BetterDonkey.org

Skip to content

A plea for a big party.

Submitted by Benny G on May 24, 2005 - 1:07pm.

For reference, please check out: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/3371/25466

I have been watching the reaction to the "compromise" on judicial nominations, and have seen a really interesting breadth of opinions. I do not want to lambast anybody for taking our D's to task and holding them to a high standard, but I have to say I feel we are at a critical moment.

For the first time I think we, as a party, are close to asking ourselves the really tough question:

"What will it take for us to offer a new message to the American people that all of the members of our family can get behind?"

Put another way:

"What does it mean to be a Democrat?"

Can you be pro-life and be a Democrat? What about anti-gay marriage? Can this party hold people who supported the war in Iraq and people who marched against it? What is the difference between a big tent and a party with no message?

Lets make one thing perfectly clear, as individual groups, no single issue group in our party can hold a candle to the evangelical church. If that is all we are, a collection of individual concerns, then we are tiny and we shrinking.

Now, there is a trap coming. What if winning means not fighting every battle to the death? Should we support a pro-life democrat to challenge Rick Santorum (which Casey is, who is beating Santorum in the polls right now)?

I believe that the rise of a true majority will only come when we have the courage and the confidence to tell our party leaders that we trust them and that its ok for us to disagree on some things so long as we agree on the key things.

Democrats believe in the right to live a private life, in a society that is just and fair, and in a government that fights for peace and human rights around the world.

To me, that's what it means to be a Democrat. I think you can be pro-life and anti-gay marriage and still fit into our shirt.

I guess in the end I'd rather we compromise and have a bigger brotherhood than keep losing because we won't let anybody else into our little club.

more places to see this discussion unfolding:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/24/171122/025#comment_top

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/24/155220/843

Posted in Reforming the party | Benny G's blog
in my opinion

although i'm pro-choice, i can find room in my party for pro-life folks who are personally pro-life but want to maintain roe v. wade.

i can't find room in my party for the anti-gay marriage crowd. it's an issue of civil rights, and this party needs to stand for strong civil rights.

in my opinion...

Submitted by grant on May 24, 2005 - 2:36pm.
I can't.

If someone is pro-life they cannot be pro-choice. Although I would prefer a million alternatives to abortion I am strictly pro-choice. If we allow them into the party, then we might as well just turn our mascot into an elephant and call it quits. If they are pro life, more than likely they are also pro-war. I don't want them. If they are anti-gay marriage, I don't want them either. All of these issues are a part of the republican base. I don't trust them and I don't want them in my party. At this point I'm so fed up with the Democrats that I'm ready to leave the party all together and join another more progressive party. The likes of Lieberman, Akaka, and (Senator) Clinton are exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party. The last thing we need are more conservatives taking over our ranks.

Submitted by che420 on May 24, 2005 - 3:41pm.
Stop politicizing my uterus.

Are we talking actively pro-life here, or passively pro-life? Because it's my fucking uterus, and I'm sick of everyone getting their dirty stinking hands all over it trying to win a couple of points with voters here or there. Abortion should not even be a part of the political discourse, aside from a basic statement of property rights-- it's my uterus, so I call the shots.

I am fine with a pro-life Democrat, as long as that Democrat understands that there are about five hundred million billion issues out there that are more important to more people than abortion.

Submitted by amy on May 24, 2005 - 4:36pm.
point taken

i will get my dirty hands off your uterus. that sounds uncomfortable.

Submitted by Benny G on May 25, 2005 - 8:01am.
No, small government and public morals makes an elephant

That's what an R is now. Someone who thinks that the first goal of government in this age should be to fight a perceived march towards Gomorrah in America. They are culture warriors and issue obsessed crusaders who see the fact of abortions, euthenasia and the teaching of evolution as singular crimes that are being perpetrated in our midst and no one is doing anything to stop it.

Add to that a feeling that corporations are basically good and that government programs, at least until the "Faith Based Initiatives" era, are run by soulless elitists who sodomize each other in the wealthy Harvard houses at night while prescribing immoral and slavish policies onto the poor and the infirm. That's what makes an R an R.

Democrats believe that people are suffering because the economy is leaving them behind. They believe that our foreign policy should serve to ACTUALLY make the world a better place, not just intend to. Democrats believe that real issues matter, those that effect the public good, not issues that are essentially the private concerns of citizens who have enough on their plate without having the federal government tell them what to do when it comes to their sex lives, their life partners and their own manner of death.

I keep seeing all these hard line lefties scream at the moderates who brokered the compromise. and you know what? there is literally zero difference between the hard liners at Freerepublic and those at eschaton or dailykos. their qotes are identical. "Burn the traitors" "The party is dead" "We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory"

I can understand the Freepers saying that. They had the fucking votes. WE DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES!!!! The judicial fillibuster, after all our lovely poistioning and posturing, would today be a thing of the past. The institution of the US Senate would no longer function in one of its most basic ways.

But hey, we would have made 10% of base happy, even though they will probably defect before we're able to win anyway. so i guess it would have been worth it.

Submitted by Benny G on May 25, 2005 - 8:16am.
agreed

so in closing

economy, health care, environment, social security = important

amy's uterus ... not so much

Submitted by grant on May 25, 2005 - 9:01am.
what about harry reid?

that guy is ill to the max. i love that guy. and... he's a pro-lifer.

my greater point is that i agree we need to support a big tent party. it's a two party system, and while i wish there were more parties, i don't seen that happening anytime soon.

Submitted by grant on May 25, 2005 - 9:30am.
we are all suckers!!!

Republicans are NOT pro-life... Progressives are!

Let me explain, when we oppose war we are pro-life, when we support a healthy environment we are pro-life, when we support health care and education we are pro-life, when we support workers' rights and fair trade we are pro-life, and especially when we support reproductive freedom and oppose STATE ENFORCED CHILD BEARING, we are PRO-LIFE.

By saying we are against those who are pro-life we are falling right into the hands of the Roves and other spin meisters and language crafters of the ultra conservative right. Don't be a sucker!

Submitted by upchuck on May 25, 2005 - 2:46pm.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.