"As a party we know where we stand: we are pro-choice; we are for affordable health care for all citizens; we are for equal educational opportunity and affordable higher education for all; we are for a livable minimum wage; we are against preventive wars and support the international institutions that this country helped create; we are against the government interfering in the private lives of its citizens, that is, in their choice of lifestyle, the books they read, the religion they practice; we support the right of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively and strike when necessary; we demand fair trade agreements with equal standards for workers in return for free trade; we are for restricting assault weapons and guns that people don't hunt with or collect; we oppose excessive spending on unneeded defense boon-doggle type programs and believe in a better payscale for our volunteer army."

 

It touches on a few of the issues of the party on the whole.  It is pretty good.  The problem is that as a party we need to get that message out ALL OF THE TIME, not just during an election.  People get wrapped up in the frenzy of an election and develop "selective hearing".  It's not about a particular candidate, it's about the fundamental beliefs that carry us through our daily lives.  I vote purely down party lines - DEMOCRAT.

 

I am not a religious person.  And I am annoyed to the extreme when religion is mentioned in the context of politics.  They simply don't mix, and aren't supposed to.  Hence: "The Separation of Church and State".  Government and politics have no right to influence, cow-tow to, or favor any religious institution or beliefs.  Morality is a personal thing, and not supposed to be mandated by the government or it's officers.

 

The specific and fundamental duty of political elections must be choosing a representative based on their ability to follow a course that we need and want them to, even if they have a different belief system than we do. 

 

Every person has one or two issues that take priority in their own mind.  Often they let the stance of a candidate on the(se) priority issue(s) dictate who gets their vote.  They swing from side to side voting Democrat, Republican, Green, and/or other, all on the same ticket.  They don't trust politicians on the whole and assume that if they elect a person who has their most important belief in common they are somehow making a statement, or will at least have someone who shares the specific issues in common and make the change, or block the one they are most interested in, depending on how they fall on the issue.

 

It is dangerous.  I don't let one or two issues cloud my judgement.  I look at the fundamentals of the common interests that tend to go down party lines, as seen above in the excerpt above from the newsletter that shows the stance of the party:  education, jobs, healthcare, freedom of choices in personal matters of life, and the like. 

 

For example, I am unemployed, and therefore without healthcare.  I have been unemployed for three years.  Obviously my main issues are related to jobs and healthcare.  Every candidate will tell me the same thing, they are for job creation and better healthcare.  Well -- SHOW ME!!!!

 

Other issues are just as important to me though.  While I would personally like a ban on all weapons in the private sector, I cannot let that issue mandate who gets my vote. 

 

I believe the environment must be a top priority for the government to get involved in...  I am passionate about the loss of so much land to development and want to see abandoned and derelict buildings repaired, removed, or replaced, preferably with a park or a low-cost housing development, and I am determined to see wildlife habitats restored, and wood-lands and farm-lands recovered.  Again, I cannot let my passion for that issue dictate who gets my vote. 

 

I can go on and on about the specific issues that matter to me.  But I won't, here. 

 

While I disagree with the party on some issues, on the whole Democrats share my overall concerns.  People first!  We have to remind people about the fundamentals of political parties.  We are voting for a party as much as for a candidate. 

 

Yes, a politician's voting history must be taken into account, and people were scared by Bush's comments on Kerry's voting record, but overall he votes on specific issues based on how it will impact people, and somehow that message was not successfully put out there during the election. 

 

And we also have to consider the fact that Bush, though a glib, sarcastic and poor public speaker, appealed to the "blurb-mindset" that has become so prevalent in our society.  He uses fear and propoganda well.  In this age when so many people only hear headlines, slogans, tag-lines, and jingles the well thought out and careful explanations that Kerry offered couldn't be summed up in a word or phrase as easily.  People don't want to sit and read commentaries or explanations.  We're all in a hurry.  So we have to get the thoughts out there whereever and whenever we can. 

 

The massive amounts of money in these campaigns should be used to employ a fulltime staff of people to get the message of the party out there, a few less commercials and attack ads and more face-to-face campaigning all year round would serve the party well.

Cynthia L. Parker