DNC Is Told Where to Move Into Bush Bloc

[Pirate Smile]

DNC Is Told Where to Move Into Bush Bloc

By Dan Balz
Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A05

Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee has been studying the electorate, and the party's problem with voters of faith is both worse and better than he feared.
The former Vermont governor, in one of his first actions as DNC chairman, commissioned pollster Cornell Belcher to survey voters in eight states: Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Mexico and Nevada. Bush won all of them except Wisconsin.

What Belcher found that worries the Democrats is that a significant percentage -- 47 percent of voters and 51 percent of white women in the eight states -- said their voting decisions are influenced as much or more by their religious faith as by traditional political issues. Not surprisingly, they went heavily for Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), with 66 percent backing the president.

But Belcher's survey also persuaded Dean and other DNC officials that these voters may not be beyond their reach. "These so-called values or faith voters are some of the most economically anxious voters in the electorate," Belcher said. "They're tremendously cross-pressured between their pocketbook concerns and their moral values concerns."

Dean believes that provides an opening for Democrats, but only if Democratic candidates learn to speak a different language. "Democrats wonder why people vote against their own economic interest," he said. "The answer is that Democrats don't connect with people's fears about how to raise their children in a difficult social environment."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12440-2005Apr23.html

[merbex]

1. Cross- pressured? new phrase

Framing becomes crucial in this instance when they think they are choosing between pocketbook and moral values

No one (or few) makes a correct decision when feeling pressured

[Pirate Smile]

8. The Dem's positions on these pocketbook issues are based on morals.

That is what we have to make clear to voters.

Everything seems so friggin backward sometimes.

[LiberalFighter]

53. Why are moral values the purview of the GOP?

Both pocketbook and moral values should be OURS!!

We need to define the moral values of the repugs and show why the moral values of Democrats are the same as theirs.

[Eloriel]

2. So he was right all along

Interesting.

Actually, that's not the first time. There have been a number of occasios where I've seen him absolutely prescient. This is obviously one of them.

[Dr Ron]

3. Need to convince them that the Republicans are hiding behind religion

I don't think it will work to pretend to be more religious. Those hwo are religious, such as Kerry, could stress their religious convictions, but people like Dean are better not trying to fake it.

We need to point out that while Republicans talk about religion, they are really concentrating on economic issues which help the ultra-wealthy at their expense. We must convince them that religion is part of their personal lives which may affect how they live their lives, but is a poor reason to vote on public policy matters which should be separate from religion.

[msongs]

4. lets just say what jesus says about so many things....

helping the least among us, helping the poor, rich people going to heaven, kicking the money changers outta the temple.......maybe the repubs could start living their own religious beliefes instead of just mouthing them.

we can help :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[lyonn]

36. OK

Since I do remember these quotes from the bible. Convenient how the Repubs skip over these bible quotes, "camel ...eye of of needle" another example.

[mtnester]

44. Another couple of words from within quotes we should be using...

"render" "Ceaser"

This is about the most clear cut quote about church and state, and we need to use it more, ESPECIALLY now.

[yorkiemommie1]

46. i was raised catholic and that is why i vote democratic

because the sermon on the mount embodies my values and the Democratic party is closer to the sermon than the repubs could ever be. and where Jesus says, 'whatever you do for the least of my brethren you do for me' ( sorry, i don't know chapter and verse ). but that's how i run my life and that's how i align myself politically.

edited to add it was a no-brainer for me.

[w4rma]

9. …

"Pretend"? I'm a Christian Baptist and a Democrat. Gov. Dean is a Christian Congregationalist and a Democrat. Who is pretending? Not me. Not Dean. Don't even go there.

[Dr Ron]

10. Pretend may have been the wrong word

I'm not saying that there aren't religious liberals, but some liberals seem to have discovered religion more out of expediency.

[w4rma]

11. It was.

I think it's less "expediency" than finally being able to convince the too-loud "any religious talk is bad" sub-group of liberals that their position was too extreme.

So now liberal Christians are talking more freely about our beliefs and we are doing it in an inclusive way. A way that doesn't infringe on folks who share other faiths (or non-faiths).

[Dr Ron]

15. I think we are talking about different groups

I see liberal Christians who are taling more freely as being different from other liberals who are turning to religion out of expediency. I did suggest in my post above that I did see it as fine that those who are religious discuss their religious beliefs.

[TygrBright]

32. "Finding God" for the sake of political expediency...

...is a GOPpie thing.

Liberals have other flaws, but that is not usually one of them. It's GOPpies who "find Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezuz!" to suck up to voters.

If you hear a little awkwardness in the expression of Democrats talking about their faith and values, it's because we were raised not to bring such subjects into the context of a political discussion, and we're not really sure how to do it without sounding like idiots.

cynically,
Bright

[malmapus]

45. Exactly

Even my growing up in the deepest part of the Bible belt, I was raised to just not talk about faith and values or to wear them on my sleeve and espicially not mix religion and politics.

I think it definatly all started to change when fundies took over the Southern Baptist Convention and the moderates lost their voice and began to break away.

[Cha]

55. Precisely!

gopers have hijacked the name Jesus and don't even adhere to His teachings!

[lyonn]

38. Get your point, good one

Some of us are non-believers and some are believers. That's America. Why make it an issue, but, maybe we are forced into that discussion, sad, huh? So we need to integrate both views that explains Dems' policy especially when it comes to considering the average American when voting in Congress. Such nonsense as prayer in school, condoms, gays, etc. should not be dictated by the boys in Washington. Amen. Oh, and limiting the power of the corporations is critical. What has that got to do with religion? The Courts are approaching a dangerous area when they think they can litigate religion.

[sandnsea]

17. "answer to fears is more government"

It really doesn't have anything to do with religion. It has to do with religious/rural families believing Democrats are going to keep introducing programs that conflict with their religious OR traditional values. And that the only answer to economic woes is a new government program that shoves them back to the welfare office after they've worked for years to get out of there.

I've said this for two years now and if it takes Howard Dean to get the DC leadership to understand, then terrific. John understood, which is why there was always service connected to his programs. Or health care that was no different than what Senators had, any American ought to think they deserve that. But people don't trust the Democratic Party because they still have the big government program perception and it was easy to paint any program Kerry mentioned as more of the same.

[Dr Ron]

21. Need to get off the defensive over big government

People want Social Security, People want assistance with obtaining health care. Hey, even fighting terrorism is even done by big government. (It's a shame this government is doing such a poor job of it.)

Democrats need to differentiate between worthwile government programs and the bad consequences of government, pointing out that it is the Republicans who support more government intrusion in our lives.

[sandnsea]

22. Other than social security..

NO people don't. People would much rather prefer an economy that allowed them to buy their own food, housing, power and health care. People accept social security because there's no other way to get a guaranteed benefit in case of disability, death of parent, or old age. People accept government assistance because they have to, not because they want it that way. That's how we got welfare reform, remember? Women were sick of being stuck on welfare because they lost all benefits when they went off and wages didn't make up the difference. Doesn't mean people still wouldn't prefer to work and pay their own way.

That's why Republicans win the economic debate. They present their ideas outside the frame of a government program.

People expect government to do for them what they can't do for themselves. Security, roads, big projects. They want to take care of the little stuff themselves and they really want to take care of their families moral values themselves.

Unfortunately, these same people won't demand the income or benefits that will enable them to do any of that either. Or recognize that the economic game is stacked, the same Republicans don't want them to have the income or benefits because that'll hurt business.

Didn't say it was an easy conundrum to solve.

[Dr Ron]

23. Many recognize the need for assistance with health care

Polls showed people were willling to pay higher taxes if it meant more affordable health coverage. Try to take away Medicare, and watch the seniors protest. There are areas where the Republican message is failing.

[sandnsea]

24. Seniors, disabled

Yes, people are willing to acknowledge they need help with medical care and are willing to pay for it. And there's certainly lots of Democrats that are too. I'm talking about the kind of voter Dean is talking about. People who have come from generations of folks who were independent and self-sufficient. You don't shove people like that into a government program very easily. Republicans exploit it too.

[tavalon]

29. This government doesn't really want to fight terrorism

They would prefer that the electorate remain terrorized. There's political clout in it for them.

[Joe Chi Minh]

54. It seems to me that

government, which by definition is publically-funded, has been merged with the Bushco's corporate friends in the military-industrial complex, and thereby effectively privatised. A process consolidated by excluding the Democrats from decision-sharing in bipartiesan concerns. Hence the enormous deficit.

You can't get bigger government than that. A billion plus dollars of taxpayers' money swallowed up by a "back hole" in Halliburton's accounts.

[ClintonTyree]

51. Bush had to choose..

between faking intelligence and faking belief. He chose belief because it's much easier to fake then intelligence. There is always someone smarter who can see through a pseudo-intellectual. Belief, as long as you say the correct words and go through the motions, no one can challenge you on it.
So for Democrats to insist they're "more" religious is ludicrous. Bush has the religious right sewn up. They actually believe the little liar. His deeds certainly don't match up with his rhetoric.

[Cha]

56. That's a masterful way to put

what's going on with the monkey regime!

[Laurab]

60. I'm not sure he actually "fooled" the "religious right"

because from what I've seen of them, they're not "religious", either. At least not the way I was brought up to understand religion. What they are about has nothing to do with God, and nothing to do with religion, and * is a perfect fit, because whatever "faith" he has doesn't seem to have anything to do with any God I've ever heard of, either.

They are all about money, power, and imposing THEIR will (not God's will), on people. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Problem is, they're quite good at making people believe they're religious, and quite good at raising money. I'm quite sure that if there is a hell, there is a special place in it reserved for these people.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Those Parents Should Worry About Keeping Their Kids Outta Iraq

Democrats don't connect with people's fears about how to raise their children in a difficult social environment

So how much freedom will we be asked to give up to save someone else's
children from ideas/music/people they don't approve of?

Where we can get some REAL traction, is to remind parents that they
DID NOT RAISE THEIR KIDS TO BE CANNON FODDER!
BOOSH** IS GONNA START UP THE DRAFT! He denies it but he's lying!
Look at the enlistment numbers. Look at the SSS ramp-up!
Look at all the other countries ** want's to invade!

We WERE getting somewhere with this issue just before the election,
even it was little more than a whispering campaign that a lot of us did. It actually had them spooked. A bit longer and Kerry would have
run away with it.

We may be able to shake a lot of parents loose from the Boosh** camp
if we hammer on this issue.

On no account should any Democrats be seen to support the draft.
That would allow ** to slip it through and claim "bipartisan" support
and then allow the Republicans to avoid any political consequences.
It must be all on them when they do it, and we must warn people that
they intend to do it.

[KoKo]

6. Just get rid of the filth on TV and we will all be okay....

and I just love to hear the women in NC that I know talking about the lack of "quality programming" on TV. NOT! Sarcasm alert....:nuke:

BTW: I'm one of the few DU'ers who DOES believe there is "filth" on TV...all of it from Political to ads to network programing and the Bush Propaganda.

But, I don't hear that discussed in "values" because EVERYONE profits from it...don't they? :shrug: Both Parties/Corporatists/K-Streeters and the Progressive Left and the Religious Right.

All in bed over this and who runs our political campaigns for both Dems and Repugs.

[sandnsea]

18. Then you hear censorship

Just like we did with Howard Stern last year. Howard Stern didn't help win over any of the voters Dean is talking about in that article. He probably hurt.

[iamjoy]

37. You Can Codemn Without Censoring

It is all in the approach. If you rant about evil Hollywood, etc influence that is a Conservative approach.

If you talk about and praise the good, quality program and ask Hollywood to make more of it...If you encourage parents to take more control over what their children see/don't see and hear/don't hear in entertainment and not always blame others...

"Personal Responsibility" is typically thought of as a Conservative value, but I think we can get a boost from it (without alienating free speech advocates) if we do it the right way.

[KoKo]

7. BTW...Screw Dan Balz....n/t

[arikara]

12. I sincerely hope that part of the "different language"

is to pound out over and over to these people the lies and hipocracy of the bush* regime. I really hope that they aren't going to keep making the mistake of being bush-lites.

[renaissanceguy]

13. I don't think we will,

but we need to break ground. And the way I believe Dean is doing that is by changing the fundamental way we talk about issues. Once we have control over the vocabulary, we control the debate.



http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21272015

[high density]

14. So what religious faith is for corporatism and wars based on lies?

HELLO PEOPLE, WAKE UP.

:eyes:

[Larkspur]

33. The religion called Caeser-anity, aka Repuke Xtianity

Remember Jesus told the Pharisees to give to God what is God's and to Ceaser what is Ceaser's. Our Repuke Pharisees want everything given to Caeser, even if it is God's.

[Mojorabbit]

16. This makes me uneasy

"After the telephone interview, an aide to Dean called to say he wanted to make clear this was not a maverick enterprise on the chairman's part to create a new message, noting that he had spoken with Democratic congressional leaders and that all were working together on it."

It makes it seem as if everything he says has to be vetted by the DNC.
I am not sure why but it creeps me out.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

19. We DO need different language...

We need to alert these people up to the "difficult social environment" that exists when
1)...gay children are taught that there's something wrong with them,

2)...minority voices are suppressed,

3)...election fraud is ignored, and

4)...one religious faction forces their belief on all people of other beliefs and non-beliefs.

[Merlin]

20. This is EXACTLY RIGHT. Liberals who don't get it, PLEASE try harder!

I hear all the moans and groans out there from those who detest religion that this is all nonsense. But the political importance of this to accomplishing our goals is not nonsense. It's the truth.

Until we liberals -- ALL OF US -- climb down from our high horses and start to see regular people, including people of faith, as human beings worthy of our respect, whose values and beliefs are near, dear and sincere, we will never get their votes.

I hear all those saying "Oh, we'll never get their votes anyway!"

Well, that's just not so. We don't need ALL of them. We just need a small percentage of them to swing the outcome.

You don't have to agree with people of faith or with religion to respect the fact that these people's beliefs are heartfelt and their intentions are good and they are worthy of our respect.

[OneBlueSky]

25. "these people's beliefs are heartfelt and their intentions are good" . . .

bullshit! . . . persecuting gays and devaluing women may be heartfelt beliefs, but the intentions behind them are most certainly NOT good! . . . not by any honest ethical or moral standard that I am familiar with . . .

theocracy MUST be attacked, or it will succeed! . . . but when you attack fundamentalists' beliefs you are, in their eyes, attacking THEM . . . and nothing you can say will convince them otherwise . . .

people can believe what they want, but when they inject their religion into the political process, they MUST be called on it and opposed at every turn . . . unless you want to wake up one day with gigantic photos of Rev. Moon in every town square and public park in the country . . .

[Merlin]

27. Your response is typical of foolish, arrogant rad-lib stereotyping.

You think that all people of faith hate gays? That's pure stereotyping.

You think all people of faith are fundamentalists? Ditto.

You think they all devalue women. Same.

Your reaction is typical of the mindless arrogance of the radical liberal mentality. You don't think. You just jerk your knee.

There was a time when liberal was the equivalent of intelligent, sensitive, astute, rational thinkers. Now all too many are simply unthinking, insensitive, prejudiced idealogues.

Surely you can do better than to paint all people of faith with the same ugly brush. If you can't then you don't know anything about real people in the real world.

[OneBlueSky]

28. nowhere did I lump ALL Christians together . . .

but its the ones who DO hate gays and devalue women who are injecting thier beliefs into the political arena . . . and who must be opposed . . . I trust that non-hateful Christians would feel the same . . .

[Merlin]

30. When you use terms like "these people" it sure seems that way.

You are absolutely right that the right wing tries to teach people of faith to hate. The tragedy of modern Christianity is that it idolizes a fictional "Christ" but forgets the message of the real Jesus.

Yes we must oppose these wrong-headed teachings. But we must do it by embracing the good people of good intentions who comprise a substantial portion of believers. We must come around to where they are so we can bring them around to where we are.

[OneBlueSky]

41. "these people" was merely quoting your post . . . n/t

.

[Merlin]

42. Sorry. You're right on that. But point remains, they deserve our respect.

The larger point of my post remains.

In this modern age, fear, confusion, info overload, enlightened thinking have all coalesced to create an environment of fear among those who do not think as clearly and rationally as those at the upper end of the intelligence bell curve. Right wing demagogues have rushed in to exploit this terror by preying upon the antiquated religious superstitions of the faithful. It's a horrible situation.

We cannot challenge this wicked combination by insulting and railing against the victims of this calumny. They are generally further down the bell curve anyhow. We must treat them with respect. They are the ones the Democratic Party was made for: the common man and woman. They are just now ensnared in a web of deceit concocted by the right. It is partially our fault that they are in this situation.

We must treat them and their beliefs with respect, and show them patiently where they are being misled and where their beliefs are at odds with the first and foremost liberal of them all, Jesus of Nazareth.

Peace.

[ClintonTyree]

47. I see everyone as worthy of respect...

but you see, you have it turned around here. They don't respect ME because I won't buy into their paranoid version of some angry, vengeful, omnipresent father figure in the sky that is judging every move they make with the intention of allowing, or not allowing, that person into the gates of some imaginary heaven.
I'M the one that gets told all the time that "you're going to hell" because I don't believe the same things that they do. I'M the one that's constantly bombarded with religious propaganda, on radio, TV and in print. Why can't they respect MY decision and cut the crap?
So why don't YOU climb down off YOUR high horse and spare me the "poor persecuted christian" bullshit?
Deal?
I'm not going to bring myself to their level (notice I didn't say "up" or "down"). If we can't fight together for a better world without trying to cram religion or anything else down each others throats, screw it!
If 47% of Americans base their choice of government on myth, then I'm beginning to think America is NOT the country for me. Americans who base their choice of leaders on their perceived "moral clarity" will get the leadership they deserve. Case in point, George W Bush. The man's dumber than a basket full of hammers, evil to the core, but he has that fake "moral clarity" bullshit down pat. And people eat it up with a spoon.
These people who's beliefs are "near, dear and sincere" are usually hypocrites that will stab you in the back the moment your head is turned. They just LOVE to pass judgment on others.

[Merlin]

62. Good grief!

You have a serious problem.

Where is it written that you have to "buy in" to what they're selling? Where did I say that? Nowhere.

FYI, I don't buy into what the faithful believe. I'm fully with you on your interpretation of their beliefs.

The fact is that MANY of these folks are good hearted and sincere, but simply not as enlightened as you and I are fortunate enough to have become.

It is OUR party that represents the ideals they claim to believe in; the teachings of Jesus -- not Christ, the mythical god/man -- but Jesus, the real human being and one of history's first and surely its foremost liberal.

When many of the faithful who are now being misled realize that it is our party that truly reflects the principles of Jesus, we have a good chance they will cross over IF THEY ARE NOT INSULTED BEYOND REDEMPTION by fanatic liberals who only think of how the world effects them, not of how they do or can affect the world.

[ClintonTyree]

66. I have a problem?

So, these people can be reached if they're not INSULTED BEYOND REDEMPTION by fanatic Liberals? They insult ME! Did you even READ my post? I said that I thought EVERYONE is deserving of my respect, but when they close the door on ME, it's a little hard to reach them. How do you expect to "reach" these people without "buying in"? They won't even talk to you. Am I supposed to lie and say, "yes, I'm as concerned as you are about the faith and moral clarity issues"?
Remember, they're the ones looking down their noses at ME because I won't believe their fairy tales. How that makes "Me" have a problem escapes me.
By all means, run right out and wrap your arms around these people and try to "reach" them, and good luck with that. It IS our party that believes in a doctrine closer to what the historical Jesus taught. But you'll never convince them of that. Unless you've got a Jesus fish on your car and are prepared to break out into gospel tunes at various moments you may as well be talking to a wall.
Merlin, I'm 55 years old and have been butting heads with these people for a long time. We're NOT going to "reach them". They speak a different language and live a separate reality. They've already been reached. Touched, is a better term.
You go right on believing that you can change these people's minds. But don't tell me I have a problem because I refuse to waste my time trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I've been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. It's an exercise in futility. When their "morals" tell them that george bush is a better man to lead the country than John Kerry, that tells me that their "morals" aren't that moral and their belief system is more than a little screwed up. Peace.

[Merlin]

68. With all due respect, yes you do; we do.

Surely you/we can do better than to paint all people of faith with the same ugly brush.

We don't have to agree with them or with religion to respect the fact that the beliefs of many are heartfelt and their intentions are good.

You are talking about those who are, as you say, lost to us. That's not the group we need to be talking to. That's not where our concerns must be.

Instead, we need to focus particularly on those who have been driven away by pure fear and lies, as well as by our own defiant stupidity.

As I said above, the right wing tries to teach people of faith to hate. The tragedy of modern Christianity is that it idolizes a fictional "Christ" but forgets the message of the real Jesus.

But we are not blameless in this.

Yes we must oppose their wrong-headed teachings. But we must do it by embracing the good people of good intentions who comprise a substantial portion of believers. We must come around to where they are so we can bring them around to where we are.

My favorite example is our approach to abortion. Here's the simple problem:

Many people are opposed to abortion, period. They believe that life begins at conception or earlier. Write them off. They are idiots.

Others, however, believe--or can be persuaded--that abortion is permissible within a defined period after conception. In fact, Roe says abortions are only legal up to 12 weeks. How many on the right know that? How many on the LEFT know that?

But what is it the world is hearing from feminist liberals? What is the most dominant liberal theme about abortion? It is "We demand control over our own bodies!" "We have an unchallengeable right to an abortion!" Nowhere in that message is there any acknowledgement of limits. Nowhere is there an acknowledgement of the simple fact that at some point, the contents of a woman's womb becomes a human being, protected as human life under the laws of every nation on earth.

Nowhere does our side EVER acknowledge any limits on the "right to an abortion." Nowhere! Never! That is a terrible mistake.

That outrageous stupidity on our side permits the right to taint us as immoral, amoral libertines without any decent human values, and without respect for human life.

Mind you, most liberal feminists do in fact abide by the 3 month limit, I'm sure, in part because the law forces them to. But we don't acknowledge that we do. Instead we simply cry out, defiantly and recklessly that women have a "Right To Choose!" as if there were no responsiblities associated with that right.

If we simply acknowledged the limits and that we respect those limits, we would instantly win over a significant percentage of Catholics who have been driven away strictly on this point. We don't have to change our position one single iota. We still defend "A woman's right to choose" within the legal time period. But we acknowledge it IS limited, and that at some point the contents of the womb become ("sacred") human life.

That's what I'm talking about. How much would it take on our part to bend that far? Very little.

But of course, we liberals don't want to listen to that. It's too godam logical. It means they have to acknowledge limits and respect for the law and respect for morality. We'd rather exclaim to the world "FUCK YOU AND YOU"RE GODAM MORALITY!" And that's EXACTLY why we lose support from people of faith who used to support us before this awful abortion thing began back with Roe.

[ClintonTyree]

69. Like I said...

knock yourself out and let me know how you make out with that.

"Nowhere does our side EVER acknowledge any limits on the "right to an abortion." Nowhere! Never! That is a terrible mistake". That is complete bullshit. All during the Presidential Campaign Kerry insisted he was NOT FOR ABORTION, but was sticking up for A WOMAN"S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! Countless times we've told the religious right that WE were against late term abortions, UNLESS it threatened the health of the Mother. How many times do you have to tell them before they believe you?

Get your facts straight before pontificating.

You seem MUCH too emotionally involved on this issue. I think perhaps there's something else that drives your need to "enlighten" me and everyone else on what the Democratic Party "needs" to do. Gee, I think YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM!

I'm not going to sit here and have a typing war with you. You go right ahead educating the Christians on what our position should be and be sure to let me know how you make out with that. Have fun, and be careful out there.

[Merlin]

70. Your thinking is typical of idealogues.

You complain that you have tried and failed to get people of faith to listen to you. But you listen to nobody except yourself.

I'm not having a typing war with you. I'm trying to hash this out. You fucking betcha I'm emotionally involved. We lost the last godam election because of your kind of attitude. That's more than enough for me to get emotional about -- and rightly so.

You say we made it clear we were against late term abortions (except for the life of the mother). Bullshit! We did NOT make that clear. We made the point silently. You show me evidence of a single public speech by any major Democratic leader where that point was made overtly, as a statement of principle. You won't find it. They didn't talk about it at all because they were afraid of a screeching response from radicals like yourself.

You say Kerry's statement that we were not for abortion amounts to an acknowledgement of rational restrictions on "a womnan's right to choose." That's just absolutely wrong. They are two different things entirely. The NRA says they are against killing, too. But that doesn't mean they are for the responsible registration of handguns, does it. So they aren't really accepting responsibilities to go along with their proclaimed rights, are they? Same thing with us and abortion.

Why not try puling your head out of the sand and looking at the world the way it looks to non-idealogues. You'd be a lot more useful in this fight-to-the-death we are involved in with the dark side for control over the future of the world.

[Lorien]

48. Amen!

I'm agnostic, but I've known people who found great comfort in religion and I've also known those who got sucked into religious "cults". The former, though confounding to me personally, deserve our tolerance at the very least. The later are probably lost. Jesus himself was very liberal. Paganism is seen by many to be a "liberal" religion. One can be "pro-religious freedom" without being "pro-religion" on a personal level. It's about respecting the personal choices of others and keeping the government away from attempting to influence their religious beliefs.

[freebrew]

71. Most liberals have no problem with..

people of faith. The problem occurs when 'people of faith' attempt to force their morals on others. That was the problem with prohibition, that's the problem with (anti)gay marraige laws, that's the problem with marijuana laws and that's the problem with (insert morality ploy here).

Until the religious citizenry understand the idea of live and let live they don't have my confidence and probably don't have many other's either.

[GetTheRightVote]

26. These are religious bullies who twist christianity to their means

We are not dealing with normal everyday people in the NeoCons/GOP. They are abusing religion to reach their own means, these are greedy people who lie to get the small repub sheep to follow them down the path of deceit and lies. If terms help them to see the repub party for what they are do more polls so that we can get out of this mess the repubs have made of our country.

:kick:

[ginnyinWI]

31. Governor Dean is exactly right

Republicans use people's fear of social/cultural change to get votes, while distracting from the huge economic beating they are handing them at the same time. We as Dems have to find a way to reassure them about their social and cultural values, while at the same time promoting real economic solutions to their everyday problems.

At the same time, we need to expose the Repubs for the hypocrites that they are, pointing out how very little they actually do to promote the conservative social values that they tout. And we need to again and again point out how economically devastating Repub economics is to the middle class. It has to be a two-pronged approach: promote ourselves positively, and expose them for what they are. Our advantage is that we don't have to tell any lies to do it.

[Wizard777]

34. Can opposing poles ever be brought together without sparks flying?

I know that in magnetism opposites attract and in chemistry they repel. If we can find a natural model of opposing poles uniting without sparks flying and igniting hellfire. Then we have our answer and plan. If not we have our answer. It's unnatural and will never happen no matter how hard we try. But it never hurts to try.

[Rose Siding]

35. More of the mtg from Burnett. Dean: dems "must understand the desperation"

snip>
DNC chair Howard Dean appeared to have a deeper understanding of this cultural divide. He pointed out that while the American economy is struggling, many Democratic partisans are not unduly anxious about economic issues. In contrast, faith voters -- Dean characterized them as "backlash Republicans" or "Reagan Democrats" -- are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Typically both the husband and wife work to make ends meet; often they have more than one job. The family is under extreme economic pressure. They see themselves on the edge of homelessness, a couple of missed paychecks or one serious illness away from losing everything they have. But what the parents are most worried about are their kids.

Dean continued that faith voters typically spend so much time at work that they don't have the opportunity, or the money, to provide their children with adequate supervision. As a result, the parents are obsessed with the notion that television, other kids, or lefty teachers will corrupt their sons and daughters. Driving to and from work faith voters constantly hear conservative commentators rail against the liberal "media elite," whom they accuse of advocating various forms of immorality: drug use, free love, abortion on demand, and so forth. Because they live in this environment of fear, faith voters accept wild accusations as the gospel; for example, that the National Educational Association has an agenda to teach homosexuality as a lifestyle "choice."

Howard Dean observed that many Democrats are too quick to dismiss the behavior of faith voters. He noted that this group truly believes that a liberal Democratic elite is corrupting America. Dean's analysis was that in the last election, faith voters trusted George W. Bush to do the right thing to stem the tide of immorality; they accepted Bush's campaign rhetoric, "The Democrats don't respect you. They don't understand your problems because they are the elite. But I do respect you. ... I'm just a regular guy."
...
Howard Dean concluded by arguing that if Democrats are to regain preeminence in American politics, they must understand the desperation that is an everyday burden of that other America.

http://www.alternet.org/story/21850/

[Merlin]

64. His analysis of the voters is right on. They are terrified.

They are overworked, with little time to care for the children. They are frightened by a culture that seems to prey upon children in so many ways. This drives them to embrace whatever and whoever promises guidance and wisdom and hope and strength. In addition, they face the threats of "terrorism" and crime.

All of this is blamed, by the fascist talking demons of drive-time radio, on us, the liberal elite. We are the ones portrayed as out-of-touch because we don't share their faith and because we are cultural libertines and undisciplined and amoral heathens.

Right wing demagogues prey upon the antiquated religious superstitions of the faithful. It's a horrible situation.

But we cannot challenge this anshlutz by insulting and railing against the victims of the calumny--e.g. the frightened faithful themselves. They are generally further down the bell curve anyhow. We must treat them with respect. They are the ones the Democratic Party was made for: the common man and woman. But they are now ensnared in a web of deceit concocted by the right. Our own negligence has permitted this juggernaut to develop. It is partially our fault that they are in this situation.

We must treat them and their beliefs with respect, and show them patiently where they are being misled and where their beliefs are at odds with the first and foremost liberal of them all, Jesus of Nazareth.

We don't need a huge percentage of them. A tiny percentage will be enough to tip the scales. Surely that is within our reach, if those immature liberals who are actual elitists don't muck it up.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Here's the problem:

"Not surprisingly, they went heavily for Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), with 66 percent backing the president."

Not surprisingly???? WTF not? Why accept that people of faith would go for the war-mongering, justice-hating, bigot instead of the man of quiet faith?

I hate when the media does this.

[Cha]

57. I caught that, too! It's more Orwellian

fascist press speak which is perpetuating the whole phoney concept!

[Malva Zebrina]

40. this would be up to the leaders of the faithful

when leaders fail to teach moral behavior and become as political as any, then, perhpas the focus should be upon thos leaders, and not those who would follow out of fear of a godly retribution should they vote for the man the preacers and leaders portray as Satan.

The problem lies with the political direction of religious leaders and not with any party, per se.

The problem lies with religions trying to force laws upon other citizens that adhere to their particular interpretation and that is simply not in keeping with the Constitution written by the founding fathers.

The question is why have these leaders gone so far to the dark side as to promote immoral behavior toward other human beings, such as women excersing the right to steer their own health, families and lives. Religion has no right to stick it's long nose into those rights and try to change the laws so that all women's health belongs to them---and I may add--to the state.

That is NOT moral.

Why has it progressed to the point of returning to the dark ages? Fascists in power, both in the pulpit, and in the congregation.

[Cugel the Clever]

43. Great idea, Dean

It is clear that one of the main reason the Dems took a drubbing in '04 is because Christian voters largely abandoned the blue party. They voted for proven liars because they were tricked by said proven liars. And of course, Kerry ran a campaign no better and possibly worse than Gore (worse, given what he knew the Bush Clowns could do when in power)
Everybody knows that God votes for W and finally Dean has decided to find out why the fuck that is. He wants to craft the Dem message for these religious loons.
I've got to admit that nothing springs to mind other than steering for the dreaded MOR, but I know that is not what he means (i pray). Dean is saying that Jesus was a Dem. Now, how is he going to sell that to these hate-filled and frightened souls?

May Yaweh bless him in the quest for knowledge.

[ClintonTyree]

52. Welcome to DU, Cugel the Clever...

I like your screen name, it's very.......clever!
Welcome, and make yourself at home. :hi:

[Cugel the Clever]

61. Cugel

It is a Jack Vance character in the novels "Eyes of the Overworld " and "Cugel's Saga". I can't recommend anything higher to those who enjoy fantasy. Jack Vance is an under-appreciated master.

[Merlin]

65. Thanks Cugel. Just bought the book.

Went up on Amazon and the reviews were so stupenduous I had to buy it.

I nearly never read novels. But I did read Snow Crash a few years ago on vacation and loved it. Also loved Heinlein as a youth. So I look forward to reading this on my next few days off.

[Cha]

58. I don't know what your screen name

means but I love what you had to say!

Welcome Aboard DU!

[bklyncowgirl]

49. Cornell Belcher was interviewed on NPR today, interesting.

To sum it up, the Democrats laundry list of programs did not resonate as well as the Republicans emphasis on cultural issues. For one thing alot of the people were suspicious of government programs that in the past have ended up hurting them. Democrats who have done well with these voters are those who have been able to talk straight to them about the issues that concern them.

I think that addressing this divide and addressing the issues of voter fraud and I'm glad to see that the Democrats are seeing the light.

[confludemocrat]

50. Warmed over twaddle

These guys are talking to each other only: Dean, Shrum, Begala, the whole Clinton-as- paradigm philosophy, tweaked in a way to cowardly avoid going after these corrupt liars on the right. Talk to Bryan Schweitzer, get some new ideas other than courting jesus freaks with credit cards and SUVs.

[Cha]

59. That's not right...

shrum and begala hate Dean..Dean thinks for himself.

[mmonk]

63. I think some of this is a straw dog

because I think these people just hear republican demagogues speak where they live and they are told dems are attacking their religion and want it removed. I think if the religious right captures the judiciary and the laws and constitution they have depended on for their rights evaporates, they will be angry.

[Azathoth]

67. We're on a collision course with religion

I think we're going to have to face the fact that our battle as Democrats is as much with religion itself as it is with the GOP. The fundamental religious worldview is simple: there is good, and there is evil. You can either advocate one, or the other. The GOP, along with the help of political activists shamelessly masquerading as religious leaders, has currently locked up the "good" angle; they've exploited social wedge issues to such a degree that they have firmly established themselves as the "good" and "godly" party in the collective consciousness of the public. Conversely, the Democrats have been established as "evil", a perception that is continually reinforced with the fundie Right's talk of persecution and culture war. Dean is proposing that we work to appeal to voters' economic interests. That's a no-brainer strategy; it's something most people on DU and in the Democratic party have known for a long time. The problem is that it's not a long-term solution. It won't get us anywhere in the long run, because at its core, it's an appeal to peoples' pocketbooks in an attempt to get them to vote for someone they believe is "evil." That's a losing proposition, especially considering the fact that many of these people have repeatedly proved their willingness to vote for "good" at the expense of their own economic interests. Even more concerning is the fact that these people seem to be multiplying; while the rest of the first world is becoming increasingly more secularized and enlightened, we are becoming increasingly more religious and ignorant.

My point is simply this: we are going to have to address the good vs. evil issue head-on. Appealing to economic issues is a viable strategy for now (particularly in light of Dubya's systematic destruction of our economy), but as long as an ever-growing percentage of the population believes we are in league with Satan, we're going to be fighting a losing battle.

[KittyWampus]

72. Bush STOLE Nevada, NMexico, Iowa AND Ohio, Folks. Pisses Me Off

to see DU'ers even bothering with the premise of this bullshit article.