I fear our Democrats are appealing to THEIR base rather than ours.

[madfloridian]

I don't mean all of them, but I think there is enough of it to be a concern. I think it is coming down to where our party will be forced to decide whether to campaign to appeal to the extremists on the Christian right...or whether to stand up for the rights of all of us. That means the rights of women as human beings who can choose their own medical care.

Many states including Florida have Democrats going right along with abolishing rights to full access to contraception, and the right to have a abortion.

They are going to have to decide about whether everyone has a place at the table...even those who are not religiously inclined. I listen to State of Belief, and I have learned to respect Rev. Gaddy's openmindedness. Here is a clip that I so much appreciated. He was speaking of a woman who advises many Democrats about religion...more on that after this paragraph.

Dr. Welton Gaddy, president of the liberal Interfaith Alliance, said her encouragement of such overt religiosity raised ''red flags'' about the traditional separation of church and state.

''I don't want any politician prostituting the sanctity of religion,'' Mr. Gaddy said, adding that nonbelievers also ''have a right to feel they are represented at the highest levels of government.''

To Ms. Vanderslice, that attitude is her party's problem. In an interview, she said she told candidates not to use the phrase ''separation of church and state,'' which does not appear in the Constitution's clauses forbidding the establishment or protecting the exercise of religion.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30616FA35550C758EDDAB0994DE404482

Other things Ms Vanderslice is advising, in these paragraphs.

''God's love was so much stronger than any of my doubts,'' she said, acknowledging that like some other young evangelicals she still struggles with common evangelical ideas about abortion, homosexuality and the literal reading of Scripture.

She and Mr. Sapp, 30, a Presbyterian minister's son and a fellow evangelical with a divinity degree from Duke, set out to test the rejected ideas. They organized workshops in which Democratic candidates practiced delivering short statements about their faith or their moral values. They urged Democrats to meet with even the most staunchly conservative evangelical pastors in their districts. They persuaded candidates not to avoid controversial subjects like abortion, advising those who supported abortion rights to speak about reducing demand for the procedure. And they cautioned against the approach of many liberal Christians, which is to argue that Jesus was interested only in social justice and not in sexual morality.

''The Gospel has both in it,'' Mr. Sapp said. ''You can't act like caring about abortion and family issues makes you a judgmental fool.''

Most of all, they told Democratic candidates not to try to fake it, advising those of non-Christian faiths or no faith at all to talk about the origins of their sense of ethics.

''People want to know are you on your knees?'' Ms. Vanderslice said. ''Are you responsible to something that is bigger than yourself?''

She is not right about most demanding their politicians be down on their knees praying. I do not care whether mine do that or not. I want them to be good people who care about life's real values. I want to see that the usesless killing of over 600,000 Iraqis, and the death of over 3000 military are not at all moral and good.

I don't want them hung up in all this rhetoric about abortion and gays and birth control.

And this statement by Ms Vanderslice is refuted by the way she criticized Howard Dean in Iowa when he DID what she said here.

Most of all, they told Democratic candidates not to try to fake it, advising those of non-Christian faiths or no faith at all to talk about the origins of their sense of ethics.

Hey, Mara, remember this you wrote in 2004? Many of us still do, and it was quite painful. You judged him on how he spoke of his own religious views. That is just not fair.

I remember the first time I heard Gov. Howard Dean speak, more than a year ago. Dean sharply criticized the move toward war in Iraq and wondered out loud why the other Democrats were not willing to challenge the Bush administration. At the time, the faith community had been active in opposition to the war, but while protests erupted around the world, our leaders in Washington remained painfully silent. Dean broke through that silence with what to me was a prophetic voice in a time that desperately needed politicians to be truth-tellers.

I was so inspired to see a candidate who was willing to stand up for the things I believed in that I decided to leave my job to work on the Dean campaign. As a Christian, I passionately wanted to galvanize the faith community around the candidate that had captured my heart and imagination. I headed to Iowa, where I managed to convince the Dean campaign to hire me to do outreach to religious communities. I was quickly dubbed the "church lady" as I tried to convince senior staff that, although many people of faith supported Dean’s positions, his secular image would hurt him in the election.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0405&article=040541b

When he tried to speak on ethics and morals in his own way, it was not good enough for her. Be sure to read the NYT article above. She is claiming considerable credit for the November wins.

A lot has gone on this week about religious groups, and how extreme some are in demanding that only their view be recognized.

Florida is having serious problems about "allowing" women certain rights they should automatically have.

Having to make a law so rape victims can get Plan B..outrageous

And another Democrat, a woman, in South Dakota is introducing another bill to ban abortion. She is the 2nd Democrat to do so.

South Dakota Democratic woman lawmaker will introduce new abortion ban bill.>

[madfloridian]

1. Here is her group which advises Democrats, website.

http://www.commongoodstrategies.com:80/profile.html

[xchrom]

2. well, to be fair kucinich was pro-life before his current stand.

and one could certainly take his progressive politics to the bank.

however i think even religion aside -- the ''weakness'' detected in many modern democrats can be summed up in your opening.

''I fear our Democrats are appealing to THEIR base rather than ours.''

what i think this is about -- much more than playing to ''the religious'' -- is authenticity.

people want authenticity -- especially from the person at the top.

unfortunately too many people vote some vague ''feel good'' notion about a candidate.

rather than experience or intelligence -- which may or may not travel through their boob tube.

liberals/progressives would serve their positions better first by keeping your original adminition in mind and second by looking to be more muscular and aggressive about their core beliefs re: what government should do.

don't fall apart because frank luntz call estate taxes ''death'' taxes -- attack frank luntz and attack the notion of ''death'' taxes as unpatriotic and not living up to one's civic responsiblitiy.

[madfloridian]

5. I remember that.

That pro-life term was used to make us sound pro-abortion. However now it is being misused terribly.

[loyalsister]

3. I have seen this, too

In other ways.

When a senator votes in fear of negative campaigning from the other side, I have to question who they are representing.

[madfloridian]

4. A centrist Florida Democratic group is also after the GOP votes..

They are called the Florida Mainstream Democrats, and they are not mainstream. They take pride in getting letters published and articles written about them in the Florida Baptist Witness, the Southern Baptist voice here.

They are not appealing to the majority of Democrats, and they don't even pretend to do so.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1060

The Mainstream Democrats is an offshoot of the party organized by Democratic legislators. It is striving to help Democrats broaden their appeal, especially in rural northern Florida, because the basic electoral math is starting to look tougher and tougher for Democrats. They're faring so poorly in northern Florida and many outlying suburban areas, that it's no longer possible for them to win statewide elections merely by remaining competitive in Tampa Bay and Central Florida and overwhelmingly winning southeast Florida.

If we can't win in Tampa Bay and Orlando and Miami, then something is wrong....could it be because we are appealing only to rural GOP voters in North Florida?

We're here to get Bubba's vote," said state Sen. Steve Geller of Hallandale Beach, a founder of the Mainstream Democrats and one of those with a northeastern accent.

Why just their vote? Why are you catering just to "bubbas"? Makes no sense to me.

Speakers said many voters have a wrong perception of their values, and said Republicans do a better job of marketing their message. Repeatedly, they called for the party to stress its "big tent" philosophy and embrace people who might support restricting abortions, say, or oppose gun control.

"One of the problems for so many of us whose faith is the essence of our being, is that we don't wear it on our sleeve.," said Sen. Bill Nelson.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Hasn't it been like this ever since Reagan?

Between 1932 and 1980, the people who were as far right as today's Republican Party were considered lunatics. Moderates like Ike, Nixon, and Ford were the only electable Republicans and those like Goldwater (who was moderate compared to Reagan) lost in a landslide.

Even as the Democratic Party makes gains, we're still living in an era where the country has shifted dramatically to the right.

[wyldwolf]

7. I must correct you... again. They ARE appealing to our base - just maybe not the "progressives"

The Myth Of The Democratic Base

Have a discussion with anyone in the leftmost regions of the Democratic party and eventually they will invoke “the base,” a mythological group of liberals who are the “true Democrats” and of which he or she is “obviously” a part of. The “I’m a real Democrat and everyone else is a heretic” mentality exhibited by the blogosphere betrays a misunderstanding of the term “base” in regards to a political party. Simply put, “the base” is the single most reliable block of voters. Period. It has little to do with ideology.

Writer Will Pitt said it best.

I hear a lot of stuff on DU about anti-war left-wing types being the base, and Kerry better not piss us off, or Kerry better court us, or Kerry has already pissed us off, so screw you guys, I’m going home.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-war left-wing types are not the base of the Democratic party.

Union members are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast and Pacific northwest. Women are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast, far west, and portions of the midwest. African Americans are the base of the party all across the country.

Anti-war left-wing types are the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball’s chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

Anti-war left-wing support, by the way, is buried by the aforementioned real base. Yes, anti-war left-wing support can swing an election, but because of the aforementioned unreliability problem - anti-war left-wing voters will bolt at the first sign of impurity, even in a tight race (See: 2000) - it is too often a hopeless exercise to try and court that group with any real vigor. The real base outnumbers anti-war left-wing types 10-1. That’s where the focus goes.

So all you anti-war left-wing folks should probably stop referring to yourselves as the base of the Democratic party. Don’t feel bad; I’m a anti-war left-wing type, too, and so I’m out of the fun as well. We were close to being the base, but blew up in 1968 because we couldn’t stand it anymore. The party looked at us and said, “OOOOkay…let’s look elsewhere.”

See, the base of the party are working class men and women of differing races and levels of “liberalness.” Many are regular church goers and many shop at Wal-mart.

Rank and file Democrats are not one issue voters. Our base - our most reliable voting block - are only aware of the “progressive” crutch of “corporate malfeasance” from news reports about Enron.

Who is the “base?” Democrats get most of the homosexual vote. Democrats get most of the black vote. Yet more blacks than whites DISAGREE with gay marriage (a Pew research survey found 43% of African Americans didn’t rank gay marriage an important issue with 60% opposing it.) African Americans also more likely to oppose abortion according to an ABC news poll.

Who is the base? Blue collar union workers - often very religious, often anti-abortion. Women, most concerned with health care, education, their children, jobs and the economy.

See, the base is a hodgepodge of beliefs that conflict with the “progressive” mindset displayed so often in the blogosphere. Parts of the base are religious. Parts are anti-abortion and pro-gun rights. Parts are anti-gay marriage. Yet the base consists in part of women and gays.

If the base was “anti-corporate progressives,” as often floated here, corporations would not be flourishing as they are in blue states. With the country pretty evenly split, I don’t believe only Republicans are doing business with corporations.

To state it bluntly - if anyone within the Democratic party IS NOT the base, it is the “progressive” types. They voted third party against Harry Truman in 1948, would not support John Kennedy in 1960, sat out the 1968 presidential election, led the party to ruin in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988. In effect, “progressives” look at politics the way they do Indie music. In their mind, they have superior music tastes and everyone else is a sell-out.

But politics is not pop music.

[madfloridian]

8. Jeez, oh thank you so much for correcting me again. I need you to do that...

ever so often so I don't get too far out of the "mainstream" where you are.

And you can stop quoting Will all the time. That does not impress me.

Most of the people in our party, or hey, even in their party don't want religious people getting so much control.

The base are just people after all who want their voices to be heard...NOT just the voices of the Christian extremists.

Now you can take that back to your blog, where you don't mention my name, but make fun of me and others here all the freaking time...but you link here and refer here. Take this to your blog where you make fun of good people here at DU. I won't link there, but I hope others find it.

[BL611]

10. "Most of the people in our party, or hey,

even in their party don't want religious people getting so much control"

OK this is a problem you are conflating (intentionally or not) religious people with the religious theocrats. The vast majority of people in this country are religious and have no problem with religious people having control, they have a problem with theocrats having control. The religious left are not theocrats they respect and honor the separation between church and state. Also, personally I would (and to the extent that it is happening do) welcome the moderate to conservative non theocratic christians to the Democratic party.

[madfloridian]

Define

who is theocratic. I think my post was pretty clear. I am talking clearly about those who are religious who demand we all accept what they believe.

I was clear, wyldwolf was not.

[Zodiak]

14. Thanks, I was curious as to whose posts

I wasn't reading

[wyldwolf]

18. hey! How many fingers am I holding up?

[knight_of_the_star]

23. Can you please just stuff it buddy

Honestly I have never seen a more arrogant condescending poster on here aside from you. I have a hard time even believing you're a democrat sometimes with your holier-than-thou attitude that comes out of your mouth whenever you post something on here.

[dionysus]

31. a-men to that

you hit that nail on the head!!

[wyldwolf]

32. How about YOU stuff it. The ignore button is your friend.

[dionysus]

33. you honestly expect you can get away with

being a total asshole to most people on this board? You cry like a little baby when you get called on it.

somebody call the waaaaahmbulance....

[wyldwolf]

35. uh... I reject your premise

Afterall, if your premise was correct, my answer to your question would be "yes, apparently so."

You cry like a little baby when you get called on it.

The irony!!

[dionysus]

38. the irony of what,

your inability to act like anything else but a pompous jerk?

oh you really got me there pal, hoooowee you're clever!

[wyldwolf]

39. the irony of your statement

As I've pointed out countless times, people are shocked when shit is slung back at them when they're not used to it.

[dionysus]

40. you must be joking

pretty much every post of yours, regardless of the issue, is a snarky, arrogant insult. It's quite obvious to anyone who sees your posts.

Even your DLC rah-rah thread title has to have the obligatory "so there!! (nahnahahnahahna)" in it.

It's not as clever as you think it is. In fact, it's quite transparent and silly.

[wyldwolf]

41. no, I'm serious. But the fact you think I'm joking only makes my previous reply...

...more applicable to you.

[dionysus]

44. "you must be joking" is a figure of speech, and you know it.

you really don't impress or intimidate anyone here you know.

Well, except maybe the 3 or 4 clones you have here.

Enjoy thinking your haughty arrogance approaches clever, have a nice day.

[wyldwolf]

47. LOL! And it is a funny one from you.

[dionysus]

52. and how is that, really?

almost every single message you post trashes fellow Dems on this board. What are you trying to accomplish? If you're drumming up support for Hillary, you have failed in spades.

[wyldwolf]

53. "almost every single message you post trashes fellow Dems on this board."

There is extreme irony in that statement.

Show me instances where I've done that and wasn't trashed first.

[dionysus]

54. there you go once more with the imaginary irony you have

i am not going to post every instance where you summarily treat fellow democrats like shit.

it would fill pages. it's all you do. feign outrage all you want buddy.

[wyldwolf]

58. you can't back your claim with facts.

[dionysus]

62. anyone who reads this board with regularity can see it clearly.

i'm not going to waste time searching for all your nasty posts.

[wyldwolf]

64. if it's so clear, examples should be easy to find.

I mean, in the time it's taking you to claim they exist, surely you can find a few.

[dionysus]

66. your posts on this thread serve enough of an example

i'd not waste time searching for the volumes of drivel you post. have a great evening

[wyldwolf]

69. not as an example of what you've claimed.

[knight_of_the_star]

45. I will not dignify that with a proper response

[wyldwolf]

48. the proper response would be to stuff it and hit "ignore."

[knight_of_the_star]

56. How about no

Because ignoring your bullshit is the same to me as approving of it.

[wyldwolf]

59. I'm assuming that was a proper response? Or no?

[dionysus]

63. *oh snap*

[BL611]

16. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.

Jim Wallis, absolutely not. Even the mega church guys like Rick Warren are not theocrats. It seems that you are inferring that anybody who is pro life or is outspoken about their religious beliefs is a theocrat. That is not the case.

[madfloridian]

19. They can be however they want but NOT demand we be what they are.

Did you read what Vanderslice said about a man who was moral and clear? She said he was not religious enough. She said not to speak of separating church and state. She is not sure about how we should talk about abortion and gay rights, and birth control. Really??? How about butting out of it altogether.

I think I am very clear, and coming from my Southern Baptist background, raised among fundamentalists....I have the authority to speak.

And you should not deny my right to say that if Jim Wallis and Mara Vanderslice want me to be just like them...they are wrong as well.

That is why I listen to Gaddy, he enlightens rather than demands.

[BL611]

20. JIm Wallis does not want you

to be just like him, anymore than any atheist does. We all have our beliefs about the world and naturally advocate it to others. Wallis absolutely supports separation of church and state, and advocates cooperation and respect between believers and non believers alike. I am not too familiar with Vanderslice and therefore will refrain from judgment

[wyldwolf]

17. I was very clear.

[wyldwolf]

12. Count on me doing this anytime I see you invoke "the base."

[madfloridian]

21. Or the DLC, or centrists, or key words... Zeroed in so you can mock me.

I love it. Hey I even saw there one day that someone posted to your query about Clark being DLC something about well he hung around DLC headquarters all the time.

All kinds of good stuff. You post here to get stuff to post there to make fun of.

[wyldwolf]

36. what can I say, MF. The left and the right provide great material

[dionysus]

55. thats way off base since you spend the vast majority of your time

trashing Dems here... oh the.... "irony"

[wyldwolf]

61. show me some examples of it

...where I wasn't trashed first?

[dionysus]

67. that's all you have?

poor

[wyldwolf]

70. apparently you have nothing

[dionysus]

73. people here know your game

snide snipes ain't gonna work. you know damned well what you do, to deny it is a bald face lie, and you know it.

[wyldwolf]

82. apparently they're realizing yours - make a talse claim then run away

[wyldwolf]

13. dupe

[madfloridian]

9. One issue.....war, abortion, contraception, gay rights, let's see.

that's 4 right there and I'm just getting started.

SD's law passed the House today there. So what...doesn't matter. They are just appealing to the base.

[wyldwolf]

15. uh... that's four issues.

What's your point?

[fuzzyball]

42. Best post of the month!

[wyldwolf]

49. why, thank you. By the way, someone said I have four clones here. Are you one of them?

:shrug:

[fuzzyball]

50. Very funny! Actually I am so damn unique, there is no

possiblility of any clones out there like me!

[dionysus]

68. oh, that's RIGHT!!!

you're the one crying that those teens making the new minimun wage have it all wrong, they should still make 5 bucks an hour, while in another pro-DLC thread, you bragged about your $40\hr job!! And then when I called you out on it, you said you deserved $100 per hour!! Shout from the rooftops what a great Dem you are!!

And don't cop out like your buddy and demand a link, you KNOW you said it.

[wyldwolf]

71. LOL! STILL can't provide a shred of evidence to what you claimed.

[dionysus]

72. Oh buddy, you're not worth the time to search.

If I had the dough to donate to DU this quarter I'd use the search function and bury your ass with evidence. And any devoted reader here knows EXACTLY your style, so try again pal.

[wyldwolf]

81. but you're spending a whole lot of time making the claim

[Clark2008]

60. Did you ever consider that MAYBE they simply haven't

HEARD the Indie music because the corporate media doesn't go on about it ad nauseum and that they'd actually like it if they heard it.

Because, if the base is working men and woman, then they certainly shouldn't be voting for corporate shills like many of our "front runners."

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

65. ...been considered.

...because in college, that's all there was. And since I worked in radio, I participated in research where average people were "polled" with music snippets of all kinds very very often. The crutch that people just aren't exposed to it doesn't hold water.

Because, if the base is working men and woman, then they certainly shouldn't be voting for corporate shills like many of our "front runners."

First, I reject the notion they're "corporate shills." Explain how the frontrunners are? Secondly, it isn't for you to say who people should or should not vote for.

[Clark2008]

74. I'm willing to bet that most people would like the dulcet tones

of the Flaming Lips over Britany Spears' bee-bop - IF they knew what they were hearing, but I digress.

No - I absolutely am not telling people who to vote for - just as I hate being called a "Republican" because I don't like John Edwards and refuse to vote for him if he's the nominee (I don't vote for folks I don't trust - no matter which party they belong to). I just don't understand why a working person would want to vote for someone who's done (mostly) the opposite of what's good for them. And, it seems, anymore, that many in the Congress, on both sides, do exactly that.

[wyldwolf]

83. yeah - you did digress

..first, typically, you think peoplr are drones of somesort being spoonfed ny the industry. Look at most major and medium radio markets these days and you will find a station, often highpowered, that plays Indy music. Usually the ratings are in the toilet.

I just don't understand why a working person would want to vote for someone who's done (mostly) the opposite of what's good for them. And, it seems,

Exactly who are you referring to? I know of no candidate who has "done (mostly) the opposite of what's good for (the people.)" Maybe because I follow bills being passed.

[Zodiak]

11. We have become a country of enablers

The ENTIRE country. And who do we enable? The meanest, the nastiest, and the most powerful and wealthy.

Half of our Democratic Senators are habitual voters for Republican bills. We are talking from voting with Republicans 45% of the time all the way to 95% of the time.

Half of the Democratic party rank and file enable the elected members of the Democratic party to repeatedly betray their base but still act like they deserve votes from the left.

The Republican party elected offcials have made a habit of enabling the Executive Branch.

Republican rank and file enable their leaders to continuously write legislation that does not benefit them.

The media enables the corporations to have all of the microphone to themselves.

And we, as citizens, enable this big ugly machine to roll onwards by showing up to work every day as if things are "normal", enabling the corporations even further.

A country of enablers, sycophants, and risk averse technophiles....I'm pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave. There are no consequences any more for the unscrupulous....and that is our fault for choosing the path of enablement.

[madfloridian]

22. You are right. And I am getting attacked for talking about it.

Thanks for the back up, because others are just not reading my post.

I guess I should be used to it.

[madfloridian]

25. And a post was started perhaps inferring I am not part of the base.

I love it when that happens. Doesn't mention me, but the intent is clear.

Our party is turning a hard right to cater to the religious extremists, and none dare speak of it.

[Zodiak]

30. Well, half of them did it for corporations

so why not compromise the other half of their principles?

Liberals have no choice but to vote for Democrats anyways, so where is the harm?

Tired of that argument? So am I. Half of the party is well-worthy of my vote, but of the other half, all I hear are excuses and an entreaty to vote for them anyways.

You are targeted, I believe, because you are out there a lot....seen, and respected. When you came to DU, you didn't feel this way, and everyone knows it. I am more of a reader than a poster, and have watched you (because you put yourself out there a lot) come to the same conclusions I have over time.

So you are a major player who has taken a side. The strategy nowadays is to attack the messenger and not the message, so this comes as no surprise. Just keep the messege up and use thy ignore list liberally.

[Zodiak]

29. You should be

I believe that we need to do some serious soul-searching if we are to ever take the power back from those that stole it from the People. That means not looking away from truths and understanding exactly the position we are in.

I am an enabler, too. I go to work every day and become a cog in the machine to keep my ass out f a cardboard box. I live in fear of poverty so much that I am paralyzed to do the REAL fighting we need to do (24 hour activism...general strikes, etc.). But I am aware of it and feel the grist of betraying my principles each day for a bit of dosh.

But I refuse to make excuses for myself or anyone else for that matter. The Republicans are evil and the Democrats (as a collective) are torn between ineffectiveness and enablement. And we sit and watch this with our shoulders shrugged counting the moments until 20o8 when we can elect the same people back again (plus a few more) to do nothing and compromise our Constitution away.

There are those that do not hold a mirror to their side and will excoriate those that try to force it upon them. Brand name politics and the cult of personality infects the Democrats almost as badly as Republicans. By now, I'm sure you are used to our crop of adherents. By the same principle that liberals will almways vote Democratic because it is the only game in town, brand-namers and cult of personality people will do the same with the party if it lunges to the left....they will keep voting that way.

The good thing, MF, is that you know from polling around here that the majority of DUers are well on-board to restoring our party to the people and wrestling it from corporate enablers. You just put yourself out there a lot compared to nobodies like me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. I don't understand WHO they think their "base" are and who they're representing

I have become very disenchanted with the Democratic party starting with their failure to support Gore and effectively challenge the 2000 election results, which were VERY questionable, if not outright fraudulent. Most of them let the results of the 2004 election go as well even though there is/was evidence of voting irregularities in Ohio. They have pretty much rolled over and let Bush/GOP get away with everything they wanted, especially after 9/11, with very little (if any) protest. Those Democrats in Congress who DID speak out against Bush/GOP agenda became victims of vicious "smear campaigns" and received very little support from their fellow Democrats and many of them ended up simply making embarrassing (and undeserved) apologies (i.e. Richard Durbin). I will probably continue to vote for Democrats for the foreseeable future just because "bad" Democrats are (slightly) better than ANY Republican but I will probably jump ship if and when a viable progressive alternative emerges and if the Democrats continue their "rightward drift". I haven't seen a bonafide progressive candidate emerge yet for 2008 that I feel like I could support and I fear that whoever we end up with for President in 2008 (assuming he/she is a Democrat) will continue (more or less) with "business as usual". Gore would probably be my choice if he were planning to run but at this point it looks like he is not. :-( I also don't understand why a lot of Democrats are spending valuable time and energy pandering to people whose views and agenda are clearly diametrically opposed to what most registered Democrats stand for and who generally regard Democrats as "mentally ill", "traitorous," or worse. Why do these Democrats not realize that they are not ultimately going to win the votes of the "religious right" and even if they do, what kind of "victory" would that be for them (or us) if they have to pander to hatred and bigotry and alienate their progressive support along the way just to win?

[madfloridian]

26. I posted this after what Hillary said about the war vote...

that if we did not like her answer we could vote for someone else, there were others.

It is the same with religion.

[shance]

27. Bottom line: You can observe the character of a person by their actions, not by their words.

Or affiliations for that matter.

We have many individuals who have infiltrated the Democratic party in what seems apparent now to cease any opposition to the Conservatives agenda and/or render the Democratic party ineffective and obsolete.

Simply because someone runs as a Democrat, doesn't mean they will be moral, or honest or Democratic for that matter.

I think both parties have been taken hostage by corporations and special interests who seem to be the ones who are financing and recruiting the candidates who are now winning our elections.

I think American citizens need to rethink how the two parties are not really two parties any more, but the illusion of two parties.

Wouldn't it be nice if individuals ran as individuals, and not beholdened to any party affiliation, but to the constituents themselves. It could happen, but only if we as citizens choose to recognize our own value as citizens, and stop looking for validation, legitimacy and approval from those who are too busy asking for contributions for their races and passing laws that strip us of our power and our dignity.

I have supported the Democratic party for years now. However, as I have watched both parties become dictated by the wealthy and the elite, I have come to the realization that neither party has any honest commitment or loyalty to Americans at large. Not to mention, Washington does everything to block our involvement and interaction as citizens into the most important dialogues affecting our own future.

I don't even believe the lesser of evils argument is in any way valid any longer, because as we are seeing in Iraq and in New Orleans is the end result is still the same, the number of deaths in these profit bearing wars is still the same, the erosion and assaults on our basic freedoms is still the same because the Democratic party has either voted with the Republicans and/or has not done near enough to fight for the most important elements that make this country remain a Democracy. Not to mention they have closed the doors of discussion and open dialogue to their constituents and to citizens at large.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Another thing that irks me

Why should we, the people, have to pay hundreds/thousands of dollars to attend dinners just to be able to meet with our ELECTED representatives? I get really steamed when I get mailings inviting me to attend dinners with Congressmen, Senators, etc. but only IF I first pony up a huge sum of money. It's insane that we can't meet personally with the people that we elect to represent us and who are responsible for making (literally) life and death decisions on our behalf without coughing up vast sums of money that we "ordinary people" need to pay the light bill, insurance premiums (some of us), and keep a roof over our heads. Yet they run around and act as though they know something about what "the American people" REALLY want and need (hint: It's NOT flag burning amendments, same-sex marriage bans, abortion bans, etc.) .:grr:

[shance]

76. Such good points you make. I agree wholeheartedly.

The disconnection with our public servants is unprecedented and I believe that is why there is so much breathtaking corruption and sociopathy.

When they are accountable to no one but the Corporate owners, then they believe don't need to listen to us.

[PassingFair]

57. Bravo Shance! You win my Ted Rall Award of the Day:

I LOVE this cartoon!

[shance]

77. Thanks PF. LOL! What a brutally accurate cartoon!

Thanks for posting.

[madfloridian]

28. And in case anyone cares...SD got their abortion ban through the house.

That'll fix all those women who think they have rights...put them in their place.

[Vidar]

37. Either that , or just whoring after ther money.

[dlarson2]

43. Thanks!

Very interesting post. A lot to think about.

[madfloridian]

46. Well, I guess I would call myself a "secular progressive"...thanks, Jim Wallis.

I used to be Southern Baptist until the war. But at least Wallis agrees that old secular progressives like me have a place in the party. I appreciate that.

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/11/jim-wallis-for-record.html

I went to DailyKos for the first time in several days...I see Wallis is not happy with him either.

This "secular progressives" thing...hmm..

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/jim-wallis-dear-kos-can-left-stop.html

[madfloridian]

51. I forgot to ask it if is ok to be secular.

I guess we are to the point in this country now that it will become a badge of shame.

People in the church I grew up in, and left because they supported the Iraq war as a holy wary....hardly speak to me. I have known them all my life, yet now I am not considered good enough or Christian enough by them anymore.

I think we have real problems coming on if the left allows the religious groups to take control of the party, just as much trouble as the GOP had when the religious groups took over their party.

So, is it ok?

[madfloridian]

79. Jim Wallis is lecturing Democrats now for not being more religious.

I don't like his response to Kos here. I really don't. He sounds entitled to tell us what to do because he's Christian. This is the tone I fear.

Jim Wallis: Dear Kos, Can the Left Stop Shooting Itself in the Foot?

I think the religious community is having more than a little impact on our Democrats. They even have Howard Dean seeking evangelical voters more than IMHO he should. More than is warranted.

Jim Wallis sounds like he thinks Democrats must be religious. I don't like that sound. We don't have to do that. I find this part upsetting...the part he directed at Kos. I read the Kos post, and I agreed with it. I think Wallis is getting a sense of entitlement to get involved in the party.

When I listen to Gaddy on State of Belief, I get back the old feelings of comfort and trust that I once felt in my Southern Baptist church. I don't get that feeling while reading this post by Wallis. I makes me uncomfortable, he is judging us.

Wallis talks of the "secular left" as if there were something wrong with it. I don't think so. I think secular is fine, I think religion is fine...both have their places.

Wallis and I disagree here:

As a progressive Christian, I always wondered why many on the secular Left felt it necessary to cut off potential political alliances with progressive religious people, to alienate most of America with nasty anti-faith diatribes, and to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements in this country, where religion often served as a powerful motivator and driving force – as in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, establishing child labor laws and social safety nets and, of course, the civil rights movement. In recent years, the Left and even the Democrats managed to appear hostile to faith and to people in faith communities. Regardless of what one’s views of the divine are, that’s called shooting yourself in the foot.

He is sounding like the Christians who control the GOP have sounded. I feel uncomfortable reading that.

I am going to start referring to myself as a Christian without a church right now, but as a political "secular progressive."

That shows I separate the two areas of my life, which is how it should be.

[shance]

80. Jim Wallis is a divider with his rhetoric. He claims inclusion, but only if it fits his

rather limited Anglo Christian vision.

He may not mean to, however he is simply exemplifying a lesser version of the right wingers who believe we should do it their white Anglo Protestant/evangelical way.

A watered down version is still the same version, it is simply watered down version.

Of course Wallis sounds great when he talks in generalities. Frankly, we all do. Its the specifics that people should heed, in listening to anyone.

Religion should not be included in governing.

It would seem to me he should know this by now. That is, if he has read the Constitution and other accompanying documents.

[AuntPatsy]

75. You never fail to ensure others need remain with eyes wide

open whether they like the message or not, it is good to see you still going strong.

[Crowdance]

78. Kick for the courage to speak the truth. n/t