I don't want the Democrat pty to be about gay marriage and abortion rights

It should be prominantly about eliminating crony capitalism, maintaining the financial security blanket for all Americans (Social Security and Medicare), fiscal responsibility, maintaining good relations with the world while keeping America safe, and, hopefully, driving out the corporate special interests from being able to bribe the government.

Though I favor civil unions, I don't give a rip about gay marriage. It is not something that I would argue passionately for, however unthreatening it is to the institution of marriage and to the faith of others. And I am ambivalent about abortion, save in cases of rape, incest, death of mother. These are not traditional issues that are the hallmark of the Democratic party. They are "moral issues" for both the far right and the far left.

And I don't want people deciding the fate of this nation based on their own personal "moral values", be they the ignorant former Democrats-now-Republicans in the Red states, or the ultra-liberals who want gay marriage and Roe v.Wade to be prominant issues that the Democratic party stands for.

I agree.

It isn't about those things.

Damn, people don't drink the kool-aid. They sold this to the murikans, now we are gonna swallow it too.

If you want control of how your party is portrayed, fight for fair elections so we can bring back the fairness doctrine and cut back on media consolidation when we get congress back.

that's the only way.

edit: "democrat party"? oops.

capitalism, since the Dem. Party is knee-deep in that itself.

running both political parties. because of the money and influence.

I imagine the bush presidency part 2 has a value of a trillion dollars (pick another number if you like) in financial transactions in corporate america. Basically it is us (regular dems and repubs and citizens) against them (corporate America).

With an all republican national government, the only power I have is local government and where I choose to spend my money.

Msongs
Riverside CA

Dean-Obama 2008
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

If we could do away with those two issues, that would open up a LOT of people to our side AND allow us to move the party back to the left.

Heck we wouldn't even have to discuss religion any more, which would be a plus in my book.

That will be very helpful to your cause. :wtf:

You can't expect us to vote your way without your support. The dems need the support of everyone they can get, which is very clear after this election. They can't afford to lose the gay community, and trust me, many gays would be happy to choose a truly liberal and supportive party over a party that takes advantage of our support and then stabs us in the back.

and quite frankly, if I had to trade 500,000 gay votes in New York for 500,000 rural votes in Ohio I'd make that trade.

in order to move the party back to the left? What the hell is that? Just become a f'ing republican if you want the dems to go right. That's the problem in this country. Dems have allowed themsleves to be pulled further and further to the right, alienating their base. They'll never again until they proudly stand up for the left. Being a better republican than the republicans does not make a good democrat.

Our base since the time of Jefferson and into the heights of the 1930's was the rural and union voter!

The party left THEM. Now they're almost all off the reservation and we keep wondering why our Northeaster West Coast 60's/70's era radicalism matured into policy doesn't fly with them anymore.

If we want a national party they we need to get more people to stand with us. A disjointed group of 'left over' causes and issues doesn't make a party.

There is a big place for gay Americans in the Democratic party, but for us to exist as anything more then a regional afterthought like the GOP in 1934 we need to stop putting barriers up for rural Americans who otherwise would warm to our message of social and economic opportunity.

You're telling us that the dems should not support equal rights for gays, and yet there is a big place for us in their party? That is 100% baloney. There is no place for us in a party that will not help us stand up for our rights. I refuse to quietly slip back into the closet so that democrats wouldn't be "burdened" with supporting us.

NEVER.

But we don't have to push an issue in an election year that winds up biting us in the ass. This wasn't a small bite. 25 YEARS or so of Judicial power is now going to be Republican. 25 YEARS. How much harder has the equal rights movement gotten now? How far back have we come.

One of the things that has become crystal clear to me during this election cycle is the whole structure of things.

Start with this statement of yours: Our base since the time of Jefferson and into the heights of the 1930's was the rural and union voter! The party left THEM.

To a certain extent that's true, the party did leave them, when it "discovered" corporate financing made life so much simpler not to mention more fun.

But the REAL culprit was the development and hyperactive use of wedge issues or "Cultural issues" to those people for whom the use of wedge issues work. Again and again and again the rightwing identifies "cultural issues" that can be used to divide and separate our "natural base," as you defined it, from the party. Race was probably the first issue (starting with Reagan's "Southern strategy") but gays, abortion, guns, any number of other things keep poor and usually rural voters voting against their own best economic and other interests. We are NOT a stronger let alone more free country when any of our population is actively discriminated against. And that's what the rightwing has to offer: discrimination (usually couched in coded words like Reagan's infamous "welfare queen").

So all the GOP has to do is trot out this nice long list of wedge issues and once again distract the social conservatives with the REAL issues.

What we have to do INSTEAD of capitulate to this nonsense is educate the public about what's going on, refuse to cooperate in any way, and charge full speed ahead. I hate to sound like a broken record, but Dean had the best approach to all these wedge issues. He made them simply evaporate.

We're going to get no where as long as we allow them to use wedge issues against us, and the only way to PREVENT them from using wedge issues against us is to eviscerate their arguments and rise above the divide, NOT capitulate and cave.

creeps. I don't think for a minute he would win the south under any circumstances, he's a liberal yank, no way.

Eloriel, I love your posts, and I am groping for guidance. What the hell do we do without the media? You say educate the public, but if we don't have a medium for our message, how do we do that?

their preacher is a puke, almost always, and way up in the money game, and he tells them we are child-raping pervs out to ban their bibles so he can make more dough from his back room money deals and someday run for office.

These folks are bought and sold.

to the working class. All of these other fringe issues are elitist right-winged issues. The Democratic party is about everyone in the working class.

You wouldn't have gotten those 500,000 votes by dropping support for gays and women's reproductive freedom.

The republicans would just say you support those issues even if you don't.

It isn't our position on issues that is causing trouble. It's the DISTORTION of our position on issues.

A woman came into our office in Ohio because her husband was supporting Terry Anderson for Ohio senate. His opponent started running ads saying Terry supported gay marriage, which he did not. The woman wanted her husband to remove his Anderson sign because of Anderson's support for gay marriage.

She said, "I know John Kerry supports gay marriage. He said so in the debates."

Did you hear John Kerry say he supported gay marriage during the debates? I didn't. I told her she was confused and that Bush and Kerry both support civil unions, but not gay marriage. I even played her the interview with Larry King where Bush said, "If states want to offer benefits...that's great."

She was unconvinced. John Kerry supports gay marriage because the Republicans told her he does.

I personally would love to see actual gay marriages. However, that doesn't have nearly the popular support it needs in the country. Civil unions, though, so have the support of the majority. We can push for that. Would this be a good enough compromise?

Why are dems afraid of fighting? They used to fight for people's rights. Now they just do what is politically expedient at the time. Is it any wonder they have lost so much power? People don't trust them anymore to do what is right. This is allowing an ever more organized and well funded right to take over while people who vote traditonally dem don't bother anymore because the party no longer represents them.

The "Democrat" party doesn't support gay marriage, and didn't in the party platform. The same party also slapped a large number of supporters in the face in 1996 by foisting DOMA on the country, so Bill Clinton could capture the center.

They sure want our votes and money, though.

with it. Middle America sees gay marriages on TV and thinks, 'Dem Party'. This issue, and the guns issue, turned out to be BIG. I blame dumbass Kerry for the guns problem. In the primary, he said, "I'm not going to be the NRA candidate." Fuck fighting guns. America is never going to ban possession of guns anyway. The "assault rifle" ban was a joke. The work the same way as hunting rifles-- on trigger pull per shot. They only "look" bad. We could have actually done something about the lethality of those guns by banning high capacity clips ONLY. But no, we had to be dumbasses and stir up gun owners!

Fuck Feinstein and Schumer!

We'd get more contributions if we appeal to big business.

Exit polls show over a third of union households voted for Bush.

If we drop support for affirmative action we'll do better too.

Oh, and vouchers. The right likes them, so we should support those too.

...although I think they are toast anyway.

costing us some votes.

And we could definitely get some racists to vote for us if we weren't so "equality for all" and stuff.

/sarcasm

Republicans want to scrap the Geneva Convention too, so we should start speaking out against it.

unions, well they haven't been a topic of discussion for a while. I wouldn't mind us taking on the vouchers issue.

affirmative action is like abortion, and gun rights.

I'm trying to think of a way to say this and be contribute. I know blacks who did not vote, because politics is boring and does not do anything to help them. these same folks are getting by on the benefits of the democratic party. so these folks are benefiting from your work, but there is not return on the investment for your work.

I think of most democratic supporters as fat and lazy people, now granted a lot of folks came out and voted this time. but if you think about it this election should not have been even close, hell 2000 should not have been close. we should be blowing the repugs out of the water, but it just the opposite, because they have a base that is motivated, and will always vote at every opportunity.

we on the other hand have a base that is not motivated. most think that the issue's that we fight for has nothing to do with their lives. the only thing I can of to get them up off of there asses is to let that shit go. abortion, gun control, afffim action, all of that just let it go.

we don't have to help the repugs, man just let them do their thing. yes it will affect the old and the young, but you know sometimes you just have to let folks do their thing. I'm the proud parent of 4 beautiful children, they are all well rounded and there hasn't been a day that someone hasn't complemented me and my wife on how nice and well mannered they are. but as with all things there have been times man, when we just stepped back and let them find out for themselves. you pray for them (or cross your fingers), but you let them go and find the truth for themselves. and in my opinion that is what has to happen now.

I'm a democrat through and through, I believe in what this party stands for. equal rights for all, a government that lifts it's people, I can't understand for the life of me why higher education and healthcare isn't as simple and easy to obtain as a drivers license. and believe it or not there are somethings that I agree with repugs, I don't believe that you should take half of a persons earnings. I don't give a shit how much he has, hell 25% is a lot. I'm do not want a large government, every time I have to go and pay a parking ticket and stand in line and eat shit from some chick behind a glass cage I could just scream. so hell no I do not want a large government going around meddling in peoples business.

I know more than a few folks that are on section 8 housing who will not vote, they don't give a shit. bush, kerry hell their all the same to them. but here we are busting our asses for their benefit, and not getting anything in return. I can go on for hours, days, and weeks, with stuff like this.

...but a liberal mindset speaks more to freedom and rights for everyone regardless of who they choose to love. I think liberals are about the judgmental behavior of the far right. JMO

...it's about protecting civil rights and liberties.

- The RWingers made gays and abortion WEDGE ISSUES so that Democrats would back away from representing those segments of society. When even Dems run away from these issues...the GOPers can run roughshod over their rights.

I'll proudly wear a yellow 'D' pinned to my chest before I will allow any right wing asshole to trample the rights of my brethren.

I am not gay, but I support the rights of gays to live their own lives as the see fit.

I am not a female, but I support the right of women to control their bodies.

I am not a Muslim, but I will defend their right to worship in peace.

I am for freedom, liberty and DEMOCRACY. That's why I support the Democratic party. And if this party shifts to the right I will wave them a fond farewell from the left bank of mainstream America.

Thats how they play the game, and win time and time again.

That's how I would answer them if it came to that.

Speaking hypothetically of course.

And we need to nominate a moderate southern or midwest Governor. I know we will not be getting everything we want, but if we continue to stand on very liberal principles, the Republicans are going to continue to crush us, and I am so sick of being on the losing side.

I mean, look at Clinton, he was a closet liberal. He understood that at this time in history you cannot win by being outwardly liberal. You must take baby steps, get back into power, and then push your agenda carefully. Now we call him the Big Dog and wish we had him back.

We have to play in the real world and play the game that has to be played. It is up to the Democrats to nominate someone like this; hence the problem because of those who go crazy for someone like Howard Dean. I love Howard, but it just isn't going to happen for someone like him in a general election. It just isn't, sad to say.

The Republicans (the ones that really play the game) understand this. (Remember Bush running as a "compassionate conservative" What great bullshit!) Furthermore, they don't really want to overturn Roe v Wade and have to deal with the mess; and they know a Federal Amendment to change the constitution to ban gay marriage isn't going to happen and dont really give a rats ass. They use it as a tactic to portray us as out of the mainstream to the SHEEP and it works!!! We have got to play the game better.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong.....

...if we continue to stand on very liberal principles, the Republicans are going to continue to crush us, and I am so sick of being on the losing side.

Our problem is exactly the opposite. We haven't stood for "very liberal principles" since, oh, JFK.

I mean, look at Clinton, he was a closet liberal. He understood that at this time in history you cannot win by being outwardly liberal.

That's what the DLC would have you believe. I used to say Clinton was the only Republican I've ever voted for. Liberal he was NOT, but he did play one (sorta) on TV.

Further, his "third way" swing to the right, co-opting some of the Repug agenda and making it slightly less bad not only hurt the country but also taught the Repugs to do the same thing. Now all we get is Orwellian named, liberal-sounding legislation that is anything but: Clear Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (which is really a huge gift and bonanza to the pharmaceuticals).

Please don't imagine Clinton was a liberal.

We have to play in the real world and play the game that has to be played. It is up to the Democrats to nominate someone like this; hence the problem because of those who go crazy for someone like Howard Dean. I love Howard, but it just isn't going to happen for someone like him in a general election. It just isn't, sad to say.

Well, a Dean nominee won't happen if the DLC and DNC folks have anything to say about it -- THEY're the ones (including Clinton) who brought him down this time. His own damn party.

And let me tell you something else. They had to bring him down for one reason: he was going to give power back to the PEOPLE. He was far too dangerous to TPTB, both Dem and Repug.

Further, if he'd have been allowed to get his message out even remotely un-spun, he'd have won in a landslide. Thousands upon thousands of Republicans, LIbertarians and Independents who bothered to listen to him fell head over heels in love well in advance of when the campaign really got going. Here, they saw, was a man of integirty, an honest-to-God truth-teller. Here was someone who had a core, a real center, and wasn't afraid to reveal it or to speak up and say the Emperor has no clothes.

The Republicans (the ones that really play the game) understand this. (Remember Bush running as a "compassionate conservative" What great bullshit!) Furthermore, they don't really want to overturn Roe v Wade and have to deal with the mess; and they know a Federal Amendment to change the constitution to ban gay marriage isn't going to happen and dont really give a rats ass. They use it as a tactic to portray us as out of the mainstream to the SHEEP and it works!!! We have got to play the game better.

No, no, what we have to do is DISMANTLE the damn game, rise above it, transcend it -- and you can't do that by playing it "better." Otherwise, the Repugs will always win at their "game," always.

These married gay couples are filling the streets with discarded fetuses. It's disgusting.

Thank you!

Government keeps getting bigger. Smaller govt will win votes.

and the lapdog press. This "values' crap is bullshit.

That is what you would be doing if you refuse to support the marriage of same sex couples.

The democratic party better not be about discrimination. Otherwis you can forget about ANY support from progressives.

The anti-same sex marrige Democrats are NOT GOING TO LEAD THIS PARTY ANYMORE!!!

Period.

Lefthander, you are obviously a smart, well informed individual.

Unfortunately, your vote (or mine) doesn't count any more that the uninformed backwards moron who drives the vehicle with the bumper sticker that says "God, Gays and Guns"; and there are a lot more of them than there is of us.

We have got to get into power before we can fix this screwed up mess the Repubs have created.

Everything comes down to "moral issues". Do two people who wish to, have the right to be married? Does a free woman have the right to control her own body? Do the corporations have the right to prey on people? Are people of color due the same rights as whites?

These are all moral questions. And, it comes down to individual morality as to what decides what kind of government we have - or allow.

BTW - I'm straight, and male.

Don't pull a Bushism and try to say one side id "moral" and the other is not.

Gays. If we are to get back in the game, it's time to join middle America on these issues.

We are killing ourselves when we don't have to.

As I've said elsewhere, and I'll say it again: we have to dismantle the game itself, NOT play it.

Dean's position on all three is perfect:

Guns -- let each state decide. Every state has different needs.

Gays -- a civil rights issue. Everyone should have the same civil rights as everyone else.

Abortion -- a medical decision. Congress should stop practiciting medicine.

And, since when is morality the sole property of Bush?

Are you saying that gays are not as deserving of the same human rights as straights? And, don't consider that a "moral" issue?

Are you saying that a woman shouldn't have the right to control her own body and that isn't a "moral" issue?

anti-discrimination, habeus corpus or civil rights. Man we still got dixiecrats in the party

The moment the Democratic Party goes guns, god, and gays, this lifelong Dem goes Independent.

If I wanted to vote Republican "values" I'd fucking vote for a Republican.

Nothing like a loss to bring out the panderers to the right.

And as long as the far left continues to demand all or nothing; you are going to continue to get nothing.

Hollow victories. If and when, they should actually achieve such victory. Something they have been noticably incapable of doing by pandering to the right.

Do you consider Clinton's victories "hollow victories"?

I do not. He knew how to defeat the Republicans at their own game.

Politics is the art of compromise.

As for him knowing how to beat the Republicans at their own game. Clinton won because of Perot, not some brilliant "triangultion" theory. He won against Dole, because Dole was a walking corpse and Pat Buchanan did the unthinkable, and showed what the Republican party is really about. Not to mention a booming economy.

"Politics is the art of compromise". Tell it to those guys who wrote the Declaration of Indepence with only 1/3 of the nation supporting them.

All the delegates wanted to have a Congress to make laws. Each state would elect representatives to Congress. But the delegates could not agree on how many representatives each state should have. States with a lot of people thought that they should have more members than states with fewer people. But states with fewer people didn't want the other states to have more power in Congress than they had, so they thought all states should have the same number of members.

A compromise, called the Great Compromise, settled the disagreement. Congress would have two parts--a Senate and a House of Representatives. In one part, the Senate, each state would have the same number of members. In the other part, the House of Representatives, states would have different numbers of members depending on how many people lived in each state. States with more people would have more representatives.

Sure compromises were made after the revolution. But, in the Declaration they weren't except for one. The original one submitted by Jefferson called for an end to the slave trade. So, like all good politicians, they "compromised" and abandoned what was right for what was expedient. And, condemned millions of people to slavery.

But, hey, that's OK because we "won". Right?

And, the "Great Compromise" was really about the rights of slave states to have the right to maintain slavery even if the majority disapproved.

Compromise is like "sacrificing the few to save many". Great idea unless you happen to be one of the few. Like the slaves, or like gays and women who need abortion rights today.

"Those Guys" also wrote the Constitution.

No compromise within ourselves will soon result in a filibuster proof majority for the Republicans.

No chance to stop anything.

Conservative judges who will rule for 40+ years.

How does that help us? What will the majority then do to Gays, those who have an abortion or who don't worship their God?

I truly wish you were right, but I see nothing but disaster down that road. We are running out of time.

Your Clinton analysis is way off. We now can't even beat the worst president ever. And I mean ever.

I personally know people it helped get out into the workforce.

The one's who couldn't find work for any number of valid reasons? Left to starve and live without health care? Condemned to a life of begging?

Work or die?

Are people only allowed to live somewhat decently if they are willing to provide corporate America with labor?

Get back to me when you can't find a job or work for minimum wage while trying to support a family while the "productive" CEO's collect their golden parachutes for ripping off the "lazy" folks who didn't have a rich daddy to put them through Harvard Business School.

The Clinton era was the best of times for those in need of jobs.

Come back to the real world.

I love your idealism but while you are in fantasy world, we are getting the shaft from those living in the real world.

And, I'm not overly fond of what I see.

Look, I'm realistic enough to accept some compromise. But, there are issues, needs, injustice, that need to be continually addressed. We don't need to accept compromise on every issue. The anti-slavery movement didn't pack it's ideals and go away because a compromise had been made. The Labor Movement didn't stop striking because they got a raise. The Civil Rights movement didn't freeze in place because of Brown vs The Board of Education.

Sure, Clinton's "Welfare Reform" may have helped some people find jobs.
Does that mean that the plight of the poor and helpless is to be ignored because some benefited? Clinton caved on Health Care at the first sign of opposition. Does the subsequent "Health Care Reform" compromise mean we can forget about those in need of it?

The issues of abortion and gay rights are basic civil rights in my opinion and not open to compromise that would relegate both gays and women to the status of subhumans not deserving of those rights.

I'll leave the compromises to the compromisers and let them try to live with the idea that they sacrificed lives in order to be "reasonable" or "practical".

You cannot address these needs when you have no power and those in power have no interest at all in addressing them because they have the support of a majority of Americans.

Furthermore, you won't be able to turn to the courts for justice if we have Scalia clones everywhere.

Also remember, our best liberal judge on the supreme court is John Paul Stevens and he is 84 years old, and there has been talk on the health of Ruth Ginsberg.

Yes, I admit it, I would give up the idea of gay marriage, civil unions and gun control for NOW, if it would mean regaining the support of a majority of Americans and regaining power so we can address issues that affect us all no matter our sexual orientation: a clean environment; corporate control; needless war; social security; the poor; jobs, etc.

By demanding it all now and giving no ground, we are destroying ourselves. It will get worse for gays under Republican control.

We are out of frigging time. I cannot remember another period in history where the Republicans have all 3 branches of government, while closing in on a filibuster proof Senate and in position to appoint 2,3,4 new judges on the Supreme Court.

It has never been this bad.

then you end up with a party that doesn't support your beliefs - that's what you have NOW.

This is all bullshit anyway - to an outsider like myself it seemed Kerry had no "anti-guns" platform, he wasn't in favour of gay marriage and said he personally opposed abortion but beleived it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor.

Hasn't Bush had the political numbers to enact anti-abortion legislation, will the GOP ever dream of banning it NO it serves them too well - so why do the bloody fundies support a bunch of people who are just as "complicit" in the "baby killing" as the Dem's??

Not gay-rights, abortion-rights, or any other 'special group' rights. That's where we get clobbered time and again. Instead of fighting for equal rights for all we end up pushing special protections for some and it turns people off. We can accomplish our goals by pushing civil rights for all.

after all, he's a southern, white, heterosexual male who is "moderate"...maybe that would please these people that want to win and win nothing in doing so.

No, Jeb is not "moderate".

On the other hand, how do you think a Northern, Black, gay male who is "liberal" would do in a national election?

You have to live in the real world, not the one you wish we lived in.

I also wish welived in that world,but we don't.

I stopped to think about it for a minute and realized: "Wait a minute. Kerry was totally to the center on all of these issues. In the debates he said he was against gay marriage and that it should be up to the states, he said he was personally opposed to abortion, and he had an endless stream of photos taken shooting guns." How could he have neutralized these issues any more than he already did?

The answer is that it is NOT the candidate, it's NOT the issues, it's the SYSTEM and the TACTICS. The other side lied, cheated, stole, propagandized, slandered and killed their way into power. They had a successful coup in the year 2000. Then in the year 2004 we attempted to run a traditional "campaign" to win an "election". They weren't running a presidential campaign, they were playing damage control and doing whatever was neccessary to keep their coup going. How can we compete when we're not even playing the same game?

A lot of the suggestions around here regarding candidates, issues, campaign strategy, message etc. are all fine and dandy if you want to win an election. Unfortunately we don't have elections anymore.

the Republicans to make abortion, gay marriage, etc. "issues" this year. The national GOP party knew that they couldn't run on Bush's real record (which has been discussed ad nausem) to they developed this wedge issues and unfortunately let's not forget the SwiftBoat Vets.

in 2000 and now in 2004. As long as we are playing defense, we'll never be able to take the congress or the white house. Our strategy should not include trying to be more like republicans. That strategy didn't work in 2000. As long as Rush/Hannity and the bunch are spewing hatred over and over and over again, people start to believe it if they hear it enough. It's time we realize this and beat them at their own game and get Air America going and turn it into a strong force like Rush/Hannity. We often think that the idiots who listen to rush and the like deserve what they get. We need these people on our side. We can't just say the democratic party is only for those who are educated and brush all others aside. So, in a sense do sometimes tend to be elitist. That's my rant for the day.

"How could he have neutralized these issues (Guns, God, Gays) any more than he already did?"

He could have been a believable candidate on those issues. Juries know when someone is lying and middle Americans knew it too. During the Dem primaries, Kerry said, "I won't be the NRA candidate." He had a photo op taken a week before the election of him hunting geese (brilliant). He voted with Feinstein and Shumer on gun control (but never accomplished anything meaningful). He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. Don't you think rural voters could see through what he said in the debates?

The Democratic party should watch out for the little guy and respect everybody's civil rights....

Instead of pandering to the right.

nothing personal. but they realy fucked us over good this time with gay marrage rights just before the FUCKING ELECTIONS.

fuck them.

screw womens rights to abortions, fuck them and ship them to mexico to get an abortion in Tiajana.

fuck everyone else too.

banning premarital sex. Let's wait for an amendment just in time for '08 elections.

then for "immoral" women..

Ultimately the states that decide to ban civil unions, abortions and mix church & state will lose their educated professionals and the businesses that rely on them. Boycotts of tourism and products could also put pressure on their economies. loss of state income could cause them to quickly rethink.

trying to tell us wimmin and gays to sit down and shut up. :eyes:

Unfortunately, there is a LOT OF MONEY pushing these two issues. Money has a "corrupting" influence in choosing candidates to run. And there is the problem of being a big tent and attracting more support. The abortion issue is driving pro-life dems out of the party because they don't get to speak/promote their point of view. The repukes let Arnold and other progressives speak in primetime.

I think we have missed the boat here. The Republicans have been very successful by moving their party to the right, so they have a reliable base. The Dem's have tried to move to the center and it has weakened the enthusiasm of the base and made it easy to paint prominent Democrats as "flip floppers" or having no real positions. I think we should market the party as a progressive party. We need 3-4 easy points that anyone can remember and repeat easily.

We didn't lose this election because our base didn't come out, we lost the election because middle America decided these culture issues were very important and sided with the Republicans.

Suppose we completely drop any mention of choice or gay rights. They go away, no one on the left ever mentions them again.

Do you honestly think that right wing preachers and pundits will stop telling people that we want to outlaw the Bible, make abortion mandatory, and make it so homosexual couples can sodomize children? Come on.

Republicans are liars. They are really good at it.

A change in our platform won't matter, because we don't have a voice. We don't have talk radio (save for Air America, but that isn't widely available), we don't have TV talking heads like OReiley and Hannity, and we don't have our own news network like Faux. So, even if we change our message, the static and lies will still warp it to "They are going to outlaw the Bible and make heterosexual behavior illegal".

Green Party here I come.

front lines for women's rights and as an ally for too long to let the DINOs take over my party.

Buh bye.

Fuck the DINOs.

Gotta agree with ya there

:thumbsup:

It's just that we don't always see them as such.

Human rights should be front and center of the Democratic Party.

Right now I am getting VERY suspicious of the "democrats" who want us to adopt right wing platforms.

These people took the republican party to where it is today from the inside. I would not at all be surprised if they are going to try to take us out from the inside too.

issues, fighting for small farmers and small businesses are the core issues of the Democratic party. Everything else is just noise.

and Reagan was able to take that to the people and convince them that the fringe element was going to take over the government.

Im tired of that crap, too.

We can't do a lick of good helping out with gay rights, abortion or corporate restrictions WHEN WE ARENT IN POWER AND CAN'T GET ELECTED!
Something needs to change, what we are doing now is dwindling our power.

It's about how we DEFINE ourselves as a party and what we do to frame the national debate.

Corruption and greed are moral issues; we need to speak of them as such.

Allowing the strong to take advantage of the weak is a moral issue.

neccessary, it would have been nice if kerry could have looked at bush and said "I'm not here about abortion, let the states decide. I'm here to talk about jobs, healthcare".

and we should be smart enough to know what he's doing and not scream about it.

Though I support gay marriage and am pro-choice, these seem to be issues that the country is deeply divided on still. If we make them a major plank in our party right now, then will just pull down the rest of our more agreeable things. These are were used as wedge issues in the current election, and until we change the public opinion, they will continue to be. We need to have a core set of issues that would seem agreeable to most everyone that we can make our case on.
Maintaining a safety net is something that can be difficult to disagree with. The republicans don't argue with this, they just try to make it into a tax issue (class warfare... YOU are paying for THEM...) but it really isn't.
Who doesn't want clean air and water? Even the repukes don't argue with this, they just say that we are going to the extreme. We need to demonstrate that our objectives are not "on the extreme". Like it or not, logging, for example, is important to the economy. We need to promote "responsible logging" rather than just vilify the entire industry.
The oil industry also needs to exist. Alternative fuels are fine for the future, and we should start looking into them now, but they are not mature enough at this time. We need a more reasonable approach to the industry rather than just making oil companies out to be the scourge of civilization.
Tax "fairness" isn't really a winning issue either. We can't win by saying that the rich have more, so we should take it. We need to make the argument that the government can do good things, NECESSARY things, with that money.
Who is AGAINST education? Everyone acknowledges that it is vital to our future. We need a plan that will fix the issues. The only way we can do this is to measure results. We need to be willing to hold people accountable for failure, whether it's the teacher who isn't teaching, the parents of the students, or the administrators who come up with plans that don't work.
Health care is important, everyone agrees with this. When we try to propose a national health care plan that everyone will have, we are pointing to the 40-50 million Americans (I think that's the range) without health coverage. That means that there are a large number of people who do have health care. We need to address the people who don't have it, but we can't do it by telling everyone else that we're going to force them into the plan too. If the plan that gets implemented works well, then, in the future, we can give them the ability to join. If it doesn't work well, then we're just going to create problems for everyone. We NEED to show that our plan is better than the one that they have BEFORE we try to force them into it. We need to address the issue of the 40-50 million rather than trying to force everyone into the same plan.
These all seem like reasonable things to start with, and things that can get us elected. If we are able to get people elected and implement "winning" ideas, then we can push the debate further. On social issues, we cannot expect to win by pushing ideas that are not yet popular by the population in general. If these issues are central to a campaign right now, it will bring out more votes against us than for us. It's important to stand by your principles, but you also have to know how to pick your battles.

Why do you deem equality for gays and lesbians as well and reproductive freedom to be so offensive?

I thought things like education, healthcare, balanced budget, improving our infrastructure, a fair wage and fair taxes were important.

I thought those were the kinds of things that being a Democrat were about.

I guess I was wrong, I didnt know the Democrat party was only about gun control, gay marriage, and abortion.

Every one of us took it like Nancy Kerrigan on Wednesday morning. I'm not even close to gay (or so my girlfriend thinks...bwahahahaaaa) but that didn't matter to the Republicans, who painted us all with one big gay brush.

I have posted that we need to reach out to rural Americans and Christians better...but this is not the way. We will either hang together or hang separately...and I choose together!

But you've successfully fallen for the wedge issue argument the repukes always use.
We have a LONG way to go before we can even come close to matching the Republican propaganda machine. And we're going to have to suck it up and do the work to make it happen.
People who vote for Republicans aren't going to vote for a Democrat no matter HOW much "baggage" the party jettisons. I would think that would be quite clear by the losses of several very conservative Democrats that were running for election in conservative states.

Constitutional amendment against gay-marriage and won.

Such an amendment will never happen anyway.

With purity of motives like that, it's no wonder so many say there is no difference between the parties.

For a Democratic candidate to say he supports such an amendment only helps us.

But for those of us unfortunate enough to be gay, we are the one's who pay the price if you are wrong.

You know something....I can handle being used as a poltical pawn by the right wingers. I expect no less from them, but I don't expect to be sold out by my own side for thirty pieces of silver.

the same rights as marriage, why should we want to let the phrase "gay marriage" stop people from voting Democratic?

How many times to fall back and abandon principles?

When do finally draw a line in sand and say "I believe in something enough to fight for it!"?

It's your call.

civil unions.

I'm saying that we shouldn't let the term "gay marriage" be used against us next time, if possible.

Once you start compromising your principles in order to win, where do you finally stop?

I'm not saying I don't understand your point, but to be quite honest with you when I hear people in my own party telling me to take a seat in the back of the bus, I start to wonder about our ideals.

come from? Why do they call themselves "Democrats?" Is it just that that's the Party label they picked and so now want to win at all costs? Do they think this is a football game?

Sure, let's just abandon civil liberties - hell, the whole Bill of Rights, lots of Americans don't like it anyway - and let them put anyone who is GLBT in a concentration camp. Let's execute women who have abortions, and the Docs too. Hell, let's make jaywalking a Capitol offense...can't have anyone flouting the law now, can we? Prayer in schools, that's popular too...gotta go for that one. Machine guns for everyone, and when the kids are hungry, Pop can go bounty-hunting on some "sodomite". Boy, I can't wait.

Thats what sank us.

Go start a 3rd party and support that crap. I want the democratic party of 1960!

http://www.gop.org/

Have fun.

unless the dems reject equal rights for gays, reasonable gun control, and their pro-choice stance. We will lose forever on wedge issues even if we reject equal rights for gays, reasonable gun control, and freedom of choice, because the repubs will just accuse us of lying about jettisoning this from our party. Personally, I think I will just have to go down with the ship because I could not in good conscience sanction bigotry, gun-goonery, and the coerced religious fundamentalism which drives the anti-choice contingent. We just draw a line in the sand and say too fucking bad, we believe in freedom. That is what got us the civil rights movement, suffrage for women, Title IX, etc. It's not popular (there are just too many bigots) and it may not happen in my lifetime, but there will come a day when people reject this idiocy and move forward.

I've given nearly $2,000 to Kerry and the DNC (to say nothing of Howard Dean".

So you want my time, my money, my vote but not to acknowledge my existence?

Fuck that.

Can't quite remove the sticky mask, eh?

The gay marriage issue cost us this election.

Let's stop shooting ourselves in the foot with these unwinnable federal issues.

When many people here in the south hear it, they feel it is a slippery proposition. They hit the panic button and think, "Holy cow! A couple of gays in some other state are going to get married & move into the house next door!" It is a purely emotional issue to them as opposed to legal agreement.