"Real Dems" from Leftinthwest.com
Interesting discussion from my favorite Montana blog, but a question that just has to be asked by real Democrats in Washington State. Questioning the liberal credentials of Western Democrats and "Republican Lite" name calling is bound to happen, so lets just get it out there as soon as possible.
Now, there are a number of good responses to this question. One is “Go fork yourself.” No one asks those questions after a Democratic sweep in California. No one asks that in Washington. And I’m just guessing that Ken is one of those people wondering why Kansas gets to claim to be real America. Well, I’m wondering why Ken gets to claim to be a real Democrat and question that validity of our membership in the Democratic Party.Here’s what the Democratic Party I know stands for: protecting opportunity for all Americans, by protecting affordable education and ensuring its quality, by creating good-paying jobs so that work is more rewarding than welfare; making sure no one is left behind, by making sure more Americans have quality health care, and that adequate social safety nets are in place so that the richest country on Earth isn’t also the poorest country on Earth; and protecting people from criminals here at home and from international threats, because people who follow the rules shouldn’t have to worry about their own safety.
Honestly, as soon as Schweitzer won, I started seeing random blog comments about how it didn’t matter, because he was a pro-life Democrat. One problem with this statement: it isn’t true. Schweitzer is personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice. That’s a reasonable position, especially for a practicing Catholic.
Do you think Republicans go around calling Olympia Snowe a "Dem Lite." Well, maybe some do, but this kind of ho-ha is pretty darn petty if you ask me. Enough.
Emmett O'Connell | November 28, 2004 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Winning a Senate seat in Colorado isn't the same thing as winning one in a state like Vermont. Personally, I'm pro-choice, but in the case of a Catholic candidate who is "personally" pro-life, but votes pro-choice, I'd say this: why isn't every democrat in every swing state taking a similar position? Anyone who's dumb enough not to see how and why regional difference matter, and that candidates need to stake out positions that work for them, really should fork off...
On the other hand, GOPers question whether members of the GOP are "real" members of the GOP ALL THE TIME. It's happening right now Big Time, as Dick Cheney would say. And there's something to it. There are times when you have to wonder which team a politician is pitching for. Democrats from reliably blue states should not sound like republicans 1/2 the time. And if they sound anything like Zell Miller...it's probably worth weeding them out sooner rather than later.
Posted by: clinton eastwood | Nov 28, 2004 9:42:48 PM
I am from Maryland, but I am all for the Democratic Party looking West. The "blue" states won by Al Gore and John Kerry are not enough. In the heyday of the Democratic Party, great Democrats like Mike Mansfield of Montana and Frank Church of Idaho came from the West, and Mansfield was Senate majority Leader. The Democratic Party would do well to put together a coalition of the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, the Northern Plains and the entire West (West Coast and Mountain States). Yes, the Democrats should win where we can in the South (for example, Mark Warner is a great Governor of Virginia), but there are more states with more possibilities in the West right now.
Posted by: Eliot Greenwald | Dec 6, 2004 8:26:41 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
