Re-elect me! – I’m 83% effective!

[DancingBear]

Hello, fellow Democratic citizens, it’s me again – asking for your vote this election day. Yes, it’s time once again to put me back in Washington, so I can be working (most of the time, anyway) to do what you the people want.

Have you noticed recently that some have said I’m beginning to slip a little bit over to, shall we say, the dark side, with regards to a few of my most recent votes? Aw, c’mon now people, I’m 83% effective, according to the latest polling data! That’s eighty-three freakin’ percent! Eight-three percent of the time I do exactly what you elected me to do. Now, granted, I know you thought that when I said I would act like a true Democrat 100% of the time many of you actually believed me, but geez, it’s politics, ya know? Can’t a guy catch a break around here?

Let’s look at this bankruptcy bill, for example. Sure, I voted for it, and sure, it’s nothing more than a giant “thank-you” note from George Bush to the people who bankrolled his campaign, but I mean, after all, we got debt problems right here in River City, and those people who used credit to bankroll their child’s surgery are just going to have to ‘fess up and pay the piper. Besides, I’m 83%.

Look at it this way. Suppose you wanted to wash your car, and you bought a product that promised to clean 100% of it. Well, turns out that it only cleans 83% of it – leaves that darned right rear quarter panel all dirty. You’d be mad, wouldn’t you? Well, you shouldn’t be – you got 83% of the damn thing clean! And besides, the product on the other side of the aisle only gets 34% of it clean, so there! Besides, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the company that makes the 83% car wash also owns a company that makes, oh, lets say, right rear quarter panels, and the dirtier they are the quicker they wear out, and the quicker they wear out the faster they have to be replaced?

I mean, whaddya want here – 83% or 34%. THAT”S the choice you know. What? What’s that? You say there’s another choice? You say that I should actually be held to a set of principles? You say I should actually do what’s right all the time, and not parade around thumping my chest and yelling “83, 83” at the top of my lungs? You say I actually have a duty to represent those that have no voice, because that is what a real Democrat does, and that by voting for this bankruptcy bill I have allowed the other side to put yet another spike in the coffin of what we consider the bedrock of the American ideal – helping those less fortunate than ourselves? But what about my 83%?

You should be quiet, and be happy than your car is almost clean. Remember, you’ll need to wash your car again sometime, and maybe by that time I’ll take a long hard look at the LEFT rear quarter panel.

By then, I might just be 71% effective, baby – 71 %. But it’s better than the other side, eh?

Heh-heh-heh.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. What if, and I know this might be a stretch...

but what if an elected official never claimed they were going to be 100% Democratic?

I know, shock of all shocks, right? But there are quite a few candidates that don't always agree with the party platform. And given what we call Republicans that always adhere to the party platform, that would simply make said Democrat "not a shill". Personally, I don't want to be part of the "party of shills".

[DancingBear]

2. Not a stretch at all

However, let's review:

Courtesy of "Democrats", we now have an OK from the Bush cabal to rape the Alaskan wilderness, AND we have the OK for the Bush cabal to pry individuals off the so-called bankruptcy teat, while allowing corporations to gorge themselves on it.

But at least we're not the party of shills, right?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Hey, listen, I don't agree with their votes either.

and this doesn't apply to all of the Democrats that voted for those bills, however, quite a few of them were voting their constituents' interests by voting against ours. For ANWR, the Hawaiian Senators were mostly definitely voting the will of their people, as they support the right of Alaska to do what it wants with its land without federal interference (Hawaii and Alaska, and many other western states share that sentiment) and they have quite higher energy costs than we do stateside. Landrieu comes from a state with a lot of oil interests. As far as bankruptcy goes, Delaware and the Dakotas are almost entirely run and employed by the banks. Is it any surprise then that the Stephanie Herseths and Joe Bidens would wind up voting for the bankruptcy bill? Of course not, it was in their constituents' best interests, even if not the best interests of the rest of the country. But that's exactly what they're elected to do - look out for the people that send them to Congress. I may not agree with them, but I'll be damned if I bash them for fulfilling their responsibility to the people that vote for them. Again, that doesn't apply to all of the Democrats that voted against us. I bear no protection for them.

[DancingBear]

11. Thanks for the response

1) If I recall, the Hawaiian people had little if any interest in a quid pro quo with Alaska, at least if I am recalling polling data that many on DU shared after that vote

2) The LA "oil interests" is a red herring - I think (again, as posted here on DU) that LA currently receives minimal revenue from oil/gas leases

3) Biden voted for the bill because the cc companies helped his campaign, NOT because of any constituent interest. Delaware has been and will continue to be the haven for corporations (this is why so many of them incorporate there). Delaware citizens will get about as much help from the bankruptcy bill as I will from turning 30 this year instead of 52.

Although I'm open to try... :)

P.S. Please let me know if I am incorrect on any of the above mentioned topics - I will correct if that is the case.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Let's address it.

1) I have not seen any Hawaii specific polls, and if you have them, I'd love to see them. I base my statements from observations of their fuels costs and past tendencies in the state to shy away from the Federal government controlling what is done with a particular state's land. I'm open to hammering the Hawaiian Senators if evidence to the contrary is found.

2) As far as Louisiana, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_200205/ai_n10172375
Whether or not it's bullshit, I'd be willing to concede. What's not bullshit, however, is the fact that many people in Louisiana are very sensitive to oil production issues, even if it doesn't account for much revenue any more. Again, it's what the constituents want.

3) CC companies EMPLOY thousands of citizens in Delaware. If you don't think they make a correlation between keep profits up and keeping their jobs, you're only kidding yourself. Again though, you could argue it's still against the interests of the people of Delaware, and you'd probably be right, but they don't see it that way. Biden's there to exercise their will. Above all else, that is his job.

[DaveinMD]

21. really

so 3 Dems vote a certain way and its not the fault of the 48 Republicans who voted that way. Makes perfect sense.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

3. All of life is relative & seen through comparisons

The hard left of the party is going to have decide once & for all if it is more interested in making statements than avoiding 8 years of a Frist presidency. It's that simple.

[DancingBear]

4. Arrgghhhh!

I am NOT the hard left. I AM, however, someone who merely wants Democrats to uphold Democratic ideals.

Where do we get this crazy idea that standing up for something is akin to being off the political deep end?

[tinanator]

15. maybe you are that simple, but "it" isnt.

that old saw is a little rusty. Maybe you should be thinkin and deciding, because morality is morality. Your song and dance really got us through 2004 didnt it? How about 2000, where Gore won, YOU let GW in, and blamed those who didnt cotton to the system that behaved as expected. Keep it up "centrists", its never too soon to splinter, fraction and divide for your masters.

[Nederland]

6. 83% sounds great

Considering that the alternative is probably around 10%.

[BamaLefty]

19. Thank you.

[welshTerrier2]

7. selling us down the river ...

there are a few (or more) issues floating around here ...

first, i'm not all that worried about dirty rear panels ... but i am worried about unsafe cars ... and i'm a little concerned about all that money you raked in from the auto industry and that you've squashed anything that has to do with mass transit initiatives ... i'm more than a little uncomfortable that you just voted to indemnify the auto industry from lawsuits that can no longer be filed when someone is injured due to manufacturer negligence ... they build unsafe cars and you let them off the hook ... and then they "help you out a little" ... you're 83 is a great score; your ethics suck ... you're either working for the people or you're in business for yourself and big money ... your 83 is just to appease us ... your 17 proves you would sell us down the river for the right price ...

and secondly, you never actually asked most of us what we wanted ... your 83 is a number you made up ... you have no idea what i think or what i support ... you just assume to know what we the voters want you to do ... how often do you call for town meetings in your district? how much say have we the voters really had in how you vote? your 83 is total bullshit ... you are exactly what's wrong in this country ... you've been bought by powerful, corporate interests and you spend little or no time communicating with the electorate ...

i hope you and those like you are driven from office by those who cherish the democratic ideals on which this country was founded ...

oh, excellent post, btw ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Again, what if that person campaigned on 83%?

Unless you're going to provide a factual example, this is a bullshit post. Show me someone that said they would be a 100% Democrat and didn't turn out that way.

[welshTerrier2]

9. several important issues were raised in my post

your post is total bullshit ... no yours is ... no yours is ... wonderful dialog, eh? i'll bet you can do a little better ... go ahead ... give it a try ...

if you want to respond to my post, i talked about:
1. corporate ties of political candidates and the influence of big money in the political process
2. indemnifying industry against lawsuits
3. the importance of better communication with constituents

you consider that bullshit? i kind of thought those issues were somewhat important ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Again, provide specific examples.

Whom are you accusing in particular? Which Democrat said they would be 100% in favor of the official party platform and then didn't follow through?

[welshTerrier2]

14. i made no statement about Democrats being 100% effective

your post is not responsive ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. You did through implication:

you're 83 is a great score; your ethics suck ... you're either working for the people or you're in business for yourself and big money ... your 83 is just to appease us ... your 17 proves you would sell us down the river for the right price ...


The implication is that Democrats should always be 100% Democratic, and the original assertion, which you have voiced your support on and reiterate through this statement, is that Democrats claim they're going to 100% be on the party platform. After all, how else do one's "ethics suck" if they told people they'd be an 83% Democrat and then do exactly that when they are elected? I'd be willing to back off my interpretation of your comments if you could elaborate further on how someone is being unethical by doing what they said they would do.

[welshTerrier2]

18. "your ethics suck"

you're inferring something i never implied ... read my first post again ... i understand you want to argue that my position is that Democrats should adhere 100% to the platform and never stray ... that is not what i am saying at all ... i'm not implying it and it is NOT my position ... it is not what i wrote and it is not what i think ...

the "your ethics suck" needs to be viewed in the context of what i wrote ... what i wrote was "playing along" with the script from the BP ... here's exactly the context i was referencing with the "ethics" remark:

i'm a little concerned about all that money you raked in from the auto industry and that you've squashed anything that has to do with mass transit initiatives ... i'm more than a little uncomfortable that you just voted to indemnify the auto industry from lawsuits that can no longer be filed when someone is injured due to manufacturer negligence ... they build unsafe cars and you let them off the hook ... and then they "help you out a little" ...

the BP made its point using a fictitious candidate ... so did I ... but the point I was making was that even the 83% "good guy" rating in the BP needed to be questioned because most elected officials, including Democrats, do not have an adequate dialog with their constituents ... how can they claim any rating when they really have know idea what most people think on the issues ... the argument I was making was NOT a requirement to have 100% (or any specific %) of adherence to the party platform ... my point was that most elected officials are out of touch with people in their districts ...

i don't know what else i can say to convince you that you are not reading my post as I intended it ...

and you still haven't responded to the main points in my post:

1. corporate ties of political candidates and the influence of big money in the political process
2. indemnifying industry against lawsuits
3. the importance of better communication with constituents.

that's what all my posts in this thread are about ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. I don't disagree with your stated points at all.

But you posted within the context of the original post, which incorrectly makes the assumption that our candidates are being something other than what they are campaigning, which is untrue. I'm sorry I didn't garner the correct implications - it does not seem like your points were entirely connected to the original post. It sounded like you were in agreement with the original post, which unfairly attacks Democrats for not living up to what they claim to be in their campaigns.

I've just seen far too many people thinking that just because they have a "D" next to their names that they have to vote party line every time as if they're obligated.

[welshTerrier2]

23. the answer is reform; not criticism ...

well, now that we've established my original intent, let's talk about the points in the BP and adherence to platform issues ...

and let's do this, at least initially, with no ideological perspective ... i have one to be sure but let's talk just plain old political pragmatism ...

question: should the Democratic Party allow its candidates to express individual preferences or should the Party insist on a significant adherence (with some minor variations) to the Party platform?

answer: the Democratic Party cannot succeed as a loose affiliation of candidates running for office without clear, centrally defined themes ... while it's fine to allow some degree of individuality to meet regional and local conditions, the strongest message a candidate can deliver is one which derives from the core Party message (and values) that have been part of the Party's voter education campaign for years ... each candidate reinventing their own wheel is a prescription for failure ... a strong central messaage builds its power over many years, not just one or two elections ... voters who understand the Party's broad themes and values are then better able to appreciate the basis for various policy positions taken by Democratic candidates ... absent this well-defined set of core values and beliefs, Democratic candidates become, at best, policy wonks ... and at worst, they, and all Democrats, are seen as unprincipled ...

again, the above statements on adherence to a platform is offered without regard to ideology ... the core platform could be left, right or center ... the argument presented favors greater adherence than has been the case in the Party ...

now, let's toss some ideology on the fire ... see if you agree with this: the Democratic Party is currently a somewhat strained coalition between the center and the left ... it is also apparent that tens of millions of voters have left the Party ... many of these people are now non-voters ... many of them see politicians as "in it for themselves" ... they think that rather than serving the national interest, they are either lining their own pockets or are catering to those who can afford to line them ... that, at least to me, is the current state of the Party ...

too many discussions like to argue that the non-voters "deserve what they get" ... well, that may well be true but it does little to attract these voters back to the Party ... it busies itself with criticism rather than really finding, and listening to, these non-voters ... and what are we going to do in the Democratic Party about the left ... maybe they are called the "left" because they have or will leave the Party ... what's the answer to this problem? we could call these people names like "ideological purists" ... we could scream at them that they will do little more than elect republicans ... does this seem like a good political strategy? what exactly are these people so angry about and should the Democratic Party care?

the real crime being committed, as i tried to point out in my first post, is not that there is not rigid adherence to the will of the ideological left ... that's not the point at all ... the problem is that the "big tent" is tearing and all that's done as a reaction is to toss about criticisms further alienating the left ... in the end, perhaps there will indeed be irreconcilable differences ... in the end, any Democrat may choose to apply litmus tests that will not be met ... the problem i have with the Democratic Party and its processes is that most Democrats have virtually no say in the what the Party offers them ... few Democrats have a say on the platform ... few have any idea there even is a platform or what's in it ... this is very bad government and it is NOT any kind of democracy ...

so, the problem i see is not just that we have a bunch of guys running around voting however they want to; it's that we have a bunch of guys running around who really don't know what most people in their districts are even thinking ... this has led to a massive failure of our American democracy (i.e. tens of millions of Americans who no longer vote) and it is continuing to alienate many who do vote but feel un- or under-represented ... these are very dangerous times for the Democratic Party ... the answer is reform; not criticism ...

when people tell you you're violating their principles, the best political response is to want to hear them out (and to have them hear you out) ... the worst political response is to create even more alienation by criticizing them ... the Democratic Party's "leadership" has not understood this basic message for far too long ... maybe that will change sometime soon ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Let me answer as best I can.

Firstly, I apologize for the delayed response, and apologize again because it will have to be somewhat short (damn work).

I don't disagree with a ton of what you've written here. There is a delicate balance between the left and the center in our party, and quite frankly, I feel it's mostly due to a strain in our entire political system. We were never meant to only have two parties, and our strain is being similarly felt by our "friends" (and I use the term in the loosest means possible) at Free Republic as well.

I have two major issues with your statement, however. First is the assertion that we're losing "tens of millions of voters". It's flatly untrue. More Democrats voted in the last election cycle than ever before in our history. I think you've been disillusioned by the right wing media to think that we are few in number. We are not, not by any means, and there is no statistical evidence to support it. Even though we've been losing ground in our government, we're not losing much ground in actual vote tallies, losing many races by razor thin margins. What we have been losing is control over population distribution in our states and districts. Our 50% is set up such that we lose to their 50%, thanks to losing too many state-level races and thanks to population redistribution to southern states, giving them more electoral votes. Redistricting has been very detrimental to us, so we need to start focusing on state legislatures in a way that we've forgotten. If we can get back in control there by 2010, we can easily take back the House in 2012 or 2014. The Senate is going to be a trickier act to pull, and we are going to need some moderates there to take seats. There's simply no way around that.

The other thing I take issue with is the part of the party not knowing what the will of the people is. The reason I have that problem is two-fold. Firstly, I don't think that's true on the Congressional level at all. Members of the House are on the ground nearly every day, and while the Senate, by nature of the beast, is more detached, they've got a pretty good idea what's going on too. The ones who aren't are simply put not being held accountable by the people who elect them. If a congressional district or state isn't being adequately represented, while there is a fault of the system itself, it's also a fault of the people who don't take the time to find out what's going on around them. As far as the inner workings of our party go, I think we've actually got a pretty good system in place for involving more people with the creation of our platform, but I think you do underestimate just how divided we are as a party, or more appropriately, as a country. I think you can divide our population (or at least the portion that cares at all about politics) into 5 parts: 15% on the far right, 15% leaning-right moderate, 15% leaning-left moderate, 15% on the far left, and 40% that has little clue what's going on and has a hard time making a decision either way. The only current difference between the Democrats and Republicans on this matter is that their moderates decided they were sick of being in the minority and made peace with the extremists for the sake of winning.

If you haven't noticed yet, I feel that being a moderate doesn't win a lot of votes because it doesn't inspire very strong feelings one way or another. After all, when was the last time you motivated anyone to do anything by saying "We're kinda sorta (fill in blank)!!!" Straddling a fence doesn't inspire confidence, in my opinion. What moderates do is occassionally trick people into thinking they're something that they're not. For example, though I myself don't like the example, Evan Bayh has enough Democrats thinking he's a liberal and enough Republicans thinking he's not so bad that he can win a place like Indiana, and this is an effective method of winning Senate seats in places we have no business winning. If we want power, the "ideologically pure" have to buck up and accept guys like Bayh and the Nelsons. However, that strategy is flawed on a Presidential and national platform level for many reasons, including increased scrutiny of the candidates and their stances and the fact that you simply have a harder time motivating people to either the ballot boxes or to volunteer.

Getting back to the point about representation when forming a party platform - I think DLC is being phased out, slowly but surely. Clinton's Presidency was very damaging to the party in the sense that he had people believing that it was DLC strategies that got him elected instead of his charisma and a man named "Perot" that got 1/5th of the vote, most of that being from the right. Unfortunately, I think you ARE seeing a reflection of the party, albeit a reflection that is slowly morphing back to the way it was and the way it should be as people begin to realize DLC is not the right way to go. These things do take time, but I think we're making some good progress. While this is going on, the Republicans look to be quickly degenerating into their own battle for the soul of their party. Depending on how quickly each of these transformations take place, we could be back in power by 2008, or it might take until 2012.

I'm sorry I'm going to have to end it there. Please feel free to reply though.

[welshTerrier2]

26. "progress" must be built on a vision for "progress'

We were never meant to only have two parties

i couldn't agree more ... it is time for the Democratic Party to endorse changes to how we vote ... whether it's some flavor of proportional representation, instant run-off voting or whatever, democracy should be a higher priority than party politics ... "big tents" have a nasty habit of leaving many people out in the rain ...

First is the assertion that we're losing "tens of millions of voters". It's flatly untrue.

In Massachusetts, where I live, Democratic Party registrations are way down ... many don't register to vote at all and many have switched to "unenrolled" which means they no longer want to be affiliated with a political party ... the "tens of millions" reference pertained to the tens of millions of Americans who no longer vote at all ... surely many of them, I'll bet most of them, were Democrats ...

I also wouldn't use the last election as the sole measure of the trend ... I worked very hard for the Democratic Party last year and now I'm strongly considering leaving the Party ... perhaps I'm not representative of those who hold my views; perhaps i am ...

the Party is at a very dangerous cross-roads right now ... I spend a fair amount of time with politically active people ... most of them are totally fed up with the Democratic Party ... these people are almost exclusively "lefties' ... is there a trend here? i have no idea but i do think that if "town meetings" and a real push for "democratizing" the Party does not happen soon, many of those "ABB" voters may not be there the next time around ...

The other thing I take issue with is the part of the party not knowing what the will of the people is.

My Congressman, Jim McGovern, periodically holds little get togethers in his district ... how many people attend? usually between 5 and 10 people ... the last one took up 2 entire "table for four" tables in a local restaurant ... and it's always the same people ... so, in some cases, a small effort has been made to communicate with voters ... of course, the people who received "post cards" about the get together were people on his mailing list ... perhaps there was a microscopic mention of the meeting in the local paper (i didn't see one) but most people didn't know it was taking place ...

the bottom line is that the Democratic Party needs to aggressively build a grassroots network of Democrats to debate, discuss, communicate, share, educate the issues we care about ... the Party should use its resources to encourage this type of democratic activity ... not all of this grassroots activity requires the presence of elected officials but it is necessary for the Party to be involved to setup the infrastructure and get the ball rolling ...

as for the platform, i would venture to say that less than 1/2 of 1% of Democrats have read the platform and far fewer had any input to its formation ... i asked some Party insiders on DU how the platform gets built ... "we elect blah blah blah who then attend the State blah blah blah and then there's a committee that includes blah blah blah ..." ... well, none of that had very much to do with me ... i'm sure the Party has it's nice little bureacracy to take care of this ... and of course, we still have the issue that elected Democrats pay no heed whatsoever to the platform anyway ... the entire platform process stinks because it does not provide Democrats with an active role to play ... and btw, the platform should not be a static document ... it should be an ongoing conversation with ALL Democrats ...

I think you do underestimate just how divided we are as a party, or more appropriately, as a country.

nothing could be further from the truth ... i think the Democratic Party is at great risk right now ... some will say "oh, we always hear these dire predictions but it always works out" ... hatred for neo-con extremism helped build TEMPORARY UNITY last year under the ABB banner ... i sold my soul to work and vote for Kerry ... if the Party has the view that "past is prologue", they are making a huge mistake ... last year's election was an extreme situation ... many on the "left" (i hate the labels but they are convenient) are disgusted with the Party's failure to reform ... personally, i cite 3 issues that are of very grave concern: failure to "democratize" the Party, support for bush's empire-building in Iraq, and the possible abandonning of a hardline, no nonsense, pro choice position ...

i have solutions for at least trying to repair the rift but i'm seeing very little support for my ideas ... and that's too bad because there is no alternative ... you cannot appeal more to the center and hold the left without improving intra-Party communication ... without negotiation and an effort towards a shared vision, huge gaping holes will be ripped in the "big tent" ...

imagine this ... the far left sees a bunch of double-talk from Kerry, Clinton, Reid and others about "we want to end the war in Iraq as soon as possible" but then they turn around and vote for bush's $81 billion ... "lucy, you got some 'splainin to do!!!" ... but that's the problem ... they never "'splain" ... they never talk to me ... they never show up in my district ... they never "listen" ... they never negotiate ...

now, suppose they did attend "town meetings" in their districts on this issue ... suppose they were willing to put a "no later than" end date on the "war" in Iraq ... suppose they said to me, "i'm going to vote for this because blah blah blah but ONLY if we receive a guarantee that the "war" will not continue more than x months" ... well, now my views have at least been considered ... as things stand now, these Democrats are voting 100% against my views on this very critical issue ... and when they do, I'll have had it with them ... if you don't represent me, don't expect me to vote for you to represent me ...

I think we're making some good progress. While this is going on, the Republicans look to be quickly degenerating into their own battle for the soul of their party.

well, it all comes down to defining what we mean by "progress" ... if you haven't gathered by now, i'm disgusted with the Democratic Party ... if by "progress" you mean that Democrats are fighting back more now than they did under Daschle, I agree ... if by "progress" you mean that the neo-cons are starting to "get theirs" because their ideas are bankrupt and will hurt the nation, I agree ... if by "progress" you mean that bush will be much weaker now because he's a lame duck, I agree ...

but that, unfortunately, is not at all how i measure "progress" ... in fact, each of those things is an indication of "failure" ... let me explain ... what follows is strictly my personal view of what I mean by "progress" ...

bush and the neo-cons have been the most destructive threat to our democracy ... their domestic policies have bankrupted our treasury ... and their foreign policies have bankrupted our "goodwill account" with the global community ... we are not the "good guys" anymore ... the good news is that neo-con evil and their failed policies will put an end to their tyranny ... perhaps the Democratic Party will be the natural heirs to the neo-con collapse; perhaps moderate republicans will rise to power ... i think the jury is still out on that one ...

but why do i call it "failure" when others see it as "progress" ???

Democrats winning back any or all parts of the government should not be the definition of progress ... do i hope they win? of course ... but what is needed is not the winning of one or two election cycles ... what is needed is the building of a broad movement for progress ... a movement that is founded on the principles of democracy and shouts as loudly as it can that all people must be free ... it must teach that the corporate stranglehold on our democracy must be destroyed ... it must teach that our foreign policy should be cooperative with the community of nations ... it should never, never, never approve funding for "wars" that are nothing but fronts for corporate gain and the grabbing of land ...

"progress" does not just mean changing who rules; it means changing the rules ... i call the march towards Democrats regaining power "failure" because time is running out for us to "define our vision" ... Democrats will win but there will be no broad mandate for change ... some believe we have to "win" first and then we can make changes; sadly, they are wrong ... change begins with education ... change begins with introspection ... change begins with "listening" and intra-Party dialog ... the time to make change is NOW; not later ...

as the clock runs out on us and Democrats regain power, i'm afraid it will be a welcomed but hollow victory ... the next "pretty boy" republican who comes along will knock us off our throne ... our victory will be short-lived because it will be based only on "winning" ... we have a great opportunity in the Democratic Party to restore the founders' vision of what democracy could be; but Democrats believe that "progress" is defined by "winning" ... well, without a focus on the long-term vision, i'm afraid they won't be winning nearly as much as they could be ... and that's too bad ...

[atommom]

10. Is that you, Dennis???

[DancingBear]

12. Now THAT was funny

:thumbsup:

[DaveinMD]

20. do you someone

who votes your way most of the time or none of the time. Its really rather simple. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

[LimpingLib]

24. I thought this was another in the long line of plugs for Clark TILL...

...I noticed it had a quality of perceptivness and most importantly the frankness was present.The 83% had me wondering , but who knows.


Anyway good point.

Sad.

But good point.