Does the word "Democrat" mean anything anymore?

Zell Miller.

Joe Lieberman.

Toby Keith.

Martha Stewart.

Russ Feingold.

Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton.

Howard Dean.


The only thing these people have in common is that they are "Democrats."

If all these people can call themselves Democrats, does the term even have any real meaning anymore?

We know what being a Democrat means to each of those people. What does it mean to us?

I had no idea.

In his Playboy interview, IIRC, he distanced himself from the congressional Dems, and said that he had his disagreements with the president, but that he's our president nonetheless.

But yes, he thinks/says he's a Dem.

that's a new one on me.

He'll sure put a boot in yours, if you mess with the red white and blue. :D

that he was giving concerts to raise funds for some Democratic candidates as well.

He has a long way to go to make up for that horrible song, though.

We are all over the map on issues and it's killing us.

It's not whether a person has a "D" or an "R" behind his name that makes that person who he is. The mark of a person is his principles, his convictions, his dreams and hopes, and his accomplishments in life. There were many great Americans in history who weren't affiliated with any party, but that didn't stop them from accomplishing what they set out to do.

The one reason why I hate the argument of simply voting for the Democrat is that I could be replacing a politician who is just as bad as the previous with respect to honesty and integrity. The only difference is that the person has a "D" behind his name.

I would submit that Congress changing hands does not necessarily mean change by true definition, especially in the eyes of the average citizen. I would submit change comes when action comes, not rhetoric and partisanship.

Like you said - it is about action.
You can have crooks and scumbags who will vote to increase the minimum wage, vote against a war in Iraq, vote against Bush's tax cuts, vote against "clear skies", "healthy forests", "patriot" act, etc.
And you can have, at least in theory, decent honest people who will vote the other way.
Policies should matter more than people.

Sure, you might get them to vote to get out of Iraq and protect the forests, but I haven't met a crook yet who said campaign finance reform is a good idea, especially if he is benefiting off of kickbacks and bribery from people who want favors. If there is no campaign finance reform, there can be no real mechanism to defend gains won by the people because it would then only be a matter of price when it comes to buying politicians.

Your philosophy may win in the short-term, but you will buy nothing but an early end to the US as a functioning republic in the long-term. There have to be minimum standards, and we shouldn't dumb them down like the Republicans.

who started the ball rolling down that slippery slope, and probably provides much of the opposition to finance reform. At some point, perhaps with Mark Hanna, they made selling out to the monied interests a key part of their party platform. I have not seen one yet who is honest about their tax cuts. I just got an email today from the CBPP which said that Bush and Cheney recently said again that tax cuts (for the wealthy) pay for themselves. I bet if you asked most Republican candidates they would say the same thing, AND they would also deny the clear fact that those tax cuts were mainly for the wealthy. The Governor of Alabama might be an exception, but I have had a hard time finding an honest Republican in that matter. Which is not to say that I would vote for a crooked Democrat over an honest Republican, only that I have not seen one of the latter for a while.

We know the Democrats have held power for the 40 years before being booted out of Congress in 1994. Don't you think that if there was a real effort to reform government that the Democratic leadership throughout that whole time span would've succeeded in campaign finance reform? Throughout that period segregation was brought to an end, and Medicare/Medicaid were established, and the voting age was lowered to 18, and the EPA was established to protect the environment, and many other things were accomplished, but how come there had been no progress at all with campaign finance reform?

All the "reforms" I've seen have done nothing because they have gigantic holes in them that are exploitable. The question that I can't answer is whether all those loopholes were inserted by design to neuter such reforms and simply appease a relatively uninformed populace or whether it is due to sheer incompetence every single time campaign finance reform is initiated throughout the last 40 years of Democratic domination. What's the answer? You think all of those loopholes are the result of incompetence in the drafting of such legislation? Or do you think somebody was bought off?

The question is an important one because it will ultimately mean whether this country will survive as a republic or implode and disintegrate in an orgy of corruption and graft like Rome in its last years, and if history is any guide, it seems we will fall to greed of our own leaders as well granted we do not, as a people, collectively learn the lessons of the past.

The thing that gets me is that ANYONE can come into our Party and say whatever retarded right wing nonsense they want.

I try not to advocate purges, but there are elements in this Party that completely at odds with what it stood for in late 20th century.

We have Republicans changing parties to run as Democrats. Our AG candidate, says he is running as a Democrat because "democrats are tough on crime" :wtf:
Sounds to me like he is bringing his Republican rhetoric with him when he changed parties. If he brings Republican voters with him too, then we can get rid of Phill Kline, but what difference will it make if our new "Democratic" AG does the same things as the old boss.
If we were honest in Kansas, the Democrats would change their party name to Republican and the Republicans would change their name to "Fundy Neofascist Party".

I hear ya.

with a party who are forgotten today because they never got elected. While I hear what you are saying about the dems who are playing ball with the repugs I also realize that this is not the time to jump out of the frying pan. We need to put all of our efforts to the primary to get real Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008. I went to the caucus several nights ago for the first time in my adult live to see that we supported progressive candidates and made the right resolutions. I and my daughter will be going to our county convention. This has got to be a grassroots movement because we not only have to take our country back but also our party.

The last thing I want to vote for is another Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. That's not going to buy me anything but more politicians who, for example, think it is OK to wipe 100,000 Iraqi civilians off the face of earth in the name of projecting US power and protecting US business interests because they believe that "it was worth the sacrifice."

to make sure they do not get another chance to betray us. Are you just going to set at home and bitch?

Have you phone banked? Have you tried to raise the profile of the local Democratic Party in your area? Have you given speeches on the dangers of the Patriot Act? Have you been repaid for your effort by arson committed against you and your friends down here in good ol' Mississippi?

The reason why I responded that way is because of situations like what is now happening in Pennsylvania. On issues alone, Pennacchio simply owns the competition, but it's the establishment anti-choice Bob Casey who is getting the big support from the Democratic leadership simply based on name recognition alone. It takes several thousand grassroots campaigners to even attempt to counteract the decisions of only several leaders in key positions at the top who think we'll vote for Democrats because they're half-assed better than people like Santorum. Sure, Casey may win against Santorum, but the fact is they voted for Casey because of the "Anybody But Santorum" bandwagon, and the fact that people would simply vote for you because you're not Santorum yet disagree or know nothing about your policies is a sad commentary of affairs. As a long-term policy, the "Anybody But (Insert name here)" bandwagon will lead you around in circles.

The Democratic Party belongs to those who hold power, and that is why I said the Democratic name means jack shit. If you want to find countless "forgotten" progressives, then you should talk to the rank-and-file members of the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement of Viet Nam, the Labor Movement, or even as far back as the Populist Movement. All of those people pushed for and got change, and they did it regardless of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. It was they, the people on the street, who first came up with ideas such as a minimum wage, socialist health care, labor standards and the right to form unions, as well as the idea to end segregation. In the end, the major parties played catch-up to these forward-thinkers because they feared loss of power or being replaced entirely if they didn't get off their asses and legislate these proposals into law, so don't give me a lecture about supporting Democrats ever again because the "D" means shit; it's the person behind the "D" that means everything. The "D" simply plays catch-up.

over 50% of the time you vote for the candidate with a (D) next to their name. Okay let me qualify that, I would say people in the 30-70 range are independents. Over 70% would be a Democrat.

There are also other activities - volunteering for the local party, writing Democrat defending or Republican critical LTTEs, donating money to Democratic candidates.

What does it mean for an elected official? Well, there is a party platform. Perhaps the 30-70 range would fit as well. That a Democrat in office votes with other Democrats over 70% of the time.

There are other activities as well - speeches promoting Democratic policies and criticizing Republican policies (in Congress and other TV and personal appearances, letters, etc.), working and campaigning to elect more Democrats (Zell and Koch fail that test), supporting progressive media and organizations.

What did it mean in 1960?

"If all these people can call themselves Democrats, does the term even have any real meaning anymore?"
What did it mean when Strom Thurmond, John Kennedy and Bob Kerr were Democrats?

You see what I'm getting at, though.

We are reaching a point where bedrock principles need to be decided on and re-inforced, because right now, anyone can say anything and still be considered a Democrat at the end of the day.

Include me out.

I understand that this is a big tent party.

But it would be nice to agree on ideas that the majority of Dem voters and elected officials believe in.

Right now I'm having a hard time seeing that consensus.

It's like the base is screaming bloody murder, the elected officials are holding their fire, and there's a huge disconnect between the labor, civil rights, and righteous progressive energy heritage of the Democratic Party and the people who are running it.

ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm

"righteous progressive energy heritage"
Say what?

When was the last time you heard about any of these?

End corporate welfare as we know.
Review all trade agreements; investigate China rights abuses.
Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole.
Raise EITC & minimum wage to $7 & expand middle class.
We cannot drill our way to energy independence.

I can think of more than a few elected Democrats who oppose some or all of these.

It's frustrating...this is a good, solid platform, which I agree with 90% of.

"Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole"
Start a thread on one of those and watch the trolls come flocking in.....

"this is a good, solid platform, which I agree with 90% of."
So you're allowed to disafgree with 10%, but nobody else is.

And if you go to Thomas and search for those topics you'll find bills on all those, bottled up by the Republican Congress.

Raising the minimum wage to $7 (seems a little low to me).
Adding 40,000 troops (for what? More foreign misadventures?)
Line Item Veto to root out pork barrel spending (do we honestly trust any President to do this well?)
Cut taxes for middle class, not for wealthy (because more tax cuts are really what our budget deficit needs)

For the most part, I think it's right on, and these things are mostly quibbles. There are several elected Democrats out there that seem to be silent, undecided, or outright against major portions of that platform.

But yes, you are right that we'd have a better shot at addressing these with a congressional majority.

Economic opportunity, better wages, the 40 hour work week, the right to organize, safe workplaces.

Thats what it meant.

Too bad it doesn't anymore, Clinton and the DLC he founded sold out to the corporations and made it the party of globalization, with token support for gays, gun control, the right to choose as symbols of "progressivism" without the fundamental substance.

Nice to see that DLC-bashing is still as uninformed as ever.

That's why they keep winning us elections.

:rofl:

Being a democrat means many things--we are not just right wing religious fanatics but we are and always have been a big tent party. laborers, small business, big business, liberals, moderates, conservatives, from all sections of the country, black, white, latino. On DU most of us represent the progressive faction of the party (if we are democrats), but we are not the only faction. Will Rogers put it best, "I don't belong to any organized political party--I'm a democrat."

I'd like to believe that a political party is more than just a coalition of forces dedicated to winning office and maintaining power, though.

We seem to be having a hard time with that, even.

The party of ball-busting feminists, whining anti-free speech PC elitists, the party of welfare for lazy cheats, gay boy scout troop leaders, prayer-banners, and criminal-coddlers.

Thats what happens when you pay more attention to special interests, instead of sticking to your base, the people who work for a living, and then letting the other side define you.

I get so tired of people conflating all of the different parts of the party. There are your voters. There is your local, county, and state party organizations. There are your Democratic clubs. And then there are your elected officials.

I have an awful LOT in common with my local organizations and clubs and my local activist friends, all of whom are good Democrats. Also with my local elected officials and many of our elected officials in Washington. Are there elements in Washington I don't agree with and dislike? Yes. But for me, the several hundred local activists whom I work with in an effort to take back our county are most of the definition of what it means to be a Democrat.

that is part of the problem, when you ask Dems what is the party platform, nine times out of then you get a deer in the headlights look

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf THAT is the party platform.

You want talking points? Fine. Here are MY talking points for why I'M a Democrat, all of which you will find in longer form in the party platform.

I am a Democrat because I want to take care of our planet and hand it down to the next generation better than we found it.
I am a Democrat because I believe that we are all a community and we need to take care of each other. This includes universal health care, taking care of the mentally ill, and making sure those who are doing the jobs lowest on the ladder make enough money to eat.
I am a Democrat because I believe we can apply some common sense to how we relate to other nations and not be big bullies about our foreign policy. I want to us to be SMART about how we handle terrorism.

You're right, every Dem should be able to spout their own three talking points about what the party stands for. We certainly need to get better about message. But don't confuse lack of style with lack of substance.

patty platform, it should be, but it ain't.

As to community, it is very general, and I heard Pubblies use it, so how acutely are you different, find ways to differentiate yourself... and again livable wage AIN'T part of the platform, it should be, but it is not....

I am talking the PARTY PLATFORM, not your platform... two different animals... very much so.

I am being quite hard ass about it because I have asked this from local machine democrats, you are doing better, at least you can say something.

Universal health care and the minimum wage increase are both in my STATE party platform. I just checked. I thought they were both in something I'd read. I'll take your word for it that they're not in the federal one. That thing is long.

As far as "community" I mean Americans. All Americans are a community. I don't get the confusion?

but it is not part of the federal one, you are right

Now think on how you can differentiate community, because seriously, the Pubbies have been using that one in many flavors and we need to think outside the box. Flavor one, Family Values (hey nice one there, ain't it?)

I think you'd like "Don't Think of an Elephant."

I like what you have to say about your local elected officials. It makes me feel better about the grassroots struggle...it looks like we have to do this from the bottom up, and you know people who are doing just that.

We will have a full blown slate of candidates in the fall. Every race contested, up and down the ballot. We are very happy about that.

Party. That is what it means. What it does not mean is Progressive/Liberal/Conservative or any other label. Those who think it does have meaning other than that are buying into the bill of goods the Republicans have been selling since the dawn of time. They have successfully managed to make the term liberal equate to bad, thus Democrats = Liberals = Democrats are bad.

I recognize this even though I am a dyed in the wool, neo-con despising, gay marriage supporting liberal, who really is not at all fond of the DLC.

With the exception of Zell "Republican in Dem's Clothing" Miller I have no problem seeing the rest of the list as Democrats. This does not mean I agree with them on every issue. The Democratic party has always encompassed a broad spectrum. Disagreement in the Dem. party is the standard not the exception. And you know, thats okay. I don't want to walk in lockstep like the Republicans. From disagreement springs discussion and then compromise. I will take a compromised position over nothing, because some progress is better then no progress. I have been an active Democrat for 35 years. I may not be pleased with some of the leadership in house and senate, but I am proud of what our party does stand for - the common man and woman. And for the most part, I think each of the people in the list (except traitor Zell) stand for that as well and in this find their common ground.

I tend to recognize those things as well.

It really was good to read the party platform. A nice reminder of the principles our Party is still fighting for, well, most of us, anyways. :)

much needed discussion.

the Party. That's not exactly my goal, though it would be nice if the people on TV had anything in common with the people they represent.

but being bought off is bad and so many of these scumbags are for sale

aka - The "not as bad" party.

But then I remember that there is an army of people like myself who do not agree with the status quo beltway Dems that there is a compromise between right-wing madness and sensible government.

Ultimately, the vast majority of this Party is a lot better than "not as bad."

The important thing is to turnover the establishment of the Party and get people who are on the same page with the rest of us.

I’m a Democrat, and I’ve been a Democrat for all of my life. I
have given it some thought, and I’ve come to some conclusions about why
I choose to affiliate with the Democratic Party. Here are some ways to
tell if you are a Democrat.



If you would be willing to pay for a government that provides services
that matter to you, then you are a Democrat.

If you believe deep down that America’s diversity is the source of
America’s strength, not a threat to it, then you are a Democrat.

If you believe that homelessness, poverty, and a lack of healthcare for
the less fortunate among us reflect poorly on us as a society, and that
those are things the government can and should do something about, then
you are a Democrat.

If you believe in your heart that government-funded research can
provide us with the great scientific achievements of the future, just
like it gave us space flight, the Internet, and the human genome in the
past, then you are a Democrat.

If you believe that we can find better, more efficient, and less
politically volatile sources of energy that will create American jobs
and inspire good-old fashioned American ingenuity, then you are a
Democrat.

If you pray that there is more power in the peaceful march for justice
than there is in the deadly march of warfare, then you are a Democrat.

If you imagine that globalization might work a bit better for all
involved if we pushed for better labor standards worldwide, then you
are a Democrat.

If you think that thoughtful and respectful diplomacy can often more
effectively serve the United States’ interests than intimidation and
hard bargaining tactics, then you are a Democrat.

If you think that a balanced budget is a sign of a healthy and vital
government, and not a sign that taxpayers are being ripped off, then
you are a Democrat.

If you believe that the rich don’t need the government’s help to get
richer, but that maybe the poor could use it every now and again, then
you are a Democrat.