Folks, if you really want to be the majority party, you have to accept

[WCGreen]

people from all over the political spectrum.

If you want an ideological pure party, just watch what the republicans are going through.

A little story from my personal foray into electoral politics.

I have always been pro-choice. Never even considered being anything else. But when I ran for the first time in my district, which is heavily catholic and also very pro-life, I choose to state that I was pro-choice but to not make my position a major part of my political platform. When I met with the Cuyahoga County Democratic Women's League, I told them I would vote for every piece of legislation that was pro-choice but that I would never introduce nor co-sponsor any legislation that was pro-choice. I explained to the group that I felt it was my obligation to the people in my district to respect the overwhelming pro-life position but that I would vote my conscience.

Of course that wasn't enough. I was the only democrat in all of Cuyahoga County that the group did not endorse. This seat I was running for was the only republican held seat in Cuyahoga County at that time. If I lived in most any other district, I could have run as a pro-choice democrat.

At any rate, I lost the primary election. Would I have stood a chance to win the general election? Probably not but I do know that I would have worked a lot harder than the candidate this and other groups endorsed. That year, the Ohio House went for the Republicans for the first time in 40 years. It was a bad year all around.

Sometimes you have to make pragmatic decisions. I felt I was being very resonable in my position. I never once said I wasn't pro-choice when I was asked. What I took away from that experience was that unless you are in the middle of a realigning election, like we were in 1994, to be a majority party you have to make that tent as big as possible.

[LynneSin]

1. There is a reason there are 60 of us and only 40 of them

Perhaps, in a few more major election cycles it'll be the moderate Dems vs. the liberal dems with the republican party being a 3rd party trying to get the 5% they need to get campaign funding.

[WCGreen]

2. It does ebb and flo like that...

[LooseWilly]

6. I can live with that.

After Reagan, Bush, and more Bush, seeing the Evangelical Nut Jobs out in the cold will be consolation enough, even when my faction loses to the other faction amongst Dems...

[Dogmudgeon]

3. But MY CONSCIENCE counts most of all!

It DOES! It DOES! It DOES!

--d!

[w4rma]

4. Democratic Primary voters have gotten better at supporting candidates in your previous situation.

Spector is not in that position, however.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

5. I'm all for diversity within the party

but Specters motivations are self serving. The last thing we need is another self serving public servant.

If this were truly about Specter's good intentions he would become a Democrat after losing the 2010 election.

He's going to lose regardless.

[WCGreen]

8. Anybody who has ever run for political office is self-serving...

Even if they believe in their heart that they are ideologically pure, they still must feel that they are better than the other guy and so are self-serving...

[readmoreoften]

7. Ideologically pure? I have not a clue what the Democrats even stand for beside not being Republicans

How about "having a message" or

Are Democrats for labor? No. Just not as bad as Republicans.
Are Democrats for fair trade? No. The majority is for free trade agreements like NAFTA/CAFTA.
Are Democrats for ending the war? No.
Are Democrats for LGBT rights? Not really. They are for minimizing the brutality.
Protecting public Education? Apparently not.

Other than abortion and stem cell, the Democratic party has largely become the "check" on Republican power; its become the party that stands for "come on, guys, stop being so mean" and "who else you gonna vote for."

I can tell you SPECIFICALLY what the Republicans are for. I cannot tell you what the Democrats stand for anymore, other than the party that is not COMPLETELY barbaric (partial barbarity welcome.)

[WCGreen]

9. I think you are going to see that party more emboldened now that

the GOP is imploding.

But we must, in order to sustain this moment in time for as long as we can, stay above the fray as much as we can so that people will come around to our ideas instead of hammering those in the opposition. Obama is the right person at the right time to pull this off.

[MedleyMisty]

10. Well yeah - you have to be partially barbaric to win elections, you know

And it's all about winning elections, not about actually helping people or making society better. That kind of idealistic crap won't get you a yacht.

[WCGreen]

11. I have been a student of politcs for the last 35 years or so and I can

honestly say that the only people that I could point to and say with a straight face that these political figures on our side of the isle put idealism above elections are Paul Wellstone and Bernny Sanders.

[FLAprogressive]

15. good post

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. Great story, as always...

Proud to be your fifth rec for the Greatest Page!

:patriot:

[Number23]

13. I think it's only a few here that don't get it, and hopefully even they are starting to come around

If you want an ideological pure party, just watch what the republicans are going through.

I don't think I've seen truer words posted here. Happy to rec. Very nice job

[Hekate]

14. KnR. Thanks for the real-life story.

:toast:

Hekate

[quaker bill]

16. To be a "party"

some basic core understandings must hold. The details on how to implement them may vary within a reasonable range. This variance must be accepted to build an electoral mass large enough to effectively govern.

I congratulate you. Being honest about your prinicples and losing an election over them is the honorable thing to do.