If the Democratic Party is "big tent," then do we really stand for

[Guaranteed]

anything?

A party is just a gang unless you have a vision and principles that you're working toward.

If we don't have principles, why do we even care when Democrats lose? What kind of difference does it make if it's John Breaux voting with the Republicans, or Rick Santorum?

Our party stands for something. It stands for equality under law for all men and women, no matter their ethnicity, religion or political or sexual orientation. It stands for economic justice, for lifting those in need up through education, financial assistance and health coverage. It stands for a just, humble foreign policy- within reason. It stands for the Constitution and a sound, transparent democracy.

I'm sorry, but when people in our party have given up those AMERICAN ideas in return for fascist ones, if they're even thinking about WORKING with fascists, it's time for them to leave. They no longer believe in the Democratic Party, and they're not working for it.

This isn't the same thing as kicking them out of office- although I certainly wouldn't mind if the voters did that, and replaced them with someone who is willing to stand up for what's right. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be able to call themselves Democrats, once it's gotten to a certain point.

Yes, our representatives can vote how they want to. They don't have to follow party line all the time. But you KNOW that that is not what we're facing here. We have members of our party voting with the Republicans, and publicly undermining our own progressive messages ALL THE TIME.

It's wrong. If they'd rather be Republicans, we should help them out, and show them the door.

[cornermouse]

1. And they can just take their voters with them...

By the way, isn't this exactly what the republican party has been doing?

[Guaranteed]

2. I haven't seen them throw anybody out of the party.

I HAVE seen them working against the re-election of their own.

But, whatever they've been doing, they've been quite successful.

I guess the question is, do you have more of a problem with the way Republicans play politics, or their actual policies?

[cornermouse]

4. Then you haven't been watching them very closely.

As far as their success... You do remember that after they gave away money to the churches, they went around and "requested" their membership rolls, don't you?

As far as the republicans...I left during the Reagan era precisely because of their policies AND because also because of the way they were starting to play politics.

If the democrats play this correctly and do not go around purging people who irritate them, they will pick up the voters who feel alienated and dispossessed by the current regime. Eventually, if they keep chopping away at anyone who is not a neo-con in the republican party, the political roof is going to cave in on the republicans.

[Guaranteed]

6. Who have they thrown out of their party?

Further, until the Democrats start making an argument and be proud of who they are, NO ONE is going to join them.

As far as playing politics, I'd rather be a nasty politician and get the right things done for our country then be all nicey-nice and see the fascists take over.

[cornermouse]

10. Moderate republicans.

Republican politicians who didn't meet their litmus test of conservatism have found themselves opposed in primaries by well funded neos.

Do you REALLY want to be like the republicans?

[Guaranteed]

11. Man, I already said

that I haven't seen them throwing people out of their party, just running against them. There's a difference.

And, yes, if I had the opportunity to replace one of these DLC bastards voting with the fascists with Paul Wellstone, you're damned right I would.

[cornermouse]

15. Do you really think you're going to have the last word on

this issue? Cause you're not.

[Guaranteed]

17. LOL Is that your way of saying you wouldn't replace

John Breaux with Paul Wellstone?

[cornermouse]

18. You're not getting the last word.

And no, I'm not a conservative democrat. Kerry was too conservative to suit me. I would have strongly preferred someone else.

(changed my mind on the update)

[Guaranteed]

19. Alright then, you got it.

:)

[cornermouse]

20. Thank you.

[Leilani]

3. Of course you have to have principles...

There has to be an agreed upon philosophy that a party upholds.

My question is, what if someone is a Dem & disagrees on a particular issue.

Or what if an Indie is not in line with you on every issue. What do you do? Do you still want his or her vote?

There are pro-choice Republicans. Are Pro-life Dems OK?

[Guaranteed]

5. On a PARTICULAR issue? That's fine. Of course.

The problem is, again, that we have people in our party who are playing along with the facists on just about everything. They have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.

An Indie isn't a member of the party. And of course we want their vote.

If a Democrat is pro-life, they'd better be pretty strong in other areas. I'd give a member of our party one or two mulligans on the really important issues, our STAPLE issues, but after that, forget it. They're not behind the party anymore.

[cornermouse]

7. The devil is in the conditions.

Your reaching out strongly resembles Bush's idea of reaching out.

[Guaranteed]

8. I'm not trying to reach out to anyone.

I'm trying to help get our shit together so that we can start respecting ourselves again, maybe start winning some elections.

And, again, you're confusing politics with policy. If we're going to beat the Republicans politically, we're going to have to beat them at their own political game.

[Leilani]

13. See, this is the point I was trying to make in my thread about purity

We have to have CORE beliefs, but we need to be open to people who are maybe not with us 100%.

Beacause we need their votes to build a majority.

On elected officials, that's more complex. What about a Dem Senator in a red state? If he or she votes the way Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts votes, probably he will be out of a job.

How do we solve this problem? Would you be willing to lose those Senators because they're too conservative?

[Guaranteed]

16. In solidifying a message we may end up losing

more of our elected members in the very short term. But it needs to be done, because in the long run it will help. And, in any case, those members end up getting kicked out anyway, even acting as cowardly as they do. Look at Tom Daschle, who campaigned with a picture of himself hugging the Chimp.

AGAIN, I'm not saying that anyone has to be with us 100%. You're not recognizing how ridiculously close some of our party members have become with the neocons. And not only are these members of our party worthless, they're actually hurting us as a whole because they're undermining our message. When John Breaux or some other DLC whore votes with the Republicans, and in particular when he votes with them time after time after time, it tells people that the Democratic Party is wrong, and that they should be Republicans, and it also contributes to this "lack of message" that people continually point to when they speak of our party's failures.

[imenja]

9. Why don't we change the focus to principles over individuals

I don't think the primary problem is that Zell Miller and John Breaux undermine our message (Besides the fact both are leaving the Senate). Rather, it's that the core of the Democratic party has failed to articulate and pursue key progressive principles and reforms. Perhaps we could be more productive by discussing what we think those issues should be?

I agree that economic justice is a crucial value. How do you believe that should best be pursued? Another thread mentioned a living wage. I think that is important. We can better afford health care and education if we end corporate subsidies.

I'd like to see us focus more on what principles we want to discuss, what are the core issues, rather than who some think should be excluded. When we succeed in building a party that stands for progressive issues, the conservative Democrats may switch to the Republican party, but let them decide that. Ideas, values, and policies are more important than if a few politicians you don't like choose to call themselves Democrat.

There is also an advantage to having more politicians in the party--even if they vote Republican on bills. Should the Democrats ever regain the majority, they need those politicians to vote with them to gain Democratic control over the Senate and House leadership.

[cornermouse]

12. I agree.

I'm watching pharmaceuticals and Congressmen on c-span right now.

I know too many people who are prescribed medicine on a daily basis who are either taking their meds every other day, waiting till they start to feel sick, or cutting them in half in the attempt to be able to afford to live.

[Guaranteed]

14. Yes, I agree. We need a vision.

And when we come to the conclusion of what that vision should be (I think most of us have a good idea of what it is), those who disagree with it more than they agree can leave.

[ixion]

21. At this stage, I don't feel the dems truly represent the 'big tent'

Thanks to the likes of the DLC leadership, et. al. They have turned the party into 'right-wing lite', which has disgusted me from the onset.

I would like to see a return to the ideology of 'everyone allowed' under the big tent, but at this point, that is simply not the case.

I think what could breathe life back into our political system would be for the Greens and Libertarians to have a larger voice, that voice which is now being squelched out by both the repugs and dems.

Our multi-party system has been hijacked by two parties who refuse to let others in.

As Jon Stewart said when he railed against the cross-fire guys (in paraphrase) 'You've got a set of predefined talking points that only represent a small faction of the whole.'

And this is true of the current political scenario as well.

And the Anti-war voice is a prime example of a topic that has been pushed out.

Ending the ludicrous 'War on Drugs' is another pushed out to the fringe, despite the fact that all it does it ruin people's lives and put non-violent offenders behind bars.

The environment is another, albeit slighty gray, example.

There is no serious debate allowed by either of the dominant parties on these issues.

As such, I think the dems are using only the 'big-tent brand' now, rather than actually being the big tent.

[PATRICK]

22. The problem is not purging individuals but

changing party leadership and tactical philosophy. It has become so ineffective or corrupt(would that that meant criminal, then we COULD boot someone out) that the cues to being the "loyal opposition" are poisoned and pathetic. Only safe seat liberals, of great age preferably, are allowed(it often seems) to speak as traditional Democrats. LEADERSHIP positions are given instead to moderates and worse, those from unsafe conservative regions with mild to zero personal charisma.

The destructiveness of the caucuses with their deadly, fearful unity around losing strategies is running on auto pilot and the cabin door is locked.

If anyone should have been purged in retrospect it was Zell Miller. he walked since he couldn't stand waiting around for some Democratic leadership with spine to knock him over the head. So it isn't defrocking elected Dems that is much of an issue(they creep out anyway to save their jobs) it is the leadership of the party itself and the base that gives it support and demands. We already have one party(GOP, I have to clarify) that is unresponsive to its people and uses them like ignorant tools. We don't need another.

Hitting on individuals is just more destructive defeatism instead of revamping the leadership, even the working concept of leadership and party fighting stance. And what price bi-partisan votes in a unilateralist one party rule situation? Some still think we get something automatically playing unilaterally "fair".