears.

What is their fear, and what can we trim from our sharp edge to make those fears abate?

Not very well as far as I can tell. Sorry, I don't believe people want leaders who waver and change their position whenever the wind blows. And dems haven't "compromised" on anthing but the party's principles - instead they have caved for the sake of political expediency. On taxes, on the war in Iraq, on education, on civil liberties and civil rights. And like I said, that hasn't worked out too well.

I vote for dems in the fervent hope that they will not cave and instead come through for me in the end, which, to me, is better than voting for the party I am pretty sure will screw me over. That's not a compelling choice - it's a desperate choice.

53 million that voted for Bush are following a leader, even if he's a moron and it's down a path to destruction. And that, when 56% of the population thinks we are headed in the wrong direction.

People prefer leadership, even when they don't agree with that leader on everything, to a party who does not stand firm. Leadership is compelling to many, many people (or should I say sheeple). And as a bonus, it gives said leader a supposed mandate even though those same people aren't convinced their leader is right.

Blah, leader, blah, blah, blah.

It really is quite tiresome.

But taking your example of leadership, let's say the dem leader lies like *. I would imagine one of the first lies would be that gay people should be excluded. Now that would garner several million votes for that leader.

You see the web you are weaving? You tear down the dems and it's leaders, while propping up the way puke leaders have achieved a hollow success. :puke:

Get this straight: Dems are fine, we just need 10 million more to vote for dems. And I prefer we stick to the truth as much as possible, and not totally sell out gays, Blacks, Women, the environment, etc.

MY example of leadership is that politicians should lie? Well I'll be damned, I must have passed out and typed that while I was in a coma, because I sure don't remember writing anything even close to that.

And now that you've made up my words, it becomes a "web I am weaving"? LOL! No, it's a web of fantasy YOU are weaving, and from whole cloth I will add.

Since when does sticking by your principles instead of caving in order to look more like repugs have anything to do with lying? The lie is when you abandon your core beliefs for the sake of what you think is political expediency (but in reality isn't, because it DOES NOT translate into more votes).

Leading is sticking to your core beliefs, including NOT selling out gays, blacks, women, the environoment, the middle class, and unions, even when it's unpopular. Because in the end, you will gain respect for sticking to your principles, and in the meantime you'd better develop a good message machine that convinces people you are right.

Unfortunately, our party has done far too much selling out, and far too little selling of its message.

Quotes from your post:

And dems haven't "compromised" on anthing but the party's principles - instead they have caved for the sake of political expediency.

Caved? Dems have caved? That's bullshit. Yeah, we've been unsuccessful stemming the pukes, but caved? Empty platitudes.


On taxes, on the war in Iraq, on education, on civil liberties and civil rights.

Believing that bullsit, one would think some other party was involved in supporting the correct stance, and not Dems.


53 million that voted for Bush are following a leader, ......

People prefer leadership, .....

Yes, and as an example of sucessful leadership you use someone who preys on the fears and lies. That's a bad example, using *.

that our party voted to union bust over the dept of Homeland Security, for the Iraq war, for the patriot act, for NCLB, for huge tax cuts that have led to the largest deficit ever, and many more horrible republican proposals. That didn't really happen, huh?

So, help me out here - how do we as a party criticize Bush for all those horrible pieces of legislation when our party leaders voted right damn with him all the way down the line? Well, we hem and haw and say "they were great ideas, I just would have done them better." Yeah, right. The American people don't buy that. How about saying the truth - those ideas suck and we don't support them? Now there is a novel idea.

You're a bit deranged. And by the way, take a break and look up the definition of the word "platitude."

By a couple of congresscriters does not the party make. I go way back, back when Dems stood for Black civil rights, womens equal rights, etc.

I do not focus on a couple of votes, I focus on the long term, core values. You are dancing on the edge with your un-original empty statements and cherry picking of a few votes and using those votes to paint Dems into a dastardly corner. Gee, that's the same thing pukes have done all along. You're just using a different twist.

The way the Democratic Party is designed right now is we have leaders that make the major decision in our party. This isn't democracy.

We, the People, should be dictating the direction of our party. Democracy, after all, is based on the idea of rule by the People.

who condemn the party (and/or gays, christians, minorities, women, etc) over any and every mistake no matter how slight. Our "leaders" are not going to have any spine if we don't. They can't lead if we refuse to follow.

Sometimes it seems as if EVERY democrat thinks that THEY are the leader. The Democratic Party is stuffed with people who think THEY have the answer and everyone else should just get into line with them, and if anyone disagrees, they should go join the bush* brigade.

Surely you jest? Voting for tax cuts that bankrupt our country; voting to union bust with homeland security; voting for the Iraq war; NCLB; the patriot act -- those are SLIGHT mistakes?

No, those are votes that contrast mightily with our core principles as a party, and they were voted for by dems for the sake of political expediency and a misguided fear for their jobs.

Repugs have turned the word liberal into a dirty word, with a huge assist from us, because by gawd, so many dems would do just about anything to avoid appearing to actually be liberal when it comes down to their votes.

But people prefer politicians who stand strong for their beliefs, even if they don't agree with all of their beliefs.

Take Wellstone and Fiengold - both much more liberal than the state is as a whole. They were / are revered by their constituents. Take Gore - when he was the senator from TN he was adored (I lived there at the time) and he was always much more liberal than Clinton. TN didn't turn against him until he spent 8 yrs as VP and then as a candidate, where he began to cash in his core beliefs for what the thought was a broader constituency. He seems to have re-found his principles, and good for him, but it still provides a good example.

You are far far too extreme. You are not winning anybody over with your empty accusations, in fact, the more I read of you, the more you seem like a republican actor who seeks nothing but division among dems.

support, no matter how many times dems sell out their core supporters in an endless quest to capture 4 fundie voters in Alabama?

Now that sounds like freeper talk to me. In fact funny you should mention that - I had the unfortunate duty to meet with some log cabin republicans the day after the election, and that was exactly what they thought the democratic party should do. Be more like republicans.

So what is it that you want dems to do?

You want us to be even more extreme? According to you, the moderation in which dems are stuck has not been fruitful (on that we totally disagree) but you suggest we become even more extreme and continue to open our flanks to lies and distortions?

I am not buying what you are selling, and neither is most of America. Got that straight?

It is a question of tactics: Do we do a hard sell, or a soft sell? Your ideas are far too hard, and far to extreme. That's why you seem like nothing but a farce and a disruptor.

Since when it sticking to your core beliefs considered "extreme"? You do realize that is what is being discussed here, right?

While the pukes lie and deceive and attack us for the seemingly extreme positions we take, and therefore we end up losing just enough voter's support to lose elections.

Believe it or not, gay rights is not a core Dem value. Never has been. But it is a fringe idea that has merit, but will take a long time to become mainstream. In the meantime we do need to stick to core and mainstream values, I agree.

... to just bite the bullet and join the republican party.

What do you want on your tombstone?

When I spoke of mistakes "no matter how slight" I wasn't referring to tax cuts or the other things you mentioned. What made you ASSUME that I was referring to those?

When I said that, I was thinking of some of the criticism I've seen made on DU, such as:

Chuck Schumer, the man who led the successful effort to defeat bush* right-wing nominees to the court, must be repuke-lite Dem because he used the word "rethink" and the DUer didn't like "the sound of that" (Please tell me which "core principle" does the word "rethink" betray?)

mistakes to be slight ones. Since my post was about not compromising our principles and those are examples of mistakes we have made in compromising our principles, that it what I thought you were referring to. But you left me to guess, so I did.

It is helpful for folks like Schumer to say things like that? Hell no, because it screams -- "maybe we should compromise our core principles some more." I can see why that upsets people given that that attitude has been our path to destruction.

who would willingly assume that someone like Chuck Schumer, a flaming liberal who takes the fight right to bush*, is calling for a wholesale compromise of our core principles simply because he used the word "rething" in an interview that YOU didn't even read.

You are, by your own admission, unfamiliar with what Schumer actually said, but you're all too willing to criticize him even though you don't know what he actually said.

He was referring to the need to "rethink" how we promote our policies, not to the need to compromise our principles. Thanks for defending YOUR right to criticize mistakes while criticizing Schumer for exercising his right to criticize.

I can see why that upsets people given that that attitude has been our path to destruction.

Umm, Schumer got into office by defeating Al D'Amato, a fierce fighter and stalwart of the GOP. If there are any dems who know how to build the party and defeat repukes, it's Schumer.

How many powerful repuke Senators have you defeated? What makes you think you're qualified to criticize Schumer's performance in an area where Schumer has exceeded the achievements of most dems?

I am by my own admission unfamiliar with what Schumer said? Okay, were did I write that? What is it with some of you and this penchant for just making up what people have said? Geez, reminds me of repugs when you do that. Quit it, please!

I am completely familiar with what he said, and yes, I think it was a stupid thing to say - for the reasons I have previously discussed.

Now you may think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid to profess that the party needs to "rethink" things purely for the amusement of the pundit class. That is OFF message. He should skip the TV shows and head post haste to the war room and help his fellow dems craft a coherent message -- one that does not include telling millions of people, "shit we suck and need to rethink things!"

We've been real successful, huh?

Geez, when you lose and lose and lose, don't ya think it's time to rethink your strategy? What you suggest is how they describe insanity: Keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.

Empty platitudes and extreme insanity is your example of leadership? :puke:

As I have made very clear in my post - you couldn't have missed it except on purpose.

Does anyone here like you? Because I find your habit of putting words in people's mouth and pretending they said things they didn't to be extremely rude and off-putting.

Your constant refrain that dems need to be more and more and more to the right (they can't seem to get conservative enough for you) makes me think you're a DINO. And that would make sense, because that penchant for just making shit up about what people post and say is very common to the insufferable conservatives I know.

You're doing the SAME EXACT THING in a public forum read by thousands, but that's OK. Furthermore, you have yet to give ONE REASON why it's not OK for Schumer to say that on TV, which is understandable because YOU DON'T even know what he said.

And in an earlier post, you criticized me for saying you hadn't heard Schumer because you hadn't said that, and then followed it by admitting you hadn't heard it.

that penchant for just making shit up about what people post and say is very common to the insufferable conservatives I know.

Like the way you "made up" an interpretation for what Schumer said even though he explicitely said he was talking about strategy and rhetoric, and not policy?

But again, it's OK when YOU do it.

Just like republicans. This LTRS is good, eh? Took me awhile but I've got his number now. Can you say disruptor?

We all believe in so many things, which makes it hard to send a clear, inclusive message about our base beliefs.

We DO have base beliefs. We just accept them, and expect everyone else to honor them. But maybe they don't even know what we're talking about...

More of an effort has to be made to define our... I don't want to say values... but something that the party stands for. We, in this country, are not at the head of the masses only because people don't realize that we share their beliefs.

It's almost impossible to fight people who want to be led around like sheep. We will never ever be like that - it's what makes us great. We will figure this out in the coming years - who knows what issues are going to come up and what idiotic things the Repukes are gonna do. Let's figure this out logically - and we really do need people out there on TV/radio repeating our positions over and over and over again - this may be the single most important thing we need to do. AAR is just the beginning.

There is no evidence that moral issues made the difference in this election. All you had were exit polls saying that a lot of people voted on moral issues. But the problem is that those same exit polls showed kerry winning regardless.

the states where we are doing WORST are the states where we should be footwalking now...spreading flyers and cracking the code. Until we BREAK UP the momentum in those states, we won't stand a chance in hell.

Midwest, MO, IA, CO, NV places like that? I agree. We need a better ground game there. They are gettable!