The Democratic Party is not a party of Liberals.

This took me a while to realize, but I am becoming heavily involved here in CT in local and state politics, and I wanted to get this message out, especially to this board.

The Democratic Party is not a party of Liberals.

I honestly thought it was. Really, I thought "Conservative=Repug, Liberal=Dem". Its just not true. There are plenty of conservatives in the Democratic party. And lots of moderates. LOTS of moderates. There are also moderates who are repubs, and even, believe it or not, some liberals. These tend to be people that are socially liberal, but fiscally republican. This is particularly big here in CT.

But it behooves us to remember that we are not 100% liberal, nor should we call any Dem who isn't 100% liberal a "DINO". I agree that Republicans like Lieberman have more than earned their DINO title, many times over. (Joe has got to go, go NED LAMONT!)

I think we all expect all Dems to all want impeachment, or all stand together on all liberal issues automatically, and I think that is a complete fallacy. We need to have realistic expectations about our own party. This is the Democratic Underground, not the Liberal Underground, and its named that for a good reason, I feel. Its because not all Dems are as liberal as you or I might wish them to be. But that doesn't make them less of a Democrat.

If we really want to succeed, we need to do exactly what the Republicans did to get the control they currently have. We need to understand our own party first. We are not "as one". We are not "100% united in our causes". That doesn't make us broken, or fragmented, though, and THAT is the real problem with our party. Any time we perceive differences between Dems, we call them DINOs and say "we're broken, we're fragmented". We are not. If we want to win over the public on an issue, then we need to make sure we are acting in the public's best interest, not just liberals, not just liberals and moderates. I am not saying we should be centrists, I am saying we need to make our case to the average person. And when we disagree within the party, to not have a shitfit about it. We need to accept differing opinions because as long as there is dissent, then there is room to reconsider our position. We can be strong while having dissent within our party. We will always have dissent, we can't eliminate it. We need to understand where it comes from and how to handle it the right way. Alienating those within our party that have non-leftwing-liberal positions only harms us, not helps us. We need to treat everyone in our party just like we treat independents, and like we treat republicans. We need to make our case, logically, and present solutions that work for everyone. We need to present our liberal point of view in a way that a moderate can agree with, otherwise we can't get people to back our party.

The Democratic Party is not a party of Liberals.

Its a party of The People.
1,000,000s of voices, one message.
"We, The People."

Dean can borrow it any time, though.

:dem:

Please tell me what is fiscally conservative about this administration.

... fiscally conservative.

He is a republican, but not fiscally conservative.

what makes them think they should still be voting for republicans?

Fiscal Conservatism means cutting budgets, reducing taxes, and cutting spending. It means killing social projects that eat up huge money with no payoffs for those funding them. Typical fiscal conservative positions are the weakening of education (since they don't need it and their kids go to private school), the reduction of property tax and the increase in sales tax, and things of that nature.

I used to be registered as independent, during the Clinton years, and the first term of boosh. Changed it last year to Democratic. If they ever start up the "People's Party" I'll have to leave ya'll for them, cause the corporate wing of the Democratic Party REALLY turns me off.

That and the democratic party's support for the war of aggression against Iraq.

But the liberal solution DOES work for everyone. Yes, we do need to make sure our message appeals to those in the middle as well. I don't believe there are actually that many conservatives in the US. Its just a perception. A republican that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a libertarian and should not claim to agree with ANYTHING that the republican party is doing right now.
If you're suggesting that we as democrats should work to moderate our party rather than liberalize it, which i hope you aren't, then i wholly disagree with what you are saying. But if you believe as i and many of us here do, that we should work to make Americans aware of how liberal they actually are as well as turn a few others through grassroots action, then thats great!

The average person is turned off by "liberalism" until they can understand that it works in their favor.

I am not totally taking about people, though, I am talking about our leaders. They aren't all liberals, nor should they be. Many are moderates. That doesn't make our party moderate. That doesn't mean we should be centrist. It means that we need to "sway" the opinions of our own party members (the moderate ones) just like we want to sway the opinions of "joe average" American independent on the street.

We can't just attack the moderate Dem leaders. We need to convince them to support our liberal positions, and we need to do it in a logical, thoughtful, and respectful way. DINOs like Lieberman don't count, but I am talking about the real moderates, the ones in the middle.

The reason we are perceived as a party "with no message" is because we keep trying to get "A" message. A "single" message. We don't have one, and never will, because we are diverse. We need to understand that we will always be diverse. There is no way to get a unified, single-minded, Democratic Party. Not gonna happen. If we want to win, we need to sell the diversity. We need to use it as a strength, not a weakness.

Let the politicians run whatever campaign they want to. "Politics is all local", as the saying goes, and its 100% true. Politics is all local, and that is why every Dem politician will not be a cookie cutter like the repukes.

it's not a party of Democrats anymore either.

However my complaints, and they are complaints, is when 20 Democrats vote to screw the people vis a vie Bankruptcy Reform. I object when the party that represents the people sell the people down the river for campaign contributions from the credit card companies.

I object when my party, that is my elected leaders, don't call for the NSA Domestic Spying program to be shut down. The most any of the Democrats have called for is to make the program legal.

I complain about the Beltway Dems, call them DINO's, call them whatever you will, vote to cut taxes on the rich and put the burden on the poor. Obviously we aren't a party of Liberals, and that is a goodly part of the reason we suffer defeat after defeat in the elections.

Democrats, well Beltway Dems allowed Alito and Roberts to join the Supreme Court, obviously these Repugniks are going to shit all over our civil liberties, rights which we once fought for, now we mumble about the loss of.

I agree our party isn't liberal, because if it was, none of these statements would be true. Targeting Lieberman is foolish when you consider that his voting record isn't any different than any other Democrat in the Senate. http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm


In the House of Representatives, the Repukes are pushing the Flag Burning laws again, and guess what, Democrats have VOTED FOR IT. Rep. Randy (Crook) Cunningham sponsored the bill, and it passed the house. Gee, any other free speech we Democrats no longer approve of? Anyone want to tell me how the Repugniks won't do this?

You are absolutely right, we aren't a party of Liberals anymore, we once were, we once cared about the people. Now we have become the party most accurately defined as "Repugnik Lite". In eight months, we will be wondering, scratching our heads, and crying about how we lost the elections again. How could we lose we will cry and gnash our teeth. We will bemoan the loss, and once again try and become more conservative in an effort to woo Repugniks to our party. In the mean time, our base is abandoning us, like the rats, they sense a sinking ship, and we can than our Democratic Leadership, who puts all their attention in how to be like Repugniks instead of how to be Democrats.

We need to convince these "repug lite" Dems why the Liberal agenda is important and why they need to start supporting it.

That is the point of my post.

Convert the "beltway" Dems, don't attack them. Make them see the light.

Six months ago, we cheered when the Patriot Act was defeated, we all reveled in Harry Reid's pronouncement that "We killed the Patriot Act" and we all celebrated the break up of the Repugnik Party. We were looking forward to taking back the house, and the Senate, and we reveled in our momentum which appeared unstoppable.

Does anyone but me remember those heady days of just a few months ago?

In the interest of Brevity, I will list only the Democrats who voted against the Patriot Act. I do this because the list is obviously much shorter.

HI Jr Senator Daniel Kahikina Akaka Democrat N
IA Jr Senator Thomas 'Tom' Harkin Democrat N
MI Sr Senator Carl Levin Democrat N
NM Jr Senator Jeff Bingaman Democrat N
OR Sr Senator Ron Wyden Democrat N
VT Sr Senator Patrick J. Leahy Democrat N
VT Jr Senator James Merrill 'Jim' Jeffords Independent N
WA Sr Senator Patty Murray Democrat N
WI Jr Senator Russell D. Feingold Democrat N
WV Sr Senator Robert C. Byrd Democrat N

We also had one Abstain, or refused to vote

HI Sr Senator Daniel K. Inouye Democrat NV

Who do I notice not on this list? Why Harry Reid, Barbra Boxer, Hillary, and a host of others who crowed like roosters when they defeated this piece of crap legislation. They aren't here in the end, did they not hear from us? No, they heard from the same corporate sponsors that keep the Repugniks on a short leash, and they fell into lock step. Ten had the guts to vote against it, one abstained. 34 Democrats VOTED FOR IT. :wtf: :spank:

While we are busy chastising the Repugniks for proposing this piece of crap, we are giving our own party members, the leaders of our party, a free pass for shitting on the people. How much explaining do Democrats need to understand that civil liberties matter? If we have to explain it to them, aren't they the wrong people? I mean they voted to shit on the people who voted them in office. Secret warrants, No problem, we can trust Bush on that right? Keep the NSA Domestic Spying going, no problem, we'll pass a law making it retroactively legal. We need to explain this to them? I'm sorry, but they don't need to have it explained to them, they need to be retired and allow true progressives, liberals, and people of honor and compassion to take over for them.

It will be the moderates $ donations that will give it the needed finance to get it going again. Those $s are not going to be forthcoming on "just beat the republicans" if there isn't some solid ground work done very soon!
It's not about abortion, gays, religion, or any individual rights. It is about a nation in peril of losing over 200 years of building freedoms, fairness, and living standards above all expectations of the world.
If that all goes down the drain, so does any and all "rights"!
We can't have just one leader for the party, we need a couple of hundred that will stand up to the "money is power mongrels" in all government from town mayors, governors, representatives, senators, cabinet appointees, the judicial across the country including the supreme court, and after those being the best, any president can make the right things happen.
The destruction of the republican party today is because they only "used the people" and took every thing for the money!

It's not any Democratic Party I know. 20 years ago, no Democrats would have supported a Right wing extremist like Alito, today, no problem.

If our nation is indeed going down the crapper, and the Democrats are consistantly voting with the Repugniks, does it matter who's hand is flushing? When a Majority of Democrats vote to shit on the people with Bankruptcy Reform, why would I support them? When a Majority of Democrats voted with the Repugniks to shit on our rights with the renewed Patriot Act, I see the difference how?

I am only able to name one thing, in which we, the Democratic Party, kept the Repugniks in check. The oil drilling in ANWR. That is it, on every other issue, from civil liberties to the war in Iraq, we have not only rolled over, but joined with the Repugniks in great numbers, voting with them.

When you are shat upon, it doesn't feel any better if the turd comes from a Repugnik or a Democratic Ass.

Fiscally conservative, socially progressive.

We need some government. We need taxes. We need responsibility and accountability.

Those are all conservative positions.

We need to progress socially and conserve the environment and plan ahead. That's considered liberal, but it strikes me as a very conservative position - if it was my personal finances/life and I was planning ahead for the next 50 years, it'd be considered conservative. Basically, it's just being prudent.

Be prudent, while trying to be progressive.

Want to call it moderate? I don't really care. Actually I like the term Prudent Progressive, or perhaps, better, Pragmatic Progressive.

That's where I land. I'm not against cutting down trees if we have replacements, etc., but we need to be pragmatic about our choices, while trying to progressively improve our lives and society.

That's a good way to put it. But for the most part we are progressives, I think. And there are progressives in the Republican Party, as well. Too bad their party got high jacked from under them.

Again, not talkin about us, the people, I'm talkin about elected Dems.
I would wager a good 80-85% are moderates.

One big, happy, mildly wildly dysfunctional family.

As a charter member of DU's "radical left weirdos", I've always understood that there are more than liberals in the party. I've always been fine with that. I just want access to the damned bathroom while there's still some hot water left.

We may be out growing our tent soon. Time for a little remodel. ;)

run away from the word as it has been refined by rightwing broadcast media. But liberal has been redefined as anyone against the administration's policies. So, in effect, you have a party where half of it doesn't want to oppose the administration too vigorously for fear of being labeled "liberal" and thus, is genuinely not currently a party that can adequately defend against the assault on the constitution or the truth.

And that is why we keep losing elections, as increasingly Democratic voters see voting as pointless, and the Republican voters we are trying to get already have a party that is giving them what they want. Our government is sick, and it is sick from a virus that was planted long ago, one that allowed corporate contributions to our leaders that has always to some extent kept leaders that were sympathetic to the rich in power.

It takes a fortune to get elected now, and as long as we have lobbyists that are paid millions to channel millions into campaigns and gifts for eventual politcos, we'll have this terrible situation. There isn't much to do but rage against the machine.