We seem to have had what appears to be a substantial change in this site's focus. Yesterday, some several paragraphs in, kos announced this change:
...This site's unofficial motto used to be "more and better Democrats", but we've gradually evolved it to "better Democrats". The reasons why are obvious. And post-redistricting, there's no better place to have an impact electing better Democrats than in these open primaries—particularly when the seat is safe in the general...
My thinking about this is quite similar to the thoughts expressed in Mets102's interesting diary.
I have two questions:
1. What are those obvious reasons?
2. How does one identify "better" Democrats?
I hope that those with theses answers will kindly stop by and share them.
Do we continue to champion the 50-State Strategy as favored by Howard Dean and listed by the Democratic Party as part of it's platform:
We know that we won't be able to win everywhere until we are able to compete everywhere, and that means fielding candidates and providing resources to even the most traditionally "red" parts of the country. The DNC works in partnership with state Democratic parties to provide resources for electoral efforts, voter registration, candidate recruitment, volunteer recruitment, and training. Local parties are empowered to hire local organizers who know their communities best.
I am assuming that this remains part of our creed:
...It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable....
I think we all agree that the status quo is untenable. Beyond that idea, I'm not sure there is universal, or near universal agreement on any issue. Without a standard, it is going to be difficult to discuss most issues.
It shouldn't be too hard to put together a list of issues, in order of priority, and what is the acceptable position on each issue. I assume this isn't a purity test so there will have to be a point system we could use in order to come to some agreement about each candidate.
It is easy to say that people such as Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and Manchin are not what we are looking for, but how far to the right of Bernie Sanders is a politician allowed to be and still be considered on of the "better"? What issues take priority over others?
We need a checklist (for lack of a better term) in order to distinguish the acceptable from those that are rejectable.
***I would appreciate it we could dispense with the pure-not pure, and pro-Obama-Anti-Obama drama. Thanks
Update:If all you have to contribute is, "if you have to ask", or "you'll know one when you see one", then you really have nothing to add. I'd rather have no comments than the certain predictable folks stop by to drop 'tude.