In the DU thread below I mentioned AL Dem candidate Mayor Bright

[jody]

whose position on the 2nd Amendment is one I wish Obama would take.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=182811&mesg_id=182990

Bright Praises U.S. Supreme Court Gun Decision

Alabama's Democratic Candidate for Congressional District 2, Mayor Bobby Bright, praised today's U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down part of a Washington, D.C.-ban on guns.

"The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms and today, in a decision that was crucially important to the people of Alabama and all Americans, the Supreme Court affirmed that right," Bright said in a press release. "I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and in Congress I will make sure the rights of gun owners everywhere are protected."

In a 5-to-4 decision the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects and individual's right to maintain a gun, not just states rights' to maintain militias.

Note Bright had to publicly fight a RKBA attack from his Repug opponent Jay Love, Bright asks Love to sign campaign pledge

In his victory speech a week ago, Love connected Bright to national Democrats and their stances on gun control and abortion. Bright does not agree with Democratic party leaders on those issues, which he points out in his first television ads.

The New Southern Strategy, Democrats Tap Conservative Candidates in GOP Bastions

Democrats have also made efforts to recruit candidates who reflect the values of local districts. Not that long ago, party leaders picked from a list of liberal stalwarts who matched national party sentiments on issues such as gun rights and abortion. Now the focus is finding candidates "who would win," says one senior strategist.

If that’s the Democratic Party’s “New Southern Strategy”,
Why do Democratic candidates still have to fight the National Democratic Party as well as a Republican opponent to win a seat in congress?

[iverglas]

1. it's really quite amazing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Bright

Bright had never previously claimed affiliation with any party, but in 2008 he announced his running as a Democrat for the open seat in Alabama's 2nd congressional district.<3>

Bright told the Montgomery Advertiser that he is running as a Democrat because it will give him the most freedom to be an independent thinker. He also feels Republicans have shortchanged poor districts on federal dollars. Like many Alabama Democrats, he opposes abortion and gun control. However, he favors "a strong, honorable plan" to end the Iraq War.

what some parties will let in the door ...

I've never been interested in my party having a candidate who chose the party so s/he could be "an independent thinker", myself. I've always wanted someone who is seeking my party's nomination, and my campaign work and my vote, to actually adhere to my party's political platform. And of course, my party believes women are human beings with human rights and freedoms. I like to think the Democratic Party leans that way a little too.



Oh, all right.

Gosh. Isn't it just amazing to see that someone who opposes gun control also opposes legal access to abortion??? Noooo. Who'd 'a thunk it?!?

[tburnsten]

2. I guess sometimes you gotta take what you can get

he is off on one issue, but excellent on another, and on one that actually determines winners and losers in many races, and will determine winners and losers in a major way in the next few elections, especially as voters see how their representatives react in the wake of the D.C. VS Heller ruling. Plus it isn't like he or any other representative is going to be able to affect reproductive rights one way or another.

[jody]

3. Agree since a congressperson represents about 647,000 people and not the National Democratic Party.

[tburnsten]

4. Our parties exist for the voters

Our politicians aren't allowed to exist to advance the party line, they exist to represent their constituents. "the party" is not a legitimate entity in this country.

[jody]

5. Agree, IMO a congressperson elected every two years is THE lobbyist for his/her constituents.

That's the meaning of a representative democracy with inalienable rights of minorities protected by government against the tyranny of a simple majority of said representatives.

[iverglas]

6. interesting theory

"the party" is not a legitimate entity in this country.

I wonder how you would explain the name of this site then.

DEMOCRATIC Underground.

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.

What's this "Democratic Party" whereof it speaks??

[tburnsten]

7. I wasn't writing very well

What I mean is that our political parties don't exist for their own betterment, just as our government doesn't exist for its own betterment. The Democratic party is beholden to its members, and if the national organization is too far out of touch with local or regional branches, the local and regional branches will bring something else to the table. What I meant was just that the national democratic party is more of a union of local parties, not a cold-war style party that demands absolute adherence to its program under pain of termination.

[iverglas]

8. really

What I meant was just that the national democratic party is more of a union of local parties, not a cold-war style party that demands absolute adherence to its program under pain of termination.

Me, I was talking about my parliamentary-style party, which exists to further a political program that its members have voted on and adhere to. If they didn't adhere to the program, they wouldn't belong to the party. Duh.

The members then demand that the party act to further the program that they have collectively adopted. And that includes the legislators elected under the party's banner. If a legislator wants to vote against the party's political program, s/he is free to go and sit on the independent benches, and seek election the next time as an independent or under some other party's banner.

We don't regard our party as some label of convenience that anybody who happens to want to get elected to further his/her own agenda can stick on him/herself. The party stands for something, as decided by its members; and if somebody stands against what the party stands for, s/he needs to find another party.

See how that works?

[tburnsten]

9. But we only have two serious parties

So it doesn't quite work like that for us. Our parties have to be more flexible or they would constantly be changing names over incredibly minor policy disputes.

The Judean People's Front, The Peoples' Front of Judea, the Popular Front of Judea and the Judean Popular People's Front. Funny in Monty Python, not so much in real life with real tax dollars being wasted.

[iverglas]

10. "incredibly minor policy disputes"

Yeah. Like whether women should be able to exercise the fundamental human / constitutional right to life and liberty ...

We have more than two major political parties here, indeed. You shouldn't imagine, however, that they somehow occupy the entire political spectrum. Many people in my party consider ourselves "to the left of the party". We don't, however, seek the party nomination and then run on a platform of nationalizing all fast-food outlets.

Nobody is compelled to run for office under a party banner, right?

If I were a Democrat, I would be so insulted by this asshole being allowed to run as a Democrat that ... well, I guess I just wouldn't be able to do anything. Unlike here, where I'd have helped made sure he never got the party stamp to start with, by making sure that enough genuine party members turned out to the nomination meeting to ensure he was defeated.

[bossy22]

11. one size does not fit all

the national party has to be flexible- there are many different cultures throughout the united states- there beliefs differ from other cultures and regions.

what the democratic party has finally done is become pragmatic about it. By allowing these blue dog democrats to run under the "Banner" they seek to be able to foward some of their agenda. without these dems, they wouldnt be able to foward any of their agenda- and some is better than none.

as my friend once said "not everyone everywhere in the united states wants a massachussets liberal representing them" that is the truth...you have to run candidates in areas that are in tune with their constituencies.

Idealism does not work