Reply #38: this is all drivel [View All]

[welshTerrier2]

i don't use or care for the term DINO ... it's just name calling and we can do better than that ... but i also don't care for many of the hideous conservative votes cast by those often tagged with the label ... that's the essence of the problem ...

what i object to in the OP is a failure to address the concerns of those who want blindly and automatically vote the Party line ...

you need to tell us how you plan to rid the Party of these "wrong vote representatives" ... and let's not get into the silliness about purity or perfection or refusal to compromise or any of the other nonsense that passes for discourse ...

over and over and over we are told that we have to "go along" with these conservative Democrats because we have to win ... well, we want to win too ... we want to win on the issues we care very deeply about ... yes, we may even agree that these conservative Democrats are much better than the republican alternative ... and we may even see legitimacy in the political expediency argument ... but exactly when is it that the Party will stand-up and do all it can to crush the candidacies of these wrong-thinkers?

it gets pretty old to be told that once we regain power, we'll do really neat things just like you progressives are calling for ... does anyone really believe this?? i sure don't ...

is there room for compromise and negotiation? absolutely!! no one needs to dig in so deep that we can't find common ground ... but it is never acceptable for the Democratic Party to support candidates that would deprive people of their fundamental liberties ... there still must be certain areas that are not compromised ... we cannot negotiate with a black man to offer 80% "equal" rights ... we cannot say to women that they have a right to control their own bodies except in Pennsylvania where we really need to win ...

what is lacking from the Party is a stated commitment to certain fundamental liberties ... now, in the interest of unity, i will say that there is room for negotiation over tactics and timing as long as the ultimate value, i.e. the ultimate objective, is clearly stated ...

so, for example, on an issue like gay marriage, the Party might clearly state as its core value that there should be no discrimination in law against gays and that the gay community should enjoy the same liberties as all other citizens ... that's the stated goal ... as a policy implementation, whether i agree with it or not, the Party might argue for civil unions recognizing them as a "transitional step" toward legalizing gay marriage ... this would allow for certain concerns about political pragmatism (whether legitimate or not) and would allow for a period of societal transition ...

the stridency of the OP does nothing to attract those already alienated by the Party's conduct ... do you think that screaming at people is an effective political tactic? if you really cared about the politics and the Party's best interests, perhaps reflecting greater tolerance and respect for those with genuine disdain for certain Democrats might be a wee bit more useful ... the point here is NOT to argue that your "voting strategy" isn't legitimate; it's to argue that your presentation of it is totally ineffective ...