a different take on factionalism for Democrats

[Iverson]

Gentlefolk, there have arisen today some threads which engage the topic of factions within the Democratic Party (not) staying with the party. These have tended to get locked as flame bait, so let me suggest an alternative as a sympathetic outsider.

Anyone who remembers the Democratic Party of 1968 knows that it accomodated people of widely divergent viewpoints, from pro-war to anti-war and conservative to liberal. That year was also a time of great upheaval, both in the country and in the Democratic Party. While there are important differences now compared to 35 years ago, some of the same broad themes apply.

I encourage Democrats from the left to the right to express those reasons why they stay within the party.

My intent is the opposite of flame bait: to encourage a critical introspection that leads to your clearly expressed position. Please resist the urge toward polemics.

And now, the door is open ...

[Classical_Liberal]

1. I stay in the party because it is closest to my liberal views

I agree, Q's comments were flame bait, but seriously why would the moderates try and push the left out of politics, when it would be much more constuctive to push the religious right out of politics? Then we would have two reasonable parties, instead of a wacko party and a moderate party. I am moderate left and would prefer this outcome.

[Terwilliger]

2. I grew up in a Republican household always believing Democrats...

shared my views.

I'll be leaving the party after the Recall vote.

[gully]

6. didn't you leave in 2000?

;)

[Terwilliger]

8. no, but I will be now

:D

[Iverson]

9. let's keep it constructive

I, too, enjoy teasing other discussants sometimes, but how about adding your own response to the question?

[Exultant Democracy]

3. Theoretically I’m pretty conservative…

but right now I support a very progressive agenda because it is required to bring our country back into balance. I think that you should be careful about turning conservative into a dirty word because of the association with republicans. The republican ideology has nothing to do with conservatism; in fact the U.S. has never really had a true conservative party. The right wing has been always been hijacked by racists and bible thumpers.

If you went down the line on issues and solutions a true conservative and a true liberal would agree on many things. The difference is that we base our decisions on different reasoning. In today’s political environment any real conservative would have no choice but to vote democrat

[Armstead]

85. I tend to agree with you

Corporatism is what we have today, substituting for both liberalism and conservatism.

[JVS]

4. I'm barely in the party anymore. I'm tired of the constant scare tactics

that the right wing of the party uses.

[Iverson]

5. understood, but my question is different

Can you articulate why you've concluded that working within the Democratic party is your best choice?

[JVS]

10. I'm not sure this is where I should be working

Why should I bust my hump so a moderate can win an election? Let the moderates do their own work.

[RichM]

7. I agree entirely. I'm also annoyed that your thread was locked. It's like

suppression of a forbidden subject, but I really feel that that subject needs to be looked at openly.

[Iverson]

11. in a specific way ...

... that's exactly what I'm inviting you to do.

[Terwilliger]

13. specifically reasoning why we were here in the first place?

because....it's two party system and I thought the Dems represented my views? That kind of thing?

[Iverson]

15. that's one of many possibilities

If that's your candid response, then that's what I'm asking for.

[Terwilliger]

18. my candid response was in my first post

I will be leaving

[JVS]

12. It is as though a Berlin wall has decended around our "big tent"

[JVS]

14. Iverson, you are very kind to try to get us to express our thoughts in a..

non-disruptive manner. Sometimes it is just easier to rage, but that is usually not helpful.

[Iverson]

17. JVS, we live in an age that has abandoned reason.

Inchoate rage is the dominant discourse. Calling for either reason or calm is now a subversive act.
;-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. I stay in the Democratic party because there is no other option

It's a two party system, which means voting for a third-party is strictly a spoiler vote, a strategy that can be useful in certain circumstances I guess.

[Toucano]

19. Where's the line?

I can't fully appreciate this valuable discussion until I understand where the line is between Left and Right? Maybe it isn't a line at all, but rather a curve. A Kinsey scale of Liberalism, perhaps.

I think we may have different ideas of what Left and Right are.

Can someone please define the terms for me.

Cheers!

[10digits]

20. Life is always better

in the sandbox. Go there now. You will feel so much better.

[jiacinto]

21. A sidenote

Those events that year sent the Democratic Party back decades in presidential races. The Party never carried IL again in a presidential race until 1992.

[JVS]

28. If we are leaving the party, what makes you think we care?

And if you are concerned about such a thing happenning, what are you doing to prevent it?

[jiacinto]

33. What can I do

You all demand a platform so far to the left that Americans won't ever support it. So what will happen is that people like you will allow the Republicans to win out of some misguided theory that somehow the world will get so bad that people will beg the Greens for help.

[RichM]

37. HA! I wish you could see this, Carlos. But here goes: You say "So what

will happen is that people like you will allow the Republicans to win out of some misguided theory that somehow the world will get so bad that people will beg the Greens for help."

It's no misguided theory. If the Republicans win, the world WILL get so bad that people will be begging for help. Count on it.

People like you think that by taking half-measures (quarter-measures, eighth & sixteenth measures), & by continually appeasing the right wing, this terrible fate can be avoided. I don't agree. The history of the rightwing shows that NOTHING is ever enough for them. They can't be appeased. They want total control of EVERYTHING. The only way to oppose them is to OPPOSE them, and cowardly supplicating timid fearful pseudo-opponents can't do that.

[noiretextatique]

86. have you seen Armstead's thread?

here's a link to the site mentioned in that thread:

http://www.kellysite.net/

and here's a little tidbit from that site:

Sure, the U.S. has become a very conservative country, but it's not because of the conservatives' record, or because their philosophies and strategies are right. It's because they have successfully distorted important economic and social concepts, and not enough knowledgeable Democrats have been willing to call them liars

i know you have posted threads about the rw's cultural wars, so i am challenging you to reconsider what you think the american public will and will not accept. this seems to me a self-fulfilling prophesy that has been working against democrats for far too long, and it does not serve the interests of the american public.

more from the site:

Sheer repetition without refutation has led many voters to become convinced that:

High incomes and tax cuts for the wealthy are good because they create jobs. Wage increases for workers are always bad because they cause inflation.

Corporate profits are good. Legislative protections of working conditions are expensive, benefit primarily workers, and are therefore bad.

Economic growth is good, as long as it increases corporate profits. Economic growth is excessive—and bad, if wages start to go up.

The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers are good for American workers. Labor unions are bad for them.

Globalization is good for everyone, investors and workers alike.

And so on, as is covered throughout this web site.

the result (also from the site): Public acceptance of nonsense like this has led to the greatest wealth and income gap since the Great Depression, which is not a good sign for the future. Election 2004 is coming up, and time is getting short.

in addition to the goals of "winning," these are some of the concerns of those you routinely dismiss as "far left." not accusing you of this, but some seem to think electing a "D" is an automatic panacea for all our ills.
while others see the problem as one of ever-diminishing expectations...to the point where WE are willing to barter more and more of our ideals, our American ideals, as we continue on a downward spiral. yeah...it's abated somewhat with a "D"...then escalated again with an "R."
at some point, the people will indeed say: ENOUGH!

[gully]

Dupe*

woops!

[gully]

22. I stay with in the party because....when a Democrat has been president ...

in my time...

Crime rates decline

Poverty rates decline

Unemployment rates decline

Homeowner ship increases

Enviromental standards are strengthened

Democrats are fiscally responsible ;)

Dems believe that the poor have a right to hope and a right to help out of poverty.

Democrats believe in an 'equal start' for all children

Dems have a record of helping people with education

Dems have a record of helping people with healthcare

Dems have a record of 'overall' job creation

I am a Democrat because I believe they are (generally speaking) 'rational' and inclusive.

These are some of the reasons I remain in the party.

[Mairead]

23. I'm no longer in the Party -- I'm *here* because I'm hoping the Party

won't go on doing what it's been doing since Carter: moving rightward. I'm hoping --Goddess love me!-- that I can help get the best Dem in a generation elected President: Dennis Kucinich. If I fail, I'll away and not be back.

(edit) I'm just now listening to the late Roy Williamson of the Corries singing Rab Burns's deeply saddening 'Parcel of Rogues'. Burns wrote it about the betrayal of Scotland, but, had he been living now, he could have written it about the current political scene: 'We're bought and sold for corporate gold / What a parcel of rogues in a nation!'

[Toucano]

24. Nice knowing you!

Can't you be satisfied that Dennis helps shape the discussion?

What happens when you fail with your Green or other party?

Stay here and fight! You don't have to WIN to win.

[JVS]

25. Yeah he shapes discussion like running over a cat alters a crosstown trip

Sorry that I'm not exited about either Dean winning or your poor excuse for a democratic candidate winning. Hopefully it will be Dean. To argue that we are winning because we get to have our candidates steamrolled by the likes of your little repuke bastard adds insult to injury.

[Mairead]

27. "Can't you be satisfied that Dennis helps shape the discussion?"

No. If folk aren't perceptive enough to see that Dennis is in fact the best --damn' near the only!-- Dem in a generation, then I'm living in a different world to them and I might as well own up. I'll do all one person can do meanwhile, but if it ends in tears then I'm away. I won't stand there and say how sweet the lemon is, or pretend that I respect those who turned their backs on a real Dem. I'm worth more than that.

Don't compromise yourself. You're all you've got.

[Toucano]

30. Sad fact

"Amurrika" isn't going to elect Dennis Kucinich. It isn't fair, but it's cold reality.

You shouldn't have to be a supermodel to get elected, but after a generation of miseducation and rampant consumerism, you have to work with what you've got.

And what we've got is an electorate that that thinks "Joe Millionaire" is time well spent.

The Kucinich, Moseley Braun and Shapton voices ARE influencing the debate. The fact that Dennis criticized Bush and didn't "disappear" opened the door for others to join in.

Again I ask what will you do when your other party candidate fails to win?

[jiacinto]

36. I'll answer that for them

They'll just act self-righteously and arrogantly boast that they "stood on principle," "sent their message", and "didn't compromise". And they'll spend the next four yeras here bashing Bush and whining even though their actions were counterproductive at the ballot box.

[Iverson]

38. you know ...

jiacinto, you are not answering the question of my original post, just railing against other posters. I hope it is not too much to ask you to resist attacking other individuals and keep to the point.

edited typo

[Terwilliger]

39. this poster is a prime example of why I'm not hanging around

if you folks want to sacrifice everything on the altar of a few measly votes, fine...sacrifice my vote then

[Iverson]

42. hold on

Other individuals are not the essential point. Just as I took jiacinto to task a moment ago for inappropriate focus, I must do the same with you. jiacinto does not loom so large that he changes your politics. It should be a simple matter to speak to the idea over the personality.

[Terwilliger]

65. I have Iverson

spoken to the ideas over and over again only to have them slapped down as fringe-leftist or (the old favorite) "quasi-Marxist"

This is about personality. This is about the personality of the Democrats being so uncertain that I can't even figure out what the party is.

I do know it's not me.

[JVS]

43. Yeah, they'll sacrifice our votes but piss and moan forever

because they lost by a few. Why can't they accept that the majority of Americans won't support a lame assed centrist

[noiretextatique]

82. she's supporting a democrat: kucinich

:wtf:

[Mairead]

52. "what will you do when your other party candidate fails to win?"

I'll go on trying. The only thing that lies completely in my hands is whether or not I sell out. And I've already taken that decision: never again. I'm worth more than that.

[Jose Diablo]

71. What I will do if Kucinich doesn't win

Is get behind the candidate that did win, and help whoever that is become president.

If that Democrat doesn't win the election, and we fall farther into facism, then I guess I will have to head for the mountains.

[JVS]

26. See you on the other side comrade.

I've about had my fill too.

[Q]

29. You call it 'factionalism'...but I call it an orchestrated effort...

...to create a second Republican party.

- It's more than 'suspicious' the way the Democratic party has reacted to events unprecedented in history. And what was the 'party's' response? Get over it. Move on. Stop living in the past.

- We expected this type of response from Republicans...but not from Democrats. After all...the far right Republican party has much to hide. This begs the question: what is the Democratic party hiding?

- But the worse insult of all is that the Democratic 'leadership' is doing everything they can to make sure GWB* actually wins in 2004. Except for a few notable Democrats...there has been NO viable opposition against Bush* as he tears apart our social fabric and lies to push our nation into unjust and illegal wars. Even worse...he continues to change the reasons for the invasion as if it doesn't matter. As it turns out...it doesn't seem to matter to Democrats that later announced they wouldn't pursue investigations into why our nation went to war.

- What happens when the opposition party refuses to oppose? I think we'll see the answer to this if the Dems lose their asses in 2004 after capitulating one issue after another to the Little Hitler they continue to enable with their silence. Bush* doesn't care about the laws of the land or the environment or if the economy is in the shitter. He doesn't care because he has no intention of campaigning on these issues. He will campaign on WAR and TERRORISM and FEAR...the very issues the Dems are too chickenshit to confront.

- Thanks, Iverson...for continuing this issue under a 'safer' banner. Incidentally...I didn't start the 'other' thread to convince Dems to leave the party. Rather...I would have preferred that the liberals defend party traditions, values and principles...and not give in to the siren song of right wing bullshit.

[JVS]

32. good to see you posting Q

[Q]

35. So far so good...

...but there's a good chance I may have burned a few bridges. We'll see.

- Iverson has a much cooler head than I...perhaps it's better to discuss this issue here.

- I've been in Democratic politics for a very long time...and something definately stinks about the way the party has given in to the Bushies. They've conceded too much to them not to be at least suspicious.

[Iverson]

40. thank you

I think that you also called it factionalism, only in slightly different terms. Your other thread and other posts recognized distinct camps of liberals and moderates and conservatives within the Democratic Party, which provided the impetus for your earlier query.

Please clarify: is the following your response to my query?

"that the liberals defend party traditions, values and principles...and not give in to the siren song of right wing bullshit."

[Mairead]

53. I think, if it comes to that, that we'll have plenty company

[jiacinto]

34. Do you honestly think America would elect DK president?

nt

[JVS]

41. Yeah.

But it might require conservative Democrats like yourself to hold their noses.

[jiacinto]

44. Only at DU would people say I am conservative

I would vote for him if he got the nomination. But there is no way America would elect DK president. Then again I guess that you can enjoy your extreme left wing fantasies.

[JVS]

45. You are conservative on the spectrum of Democrats

On the spectrum of the general population you are still liberal. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by calling you the C-word.

[jiacinto]

48. I disagree

For DU Democrats I am probably "conservative"; but, please remember DU is not the Democratic Party.

[Iverson]

46. excuse me ...

I repeat: is it too much to ask that you take yourself to the original question, as opposed to haranguing others?

I would like you to engage in good faith.

[JVS]

49. That was a fair post on Carlos' part and I clarified my statement

[Mairead]

50. Honestly, Carlos? Yes, I do.

Because Dennis is the best Dem candidate in a generation. Can you name even one other who has ever put her/his whole livelihood on the line to keep a campaign promise? I can name plenty who've traduced their promises, but none other that have ever gone to the wall to keep one. Can you? Don't you find that horrible, that there's only ever been one who's put it all on the line for us, for the people?

All it requires for him to be elected is that each of us decide that his are the policies we need. It's not rocket science. It doesn't require a doctorate from MIT, or Olympic-level physical prowess. It only requires that we decide--truly decide--and then act on our decision. If we truly decide, then we will act. And if we act, it will happen.

[jiacinto]

54. Enjoy your fantasy

It's not going to happen. But if he does get the nomination I would vote for him.

[Mairead]

59. It's not a fantasy, Carlos, it's the statement you asked for.

If you weren't really interested in hearing it, why did you ask the question? Were you hoping I'd say something else?

Sam Clemens wrote about you in Letter from the Recording Angel. Alinsky, too, wrote about you, in Rules for Radicals. Not about you as a person, of course, but you as representative of a certain attitude of mind. You should read them, you might come away a different person.

[jiacinto]

73. Fair enough

But frankly DK is clear out of the mainstream. And I doubt he could win in a match against Bush. But I would still campaign and vote for him anyway. I would do that for any of the ten candidates.

[Mairead]

74. You never answered my questions

Do you know of any other politician who has ever put her/his whole livelihood on the line to keep a campaign promise?

If you haven't--and I'd be amazed if you have, because I certainly haven't and you're young enough to be my grandson--how do you feel about that, to know that there has been only one politician in living memory to have ever put their job and career on the line against the elites to keep a promise? How does that make you feel?

[Mairead]

90. Now how did I know that you'd duck these questions, Carlos?

Is it because you always duck the heavy questions? The inconvenient questions?

Why yes, I believe it is.

[RichM]

31. I think the Democratic Party is hopeless, though there are some good

people in it. The progressive wing is OK. If a majority of the whole party was like Kucinich, Sanders, Lee, McDermott, etc, it would be OK, at least in the short run. That is, it would be be a social force that could openly foster discussion & consideration of the drastic types of overhauls urgently needed by our society.

The rest of the Dem Party is not significantly better than Republicans; indeed, they are simply collaborators -- and even MORE dangerous than Republicans, in the sense that their treachery is more insidious. That is, Republicans are overtly the party of the rich, the militarists, & the religious fanatics, while the non-progressive Democrats posture as the "party of the people" without remotely earning such an appellation.

The rank & file of Democrats, as is visible on DU every single day, lack any kind of serious political, social or historical analysis. They are besotted by American propaganda, & consequently unable to take the larger view on most major issues.

As the simplest example (& the only one I care to get into here), let's take the question of the difference between the 2 parties. A Democrat will get self-righteously indignant when the suggestion is made that there is not much diffence between D's & R's. This in itself is a position of remarkable ignorance & limited perspective. True, if you accept the mindset that the political universe consists of Democrats at one extreme ("The Force of Good") and Republicans at the other extreme ("The Force of Evil"), it may appear to you that there is a world of difference between the two. But anyone capable of moving a few steps back will see that the differences are exceedingly modest, and that the 2 parties work essentially together to maintain the US social structure just as it is, & to make any serious change or challenge impossible.

The inability of most Democrats to acknowledge such a simple obvious thing makes it clear to me that most of the party is completely hopeless. I'm certain that nothing good can possibly be built on a rotten foundation, & I think most of the Democratic Party qualifies as a rotten foundation.

[quaker bill]

47. I've come back to the party

Because I got tired to preaching to the (left liberal) choir.

Preaching to the choir is comfortable, it is a small crowd and they substantially share your views. It is very validating to hear 'you are so smart, you think just like me'.

The limitation in this approach is that you are never challenged to grow. Learning to include others in the dialog requires an open mind, which in itself is good intellectual exercise.

You alone are the political party that exactly expresses your views. When you want to include someone else in your caucus, you have to expand your mind and exercise your tolerance. The larger you want your caucus to be, the more this is the case.

If you want your caucus to run the country win the Presidency of the United States, you must be broad minded and tolerant of a wide range of views.

Or alternately ... a wingnut republican.

[Toucano]

51. Thank you!

That is it exactly.

The right half needs the left to keep it honest.
The left needs the right to get things done.

I don't want to see anyone leave the party. The left just has to keep at it and make the right listen.

You can only go so far to the left before you're back at the right. I hear a lot of intolerance coming from both sides.

In fact, I would challence Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Dean supporters to pick one issue from Kucinich, Moseley Braun or Sharpton and tell your candidate to pick it up.

I'll suggest:

Single payer health care for all, NAFTA/WTO dismantlement, or publicly funded elections.

[Mairead]

55. Why only one?

[quaker bill]

57. Tell you what

I will do one and encourage you to do another.

[Toucano]

62. Deal

I'll pick health care, since Clark hasn't finalized his policy. In the NY debate, I got the feeling he was shopping for ideas on this. He needs to shop at the Kucinich store!

[RandomUser]

87. Good point

I remember having one of the pundits say that this was their favorite part of watching the primaries. The candidates start to learn from each other. For instance, one candidate might adopt part of another's platform. Or a candidate might see how another candidate does in a debate and start adopting his speech tactics. The final end result is a nominee who learns a bit from each of his fellow candidates to become the best chance of beating the incumbent.

[Toucano]

58. Okay, at least one!

Fair enough! And please add more suggestions than my three.

[quaker bill]

56. Personally

I would choose Dean and getting him to give his support of the death penalty another look. Your issues are good as well.

Thanks

[eileen_d]

67. best post i've seen today

"If you want your caucus to run the country win the Presidency of the United States, you must be broad minded and tolerant of a wide range of views."

Thanks :)

[Terwilliger]

68. funny, I started in the center

only to find out that the only people who will get anything accomplished are people who bray against the status quo

You know, bray...like a donkey.

[Kamika]

60. i STILL havent seen any definition!!!

CAN SOMEONE post how i know if im a rightwing or leftist or whatever democrat please+???

[Mairead]

61. Okay, try these -- I think they'd be fairly widely supported

The Right wants to pump wealth upward to the wealthy, and restrict the social freedoms of the proles.

The soi-disant 'Center' wants to pump wealth upward to the wealthy, but is okay with allowing the proles some social freedoms as long as they can still pay for them.

The 'Left' wants to pump money downward (i.e., reverse the concentration of wealth) and allow everyone full social freedom ('everyone' is only the proles, really, since the very meaning of 'privilege' is 'private law').

[Kamika]

63. that cant be right

i dont think i seen any democrat that would fit in the first choice.

Or anyone that fits the 2nd either

[Toucano]

64. Lieberman?

A case could be made that Joe supports restrictions on social freedom.:)

Everyone who supports NATFA/WTO supports concentrating the wealth at the top. Don't know who "fair trade" works into the equation.

[Kamika]

66. wto supports the poor too

If you live in india you are damn happy to get a job..


I dont support free trade and such because it sucks for us.. but id be totally for it if i were chinese or indian

[Toucano]

72. Exploitation is not support

They try to sell it that way, I know.

[Mairead]

70. If you look more closely, I'm sure you can find several who

are 'centrists' by my definitions. Dean. The new Kerry. Graham. Edwards. Lieberman is sort of on the border between my definitions of 'right' and 'center'. I see CMB and Gephardt as being around the leftist/centrist border, but in CMB's case that might only be my prejudices operating--I want to see her as a leftist. DK and AS are, of course, 'leftists' in my scheme.

I've no idea where Clark is, yet. Since the Clintons are supporting him, I suppose he's somewhere near Lieberman.

(I personally feel that people who work to benefit the vast majority of people are the true 'centrists', but my definitions genuflect to current conventions)

[Jose Diablo]

75. It is a view of government responsibility

I think what defines right-center-left is how the individuals views governments responsibilities to the governed.

Right typically looks for little or no government i.e low taxes, no or little social programs. High on private ownership of property. Hardly any commons.

Center looks for mixtures like government regulations of 'commons' some social programs to set a floor that nobody is allowed to fall below with taxes redistributing some wealth. Medium on ideas of private property ownership (some things-yes, some things-commons)

Left looks for high government involvement, but high transferes of wealth too. High social justice also. Humanitarian if you will. Low on private property ownership, many more things in commons. Extreme cases would be no private ownership of anything.

At least thats how I see it.

[ulysses]

69. part inertia,

part desire to remain and work to change the party however I can and get it to disengage from the corporate teat.

As I see it, though, party politics is largely beside the point where the more fundamental changes I'd like to see are concerned.

[Q]

76. Kick...

...to keep this much needed discussion going.

- And just for the hell of it.

[RandomUser]

77. In answer

to the topic question, I'm a democrat because I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative (i.e., the social programs need to be funded on something other than deficits or ever-increasing taxes).

I'm a democrat because I'm pro-choice (but support banning late-term abortions with medical exceptions).

I'm a democrat because I'm pro-affirmative action (with a 20 year deadline, as per Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion).

I'm a democrat because I believe in progressive taxation and balanced budgets (not tax and spend or tax-cuts and spend).

I'm a democrat because I support multilateralism (not retreating from the UN and the WTO).

I'm a democrat because I support quality labor conditions and standards and good wages (but not to the point where labor interests impede business development).

I'm a democrat because I support free/fair trade (but not protectionism or pulling out of NAFTA, renegotiating it maybe).

I'm a democrat because I support civil unions, also gay marriage if America is ready for it, and the right of gays to live without prejudice.

I'm a democrat because I believe in strong separation of Church and State.

I'm a democrat because I support protecting the environment (through the use of business and technology). Old growth forests have their place, but so do tree farms.

I'm a democrat because I believe in using military force as a last resort and only if the circumstances are dire (but I want our military to be well-funded, well-trained, and prepared).

I'm a democrat because I believe government has an obligation to help the poor or those in need and should spend money on social programs instead of prisons (but these programs need to be part of a balanced budget).

I'm a democrat because I believe in supporting education and experimenting with competitive education reform (i.e. pilot programs of mixed systems in troubled areas. There was a city, might have been philly, that was doing really well under a mixed multi-competitor program).

The republican-lites would call me a left-wing extremist.
The leftwing extremists would call me a republican-lite.

I just call myself a registered democrat (who votes republican, green and 90% democratic). Of course, some would say I should join the republicans, or join the greens, or just go independent.

[Iverson]

78. thank you

... for directly answering the question. Some people like yourself automatically gravitate toward a relevant response, and some you cannot beg to stay on topic.

Let's hope for more.

[Iverson]

79. Are people through with these concerns?

It seemed so urgent yesterday!

[RandomUser]

80. Dunno

seems more people are interested in Candidate Bashing then party unity.

[knight_of_the_star]

81. Adversity makes strange bedfellows

I'm a Green, but I'm here because I REALLY don't want Bush in office for another 4 years after what these past 2 1/2 have done to America. That and I fear for my life as to what he will do to Wicca if he gets another term in office. I'm here because of necessity, and once that has been fulfilled, I'll be in the Green Party helping build that party up, thank you.

[noiretextatique]

83. this is pretty much where i stand as well nt

[Iverson]

84. noiretblu and knightofthestar

I'm a Green as well (thus: sympathetic outsider), but after seeing the locked threads and the high level of concern yesterday, I just thought I'd do what I could do move the conversation forward constructively.

I'm glad you two checked in, though; us intransigent extremists gotta stick together. ;-)

[noiretextatique]

88. a kick

for intransigent extermists :kick: and their friends :D

[noiretextatique]

89. flames, flames, flames, flames

and post ABOUT the flames. sheesh :bounce: