DNC Chair

[Sarnstrom]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/democrats.chair.ap/index.html
Rosenberg dropped out today and endorsed Dean.

[Ben.]

This is driving me to drink!

How can my party be so blind, more secular fundamentalism, more discrimination against conservative democrats... things can only get better from here i guess  

[ATFFL]

This is driving me to drink!

How can my party be so blind, more secular fundamentalism, more discrimination against conservative democrats... things can only get better from here i guess  

Keep telling yourself that.  Maybe you can convince yourslelf it is true.  'Cause I can think of ways things could get much, much worse.

Hey, maybe Dean will revert to governor Dean soon!

[Ben.]

This is driving me to drink!

How can my party be so blind, more secular fundamentalism, more discrimination against conservative democrats... things can only get better from here i guess  

Keep telling yourself that.  Maybe you can convince yourslelf it is true.  'Cause I can think of ways things could get much, much worse.

Hey, maybe Dean will revert to governor Dean soon!

Don't gloat. 

[Moooooo]

This is driving me to drink!

How can my party be so blind, more secular fundamentalism, more discrimination against conservative democrats... things can only get better from here i guess  

If we move to far to the right we will just be the "Republican lite" party.  Why would anyone vote for wannabe Republicans when they can vote for the real thing?  I would accpet moving towards the center on some social issues (gay marriage and abortion), but I refuse to move towards the right on economic issues.

[Ben.]

     

If we move to far to the right we will just be the "Republican lite" party.  Why would anyone vote for wannabe Republicans when they can vote for the real thing?  I would accept moving towards the centre on some social issues (gay marriage and abortion), but I refuse to move towards the right on economic issues.

I would never argue that we should as a party move to the right economically... but on abortion and a whole raft of social issues Conservative and Moderate Dems are made to feel very unwelcome at times, and the advent of Dean Chairmanship (its looking pretty certain now) will only leave the secular fundamentalists emboldened, don't get me wrong I'm saying every pro-choice or socially Liberal Dem tries to impose it on dissenters within the party but many do and they are very good at clamping down on pro-life and conservative Dems. 

[Moooooo]

I would never argue that we should as a party move to the right economically... but on abortion and a whole raft of social issues Conservative and Moderate Dems are made to feel very unwelcome at times, and the advent of Dean Chairmanship (its looking pretty certain now) will only leave the secular fundamentalists emboldened, don't get me wrong I'm saying every pro-choice or socially Liberal Dem tries to impose it on dissenters within the party but many do and they are very good at clamping down on pro-life and conservative Dems. 

I agree 100%.  We should welcome pro-life democrats.  Over the past couple months I have became more and more reluctantly pro-choice.  I would support a law that banned abortions after the first trimester unless the mothers life was in danger.  However, I would never vote against a candidate just because they were extremley pro-choice.  I vote mostly based on economic issues rather than social issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

YEEEAAAAARRGGGGGGH!!!!!

Dean has it all wrapped up, it's all over.

That scream was in lieu of a fat lady singing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

     

If we move to far to the right we will just be the "Republican lite" party.  Why would anyone vote for wannabe Republicans when they can vote for the real thing?  I would accept moving towards the centre on some social issues (gay marriage and abortion), but I refuse to move towards the right on economic issues.

I would never argue that we should as a party move to the right economically... but on abortion and a whole raft of social issues Conservative and Moderate Dems are made to feel very unwelcome at times, and the advent of Dean Chairmanship (its looking pretty certain now) will only leave the secular fundamentalists emboldened, don't get me wrong I'm saying every pro-choice or socially Liberal Dem tries to impose it on dissenters within the party but many do and they are very good at clamping down on pro-life and conservative Dems. 

The Senate Minority leader is pro-life. Isn't that enough for you? It's not like most Democrats are pro-life.

And why should we run to the right? The other party is doing fine running to the right. If we don't stand for anything, we'll get our asses kicked.

[Jake]

     

If we move to far to the right we will just be the "Republican lite" party.  Why would anyone vote for wannabe Republicans when they can vote for the real thing?  I would accept moving towards the centre on some social issues (gay marriage and abortion), but I refuse to move towards the right on economic issues.

I would never argue that we should as a party move to the right economically... but on abortion and a whole raft of social issues Conservative and Moderate Dems are made to feel very unwelcome at times, and the advent of Dean Chairmanship (its looking pretty certain now) will only leave the secular fundamentalists emboldened, don't get me wrong I'm saying every pro-choice or socially Liberal Dem tries to impose it on dissenters within the party but many do and they are very good at clamping down on pro-life and conservative Dems. 

The Senate Minority leader is pro-life. Isn't that enough for you? It's not like most Democrats are pro-life.

And why should we run to the right? The other party is doing fine running to the right. If we don't stand for anything, we'll get our asses kicked.

Harry Reid is as pro-life as Hillary Clinton is. Stop lying to yourself.

[Alcon]

     

If we move to far to the right we will just be the "Republican lite" party.  Why would anyone vote for wannabe Republicans when they can vote for the real thing?  I would accept moving towards the centre on some social issues (gay marriage and abortion), but I refuse to move towards the right on economic issues.

I would never argue that we should as a party move to the right economically... but on abortion and a whole raft of social issues Conservative and Moderate Dems are made to feel very unwelcome at times, and the advent of Dean Chairmanship (its looking pretty certain now) will only leave the secular fundamentalists emboldened, don't get me wrong I'm saying every pro-choice or socially Liberal Dem tries to impose it on dissenters within the party but many do and they are very good at clamping down on pro-life and conservative Dems. 

The Senate Minority leader is pro-life. Isn't that enough for you? It's not like most Democrats are pro-life.

And why should we run to the right? The other party is doing fine running to the right. If we don't stand for anything, we'll get our asses kicked.

Harry Reid is as pro-life as Hillary Clinton is. Stop lying to yourself.

OnTheIssues:

Reid: "Rated 29% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record."
Clinton: "Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record."

Tsk, tsk, Jake. Check your facts, my man. ;)

[A18]

He supports Roe v. Wade, so it's pro-choice, plain and simple.

[Jake]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He supports Roe v. Wade, so it's pro-choice, plain and simple.

Exactly.  And NARAL rates anyone who isn't fully pro-abortion low..

[Brandon H]

Harry Reid's abortion record is mixed. 55% Pro-Life. Though that does not necessarily mean his Pro-Choice Record is 45%.  At least neither side can call him an extremist.

I still think the Dem's should go with Roemer, but it doesn't look like that will happen.

[Frodo]

i have a series of questions which i invite anyone to answer if they can:

can the DNC chairman (or chairwoman) only serve for a single four-year term, or can they run for another consecutive term?  in other words, are there term limits?  and are the procedures much the same on the Republican side of the aisle? 

[Democratic Hawk]

     

If we move to far to the right we will just be the "Republican lite" party.  Why would anyone vote for wannabe Republicans when they can vote for the real thing?  I would accept moving towards the centre on some social issues (gay marriage and abortion), but I refuse to move towards the right on economic issues.

I would never argue that we should as a party move to the right economically... but on abortion and a whole raft of social issues Conservative and Moderate Dems are made to feel very unwelcome at times, and the advent of Dean Chairmanship (its looking pretty certain now) will only leave the secular fundamentalists emboldened, don't get me wrong I'm saying every pro-choice or socially Liberal Dem tries to impose it on dissenters within the party but many do and they are very good at clamping down on pro-life and conservative Dems. 

I'm with you guys on this one. I agree the Democratic Party needs to stay left on economic issues but it needs to moderate its stance on social issues. Perhaps that way, 26 of the 28 states with lowest per capita incomes wouldn't have voted for Bush in 2004. There's something a miss when folk vote against their own economic interests

Dave

[Ben.]

     

If we move to far to the right we will just be the "Republican lite" party.  Why would anyone vote for wannabe Republicans when they can vote for the real thing?  I would accept moving towards the centre on some social issues (gay marriage and abortion), but I refuse to move towards the right on economic issues.

I would never argue that we should as a party move to the right economically... but on abortion and a whole raft of social issues Conservative and Moderate Dems are made to feel very unwelcome at times, and the advent of Dean Chairmanship (its looking pretty certain now) will only leave the secular fundamentalists emboldened, don't get me wrong I'm saying every pro-choice or socially Liberal Dem tries to impose it on dissenters within the party but many do and they are very good at clamping down on pro-life and conservative Dems. 

I'm with you guys on this one. I agree the Democratic Party needs to stay left on economic issues but it needs to moderate its stance on social issues. Perhaps that way, 26 of the 28 states with lowest per capita incomes wouldn't have voted for Bush in 2004. There's something a miss when folk vote against their own economic interests

Dave

Agree 100%!

The issue is not that the party should suddenly become completely pro-Life, that won’t happen that said no one is “pro-Abortion” (to quote Nym ) what the democrats should do however is not be so dogmatic and condescending towards many mainstream Americans.

What the democrats must do is to stop playing the Republicans game, the argument in favour of legal and safe abortions can’t be that “abortions are a woman’s right, no restrictions! no encumbrances!” not simply because such a line is unpopular but also because its down right immoral and impractical. Instead Democrats must work to redefine the argument in favour of access to safe, legal but rare abortions, it cannot seem as though Democrats are pro-abortion and see no values in limiting it, most Democrats think it should be rare and probably think that if a woman has to have an abortion it should be carried out early on in the pregnancy.   

But the Democrats have to redefine this argument and stop being perceived as the pro-abortion party, instead the Democrats have to be seen as not simply championing the rights of the mother but also the rights of the child.       

[Brandon H]

i have a series of questions which i invite anyone to answer if they can:

can the DNC chairman (or chairwoman) only serve for a single four-year term, or can they run for another consecutive term?  in other words, are there term limits?  and are the procedures much the same on the Republican side of the aisle? 

I'm not completely sure, but I do know some people were asking Terry McCullah (the current DNC chair - I'm sure I spelled his name wrong.) to stay as the chairman for another 4 years. So he could do that, but I have no idea if there is a limit or if he could run for 4 more years after that.

[WMS]

If the Democratic Party has any brains at all, they'll listen to the likes of Ben, nickshepDEM, and Democratic Hawk.

However, I'm not optimistic - I suspect they'll try to grab the votes of the libertarian upper-class/upper-middle class suburban Yuppies instead. *shudders*

[Nym90]

I fully agree with Ben, NickshepDem, and Demo Hawk here, and have pointed out how we need to fundamentally redefine the abortion issue as a party as well. Hopefully someone in those cloistered halls is listening...

[dazzleman]

I fully agree with Ben, NickshepDem, and Demo Hawk here, and have pointed out how we need to fundamentally redefine the abortion issue as a party as well. Hopefully someone in those cloistered halls is listening...

Starting in 2000, I sensed a desperation among liberals.  They always seem to be fighting for the last hill.  Considering that liberalism has been on the offensive, this seems very strange.  Especially since the Democrats are still a very strong minority, much stronger than the Republicans were in the period from 1933-69, when they were a seemingly permanent minority party.

I don't think Dean is the answer to the Democrats' problems.  He is highly condescending to heartland Americans, and has a tin ear on the values issues.  He has a non-traditional marriage, which is his own personal business, but will not help him in understanding the average American overall.  He refers to abortion as a medical procedure, which is the clinical feminist position.

While Dean wants to connect with the south, he is so blatantly condescending that it is hard to see him doing anything other than further alienating the south.  Dean is the feel-good candidate for angry leftists who are upset about the election results.

All that said, I could be wrong.  He could end up re-energizing the party, but somehow I don't think so.

[Rob]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Choosing Dean as the party chair would be a major mistake on the Democrats' part. He is actually moderate on most issues, but image is everything. The GOP will easily be able to depict him as a far left New England elitist, as they did with Kerry.

That said, I'll probably be eating my words in '06 when Dean turns out to be a brilliant strategist and the Democrats sweep the midterms... but until that day, I think Dean would be a disaster.

lol. Yeah, I'll eat my crow.

Funny thread.