The democratic party is confusing the hell out of me.

I am having a difficult time figuring out what is going on with the democratic party.

Why don't they have a unified message?

Why are they afraid of the Republicans?

Have the stopped reading the polls? The country is overwhelming against Bush & the Republicans.

Why are they afraid to stand in opposition to clearly unpopular policies?

Why don't they define the debate? The Republicans are taking the Feingold censure and using it as an opportunity to rally their base. Why doesn't it occur to the dems that they have 67% of a base that doesn't approve of Bush to rally?

Why didn't they filibuster Alito?

I am sure everyone on this board could write a cohesive message against the Republican's policies. And, I am sure DU'ers could come up with a leading message strategy to win in 06 in probably under an hour.

It isn't complicated. Consistent message. Unity. Truth. Courage.

Do the democrats just have really horrible political instincts? Or, are the majority truly in bed with the corporate machine and have no real interest in representing the people?

Why do the dems fail to address the stolen election issue? Don't they realize the gall it takes to ask people for their emotional investment, time and money, if they aren't committed to ensuring the votes are counted?

:shrug:

It worked for the "Patriot" Act, and Frist is probably still holding it over Dem heads every day.

"keep their powder dry" is my bet.

That's assuming I bother voting at all. I don't have much faith that my vote even matters. It's insignificant even if it's counted, which it might not be.

"If voting made any difference, it would be illegal"

I'm beginning to think that now

...who will pick up your slack.

NGU.

There are plenty of us still fighting for you.

comes in from the north.

Stop providing cover for people who have failed us time and again. I could understand a FEW of the Congressional Dems being threatened with blackmail. But ALL of them, no, sorry, can't buy it. Too many of them either have little or nothing to hide, or already have so many sins that one or two more simply wouldn't matter. In the first category would fall people like Kerry and Reid. In the second category would fall people like Kennedy.

And frankly, what would the American people be more pissed about, the use of spying for political advantage, or another in a long line of BS scandals? Judging from the polls, I would say the spying issue.

So stop trying to provide cover for the spineless Dems. The reason that they're not fighting back is simple, it is because their corporate masters, the same corporate masters of the 'Pugs, don't want them to fight. Two party, same corporate master system of government, plain, pure and simple.

I get bashed all the time for questioning the dems. And, I am sick of it. I am a dem! A very active one. But, I am also angry as hell at their meek response to a Republican dictatorship. And, it is NOT okay for them to fold and betray us on vital issues. The bankruptcy bill and not filibustering Alito was nothing but a huge slap in the face.

It is NOT okay.

our party, sadly, has become nearly as guilty as there's is. Refusing to allow questions will not make any problems go away-they won't disappear because we refuse to acknowledge them. Dissent is the only way to bring about change. Maybe those who call you a "basher" or accuse you of using GOP talking points like things just the way they are. Those of us who want a real change within our party because the results of this direction over the past five years isn't to our liking can't afford to toe the line. The issues at stake are just too important.

There are organized groups at other sites that use DU to bash the Democratic party. They don't offer anything in return to seniors who will be losing their Medicare and Social Security.

This is not about stopping questioning, it is about demanding total allegiance to THEIR agenda. There is no we about it.

as Hitler came into power? How did he get into power?

Did they wonder where their opposition party was?

Did their members say wait this will blow over and we will get back into power?

Everyone keeps saying that we need to wait...the Dems have had 5 years to answer the questions you posed....and we keep hearing we need to wait...

I am getting slammed in another thread for...gasp saying that the Dems have to fight for the things that you noted....

I am tired today...

for trying to change the party from within. So maybe there should be some tolerance from the progressives as well.

get good ones in so we can impeach the whole bunch. Not voting or voting 3rd party is a gift to these neo-con democracy murderers.

And because the ones who are used to being in control don't have the support anymore of the people in the party overall.

And because when people like Dean, Feingold, Conyers come out with new ideas they get little party support for a while.

Because there are not enough official chiefs and too many Indians.

Because all the Indians want perfection and are not willing to compromise much, so no leaders are acceptable by them.

We are so out of power that folks are scrambling to be the pretend leader, yet the cacaphony of voices is too overwhelming.

Disclaimer: The reference to Indians and Chiefs is not ethnic...refers to the old say "Too many Chiefs and Not Enough Indians" sort of reversed.

And being used by the RNC.

We are not going to fix this party by denying what is wrong with it. I am not trying to bash the dems. I am asking legitimate questions.

It is not a right wing 'talking point' that the dems let them steal TWO Presidential elections with nary a peep.

Why aren't all the dems laying it on the line - calling a liar a liar - a thief a thief - a lawbreaker a criminal?

The dems will win when they become a true opposition party. But, this constant laying down and letting the Republicans set the tone while the dems bide their time is utter bullshit.

I think you are pretty rough myself.

"talking points". Those problems DO exist. I don't watch TV, listen to the radio, or read anything a repugs write-yet I've come to the same conclusions you have by PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT OUR DEM REPS ARE DOING-and NOT doing. It's my party, I'm a member, I work for them and they work for me-therefore, I bloody well have the right to ask "why" without being called a "Dem basher"-and so do you.

Why aren't all the dems laying it on the line - calling a liar a liar - a thief a thief - a lawbreaker a criminal?

Everytime I am with my dad talking about things the bush administration has done, he says, "why didn't we know about that during the election, why didn't anyone make an issue about it.?"

It's true. And a lot of people are making excuses for the DEMs here. Sure, the MSM is decidedly right wing, but that doesn't explain it all.

First, Kerry let Bush distract him during the whole presidential debates..maybe those washington dems thought they could win on the economy, but no one cares. We didn't hear about any important issues because the democrats don't really take a stand.

The official democratic strategy is to just let bush implode on his own. Makes total sense. Then you wonder why people say you don't stand for anything. And when a democrat makes a stand, say Feingold here or Conyers, the all go running to distance themselves from them. They play right into the republic strategy. They want to paint dems as far left and out there, and it works. Because they fail to stand behind members of their own party. Even though deep down you know they know the person is right.

Seriously if i have to hear Nancy pelosi or Hillary or any of them say how they wouldnt go that far (in a particular issue) I am going to puke.

It is either because they are too afraid of the Big Bad republicans to take a stand, or they can't because they are really big hypoctites, republicans in sheeps clothing.

Impeachment of Bush? No way. Censure even? Nah, thats so mean!

BARF BARF. There is no one to count on.

what gets me is, Bush has the lowest approval ratings, he's fucked up everything, but still people poll that they think republicans are tougher on national security. I for one can not think of one instance where bush was tough, except for maybe finally going after Bin ladin in afganistan (only to cut and run months later for Iraq).

As laid out by Senator Kerry over the weekend, along with a similar plan from the DNC. This is what we'd be talking about this week if it weren't for the "maverick".

obey the law protect civil rights
tell the truth
fire the incompetents
chase the moneychangers from the temple of democracy
bring our troops home
find obl, protect the ports
stop blaming the american people when it's this admin addicted to oil
make access to healthcare affordable
reduce the deficit
respect work over wealth, fight for American jobs

Since when has the media covered ANY of the dems proposals?!

The maverick is right on. Until, we expose Bush for the deadly threat he is to this country and globe, we will have no real discussion about vital issues. We will just get Republican lies as a counterpoint discussion.

Before the dems can move forward, they have to OFFENSIVELY take on Bush & the Republican party.

They put that angle on every story, every chance they get; Feingold just put it in their lap this time. Considering Dean made the radio address himself on Saturday, yeah, I'd say Dems had planned a major push on homeland security and the Democratic plan this week. Feingold derailed it and no, I'm not kidding. You don't get to the US Senate playing tiddly-winks.

they waited too damned long.

Bush is weak on national security. He breaks the law spying on PEACE groups while our ports go undefended.

It isn't either or...

The topic of homeland security and the Bush illegal spying could fit VERY nicely together. Dems protecting Americans while protecting their rights. It is what the American people EXPECT.

And, you missed my point. I was asking if you were kidding that the MSM was going to actually cover Kerry's plan in any real way.

They won't. They are nothing but Republican parrots. We can talk sense and logic all day.

It won't get covered or taken seriously until we take on Bush.

He is a criminal. He is turning this nation into a dictatorship and the dems don't have the luxury to bide their time.

They are being rendered completely impotent.

This is the time to fight. Take it head on. It is what is right. And, it also happens to be a very politically smart move. American's are dying for some strong, real, courageous leadership.

As you say...the media does not cover it.

Idiot consultants

It would take a very long post to answer your well-meaning questions.

The problem with your view of things is that it doesn't account for the depth of the issues and that straight approve/disapprove percentages don't account for degree and earnestness of support or opposition. You're missing a lot of psychological dimension and that the major issues involve a long process of decisions, events, and developments over the course of years that different political blocs think about in different ways.

There's also the question of what the Democratic Party leadership is trying to accomplish. You imagine that the Party leadership has a duty to obey numbers and be a classical opposition party. They, on the other hand, have realized that it's a waste of time being an opposition party at this point. They read the same numbers and know that the game is about becoming the majority party. There are no consolations for coming second in this polarized environment- the Republicans are running things All Or Nothing.

To be the dominant/majority party means becoming the party identified with the national consensus of what must be done. National consensus is defined as what the great middle, the 36% moderates, agrees with. And you win the national consensus by splitting the moderates from one hardcore partisan bloc, the 32% dedicated Republicans or 32% dedicated Democrats, and fusing it to the other.

Democrats now have the liberal-leaning Indies completely and own conservative-leaning Indies on all but 'handling terrorism'. It's now a matter of the moderate wing of Republicans giving up on the hardliner-run GOP fully.

There is nothing Democrats can do about the 'handling terrorism' support Bush gets- that's purely governed by major Al Qaeda attacks killing lots of people in the West- except wait.

Moderate Republicans are presently breaking with the GOP over corruption/ethics (DeLay/Abramoff), war policy (Iraq), and foreign diplomacy (failure of the 'Coalition') already- there need to be some poignant events, but it's only a matter of time. Moderate Republicans are still with the GOP on 'handling terrorism', social policy (well, on benefit of the doubt) and that break will require some major crisis involving, oh, abortion rights probably. And there's a final break needed on economic policy, which usually involves actions on taxation. That will probably be at stake in the extension of the estate tax cut and budget fight in the next few months.

If you look at these things closely, they are near. A few months.

As for the need for a unified agenda, that is much easier to establish when the other Party is truly broken and a wing of it is disillusioned and can be poached (not the first election, which they sit out, but the next one). Then all the crap about 'needing to compromise' doesn't arise, only reality and consistency matters.

Any agenda Democrats put up now is going to be too limited and narrow or just beside the point and surreal. I laugh at the ones proposed now- either from the Beltway or by the Leftist sorts here. We'd reject both in a couple of months. We shouldn't put up any agenda that we'd change between now and the election. It doesn't cause me any anxiety not to have an articulated agenda now- the Party can wait until September or October for all I care.

In shortest simplest possible terms: we have to let hardline Republican policies really burn out with their moderate wing. And then we can do as we wish.

Allow the republic party to implode while we just sit back and applaud.

Once they kill themselves , we will rain a message down on the people that will just knock their socks off. I believe it will be deeply rooted in a populist theme, and it will be something like... "Time to bring power back to the people, time to bring back the party of the people"

If we go heavy into the populist message( that was always our strong point) we will win. If we narrow our message to appease smaller groups and ignore the masses we will lose. Its a big party and its time to look out for everyone. No special interests should get preferential treatment. Populist message is for everyone.

It's right here: http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Security. Opportunity. Responsibility.

Do a little research next time, instead of expecting the Corporate Media to hand it to you on a platter.

NGU.

then it hasn't been an effective message.

Are you signed up for mail from the various parts of the party? Do you know that is why people have websites?

Why not take a trip to the DNC next time you are on your way here? Good stuff there. Not perfect though.

and nearly every other democratic/ liberal group out there. I'm an ACTIVE activist. But ask the average American who IS NOT receiving 15 emails a day from those institutions to tell you what the message is.

Therein lies the problem.

?

They're our core values. If a person has to look it up, you have to wonder what they consider their values...

NGU.

to be effective. Don't try any misdirection here-it only works with repugs.

My county party is pushing those very values out to the media and the public every day. What are you doing to help our party deliver this message?

By the way, I did read the post. In fact I reread the post. Not much there but a snide platitude.

NGU.

I'm not going to spend the next half hour detailing 30+ years of my activism for the democratic party to you, Classwarrior, especially since you don't appear interested in dealing with the issues in the OP . OUR party needs a unified message, and it needs to to act like a unified entity with Russ Feingold, as it should have with Kerry and Kennedy on Alito. OUR party should not have voted for the bankruptcy bill and should not vote to send billions more to Iraq. Our party's actions speak as loud and louder than it's words and mission statements, and those by some members are hurting our Nation and it's people every day. Changes are needed. Now.

...that we don't have unified message.

:shrug:

NGU.

My subject, beginning with my original post on this thread (#27), has been that we do indeed have a unified message. Go back and read the thread.

NGU.

NGU.