Is the Democrat party free of divisions? I was a freshman in college when the U.S. presidential election was between Ronald Reagan, a Republican, and Walter Mondale, a Democrat.
I had not joined any political party but the candidate that appealed to me was Ronald Reagan. When I graduated, I registered as a Democrat, identified as pro-choice and generally bought into the false stereotypes circulated about the Republican party. I was active in Philly politics and I passed up an opportunity of being elected as a Democratic ward leader when I found myself being drawn to Republican candidates. They would be considered moderate Republicans by today's standards; to me, they were Republicans.
I registered as independent for a long time and last year switched my registration to Republican. I didn't base my decision who to support on what national party won the election; I chose based on what candidate reflects core values I believe in and someone who cares about people they represent.
As a registered Republican, I have campaigned for and supported many moderate Democrats, as well as Republican and “decline to state” candidates on a local and state level. I do that because I feel these people, regardless of party affiliation, are candidates that want the best for Humboldt County and the state. I know most of the local bloggers, the majority of the media and some members of the local Democratic party may disagree with me, but that is because they don't want to admit what this no-growth, radical environmentalism and sole focus on social issues as a barometer for votes has done to the place we call home.
Certain local elected officials have been called derogatory names since the 2010 local election by some and their choice to identify as Democrats has been questioned by some; I believe that these candidates reflect a schism in the Democratic party that was lost to the radical left three decades ago.
Parties have different identities over time.
The Tea Party has an overall good economic message. Not all social conservatives are judgmental, but many in those factions have allowed their rigid social issue positions to hurt the Republican Party. A Republican can appeal and can win a national and a local election. So why have Democrats, who have practically wiped out the moderates in their party, had successes nationally and locally?
Our culture has reacted to greed and solely blamed it on corporations and the Republicans being the party of the rich. Government bureaucracy and NIMBY liberals should be held equally responsible, maybe even more so, for the plight of the poor and the working class. Social issues are what many people base their vote on today when it should be economics and quality of life.
Republicans see people as individuals and you are allowed to be outside the box as long as you share certain common values. Democrats cannot tolerate if you don't tow the radical, left-party line mentality. A Republican can be pro-choice or for same-sex marriage but the wrath of the Democratic party will be felt if a Democrat is pro-life or for traditional marriage or Christian. It is the radical Democrats that have outed gay Republicans and other conservatives just to prove a point.
In their opinion, such Republicans should be Democrats, and this is based on the color of skin and other criteria; I have yet to see Republicans hit below the belt in the same manner.
How many Democratic men are pro-choice because they really care about women, or is it for sex without responsibility? Have the Democrats have won recent elections because of the “anything goes, you accept me, I accept you” mentality?
I have never had a Republican call me a person of color; I thought I was human. Which is the party of true inclusion? You decide.
It's time to stop using abortion, gay rights and similar hot buttons to vote; focus on merits of what a candidate offers. When you take away social issues, is there really a difference between the two parties? You decide.