If a person is anti-immigration, anti-choice, sexist, and pro-Iran war

[AllieB]

are they truly a Democrat? This is not meant to be flame bait, as this is not my modus operandi. I have noticed a decided shift to the right among Democrats, because they think that it will win them more votes in the upcoming election. These sentiments are expressed on DU and repeated throughout the blogosphere.

If you met a Democrat who believed we should build a wall between the US and Mexico, supported the Bush administration's view of Venezuela, openly expressed sexist and anti-choice attitudes, and was gung-ho for attacking Iran for whatever reason, what would you say to those people? Is this indicative that my party has left me, or is it indicative of the power of the Bush propaganda machine?

Thank you, Allie

[mdmc]

1. sure they are. we are a big tent party

WE AIN'T GREENS. Pure, honest, trustworthy. Dems wanted the drug war, Iraq, bankruptcy, nclb, patriot act...

[MrTriumph]

2. If you are for open borders and low wages aren't you a Republican?

Bush & his cronies LOVE open borders

[AllieB]

3. I'm for neither

But I asked a question. If you believed all those things, are you a Democrat?

[mdmc]

7. I support open border as a form of equality

we are all humans. God loves us equally.

[Critters2]

34. I'll bet you have a job that can't be given to an illegal immigrant (yet)

[radio4progressives]

59. I am jobless

and i am not a corporatist slave wage supporter. but i am deeply disheartened to see how the media hyped manufactured "crises" has appealed to the worst of us as a nation - it has attracted racists, white supremacists, zenophobes in this country in both parties and it's frankly disgraceful, sad, pathetic, disheartening and frightening.

My joblessness is a direct result of a East Coast Corporations having the legal cover to takeover our little smaller companies here in California) in order to enmass more wealth and consolidation of the market - after they took us over, they immediately set about to "re-organze" (our company was their cash cow - they even filed bankcruptcy while several of the subsideriaries were draining funds) they set about farming out the service sector departments to India, while we had Immigrants from India here on a "guest worker program" in our IT department, while at the same time they shut down several departments to consolidate the "work flow" to their headquarters in Delaware and other Eastern states.

My job loss had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration, my department was the legal department.

At the heart and core of this entire "crises" is nothing other than Natioanlism and White Supremacy, (Neo-Nazi's anyone?) manufactured in the media courtesy Lou Dobbs and others..

There are real problems, real injustice and massive corruption.

Those issues need to be dealt with honestly and resolved. But are separate issues, and will never be dealt with in an honest way by rhetorical provocations that are racists to the core.

If the so called "Big Tent" is a reverting back to the day pre-civil rights movement to include modern day Dixie Crats - then No THANKS.

[AllieB]

66. Sorry about your job

My sister has been unemployed 3 times in 6 years, and it has nothing to do with immigration either. I agree with this statement: "At the heart and core of this entire "crises" is nothing other than Natioanlism and White Supremacy". This manufactured crisis is also a doversion from the crimes of the Bush administration. They want people to focus on this.

[radio4progressives]

76. I agree that it has worked well as a diversion...

I don't think Bush would have asked for that, but it none the less is serving the GOP very well.

Unfortunately, we allowed the right wingers in the DP to join the noise machine band wagon... :hi:

[leftchick]

110. excellent post r4p!!!

Thank You! :)

[mdmc]

107. what do you want to bet?

[AndyTiedye]

39. I'm For Open Borders and HIGHER Wages. What Does That Make Me?

Let them come. Let them work LEGALLY. Unionize them.

Raise the minimum wage.

Throw the book at any employer who violates our labor laws, no matter where his employees come from.

It is not the employers' job to root out illegal immigrants,
but it IS his job to pay a decent wage and provide safe working conditions.

We don't need no stinking WALL!

[AllieB]

44. Great post.

Realistic, logical, and no defensiveness. :applause:

[MrTriumph]

52. It makes you a fool. (You asked). Open borders bring LOWER wages

x

[Telly Savalas]

99. Not if there's a reasonable minimum living wage in place.

But if you're a fool who believes in voodoo economics, I suppose closing the borders and patiently waiting for wealth to "trickle down" is more appealing.

[MrTriumph]

102. Min. wage law or not, more workers depress wages

x

[AndyTiedye]

116. Not Convinced

I don't think the border can truely be closed, without a level of repression
that most of us would find unacceptable. We would also lose more jobs by
destroying the tourist industry in this country, than we would gain by
shutting off the flow of immigrant labor.

Even if you could close the border, they are already here.

Because they are illegal, employers need not pay them even minimum wage.
Because they are illegal, they cannot file OSHA complaints.
Because they are illegal, they probably are not paying taxes
(though the employer may be withholding them and pocketing the money).
Because they are illegal, we cannot unionize them or their workplaces.

Seems to me that the real crime isn't illegal immigration,
it's the pay and working conditions they work under when they get here.

[readmoreoften]

4. I wouldn't support a candidate like that, but not many exist.

Even most DINOs have at least one or two progressive points: such as a pro-war, anti-labor, pro-choice candidate. Or an anti-war, pro-labor, proponent of forced birth. If they were 100% conservative, the choice would be easy. But they're usually 75% appalling and 25% good.

I feel like the Dems are already too far to the right as well. Any movement further to the right is insane, in my opinion. I think that what we need is a strong, loud, progressive leader with a very forceful presence.

[AllieB]

12. My views are much the same as when I was young

I was raised in a strong, pro-labor household by staunch Democrats. I think that I've always been pretty moderate in my views. The Democratic party has shiften farther to the right, making me an out-and-out leftist on some issues that were previously part of the Democratic platform. It's really strange. in 1996 I was a moderate, and in 2006 I'm a leftist, though my views are essentially the same.

[coalition_unwilling]

61. Shouldn't being a Democrat mean having some (or at least one)

core conviction?

To that end, I would propose that the sine qua non of being a Democrat be that you support a highly progressive tax system. The rich profit from a capitalist system so they should have to pay for its maintenance and upkeep, imho.

[The Deacon]

5. Depends

I used to have a friend back in Kansas who was a staunch Democrat - worked for a while for enviromental causes & organizations, etc. He was also pro-life. If we (as Progressives) really believe most of what we say we also have to admit that we all won't necessarily march in lockstep. However, if a person really doesn't hold ANY of our views, then I really think he would be happier (or at least more honest) belonging to another party.
Just my two cents worth.

[quickesst]

10. Why....

in the hell does everyone here get stuck using the word "anti-immigration" to lump everyone who does not wish to see our borders overrun without any kind of organization or control? Jesus H Christ, I have always been, as far back as I can remember, pro-immigration. I just happen to be, I suppose, one of the few here who would rather this issue be resolved with logic and a full understanding of the implications of each path this can take. Instead of throwing that term around willy-nilly, try distinguishing between those who are pro-immigration, and those who are anti-illegal immigration. Seems it's either %100 one way or the other with a lot of you, with no middle ground for honest discussion. Thanks.
quickesst

[sadiesworld]

30. Using anti-immigration instead of anti-illegal immigration...

and then lumping it in (for no apparent reason) with the rest of those positions was the whole point of the original post, IMO. Not intended to be flamebait, my ass (that was the tip-off...assuming one was necessary).

Many of us are absolutely disgusted with the endless games and name-calling over this issue. I believe it is a minority of posters who engage in this childish behavior, unfortunately they are tireless. And they are given a long leash.

[Strelnikov_]

108. A Small Minority Have Adopted The Tactics Of The Reich On This Issue

Don't support open borders with no controls, you are a racist.
Don't support the the invasion of Iraq, you support the terraists.

My take is the vast majority here come down fairly close to your position, they have simply tired of the grandstanding.

I wonder how the open borders/no control people will handle other countries dumping their prison populations on us as happened during the Mariel boatlift? Oh, I forgot, no controls.

[bloom]

50. "He was also pro-life."

You then wrote:

"If we (as Progressives) really believe most of what we say we also have to admit that we all won't necessarily march in lockstep."


HE didn't have to worry about facing the abortion choice now - did he?

Nobody is forcing anyone to get abortions.

It's not enforcing lockstepedness to insist that people should have that choice. The people who are into lockstepping are those who are trying to control what other people are doing in regards to that issue. There is NOT room for people who want to take away other people's rights. IMO.

[StevieM]

6. I think you have to look at the whole range of positions

someone who supports all those things is probably not a Democrat. The Iran situation is tricky, because they probably are trying to acquire nukes. It's easy to reject that, because Bush was such a liar about Iraq. There military was pathetic, and there was no reason to believe that a declining country like that was going to get nukes. But Iran very well might.

I have mixed feelings about Iran and miitary action. On one hand, life in Iran is horrible, and the people definitely hate their government. It makes them live an Islamic life, when the people are actually quite secular in their hearts. If Ahmenjad were to call elections, and put himself and Hillary Clinton on the ballot, she would destroy him.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that the only point to war in Iran (or airstrikes) would be to look out for Israeli hegemony in the region. I don't want Israel to keep having free reign, I want them to be under pressure to treat the Palestnians like human beings. But I don't think nuclear pressure is the best way--or a reasonable way--to accomplish that. Then again, Israel has certainly never hesitated to use its nuclear arsenal to get its way (specifically in the Yom Kippur War, when it used the threat of nukes to get the U.S. to send it weapons, fearing defeat, even though it could have resolved the situation by agreeing to withdraw from the occupied territories). But I also think these nuts in Iran are a lot more dangerous and shouldn't be able to dominate the region.

Sorry about that long diatribe, when your post really wasn't about Iran. I've just been thinking about Israel and Iran a lot lately--I really don't like either of those countries.

Steve

[Boojatta]

8. Are you equating these?

If a person is anti-immigration (...)

If you met a Democrat who believed we should build a wall between the US and Mexico (...)

[Vincardog]

9. If a person is Pro-iIllegal-immigration, anti-choice, sexist, pro-Iran war

They are Bu$hBot$. Whey are they trying to call themselves Democrats?

[bettyellen]

13. they're not but they are here though. i've seen them posting too.

[AllieB]

17. I agree, and this confuses me

I've also seen them on other left-leaning message board. So either we're talking neocon astroturf here, or that the Democratic party has abandoned some of its basic tenets. I hope it's the former and not the latter.

[Vincardog]

19. When I see some of the attention hogs going on and on with

their single minded rants about
"Personal responsibility"
"Being responsible for their own choices"
"Everyone makes their own choices"
"Right to contract"
or whatever I remember that "ignore is my friend".

The best way to deal with some people is to make an effort to enlighten them; then quit waisting your time.

[pitohui]

21. ah so this is abt message board postings?

my other reply assumed this was someone you knew, such as an older relation

i would merely point out that anyone can say they are anyone on a message board

i think some younger people who have little experience of the world get captivated by GOP and libertarian nonsense that sounds "logical" although it always fails in the real world, because it handicaps the person who relies only on merit and hard work and rewards the person who relies on family wealth and intergenerational contacts with other powerful families

some of the neocon astroturf is beyond a doubt manufactured by the neocons but some of it is actually sincere and just put forward by a person who if you read a little of their postings it becomes apparent they have no knowledge of how the world really works

they think if they work hard they are going to be millionaires so they put forward the millionaire's agenda, aren't they going to be surprised :-)

[Vincardog]

24. My reply was to message #19. As to someone you knew being

all that I stand by my statement that they are Bu%hBot$.
Why are they trying to pretend to be Democrats?

[pitohui]

27. yeah the thread is in a tangle

see my other post but in short you will encounter many rural democrats in some areas that are substantially more conservative than the mainstream of DU

we don't want to push those voters away, so we just do our best i guess

don't believe the iran war one at all, i guess i flat-out don't believe there are any democrats in favor of an unprovoked attack on iran

[AllieB]

53. I agree. There's nothing worse than a smug 20-something

with 'libertarian' views. Once they get a taste of hard reality, things usually change. :-)

[Warren DeMontague]

88. That's funny. I find "authoritarian" types much more obnoxious.

If I have to choose between the Senator from Oklahoma who wants Abortion Drs. to get the Death Penalty, and some guy who doesn't understand the connection between his taxes and the roads he drives on and the sewers he uses, I'll take door #2.

But if we're going to turn this into another "libertarian" bash-fest, lets get our terms straight. Because there is the big-L libertarian party, there are "libertarians" who hate paying taxes and think the government shouldn't provide any services or community safety net whatsoever, and then there are social or left-libertarians, many of whom are here, people who are actively out there fighting for reproductive choice and battling creeping theocracy and standing up for many of the things I suspect you hold near and dear.

So before we start with the broad brush l-word slams, I'd suggest that we be clear who-and what- we're talking about. Which seems to be a request made repeatedly re: this thread.

[sandnsea]

71. That's just bullshit

I really don't know what kind of sick thrills people are getting out of posting this shit, but I've never seen anybody post that they're for attacking Iran no matter what. And I've certainly never seen ANYBODY support ALL of the crap in the OP and I sure don't know anybody in Congress who does either. It's one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen on DU and that is saying A LOT.

[heidler1]

33. I for one do not believe most people put idealist issues to the fore front

of their decision making. In fact IMO most people are wishie washie about most issues and mentally switch back and forth regularly. IMO people tend to vote their pocket book and idealism comes in a poor second. All schemes have flaws as well as some merits, but the question is for whom?

[sandnsea]

69. You too, NAME NAMES

What Democrat in Congress is all of those things? You're just making shit up out of thin air and then calling on people to defend it. It's CRAZY.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. I've two things to say...

1) No, I wouldn't consider them democratic.

2) I don't know what sort of idiot would think those stances would garner more votes.

[AllieB]

14. Evan Bayh said wiretapping was OK

Twenty years ago, he would have been a Republican with his views.

[SmokingJacket]

15. Gets to the core question: What is a democrat?

Though I'm certainly not the arbiter, the platform I'd build for the dems would be pro-choice, pro-equal rights, anti-war, and in favor of a humane immigration policy.

We have to stand for SOMETHING.

Because otherwise... why NOT vote repub?

[Boojatta]

22. Are all barbed wire fences separating the USA and Canada inhumane? e.o.m.

[coalition_unwilling]

64. I would say that a Democrat should believe firmly in

a progressive tax system. The rich profit from capitalism and should have to also pay for its maintenance and upkeep.

[pitohui]

16. pro-labor is the heart of democratic politics

being anti-illegal immigration and anti blanket amnesties can be a perfectly valid belief held by dyed-in-the-wool democrats

if you don't think our laborers worth protecting, if you don't think our borders worth defending, i would question not just your right to call yourself a democrat but your right to call yourself a patriotic american

the democratic plank is supposed to be pro-worker (not pro slave labor, that is the GOP plank, thank you, which is why bushes and reagans approve these amnesties for illegals)

the democratic plank is also supposed to be pro-choice and against sexism, racism, classism, etc.

many democrats are imperfect people and may be sexist, racist, etc. but if they are trying to change that or if they are just older and not going to change i think we have to work with and do our best

i don't see why a democrat couldn't be pro-choice even if she wouldn't choose to have an abortion herself, pro-choice is about giving the woman the choice instead of giving a police officer the choice

the pro-war thing i don't get

you will have to prove to me that there are any democrats in favor of an unprovoked war on iran

there is trash talk on both sides, from iran politicians and from usa politicians, as part of political maneuvering but i see no proof that any democrat whether grass roots or big fat cat who wants a war w. those people

many times we encounter democrats in rural areas or older democrats who are more conservative than we may consider ourselves but i see no value in trying to drive those people from the party, a light touch -- and a strong PRO worker stance -- can go a long way

esp. if the person is an older relation, as i suspect from your posting, just be a little tactful and out of respect for age don't necessarily always try to win the argument, you could win the argument and lose the war if you convince the person maybe they should switch to voting GOP!

[AllieB]

18. But someone can be pro-immigration and pro-labor

I believe in a humane immigration policy, and think that the companies that hire undocumented workers should be heavily fined. On that note, I have also seen some covert racism being expressed on those threads.

[Vincardog]

20. pro-immigration = NOT pro undocumented workers

Illegal immigrants drive down wages. Have you tried to get a job in the UK lately?

[pitohui]

25. they can be but it's a fine balancing act

perhaps but think about this --

i live in what is so nicely called a katrina affected area

people are saying outright around here, "we need the mexicans because blacks won't work"

so their support of immigration is beyond all doubt support of racist policies meant to excuse them from hiring african-americans

i don't really see how or why we should have much immigration allowed, when we already have a huge population of people in need of work, education, health care that we've done feck-all for

instead the whole thrust of immigration is a deliberate plan by GOP from reagan onwards to crush wages and to make it impossible for people who aren't scholar types to earn any type of decent living w.out getting into crime, not every native born american is going to be able to get a master's degree or even a bachelor's degree, yet they too need jobs and they need jobs that pay them well enough to live in america not in mexico!

the pro-amnesty types are plenty racist, they just want a good supply of cheap maids and gardeners, you can't tell me ronald reagan was not about busting the american worker, it just won't fly

to me, like it or not, this is a GOP plank, not that a person should leave the democratic party over one point of disagreement, that would be silly

[sandnsea]

23. Name names

Otherwise you're just using the same kind of "some people say" propaganda as the media does. I don't know any Democrat who holds all those views.

[LoZoccolo]

26. I second the request to name names. n/t

[pitohui]

28. i sort of agree

i think even many older democrats who are a bit sexist etc. are trying to improve and change
themselves

i don't think any democrat is in favor of an unprovoked war on iran

[AllieB]

36. Sorry that you and others feel this is flamebait

when I was asking questions about the rightward shift of the Democratic party, and whether holding some of the views listed would qualify someone as a Dem. No need to get defensive. :-)

[sandnsea]

43. No, seriously, name names

You made the accusation, back it up with names. Nobody is being defensive, they're just calling you on your bullshit.

[AllieB]

47. Wow. How sad.

If you search my posts, you would see that I don't post flames. If you're looking for a fight, you won't get one for me. Would you be this rude to someone in person who asked a question, or is it that you're just hiding behind your keyboard?

if you can't answer the questions posed in a rational and realistic manner, who don't you just hide the thread or put me on ignore, rather than get all bent out of shape?

[sandnsea]

51. My god, NAME NAMES

And oh hell yes, I'm just as big a bitch in real life, I can supply references.

Name names. Who are these Democrats you speak of in your OP? Or are YOU the one hiding behind their keyboard???

[AllieB]

55. Sorry, not going to play your game

You may like to play with flames, but I don't. Have a wonderful evening! :-)

[sandnsea]

67. It's YOUR post

YOU made the accusation. I'm asking for who YOU were talking about. YOU are the one who has attacked me personally, not the other way around. NAME NAMES, who are you talking about in YOUR post.
:wtf:

[AllieB]

70. There are no accusations.

I asked a question, and I've answered below that many people that I've met in the blogosphere and in 'real life' claim to be Dems yet hold some pretty non-Dem ideals. No one is attacking you personally, and I'm sorry that you perceive it that way. I guess maybe you should use the ignore button if you feel so put upon by simple, rational questions posed by someone that you don't know on the internet? :shrug:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

73. There are no such Democrats; the whole thread is bullshit. n/t

[AllieB]

77. Then maybe you should hide the thread if you feel that way?

That would be the mature and rational thing to do. :-)

[LoZoccolo]

78. No it wouldn't.

It's acting as a time sink for other people as well.

[slackmaster]

109. Uh-oh, I find myself in complete agreement with sandsea

:nuke:

[MelliMel]

29. So what you're really saying is

someone who is anti-illegal immigration cannot be a Democrat, right? You just threw in all the other issues so that it is hidden.

Are pro 2A Democrats really Democrats? How about meat eaters? Car drivers?

I'm pro-choice, pro-union, pro gay marriage, pro 2A (though not a gun owner), and ANTI-illegal immigration.

So does that issue throw me out?

[AllieB]

37. Why do you think this is ALL ABOUT Illegal Immigration?

I could have been referring to the overt sexism that I've seen on Duke threads, or the Fox News talking points that I've seen on Chavez threads.

Of course, the Repubs WANT US to focus on immigration, rather than illegal wiretapping, our soldiers getting killed everyday, etc. It's a wedge issue, just like gay marriage was in '04.

[MrTriumph]

54. Allie, it is a real issue that impacts our lives.

x

[AllieB]

56. So does sexism, racism, war, and wiretaps

[MrTriumph]

63. Yes, Allie. I was simply answering YOUR question.

x

[serryjw]

98. Sorry, this is not a wedge issue

Gay Marriage, ROE & right to die have nothing to do with anyone EXCEPT the people involved. The consequences of millions of illegals coming to this country effects everyone. Are issues like the Iraq invasion, wiretapping and data mining are equally important....absolutely! Can we seek solutions to all of these?

[MelliMel]

100. Well

if you are talking about someone who might disagree with "The PLatform" on some of those issues, they could still most certainly be a Democrat, unless we are all supposed to walk lockstep.

But illegal immigration is not a wedge issue as it does drive down wages that are already pretty low in the job sectors for people with little to no education or skills.

[serryjw]

31. Your question is flame bait

I am Pro-choice
Anti- Iraq invasion
Anti- Tran bombing
Pro-Labor
Pro-Unions
Anti-wiretapping
Anti-data mining
Pro Marriage/benefits for all
Pro-Universal healthcare


ANTI-illegal immigration amnesty/guest worker program. PRO-WALL separating the US from Mexico
I love the US history of being a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural melting pot. Any one that lumps illegal immigration into the US with LEGAL immigration is only trying to flame bait.

[Critters2]

35. I agree with everything in this post! n/t

[AllieB]

40. Again, why do you think this is all about illegal immigration?

See my post #37 above.

[rman]

46. I think there are better solutions than building a wall

NAFTA requirements are the main reason why it's worth it for Mexicans to take the risks associated with illegal migration to the US. And NAFTA is a result of US policies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Undoubtedly

Such a person could vote Democrat, or be a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, and as such they could be a Democrat as "truly" as anyone else.

What I suspect you meant to ask is "could such a person be a progressive", which is more debateable.

I would probably say that a progressive is a person who holds progressive positions on more than (50+x)% of issues, where the value of X depends on how purist you are.

The issues you've listed are a fairly large proportion of the progressive issues, but if someone also supported higher taxation to pay for better public services, gay rights, better international relations, an end to the death penalty, gun control, separation of Church and state, etc and opposed most other wars then they could qualify by most definitions, I'd say.

[rman]

38. There are such RW noises on DU

but i wouldn't say it is a decided shift.

I'd rather say the grass roots have become more progressive.

People who are anti-immigration, anti-choice, sexist, and pro-Iran war - and who want to vote Dem: be my guest.

[AllieB]

42. I would say you can hold one or two of those positions and still be Dem

but if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I would think that person would be more comfortable voting Republican. But like you said, be my guest. :-)

[radio4progressives]

65. This brings to mine the very thing i argued against to my Radical Leftist

friends over the years, who have asserted that "White Liberals" are racist, white supramcists - and have been the core source for the reason why we haven't yet eradicated racism in our society.

I have argued vehemently that it just wasn't so, and took personally such assertions - how dare they make such broad brush accusuations!

That was three years ago.

Now I see it all so clearly. and it took this issue to remove the veil from my eyes.

[ecstatic]

41. I think a lot of Democrats would support a wall

Keep in mind most Democrats are very serious about creating economic conditions in this country that will help the poorest *Americans* progress in an upward fashion. All the stuff about open borders and what not is NOT Democratic, IMO. That's more like uber liberal idealism. Now the anti-choice and Pro War topics do sound like beliefs that would come from more conservative types like Zell Miller. (Not saying you have to be pro-abortion, just pro-choice--there's a big difference)

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Oh, yeah. You just can't be an atheist who is open about their disbelief.

Do that, and you're "alienating" "Heartland values voters" and as such must be silenced or purged.

[AllieB]

48. Yes, I've noticed that

I'm not sure whether I'm an atheist, agnostic, or a memeber of the blissfully religion-free faction, but I have noticed attacks on non-believers. Basically, fundamentalists or zealots of any stripe scare the crap out of me.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I think you need to provide some kinda example as to what you're on about.

Or some specifics beyond nebulous attitudes you don't like.

Otherwise, it's just too hypothetical. Anyone can call themself a Democrat, or register as one. Doesn't mean it's "indicative" of anything.

[AllieB]

58. There are some Dems that I've met in real life and the blogosphere

who hold less-than-liberal attitudes. Also, some of the overt misogyny that I've witnessed on the Duke rape threads is pretty indicative that someone is either not a Democrat, or has serious psychological issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. I've stayed out of those. I'm just not sure what there is to add.

Realistically, I don't know how one can define someone else out of the party- Personally, I've come across plenty of attitudes on DU that I consider not-entirely-liberal, from aggressively anti-choice people, to people who claim to be pro-choice but float right-wing talking points on the subject, to people who openly state that the Supreme Court decision banning mandatory prayer in schools was a bad (even terrible) thing.

But I'm not the litmus keeper on who is liberal or not. I've been accused, myself, of not being sufficiently "progressive" enough, because of my socially libertarian leanings. Never mind the fact that I support a SPHC system and a liveable minimum wage, for starters, merely because I don't like the idea of a Nanny state telling consenting adults what they can watch, read, or do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes, or because I don't think it should be against the law to eat meat, for instance-- I'm not "progressive" enough, apparently.

The point of all this is, these terms are ill-defined under the best of circumstances. There are (self-identified) "pro-life" democrats who nevertheless don't think the government should criminalize abortion, a position I happen to call "pro-choice". There are "Democrats" who are clearly anti-choice. No one can tell them that they can't be democrats, but if they are elected officials and not just some bloviating voice on the innernets, in a primary situation I'm sure as hell gonna pick the other individual.

Which brings me to my second point. I think we-as-the-Democratic-party are due, and overdue, for some serious -maybe not fighting, but a few ratchet points above soul searching- lets call it vigorous debate-- about who we are and what we stand for. You see it all around, in talk of the 2008 nomination particularly. I happen to think it's time that the progressives (the socially libertarian ones, of course ;))take control of the party back from the folks who spend too much time on political calculation and too little time standing up for what is right. And I don't just think it's the "base" that is hungry for some change and some candidates brave enough to speak the truth and take potentially unpopular stances, I think it's the American People, too.

We already have one party that wants to run everyone's life and ladles on the phony Jesus references while supporting policies that screw the poorest, weakest, and most vulnerable. What we NEED is our party to present a clear alternative to that- and I happen to think the way to do it is to move left on social safety net issues, like a SPHC system, while simultaneously and unapologetically courting the millions of socially libertarian urban voters in this country by clearly voicing support for an unequivocal right to privacy- personal, bodily, reproductive, what-have-you.. make it clear that WE are the party that wants to get the government out of people's bedrooms and bloodstreams, we are the party that doesn't want $40 billion a year for a "drug war" that goes after pot smokers, grannies with cancer, and wheelchair-bound accident victims who just want some decent pain management. Stand up for the rights of people to make their own damn decisions about their reproductive systems and their end-of-life choices. Clearly state that the government has no business being in the censorship trade or otherwise fucking around with the First Amendment, as opposed to craven pandering on shit like flag burning...

That's what I, personally, think the "Real" Democratic Party should aspire to, for starters. But there's lots of us, and not everyone who claims to be a "liberal" or claims to be a "Democrat" is going to agree on everything.

[benburch]

57. We interrupt thie flamewar for an important announcement!

[AllieB]

60. I didn't mean to start a flame war, but some people just like to fight

Maybe they need to get laid, or should mellow out. :smoke:

[bloom]

62. The DLC isn't helping any

As far as having a national identity that sets itself apart from the Republicans.

There are too many Democrats - like Evan Bayh - who want to supposedly go down the middle - but are in many crucial issues on the Republican side.

It'll be interesting to see how the challenge to Lieberman goes.

[AllieB]

68. I hope that a Dem who supports Bush's war or condones wiretaps

has difficulty sleeping at night.

[sandnsea]

81. NAME NAMES

Why can't you name names. Who is the Democrat that you keep referring to? The one who is gung-ho to attack Iran for whatever reason? AND anti-choice, anti-immigrant and all the rest? Who?

[AllieB]

83. Joe Lieberman supported the war. Bayh said wiretaps are OK.

and my hypothetical "IF" a Democrat supported all these things was to find out what people thought, not for people to expose their psychoses to the world.

[sandnsea]

84. So you pulled it out of your ass

Your "hypothetical" Democrat. So what took you so long to admit it? There isn't anybody who fits that description. Your post is flame bait, intended to create an image of Democrats that doesn't exist. Exposing somebody's psychoses to the world, but not mine.

[AllieB]

86. There are plenty who fit that description.

You mustn't get out much, or only interact with people on the internet. The fact that you attack people that you don't know is very indicative of the kind of person you are. I hope you're life gets better. It must be very lonely. I'm going to cook dinner for my family, so maybe you can find another thread to shit all over. Have a nice evening! :* :hi:

[sandnsea]

93. See #92, and you attacked from the very beginning

Said there were Democrats willing to attack Iran for any reason whatsoever in order to get votes. That's what you said, nothing about DUers or random people who fit that description.

You also attacked me personally in every single solitary post, and then pretend it's me doing the attacking. You are a real piece of work. And you will be going on ignore.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. Absolutely.

Might be a somewhat misguided democrat in need of further enlightenment, but they absolutely can still be a democrat.

The democratic party is a big tent party. Some may have opinions that we vehemently disagree with, but that doesn't mean they aren't democrats.

Being anti-abortion/anti-choice doesn't rule one out, and thinking the Iran regime is dangerous wouldn't either (though being "gung-ho for war" in the absence of a last resort is definitely never a logical stance to take). Being against illegal immigration obviously doesn't rule one out either. As far as sexism and racism goes, I personally would feel someone couldn't claim to be a democrat if they have any serious prejudice against anyone. I would hope that in order to condone and be part of the democratic party one would have to agree with their spirit, of which one of the core values is fairness and tolerance to all.

[AllieB]

75. Thank you for a reasonable, rational answer

it's a refreshing change from some of the flame warriors looking for a fight. :-)

[sandnsea]

79. "gung-ho for attacking Iran for whatever reason"

Excuse me, you name names too. Who would the poster possibly be referring to with that comment?? I don't know of a single Democrat who supports attacking Iran for whatever reason. I also don't know a single Democrat who is anti-choice, anti-immigrant, on an Iran war rampage, and all the rest that got posted.

It's a bullshit premise intended to smear centrist Democrats. It's a dangerous game to play to allow smears to go unchallenged, no matter where they come from.

[AllieB]

80. Considering I'm a moderate or a centrist

I find your comment particularly hilarious.

[sandnsea]

82. WHO IS IT

Why can't you say who you're talking about? Because you MADE IT UP. Why can't you admit it? It's the mature thing to do, don't you think?

[bettyellen]

87. i can't because it's against the DU rules for starters....

but i've read at least one incidence of all those things here in the last few days alone.
:shrug: and not all newbies getting their posts deleted.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Someone's actively shilling for war with Iran?

They must be pretty fuckin' lonely.

[bettyellen]

95. i hope not here. but unfortunately i've know a few in real life that

made lots of excuses for the war. even if they say it was a mistake...they say, well we can't just pull out now.... while it's a mess.
i can't say squat about it at DU, because i haven't looked in those threads here.
the other stuff i've seen, and i'd say yep, those assholes are lonely too!
:hi:

[sandnsea]

92. "it will win them more votes in the upcoming election"

No, you weren't talking about DUers in your OP. You made it up to smear the Democratic Party.

"I have noticed a decided shift to the right among Democrats, because they think that it will win them more votes in the upcoming election."

[bettyellen]

94. take a deep breath okay, not MY op. but hen i read the op, i thought of

DUers. and obviously you did not.

I never thought i saw the OP say politicians. just "democrats"
i do believe that was your assumption. didn;t the op say here (DU) and real life?
best i can do is send you to some threads with quite a few deleted posts.

[sandnsea]

96. Well it's her quote

and it's in the OP. Do DUers get votes in elections?? Sure, she tried to back peddle after her bullshit was exposed, but that's not what the OP was about. She said moving to the right to win votes in elections.

And don't tell me to take a deep breath. She's the one who has turned this entire thread into one personal attack after another.

[AllieB]

105. Never tried to back peddle. I think maybe it was a reading comprehension

problem on the part of some people who were just looking for a fight.

I'm sorry that you feel that you were attacked. Modern pharmacology may be able to help with that. :hug:

[bettyellen]

112. i guess you've missed discussuions about the party's stand on issues

(as the OP says, here and in real life) where people have argued about being too out there with abortion rights or gay marriage or be careful about iraq talk and make sure it looks like we're supporting our troops.... because it'll cost us votes if we're not careful- if we seem to radical. you've never seen that argument here? seriously?
such conversations usually include the phrases: "too hot button" , "haven't figured out how to frame it yet" and "(insert me pet issue) is more of a priority right now" .
i often suspect that the poster arguing this way doesn't give a rats ass about the issue, and hopes it goes away for good. i've nailed quite a few socially conservative or religious Dems to the wall fro being dishonest about why they don;t want the party to talk about reproductive rights. They often pretend it's about votes, but they are just less progressive and don;t give a fuck because they agree with republicans on abortion rights. I've seen it here plenty.

[AllieB]

114. Remember, what you or I have observed has no bearing on what

some people assert is true. Their reality is the only reality, and whether it's fueled by religious fervor, black and white thinking, perceived insults and injustices, or whiskey and Xanax, it will not deter them from attacking those who disagree with them.

[OKNancy]

90. Anyone who doesn't think exactly like I do is not truly

a Democrat.

Seriously?
I think that a Democrat is someone who calls themselves a Democrat and votes for Democrats.
Period

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

103. I Agree That In Reality It Really Is Quite That Simple.

Good post.

[rman]

106. No way to tell how people on this board vote

What we do know is that some call themselves democrat and argue for multiple RW viewpoints.

And of course no-one said people can only be democrat if they think "exactly like i do" - that's a hyperbole on your part.

Seriously, if someone holds several viewpoints opposite to what most dems consider to be core Dem viewpoints - and all we know besides that is that the person calls him/her self a democrat... At some point the question becomes why does this person call himself a democrat, and why would he vote Dem?

If one can be a democrat regardless of being pro-war or anti-war, pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-taxcut or anti-taxcut, pro-discrimination or anti-discrimination, sexist or anti-sexism, pro-univeral healthcare or anti... etc, etc.
Then what the heck does it even mean to be a dem?

[bemildred]

91. George Bush can be a Democrat if he wants to.

I will still fight his bonehead, corrupt policies.
Being a Democrat is like being Catholic, it's up to you.

[RebelOne]

97. What would you call me?

I am anti-illlegal immigration, pro-choice, a feminist (which would make me sexist) and anti-Iran war. And I am also for the amendment to make English our official language and for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico to secure our borders. So would you still consider me a Democrat?

[Mandate My Ass]

101. How does being a feminist make one a sexist?

A feminist is for equal rights among the genders while a sexist is for discrimination (particularly against women) and who uphold gender stereotyping.

THey're opposites.

[nemo137]

104. What are they for?

Are the for social justice? Are they pro-civil liberties? Do they have anything, or just an oppositional identity?

[LoZoccolo]

111. Did you even look?

And where?

[rockymountaindem]

113. If they vote for Democrats, they're a Democrat

I always like to say that the Democratic party is nothing more or less than it's components: the voters.

[Zhade]

115. An un/misinformed, possibly stupid Democrat, maybe.

But probably not as liberal as they like to think they are...!