Honestly, What do you think of Activist Democrats

[saracat]

married to Republicans? I have a problem with this. Sorry if it makes me a bigot, but I do. I am working for Dem Candidate whose husband can't even vote for her in the primary.That says alot to me. I like her but am not comfortable.We also have a Dem spokesperson who is married to an "active meeting attending Republican".The question is how can you trust them not to share with their mates strategy that is not meant to be shared.What could they talk about?Could they not bitch when things go wrong?And isn't that an open conduit to the other side.I find it hard to believe that they can be trusted .Does anyone else wonder about this?

[JSJ]

1. they sound...

...like professional politicians- whoever wins office first will bring the other into power with him/her. Democrat or Republican, matters not.

[LondonAmerican]

2. It's because

in most cases there's really NOT that much difference between the parties. Mostly fiddling around the margins but both are at the end of the day supporting the same power structures.

[saracat]

4. Not true

Compare Kerry's voting record and what Bush stands for!How could anyone put Supreme Court appointments in the hands of that Lunatic Dim Son?

[IrateCitizen]

13. No, it is very much true

Both the Republican and Democratic Parties, throughout the majority of their histories, have been obstensibly pro-business (especially pro-big business) parties. Acceptable political discourse in this country exists on a pretty narrow spectrum, when viewed in the grand scheme of things. Just ask yourself this -- are the Democrats really closer to communists, or the Republicans, when it comes to fiscal policy? Are they closer to the traditional anarchists, or Republicans, when it comes to civil liberties? Do they seek to significantly transform our society, as leftist activists do -- or do they take a more conservative line advocating slower, more incremental change?

Due to the massive power that is wielded by the party in power, the small differences between them can translate into significant differences in the effects of their policies on segments of the citizenry. However, that difference in effect should not be mistaken for a vast difference in approach, because their approaches are really just two different heads of the same coin.

[saracat]

15. I'm sorry but the Right to Choose

is not "marginal" to me. Neither is the seperation of Church and State.

[Nederland]

17. Depends on what's important to you

I've noticed that certain Democrats are concerned primarily with economic issues, while others (like the above poster) are more concerned with social issues. If you are most concerned about economic issues, you probably believe their isn't much difference between the parties. If you are most concerned about social issues, you simply can't understand why anyone would think that.

[sangha]

24. And the all-consuming focus on economic issues

sounds odd to my ears when it comes from anyone other than a repuke.

[saracat]

25. Me too

I wonder about such people.

[izzie]

6. I am not with you on this thinking.

What the party on each side does when it gets in power is another story. The people in the party seem to sit on different sides of the fence, it is the people in office that sit on the rail and will go either way for the power.It seems to be hard to find a man in office that sticks to a thing he tells us he thinks. Turning over the war powers to this President, from a Dem seems like the tops in not thinking things out.That Kerry did it is just beyond me but I will vote for him.

[rman]

14. the difference is marginal

With Gore as prez the neocon cabal would not have been in power so there probably would not have been this expansionist war of agression.
But both parties are 'supporting the same power structures' by supporting right-wing capitalist endeavours such as NAFTA, globalization, privitazation, deregulation. I should add WTO, IMF, even the UN to a degree. It's not about privitization vs no privitization, it's about how to privitize, about how to globalize, how to deregulate. The results are obvious: large profits for big international corporations at the expense of the local population. In essence it is theft, and though the dem party policies are slightly more civilized, they support it as much as repubs. Like LondonAmerican said: "fiddling around the margins".

[neverborn]

3. I can't deal with it.

[Egalitarian Zetetic]

5. Only moderates and DINOs can do it, the left actually cares about the

issues on a personal basis. A moderate would have been one to oppose slavery but marry a pro-slavery politician. I personally couldn't be in the room with someone who is pro bush, i have many republican friends but they are more of the corporate stripe and despise religion, and they aren't exactly bush-republicans

[meow2u3]

9. I, for one, would never marry a conservative Repuke

Especially one who's conservative on fiscal issues. The poor sap would be fighting a losing battle with me and my liberal economic views......"Sappy" would end up calling me a tax-and-spend liberal, an epithet I wear as a badge of honor!!!

[Killarney]

7. It's like Carville & Matalin

I don't understand how they don't kill each other.

[dryan]

8. Are you married?

As long as the core values (how we spend our personal income, child rearing, definition of honor, trust, etc.--you know the BIG issues), people can be happily married and come from different parties. From what I understand James Carville and Mary Matalin love each other deeply.

[saracat]

11. Yes I am..

Are you kidding? Politics IS about the BIG issues.Have you ever talked to a Repug about children and heard their belief system? What are the economic issues about if not our personal incomes?And Anyone who supports Bush couldn't have the faintest concept of"Love, honor et." I couldn't possibly be in volved with someone who saw the world in such a selfish way as do the R's. Carville's relationship with Matlin has always been a little suspect. I find it sick and it costs him credibility.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. maybe they don't talk politics much

Maybe there are other reasons for their attraction to eachother.

You can't argue politics all the time. Eventually you'll have to talk about something else.

[pnb]

12. If you think political views define a person, perhaps

But most people actually pay attention to the PERSON that they are involved with. Heavens forbid someone actually have contact with someone from "the other side"!!!

I find it rather ridiculous.

[saracat]

16. To think that Political Views DON"T define a person

is "rather ridiculous".I could NEVER be involved with a man who was anti choice because that would mean he didn't have any respect for me as a person.

[pnb]

18. That is just one example though...

...not the sum of the person. One's political affiliation is really nothing more than a label. Love, affection, etc., are the things that should really matter to me. My parents were as far apart on the political scale as you can get but they have always loved each other....they actually have interests OTHER than politics and have characteristics that truly define who they are as people. Politics should not define that and I feel bad for any person who allows it to do so.

[saracat]

19. How dare you imply

that you are sorry for me and that I have no other intersts than politics? You know nothing about me.And that "one example" is
a core value not to be so easily dismissed.Your arrogance is appalling.

[pnb]

20. I don't mean to imply that that example should not be important

And I apologize if I made it sound that way. I certainly understand your point of view on that.

But I get the impression that there are people in this thread who would meet a person, find them to be real good people and after getting to know them, would find out they vote republican and then disregard every good thing they had learned about the person. That is what I think is sad.

I used the example of my parents. My mother is as avidly pro-choice as anyone here. My step-dad was pretty much pro-choice but republican in every other way...a registered conservative as a matter of fact. My mother was also a self-avowed socialist. Sure they argued politics occasionally, but as people they were very compatible and were very happy and lucky to have each other...despite the different labels they had.

[saracat]

21. Thank you.

What is interesting is that no one yet has addressed the original issue that I raised as to whether activist persons of the opposing party can be trusted with privileged information from the other side?

[pnb]

23. I honestly read the rest of the thread and forgot that part myself...

...so I'll try now.

If you are talking about a situation where only the democrat is an activist, I don't really think its a problem...the republican in question probably would have nothing to do with the info even if it was passed on.

But even if they are both activists, I don't think that would be a problem either. Many many people other than politicians deal with priviledged information...physicians, lawyers, defense industry workers, etc., and are able to "keep their secrets." I don't see any reason why the situation you mention would be any different.

[TexasSissy]

22. I think it's romantic. Love triumphs, and that sort of thing.

James Carville and his wife (Mary Matlin, is it?). Arnie & his wife.