If a determining factor to midterm elections is a national v local focus,

[Supersedeas]

then why is the Democratic leadership so slow and cumbersome in getting the message out.

For instance, why isn't there a push and a strong push to make sure the Nation as a whole understands which races are important and which Dem candidates could make a difference nationally.

Everytime a Dem leader appears on a Nationally televised program, somewhere during that interview the Dem leader needs to mention at least one of the names of the House or Senate candidates that this 'Nation' is counting on; and that "we are counting on the people of that district...in Central PA, or NW Washington, or the Eastern part of Iowa (for instance)... to send a message to the Neo-Conservatives in Washington that.....(Congressional oversight matters, or Border Security matters, or Fiscal Responsibility matters, or Healthcare Reform matters)." Catch my drift.

So, that eventually, the entire Nation knows and will focus on the results in the Congressional districts in those States that could make and difference...AND THEREBY, energize and elevate VOTER turnout as relatives, friends, classmates, professors, coworkers, and fellow soldiers from other states across the country apply some civic pressure on those potential voters who could make a difference in those districts and thereby have an impact NATIONALLY.

These candidates need to be interviewed and spoken about and written about and discussed in telephone conversations and emails by Dem leaders, by left leaning pundits, by syndicated reporters, editorial contributors and other concerned Americans across the country who want to see a change in the 'National' direction of this country. But, it starts by acquainting the ENTIRE country with those Dem candidates, and acquainting the ENTIRE country with the districts which could turn this thing around (no matter how tenuous a win in that particular district might be). Change starts by planting a seed--and we need to deputize some civic gardeners, farmers, and landscapers right now.

Unfortunately, the Dem Leadership approach seems so disconnected from any 'National' agenda.

Roll up your sleeves and do your damned jobs, Dem Leadership:
Announce, for pity's sake, which districts matter AND who are the candidates coming out of those districts!!

GET THOSE CANDIDATES SOME NATIONAL EXPOSURE!!!! Mention at least one of these candidates in EVERY major interview done from now to November.

TIGHTEN-UP this ship, and let's get moving!!!

[redqueen]

1. One of the best posts I've seen this year!

It's also up to us activists to spread the word in our precincts.

[welshTerrier2]

2. national mush ...

first, thanks for your thoughtful post ... it's more than disturbing that posts like these don't often get too many responses ... if you had a subject like "the only way to stop Rove", our People Magazine culture would have had more to say ...

i think you've raised some excellent points about using our national leadership and our TV whores (Biden comes to mind) to "advertise" some of our candidates in key races ... that's always a good idea ...

however, i'm not sure you've addressed the underlying problem we face that might preclude that from happening ...

in a year that bush is so weak in the polls and many are fed up with a one party government that clearly has the country heading in the wrong direction, nationalizing the election is imperative ... the problem, though, is that the Dems can't seem to build a consensus about many key issues ... and the so-called platform is wishy-washy pablum ...

it's hard to nationalize anything when the party can't elaborate strong themes and values and policies ... frankly, Iraq is the overriding issue this year ... and the Dems? they're applauding our "diversity"; they can't be serious ... we look like a bunch of disorganized fools ... there's not really any serious "voice" given to the real anti-warriors in the House ... they're shut-out of the national dialog; the party chooses to ignore them ...

and the Dem platform? is anyone really convinced Democrats have a clear plan to create jobs in this country and reverse our economic downslide?? the Dems do a great job talking about bush's massive budget deficits ... it's a critical issue! ... but what's their solution? roll back the tax cuts? fine, i agree completely ... but that doesn't get it done ... what else have they got? are Americans really hearing the message of how Democrats have a better plan or are they just hearing criticisms of the failed republican programs???

the problems i see are that 1. we lack a convincing "central" message - what exactly are our core beliefs and 2. if we are to be a "big tent" that allows local candidates total latitude in their views, i.e., we don't require them to adhere to the party's central message, nationalizing the election becomes almost impossible ... so, local candidates can be pro-war or anti-war or anything in between ... they can be pro-Nafta or cafta or WTO or against it or anything in between ... they can be anti-choice, or "moderate" or pro-choice ...

the problem is, if Democrats can come in all shapes and sizes, the national party and its influence become almost irrelevant ... again, this isn't to disagree with the idea of "promoting" local congressional candidates as your post called for, but it leaves us with a pretty weak case to make when there really is no central unifying theme ... "nationalizing" is all about "branding"; in this case branding should evolve from our core beliefs as a party ... what we're offering right now is nothing but national mush ...

[Supersedeas]

4. when national mush is something other than Rovian branding

wt2, it is true...you have identified a problem that was not addressed in the original post, however, I do not see that problem as one that precludes 'nationalizing' the Congressional elections.

Here's why and to begin with you put your finger on it:

Most folks (most rational people) see "the country heading in the wrong direction, nationalizing the election is imperative..." People want to right this ship.

THAT is THE problem and a problem that most rational American's can agree with. That problem (a country of course) has a both a source and a false and verifiably broken solution.

The source: myopic political solidarity (loyalty at any price) Republican adhesion to Bush Administration policies has damaged this country and continued singlemindedness will not fix their problem.

The false solution for Democrats/the Country: myopic political solidarity. What we don't need is a new generation of candidates that will mindlessly adhere to the instructions of Reid, Kerry, Pelosi, or Murtha. The message to be conveyed is that these candidates have NEW IDEAS.

Ah, but to answer your question directly: how "to nationalize anything when the party can't elaborate strong themes and values and policies;" what is the convincing central message and how can the party be a big tent and still maintain a national message.

Well, one thing that we learned from Kerry's campaign is that subtlety is not what we need.

The Central theme as I see it is to rid Congress of rubber stamping a Bush/cookie cutter solution to every problem. That approach is too narrow AND leads to corruption. Here, I am not suggesting every Dem simply run as a counter-Bush candidate--but every candidate ought to be able to identify how Bush Admin/Party driven solutions to "national" problems has failed this country miserably--and how blind party loyalty has led to corruption at the highest levels.

There is no getting around the logical conclusion that adhesion to a central message has a narrowing effect when applied substantively--the idea here is to have a unifying theme as to how Dems with APPROACH the countries problems.

Karl Rove and the Republicans have an approach: do it the WH way, or it doesn't get done. Pubs have gone along with this. And the WH way is to label and brand problems into cookie cutter shapes in very narrow, almost adolescent ways:

AS IF by labeling as CUT & RUN a plan to withdraw troops makes the problem go away.
Dem Leaders and new candidates need to point out that these THEMATIC schemes do not solve REAL problems. Most Americans (and apparently Military leaders) recognize that the current occupation is a REAL problem for our troops. The Cut & Run label solved nothing.

So, how do Democratic candidates avoid being branded? By fiercely maintaining their right to analyze and resolve national problems independently. And they demonstrate that by pointing out that the differences that they have with both the President and the current Democratic Leadership.

So, in terms of promoting new candidates, Dems leaders should EMPHASIZE that they look forward to hearing new and different solutions to problems that are confronting the country. We don't need a Karl Rove cookie cutter theme in which all new candidates are sworn to adhere to Party Doctrine.

What this country needs in problem solvers -- NOT LOYAL PARTY ADHERENTS. Dem Leader and new candidates need to emphasize that Rove and Repubs have had an opportunity to address Congressional Corruption--the backdoor cookie cutter theme failed and we have a candidate from (Iowa or Nebraska) how has great ideas about Congressional integrity; that Rove and Repubs have had an opportunity to address deficits--and the loyal Party bosses have ignored fiscal conservatives within their own party and we have a candidate from (TX or SC) who not only recognizes the problem but has the courage to recognize that the spending in Iraq goes hand in hand with our national budget, etc.

The theme is that we have fresh ideas from candidates who haven't taken a blood oath to Rove, or Frist, or Hastert; and who will be encourage by Democratic leaders to forward these new ideas for consideration by a Congress that will actually listen to the American people and a Congress that will take their oversight authority seriously.

The theme, in so much as it is necessary to justify much needed promotion of selected candidates nationally, is one that defies branding and marching-in-lockstep with sometimes narrow-minded, wedge issue driven solutions. However, the only way to make this theme work is to select candidate who actually have IDEAS of their own. Ideas that might combine solutions regarding the deficit and troops withdrawals; oil dependency and real public transportation; executive corruption and Congressional oversight. We need candidates who can submit their proposals nationally.

So, while I agree that you have identified a problem, it is not one that ought to preclude much needed national promotion of Congressional candidates. It is the Pubbie version of Party loyalty that has mired us in this partisan gridlock; and it will take a lions share of independent thoughtful candidates to get us out of it and win back the people's house.

[welshTerrier2]

5. creating national and local synergies

again, a very well thought out and articulate argument ... nice job!!

i'm not sure whether we're on the same page here or not ...

i'm certainly not saying, just to be clear, that our candidates should not be free to offer new ideas and creative solutions to our national problems ... without question, we should encourage our candidates to bring new solutions to the table ... and i certainly agree that rigid adherence to bad, neo-con policies without an openness to even hearing competing views has been highly destructive to the country and probably to the republican party as well ... so, no problem there ...

but i'm still not comfortable with a message, if this is what you're saying, that we shouldn't demand some degree of adherence to certain core values ... let's take an issue like gay rights as a specific example ...

my view is that the party should fight for equal rights for each and every citizen ... period ... any individual is more than free to "personally" believe whatever they want to believe but we should not run candidates who disagree with this core message ... with regard to gay rights, regardless what any candidate might think about gays, they should fully support the rights of gay Americans just as they do for any other American ... same with abortion; any candidate should be more than entitled to their "personal" views and values but they should NOT impose those views on the "freedom to choose" of other citizens ...

the point, then, is that the national party should require that certain core values are adhered to by all our candidates ... i view this very differently than the kind of tyrannical discipline imposed by bush and rove on elected republicans ... there's plenty of room to express personal views; there's plenty of room to write laws differently or use different tactics and timing to achieve the party's goals ... HOWEVER, we should NOT tolerate candidates who would impose unconstitutional restrictions on any citizen ... if you want to say that your bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, that's one thing ... to fight to make "your bible" the law of the land is something entirely different ...

all of these discussion points come down to a question of degree ... as a party, the primary idea is that we should share certain common values and should insist that our candidates adhere to them ... this does NOT mean that we should necessarily share all values and it certainly doesn't mean that we should not tolerate an array of possible solutions to the problems we face ...

so, if your main theme is we should allow a diversity of ideas between our candidates and the central party, i agree ... if your point is that we should encourage fresh ideas from our candidates, i agree ... if your point is that we should not tyrannically demand rigid adherence to each and every utterance of the party, i agree ... but, if the point is that we should not demand adherence to certain core values that define who we are as a party, here i would disagree ...

i'm not at all saying that was the point you were making but i would disagree with it if it were ...

tying all this back to nationalizing the election, which btw i think is critically important and i don't think the party is doing a very good job at, i think merely mentioning our candidates' names as often as possible is a good thing ... but i think we badly lack "message coordination" between our candidates and the national party ... we shouldn't just view "advertising" our candidates as a one way street; they, too, have an obligation to help educate Americans on what we deeply believe in as a party ... absent addressing our common values, our advertisements for our candidates will be a somewhat hollow message ... sounding the core themes and values of our party and making "i'm voting for the Democrats because" a message that people can really have an answer to is what will create the necessary synergies between the national party and local candidates ...

[Supersedeas]

6. a step away from the politicals of personal identity & toward competence

thanks for the quick and thorough reply, wt2 (and I ought to apologize for so many typos in the above post--I don't know how you made any sense of it, but thanks for trudging through nonetheless).

Your reply somehow reminds me of the answer Senator Kerry provided to a question regarding abortion during the 2nd debate with the President. Frankly, I found Kerry's reply to be very well articulated. (He basically took your position--he, as candidate, can believe one thing personally and take other steps within constitution bounds as an elected official.) To which, the President began his follow up with, "I'm trying to decipher that."
See: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

To maintain that approach is to stay within the confines of the politics of personal identity--that is exactly how the Rovians want to frame the debate: as evidenced by the 'cut and run' vote, the flag burning vote, the gay marriage vote and the NY Times resolution.

Rove wants to limit the discussion to the narrow topics around which candidates have to identify themselves 'as like' their local constituents. The country is divided nearly 50/50, so if we are going to united the country and go beyond core personal beliefs, I am suggesting that the Dems propose an alternative frame: to make the election less about identity and more about APPROACH.

A unifying theme that looks something along the lines of....competence, corruption, and accountability instead of Kerry's retort 'personal yet constitutional.' The personal-yet-constitutional, as the President said...can be hard to decipher. Thus, the dimwit who is easy to decipher wins.

My suggestion: attack the frame, destroy it and then switch to one that matters.

Anytime the issue of gays or abortion is raised, Dem leaders and new candidates ought to attack it under the umbrella of professional competence. How does competence address these social issues, he is my layman's approach:

1. There are larger issues to be addressed by this nation, as hard as it is to believe beneath the bullhorns of those entrenched on both sides of these social issues. Marginalize and trivialize the mindless banter of those who have proposed and supported Constitutional amendments for gay marriage et al. BECAUSE we are a nation at war, with serious fiscal concerns, with serious concerns regarding healthcare, energy policy, border security and the care of our elderly. Hammer home the issue of priorities. These things rightly ought to come to the attention of responsible Congressman before other lingering social constructs.

2. To be a federal representative is to be a 'professional' who know one's position. These social issues, which are used by political neaderthals to divide our country, are not the proper concerns of a Federal Legislature. The protection of minority rights is the purvue of the Judiciary and the implemention of law addressing social concerns is sometimes within the purvue of our State Legislatures. As a candidate for Congressmen, I do not intend to work for the Judiciary or to just address the social concerns for the State of "x" but intend to work to unify this country and work to find solutions that plague us as a nation. Hammer home the issue of professionalism.

3. Finally, with respect to the particular issues which weigh heavily on our country, Dem leaders and candidates should emphasize the particular qualifications of our candidates. Here, what Dems ought to distinguish on a national level are the solid qualifications of candidates in comparison to folks like Brownie, Kerik, and the corruption of Pubbies like Cunningham et al. EXPOSE CRONYISM, and together with that, emphasize the NEW and innovative approaches to fiscal responsibility, energy policy, or healthcare that our NEW candidates have and FRAME that within the context of their personal qualifications. So, hammer home the issue of qualifications.

So, instead of the politics of identity and belief, offer a frame of Competence backed up by priorities, professionalism and qualifications. Within that umbrella, Dems can point to a theme of competence, undermining Congressional corruption, and accountability which includes holding the Executive accountable by offering fresh ideas for a damaged political body politic.

It may not be a theme which a Rovian-framed-identity-America is use to; but it may be just the theme this country needs to unite the nation and right the wrongs of this Administration.

[welshTerrier2]

7. competence is meaningless without the right core values

let me go way over the top to demonstrate my disagreement with your approach ... i do this as an exaggeration just to make a point ...

what you're calling for is a soulless, army of competent bureaucrats to take charge of our country ... we don't need leaders with passion or deep conviction on the issues ... we need competent blank pages who lack any defined vision or ideals at all ...

as events unfold, this army of competent bureaucrats will "consider the evidence" in a neutral bi-partisan manner and render their judgments ... voters should NOT be entitled to know the belief systems of any candidate ... they should only know whether a candidate is competent ... in fact, any pre-defined vision or values or deep commitment to issues or ideals should be viewed negatively ... ideals are evil and undemocratic ... worse yet, they're "rovian" ...

btw, with regard to your point #1, i strongly agree with it!! check out this post i made earlier today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2701018&mesg_id=2701067

sounds like the message is essentially the same ... most of my "over-the-top" comments above pertain to your point #2 ...

i am a flaming idealist ... i deeply and passionately believe in stuff and i fight for those who share at least most of my core values ... i truly hate the idea of "professional politicians" ... choosing Kerry's 2004 campaign was a most distasteful example ... Kerry said, if i recall correctly, that he would NOT support gay marriage in Massachusetts ... that totally violates my definition of core values ... he's more than entitled to a personal view on the issue; he is NOT entitled to deprive gay Americans of their Consitutionally guaranteed equal rights ... Kerry's anti-equality nonsense is exactly the kind of politically calculated drivel i don't think we should tolerate in our candidates ...

let me be clear on how i intend to vote in future elections ... will i look for competent candidates? of course! again, i think competence is less critical than philosophy towards the role of government ... what good is a competent republican who doesn't believe government should do ANYTHING but provide for a strong defense??? if they don't believe in public education or a social safety net or working with the private sector to create jobs, it sure doesn't make much difference how competent they are ... competence is only meaningful when it's used in the right way ...

i will only be voting for candidates who reasonably represent my views and values ... i know you didn't say this but candidates that emphasize competence and provide little more than double talk or gibberish on the issues to try to be all things to all voters can go to hell ... and that goes for republicans and Democrats ... i can tell you right now that i will not be voting for any Democrat in the Senate when '08 rolls around ... their position on the war in Iraq is totally unconscionable ... my support for the Party has shifted to progressive House candidates and to local and statewide candidates here in Massachusetts ...

once again, thanks for your thoughtful analysis ... i find it truly disturbing others haven't joined the discussion ...

[Supersedeas]

8. the calisthenics of arguing with someone who has made up their mind

well, I have to agree that you did go over the top and it may have been more than just exaggeration, but closer yet to misrepresentation.

I appears clear to me that you have made up your mind what 'set of personal beliefs' your national candidates ought to have. However, that is not the question presented. The problem presented is how we frame our candidates nationally--to a national audience--as opposed to a segment of the community residing in Mass.

I have attempted to frame/articulate a central/umbrella theme under which candidates who run in Northern Alabama or central San Francisco can be introduced to national audiences.

I am not suggesting that the theme will work for everyone or that the theme exhausts every facet that makes that particular candidate a strong one. Certainly, within the confines of a particular district, the voters are going to get to know the candidates much better than will other concerned Democrats in the rest of the country. However, I think that it is a mischaracterization to strip the proposal, as modest as it is, and then recast it as nothing more than a caricature of a soulless bureaucrats who utters nothing more than political drivel.

It's wrong and here's why:

First, on some level, even you (as the self-profess 'flaming idealist') agree with a key point of the proposal. The point #1 that you so strongly agree with stresses that "there are larger issues to be addressed by this nation, as hard as it is to believe beneath the bullhorns of those entrenched on both sides of these social issues. Marginalize and trivialize the mindless banter of those who have proposed and supported Constitutional amendments for gay marriage et al. BECAUSE we are a nation at war, with serious fiscal concerns, with serious concerns regarding healthcare, energy policy, border security and the care of our elderly. Hammer home the issue of priorities."

Point #1 emphasizes that there might be priorities that overcome and outstrip the 'pet' social issues which have entrench large portions of the voting public. Thus, I find it hard to see how your reconcile your strong agreement with this Point, yet feel the necessity to 'go way over the top.' Not only that, but when defining competence, I propose three components around which to define it: Priorities, Professionalism, and Qualifications. At least as I construed them, the components would go hand in hand to define competence. Instead, you chose to sever the Professionalism issue and focus solely on that alone. Which is curious...b/c

Second, how is it that Point #2 causes such a rackle, when at the same time you contend that "competence is less critical than philosophy towards the role of govenment." Professionalism as I proposed it (is only one component of competence) really deflates these emotional social issues by clarifying the role of a Federal Legislator.

So, for instance, when Pundit Tweety or Pundit O'Riley charges new Dem candidate with a barb like, "For you and your constituents, isn't this election about guaranteeing equal rights for gay Americans." (BTW, that is exactly how Karl Rove might attempt to frame the candidate nationally.) The candidate can look Pundit Tweety or Pundit O'Liely in the eye and say very passionately that this election is about issues that have a greater national significance and that his/her role as a representative is to devise Federal legislation to confront those issues. Further, that his/her role in Congress is not to legislate morality. There may be occasions when the Supreme Court may have to address these issues or on occasion State Legislatures may have to address these issues and the Supreme Court may have to review and sometime invalidate that legislation, however it is not the role of a U.S. Congressman to devise Federal Legislation to impose a Federal solution for social issues that don't need and don't require a Federal law.

Here, a candidate can be quite passionate about the role of a Federal legislature. Far from a blank page, it is this passion about a limited role which defines the professionalism of a Congress representative in contrast to a wild-eyed, partisan ideologue with a mandate by those who demand the legislation of core beliefs and demand it now. So, I agree..."competence is only meaningful when it's used in the right way" and it is this type of professionalism standing in contrast to the wild-eyed partisan ideologue that helps define competence for me...alongside an articulation of PRIORTIES and a PRESENTATION of IDEAS born out of the candidates experiences and QUALIFICATIONS.

So, it is the issues which currently need PRIORITY that demand Professional attention, not passionate appeals to certain segments of a continuent community. Again, the above is just my layman's attempt at proposing central themes which might to refined (say with specific Healthcare solutions or what not) or expanded (to include other broad concepts like faith in the strength of our Constitution and faith in an independent judiciary--in other words, instead of villifying those who serve on the Court, pledging to honor the hard decisions rendered by those Federal Judges) so as to appeal to the country nationally without appealing to base identity politics.

There are so many ways we can contrast the Democratic approach to Federal governance without reducing it to a platform that is structured around the politics of personal identity.

[welshTerrier2]

9. let's try this ...

i still feel we are talking past each other ...

i'll try to do two things in this post ... first, i'll try to respond to "Point #1 emphasizes that there might be priorities that overcome and outstrip the 'pet' social issues which have entrench large portions of the voting public. Thus, I find it hard to see how your reconcile your strong agreement with this Point" ...

and second, i'll try to add some specificity to our discussion of "priorities" ...

so, starting with point #1, as linked to in a previous post, i think there is a huge difference between the cynical demagoguery we see the republicans practicing around key social issues and the positions Democrats should articulate ...

here's what i'm NOT saying: i'm not saying Democrats shouldn't clearly articulate their total support for equality for every single citizen ... period ... we have to do that ... we cannot tell gay Americans or women or Asians or Martians that we have nothing to do with their issues and it's all up to the courts to decide ... if that's what you're advocating, I disagree ...

but how do i reconcile that with agreeing there is a much better way to handle the issue? here's the message i think Democrats have to deliver on the issue of human equality for each and every citizen: we, as a party, are deeply commited to human equality and that means gay rights, women's rights and anyone else's rights ... we do not accept discrimination in our marriage laws, our freedom of choice laws, our equal pay for equal work laws or any other laws ... period!! having said that, it's about time our society acknowledged that laws that protect the rights of every citizen sit at the core of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and should be left to the third branch of government, our judicial system, to enforce ... Congress has enough work to do on issues that are not yet law and are not yet policy ... These issues include the economy and jobs, healthcare and retirement security, foreign policy including repairing alliances with much of the rest of the world and making reforms in our government to restore our Democratic institutions to a government "of the people" instead of a government of mega-corporations and big money ...

the point is that i am NOT calling for Democrats to duck the issue at all ... we have to stand for equality under the law for all citizens and we should SAY SO!! when i talk about "priorities", i do so in the sense that if we controlled the legislative calendar, we could indeed allow the courts to rule on many of the "social issues" but we nevertheless must clearly articulate our values and beliefs about them ... we owe that to many of our constituents whose lives are effected by these issues everyday ... they need to know our party will fight for them by speaking out on their behalf ... this does not mean substantial chunks of the legislative agenda needs to address some of these issues ...

so, that's how i reconcile, or at least clarify, my views about priorities ...

on to point 2 ... let's accept a hypothetical that one might set creating jobs as a higher priority than gay marriage ... i think it's a mistake to view the hideous demagoguery of rove in too broad a context ... as currently implemented, republican political strategy is beyond immoral and disgraceful ... they don't give a damn about "family values" or Christians or anybody else ... it's pure political crap and nothing more ... they're "pro life" but they talk about a nuclear strike on Iranian civilian targets ...

but what do priorities mean when Democrats call for more jobs and republicans also call for more jobs? if both party's define a good economy and creating more jobs as an important element in their list of priorities, how do we differentiate between the parties? perhaps that's what's not clear to me in what you're advocating?

it seems to me, at least for some republicans, they really do believe in laissez faire capitalism ... they really do believe in "trickle down" ... they really do believe that a rising tide lifts all boats ... they really do believe that OSHA and environment and product safety regulations weaken business, cause job loss and lower the standard of living for all, or at least most, Americans ...

Democrats, one might argue, believe that some degree of business regulation is necessary and that the will of the citizenry will be ignored by large, profit-oriented corporations if the government does not step in to regulate them ...

there is a perceived difference in philosophy here ...

take it a step further to look at individual workers ... Democrats might believe that unions empower workers ... we might believe that pensions within companies require protection from greedy corporate executives giving away the store to the shareholders ... we might believe that workers should be allowed to stay home with a new child or a sickly parent without losing their job ...

republicans on the other hand, might believe that the best system is "nature's way" which is survival of the fittest ... they might believe the "free interaction of markets", i.e. the interplay between labor and businesses, will determine the optimal policies and that "government interference" creates an artificial situation that weakens both entities ...

so, the question i have is, if both parties set a strong economy and jobs creation as a high PRIORITY, without addressing your other variables of professionalism and qualifications, should we not understand, as voters, the underlying systems of belief in how, not whether, each party will address the economy and job creation???

that's the part of your argument i'm either misunderstanding or i disagree with ... how should the party's differentiate themselves when both parties set the economy and jobs as one of their top priorities?? as a voter, i would demand to know the underlying philosophy because it would help me predict what kind of specific policies and programs would likely eminate from those beliefs ... and yet, if i'm hearing you correctly, i'm hearing that our candidates shouldn't go beyond defining the priorities or at least the national party shouldn't ...

taking this yet one step further, let's say you had a republican pushing job creation as a top priority (by doing away with OSHA regulations) and you had a Democrat citing a top priority that we should push for a Constitutional amendment to give gays equal rights ... let's say both candidates have an impressive resume that demonstrates both professionalism and excellent qualifications ...

i would not vote for the republican even if i thought they had chosen the more important priority because i would disagree with HOW they would implement that priority ... is this not critically important for voters to know before they cast their vote?

[AndyTiedye]

3. And How Often Does That Happen? (TDS excepted)

Everytime a Dem leader appears on a Nationally televised program,