Ruraldem, a socially conservative poster on LiA offered the following advice to Liberal/Progressives/Democrats: Well, I still stand by my view that if you truly care about making a difference, you'd work with those that you might not always agree with, instead of simply saying "hrmph you're a conservative, forget you".
My response: Why are the Democrats the only party willing to compromise their principles and work "with those they don't agree with"? Huh? Conservatives certainly say "hrmph you're a Democrat, forget you". How come Republicans never reach across the aisle? Huh?
Ruraldem has not responded to my post, but maybe someone will provide answers to the questions. I give Conservatives credit for being loyal to their party. Right or wrong they are lock step. . Ruraldem and I also had the following exchange regarding liberal vs. conservative democrats: Ruraldem said: I have no problem with people standing up for their beliefs, all I am saying is I do not think there are enough liberal Democrats, or for that matter, conservative Democrats, out there for us to win without each other. I'm simply saying I think certain "types" of Democrats can do better in certain districts. It's great if you support a more liberal Democrat in AL-02, but from what I understand of the district, it's pretty conservative. If any of you are familiar with Georgia, let me give you this: A Democrat like John Lewis could not win in Jim Marshall's district, and vice versa.
My reply: Democrats like John Lewis couldn't win in Marshalls district because: 1. He's an African American 2. He is pro choice 3. He is pro affirmative action 4. He is pro civil rights 5. He is a liberal democrat.
Ruraldem claims it's not about race, it's about being a "liberal democrat", John Lewis could win in Marshalls district only if he were a social conservative. So if the district is conservative why are the candidates running and winning as Democrats? See the first paragraph. Ruraldem and others offer liberal/progressive democrats the following advice: Old Prosecutor I am not trying to lecture but politics is very seldom a choice between someone who agreeds with the majority of your beliefs and someone who believes in none. It is most often a choice between the lesser of two evils.
This from Ruraldem: With Childers and Cazayoux winning in MS and LA, plus the possibility of Bright and Griffith winning, this populist strategy of social conservatism mixed with fiscal responsibiility is exactly what our party needs. Sure, some might be upset that this group is not more dedicated to pushing a liberal social agenda, and that's understandable if you support those types of issues, but, all of the coalitions within our party must work together if we're ever going to accomplish anything.
And this again from Old Prosecutor: I have watched reasoned, passionate but respectful political discourse go into the crapper over the last 25 years. The reason is that the country has divided into three camps, the hard right, the hard left and everyone else. The hard right refuses to even consider or debate ideas put forth by anyone else and dismisses them by labeling the person with the invective "liberal". The hard left does the exact same except they use the label "conservative". Meanwhile while these two sides fiddle (code for blatant partisan politics)the country burns. It has puzzled me why these two views have come to dominate politics. I think it is because it is so easy. Join either and you don't have to engage in thought, you just spout your side's talking points, you don't have to persuade, you simply dismiss the speaker (code for shoot the messenger). However whether Demo or repub wins he will need the help of the rest of us to get elected and the help of all of us including the other extreme to address the issues of this country.
In addition to telling democrats we need to be "socially conservative" they also say lay off of Sarah Palin and stop with the "personal attacks", code for "don't ask questions, let us lie to you". Why would they advise us NOT to do something that has worked so well for them? Why should Democrats listen to conservatives? Why do we let them push their agenda at our expense? Why do we continue to vote for candidates that pander to the hard right and take our votes for granted? Fellow blogger jonwill says "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil." MadisonAubie says this: That's what a lot of people don't seem to get. You allow a candidate to run and vote as a conservative election after election and he's not going to change. It's only when he sees he's losing his base that he starts getting worried and thinking more about his base. Election cycle after election cycle, I've drank the Koolaid and voted Democratic, even when you couldn't tell the difference between the two party's candidates without a program. I've criticized people who "throw their votes away" by voting for Nader. I no longer think that a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away. I see it as a message to future candidates, I'M now part of the undecideds. If you want my vote, you're going to have to earn it just as much as you do the conservatives vote. I'm not going to keep voting for you just because you have a "D" after your name.
I agree with both of them. I'm going to stop voting for candidates just because they have a D after their name or because they are the lesser of two evils. The right to vote is sacred to me. To many bleed too much, died too young and marched too far for me to compromise my convictions. I am not a "social conservative", I am a proud liberal Democrat. Candidates who do not share my values and my principles will NOT get my vote. I'm tired of being bullied by the right wing social conservatives. Redeye Rant Over. Eight is Enough! |
