People who want Dems to move to right - what issues do they have to drop?

[jokerman]

They should adopt the Democratic Platform of 1892, preferably.

Oh no

But move it ahead 4 years and it would be great

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not so much about changing specific planks of the Democratic Party platform (although that too) as it is about changing perceptions. It would be a good start to let pro-life advocates speak at the Democratic National Convention with millions watching (i.e. Rev. Jim Wallis and others like him), and speak not just on issues pertaining to social and economic justice, but also on those moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, and prove that we really are a big-t
ent party as those here boast.  We Democrats have always prided ourselves on standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves -so why not the unborn?  It would be a gutsy move, and one which could make an enduring impression on those swing voters who may be watching. 

As BRTD said, Senate Majority Leader Reid is fairly pro-life. However, 65% of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, so it would be dumb to side with the bigots on the other 35%. Do you really want to go back to bloody coathangers just to score some political points with a minority of the population?

It is true most Americans support Roe v Wade -however, most do not support abortion on demand, and (according to the same polls that you cite) they strongly support restrictions on its availability including parental and spousal notification laws, as well as banning partial birth abortions.  That is also the position of Rev. Jim Wallis.  There is no reason not to move to the mainstream on hot-button issues like abortion, and to show that we share the same values as most Americans. 

The "partial-birth abortion" ban MADE NO EXCEPTION FOR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, and so any reasonable person would oppose it.  Also, "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term, and includes some 2nd trimester abortions. Yet, it still got the support of many "Democrats". The fact is that Democrats are more moderate than you think on abortion, even though many are strongly for abortion being an option when the health of the mother is at stake.

[Frodo]

It's not so much about changing specific planks of the Democratic Party platform (although that too) as it is about changing perceptions. It would be a good start to let pro-life advocates speak at the Democratic National Convention with millions watching (i.e. Rev. Jim Wallis and others like him), and speak not just on issues pertaining to social and economic justice, but also on those moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, and prove that we really are a big-t
ent party as those here boast.  We Democrats have always prided ourselves on standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves -so why not the unborn?  It would be a gutsy move, and one which could make an enduring impression on those swing voters who may be watching. 

As BRTD said, Senate Majority Leader Reid is fairly pro-life. However, 65% of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, so it would be dumb to side with the bigots on the other 35%. Do you really want to go back to bloody coathangers just to score some political points with a minority of the population?

It is true most Americans support Roe v Wade -however, most do not support abortion on demand, and (according to the same polls that you cite) they strongly support restrictions on its availability including parental and spousal notification laws, as well as banning partial birth abortions.  That is also the position of Rev. Jim Wallis.  There is no reason not to move to the mainstream on hot-button issues like abortion, and to show that we share the same values as most Americans. 

The "partial-birth abortion" ban MADE NO EXCEPTION FOR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, and so any reasonable person would oppose it.

I was speaking more broadly, and not specifically about the partial birth abortion ban passed three years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly that isn't how most Americans perceive this party, though, if in fact you are correct on this point. 

So my point (as I elucidated in my original post) still stands.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not so much about changing specific planks of the Democratic Party platform (although that too) as it is about changing perceptions. It would be a good start to let pro-life advocates speak at the Democratic National Convention with millions watching (i.e. Rev. Jim Wallis and others like him), and speak not just on issues pertaining to social and economic justice, but also on those moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, and prove that we really are a big-t
ent party as those here boast.  We Democrats have always prided ourselves on standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves -so why not the unborn?  It would be a gutsy move, and one which could make an enduring impression on those swing voters who may be watching. 

As BRTD said, Senate Majority Leader Reid is fairly pro-life. However, 65% of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, so it would be dumb to side with the bigots on the other 35%. Do you really want to go back to bloody coathangers just to score some political points with a minority of the population?

It is true most Americans support Roe v Wade -however, most do not support abortion on demand, and (according to the same polls that you cite) they strongly support restrictions on its availability including parental and spousal notification laws, as well as banning partial birth abortions.  That is also the position of Rev. Jim Wallis.  There is no reason not to move to the mainstream on hot-button issues like abortion, and to show that we share the same values as most Americans. 

The "partial-birth abortion" ban MADE NO EXCEPTION FOR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, and so any reasonable person would oppose it.

I was speaking more broadly, and not specifically about the partial birth abortion ban passed three years ago.

Like what? Remember, California voters affirmed no restrictions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly that isn't how most Americans perceive this party, though, if in fact you are correct on this point. 
[/quote]

This topic isn't about how Americans incorrectly percieve the Democratic party thanks to the right-wing media, it's about the actual postions of the Democratic party.

[opebo]

We Democrats have always prided ourselves on standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves -so why not the unborn?  It would be a gutsy move, and one which could make an enduring impression on those swing voters who may be watching. 

It would also alienate the votes of the 1/2 of Democrats who care about women's freedoms, Frodo.  You would doubtless lose as many voters as you would gain by adopting the anti-woman religious intolerant position on this issue.

[Cubby]

jfern why can't you just let the conservatives post their ideas without attacking them? I'd like to see suggestions too but if you are rude to people they won't take you seriously.

I'm willing to put more restrictions on abortion in order to reach out. My problem is that I see abortion as the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, and if we start going back to a 1950's mentality on this issue, it could lead to other harsh laws.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern why can't you just let the conservatives post their ideas without attacking them? I'd like to see suggestions too but if you are rude to people they won't take you seriously.

I'm willing to put more restrictions on abortion in order to reach out. My problem is that I see abortion as the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, and if we start going back to a 1950's mentality on this issue, it could lead to other harsh laws.

Well, Al initially replied without offering any specifics.
As for abortion, they already banned partial-birth abortion even to save the life of the mother. What more do they want?

[A18]

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act includes an exception for the life of the mother.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

They need to drop the blacks, economic liberalism, war on drugs, support for protectionsim, support for illegal immigraiton

[David S]

Stop pushing for more gun control laws.
Stop promoting big government programs that are moving America toward socialism.
Start thinking about reducing taxes for everyone.
To balance the budget, cut spending rather than increase taxes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They need to drop the blacks

Explain?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think dropping that would be a winner

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well of course the party should move to the lef there

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton got NAFTA through

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explain

[Virginian87]

Stop supporting gay marriage and other "alternative lifestyles."  These alienate the average Heartland American.  Try not to be too "big government, i.e. downplay raising taxes.  Downplay gun control as well, so the NRA doesn't bite us in the ass.  Theoretically, from an economics perspective, most people in Southwest Virginia should be Democrats, but due to the gun-control and social values issues, they have become one-issue voters.

Focus on education and transportation, and improving the lives of the average American in general.  When the Democrats have gotten to the point where once again Joe Six-Pack identifies with their cause and the Republicans are painted as a corrupt oligarchy, then we will win elections again.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop pushing for more gun control laws.

83% of people on DailyKos agree.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/11/20197/2727

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give some examples?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really fiscally responsible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would involve some pretty drastic spending cuts at this point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop supporting gay marriage and other "alternative lifestyles."

Kerry didn't support gay marriage. Last I saw over 60% of people in Massachusetts supported gay marriage. I guess they realized that it wasn't making the sky fall.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kerry promised no new taxes for people making less than $200K a year (the richest 1%).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Howard Dean had an A rating from the NRA

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, gun control is a reasonable issue for the party to change on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Every single Democrat voted against the budget that raised Stafford loan rates to 6.8%. They were only 2.8% when Bush was running for re-election.

[Citizen James]

Tacticaly, or issuewise.

Issuewise, a simple additon that people of good concience can disagree on abortion.  That in and of itself would undercut most of the edge the GOP has with mainstream religious groups. 

Tactically, stop trying to beat the Republicans at their own game.   Acting like people are stupid followers (or 'sheeple') might work for the hopelessly cynical  or holier-than-thou, but the holier-than-thou only like you if you include them rather than berate them (which tends to pander to the social darwinists and some fundie groups), and the cynical tend to say home for elections.

We need to play to our strengths.  Our nation has made huge strides forward over the last century - women's and minority rights, food which isn't frequently contaminated, a level playing field which encourages real capitalism rather than olgiarchy, a public school system which encourages quality for all students (unlike the various countries who are supposedly 'beating' us on tests, we work to educate all children rather than abandoning the least successful), though it can be hard to work one's way out of poverty it is not imposible like it is in the third world countries that some of the kleptocrats want to emulate in labor policy, etc.

We need to point out that we have made vast amounts of progress, and can continue to make our great nation even greater, rather than just berating the problems which still need to be fixed.

Time is on our side.  People who long for the old days of slavery, rancid meat, and company towns are relatively rare.  What we need is a way to get above the empty headed rhetoric so common with political pundits, and treat the American people like the adults they are, while respecting the fact that most people are very busy and can sometimes feel too constrained by time to understand the issues more deeply and away from the rumor mill.

[Cubby]

Stop supporting gay marriage and other "alternative lifestyles."  These alienate the average Heartland American.  

In other words you want us to sit down and shut up?

We're not going away, eventually the Heartland American will accept us. It took 100 years after slavery for Southerners to tolerate blacks. Hopefully it won't take that long this time.

[Ebowed]

Gun control.  (I'll also say abortion because of my own feelings on the issue - I know how that will fly.  But seriously, drop gun control.)

As I read through this thread, I mostly thought of issues where I wish the Democrats would go left.  Whether going left on some of these would be a help in elections, I don't know (probably not), but it's growing too rightwing for my tastes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Got a poll or are you just speculating?

It's the only logical answer; most Americans want more restrictions on abortions and bans on late term abortions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you paranoid or something?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

California is clearly not reflective of America as a whole on those issues. Besides, have they ever voted on whether to ban late term abortions or not? Just curious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh? Abortion was already a major political issue by then. They heyday of keeping as quiet as possible over it was back in the early '80's; and why look, the Democrats had majorities in the House throughout that period! And, unlike today, they actually had a competent leader...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The legality of late term abortions. The legality of abortion-on-demand. And so on.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Want me to put this another way? Wave the white flag in the "culture war".

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

They need to drop the blacks

Explain?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think dropping that would be a winner

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well of course the party should move to the lef there

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton got NAFTA through

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explain

1 Basically become tough on crime, don't allow jesse jackson to speak at dem conventions and basically stop trying to get the black vote.
2 Yes it would. Social democracy doesn't work. End of discussion.
3 Yes but it shouldn't allow protectionist types to speak.
4 It should support enforcing the immigration regulations.

[David S]

Stop pushing for more gun control laws.

83% of people on DailyKos agree.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/11/20197/2727

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give some examples?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really fiscally responsible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would involve some pretty drastic spending cuts at this point.

With regard to gun control the Dems in congress are pretty consistently anti-gun.

All of the government social programs are beyond the scope of the governments enumerated powers and are therefore unconstitutional. They should be phased out ASAP. Hillarycare is a more recent example. Bush's prescription drug plan is a Republican example of the same thing.

If government got out of the unconstitutional programs they could cut the spending by a third easily and more likely by more than half.

[angus]

People who long for the old days of slavery, rancid meat, and company towns are relatively rare. 

LOL.  Rare indeed.  If I could afford a slave or two, then I'm sure I'd not be eating rancid meat.  And if I had slave labor to run my mines, I'd not have to pay them wages to spend in any company store, so I'd not need a company town.  I think your diatriabe is appropriate, but its emphasis is misguided.  Hopeful, yet inductive.  We do need to quit bitching and start coming to consensus where we can--e.g., do we really want to sell out our working class for cheap third world labor?  do we really want a generation of poorly educated childred?--but I'm not sure the consensus which will be reached will favor either party, but only those members of any party who are on the side of the majority.  In fact, in this light it is easy to imagine a well-funded independent candidate or third party candidate performing well, if people are listening. 

Good rant, though. 

[DanielX]

Really drive home the 'liberty and democracy' ethic. Basically take a center-left tack on social and foreign policy issues, and take up a more active foreign policy. I don't expect Democrats to become Republicans, i expect them to propose different solutions to various problems - for instance, I expect Democrats to be more in favor of reforming the UN or perhaps constructing a new international body to replace it, while us neanderthal Republicans would be more in favor of kicking it out of New York. Also, Democrats should, well, propose solutions to problems - the reason why the Republicans did so well in 1994 was that they actually had a platform when they ran (and when elected, they actually implemented about half of it - or an unusual level of truth in campaigning!). Examples would be proposing new methods of education, not throwing more money at the current system (vouchers actually seem like they should be a bipartisan idea to me, not a Republican-only one). Also, overhauling welfare would be good - perhaps replacing all sorts of separate handout programs with a national minimum income would be a proposal (not supplementing the handouts but replacing them). Such a program would provide many of the 'benefits' of a traditional welfare state but with a much smaller bureaucracy required (heck, it could be folded into the IRS). I would also expect the Democrats to wave the flag around almost as much as Republicans do, and be able to know the difference between 'they're different' and 'they're our enemy'. As for social issues - take an 'equal rights but not special rights' tack, and moderate on abortion (favor limits on later trimesters, for instance).

Such a party would be an ideal opposition party for my envisionment of the 'Republicans', which would be right-wing on economics, center to center-right on social issues, and less cooperative on foreign policy than the democrats. They would be different enough to be unique (especially on economic issues), but would both be committed towards solutions to problems and not wedded to the current bureaucracy.

[Bdub]

The Democrats need to improve their image on foreign policy but otherwise I see litle to change.  Americans seem to not trust the Democrats when it comes to protecting the country.  Otherwise, they are the Center-Left party and their stance on the issues should reflect that.  Personally, I feel there are alot more issues the Republicans need to change their stance on than the Democrats.

[John Dibble]

The wing supporting a fully socialized health care system needs to calm down and moderate. I'm willing to compromise and deal with some government programs within the system intended to help the downtrodden, but I don't want our health care dragged into the lower quality typical of a fully government run system.

[Inmate Trump]

The Dems need to drop the abortion issue.