This was a topic on Jay Marvin's show this morning and Ed Schultz was on the show talking to Jay and said this would be a topic today on his show, so lets talk about it!

I am at the point that I say SCREW the big tent!
Look at the success the republicans have had with their narrow view. I doubt that everyone that voted for Bush agreed with everything Bush says and does but they know where he stands. That is the trouble with the Dems, we try and please everyone.

What good is a big tent when it is empty?

For instance the dems usually make efforts to please the 18-25 demographic, but that group of people are notorious for staying home on election day, so why waste time and effort and money trying to please them?

we need a big tent to drive the republicans out of office and into jail. then feel free to turn on each other.

We get that through a large voter base of people that actually vote. I think to increase the people that want to vote democratic we need to define a platform and stick with it. Then if a guy like Lieberman comes along and wants to put a 'D' next to his name but go and kiss Bush and slam his party on Faux News then the guy needs to get the boot.

We need to show decisiveness, this constant waffling is turning people off IMO.

I really looked to see where it would best be put, but somehow I'm not allowed to post a new topic. My points are this.........Lieberman has NEVER been a good Democrat. When he didn't relinguish his spot on the senate when he ran with Al Gore he put into play the fact that if he became vice president we (Dems) would have lost that seat in the senate.
Now he's saying that if he loses he will run his own party. Ed is saying that there's all these "parties", well Joe is creating them! Ed says "well if Lamont loses will they back Liebermann?" This should be said of Lieberman! If he loses he should back Lamont.........But we know he won't be, so why isn't it "tit for tat"? I'm really confused!!!!!!!!!

Tents. Oh, the metaphors.... Let's get carried away. Look. My tent is little, just me. I'm not gonna get elected nor am I gonna get elected any time soon. My Senator Cantwell pisses me off and I will vote for her for damn sure. Is this mommy and daddy aren't perfect parents so I am gonna throw a tantrum and chew on them and the carpet? Stay with me.
A local pol after Maria's rep took a whuppin' (Maria should have been there) from the locan Dems. "she got an education in politics. If you had gone to the local Republican meeting, everything would have been scripted, boring, unanimous and predictable. This is not democracy."

Holding "our" pols feet to the fire and trashing them are two different things. If we haven't the maturity and wit to see the difference , we we forefit the right to govern.

Hillary and our Ed piss me off sometimes, but I know whose side they are on, do you?

Anyone who wants to embrace our basic philosophy that people are more important than profits (or prophets) should be welcome.

Who supports and defends the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Who believes in separation of powers as a guard against tyranny.

We can debate individual issues all we want AFTER the Repub control of Congress has been broken.



Mac

I know, that would be ideal, but in order to achieve majority status in 2006 wouldn't it be good to get together on issues and cast off the ones that don't help the issue?

For instance the resolution to redeploy from Iraq, the dems did not come at that as a unified group, it was a couple of loose knit groups that were jockeying for credit. That kind of thing leaves people that don't concern themselves with politics all year with the impression that we can't get our house in order.

That is it, we have to get our house in order, and if dropping a guy like Lieberman who lays down for Sean Hannity on Faux News then so be it.

On any issue the dems should have a clear concise resolution and stand together. Who wants to elect a party that can't agree on anything?

Sorry Mac. But I must disagree.

Let's play, guess that quote.

It's true from time to time we have been, will be critics, or noodges, but I promise you this: We will never, never put the government in the position of telling you by law, through law, what to make. We will nudge you, but we will never become censors."

How many Democrats support "nudging" free speech? Answer. NONE.

Lieberman is a Republican. That was a trick question.

I would like to have the tent large enough that we do not become like the conservative wing of the Republican party that treats moderate Republicans with complete scorn. As our political system seems designed to benefit two party voting, we may have to decide the size of the tent. Perhaps one good measure might be to try to form a platform that Democrats can agree on. Perhaps a good approach is to find some things tht we agree on as core principles. For example, I think that we should insist that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be followed -- which sets us apart from an administration that performs warrantless wiretaps.

I think it is one thing to agree on goals, and another to have disagreements on strategy. I think Lieberman is perhaps an example of a Democrat who is at the very edge of where I would draw the tent. What I would like is a party where the voices of all members are heard, where sometimes one wing or another of the party could compromise with each other on issues. (I really don't like Lieberman's positions, but I would support him over a Republican, if only for purposes of organizing the Senate.)

Honestly, I think that the most overlooked issue on the election is how many MILLIONS of Americans do not vote. How can we reach out to them? What are their issues?

I am uncertain of how large the tent should be, but I hope that if progressives become a larger voice in the Democratic party that we don't shut down dialogue like the GOP has done in its party.

[font=Comic Sans Ms]

Tents are kinda drafty aren't they?

My brief two cents on this is that we have to not worry so much of appealing to everyone, just putting forth our core issues. Not everyone can agree 100% with their senators and reps. No one within the umbrella is going to agree on every key issue. If someone agrees with most of your key issues, one needs to side with them, even if there is one core issue or a handful of small issues you disagree on. I probably could have worded this better but I hope my main point comes across.

I get your meaning I think and that is what I am talking about. It would be much easier to get our core values out if we didn't have Judas Lieberman sticking his puss in front of every camera to tow the Republican line.

Which part do you disagree with?
1- That Dems should embrace the basic philosophy that people are more important than profits.
2- That Dems should support and defend the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
3- That Dems should believe in separation of powers as a guard against tyranny.

Let the voters of Connecticut deal with LIEbermann.

Anyone can check off the box for Democrat when they fill out their voter registration.
It's the job of Democratic voters to hold candidates accountable to the party's values in each district.
(One of the reasons I have always opposed "open primaries".)



Mac

MegaDave

You didn't say anything about campaign strategy you just asked who we should allow into the tent.
Those are two different issues.



Mac

Well I don't disagree with any of this. The people are holding Lieberman accountable right now.

Anyone who wants to embrace our basic philosophy that people are more important than profits (or prophets) should be welcome.
This is what I disagreed with. There is more to our platform than this. For instance #2. Joe Lieberman has NOT defended our constitution, therefore he's got to go.

I stand by what I posted.
I listed three criteria.
People who agree with those criteria should be welcomed into the Democratic Party as members.
If they want to be nominated as candidates, I expect more from them.

LIEbermann has every right to RUN.
But if he wants my VOTE, his past and current actions will leave him disappointed.
I might consider voting for him if we need a new dog-catcher though.
(It's probably a "non-partisan" office.)



Mac

Yes you are right, my bad.

I want everyone to vote democratic, I am speaking strictly about elected officials and nominees.

I expect Dem candidates to embrace the Party Platform if they want my support.
That means candidates at the county level should embrace the County Platform.
Candidates for state-wide and legislative offices should embrace the State Platform.
And candidates for National & Federal Offices should embrace the National Platform.

They don't have to agree on every issue, but they damn well better support the lion's share of them.
(If they want my support.)
If they DON'T, I'll support and urge everyone I know to support, someone who DOES.

And YES, I get involved in WRITING those Platforms.
1- At the County Platform Convention.
2- At the State Platform Convention.
3- And by lobbying my two DNC Platform Committee Members from Oregon.
How many of you even know who #3 are for your state?
Or who your state's DNC members are?
(4 for each state, usually includes the state party chair and vice-chair)



Mac

My $0.02,

I'm in general agreement with defining the core values and sticking with them, not getting too sidetracked with those who have strayed from the tent. As prominent as J.L. is, he isn't what the Democratic party is about and should'nt come to define what's wrong with it. Let's make it less Lieb and more focus on our respective candidates who are actually interested in representing their constituencies.

My $0.02,

I'm in general agreement with defining the core values and sticking with them, not getting too sidetracked with those who have strayed from the tent. As prominent as J.L. is, he isn't what the Democratic party is about and should'nt come to define what's wrong with it. Let's make it less Lieb and more focus on our respective candidates who are actually interested in representing their constituencies.

I agree with Mac........I think that programs that affect the mass of people and help them, are clearly what makes our "tent" an important one. Mac's other two points, go without saying. This country, really is far more liberal than anyone knows. What we need to do is get our message out clarly, using language that resonates with all. (that the other side does very well)....If some laborer, does not know that it is us, that has fought for a minimum wage since in inception, and we have fought to raise that, consistently, and that the other side has consistently, every time, stood against it, well somehow we have not gotten our message out..Mac's idea of the tent is good, it is getting our true message of our tent that is important, as he says, "AFTER the Repub control of Congress has been broken, then we can debate individual issues.

Ok, So I know the thread had made a wierd turn off to another path, and the issue has been bantered about a little bit here and elsewhere, I needed to respond since there seems to be less thought on the issue of the youth of our nation as there is to beat up a heated battle of the Dems. in Connecticut. I do think it is important that we reach out to our kids (hey I am a Grandpa 4 times over and only 45) to teach them what is right and what is important to their future as well as ours. We do need to educate them of what our fears are with over running the federal deficit, being in a massive debt with the Chinese, informing those who are serving in the military we are supporting them and fighting for what's rightfully owed them when they eventually leave the service, and also making sure that the VA hospitals are still available to them in the future, and that the further education promised them will happen, and that there will be jobs out there for them as well (even though we agree this administration has lied us into the war to take out Sadam). Also making sure our kids know we are fighting for the the future of their Social Security benifits as well as our own, since we worked so hard to maintain it.
I think we do owe our kids (18 - 25) that much and more of an explanation, support and a place in the party because they are our future, they will start careing, and those who arn't voting now, will when they look to our past actions and teachings, if and when they have a family of their own (Now is not the time to "throw them under the bus" as Eddie would say).

At least my daughter and Son in Law do vote (Dem.) and they do look for the union label (and at least Made in the USA) when they shop because it meant (and still does) so much to me when she was growing up...

My own humble thoughts...
In Solidarity,
Bernie...