usregimechange
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-05 11:01 AM
Original message |
Dems speaking with many voices = healthy + politically ineffective |
|
Edited on Sun Dec-04-05 11:02 AM by usregimechange
It is who we are, disagreement, is fine and part of reason and good judgement. Any problem solving strategy requires brainstorming and any democracy requires debate.
The bad part is that it is tough to market and GOP brains have exploited that strength and turned it into a weakness. We don't need instant party unity on every issue, that is not possible. What we need is party unity on how to define diverse viewpoints as a strength. Unity in message, we will never get the Leibermans on board on policy.
|
gizmo1979
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-05 11:38 AM
Response to Original message |
|
leader.Someone with super speaking skills who is above reproach.Dean says the right things,but people think he's nuts,Kerry is too boring,Kennedy too emotional,Hillary is too hillary,who does that leave.?I would say Obama,but I don't think he wants the job of leading this dysfunctional group.
|
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. We have several perfectly good speakers |
|
You say Kennedy is too emotional, but Dean says the right things - I seriously bet I can find more examples of Dean being too emotional than Kennedy.
Hillary is too Hillary, well gizmo1979 is too gizmo1979
Kerry is not boring - look at the pictures of his rallies in October - I saw no signs of boredom. A better case could be made for the fact that he is too interesting with a bigger than life biography.
Obama is a wonderful first term Senator. He may very well be a future laader of the country - why not let him grow into thatposition.
Everyone of the people mentioned are fine. When a party is out of power, it is natural that it speaks with more than one voice.
|
unkachuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message |
|
....keep massaging the issues until we find ourselves approaching near-unity?....agreeing to disagree takes us where?....our strength is in the fact we are a microcosm of the country....
....should we near agreement on any issue, we should also find resonance with the country....let's argue more not less, faster not slower and find that unity and agreement....
|
LWolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message |
|
A unifying message; standing together for core issues:
civil rights health care as a right social and economic justice responsible environmental policies election reform A media "fairness" doctrine international cooperation
Allowing for many voices debating how to achieve those things, but always keeping these ISSUES at the forefront of every discussion, and all policy making.
I would prefer "peace as a guiding principle" rather than "international relations," but there are enough Dem hawks that I don't know if we could achieve that.
|
Neil Lisst
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message |
4. You must mean their "Democrats can't agree ...." argument |
|
The answer is "Republicans can't agree, either. Senator Hagel and others have raised the same issues. Our job is not be united, but to represent the people, and they have a variety of opinions. We represent them."
|
meow2u3
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Are we supposed to march in lockstep like the repukes? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:01 AM
Response to Original message |