"meta-DU" issue: If Democrats do not stand for Democratic party principles

[RainDog]

will DU continue to enforce a policy that says members here may not discuss ways to rid the Democratic Party of this influence?

iow, many of us who joined DU in the early years of the Bush administration were united behind the idea of getting the neo-cons and religious right out of office.

when the Democratic Party fields candidates that have more in common with the neo-cons and religious right than they do with the philosophy of the Democratic Party, as put forth in its platform, will DU and those who are part of this community insist on supporting those candidates simply because they have a "D" after their name?

iow, if the situation had been reversed and Ned Lamont was the independent and Lieberman was the Democrat, would DU stop threads that were in support of Lamont? Because it seems clear to me, in hindsight, that that would have been a decision based upon something as intangible as a single letter of the alphabet rather than a political philosophy that identifies people with long-standing views of liberals and progressives across the nation.

it's an interesting question, no?

[county worker]

1. Who's to judge what is the philosophy of the Democratic party?

So many things at DU are taken as the philosophy of the Democratic party yet what it really is, is a purity test sort of like what the tea baggers are doing. I don't want a purity test here!

[KonaKane]

3. So do you believe the Democratic Party should stand for anything?

If so, what?

[county worker]

6. Sure but it is a big party and DU is a spec on that map.

I don't want DU deciding for me what the Democratic party stands for. It should be the Democratic party tells DU what it stands for.

[KonaKane]

7. What do YOU think the Democratic Party should stand for?

.

[county worker]

9. I don't think I should speak for the Democratic party.

What I think is not the issue here.

By the way, I am working with progressive groups to try and get more involvement in the political process.

[KonaKane]

11. You're not. You are speaking for yourself. So I ask again...

What do YOU think the Democratic Party should stand for?

Come on this cannot be such a difficult question.

[county worker]

14. First of all I could not write a good answer in this short period of time.

I will say that social justice is an issue that is important to me.

[KonaKane]

19. OK that's a start, thank you.

I'm just a little concerned that you had to be so brow beaten into something that should have poured easily from the mouths of an American Democrat. Like this:

I believe the Democratic Party should stand for:

The common citizen, the working citizen.

Social justice

Equal treatment under the law

Protections for minorities against the excesses of the majority

Education and information instead of ignorance and fear

Against war unless it is an inevitable case of national defense.

People before corporations

Against racism, sexism, homophobia

Civic duty, volunteerism, and attention to community values

A world view of America as a partner in world affairs instead of rogue bully

Multiculturalism, multilingualism, tolerance for other cultures and ethnicities instead of xenophobia, jingoism and prejudice.



That really wasnt hard to concoct.

[RainDog]

12. what about the democratic platform?

do you think that anyone who receives funds to run as a democratic candidate should support the party platform since too many people make voting decisions based upon the letter after a name?

isn't it a sort of social fraud to take money that's given in support of ideas that are then negated by someone who uses the democratic party to get elected?

[county worker]

15. I feel it is the voters responcibility to know the candidate they are voting for.

I could see someone not supporting everything in the Democratic platform.

[RainDog]

18. iow, the democratic party platform has no meaning?

people cannot look at the party and know that it stands for certain principles?

[county worker]

21. The platform is a compromise document and is not the "Bible" of the party.

You seem to prefer some purity test and that is not what democracy is all about. I think what the OP is getting at is that we need only a certain kind of Dem, not the Blue Dogs and I would rather we did not have them either but I would rather have the Blue Dogs then some purity test. The voters should decide not a platform committee.

[RainDog]

26. do you know the purpose of the democratic party platform?

do you know why the party releases a platform when it runs for elected office?

[KonaKane]

27. Are you suggesting that Democrats should not think for themselves?

Tell me you are not suggesting that please. A party platform is not a replacement unit for individual thought. EVERY Democrat should know WHY they are a Democrat!

[RainDog]

30. no. I asked if this person understands what the purpose of the platform was

personally, if I read that this party was for non-discrimination in healthcare, for instance, I would think that I should be able to vote for a candidate with a "D" after his or her name who supports that goal.

do you think candidates should be able to run as democrats who, say, oppose non-discrimination in healthcare?

do you think the party should fund candidates who support non-discrimination in healthcare? I don't.

I think that's a non-negotiable issue for anyone who puts a "D" after his or her name.

[RainDog]

31. just like I would say that the democratic party stands for anti-racism

and no one should get funds from the party if they support racist legislation.

[KonaKane]

32. A platform is a consensus of principles. It does not substitute for individual thought.

That's my only point. In other words, we should all be aware of the platform, but should be able to tell anyone - at the drop of a hat - exactly why we are Democrats, in our own words.

[RainDog]

35. do you know the purpose of the democratic party platform?

for those of you who don't know why a party platform exists, here is a definition from wiki

A party platform, also known as a manifesto, is a list of the actions which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party's candidates voted into office. This often takes the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform.

the reason a platform exists is to show the voting public the party's stance on various issues so that, when someone votes for a Democrat, they know they are voting for those positions.

otherwise, voting for candidates based upon party affiliation is worthless and comes down to dog and pony shows for a gullible public.

[KonaKane]

40. Yes. Do you know the purpose, and value, of individual thought?

A platform was never...EVER...supposed to be a substitute for individual sentiment. I repeat, any real Democrat should be able to easily and eloquently state, in their own words, why they are a Democrat to anyone who asks.

Can you? Without pointing to the platform?

[RainDog]

42. really? what is the basis for your argument in history?

where are your citations that undermine the principle that a political party states a platform as a way for voters to gauge which candidate to vote for?

[KonaKane]

61. That has nothing to do with individual Democrats. Can't you answer?

Don't you have persnoal resons for being a Democrat?

[RainDog]

43. fwiw, you miss the entire point of my question.

because, yes, I can clearly articulate what I believe as a political philosophy, as well as a "religious" one or an ethical one, etc.

however, when people band together to form a political party, they do so within a tradition in this nation that states the platform represents the ideas of those politicians running under the party banner.

this is not an issue of whether or not I can think for myself. I obviously can.

this is a question of whether or not you and others understand what a political party MEANS.

[county worker]

44. Did you know that at one time the Democratic party stood for segregation?

Back then as now I could appose a party that included language that supported segregation.
But you on the other hand would support segregation in the 20's because that's what the Democratic party supported.




http://www.kawvalley.k12.ks.us/brown_v_board/segregation.htm

Blacks loyally voted for republicans until the 1920’s. The Republican presidents awarded them with small amounts of patronage. Some Republicans remained loyal supporters of civil rights for blacks. But the Democratic Party remained dominated by the Southern, segregationist wing. Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of all federal facilities in Washington D.C. after he became president.
To show how much the Roosevelt’s hated segregation, Franklin appointed blacks to high offices. But he was not the only one. William Hastie appointed the first black federal judge, and Eleanor Roosevelt invited the National Council of Negro Women to have tea. Her most important act against segregation was when she resigned from the Daughters of America Revolution when they refused to allow an opera singer, Marian Anderson, to give a concert because she was black.


But things started to turn in the 1930’s when Northern blacks increasingly voted for Democrats instead of the Republicans. The turn began in 1934 when Arthur W. Mitchell became the first black Democrat in the history of Congress.

[RainDog]

47. exactly. which is why I would have been a republican if I had been alive then

how can you make such a stupid remark - I would have been for segregation.

THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT IS THAT A PARTY IS ABOUT ISSUES.

when the Democratic Party was the party of racism, they would get the racist's votes. The reality is that those who think like the Democratic Party did in the 1920s are the equivalent to the southern republicans now.

is this really too hard for you to understand?

[county worker]

48. No but it is too hard for you to understand that not everyone wants to nor do they have to follow a

party platform.

There are two major parties. If you want to win you need to run as a repub or Democrat. There is a wide range of opinions in each party no matter what the platform is. If the Democratic party had a plank saying that it supported choice for women a pro life Dem could still run as a Dem.

Again we do not have litmus tests or purity oaths in this country to run for office!

[RainDog]

51. so you think it's fine for a anti-choice democrat to get $$

from people who think their money goes to support pro-choice candidates? when that candidate's extremist views do not represent the views of the democrats in the state?

you think it's fine for a candidate to pretend to be a member of a party and then see that person attempt to undermine the legislation THAT DEMOCRATS BRING FORTH?

that's not about a purity test. that's about someone who does not represent the ideology of the democratic party based upon the obvious truth that that person does not vote with the democratic party on issues.

get it? why have a fucking party if those who gain from it to get elected then do not support it after they are in office?

[county worker]

54. this is going nowhere

[RainDog]

55. best of luck to you

[KonaKane]

62. If you are ever asked a political question, do you pull out a manifesto?

Or do you answer from your own heart and mind?

[RainDog]

66. you don't understand the issue

I am not talking about YOU.

I talking about those who run as democrats. They run as democrats as part of a party. The party creates a platform for each presidential campaign to indicate THE CANDIDATES' political philosophy.

In other words, if someone is a theocrat and thinks that (their version of) god has precedence over nation in creating laws, that person does not adhere to the democratic platform.

they also don't adhere to the Constitution, but, hey, who walks around with a constitution in her pocket either, right? so who cares. we all have our own opinions about that, huh?

as far as it goes, YOU can think whatever the fuck you want. I don't care what you think.

BUT if you were to run for political office, and you ran as a republican, you would not be considered a republican if you said... I support the policies of FDR.

get it? The party platform for the republican party states that they stand against everything FDR stood for. People can vote for Republicans knowing that they will not view government as the answer to depression-level unemployment rates in some parts of the country.

If someone runs as a Democrat, Democrats should also be expected to be able to vote for a candidate that adheres to the philosophy of the Democratic party AS PUT FORTH IN THEIR PLATFORM.

get it? it's not about you. you can be whatever you want to be. but a candidate who receives funds from a political organization that comes from fundraising based upon the idea that the money goes to support the Democratic party (again, whose PHILOSOPHY IS ARTICULATED IN ITS PLATFORM for the sake of VOTERS TO PROVIDE THEM WITH INFORMATION) then that candidate should work in support of that platform.

It's pretty simple. It's why political parties were created.

[G_j]

59. a platform is essential for a focus, however, YOU are the Democratic party if

you choose to call yourself a Democrat, and vote for Dems.

[RainDog]

67. I'm talking about reality here

not some Mr. Smith Goes to Washington b.s

Political parties are how are a nation chooses candidates to stand for political office at this time.

it doesn't matter if anyone here likes that or not. that's reality.

[G_j]

72. lol

I thought I was responding to Country Worker re his perceived inability to speak about what the Democratic party stands for, or should stand for.


In the case of the platform, I do think it's essential. It would be like a boat without rudder.

But of course, the corporate angle is never addressed overtly.
It's not like they spell out the beholding they have to the money that got them there,
or the platform in any way addresses the underbelly of the "work" politicians do in DC.

Shit, the Green platform is awesome, but it doesn't buy influence.

[RainDog]

75. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!

FINALLY!! FINALLY!!!!!

Finally someone understands the political process in the U.S. and can talk about how politics is done in the everyday workings of life.

I was beginning to think that I was in some Monty Python spoof.

[G_j]

77. I read the whole sub-thread

How can you NOT put something down on paper? It's not a litmus test, but a compendium of principles or ideas.
I think it's entirely legitimate to grade someone by how well they accomplish the goals of the platform.

[RainDog]

78. exactly.

it's sort of strange that, when you point out to people that this is how the process works, they accuse you of creating some sort of purity test.

it's like truth in advertising.

Shampoo doesn't get to claim it makes you sexy... oh wait... well, it doesn't get to claim it cures your cold. And we do not allow entities to make such misrepresentations to people because we have to have ways to indicate whether something (or someone) is valid or not.

the sexy claim, of course, is outside of the realm of scientific measure. the "cures a cold" is.

it's no different for the democratic party. if they advertise they are one thing but act as another thing, they are misrepresenting their product.

[G_j]

81. I would think you would have to stand for something!

and voters should at least have some basic idea of what a party supposedly stands for.

[RainDog]

82. ...or you'll fall for anything

:toast:

[RainDog]

4. maybe the democratic party platform?

you know, that manifesto of what that party is going to do as part of their tenure as elected representatives of the American people.

2008 Democratic Party Platform

...which, in its first paragraphs, cites the legacy of FDR and JFK.

this manifesto includes:

1. quality, AFFORDABLE health care to all Americans.

2. commitment to elimination of disparities in health care (tho they don't state it, explicitly, I would take that to mean not treating women as second-class citizens whose health care may be moderated by the religious right... and if that's not what it includes, the platform itself makes this issue implicit in every policy issue.)

[Sebastian Doyle]

60. If it can be found on any of the DLC's websites

then it's not Democratic.

That pretty much narrows it down.

[NightWatcher]

2. I believe that once a democratic primary has taken place, it's Party Uber Alles

re: Lamont, I believe that supporting him would have been verboten per the rules had Joe beat him.

[RainDog]

10. I haven't kept up with the issue of any remaining Nader supporters

and since the board began after the election, that's not one that has been vetted. I don't know if current Nader and/or Green party candidates may be supported here or not. (fwiw, I was fully behind Gore IN SPITE OF Lieberman - tho I think that choice cost him in terms of lukewarm v full support.)

...iow, I'm not a third-party spoiler wannabe. I'm a "want the democrats to be democrats according to their platform" supporter.

[MineralMan]

5. From the DU Rules

They seem pretty clear about this.

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

and

"Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party."

[RainDog]

17. so if a Democratic candidate is aligned with the Religious Right...

we can CALL THEM OUT for their stances and demonstrate the ways in which those stances are antithetical to the current understanding of the philosophy of the Democratic Party.

but if we say we will work against a candidate who is part of the Religious Right, we would be in contradiction to the rules.

even when said candidate demonstrates a "dino" political philosophy.

[MineralMan]

57. So, did you have a particular candidate in mind?

It wouldn't be any of the ones I know.

[HughMoran]

8. Why do you capitalize "DU" but not the "D" for Democrat (makes a difference)

...or the beginnings of sentences? Your post is unreadable.

[RainDog]

16. just b/c it was faster not to capitalize those

but I went back and corrected it.

others don't seem to have a problem understanding the content of the post. Hope this helps others who might have had difficulties with proper and improper noun capitalization.

:hi:

[leftstreet]

13. I think we can discuss those things, we just can't be assholes about it

...as I understand it

Not to neglect your point, but as you know from your length of time here some people will deliberately incite Thread Rage just to get a subject shut down.

[DevonRex]

20. The rules section holds the answer. Pretty clear cut. nt

[RainDog]

22. I know. I am talking about looking at the present circumstances

and asking a hypothetical.

I'm already aware of present policy.

[DevonRex]

24. It's completely up to Admin. It's their site. They just let us post here

if we abide by their rules. :shrug:

[RainDog]

28. okay. they also let us talk about issues

and I am so grateful for that. I love DU. DU has saved my mind, the little that's left of it, many times. it has informed me, brought me into contact with wonderful people I have come to know outside of DU as well.

it has informed of political actions taking place that I have been able to participate in.

it has given me hope when things looked hopeless.

...and as far as I know, it lets us talk about issues pertaining to questions of political philosophy.

this isn't some sort of flame-seeking post. this is a genuine question about issues that we as voters face.

[salguine]

23. What the hell is "iow"?

[DevonRex]

25. In other words. nt

[fishbulb703]

29. I agree,but all you're saying is that some democrats aren't as liberal as they should be. Duh. nt

[RainDog]

33. no. this is an issue of what happens when you donate to the democratic party

if I donate to the democratic party, and the party goes on to fund candidates who support religious right legislation, I want my money back.

if the party doesn't stand for anything, why would anyone think it should be funded or supported?

(that's a rhetorical question, btw.)

[fishbulb703]

34. All the more reason to be involved at the local level. nt

[RainDog]

36. yeah. that's where it's at for me

my community reflects my beliefs and I work within that community to support those beliefs.. and not always as a part of a political party. for instance, helping homeless people in my community to have basic needs.

this has been a part of my personal philosophy all my life.

I don't need a party to make me take the actions that I do. however, I don't want to vote for a party when they tell me they stand for one thing but the politicians who are running as democrats do not.

[fishbulb703]

37. Agreed, completely. Its why I love living in a college town, heh.

Tons of motivation. Although you do get a lot of lazy hippies and extremist radicals. Those just add to the fun imo.

[RainDog]

41. my college town has some old hippies too

but the ones I know aren't lazy. many of them own small businesses and employ locals. a former ashram or some such (long before I ever moved here) from back in the 60s/70s gave the community more than a few of its current successful business people.

here we have extremes on all sides... libertarians. larouchies, alf and elf (with reports of acts of vandalism in the past)... we've had shootings here from an illinois racist who targeted minorities and an amazing community response to say no to this ideology of hatred.

it's a joke to say that profs are wild radicals, from what I know of the thousands of them around here. they are mostly middle-class professionals who are devoted to their jobs as educators and research specialists. this is the world I've lived in for the majority of my adult life.

[Individualist]

38. A very interesting question,

especially considering that DLC's goal is to undermine the party. Howard Dean has described DLC as "the republican wing of the Democratic Party".

Democratic presidential contenders go suck up to the DLC, an organization whose for the last two decades has done everything it can to undermine the Democratic Party - even going to great lengths to attack Democratic presidential candidates it doesn't like.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0726-30.htm
The DLC’s appeal is empty, but its leadership’s threat to undermine or desert the Party is real.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/51/51_dlc.html

The DLC, is and always was, an organization founded to undermine the Democratic party in the service of economic elites and corporations.
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/07/26/dlc-feels-sorry-for-itself#comment-55946

The guiding light of the DLC is the "third way"; this is a fancy way of saying that the trick is to keep working people voting for you while you consistently undermine or attack their real interests. http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/cap_stwd.html

What's so bad about the DLC?http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/8/12/103834/039


"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_

[RainDog]

39. thanks for all the links!

third way to the third world! :thumbsdown:

[Mike 03]

45. RainDog, we may be DU contemporaries, I joined in 2003.

Who exactly are you talking about? Could you plese be more explicit in what you are saying?

[RainDog]

49. It's not about one candidate

although I do have a question about this because of a potential tho not yet chosen candidate.

But, to me, it's a bigger issue about the fact that the Democratic Party has chosen to run people as candidates who do not support what people assume someone would support if this person had a "D" after his or her name.

so, the question is "about DU," in that we post here. But it is also a question of boundaries, in a way, in political coalitions.

I don't think I could remain a Democrat, for instance, if it became a party aligned with anti-woman/choice legislative views. just like I would not have supported any candidate that was in favor of segregation, no matter what political party that person claimed he or she represented.

[Mike 03]

46. Kick and Rec. NT

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[RainDog]

52. fucking unreal sometimes

it's okay for republicans to have party cohesion on legislation but if Democrats expect the party to simply LEGISLATE as they campaign that they will this is a purity test.

unfuckingbelievable.

[branders seine]

53. It's not about unity per se.

It is about *what* the party chooses to unify behind.

[RainDog]

56. which, again, is why a political party bothers to create a platform

because, as defined, platforms exist to help voters know what the person for whom they are voting supports in terms of legislation.

if someone puts a "D" after his or her name but does not support that platform, that person is using the party for his or her own ends, not for the stated purpose of belonging to that political party.

therefore, if someone says he or she is a democrat but works for bring legislation that is contrary to the democratic platform, that person is, imo, not deserving of party support.

in truth, this is simply a part of politics. politicians punish one another all the time by refusing to vote for someone's pet project and get the same in return. they make these decisions based upon their own desire for power to enact legislation.

when that legislation is contrary to what the Democratic Party states it stands for, I honestly do not see how that person deserves all the perks of having the party affiliation.

[branders seine]

84. is politics about truth and service,

or is it just a big pep rally?

[MineralMan]

58. And yet, you're posting here, are you not?

[RainDog]

63. well, yes. what does that have to do with the issue?

this isn't a "defend myself" thread.

I understand the rules and I will not overstep that line. But I think that there are some interesting issues at stake as far as who claims to be a democrat and what makes someone a democrat as a candidate.

the obvious answer is that someone is a democrat if they have the "D" after their name.

when their policy stances do not match those of the democratic party, I'm sort of confused. when their actual legislative actions demonstrate that they are anti-choice, and thus anti-equality in healthcare, I guess I don't understand how that person qualifies as a democrat since I thought it actually "meant" something to be affiliated with a party.

[MineralMan]

65. What it has to do with the issue is that you are posting what you

are posting and nobody has locked your thread or tombstoned you. There's a lot more flexibility here than you're implying there is.

If the rules were followed rigorously, a lot of people here who post everyday would have tombstones in their profiles.

If you consider anyone who is not even with Dean as a DINO, then you have a narrow view of who is a Democrat. In many districts, the Democrat is right center. The thing is that if it were not for that Democrat, some winger would be sitting in his or her chair.

It's not that simple, really.

[RainDog]

68. thanks for your input

thanks for making a remark that I never made... i.e. that anyone more conservative than Dean is a dino, for instance.

that's you making up things because you see the icon beneath my name.

this thread was intended to spark discussion about an issue on my mind... i.e. what defines someone as a democrat for the sake of party?

and again, as noted before, the only way a voter has to tell if someone is a democrat is by looking at his or her voting record and by looking at what the democratic party says it stands for.

that's a much better way to choose a candidate than whether or not he or she is attractive, for instance. We see this very well in the crusty old white men fuck me vote for Palin.

[KonaKane]

70. A Democrat who has to memorize a platform

instead of elucidate an understanding of Democratic principles, is a robot. Is that who you want representing the Democratic Party - a bunch of robots?

[RainDog]

71. I hate to say this

but your remarks are extremely stupid. I have explained this to you before but you seem to want to misunderstand.

so, have a wonderful day and I hope you enjoy the fruits of your labor.

[KonaKane]

73. Calling me "stupid" doesn't qualify as a great response.

But it does reveal that you've clearly hit a brick wall when it comes to giving a cogent answer to anything I've asked you.

Have a good one.

[RainDog]

74. lol.

I didn't call you stupid. I said your remark was stupid. and it is.

the brick wall is your head. thick as a brick. goodbye.

[KonaKane]

76. Your ad homs are bigger failures than your attempt at conversation

Hope that's working out for you.

[bvar22]

64. There is NO FUCKING WAY I will support....

Republican Arlen Specter for the Democratic Senate seat in Pennsylvania.
I could NOT ever force myself to stoop that low.

If it comes down to it, I WILL be supporting, advocating, and campaigning for ANYONE or any 3rd Party over Arlen Specter should he be the (cough, cough, gag) "Democratic" nominee....

...because we already have enough Republicans in the Democratic Party.
That IS the PROBLEM.

[RainDog]

69. do you get the feeling we're lurching into bizarro world?

I do.

Yeah, someone is a democrat even tho they oppose everything the platform says a democrat stands for.

it's like a stealth campaign to elect conservatives in democratic-party funded garb.

[omega minimo]

79. IBTL

[ElboRuum]

80. Not really all that interesting...

...not to be slighting your post, but this has been a topic of some discussion, especially in the past year.

Answer one question for yourself. Is the Democratic Party liberal by definition, or does it define itself?

If the former, then it is our obligation to steer it back on course, and I believe that you cannot do such a thing without seriously question the credentials of those who seek to represent the party in office.

On the other hand, if it is the latter, then we all have a very interesting choice to make, to stay with it or to seek other remedy.

Now, that really isn't an answer to your question, but I guess I'm not certain what you're asking.

I guess I should be blunt. Are you questioning the rules of DU or the complement of the party, or both? It seems to me like you aren't asking for a rule to be stricken or amended, just whether it will be continued in enforcement. But I guess the bigger ponderable here is, I was aware of no policy which does not permit constructive criticism of our politicians, in fact, I believe such is explicitly stated as permissible. As to the Lamont/Lieberman issue, it's actually pretty telling, liberal comes before Democratic in your mind, nothing wrong with that, but that would be a third-party political stand.

So, I guess the question is, should we be Democratic Underground or Liberal Underground?

And the world spins foolishly on.

[RainDog]

83. yes, there are duplicate discussions that go on here all the time

I'm on DU somewhat sporadically so don't feel you have to join in a discussion if it bores you.

No, I'm not questioning the rules of DU. I broke one of them by accident b/c the thought of something that seems to be coming in an election puts me in a position in which I must moderate my thoughts here.

But I think my state is looking at a stealth candidate, a tactic theocrats have discussed at length, as reported by Jeff Sharlet in his articles about The Fellowship and his book, The Family. Theocracy Watch has gone into this sort of thing as a tactic of the religious right as well. As has Max Blumenthal. These theocrats talk about using "Hitler and Stalin-like" tactics to win their goals - what that means... lie, steal elections, murder opponents, govern as dictators... not sure what it means but those are qualities those two share in common - their totalitarian view of governance.

If the theocrats simply meant to "metaphorically" be dictators, I guess that's different. and of course, no theocrats have ever encouraged ideas like genocide of gays.. in, say, places like Uganda. ooops. yes they have, by those they support there.

The person in question has a record of opposing the thirty some odd years of Democratic party position on an issue and his opposition is tied to his religious belief. His little gang of three made sure they contacted religious leaders to tell their congregations to call to challenge the existing position of the Democratic Party and the person refused to back legislation that is part of the Democratic Party platform unless he got his concession for the theocratics with whom he aligns himself who are trying to roll back women's rights.

If this man is the candidate for office for the democrats, that's a really big problem for me.

but I also think it's a really big problem for the democratic party because this candidate will cause the party to lose people who do vote as Democrats while apparently trying to cater to those who never vote with democrats.

and we all know the old saying from Truman about that.

If this goes forward, I think it will damage the party at the national level because women I know who reside in this state who are opposed to religious intrusion into their lives are powerful women with connections to political groups that will oppose this candidate too, which will cause women to look at candidates who are aligned with their values.