I know some of you will hate me for this but it is what needs to be done.
I know that we all want the democratic party to become more liberal but we can only take that so far. It would be ideal for all democrats in congress to be on the same page and for all the candidates to be like us. However, it can't be like that. I was reading about a democratic candidate in Indiana, who is pro-life, pro-gun, very religious and what have you. There are a lot of people in this party whou would be thinking "We can't run people like this, they are too conservitive to be democrats." Look, the party will never retake congress if every candidate is liberal. What would happen to a democratic candidate for the House, running in a very conservative district in Alabama, who was pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty ect? They would be beaten down. I would rather have, right now, a large group of southern democrats, who were conservative, then a large group of southern republicans in power. Wouldn't it be better for the democrats to have the majority in congress and have 25% of those democrats as very conservative, then having the democrats in the minority but being 100% like us? The democrats coming out of certain parts of the country are going to need to be different. There is no way that a New York style Democrat would win an election in the south or the west. When I say this it seems obvious to me but i think that there are many in our ranks who feel that shouldn't be. There are many people, probably many here, who think that all democratic candidates from any given place in the country should be liberal but kids, if you want to retake the House or the Senate, we are going to need to allow some more conservative people to play with us.
To put it simply, I would rather have a bunch of conservative democrats, who have to act republican some of the time, then a bunch of republicans who are going to act republican all the time.
Full Version: I'm Just Going To Say It
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
QUOTE(Jesus of Suburbia @ Friday, 6 January 2006, 9:52 pm)
I know some of you will hate me for this but it is what needs to be done.
I know that we all want the democratic party to become more liberal but we can only take that so far. It would be ideal for all democrats in congress to be on the same page and for all the candidates to be like us. However, it can't be like that. I was reading about a democratic candidate in Indiana, who is pro-life, pro-gun, very religious and what have you. There are a lot of people in this party whou would be thinking "We can't run people like this, they are too conservitive to be democrats." Look, the party will never retake congress if every candidate is liberal. What would happen to a democratic candidate for the House, running in a very conservative district in Alabama, who was pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty ect? They would be beaten down. I would rather have, right now, a large group of southern democrats, who were conservative, then a large group of southern republicans in power. Wouldn't it be better for the democrats to have the majority in congress and have 25% of those democrats as very conservative, then having the democrats in the minority but being 100% like us? The democrats coming out of certain parts of the country are going to need to be different. There is no way that a New York style Democrat would win an election in the south or the west. When I say this it seems obvious to me but i think that there are many in our ranks who feel that shouldn't be. There are many people, probably many here, who think that all democratic candidates from any given place in the country should be liberal but kids, if you want to retake the House or the Senate, we are going to need to allow some more conservative people to play with us.
To put it simply, I would rather have a bunch of conservative democrats, who have to act republican some of the time, then a bunch of republicans who are going to act republican all the time.
[right][snapback]38807[/snapback][/right]
I know that we all want the democratic party to become more liberal but we can only take that so far. It would be ideal for all democrats in congress to be on the same page and for all the candidates to be like us. However, it can't be like that. I was reading about a democratic candidate in Indiana, who is pro-life, pro-gun, very religious and what have you. There are a lot of people in this party whou would be thinking "We can't run people like this, they are too conservitive to be democrats." Look, the party will never retake congress if every candidate is liberal. What would happen to a democratic candidate for the House, running in a very conservative district in Alabama, who was pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty ect? They would be beaten down. I would rather have, right now, a large group of southern democrats, who were conservative, then a large group of southern republicans in power. Wouldn't it be better for the democrats to have the majority in congress and have 25% of those democrats as very conservative, then having the democrats in the minority but being 100% like us? The democrats coming out of certain parts of the country are going to need to be different. There is no way that a New York style Democrat would win an election in the south or the west. When I say this it seems obvious to me but i think that there are many in our ranks who feel that shouldn't be. There are many people, probably many here, who think that all democratic candidates from any given place in the country should be liberal but kids, if you want to retake the House or the Senate, we are going to need to allow some more conservative people to play with us.
To put it simply, I would rather have a bunch of conservative democrats, who have to act republican some of the time, then a bunch of republicans who are going to act republican all the time.
[right][snapback]38807[/snapback][/right]
I don't have a problem with any of that, Jesus... but we sure as hell don't need anymore Joe Liebermans or Zell Millers, either.
Catherine
Dixiecrats. Look it up.
DIXIECRAT PARTY
In 1948, the Democratic National Convention was splintered by debate over controversial new civil rights planks that had been proposed for addition to the party platform. Adoption of the planks, urged by a group led by Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, was resisted by delegates from southern states. In the middle, trying to hold together the New Deal coalition he had inherited from Franklin D. Roosevelt, was President Harry S. Truman. As a compromise, he was prepared to settle for the adoption of only those planks that had been in the 1944 platform. But Truman's own civil rights initiatives, including the formation of the Committee on Civil Rights and the Fair Employment Practices Commission, had advanced the civil rights debate to a new level, and he could not turn the clock back. The planks were adopted, prompting thirty-five southern Democrats to walk out. They formed the States' Rights party, which came to be popularly known as the Dixiecrats.
Meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, the Dixiecrats nominated South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their candidate for president. In the November election, Thurmond carried four states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. He received well over a million popular votes, and his thirty-nine electoral votes represented more than 7 percent of the total.
The Dixiecrat episode was one of the most significant third-party efforts in America's history. Truman won reelection, but the strong showing put forth by the Dixiecrats signaled impending changes in electoral politics. It was the most visible sign of the postwar erosion of the New Deal coalition.
Readers Companion
Edit to add....
Much more on the topic here Now: With Bill Moyers
Thanks for the heads up Zooks.
You sent me down new paths,
and I am reminded just how far we have come with the civil rights issue in the past 50 odd years!
Conditions that we take for granted today, weren't even visable in the time of the Dixiectrats.
And as much as things still need to be improved, we've come a long way baby!
In 1948, the Democratic National Convention was splintered by debate over controversial new civil rights planks that had been proposed for addition to the party platform. Adoption of the planks, urged by a group led by Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, was resisted by delegates from southern states. In the middle, trying to hold together the New Deal coalition he had inherited from Franklin D. Roosevelt, was President Harry S. Truman. As a compromise, he was prepared to settle for the adoption of only those planks that had been in the 1944 platform. But Truman's own civil rights initiatives, including the formation of the Committee on Civil Rights and the Fair Employment Practices Commission, had advanced the civil rights debate to a new level, and he could not turn the clock back. The planks were adopted, prompting thirty-five southern Democrats to walk out. They formed the States' Rights party, which came to be popularly known as the Dixiecrats.
Meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, the Dixiecrats nominated South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their candidate for president. In the November election, Thurmond carried four states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. He received well over a million popular votes, and his thirty-nine electoral votes represented more than 7 percent of the total.
The Dixiecrat episode was one of the most significant third-party efforts in America's history. Truman won reelection, but the strong showing put forth by the Dixiecrats signaled impending changes in electoral politics. It was the most visible sign of the postwar erosion of the New Deal coalition.
Readers Companion
Edit to add....
Much more on the topic here Now: With Bill Moyers
Thanks for the heads up Zooks.
You sent me down new paths,
and I am reminded just how far we have come with the civil rights issue in the past 50 odd years!
Conditions that we take for granted today, weren't even visable in the time of the Dixiectrats.
And as much as things still need to be improved, we've come a long way baby!
I'm an issue guy, not a party guy. So if there's a pro-gun, anti-choice, highly religious democrat out there, I'm not voting for him just based off the (D) after his name. He isn't likely to vote the way I would like on key issues, so I can't give my vote to someone like that, because I might as well just save the trouble and take a Republican.
I don't want all the Democrats clamoring for universal health care all at once, but I think moving the party and almost all new incoming candidates to the left is vital for both the survival of the party and the soul of our nation.
I don't want all the Democrats clamoring for universal health care all at once, but I think moving the party and almost all new incoming candidates to the left is vital for both the survival of the party and the soul of our nation.
QUOTE(Gadzooks! @ Friday, 6 January 2006, 9:10 pm)
Dixiecrats. Look it up.
[right][snapback]38811[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]38811[/snapback][/right]
Yes, bring back the dixiecrats, that is what i said.
QUOTE(Jesus of Suburbia @ Saturday, 7 January 2006, 5:31 pm)
Yes, bring back the dixiecrats, that is what i said.
[right][snapback]38883[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]38883[/snapback][/right]
Hmmm...am I sensing a little sarcasm here?
As for my opinion (which I do so love to share, hehe)...I can see where you are coming from Jesus. Getting more "democrats" into the system could, theoretically help, even if we are electing ones that don't perfectly align with our basic ideals. A few pro-gun, anti-choice, uber-religious democrats, combined with a much larger majority of pro-civil rights dems could help the dems, in general, regain control of the congress.
But I can't help but wonder that the pro-gunners will be far less likely to vote along party lines when it comes to things that they disagree with other democrats on and agree with Repubs on. Seems like all that would happen is we will have a democratically run national government that is only "democrat" in name. As I have pointed out before, here in the South, you generally run on which party you think will get you elected. Who cares about ideals...they just jump back and forth to whichever party is most popular at the time. This situation would do us (the members of this forum, the general public who is disillusioned with Gee W, the current state of things, the war in Iraq) no good because, while we would have put more democrats (by name only) into positions of power, the general concepts of the current republican party would most likely still be the "majority" opinion. Just because we have a chance to get some more democrats into the congress, doesn't mean we can get rid of the rebubs completely. And giving the repubs a bunch of democrats that are going to vote with them on major issues isn't doing anyone any good.
I realize you probably think this is a little doomsdayee, but I live in the South. When you come across a Dem who is pro-gun, anti-choice, and uber-religious, they are not the type to care so much about civil rights, human rights, etc. They are probably democratic because they come from a traditionally democratic town or family. Their definition of a democrat doesn't even resemble mine.
I agree with what the poster has said. It IS better to have Democrats in power, while some may be conservative and support the Iraq War, than to have the Republican clique we have running things now. Althought I have been one of the most outspoken critics of Democratic Party behavior on this board, I still recognize that they are better than the Republicans. I would rather have them in charge, as imperfect of a party as they are, than the current Republican "domination" of Congress. We progressives want perfection, but it cannot come immediatly. The first step toward what we want is to get these fucking Republicans out of power.
QUOTE(AntiFlagWaver @ Monday, 9 January 2006, 12:17 pm)
I agree with what the poster has said. It IS better to have Democrats in power, while some may be conservative and support the Iraq War, than to have the Republican clique we have running things now. Althought I have been one of the most outspoken critics of Democratic Party behavior on this board, I still recognize that they are better than the Republicans. I would rather have them in charge, as imperfect of a party as they are, than the current Republican "domination" of Congress. We progressives want perfection, but it cannot come immediatly. The first step toward what we want is to get these fucking Republicans out of power.
[right][snapback]39067[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]39067[/snapback][/right]
Aw right AFW!
Thank you! Yer back on the team!
BTW, I will agree with you that the Democrats need to do a little
weeding in the garden! Without question!
I have been thinking about this a lot, and I couldn't disagree with Jesus's logic when he layed it out like that. I had to admit he was correct.
But when you say a "little weeding" of the garden, I'm thinking more of a bull-dozer to rip out most of it and plant a "new crop".
But when you say a "little weeding" of the garden, I'm thinking more of a bull-dozer to rip out most of it and plant a "new crop".
QUOTE(AntiFlagWaver @ Monday, 9 January 2006, 12:41 pm)
I have been thinking about this a lot, and I couldn't disagree with Jesus's logic when he layed it out like that. I had to admit he was correct.
But when you say a "little weeding" of the garden, I'm thinking more of a bull-dozer to rip out most of it and plant a "new crop".
[right][snapback]39070[/snapback][/right]
But when you say a "little weeding" of the garden, I'm thinking more of a bull-dozer to rip out most of it and plant a "new crop".
[right][snapback]39070[/snapback][/right]
I can't disagree with that.
The use of the term, "weeding in the garden"
was intended as sarcasm.
Example, Leiberman!
Pull that sucker out by the root and don't leave even a smidge that might grow back!
Yeah, Leiberman totally blows!
I make a pledge right now to silence my criticism of the Democratic Party until such time that they get in power again (then we can work on reforming them). As I see it, the Number 1 goal for us all, Progressive and/or Democratic Party loyalist, is to unseat the Republicans by any means necessary. Nothing can be done until these Republicans (who almost always oppose our views and goals) are out of the way.
We need to stop being so nice. Republicans resort to any kind of dirty trick and sleaze to win. We don't like to do this, but because the American people are "idiots" who believe whatever slime they are told, we need to start telling it on the Republicans. Let's use Republican methods against the Republicans. All gloves are off. We need to stop pussying around and win for a change. Now is the time to plan to make it happen in 2006 and 2008.
I make a pledge right now to silence my criticism of the Democratic Party until such time that they get in power again (then we can work on reforming them). As I see it, the Number 1 goal for us all, Progressive and/or Democratic Party loyalist, is to unseat the Republicans by any means necessary. Nothing can be done until these Republicans (who almost always oppose our views and goals) are out of the way.
We need to stop being so nice. Republicans resort to any kind of dirty trick and sleaze to win. We don't like to do this, but because the American people are "idiots" who believe whatever slime they are told, we need to start telling it on the Republicans. Let's use Republican methods against the Republicans. All gloves are off. We need to stop pussying around and win for a change. Now is the time to plan to make it happen in 2006 and 2008.
Absolutely I agree!
First things first!
Top priority?
Remove all Republicans from American Politics!
Conservatives can stay, but Republicans have to go!
Then we can reform the Democratic party
and give it a true solid message that will last for decades!
If nothing else the Republicans have forced the Progressive Liberals to FOCUS!
Never ever ever take political respectability and integrity for granted!
Never again!
First things first!
Top priority?
Remove all Republicans from American Politics!
Conservatives can stay, but Republicans have to go!
Then we can reform the Democratic party
and give it a true solid message that will last for decades!
If nothing else the Republicans have forced the Progressive Liberals to FOCUS!
Never ever ever take political respectability and integrity for granted!
Never again!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.