You are running for the Dem nomination. What is YOUR platform?

[Neil Lisst]

Not the whole thing.

Give us FIVE bullet points of your candidacy, or what you'd like to see our party put forth.

Here are mine.

1. American Troops out of Iraq, starting now, and out entirely by the end of 2006.

2. Basic health care and emergency treatment for all Americans.

3. Increase in minimum wage to $7 an hour, indexed to the CPI.

4. Plans and programs to increase American production and use of renewable fuels, to increase fuel conservation, to mandate higher fuel efficiencies, and to reward clean fuels.

5. Deal with illegal immigration by targeting the largest hiring violators, and requiring them to pay ALL social services costs of their illegal employees, as well reimburse all governmental entities which have provided said services to the illegal immigrants.

[rpannier]

1. My five

1. Fiscal accountability. Over 8 billion dollars of tax payer money has disappeared under Bremer's Provisional Authority. I want to know what happened to that money. Halliburton has repeatedly failed US Army inspections of dining facilities and the like, why haven't they been replaced? (We're paying them a buttload of money).

2. Cease the assault on the environment. Strengthen environmental protections that this administration has undone.

3. A National Health Care System (I live in Korea. I am part of the National Health Care system, as are all Koreans, and the majority of foreigners working here, and I get great medical care).

4. Tighter controls on outsourcing and the companies that manipulate the laws. If you move your factory out of the US, then goods that are produced in that factory are taxed as imports. I would also work to repeal NAFTA and CAFTa (as there is no visible signs that working people in Mexico, the US or Canada have benefitted from NAFTA).

5. Begin working on the withdrawal of troops by negotiating with the Arab League, NATO and the UN to take over the operation in Iraq. Move soldiers and resources into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, their supporters and the drug lords. In addition, I would move more resources into Afghanistan to rebuild the country properly.

[Neil Lisst]

3. Fiscal Accountability. I like that one, too, but had those others.

Last two presidents to balance the budget?

Clinton and Carter.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I'd reach out to moderate Republicans to build a new political coalition.

I'd give them a place safer than the one the rightwing has provided for them now. The greatest way to get anything progressive done from hereonin is to heal the schism created by Newt Gringrich in the 1990s, but without becoming a Lieberman/Miller democrat. Yes, it means compromise UP TO A POINT, but maintaining independence and LEADERSHIP.

Then I'd tackle the five points originally posted in this thread.

[Neil Lisst]

4. Agreed. We need wedge about 5 Pubs away from their majority.

Snowe, Collins, and 3 others.

[skipos]

5. This is a good point many people don't talk about.

I don't think you need to move to the center to get things done. Presidents like Lincoln or even LBJ were able to accomplish much, and it had to do with *desire* to make things happen and listen to people who didn't necessarily agree with you. It is the exact opposite of what Bush does today. He surrounds himself with yesmen and has no interest in listening to anyone who disagrees with him. I am very certain that Bush will accomplish nothing in the next three years because of it.

For whatever it is worth, this point is one of the reasons I am a Warner fan right now. He did a lot for VA even though he was working with a lot of republicans in a red state. When I saw him speak, he addressed how important it is to be able to work with people on both sides of the isle to get things done. He mentioned keeping republicans in certain positions, even though he could have replaced them, because they were doing a great job. Again, the exact opposite of Bush's commitment to appointing underqualified cronies.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. And be mindful of the fact that moderate republicans are as impotent as

the democrats IN THEIR OWN PARTY. Nobody's listening to them. But they're expected to go along with the program. I'm sure they want a modicum of political capital and to be an influence in some way.

[Neil Lisst]

7. I'm open minded on Warner.

I'll have to study him over time.

[kitp]

8. agree and don't agree

U.S. Troops out of Iraq starting now and completed six months later.
Basic health care for all children (under 16) within 6 months, all adults within 18 months.
Increase minimum wage to $10 per hour. ($7 per hour still leaves family of four under the poverty line).
Energy independence.
End the Cold War.

I don't have a good plan for Iraq withdrawal, there may not be one. I will let better minds than mine figure out how. But, we leave immediately and it wouldn't hurt to apologize to the world for the excesses of our previous administration.

80% of Americans want universal health care. Why this is an issue is beyond me.

I agree that energy plans need to be developed along with emission reductions. Oil and coal need to go completely. This is complex and difficult, a nice 'slogan' but a difficult plan. However, a general nationwide 'independence day' plan is good, by next Independence Day we reduce foreign oil consumption by X%, done each year over 8 years reduces energy consumption Y% making us independent of foreign oil. Our lavish and, frankly, irresponsible wasteful burning of oil has led us into all sorts of folly, backing regimes like Saddam's and then going to war with them. Military disasters that have fueled hatred against us when actually we're really nice people with no desire to blow up woman and children for oil.
If we cut the military budget by 10% we can use that money to buy solar panels for the entire country. Suddenly we have reduced our need to burn coal and oil by X% (I don't know the numbers. 10% gives us 40 billion per year for 8 years gives us 320 billion, figure a panel costs 500 when bought in quantity that gives us 640 million solar panels or about 6 per household. What I don't know is what energy savings that gives us.) Couple this with simple things like compact flourescent lights and - big one and difficult - increasing fuel efficiency X mpg every year for 8 years for all vehicles.
If we cut the military budget by 25%, which we could certainly do, that would give us 100 billion a year or 800 billion to play with over 8 years. Certainly would be useful.

End the Cold War. The CW brought us many things - an irrational fear of 'commies', the National Security State, the rule of the military-industrial complex. This led us into the folly and tragedy of Viet Nam - remember the domino theory? This led us to invade Cuba and have 40 years of idiotic irrational anti-Castro policy. This led us to fear any socialist government, which makes no sense at all. It has cost us a HUGE amount of money. It has given us the CIA and the NSA which are totally useless, worse than useless - gigantic amounts of money in childish James Bond games running around the planet bumping off dictators and completely and totally missing real dangers. When we failed to forsee and prevent 9-11 did we say the CIA has failed and should be disbanded? No, we gave them more money!
Every having to do with the CW was idiotic and against our better interests. Secret government, the fascist concept of National Security having more importance the the nation itself (that's us, the peepul). Regime changes, bad wars, irrational fear of ill-defined 'enemies' all to create what the Republican Ike warned us about - the military, intelliegence and industry (read 'corporations') taking gigantic amounts of America's wealth and putting it in their own pockets.
Declare the CW dead. We have no serious enemies in the world, the few we have we created by our bone-headed behavior, setting up tinpot dictators and stealings the natural resources of poorer countries and just bombing innocent civilians into oblivion. It's pathetic, it's tragic and it's immoral. End it.
Shut down the CIA, the NSA. Repeal the National Security Act of 1947. Pass a law that no U.S. military troops may be sent into battle with a congressional declaration of war. Change the name of the Department of Defense back to the Department of War and the Secretary of War.
Disband 98% of the military bases we have around the world and, in my opinion, cut the military budget by 80%!!!


Immigration is the latest neo-con 'make them scared' issue. It is a non-issue. Do not discuss it at all except to quote the Statue of Liberty "bring me your poor..." and state that we must find a way to include those who wish to come to America, either as temporary workers or residents or citizens. Our country is as large as our hearts. If we accept the neo-con definition that immigration is a policy we lose. We must aggressively make it a non-issue. Neo-cons create an enemy (either external or internal) then make people afraid of that enemy then declare themselves to be the only party strong enough to protect people (becuase Democrats are whimps when it comes to law and order and the military, not true but has been ingrained in the political discussion for a generation and will take time to overcome).
We cannot enter into this debate, we cannot allow them to frame this issue. We welcome immigrants, our country was founded by immigrants (ask the Native-Americans), our country was built by immigrants, our country was made strong by immigrants. We are immigrants. We must find a way to include these people yearning to be free into our great nation, continuing the traditions that have made us the richest most diverse culture this planet has ever seen.
Then list off a couple of dozen great Americans who were immigrants.

Just a couple of ideas.

Oh, and the joining with moderate Republicans - okay, what freakin' ever. Why haven't the moderate Republicans reached out to us to help protect America against these fascists? Why are we always called upon to appease them? I say, look at the polls, it's time for a progressive/liberal/socialist revolution and I think Americans would support it.
We have more to fear from the moderates in our own party - Lieberman supports the war, Clinton is against flag-burning, Kerry worries about immigration et freakin' cetera - that cozying up to the Republican moderates just makes us look weak. Look at the polls. This adminstration is in the toilet and is not going to recover. Moderate Republicans look like conservatives who aren't quite as reckless as the current admininstration and that's appealing to the voters. Moderate Democrats look like they're trying to be Republicans and that is pathetic to the voters. Makes us look weak, in fact, doing so does make us weak.
Look at the polls. Pull out of Iraq - majority support; universal health care - majority support; clean up corruption in elections and governing - majority support. I could go on. Why does it serve us to join with moderate Republicans? If we state clearly our liberal ideals and goals we can receive support from the public and then the moderate Republicans will want to join with us. If we weaken our claims we weaken our support.

[skipos]

10. When I have had arguments with people in my family

and they don't listen to what I am saying or take the time to explain what they are doing and why they are doing it, it gets ugly.
But when they take the time to actually listen to what I am saying, and thoroughly explain what they are doing, why they are doing it, and make sure that we understand eachother, life is a lot smoother. They don't even need to necessarily change their behavior to make things go smoothly, it is all about communication and understanding.

On the same note, when democrats are in power they don't need to move to the center to get things done, they just need to make sure that they listen and explain thoroughly. Bush is getting nothing done because he does neither.

How many times have had a heated, ugly disagreement with someone where you solve the situation not by changing your mind or compromising, but just by listening and explaining?

I don't know if I am choosing the best analogy, but do you understand what I am saying?

[kitp]

12. sort of

I agree that there needs to be debate and discussion, however, the current atmosphere of vindictive vitriol is a chosen political path of the neo-cons and their party has not called them on it. It is not our problem, it is not our fault. We cannot debate now because the arena has been so poisoned.

My point was not that we should never work with nor have discussion with moderates, or even extremists, but that we should not create a centrist platform. We cannot find common ground nor compromise if our starting position continues to move to the center, well...actually to the right. Kerry was much much to right-wing for me, in some ways more right-wing than Richard Nixon.

We need to stand firmly in the center of Liberalism and debate from there.

[skipos]

15. Keep in mind that many dems

are not moderates because they want to appeal to republicans, they are moderates because that is what they truly believe in.

When I watched my blue state easily pass a gay marriage ban last year, it really opened my eyes to how unprogressive most of America is. I don't advocate trying to appease them, but I do advocate recognizing that America is far from liberal. I think most of America can be lead to be more progressive, but it is going to come in baby steps for the most part.

It is interesting that you mention Nixon, as I only recently began to realize how progressive he was in certain areas. That, coupled with the fact that our most liberal dem presidential candidates of the last few decades have all had the largest defeats, seems to indicate that America has really stagnated.

I do think we can turn it around, but it will be some work.

[kitp]

18. Hmmm

I disagree on a couple of points here. First, When you say that many dems are moderates by belief it sounds as if you were speaking of voters and I have been speaking of politicians.
The democratic party has been moving right for the last 25 years or so in the belief that the public was becoming more conservative. I strongly disagree with them. I think that the large chunk of the population that is extremely liberal - 60's hippie-liberal - dropped out of politics in the late 70's feeling that they had made their contribution. The country was much more liberal than in the early 60's, many significant changes had been made. They never dreamed that the country would go backwards and un-enact these changes.
When Reagan first came to power these liberals of whom I speak thought it was a joke, he's an idiot and his political philosophy wass about 8th grade level. Once he began governing, they realized the potential danger, he was advocating reversing most of the changes that had been hard won in the 50's and 60's.
The democratic party read Reagan's electoral success very differently, seeing it as an indicator that the country was moving to the right after the 'excesses' of the 60's. So they began to attempt to appeal to the Reagan voters by becoming more conservative. All that this accomplished was to leave the strong liberals disgusted and disillusioned and the moderates (on both sides of center) with no alternative - Reagan or Reagan lite.
This process has been going on ever since. I am a strong liberal, slightly left of the middle of the liberal spectrum and far far left of people like John Kerry or even Al Gore. I have no one - absolutely no one - advocating my positions and beliefs. The democratic party has abandoned me in some vain attempt to recapture the Reagan democrats. It's just silly.

The country is NOT more conservative than it was 25 years ago. What has happened is that the conservatives have rewritten the political landscape by defining politics in very simplistic sloganeering terms and the democrats have allowed them to do that.
Some of these successes: liberal bias to the media, this is a joke, we have the most conservative media in the world, yet still the general public believes there is a liberal bias; republicans are fiscally responsible and the democrats are not, this blatant and obvious lie is still used by conservatives to this day and it works even though reality shows the exact opposite to be true...I could go on with examples.
The reason these work is because the conservative define the debate and the democrats then join that debate - and lose.

The example I gave in my first post was immigration. Immigration is the new invented issue by the conservatives and it very well may cost the democrats the 2006 elections because the democrats are joining the republican debate. That debate states that immigration is a problem and we need to protect our border, our border towns and our country against illegal immigration. It does not matter what the democrats say in this debate because joining this debate simply reinforces the belief that immigration IS a problem and it is NOT.
The republicans have convinced Americans that they are the strong law and order party and the democrats are weak so if the democrats support the underlying argument that illegal immigration IS a problem, they lose.
The democrats should redefine the debate.

You state that the gay marriage laws show a conservative swing in America and I disagree. What argument in favor of gay marriage did the democratic party put up in opposition to the conservatives? NONE. Kerry said he did not favor gay marriage. Who is going to vote to support something no politician is supporting? Where is the discussion, the debate? What choice do most people have? The right says no gay marriage, the left says no gay marriage, is it any wonder that these laws passed?
Had Kerry and the democrats stood up in favor of full and unrestricted rights for homosexuals citing our 200+ year history of extending the definition of "We the people..." to include more and more who were not originally included, had they stated that the conservatives were manipulating peoples genuine feelings of religiosity to impose laws from the Middle Ages on a free and enlightened people, well, maybe the vote would have been different. But no one argued in favor of gay marriage.

When there is no clearly stated and strongly believed liberal agenda for voters to see, they will be drawn to the party that does have a clearly stated belief system no matter what it is, and especially when that system is consciously constructed to appeal to the voters while having no connection to the reality of the actions of the party espousing it.

If you ask people about gays, I tell you that a vast majority see no problem and really could care less whether gays marry or not and never would have thought about it if the conservatives hadn't invented the issue out of thin air and if they are pressed on it will admit that it is unAmerican to treat gays this way.

The voters of this country hold very liberals beliefs but there is no one voicing them. There was a program made just after the last election called Red State Tour (I think, I saw in on Link TV or Free Speech TV) and this guy went around to red states and asked people why they voted for Bush. You know why? Health Care. They believe we need to have a better health care system and so they voted for Bush!! They were very surprised to find out that Bush does not want good health care for us and certainly is strongly opposed to universal health care.
How is it these voters could hold a liberal belief yet vote for Bush? Because Kerry never ever ever once called Bush a liar, a thief, a deserter, etc. He never ever ever said that Bush is simply lying when he talks about health care, or terrorism, or fiscal responsibility or anything.
And Kerry's solution? Some mixed-message mishmash of programs that didn't make much sense even to me. So no wonder these red staters voted for Bush, they thought he was going to help them get better health care. What a tragic joke.

Polls show that most Americans are more liberal than John Kerry, than the current Democratic party but they have no one speaking to them on these issues. All they get are democrats moving further and further right with really wishy-washy messages (go back and look at Kerry's statements on Iraq and compare them to Kucinich's) and republicans with a clear and concise message. The fact that the right is simply lying is never pointed out by the left, and the true liberal position is never ever stated.
That's why the landscape looks more conservative, there's no one speaking the in the liberal voice. Where are the union leaders thundering against corporate American on talk shows? They were eliminated from the media's coverage of issues in Reagan's day and haven't been heard of since. Where is the socialist party's point of view in debates? They were never allowed access to the public.
The only way the voter has the option of selecting from opposing points of view is if those points of view are available and moderate to centrist to right-wing democrats rob the American people of the ability to hear an alternate view of the world.

And Nixon was a Neanderthal, a truly rotten man and a horrible president. Don't talk about progressive without talking about the slaughter of millions in SE Asia. I was using him as a yardstick to demonstrate how far right the democrats have come not how far left Nixon was, he wasn't at all. He was much more to the left than the current republican party and in some areas was to the left of the current democrats, but he was still firmly and completely to the right of center.

Anyway, those be my thoughts.

[skipos]

19. I'd say our chief disageement is

that you see dem politicians as having a great effect on popular opinion, while I see them as usually only having a mild effect.

In the last few decades, why have our most liberal dem candidates have gotten slaughtered, while only our moderates have actually been elected? I'd like to know your explanation.

>The democratic party has abandoned me in some vain attempt to
> recapture the Reagan democrats.

I am sure many dem politicians are moderate because they think it will get them elected, but many are moderate because that is what they believe. If a dem politician owns a gun or is for the death penalty or whatever, is it because they are trying to win over republicans? I don't know how you can say for sure. Many dem politicians seem calculated to me, but many do not.

>The democrats should redefine the debate.

I see what you are saying about republicans defining the debate and dems joining and then losing. In your example of immigration, what are dems supposed to do? Republicans have made it an issue, so what do dems do about it? Stay silent, agree with the reps? I am curious what your solution is. For whatever it is worth, I feel that this whole flag buring thing is just a issue that reps pull out of the closet every now and then to rally the bass. Reps bring it up, dems take the other side of the issue and end up looking like America hating libruls to many Americans. I sometimes wish all dems would just agree with the reps on this so the dumb debate would go away. With all the problems we have, I wish less time was spent on an issue that effects very, very few people.

>Kerry said he did not favor gay marriage. Who is going to vote to
>support something no politician is supporting?

I don't remember dem politicians asking voters to vote for the ban, but I sure recall many dem voters voting for it anyway. I think if Kerry 100% supported gay marriage, those bans still would have passed in every state.

Not that this is the bible or anything, but it does seem realistic to me...

From 2004 CNN exit poll
POLICY TOWARD SAME-SEX COUPLES
Legally Marry (25%)
Civil Unions (35%)
No Legal Recognition (37%)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I think if every dem politician in the U.S. vocally supported gay marriage, it might bump up public support a little bit, bit it would have a loooooooong way to go until a majority of Americans support it. I do think that someday a majority will support it, but it is going to be small steps over many years until we get there.

You ask "who is going to vote to support something no politician is supporting?" Well, most politicians supported the war and, after many months, most Americans came to the conclusion that it was and is wrong. The growing public opposition to the way this war is being handled grew on it's own. Public opinion didn't change because of anything politicians were saying or doing, public opinion changed *despite* what politicians were saying and doing. And that backs up my belief that politicians maybe able to efffect public opinion at times, but many times they have very little control.

>If you ask people about gays, I tell you that a vast majority see no
>problem and really could care less whether gays marry or not

I do ask and I'd say the reponses are pretty consistent with the CNN polls. One of my gay friends actually voted for Bush. There are many, many people out there who vote for really, really stupid reasons.

>How is it these voters could hold a liberal belief yet vote for Bush?

In my opinion, it is because democrats need to market their message in way that both smart and dumb people can understand. To me, it doesn't have anything to do with left or center, it is just making sure people understand what dems stand for. I agree with what you say about Kerry's mishmash. I really hope to have an 08 nominee who can speak in down to earth manner that everyone can understand. I feel that is just as important as his/her record.

>Polls show that most Americans are more liberal than John Kerry, than
>the current Democratic party but they have no one speaking to them on
>these issues.

Link? Everything I have ever seen indicates a minority of people are liberal. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there are many liberal people who don't claim to be liberal since it has become a "dirty word." Regardles, here is a 1996 exit poll. Very similar to exit polls I have seen for other years.

Political Ideology...
Liberal 20%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 33%
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

>And Nixon ... was much more to the left than the current republican
>party and in some areas was to the left of the current democrats,
>but he was still firmly and completely to the right of center.

I agree. That is the only reason I mentioned him.

While we may disagree on much, I think we might agree that the Hillary Clinton model of democrat is the worst way to go. Personally, I would be willing to vote for a dem who is to the right of me if I felt they were sincere about their beliefs, but I do not feel that way about her. Unfortunately, dems politicians are in the minority and on the defensive, and it definitely doesn't bring out the best in them. If we do well in 06, and then 08, I think more people in the party will feel comfortable about moving left.

[kitp]

33. We are getting closer, aren't we?

I'd say our chief disagreement is that you see dem politicians as having a great effect on popular opinion, while I see them as usually only having a mild effect. In the last few decades, why have our most liberal dem candidates have gotten slaughtered, while only our moderates have actually been elected? I'd like to know your explanation.

Yes, I wasn't exactly clear in my message. The point that I am trying to make is that many voters are unaware of alternatives in policy because the dems simply do not voice the liberal opinion. This lack of voice effects the voting public by its absence rather than by convincing people of one position over another. The very vacuum of liberal sentiment at the national level is deafening and has a major effect on people's opinions.
The reason that liberal dems have been slaughtered is that the debate in politics has been defined by the reps for the last 25 years. Each and every liberal dem has stepped into the debate defined and controlled by the reps and - worse - other dems have pulled away from the liberal in a mistaken belief that those liberal statements would lose voters. As fewer and fewer were willing to proclaim truly liberal values the debate moved to the right and that great mass of undecideds in the middle heard only moderate dems to extreme reps. This is a distorted landscape.
Also, we have to remember that the reps have engaged in a quarter century campaign to create this divisive right-leaning media-distrusting special-interest-hating political arena. A well thought out, well funded intentional and conscious campaign to poison the political process and reduce it from issues to personalities.

The democratic party has abandoned me in some vain attempt to recapture the Reagan democrats.

I am sure many dem politicians are moderate because they think it will get them elected, but many are moderate because that is what they believe. If a dem politician owns a gun or is for the death penalty or whatever, is it because they are trying to win over republicans? I don't know how you can say for sure. Many dem politicians seem calculated to me, but many do not.

The democrats should redefine the debate.

I see what you are saying about republicans defining the debate and dems joining and then losing. In your example of immigration, what are dems supposed to do? Republicans have made it an issue, so what do dems do about it? Stay silent, agree with the reps? I am curious what your solution is. For whatever it is worth, I feel that this whole flag burning thing is just a issue that reps pull out of the closet every now and then to rally the bass. Reps bring it up, dems take the other side of the issue and end up looking like America hating libruls to many Americans. I sometimes wish all dems would just agree with the reps on this so the dumb debate would go away. With all the problems we have, I wish less time was spent on an issue that effects very, very few people.

Okay, on these two issues I think it is very simple. Let's take flag-burning. The dem message is very simple: in totalitarian societies, in fascist countries, in lands where despots and dictators rule, the people are not allowed to express themselves, to voice their feelings and ideas, they are punished even unto death for attempting to cry out against injustice and cruelty. In those countries, in those dark lands, the symbols of those despots become semi-sacred. In those countries, the trappings of the dictatorship become sacrosanct and untouchable.
Fortunately, we live in the United States where freedom rules, where every individual may hold any opinion, may speak any idea, may gather together to celebrate and to protest without a despotic government oppressing them. Here freedom is so strong that we allow...no, we actively support the freedom to speak even of those with whom we violently disagree, with whom we feel we have no common ground, no ideals which we share. But this is not true, for we share, we all share, this undying love of freedom and the commitment to preserve it above all else, that the voice of the people, in whatever form it takes - art, music, protest and prayer - shall not be stifled by its government. We shall live free.
On immigration, I already spoke of this earlier, but it too is simple. We are all immigrants here - just ask any Native American. This country was founded by immigrants. This country was built by immigrants. This country was made great by immigrants - we are all immigrants. Our proud Statue of Liberty, holding aloft the flame of freedom, the beacon of hope, calls out across the seas "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
Immigration has made our land the most diverse, the most interesting, the most vibrant and creative and inventive this planet has ever seen. We are a culture of immigrants. We do not turn our backs on those from other lands, we revel in them, we love them, we welcome them. Whether they come here to visit, to study, to become residents, to work migrant labor, or to become citizens, we must find a way to include them all in our great American family. These are our brothers and sisters, our cousins and uncles, our ancestors and our descendants, our neighbors and our friends. We have nothing to fear from them, we have everything to gain from them.
There is no danger to America from immigration - that is as silly as saying there is danger to America from freedom. The immigrants who have built and continue to build our country into the unprecedented melting pot, the mixture of peoples that no one thought could endure, the beautiful blend of dress, music, food, language, names and faces, histories and hopes, that is America will never turn its back upon those who see our land as the land of opportunity, the land of freedom, the land where families can live without fear, where the American dream is extended year after year, decade after decade, century after century to include more and more people - this land opens its arms and its hearts and looks to find the way to bring all people into the American family.

Kerry said he did not favor gay marriage. Who is going to vote to support something no politician is supporting?

I don't remember dem politicians asking voters to vote for the ban, but I sure recall many dem voters voting for it anyway. I think if Kerry 100% supported gay marriage, those bans still would have passed in every state. Not that this is the bible or anything, but it does seem realistic to me...

From 2004 CNN exit poll POLICY TOWARD SAME-SEX COUPLES
Legally Marry (25%)
Civil Unions (35%)
No Legal Recognition (37%)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/U...

I think if every dem politician in the U.S. vocally supported gay marriage, it might bump up public support a little bit, bit it would have a loooooooong way to go until a majority of Americans support it. I do think that someday a majority will support it, but it is going to be small steps over many years until we get there. You ask "who is going to vote to support something no politician is supporting?" Well, most politicians supported the war and, after many months, most Americans came to the conclusion that it was and is wrong. The growing public opposition to the way this war is being handled grew on it's own. Public opinion didn't change because of anything politicians were saying or doing, public opinion changed *despite* what politicians were saying and doing. And that backs up my belief that politicians maybe able to efffect public opinion at times, but many times they have very little control.

Hmmm..okay. You might be correct on this. However, there was no debate of the other side of this issue. The other side is not 'don't vote for the ban'. That is joining the rep-defined debate that the ban had any validity. The other side of that debate is that this is how you begin to burn Jews in the ovens. This is the first step. This is how freedoms are stolen. You pick a group of people who are harming no one, who are good Americans simply trying to live their lives, pursue their happiness. You separate them from rest of us and then show how they are doing something that is hurting us. How, if we allow them to continue doing what they are doing, it will somehow ultimately destroy America.
This is fascism. This is intolerance. This is persecution. This is unAmerican. This is immoral.
The argument that 'if you allow gay marriage, next you'll have pedophilia and bestiality' is horrible, demeaning propaganda and should have been called such. Why not just say "if you allow the Jews marry Christians, they will destroy Germany". Why don't we just start burning fags and dykes alive? Isn't that the only way to protect America from this horrible scourge? Had anyone nationally stood up and spoken up for homosexuals as a persecuted minority being readied for the ovens, the debate would have been different. Even this current group of neo-fascists wouldn't have publicly favored burning homos alive, they would have been forced to admit that there is really no great danger from gays and lesbians, not so bad to drive us to actually kill them. Then we could have said "Okay, exactly what damage is done to whom by allowing homosexuals to marry? Who is being hurt?".
But that debate never happened. Kerry was opposed to gay marriage but in favor of civil unions which only supported the rep notion that gay marriage is a problem that needed to be dealt with. Because the debate was over how to deal with it, not that it was the beginnings of a pogrom, that great mass of voters in the middle had no real concept of what the law was saying to their fellow citizens, how regressive and medieval it was and only gained a feeling that there was something wrong with those gays wanting the same privileges as we regular people.
I talked to people as well. When I put it in terms of oppression, when I asked who is harmed, they realized they hadn't really thought the matter through. When I asked them to tell me specifically how they would be hurt, how their lives would be changed if homosexuals were no longer prohibited from marrying, they had no answers. When I told them that these arguments in favor of continuing to prevent them from marriage were the same arguments used to prohibit mixed-race marriages, they began to see the issue differently. When the other side of the debate was voiced, every single one of them admitted that they really didn't see what horrible problems there would be, admitted that the country wouldn't fall apart, admitted that they wouldn't be harmed at all, and that even if they weren't great fans of homosexuality, they weren't prepared to take that step toward fascism.
Also note that the poll shows that 60% believe that homosexuals living as married couples or as if they were married couples (civil unions) was not a problem. That is pretty strong support for homosexuals being treated just like everyone, the only difference is that simple word 'marriage'. I think the majority of CU supporters would have opposed a ban if they had been given cogent reasons for it.
And also note the wording of the question. Same sex couples. This brings the sex act into the discussion and distorts the response. Had the question been 'Do you favor treating homosexuals as second class citizens and denying them the right to marry the one they love" the answers might have been quite different.

If you ask people about gays, I tell you that a vast majority see no problem and really could care less whether gays marry or not

I do ask and I'd say the reponses are pretty consistent with the CNN polls. One of my gay friends actually voted for Bush. There are many, many people out there who vote for really, really stupid reasons.

How is it these voters could hold a liberal belief yet vote for Bush?

In my opinion, it is because democrats need to market their message in way that both smart and dumb people can understand. To me, it doesn't have anything to do with left or center, it is just making sure people understand what dems stand for. I agree with what you say about Kerry's mishmash. I really hope to have an 08 nominee who can speak in down to earth manner that everyone can understand. I feel that is just as important as his/her record.

Polls show that most Americans are more liberal than John Kerry, than the current Democratic party but they have no one speaking to them on these issues.

Link? Everything I have ever seen indicates a minority of people are liberal. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there are many liberal people who don't claim to be liberal since it has become a "dirty word." Regardles, here is a 1996 exit poll. Very similar to exit polls I have seen for other years.

Political Ideology...
Liberal 20%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 33%
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit...

We are speaking of different things here. This poll asked people to identify themselves by a label. Rather than that, look at the poll numbers on issues and decide whether people are liberal or conservative. HIgher minimum wage; environmental protections; universal health care; energy independence/alternative energy sources; increased help for the poor; protection of Social Security...on and on and on the public supports these and many more and these are all liberal positions not conservative positions and certainly not the current crop of conservatives. I'll look for individual polls on these issues - I've seen them, just don't have them on hand right now - and post them. But I think, if you look at the issue polls, you will find that the majority of Americans support liberal issues and that leads me to believe the country is more liberal than conservative.

And Nixon ... was much more to the left than the current republican party and in some areas was to the left of the current democrats, but he was still firmly and completely to the right of center.

I agree. That is the only reason I mentioned him. While we may disagree on much, I think we might agree that the Hillary Clinton model of democrat is the worst way to go. Personally, I would be willing to vote for a dem who is to the right of me if I felt they were sincere about their beliefs, but I do not feel that way about her. Unfortunately, dems politicians are in the minority and on the defensive, and it definitely doesn't bring out the best in them. If we do well in 06, and then 08, I think more people in the party will feel comfortable about moving left.

After my bitter disappointment with Kerry and the dems in 04, I simply will have a very difficult time voting for another 'moving toward the right', 'change my policies daily', wishy-washy pseudo-liberal. It is good to see that Hillary is being challenged from the left. I hope they win. I would like to see all of these dems challenged from the left. It would broaden the debate.

[election_2004]

9. Most platforms have more than 5 planks

Although I understand that you're asking everyone to provide only five for purposes of brevity.

Well, any Democratic presidential platform needs to include at least a bare-bones allowance for same-sex civil unions (although obviously the nominee won't openly support actual gay marriage).

The alternative ("no civil unions, period") is unacceptable, as far as it will affect the quality of life for LGBT people.

[Neil Lisst]

11. It's merely a vehicle for people to list their top issues.

Thanks for adding yours.

[election_2004]

28. There are so many to choose from....

It seems impossible to narrow it down to only 5.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. 1. Out of Iraq

2. Health care for all
3. Fully fund NCLB or get rid of it
4. No more unfunded mandates
5. Raise the minimum wage

[IndianaGreen]

14. Peace, Jobs, and Justice

The typical American could not digest anything longer than a soundbite or 15-second commercial spot.

[quinnox]

16. hmm

1. I would make it a phased withdrawal, slowly done but not broadcast publicly. Would not make it part of a public platform.

2. Agree, Health Care national system for all Americans

3. Agree, higher minimum wage

4. Agree, more research into alternative energy sources

5. On illegal immigration, I would have broader border enforcement

6. Environmental tax credits - tax credits given to corporations that use environmentally friendly policies

7. No national civil unions or marriage for gays, states can decide for themselves on a state by state basis.

8. Gun Control - Strong gun control, strict background checks for potential buyers and police campaign to get illegal guns off the streets.

9. Stricter drug control/crackdown - drug pushers given severe sentences, make it very unpleasant for the low level sellers to survive doing their trade, this would make it much harder for the kingpins to distribute their drugs

10. Campaign reform - Political districts drawn on a nationwide basis by federal law, done once every ten years, done by impartial panel of retired judges

11. Mars mission - plan landing a man on Mars in 10-20 years

[sandnsea]

17. Hmmm

1. Stop all military action in Iraq. Give local communities an opportunity to put up their own police forces and community governance and try to build from there. After 1-3 months, see if there is any useful purpose for US troops or whether the operation can be transformed into Peacekeeping with the UN, NATO or Arab League. Or if those agencies have enough troops to manage it completely. Depending on the outcome, US Peacekeeping under the UN umbrella, or bring the troops home. Money to the Iraqis to do their own rebuilding.

2. An international strategy that includes labor rights, environmental protection, and health care. Until we stop destroying other countries, we have no standing to move forward on any other international issues, like terrorism.

3. Dump money and resources into Afghanistan by the cargo plan load, direct to the population, with tight oversight. Katrina and the Gulf while I'm at it. Oh, and go after Bin Laden.

4. Roll back the tax cuts on the wealthy and implement subsidized health insurance for all. If Americans are solidly behind it, go all the way to Medicare for all.

5. Kick start the economy with major investment in schools and other infrastructure with a focus on transforming to renewable energies and infrastructure to deliver those energies.

[Lefty48197]

20. Here's mine:

1) Living wages for everybody, or guaranteed livable unemployment benefits.
2) Guaranteed health benefits for everybody
3) Guaranteed retirement benefits for everybody
4) Politicians that give a sh*t about working people, and the poor.
5) Any business, or share holder that doesn't like my plan can get the f*ck out of this country and forget about selling one single dime of anything to anybody in this country. Ever.

[Armstead]

21. Start enforcing Anti-Monopoly Laws

That'd be Number 1.

2)Come up with a plan to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, without throwing the Iraqis to the wolves that we unleashed upon them.

3)A universal basic health care plan. Fees on a sliding scale. Participation voluntary, but partially funded from tax revenues.

4)Reassert the principles of public accountability and diversification of ownership of the media.

5)Combination of sticks and carrots to ensure workers are fairly paid, that jobs are not outsourced and that working conditions be humane.

[Cascadian]

22. My platform?

1. Pull troops out of Iraq by the end 2006. Help finance Iraq's rebuilding.

2. Call for a referendum in the territories of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. They must choose either independence or statehood. Support statehood for D.C.

3. Bring all our forces home from overseas and pull out of NATO. Declare a neutral defnse policy while continuing membership in the U.N. and other international organizations. This is not isolationism.

4. Universal, one payer health insurence for those who cannot afford it.

5. Bring back Corporate Charters and give corporations tax incentives for those who practice greater workers rights and safety. Plus keeping jobs inside the U.S.

6. Sign the Kyoto Accord. Have an energy policy that emphasizes alternative resources like hydrogen, wind, and solar.

7. Reinforce the separation of Church and State by creating legislation to bar religion and the Christian Right's influence from our laws.

8. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine to the media.

9. End the death penalty.

10. Decriminalize marijuana and hemp.

11. Readress the issue of global trade and work to make it where everybody benefits from the CEO to the workers worldwide.

12. Have a even handed Middle East policy. Take no sides. Cut funding to Israel and Palestine until a time is such where they can have a comprehensive peace plan.

13. Treat terrorism not as a war. These acts are criminal and must be met with punishment for those who do these acts and yet study and try to understand why these acts happen. Let's remove the sympton to avoid the cause.




Just my ideal platform. Take it or leave it.


John

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Mine

End the war on drugs immediately. Distribute hard drugs (heroin, crack, and speed) from medical centers for free, while soft drugs (weed, shrooms, etc.) should be taxed and regulated like alcohol. Invest the entire dividend in education. Amnesty for all drug prisoners now.

Yeah, clear out of Iraq.

Everyone has a right to housing. Expand homeless shelters and low-income housing. The government should be undercutting landlords at every opportunity and keeping rents low, so that money can go to helping the economy instead of a stagnant landowning class.

Change immigration laws to help young, healthy people with Democratic values join the American people. Instead of letting in the 9/11 hijackers, weird old racist grandparents, and "college students" who barely speak English, let's officially open our doors to the people who are already here, cooking our food, fixing our houses, picking our crops, washing our dishes, raising people's kids, etc.

And yes, get the fuck off of oil now rather than too late. A general focus on global warming, biodiversity loss, sustainable agriculture, etc.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. Mine

End the war on drugs immediately. Distribute hard drugs (heroin, crack, and speed) from medical centers for free, while soft drugs (weed, shrooms, etc.) should be taxed and regulated like alcohol. Invest the entire dividend in education. Amnesty for all drug prisoners now.

Yeah, clear out of Iraq.

Everyone has a right to housing. Expand homeless shelters and low-income housing. The government should be undercutting landlords at every opportunity and keeping rents low, so that money can go to helping the economy instead of a stagnant landowning class.

Change immigration laws to help young, healthy people with Democratic values join the American people. Instead of letting in the 9/11 hijackers, weird old racist grandparents, and "college students" who barely speak English, let's officially open our doors to the people who are already here, cooking our food, fixing our houses, picking our crops, washing our dishes, raising people's kids, etc.

And yes, get the fuck off of oil now rather than too late. A general focus on global warming, biodiversity loss, sustainable agriculture, etc.

[Norwood]

25. My 6 in no partiular order (I added 1)

1. American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, within a year. It'll be a disaster but it cant be helped, when you start a war based on lies there will be no pleasant end to it.

2. Fiscal responsibility, no more careless spending passing on the debt to future generations.

3. Universal health care, no one in the richest country in the world should be without health care.

4. Decriminalize most drugs, regulate them like alcohol is right now. Use the profits for public work projects, social programs, etc. Amnesty for everyone who was convicted of drug related offense(not counting murder, rape, etc.). I took a lot of this from a previous post, sorry but i agree completely with just about everything you said.

5. Repair foreign relations, The chimp has fucked up our image around the world and repairing the damage will take lots and lots of time.

6. End war on terror, you can't wage a war on a tactic its ridiculous. We need to understand the people who wanna do us harm first and foremost. We cant reason with many of them, but we can try and reach those not yet fully indoctrinated.

[Neil Lisst]

26. We do have some consensus about the top items.

End the War.

Provide basic health care to all.

A living wage for workers.

Immigration that requires employers to pay the costs and penalties.

[long_green]

27. The U.S. needs distraction issues...

something that appeals to emotions and not reason. Here's mine.

I would start an international Intellectual Arms Race. I would see to it that the standing of our children vs. other nations' children be regarded as the disgrace it is; let's use our xenophobia in a positive way. I would make educating all of our children a National Security Issue. I would charge our schools to train children who can help us explore the planets in our solar system and find an alternative to oil.

[More Than A Feeling]

29. Ok, here we go:

1. Secure every American's right to vote and have it count. Nuff said.

2. Withdraw the troops.

3. Constitutional Amendment requiring the President to participate in a "Question Time" like the Prime Minister must in Britain. He would have to do it at least once a month.

4. Nuclear proliferation. The number one thing we can do to reduce the terrorist threat is lock down the old soviet stockpile, and work with our allies to make sure that new nuclear powers do not come online, and that the old ones have the appropriate security measures. See Graham Allison's Nuclear Terrorism for the full details

5. Homeland Security. New rules for international shipments: install tracking devices in your cargo containers and other security measures, or you get to go in the slow line to be unloaded. Other features of my homeland security plan are in Stephen Flynn's America the Vulnerable.

[Neil Lisst]

30. Stopping and assuring no election fraud is key.

good point

[Wabbajack]

31. Mine

1)Out of Iraq right immediately.

2)Free health care and college for all.

3)Raise taxes on the rich, close loopholes ect. Cut pork, balance the budget immediatley.

4)Full marriage/adoption rights for gays and lesbians.

5)Major mandatory conservation effort. Vastly increase funding of alternative fuels, ratifiy Kyoto.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

32. Alright

1. Out of Iraq now!

2. Raise minimum wage to at least $8 an hour over a period of a year and a half.

3. Universal Health care

4. Double funding for public education and provide four years of free university tuition for all who desire it.

5. Roll back Bush tax cuts and tax the rich much more steeply. I would also lower the taxes of the working class and encourage states to get rid of the food tax that many have.

[Solon]

34. OK, I'll try...

1. Withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months, paying compensation to an internationally recognized Iraqi government using estimates that are calculated by the UN.

2. Withdrawal from NAFTA, stop attempts at approving of the FTAA and stop CAFTA. Relieve all debt to Latin American countries, but only with promises that they respect human rights and encourage development in local industries. Set up a commision to look into the feasability of rebuilding the Industrial base of the United States, with Unions chairing said commission.

3. Universal Healthcare for all Americans, only exception is to not cover medically unnecessary procedures, like cosmetic surgery. This doesn't include either reconstructive or breast reduction surgery of course.

4. Pass a federal law requiring all Cities, towns and counties to set a living wage, adjusted for both inflation and local standards of living. This law would have no set monetary amount in it, instead and independent commission is to calculate the cost of living and calculate the amount of minimum pay is required for just barely above poverty level as needed. An addition to this is a law that doesn't require a living wage for those under 18 that do NOT live on their own, instead they are exempt from federal taxation until the age of 18, minimum wage will be about 5 dollars an hour or so for them.

5. Enact a progressive taxation scheme, whereas all people living at the minimum livable wages for their areas are exempt from, up to about 80,000 dollars a year. From there the percentage of taxation starts at about 30% and then increases every 10% for every hundred fifty thousand dollars up till 980,000 dollars a year is reached. For all above that, the rate is capped at 85%. The rich want a flat tax rate, they got it, everybody else gets fair taxation. Other means of taxation, capital gains, etc. will be taxed at 70% or so, and also, make it illegal for CEOs to have stock options, we have seen the corruption that that causes.

OK, those are my five points.

[mmonk]

35. A before bush America

and reinstituting anti-trust laws. Fund housing options for the poor, no school vouchers, no federal funds to religious organizations, restrictions on lobbying and more campaign finance reform, pay as you go government, energy alternatives, single payer healthcare, and giving up world conquest for a sane foreign policy.