Democrats: Elevator Pitch, part 2

Nine days ago, here at BlueOregon, Jeff Bull asked Democrats - what's the elevator pitch? How would you describe what Democrats stand for in 30 seconds or less?

Well, either Katie Couric is reading BlueOregon, or she's on the same page we are. On the Today Show, she asked Howard Dean to describe what the Democrats stand for - in 30 seconds or less. Cue the tape:

"One: American jobs that will stay in America, using energy independence to generate those jobs. Two: a strong national defense based on telling the truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies. Three: Honesty and integrity to be restored to government. Four: A health care system that works for everybody just like they have in 36 other countries. Five: a strong public education system so we can have optimism and opportunity back in America."

Katie's response?

"Thank you for staying in the 30 second time frame."

Discuss.

Comments

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For a sound-bite, it works for me. Sure, I could go for something strong on environment (global warming), personal security (crime) and wrap it up with an assertion that these point are the true American moral values. But Dean hit the big points in 30 seconds. His response does need an overarching theme.

  • (Show?)

    Hmm. Democratic Messaging. So we should be more than grassroots democrats that run around and knock on doors and bother people while they are trying to watch the O'Reilly Factor?

  • Winston Wolfe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bravo Mr. Dean,

    I couldn't have said it better.

    We Democrats believe in

    1:"American Jobs" 2:"Protecting Our Vets" 3:"Open Government" 4:"Affordible Health Care" 5:"Quality Education"

    I just wish four and five were two and three.

    Take note kids, this is what we should be preaching until Nov 7th.

  • (Show?)

    What struck me is that he just busted it out when he was asked a question. I'd add an enviro bit - and a 'power to the people' bit - but basically that's it.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As far as it goes, Howard Dean did a good job.

    But I think it is even simpler than that, although this is not a partisan remark.

    "If you are looking for leadership, look in the mirror".

    People working together to solve problems don't need an overarching theme.

    Some of the most successful campaigns I have ever worked on were the ones where the candidate not only could deliver a speech or a soundbite like the one in the post---but also attracted such a diverse group of friends to campaign events that people who never agreed on anything end up at an event for the same candidate. I'm talking about staffers of one party showing up at an event for a candidate for the other party because the candidate is a friend or someone they admire. I am talking about people who have never been involved in politics (or those who are of the burned out "been there done that" variety) showing up at an event for a candidate they admire.

    The purpose of elections is to win more votes and get the power to do good things for people. And there are people of all party or no party who can tell you something someone did while serving in elective office (or serving as an appointee to a vacant office) did which had a lasting impact.

    Seems to me that is more important than an "elevator pitch" for a political party.

  • steve mclaughlin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey, blue oregon readers and bloggers! right at this moment there is a filibuster of sorts going on a webcast. Go to: theyoungturks.com and click on the image of the tv with the hosts onit and watch live these guys do their own filibuster until the dems have one of their own. they have been going since 3pm yesterday. For those of you who are not familiar with this site, they are very well informed, and intelligent, and entertaining as well. they are on Sirius radio talk left as well 3-6 pm pst. Watch and listen, support them in their drive to get everyone to call their senators to encourage a filibuster of Alito. Go forward!

  • Jeff Bull (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'd tinker with the phrasing of #1, make it read something more like "Jobs in an economy that leads and adapts to global reality." The whole "jobs that stay in America" line speaks to protectionism; I'm thinking more in terms of staying ahead of the globalization curve; you can tie that back to educating America's kids - and doing so on the same terms (innovative, progressive education and so on....ignoring, for now, whether public schools can pull that off).

    Still, good on Dean. That's a pretty good pitch.

  • (Show?)

    Here's the link to the QT video from Crooks & Liars.

    Jenson- without knocking on doors and getting the message out to real voters, the best messaging in the world isn't worth much. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

  • Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow! I TRULY hope ( I mean I HOPE against HOPE!)Democrats around the nation build on those planks!

  • (Show?)

    as any good deanista could tell you, the 5 points Dean made are not ranked in order. he would probably also have spoken about the environment in seconds 31-35. lots of other stuff left out, but we can't present the entire Dems agenda in 30 seconds -- or 30 minutes. hell, 30 days might not be enough. but this is a great start.

    also, LT, your quote is the second half of any Dean message: part 1 is what the party/candidate can/should/will do; part 2 is: "You have the power!" his campaign (and this is part of what was ignored by the media and other Dems) pushed the message repeatedly that no matter who won the election, it would be up to the people to really make change happen. he continues to push that message; that's why he's going to the red states, funding local organizers for the next 4 years, etc. others may talk grassroots; Dean does everything he can to support it.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry - what were those five things again? And which of them would your average Republican disagree with? Didn't George Bush run on four of them: Jobs, Defense, Honesty, Education? The only one that even is remotely controversial is health care, and I suspect even most republicans would agree we need a health care system that "works for everybody" - at least everbody who can afford it.

    A five point program is not an elevator speech.

    The Demcratic Party ought to see itself as the party for social progress that believes everyone should have a chance to get ahead. That believes government is needed to keep a level playing field of opportunity. That doesn't let those who do get ahead close and lock the doors behind them so others can't. That believes that the more public services are provided for everyone, the more everyone will be able to get ahead for themselves. That believes the way America will get ahead is by investing in ourselves.

    An elevator speech only has one point repeated several times.

  • Peter Graven (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would have to agree with Jeff about the jobs one. Democrats shouldn't try to embrace protectionism; it's a backwards idea that goes against our core values to improve the conditions of people regardless of borders.

    Moreover, do people still believe the government is responsible for providing jobs? I kind of thought that government provides the conditions (healthy educated workforce, roads, legal system, etc.) for jobs to develop, but that it is the people's responsibility to be productive and actually create the jobs.

    I only mention it because if you actually promise people that you create jobs, you'll bite the bullet during every business cycle. And we all know the lag between someone getting elected, improving the education system, and having newly educated citizens creating new jobs is long.

    Dean is not afraid to be concise. It's nice.

  • Sid Leader (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wanna job? Dems.

    Want your CEO to upgrade his Lear jet before going to prison for 30-to-life? PUBS.

    Ding!

    Could you press floor 23 for me.

    Thanks.

  • (Show?)

    Not a bad pitch by Dr. Dean, but it's still more of a list of policy proposals than a unifying philosophy or ideology.

    I think we need to take a step back and ask a slightly different, more specific question. What is the economic philosphy? Because we all know, it's the economy, stupid.

    We know Republicans believe in free market capitalism. Now that communism and socialism have been defeated and discredited, what do Democrats believe in? Fair market capitalism with more regulation?

    A lot of people on the Democratic left still believe in full blown European socialsim or even communism. They just don't want to talk about it or admit it, because they know it's a political loser. A lot of independents and moderate Republicans are wary of Democrats because they believe Democrats are really socialists at heart but just don't want to 'fess up about it.

    The truth is that we pretty much have a national consensus that the market economy and capitalism are the best ways to create jobs and keep the economy humming. You don't see Democrats offering an alternative vision to this any more, like they used to. Free market economics and capitalism used to be purely a Republican point of view, but now it has become the white elephant in the middle of the Democratic living room, that no one wants to see or talk about.

    Maybe it's a good thing that we now have a national consensus favoring market economics over big government, with the Cold War being over and all. But this development has left the Democratic party wandering in the wilderness searching for its soul.

    So now, rather than debate what the fundamental, underlying economic philosophy of our nation should be, we are just debating degrees of difference in policy details with Republicans, on their home turf.

    Democrats with need to come clean with themselves first, and then with the nation, about what they really think about free market economics and capitalsim, before they can put forward a true elevator pitch that is significantly different than something the Republicans might agree with.

  • Amanda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm actually rather insulted. As a moderate Democrat, I do believe in the free enterprise system. What's more, I believe other Democrats believe the same way I do. You are making accusations about a group based on a few. Yes, I meant to say accusations. I believed in socialism once, it's true. But I grew out of that phase like I grew out of my Backstreet Boys phase. The Democratic party grew out of that phase, and I trust that a lot of Democrats are not opposed to the free market system. It is true, however, that controls are needed. Big business has no interest in the little people that make their company work. We need to protect those people from things they can't protect themselves from, like corrupt CEOs and CFOs.

    This is not to say however that universal health care is a bad thing. It is a needed thing because it is a basic human right. Enough said.

    As to the more of what Dean said. I'm very happy with what he said. Encouraging American jobs with the growth of new industry is not a socialistic thing. It appears, to me at least, to be like subsidies. The government needs to help the industry get off the ground, and then allow it to run its course in the business market. And the market does exist for clean energy.

  • W. Bruce Anderholt II (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Amanda: I was a Socialist once too. But I was still receiving an allowance from my parents (age 12), so it seemed perfectly natural at that time. I found a "good" after school job by age 13, and I was making $3.25/hour (minimum wage, but I could work as many hours as I could stand). Even then, I was shocked at how much money was withheld by the various taxing authorities. No more Socialism. I never understood the Backstreet Boys: they were just big Mouseketeers from my vantage point.

    I am afraid there is statistically significant excess appreciation for the Backstreet Boys here at B.O.

  • Amanda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Backstreet Boys were never Mousekeeters. That was N*SYNC. God, I know why too much about that.

    Actually, I was a socialist despite taxes. I was a socialist until about six months ago. I had a job and never filed for my tax refund. It was when I began to experience the bureaucracy (sp?) that I realized that sometimes less is more.

    As a note: while my socialist phase lasted until six months ago, my Backstreet Boys phase ended about 9 years ago.

  • Behind the Scenes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I found a "good" after school job by age 13, and I was making $3.25/hour (minimum wage, but I could work as many hours as I could stand).

    And we all walked 30 miles to school through the snow. No buses for us back then. But that's why we had absorbed Karl Marx at age 12.

    Who are the Backstreet Boys?

  • W. Bruce Anderholt II (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BTS: do you think I care whether you believe me or not? If that's your best cheap shot you need to drink more or blog less.

    Amanda: sorry about the confusion. You could show me a picture of both bands and I couldn't tell them apart. Maybe it's my age (38) or my gender. That said, I wouldn't be able to identify the members of KISS or the Spice Girls by name, either. Congratulations on the death of Socialism: I'm surprised East Germany beat you there. I hope you found a good tax accountant or attorney to get you caught up.

  • Adventuregeek (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Arggggg. I like Mr. Dean, but $%*# was that! It's really this simple: Democrats: "Government for the Common Good". Simple comparison:

    Republicans: Greed, coruption, ineffectual government, cronism, low taxes (if your rich), no regulation, immoral wars, profit over science etc...

    Democrats: Government programs that help the common person, ethics, low debt, worker rights, community values, healthcare for all, jobs for all.

    See a theme here. Repubs, benifits to the few. Dems, benifits to the many. It's so easy!

  • Benifits? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Benifits=Benefits? Coruption=Corruption? Maybe Blue Oregon culd ad a spel checkr.

    How about:

    "Demacratz: we caint typ, but we sur can tayke yur money."

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Adam, What free market is it you're referring to anyhow? You certainly don't mean here in the USA? Not if you've looked at the tax structure you sure don't mean it.

    You seem to be implying that any tinkering with the system a Democrat might suggest would be socialism, or, my god, Communism. It never ceases to amaze me, the Republicans (or other elitists) can add on all the anti-competitive taxes, regs, and social pressures they please to keep the economic disparity growing and that's free market. Maybe you should look at how a Corporation actually functions under this system. Oh shoot, you probably already know and keep handing out the pap. Any decent money column would show you how to make piles of money doing mergers, aquisitions, disvestitures, tax restructuring, legal accounting fraud ...

    ...tayke yur money... you don't have enough to parrot the Republican line, idjit. Maybe you ought to quit worrying about Republican fear bites and take a look at just exactly who needs to worry about Capital Gains & Estate Taxes. Then maybe you ought to take a look at your actual total tax bite percentage and their actual percentage, won't you be surprised. But no, that might mean actually being informed.

    A disclaimer: I do take advantage of the Corporate tax structure. Further disclaimer: I loathe parrots Ignorance is curable, stupidity is terminal

  • Benifits (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chuckie:

    I too loathe parrots. I am writing today from Laissez Fairy Godfather economy, which is just around the corner from the

    "Social Democratic is better than People's Republic Kaffe Haus"

    Translation: this may not be a free market, but its a far cry from Sweden.

    If my folks croak together, ye old death tax will cost their estate (that would be "me") nearly $700,000 in Federal Taxes, plus State of California estate taxes. Fortunately, they recently closed escrow on the family farm (and paid 26% long term capital gains tax), so there will plenty of cash for Uncles Sam and Scharzenegger.

    Here's the part that doesn't make sense: their antecedents came to this country 3-5 generations ago with nothing. Some of them were educated, most were not. Through hard work and a little luck, they eventually wound up with farmland, stocks and bonds, and some residential real estate. They never felt, or lived, like they are rich. The wealthier side of the family (my maternal grandparents) worked the first 18 years (6 days a week) in a small business with only two vacations (2 weeks each) IN 18 YEARS! They eventually hired some part time employees, but they continued to work 16 hour days x 5 days a week until they retired in their 60's.

    They've all paid taxes along the way, two of them had distinguished Navy or Air Force stints. Assuming modest investment returns, upon the next generation's passing, there could be more than $1 million in total estate taxes due and payable because they didn't spend it all in their lifetime.

    It's simply a tax on people who save and invest, rather than spend and consume. It's illogical to tax money as it is earned, and then tax it again if anybody had the good sense not to spend it. It's more like subsidizing consumption by giving an estate tax break to everybody that dies poor.

    I no nuttin 'bout doze corporate taxis, but wood luv to see sum corporate welfair come mye weigh.

  • Peter Graven (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Benifits, we know that in order for the market system to be bought into by all people (poor, middle, and upper class) there needs to be a reasonable amount mobility between classes for each generation. That is, poor and middle class folks need to feel reasonably likely that they can become rich. If you let the rich give all their money to their families (without redistribution through government taxation) mobility is decreased.

  • Alice (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter: thank you for your thoughtful comments.

    From now on, I will not say "Tax and Spend" liberals.

    Hereafter, I will say "Tax and Redistribute" liberals.

  • Behind the Scenes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    do you think I care whether you believe me or not?

    With the stuff you wrtie, obviously you don't care whether anyone believes you. You claimed were a socialist at age 12 when most of us were still learning long division. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that?

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If my folks croak together, ye old death tax will cost their estate (that would be "me") nearly $700,000 in Federal Taxes

    I'm glad you understand that the tax is on you, not your parents.

    Here's the part that doesn't make sense: their antecedents came to this country 3-5 generations ago with nothing. Some of them were educated, most were not. Through hard work and a little luck, they eventually wound up with farmland, stocks and bonds, and some residential real estate. They never felt, or lived, like they are rich. The wealthier side of the family (my maternal grandparents) worked the first 18 years (6 days a week) in a small business with only two vacations (2 weeks each) IN 18 YEARS! They eventually hired some part time employees, but they continued to work 16 hour days x 5 days a week until they retired in their 60's.

    They've all paid taxes along the way, two of them had distinguished Navy or Air Force stints. Assuming modest investment returns, upon the next generation's passing, there could be more than $1 million in total estate taxes due and payable because they didn't spend it all in their lifetime.

    As they say, you can't take it with you.

    It's simply a tax on people who save and invest, rather than spend and consume.

    As you point out the tax is on you, not your parents who are dead at the point it is paid. And what exactly did you do to earn the money?

    The United States is a land of opportunity. It is called that because European countries were once the lands of inherited wealth where almost the only key to success was to be born of wealthy parents. If you want to be wealthy like your grandparents, work 16 hours a day the way they did. Its the American way.

  • Peter Graven (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alice, it's not just liberals who want a chance at being rich, it's conservatives as well. It's called meritocracy and it's a bedrock in both parties. Estate taxes even the playing field.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What "Benifits" doesn't bother to mention is that while the parents paid taxes on what they made (neglecting investment shelters) nobody paid taxes on the capital gains the investments made, not until it hits po' beni'. It's the same shell game, the "rich" claim to be picked on while they pay a lower percentage in tax bite than a common laborer. (don't forget there's 15.4% FICA, 7.7 by employer) If the ordinary income tax had been paid on the cap gains each year as income, the bite would've been higher, he gets a deal and whines about it.

    GWB & the Rs have made hay calling this thing a "Death Tax" and never ever mention the percentage of estates subject to it or the income bracket that's involved. They seem to be determined to recreate the late 1800s, that's fine, except they might want to take a look at the actual history of the reaction to that. If you think now is weird and scarey, take a look for yourself.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ron Wyden did a great job recently on Charlie Rose talking about the diff. tax burden and why he and others support the Fair Flat Tax (which has 3 tax brackets and a one page form). He said Warren Buffet has used the example of paying less in taxes than his secretary pays.

    Whatever anyone thinks of the communications differences between generic Republicans and generic Democrats, I think the real "elevator pitch" is if the Fair Flat Tax becomes a subject of public debate. If it does, a simple question like "who should pay more in taxes, Warren Buffet or his secretary?" (in other words, someone who works for a living or someone who lives off investments) should be enough to get people thinking about taxes and economic fairness.

    If Warren Buffett himself is using that example, the old right wing scream THE DEMOCRATS ARE EMPLOYING CLASS WARFARE doesn't hold up very well.

  • Benifits (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter Craven:

    I'm shocked you view the "estate tax" as supporting a meritocracy. Look it up: it doesn't say anything about redistribution of wealth.

    Chuckie:

    You need to read my post again: when my folks sold the farm, they paid 18% Federal Capital Gains tax and another 8% to the State of California. That cash now is generating interest, which is subject to income tax (unless they invest in CA municipal bonds). They paid 26% (18% + 8% = 26%) of their profit in capital gains taxes.

    If they both die in 2009, only $2 million will be subject to the death tax. If they both die after 2011, then every dollar over $1 million is subject to the death tax (unless the Bush tax cuts are made permanent). Guess which party I'm supporting in 2006?

    To suggest "estate taxes" are the only way to tax those rascally rich wabbits (with all their loopholes) ignores the manner in which the emerging affluent create and manage their wealth (the sale of businesses, real estate, appreciated equities, intellectual property, etc.). Maybe the uber-wealthy (like Warren Buffet) have sheltered themselves from taxes along the way: the emerging affluent frequently are unable to do so if they wish to migrate towards more liquid investments (you can't spend farmland).

  • Benifits (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete: Two entries found for meritocracy. Notably, it does not mention anything about redistribution of wealth.

    Main Entry: mer·i·toc·ra·cy 1 : a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement 2 : leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria

  • Peter Graven (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Benifits,

    Thanks for the definition. It proves my point further. The idea is that each person needs to have a level playing field or else they will not "be able to move ahead based on their achievements". In order to create the level playing field we need to redistribute wealth from time to time (ie. during massive transfers of estates). Also, you'll see nowhere in your definition that the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their "parents'" achievement which, is what you are advocating.

  • Alice (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Level playing field? Is that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? What makes you think the goverment can level the playing field? I missed that part when I took political science.

    We should aspire to equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. That said, we are unequal from birth. As children age, it becomes apparent that some are smarter, or taller, or better cared for (stimulation/nutrition/health), or simply healthier. Others have drug addicted parents or no books at home.

    How can the government possibly level the playing field, without raising our kids in "Brave New World" style government nurseries (Huxley)? How does "Benifits" inheritance move him ahead of you?

    Surely you don't believe the government can simply grant "equality" through redistribution of wealth. It didn't work so well under the U.S. welfare system or the U.S.S.R.

  • Peter Graven (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alice,

    Well, indeed, equality of opportunity is the issue. I'm glad we can agree. I hope I didn't make it seem like the government guarentees outcomes, just the chance at outcomes.

    As for why the government does try to create a level playing field, it's because a huge majority of people (conservative and liberal) want them to. I don't think you'll find it in the constitution but you will find it in conversation.

    I also agree that people have different abilities. But abilities are different from inherited wealth. No one is advocating leveling abilities.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Look it up: it doesn't say anything about redistribution of wealth.

    Isn't that what you are arguing for? Your parents wealth should be redistributed to you? This isn't about whether to redistribute it, but how much and to whom. If we allocate the kids the first million dollars and a percentage of the rest, that seems pretty generous.

    My parents taught me that no one, including them, owed me a living. I think Bill Gates has said the same thing about his kids - they need to earn their own way in life. I think that is the American way. Its also the reason we have the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation among others. And I haven't noticed the Rockefellers or Ford children having been destitute as a result. Nor did the family businesses disappear. I suspect the same will be true of Bill Gates' kids and Microsoft.

  • Benifits (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clearly, the notion of personal property rights will not resonate with this audience.

    And to answer your (hopelessly naive) question, Ross: Yes, I do believe that my parents are entitled to leave their wealth to anybody they want. I fail to see how the government feels entitled to a piece of the pie: having already served themselves a generous 26% percent of all their liquid assets (plus 43% of taxable income).

    If nothing else, it is refreshing to see the above comments offered with such clarity: helps to remind me why I quit voting for Democrats.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, I do believe that my parents are entitled to leave their wealth to anybody they want.

    No one is preventing them from leaving the money to whoever they want. As you pointed out above, the tax is really on you. Perhaps we should treat it as normal income and just let you pay income tax on it.

    I fail to see how the government feels entitled to a piece of the pie:

    You don't seem to think you should pay taxes at all since your parents and grandparents paid taxes.

    helps to remind me why I quit voting for Democrats.

    Very few people pay any inheritance taxes. If the Democrats can get the rest of the voters who would have to make up for the lost revenue in either higher taxes or fewer services they will more than offset your choice.

  • activist kaza (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's heartening to see the Estate Tax issue getting so much attention as part of the "elevator pitch". It does neatly encapsulate what should be a basic, fundamental difference between Ds and Rs. It's also an issue where we need to keep certain (Hooley and Wyden come to mind) politicians' feet to the fire, as they are only recent (and somewhat reluctant) converts to the cause.

  • WAL-MART is EVIL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: WAL-MART is EVIL | Jan 17, 2006 9:49:50 PM

    "Democrats: we take from the rich and give to the poor."

    Nothing wrong with a little truth in advertising. Besides, the poor outnumber the rich, right?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I had a "feet to the fire" discussion with someone at a campaign kickoff party, and I will ask the question here:

    Which do you prefer: A) Ideologically pure Democrats? B) Democrats who can win in the district they run in?

    There are many of us who believe that is the choice.

    I prefer B.

    I know some have strong feelings one way or another on gun control, but I will remind you folks about the first Democrat ever elected to the 5th Congressional District. The incumbent ran ads with the word LIBERAL pasted across this man's face, but they were not successful. Mike Kopetski lived in the 5th Dist. but had grown up in Pendleton. If anyone asked him his stance on guns/ hunting, he would say "Hey! I grew up in Pendleton and like all other red blooded teenage boys I went hunting".

    What a great one liner--not polarizing, just "this is what I believe". Too bad more politicians can't do that!

    There were those who were shocked to learn about this stand on the issue, but his friends would say "Did you ask him where he stood?". The answer was generally that they had assumed he agreed with them.

    The lesson is this: The purpose of a political party is to win elections.

    Time after time there have been those whose name was not on the ballot who wanted to tell people how they should think. Does that work? I don't always like how someone votes, but that is not the point. The point is to have a majority of one's party in power--and the only way to get that is to win elections.

    I have seen too many elections where the ideologically pure people couldn't win an election. And personally, if given the choice between someone I have known for years but don't always agree with or the "you're supposed to agree with me because I believe in all good things" type, my vote goes to the old friend.

    And in real life, rarely is there the opportunity for a "vote Democratic because..." elevator pitch. But there are many opportunities to give that sort of pitch for a particular candidate.

  • Sid Leader (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Wall Street Journal is still offering $10,000 to anyone whose family loses their business to the GOP Urban Myth of The Year -- The Estate Tax.

    Six years after making the offer, no takers.

    Associated Press has the same offer.

    Just ask GOP God Craig Berkman, before he goes to prison with Scooter, Rush, KennyBoy and all of W's closest pals!

open discussion

connect with blueoregon