arkadelos (arkadelos) wrote in hilldogpumas,

Discussing PUMAs

When I first considered my political beliefs, which was before I became anti-Democrat as a result of this election, I decided what our country really needs is for some new political parties to attain power. So, I researched the largest third parties, was overall unimpressed and not enthused, and was alright with letting the Democrats and Republicans remain the governing force of our country.

Now, the election has come and gone with horrific results. And I am thinking "we need some new political parties NOW!"

I still want the PUMAs to become a new political party with PUMA candidates and faithful PUMA voters in addition to swing voters. A true grassroots party rising to power will revive our government and our country in a way we haven't seen in over a century. I have some ideas for what their platform could be, inspired by New Agenda, and I really want to discuss this with everyone here. Maybe if we discuss it and come to an agreement, we can convince the lead PUMAs to found a new party.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

It would be nice to see a PUMA party, but, it might just be easier to let the moderates suffice for that? We have some excellent moderates out there who don't get enough attention -- I say that with the name of Evan Bayh in mind, for starters; followed up by Robert Casey, and a few more people I'm sure could list. Then, of course, we have the well known people like Joe Lieberman.

Oh, and this idea that Evan Bayh has of forming a moderate caucus in the Senate? Yes please/hell yes/it's about freaking time/bring it on .. etc.
Oooh! Linky? I'm late to the Bayh love, but I'm willing to join in. Moderate caucus link? Please?
Be prepared to have your mind blown by his pure awesomeness: Moderate caucus link. This was dated 12/12/08, and I haven't heard anything since then, but it needs to happen. NEEDS. TO. HAPPEN.
I agree it's about time we have moderates rise to power. However, the key question is: how much power/influence do the moderates have in their own parties? The fact that this election has polarized the Republicans and Democrats against each other on such an extreme level, and the fact that the Democrats permitted sexism, race-baiting, and all sorts of corruption... what is the likelihood of the Democrats turning back from that corruption? They shattered appropriate conduct in favor of wickedness, and 'cause they won the election, the Democratic party - as a political party - sees no reason to stop their corrupt politics for later elections. The standard has fallen into the dirt.

That being said, those excellent moderates deserve support for finding the middle ground and for bi-partisan workmanship. However, I do not believe they represent the Democratic party, which is now defunct. We need a party with a moderate platform to suit today's needs, and neither party is willing to change their platform in the slightest.


January 12 2009, 15:03:43 UTC 8 years ago Edited:  January 12 2009, 15:04:30 UTC

The House already has a moderate caucus, and if there were one on the Senate as well, giving both sections (House and Senate) a moderate caucus for the Democrats. If the Republicans followed the example set by Democrats in forming a moderate caucus for their party in both the House and Senate, both parties would have a moderate caucus in both the House and Senate.

But to backtrack a bit, in regards to the Democratic party only, these moderates in the Senate could further influence their colleagues on both sides of the isle. They could work with their moderate colleagues in the House. They could transform the party, and make it more moderate; they'd have an almost immedeate effect on the Obama administration too, beause they could lean it more to the center. And when you think about how liberal and one-sided he sounded in the primaries especially, that would be a good thing. In four years, the Democratic party platform might very well lean more to the center. In eight years, the Democrats might nominate one of these moderates for their Presidential candidate.

I was able to register to vote this past week, and so I did. I registered as a Democrat because even as mad and angry as I was/am with them, I had enough faith in the moderate Democrats to eventually bring my party back the way it was in the Clinton administration: moderate and in the center. And who knows, maybe one day I'll be elected to some office and I'll be able to make sure it stays in the center -- if it's gotten there by then, which I hope it will have.

We have great minds in the center, and I'm more than ready for them to help transform the party.
"they could transform the party, and make it more moderate; they'd have an almost immedeate effect on the Obama administration too, beause they could lean it more to the center."
"And who knows, maybe one day I'll be elected to some office and I'll be able to make sure it stays in the center -- if it's gotten there by then, which I hope it will have."

That sounds really great. In fact, it sounds completely awesome, and I hope the moderate Democrats make positive changes for our country. If they achieve true bipartisanship and truly transform the Democratic party, then my faith in the Democrats will be restored. I give you my best wishes. After I am done with college and when I come of age, I might also vye for a political office as an Independent.
As long as they're not silenced, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to achieve it. That would be 'change I(/we) can believe in'. :)

Best of luck to you as well. I'm sure we'll need all the luck we can get, because, as of now, the country doesn't seem to be taking a liking to the moderates and Independents (If Lieberman gets voted out in '12, I might cry; it would be a severe loss to the country).
I'd love to see a New Agenda/PUMA party. As much as I am TOTALLY unwilling to bend on choice, I really think that the New Agenda is approaching it right. Feminism can't have the choice litmus test anymore unless it wants to remain hopelessly splintered.

Unfortunately, a third party has a lot of obstacles in its way, not least because the entire electoral system is built around excluding them.
I agree! This election has proven that sexism does not care if a woman is pro-choice or pro-life. A woman is a woman, and sexism will attack regardless of stance.

The New Agenda's stance on abortion is what really made me excited about them. New Agenda acknowledges there is controversy over the matter and that pro-life women can also be feminist. I understand both sides of the issue. Imo, it doesn't matter what a person's stance is, someone who refuses to acknowledge the controversy is intolerant and close-minded. If PUMA becomes a new party, I want their stance on abortion to mirror that of New Agenda.

Yeah, I read about the laws regarding third parties on Lotus's LJ. I admit it is difficult and will take a fair number of elections, but I believe it is possible for a new party to gain power by working at the grassroots level - mayor, city council, etc., up to governor and senator, much in the same way that Sarah Palin came to her position as governor and as VP candidate. I believe it is possible.