Replies

Pardon me while I step back into my role as one of the few non-troll Democrats posting on FR.

I really liked your post. You're thinking and I always appreciate that. I think that your plan is generally sound, although I'd suggest we don't have a few years to wait for introspection.

The problem I have is with your premises. I agree with the sentiments presented, but I see two errors in your logic: (1) your logic assumes that there are enough (conservative) adults left in the Democratic party to make the changes that you suggest. (2)You also imply that the Democratic party is truly run by the rank-and-file, that is to say in a "democratic" fashion.

I would suggest that you re-examine your premises in these respects. Understand that you don't yet have the advantage of being an active and partisan Democrat being able to look at what the reality from the inside.

So let's talk about the first error in your logic as I see it. I have to hand it to the GOP, their efforts over time to woo conservatives over to the GOP have been remarkably successful. Too successful, actually, and the buzzards are now coming home to roost. There are very few conservative Democrats left, and they're marginalized within the party hierarchy. Numbers do matter to a certain extent. And while I do believe that 1 conservative versus 3 radical leftists constitutes a fair fight, 1 versus 6 is a losing battle. And that's about where we're at in the Democratic party. The conservatives and the people who are willing to step up to bat are simply too few and too marginalized.

So while we're talking about the Democratic party cleaning it's own house, precisely who is going to do it? The folks over at DU? Nancy Pelosi?

Secondly, I believe that your logic implies that the Democratic party is run as a more or less democratic organization. On one level, it certainly is. That is to say the local party organizations are democratically elected, the leadership at the state level is democratically elected, etc. But on another and more important level, that's not the case. Again, I think you'd have to have an inside view to readily understand what's going on on a couple of different levels.

The cynical version of the golden rule is that "he who has the gold makes the rules." The "gold" (i.e. organization and financing) for the Democratic party is not being provided by the Democratic party rank and file for the most part. It's being provided by organizations such as moveon, the trial lawyers, George Soros, etc. People who have a more economic interest in the outcome. The election of 2004 was run and financed by outside entities. It had to be. The rank and file organization of the Democratic party is in a state of disarray, and I doubt that they could have put together a credible campaign.

Welcome to post campaign finance reform America. The Democratic party still exists, but I wonder if it's future is going to be as more of a ceremonial organization that coronates the candidates that the MSM, Michael Moore, and moveon want to run the country.

Let me finish this too long of a post on an optimistic note. Lest my analysis seem too pessimistic, I should point out that I'm personally very, very optimistic and see great opportunities for the future. With large change comes large opportunity. And we just got a large change last Tuesday.

I think you just summed up why Zell Miller was hanging with President Bush these last few months.

John Kennedy couldnt admit it. You dont want to admit it. Reagan realized it and did something about it (He became a Republican.) and Zell sees it too and has warned the Liberal Left.

The Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.

Of course with all the Dems eating their own at a never before seen rate, Mike Moore and Algore will be the only two left soon and will be too fat to move.

I hear your silent conservative screams. Dont fight it.