Brenda Konkel wrote:I wasn't "pure" enough for them
I am ignorant of the historical context of this statement, and confused since a "pure" Democrat is as rare as a solitary quark, which is to say almost impossible in nature. Could you enlighten me as to what happened?
Brenda Konkel wrote:they don't do anything to support their local elected officials during the year and a half between elections, which is what really matters. What's the point of helping elect someone if you don't support them and help them pass local initiatives once in office?
This is a valid point. FWIW, I hope that what you speak of will change. I don't believe a national party can exist for long without proactive local parties as its base.
Brenda Konkel wrote:Too many keystrokes have been wasted on this topic, can we talk about something that matters? This is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time and energy.
I don't appreciate you implying that my disagreeing with things that Michael and others have said is a waste of time and energy. I've learned a few things and about a few people this last week through this discussion. It was hardly a waste for me.
I do believe that given what happened in November with Kerry's loss and the way the Democratic party has handled itself in the last couple of decades, this kind of discussion needs to happen. The Democrats are clarifying, for others and themselves, who they are. I don't know how the January 12 vote will go, but I hope it will mean that my party starts to find itself again and be proactive on the local level rather than reactive to the national level. The county Democratic parties are the basic quanta of the national party, everything should start and end with them.