Who Influences The Democratic Party

[F41]

Thought I would put this poll up to see where the Democrats ideology is heading in todays America.

Who has the most influence on the Democratic party today?

If yor vote is other, tell us who would be your pick.

 

[vergiss]

The Freemasons.

 

[KCConservative]

The Freemasons.

????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????

 

[AlbqOwl]

I was born, baptized, and raised to be a good Democrat. When I first registered to vote in my part of the world, they didn't even ask your party affiliation when they registered you as a Democrat. But this was the party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy with a healthy mix of conservatism, progressiveness, and appreciation for solid traditional American values. There were aspects I didn't like--Democrats largely had their heels dug in re necessary social reforms for instance--but mostly it manifested ideals I could appreciate and be proud of.

This party left me, however, when it became infected and then infested by counter culture socialist radicals who set about dismantling all that the party had been and remaking into something quite different and at times, from the perspective of conservatives, something more pro-socialist European than pro-American.

I believe it is these same counter culture radicals who influence and direct the agenda of the Democrat party today. Those perceived as the party leaders may or may not embrace that agenda, but they have to play to that base to garner contributions and get the votes. I also believe that most Americans reject most of that agenda and that is why the Democrats haven't been doing so well at the polls for some time now.

 

[Goobieman]

Its not the people in the party that influences the party, its the people --outside-- the party.

The Democtratic party has 2 principle components:

-The 40-50% of them held under the thumb of the extreme left-wing whacko groups like MoveOn.org, NOW, PETA, the Brady Campaign, etc.
-the 50-60% of them that more closely resemble 'normal America' and that see the extreme left-wing whacko groups as...well... extreme left wing whackos.

If you're a Dem in the latter group, you must be frustrated, as your big-name compatriots and leadership are part of the former gorup, and are primarily responsible for your party's spiral toward irrelevancy.

 

[jamesrage]

Who has the most influence on the Democratic party today?

I chose other because I think liberalism is driving the democrat party today and it is the pedophilers, pornagraphers, perverts, homosexuals, Foriegn interest, hard core atheist facist, socialist, communist and other deviants that drive liberalism.

 

[DeeJayH]

Its not the people in the party that influences the party, its the people --outside-- the party.

The Democtratic party has 2 principle components:

-The 40-50% of them held under the thumb of the extreme left-wing whacko groups like MoveOn.org, NOW, PETA, the Brady Campaign, etc.
-the 50-60% of them that more closely resemble 'normal America' and that see the extreme left-wing whacko groups as...well... extreme left wing whackos.

If you're a Dem in the latter group, you must be frustrated, as your big-name compatriots and leadership are part of the former gorup, and are primarily responsible for your party's spiral toward irrelevancy.

I agree with this, except the percentages.
i dont think the liberal loons are that great of a percentage
they just exercise greater power

 

[Kandahar]

If I have to name a single individual who holds the most influence, it's still Bill Clinton. Right now the Democratic Party is fragmented and is likely to stay that way at least until 2008.

 

[Kandahar]

I chose other because I think liberalism is driving the democrat party today and it is the pedophilers, pornagraphers, perverts, homosexuals, Foriegn interest, hard core atheist facist, socialist, communist and other deviants that drive liberalism.

Wow, with one post you've managed to ensure that this thread is headed for the basement. You must feel proud.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Wow, with one post you've managed to ensure that this thread is headed for the basement. You must feel proud.

Well, while I do not share the opinion that the uncomplimentary words used apply to all or even most liberals, and while I do not appreciate the manner in which it was expressed, I do not think the post can be indicted for anything other than the member's opinion. It was not personally directed either overtly or by implication and was clearly intended to address the thread starting question.

I don't think it merits the basement, and hopefully it will stay out of the basement when other members rebut the opinion, if so inclined, without attacking the member who expressed it.

 

[americanwoman]

other.... Seymour Wiener

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Right now, the Democratic Party is a fractured mess of special interests; there is no ideological cohesion, no underlying philosophy, behind what causes the DNC supports.

What is the ideological link between promoting gay rights and opposing gun rights? Or between supporting unions and regulating media content?

Had to vote "Other" for nobody.

I'm a Democrat for now, because they agree with me more than any other party, but I ain't got no loyalties to them.

I would kill to have the party of Roosevelt-- either Roosevelt-- Truman, or Kennedy. I don't care if that party calls itself Republican, Democrat, or whatever else-- give me a party with decent moral values, respect for the American way of life, and a dedication to sensible progress, and I will finally be able to vote without vomiting afterwards.

 

[Navy Pride]

I to voted other....I think the democratic party is controlled by the extreme far left.......

 

[Deegan]

The highest bidder of course, and yes, same goes for the Republicans.:roll:

 

[F41]

I to voted other....I think the democratic party is controlled by the extreme far left.......

When I first read your reply, I thought to myself who is further to the left then those listed other than Leiberman, Then I realized just who is behind the Democratic party today; :doh none other then the A.C.L.U. They are the ones controlling the Dems. Figures :roll:

If I could edit my poll, I would incude the A.C.L.U. as a choice, but my time for edit has expired.

 

[Paladin]

Bush.
And more importantly, the reactionary right who believe that his word is bible.
I didn't think Bush was a bad sort until after 9/11 and then I was introduced to those who support him at the expense of their own individuality.
I still don't think he is a bad sort, righteous in his beliefs and a little smug and hard-headed, but not a bad guy.
His most strident and vocal supporters I can do without. I think that they cause some fence-sitters to vote dem or ind.

As for those you put up, I don't really support any of them either. I voted Kerry because he represented the democratic party, which I do support.
ted

 

[Pacridge]

When I first read your reply, I thought to myself who is further to the left then those listed other than Leiberman, Then I realized just who is behind the Democratic party today; :doh none other then the A.C.L.U. They are the ones controlling the Dems. Figures :roll:

If I could edit my poll, I would incude the A.C.L.U. as a choice, but my time for edit has expired.

As you wish.

Couldn't seem to add it anywhere but the bottom.

 

[F41]

Bush.
And more importantly, the reactionary right who believe that his word is bible.

I guess I can understand this because the irrational left seems to push me farther to the right as well, I also do not believe the Bush word is bible. When it comes to polotics, it is the constitution that guides my choices in the direction of our country

I didn't think Bush was a bad sort until after 9/11 and then I was introduced to those who support him at the expense of their own individuality.

How so? If you would, please expand on this.

I still don't think he is a bad sort, righteous in his beliefs and a little smug and hard-headed, but not a bad guy.

Righteous, smug, hard-headed, sounds like me and a lot of others on the left and right.

His most strident and vocal supporters I can do without..

I noticed

As for those you put up, I don't really support any of them either. I voted Kerry because he represented the democratic party, which I do support..

Anyone but Bush, right

Andre`

 

[F41]

As you wish.

Couldn't seem to add it anywhere but the bottom.

Thank you Pacridge :smile:

 

[Paladin]

I also do not believe the Bush word is bible.

Wasn't directing it at you.

How so? If you would, please expand on this.

The first political forum argument I entered was with a reactionary rep/con who was sure that Dean had forced the US gov't to search for and find the remains of his brother/cousin/relative who tried to hike across Cambodia/Laos. She never did provide proof that Dean ramrodded the initiative and all I could find was that it had happened. She was the first of many rep/cons who called me a Bush-hater. The only reason I could see for that name calling was that I didn't fall lock-step behind her views.

The opinions of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (who seems to be swimming further and further from mainstream America!) are parroted across a lot of political debate forums. No individuality!

Righteous, smug, hard-headed, sounds like me and a lot of others on the left and right.

So is that supposed to convince me it's OK?

Anyone but Bush, right

Wrong.
For two forums you have tried to convince someone,anyone, that I think this way. Your continual adherence to this belief doesn't make it true, it just makes you single-minded and close-minded.

The Democratic party in the past has represented anti-war, small business, the individual worker, social assistance and extending a helping hand. It has also supported pro-choice.
Those are ideals I support.

In 1980, I supported Rep, Jon Anderson in his Independent presidential candidacy.
He was a Republican congressman for about 20 years.

Andre`

Going French on us, are you Andrew?
ted

 

[F41]

The first political forum argument I entered was with a reactionary rep/con who was sure that Dean had forced the US gov't to search for and find the remains of his brother/cousin/relative who tried to hike across Cambodia/Laos. She never did provide proof that Dean ramrodded the initiative and all I could find was that it had happened. She was the first of many rep/cons who called me a Bush-hater. The only reason I could see for that name calling was that I didn't fall lock-step behind her views.

Thanks for expanding, was not sure where you where going at first

The opinions of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (who seems to be swimming further and further from mainstream America!) are parroted across a lot of political debate forums. No individuality!

I tend to agree, they can and are a little to far to the right.

So is that supposed to convince me it's OK?

Not at all, it was just an observation on my part

Wrong.
For two forums you have tried to convince someone,anyone, that I think this way. Your continual adherence to this belief doesn't make it true, it just makes you single-minded and close-minded.

The Democratic party in the past has represented anti-war, small business, the individual worker, social assistance and extending a helping hand. It has also supported pro-choice.
Those are ideals I support.

In 1980, I supported Rep, Jon Anderson in his Independent presidential candidacy.
He was a Republican congressman for about 20 years.

Kerry represents the far left and not really the Democratic party in my op. He also represnts his own greed, When anyone tells me they voted for Kerry, I tend to believe it is only to get Bush out of office. One question, How does Kerry truely represent the real Democrat Party and not the liberal Party?

Going French on us, are you Andrew?
ted

Shhhh...Not so loud.:3oops: :smile:

André M.

 

[Paladin]

One question, How does Kerry truely represent the real Democrat Party and not the liberal Party?

I'm not saying he does. I voted for him because he was the democratic candidate. Voting independent in 2004 would have seemed like throwing my vote away.
I couldn't vote for Bush. I am against his "war" initiative. His policies also indicate a disregard for education issues.
I'm hoping Gov. Tom Vilsack from Iowa runs and wins the dem nomination in 2008.
Hillary doesn't excite me any longer and neither do any of the leading rep/cons.
Whoever runs for either party needs to truly try to unite this country. But I fear both candidates will be victims of hate and bashing from the other side. That kind of crap is driving good candidates out of the political arena.
ted

 

[F41]

I'm hoping Gov. Tom Vilsack from Iowa runs and wins the dem nomination in 2008.
Hillary doesn't excite me any longer and neither do any of the leading rep/cons.
Whoever runs for either party needs to truly try to unite this country. But I fear both candidates will be victims of hate and bashing from the other side. That kind of crap is driving good candidates out of the political arena.
ted

I don`t know the platform Gov. Tom Vilsack has. I personally have no Idea who is right for my vote in 2008

 

[Thano]

other :shock:

 

[Thano]

I think Hilary would make a great presidential candidate if any democrat could win, she has a good shot.