Would you rather be a Democratic purist or a Democratic apologist?

Since we're making use of catch phrases.

You can be a purist in your living room. We need strategy to dislodge the Republicans from power.

You don't win by telling people you're wrong and weak.

The DLC types and their "strategy" of pandering to the right has cost the Dems election after election for over 10 years.

If the party EVER hopes to take back Congress or win at the executive level, they'd better learn how to speak with something resembling a unified voice that actually stands for something....

I selected apologist above only because this poll is so absurd. I apologize for none of my political positions, and I used to be a pure third party voter, until Bush came around. he costs of purity are too high. In my view, ideological purity and being a Democrat is an oxymoron. Being a Democrat means I've already compromised. My goal is to now get the Democrats back in power. And I thoroughly agree that a message that signals a party that represents the people is crucial to that.

from the bankers, but not from the people.

Fuck the DLC. Let's get to work ourselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1653304&mesg_id=1653304

People follow people that are brave not people who apoligize for being themselves.

.

Here's a great post from the Atrios Blog that sums it up for me on the SS vote-


Wrong

Kos mounts a half-hearted defense of House Democrats who are supporting a Bill which is going to pass anyway. From an individual House member's perspective it's absolutely correct.

But, from the point of view of the party as a whole, it's completely and utterly wrong. When more than a few members are peeled off, suddenly it's a "bipartisan bill." In 2006, Nancy Pelosi won't be able to make the bankruptcy bill part of a national issue because too many members supported it LOUDLY AND PROUDLY. And, if we don't nationalize the congressional race in 2006 we will lose once again.

Until the party begins to take disciplined stands against these things, they don't stand for anything.
-Atrios 7:03 PM

and to win we have to take a stand for the working American.
Not the management wannabee, or the god hates fags democrat, but the
working poor, and the wannabee working falling out of the middle class.

They need help, and when these quizing dems get mastercard kneepads, it betrays our raison d'etre.

If we took a stand for the working class, we might not win on the floor of the house and senate, but we would win at the ballet box.
Betrayed voters vote against the party they think betrayed them. And if we showed how the ownership society already exists, and how very owned 'free' Amerikans are, we might just win them back.

A "purist" is not the opposite of an "apologist." An apologist is not someone who apologises on behalf of something, but someone who argues in defense or justification of something.

A purist can be an apologist (in fact, most are), and an apolgist can be a purist.

it's not asking anything real

Unless what you mean by purist is what I think you mean--never compromise, never make tough tactical decisions that may create a larger strategic victory in the long run, believe it's better to lose the power to influence America than to budge a quarter of a percent on one's indivisual ideology.

One of this nation's most brilliant minds once told me, "Success is based on opportunity, not perfection."

I really hope you're joking.

with a strategy than a conservative pragmatist that cant think of anything except for moving to the right of coarse.