On other thing. Note this, from my original post (emphasis added):
That’s where the special interest groups (aka, principled policy advocates) really come into play.
And emphasis subtracted. Right now, that doesn’t seem to be a big problem.
Besides, it doesn’t detract from my position unless and until parochial interests get in the way of agreement on how to transform principle into policy.
Well, they are right now, aren’t they? Your party doesn’t have much agreement at all over the war issue solely because of those parochial interests.
So, where’s the bill to start getting us out of Iraq today? According to Reid, we’ve already lost.
Or it does…
All political parties are collections of special interests, unless the party is simply focused upon one specific issue.
Gee, the poor Dems. All they got is terrific candidates, a ton of money, and an opposition widely and enthusiastically despised. Certain doom, fer sure, fer sure.
Then find 'em, by all means. Name names. Preferably elected representatives, rather than self-appointed spokesmen, since anyone can get up and say, “I’m a Dem, and I believe the government that governs least governs best, and the best way to deal with countries like Syria and Iran is to drop a few well-placed bombs.”
Well, OK, how about this for a working definition: “special” interests are those that put their parochial interests ahead of the well-being of the larger body politic.
Lord knows that the Democratic Party used to seem like it was composed of nothing but such people. But it’s hard (for me, anyway) to see much of that anymore. I’m open to being proven wrong, but just saying that such and such a particular group (e.g. labor unions, pro-choicers) is a constituency of the party isn’t enough. No large group is going to be an undifferentiated mass of people with no obvious interests specific to some somewhat organized subgroup. Such subgroups exist within the Democratic party, but there’s an increasingly strong consensus that concerns of individual groups be subordinated to the well-being of the whole.
Take, for instance, the Congressional Black Caucus’ two Presidential debates. One of them was going to be televised and moderated by Fox News. I guess it still might, but it’ll be without Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. In effect, the Black Caucus has been told that they’re not going to be allowed to advance their own interests by aiding an enemy of the party and everything it stands for. Everyone’s planning to show up for the other one, that CNN will handle.
If you’d like come in from left field, we’re talking about something completely different in this thread.
Patience, my son. 
Seconded. 'luc, y’know I think highly of you, but John is right. That doesn’t have any more bearing on this discussion than what Mr. Moto was saying earlier about whether the Dems’ electoral successes would continue or be reversed.
RTF: You seem to be talking more about individual politicians, but I’m talking about the voters (and donors) they need to tap into for support. Take labor unions, for example. They’re supposed to represent the interest of the workers, and not think too much about what’s best for the country. When was the last time a union leader said: Well, we want higher wages, but that would hurt the economy so we won’t ask for them? If anything, they may actually think that higher wages are always better for the country as a whole, just like many on the other side think lower taxes are always better for the country.
But if you want to talk about the nexus of those two entities (supporters and politicians) you need look no further than that pork-riddled appropriations bill. Why do you think it was loaded with everything from subsidies to shrimpers in Louisiana to spinach growers in CA? Two words: Special Interest Groups. OK, that was three words, but you get my point. If the Dems in Congress, and their constituents, were all holding hands singing Kumbayah as they crafted their get-out-of-Iraq strategy, why did they need to come up with a bill so filled with pork it practically squeals all by itself?
Standard disclaimer: The other side would have done the same thing had they been in control, so no this is not a slam at the Dems in particular.
Possibly, considering the Pubs have even more money and that is not likely to change in our lifetime. Because, apart from anomalies like George Soros, the folks with the most money prefer the Pubs, and that is not likely to change in our lifetime.
Such as? (Remember, “ideological camps” != “parochial interests.”)
RTF: Let me add that I don’t agree with Mr. Moto’s characterization of the Dems as nothing more than a bunch of special interest groups working to oppose Republican initiatives. They are indeed putting forth positive policies, but let’s not pretend they can actually get anything done with appealing to the special interest groups out there. No party could. I guess I was focusing too much on the title, and getting hung up on whether or not the Dems can be characterized as collection of special interest groups. As I said earlier, I think any party can be thusly described. Mr. Moto just doesn’t particularly like the special interest groups they are appealing to, preferring to stick with his own SIGs.
But I have to say that your statement that triggered Mr. Moto’s response was pretty damn simplistic, too:
That’s at least as partisan as Mr. Moto’s statement that you quoted in your OP. Surely you can understand that there are Republicans who want to move the party beyond what Bush has turned it into, can’t you, even if many like it just the way it is?
Cite? Dems have the wealth entertainers, trial lawyers, and union heads. They also have a few Wall Streeters as well.
Open Secrets has data from 2002 that shows the Republicans getting more small donations from many donors vs. the Democrats getting a few large ones:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemographics02.asp
I can understand the desire, but it’s kinda like we’d all like to bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’d like a pony too.
I just question the realism of believing one can turn the GOP back into a party that actually stands for ideals, like limited government and such. (Unless reduced taxes, regardless of spending, is an ideal, rather than a perverse belief that the ponies will never run out.) Neither the wingnuts that provide the largest share of the votes, nor the contributors that provide the largest share of the money, have any interest in those ideals.
If I had $10 for every wage or benefit giveback a union has agreed to since Reagan was elected, my wife and I would be on the next plane to Hawaii. And from there to Australia.
And Katrina reconstruction, and who knows what else.
By historical standards, this one wasn’t bad at all. But certain commentators, looking at this bill, acted like they’d never seen an appropriations bill before, and were shocked - shocked! - to find a few extra odds and ends in there.
And yet you think that happened to the Democrats. A few years of losing elections could easily do that to the Republicans, too.
It’s easy to stand for limited government when the other party is in power. The hard part is holding onto that belief once you get the power. Just like the Democrats will, almost certainly, fade from their moment of communal goodheartedness once they get the taste themselves-- especially if they win the WH in '08. Democrats and Republicans are both members of the species H. sapiens, aka H. polticanus It’s in our very nature to strive for power and to abuse it once we have it. We haven’t entered the Age of Aquarius quite yet, bro. 
Evidence ? The Democrats are hardly all that pro-gay; they’re just less anti-gay than the Republicans.
And the Republicans don’t want to cut off their corparate patrons’s source of cheap easily abused labor. Neither party has any real desire to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.
You mean like Clinton, whose policies caught the WTC bombers ? As opposed to Bush, whose policies have let Osama run free, and benefited the terrorists enormously ? I do recall the CIA regarded Osama as pro-Bush and anti-Democrat, even to the extent of timing his released statements to whip up support for Bush.
And why not ? No one has benefitted terrorism and radical Islam more than Bush.
Agreed. The difference is that for a long time the Republican leadership has been better at convincing it’s various contradictory components that they will get what they want. And better at party discipline.