Posted on 04/03/2005 8:47:47 PM PDT by neverdem
To the Editor:
I disagree with former Senator Bill Bradley's hypothesis regarding the central cause of the Democratic Party's "inversion" ("A Party Inverted," Op-Ed, March 30).
The failures of the Democratic Party are not attributable to our longing for another J.F.K.-type figure to lead the way. Rather, we are weakened by the fundamental premises of our own ideology.
We place a very high value on the heterogeneity and diversity of our party. But by promoting heterogeneity and diversity, we are dispersing our power instead of consolidating it.
If we want to make progress, we need to focus on constructing a set of clear and concise principles and values that centralizes and homogenizes our message, but not our members.
Michael P. Marshal Pittsburgh, March 30, 2005
To the Editor:
Bill Bradley complains that Democrats who run for president have to build their own political pyramids because there is no stable, larger structure upon which they can rely.
But the Democrats do have pyramid elements that are not dependent on the candidate. There is a large source of perennial funding. Liberal sources and people like George Soros have recently been joined by MoveOn.org and various "527 committees."
The second tier includes Democrat-dominated establishment media and colleges and universities. The third tier includes consultants like James Carville and Paul Begala.
While a charismatic candidate might help, the Democrats' pyramid is already stable. But this is about the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, a subject Mr. Bradley does not address.
A. Jared Silverman West Orange, N.J., March 30, 2005 The writer was a Republican candidate for Congress in 2002.
To the Editor:
Bill Bradley describes the institutional advantages that Republicans have over Democrats. But he does not identify the institutional base that served the Democrats well when they were in the majority: labor unions.
The decline of organized labor was an essential ingredient in the decline of the Democrats, and until the party finds a way to help labor rebuild, or discovers a functional substitute, it will continue to be out-strategized by the G.O.P.
Howard L. Reiter Storrs, Conn., March 30, 2005 The writer is chairman of the department of political science at the University of Connecticut.
To the Editor:
Bill Bradley, in his analysis of the shortcomings of the Democratic Party, points to Bill Clinton as a charismatic victor who was unable to create a supporting organization around him. This is true, but to what extent was that because of the self-inflicted troubles he faced because of the Monica Lewinsky matter?
Democrats have nominated two uncharismatic, somewhat colorless candidates in the last two elections. Their inability to energize and galvanize voters who might have been undecided hurt the party's effort.
I agree that the Democratic Party needs to organize from the bottom up. It needs financing, a new generation of political activists, think tanks and, most important, a concerted effort at the state level to take back state legislatures and governorships.
Ed Weissman New York, March 30, 2005
To the Editor:
While I agree with Bill Bradley's advocacy of a Republicanesque pyramidal finance and information structure for the Democratic Party, I do not think that such a structure would remedy the practical electoral problems that the party is facing.
How would a pyramidal structure win Congressional seats for Democrats in Texas or Alabama? How would it help paint Missouri or Kansas blue again? Establishing a successful fund-raising and media network will not ensure electoral gains.
Democrats need to reinvent the message they send to the heartland before reinventing the foundation of their party.
Adam Shpeen Albany, March 30, 2005
(The insults and contempt didn't exactly help, either. They can't really conceal it.)
"what's wrong with same sex marriage"
Beats me. Other than it gets imposed on the masses by unelected judges that are not accountable.
I said nothing about liberals being awful. I implied they were, at best, naive about how they are viewed by those of us that do not support their ideas.
The same thing wrong with all marriages: It's the same sex, all the time.
and why are liberals so awful?
They've based an entire political belief system on whining. That gets real tiresome, real fast.
Now, go play in the street.
What's wrong with liberalism, at least modern day liberalism, is that it kills people. It also robs them of their money, property, and their freedom.
That's the short list.
L
Boggles the mind if they remain a cohesive party at all.
That's what makes liberals so dangerous.
L
Too many political commentators who should know better are still insisting that a winning combination consists of riling up your base by demonizing the opposition, and of throwing bribery money around to identified interest groups. If the Dems ever do a Gingrich we could have problems - (1) identify 10 specific issues, (2) state 10 specific programs that will deal with them, and (3) propose placing all 10 up for a vote within the first 100 days of the congressional session. They won't because they can't.
I think that the Dems could come up with 10 issues, but the problem is the programs. The party doesn't have a plan. It's run out of ideas. On any given issue the best they can come up with is "the Republicans screwed that up, and we'll do better, don't ask us how, and oh, by the way, we need to give money to this or that group to solve it." Hubert Humphrey is spinning in his grave.
See ya...
"George Soros, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation ..."
It can make you wonder why billionaires support a socialist party? Their left wing are hypocrites if they think they are against capitalism.
Seriousley? It's not a marriage. I can call my truck a train all I want but it's still a truck. It's never going to be a train.
and why are liberals so awful? can you state anything specific?
They support abortion, which has killed 40 million babies. They have disarmed victims worldwide with their blind aliegence to gun control. They have defended, embraced and even supported every tin pot dictator that manages to call himself a socialist from stalin to pol-pot to Castro and on and on. They are illogical. They will do the same thing over and over again each time expecting a different outcome. This refers to gun control, acquiescence to terrorists, supporting national defense, Israel, taxes, environmentalism, hell it would be easier to list the things liberals get right. (if you can name one go for it)
Liberals have abandon right and wrong. They have taken a trip into moral ambiguity. As long as it supports the socialist agenda, it is right. (abortion, demonization of the military) Lacking moral boundaries they no longer have in inner moral compass to guide them. This easily explains why no matter what GWB does, even the simple gesture of seeing the troops in Bagdad for Thanksgiving, must be turned about in the liberal mind to be something evil and insidious, instead of simply leaving it as the simple gesture it was.
Is that specific enough?
"what's wrong with same sex marriage? seriously?"
Same sex marriage is not about extending the franchise of freedom. It's about ending marriage. If you don't understand that, you obviously don't know what your political philosophy is really about.
"The Democrats have failed because they have made Our Creator its enemy. Should there be a rebirth from this party, and an amalgamation from those who've rightly moved to Republicans, the reborn Democratic Party needs a proper name change to reflect their recognizing Our Divine Creator."
How can that Party change? It's been following a coherent trajectory (progressively more socialist and godless) for the past hundred years. It cannot just change course, and become an alternative sort of conservative party.
Better have some fun with 'im before the mods show up...
Profile page indicates target has not been neutralized...
Well, they did approve of the murder of Terri Schiavo.
Um, they oppose the Boy Scouts...
err, they did give China nuclear missile technology that is now threatening us...
Gosh, when a mountain lion killed a jogging mother of two, then was itself shot, they set up a fund to help the offspring of the lion, but not the woman...
or maybe we could talk about trying to cling to an unconstitutional rule that would allow a senate minority to block Presidential judicial nominations
or possibly we could bring up attempts to stifle free speech (like they tried on the Swift Boat Vets) if it opposes their group think...
Jeepers, other than those above and a few million other things, I can't imagine why we would think liberals are awful...
Duhh.
Okay, 5 letters...
J-E-S-U-S
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.