It certainly doesn't look like he is on an objective search for truth.

I am not sure I can put it in more neutral terms.

same way I do.
I percieve that the Hollywood/Soros/etc group of leftists are setting policy for the DNC. Because these people have the largest voice, and are the most popularized as the voice of the DNC through the media, many others feel the

Then you have Ma & Pa Democrat, who have down to earth values like family and doing an honest days work for an honest day's pay. They are the numbers behind the DNC, but not the dollars like the aforementioned hollywoodetc group. I say that they are easily manipulated because, well, you rarely hear anyone in said mainstream Ma & Pa DNC America question the "popular" opinion on the TV/Newspaper, and they doesn't know that they have a reason to mistrust the media, no matter the large company putting it out (cBS, NBC, ABC, Fox). Like many on both sides of the isle, they only question what they are told to question.



Now why doesn't the DNC listen to its people instead of its dollars? They can have all the money in the world, but it wont buy them votes, as proven by the highly partisan and highest costing election in history of 2004. I think Kerry signified the glaring problem with the DNC: It wasnt listening to its people, it was listening to its money. Hell, I would have voted for Dean if he ran a convincing enough campaign! He seemed infinitely more down to earth with Ma & Pa DNC than Kerry did. He could have pulled a couple states in the South that Kerry wrote off, IMO.

I am legitimately seeking an answer, and hope that my somewhat partisanly jaded view wont put you off of giving me a legit answer.


Upon further inspection, it appears I answered my own question... Money. It makes the world go 'round...

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

The Dems have lost the propeganda battle. The Reps don't really care about "the common man" nor do the people you describe set Rep policy, but they have convinced the country that they do. That's why you get such widespread support for elimination of the estate tax and capital gains taxes and dividend taxes by people that don't have estates, capital gains or dividends. It's just masterful marketing. The Reps have done the impossible by getting people to vote against their interest.

I don't think it's a matter of the Dem machinery is too conservative. I think it's a matter of media incompetence. Howard Dean was a pretty conservative candidate. Next to Liberman, maybe the most conservative running, but the Reps painted him with the dreaded L word and the Dems couldn't rebut it. Dean being too liberal to get elected was the most absurd analysis of the election but it was accepted as fact. IMO the RNC picked the Democratic nominee by playing on the Dems fear of losing.

You don't have to be wealthy to get burned by an estate tax........

Problem is many places like PA have a pretty horrible STATE estate tax that will gobble up 50% of you poor dead relatives assets before you even get them.

And that applies to a person who has $300,000 in total assets as well as a rich person. My mom is hardly confortible much less rich. And she is working hard to tie up assest so the state won't grab them before me and my brother get anything before she passes on. Which I hope will not be for many more years. And PA is a heavily Democrat state run by democrats, adn has one of the worst Estate taxes in the country.

Reps............they do far more than minorities than the dems do......look who tries to appoint Minority Judges etc, then look who tries to block them.

Look who had minority cabinet members etc......Dems talk big about minorities, but talk is cheap. THe Republicans actually do far more for them.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm heading out the door to an all day business meeting in Seattle, but do please try to keep the focus of this thread on matters of policy and principle, not rhetoric--we've had enough of that for two lifetimes lately.

Questions for discussion:

What is a Democrat?

How are/should they be different than a Republican?

If the public is trending conservative, should the party abandon long-held principles and policy positions so as to follow the votes?

Maybe so. The Republican Party of today is not that of the 50's, even the 70's. In some ways the Democrat policy and principles have not changed since the time of FDR. Any organization that does not change is bound to stagger and fall sometime. Being a Democrat used to stand for something that the everyday man could believe in. Nowadays, it appears, at least from the outside, that the fringe element and special interest groups that most average people don't agree with are in the driver's seat.

I'm not sure I see many long-held principles among democrats. Other than getting their power back, and possibly blaming republicans for all the evils of society, I do not see much by way of principles. Sometimes it seems they will make any claim, or take any position if it seems popular. President Clinton was famous for using polls before making almost any statement.

Still here for a second...

Change is not the issue, rather what is the scale and scope of the change--and who does that change serve?

You'll need to further define the terms "fringe element" and "special interest". To my unjaundiced eye, those would appropriately apply to the corporations and industry lobbies that have captured hold of the party establishment.

I think I might like this Will Marshall guy....I must learn more about him!

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Zeitgeist:

My post about Wes Clark was not made for the purpose of saying he was the best candidate. Too late for that. The purpose was to report, from my position inside Clark's Okla. campaign, that something was done "from above" after Clark's Olka primary victory and strong showing elsewhere, to derail his campaign. So rather, my point is that "strings were pulled" by the DLC or DNC or somebody to stop Clark, regardless of what the voters wanted, and therefore I agree with your statement that the Dem party is being run from the top down, and poorly so.

Thanks,
Richard

The democratic party needs to behave in a more aggressive manner. Seems the democrats are always on the defensive instead of the offensive. I think the populace will vote for which ever party acts the strongest and most aggressive. And of course who most loudly screams when the spin must be spun. The republicans have this down pat.
The answer for the democrats is risky, but they need to find a new voice and stop following the republican lead. I do think there is some serious dysfunction within the party. You may be correct saying the body does not agree with the head. So many of their choices seem to contradict their actions. Reminds me of the way GM now works, or doesn't.

On a good note, let the republicans sink themselves. They always do. Sooner or later the everyman gets frustrated with the poor economy and votes for a change. Right now we are in the screw the everyman cycle.

__________________
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

The Dem party needs to quit being cowardly about saying they JUST MIGHT be a little bit LIBERAL. IMO, the Repubs have become so far right that Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave. The Dems need to stand up and shout against intertwining of government and religion, cuts and non-funding in social programs, and turning our country into the "international policeman". And they need to stand up ahd shout for some concrete program to bolster our sagging public education system, and some feasible program to fix our healthcare system, which is the joke of the first world.

Thanks,
Richard

Well, the Democrats are so far left they Make Stalin and Lenin look conservative.

And social programs.......let the liberals fund them out of THEIR paychecks not mine.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Meanwhile, Libertarians, and anyone else with any sense, need to stand up and fight against (in no particular order):

1. The intertwining of government and religion.
2. The continued funding of social programs that are not working.
3. The continued funding of our public education system that is not working.
4. The desire to "fix" our healthcare system by socializing it--refer to #2 and #3 and note the "not working" part.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Boneheaddoctor:

As I understand your poliitical stance, to which you are entitled, you may view the Dems now as being left of Stalin. But from my political stance, they came off as a bunch of wishy-washy candidates in the last election, compared to FDR who offered program after program to at least try to fix a broken economic system, or JFK who fought for civil rights legislation to fix (IMO) a broken social system. Kerry and Edwards weren't liberals at all, compared to these guys.

Thanks,
Richard