Half the talking heads are telling Democrats they need to adapt to the changing views of the country in order to win Presidential elections, and maybe they're right. But if that means abandoning the single core belief Democrats have espoused for the last 75 years, that everyone is created equal and thus should be treated equally, I won't, thank you. The game is not worth the candle.
We need to focus on communicating this very simple message:
We need to make it abundantly clear that when you vote for the Republicans you vote for economic elitism. You vote for overweening corporate power. You vote for complete disregard towards the less fortunate. You vote for exclusion rather than inclusion. You vote for "passing by on the other side." You vote against the principles established in the Sermon on the Mount. You cast your lot with the rich and powerful.
If we can communicate that message well, votes will follow.
Posted by Linkmeister at November 5, 2004 03:42 PMI don't think the religious angle would work... After all, I've heard it said by many that they believe Jesus Christ wouldn't think much of today's Christians as it stands... And the religious types are more worried about embryos & the kind of couples that can't produce them, than they are about the struggling poor or persecuted of this age.
Posted by: Chloe at November 6, 2004 01:08 AMThat may be, but I think it would resonate for the many, Chloe.
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 6, 2004 12:24 PMI recently said something about Evan Bayh from Indiana being the Dems best choice to communicate Values and Faith. I've ranked him 3rd on the top 40 most likely democratic nominees in 2008
www.Primary2008.com
Question though...
Can Bayh be the nominee, using this more faithfull approach to Dem issues, if the Dem establishment (which I hear doesn't like Bayh) does not buy into it?
Posted by: Frank Myers at November 6, 2004 12:43 PMCertainly the Dem establishment would have to go back to it. Buy into it sounds a little too marketing-driven to me. ;) Actually, I'm not sure parts of the Democratic party (DLC, are you listening?) would agree with me; the religious left, the black churches, and the GLBT crowd should, but it might make parts of the so-called broad coalition uneasy.
As to Bayh, I know very little about him, but I'm willing to learn.
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 6, 2004 12:58 PMSteve--
What we NEED is one issue to disappear. We need abortion to cease to become a federal issue, once and for all. We need Roe to be reversed-- and PURE reversed, meaning simply, abortion is NOT a federally protected right-- NOR may the federal government BAN it. Abortion is ENTIRELY a matter of state law-- PERIOD. Those states inclined to ban abortion de jure may do so. Given that abortion is available in less than 14% of the counties in the United States, most have already banned it de facto.
With that one troublesome issue gone, Dems can go back to one word: FAIRNESS.
Economic fairness (progressive taxation, fair wages, health care that doesn';t bankrupt people for getting sick, jobs that have protections, reliable retirement), social fairness (no discrimination for race, religion, national origin, gender) and environmental fairness (people need clean air and water).
NO PANDERING-- EVER AGAIN.
We win with fairness, or we lose with fairness, but we don't deviate from it. It kept us Congress for 60 years, until Clintonian "triangulation" and win at any cost took our eye off it. But we must never again-- NEVER-- leave that fairness issue. EVER. And if the people don't understand that THAT is the ultimate "moral issue", then they are welcome to the hell on Earth they prefer, thanks.
Dog, I thought "fairness" was what my sentence meant. ;)
Doing what you suggest would certainly make life simpler for politicians and probably the party, but would it be fair/right to tell some impoverished woman that she had to figure out how to get across multiple state lines to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion?
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 6, 2004 01:07 PMTalking about a"Fairness":
Tonite the Sundance Channel showed a documentary called "Bush's Brain". It was about Karl Rove, and his power. His degrading commercials, and how slanted they are for Bush's opponents.
He destroyed Ann Richards run, John McCains run, and The man who lost his arm and both legs in the war for a public office run. (sorry can't remember his name-seems like a really nice man...)
This is dirty politics and not fair.
Now I'm reading about voters being in line for 10 hours and only having 2 booths in which to vote, Harlem, NY had voting booths stuck on Republican candidates that could not be switched to Democrat, and in a city in Ohio which has 600 for a population-over 4000 people voted for Bush!!
This is the tip of the iceburg.
Also, voters were doused with water sprinklers in another city,and the no one knew how to shut off the sprinklers...
This isn't fair....
Bush is crafty and Rove is evil...
Fair my foot....
See Toxic, this is why the GOP is beatign the stuffing out of the Dems. Rove is not "evil" the GOP folks are not "evil"
The conservatives and Liberals have two different views of what government is uspposed to do. Inside that, there is a game of politics that both parties sya and do what they think gets them the power to do what they think government should be doing.
You can't call Rove any more evil than Carville. They are both doing their best to get their view in power.
you sound mor elike Nader in that if you follow your arguments to a conclusion, then you should just say, screw both parties.
P.S. Primary2008.com is cranking along....
Posted by: Frank Myers at November 7, 2004 11:53 AMA little off topic, maybe, but did you read about this, Linkmeister?
You'd better watch out, you'd better not cry...
Posted by: Mighty Hunter at November 8, 2004 05:08 AMOh, yes, Hunter. We've seen him on our local news. The guy drove trucks when he was in. Now, if he were a prosthetics specialist I could see why he might be needed for this fiasco, but an oil truck driver? I mean, can't the Army find guys with CDLs who are already IN?
Back door draft, indeed.
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 8, 2004 07:46 AM"That may be, but I think it would resonate for the many, Chloe."
I think the ethical angle, and personal moral angle, resonates with many... It sure does with me. However, when it comes right down to it, I suspect most organized religion will always back the more "control the society" political ideals, rather than the ones that perhaps Jesus would've been into. (And gosh, particularly the ones the Gnostic Gospels Jesus would've been into.)
A candidate pandering to organized religion loses my vote, and would probably lose as much votes as gain them.
I guess that's what I meant... if I wasn't clear.
I absolutely don't want to pander to organized religion. I want to pander to the ideals organized religion preaches! ;)
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 9, 2004 07:42 PMhmmmmm-
Nader?
Well, at least I have a better fitting suit than him!!
Thanks, Frank,
I appreciated what you wrote...
But the 'ideals' that a lot of organized religions preach are:
Homosexuals are going to hell, and are somehow going to make you go to hell too.
You're going to hell if you're not a born again Christian.
You're going to hell if you allow a pregnant woman to live by saving her life by allowing her unborn fetus to die.
I could go on...