I want to settle an ongoing DU argument over party purity

The way I see things there is one thing that holds us together here on DU. That is that 99.9 percent of us on this board are against the Iraq war. That is why conservative Democrats like Murtha get praise and we overlook his conservative leanings in other areas. That is also the reason many of us hate Joementum.The reason most (inclding myself) are anti DLC is because they are pro empire and pro war. Is Murtha more liberal than Joementum? Probably not, but he's anti-Iraq war. I would even venture to say that the issue of choice doesn't hold us together as much as our opposition to the war. Am I right?

But we'll see after the first few hundred posts. :popcorn:

I am going to make some popcorn. Want some? :popcorn:

my dislike of the DLC existed before the war in Iraq, and it won't go away when the war goes away.

Number 2: Corporate control
Number 3: Separation of Church and State

The DLC is out of step on all three.

organized party; he was a democrat.

The thing is, the Dems are a pro war party.:shrug: Best to just keep on keepin on. :patriot:

and Lieberman comments. I still don't believe the war is your typical "single issue" since it influences so many things such economy and our national security (and our lack there of because of all our resources tied up in Iraq).

...and the only reason I tolerate the rest of you wanks....

:-)

Never cared for the labels. DLC, DNC, DEFGH, it's all the same to me. They're either democrats or they're not. I never really paid much mind to the threads here about the different sects of democrats, as they carry no real relevance to me. I just care that the democratic party regains control of congress in november, and the white house in 08.

As far as being anti-war goes, most democrats are anti-war. But there's a difference between disagreeing on how and when to pull out, and number of troops necessary on the ground, and supporting the war as far as its logic, premise and planning. There is a distinction to be made there. This is an illegal war started for wrong reasons based on lies, but it's a bit too late to go back in time now and change that. I understand why some dems say we have to stay for sake of stability now that we made a mess there, even if I personally feel that we should definitely just get them the heck out of there already. But just cause I disagree with the strategy doesn't mean I'm going to call them war mongers either.

Is that I see a lot of hand wringing over DINO's and the democratic wing of the democratic party. Some think anyone who doesn't vote against Bush or the rethug congress 100% of the time is a DINO. Others argue that Joementum and Warner and Bayh have a place at the table and their views should be as important. It seems to me that the war is one of the few things that we as DU'ers are completely united in and wish the Beltway types would get a clue.

Not that I have anything against non-donors but it would keep out most of the freepturds.

I think the poll would want to ask DUers what their perceptions are, regarding the issue that most binds us.

I'm the 0.1% that is for the war in principle and support the notion of democracy over stability (notwithstanding the clusterfuck that Bush made of it). My connection to this board is less a foreign policy one, rather than a social "values" one. I.e. I support universal health, same-sex marriage and adoption, universal day care, affirmative action, pro-environment policies etc. On those issues, I'm as left as you get. On foreign policy, I'd put myself slightly to the right. These days, being far right in foreign policy means supporting the war, and doing your best to make it a debacle...lol.

The vast majority of Democrats don't share your views on the war and Democrats who do support the war need to realize that. They also need to realize that if we are going to have ANY shot of winning in November and legislating on any of the social values that you have mentioned above, we need to take a firm party stance on the Iraq War that is undoubtedly different than the Bush administration's stance.

I don't want to purge Democrats who support the war, but they have to make a decision. Either they can undermine our party's stance on the war because that will help the continued occupation of Iraq or they can respectfully disagree with us and not undermine our party's stance on the war which will help us re-take congress in November. People like Joe Lieberman are trying to have it both ways and that's simply not possible.

If you support the continued occupation of Iraq, then you have to make a decision. Would you rather do everything that you can to support the continued occupation of Iraq or would you rather do everything that you can to win a Democratic congress in November?

Hey, we Dems are a MIXED bag !1

as a Canadian, my leftist credentials are handed out at birth...hence the my stances on social values. Hell, the average US dem would be considered a rw wacko in Canada...

on foreign policy, it's a different story...I've gone somewhat against the grain relative to my Canadian brethern. My stances often embarass my girlfriend at parties...who's a hardcore feminist...lol

I find that I don't mind people with radically different positions from my own (on the left or right). I only mind those who don't allow themselves to re-examine their own stances.

yet I voted for McGOVERN and DUKAKIS (not to mention LBJ) and every other Dem.

I forget what my point is.

Fortunately, more people are coming to our side now. I just wish they would have a few years back, but unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that now.

I'd give the DU more credit than to think the war is the only thing, though. I believe insuring that our constitution and the bill of rights are respected is another issue that has been unifying us as well. Those on the right have waived the banner of "strict constitutionalists" while decrying "activist judges" when in reality we on the left are actually the ones who have been fighting for the rights of all Americans guaranteed to us in the constitution.

Opposition to the Iraq War holds us together like Communism held the GOP together in the 80's.

That is why I have such a problem with Lieberman. It's not that I don't think that there is room in the party for dissenting voices on our pet issue, but I feel that he undermines our party's ability to take a firm stance on the war.

The Iraq war is nowhere near my #1 issue; most of my concerns are domestic. Here in the Midwest, we have a devastated economy that no one addresses, aging infrastructure that no one addresses, we are falling further behind all the time as a society with regard to health of population, education, crime and violence, the inability of people to save money anymore, etc., etc. Older people have been badly hurt by this "Medicare" Part D disgrace, which was never supposed to help them, we have higher unemployment and underemployment than any official source will admit to, and our whole workplace is, bit by bit, being outsourced or reduced, with no regard for the increasing numbers of Americans who cannot find work at a living wage anywhere. There is no one anywhere in the Federal government paying any attention to the increasingly desperate situation of the middle class and poor in this country.

I don't know what "party purity" is or means. Sounds like another in an endless, dreary litany of corporate-consulted slogans--like "culture wars" and all the rest of the things so-called politicians do and say when they no longer even pretend to serve the people or legislate. I am against the "D"LC because they are corporate lobbyists pretending to be leading our politcal Party, when everything they do is fulfillment of deals with their donors and sponsors. We the People are not even there anymore. I don't necessarily want complete ideological agreement--I want public service again.