WP: For Dems,a Troubling Culture Gap(study:cultural issues trump economic)

[DeepModem Mom]

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap
By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08


Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080901334.html

[bribri16]

1. That only happens when the "moralists" control all the wealth!

Rich people know they can get away with pretending to be so moral because their wealth will buy a shield from the public for them. They use this to brain wash the poor and masses into acting and voting on behalf of the wealthy. Rove is good.

Example: Rush Limbaugh and his drug addiction.
Abortions: What wealthy woman doesn't have access to a Dr. who will admit her to the hospital for a "D&C" or who won't perform an abortion in private?

[libhill]

2. Idiots

n/t

[Tesha]

3. Given that we'll always be tarred with these issues...

Given that we'll always be tarred with these issues, maybe, *JUST MAYBE*
the best thing we could do is *AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND* the idea of equal
rights for everyone, regardless of race, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, religion, etc.

The problem right now is that the Republicans are making it perfectly
okay to discriminate, and the Democrats are too cowardly to stand up
and say "That's wrong! That's BULLSHIT! THat's *UN-AMERICAN!*.

It's time the Democrats did that again. And if a few "Democrats" can't
agree with this basic principle, it's time for those "Democrats" to
overtly change their allegiance to the Neo-Con party.

Tesha

[magellan]

10. Tesha, I couldn't agree with you more

"The problem right now is that the Republicans are making it perfectly okay to discriminate, and the Democrats are too cowardly to stand up and say "That's wrong! That's BULLSHIT! THat's *UN-AMERICAN!*."

And I couldn't say it any better than that right there!

[Francine Frensky]

124. I think you are both wrong. Here's why:

you need first to accept the fact that the MAJORITY of americans don't want to hear about gay people. Period. Just accept that simple fact and remember this one: to get elected, you need the vote of the MAJORITY of the people.

What the democrats need to do is stress the parts of the democratic agenda that are judeo-christian (and there are many out there, such as helping the poor, taking care of the environment, etc). There's been no emphasis on any of that in the past few elections.

Think about it: Does bush sit around and give speeches saying how important it is to give tax breaks to the wealthy?? NO, of course not! We all know that's what he DOES, but it's not what he SAYS. That's what the dems need to do: talk up the good stuff on the agenda, and don't take the bait dangled by Karl Rove and get into arguments about gay rights. It's just a loser issue.

[Lorien]

12. Perhaps the best defense is a good offense

we have no unified message; they do. We don't have an army of talking heads in the media; they do.Our party no longer has a clear definition of what it stands for; theirs does. I don't think it's the issues themselves that make the difference; it's how well we communicate OUR values, and how aggressively we "sell" them. Our silence has implied consent for too long. The DLC keeps pushing us to adopt their "values; those of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry. Strong family units? Bull-Red states have far higher divorce rates than Blue states. We need to hammer them with such facts. It's time to stop reacting, it's time to take the offensive against these anti-American knuckledraggers!

[librechik]

27. obviously we have a unified message-- they are tarring us with it!

and there is NOTHING WRONG with who we are, just because a bunch of overprivileged narrowminded racist bigots bought the media and fooled the masses. We have to celebrate who we are without fear, and discover that we outnumber those hypocritical assholes by many millions.

TEACH THEM A LESSON! Idiots.

[Lorien]

32. We do? Tell that to the DLC

I see flame wars on this board all the time; among our members are those who are anti-choice, pro-NRA, anti-gay marriage, anti affirmative action, anti animal rights, uncaring about the environment, anti-union...you name it. Even the DLC has advised Dem leaders to back down on gay and reproductive rights.

We once had a unified message, but it's been missing of late.

[Bgno64]

42. Look, there's only one way

... to respond to this, and I can't believe the Democrats have missed it thus far:

With Liberty and justice FOR ALL

ALL men are created equal.

The founding documents of this country are inclusive - let the right argue that there shouldn't be liberty and justice for all, they have to be backed into that corner - "Mr. Santorum, are you saying that you don't believe in liberty and justice for all?"

[Tesha]

43. Unfortunately, this idea still shocks many people.

> Look, there's only one way to respond to this, and I can't believe the
> Democrats have missed it thus far:
>
> With Liberty and justice FOR ALL

Unfortunately, this idea still shocks many people. It's amazing how
often it's derided even here on DU.

Tesha

[Bgno64]

49. Yeah, well

...that's the problem.

The only way you beat people who wrap themselves in the flag is to force them to argue against the Democratic ideal, which they constantly do - it just has to be pointed out, effectively.

[AlGore-08.com]

59. Sorry, I gotta do a little call back to 2000

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=84

Speech Transcript: Al Gore Rally at Wayne State University
Saturday, 14 October 2000

(snip)

Gore: It means that when there is discrimination on the basis of race, or ethnicity, or national origin, or who you select as your partner, we have to stand for what is right and what we know in our hearts. In the words of our Founders, who said all of us are created equal, and given by God certain rights that are inalienable. Not given by the government, given by our Creator. That's what I believe.

(more... )

[DeepModem Mom]

69. Thanks for this post, Bgno64 -- welcome to DU!

[Daphne08]

127. Our party used to stand for the rights of working Americans.

That is a good unified message!

[cpamomfromtexas]

84. How about attack the hypocrites

I left a church where they were too gung ho about the war. I squared off with one preacher (of course he'd never been in the military nor was he signing up HIS 19 year old). I guess they think just praying (or PLAYING Christian) about other people's kids in the warzone is good enough.

My definition of a republican, they send OTHER PEOPLES kids to war.

On another hypocritical note, why aren't these so called Christians generous with their time, talent, money, or even empathy? I was told the other day, a billionaire goes to our church. One look at the weekly giving and that doesn't stack up. Must have been their Bentley I parked next to in the parking lot.

Just goes to show you rich people don't do jack without their name plastered on it. Whatever happened to giving or praying in secret as the Bible mentions?

While I'm on a roll, why is stealing the food off someone else's table when you export their job or bust their union a good thing? I think that is the epitome of IMMORAL. And why is it ok for a sports figure to have negotiators on their behalf and not working people? To date NO ONE has ever been able to refute this.

I guess the major problem with these FAKE CHRISTIANS is they don't know what the Bible really teaches. They hate so much, they can't possibly evangelize.

[Zhade]

85. Damn fine post.

I agree 100%!

[blindpig]

95. they hate us for our gutlessness

A revitalized New Deal along with a show of standing up for our principles would go far with a lot of these folks.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and -->

...disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky.

Now THERE's a representative sampling of America. </sarcasm>

[fishnfla]

34. Its not suppossed to be a representative sampling of America

Did you read the article? They are sampling rural, lesser educated poor people. Folks for whom economic issues should trump cultural issues, and folks who have traditionally in the past leaned Dem.

Even folks who are not happy with the president wont vote Dem. It sucks to be below that POS on the totem pole

[rodeodance]

115. yuk--sorry to WI in this study!

[endarkenment]

5. The Democratic Leadership

abandoned economic issues, prefering instead to work in lockstep with their corporatist cousins over on the republican side to reframe all issues from a corporatist view - eliminating progressive traditional Democratic Party programs and solutions from the discussion. So we are the corporatist pro-abortion pro-gay party. We offer no distintion other than that to the vast red zone population.


"Democrats are not as engaged as they should be on the economic issues that face tens and tens of millions of people," says Sanders. "That's what the Republicans have been playing off. The Republicans jump in and say, 'OK, look. Democrats are not talking about your economic issues. We're not either, but at least we're telling you about the Ten Commandments, we're telling you about abortion, we're telling you about gay rights.' The biggest mistake Democrats make is to take economics off the table."

Being Like Bernie - The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050815&c=1&s=nichols

[GOPBasher]

6. Well, when everyone goes bankrupt, maybe they'll change their

minds. :banghead:

[Connie_Corleone]

7. Who cares if the country is being destroyed by Republicans...

We gotta stop those homosexuals from getting married and make sure women keep having babies until they can't have no more!!

We may not have jobs, healthcare and money to save, but DAMMIT, we'll still have our "morals"!!

:sarcasm:

[GOPBasher]

8. Exactly.

That's exactly what's going on in this country. Maybe things just have to get worse before they get better.

[xxqqqzme]

38. I fear U R both right.

Only recently have I reluctantly come 2 this conclusion as well. It is going 2 have 2 collapse B4 these neo-kons R taken down.

[nookiemonster]

61. And they bring up these stupid wedge issues,

while we're at war!

They are hiding from this quagmire in Iraq.

Too bad. They own it.

[Cha]

91. Steve Bradenton's view

of bush's hole up at the pig farm..

[Brooklyn Michael]

9. Wait....Democrats bewildered...

"Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among...less-educated voters"

Uh....I think that answers your question, guys....

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :banghead: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[Teaser]

11. The solution is not political

It is social. This is a problem caused by the dominance of conservative fundamentalist Christianity among uneducated whites. The most encouraging trend I've read lately is that, as an umbrella term, neo-paganism is the fastest growing religious bloc in the country. Not that I necessarily have any interest in said group, but if that trend holds up, there will be a significant counter-weight against the Christian fundamentalist block.

But it will take a generation.

[kevsand]

16. If we've got to wait for neo-paganism to offer a significant

counterweight to fundamentalist christianity, it's going to take longer than a generation. They already had this fight about a millennium ago, it took about five hundred years, and the good guys lost. Nothing against the old ways, but this country will go secular before it goes pagan. And don't hold your breath on either one in our lifetimes.

The only way to counter the fundies is to shine the light on them. They're not christians, they're not moral, they're not even particularly bright. They're evil, hateful, spiteful, stupid, greedy agents of darkness, just like the Inquisition and the Crusaders before them.

In order for Americans to believe in freedom and the Constitution again, we need to work real hard to improve the quality of our schools. Give everyone a decent education, and most of them will be able to rise above the short-sighted biases of their parents and teachers.

[Teaser]

48. Not just neopaganism

but there is a growing non-Christian constituency in this country. The irreligious and anti-religious as well as the neoreligious. But it will take a long time.

And I don't think neopaganism can ever be referred to as "the old ways." It was pretty clearly dreamed up in the 1940s/1950s and has as much to do with old school paganism as does marxism.

[kevsand]

58. You're right.

I stand corrected. And yes, when you combine them with secularism and everything else (including legitimate Christianity) there are a fair number of folks in opposition to the fundies. And yes, it will take a long time. We can't afford to wait. We have to accelerate the process by standing up to the bullies.

[DFWdem]

50. You proved the article right with your post

Original post said, in part,:

"Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them..."'anti-religious"
You said:

They already had this fight about a millennium ago, it took about five hundred years, and the good guys lost.
The only way to counter the fundies is to shine the light on them. They're not christians, they're not moral, they're not even particularly bright. They're evil, hateful, spiteful, stupid, greedy agents of darkness, just like the Inquisition and the Crusaders before them.

You say the pagans and christians fought 1,000 years ago and the good guys, i.e. pagans, lost, implying that the christians are the bad guys. Not content with that, you then say christians are evil, hateful, stupid, etc. Certainly some of them are. However, did it ever occur to you that a large number of the people Democrats need to persuade, according to the original post, i.e. poor whites in rural areas, consider themselves christians? How would you react to someone telling you that you should change your beliefs because currently you are a stupid, evil, greedy, spiteful agent of darkness? After that opening salvo, how receptive would you be to the rest of their message?

[kevsand]

60. I did nothing of the sort.

You misquoted me horribly. I never said anything about all Christians. I referred specifically to the fundies (by which I obviously meant the religious right), the Crusaders, and the Inquisition. None of them can be considered to have followed the teachings of Christ.

When I speak of what happened 500 and 1,000 years ago, I was referring (in part) to the Burning Time. Are you defending the immolation of innocents in the name of God? Are you saying that the Crusaders and the Inquisition and the witch hunters were the good guys?

I think I'll stand by my remarks, at least for now.

There are lots of real Christians in the world, and in this country, and a lot of them are progressive. They are already working actively to counter the sinister work of the religious right, and they need our help.

Of course I wouldn't walk up to Joe Ruralvoter and speak to him the same way that I vent here. I never said I would. Don't be stupid, and don't assume that I am. I live in a rural village of barely 200 people. I was raised in a Southern Baptist church. I've been a communications major, as well as a union official, and I've spent most of my adult life working with and for both grassroots social change non-profits and local political campaigns. I've learned a little bit about how to talk to people (although you can't always tell that by my posts here - sorry).

What I said was that we should use education and reason to shine the light on the fundie gospel. That will also involve identifying our common values (fairness, justice, compassion, love of country and family and yes, God) and demonstrating by both word and deed that there is a better way than what they've been sold.

It will also require that Democrats figure out how to talk to both me and the poor rural whites who've been so horribly misled so often. That will require precision of speech and passion in the telling. It will also require a scrupulous attention to detail and the facts.

I think we're probably closer together on this than you assumed...

[DFWdem]

63. Sorry, wasn't my intent

But when you say you were referring only to the fundies, i.e. religious right, that is a pretty large group. Obviously the Inquisition and witch burners were not the good guys but the way you worded it, i.e. pagans as the good guys, implied the other side was the bad guys. Maybe they were, but it wouldn't play well today to put it in those terms because most people will say "what does that have to do with me?".

The thing the Democratic party has failed to realize is that to a large number of voters money isn't the most important thing to many people. Rural voters aren't worried about whether they can afford the new Gucci handbag or the 2005 BMW. They want a roof over their head, food for their family, and some spare money to go to the movies, hunting, camping, etc. If the only voices they hear emanating from the left are those that scream no god in the public square, traditional families aren't important, people of faith are ignorant, etc, they will understandably be turned off.

Howard Dean said we should reach out to religious people. The thing is, I believe people are smart enough to know when someone sincerely respects their beliefs or if they're just being pandered to. For example, say we reach out to some religious voters and they are interested in our message. They decide to look into the current Democratic party a little further, do a little research on the web, and run across this site. They then proceed to read some posts and see that say they're dumb, they're ignorant, they're not real christians, etc., but we sure could use their votes. What do you think their impression will be?

You're correct, we're pretty close in opinion on this issue, but I think we should be inclusive rather than tolerant. Tolerant implies we don't like it but we'll put up with it. Inclusive implies that we accept it.

[kevsand]

70. I see your point.

And I pretty much agree. I suspect that anyone who gets this far in their searches possibly would recognize the true targets of my rant, but I probably still need to be more measured (or at least more precise) in the expressions of my frustration.

I also apologize for my use of the 'S' word. I'm constantly trying to explain to my daughter why the word 'stupid' is an incredibly blunt tool that should only be used in the most extreme (and narrowest) of circumstances, but it still slips out of me now and then when my blood pressure ticks upward. It probably crossed a line, and I regret that.

[DFWdem]

73. Quite alright

No need to apologize to me. I wasn't offended. I'd just like to see a return to civil discourse. I think we'll do better if we accentuate the positives of our message rather than focusing on the negatives of theirs.

On edit: One wouldn't have to look very hard to find DU. Go to google and search "democratic". This site is the 2nd link returned.

[karynnj]

25. Don't hold your breath

They are the fastest growing, partially because they were a very small group. 1% growth of 50 million is much much bigger than 10% of 100,000 - all made up numbers to illustrate the point. It will take more than a generation.

What does work to your favor is the the likelihood of accepting gays (gay marriage or civil unions) is better predicted by age than by party. The young of each party are more accepting than the elderly in each party. (ie young people who identify as Republicans are far more likely to be tolerant of gays than elderly Democrats.

Oddly, though the social issues clearly hurt the Democrats, over the last several decades there has been a very large movement to the left on these issues. (Might just be things are more out in the open - I had to look "homosexuality" up in the dictionary when I was reading a book about Elizabethean England - this was as a hs student in the middle 60s. My hs daughter and a friend (at roughly the same age) catching up on the local gossip after a vacation - mentioned a gay couple breaking up in the same sentence as a straight couple.

[YvonneCa]

99. Two points...

...1) I totally agree with your description of the source of the problem. After November, 2004, I decided that we have to focus on educating the public about issues (whether they want to be educated about them or not). And I don't mean a "school" education, I mean grassroots education. Each of us Democrats, in our families can no longer just let ignorant thought and remarks slide because we don't want to offend. We MUST speak out, calmly, rationally, and with great love...for this is about taking care of our country and our families, long-term. We are the ones who have to teach about the 3 branches of government (2/3 can't name them),the benefits of Social Security, why the Supreme Court is a big deal, etc. We need to do political grassroots work, too, but the one-on-one is critical.

2) There is a great article in the August 1st issue of Harper's Magazine called "The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong" by Bill McKibben. It's worth the read.:patriot:

[RaRa]

13. Gee, think it's time to reframe the argument?

What's so moral about 1 in 5 children living in poverty? God, can we please get som leaders to show the fucking inmorality of Republican economics? I am so sick of the complete lack of concern about fellow man in this country.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Exactly!

Take it to them. Quit allowing them to frame the debate and set the terms. Start pointing out, without equivocating, how GOP policies are anything but family-friendly. Talk about privacy and the right of individuals to make personal decisions for their own families, not have the government do so.

We could win these arguments if we stop playing defense and allowing them to set the terms. We really do have the moral high ground.

[anotherdrew]

40. They dont CARE that they live in poverty, 'pride' is their meal every day

'pride' here really means self-esteem, which they derive from their pack-mule like ability to work for chump change. Democrats promising to make the poor rich isn't going to move these folks one inch. ("democrats say they gonna make us all rich" is EXACTLY what they hear)

They dont CARE that they live in poverty, their pride won't let them aspire to anything more. They've accepted fully they they "don't have much money" and don't expect or even want it to ever change.

[GOPBasher]

77. You said that perfectly, RaRa. Amen to that! n/t

[phiddle]

14. We need to reframe all of these issues

as individual PRIVACY rights. "Get the government out of the bedroom, out of family life, and out of religion." This would link the suspicion of the government, so prevalent among these types, to the side of the issues which we favor.
Right now the frame---moral vs immoral---is being set by the right wing, and the result is that the fundies become the shock troops for the corporatist right wing. If we can get some of them to see it in terms of individual rights, rather than as public policy, they will be more receptive to the economic argument.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

52. Good idea...

This would steer moderate republicans in the left direction, too.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. That's because we don't frame the other side as immoral

THe Dems could have used Jesus' embracing of Mary Madeliene (who was the sinner of her time) and his rejection of false prophets if they wanted to play dirty but they didn't.

[karynnj]

26. you can't attack the dominant faith

I can't think of a worse strategy than to attack Jesus. First off, as a non Christian I am offended and also thing that there enough bad things about the Republicans to attack.

[Demeter]

28. Sorry, But Mary Magdelene Won't Work

first, she's female, second, she's beyond the pale. Stick to the Un-American, unChristian aspects of the Right wing. Don't go off topic.

[MN ChimpH8R]

17. What a bunch of morans

I have nothing but contempt for these imbeciles. They are chickens enthusiastically voting for Colonel Sanders. If they want to cut their own economic throats and bleed out all in the name of minding other peoples' business, let 'em. Maybe someday a few will wise up, but I don't hold a lot of hope for it. Once the Jeebus blinders are welded on, they're almost impossible to hammer off.

Asshats.

[Sparkly]

18. That's what 30 years of catapulted GOP propaganda has wrought.

And they've been able to catapult like crazy over the past five years.

[otohara]

20. The GOP Is Doing Such A Bang Up Job on Defense

Unfortunately these dems sound like they've been watching too much CNN and reading old poll numbers. They are just going with what they've heard.

[xchrom]

21. then stand up and fight for leftist ideals!

BE the party of the left -- dig in and fight for the kind of ideals that win converts, labour rights, equal rights and yes that dreaded wealth distribution.

thee's no SENSE in shying away from what you are -- if you do people will smell it as a weakness and shy away from you.

[MiniMandaRuth]

22. I wonder how much of it is right wing hate spew 24/7, tv and radio.

I would like to see a survey of attitudes in an area that has a history of progressive media, such as Air America.

I know they want laws forbidding gays to marry, but what if that includes privatization (elimination) of social security, no minimum wage laws, no laws regulating hours worked or even laws regulating minors in the workforce, privatization of our highways and police force, free markets on water and electricity (meaning higher rates, hell, whatever the market will bear), because that is where the pukes want to take us.

Do they have any idea what they are voting for?

[anotherdrew]

41. "Do they have any idea what they are voting for?" No. No they don't

Bullshit entertainment shows designed to fool people into thinking they're informed is a big part of the problem. Talk radio right or left is worthless for informing people, it can only be used to propagandize people.

[patcox2]

23. There is a lesson here.

The democratic party was the majority party as long as its core mission and core message was economic justice for all people.

But over time, the democratic party became the "interest group" party, controlled by a group of extremely narrow advocacy groups. Each of these causes is indeed worthy, but people who are zealously pursuing a narrow interest are often easy to depict as crazies, adn thus marginalize, and thats what has happened to the democratic party. The core message of economic justice, the one common message that crosses boundaries, is now completely lost, and instead we are the cartoonish party of gay marriage, gun control, spotted owls, snail darters, and affirmative action.

NPR recently did an interview with the ex-president of the Sierra Club who announced that he no longer wishes to be known as an environmentalist, because he believes narrow interest group politics is harming the progressive cause as a whole. He now wishes to be known as a progressive only.

He's right, and this poll shows why.

[BootinUp]

45. I pretty much agree.

But in addition we need some new language for describing some of our core beliefs that is appealing to the voters we are trying to pull back into the fold. It should include the importance of personal responsibility, just find other ways to encourage it (instead of draconian laws that the repukes favor).

[losdiablosgato]

46. Here, here.

You are so right. If the party would go neutral on guns, and hammer a popularist message on the economy they would start making gains. But as long as the average bubba sees the party a the fringe left we will lose. We need a moderating in 2008.

[patcox2]

But our "moderates" (the DLC) are doing it backwards

They are going to the center on economic issues, pro-business, anti-worker all the way (Clinton "reformed" welfare), while they cling to the losing "social liberal" stuff.

Its the precise formula for disaster.

We need to go moderate in precisely the opposite way, economically liberal (prgressive taxation, social security, universal healthcare) but socially more nuetral. We don't need to be the party of selling out workers while fighting for gays rights and gun control. We need to be the party of fighting for the working class, period, whether gay or straight, gun owner or not, churchgoer or non-beleiver.

We could retain some of our social liberalism with a more libertarian approach, get the government out of your bedroom. This seems to be working for some western governers and state representatives, who may just be showing the way.

[losdiablosgato]

71. That formula would make us competitive in the south.

Without a solid south the rethugs can't win.

[President Kerry]

116. no, that formula will sell us out.. worker's rights are all well and good

There's only one problem. They apply 8-5. After 5pm, if you're gay in a red state, tough shit. Why should we modify our values to cater to people many of whom arent even thinking independently but getting brainwashed by Limbaugh?

[ckramer]

114. "We need to be the party of fighting for the working class, period"

Excellent point.

I think the democratic party has totally forgotten its original mission - it's not about gay or straight, gun owner or not, churchgoer or non-beleiver. A gay could be a republican, so could a gun owner, a churchgoer.

It is about fighting for working class, which democratic party has precisely failed to do in last decade or so.

Thank you for pointing out the direction of democratic party.

[Larkspur]

24. Thomas Frank talks about this gap in his book "What's the matter with

Kansas?" http://www.tcfrank.com/

Dems created this gap when they abandoned blue collar and low income workers for corporate donors.

Howard Dean is working hard to counter this gap, but the DLC clowns want to keep that gap growing.

[fishnfla]

36. He has a great discussion: what defines American culture anyway?

which goes to the heart of the "framing the debate" argument

[Megahurtz]

65. Amen, Sistah.

I think you're right.:(

[Puzzler]

29. Actually...

... Dems can get away with running on economic issues, as long as they are strong issues with strong no-bullshit solutions that are important to most Americans. For example, in my opinion, the one economic issue that the Dems have that can trump all others is Universal Heath Care. In other words health car for ALL Americans. No pussy-footing around the issue for half-solutions, but give Americans a bold clear choice at the voting booth... in bold clear language. Sure, the Repugs and the insurance industry will scream blue murder, and so will some uninformed regular voters. But, think about it, the issue doesn't even need to be framed, all Dems need to do is to come down solidly behind the issue of Health Care for ALL... AND SAY SO!!!



-P

[Jackpine Radical]

30. LAKOFF LAKOFF LAKOFF LAKOFF

Go read George Lakoff, dammit. This result is entirely predictable to anyone who has read Lakoff.

Lakoff even gives the beginnings of an answer.

Namecalling does not help. It helps to know the basic mental set of the people supporting conservative values.

It helps to know how to structure messages so they don't bounce off the pre-existing mental structures.

Gingrich & co. discovered 25 years ago how to build mental structures in the masses that are resistant to any kind of factual assault. We need to begin at the beginning & learn how to permeate, modify, or accommodate our messages to these structures. No amount of whining is gonna help.

[flaminbats]

64. ahh yes...the art of brainwashing

Why do people believe in an all powerful God who rules in an invisible heaven, who created Adam and Eve, and had a son who rose from the dead? Why do people believe liberals are immoral baby killing freaks who believe in high taxes, freeing criminals, and in teaching all school children to be perverted?

Strange that people can believe in an afterlife, but refuse to believe that protecting the environment will benefit us all. Strange that people believe national healthcare is nothing more than rationing of medicine, but that trial lawyers are responsible for the booming cost of healthcare.

What is sane and insane in the world we live in?

[brainshrub]

136. Lakoff isn't brainwashing.

Lakoff's is right. Conservatives aren't better administrators than Liberals. The difference is that the RW knows how to frame the issue.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bushisanidiot]

37. I don't like the way gays are depicted on t.v. either. They're are mostly

negative depictions and don't reflect reality at all.

the repukes have to lie, cheat and steal to win. last year, as with every election year, they lied about how gay marriage will destroy "the sanctity of marriage".. as if "who wants to marry a millionaire", "the bachelor", "wife swap", etc. doesn't hurt "the sanctity of marriage" at all. the repukes simply want special rights for heterosexuals forever, and they are willing to destroy the constitution to get that change made permanently.

we are the party of equal rights for all. the repukes have simply tried to demonize gays to appeal to their gay-hating base so that they'd put down their beers long enough to get out and vote.

the states should not be allowed to vote discrimination into their laws... it's unconstitutional.

besides, AWOL Bush and his butt-boy Jeff Gannon are as gay as the day is long, so it's totally hypocritical for him to be pretending that he's anti-gay. but then again, the rich gay repukes have the money to protect themselves, so they don't need equal rights. their money is all they care about.

[Ambrose]

44. I agree with some of what you say

but I believe that this is the fight that are giving the pukes the most "moral" base.

My only point is that a large portion of America isn't on the side of redefining 'marriage' et. al. and that costs us in elections.

[bushisanidiot]

47. The repukes have tried to claim "moral" victory, when they are the

party of no morals. This is the message that we need to spread.. the repukes lie, cheat and steal to win. They are anti-welfare, anti-fair-wage, anti-labor, anti-universal-life-insurance, anti-public-school, anti-anti-anti.. the list goes on. They are the party of rich, white, christian, heterosexual males.. which is NOT the majority of america. They do NOT reflect american values in any way. They have lost in the are of "morals", but since they've framed the debate into a very narrow field which is that "gay marriage advocates hate america" they have given the appearance of winning to those who haven't bothered to do any research into the repuke party's REAL moral values.

the key is those who frame the debate, win the debate. turning against gay democrats and conceding on gay marriage is what will DESTROY our party. every time the freeptard/repukes bring up gay marriage, we need to bring up the LARGE numbers of poor people in this country who were NOT poor before the repukes stole the white house. don't even let them talk about the gay issue.. it's ALL they have.. they hide behind it because they KNOW they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to other issues americans care about.

so i agree to take gay marriage off the table in terms of not letting them even debate it. That does not equal CONCEDING to them on the issue and pretending that gay marriage is wrong.

[Tesha]

54. We don't support "non-traditional sexual values", we simply...

> We should hold that all people should be treated equally, but by
> supporting non-traditional sexual values to be a value of our party
> we have driven away a broad spectrum of support. I contend that this
> has caused the drifting away for democrats much more than issues like
> abortion.

We don't support "non-traditional sexual values" per se, we simply
support the idea that *SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING, YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO CERTAIN RIGHTS* and we don't abridge those rights because
of any personal characteristic you posess.

When you start to debate whether (e.g.) gays should be accorded the
same rights as "the rest of us", you've shifted the debate to the
ground where the Republicans wanted you to go: the turf where it's
okay to separate people into classes and give better rights to some
folks in some classes.

*DON'T GO THERE!*

Just stand here on the firm Democratic ground that *EVERYONE GETS
THE SAME RIGHTS*, rich or poor, black or white, man or woman,
straight or gay, Christian or atheist, etc., etc.

Tesha

[Ambrose]

57. Your argument is valid

and my objective was to state that democrats would win in landslides if this cause wasn't in the agenda. Right or wrong, it is society today.

So, we tilt at windmills for what is right, or we try to represent the majority and do what is right when in power. As it stands today, the pukes are trashing the rights of everyone but riding the "moral" tide that shouldn't even be theirs to stand on.

[renaissanceguy]

55. Some people feel uncomfortable around blacks and Muslims.

Does this mean that we shouldn't show them on TV? Better yet, maybe we should confine them to their homes.

Apparently, the problem is not the problem with gays... it's about people's attitudes toward gays. We haven't done you any harm. All we want is to be left alone and allowed to live our lives with our families. What's so radical about that?

[Ambrose]

56. That is my point, actually

That the perception is that gays don't want to be left alone, but that they want to be in the spotlight. If that is true or not, I have no idea.

My comments were not racial in any way. Gay, isn't a race. My point was that the average person does not support elevating non-traditional sexual roles. I am not arguing if that is a valid way to feel or not. Rather, what I was pointing out is that this "moral" issue (if you want to call it that) is, IMHO, the root of where democrats loose the issues present at the start of this topic.

You are correct, that it is peoples attitudes towards gays (and whatever other sexual orientation one can come up with) and that is where many a vote lean toward the pukes.

In the past election the gay-marriage issue was too radical for too many people. As unfortunate as it is, that is how society exists today.

[kevsand]

74. You've bought into the perception.

As long as you do that, you can't win. You have to shift the paradigm. Your failure to see that discrimination against gays is morally equivalent to discrimination against blacks or muslims speaks volumes.

This isn't about "elevating" non-traditional sexual roles. The Repubs want everyone to think that, but it's a lie, and we can never allow them to get away with it.

This is the same nonsense that I heard in the sixties during the civil rights movement. "Blacks want special treatment." "Blacks want all the power for themselves." It was deliberate misdirection then, and it still is now. We can never change the perceptions so long as we tacitly accept the lies.

The pisser of it is, when the issue is framed as civil rights and equal treatment under the law, the majority in this country agrees with us. This doesn't have to be a losing issue for us, but it will be so long as we fail to counter the spin. And I, for one, am not prepared to tell anyone that they must be condemned to be second class citizens in the interests of misperceived political expediency.

[Ambrose]

76. It will be a very tough sell

and will take a very powerful speaker to make the presentation stick. I don't think I've heard anyone do that well enough yet. If it can be done then that is fine with me.

As far as this issue equating with the civil rights of blacks; I don't think it even falls in the same ballpark. I don't think it is fair to equate skin pigment with hormonal urges. Also, a gay person is not treated today the way like a black person was in the 60's.

I for one would not choose to allow the pukes to maintain power just to support the values of a small sexual minority. I am also convinced that if the whole gay marriage debate hadn't bubbled up last year then John Kerry would be President today.

[kevsand]

79. Where, oh where to begin?

"It will be a very tough sell and will take a very powerful speaker to make the presentation stick. I don't think I've heard anyone do that well enough yet. If it can be done then that is fine with me."

It's not a tough sell at all. The majority already agrees with us when it's phrased as a civil rights/equal treatment under the law issue.

"As far as this issue equating with the civil rights of blacks; I don't think it even falls in the same ballpark. I don't think it is fair to equate skin pigment with hormonal urges. Also, a gay person is not treated today the way like a black person was in the 60's."

We're not equating skin color with sex. We're equating the treatment of citizens who are human beings. It's not the condition that's equal, it's the discrimination against any condition, regardless of its motive. And if you think gays aren't treated like blacks, then you've never tried to get a job or rent an apartment or buy a house as either a black or a gay. Tell the families of the gays who are beaten to death in this country that the problem isn't that bad.

"I for one would not choose to allow the pukes to maintain power just to support the values of a small sexual minority. I am also convinced that if the whole gay marriage debate hadn't bubbled up last year then John Kerry would be President today."

It's not the "values of a small sexual minority." It's the values of the entire country. It's the Bill of Rights, and English common law, and Christian ethics, and the fundamental sense of equity and fairness that the majority of Americans share. Your comment screams that you have bought into the false perceptions and misleading frames hook, line, and sinker. Your biases are showing.

I'm not even going to touch the comment about Kerry until you show me even one state that went from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004 as a result of an anti-gay referendum or anti-gay sentiment expressed in exit polls. I would stand back though, because there are any number of people at DU who will be more than happy to explain to you their own theories of why Kerry lost.

[Ambrose]

80. I disagree with some of your comments

The majority may agree with equal rights for all, but the question is does "marriage" (for example) constitute a right? I'm not sure what phrasing you are referring to.

As far as I know, there is no questions on applications for jobs asking a persons sexual yearnings. Nor have I seen anything like that asked when renting apartments. In fact, when I rented years ago it was against the rules to have a room mate of the opposite sex but one of the same sex was ok. I'm buying and selling a house right now and it has been expressed clearly that it is against the law to descriminate against seller or buyer. I also think that most people would agree that violence against anyone is repugnant.

Unfortunately, it is for most people an issue of values vs. sexual desires. I have not had to "buy into" any perceptions framed by any group. I am saying what I hear in my community, and what my own perception is. I admit that I am bias in this account, but it is not because of any political agenda and certainly not because of any tribal god-image religion. And whatever the term that you would tie to me, I still find myself turning away when an image of gay kissing is shown on television.

Gore lost states he could have won if he hadn't been stupid (read worst debates ever). However, the point is that Kerry wasn't stupid and lost states that he could have won IF he hadn't been tied to this issue. Case-in-point; Missouri. Kerry had a real shot here but pulled out and let the "morals" issue win over.

Having said this, I still stand my my contention that this issue drags down the party and gives the pukes an issue they don't deserve to have.

[kevsand]

82. I think I'm done here,

since I'm obviously not going to be able to show you how unethical and undemocratic your statements are. Every defense you've offered is couched in the language and the mindset that promotes the politics of division and hate, and refuses to see the true underlying issues.

The question I was raising was not whether marriage is a right, although there is probably another entire discussion that could revolve around that. The point I was making is that the majority of Americans agree that gay couples should have the same treatment under the law as married couples in regards to survivorship, guardianship, health benefits, etc. That's the fairness issue that most people understand and agree with. A truly fair system would allow gay marriage as well, but we've got to start somewhere, and the public already understands equal treatment under the law.

No questions on job apps ask about race, either. Discrimination is rarely so stupid these days as to commit itself to documentation. As to housing, it is only some local laws that sometimes prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It's not just state by state, but in many cases town by town. Most of the country still lacks these protections, or this wouldn't be such an issue. Your naivete on this score is breathtaking. Where do you think blacks or other minorities would be today if they hadn't starting standing up for their rights forty or fifty years ago? How long do you expect gays and lesbians to wait until we consider them equal citizens?

And yes, most people would agree that violence is abhorrent, but that didn't stop the murders of blacks for decades, or of gays today. Once again you've completely missed the point. Discrimination is flat out wrong, no matter what the reason, and anyone who supports discrimination even tacitly is an un-American bigot by definition.

Quite frankly, I don't care where your biases came from, but I will fight with my dying breath to keep them from being adopted by the Democrats.

I have to go away for awhile now and calm down, before I say something I'll really regret. Sorry...

[Ambrose]

83. Sorry

you feel I am filled with 'hate.' Nothing I have said is hateful. Also, I am surely naive but the discrimination you site is something I have not seen. Nor have I read about mass killing of gays.

Now, I realize you are upset for some reason, but calling me un-American is what I would expect a puke to say not a democrat. You have obviously completely missed my point as well.

[kevsand]

86. I never said you were filled with hate.

I said that your language parallels that of the hatemongers. Whether you arrived at it independently or borrowed it from some common source is irrelevant. I've said nothing about your emotional state, only that your language plays out on a turf of the other side's choosing.

I never said anything about mass killing of gays or blacks. I'm talking about murder, which is both individual and personal. I haven't even gotten to the widespread non-fatal violence that occurs daily in this country.

And I never called you un-American. What I said is that discrimination, and anyone who supports it, is un-American. Do you disagree with that statement?

[Ambrose]

88. Actually discrimination is all too American.

Unfortunately.

[kevsand]

90. I reject that construction.

I believe that it's a sloppy use of language, not to mention a little bit lazy. I don't mean that to be insulting or taken personally, but here is how I think it parses:

Discrimination does not spring from the founding principles or documents or covenants upon which the country and its form of government are ostensibly based. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," and all that. (Yes, I know only white male property owners were allowed to vote originally. We changed that. It was wrong, and didn't fit in with the rest, so we fixed it.) In that sense, discrimination is not American.

We are not the only place on earth where discrimination has taken place, or continues to take place. That means that discrimination is not unique to America, and in that sense, discrimination is not American.

Discrimination does not fit in with the ethical underpinnings of the largest religious group in the country, or for that matter with any of the religious groups in the country. If we are in fact a Christian nation (or more accurately a religious nation), then in that sense, discrimination is not American.

What it is, is an American problem. To ignore it is to enable it, and thereby become accomplices in it.

If the American story is supposed to be about the struggle of freedom against tyranny, of equity against the divine right of kings, and of justice against anarchy, then discrimination is un-American.

[Ambrose]

92. Just to restate my point...

Democrats win big if we stop advocating abnormal sexual values. One can try to frame the issue by removing the context but the issue still remains. However flawed you find this poll it does reflect the problem, IMO. I am not trying to say if this is right or wrong, I merely accept it as an axiom.

[kevsand]

93. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Once again your language has betrayed you. The use of the term "abnormal" is a dead giveaway. I think we've probably taken this about as far as we can go. You obviously are willing to accept discrimination, and I am not.

Condemning gays and lesbians to second class citizenship will never be a successful election strategy in the long run. It would in fact lose Democratic votes to third parties or non-participation, because the Repubs would continue to press the issue, and Dems following your strategy would be forced to come out publicly against gays.

Or the Repubs would just come up with some other issue to play to people's dark sides. If it wasn't gay rights, it would just be something else. Many here advocate sacrificing women's rights to choose control over their own bodies in order to win elections. There are others (not necessarily here) who accept the use of torture, or loss of the constitutional rights to privacy and due process.

This is a culture war, alright: the culture of civil rights and fundamental human dignity, decency, and freedom vs. the culture of intolerance and oppression and terror. You and I are obviously on different sides.

[Ambrose]

94. Dictionaries are our friends

abnormal - "Not typical, usual, or regular"

Sorry, but don't spin my meaning into something it is not.

I agree that we will just have to disagree. You are taking the issue into the level of advocacy that (I believe) is even beyond what the democratic platform proposes. I assume that your "winning strategy" comment is in reference to gay marriage, and if so I see no logic in your statement. Even if the long run would be better, we might not survive that long with the maniacs running things now.

To much of this argument is apples and oranges. Deviating from or associating gay rights with abortion and torture are, IMHO, sidestepping the issue. At best, your hyperbole is the kind of radical arguments used by the other side. You don't like my comments so you insinuate that I am indecent, anti-freedom, and a terrorist. It is unfair, and unwarranted.

I respect your view on the issues, and clearly we will have to leave it at that.

[nolabels]

96. Let's give up being HUMAN, that will work

Democrats are the part of misfits and outcasts, a group of unworthies, they don't deserve a place at the table because they are not normal people, they are Humans :crazy:

I have yet to find one them human critters who didn't have some weird things about them, as viewed through the eyes of others somewhere. We can embrace our differences or become the homogeneous corporate piece of crap you envision

Diversity makes you strong and pigeon holes are a set up for the weak, dress-right-dress is way they steal your individualism for their greed

[Ambrose]

98. I envision no crap

Bizarre little post: you are pigeon holing in your very comments.

The world is a little more complex than complete-diversity vs. Orwellian-corporate-control.

[nolabels]

105. Thanks for seeing the point

As the onion is peeled, seeing I never claimed to being anything. But putting my post out as bizarre is fine with me. We know them by their fruits. If I would make a claim for the absolutes, diversity would be the one I need to clamor for. The take all-win all is another approach that has been ingrained but is just another unlivable lie.

I do like that Orwell guy though, he was able to make sense out of nonsense (or at least what others considered nonsense).

The best thing I could figure about inclusion rather than exclusion would be for a political party getting the largest block of journalist into such said party. And when a corporation stops reporting the news and fires them journalist and reporters where do they go?

Yea, and that post was sarcasm and metaphor but if one has live with the dictionary as a guidepost then they might also might be able pass by the slang of it all and their very selves in the process

[Ambrose]

108. I would love to respond, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

n/t

[nolabels]

109. The word "culture" for instance, depicts a stereotype

Like no need to respond anyway, I often go off on long rambles incoherently just to.

What I might like to leave with this last post is on how great or unfortunate it is for us on the the issue of *. In chemotherapy the cure can kill patient if not administered correctly. In effect the chemo gives the body the needed toxins to expel the unwanted guest. The people who now oppose the republican neocons could not of hoped for a more rigid foe. I don't know how the neocons will get pushed out but it is important for the boil to come to a head to marginalize and minimize it's effect.

[eggman67]

111. You couldn't be more right

For example take Louisiana. 78% of the voters - 78%! pass an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, and Dems march off to court and have it invalidated. This just reinforces the stereotype - deserved or not - of Dems being sore losers who turn to "activist judges" to overturn the will of the people.

The irony is that after the Massachusetts ruling which stated that same-sex marriage was OK in Mass because it wasn't expressly defined in the state constitution. The fundies started screaming for their constitutional amendment. The Dem response as I recall it was that it should be a states rights issue and states should deal with it via their own constitution as the Mass ruling implied. A position I endorse.

So Louisiana does just that, and the very same people who said to do it that way drag them into court to have a judge tell them they can't do it that way, thus validating the right wing rhetoric.

And the kicker is..... they do it in OCTOBER 2004! Fucking Brilliant.

Jesus! Bring this stuff up AFTER you're in power.

[Misunderestimator]

139. Buh-bye... (from this "non-traditional sexual role"-player)

sexual roles... :eyes:

Your bigotry stinks... er... stank to high heaven.

[Misunderestimator]

122. I'm not happy when I see bigotry such as yours accepted as the "norm"

:eyes:

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

128. So? What was your point again?

We "loose" elections because of "democrats" like you, not because we fight for equality for all Americans.

No thanks, I don't sell my ethics down the river because I'm bullied by people without compassion or integrity.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

130. "Insults make no argument valid"... True... starting with your insult.

What kind of democrat are you that you wouldn't understand the non-negotiable value in fighting for equality for everyone?


Oh, and on edit... I've been a democrat as long as I have a memory of politics... and I'm old enough. Condescending comments like "I've been a democrat longer than you've been alive" do not make your argument valid.

[Sapphire Blue]

123. You said that you understand that your feelings are bigoted. I agree....

they are.

You also said "If we want to win and win big we should support the right to privacy of these groups but not the right to impose their values as the majority values."

My response: We should support civil, equal, and human rights, period... and we should not support the right to impose bigoted values as the majority values.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

133. "A miniscule minority" is dictating the values of society?!?

Wow! Everything you write further reduces us.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

138. Yes, you're a bad guy, because I'm gay, and you don't support

my rights. To me, you ARE a bad guy.

Tiny, miniscule... those words alone reduce me. You use them intentionally. Why are you surprised that I read them exactly as you intended?

Bash? Ha! I love it when people turn their lack of justification for their "opinions" into "you're bashing me." :eyes:

[Sapphire Blue]

135. Again, you said that you understand that your feelings are bigoted.

I agree completely with you on that.

[madfloridian]

33. This group is 3 men: Carville, Bob Shrum, and Greenberg, Stan, I think.

Please check out other polling at their site. Polls are pdf only, I think.

[jburton]

35. Dumbest. "Study". Ever.

So it is surprising that these folks aren't hardcore democrats? That's what happens when you "study" a "focus group" that consists of the Republican base.

More Bob Shrum worthlessness. (If you read the actual press release about this "study" there is good 'ol Concession Speech Bob's name right on the top)

[eggman67]

112. I disagree

The point is that this "Republican Base" as you call it should logically be part of the Democrat base. They vote against themselves, and the point of the study is to find out why.

The answer, it would seem, is that they'd rather be poor and - in their view - "moral" than better off economically and -again in their view - "immoral"

This is the issue when dealing with the religiously conservative mindset. The idea of a short earthly life of poverty is nothing compared to the idea of an eternity in hell.

Now that we know why the point becomes how to address it.

I'm very religious myself, just not conservative. I can't tell you how to get these people to lay off the Leviticus and pick up the Matthew but that's what needs to happen.

[DeepModem Mom]

113. Thanks for your post, eggman -- and welcome to DU!

[eggman67]

117. Thanks

Been lurking for some time to get the lay of the land before shooting off my mouth:)

[kodi]

39. It means that the intentions of the New Deal are finally realized.

No longer is economic turmoil the main feature in political discourse.

[wli]

51. mostly bull; those "themes" cater to very few

[leesa]

53. Clearly, this author does NOT have an agenda....

Come on folks! This is more GOP BS and you are falling all over yourself blaming yourself for junk that doesn't exist!

[OzarkDem]

62. Wedge Issues Are Not "Cultural Values"

All the GOP has done is take the most inflammatory wedge issues they can find and, through millions invested in media manipulation, turned them into a set of national political talking points.

Those are not cultural values.

The only reason the GOP has been successful in this endeavor is because Dems have refused to fight back and use the same tactic against GOP candidates. All this study is measuring is how inept Dem leaders have been at getting their message out to voters. Period.

Things have sunk pretty low inside the beltway when Dem leaders start mistaking Repub talking points for cultural values.

[agincourt]

66. They put a male prostitute in the Washington press corps,

who by the way does overnight stays at White House. They run the Gropenator for California Governor. They try to get a porn star for public office. They ruin a CIA WMD tracking operation. They outright lie about a case for war. But noooo, we are "immoral" and "morally bankrupt". People who swallow that shit need no spine as there is no brain weight to support.

[Joanne98]

67. This is Bull shit! What about Diebold? Rigged software trumps all.

[depakid]

68. Pravda on the Potomac is at it again

Is there anything that the Post won't distort or lie about to prop up Bush and the Republicans?

I know, trick question....

[The Flaming Red Head]

72. Oh Bull; casinos are full and everybody is fucking

everybody. Porn is a growing multi billion dollar industry.


Fundie votes are just a front for all the vote rigging that's going on.

If the Dems go overboard on the morality issues a lot of us are aren't going to vote at all.

[ecstatic]

75. I think those rural voters are confused about why they hate Dems

Either confused or lying to themselves. Those folks stopped voting Democratic when the "race card" strategy was employed by republicans. How convenient it must be to try to say it is moral values they are concerned with. Don't they have the highest alcohol, and pornography rates, etc.

[DeepModem Mom]

78. Whoa! Your DU name really fits this post....

You make a very important point that I don't think anyone else has made in this thread.

[montieg]

81. Amen, TruthHurts.

I shall never forget the Democratic convention of 1968---all hell breaking loose outside the hall over the war and in walks my wife's best friend and her husband. His first words: "Well, did the goddam Democrats nominate their n...... , yet? (Julian Bond) An existential moment for me: what matters to these Americans is the color of the skin!
The Repubs just apologized to the NAACP national convention for the "Southern Strategy". They can apologize all they want, cause the damage is done. The Democratic Party is defined for the remainder of this generation as the party of minorities, welfare and welfare cheats, soft on_______________ (crime, communism, terror--fill in the blank, etc etc.
Our problem is to turn this to our advantage. Lakoff helps, but it is much deeper than that. Eugene Burdick (Ugly American) wrote another book called The Ninth Wave. Says there are 2 gates: fear and hate. Manipulative governors (read: Bush) open the fear gate till people can stand no more, then open the hate gate and give the mob a focus of their hate. Be very afraid.....

[Indy Lurker]

87. Liberty and Justice for All

Liberty and Justice for All.


This should be the Democratic theme.


The one thing everyone can recognize, is that not everyone is treated the same.

People want equality.

The other thing people want is some control (freedom to choose).

Most Democratic plans seem to have one, but not the other, like Healthcare.

A lack of control (real or imagined) is what killed Clinton’s health plan.

To me, the simple fix for healthcare would be a payroll tax. I’ve got a decent PPO plan at work 80/20 $1000 deduct, $20 copay. I’ve been told it cost the company $8000 per employee (family plan).

Put a payroll tax in place that collects enough to give each family a $8000 credit, and let people shop with that. Allow people to switch no more than once a year, and don’t allow providers to refuse anyone. Now the patients are the actual customers, not their employers. Maybe throw in an arbitration board to handle disputes.

Business would love this. It would get them out of the healthcare business. Some would complain (like Wal-Mart) but many wouldn’t even see a change in cost. It would probably even reduce costs for many small businesses.


The other thing is to treat everyone the same. Most people think politicians are out to screw them, they are just trying to figure out who will screw them less.

If the Democrats pushed true equality, they would have a winner.
This is something that Democrats have been bad at in the past, like taxes.

In the past, one group gets one tax rate, and another group gets one that is 3 times higher. This won’t fly. You’ve created an US vs. THEM. I understand that has been done to make the tax system progressive, but you can do that, and treat everyone the same. Have the same tax rate for everyone, say 40% and have high deductible, $16,000 for adults and $8,000 for kids, and no other deductions of any kind. Very progressive, and the same for all.

Also, the govt should be less intrusive.

High ranking politically active people think they can improve things by forcing others to believe what they do.

People don’t like that.

Whether it’s some Bush kool-aid or Gay marriage.
People don’t like someone telling them what marriage means.

Gay marriage shouldn’t even be discussed as an issue, the govt shouldn’t even be in the marriage business. Marriages are a church issue. What should be discussed is equal rights for all. I haven’t seen anyone mention it yet, but we WILL start seeing straight men and women entering domestic partnerships to save money on taxes, health ins, etc. which create a whole other set of problems.

Domestic partnerships needs to be treated as an equal rights issue.

Lastly, is security.

I don’t really have an answer for this one, I’d like to see less rather than more of the Patriot Act. I don’t think its possible to lock-down a free society.

To quote Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery.”


Wow this is by far my largest post ever.

[demgrrrll]

89. Balz was the reporter who started the story about Gore releasing

the lake water which started a whole chain reaction spin about his lack of concern for the environment. He also stated the class warfare meme about Edwards. He's a putz And a dishonest reporter.

[GoBlue]

97. Let me get this straight...

the Republicans are in charge of the country, the country is in the cultural toilet, and it's the Democrats fault. So logically one would conclude that the Democrats should be in charge of the country.

Perhaps a good place for the logically challenged to bury their collective heads is in the sands of Iraq.

[YvonneCa]

100. Again...two points...

...1) I totally agree with your description of the source of the problem. After November, 2004, I decided that we have to focus on educating the public about issues (whether they want to be educated about them or not). And I don't mean a "school" education, I mean grassroots education. Each of us Democrats, in our families can no longer just let ignorant thought and remarks slide because we don't want to offend. We MUST speak out, calmly, rationally, and with great love...for this is about taking care of our country and our families, long-term. We are the ones who have to teach about the 3 branches of government (2/3 can't name them),the benefits of Social Security, why the Supreme Court is a big deal, etc. We need to do political grassroots work, too, but the one-on-one is critical.

2) There is a great article in the August 1st issue of Harper's Magazine called "The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong" by Bill McKibben. It's worth the read.
:patriot: :patriot:

[PATRICK]

101. Focus groups at work

If you have ever watched this process you might as well question the logic behind it all much less the who(the people, the questioners, the analyzers). The behavior in these groups encourages a lot of things to come out and a lot of things to politely go hand in hand with totally contradictory stances.

In focus groups subjects that SHOULD have people at each others throats, or in good old fashioned brawls, is dissolved into the same mindless potpourri as the feckless indecision and politeness of the Dems themselves. Democrats following focus groups find a confirmation of the process disease that throttles their drive for ideals. The process mirrors and reflects back emotional paralysis and incapacity to do anything material about anything- so why not get mad at gays and flag burning? The "balance" inflicted in these groups is a balance that gives more weight to respected lies and brainwashing than food on the table or war. More weight because people feel they have to bend to the right to accommodate the process of inclusion- where that certain sector is getting very used to affirmed domination.

Absent hope for change and real leadership people will very often agree to vent on something cultural, some commoner's ground of unease or moral superiority or fear. The focus group psychology has transformed what someone posted as the sclerotic nature of the party in its twilight days of accustomed power to timid dotage and bewilderment.

People not led and given dry rhetoric of days that they sense will NOT BE PERMITTED to reoccur might lash out at the weak alternative for letting them down, everyone lost in the cups of RW conditioning over the same neglected decades.

Going out and echoing the disease that has corrupted cultural thinking to its grossest prejudices is not an option. Neither is dismay or inaction. Neither are position papers the "what ifs" the efficient responsibly serving Democrats were permitted to run the government again. I don't think the Dems who originally took the country after the Depression needed focus groups or leadership therapy training. I don't think the position the party seems to have held(wait for the NEXT Great Depression) is rational or viable or consistent with how our forebears acted in a crisis against institutional scoundrels of ferocious tenacity. When I hear some leaders exulting that finally the people are speaking out I shudder at the gross lack of understanding of what their own role cries out to heaven to be.

Yes, many party officials do believe they have to be led by the deceived masses, if some magic majority manage through tremendous, avoidable suffering to get partly out of the massive deception and abuse pouring down like Hell's vengeance on the "land of the free" from all quarters of unmerited trust.

[Maggie_May]

102. Supporting moral issues

does not put food on your table or your bills paid.

[OzarkDem]

103. It does if you have the right morals

including compassion for those who need help.

R's wedge issues have little to do with morality and we can't let them define what's moral and what isn't.

[Maggie_May]

104. Then let me rephrase

The R's moral issues do not pay the bills or put food on the table.

[DeepModem Mom]

110. Hello, Maggie_May -- welcome to DU!

[PeaceProgProsp]

106. Dem politicians lack authenticity on working people's concerns.

Billionaire wives, Yale degrees, vactions on Martha's Vineyard and skiing in Idaho? And they wonder why they're not connecting with working class people on economic issues?

If our leaders seemed more authentic on these issues, more people would make the connection between policy and material well-being and vote accordingly.

[ramapo]

107. Economic and Cultural issues have been tied together

The Republican propaganda machine has been at work since the late '60s on melding cultural and economic issues. Cultural issues trump economic ones because many Americans have been led to believe that if the culture was under "control" then many of our economic problems, like taxes and poverty and welfare, would disappear.

The absolute failing of Democrats to counter Republican spin has enabled this relationship of issues to become deeply embedded. In my mind, the Democratic Party destroyed itself when it went after Jimmy Carter and then fell over itself trying to get in bed with Reagan.

Democrats may get an opportunity to reassert economic issues when the house of cards we call our economy collapses. However since they're as much to blame as the Republicans, I doubt that we could expect cogent positions from most of the current Democratic establishment.

[slay]

119. Excellent post

This is what happens when you don't stand firm when you know you're right. Dems best learn this lesson unless we all fancy Republican rule for the rest of our lives. We will win this fight if the right people represent us and the elections are fair.

[eggman67]

121. It also raises the question

Which issues should be addressed at the state level and which issues should be addressed at the national level?

Part of the problem is that the commerce clause has been stretched beyond recognition.

[slay]

118. This should be a wake up call to these people - your leaders attacked Iraq

for no reason other than money and oil. Hey - rural Wisconsin will never be New York and that's ok. They can't force us to be like them and we're not trying to force them to be like us. Nice to know that we're all "morally bankrupt" though. They can either learn to live and let live and vote Democrat or vote Republican and get screwed at every turn. Their choice.

[Warren Stupidity]

120. As long as the democratic leadership

promotes 'republican-lite' corporatist policies the great red wasteland will see the only difference between the parties as gays, abortions, and brown people. They will continue to vote against gays, against abortions, and against brown people.

[K-W]

125. Besides the fact that the economy is most of the culture,

this is bullshit for the simple reason that nobody is articulating a populist economic message. The Republicans are the upper class party, the Democrats are the middle class party and the working class is supposed to vote based on emotional wedge issues.

The working class doesnt just magically become class concious, they need to be exposed to ideas.

[Skidmore]

132. Who the heck are these "Democratic strategists"?

Carville, Schrum, & Begala? Perhaps it is time for the "strategists" to get their heads out of their wazoos and figure out that they don't need to sound like Rs but like Ds. A minority of the country endorses the "morals" platform--they are just better at getting the vote out. Make the base CARE again. Go read Billy Jack's website for a good critique of what is wrong with this picture.

[Douglas Carpenter]

134. I know I keep repeating this--but I always point to Bernie Sanders

Here is someone who is liberal on all the social issues and wins hard-core RURAL Republican counties in election after election by landslide proportions, running openly as a (gasp) socialist

Is it his charima? No, he doesn't have a whole lot of that.

Is it his looks? Well, look at a picture of him.

It is for one reason--he fights for working people.

_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Bernie Sanders--read this article:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

Read his book

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1859848710.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859848710/ref=cm_bg_f_2/103-8019488-6478255?v=glance