The big difference in our party is NOT a left-wing/right-wing split

[JohnLocke]

The big difference in our party is NOT left-wing/right-wing split
It's between those of you want to fight and those who don't.

Being more leftist or more ideological does not necessarily make you a more STRONG or EFFECTIVE campaigner or leader. Conversely, being more rightist or less ideological does not necessarily make you a more STRONG or EFFECTIVE campaigner or leader.

For those idiots who apparently can't understand this concept, here's a helpful chart:

..................................Centrist/Moderate ....... Leftist/Radical

Strong/solid voice ........1 .................................... 2

Weak/ineffective .........3 ..................................... 4

We need all the top two quadrants in this party, not necessarily the two left right quadrants.

[rwenos]

1. You're Talking about Leadership

And I think you're dead on the mark. What the Dem's need is STRONG LEADERS. This is not ideological.

I remember when Richard Riordan (a centrist Pub) ran for Mayor of LA. His slogan was "Tough enough to turn LA around." He was elected and served two terms in a very Democratic city.

"Tough" is good. "Tough" is a "yes" word. "Tough" trumps ideology. So does "strong." So does "visionary." So does "Leader."

This is what we need. Giants. Tough candidates. LEADERS.

[hfojvt]

2. she doesn't like the tough guys

Tough is heartless. Tough is simple-minded. Strong likes to bully the weak.
The call for leaders sounds like you are following the fuehrer-prinzip. Some people think we need to become like the fascists in order to beat the fascists. If that is true, then they have already won. We will be the new boss who is just like the old boss.
I am still hoping they can be beaten by superior logic and an appeal to people's better natures. I believe in the decency of most of the people who vote Republican, and that if they find out what is being done in their name, that they will not stand for it.

[rwenos]

3. FDR Was Tough

and so was Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy and a bunch of other Democratic leaders.

For example, when FDR was Governor of NY, he had the cojones to declare eminent domain over the power plants at Niagara Falls. In the end, upstate New York ended up with a large public power agency, because FDR wasn't afraid to take on the suits.

I'm surprised at your narrow definition of "tough." And I reject your premise that "tough" and "strong" mean "bully". Every society wants and needs its leaders to be tough and strong.

[hfojvt]

9. argue with the Oxford dictionary

tough - 1) hard to break, cut, tear, or chew
2) able to endure hardship, hardy
3) unyielding, difficult
4) colloq a) acting sternly, b (of circumstances, luck, etc.) severe, hard
5) colloq criminal or violent (tough guys) n. tough person, especially a hoodlum

it is an ugly word.

lead - 1 tr. cause to go with one, esp. by guiding or going in front a) direct the actions or opinions of, b) guide by persuasion or example

compassion - pity inclining one to be merciful

Tough is a word they can have. Compassion is a word that JR Bush has tried to steal from us, I say we take every opportunity to call him on it.

[quaoar]

14. And one of the toughest Democrats of all time

was Bobby Kennedy.

When RFK was attorney general he had Carlos Marcellos, the Mafia boss of New Orleans, picked up off the street and immediately deported to Central America.

When Kennedy was running in 68 his campaign train was dubbed The Ruthless Cannonball.

[MuseRider]

4. Nothing is tougher

or stronger than someone who is willing to stand for peace and justice. I know what you are saying, makes perfect sense to me but it was recently brought to my attention that it is much harder to stand for what is right than to stand for what is wrong. Usually the wrong thing is the easier path.

[rwenos]

5. See, That's My Point

We've allowed the RW's to define "tough" as macho, and "strong" as Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, George Bush is a weak little weasel, who covers himself with the outward trappings of military might. What a poseur!

True strength, true toughness, is standing up for what's right. Leadership is finding the message to communicate what's right to a majority of the voters.

The Pubs have trivialized what's "tough" and "strong." They're crude thinkers.

[MuseRider]

6. Yes, that is what I was thinking.

I am so tired of them always being the people who define everything. To me little, elf like, vegan, peacenik Dennis Kucinich was the strongest, toughest mofo running.

Republican definition of leadership and toughness is like Dirty Harry. I prefer Gandhi.

Whoever we run the toughness and leadership qualities must come from fairness and finding a way to convince people not to be scared of the "boogieman" who is actually made up of the people who are not running things currently.

Fight with your brain, not your fist.

[blondeatlast]

12. There's a huge difference between assertive and being a bully.

We need assertive as hell, someone who isn't afraid to take on the MSM and Karl Rove.

If you think an appeal to logic and/or emotion will make people vote in their own best interests, you're sadly mistaken. Please read George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" to find out why.

[itzamirakul]

15. Yeah? So the, where are they?

We sure don't have them in leadership positions now. Instead of fighting for leadership of the Party, why aren't those in current top positions taking a stand against privatizing Social Security and some of the other issues that are against our viewpoint?

[w4rma]

20. Sen. Reid, the new Democratic Senate leader has done just that on SS. (nt)

[Julien Sorel]

7. So, who doesn't "want to fight?"

I can see the list of names now. Just about everyone on it will be a "centrist," of course. And the fact that they fight their own battles is meaningless: they don't fight the way people here think they should, so they are "weak/ineffective."

[JohnKleeb]

8. yeah I know

but Locke has the same beliefs I do on this matter.

[blondeatlast]

13. Here's a a review of the front-runners from Orlando.

http://www.mydd.com

Scroll down to this article:

DNC Chair CattleCall from Orlando's ASDC Meeting

I agree with you, no matter who is chosen we'll be unhappy here at DU.

But if the winner is a strong enough leader, he/she will be able to bring the disparate factions into a winning strategy and team.

I remain optimistic, even as a LW Dem.

Edit: damn HTML!

[Q]

10. You're right to a degree...

...but those who don't want to confront the Bushies usually ARE the centrists and moderates. I would prefer to call them enablers.

They are the ones that told us to 'move on' after the 2000 election, 911 and when it became obvious that the Bushies were going fascist.

[TheDonkey]

11. ding ding ding! It's not about red/blue, or left/moderate

It's all about leadership, being effective speaker, being influential, and hitting down the republicans. Democrats need a better national message and define it because the Republicans are doing the better job.

Bill Clinton was able to do it, but sadly Gore and Kerry were trumped in that alone (not because where they were from or their voting record). If we would have nominated Lieberman we would have been in the same spot.

[The Flaming Red Head]

16. The upper income Dems prefer status quo with Bush in WH

It’s rich vs. poor like always

[JohnLocke]

17. Kick

[XemaSab]

18. AMEN

I would argue it's about the ability to stand up to Bush and call him on his shit.

[ulysses]

19. I haven't met many leftists lately

who don't want to fight...

[JohnLocke]

21. Kick