GUEST COMMENTARY

Montana Democratic Convention, Day 2

Any resolutions about aggressively pursuing payment from folks that owe the government (us) money for various things including taxes, fines for wrongdoing, etc.? I remember proposing such a resolution as a young Democrat at a convention in another state many years ago and it got voted down. I accept disagreements and different priorities but we got get our financial house in order at all levels of government, especially the federal.

Pete, you wrote: "If resolutions, like gay marriage or troop withdrawal, ever make it to floor for a vote, they are considerably watered down. The Democratic Party is building a machine and wants to keep winning. Let’s not throw any wrenches into the works."

I find that when any party fails to find the courage to be themselves, to take the stands that represent their souls, the end of the rainbow is never reached and all glory is fleeting. Here's to 2,4,6, or 8 years of politics as usual and the dashed hopes of ordinary Americans. It's not about changing the color from red to blue. It's about connecting with the people and leading, not hiding or misleading. The lust for power seems to be all controlling no matter what the cost in losing one's self in pursuit of the pot of gold.

I agree with Craig, to a point. It does seem clear that timidity will land the Dems quickly back on the political scrap heap. And hiding behind "moderate" views to conceal your zeal for the status quo that preserves the treasures for your corporate donors can also eventually bite you. Just ask Joe Lieberman and his DLC pals. Standing on principle IS an important principle, especially when you're on the right side of the issue and you can communicate why it's the right side of the issue.

All that said, in order to win elections a candidate has to garner more votes than their closest opponent. And this political reality means you sometimes have to choose your battles wisely. At the expense of violating your principles? Hopefully not. Again, careful and effective communication is key. The Dems needn't totally jump ship on some of the more controversial issues that are important to many within the party. But again, might it be wise to proceed cautiously in some areas?

Personally, I think gay couples should have every right to legal protections that hetero couples enjoy. But it appears that a substantial majority of Montanans don't agree with me. I think this is sad, but it's reality. So the Dems must recognize this, and proceed accordingly. Does this mean they should engage in gay bashing? Hell no! Should they speak measuredly but meaningfully about the goal of becoming a more inclusive society? Absolutely. But is it wise to rush headlong, in an election year when they are poised to make important gains, into an aggressive campaign to legislatively repeal a recent citizen-passed initiative? I think not. Lets be realistic about what we can accomplish today, and work toward changing hearts and minds with thoughtful public engagement, with an eye toward tackling greater challenges in the future.

Pete, this is a good quick update that gives me hope that the party is making progress toward a tighter and more realistic internal management approach, which is long overdue. The current situation is a disaster, a social, economic, military, and diplomatic disaster with disastrous consequences at the local, national, and global levels; and, Schweitzer presiding in Montana notwithstanding, the rightwing extreme ideologues, who have been in power across virtually all branches and levels of government throughout the Nation for so many years now, cannot be allowed to continue evading responsibility for the mess. The world truly does need America to have its act together and to lead effectively and the Democrats absolutely must do what is needed to change the direction on the downward spiral of America. Looking back to FDR in '32, Truman and Humphrey in '48, and JFK in '60; those events made the Democrats the true "big tent" party in a way that no amount of rightwing spin can ever erase. What the Democrats need to undrstand now (...and I believe that they do) is that even an intrinsically tolerant "big tent" party must be tightly organized and keep a unified focus if it wnats to succeed. We have already seen enough elections where the rightwing has used its ill-gotten cash to fuel splinter groups to do nothing but cloud the issues and split the votes. There have already been more than enough of these "lessons learned" to give the Democrats a clear picture of their need to tighten up.

Speaking of those distasteful "lessons learned" about the ability of rightwing ne'er-do-wells to stoop to actions deliberately designed to mislead and misdirect. For any Democrat to even think about listening to anything coming from Craig Moore would truly be the equvalent of taking fruit from a serpent. He has already clearly demonstrated, over and over and over, that he will talk in any direction, including his favorite ...circles, and spin you anyway he can to spin you out of his way. Remember, get thee behind me Satan!

Mike, you made me laugh with your comment. Really! That was funny! Does that mean I can't endorse Schweitzer's leadership and stands that represent Montanans and their desires like coal development? Leaders like Schweitzer transcend their party tag.

I would like to quickly point out that there are no facts within Mike's rant. It's not exactly a shining example of the tolerance that Democrats usuallly like to preach about, either, while Craig Moore's entries are measured and, dare I say, tolerant.