Joining the Left and Right halves of the Democratic party

[Q]

- Can we at least agree on these issues? (In no particular order)

1. The Iraq invasion and occupation is illegal.

2. A woman (and not the state) should have control over her own body.

3. That the 'war on drugs' is useless and oppressive and that drug 'abusers' should be sent to treatment, not jail. ( Like Limbaugh ). It's a health/medical, not criminal problem.

4. Public education is best because it serves all citizens equally, regardless of social status.

5. Environmental and business regulation is necessary in a free country.

6. That the Constitution / Bill of Rights should be the law of the land.

7. The Free Press has the responsibility / duty to inform the citizenry about their government so that their votes are based on 'informed consent'.

8. The separation of church and state.

9. The 'war on terrorism' is useless and oppressive and is being used by the Bush* administration and Republican party to advance their political agenda and stifle dissent.

10. That more than half the voting population doesn't vote because they've given up hope on the political system.

- You're welcome to add more issues. How many of these issues can conservative and liberal Democrats agree upon? I believe we have more in common than is apparent.

[mmonk]

1. works for me

[HPLeft]

2. My Take

1) The war is massively unwise, but it is not illegal.

2) Agreed, but within reason. Contraception on demand must become a reality, and thus avoid putting so many women in the position where abortion is even a consideration. And men who refuse to cooperate by also taking responsibilty for contraception need to become the subject of intense societal pressure.

3) I much prefer an approach to drugs that focuses on treatment - but I don't want a society where recreational drug users think they are free to interact in normal society in ways that risk other people's lives (like driving under the influence - which with drugs, can impair responses for days, not hours). And that also includes employment.

4) I can support public education so long as it supports a diversity of values, and not just the values of the secular intelligencia. So, if you don't want a voucher system, then society needs to have a much wider variety of charter school options.

5) Agreed.

6) Agreed.

7) Agreed.

8) Agreed.

9) The war on terror is being conducted badly, and abused/exploited for ideological purposes. It is, however, likely very necessary in the world in which we live. The Patriot Act needs to go, but as 9/11 demonstrated, we have a definite problem that needs to be confronted.

10) Their apathy is shameful, and I blame them, not the system. That 50% could utterly transform the system if they started paying attention, and stopped watching TV and blaming other forces for the problems of their lives. Our founding fathers put their lives, and their families' lives, at risk to found this democracy. The deadbeats have to start reading a non-tabloid newspaper, and get off their asses!

[Q]

5. Your answer for #9 suggests that Iraq has something to do...

....with 9-11 and the 'war on terrorism'. This was BushCO's 'excuse' for attacking Iraq and even they have backtracked from this position since then. Perhaps you could explain why it was 'necesssary' to attack Iraq as part of fighting the war on terrorism?

- As to your answer for 10. I think you're making the same mistake as many Democratic politicians when you call non-voters 'apathetic' and 'deadbeats' instead of addressing the real reasons why they don't vote. This lets the politicians off the hook and suggests there are no problems in our political system.

- Could it be that many Americans just don't think they're being represented in DC? Or that they've realized that politicians cater to corporations and write legislation for them in return for campaign cash? There could be many reasons why a majority of Americans no longer bother to vote. It's too easy to say that they're just too lazy. It doesn't address the real problems facing our country.

[LeahMira]

37. Non-voters not lazy, but...

- Could it be that many Americans just don't think they're being represented in DC? Or that they've realized that politicians cater to corporations and write legislation for them in return for campaign cash? There could be many reasons why a majority of Americans no longer bother to vote. It's too easy to say that they're just too lazy. It doesn't address the real problems facing our country.

It could be that many Americans just don't think they're being represented in DC, but it could also be that most Americans think that they are being represented generally well by whichever party is in charge at the moment.

In this country we really don't have any large far-left party and until lately we really didn't have any large far-right party. Most Americans are in that middle lump of the bell curve. The lump might skew to the left for a while, and then skew to the right for a while, but over time it averages out pretty well in the center. In many ways that's good because we don't have violent shifts in policy and procedure as they do in some other countries, but it also means that any real change comes harder to Americans.

I think that most people who don't vote don't because they don't see much difference between the two parties. That's not to say that there aren't differences, but because of the balance of powers we have built in to our Constitution one side checks the other. A President Dean, for instance, might have some terrific plans, but he has to deal with a possibly Republican-dominated Congress that could fight him every step of the way. I personally think that's what happened to President Clinton and that's why he wasn't able to do as much as many had hoped he would.

I wonder if there has been a time when there was a massive turnout for voting in a Presidential election within say the last 75-100 years, and what was going on at the time that happened. If there was, it would at least point to an issue that voters really cared about enough to venture forth from their homes and vote about.

It would also be interesting to see how often a Democratic president has been given a Republican Congress, or vice versa, by the voters. Of course the voters' perception of just where the middle of the road happens to be is probably not where most of us would think it is!

[maha]

3. Sounds about right.

I went on and on (and on) the other day about ideology versus reality on Iraq. It's pretty clear that both left and right hemispheres of the Democratic brain agree that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, with few exceptions. We also appear to agree that our next goal should be to get OUT of Iraq. Nobody wants an open-ended occupation (not even Lieberman).

The discussion really turns on whether to pull out unconditionally, meaning without waiting for some other authority to be in place or some level of security achieved; or whether we should at least attempt a process of handing off military and civil authority to either the Iraqis or a multinatinal agency (i.e., the UN, NATO), and then leaving.

So, although I agree the occupation is illegal, there are practical reasons why an immediate bugout might not be the way to go. On the other hand, by the time a Democratic president can take over in January 2005, the situation in Iraq might have deteriorated to the point that there are no other options but to skedaddle. Any detailed plan drawn up right now might not be operative a year from now.

But the important point is that not one of the nine Dem candidates is in favor of a long-term occupation of Iraq. They only differ on the details of what they'd like to see happen before a U.S. evacuation occurs.

[Q]

4. Democrats seem to have varied opinions on Iraq...

...and some are emotional as opposed to rational.

- Personally...I can't see how the Iraq war/invasion/occupation could be called anything BUT illegal. That a majority of the US congress voted for it doesn't make it 'legal'...it makes it politically safe to support it.

- But then international law comes into the mix. It is indeed illegal for any country to attack another for any other reason than 'self-defense'. "Predicting" that Iraq may or may not be a threat in the future doesn't meet the test of international law. This policy of preemptive strikes makes the US a 'rogue' nation.

[maha]

6. While I agree that the occupation is illegal ...

I just want to point out that people with better minds than mine (not uncommon) believe that an unconditional evacuation might do more harm than good.

As I said, Dems appear to agree that we must get out of Iraq. The disagreement is in the details. Some Dem candidates argue favor of bringing in the UN or NATO before there's an evacuation, or for attempting to set up an Iraqi security force before there's an evacuation. Such a position does not equal approval of the occupation.

[Q]

8. The issue of the 'war' being illegal and pulling out...

...have little in common. While it's true that we just can't leave until the UN or other international body takes over...it shouldn't dismiss the fact that the war itself is illegal.

- Why is it important to distinquish between legal and illegal? Just an unjust? Giving validity to this war is in essence agreeing with the Bush* Doctrine of preemptive attacks, imperialism and war profiteering. A 'legal' war gives Bush* credibility as an 'honest, God fearing' CIC and makes the death of thousands of innocents little more than 'collatoral' damage.

- It also gives credibility to the idea that the 'war on terrorism' is justly being fought in Iraq.

[Q]

7. On the issue of separation of church and state...

- A caller this morning on CSPAN made an interesting comment about our nation 'finally' getting a 'Christian president' in office. The caller said this was a 'Christian Nation' and inferred that everyone should just get used to it.

- People like the caller can't seem to separate the idea of being Christian and using religion as a means to control people and cover for a political agenda.

[salin]

10. the also fail to consider

actions over self-declarations about being Christian, nor are they bothered when policies are promoted that are in polar opposite directions to the teachings of Christ. Right - a Christian nation would support 'greed' and 'giving monies to the greediest (corporations) that make their monies often by cheating (think energy fiasco - cheating in California that drove up costs for fixed income poor families; think massive subsidies that lower business costs for giant monolith businesses driving small businesses out of business), while stripping resources away from the neediest.

Christian nation, indeed. These self-proclaimed Christians are accelerating the spiritual decline in this country by promoting something so warped in ideology that it barely resembles the teachings of the man stated to be this pResident's "favorite philosopher." And they want by legislative fiat to condemn us ALL to a theocratic government shaped by this warped, simplistic, dangerous (and blasphemous?!) form of "Christianity" that is imposed on us all.

[maha]

12. There's Christians and there's Christians

The U.S. has a kind of home-grown "popular Christianity" that is indefensible theologically and has nothing to do with anything Jesus ever taught; it's more a mix of cultural bias and folklore. Just try to explain to these people that Jesus probably would NOT approve of a death penalty. They won't understand a word you are saying.

[Padraig18]

80. Amen!

I've even had fellow Catholics (mistakenly) tell me that the Church doesn't oppose capital punishment; guess that's what happens when you only go twice a year and then sleep through the Mass, eh? :eyes:

[Q]

14. There were many 'Christian' presidents...

...but few of them felt compelled to announced it or use it as part of a political agenda or platform.

- The CSPAN caller mentioned above made it sound like George couldn't be challenged or resisted in any way because he was a 'Christian leader' and that only heretics would think otherwise.

- That's the danger of mixing politics and religion. The Religious Right believes that Bush* was indeed 'chosen' by God to lead this nation during a 'time of war'....a so-called 'soldier for God'. It doesn't help that politicos like Miller give credibility to this claim by pledging his undying support.

[salin]

16. sadly the current situation has given rise to a myth of W's infallibility

the 2000 election circumstances (could have gone either way - in their minds) in light of 911, "PROVE that GOD stepped in to make W president"... and thus since "GOD Chose W"... "GOD knew all that W would do"... and thus "GOD Approves of W's actions"...

ergo to these warped crazies bush is infallible by God and to question W is to questin God.

REally frightening.

[Q]

17. It's also a great cover if 2004 goes the way of 2000...

...and election fraud is once again covered up by the 'inevitability' of George* staying in office.

[salin]

21. how is that for bizarre - the spector of justifying fraud

by God. But I bet they would - they would believe that GOD wanted W to win, so GOD inspired the people perpetrating the fraud to do so.

[LeahMira]

33. Calvinism, anyone?

Right - a Christian nation would support 'greed' and 'giving monies to the greediest (corporations) that make their monies often by cheating (think energy fiasco - cheating in California that drove up costs for fixed income poor families; think massive subsidies that lower business costs for giant monolith businesses driving small businesses out of business), while stripping resources away from the neediest.

That brand of Christianity harks right back to the Pilgrims. Some people believe that only an elect are "predestined" to enter heaven, and that G-d demonstrates G-d's favor on them by permitting them to prosper in this life as well as in the next. They "know" they are saved because they are prosperous, and they know that the poor are not saved because they are poor. The "elect" are not particularly upset by the poor because, for whatever divine and unknowable reason, the poor are not favored by G-d.

Nothing new under the sun.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predest.html

[janekat]

9. Nobody here even cares about civil rights/affirmative action?

wow!

[maha]

11. File civil rights under "Bill of Rights"

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, amendments and all. Civil rights issues go into this folder, so to speak, instead of as a separate line item.

[Isome]

98. If you're white... or damn near...

By all means, shove that shit in a folder, it'll keep for later.

But, if you're Black Like Me, it's in our best interest to make that a "separate line item". I don't have the luxury of focusing on more pressing matters when my civil rights aren't assured in every aspect of my daily life.

When I want that loan (of any kind) and I'm steered towards a subprime lender, despite my financial information & credit history being comparable to the white guy who just received a regular loan, I need that addressed pronto. When I get turned down for an apartment, only later to find the complex has been fined for discriminatory practices, I need the obstacles that keep me from securing desirable shelter of my choosing addressed right away. When the AMA (American Medical Association) comes right out and tells the public that despite equal insurance coverage, people of African descent receive lesser quality healthcare, are less likely to be informed of new or alternative treatments, are less likely to be given aggressive life-saving treatments, etc., I need that addressed not now, but two months ago!

You're free to put your civil rights concerns in a folder, filed under I (for "it'll keep") but I cannot.

I'll put it in a prominent place where it won't be forgotten.

[Q]

13. I provided a 'short list' of issues...

...and you're welcome to add to the list.

- But it is a very important issue...considering the trend of many in the Democratic party now going soft on affirmative action and similar programs meant to address inequalities.

- It seems to me that the party made a great mistake in not addressing the purging of many black voters in Florida and the blatant attempt to intimidate and discourage.

- This problem was never addressed within the party...like so many other issues. We were told to 'move on' and focus on the future...but the future must include an assurance that all votes are counted.

[Padraig18]

81. Sad, but true.

Our party seems singularly unwilling to discuss the issue of race in any but the most general of terms and politically-correct platitudes. I think we fear being thought of as 'not nice' by the voters if we were to satnd up and say "Just what the HELL do you GOP-ers think you''re doing here?".

My $.02

[Forkboy]

30. 8 posts before yours

and yet that quailifies as "Nobody here".

You dont seem to like DU very much.

[janekat]

41. I'm beginning to become concerned that a lot of issues are being forgotten

The war in Iraq is a very important issue but I think people are beginning to overlook other issues. It's almost like we (DU and the Dem party) are obsessed with the war to the exclusion of all else.

Women's rights, civil rights, abortion, the environment are issues that we also need to be concerned about. I work at a wildlife center and we're having cut-backs. I'm glad that at least two of those made the list by I don't see us talk about it much.

At least the last few days we brought up Affirmative Action and the Confederate Flag.

[Forkboy]

44. I would like to see all of those as well

but right now,whether we like it or not,the war is the overriding issue.

However,there are forums here that do deal with this stuff,and while they dont get the traffic GD does there's still plenty of good information.

Hell,DU's most underrated poster is hatrack down in the Enviroment Forum.If it was up to me all his posts would be front and center on DU.Unfortunately these issues wont get the coverage they deserve for the forseeable future,but I dont think we should complain about DUers not caring about them because I think that's totally false.

[Mairead]

15. The two major issues, as far as I'm concerned are

1) deconcentrating wealth until everyone has an income sufficient for a dignified life, and the modal income is sufficient to provide well for a family of 3.

2) completely democratising freedom. There should be no law restricting what an adult can do with her/his own life. Want to fry your brain down to the size of a peanut? Go for it, fool. Want to travel to Cuba? Bienvenido!

[Iverson]

18. 9 1/2

For #10, it is impossible to assign a uniform motive.

[Q]

19. Agreed...but we need to debate it...

...because we do ourselves and our nation a disservice when we dismiss the non-voters as just 'lazy' or deadbeats.

- I choose to consider a connection with the awful state of American politics and the movement towards a 'one party system' with millions of Americans refusing to participate in Democracy.

- There is no way of knowing why more than half the voting population seems to disappear when it's time to vote. But it's clear that more and more Americans are feeling disenfrachised by the current system.

[MadHound]

20. I agree with all of your points, and would like to add one

Get the corporations out of government. This would require real campaign finance reform, including making all elections publicly financed. Until our public officials are answerable to ONLY their constituents then any other issues are doomed. I feel this is the most important issue facing we the people. Until we have achieved this goal, every step forward we make will be accompanied by two steps back.

[DemExpat]

22. I agree with them all except for one footnote by nr. 2......

abortion should be safe, legal, and very rare.....Clinton's statement on the issue.

DemEx

[RichM]

23. Good basic list; the devil would be in the details.

For example, #7 on the free press. Stated abstractly, it's hard to object to it. But what it really implies is that the 6 or 7 megacorporations controlling the media would have to be broken up in some way, or at least massively re-regulated. Our political system is not remotely capable of seriously contemplating, let alone making, that kind of change.

[Q]

24. Corporate Government in general...

- I tend to believe that corporations wouldn't get away with as much if the 'law of the land' Constitution/Bill of Rights was taken seriously by government...especially the executive branch.

- We become a 'lawless' nation when legislation is written to make corporations richer at the expense of the people.

[Cocoa]

25. has any congressman called the war illegal?

I vaguely remember some lawsuit being filed by some group, maybe the Black Caucus, but I'd hardly call that a "common ground" position.

[Zorra]

28. Dennis Kucinich has called the war illegal.

Repeatedly. And he tried to prove to congress that it was illegal long before the war began.

Kucinich Draws the Line Against War
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, The Progressive
October 29, 2002

Unilateral military action by the U.S. against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14417

Also:

Vote "NO'' On Iraq War Resolution US
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
October 3, 2002
Before the House of Represenatives

As the vote on whether or not this Nation goes to war approaches in this Chamber, a vote which most surely will come within a few days, I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, for us to be able to make the case to the American people as to why it is not appropriate for this country to go to war and to encourage the American people to call their Members to make sure that government of the people, by the people, and for the people does prevail.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.10/1004Kucinichnowar.htm

[Q]

26. Unfortunately...

...many of those that need to participate in this discussion seemingly have me on ignore.

- They don't seem to understand why the party is so divided...or why many are leaving to join third parties.

- The party has been 'diluted' by conservatism to the point where it's becoming indistinquishable in many ways from the opposition. It should go without saying that those on the left don't join the Democratic party expecting to be confronted with having to accept traditional conservative issues and being told they're 'too liberal'.

- Finding common ground is the issue.

[Iverson]

27. There's an analogy at work.

"...many of those that need to participate in this discussion seemingly have me on ignore."

Roll a six-sided die. Use the key below to anticpate the response.

1- You can't insist that the rest of the country grant you 100% of your agenda.
2- You can't win with only the base.
3- Clinton won the Presidency. Therefore, we should assume that the conditions are unchanged and the strategies and tactics should likewise be unchanged.
4- You have to stop alienating conservative white men from the suburbs.
5- Don't you understand that politics is about compromise?
6- Your inquiry is a sign of disloyalty and so should be not only ignored, but positively rebuked.

That should take care of the majority of responses. Feel better?

[sangh0]

36. You left one out

7- You're not going to convince Dems if you keep using the Green's argument

The party has been 'diluted' by conservatism to the point where it's becoming indistinquishable in many ways from the opposition

[Q]

45. I'm using MY argument...

...because it's clear that Democrats have compromised TOO much with the opposition. See below for a more detailed explanation.

- There is something YOU could work on: stop accusing other Dems of making 'Green arguments' when the issues have nothing to do with Greens.

- It's clear that you don't believe there is a problem with too much compromise. Allow me to say there is plenty of room for compromise on some issues. But those issues that make up the FOUNDATION of the Democratic party should never be compromised away to the opposition. That only gives them more power.

[sangh0]

49. Nader agrees with you

The party has been 'diluted' by conservatism to the point where it's becoming indistinquishable in many ways from the opposition

After all, "there's no difference"!!!

[Forkboy]

59. Tthe two quotes dont gel

"there's no difference" is different from "indistinquishable in many ways".

The first is wrong,the latter is correct.

[Q]

60. Just keep believing as you do...

...as you watch more Democrats walk away from the table.

- In a sense...your thinking reminds me of the way GWB* approaches the 'war on terrorism'. He doesn't want to understand the CAUSES of terrorism...or that his foreign policy is actually manufacturing terrorists....he just wants to blow things up.

- I'm baffled as to why you don't want to understand that the Democratic party is in trouble because they're not standing up and FIGHTING for Democratic principles.

[Iverson]

61. problem

I do not own a seven-sided die.

;-)

[Selwynn]

47. edit

wrong place

[Padraig18]

82. The flip side of that argument is...

... that the Democratic party has never been as far 'left' as many here on DU seem to think. The 20 year-long power grab by the left (1970-1990) resulted in a 'tail wagging the dog' party, and is one reason there are so many 'Reagan Democrats' (God, I *hate* that term!). Those on the left who now feel displaced might perhaps consider the fact that the mainstream of the party has once again rejoined the table with the better hand of cards and 'called' the left.

[Padraig18]

29. You get a 10/10 from me!

:hi:

[Zorra]

31. Insuring that the voting process is not corruptible

is another issue it seems we all agree on.

The black box voting problem needs to be solved.

[srubick]

32. I would add fiscal rspnsibilty

A party pledged to returning us to a responsible tax system based on the needs of the people and not for corporate payoffs.

[Skidmore]

34. All I know is that someone had better agree on somet hing

before we end up with * again. How badly do you want 4 more years just like the last three???

[John_H]

35. With the exception of iraq--these will all be on the dem platform I bet

[Q]

38. Bit by bit...the RWing is chipping away at the resolve of the left...

...and the Democratic party in particular.

- We've gone from a party that had an strong belief in certain issues...to one that is compromising itself to death. Abortion. Affirmative Action. Environmental protections and regulations. Public education. Social Security. Campaign finance reform. Free and fair elections. Self-defense instead of preemptive war. Separation of church and state. The Democratic party has given too much ground on these and other issues.

- Now we're the 'diluted party'...a watered-down version of the GOP. We 'compromise'...not for the good of the people...but for the advancement of political careers.

[redqueen]

46. Depressing but true.

Marching rightward chasing after Republican votes. :(

[sandnsea]

39. #9

I agree that Bush is using terrorism to advance his agenda. I disagree that there are no terrorists. There are and we need to deal with it.

[Q]

42. I've never posted such a thing. There are indeed 'terrorists'...

...but few of them were in Iraq before the occupation. And certainly no terrorists connected with 9-11.

- If indeed the 'war' was against 'terrorism'...wouldn't BushCo go after those they say are responsible for 9-11? They're following the exact agenda set out years ago in the PNAC. Coincidence?

- Terrorism will never be 'defeated' by killing thousands of innocents. This only creates MORE terrorists with revenge as a motivation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. Besides, "terrorism" is not

a unified movement or ideology. It is a tool used by fanatics of all stripes.

You can't eliminate terrorism any more than you can eliminate crime.

[sandnsea]

97. #9 doesn't mention Iraq

It just says the war on terrorism is useless and a big scam, or something along that line. You have to separate everything out clearly up front. This is how we lose.

[Selwynn]

40. Yes - I can agree with all those things.

[SeekerofTruth]

43. Fiscal responsibility...

I agree with them all but there is 1 issue the party rarely pushes and the Repugs hold over our heads is 'Fiscal Conservatism'. I disagree with fiscal conservatism, how about 'Fiscal Responsibility?'. Last years the papers mentioned that over 50% of government agencies haven't been audited in the last 5 years because their books are too screwed up.

[Q]

50. And notice how the 'government' isn't real concerned about...

...the trillions of dollars the Pentagon seems to have...uh..lost?

- Another problem our country faces is that corporate welfare is now more 'acceptable' than social welfare. That is...trickle down economics has become the 'norm'.

[leftofthedial]

48. yeah, but even if I agree on all these points with someone

if they are not liberal enough to suit me

or if I believe they are "corporatists" (whatever that is)

or if I can find any one vote in their past that I disagree with on "moral" grounds

or if they say one thing that I disagree with because I hate something they tolerate


then I'm voting Green.

Just kidding. Great list. A supermajority of Murkins would probably agree if you could pull their heads out of their asses long enough to read the list.

[Q]

53. It's simply a list off the top of my head...

...but could be a starting point to get a dialogue going.

- To put in bluntly...I'm offended when other DUers call me a 'radical' or 'extremist' or 'far left'. But then I realize that's the intention of the neoconservative movement in America: conquer and divide and make 'traditional' Democrats look out of place in New America.

- But I still believe in the things I've always believed in and feel there's no reason to change just to give the Right more power over our country and party. I'm a Jeffersonian Democrat and a liberal.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. No we can't

If you want to bring the various parts of our party together, it will be harder than you think. Hell we can't even agree (based on a variety of threads) on whether the U.S. was OK using nukes to end WWII. (For the infinite list of bpilgrim responses to this statement, I refer you to several threads today. Have fun.)

1. The Iraq invasion and occupation is illegal. -- Illegal? No. Stupid? Yes. Congress OK'd it and the U.S. has had ample provocation to go to war. (Endless violations of treaty obligations including the no-fly zone, attacks on our aircraft and violation of sanctions.) Is the occupation illegal? Again no and worse, we're stuck for a while. Though I opposed the war, I don't see how we can just pull out without doing more harm.

2. A woman (and not the state) should have control over her own body. -- No rights are absolute, including this one. Can you have an abortion up to the last day? No. Ergo, this right is limited. The only question is, how much? Not much agreement on that either. I support choice, but oppose late abortions as do many Dems on the Hill.

3. That the 'war on drugs' is useless and oppressive and that drug 'abusers' should be sent to treatment, not jail. -- I mostly agree. It is a health/medical problem for users. Drug dealers are still a problem. In the inner city, they are a cancer that won't go away whether you legalize or not. I support treatment for users and big time jail for dealers.

4. Public education is best because it serves all citizens equally, regardless of social status. -- Good in theory, not true in practice. Compare public schools in the rich D.C. suburbs vs. crappy schools in Southeast D.C. and then let me know if you believe this. Sure, let's fix the school systems. In the meantime until you do, if vouchers save some children, that is better than none.

5. Environmental and business regulation is necessary in a free country. -- Yep. But this is a pretty broad statement. The devil is in the details.

6. That the Constitution / Bill of Rights should be the law of the land. Yes, ALL the amendments, not just the ones popular with one side or the other of the political landscape.

7. The Free Press has the responsibility / duty to inform the citizenry about their government so that their votes are based on 'informed consent'. -- No. It has the option to inform. If you don't like the job it is doing, you have the freedom to do it better yourself.

8. The separation of church and state. -- I doubt massively if we could find total agreement on this either. It is a great principle, but see item 5 for my comment. I support freedom OF religion, not FROM it.

9. The 'war on terrorism' is useless and oppressive and is being used by the Bush* administration and Republican party to advance their political agenda and stifle dissent. -- No to the first part and yes to the second. Would you have our security agencies ignore terrorists? Personally, I hope they do not.

10. That more than half the voting population doesn't vote because they've given up hope on the political system. -- No, maybe they just have other things in life to worry about. When they are energized, they vote.

[Selwynn]

52. I think those who don't agree should get out (explaination:)

Yes, I understand that this is a harsh subject line. But I am very tired of constantly dilluding the party to the point where we don't stand for anything. We should not be the party that makes right wing conservatives feel "At home." We should not be that "inclusive." We should not be so inclusive that we don't stand for anything.

The points listed by Q are basic points to being a democrat. Period. Is there room for any disagreement? Yes - if you agree with 9/10 of those points, then I'd say you belong in this party. But if you find that you disagree with 9/10 points listed therein then it is not the Party's job to try to accommodate you. The bottom line is, you don't belong in the party, you don't share democratic views, and I'm tried of people who aren't democrats getting pissy because the Democratic party doesn't "include" them enough.

Are we talking about the Democratic party being "left wing?" No. Those bullet points listed by Q are MAINSTREAM Democratic positions. And frankly, if you can't agree on a majority of those positions, then this is fact is NOT the party for you, so there's the door.

I'm tired of being so desperate for voters that we don't stand for anything. And the country is tired of a pathetically pussy democratic parry that limps around to afraid to take a stand on anything. If you're against most of the points listed above, then you disagree with what it means to be a Democrat. And that's fine! Another party is best for you. But I'm sick and tired of trying to accommodate the "right" into a party that is center-left. What is the point of even HAVING political parties of it isn't the DIFFERENCES - not the similarities - between the parties?

It is time to say, while there is some room for disagreement on "how" we should do these things, here are the basic bullet points of what it means to be a democrat. If you find you agree with a majority of these things, then the Democratic party should be your home. But, if you find that you don't agree with a majority of these things, and only agree with a minority of things -- then FIND ANOTHER PARTY.

That's how it’s suppose to work. And I am sick and tired of trying to look as much like Republicans as we possibly can.

[Q]

56. Harsh...but well said...

- Not sure I would put it exactly that way...but there has to be issues that define and distinquish Democrats from Republicans.

- There are indeed issues that we can 'compromise' on...but why must it be those issues that define Democratic values and principles?

- Abortion is a good example. Do Democrats really believe that it should be left up to the woman, family and physician? Or will we continue to compromise with the neoconservative fundamentalists until reproductive rights are controlled by the empire/state?

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. In your opinion

If you see my post above, I think the original list was way too vague to gain any consensus and that these points are NOT all the hallmarks of being a Democrat.

Last time I checked, you don't have the authority to decide who stays in our party and who moves on. But if our party is not far left enough for you, I'm sure there IS a party out there to accommodate you. Just don't ever expect to win an election of an import.

[dpbrown]

54. The Death Penalty is Racist and Outdated and Should End

Other than that, great list.

[Q]

55. Yes...as it turns out...the death penalty...

...is 'racist' and the stuff of other centuries gone by.

- But then...so is the 'war on drugs'. The fact that millions of citizens are in jail and prison because they smoke a plant or abuse drugs shows that we're still a very uncivilized society.

[livinontheedge]

57. I agree with everything but No. 4 . . . public education MAY not be best.

I would love to see schools compete against each other to raise the test scores of their students. There is no such competition, or incentive to raise the test scores of students. I went to private (Catholic) high school while my older two sisters went to public school. I had to do easily twice as much homework and I had to take several more advance placement courses than my sisters. Not surprisingly, I earned a 32 on my ACT while both my sisters scored below 20. I believe in competition and teacher testing and holding teachers accountable. But everything else you said I agree with.

[rucky]

58. You Missed a couple of Biggies:

Trickle-down economics does not work.

We can debate our different alternatives, but we all agree on this one, no?

I would also add:

Affordable healthcare must be available to all Americans.

again, we debate the means and not the ends.

[Yupster]

62. Useful tool

I agree that the party needs some basic ideas that all sides agree with and can campaign on throughout the country.

I think if representatives of different parts of the party would go into secret meetings, each with their list like yours, they might be able to come out a week later with five or 10 solid items.

However, the lists the conservative Democrats will carry in will not look at all like yours. The idea would be to see if there were common items on all the lists that could be agreed upon by all.

Or am I getting the thrust of your post wrong entirely?

I think it would be a worthwhile attempt.

[Q]

63. Kick for the nooners...

...

[Silverhair]

64. That's a strongly liberal list.

If you are going to get the conservative wing of the party to work with you, then you will have to give them something too. That list has them giving up everything, and you nothing.

Some of the items need more clarification.

Pro-Choice only? Some otherwise Democrats have serious problems with abortions. If they are a Dem on other issues does that mean that you chase them off? (My position is OK for early term, but by the time it is a late term abortion then I have serious problems with it.) Would that position have me kicked out?

Why does public education have to be a state run school. Vouchers can work. The idea is to get the best education possible. Where is it written that a state run school is always the best?

How much regulation? I have personally worked under some really stupid regulations that, while intended to promote safety, in the real world made things more much dangerous. So dangerous that I personally broke the law so I could avoid genuine danger to myself and others. Some regulations are for the purpose of limiting competition, thereby decreasing efficiency. LAW OF LIFE: In a regulated industry, the regulation agency ALWAYS get captured by the regulated industry. At that point you have the industry leadership writing the regulations for itself. That ALWAYS happens, whether it is a Dem or Rep gov't. There is logical reason why this happens that has nothing to do with corruption. (Hint: Where can you find people who are extremely knowledgeable about XYZ industry?)

constitution/ Bill of Rights Does that include the 2nd amendment? Do you interpret that to mean that I can own and keep a handgun in my home? How about concealed carry?

Separation of church & state. A judge has recently ordered a born-again Christian woman not to teach her child that homosexuality is wrong. That is part of her religious belief. Does the gov't tell the churches what they can and can't believe? By that do you mean that a person of sincere religious beliefs can not hold public office?

While Bush is indeed making many blunders in the "war on terror", do you mean that we don't need to do something serious about terrorism?

Non-voters. I may mean that they simply don't care. Some people are lazy and apathetic. You can't say it means they have given up hope. It can just as easily mean "any of the above" as well as "none of the above".

Some other issues:

Health Care We can get a good universal health care bill through a Rep congress and even have W sign it, if we work it right. I will make this the subject of another thread some day soon. (I have been writing to my congresspersons for 15 years about this.)

Taxes The tax code needs a complete over haul. It is badly unfair, slows down the economy, and I can gripe all day about whats wrong with it. Scrap it. Start with a clean sheet of paper. Use a low but flat no loopholes tax, or a national sales tax with exemtions for the necessities. (Food, medicine, rent or home mortage up to a certain cap.) Poor people spent a far greater portion of their income on necessities, so this gives them a break.

Gay marriage Popular with strong liberals, conservative democrats, (They are slightly left of center)won't go for it. Are you willing to dump that as an issue?

Slavery reparations? Popular with strong leftist, poision to the general public.

Non-drug crime. Both white collor & street crime. Are you willing to get tough on crime? Crime causes poverty as well as the other way around. If the neighborhood is bad, business leave. Anybody that can afford to leaves. The only ones left are those too poor to leave. The neighborhood goes really bad then. More police on the streets is NOT the answer. Most punks have long arrest & conviction records when they are arrested again.

National Security Hey, 9-11 did happen. It wasn't just a TV show. Some years ago terrorists release Sarin Nerve gas, (homemade) in a Japanese subway. Lots of people are angry and afraid. What plan are we going to offer? Peace speeches and pinprick missle strikes won't do the job. Some of the terrorists will only stop if they are dead.

If you are going to get the conservative Democrats on board, you are going to have to give them something, not just ask them to surrender everything that they are concerned about.

[Forkboy]

65. There's already a party that supports those beliefs

it's called the GOP.

[Silverhair]

70. Does that mean we tell the to leave the Party?

Do you remember the phenonenon called the "Reagan Democrats". That was when a lot of people who had been voting Dem left us to vote Rep. Some new Reps would say, "I never left the Democratic Party, It left me." Is that what you want?

[Forkboy]

72. I wont miss them

I've always voted Dem,not just when it's convienant.I'm considered far left and the argument that "the party left me" is just as fitting for me...yet I still vote Dem.

Fuck the Raygun Democrats....spineless,hypocritical cowards.

[Silverhair]

76. You will miss them at election time.

We are already a minority party. Do you wish us to become a marginalized party?

[Forkboy]

86. It's funny

when those on the so-called far-left say things like that they're accused of holding the party hostage.Yet Raygun Dems,who have openly admitted by the very term that they have voted Repub before and may again,say this and no one bats an eye :shrug:

[NoMoreRedInk]

87. You're right. It's because there's more of them. Both parties...

are concentrated around the center. You alienate the center, and you become politically meaningless.

[Isome]

94. Lots of Reagan Democrats...

are borderline bigots anyway. They were swayed by racist code words of the GOP then and are influenced by them now. Let them go... go... go...

[Yupster]

73. There are still some Conservative Democrats

down here, but they've been switching pretty steadily for 20 years now.

[bicentennial_baby]

66. Um

Are you sure you're a Dem?

[Silverhair]

69. Explanation is NOT advocacy.

Because I understand and know what the conservative positions are does not mean I advocate them. If he wants to join the conservative and the liberal wings of the party, he is going to have to meet the conservatives somewhere. He can't expect them to come all the way to him.

[Selwynn]

67. The "conservative" wing can go join conservatives...

..and not let the door hit them on the way out. That list is as neutral and middle of the road as the democratic party can get. If a person finds they don't agree with the majority of things on that list, then they should move on to a part that is better suited to their politics.

[Silverhair]

71. See response 65. n/t

[Silverhair]

77. Error correction , sort of

Some of the above statements indeed represent my on stance, some are merely stating the conservative Democrat position. I did not make clear which ones were which. I regret that particular confusion.

[ShaneGR]

93. Hey, that's a pretty good post

Thoughtful analysis of the issues. I like that. I don't agree with some of your premise (couple issues), but I do think that compromise is something we need to do in order to win. Carter 80', Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore gave little compromise on some serious wedge issues, they all lost.

[liberalcapitalist]

68. 1-10

1. The Iraq invasion and occupation is illegal.

There are certainly right-leaning Democrats who would disagree with this..

2. A woman (and not the state) should have control over her own body.

This one is pretty safe.

3. That the 'war on drugs' is useless and oppressive and that drug 'abusers' should be sent to treatment, not jail. ( Like Limbaugh ). It's a health/medical, not criminal problem.

This is a very leftist notion, and one that very few elected Democrats would agree with. Where do you get the idea that this is mainstream?

4. Public education is best because it serves all citizens equally, regardless of social status.

Safe.

5. Environmental and business regulation is necessary in a free country.

Safe.

6. That the Constitution / Bill of Rights should be the law of the land.

Safe... Except in the case of gun ownership, where some hardline Democrats seek to infringe.

7. The Free Press has the responsibility / duty to inform the citizenry about their government so that their votes are based on 'informed consent'.

Safe

8. The separation of church and state.

I am VERY troubled by the number of Democrats who do not seek to enforce this as strongly as it should be enforced.

9. The 'war on terrorism' is useless and oppressive and is being used by the Bush* administration and Republican party to advance their political agenda and stifle dissent.

Right-leaning Democrats would disagree.

10. That more than half the voting population doesn't vote because they've given up hope on the political system.

Sure.. But so what?

[Q]

75. Strange that the GOP isn't haven't the same problem with splinter..

...groups. It seems that they have cracked down and shoved the wishy-washy moderate conservatives out of the party. It looks like THEY ended up in the Democratic party.

- Republicans knew they could never beat Democrats in a fair election. So they set up a system to rig elections and infiltrate the Democratic party and weaken it from within. Just enough conservatives within the party to influence close votes in the houses and soften positions on traditional values.

- I had never heard any Democrat call themselves 'conservative' before the Reagan era and the great 1994 purge. Since then...conservative Democrats have demonstrated that they want to change the party into something else: a gentler version of the GOP.

- NeoDems don't seem to understand why it's 'bad' for politicos like Miller to 'cross over' and support far-right republican Bush* and still call himself a Democrat. It's like saying that being a Democrat is living a lie.

[Silverhair]

78. I have...

heard lots of Democratic candidates call themselves conservative and distance themselves from the national Party. It was in 72. They knew what was going to happen to the national ticket, and they wanted to win their elections.

[Q]

79. Well...you can see what I'm buiding up to here...

...the Democratic party's last chance is in 2004. If the party continues to move towards 'right wing lite'..continues to ignore the working class poor...continues to compromise on Democratic principles and values...I'm going independent after the next election.

- I'm beginning to believe...considering the weak opposition to the corrupt Bush* administration...that there's an unspoken agreement to let Bush* win in 2004. They need to pull a rabbit out of a hat...or once-loyal Dems are going to leave the party in droves.

[Silverhair]

84. Once loyal Dems have already left the party in droves.

In the current election in Mississippi, our guy is calling himself a "conservative independent-democrat" and has refused help from any national party members. At the level of Joe & Jane Average, they started leaving the party in droves in 72, a lot more left in the 80's, again in 94, and more in 02. None of those left because the party was too moderate.

2004 is critical. A major Bush v.2 win and we can hang it up for a generation at least. We will be marginalized, not even able to filibuster in the senate. They will complete their conquest of the court system. Most of our major victories in the past generation or so have come by the court system instead of by winning legislation. Yes, 2004 is critical. Very, very much so.

[Padraig18]

85. I agree.

You might want to reference my post #82, just for sh*ts and giggles. :hi:

[Silverhair]

88. Yes, the DLC was created to do exactly that. n/t

The Democratic party was highly competitive until 72. We have to show the voters that the hippies don't run the party anymore.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Oh, yeah "hippies"

We've got all those "hippies" in the Senate and Congress now, and they're the reason that Republicans don't vote Dem.

:crazy:

[Padraig18]

99. Be flippant, if you wish.

The facts remain unchanged that for 20 years, a minority within the party itself ruled, and voters left in droves.

[liberalcapitalist]

90. or maybe leave the country in droves

not the party, but the country

[Yupster]

96. Tax Cuts

is the glue that holds the Republican Party together.

It's the sop that the conservatives will give to the moderates.

I don't really think tere is a similar issue that brings all Democrats together like unions, women's groups and African-Americans.

[Mattforclark]

83. Check

- Can we at least agree on these issues? (In no particular order)

1. The Iraq invasion and occupation is illegal.

- I think that legality is an impossible concept to relate to war, especially when you are talking about international law. There is no clear supreme court or anything to say what the law is, and thus you have some people saying it is legal and some that it is illegal. I prefer to leave it at that. Rephrase it to 'The Iraq invasion and occupation was a bad idea' and I entirely agree.

2. A woman (and not the state) should have control over her own body.

- Yep.

3. That the 'war on drugs' is useless and oppressive and that drug 'abusers' should be sent to treatment, not jail. ( Like Limbaugh ). It's a health/medical, not criminal problem.

- Yep.

4. Public education is best because it serves all citizens equally, regardless of social status.

- Yep.

5. Environmental and business regulation is necessary in a free country.

- Yep.

6. That the Constitution / Bill of Rights should be the law of the land.

- Yep.

7. The Free Press has the responsibility / duty to inform the citizenry about their government so that their votes are based on 'informed consent'.

- Yep.

8. The separation of church and state.

- Yep.

9. The 'war on terrorism' is useless and oppressive and is being used by the Bush* administration and Republican party to advance their political agenda and stifle dissent.

- If you mean the phrase and its use as an overarching justification for anything and everything, yes. Al Qaeda & OBL are the 'enemy' (though I hesitate to use war terminology), not an abstract noun. In short, stop fooling ourselves and start protecting ourselves from real dangers.

10. That more than half the voting population doesn't vote because they've given up hope on the political system.

- Yep.

That's everything domestically and everything internationally with some slight changes of phrasing. But those are broad principles, and, of course, the devil is in the details.

[ShaneGR]

92. I agree with all of those

[Andy_Stephenson]

95. The State has no right to tell me who I can and cannot

marry.

[GOPBasher]

100. I agree with almost all of it.

I like it all, except that I do think the war on terror is important. Of course, Bush keeps calling the Iraq War part of the war on terror, which is huge lie. The Iraq war had nothing to do with terrorism.

Also, half of the people don't vote because many of them are simply apathetic. I know tons of these people myself; they simply don't realize how their elected politicians affect their lives.

I love the other 8. And I'd add another two: universal health care and a minimum wage increase. I think most of us agree with those.

[RuB]

101. 8 out of 10 is pretty good!

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes for users, no for dealers
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Hell Yes
8. Yes
9. No, and yes. The war on terrorism is very important and should be prosecuted vigorously. The Bushie cabal has abandoned the war (Afganistan) and instead has gone on a wild goose chase.
10. Yes. And laziness