It is my deep concern that the Democratic Party is turning into

a series of issues rather than a single, unified movement.

I realize we all have issues we care more about than others, but it's a slippery slope the party is headed down.

How did the GOP beat us in '94? By uniting. Do you honestly think Republicans agree on every damned issue? Of course they don't. But they united behind a simple concept: winning on all fronts.

11 years later, with a Republican Congress, a Republican White House, a Supreme Court soon to have at least one if not two new conservatives/Republicans, and Republican control of the majority of state houses, how are they doing?

Sooner or later we're all going to have to buck up and realize that, unless we're in power, none of our pet issues are going to be addressed in a way that suits us.

That's all. Thanks for reading.

and not surprisingly safely theoretical if we don't come to terms with a gangland situation and stop granting it unwarranted respect.

what the hell the point is?

dirty tricks rather than crafting a winning strategey for us. We've been bullied into thinking that the only way to win is with a repug lite strategy. This has been helped along by DINOS and plants from within.

Why we continue to pursue that vote is a mystery to me.

Our victories are to be found with moderates, liberals, and more urban voters. Why, then, is our message not crafted for them?

Some may disagree. I'm merely asking questions.

For some reason a majority of farmers large and small are solid repugs. They don't see the disconnect between their supposed rugged individualism, which is a lie, and their need for government handouts to make their operations viable. There ARE Dem voters who are farmers. But converting others is such a long term project I think our energies are better spent elsewhere.

in the near future, which is when we need the help.

Our best bet is to reach out to those Dem leaners in urban and suburban areas. Howard Dean says we should knock on the doors of rural voters and explain where we stand. Replace "rural votes" with "suburban and urban voters," and I agree with him.

I think Howard at the head of the party will bring in some good ideas for long-term strategy and not just this let's not offend the repug voters.

Not blind allegiance, but unity. And I appreciate that.

Instead of organizing around issues, the left needs to organize around organizing. We can argue amongst ourselves about what to do with power after we get it.

their mouths shut just to win, the fascists took over and now look at what they have turned into. No thank you! We have to stand for something. If all you want to do is win, then just go along with whatever is most popular and try to get in on the vote fixing. If a party doesn't stand for anything and is only interested in winning then it is no longer worth supporting. Just MO.

If our only goal is to shake our heads at those nasty Republicans and say, "I was right, I was right," then why have a party at all?

I appreciate idealism and purity, but they get one nowhere. We can dream about making a new America all we want, but until we're prepared to join together and make it happen it won't happen.

I am incapable of understanding people who complain about the "fascists" but then scoff at any attempt at producing a better alternative. Virtually anything the Democrats could produce would be preferable to the current government.

If you're not interested in correcting the problem, if you simply want to complain about the problem but present no solutions, or if you just want to stand around and say "Wouldn't it be great if someone could make this work perfectly," get out of the way. Someone else is willing to do the work.

Just my humble opinion.

mouths shut - just to win - are now on the sidelines asking themselves, "what have we done?" If you think that Democrats can beat the Republicans at the polls, you haven't been paying attention. You cannot "milquetoast" you way to victory, in this environment. You have to come out loud, come out strong, and come out principled. You have to get so many voters turned around that fraud at the polls will cause major, bloody riots - like in Ukraine. You can't do that by submerging you principles and lowering your standards; you have to do that by standing on your principles and raising your standards. This talk of "shut up and let's hope we can sneak into power without letting anyone know what we really stand for" is the death knell of the Democratic party. That, is my opinion - and I have been a (sometimes reluctantly) Democrat for 33 years.

when you can't even agree on the issues? And no, this party is not agreeing on the issues. Instead, you have a lot of people coming out loud and proud about a lot of different issues.

What does that accomplish? Nothing but noise.

Where have I said that we should abandon our values? I'll answer that one for you: Nowhere.

I am saying we should unite behind shared goals instead of infighting over wedge issues. Save the infighting for when we have power.

I'll tell you what the death knell of the Democratic Party is. It's people bickering over the color of the car when the direction the car is going in is what matters.

put on a back burner in order to "unite"? What are the "slippery slope" items that are keeping us from a unified message? There are some issues that we might agree upon, others we might not. I think as long as we come out as a strong liberal, progressive party most Democrats would unite and be in agreement. But we will need to see that list...

It is a matter of doing exactly as you have said: to come out as a progressive party, a party that values the rights of each individual, regardless of social, racial, or economic status, and that believes that America works best when moving forward.

These are not single issues. These are broad concepts to which most of the issues we each believe in can be applied in some way.

Look at the two of us. We do not agree on every issue, obviously, but could we not both unite behind those broad concepts?

I think (and hope) that I have misunderstood your posts thus far. If we as a party can unite behind broad, deep principles of a progressive, populist, liberal agenda, then I think we may really have something there. We can not, in my opinion, move even a millimeter to the right, but stay firmly in the center-left, or we will just be wasting our time.

Now if we can just get that sort of agreement on a broad level...

the "let's win first and then figure out what we stand for Democrats" are two time losers ... first of all, the victory they're fighting for would be both a hollow and short-lived victory ... and second, they won't win any victory at all in the first place ...

the "shut up until we're in power crowd" refuses to acknowledge that there are millions who are never going to go along with this ... i can tell you i won't ... i would love to have a Party i deeply believe in ... i would love to see the Democrats represent me (and give me a voice) on the issues that matter most to me ... then it would be easy to join the chorus ... i'm not anti-Democrat ... i'm doing all i can to change the Party from both the inside and the outside ... but calls for blind loyalty are absurd ... even if you think i'm wrong for thinking like this, at least get the message that I do, and millions do, think like this ... your calls for unity at any cost are falling on deaf ears ... you are supporting the WRONG PATH TO UNITY !!!

so, is unity the right, and necessary, objective ??? absolutely !!! i couldn't agree more ... but you achieve unity not by demanding it and by insulting those who want a different process ... the path to unity lies in giving a real voice to every single Democrat (not telling them to shut up and go along) ... we need to have real reform in the Party that leads to a platform that reflects the common values we share ... you do this by opening up the Party and sharing power; you don't do this by stifling those who are critical or by hand-picking candidates and pushing out less known challengers ...

things need to change if we are ever to achieve unity ... it will not be a quick or easy process ... if you're not committed to doing the work of democracy, the Democratic Party will continue to be a minority Party ... and one last point ... there are 10's of millions of "ex-voters" ... showing them a Party that puts more emphasis on winning than it does on clearly defining itself is a perfect recipe to have these non-voters continue to ignore the Democratic Party ... more and more Americans have tuned out the political process because they see both parties as self-serving ... if you really want to win, major changes in how the Party does business are needed ...

instead of calling for blind loyalty, why not call for reform ...

This is exactly the path we, as a party, should take. Start from the ground up and reform the party by the people's lights. I really like this idea and it is long, long overdue!

Simply because the Republicans call for it doesn't mean we have to.

I am talking about unity - unity based upon broad, shared principles. The fault of the Democratic Party so frequently is that its focus is too narrow, focusing on one issue at a time rather than broad ideas to which our issues can be applied.

I do not advocate, nor would I ever advocate, that Democrats be blindly loyal to the party. If I have given that impression, I apologize.

i did NOT at all mean to suggest that YOU called for blind loyalty, elperromagico ... but i have seen many posts on DU that do ...

too many put winning as the only objective ... some even go as far as arguing that issues don't matter, only power matters ... i don't agree with them ... this isn't to say that power isn't critical but 1. we will only gain power when we are clear about what we intend to use it for and 2. we will not attract either non-voters or alienated Democrats with a "non-message" ...

the only area of concern i have with one of your themes is on the issue of a "broad" message ... i totally agree that we tend to be too wonky (i.e. laundry listy (listy ... it's a word ... look it up !!!)) and lack an underlying unifying "story" based on, to use your phrase, "shared principles" ... but i worry about a message that's so "big tent vague" that it ends up not clearly proclaiming exactly who we are and what we believe in ... there was a classic Frank Burn's line in one of the MASH episodes that went: "It's nice to be nice to the nice" ... i always worry that we're at risk of falling into a meaningless vague message when someone wants to make the message "broad" ...

anyway, i think we need to have a unifying, consistent, core values message with enough policy positions to make it meaningful ... and there are some issues from which the Party cannot run away ... i think we need a very clear statement about when the Democratic Party will and will not vote for war ... i'm finding the Party's failure to clearly take a position on Iraq to be disgraceful ... and worse than that, the votes of many elected Democrats on "More Money for War" are disgraceful ... whether you or any other Democrat does or doesn't agree with me on the war, i believe there are certain issues that must be openly discussed and debated by registered Democrats ... we need to seek a consensus on the big issues ... we cannot leave the great issues of the day up to elected Democrats ... we must have a voice ... and in the end, if we can't build consensus, having done all we could to find common ground, then we will each have to make our own choices ... some will stay and some will leave ... that's how i see the process working ... as things stand today, we need far more democracy in the Democratic Party ...

Economic Justice.
Though it is kinda hard to unite behind Economic Justice when half of the Democrats are voting against the interests of LABOR,
The Working Class, and the POOR.

It started with the Reagan Democrats who were labeled traitors. It's been a slow meltdown but sadly the party is on the decline.

Go to the party's website and try to find our core values. All the core values involve more government involvement. How is that a strategy for a party that believes in the people? More government means more dependency on the government. Meaning, more government control of your lives.

Instead, all I hear talked about by Democrats is the evil big corporations. Well, many people are more afraid of the evil big government.

Long term strategy:
Define 'What is the purpose of government'!
Create strategies so the purpose is realized. Make sure that both corporations and government aren't allowed to become too powerful.

Oh well, I can dream.

but they sure as hell didn't jettison ideology or policy goals, as we often seem in such an almighty hurry to do.

Bout time you realized that it's a money/power game in Washington and it has nothing to do with "your pet issues". There is only ONE party in this country and it has two faces. You'll get screwed with a smile or screwed with a frown. Take your pick but you WILL bend over.

What this country needs is a SECOND party.

Repocrats and Demopublicans. Same schpeel, different approach. And it's too late to make change. The voting machines are already controlled. Hey, if you don't like it, GO VOTE!


Hah