Would this be a winning platform?

[BreweryYardRat]

It seems to me that this particular platform could basically guarantee a Democratic win in 2008 (assuming we clear out the voting machines):

Platform:
For free and unfettered civil rights
Anti-gun control (to a reasonable degree-no assault rifles, submachine guns, etc)
Pro-choice
For security (again, to a reasonable degree-no Patriot Act or similar crap, but more border/transport security)
Pro-environment
For tax breaks for the working man, against tax breaks for the rich
Against outsourcing
For American industry revival
Pro-education
For alternative energy research and development
Tough stance on crime
No more wars unless as an absolute last resort-diplomacy, sanctions, etc… first

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

[Clark2008]

1. Yes it's a winning platform

and, ahem... I knew a guy who ran in 2004 who matched that platform to a Tee.

:)

[Karthun]

2. need some more info

For free and unfettered civil rights

gg here, but what about civil liberties?

Anti-gun control (to a reasonable degree-no assault rifles, submachine guns, etc)

Assult rifles and submachine guns have been illegal for 70 years now. Are you going to make them doubly illegal or are you talking about the scary looking weapons ban?

Pro-choice

gg here

For security (again, to a reasonable degree-no Patriot Act or similar crap, but more border/transport security)

What about the wall between the FBI, CIA and Military Intel would you leave those in from the Patriot Act?

Pro-environment

How?

For tax breaks for the working man, against tax breaks for the rich
Against outsourcing

Explain in more detail here, how would you cut taxes and raise taxes?

For American industry revival

How?

Pro-education

Are you talking just more money or true educational reform?

For alternative energy research and development

Are you talking hydrogen, nuclear, biofuels? Just some more detail is needed.

Tough stance on crime

Explain in more deail please. What is your "Tough stance"?

No more wars unless as an absolute last resort-diplomacy, sanctions, etc… first

What is your view on helping defend our allies if they are attacked? Or are we going to wait and try "diplomacy, sanctions, etc..." while our friends die?

[welshTerrier2]

3. two major omissions

i don't agree with all the planks but might be willing to support the overall platform if you added two more major planks ...

first, the platform you posted fails to address what is probably THE MOST IMPORTANT issue facing the country ... and what is that issue?

we have lost our democracy due to massive corporate interference ... use whatever language sells best, but the corporate state that disguises itself as democracy must be destroyed ... the Democratic Party should not be anti-commerce ... but we must put an end to corporate exploitation ...

any platform that fails to address this critical issue lacks vision ...

and second? we cannot continue to waste hundreds of billions of dollars every year on corporate weapons systems that we don't need ... many of these systems have totally failed to prove their viability (e.g. the missile defense system) ... we already can destroy the entire planet many times over ... being "strong on defense" does not include senseless spending to pad the bottom line of corporate contributors ... being strong on defense means maximizing the benefits of defense dollars to those programs that genuinely make the country safer ... doing anything else makes the country weaker ...

it is time for the Democratic Party to return to its roots, stop fearing the "soft on defense" label, and do the right thing for the country ...

so, add a plank on corporate abuse of our democratic institutions and add a plank on wasteful defense spending and count me in ...

[Karthun]

5. ...

and second? we cannot continue to waste hundreds of billions of dollars every year on corporate weapons systems that we don't need ... many of these systems have totally failed to prove their viability (e.g. the missile defense system) ... we already can destroy the entire planet many times over ... being "strong on defense" does not include senseless spending to pad the bottom line of corporate contributors ... being strong on defense means maximizing the benefits of defense dollars to those programs that genuinely make the country safer ... doing anything else makes the country weaker ...

Whats your opinion on how we should replace the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, B-52, C-130 and C-141?

[welshTerrier2]

8. specifically, the missile defense program doesn't work ...

allow me to refer you to a thread i posted on this in the last day or two: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714983&mesg_id=1714983

i am not qualified to address the weapons systems you referenced ... i would support those systems that are genuinely needed to provide for the safety of the country ... if replacing the systems you listed is necessary, i support replacing them ... the problem i have with the entire military-industrial complex (to coin a phrase), is that far too much of the defense budget is nothing more than corporate welfare programs ... if we allow greedy stockholders to exploit the precious dollars we procure to defend our country, we will be a much weaker country ... and many other areas that can make a country stronger, health care, education and support for military personnel for example, may find themselves short of adequate funding ...

read the article on the failures of the missile defense program and you'll understand my position on defense spending ...

[Karthun]

11. I'm sorry...

is that far too much of the defense budget is nothing more than corporate welfare programs ...

That is incorrect, at least on a pure numbers standpoint.

61% of the military's budget is military personal (paychecks and training), operations (everything BUT Iraq and Afgainstan) and mainainance (fixing all this equipment that was designed in the 1960's or before).

[welshTerrier2]

17. FAR TOO MUCH

if you read the part of my post you highlighted, you'll see i did NOT say that a majority of the defense budget was a corporate welfare program ... assuming your stats are correct, if 61% go for personnel, operations and maintenance, then 39% still remains for hardware programs ...

and 39% of the massive military budget leaves plenty of room to support my point that FAR TOO MUCH of the defense budget is nothing more than a corporate welfare program ...

do you support spending more billions on the missile defense program? ... the scientists in the article i cited do not ...

[OneBlueSky]

6. absolutely agree about corporations . . .

one way to present it that might resonate is "Re-regulating Corporations" . . . set within a larger framework of "Restoring Citizen Authority Over Corporations" . . . (which happens to be the tag line for this website) . . . http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/ . . .

another theme that could be effective is "Abolishing Corporate Personhood" . . . I'll bet most people don't know that, legally, corporations are considered to be persons . . . and are therefore entitled to the rights and privileges accorded REAL persons (e.g. freedom of speech) . . . I'd also bet that once they learned about it, they'd consider it as ridiculous as it actually is . . .

[Karthun]

9. SARCASM

another theme that could be effective is "Abolishing Corporate Personhood" . . . I'll bet most people don't know that, legally, corporations are considered to be persons . . . and are therefore entitled to the rights and privileges accorded REAL persons (e.g. freedom of speech) . . . I'd also bet that once they learned about it, they'd consider it as ridiculous as it actually is . . .

Yes, because the legal entity known as "Democratic Underground, LLC", who is made up of natural people, does not deserve the freedom of speech.

Next you will be telling me that unions (also a legal entity) does not have the right to bargain collectivly for wages because only REAL persons can do that.

This post was filled with sarcasm.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Unfortunately the military industrial complex is a more complex

The fact is that while it's just easy to say we cut spending on weapons system that we don't need and we close down bases that we don't need, it's not so easy for the people who will loose their jobs at defense plants and will really have nowhere else to go. I'd like to get rid of the military industrial complex as much as you would but the fact is that it if it is even possible to do this, it is something that has to be done over time.

Also, to even get to the point where we can start doing this, we have to get to the point where we can overcome the GOP's propaganda that spending money on useless weapons systems = strengthening national security.

[welshTerrier2]

18. complex? OK ... but what's the alternative?

in one of my posts in this thread, i referenced an article that said:

A group of top US scientists, including nine Nobel Prize winners, called on Congress to stop funding deployment of interceptor missiles for a controversial ground-based missile defense system, saying it was incapable of defending against a real attack.

In a letter, they said the funding should be eliminated until the system can be shown to work through tests that mimic real-world conditions.

i think we should have policies that provide support (short term financial aid, job retraining or relocation, incentive grants to attract industry, etc) to workers in areas that have been heavily dependent on government programs that need to be terminated ... i agree with your point that there may be difficulties when programs are discontinued ...

but what is the alternative? it makes no sense to me to keep pouring billions of dollars into boondoggle programs ... do you agree? i mean, take the missile defense program described above ... unless we have justification to challenge the conclusions of these top scientists and Nobel Prize winners, funding for the program, because it is unlikely to ever work, should be discontinued ...

would you continue funding the program if an entire community was heavily dependent on the program knowing the program is a waste of money?

[Hippo_Tron]

19. You're preaching to the choir, but the community IS dependent on it

The money that we spend on weapons systems is an incredible waste. I would MUCH rather spend it on fixing our education system and creating socialized medicine.

Your suggestions about short term assistance for those people is a good idea, perhaps another good idea is to try and work with the industries to convert those defense plants into civillian industries.

Again, the REAL problem with ending the military industrial complex is the makeup of congress. Almost every congressman or senator has such defense plants and military bases in their districts/states and will face thousands of angry people out of a job when they run for re-election. That's not even to mention the neo-cons who run the country who are trying to make sure that their buddies in the defense industry are making huge profits.

One day (I hope) we will be able to fix this problem but it will take some time. My point is that it's not something that we should demand that our next Democratic President work to end immediately.

[gumby]

4. How about the TRUTH ?

It's never been done and never will be done.

Even Presidents don't know the TRUTH.

[NAO]

7. There is nothing in it about religion...religionists warp everything

to their perspective.

For example, you said, "pro-education".

Does that mean pro-public education? Are you going to allow people to divert their tax dollars to private religious schools? Or are you going to burden them with mandatory taxation that will go to secular big government bureaucracy administered public schools? Will they be allowed to pray, read the Bible and study creationism in those schools? and on and on.

And believe me, they can take any of your points and dissect them on similar grounds.

[Vektor]

12. That sounds a lot like Kerry's platform.

And it WAS a winner, too bad about that Diebold thing.

[sandnsea]

13. No kidding

You took the words right out of my mouth. What election was everybody else paying attention to?

:banghead:

[Vektor]

14. Not sure...

:shrug:

I was waiting for the punchline at the end of the post where they revealed it was copied from "A Call to Service."

[Dave Sund]

15. What about Health Care?

The platform looks good, but I think health care should be a part of it in some way.

[kentuck]

16. It's depends on how it is presented ...

or sold. That is more important than the platform itself, in my opinion.