The Democratic Party has changed forever and it will remain split

until the party makes some serious leadership changes

are united now as never before.

Who can beat Bush? ABB!!

What next. After Bush is gone, what plans are there for re-uniting the party. Kerry is waging his war against Bush the same way Bush planned his war against Iraq. He may (or may not) win the initial fight, but will he lose the reconstruction phase?

And criticizing the potential dem nominees more than Bush.

and I suspect a lot of these people who say they'll vote for Nader aren't even Dems.

as supporters of a democratic candidate and threatening to vote for Nader if another candidate is the nominee. Some of those posters that I am aware of have hundreds of posts here at DU. Others may have more.

Their temper tantrums and threats to vote for Nader remind me of a child who's not getting his way and who threatens to run away... and perhaps even packs a napsack and heads off to a secret clubhouse.

They'll either come back or they won't. I've got no time for splitters any longer. Off-you-go... run along now. Goodbye!

-- Allen

:-)

Give that man a prize, a real Dem would want bush gone at all cost.



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

I'm sure that the coming purges forseen on these very pages will take care of the party unity question

I mean it.

It just looks like it here in GD Primary. It is not in the real world.

Those that want to take their football and go home 'cause the didn't get their way? Be gone with you!

Didn't get your way huh? Grow up and quit acting like a spoiled little snotty kid. Life is like that, you don't always get your way. God knows I didn't but I'm still here and I will actively support the nominee after the convention. (Wes still gets my primary vote because I won't toss away my chance to vote for him + it'll be sealed by then anyway)

I think the record turnouts in many of the primaries is an EXCELLENT harbinger of our chances of trouncing Bush in the GE.

The Democratic party is NOT split, we are united against the BFEE.

There may be a very few whining prima donna types who will go to the polls huffy and puffy with their lower lips sticking out and casting their ballots into the wind with great indignation and puffery, proud of their "principles". Let 'em.

In the REAL WORLD real Democrats are UNITED for a common goal right now. We had 10 candidates. Only one gets the job, there's plenty of dissapointment to go around but a real Democrat will buck up, get over it and in a borrowed phrase...........

GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!

Bush has indeed succeeded in being a uniter. He has united angry Democrats all over the country determined to show him the door in November.

for this election against Bush*. But, yes, you are right, the Dems are the big tent and we have too many diverse and politically caring groups to hold together. No one candidate can appeal to all the varied people who lean Dem. We will lose some to Bush, some to Nader, some to libertarians, etc. But we will be as united as ever this time around.

Brucey... I have never in my life talked to so many people that are saying ..."Anybody but bush"... I am liking Kerry more each day and if he can survive the dirt that he is about to get tossed his way we may actually have someone that we can trust again.

to see the Democratic Party split and will scan for seams they can work to render asunder.

before I give Bush another four years in office.

Will get my vote before I lend the BFEE any sense of satisfaction.

By virtue of the fact that he's the highest ranking dem. Tom Daschle does a god aweful job of criticizing the president compared to what Newt Gingrich did to Clinton. He needs to be rid of and replaced with somebody who's state isn't 10% more GOP than dem.

Daschle is pathetic. If every senate seat didn't count so damn much I would wish he would lose in November.

Durbin is in a solidly Democratic state. He has a fantastic progressive record. And he doesn't take any shit from the Republicans. He has been one of the few Democratic Senators that have shown any guts going up against Bush.

is there a current leader who knows how many of see things, and can help in a leadership role?

the Convention could establish or revise Party rules.

Replacing McAuliffe with Wes Clark perhaps?

Robert S. Strauss, who I'm sure was a Democratic Chair, sits on Poppy Bush's Presidential Library Foundation as a trustee ... has the Democrats ever had a Chair who organized us well and kept those who would go start a competitive organization in-line ... I don't want out Chair hanging with GOP as if they 'fit in with them' ... we want honesty and integrity?

It must be a job which one can inflate their own bank accounts.

He has the ability to fire people up and if we can get him back focused on criticizing the Right, he does a good job. Also, I think that a lot of people that have supported him or other candidates from outside the beltway would feel that the Party was giving them a voice.

I know he has been critical of our Democratic representatives in Washington. However, I remember that a lot of times during the Bush admin, I wanted to give some of them a swift kick myself. I don't know. Just a thought I had.

we need some fire. i might just join. for now i am a happy indy.

McAuliffe should be replaced.

I think Governor Dean has revitalized the party, and come what may in the election, he deserves somthing. The best way for "them" to recognize his value to the party during the primaries and in the pre-primary period is to provide him a prime role like DNC Chair, or a cabinet Post. This talk of a purge is troubling, it is stupid should it be true, and it could alienate many members of a key Party constituency. Nip this talk in the bud and make it clear early on that Howard Dean, the elected and Party offcials who endorsed him, Al Gore, and all of the just plain folks who supported Dean so loyaly will play a vital role in a revitalized Democratic Party. Make it a very public announcement. It would help a lot.

One other possible scenatio, assuming Peter Clavelle defeats GOP incumbent Governor Jim Douglas. President-elect Kerry offers Senator
Jeffords his choice of three or four cabinet posts (Interior, Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security)and Governor Clavelle makes nice to the White House by appointing Dean to the Senate till '06, and I don't see him getting beat by Douglas or any other GOPer in the State. Don't see Bernie in the Senate, otherwise Clavelle would surely appoint his old mentor. Then does Dean run for the vacated lone House seat? I say, no!

I think Jeffords BTW would be a great cabinet choice. I think that after having to endure Tom Ridge's sometimes painful ramblings about duct tape and plastic and anthrax and colr codes, the AMerican people would find Jim Jeffords and reassuring and informative change as Homeland Security chief (I hate that "Homeland" thing, I hope a new president changes the name immediately). Jeffords also makes a reassuring slection at Interior for the environmental community. Could be equally good at Education or Agriculture. He's especially respected on Education.

There are so many people here with so many great ideas for how to help our country. It gives me hope.

Thanks to GWB, the Party has never been as unified. Republican wedge politics on issues can't work this election, because their boy-king has a record to run on.

I don't think the wedge issues or the liberal canard will work well, either.

ABB is a very weak glue. Let's say that Bush is defeated. The problem is that most likely Congress with still be under control of the Republicans. If the Democrats couldn't stand up to Bush, will they stand up to Tom Delay? There will be period of time where everyone gets along, but the first time that the Democrats cave in to the Republican tactics, there will be a lot of dissention. I'm afraid that the Democrats will rely on a veto threat, and if Tom Delay is smart, he will call their bluff every time. It's a win-win for the Republicans. If things aren't vetoed, then they'll know that it is an empty threat, and they will force through whatever they want. If things are vetoed, then they will paint the Democrats as obstructionists. The Democrats still have no backbone, unless they make major changes in their leadership.

Why make any changes or stand for anything when the voters let you get away with ABB?

Hold the bastards' feet to the fire I say. Ineffective representation is even worse than no representation. Calculated to prevent change. Of course, that's the DLC's entire idea.

in grasping the entire ABB strategy and dynamic.

Thanks for never having been part of the mob and helping concerned voters see things clearly. You've always been one in a million!

Which, in its present form, is not a very benign organization.

Kerry will get my vote, so long as there are no purges, but he will have to EARN my financial support and active support in my CRUCIAL SWING STATE of PA.

Let's face it: just about everybody is ABB (or, as I would put it, anti-corporate-police-state), and even those who find Kerry desipcable will likely give him their vote in the GE, should he be the nominee. However, I'm very concerned about what might happen once the election's over. Assuming Kerry wins, he has a track record of coming down firmly on both sides of a given issue, and he'll be facing a "true believer" Republican congress who will no doubt have the same contempt for him they did for Clinton, and just as much determination to bring him down and cement a Republican hegemony after 2008. What happens if and when Kerry begins "triangulating" as Clinton did over NAFTA, Welfare Deform, and other such Repug issues. If we suddenly get a President Kerry embracing key Republican proposals as an attempt to position himself and the "party mainstream" as "moderate," do we go along out of a desire for unity, or do we find ourselves fighting a Democratic President who pushes Republican ideas just as much as we would if Bush was still in the Oval Office? If the former, the transformation of the Democrats to Corporate Party #2 will be complete, and there will be no place for progressives to go; if the latter, we should be prepared for a fight to the death, which outcome could be either a purge of the progressives or a weakened Kerry becoming easy pickings for Jeb Bush in four years.

and DU is not America.

come back to life. Will, this party is divided and the causes of that division should be addressed.

What else can I say? We disagree on fundamental premises.

Is there a faction of the democratic party that believes the Iraqi invasion and occupation is wrong. That the Patriot Act is absurd? That the pro-war DLC is whacked?

I believe there are cracks in what could loosely be called the democratic foundation.

Dean '04...

Does that mean we are no longer members of the party?

Should I be checking my mail for the purge slip?

On the one hand, I agree with the other posters who note that Bush's residency appears to have energized the Democratic party-- the proof will be the GE turnout. But I agree with you in that the last few years have focused increasing scrutiny upon the failures of the Democratic leadership. Leftists like myself-- and I've been a loyal dem for three voting decades-- no longer feel that the party represents our interests and it's hard to regain our trust. Our political values are firmly Democratic, but we see the party abandoning those values in the name of political expediency.

Ultimately, I fear you might be right. I would never have seriously considered voting for a third party 10 years ago-- now I preface all predictions about my 2004 vote with "I'll wait to see what the Greens do." This evolution has largely occurred during the time I've been posting on DU, i.e. since sometime between the 2001 hijacking of the presidency and the 2002 Democratic party rollover.

I think there's a lot fewer people who are split now than there was back in 2000.

Stated with as much reference to fact as the original post. Sheesh.

has already won 14 out of 16 primaries/caucuses. That's pretty united in my view.

Anyone who can't see the writing on the wall is blind. Yes, the Democrats - in fact, liberals in general - will unite to defeat Bush. But if they win, what will they replace him with?

I really doubt that many people will vote for Ralph Nader.

Nor do I have a problem with people who are criticizing Kerry more than they do Bush. I think it's ASSUMED that everyone who posts here hate Bush. There's still a little time left to critique and criticize the candidates before the final selection is made.

Kerry would be a very dangerous choice. If he's chosen, I'll vote for him, but I won't campaign for him; rather, I'll simply campaign against Bush and urge people to vote for the lesser of evils.

I'll also nurse an increasing contempt for the Democratic Party and will seek any and every opportunity to overthrow the Demopublican colossus. Many people share my sentiments.

Even the mainstream (corporate) Democrats are taking a big risk in promoting John Kerry. If he does get elected, and he continues with business as usual, a lot of liberals are going to feel more alienated than ever. The next time you ask them to swallow their pride and vote for the lesser of evils, they may just jump ship.

Therefore, it's very important to analyze Kerry very closely and try to force him to make some commitments, then make him live up to them. If we allow Kerry to just coast into office, we'll get exactly what we deserve.

"I don't belong to any organized party; I'm a Democrat." . . . might have been Will Rogers, but I'm not sure . . . true then, true now . . .

"I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat"

That's from Will Rogers, and it's as true now as ever.

That's why a smaller party like the Republican can mount serious competition: they speak with a more unified voice.

A little history is a soothing and sobering thing at times like this; there have been worse times. I know full well that the current crop of monarchists mean to do us more ill than they've seriously tried to since 1934, but, and I know we're in grave peril at this time, but the party itself is an even better agglomeration now than it was then: there's no uncomfortable coalition with the racial separatists these days.

There are plenty of things to bemoan, cry over and dread these days, but this isn't one of them.

We the Democrats will be as united as we allow ourselves to be, as we want to be.

Aesop's fable about the fighting brothers comes to mind: A farmer sees his several sons fighting each other by the stable. He makes them stop and gather sticks. When they bring the sticks, the farmer hands each one a single stick, and tells them to break it. Each brother snaps his stick easily.

Then farmer binds the rest of the sticks together with twine, and hands the bundle to one of his sons to break. He can't do it. Each in turn tries and fails.

The farmer says, "you are like these sticks. One by one, you can be broken. But together, you are too strong to break. Stop fighting among yourselves and work together, and no one will ever break you apart."

did you cite any historical evidence that the democratic party "has changed forever," is more diverse and divisive now than in its earlier history?

do you show any details that arise today that in comparison to past party internal differences leads one to say what you said?

nope, not a one.

all you stated was uninformed opinion.

and this is what passes today on du as deep intellectual thought.

good grief, with this level of intellectual rigor the left is doomed.

but the party is actually very united to win this year.

and nothing much changes

The corporate wing is almost in complete control. There's not a lot of disunity now. Lefties have pretty much either gone or decided that it's easier to stay in the relationship.

Also, Bush is so completely awful that that tends to obscure internal divisions.

...DU is hardly representative of the party as a whole.

The party in Atlanta is extremely unified - more so than I've ever seen it.

and i suspect it's been being said for a long time before that--Folks have been threatening to drop out since the beginning forty years ago, for example, it was the southern conservatives , now its the left wing. The party will unite more than cohesively enough to defeat bush.

The shame of it is that those advocating a major bolt just increase the juice of the center. There's just more votes in the center than on the fringes and political entities seek votes like water seeks the path of least resistance.

I know bolting will make us feel really, really good, but nobody ever increased their power by running away. You increase power by bringing your people into the Party.

The DLC already knows this, and they will gladly take the opportunity to increase it's power.

I do not know who stands where but the division is and it will be... there are those who see under the cloth of the glossy pages of glamour magazines, even under the flat grey pages of the nation, when the very fabric of life is there - when impact upon impact is acknowledged... and there is a whole lotta grey area....

but the feeling is either having feeling but not for the party or feeling yahoo about the party and nothing beyond except for hate for the otherside of the row...

and the dead well, basically going dem because they are dem and come from a dem family, my team won the super election... hah hah you owe me 200 bucks....

whateveer ... the feeling and the dead.... the split of the democrat party.

In the 2000 election I traded my Gore vote in New York for a Nader vote in a swing state California. My New York vote would not of counted because Gore won the NYC vote by 80% or more over Bush. And I think that liberalism is the answer to solve our social injustices so in 2000 by voting for Nader I was actually for once able to vote my conscience.

Some 16,000 people traded vote in swing states here are the numbers.

http://votetrader.org/results/

And high pressure they are. If they force Dean out, then all the other lesser candidates should be forced out as well.....now.

This is going to backfire bigtime.

Our decision....we don't know yet. After reading the WP article on how the leaders have decided on status quo.....I can not see how it matters what the two of us here do.

It matters not at all. It is only the party leaders who dictate the game.

There are men behind the curtain here..