A Democrat is someone who doesn't belong in the Gulch ... period.

A poor misguided fool that believes the name of his party means histories definition rather than progressive-socialist-slave.

I am a retailer so I work with many different people. It amazes me what my democratic clients say and the irrational reasons for them. At times the delusion is so great that I am floored. I just stop and remember that a lot of babies must have been dropped on their heads early in life. I vote for more strict safety standard for the young. Like each family is supplied with a hard hats for all members all the time. Well off my soapbox.

I don’t even know where to begin, but two things jump out.

First: “The problems are not with the "party's core beliefs...". Really? With the shoving of ObamaCare up our...er, I mean down our throats, and before the 2014 midterms listening to some Dems defend it and watching others run like hell from it, I think the public has a pretty good idea of what the party’s core beliefs are. And the public wasn’t impressed. So they solidified the Republicans’ hold on the House and gave them control of the Senate.

Second: “Democrats lack a ‘cohesive narrative’ and need to find ways to help their party explain bedrock values such as fairness, equality and opportunity.”

Let’s look at those in order.

The government steals about 1/3 of the income I earn every 2 weeks, wasting some of it, and giving a bunch more of it to people who haven’t earned it. And the more I earn, the higher that stolen percentage becomes. Just how in the hell is that fair to me? Why doesn’t something have to be fair TO ALL PARTIES before it can be defined as “fair”?

And I have no earthly idea how anyone would define equality. It’s another one of those nebulous, cloud-like subjective terms that Dems love to throw around.

Would I expect two equally qualified, skilled and experienced craftsmen doing the same jobs get paid an equal salary? Maybe, if they were working for the same company in the same location.

But what if one of them was earning $85,000 by doing it in Los Angeles or Chicago or New York City, and the other was earning $50,000 by doing it in Seymour, Indiana? If their salaries in relation to their cost of living bought them the same things, and they both had comparable houses, cars, etc., wouldn’t you say that they’re being paid equally even though one is making almost twice what the other one is?

And I think the only opportunity that Dems/Progs/Libs/Socialists love is an opportunity to expand government. I truly think liberalism/progressivism is a disease. I’m a conservative; if I don’t like a particular restaurant, I won’t eat there. But if a liberal doesn’t like that restaurant, then he thinks nobody should be able to eat there. I mean, if he doesn’t like it, then nobody else can like it either, can they?

There is something so sickeningly condescending about liberals. Yeah, I know I’m making a generalization. But I think it's a safe and fair generalization. As a group, they really think they know what’s best for not only themselves, but also for me, and for everyone else.

Sorry. Took me this look to find my “off” button.

Scratch a democrat, find a dictator!

A Utopian that believes in majority rule and government solutions, devoid of sufficient understanding of human nature and divergent interests. They have never comprehended the fact that we were founded as a Republic and why. They have no compunctions about mob rule so long as they belong to the mob. They don't usually even understand the relationship between being a Democrat and its support of democracy, let alone the history of the tyranny of democracies (tyranny of the majority as a concept is beyond them or their concern). They will only awaken when it is their ox that is being gored; if even then. They are mostly blind followers looking for what someone can do for them. They are not usually good leaders since they seem incapable of deep thought and concern for unintended consequences and discard out of hand facts contrary to their aspirations.
"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin
We have lost the Republic. The question is: Can we find it again?

Democrats are individuals I meet who are destined to remain acquaintances and never become friends.

At the recommendation of a fellow Gulcher I read "The Forgotten Man." This text clearly defines the history of the transformation of the Democratic party into the socilaist party it is today. There was a road trip by many of the soon to be adminstrative people to visit Stalin in Russia prior to the election of Roosevelt. Hmmm, can't find this in Common Core history textbooks.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
A Democrat is one who believes this.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

― Benjamin Franklin

Not sure there is such a thing as a good one.

We tend to compartmentalize people on both sides. All Democrats are bad for instance. But this ignores the bigger subject. First we are all Americans, and I don’t doubt that if our country was invaded, everyone on all sides (except the pacifist who are also on both sides) would defend this country. I certainly disagree with the philosophy of most Democrats, and they certainly don’t belong in the Gulch. I recall reading about how 54 Democratic Senators attempted to rewrite our first Amendment. Not one stepped out of the lock-step to say this is wrong. We all here in Galt’s Gulch recognize that our Bill of Rights are sacrosanct. Some say that they were created by God, and while I don’t believe in a higher power, these rights should be considered untouchable. There are some good people who vote Democratic, and I prefer to treat them as misguided, not bad people. I support abortion (a left wing idea), but that doesn’t make me a Democrat, because the vast majority of their philosophy is anathema to me. My reasoning on Abortion is strictly right wing (keep the government out of my body, it is not their right to tell me what I can do with our bodies). We can respectively disagree with their philosophy, and definitely keep them out of the Gulch, because they don’t belong there.

Democracy is an euphemism for a lynch mob.

The Democrats have been co-oped by Progressives. The last true Democrat that I remember would have been JFK! However, that is not to lay favor to the Republicans!

How could anyone possibly like to even be around people like Wasserman Schultz? She is one nasty (person). The nasty garbage and meaningless rhetoric that comes out of her mouth is what this country is coming to. I would be embarrassed to even know her. I hope the American people put their smarts on when they vote in 2016. It's time for a change, perhaps a government reset button that works.

It's easier to point out what a Democrat is not. Once you understand the following point, everything else falls into place and all that changes are the descriptive nouns. "A Democrat has core values and makes proposals without any regard to collateral damage." That's really al you need to know. I have never been made aware of any Democratic sponsored idea that was not screwed up somewhere either down the road or immediately upon implementation. At least with Republicans, one or two of their proposals, ideas or laws make some sense every now and then.

While reading the article, I regarded a "lack of a cohesive narrative" as being the problem about the "core principles" of the Dem the control freaks party with a curled lip.
It is not the PR problem. It's all the bad outcomes.
Socialism sucks.

Democracy is a very much misunderstood term. We need to point out to the uneducated that Iran is an example of democracy and when our government set out to export democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq it gave them Sharia constitutions. Home owners associations are another example of democracy - a breeding ground for little Nazis. It would take considerable education for people to realize that the rule of the mob is not the most desirable form of government. It is, however, ideal for wolves and sheep.

Weren't they always?

In today's world the Democrats should be renamed the National Socialist Party!

At least socialists believe in democracy. The current crop of Dems are more akin to Fascists as someone alluded to in another posting.

I wish more democrats would have run on Obama's record last election. We might have gotten rid of several more dummies than we did.

a low life form of existence.

Group labels have lost their original meaning, thanks to the destructive efforts of those who seek to find creative ways to possess the most power in society. Labels are used to confuse individuals about their right to exercise their natural freedoms.

In a human society composed of rational individuals, a form of Anarchy would work, within which the exchange of goods and services would find an optimum level. Unfortunately, there appears to be a serious lack of rational beings in today's society.

Humans are social creatures that take pleasure in the company of others of their kind. Power seekers learn how to manipulate that desire for pleasure as a means of subjugating other individuals, depriving them of some degree of the individual's natural rights.

Rejecting all of the political and ideological labels, since there are myriad conflicting definitions of what each label means, presents a logical challenge. In theory, one who believes he or she is an "Objectivist" (I hazard using even that label, but it is a necessary element of designating a Rand-thinking individual) comes close to one of the famous "Star Trek" series Vulcans, basing their actions on what makes logical sense for the best outcome for themselves. The disconnect between Objectivists and the Vulcans was in that the Trek writers insisted on injecting altruism as a necessary element of survival for a logical society. That was an unfortunate result of Hollywood writers obsession with a vision of a perfect Socialist society.

The term "Democrat" is, I conclude, as meaningless as any other label plastered on a group.

In the history of the Democrats, they started with Andrew Jackson and their support for individual liberty... the Democrats today (those in Washington) are only Democrats in name. They call themselves progressive liberals which I think is an oxymoron since liberal comes from the root liberty and with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi crew, liberties have shrunk big time. From Wikipedia... "They (the Democrats) viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty. The 1824 "corrupt bargain" had strengthened their suspicion of Washington politics....Jacksonians feared the concentration of economic and political power. They believed that government intervention in the economy benefited special-interest groups and created corporate monopolies that favored the rich." They're far from this today... in fact, you can say today's Republican is yesterday's Democrat.