What is the deal-killer for you in the democratic party?

In other words, if the democratic party were to do any of the following things, which would make you ABANDON the party?

Trying to determine which is the priority issue for the most people here.

I know many want to click "all of the above". That's fine, but which would be the one to REALLY stick in your craw?

Feel free to submit others.

or starting to oppose programs like medicare, social security, opposing increasing the min wage, etc. Basically economic issues, I am a democrat because of my views on economics.

As a pagan, fully bracing myself for "Burning Times" II in this administration, it would be a complete blow to me if the Democratic party came out against the separation of church and state implied in the Constitution - freedom of religion was one of the founding issues. I believe fully in evolution, however, I know there are opposing viewpoints. I would have no issue with curricula that taught both evolotion and creationism, and gave each student enough information to make up their own minds.

That is showing favor to the Judeo-Christian religion. If they teach that, they would need to teach the creation stories of every other religion in this country.

Actually, I wouldn't mind them teaching them, in a religion or history class -NOT in a science class. None of those stores bears any relation to science.

I would favor teaching both creationism and evolution to show that there are opposing viewpoints and that such disagreement is okay, that our diverse viewpoints are our strength (or some shit LOL). Perhaps teaching the various creation myths in a history course could be a viable option.

Perhaps a new course could be added to the curriculum "History of Science". I think it promises to be a very interesting course!

of a theory that CAN NOT stand up to the scientific method. Then it should be mocked and scorned (as it rightly deserves)

"either sceince is right, OR the Catholic Church is."

Bottom line is, science class is for SCIENCE; i.e. information learned through the scientific method, and backed up with available physical evidence. Perhaps what should be explained is the difference between a "theory" as in an idea that someone has which is equal to all other ideas irrelevant to the facts, like, I have a "theory" that Ashley Judd wants to have my babies... versus a scientific theory, that, even though it's called a "theory", is the best, most accurate model currently available to explain the facts. (Another difference between science and dogmatic religion- or science and the Bush administration, for that matter- is that when science is presented with evidence that doesn't match its description of reality, science updates its models of reality. Monolithic Religion, and the Bush team, seem to expect that reality should adjust itself to fit their belief systems.) To say that we exist on a planet that formed through natural processes, and evolved along with all other planetary life forms through a gradual process of natural selection is not fundamentally equal to, say, the "theory" that we all live on a giant flat papier mache plain and were deposited here 4,000 years ago by Jehovah like so many sea monkeys.

The right wing loves to float this kind of "intellectual relativism", and it's the same thing that allows them to make asinine assertions such as, there are "conflicting scientific opinions about whether global warming is real".. Right. Every single climate scientist on the planet understands that if you continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, eventually the temperature will go up. Then one guy, who happens to be on Chevron's payroll (and it actually is one guy, although I've forgotten his name- every time there's a "debate" about global warming in the media, he's the "dissenting opinion" they dig up) comes out and says something stupid like, "you can put as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as you want, and everything will stay just peachy..." (which is why he and his family vacation regularly on Venus, presumably) and, voila, you've got "conflicting opinions" on the matter. One "side" says it's real, the other "side" says it isn't.

And that's the game they want to play in Science classes, too. Why, it's just common sense, isn't it? Either evolution is right, OR Jesus Christ died for your sins... get it?

Catholic in specific but as someone whose ancestors encountered religious discrimination, I support seperation of church and state as high as anyone.

and the rest didn't calm me any. you have an evil mind:scared:

I hate them all too.

The fact is, some democratic politicians have been complicit in ALL of these actions already, and we don't hold them accountable.

Sorry to shoot your blood pressure up.


I wish I had something positive to say. I'm so not over this election, and 2006 is still too far away for me to try and fire up my (false?) hopes for that.

Dammit.

at least half

I don't feel good about the Democratic party's direction on ANY of those issues.

Cubed

...but I think that the corporations/corporatism are the main thing we need to get away from. Without the mega-corporations and the military-industrial complex, PNAC type plans wouldn't be possible and the religious people wouldn't have a strangle-hold on social issues.

There are only two choices in this country -- Republican and Democratic. The only way I'd leave the Democratic Party is if the roles of the parties reversed -- which isn't likely at all.

If necessary, I'll join an insurgency within the party.

--p!

I can't think of anything that would end my association with the Democratic Party because the alternative (rethuglicans)is even worse. :shrug:

Ours is a two party country, so there's nowhere else to go. There's not a viable option beyond dem or repub, so we have to save the party we've got.

(This is NOT a slam to the greens or anyone else, its just that *I* believe there is no option for a viable third party, no matter how correct they might appear to be .... unless one of the two major parties implodes, which I don't see in the foreseeable future.)

Implosion is NOT far off, IMO.

I'm not joining the Greens to make a viable 3rd party, I'm doing it to help them displace the Democrats as a true progressive 2nd party.

You can't drive a new car until you junk the old one. Personally, I think it's time to junk the Democratic party even if it means we have to hoof it for a while.

I realize that is not a very popular opinion in these parts, but it's how I feel.

If it goes much further right, it will be beyond my ability to tolerate or condone.

I'm not entirely sold on the greens because they seem almost TOO idealistic and really need to be more strategic and cutthroat, but who knows?

you should go here:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

"is the Democratic party dying" BS.
I think it is BS. So we lost the Presidency to an evil incumbent. How is that different from 1972 or 1984 when we got hammered electorally both times? We still have won three of the last four elections, although Ross may have helped in 1992.
We slipped a little bit in congressional seats. How is that different from 1980 or 1994?
So now they want to spread rumors of our death? Probably trying to encourage more rats to abandon ship by questioning its sea-worthiness.

A more relevant story would be "Is Democracy dying?" as even the supposed "media whore" Cokie Roberts wrote in our local paper.

We didn't just lose to an incumbent. We lost to the most ineffective, piss poor, unpopular incumbent in modern electoral history.

The fact that the Democratic party could not beat George W. Bush in 04 should concern you. A LOT... The fact that the Democratic party's stance on BBV is basically a shrug of the shoulders and a smug shake of the head to the "conspiracy theorists" should concern you. A LOT.

And it's not just the lack of recent electoral success, it's the lack of focus and leadership. The ship may technically be sea-worthy, but when the crew continues to select the most pathetic captain then the rats may just have the right idea.

The weak state of the Democratic party is NOT a media creation and anyone who thinks it is has their head buried deeply in the sand.

IMHO anyway...

I'm thinking of going Green.

except for the last one.

Are the 2 things that probably bother me the most at the current time.

If the Dem party supported anti abortion legislation I would run away, the same thing goes for supporting religion in schools.
Evolution has pretty much been proven while creationism is just not going to cut it. How do you teach children that the Earth has only been here for a few thousand years and then teach them about dinosaurs in science and ancient civilizations in history class? It isn't possible without being completely hypocritical.

And a womans right to choose has been my issue since I was 12 and Clinton was running for office the first time. I saw the threats to it then with the uprising of the neocons and it has just been getting worse. Sane people know that outlawing abortion doesn't halt it, it just makes it unsafe for the thousands of women that will continue to have them. So if the Dems loose their sanity then I'll support whichever third party candidate that I agree with.

Liberal La La Land? I'm an old hippie and still very idealistic, somehow I was never jaded too badly. The past two elections have really put a damper on my idealism and my hope for this country. Unless I see this parties top leaders call for some sort of organized effort, such as a march or a mass protest, I think I am not going to be a Democrat much longer. I am looking for the leaders of the party to stand for something!!!! This quasi fight for the DNC chairmanship is turning into a race to get out of the running. What hope is there if no one wants to be the head of the DNC except Terry Mac. Terry Mac is a good guy but is terrible on television. We need a TV savvy guy that can clean the RNC chairman's clock at every turn. We need people like Carville running the party. Yeah let's draft James C to be DNC chairman!!! That sounds great!



RedTail Wolf

Seriously. What a horror show that list is. Oh... we are living that horror show, aren't we?

I picked Patriot Act II, because if the government abrogates our rights we can't fight against anything else on this list, either.

I think the only chance we have at pulling another party in is if we instate a new voting method. Unfortunately, it has to be implemented nation-wide in order for it to be effective. Several states are instating a new type of voting called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), it's a perfect fix to our screwed up system.

I'll see if I can explain: There are several options for each office, and you mark your top 3 choices in your preferred order. All ballots are run through taking everybody's first choice. If nobody has won over 50%, the bottom candidate will be knocked off of the list and those who picked them as #1 will default to their number 2 choice. This continues until someone has over 50% of the total vote.

Example: 47% want republican, 41% want democratic, 12% want green. The votes are run through and nobody has won 50%, so the bottom candidate is knocked off (green). Of the 12%, 2% had republican as their 2nd choice, 10% had democrat. If there were only two candidates to begin with, the majority would have wanted democrat. With IRV, the people who prefer a party other than democratic and republican don't have to be afraid to vote for their #1 choice.

I know there are people working on getting this on the ballot in Washington State and some states already have it, but in order for it to work for national offices, it must be instated nation-wide. For example, let's say Washington State instates it and ends up voting Libertarian. Their electoral votes all go to the Libertarian candidate, but the rest of the country is still stuck on the 2-party system. All of Washington's electoral votes are wasted.

For more info and what you can do, visit http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

That is what we need. The Dem Party no longer represents the working class . I vote Green for every office. Since I am in CA it doesn't matter regarding Pres./VP.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Good list.

Honestly, I'm a Democrat because on most of the issues I believe in, most of the time the Dems are the Party of choice. Generally, The Democratic Party is the Party I agree with the most. If that ever were not the case, I wouldn't vote for them. Like I said, I'm not really a single-issue voter, but three deal-killers would have to be abandoning civil rights/civil liberties (i.e. affirmative action, free speech issues), abandoning support for the working and middle class (minimum wage, education, health care, etc), or not having a plan to deal with terrorism.

between the civil rights and the mixing of church and state.

After all the party did roll over once on the first PA, and I'm still with it...but if they supported PA II, the party would really have shown that there is no difference between the two...and at that point it wouldn't be worth supporting them.

Same thing with the mixing of church and state. "Faith based" programs are one thing (I don't support them but they may do SOME good), but the moment they start going with the RW agenda of putting creationism in schools....then I'll know I'm no longer part of the party...and that I don't fit in anymore.

But I don't, so I won't.

there are so many scenarios you offered that would pretty much turn me into a card-carrying Socialist, but the "Church Thing" flares my nostrils out farthest.

With Clinton we got:
A "winner" who supported...
NAFTA
GATT/WTO
Telecom Deregulation
Welfare Reform

With Gore we got:
A supporter of NAFTA,
GATT/WTO, Telecom
Deregulation, and
Welfare Reform....
who gave up the
presidency BEFORE
the votes were counted


With Kerry we got:
A supporter of NAFTA,
GATT/WTO, Telecom
Deregulation, and
Welfare Reform....
who gave up the
presidency BEFORE
the votes were counted

A party of losers...
whether we win or not

It seems that the one area in which people are LEAST willing to give, is the one area where the "mainstream" media is implying we NEED to give.

Personally, I agree that giving up the boundaries between church and state is the worst, because you pull that card and the whole house of cards that comprises our quasi-democracy falls down - it enables all of the things on the list to happen.

And as many people have noted, most of them have already been happening to some degree already.

This poll reflects a deep exasperation and pessimism I feel with the democratic party and its leadership.

A number of the responses reflect that feeling, too.

The grassroots did everything right this year. We were motivated and got out and worked our butts off, even though the candidate was Kerry. And yet the leadership of the party ignored us, distanced themselves from us, and voted against us at every opportunity.

I never would have posted something like this a month ago. I hoped against hope that Kerry would actually try to win, but he windsurfed, posed in silly outfits and kept Teresa on a short leash while allowing his honor to be besmirched by a bunch of lying nutjobs without EVER sticking up for his own record.

The election wasn't stolen, it was given away. I'll probably get flamed for this and told that I'm brainwashed by the media. I don't think so. I barely look at the TV. I'm going from what I hear from real people that I know personally around the country.

:-(

I don't mean that I'm against gay marriage. Its not a deal breaker for me, personally. I mean that the gay marriage movement within the democratic party played some role in Kerry's defeat because a slight majority of Americans can't deal with it.

Which of these actions by the party would DRIVE YOU away from the party?

Not "what do you think lost the election"?

I don't really give a damn what some idiot Bush voter thinks. I only care about what DEMOCRATS think (and maybe some of the greens and other lefties who hang around here think)

By the way, there is not and has not been a gay marriage movement within the party.

A democrat mayor and some REPUBLICAN appointed judges took it upon themselves to interpret the law as providing for gay marriage. Whether it does or not is yet to be decided by the Supreme Court.

The vast majority of elected democrats I've heard speak on the subject favor "civil unions", which Bush also came out in support of before the election. Many others consider it a states-rights issue.

There may well be many democrat voters who believe in same-sex marriage. I am one of them, but it is VERY low on my list of priorities at this point. But almost no elected democrats have come out in favor of same-sex marriage. So how is it that we got painted as the "party of gay marriage"? Maybe you should ask your "liberal media" that question.

I might have thought the last one was the least onerous, but after seeing how many obviously deranged, low-IQ dumbfucks are already running around with big-ass assault weapons (as evidenced by the "response" websites to sorryeverybody.com) I fear I may have to move reasonable gun control up several notches in my priority list.