Values

It wasn't the war or the economy that killed us. It was the notion of "values".

Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, yet Kerry was bad because he had "Massachusetts values" or other such nonesense.

We need to retake the language. We need to reframe the notion of "value".

That's why Obama's speech below is so brilliant. He speaks of God in a way that not just fails to offend this atheist, but inspires me. It's faith used for the purpose of living a good life, rather than faith wielded as a weapon against a whole class of people.

The wedges: gays, abortion, and guns.

Democrats have abandoned guns as an issue, and over the next three or four cycles it will prove an increasingly ineffective wedge. The NRA won. Good for them.

That leaves the two "faith based" wedges -- gays and abortion. And with great skill, the Republicans have equated those two issues with the word "value".

That's going to have to change.

•  Don't Think of an Elephant

  Required reading.

  Kos, you've mentioned reading this book. I'm looking forward to your insight on this issue.

  by gina on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:36:10 PM PDT

  •  kos has it wrong.

    the GOP's "values" include intimidating a vote count in Ohio and blatantly skewing democratic elections.

    we're never going to win people over with talks about "values".

    sorry to be pessimistic, folks, but this is a lot more serious than most of us realize.   Edwards had it right when he spoke of Two Americas.  

    Those Two Americas just threw up a big brick wall between them in the last 2 days.  

    I don't think any of us can knock it down.

    by sunzoo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:49:03 PM PDT

    •  Nobody said...

      ...that we can't fight two battles at once. We can reframe values while achieving voter reform. Both battles contribute to victories in the greater war.

      by GreatMidwest on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:53:10 PM PDT

      •  values my left foot...

        the talk of values on tv and i heard it a lot on CBS because that was the network on which i watched most of the time last night.

        it's not values, it's a terrible form of Christianity, where you don't have a god to love but a devil to hate and sinners to punish.

        that is your hard-core bush-supporting evangelicals.

        i'm a deist. i don't believe jesus rose from the dead to become the messiah of mankind. i call him josh carpenter around my church-going friends to see them wince.

        i'm tired of having jesus shoved into my face. believe in him or go to hell. BULLSHIT! THEN AMEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO MAKE ME A CRIMINAL!

        and i bet all athiests, agnostics, jews, muslims and other non-christian believers in some sort of divine agent agree with me.

        when was the first time you read in the newspapers anyone say that christianity ins't all that?

        yeh, i thought so. the first time will be the first time.

        and don'[t expect it to ever be mentioned on tv.

        i could ran and rave, but i'll quit now.

        by Bingo 505 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:14:31 PM PDT

        •  Gay rights is bigger than Gay marriage

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/14458/8334

          just some thoughts....& not a blame game....

          Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

          by krazypuppy on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:47:41 PM PDT

        •  sexual politics

          This is really all it comes down too. You might argue that this is all it has ever come down to:

          Fear of the black man for his presumed sexual prowess and alleged promiscuity.

          Fear of gay men for their alleged promiscuity.

          And, why not fear of "liberals" for their desire to take away our favorite penis substitutes: guns, large automobiles.

          Fear of the French for their alleged effeminacy, (and presumed sexual prowess). What's worse than limp wristed men who are attractive to our women ?

          Fear of women who seek abortions, for they must also be promiscuous, and a demand that they pay the price for their sexual activity: denial of the right to control their bodies.

          This is the difference between the two groups in the US. One body of people thinks that they have every right to impose their prejudices on those they fear. The other wants to eliminate those fears altogether.

          We're screwed. It took a civil war to eliminate slavery, and a near civil war to begin the process of giving civil rights to all Americans. Lyndon Johnson, was wrong. It wasn't the South he lost for two generations, it is the would be theocrats he lost for who knows how long.

          Note, I don't for a moment think that a majority of Americans necessarily think this way, but I do think that this is at the core of today's conservatism.

          -B
          

          by Bertie on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:58:43 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            I totally agree with you on this pretty much. Why is it that we cant get Freedom FROM religion around here? This whole damn thing, all of the reasons that Bush took this makes me litteraly sick to my stomach. I really now have a serious problem with anyone that voted for him. And im sure like me, all of us know a few friends or family members that did. I cant even look at these people the same as petty as this might sound, because now ive realized that there is such a fundemental difference in our views of the world that I just cannot respect them at their core. I mean I might still play cards with them or be civil and stuff...but when it comes down to it I got no love or respect for anyone that would fall for this line of shit in the face of a diasterous 4 years. I think that they have ruined this country and sealed its doom. If it gets too nasty around here im moving to Austrailia or something.............

            by Diggla on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:22:52 PM PDT

            •  Look for signs of GOP infighting

              Now that the Republicans appear to be getting what they've wanted (electoral legitimacy for Bush) I expect to see some internal rifts develop over just how much sway the religious crazies have over party-sponsored legislation. The "tax cut" faction isn't really interested so much in the kind of theocracy that some Repubs want to create but now both are thinking it's time to make even bolder moves. These are just two of the factions that think they deserve more clout than they already have and won't be satisfied with "no."

              by pomoxian on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:03:38 PM PDT

              •  Look for signs of GOP infighting

                [my first post to dKos, so please don't be too harsh]

                Here's why I think we're not going to see GOP infighting:  The two factions of the republican party are existing at two different levels.  Microsoft doesn't give a flying flip about displaying the ten commandments in courthouses, they'll write huge checks regardless.  And the "Moral Values" crowd doesn't really care about government control of media, they just fear gays and are bothered by abortion.

                One side writes the checks, the other side votes.  Meanwhile one side gets the corrupt government it wants, the other side gets to legislate based on the Bible.

                So... Personally I'm here because I want responsible, transparent government, that solves global problems instead of creating them.  My enemies are the monied interests and corporations.

                There are three places to fight this unholy alliance:
                

                1. In the general election.  We've seen a couple times in a row how well that works.  Crap.  : (
                   
                2. In the democratic primary.  If we nominate socially conservative democrats, ones that basically cravenly cater to the religious right's every whim, then the corporations don't have anyone to cast votes for their canidates - we get good fiscal and international policy, but lose Roe-vs-Wade and Civil Unions.  On the other hand, we can nominate Bill Clinton the 2nd, who cravenly caters to the corporations, while holding the line  against the "Moral Issues" folks.
                   
                3. In the REPUBLICAN primary.  John McCain lost the republican primary to W in California.  Imagine if San Francisco had collectively changed party to Republican, and cast their votes for John McCain!  Bush wouldn't have been on the ballot against Gore.  We would have gotten real campaign finance reform.  In the future we could make sure they nominate canidates that are unacceptable to half of the hammer lock they've got on us now.

                by gork on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:00:13 PM PDT

            •  values

              I know exactly how you feel. I am more determined than ever to change my spending habits. As much as I despise Wal-Mart, I'm going back to them. Why? Because small business people are more rabid right than the average person. Wal-Mart doesn't cuss Democrats and use student loans to educate their children while the small business person will take advantage of Democrat generosity.

              I am also pissed about farmers getting huge subsidies and voting republican. That money could be used fopr people who support Democrats. BTW, these same farmers are the Deacons in the Southern Baptist Church.

              by Jim Beard on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:09:48 PM PDT

              •  Wallets

                Is there a CostCo in your neighborhood?  CostCo is Democrat, WalMart is Repugnant.

                Can astute Kossacks post or direct us to lists of Republican and Democratic commodities and services?  Individually we can start researching everyone we do business with: doctors, lawyers, contractors, barbers, dentists, specialists, landscapers, stylists, manicurists ... everyone.

                I've never been more than an occasional and intermittent boycotter, but I'm now ready to vote with every dollar I spend.  We did a fair job of freaking Sinclair's investors and dropping its price per share.  To paraphrase a criminal Nixonian, "When you've got them by the wallet, their hearts and minds will follow."

                by Bob Love on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:28:44 PM PDT

          •  The truth

            Bush is no more of a christian than I am - and I am not one at all.  He is a motherfucker.  Pure and simple.  He is not my president.  Because I have no country.

            by sharonmatt20194 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:38:26 PM PDT

            •  "Because I have no country"

              This is exactly what I feel.  Do you out there feel it too?  That is why I am so deeply sad.  Where is our country?   Where has it gone?

              by Time Waits for no Woman on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:09:31 PM PDT

              •  Yes I feel the same

                and as I was trying to think of my protest today, I thought about not standing for the Pledge, Star Spangled Banner, etc.  until we get a country back that I can respect.  This country is arrogant, a bully, and pushes other people around.  It humiliates others and laughs about it...you know fraternity pranks.  It talkes away many of the civil rights we have been proud of for years.  And yes, it is one of hate...hate anyone not like you...got to be the right religion, right sexual persuasion, right color, or you don't count.  Nope, this ain't my country right now.

                by dd4jfk on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:19:26 PM PDT

              •  Still my country

                I agree that Bush isn't my president; he's such a Great Divider that he's made himself a half-president.

                But it's still my country.  It's just been hijacked.  If someone stormed my house and took it over, I'd use every means to remove them.  If someone stole my car with my family in it, I wouldn't go looking for another car.  I'd look for the most effective weapon available.

                by Bob Love on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:08:29 PM PDT

          •  Spite

            The spite voters.  What are you going to do?  I suppose we can try and defuse it with humor whenever possible.  I've had a good laugh with a couple of hardcore GOP guys by declaring, "that's right, I'm a liberal and a feminist.  Huge liberal.  And not only that, I speak French!"  Hahaha.  I'm not gonna go all righteous-rage on them.  

            The other part of defusing the spite voters is hearing them out and acknowledging the importance of whatever it is they're upset about.  What comes across as flat-out racism in the anger over affirmative action is not going to go away if you get in their faces and call names.  The path toward common ground or compromise might, however, be found if you talk about the essence of the problem as: struggling to get ahead in tough economic times, wanting a better life for their kids and not being able to provide it.

            Talking values as far as fairness and equality should be able to help us here.  Talking in terms of "here's what the government will do for you" is not going to help.  The GOP talks big on accountability, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, and we should try and coopt that line, because after all, they're the party of corporate welfare and cronyism, with a leader who has done nothing but fail upward all his life.  

            by daria g on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:43:00 PM PDT

        •  hahaha

          i had four people try, seperately, to convert me in highschool and not only that, i was damned to hell according to them four times over.

          fuck that. Its between God and me an my actions.

          To quote CS Lewis, "a whore maybe much closer to God than a churchgoing miser with a black heart".

          by cnflght on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:45:18 PM PDT

        •  Rate this "Values" story DOWN

          http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041103/pl_nm/election_morality_dc&e=1
          

          by concernedamerican on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:24:15 PM PDT

          •  Why?

            That would just be killing the messenger. It seems an intelligent description of what actually happened and a useful checklist of issues we should become more acutely aware of than the progressive community has been before now.

            by INMINYMA on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:01:57 PM PDT

            •  I know what you're saying;

              but I am in principle opposed to a story that awards concern over "values" to one side as opposed to the other.  "Values" were of great concern to progressives, dems and those who voted for Kerry.  I do not believe in circulating and rewarding simplistic headlines and media approaches that equate "values" with only those who are conservative.

              by concernedamerican on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:23:18 AM PDT

        •  religion

          how is it that beimg anti-abortion over rules a pre-emtive war in mesopotamia!

          these enlightened southerners would still believe that the earth is the center of the universe, the world is flat, that evolution is a myth...

          how do we argue at all?

          by kingrex on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:39:11 PM PDT

        •  A Unitarian in Georgia

          I'm a liberal and a Unitarian-Universalist in Georgia. My faith is a very personal thing, and I'm just not comfortable talking publicly about my faith- especially around here.    But a lot of people here are, and do.  One of my wife's very good friends beams when she talks about how much she loves the Lord.  I squirm a little, but she beams.

          I would never even attempt to run for office here unless I could talk about my values in a way that resonates with that huge red state sea running up from the south, through the midwest, and the out to the west.

          But we democrats seem to have put up a lot of candidates just like me- unable to talk about faith and values.

          This evening I listened to Nanci Pelosi on NPR.  She tried to talk about how democrats need to talk more about morals and values- but she could hardly get it out, she stumbled around so much.  And then she said "GOP does not spell GOD!"  I winced.  She so obviously had no idea how to talk about this.  And until we figure out how to do that, I fear we'll never make headway into the red states and it will be a long time before we win again.

          by mjn9 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:21:29 PM PDT

      •  I question whether we have the numbers

        ... to fight either battle, quite frankly.

        There are more conservatives out there than liberals, and as I wrote at length here, they stand for things we are diametrically opposed to.  We can't siphon the "racist" vote, or the "anti-gay" vote, or the "religious nutcase" vote.  And the numbers are saying that those constituencies are very large, even if we liberals don't want to believe that.

        This is a big, big problem.  Not unsolvable, but huge.

        by Hunter on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:18:56 PM PDT

        •  values

          I live out in Rural America.  Many of the union guys who work for me were honestly split by this.  They knew they were voting against their paycheck, but they also were pissed about affirmative action, thinking their kids wouldn't get into college if they applied.  

          They've been convinced that we will take their guns, that quotas will apply, and that government regulation will end rural (resource based) jobs and all the rest.

          They need to know that a healthy environment provides more jobs.  That education for all is just that, that we don't give a shit about hunting rifles.  And we need to communicate this.  

          by beeste on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:50:47 PM PDT

          •  Join the NRA?

            Seriously.  Dems, join the NRA.  Change it.  Every year they're out there screaming about how we'll take their guns away.  Nobody wants to take their guns away.  I just don't want criminals buying assault weapons.

            Or, get the police to take on the NRA on the assault weapons issue.  

            I thought Kerry did a brilliant job of talking about this in the second debate, actually.  Who knows if it went far enough.

            by daria g on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:08:15 PM PDT

            •  That actually sounds like a good idea.

              Get someone in there who is open for compromise, and knows the difference between an AK-47 and a deer rifle.

              by republicans are idiots on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:54:29 PM PDT

        •  we have to change minds

          you are right that, on social issues, there are more conservatives than liberals. you are also right that the solution isnt to try to siphon off their votes by moving right of center on social issues. the solution is to change their minds by framing the debate as a question of fundamental rights. on abortion, we will not change minds, but as the republicans move the debate way to the right on abortion thinking they have a wide mandate, we can work to make it more of a question of clinton's safe legal and rare. on gay rights, the solution is to work to force people to see it as a civil rights issue like that of blacks. on this issue, we have pop culture and time on our side. as more people come out to their families and friends, more people will have personal interactions with gays and lesbians. this will eventually lead to the elimintation of gay marriage as a wedge issue.

          by mdon860 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:56:18 PM PDT

          •  More Air America, more radio

            We need more and better progressive/liberal radio to reach the American people.  Yeah, we've got better blogs, but you need money, time, and interest to spend time here.  Anyone can afford a radio, and it's easier to reach the unconverted.  Some TV would be cool too, but radio first.

            by daria g on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:11:10 PM PDT

          •  Have a better discussion on Abortion

            One way to show that we are not godless heathens and are actually pro-life is to find ways to reduce the abortion rate with out adding any new laws. A recent article came out that said that abortions dropped under Clinton to 1970 levels while they increased during the Bush years. This is predominantly do to the poor economic conditions of today versus the excellent economic policies under Clinton.

            We also need to be heard on being proponents of adoptions instead of abortions, contraceptives and abstinence when possible instead of abortion and educating people on alternatives before they have abortions in a non-threatening manner.

            Also, is it pro-life to have an economically poor woman have a child and not be able to afford to buy the baby food? Is it in the baby's interest to have the baby torn away from the mother by social services because she can't economically take care of the baby? How is that in the best interest of the baby? How is that following Jesus's teachings?
            

            by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:03:15 PM PDT

            •  Shark: Have a better discussion on Abortion

              Shark, you make some very valid points in your post. Reduce abortion by encouraging contraceptive, abstinence, etc.  

              But you lost me in your last paragraph -- do you really think poor people shouldn't have children? There are many poor countries where there is no baby food, only breast milk. Economics is no reason to deny someone the right to have a child.

              You are on a very slippery slope where many have fallen in trying to play God. Who "should" have the right to live and who "should" die. Should the infirm not have the right to live because the "quality of life" isn't what we think it should be?  It is a very dangerous position.

              How is that following Jesus's teachings?  I believe Jesus taught that all children (including the unborn), as well as you and me, are to be cherished, loved and respected.

              Respectfully,
              DD

              by dunkindonut on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 02:08:10 PM PDT

              •  don't want to stop poor from having children

                The point that I was making was that poor women might be doing the responsible thing by not having the baby since they could not afford to care for the baby.

                I am not for any requirements to limit how many they do have.

                Thanks for catching the ambiguity in my statement.

                by shark on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 08:12:54 AM PDT

        •  Change the subject, change the debate

          I still agree with Armando (hey, Armando, where are you?) that this election was about war on terror/national security.

          Kerry went directly after Bush on that as well as the Iraq war.  I think he was right to do so.  And let's keep hitting Bush on the economy - it worked in heavily Catholic states in the midwest, after all.  We are right on the big issues that really matter.  Now, what we have to do is talk about them so that our framing of them dominates the debate.  We need to win the security issue.  It's not going away for 2006.  Get us a tough leader with serious security/foreign policy credibility for the Senate.  I'd love if Kerry were made minority leader, in fact.  Perhaps this is politically impossible, I just personally like the idea, I think it would be a real show of confidence from our party and in any case, I think it's terribly important that we don't eat our own after this defeat, as we've done in the past.  We've got to stay unified, and be strong - let the GOP have bloody infighting over their own divisive issues, economically and socially.  (Stem cells, budget deficits, smaller government - New Hampshire went blue, after all.)

          We don't have to take abortion off the table by ceding it - we take it off by talking about it differently (when forced to talk about it at all! don't try to make it an issue) so that it can't be used as a hot-button issue to drive a wedge through part of what should be our base.  For God's sake, when Bush tries to nominate a looney right-wing judge to the Supreme Court, let's make absolutely sure we block him on a different pretext than the abortion rights issue.  I don't want to hear about it any longer.  I don't think the GOP is really committed to overturning Roe v Wade anyhow, they just want to keep screwing us over with it.

          Gay marriage may well be off the table, if enough states have passed their respective laws about it.  Let's keep it that way.

          I also really want the progressive Catholics to get their act together & join with other people of faith on the left to stand up for social justice and AGAINST this mess of a war.  We need you.

          by daria g on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:04:45 PM PDT

        •  hold on

          We have to put these issues in context. Do you believe that mainstream America was any less moralistic in 1973?  Heard the phrase "living in sin" used to describe cohabitating hetrosexual adults lately?  Women, ever had your lover argue against aborting his baby on moral grounds?  Know any couples who refuse in vitro fertilization because the extra embryos may be destroyed?

          The tail of fear is wagging the dog.  When we have a president using end time propaganda, the fearful trumpet morality and look for sinners in every nook and cranny.

          As Joe McCarthy and Rove has shown us, timing is everything.

          by debraz on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:58:08 PM PDT

    •  I absolutely agree

      Trying to reframe "values" is just a waste of time.

      Remember:  The GOP base are zelots and they will never accept the proposition that there is no difference between democratic values and republican values.

      The 2 americas are alive and kicking.  They only way to win this is to truely be an opposition party.  Let them learn through experience that reality based politics is different from faith based politics.  THey are not going to suddly come running over to the democrats just because we show them we have "values".  

      I have a diary entry on this very topic....

      by hamiltondj on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:02:24 PM PDT

      •  Moral Freedom

        We don't need to reframe values. We need an alternative like Moral Freedom.

        by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:17:07 PM PDT

        •  "Moral Freedom"

          I really like the sound of that.

          by DynomiteUVA on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:22:40 PM PDT

          •  I got more

            
            where that came from.
            

            by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:16:36 PM PDT

          •  Wrote a book about it.

            Not kidding.  Look up "The Bonds of Freedom" on amazon.com.

            by Time Waits for no Woman on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:13:40 PM PDT

        •  Moral Freedom

          I like that, but the right will then just trash "Freedom" Like they did "Liberal". I think we just need to make our argument based on what the teachings of Jesus are, so we can say they are voting against Jesus, which they actually are.

          Why do they hate Jesus? Is it because he is a Jew? <===said with sarcasm, in a reference to how "they" operate.

          by Alumbrados on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:30:56 PM PDT

          •  I like that!

            That is a great way to put it! Because that is exactly why we do it.

            by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:05:01 PM PDT

            •  Cool, pass it arround

                I think it could even play well in the most swing states, especially if we find a way to illustrate the differences between moderate and conservative Christians. As Armando said: "Of course, this was a stealth "values" campaign. And therein lies the opportunity.  We MUST make Republicans wear their hateful "values" on their sleeve."
              

              by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:00:57 PM PDT

          •  They are terrorists

            I say we do them like they do us....we will just repeatedly call them Terrorists and say that they hate freedom and America......and for gods sake people STICK TO THE MESSAGE. hahahaha I know its kind of a joke but really....I seriously think that these people hate America and dont know it. They are trying to change it and make it represent something that its not supposed to.....a tyrannical pre emptive waring beast. I do know one thing though....if we dont check these people we are gonna get checked ourselves. A world coalition against us would likely defeat us.....we would have to stave off the whole world with MAD (mutually assured destruction ya know) Ill be god damned if we didnt just get the worst case senario out of this.

            by Diggla on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:31:52 PM PDT

          •  I don't think so

            right will then just trash "Freedom"

            
            No, the only thing that plays as well as God in the Bible belt is "Freedom". Remember their explaination  for 9/11, "They hate our freedom." When conservative Christians hit that meme, their heads will explode.
              "hmmm... moral=good, freedom=good, 'Moral Freedom'=bad?"

            by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:42:23 PM PDT

          •  They will trash

            the whole concept of "Moral Freedom," because to most religious people, it is an oxmoron.

            The stregnth of framing things in terms of "values" is that it plays in perfectly with the religious belief in "moral absolutes."  

            Equivocating on moral issues is weak, and negates the core religious belief in moral absolutes.

            So, what are the moral absolutes, and how can we show that the democratic party embodies those "truths?"

            We have so many stregnths here, but we don't use or frame them correctly.
            

            by valleycat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:04:39 PM PDT

        •  "When the liberals say Moral Freedom . . .

          . . . they mean freedom from morality."  

          End of meme.

          by yella dawg dem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:00:13 PM PDT

          •  Liberals

            stand for "Individual Freedom"

            by Rhett on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:05:10 PM PDT

            •  the problem with tht is....

              these people want to SAVE us.  they think they are going to save us!  the question i have to ask is this.  who the fuck asked you to save me!  maybe i am saving you.  false gods... the golden bull...  i see the golden bull all over catholicism at the very least!  hello! the pope!  the catholics are all a bunch of friggin hypocrites, and i don't think the rest of the religions are much different!  

              this country is supposed to represent ALL of its citizens.  and there are enough of us who don't subscribe to the belief that we should have the bible shoved down our throats.  i for one do not believe the bible is anything more than a book someone wrote that was turned into religious propaganda.  many of these faiths feed off of fear.  scare us into submission!  and that is exactly what the GOP did this election.  scare the bejesus out of all those church goers.  

              it sickens me really.  because if god were here, he would not be in a church, or visiting with the president.  hell, i htink all those people would have him committed.  he would be with you and i.  those of us who ACT like decent people, not just call themselves christians.

              by ejpoeta on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:26:20 PM PDT

              •  yup...and you know what I think the problem is?

                Yeah this is wildly unpopular im sure...but the real problem around this country actually is Christianity. I mean sure...there are alot of stand up christians that are good people and just wanna live and not convert everyone and make sex only missionary and for procreation etc.... but this belief system and the handy clause that they have to push it everywhere is absolutly crazy. And do any of you know any christians that actually think our involvement in the middle east ACTUALLY is like the crusades and shit? You know the type...the ones that want to just nuke the whole Middle East to be done with it. Just like Bush, these people are fucking wacko's and shouldnt be able to vote. But I guess it really shouldnt suprise anyone that once again....religion and its stupid ass followers have fucked us over again.

                by Diggla on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:37:45 PM PDT

                •  It's not Christianity

                  It's their version of Christianity.

                  Jesus would be appalled by them.

                  by Pluto1618 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:55:06 PM PDT

              •  To reframe that

                The Catholic church and it leaders are hypocritical.

                Thinking Catholics know that and discard it and just follow what Jesus says.

                by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:01:36 PM PDT

              •  Save us? or Destroy us?

                "These people want to SAVE us."  Nah, they really want to destroy us.  They need to have something or someone to hate and destroy.  Think of a 9-year-old boy from a traumatized family coming across the snooty girl's sand-castle: STOMP!  It feels good.  He feels justified.  And goes looking for the next thing to stomp.  Until an adult intervenes.

                These people "think" viscerally.  There's literally no reasoning with them.  The only way to "convince" them of anything is to distract them with something else.  It's like distracting a crow from food with a bright, shiny object.  

                by Bob Love on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:42:56 PM PDT

          •  Or you could say

            Moral Freedom is the right to choose your own moral code, and not have someone legislate how you choose to live.
            

            by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:57:12 PM PDT

            •  Yes, yes, yes.

              It is a choice of your own moral code, but at the same time a connection to others.  No one can be moral alone in a vacuum.  We choose morality together in fighting for it, in resisting, in reaching out (like what we are doing here).  It is not like a choice of whether to buy a blue bedspread or a "teal" one.  That is a phony capitalist imitation of freedom.  "The Bonds of Freedom." Look it up.  Hate to plug my own book.  Read the conclusion.  (Not so much academic mumbo-jumbo as the rest.)

              by Time Waits for no Woman on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:21:53 PM PDT

              •  Ok, ok, ok, I'll read it.

                  We definately need to flesh out the concept, so if you wrote a book on it, great. I wrote a diary on this idea.   What do you think?
                  I think this has a chance of becomeing half the answer to the question Democrats can't answer: "What do Democrats stand for?" Answer: "Social equality, and Moral Freedom"

                by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:04:16 PM PDT

              •  Careful

                You have to be careful about how you word this. They can distort it by saying that you want the freedom to be immoral and do all sorts of heathistic things. This is what they accuse liberals of anyway.

                by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:10:42 PM PDT

      •  the great dumbiing down

        why try to convert the brain dead.  it is reprehensible.  they have made a pact with the culture of death.  religion and holy moly gives me the creeps.  when will the clavinist precepts that colonized this nation take a little hike>  why all the fear and loathing. i would rather relocate to mexico or canada. it aint worth working for the great change.
        these rapture creatures are gonna get stiffed. the economy is gonna collapse and the military is being coerced to fight in a detroitrating environment. its just reality.  so its like your asking us the supposed 'elite' to coax the reborns into being reborn into the the common humanity.  

        the world is impatient but cowering now that little boots is the supremem power on earth. hmmmm what a 'c' rated movie script. reagan was a 'b' actor.

        and no i will not yield, they stiffed us again.

        by ralphyboy on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:25:01 PM PDT

        •  nice

          I smell HST all over it.....has he come in with any opinions yet? Im sure he has something interesting to say.

          by Diggla on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

        •  I can't disagree

          I'm considering leaving for Canada or France, but it's wrenching to think of giving up my country.  I soaked up a lot of that patriotism thing, and it still works on me.  

          But there's no question that life is simply better in Canada and (much of) Europe.  I don't look forward to being permanently surrounded here with frantic, bitter, underpaid, double-income families with vanishing benefits, treatable ailments, semi-abandoned kids and hopeless dreams.  

          by Bob Love on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:57:07 PM PDT

      •  Yes -- opposition party

        The only way to win this is to truly be an opposition party

        We need to be more focused on "values" for sure, but the more we try to imitate their success, the more we will fail.  We have to stand for our OWN values -- starting with the value of living at least some of the time in a "reality-based" world.

        To do that, the Democratic party has to decide what it truly stands for.  We have been good this year in elucidating what we DON'T stand for.  We have to realize what we really DO stand for -- what makes us a party, why we are so passionate.  It has to be more than just "health care for all" and "jobs".  Those things are important, but they need to be made part of an inspiring vision.  We have to see where we want to go as a people .. and it has to be more than just New Deal stuff.

        In the meantime, though, we are out of power.  We DO have to function as an opposition party.

        Just remember the Republican (forget who?) who said recently that he thought the Democrats were going to go extinct as a party.  This is the kind of hubris that can be countered only by an effective and relentless opposition.

        by cedubose on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:34:08 PM PDT

        •  Local elections

          We need to start at a local level.  Democratic candidates need to run for small offices, for state office, then move up to the National level.  We need to built trust with the people again on a local level, and also build up viable candidates on a local level.  
          That's where social change starts.

          by jerech on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:10:20 PM PDT

          •  Elections

            You are right.  Changes will have to be built on a solid foundation of local gains.  

            by Carolyn on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:20:47 PM PDT

          •  What about republican towns?

            I live in a very Republican town and very Republican county. So a Democrat does not have much hope of winning any public office. I really don't feel like moving either. I like where I live.

            by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:14:25 PM PDT

            •  A small start.

              A small start would be simply to seek out and keep company with any like-minded people in your town.  Have fun, eat well, drink to excess, and keep each other informed.  Meet with local leaders as a bloc.  One day, in a slow and sleepy by-election, you might get one of your own elected to the School Board or Town Council.  

              It always starts small.  Power never trickles down.

              by Bob Love on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:06:29 PM PDT

      •  reframing is the way

        Trying to reframe "values" is just a waste of time.

        Remember:  The GOP base are zelots and they will never accept the proposition that there is no difference between democratic values and republican values.

        I strongly disagree. Most people aren't zealots. Bush got a lot of votes, because he succeeded in saying things enough times so that people believed him. Not because gay rights, deficit spending or an absolute ban on abortion is one of their core values.
        If we can get across the idea that these are based on rights and fairness and 'government out of your life', then people will support them.  

        by Chrisfs on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:25:02 PM PDT

        •  Values are not values

          The reason "values" works so well for the repubs is cuz it isn't about values at all.

          "Values" is code for certainty of being right, and excluding and judging those who are not on your side. That's why it's impossible for Bush to reach across party lines - his entire premise of power is not to attack the argument, but to villify the person who is against him.

          The conservative electorate treats their republicanism the same way they treat getting into heaven. It's the very rightness of being right that is important. We can't beat them at this - any value we put out there will still be wrong because it's not theirs. This is the certainty republicans offer those who vote against their economic interests.

          The solution: let this dynamic play out until ruin visits America (which it will), and then be ready to pick up the pieces. They have to figure this out for themselves.

          by SeanF on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:39:41 PM PDT

      •  Fact Based Reality 0: Right Wing Fantasy 2

        We should do a lot more listening and less talking.

        I met a lady yesterday in the get out the vote effort who had a story which, for me, is more important than who wins.  She told the story how her brother was over in Iraq, she pulled out a picture of his 3 kids.  When was he coming home?  Would he come home safe?  She voted for Kerry out of a feeling in the bottom of her heart, a feeling that we need to bring a father home to his children.  

        I met a guards person too, she was dressed in her fatigues and when I asked if she needed help getting to the polls, she said no, that she had voted for Bush.  Sitting behind her were 2 little kids.  If she gets shipped out, we need to make sure she gets back home to her kids safe. I don't care who she voted for, those kids need their mom.

        I met a WWII vet from the airforce, he didn't seem  inclined to say who he had voted for.  But he did tell me his story, how his unit had shot down 837 Japanese airplanes.  He told me about the friends he had lost, many of them from running out of fuel, crash landings, being shot down and taken prisoner and executed and some just disappearing.  "War is no joke", he kept saying it over.

        As much as I don't like Bush, I think that feeling of hatred needs to be put aside.  People hold strong beliefs, if we dismiss them as fools we will never persuade them or understand them.  The talk of reality is irrelevant, the reality we live in is the only one that matters and that reality does not necessarily correspond to an objective truth that is readily apparent to all.  These people matter, they all make me proud to be an American and their hopes, dreams and beliefs need to be the foundation of our politics.  Fact based reality has trouble translating into dreams, fears and hopes.

        Having lost this election we need to take a hard look at ourselves.  If we are so smart why did we lose?  I hate to be harsh, but we need to clean house and dump all the bad or poorly thought assumptions.  We lost, and yet somehow we convinced ourselves that victory was inevitable.  Were we really that foolhardy?  The kids who want to make sand castles with facts should be sent to the beach, the people who know what it takes to win need to be put in places of power, if winning means creating our own American Dream world where we are invincible in front of the electorate we need to do that.  If some people can't stomach that facts have limits, they need to get out of politics.  We need to swallow our pride and find out exactly where we went wrong and invent a solution.  We need a message and a narrative that works.

        The bottom line:  We are no longer a majority party, we are a minority party. We need new strategies for that position.

        The moral of the story:  We aren't as smart as we think we are, we don't listen as well as we should and the country doesn't owe us anything, we have to earn it.

        by PJ 7 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:27:18 PM PDT

        •  pride and shame are killing you, girl

          very well put.

          i heard something on npr about how democrats fail to engage republicans on faith-based issues. we know these issues are killing us and yet we act as though we don't need to pay attention to them. and yet they are almost everything to the evangelicals. this is clearly an area where we need to set aside our pride and take it to their own turf. we need a dialogue with them about what is and isn't acceptable. we need to bring the facts to the table, but also our faith.

          another reason we lost - democrats voted primarily because they hated bush. republicans voted because they loved bush. they viewed him as an instrument of god. science is vitally important to the democratic party but it can't save us alone. we need some kind of fire other than the fire of hate, no matter how much we feel that hate has been warranted.

          pretty soon, it's going to be time to stop bitching about how they cheated or how they're fundamentalist idiots, and we're going to have to think about what we do wrong. so let's get all our anger out, take a little time to enjoy the things we fight for, regroup, and get ready to seriously kick some ass.

          by wewillrise on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:43:44 PM PDT

          •  engage?

            THe lack of engagement is because liberals respect privacy and religious freedom and freedom FROM religion. Now you guys think that we should get into shouting matches over faith? Are you kidding me? THEY need to learn about freedom of religion. WE dont need to be dragged into some medieval realm where religion fights religion fights freethought, etc.  Its a losing proposition, if you engage them on religion they will say "Well the majority are Xtian so do what we say."  What ever happened to standing up for whats right like seperation of church and state? Like keeping people out of bedroom? Like having some basic privacy?

            All this hand wringing and these half-cooked theories are getting silly. The democrats lost by what? a handful of percentage points? And you guys are ready to fall into their trap of "lets let fundies dictate social policy because we need their vote!"

            You know what the exit polling also reveals: they were going to vote Bush anyway because of abortion. Period.  They can dress up their theistic complaints anyway they like but most of these religious votes are single-issue voting.  So are we going to give up abortion too?  What's next? Bring back segregation?

            Lets see, we also learned that they wont vote for Kerry because of sinful gay marriage. Holy hell people, Kerry is against gay marriage. No high profile dem I can think of is. They were lied to.

            In other words, they live in a disinformation bubble. They get fed lies about democrats, about america, about social policy and then the GOP plays to their bigotry, ignorace, and fears.  That gets votes, but it sure as hell isn't right and it sure as hell isn't some mandate to suddenly throw away decades of social advancement and get back to "hell and brimstone" irrational "arguments" with people who will not change their mind. Faith is irrational, it is not persuaded by facts.

            If anything this should be a wake-up call to all sides that the wall between church and state is being eroded and we are seeing the symptoms of this root problem.  Anything less is treating the symptoms not the issue.  Of course, many of them want a theocracy or some variation on it, but I sure as hell am not going to let them have it for no amount of votes.

            by skallas on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:37:31 PM PDT

            •  quote josh marshall on this

              Yesterday evening I heard various commentators say that Kerry's defeat would usher in a civil war among Democrats. Tucker Carlson said it would or should lead to a 'Goldwater moment' for the Democrats.

              As I've noted above, I don't want to diminish the scope of what's happened. But a civil war over what exactly? Yes, some consultants will get a hard shake. And I'm certain there will be backbiting against Kerry (which I for one will very much disagree with.) But a civil war over what? The right and the left of the party were remarkably united in this cycle and managed to find points of compromise on key issues.

              Sorry, but I dont see this need to engage them on faith. If anything, we all need a better media, a better way to clear away the lies and the dirty politics.

              by skallas on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:41:24 PM PDT

              •  We need to establish credibility first

                In order to persuade people we need to establish credibility. We need to show that we are not immoral heathens like the Republicans like to paint us as. Many of us come to our conclusions based on facts and our deep faith in Jesus Christ. This should be demonstrated to others to establish our credibilty. Remeber they don't know us from a hole in the wall. We need credibility first.

                by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:28:09 PM PDT

        •  Reclaiming the language of faith

          "Having lost this election we need to take a hard look at ourselves.  If we are so smart why did we lose?  I hate to be harsh, but we need to clean house and dump all the bad or poorly thought assumptions.  We lost, and yet somehow we convinced ourselves that victory was inevitable."  

          This is the real issue today. We have to face up to the fact that Democrats are not reaching that vast majority of people in the country who are fundamentally conservative in their social outlook. The rate of attrition for Democrats is growing this year.

          The GOP stole the language of religion and used it to their advantage. Bush was very sophisticated in his appeals to fundamentalists, using coded phrases in his stump speeches to paint himself as annointed by God to lead.

          We need to reclaim the language of faith and use it to our advantage. Lincoln was never afraid to quote scripture within intelligent debate. We ought to look to the Bible to provide us with new soundbites and new phrasings, and reach out to the great Christian conservative majority while never giving up on our principles.

          My point is simply that we can take hold of the language of religion and use it sincerely to back up our values while still maintaining a stanch separation of church and state. We can do this while still preserving our own values, such as support for gay rights and choice.

          We absolutely must reach out to fundamentalist Christians by learning to speak their language. I realize how repugnant that idea is to many Democrats, but it is that dogged resistance to the stark reality of the country that has made us lose . . . again.

          We need to find Democratic leaders who have the courage to begin talking in religious terms, and are not afraid to openly claim that they believe in God. They need to start using the language of faith in their speeches.

          Until Democrats begin to appreciate just how powerful religion is to poor and uneducated in this country, we will keep losing. We will never win them over on purely economic arguments or appeals to social justice, as religion (their passion) trumps everything else.

          by Thaxter on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:49:49 PM PDT

          •  Reclaiming Faith

            What happened on the values/religion issue is exactly what happened on the terrorism issue.

            We allowed Bush to define what "tough on terrorism" really meant, and, as a result, spent the entire election playing "me too" instead of challenging the underlying assumption.  We tiptoed around 9/11, afraid of being accused of "exploiting" it (and look who DID end up exploiting it). We never criticized Bush for his ineptitude leading up to and on 9/11. We only belatedly engaged on the issue of homeland security - at least not in any meaningful way - thus leaving the issue of our national vulnerability almost unaddressed. We allowed him to frame the "war on terror" in a way that provided a justification for the attack on Iraq. The fact is, Bush's "war on terror" has NOT been successful by any true definition of the term. We are less safe at home and the entire world hates us, but because we allowed him to define terrorism on his own terms he is able to make a false claim to success. We NEVER challenged him on the underlying misperceptions; instead, we ran around trying to one-up him in his own game. The result? Endless reminders from the media that "people think Bush is strong on terrorism."

            The same exact thing has happened with the "moral values" issue. Bush, Cheney, and the radical right have defined Christianity on their own terms and then scared the bejeezus out of the moderates with their talk of Godless liberals, hellfire, and damnation to all who oppose their insanity. The result? Once again, endless reminders from the media that "people think Bush is a man of faith with true Christian values."

            No one from our side has stood up and accused them of being out of step with mainstream Christianity, which, believe it or not, does not advocate the murder of 100,000 innocent civilians, the firebombing of women's clinics, and laughing at people on death row before pulling the switch to electrocute them. I didn't hear anyone challenge Bush's Christianity during the campaign - instead, we (coughDemocraticestablishmentcough) wussied around saying how much we "respect" his faith. But his faith is illegitimate. The religious right is the equivalent of the modern-day Pharisee. What Would Jesus Do? Nothing they're preaching, I'll tell you that (and I'm an agnostic, but even I know this).

            Fact: we will NEVER EVER EVER beat them at their own game if we continue to play on their field by their rules. We need to change the entire paradigm from the top down and the ground up and, as you say, seize control of the language and the debate. We need to call them out for the phonies and frauds they are and remind the rest of the nation what true Christian values are (and I'm using Christian in the generic, not the religious, sense) and expose how they have co-opted religion for their own ends. That's not knuckling under to the radical right - it's exposing their hypocrisy and offering an alternative for the weak and frightened.

            by SingularExistence on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:19:53 AM PDT

      •  You're absolutely right

        I don't think we'll ever win the hearts and minds of middle America talking about "values."  But you can't eat values, and values won't keep you warm at night.  When the true impacts of the Bush policies start crashing down around them, then perhaps we can shift the discussion to things that really matter in this world.  We can only hope it won't be too late.

        by frsbdg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:00:29 PM PDT

    •  Dirty tricks

      It's important to recognize that we suffered, and perhaps lost, due to dirty tricks.  That having transparent elections and simpler voter registration must be the two cornerstones of regaining democracy.

      But I don't think the suppression and fraud account for it.  We lost, as Kos suggests, because of a failure to state our values clearly.  Lakoff's books are more on target than I ever would have thought before I read them.

      Because:
      

      • We ARE the majority, we just don't vote like it
        
      • We do have values, values that nearly everyone can share, we just fail to put them in those terms
        
      • We allow our candidates to play on a field defined by Republican rhetoric

      We can turn it around.  Everyone must read George Lakoff for a start.

      by ubikkibu on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:02:35 PM PDT

      •  Something else

        The Republicans have been turning language against us for more than 20 years. It's going to be a long hard slog to get the language turned just back to neutrality.

        Remember when Bill Clinton took office? Right away, we dropped the ball. The Republicans used their control of language to define Clinton's presidency right away. Just today my office mate was saying that he didn't like Bill Clinton because he lacked ethics. That's not true, of course, it's the Republican's language.

        We lost the election last night. We can't wait until 2007 to figure out how to change the language. Your homework for tonight: Tell me what's wrong with the term "gay marriage."

        by pdrap on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:33:32 PM PDT

        •  the ACLU doesn't use "gay marriage"

          they use "marriage equality"

          Personally, I'm happy to leave "marriage" to the churches and have the state confer civil unions and appropriate to any couples who want them.

          by Windy on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:37:39 PM PDT

          •  Even better

            Marriage Rights. And we need to tie this in to the fact that even in places where gays aren't liked, the idea of discriminating against a group of people is even less popular. This is an issue that is completely winnable, but I haven't ever seen a candidate correct someone when they use the inaccurate term "gay rights."

            We've got to make sure that marriage rights encompasses EVERY unconventional couple out there, and that when Republicans think marriage is between one man and one woman, that's not talking about gay people, it's talking about every adult relationship out there that doesn't fall into the strict boundaries of marriage.

            Republicans' message: Marriage is between one man and one woman. We don't want gay marriage, we only want traditional families.

            Democrats' response: My spouse or partner, gay or not, should be on the same medical insurance, should be a parent to my children, and should inherit from me when I die. Americans should be able to build any family that they dream of, any family that they value.

            We can take the language back. Why not start with the word "values".
            

            by pdrap on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:51:22 PM PDT

            •  Marriage rights shouldn't be the cornerstone

              I agree with you, but I don't think we want to use this issue as a cornerstone for our message. "Gay marriage" is too sensitive an issue right now and Republicans have already laid the foundation for the argument in their favor. We shouldn't back away from it, but I don't think it should be used as a cornerstone in our platform for where we want to go and how we want to attack.

              Rather, I think we need to go back to the basics and start off where we began losing decades ago. Economic issues, taxes for the wealthy, education, health care, etc. But we need to frame these issues as value-oriented issues using rhetoric to re-define them in our favor. We need to push civil-rights again and then tie marriage rights in as one part of it. Basically, we need to educate those who mostly agree with us, but have been led to believe that Republicans are more likely to share their values.

              by rogun on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:25:45 PM PDT

            •  reframe it

              I listened to George Lakoff this evening on the Majority report on Air America. He suggested ways to counter how Republicans frame things.

              Gay marriage: say we are for relationships that allow people to express their love and commitment for each other.

              Call republicans on their Orwellian language. When they say clean air act confront them in public calling it the dirty air act. The same with the clean water act is the dirty water act.
              

              by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:34:46 PM PDT

        •  anti-marriage amendments

          You're right, the phrase "gay marriage" is a deal killer with the American public right now.

          I've started calling the state and federal amendments that would ban same-sex relationships "anti-marriage amendments."

          by eastlake on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:55:23 PM PDT

        •  The language + the media

          It's not just the framing, it's the repetition of key phrases in talking points and the echo chamber effect.  If we're going to do this let's use the blogs, Air America, the Center for American Progress, and the cable talk shows to get our language out there and repeat it.  

          How many times do you hear people complaining about judges who "legislate from the bench"?   WTF does that mean?  It means, "court rulings we don't like," but they've framed it as "courts abusing power to thwart the will of the people."  Genius.  

          We should not speak their language nor should we all run after the soccer ball every time they throw out a smokescreen of outrage over a minor issue (hello, Mary Cheney).  Dozens of diarists trying to "debunk" a right-wing talking point are totally oblivious to the fact that by repeating it they're doing the GOP's work for them.  There's no debunking many of their talking points - there's only talking back, and talking better, or dismissing them with humor if we can.  I heard someone say on the cable news, "the only wolf we have to fear is Wolfowitz!"  More of that, please!

          I liked Kerry saying he's got our backs.  I sincerely think Kerry built up a great deal of trust with the Democratic base.  That's important.  Trust is a value; honor is a value.  Running shrill, negative attack-based campaigns is dishonorable to the extreme.  Respect is a value.  Clinton was right on target when he said Kerry has treated the voters with the utmost respect.  Kerry attacked Bush on a lot of issues, but it never got personal, and he rose above the personal attacks they used on him.  I really, really don't like that we lost, but I think we lost honorably, and I don't think we could have won ugly, not with the electorate as it is.  

          I know people are sad and angry, but I don't want us to turn as shrill and hateful as some of our opposition is and will remain.  Bush is wrong on so many things and his policies so disastrous, we've got to focus on that, and leave the mockery and insults out of it.  (I'd love to see him go down in flames amid massive scandals, but I'll leave that to Fitzgerald and other federal investigators.)

          by daria g on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:31:16 PM PDT

          •  Bizarro world

            I have in front of me a recent "Bizarro" comic showing Karl Rove talking with Plato, saying "But surely you agree that truth can be created by the repetition of a lie."

            The Swift Boats shot JK in the back, dropped his polls by 5 points, and (surprise) overshadowed the Seymor Hersch and Kitty Kelley books.  When all the dust settled, we found that every eyewitness, every document and every shred of evidence confirmed what a hero Kerry was and is.  But by that time the story was old, the damage done, and no media outlet cared or even noticed how complicit they were in this character assassination.  

            The media never seemd to quite grasp the concept that repeating a lie is as partisan and evil as making one up - maybe more, considering their job.  The media is now a clear partisan of profound moral evil.  But it won't apologize or reconsider its partisanship, because it can talk to itself independent of facts or values.  I think many editorial boards actually thought that after repeating Rove's memes for 3 years that they could make amends and change minds with a last-minute endorsement.  What arrogant fools.  Nobody gives a shit about editorials or endorsements.  These people live in their own bubble.  

            Everybody's retreating to their own bubble.  There isn't much place anymore for public discussion of commonly-agreed-upon facts.  

            by Bob Love on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:50:57 PM PDT

    •  Well, then get used to losing elections.

      Americans have been through a traumatic period (Iraq, 9/11).  Like it or not, people are looking for a moral compass right now (myself included).  The problem here is that Bush is a false idol.  He uses faith to squash instead of uplift the human spirit.

      We need to reclaim faith and adopt a broader definition of values, and remember the words that resonated with me most from Kerry's closing weeks in the campaign.  Faith without deeds is dead.

      Like it or not, Democrats have got to be less squishy and nervous about talking about the role that faith and values play in the vast majority of people's lives, to a greater extent.

      Does that mean we give up our principles of protecting minorities, gays, rights of women, rights of the poor?  No.  But we need to frame those values in a way that resonates with average Americans, particularly rural and Southern voters.

      by WussGawd on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:04:47 PM PDT

      •  Expect to lost more elections

        Exactly correct.
        KOS stated:
        Democrats have abandoned guns as an issue, and over the next three or four cycles it will prove an increasingly ineffective wedge. The NRA won. Good for them.

        That leaves the two "faith based" wedges -- gays and abortion. And with great skill, the Republicans have equated those two issues with the word "value".
        .
        I suggest that we abandoned both the gay and abortion issue as well. The "cultural war" is over.
        .
        I am afraid that most people in the democratic side will not accept this. field another poor sap and lose OHIO and Wisconin. Anyone think that Florida can be won in 2008?
        .
        Lets move past this or will will be history

        by jbetbeder on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:17:21 PM PDT

        •  if we do this...

          ...then why should I care who wins the election?   I'm not going to vote for someone who gay bashes just because he has a D by his name.

          by thezzyzx on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:36:11 PM PDT

        •  agree on abortion, not on gays

          besides, we already won the culture war with regard to gays. the right clings to its definition of marriage because that's all it has left. i suggest patience in that area but no retreat.

          abortion is another matter. ignoring the extremists on their side, the right starts from the higher moral ground. also they have the advantage of being in the advocate position (since roe v. wade is supposedly settled). the left ought to be advocating for some form of prenatal rights as well. if we don't the country may seesaw to an extreme right position on the issue. oh and by the way, 70% of the public would be on our side, not with the "life at conception -all abortion is murder - woman's health doesn't matter" crowd.

          by jethropalerobber on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:06:13 PM PDT

          •  Bipolar world

            Politics isn't an all or nothing game, people in fact have a variety of positions on the same issue that range from strongly allied to weakly committed to neutral to strongly opposed.  The more specific and restrictive your platform is, the more you force people to choose to be with you or against you, and the smaller and more specific the pool of people who can support you.  In some cases single blocks can be big enough to win an election (abortion, the religious right and guns), and in others it is a smaller but committed group that merely excerccises a strong influence (taxes, the environment).  You need to have a clear platform that doesn't restrict your voter base below a winning percentage.  The all or nothing approach is the most polarizing way to get votes, and if you lose, your party doesn't have a chance in hell of getting those people back, they disagree with your core values.  In the all or nothing approach when they are with you they are 100% on board.  These issues solidify your base, but they also define your base.  In most cases however, we need to get votes beyond our base in order to win and if we exclude those people we will obviously lose.  

            A better way to frame this: is, is it better to be rigidly morally pure in ideology or is it better to be open to conflicting perpheral ideology as long as the core values are the same?  As democrats we have chosen the big tent approach, we need to focus on our core values that hold our alliance together, and give only secondary support to other issues.  This is also the reason Republicans are able to attack us so effectively, because a few of us hold radical views on any particular issue which makes us easy to parody.

            Personally I think we need to expand our base, not tell other people they are stupid.  We need to strengthen and solidify our strongest supporters such as the minority community and unions, and peel off or nullify one or two Republican constituencies such as the veterans/military, macho men, the gun lobby, or small business.

            by PJ 7 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:02 PM PDT

          •  Agreed

            I plan to write more about this soon.

            It's a third-rail issue on the left -- touch it and you may get a big negative reaction.

            The fact is, the Dem. party has almost unanimously embraced the far-left position on abortion since the '80s.  There is almost no attempt to seek common ground or compromise, and any talk of it provokes an angry backlash (just watch this comment thread).

            Most Americans, however, are somewhere in the squishy middle.  They support some kind of abortion rights, but also feel that the moral status of the unborn is an issue that deserves some kind of consideration.

            It would be wise to seek common ground, and to build a lasting legislative compromise on this issue, instead of relying on an increasingly tenuous judicial mandate from 30 years ago which could disappear in an instant.  

            OK, flame away...

            by Geheimbundler on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:47 PM PDT

      •  so we should have nominated

        a white southern preacher as our nominee.

        by SeanF on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:20:20 PM PDT

    •  You are Both right

      and we've been saying it for a long time.

      On every single posting today Kos nailed it. God, Guns and Gays  Killed us. Lack of a real message that appeals to the working class rather than the free trade zealots (who btw are republicans) stopped us from regaining our natural base. We have lost our way. People have been trying to tell that to the democratic party since Reagan but they dont want to listen. Theyve tried harder and harder to be Reaganites than democrats.
      It's time for Terry Mac, the DLCers, The free traders, the corporatists to go. Its time for antigun nuts to shut up. Its time we become FDR and Jeffersonian democrats again.

      by cdreid on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:07:37 PM PDT

      •  Lack of a real message

        I was listening to CNN today. They commented on the moral question and what the Republican party stands for. Most people can say about what the Repubican party SAYS they stand for even if it is not true, but they couldn't come up with a quick definition of the Democratic party. It just seems to be a muddle of various issues.

        We need to come up with a clear and concise message that we stand for just like Bush did for his policies. We think in nuance, but the average person doesn't. They need a quick concept to associate with the Democracts that does not involve anything to do with dependency. We need to reframe it in a different way but still do approximately the same thing.

        by shark on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:55:46 PM PDT

        •  Policies

          We need to come up with a clear and concise message that we stand for just like Bush did for his policies.

          Ah, but there's the rub.  Bush didn't run on policies of any kind.  Quick, what did he say he was going to do in his second term?

          I think this was a post-policy election.  Bush won not because of what he wanted to do, but because (to many more people) he's the kind of guy who would do the right thing.  You can't beat that with promises and policies.  Kerry tried.  He won the debates.  Bush muddled through.  It didn't matter.

          by FlipYrWhig on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:09:16 PM PDT

        •  This is exactly right

          The democratic party doesn't stand for anything. Yes, it stands with people of diverse backgrounds, but the idea that any party in today's America can or should include both Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean is whacked.

          Because the party doesn't stand for anything, Tom Daschle was a limp dick of a Senate leader, and W. had his way for far too long before anyone even attempted to put a leash on him.

          Because the party doesn't stand for anything, the only democrats to be elected since 1968 have been southern governors.

          Because the party doesn't stand for anything, it abandons issues (like guns) for political expedience.

          Now, more than ever, I'm seriously considering becoming a Green. It may be a long time before they win any substantial elections, but at least they stand for something. I'm tired of living and dying with the John Kerry's of the world.

          by mdb on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:10:25 PM PDT

          •  democratic party

            does stand for something in the zeitgeist of the nation. Unfortunately, most of those things are negative. We stand for

            • being forced to watch 2 men kiss
              
            • killing babies
              
            • hollywood actors being condescending
              
            • naval gazing while the real men wage war

            ...among other things. These negatives have to be redefined.

            by SeanF on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:24:33 PM PDT

            •  The most basic Dem value:

              I believe it's FAIR PLAY.

              I think we can build our entire platform around this.  We need a fundamental moral stance to tie together our policy positions.

              See my diary on this idea.

              by Geheimbundler on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:11:42 PM PDT

              •  hmm..

                Fair play is a non-starter.  Everybody says they're for it.  The discussion then starts, and everyone tunes out.

                What Democrats stand for is people.  Real people.  Regular people.  Hard-working people.  People who care about their families, their homes and neighborhoods, their schools, their water and air, their society ... their future.  I know it sounds like an anesthetic tv ad.  But it's simply true.  

                The Republicans are now the party of Armegeddon, and they're bringing it to a theater near you.

                by Bob Love on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:02:38 PM PDT

                •  you seriously expect

                  the other side to say they are against "people"? I don't see how that is any better than fair play.

                  by SeanF on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:15:15 PM PDT

      •  God, Gun's and Gays

        Maybe we should simply say we're FOR God, Guns and Gay's.  That would fit nicely on a bumper sticker.

        by Carolyn on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:09:17 PM PDT

    •  No, sadly he's right.

      Now we must find an alternative.
      

      by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:15:00 PM PDT

    •  Real insight.

      For some real insight on the "values" issue, check out The Left Coaster.  He quotes extensively from Christopher Lasch, a "radical leftist historian" who nails the issue in the hand...I mean head.  If you want to understand how conservative Christians think - whether to beat them or coopt them, this is a good place to start.

      I'm still trying to decide how I feel on this issue.  Do we try to reframe the "values" debate, or make common cause with the old-school conservatives who respect free thought, personal liberty and seperation of church from state?  Personally, I'd like to see a new alliance based on bedrock morals of justice and personal freedom against the backwards fundamentalists.  I know that sounds like I completely ignored Lasch, but that's just my instinct.
      

      by b2witte on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:18:01 PM PDT

    •  Most important is sincerity

      Once Bush learned to fake that, his career was made.

      Bush made a conscious decision not to be "out-Jesused."  The only wa