Something that harms the Dem Party, but shows our goodness...

The mere diversity of the Dem Party, while showing our goodness, creates a problem that we must somehow overcome.

On it's face, the Republican Party is basically defined as how Howard Dean defines as we need to get away from "guns, God and gays."

What I mean about our problem is we need to grab a hold of all of our diverse groups and pull them together with a common thread. It's like Dean kept saying in last year's presidential election - we have more in common than we acknowledge. And I think this is the key to building a winning coalition.

Sadly, the common thread we need is easily frayed by the Rethuglican Party. They seem to have learned very well about the theory of divide and conquer.

One last thing - I think so much time and effort is spent by our diverse groups seeking to punch through with their own agendas. And I don't mean agendas in a bad way. I think our opposition has learned that if they can force each of these groups to fight alone for the things they think are the most important (i.e., blacks and civil rights, gays and civil unions, environmentalists and the environment, elderly people and health care, et cetera) then the Dems can be more easily defeated.

we need to pull together once more. Many of the splinter agendas dove tail with bigger things.

able to divide the party.Sure, they have a few "uncle tom" slaves, like Condi Rice and this Fellow from some university in Manhattan who shows up to defend people like Bennitt and George Bush saying that race had nothing to do with it or that bennie is not a racist, but thats just two stupid N$%%@#& .As a black woman,I feel our party is very united.

Look at the Dems this way - in contrast to the Rethugs, what is our base? Do we even have a "base" similar to the Rethuglicans? Or at least one that is as loyal.

In examining the Dems, I would say that in the past, our most reliable base was that of labor. The Rethugs have the "gays, God and gun" crowd. And I would have to say that the conservatives of the Rethuglican party are much more cohesive than the liberal part of the Dem party. In our liberal part, which I would proudly say to be a member of, there are so many perceived divergent goals and what I am saying is that these divergent goals are what we need to pull together. To me, what is frustrating is that all of these divergent goals (gay issues, civil rights issues, health care issues, et cetera) are more connected than not connected. But the Rethuglicans are able to deflect them from reaching a common goal.

It's sort of like a person shooting arrows at a target. Each arrow represents a part of the Democratic agenda and some how the Rethuglicans get in front of the target and knock our arrows off line. And for any one who has shot an arrow before, even a glancing blow will easily knock that arrow off course.

In real world, the Rethuglicans showed how they could do this with the gay initiatives in Mass. With practices like that, they are able to peel away votes here and there of people who might have voted Democratic. For example, say some Dems who are a little more conservative when it comes to religion.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our divergent groups are bad, only that we have to find a common key so we can join all of these honorable agendas into a winning Democratic one.

and anti torture ,and equal rights,will rally people .People don't support Dem's cause they are scared. Address DIRECTLY what they fear and DO things to help alleviate their suffering..They don't need a bully daddy figure to protect them if the fear the republicans and theocracy push everyday fades away with real TANGIBLE help and support..

>On it's face, the Republican Party is basically defined as how Howard Dean defines as we need to get away from "guns, God and gays."

nt...

This seems to be the classic problem for Democrats, and has been for many years: we are the actual population of the country, we are not an "interest group" the way Republicans are, and that because we are the entire group, we have naturally all the factions of the Nation itself. Republicans, after all, are the Party of bankers, their Party platform is nothing but codified greed, and their only interest is to guard their moneybags, and get more. This is why they are able to get an organized message out, because they are a small, limited group, and why we can't and shouldn't get a "single" message out, because then we would be narrowing ourselves down to less than what we actually are.

I think what we should do is not to narrow our message down, but try to encompass with more general-yet-inclusive language. For example, the issue of poverty should not be told as if it were a racial issue alone, and should not be vaguely described so that no particulars are referred to, but should be kept focused as the economic issue of poverty, but with particulars described. Bush and the neo-cons have done so much damage to this country and the very structure of the economy, that now many groups are suffering, fearful, price-gouged and living on minimal amounts of money, and so huge sections of the population can get with this issue and find themselves there--more than ever before. It can be expanded to reach many groups with the message, all about the same issue of poverty--people who are poor because they were always discriminated against, and therefore shut out; who are poor because of medical bills; who are poor because of the loss of a job, and outsourcing or downsizing that makes it impossible to find another one; poor because they were fleeing an abuser, and now have no home; poor because of price-gouging and lack of affordable housing, etc. This one issue, told expansively, now appeals to those fighting for civil and equal rights, anti-corporate activists, those who want universal health care, pro-union, New Dealers, those fighting against domestic violence and lack of help for victims, etc. What was always painted "single issue special interest groups" can now be united with more expansive categories and descriptions of things, and shown to be actually one. Not at cross-purposes, but actually the same larger situation.

Also, there really are different perspectives on things, so if some people want to get rid of the "single issue groups," then who will they get rid of--the ones whose causes are just as valid, as representative, and actually just as general, as their own? Better to try to find a general way to consider all, if possible.

Of course, many people know this, but I think it was at the core of the problem--we don't need corporate consultants "framing" FOR us, (let Republicans do that phony crap), but instead we need to unite the Nation once again, all Americans fighting together for the good of us all, and knowing that as we help our neighbors, we also help ourselves, as we all will need these services and government programs one day. Tell it like that.