"Democratic Party Platform Shows Shift to the Right on Foreign Policy"

[GreenPartyVoter]

"This does not mean that a majority of Democrats support such right-wing foreign policies. For example, a poll just prior to the convention showed that 95% of the delegates oppose the decision to invade Iraq, something that both their presidential and their vice-presidential nominees have steadfastly refused to do.

That the delegates were prevented from even challenging the platform or voting to include an anti-war plank is a demonstration as to how undemocratic the "Democratic" Party has become. Even in the 1968 Democratic convention, when the target of anti-war activists was the incumbent Democratic administration and when most state delegations were dominated by the party establishment, the delegates were allowed to propose, debate and vote upon an anti-war plank, which - despite its defeat on the convention floor - did give opponents of the Vietnam War an opportunity to express their views before the convention and the national media.

It is also sign as to just how far to the right the Democratic Party leadership has become as compared to the rank-and-file, which could severely weaken the enthusiasm of the party base the Kerry campaign needs to counter the Republicans' advantage in funding during the fall campaign.

Finally, it is a reminder that should Kerry and Edwards be elected anyway, those who support international law, human rights, and adequate funding for domestic needs will have to continue their struggle as much as ever."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-07.htm

[Trajan]

1. Attack from the right ....

Attack from the Left ....

Dont worry: We are strong: We can take it ......

[genius]

5. Check the numbers. The Democratic Party used to be bigger and stronger

The reason we are smaller and weaker is because we are not listening to people who care like the individual who posted this thread. Democrats are going independent because they don't want anything to do with our party. Go to your local registrar of voters and look at the trend from 2000 to now. It's very distressing.

[sangh0]

9. Repeating the lie doesn't make it true

More people are voting Democratic than ever before. Gore got more votes than any other Dem in history, and Kerry's going to do even better.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. But is Kerry going to do well because of ABB or because people love his

policies? We'll never really be able to tell with plurality voting.

[sangh0]

17. Repeating the lie doesn't make it true

I bet you can't come up with ANY EVIDENCE that Kerry support is ABB.

Saying that "Dems don't like Kerry, they hate Bush*" is Limbaugh's job. They don't need any help from the left.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Hello, if we had ranked voting, I would not be checking off Kerry

in the number one spot. I'd choose the Green candidate first.

So, there is your evidence. One person who is voting against Bush instead of for Kerry. And if you think there aren't more out there, then you are living in a dream world.

It's too bad the Dems don't use IRV for their primaries. It would have been more helpful in sorting out your platform if you really knew how many folks supported each of the candidates, minus the "electablity" concern.

[sangh0]

21. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true

So, there is your evidence

HOw you vote is evidence of how you vote, and nothing more. If you want to persuade, it helps to be coherent.

One person who is voting against Bush instead of for Kerry. And if you think there aren't more out there, then you are living in a dream world.

Ummm, I would argue that a Green party member is not representative of a Democratic voter

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Still living in that dream world if you think there are Dems who do not

share many values with Greens. Did you ever get around to listening to Dennis K's speeches? Or do you reject him out of hand because he is too left-leaning for you?

[sangh0]

34. Personal attack

Funny how the ones who claim the Dems are hiding from the truth are also the ones who resort to personal attacks when someone asks them for some evidence.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. You have yet to show your own evidence, Sangh

Can you prove there are no Dems out there who share similar goals and visions with Greens?

[sangh0]

37. Another distraction

I made no claims about the voters and what their goals and visions are, so I don't have to support statements I haven't made,

Instead of futilely looking for something to attack me with, why don't you provide some evidence for your own statements?

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. No, you made no claims other than

"More people are voting Democratic than ever before. Gore got more votes than any other Dem in history, and Kerry's going to do even better."

Which is probably going to turn out to be true. But you are short-sighted in that you don't care about _why_ people are voting for the Dems. I still say that if a large number of them are voting against the other guy, you can't count on those votes to show that the Dems have strong support for their party. And perhaps, those voters will become disillusioned with the DNC and stop voting for them. Where will your party be then?

[sangh0]

41. Are you questioniing those facts?

It doesn't seem so. You even say they are "probably going to turn out to be true"

I still say that if a large number of them are voting against the other guy

And you still can't provide ANY EVIDENCE to support it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. True, no media seems to be savvy enough to take an ABB poll

They only ask who WILL you be voting for in November, not who do you wish you were voting for.

Just wait, Sangh. One day we will get ranked voting in various areas of this country. Then you will have some hard numbers to show that people do not always vote Dem because that's who they want in office.

[sangh0]

44. I'll wait

but in the meantime, posting "facts" that are not backed by evidence is not going to help improve your credibility

[genius]

2. There is clearly a problem

The Democratic constituents feel one way but the party bosses are too often former Republicans who have pushed Republican values as if they were Democratic values. The only way we win is by demanding another method for determining our leaders and our platform. I don't think Kerry is as far right as his rhetoric and some of his votes. I think he wants to do what he has been misled into believing will make him President. He needs better advise than what he's gotten.

[sangh0]

3. Kerry - "Repeating it doesn't make it true"

The majority of Dems voted for Kerry.

[genius]

8. Kerry was my second choice. The problem isn't Kerry

He's got a good record on labor and the environment. He voted against the $87 billion and I proudly tell this to people. It's his bad advisors who are not doing what it takes to win and who won't let him be all that he can be.

[sangh0]

12. Repeating alie doesn't make it true

The Democratic constituents feel one way but the party bosses are too often former Republicans
and

It's his bad advisors who are not doing what it takes to win and who won't let him be all that he can be

Kerry, not "party bosses", sets the Kerry campaign strategy and the convention strategy, that's why your claim about how it's the party bosses setting policy was made with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support it. And most Democratic constituents do not disagree with the way the convention was held.

[genius]

18. Then tell the truth. It's a good policy

[sangh0]

22. You go first

I'm waiting for you to start telling the truth

[mikehiggins]

4. If Kerry wins

"should Kerry and Edwards be elected anyway, those who support international law, human rights, and adequate funding for domestic needs will have to continue their struggle as much as ever."

Well, duh.

No one expects John/John to usher in the milennium. Most of us just want to wake up in January 2005 to find our long national nightmare has come to an end.

I do not want to demonize Bush--as a long-time fantasy buff I have a good amount of respect for demons--I just want him gone, gone, gone back to Crawford, perhaps to oversee the construction of the George W. Bush Presidential Comic Book Kiosk.

[jpgray]

6. "...could severely weaken the enthusiasm of the party base..."

Yet, in the example mentioned of a 'healthier' convention, the Democrats didn't exactly come out victorious as a result.

I do think that the current system is not the best, but I don't know if it would be better or worse politically to have such open debate. I know what the current leadership thinks.

[paulk]

7. in previous articles Mr. Zunes

has stated that he won't be supporting John Kerry this November.
Every article I've ever read of his is an attack on the Democrats. Stephen Zunes can kiss my fucking ass.

[DoomFook]

10. Quandry, But For Kerry

"For example, a poll just prior to the convention showed that 95% of the delegates oppose the decision to invade Iraq"

I oppose all war-mongering but I do hold out the hope that Kerry is publically stating his support for the war but is really working on a plan to pull out all troups when he is elected. If he can get a few wing-nuts to vote for him based upon support for the war, then I say go for it.

[genius]

11. The article is from commondreams.org

That group is on our side and we should listen. Why be ignorant like a Republican?

[The Magistrate]

14. This Is Mere Drivel, Ma'am

The writers of this journal are the "useful idiots" of the right, and play an important part in the enemy's campaign to supress left turn out to the polls this fall. Their claims of a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats for the Party ticket are false: the fact is that an unprecendented swell of small donors contributing to the campaign has the reactionaries shaking in their jack-boots. There is no more reliable indice of enthusiasm than letting go of sums of cash.

Nor is there any question in anyone's mind that, if SEn. Kerry had been President, there would not have been an invasion of Iraq. Thus, the fact that most delegates to the convention opposed that invasion does nothing to contribute to the point the author attempts to sustain. The miscreant is simply attempting to stir troble, and following the "make things worse to make them better" line that has brought disaster to the radical left so often in the past.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[DaveofCali]

45. talk about helping Bush by demoralizing the Left from supporting Kerry....

I am tired of these people that make far left articles attacking Kerry for not adopting a total abstinence on war, being totally inconsiderate of reality. People like these do no good other than to demoralize support from the Left for Kerry, thus helping Bush out indirectly.

I would bet you guys that one of the primary strategies by the Republican party now is to demoralize the left from supporting Kerry.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Wouldn't it make more sense to put a lid on this untile Kerry takes office

and THEN make some demands?

[genius]

19. Kerry won't take office unless we tell the truth about Bush.

[sangh0]

23. So why do you repeat the media's lies?

If you really though the truth was good policy, you'd follow it yourself

[The Magistrate]

24. This Article Does Not Tell The Truth About That Wretch, Sir

Rather, it tells lies about the Democratic Party and Sen. Kerry. Its purpose is to see to the defeat of Sen. Kerry and the Democratic Party, and thus the continuation of the criminals of the '00 Coup in office. The author feels this will be of benefit to radical prospects in future, being clearly of the "at least we will rule the wreckage" school of political organizing....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[blm]

16. Horsesh!t article. Serious inability to comprehend Kerry's entire record

and policy positions.

[MadHound]

25. Not talking about Kerry's record, but about the Dem platform

Which IS a serious move to the right. In fact the platform is riddled with a large amount of the "two party/same corporate master" shit we on the left have been trying to bring up for twenty years now. This shit has been coming out of the Democratic party since Carter's term, and has only gotten worse.

And people around here are wondering why the majority in this country don't vote, well, why should they? They're going to get screwed either way, the Dems are now just pretending that they care more, while still slipping the knife in.

[The Magistrate]

28. It Still Comes Down To This, Mr. Hound

Faced with a choice between a less reactionary and a more reactionary figure, not only is the less reactionary to be preferred, but we on the left have a duty to uphold the less reactionary in the interest of defeating the most reactionary. The great open secret of rightist success at the polls is that they move people to vote against the left more than to vote for the right, and in doing so, they always exaggerate the differences, so that the less reactionary appears to their voters as the very epitome of left radicalism. Until the left learns to apply this principle of rallying together against the enemy, it will remain a peripheral force in our country's political life.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Or, we could work to get ranked voting and ditch the

vote against so-and-so mindset all together. Hope President Kerry can do something about this, but if not, perhaps Governors and Mayors will be up to the task.

[The Magistrate]

31. But We Do Not Have That Now, Ma'am

The battle must be fought on the ground to hand, with the tools available, to the best end that can be contrived in the current circumstance.

"One war at a time is about all we can comfortably handle."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Yes, but

we've heard that argument for years. When are we, as voters, going to get our crap together and demand a better system?

I am all for voting Kerry into office this fall, even if I don't agree with all of his platform. It's better than the alternative.

But if you think I am not gnashing my teeth over the lack of democracy in the American voting system, let me send you my latest dental bill. *l*

I'll get back to you later this fall with some voting reform petitions you might like to sign, if you are interested. :)

[The Magistrate]

38. They Would Probably Be Agreeable To Me, Ma'am

The system, like life itself, has many flaws....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MadHound]

32. In other words friend, the old mantra of "lesser of two evils"

I'm down with it, but just barely.

We have moved to a point in our country's history again where it is no longer gov't of, by or for the people, but is instead of, by and for the corporations. One merely has to look at Clinton's pro corporate record to verify this. Yet we, the rank and file Dems are being stampeded into accepting more of the same with Kerry. Face it, the powers that be are simply playing a very good game of good cop/bad cop, and we the people are losing. The last time this happened, it ended up with the crashing down of the Great Depression. Since this Second Gilded Age is already lapping the First Gilded Age both in scope and influence, Lord knows what the crash is going to be. I fear the end of the United States as we know it.

Really and truly, the only way to combat this is to stop feeding the beast. Don't vote or support any candidate who takes corporate cash, and work like hell for publicly financed election campaigns. I'm breaking my own rule here a bit, in that I'm voting for Kerry(Supreme Court appointments, along with the certainty that Bush will expand the war as oppossed to Kerry merely continuing it are the only two reasons). However, I would suggest that everybody here start working for publicly financed election campaigns now, while it can still do some good. I would also suggest that in ALL races outside the WH, that you vote for candidates who do not take corporate cash.

Kerry has got a hard row to hoe if he wins. There are going to be a lot of people who are throwing in on ABB, and want Kerry to come up with something besides more of the same ol' same ol' pro-corporate insanity. If Kerry doesn't take them into consideration, there is going to be a mass desertion of the Democratic party for good, and they won't be able to win a race for dogcatcher in '08.

[The Magistrate]

35. For My Purposes, Sir, You Do Not Have To Be Very 'Down With It'

Barely will more than suffice. Clothespins, barf-bags, and strong soaps for afterwards are all respectable and sometimes necessary tools for the business.

It is perhaps a question more of temperament than anything, but the lesser of two evils does not much trouble me as a guide to conduct, good being damned thin on the ground of this unhappy world.

One element which does seem to promise improvement is the groundswell of small donations through mass electronic solicitation. Money is an essential in politics, as essential as ammunition in battle: campaigns, whether political or military, must have an assured supply of that necessary if they are to prevail. Heretofore, the donations in large sum of the wealthy have been the only reliable supply. As soon as aspiring politicos can see an assured supply from another quarter, they will avail themselves of it, and if the two sources should seem opposed in what will appeal best to them, some are certain to decide in favor of the more dispersed base, as it is a better indice of commitment and votes among the people.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MadHound]

40. Hence my wish for publicly financed elections friend

Preferably modeled on the British system: X amount of money, X amount of free air time, and X number of months in which to campaign.

Relying on corporations to finance a campaign is just asking for conflicts of interest, and is directly responsible for the mess that we're in now. Forty years ago, Clinton would have run as a moderate Republican, yet five years ago he was villified as a "liberal". It is a sad sign of the times when somebody like Clinton is considered to be liberal.

And like I said before, the Democratic party has mortaged a lot of good will from people this cycle, what with ABB and all. Kerry and the Dems had better come through with something substansive, otherwise they're going to be toast in '08, and '06 won't look pretty either.

[The Magistrate]

43. That Is A Commonly Proposed Panacea, Sir

It does not seem likely to really open up the field very much, however. Someone will have to write rules for how a party qualifies, and what sums it will receive, and these will not be likely to be constructed to give subsidies to radical organizations, particularly on the left.

If you consider me struck by a degree of hopelessness in the matter, you will get no argument....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MadHound]

46. Understand the whole hopelessness thing entirely friend

But I am somewhat heartened by the states that have passed publicly financed election campaigns. It seems to be working pretty effectively in those states, opening up the field to players who would normally not even have a chance. I think if this idea was taken nationwide, it would have a profound and beneficial effect on our country.

And we must do SOMETHING in order to change the direction this country is heading. If we allow corporate America to continue and expand it's influence of our government, pretty soon we will all be powerless serfs on the corporate farm.

[The Magistrate]

47. That Is True Enough, Sir

The corporation is a damned useful tool for economic development, and the West owes much to its device, but it is a damnably bad master, beside which even a competent aristocrat would stand clearly preferable.

My own view is that no thing not born of woman can properly be considered a person....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Kerry voted for the war. But, don't mention it. We don't like the truth.

I've affixed my industrial strength clothespin and will vote for Kerry. But, if he doesn't start speaking up (as he promised to do when he voted for the war) he's going to lose this election. Not because of the demonized left, but because of the pantywaist "center" and the neo-republican DLC.

[Q]

30. And please don't mention that 95% of the delegates...

...disagreed with Kerry/Edwards on the issue of Iraq. Wow. That's nearly every damn one of them. Could this be indicative of a split in the party. You can bet on it.

- Another point some are missing is that...with a MAJORITY of Democrats being against the illegal Iraq invasion...it would have been more 'democratic' to give them a voice in the process of writing a platform.