I got to meet Howard when he came to Pittsburgh. Here's what I wrote in my blog after meeting him:

I’m a Democrat because I believe in responsible governance, and leaders who demonstrate imagination rather than myopia. While I do not expect the Federal government to “do everything” for me, I do expect a Federal government to provide rational leadership and coordination for the state and local governments.

I’m a Democrat because I believe that taxation for the public good isn’t an abject evil. Responsible taxation funds our schools, our defense, our roads, and rebuilding in times of national emergencies. Responsible taxation spreads the burden so that those more capable of paying taxes pay them, rather than taxing the poor into destitution. If America truly is a society where fairness matters, it is so much fairer to tax responsibly than to spend and spend the country into generations of deficits.

I’m a Democrat because I want to be part of a party that doesn’t fear facts, constructive change, science, technology and the future.

I’m a Democrat because I don’t want my government demonize minority groups

I’m a Democrat because I’m well aware of history, of why the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution the way that they did. I understand why they insisted upon a separation of church and state while acknowledging a Creator. I understand why they instituted the concept of “advise and consent.” I understand why they insisted on an independent judiciary. These are vital issues, ones that the Federal government must understand and act upon rationally.

I’m a Democrat because I do not expect my government to go to war without just cause.

I’m a Democrat because I expect appointments to be based more on the competence, merit and experience of the individual rather than his or her political connections.

By "We" I assume you don't include Joe Lieberman, who I believe is now occupying his time writing speeches for President Bush.

I'm tired of the right wing hijacking America's moral values

I believe the values laid out here are true Christian Values

To BaronScarpia-If we are going to rule again, it's only going to be leaders like Joe Lieberman that will get us there. Why are we becoming nothing but the party of opposition and hate? It was the DNC that got us back into power in 1992. The liberal wing of our party is going to be the death of us and our constant whining without solutions is making me ill.

Thank You Laurie Mann, I wish I knew how to forward your article to my local Democratic Party. I live in Oklahoma and I am surrounded by the enemy(Republicans). The lady in charge of our Party is looking for a list of reasons we are Democrats. Since I don't know how to forward just this one article, I will have to write it off as I read it. I always appreciate well written articles like yours.

DEMOCRATIC’s (left’s) Plan

Below is a brief outline that may help in framing the VOICING (rhetoric) of the

Democratic Plan to return the Country to stability and growth for all. The plan is

based on simple language and a belief that the 90’s demonstrated an outstanding, results

based party. Simply put, by executing the 6 main categories security and growth will be

accomplished.

So, if some is asked what the plan is, it is based on Results based on the Common Good,

Competency (words do not mean much), Community linked to value poles, Feedback,

organizational structure (current administration is not competent by design), and

Voicing concerns.
The items under each category are most likely controversial. That’s ok. But the over

rhetoric is very important to develop.

Results Based (Common Good)
*Reduce Dependency
*Education
*Infrastructure
*National Debt
*Assets
*Needy
*Shared Contributions
*Alliances
*Right/Left Links
*World Concerns
*UN
*Security
*World action based not on ideology

Competency
*World Stability
*President's Office Structure
*Volume of Scandals
*Building on Previous Administrations Results

Community linked to Value Poles
*Groups
*Network Density -- Groups are important to organize and understand certain issues.

But results are based on the density (or links) each group has established. The

left’s various groups much link with common values on the right or risk getting in

a he said, she said argument.

Linked to Values
*Language modified for different groups – each community must be able to talk in the

language of the group’s they wish to link with. For example, using religious

analogies may be needed.

Feedback
*Bad Results
*Different Sources
*Positive Results
*Mixed Results

Organizational Structure (Government President's Office)
*The current administration’s design (Approved by Bush) is incompotent in its very

design. A strictly top down organization cannot adapt or execute in today’s world.

False order based on a fixed view of a changing world simply does not work.

Voicing Concerns of Groups that do not line-up w/ Values (Administration)…. The left’s

response should naturally voice concerns about others that hinder the above objectives.

BUT THE REPOSNE NEEDS TO BE INTURNS OF MEETING THE LEFT”S OBJECTIVES NOT IN CONTEXT OF

THE RIGHT”S (CURRENT RNC’S) REHOTIRC. ….

Americans also believe that all elections, whether local, regional or national should be honest, and not structured to disenfranchise any group of voters. A significant piece of the Republican culture of corruption is the concerted efforts in 2000 and 2004 to subvert the Democratic vote and disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, i.e., African-Americans. What steps are we as a party going to take to ensure fair and honest elections in 2006 and 2008? Without election reform, all the goals and beliefs set forth in Gov. Dean's piece will not go forward, because Republicans will steal another election. How will we prevent that?

SOOORRRYYY for the formating

DEMOCRATIC’s (left’s) Plan

Below is a brief outline that may help in framing the VOICING (rhetoric) of the Democratic Plan to return the Country to stability and growth for all. The plan is based on simple language and a belief that the 90’s demonstrated an outstanding, results based party. Simply put, by executing the 6 main categories security and growth will be
accomplished.

So, if some is asked what the plan is, it is based on Results based on the Common Good, Competency (words do not mean much), Community linked to value poles, Feedback, organizational structure (current administration is not competent by design), and Voicing concerns.
The items under each category are most likely controversial. That’s ok. But the over rhetoric is very important to develop.

Results Based (Common Good)
*Reduce Dependency
*Education
*Infrastructure
*National Debt
*Assets
*Needy
*Shared Contributions
*Alliances
*Right/Left Links
*World Concerns
*UN
*Security
*World action based not on ideology

Competency
*World Stability
*President's Office Structure
*Volume of Scandals
*Building on Previous Administrations Results
Community linked to Value Poles
*Groups
*Network Density -- Groups are important to organize and understand certain issues. But results are based on the density (or links) each group has established. The left’s various groups much link with common values on the right or risk getting in a he said, she said argument.

Linked to Values
*Language modified for different groups – each community must be able to talk in the language of the group’s they wish to link with. For example, using religious analogies may be needed.

Feedback
*Bad Results
*Different Sources
*Positive Results
*Mixed Results

Organizational Structure (Government President's Office)
*The current administration’s design (Approved by Bush) is incompotent in its very
design. A strictly top down organization cannot adapt or execute in today’s world.

False order based on a fixed view of a changing world simply does not work.

Voicing Concerns of Groups that do not line-up w/ Values (Administration)…. The left’s response should naturally voice concerns about others that hinder the above objectives.

BUT THE REPOSNE NEEDS TO BE INTURNS OF MEETING THE LEFT”S OBJECTIVES NOT IN CONTEXT OF
THE RIGHT”S (CURRENT RNC’S) REHOTIRC. ….

Tim - you mentioned the "The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has trained and hired local organizers on the ground in 49 states. These organizers are critical to our victories in 2006 and beyond."

I hope the 50th state not mentioned is not Indiana. We need help on the local level in this state. We've been red for so long, it's no wonder that on the national level, Indiana has been overlooked.

Our local party has no true leadership. I understand we are in the process of looking for a new chairperson.

Where does one begin? Who can we contact for help? Would they be willing to come to this area in Indiana and help us or at least give us ideas on what to do? It seems like there are people who want something done but no one wants to start....

Joe Lieberman is the new ZELL MILLER.

He isn't even a DINO. It's time to throw him out of office. He's not even a "moderate" democrat. He's a flat out turncoat to the Democratic party and America in general.

The democrat's strategy won't work as long as we have turncoats like Lieberman and to some extent Feinstein. They vote with the Bushbots almost all the time. There are others.

Democrats can become the permanent party in power by simply telling the truth and being honest and being outspoken about it.

Time for them to get rid of the inside the beltway consultants and get out into the real world.

The American voter is desparate for politicians to simply tell the truth. We are very good at working with the truth.

I applaud Howard Dean for laying out many of the issues that our party stood for in the past, almost all of which, I agree, are held by most Americans. In recent years, the Democrats have appeared noncommittal on almost every important issue, and the Pary's position has remained largely undefined. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has metamorphosed into a far right organization far removed from the party of Eisenhower or Nixon. But they leave no question as to where they stand. There can be no hope for Democrats, and there shouldn't be, without defining themselves.

Iraq remains a sticking point for Democrats, twenty-nine of whom cast votes in the Senate for the Iraq invasion. Though we can never know, some of these votes must have been cast reluctantly out of concern for their political futures, particularly in the face of looming mid-terms. That was when I lost respect for Hillary and why her stance on the war will constantly dog her in a run for President. The Democrats must adopt a position on the war's justifactiion, misinformation campaign, execution (including torture), and catastrophic results unless they are to find themseves appearing like Senators Kerry and Edwards who looked so foolish stepping from foot to foot, trying to find an equivocal position in hopes of satisfying both sides.

I agree with Howard Dean. Democrat, define thyself.

Creating a "Campaign for Change"

As the Democratic Party organizes itself for the coming 2006 mid-term elections it can look forward to an opportunity to make a dramatic change in the national agenda. The wave of scandal breaking over the Republican Party in the White House and Congress, along with the growing discontent over the conduct of the war in Iraq and the inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, have eroded support for the president and his party to historic lows. The “negative" half of the case for a Democratic revolution at the polls in November 2006 is unfolding everyday on the television and in our newspapers. But what is the "positive” half of the case for Democrats? What is our agenda for reform?

Our movement already has a name: the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has christened the 2006 campaign season the "Campaign for Change," but voters will soon begin to demand details. As we begin as a party to define our agenda for America'’s future, it is worthwhile to look at the last time a major party staged a “revolution."

In 1994, the Republicans released "The Contract with America” as part of their Congressional campaign. The document listed the actions that the Republicans pledged to take upon becoming the majority party in the United States House of Representatives. Introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional election; "The Contract" was signed by all but two of the incumbent Republican members of the House of Representatives, and all of the party's non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates. It is widely believed that "The Contract with America" contributed to the Republican triumph in the 1994 elections and raised Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay to national prominence.

As we begin our campaign to regain control of Congress in 2006, it might be worthwhile for Democrats to think about what we would say in a similar document. Since this is my blog, I’ll go ahead and take the first shot.

"The Campaign for Change:" A Draft for Discussion

Ethics:

Ethics in government – Faith in our national government and the ethics of the individuals involved in government has fallen to an all time low. We must restore our citizens’ faith in their national government. In order to restore that faith, we must change the way ethics in government are defined and enforced. The current wave of scandals in the White House and Congress demonstrates that the existing framework of rules is insufficient to compel elected officials to behave in an ethical manner. These rules must be strengthened and enforced.

Ethics in business – We must make reforms in the government oversight of business, the financial oversight of business, and the taxation of business. Our reforms must be aimed at discouraging speculation and other abuses of the market that enrich the few at the expense of society as a whole.

Energy:

Energy policy – We must launch an "Apollo Program" to find alternative energy technologies to free ourselves once and for all from dependence on foreign sources of energy. We must combat wasteful energy practices and move our society forward in terms of its energy technologies.

Gas prices – We must commit to protecting our citizens from exploitation by monopolistic combinations of energy companies. Price regulation should only be used as a last resort, but gouging during times of national crisis cannot be tolerated. Energy companies should be made to invest windfall income in renewable energy or face windfall profits taxes.

Lifestyle:

Healthcare – We must reform the health care system to ensure greater access and prevent the burden of healthcare from driving jobs overseas.

Social Security – We must protect Social Security against Republican economic quackery and the growing deficit caused by irresponsible Republican spending and tax cuts.

Education – Because the future success of our society and economy, and our very freedom as a people, depends on our ability to compete in the world marketplace of ideas, we must ensure that our educational system is the best in the world. In order to achieve this, we must fully fund educational programs.

Abortion – We must recognize that the American people overwhelmingly support reasonable limits on abortion, but equally overwhelmingly oppose an outright ban or the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We must work to defend the privacy rights of women and make certain that abortion is safe, legal and rare.

Environment – We must commit to the preservation of the environment because it directly impacts the quality of life of all Americans. We must become good stewards of our nation's resources. We must demonstrate that conservation is an economic issue as well as an aesthetic issue and commit to solving our nation's conservation problems.

Financial Responsibility:

Economy – We will work to repair the damage done to the economy by years of job flight encouraged by the Republican Party. We will work to encourage investment in the United States and in American workers. The United States must rebuild its manufacturing capability and begin exporting something other than American jobs.

Government spending – We will change the way government spending is allocated to reduce the waste caused by “pork barrel” spending. We will rescind the funds allocated for the “bridge to nowhere” and similar projects. We will ensure that spending meant for the War on Terror is actually allocated to regions considered to be at risk for renewed terrorist attacks.

Taxes & Deficit Reduction – We will ensure that our system of taxation provides adequate revenue for the spending authorized by Congress. We will end the destructive pattern of deficit spending created by “credit card Republicans” and remove the crushing burden of debt from our children and grandchildren. We will end tax preferences for the wealthy over the working poor, and for investment income over wage earners. We will simplify the tax code and close remaining loopholes. We will enforce tax laws and prosecute law firms and accounting firms that promote tax fraud. We will reduce the level of public indebtedness our nation owes to countries that restrict human rights: namely China and Saudi Arabia.

Defense:

Iraq – We will work to ensure that the Iraqi people take responsibility for their own internal security. We will offer the Iraqi people an alliance to ensure that they will be safe from external threats from hostile neighbors. We will not "cut and run," but we will shape our Iraq policy to ensure a staged withdrawal from Iraq based on a schedule consistent with the security of the Iraqi people and the security of the people of the United States.

National Defense – We will strengthen our national defense by making a renewed commitment to our fighting men and women and our nation’s veterans. We will put our veterans at the top of the legislative calendar instead of the ultra-wealthy. We will expand the combat arm of the military to ensure that in future conflicts, barring unforeseen circumstances, no individual will be compelled to serve more than two tours of combat duty within a reasonable amount of time.

War on Terror – We will vigorously continue the War on Terror, but not at the cost of the highest ideals of our society. We will recommit ourselves to the protection of civil rights within our society and the enforcement of international agreements dealing with human rights including, but not limited to, the Geneva Conventions. We reject torture as being ineffective and unworthy of a great and free nation.

Foreign policy:

Diplomacy – We will engage in positive discussion with our traditional allies, especially the democracies of Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. We will not engage in petty personal conflicts with foreign leaders. Partisanship must end at "the water's edge."

Trade issues – We pledge to stop subsidizing the exportation of American jobs overseas. We will also support reasonable tariffs to ensure that American labor does not have to compete directly with slave labor.

Immigration - We pledge to end the selective enforcement of immigration laws. The current Republican administration pays lip service to the issue of illegal immigration, but actually encourages illegal immigration through “guest worker" programs and winking at the violation of employment laws by employers like Wal-Mart. Immigration laws may need an overhaul, but the first step forward is to begin enforcing the laws as they are currently written.

Visit me at The Richmond Democrat:

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/

See also Dean's old org, which has morphed into Democracy for America under Jim Dean:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

Grassroots BS&T turning red to progressive blue.

Bush – Cutting and Running in Iraq

You do the math...in Iraq
~2000 US dead.... ~20,000 hurt.. 10/1 ratio
~20-30,000 Iraq people dead ratio 10/1... 200,000 Iraq people hurt

The US has already lost. That's why Bush Administration is backing away from their earlier promises. They are cutting and running.

john cook

Glowman -

If by "rule again" you mean win elections, you don't have to wait. You have someone in office who believes most of what Joe Lieberman believes.

Join his party. And take Joe with you, would you? I'm sure the Republicans will be happy to have a few more pro-war, pro-voucher, pro-faith based initiative, pro-corporation, pro-government rights over individual liberties member among their ranks.

Lieberman is a shining example of what has gone wrong with the Democratic Party.

How's it going on the Road to Nowhere, anyway?

Friggin' DLC'ers.

First, we are on the same side. Dr. Dean makes reference to a "different vision." Yet, on a recent Sunday morning, he stated that we don't have to articulate a vision, that it was enough for us to criticize (or words to that effect). This provides ammunition to Wrong Wrong Rushie and his ilk. He bangs the drum that we don't stand FOR anything. Sooner than later, we need to start making positive proposals.

Can we do this briefly?

Over the weekend, Senator Feingold used the phrase "for all" and, for some reason, it had come to my mind as well as part of a do-able program for the Democrats. What can we actually accomplish?

Education for all
Social Security for all
Medicare for all
Clean environment for all
Fair elections
Fair wages
Fair taxes
Fair legislation

Of course, Howard Dean started off with the notion of extending Medicare to all by incorporating the children. But, though it seems to have slipped off the radar, Medicare for all people is even more worth-while and doable. (I much prefer the term to "health care" because healthy people don't need care and I'm not at all keen on providing the likes of cosmetic surgery or lippo-suction at the public's expense).
"For all" is a better phrase than "universal" or "national" because the universe is too large and the nation is an artificial construct. Besides, especially in the case of a clean environment, our goal has to incorporate behavior far beyond the boundaries of our continent. The creatures of the oceans also deserve a "clean environment."
I'm sure you'll be able to add other issues. But this is a start and I think it's DOABLE--something to be for, not just against.

Doc Mike

I do not recall Howard EVer saying that.

I believe the closest he got, was in pointing out the Republicans are doing a great job of imploding themselves, we don't need to do much.

Here's a problem. I caught up with Howard at a Meeting in CT just a while back. He discussed the DNC, Senators and Representatives. Believe me, Howard does not have influence over them. They do not take orders from Howard, and it must be so frustrating for him to see some Senators just doing their own thing! (Clinton and Lieberman come to mind). the DSCC and the DCCC are separate entities, also looking for contributions all the time.

I think Howard's message in the beginning of this thread is a pretty good Vision. If we can convince the American people we are sincere about it, we can take our country back.

It was the DNC that got us back into power in 1992. The liberal wing of our party is going to be the death of us and our constant whining without solutions is making me ill.
Posted by Glowman on November 30, 2005 at 12:58 PM

I assume you meant to say, the DLC,not DNC. And it was not the DLC and their ideas, it was the fact that Bill Clinton was a Charismatic, magnetic personality that drew North, south, east and west to him. Twice !

Are you aware what the DLC is? Started in 80's with a group of Dem Governors who decided the party must change in order to survive. southern Democrats were ticked off that NorthEast Liberal Dems were the top Democrats. The DLC started out questioning the wisdom of raising minimum wage, called for increased use of incentitives in welfare, requiring national service in return for federal college andi, and linking a worker's pay to his firm's profitability. It went over like a lead balloon. Then they questioned things like how much did we need to care about black's interests in order to win other votes. They took the black votes for granted.

What they were trying to do was turn away from Blacks, from the Poor, the elderly, children, etc.

WHY? so that they could try and court a different class of voters.

The elections in 2000 and 2004 were run trying DLC ideals. It didn't work. Granted, Gore won, but not by enough so there was not the bad ending.

Joe Lieberman is Phoney. Remember when he ran as VP with Gore.? Remember that they said the ONLY thing he was odds with Gore and the Party was School vouchers? Isn't it funny, since he has had his eye on the White House himself, he is suddenly voting with the Republicans? Out there saying Bush is right? Kissing and huggin with them. Suddenly changed his entire Platform and voting for all these far-Right issues.

The day that we must support and back Candidates like Joe Lieberman, will be the day I just plain change over to the Republicans and make it easy.

Might as well all mold into one big party. If we are going to vote along with them, might as well be them! I best go out and buy a Bible, I think we will be required to have Daily Bible Study them.

Democrat, Define Thyself!!!!!!!!

That, in a nutshell, is what needs to be done. Rep. Murtha has recently stood up and defined himself while other Dem's sit on their hands, afraid to say or do anything.

Finally, we see Sen. Kerry come out against Bush today, but where are the so-called front runners in the Democratic Party? They seem more like Republican lap dogs than members of a Party for Change? And that is why I, as a hard core Democrat, must scratch my head and wonder what happened to this once Great Party.

This party can not let the Right Wing of the Republican Party determine what it does. Otherwise, we, like Republicans, are allowing a small minority to control our agenda, our futures, and our rights.

I remember the day when Gov. Dean became DNC Chairman, for I thought "Great, we are finally going to see some changes". We need those changes. America needs those changes. And we need them now.

Please, we need Democrats to stand up and take a lead. This Country needs it.

Tonight on MSNBC, Chris Matthew's show, Hardlyball, Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown, PA held up a letter sent by a woman who said she wants to support him. Attached to the letter were five one dollar bills.

The most important issue that will win back the majority in Congress, is for Democrats to refuse any money from corporations and special interest groups. The Dems should only accept money from individuals and groups that represent nonprofit organiztations and not corporations, PACs, or special interest groups.

Without this fundraising change, Democrats will be percieved as being no different from the greedy Republicans with ulterior motives and who pass laws that benefit corporations over people.

Democrats should be beholden to the people and not to corporations, PACs and special interest groups. This message worked very successfully for Gov. Dean during his bid for the presidency and it will work again for all Democrats.

BRING BACK THE BAT!!!

I am glad the American people are finally starting to realize just how inept Bush really is, but why couldn't they come to that conclusion prior to electing him? He has thoroughly destroyed our country, and now it will take us a good fifty years to undo the damage he has done in five. I review history, and the last time the world has been where it is now was shortly before the dark ages. America must rebuild its middle class. It must make sure that everyone who wants a job has one. It must develop its own resources from within, and not rely on foreign countries for anything.
If it doesn't do these things, civil war will eventually break out. We are facing the greatest threat to our way of life in over 200 years, and it is directly the fault of the Bush administration. I am a moderate in my beliefs, but I hate George W Bush for the things he has done to me. I am in the UAW, and this president has set out to take everything we have worked for decades to achieve. He must go. Everyone who agrees with him must go. I can't imagine the U.S. still existing by the time his term is up. There will be an uprising. His republican judge friends are systematically attacking everything. His NLRB is siding with big business against the common man. America is the middle class. You turn against the middle class, and you are turning against America. That is exactly what Bush and his cronies are doing. He is not a moral leader. He is not a decent human being. He is a war monger, a liar, a manipulator, and a hypocrite. Those are the nice things I have to say about him. If one republican gets elected in the next ten elections, that would be one too many. I have more in common with bin Laden than I do with Bush. I'm not saying I have much in common with either, but Bush is more anti-American than Osama ever could be.

Dr. Dean is the man!

It is more important then ever to link those on the left and right that have common values. This means being able abd willing to use the language of those that you may need to talk with....

Overview –
It is increasingly important to bring together those common values that many on the left and right share. Language and action are key to magnifying common values into personal politics -- specifically turning the tide of policies that are not directed at the common good. I encourage those on the left to write and talk to those on the right to enact law and policies that are in the common good. This includes pointing out inconsistencies.

The write-up below is done using the language of the Christian right/left. It is essentially a story of hope in stemming the tide of politics for the few and not the common good. Materially, it is also hoped that those on the left will get common values into practice via politics.

The write-up can and should easily be translated into other contexts (e.g., Muslim, Buddhist, personal values, etc.), but given the USA macro-political landscape the Christian language is chosen. So for those offended by the context, I’m sorry. It is just a means to an end – poLOtics : ) .

Jesus Circle of Life (Golden "Rule")
Jesus’ life is a series of circles that continues to live in each of our lives. Loosely seen the earthly circle is a group of seven (7) areas that is continuously revisited. The over riding context is the Golden Rule. As each person responds to their practice, their actions should increasing be seen in the world around them. And in today’s world each action (or personal politics) will increasingly reflect the love that Jesus’ life demonstrates. This includes our environment and all people.
Early Learning –
• God chose Jesus’ religious upbringing. A basic premise of his up bringing was respect. That is, knowing one’s self as a condition of healthy action in our world. And responding to events as they are presented.
• Meaning – constantly relearning about ourselves using the Golden Rule, will help us to respect and communicate with our world (e.g., environment, neighbors, perceived and real enemies, etc.). Acting without this respect is not consistent with this early learning.
Testing and Practice –
• When Jesus became of age he was required to discuss his understanding of himself and his religious upbringing and basic learning.
• For 40 days and 40 nights, Jesus was tested on how his actions would be done in his world. Jesus chose to be congruent with his God. He forsakes earthly things and control through power and wars.
• Meaning -- our knowledge and actions in the world are more important than our ideology. Jesus chose to practice his understanding through actions. And presented many events that tested his followers and his world.
Speck in One's Eye --
• Understanding how our ego influences our world is extremely important. This includes responding from fear, greed, control, and power before our acting in ignorance or fear.
• Meaning – Seeing ourselves clearly and how actions hurt others is essential in growing faith. We should pause before taking actions that may hurt others. Using the Church to hide one’s life and actions is not consistent with Jesus’ life. Being born again does not erase one’s past and should not be used with hiding ones past – this is one of Paul’s teachings.
Nature Sermon (Sermon on the Mount) –
• Healing and feeding (or helping to care for our neighbor’s needs) is essential to clear understanding and communication. This includes the environment
• Anyone is free to step out of their old ways into new ways.
• Everyone is invited for nurturing, learning (without fears and hunger), and healing. And seeing Christians practice Jesus’ life in actions is a must. This includes those of the faith and those not.
• Meaning – providing health care, a clean environment, learning, and practicing all our values in our world are Jesus’ message.
Radically Non-violent –
• Jesus chose his path after early learning.
• Jesus decided to be congruent with his God. And didn’t choose to gain power, steal other’s belongings nor use armies and wars as a means of control.
• Jesus chose to die before he forsakes his values. He could have owned the world as a means of control and material gain.
• Meaning – Jesus lived his practice. He set an example of practice that demonstrated the constant return to each area of his practice. Responding to violence with violence is not consistent with Jesus’ practice.
Community --
• Jesus’ community was more than those with his upbringing. He walked in many different worlds – Muslim, Jewish, those of no faith, etc.
• Just because someone was not a believer did not change Jesus’ response to his world. He didn’t talk in language of the civilized and not-civilized. He certainly didn’t advocate crusades.
• Jesus didn’t take assets from others.
• He demonstrated healing of our planet. He also demonstrated the harm that could come to our planet if one didn’t heed his practice.
• Material gain via using the Church was not ok.
• Jesus’ showed active concern of other’s needs in learning, hunger, health care, and his life’s practice.
• Actions trump ideology every time.
New Testament –
• The New Testament is a recording of Jesus’ words and his time. Jesus redefined many Old Testament stories and values. Using violence to counter violence was something he rejectted. Jesus’ life demonstrated his practice of not killing – he feed, healed, and taught those around him. Jesus didn’t steal from others – this included taking over other lands, instilling fear in others, or using ideology to justify one’s actions.

THE END….

PS... marketing 101...

If you can't say what your plan is in less than 2 minutes then no-body is going to listen... and
not to diss anyone... BUT (below is a list)

Education for all
Social Security for all
Medicare for all
Clean environment for all
Fair elections
Fair wages
Fair taxes
Fair legislation

NOT a plan that is suitable for an election or the media...

And the details are fine... but the PLAN is not for the party folks....

I've read the lists above... GOD... who's going to listen???

Love the op-ed, but we need to find a way to get our message out in the mainstream media. If I weren't here looking for it, I never would've seen it.

Dean on Carson was good, but not enough of it -- the lines about "repetitive drivel" and Springsteen (I won't spoil it for the West Coast) worked.

We need a Democrat to run against Loserman in the Connecticut primary. Anyone got any ideas?

Love Murtha, wish we had more like him. Pelosi finally got on board with the anti-war stuff, but I wonder where the rest of the party is. I mean, two-thirds of the country think it was a mistake, what's it gonna take?

OneForAll - The link to my name at the bottom of my posting will take you right to the "Why I Am A Democrat" piece on my Web site.

I have mixed feelings about Joe Lieberman. I think he should be a Republican, but there are certainly reasons why observant Jews would be more uncomfortable in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. I'd like to think the Demoratic party is a big tent, and can incorporate people with different views like Lieberman.

Would be good to shorten "what democrats stand for" to more quotable terms.
Example: Democrats stand for...
1. The preservation of personal liberty
2. The engineering of economic freedom
3. The stablization of security policies
4. The realization of basic health care for all
5. The longterm goal of living within our means
6. The implementation of balance between individual and community prosperity.

(Sorry the last one is a little long, but I think the general idea is worthwhile).

TAKING POINT ON WHAT INTELIGENCE IS!!!!

President Bush is responsible for the decisions his administration makes and implements. Not the VP, his friends, his advisors, his political hacks, and his top officials. The President appoints the staff and implements the organization to implement his decisions. By definition, all decisions made are the President’s. Saying mistakes are made or we must go forward does not change the damage that has been done.

Again, intelligence is not information, but the decisions and actions a President makes. All Presidents have to live with this burden. And unlike 20 years of previous administrations, President Bush acted differently. Even though the basic risk AFTER 9/11 that Iraq had posed had not changed.

Great POST cjht!!!!!!!

Reframing the discussion on Intelligence. Are President Bush’s Decisions Intelligent?

TALKING POINT: WE CAN ONLY PRAY THAT THE STORMS CAUSED BY PRESIDENT BUSH’S DECISIONS CAN BE FIXED.

Much has been said about the “Intelligence” used for the US’s domestic and foreign policies. Those on the Left (who are interested on results) say the Intelligence was marketed and in many cases materially altered to set the ground for the Right’s agenda. Those on the Right (who are interested in getting alignment with ideology) say to look forward because the dream is worth the cost, or we can’t stop now. And we are where we are and can’t cut and run. (although, that is exactly what the administration is doing by not keeping its promises on Iraq.) Anyway, the discussion quickly becomes difficult. Namely for 2 reasons,

*One group is talking about competence and years of continuity with 3 previous administrations.
*The other talking about keeping consistent with its ideology.

That said, talking about building and securing a world requires the ability to actually do the work. Talking about ideology (not right to life discussion) does not trump the brick and mortar work required. The basic work is to rebuild Iraq from its damage and rebuilt America to the state before to the 90’s -- in terms of security and wealth for the common good.

Where are we going with this?
The discussion on intelligence is important for several reasons. The question mainly is why President Bush made the decisions he made and how can we (the world and US) help mitigate the consequences of the President’s decisions.

Looking back at the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton Administrations (20 years), all knew that Iraq was a threat to the region and a cork in the bottle to stabilize the region. Note: the make up of the Iraq citizens reflect the various groups that surround it. The basic reason for the 1st Gulf War was to reduce the power of Iraq so that their role of being the cork in the bottle was restored. AND there is not a person alive that would agree that Iraq had more weapons after the 1st Gulf War then before.

So, what does this have to do with intelligence??

TAKING POINT ON WHAT INTELIGENCE IS!!!!

Much has been said about the bad intelligence leading to the war in Iraq and President Bush’s ability to prevent 9/11. The basic argument is that bad input equal bad output. An essentially linear logic applied to a complex situation. Simplistic and doomed to fail.

That said, intelligence is not information. Intelligence is making the right decision based on a real-world understanding. Secondly, understanding the risk associated with not acting on a situation. The fact of the matter is that 9/11 did change the priority of how the world response to terrorism in each country’s homeland. Consequently, President Bush used linear logic to say that the Iraq war was needed. The underlying assumption was that the risks in the world had changed. Again this is bogus logic. Most of the world’s risks DID NOT change because of 9/11.

20 years of 3 Presidents (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton) had managed the risk Iraq posed to the region and kept Iraq’s role unchanged – providing a peace in an unstable region.

Here’s the REFRAMING –

President Bush is responsible for the decisions his administration makes and implements. Not the VP, his friends, his advisors, his political hacks, and his top officials. The President appoints the staff and designs the organization to implement his decisions. By definition, all decisions made are the President’s. Saying mistakes are made or we must go forward does not change the damage that has been done.

Again, intelligence is not information, but the decisions and actions a President makes. All Presidents have to live with this burden. And unlike 20 years of previous administrations, President Bush acted differently. Even though the basic risk AFTER 9/11 that Iraq had posed had not changed.

Where does this leave us? By President Bush’s own definition, he has made a decision to cut and run. He made many promises to the US citizens, his foreign policy team, and the world. Namely, to remake the middle-east via Iraq, and to use Iraq’s assets to rebuild it from neglect and damage done via the war.

The President’s current line of reasoning is essentially a cut and run strategy with a false claim that we can win the war with the military. Here’s why,

You do the math...in Iraq
* ~2000 US dead.... ~18,000 hurt.. 10/1 ratio
* ~20-30,000 Iraq people dead ratio 10/1... 200,000 Iraq people hurt

The US has already lost. That's why the Bush Administration is backing away from their earlier promises. They are cutting and running. And leaving a country that will continue to have to fight. Not what it was like before the occupation.

As Bush says, "Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight."

WE CAN ONLY PRAY THAT THE STORMS CAUSED BY PRESIDENT BUSH’S DECISIONS CAN BE FIXED.

John Cook

John - Good post.

Some brief questions for Bush -

How do you define "victory against terrorism?" Is the end of terrorist acts? Everywhere? Really? How about we try to blot out the sun? That objective is more feasible.

How do you propose to defeat terrorism with military action? Can you give us an example where an occupying military force has successfully subdued terrorism, or a local "insurgency?"

If you plan to get us out of Iraq, why did you ask for funding for over a dozen "enduring" military bases in Iraq?

--------

As for the precious posts about a DLC "success" in 92. Let's remember that 92 was the last general election we won. We lost three more under that popular and successful DLC president, who would not have been president had not Ross Perot run to spite the Bush family. I have never seen a bunch of people like the DLC'ers who will cling to such an obvious fiction as their "wild success" under Clinton.

Every time the stupid ass DLC'ers move us to the right, the Republicans jump a step further to the right and say "thank you very much."

I'm not much for bloging, but I think it's really funny reading through the entries and hearing all the ideas that people have, but for some reason I don't think that it's really getting to the people in our government. I still have no idea, what democrats want to do on any of the issues. Does no one else see that? Sure, individuals have ideas, but when is the democratic party going to get their act together and announce a plan? The republican rhetoric about the democrats not having a plan is beginning to work on me and I'm a democrat! All I want to hear is what are democrats going to do about Iraq, National Security, Social Security. Sure, I can read it on this website, but it seems to be the only place it's posted anywhere and it sure doesn't seem like anyone in getting out in the press to talk about it. I once heard Gov. Dean say that he was going to unveil a plan soon, but what are we waiting for? When are democrats going to quit being such pushovers and stand up for what they believe?
I think U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa did that, but then people in his own party didn't back him up!
When are we going to have more people in the United States government stand up and say it like it is

This is just my rant, doubt it will make a change.

I have gone thru this register process only to tell you folks that liberalism is a matter of age or maturity. You will grow out of it.
The likes of gov. Dean, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry prevent me from taking anything from most democrats seriously. I would have voted for Joe Liberman without hesitation...he is first an American. I am not happy with how G.Bush has handled his responsibilities but I still would vote for him instead of that idiot, Kerry.
Our borders are a shambles. It didn't start with Pres. Bush.....it's been loose for decades. The tattered moral fabric of America under the leadership of a government that values personal power over their sworn committment to protect us, is destroying our will to change things. The average American feels that it is hopeless to try. I believe that this is part of the plan to change our meaning of freedom. DNC leader Dean projects himself, to many of us, as an out of control maniac determined to force his will, even if it means ruining what little is left of the Democratic Party. Our politicians in general have abandoned the trust placed upon them by the people who elected them. This is a shamefull time for us.

I'm glad that Howard Dean mentioned in his article that Democrats will unite America. The Republican Party has a history of dividing and conquering their fellow Americans.

Specifically, I mean the anti-Christian, un-American Republican Party strategy known as "The Southern Strategy."

The Republican Party devised a political and electoral strategy called "The Southern Strategy" to divide Americans. The Republican Party promised white people that if Republicans controlled government, especially the federal government, that they would abolish all affirmative action programs and civil rights legislation. Well, the Republicans have been in control since 1994 and they haven't kept their word.

In fact, the Republican Party and their neoconservative allies have controlled all branches of the federal government since the election in 2000. Did the Republican-controlled House and Senate repeal affirmative action and civil rights legislation? NO!

The Southern Strategy is basically a Republican Party scheme that takes THE WHITE VOTE for granted.

We spend a lot of time talking about the things we're going to do. It's time to do them.

The culture of corruption. Before the Democratic Party starts opening its mouth and pointing fingers, they need to look in their own backyard. From Ted Kennedy to Clinton. This party has no room to talk.

A REPLY TO VOTELOST and other Republican, conservative and neoconservative hypocrites:

The Republican Party has falsely prided itself on being virtuous and moral. It is ironic, therefore, that the Republican Party is in fact plagued by unethical and immoral scandals. The Democratic Party has PLENTY of room to talk.

This is a clear message that we Democrats can rally around for victory in '06. I think that it reveals just enough without saying too much that would allow right wing hacks time to construct lies and slanders! I have faith in Dr. Dean and our party and I hope other Dem's do as well.

This is a clear message that we Democrats can rally around for victory in '06. I think that it reveals just enough without saying too much that would allow right wing hacks time to construct lies and slanders! I have faith in Dr. Dean and our party and I hope other Dem's do as well.

Republican Party politicians are proving the following saying true: Idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Republican Party politicians have done NOTHING GOOD for the American people!

Republican Party politicians have no agenda.

Republican Party politicians are too busy selling their political souls.

The Democrats need to do a far better job of articulating a coherent policy for the country. It seems that they are all afraid of Carl Rove.

We've all heard how the Contract On America helped to coalesce the Republican message in 1994, and we've all heard a lot about the importance of framing our own message.

Bringing these two thoughts together, it would be wise to "brand" our message for 2006 (and beyond), by wrapping it in a name or phrase that encapsulates our goals for America.

I don't presume to have worked out what that phrase should be. Instead, I'd just like to invite others to think about it. That having been said, I can suggest one direction that makes sense to me.

We Democrats talk about things like preserving Social Security, extending the social safety net to include health care, improving our national and homeland security by adopting a rational foreign policy, improving our economy so that more Americans can share in its abundance, restoring our tax and spend structure so that our children are not left with our debts, reversing the assault on our environment, and improving the quality of our children's education.

When I look for a common thread in that list, I see something that might be called "Future Security." I'm sure that better words can be found, but I believe that the idea is sound.

Social Security. Homeland Security. Job Security. Environmental Security, etc. etc. These are all concerns of bedrock importance to most Americans. These are all areas that have been damaged by the corrupt Republican administration and Congress. And, these are all areas where our party has made very major contributions in the past.

So that is my pitch- that we come up with an over-arching name for our goals for America. And that it might well be a pledge to restore balance and security, in the very broadest sense of the word.

I have been a member of the Democratic Party foI have been a member of the Democratic Party for Twenty-Five years. Both my Mother and Father were members the Party longer than that. When President Clinton finished his two terms in office the Democratic Party lost its soul and leader. There is a giant vacuum in the Democratic Party and it’s lost at Sea. When things go bad as they have in Iraq it’s easy to cast stones at the President and Republicans in office. Leaders don’t cast blame they stand up and offer solutions. This is why President Clinton won two terms in office, he was a leader and a man not afraid to step forward and present solutions to problems. He did not blame others without offering solutions in return.

I find it embarrassing that the Democratic Party and Senators like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who I voted for, will not tell us what their plan is for fighting the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq. Attacking the President for his improper actions, which they all approved of at the time, without a solution is cowardly. Saying its time to bring home the troops is not a strategy.

I want to know what this Party would do differently than the Republican Party and our current President. It was the United States of America and 99% of our elected officials that voted to go to Iraq. What do we say to the Men, Woman and Children of Iraq who are dying every day, we are at fault. Some people compare Iraq to Viet Nam, but there is nothing similar. The Viet Nam War was started long before we got there. The people in Iraq however had jobs and a life and terrorists were not blowing up their schools, husbands and wives.

The Democratic Party is waiting for the 2006 elections hoping this screw up will result in the American Public revolting and ushering the Democrats back in to power. I have voted for a Democrat for the past twenty-five years and I will not vote anyone in to office who offers no alternative. To the so called leaders of this Party who fell in line when the decision came to invade Iraq, I ask you what will you do differently than the current group in charge. I ask you because your voice has gone silent. I hear bring the troops home but then what?

Hoping that the people get so frustrated with the Republican Party that they will blindly turn to the Democratic Party in 2006, a party with no vision, no strategy and no voice is not the strategy this party should be pursing. It is time the Democratic Party took the roll of leadership and came up with alternative solution to dealing with Iraq and the War on Terror. At the end of the day these problems are not going away and the Democratic Party has failed to present its vision for the future.

I am proud to be a Democrat but I am not proud of our Party as it is today.

Jeremy B. Smith
r

"something to be for, not just against.
Posted by monicasmith on November 30, 2005 at 07:03 PM"

I agree with your post... "for all" is what the Dem party is -- united in "for all," allowing differing viewpoints to converge into one solution for all.

Posted by Buzz on November 30, 2005 at 02:08 PM ?Lieberman the new Zell Miller? Nope, Zell is at least entertaining. Joe needs to go, but I don't vote in his district.

Posted by KevinSchmidtVA on November 30, 2005 at 07:38 PM RE: PACs

I made my first ever campaign contribution to the BarbaraBoxer.com -- Time for a Change PAC -- Not all Political Action Committees are backed by political hacks or corporations. Pick your PAC and donate if you feel so inclined.

The Bush Administration policies scare me. I think he wants us in Syria and Iran and ??? He, and the rest of his administration, needs to be on a short leash. I doth refrain from using the "I" word.

I think it's Time for a Change.

Whoopie, the Dems raised more money. Where did it come from? Campaign reform is one thing that is badly needed, but nobody is talking about.
I don't see mentioned anything about controlling parasitical corporations who pay workers less than living wages, and ship jobs overseas. As long as there are no campaign reforms then probably no one will talk about them.
I keep looking at the news and seeing how well this economy is suposed to be doing, but see no one talking about the erosion of the median wage, the fact that many formerly middle class families are now struggling to survive, and how many people are working 2,3, or even 4 jobs to try to survive. To me the working families of this country are going through a depression in the midst of a false prosperity. Why isn't anyone talking about that.
We need to get back to the true base of the Democrat party and talk about the real issues.

I am overcome with all the ideas each one has presented here. This will give our people very good ideas to work from. If we don't get in the majority this time, it won't be your fault. I am so proud of you and I know all our elected officials are also.

What will we use as a rebuttal for our elected officials that were reported as having taken bribs along with nine Republicans? I think they only mentioned Harry Reid. There were nine Republicans mentioned on C-Span Friday Morning.

Wow! That all sound really good! But how much of it can they really do? I believe that American leaders have gotten away from the things that really matter. Things like social sercurity, employeement, and our children's education. They are constantly cutting the bugets in these areas, to put the money into more important things. Well, whats more important than our personal safety (as a country), our ability to afford to live, and our children getting the knowledge that they need for the rest of their lives? I think that while Democrats are in office more of these issues are addressed and taken care of. And if they can put the money back into these areas, than i am all for it.