Stealing thunder.
This discussion thread was locked by EEO (a host of the Populist Reform of the Democratic Party group).
A thought hit me in the night. Many of the group names that have been put forward are good, say what needs said, but carry with them, negative connotations for some people.
So I propose a different tact, how about, The Citizens Reform Caucus?
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I'm not sure it has the presence that some of the other suggested names have had, but it's simple, to the point, and easy to remember. I like it.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)clydefrand
(4,325 posts)Reform the Citizens Caucus?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write that some names "carry with them, negative connotations for some people." Precisely. I want a name that carries negative connotations for the unrepentant Naderites, Green Party operatives, and any other minor-party enthusiasts. In fact, I think the SoP might usefully be amended to make that limitation more explicit. It's up to the admins how much free rein to give to DUers wishing to disparage the strategy of working within the Democratic Party, but whatever the general rule is, such posts should be excluded from this group.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Where did I say a freakin' word about not "working within the Democratic Party?"
Just exactly what is your problem with hard left leaning Democrats?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As you yourself pointed out in your OP, a name can carry connotations. The concept of "connotations" is that a phrase or sentence can convey something, even without "a freakin' word" that expressly states that particular view and even if the author didn't intend that connotation.
Specifically, I was talking about the connotations of not including "Democratic Party" in the name. My concern is that discussions of other reform efforts would be considered on-topic.
I did not intend to express any problem with other Democrats, be they to my left (as some are) or to my right (as most are).
99Forever
(14,524 posts)That too confusing for you?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Direct advocacy of a non-Democrat running in a general election against a Democrat is, as I understand it, prohibited. Other than that the admins have given the third-party boosters a fair amount of slack.
It makes sense to use the "safe haven" rule -- specifically, to have a group that's a safe haven from the view that the Democratic Party is hopelessly corrupt, that reforming it is impossible, and that progressives should undertake other actions (third-party politics, street demonstrations, whatever). It also makes sense that such a group would have the phrase "Democratic Party" in its title, to warn DUers that posts about giving up on the Democratic Party are off-topic for this group.
I prefer the current name to your proposal of "The Citizens Reform Caucus" because the latter would, to many people, suggest a much broader scope than the former.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Kindly find someone else to have it with, as it won't be me.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)We have a hard task ahead trying to be EFFECTIVE. Let's not have the kind of political Scud attacks that characterize so much "discussion," here.
marble falls
(60,882 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I was merely making a suggestion and was hard pressed to understand where the "unrepentant Naderite" stuff came from. That kind of grenade throwing, I can do without.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... makes one wonder, huh?
(Thanks for the laugh.)
EEO
(1,620 posts)Or the Democratic Wing. Both are fine, in lieu of the Roosevelt Party. I am open to discussing this, but we really need to stop this discussion at some point and get to the policies we want to see enacted and how we want to educate our fellow citizens about issues they have been blinded to.
EEO
(1,620 posts)Please redirect discussion to:
Olympus Isn't All About Thunder - Time to Settle on a Name and Move On