What do Democrats stand for?

John Kerry ran an average campaign, won all three debates, and had a piss-poor economy and a quagmire in Iraq on his side...yet he still managed to lose by nearly 4 million votes. Why?

I don’t think it’s any secret that I would have rather nominated Howard Dean (or even Wes Clark) instead of John Kerry, but be that as it may, Kerry didn’t really do anything to cost himself the election. In 2000, what should have been an easy Al Gore victory was a close election because he ran a horrible campaign. I don’t think I can say the same for John Kerry. Sure, he made mistakes, but there weren’t any major gaffes that cost him the election.

So perhaps its time that we, as Democrats, establish some sort of national identity. While I don't agree with their platform, I think it's pretty clear that everyone knows what the Republicans stand for - credit card budgets, bombing brown people, and the denial of rights to gay people. Why can't Democratic positions likewise be summed up in a few key points? It pains me to say it, but our party is currently nothing more than a collection of special interests. The civil rights activists don’t care about the unions, who don’t care about the environmentalists, who don’t care about the anti-war crowd, who don’t care about the socialists, who don’t care about the civil rights activists. It’s time for the Democrats to establish some sense of national identity, and if that means dumping a special interest group or two, so be it.

Since the Republicans have drifted left-of-center on economics, perhaps the Democrats have a chance to run as the party of fiscal responsibility while still maintaining their stances on social and foreign issues. Perhaps that would persuade me to not vote Libertarian next time around...

For what was otherwise a complete disaster for the Democrats, Tuesday did offer two glimmers of hope: The rise of Barack Obama and the fall of Tom Daschle. Perhaps this will help modernize the party.

With that said, here's a simple platform the Democrats can use in 2006:

- Balance the budget
- Immediate withdrawal from Iraq (I'm sure this will still be an issue in 2006)
- End corporate welfare
- Support national recognition of civil unions
- Support basic environmental protections when they don't unreasonably hinder economic progress

It's simple, it's clear, and it's concise. If Democrats would just stick to this platform and shut the hell up about non-issues such as abortion, gun control, and school prayer, I think they could pull in a lot more rural voters.

 

The Democratic Party will continue to falter until it ends its unholy alliance with the pro-gay and pro-abortion lobbies. Cutting loose these social radicals would bring many working class Catholics back into the fold, along with a sizable contingent of pro-labor and environmentalist evangelicals. It would also reverse the growing defection of socially conservative black Christians to the Republican Party.

 

The Democratic Party has one stance: The Opposite of whatever the republican party stands for lol...of course in the NEW AMERICA, the democrats and republicans move closer and closer to eachother in terms of policy, it's sick...it really is...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

If the Democrats would at least stop talking about abortion so much, and perhaps decide that it is best handled on a state level, I think it might help them with the redneck vote.

I can't speak for the party, but I, for one, refuse to compromise on civil rights regardless of how many ignorant country bumpkins like yourself vote against them.

 

It would be so nice if we didn't have to characterize people at all. I think we should do away with any form of party. Whatever or whoever gets the most votes wins. That is why I'm registered no affiliation.

 

Such elitist arrogance perfectly illustrates what's wrong the Democratic Party.

By the way, I'm very curious to know what superior academic/professional credentials have so inflated your ego.

 

That is a pretty insulting statement...
However, HuckFinn, I think we all know what we are talking about when we say the 'Redneck' vote. Not all rural inhabitants are rednecks by any means, but I grew up in rural Missouri. An international perspective for many of these people is the six o'clock news and the environment consists of hundreds of miles of gravel roads, spotted with Meth labs, that help them get to the hunting grounds. They aren't ignorant, just unable to see anything beyond the things that affect them directly - here and now.

I for one do think that perhaps abortion should be handled at the state level. I think in general more power needs to be stripped from the federal government and retruned to the states. Now there's a good Democratic platform plank. Plus making the popular vote the 'real' vote. Kandahar, I like a lot of your planks too. Maybe civil unions should go state to state also.
If a particular state wants to live by strict moral authoritarianism, fine. Drive out all progress and live that way. I can move to another state, and anyone else can too.

 

No one else thinks it was Kerry's choice of John Edwards for his running mate? He could have defiently picked someone better.

 

after all 64% of America is pro-choice

 

Yes, but less than 60% voted and the far right was invigorated by those who oppose gay marriage - the same ones (generally) who oppose abortion.

 

No. There was nothing wrong with the candidates or the campaigns this time around. There is something about the party itself that alienates rural voters. Democrats need to figure out how to make their platform more electable.

 

To my knowledge, that's roughly the percentage of Americans who either believe that abortion should be banned or should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL01/oppo.html

 

Well Edwards was the only reason I questioned my vote for Kerry, but it had to be done regardless of who his running mate was. I feel he really harmed Kerry's campaign. Just the way he spoke.. I dunno. After all this is just my opinion. I think that if he was to have a liberal canidate from lets say Ohio or Florida that could have helped him in the long run, or maybe even a Jewish canidate. Regardless he just wasnt my ideal canidate.

 

I actually completely agree because I had that same discussion prior to the election with the head of the english department at my school and he said the same thing. That defiently makes sense.

 

Which also happens to coincide with my repeated indictments over the widespread dumbing down of the nation (plenty of children left behind despite the rhetoric used to gull the majority of the public by the Rove spin machine and its unquestioning media mouthpieces) and the utterly sanitised, decontextualised misinformation pandered by mainstream media (TV, Radio and Press) as news.

Given that only 10% of the population even possess passports and thus have ever bothered to travel outside the country (let alone spend any significant time abroad), our nation is essentially insulated and all the more easily inundated with ideological polemic rather than substantive fact.

Although, I regard the Democrats as little more than the other side of the corporately owned coin to their Republican counterparts. No real progressive reform will be possible until not only the consolidated corporate ownership of information is smashed and sufficient funding actually provided to educating our children, but more so the emergence of viable alternate options to put both these obsolete parties in the dustbin of history where they belong along with their corporate financiers/beneficiaries.

 

that is 100 percent true. and it's sickening. most of the people that actually go out and vote can't even reason logically or question what they are told.

 

both sides flat out lied on multiple things...how about the lie that kerry said bush fired general shinseki(sp) because he criticized troop level..which was flat out wrong.

Both sides lied.

 

Maybe if you repeat this pompous blather enough, you'll believe it, too . . .

 

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from 1997 is the basis for this article!

Look at how relevant their exit polls were...

Whats next, People Magazine? Seventeen? Mad Magazine? Billboard charts?

Give me a break...