How do you feel about the Democratic Party?

Straight up, let's hear it.

They just have to have some balls and they need to fight for what they believe in. I would take a Kucinich democrat just as easily as I would take John McCain if he switched. Both of those guys have balls. Many others don't. The republicans are worse. They are thoughtless borgs.

The only Democrats I know without balls are either women, or a former mayor here in Austin, who had one removed. He has ball. Or, as he says, huevo.

So can women have balls? And since most Republicans are dicks, do they have balls, too? I get all these weird gender terminologies confused, and of course since the whole implication of "balls" meaning courage comes from a sexist assumption that only men have courage, I've not bothered to memorize all the anatomical allusions. I guess I need help.

Yes woman can have balls. I see a lot of that here in NY. There are many woman democrats with balls.

Maybe balls are in the eyes of the beholder. Or holder. Whatever.

I thought, you know...

Balls in the eyes of the beholder. Thanks for that image as I sign off for bed. :-)

Inquiring minds! :think:

dear. :crazy:

are either women, or a former mayor here in Austin, who had one removed. He has ball. Or, as he says, huevo."

OR, one huevo on a Democrat is worth more than two on a Bush.

McCain was one of two senators who voted AGAINST federal money for NYC after 9/11. His views are very similar to Bush. And you say he has balls? How about when he ran against Bush and first the Bush camp said that Vietnam had made him crazy, then they tried to create a scandel saying that he had fathered a black child (he had actually adopted an Asian child). We heard not a peep from him then, and now he's just working away for Bush's campaign. Even to think he'd switch parties is ridiculous.

Is there one you like more?

and they are all dead

The ONLY Republican to vote against the war on Iraq. Now THAT'S balls.

But I hate labels. I vote Democrat, I'm president of a Democrat club, and I even call myself Democrat much of the time. But I'm a person with strong ethics and beliefs. Right now those line up with the party. If the party stops representing them, I'll stop supporting it. The word, the label, and the iconography mean nothing.

The Democrats haven't lost me yet. There are some clear deadwoods, as there will always be in politics. There are some people I'd as soon see go Green or Republican, but every politician I believe is on the right path is a Democrat. That's the best I can hope for rationally.

In the primaries Democratic voters rejected a lunge to the left. John Kerry is running a Bill Clinton style campaign from the middle. The same kind of campaign that won the Democrats two terms in the White House. I think that by and large Democratic voters have turned away from the Big Government ideas of the '80s. So, I think everything is just fine.:)

The good thing about the party is that it has always encompassed everyone from moderate to the far left. It always gave us all something we wanted, and at least kept things moving in the right (left) direction. I agree that the primaries are the best way to pick the direction of the party, because any candidate who can't even convince the majority of Dems won't beat a Republican.

Couple points I don't agree on. Big Government in the 80s was what the Republicans did. They still do it. No one in either party has rejected BG, they just define it as what the other guy does. Bush blows up the gov't to invade, Dems do it to proved a basic infrastructure and safety net (thus providing a more stable economy, which allows it to grow more steadily). Second, Kerry's about as liberal as they come. He may build his coalition in the middle, because that's where elections are won (middle votes count twice, because you have pulled one away from the Republicans, whereas fringe votes only count once, since they would just drop out or vote for one of the third parties.), but he's liberal on every issue. Even the invasion, though some don't quit get that.

Kerry's running a great campaign so far. He's negated all of Bush's advertising, he's brought up the personal issues against Bush without looking like he's doing it, and he's running even with Bush having spent only a fraction of what Bush has. So I love Kerry.

The one thing I don't like about the Democratic Party right now is their lack of focus. I don't mind having a broad spectrum (though Miller is becoming too broad), but we don't accomplish anything. I think Old and In The Way hit it on the head below as to why.

Sorry. Random thoughts. I really should be getting ready for bed.

The media (controlled by Rove and friends) first chose Dean, who they thought would be the biggest loser. They layed off his gaffes, supported him when he was attacked by his opponents after the media had declared that he was the frontrunner before any election was yet held (remember?) But they couldn't control Dean and he eventually imploded, The guy the Republicans were REALLY scared of was Clark, with his military record. So they bashed him in interviews and in their little group discussions on news shows, but more often simply ignored him and gave him very little airplay. So then the media (the Republican puppets) pushed for Edwards as much as they could (because he had the least experience), building up his mild success in the primaries, but eventually they settled for Kerry. They were happy, figuring Kerry dind' have much against Bush, because he voted for a lot of the same things. The Democratic nomination was engineered by the media, who controls what we see and sometimes how we see it. This nomination was not a sign that the voters have become more centrist, and I think Kerry is making a huge mistake in not courting the left. I believe there are a lot more out there than ever.

:shrug:

And heavily leaning to 5 at the moment. For reasons that should be obvious just reading this board.

I'm more moderate than many Democrats, but there is only so much of "I'm deeply saddened by ____ " I can take.

but I'd sure like to see more tactical/strategic discipline in our political/legislative strategy. I'm sick of a few "outspoken" Democrats who can give the Republicans cover. There needs to be rewards for the Dmocrats who take on the Republicans and penalties for those that put "I" before the Party.

That's exactly what's missing. The broad spectrum is always there, but we don't have an enforcer to make everyone follow the line (or pay the price). I hadn't even thought of that. Sure do miss Jim Wright.

Once Kerry is in, most of us are not going to let up on the reform issue. Apathy, for me at least, is a thing of the past. I was somewhat apathetic before the 2000 Selection. But December 12, 2000, was a day that will forever live in infamy. Point being, we're not forgetting, EVER. I think Kerry is going to be the best advocate we could possibly have for changing this party, in minor and major ways. I believe Kerry's administration will be even more awesome and magnificant if General Clark is the VP, in line to take the helm in 2012. That's my dream.

O8)

I can't think of 2 men who could contrast so positively to the Bush-Cheney crime team in place now.

I agree, too, that I was pretty complacent with the political process prior to the stolen election. The Republicans will rue the day that they installed this corrupt and un-American group of thugs.

We need to stop seeking one.

I stand by what I said.

I'm a democrat.

I'm not really much of a "party" person; I care about issues and I value the people that work on them. No matter what party they belong to. I dislike the two-party system; I don't think power should be concentrated in the "either/or," "black or white" camps. It's narrow, and limiting.

I'd like to see proportional representation. I'd like to spread the power and influence broadly. Just me.

I'm a democrat. I'm not going to vote for a republican. In most cases, I will vote for the democrat in order to defeat the republican, even when I don't much care for the dem in question.

That doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that I agree with everything the democratic party does; being a democrat doesn't make me blind, stupid, or unthinking. Being a democrat doesn't mean I don't express disagreement when it's indicated. That's not democracy, IMO. That's a bunch of blind followers stumbling happily along without looking where they are going. A good democrat, again IMO, speaks up. A good democrat voices whatever needs to be voiced to keep the party's integrity intact. A good democrat participates, which includes expressing points of view whether or not they mirror party leadership.

Personally, I am repulsed by democrats who mirror Rush's dittoheads or *'s cult followers; those who demand unquestioning agreement with everything the party says and does. It cuts too close to the bone. In my head, I hear some rabid right-winger saying, "How dare you criticize our glorious president? He was chosen by god to save us from those evil liberals. We're America, we're a christian country, and if you don't like it, leave!" I hear that every time I hear or read a democrat saying, "Don't like Kerry? Then vote for Bush." Or any of the numerous permutations. I'm going to vote for Kerry. That doesn't mean I have to pretend I think he is the best thing since sliced bread.

I hear it every time I hear honest disagreement with Kerry's positions, or concerns about something that Kerry said, referred to as "attacks" or "bashing." Especially since many of those reactionary "get on the bandwagon or get out" dems were vigorously bashing many of the primary candidates a few months back. Including Kerry.

Real democrats, good democrats, are allowed to object to the party's direction, words, actions, and candidates if they think they are not in the country's, or the party's, best interest. And here at DU, those democrats should not be subject to insinuations that they are freepers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x512579

I have disagreements with Kerry. I have doubts. I am not comfortable with many of his positions. I don't dislike the man or wish him ill. I'm going to vote for him. I hope he wins. I'm not going to pretend a level of comfort I don't feel.

The dems that suggest I may "fade away to freeperville" or that I should just "vote for bush, then," make me ashamed of the democratic party. They embarrass me. I have more issues with them than I do with Kerry. And I would say that these tactics make marginalized members of the party less likely to be there with enthusiasm when it counts. Not a smart move. Again, IMO.

When it comes to electing people who will work towards goals I agree with, the Democratic party is more effective than any other party.


I don't really know what you mean by 'changes' -- the party is made up of the people who are in it. Change the people and you change the party. Is there some other way to change a political party?

We are too beholden to corporate lobbiest and emotional minorities. The media is run by right wingers because of corporate takeovers, largely because of the Congress didn't nothing to stop it, and there is no change in sight because of bribery from corporate lobbiests. Unions can't get a foothold and nobody will do anything about healthcare or workers rights because of the same corporate lobbiests. Our foreign policy is a mess, but we can't change it because of fundies and right wing israeli supporters. Our elections are a choice between right wing and fascist. The only issue anyone can make a difference on is abortion.

e.g.: the environment, health care, Social Security, and Medicare. The party does need reform, but that will take a Democratic sweep of all governmental branches. Once that happens, the politicians will listen to us. They're on our side, but they have to play with the cards they're dealt.

Is corporately corrupted, almost as bad as the 'Pugs. The Democratic party has left it's base behind and actively pursued the two party/same corporate master system of government. The Democrats, with dollar signs dancing in their eyes, have sold themselves out to the highest bidder.

Everyone talks about it, yet no one ever clearly delinates who/what the 'base' is. Care to illuminate?

Your mileage may vary, and probably will, but for my money the Democratic base includes, or should include (in no particular order):

women
gays
ethnic/racial minorities
labor
environmentalists
the poor
generic liberals

and

anyone else in the middle class who values civil society.

Where are they? I think that there are a variety of answers to that, but the first has to be with the half of eligible citizens who don't vote.