Reply #31: yes, interesting ...

[welshTerrier2]

you made a number of points that i think help me make my point rather than yours ... and your excellent documentation that more people are voting now than in earlier years was not exactly responsive to my point either ...

let's accept your speculation that 55% of Democrats believe we need to stay in Iraq ... let's also note that with the Democratic Party taking this position there is no significant representation of opposing views ... put another way, let's say 45% of Democrats do NOT agree with the current policy in spite of the fact that very few member of their own party, and virtually no members of the republican party agree with them ... would it be fair to challenge anyone who would refer to those favoring near-term withdrawal as a "fringe" group? would it be wrong to call them the "anti-war extremist left"? by your own data, you're talking at least 45% of the "rank and file" ... does it benefit the Democratic Party to have 45% of its members see all of their Senators voting a different position than they hold? am i arguing that elected Democrats should reflect the views of this 45%? NO, I AM NOT ... what i am arguing is that many of these Democrats feel very alienated and disconnected from their reps because their reps are not doing an effective job communicating with them ...

secondly, you provide excellent documentation that more people had voted in the last election than in previous elections ... but the point i was making was that Democrats are not reaching the tens of millions of people who no longer vote ... and i can tell you that Party registrations, as a percentage of all voter registrations, has been steadily declining in Massachusetts ... i'm under the impression this has been the case nationally but have no hard data to support that ...

i guess the bottom line for me is that i do not see the problems in the Party, and if you don't think there are very real problems we're not looking at the same "realities", as a disconnect with "fringe" groups ... i have concerns about the Party losing the support of many of its core constituencies ... i'm not talking about trying to attract Marxists to vote for John Kerry ... i'm talking about a massive block of voters who are rightfully growing increasingly intolerant of the occupation of Iraq ... i'm not talking about a radical fringe who wants to attack Washington ... i'm talking about pro-choice woman who are not going to like the Party's strong endorsement for "anti-abortion" candidates like Casey in PA ... i'm not talking about unionists calling for national worker strikes ... i'm talking about big labor watching their jobs exported as part of Clinton's globalization ...

and here's the main point ... when the Party makes its choices, it is never going to satisfy everyone on every issue ... but it is politically foolhardy to not take the time to try to listen to your constituents, explain the "hard to hear" stuff to them, and try to build better ties ... it's that simple ...

you said: As has already been demonstrated in this thread, our leaders meet with their constituency often. ... i was not aware this had been "demonstrated" at all ... i am on a mailing list for very active Democrats in Massachusetts ... i saw one John Kerry event that was a fundraiser (about $250 a plate - i'm not working right now) and another Kerry appearance that i think was a "thank you" Party for those who helped him with his campaign last year ... i'm not aware of other appearances ...

i'll restate the essential theme of my base post and ask you whether you agree or disagree with it: elected Democrats should meet more often with their constituents ... this is good democracy and it's good politics too ... this means not just appearing to give a speech ... it means, in a state like Massachusetts (as an example), that Kerry and Kennedy should make an appearance, say once every three months, in a large auditorium to speak to and listen to their constituents ... this is not saying they should be out ringing doorbells and it is not saying they can take the time to meet with "every little fringe group" ... making points like those just distorts the point of the BP ...

and one last thing ... you said: At this point, you don't have the numbers to do that. You succeeded in 2000, but after 8 years of Bush, your numbers are even less. ... perhaps you could explain how my strong support for Al Gore in 2000 qualifies me as someone who "succeeded in 2000" ... frankly, i didn't feel too successful ...