Will 'moderation' (and fear) be the downfall of the Democratic party?

[Q]

- In response to the thread: Breaking: Protestors storm Rove Speech

- It's very disturbing to see how some of you reacted with horror to such a minor event...the interruption of a speech by Bush* thug and propagandist Rove. You guys would have simply fainted or wet your pants during the 60s and 70s.

- We're the party that marched and protested to bring unions, civil/equal rights and choice to the people. We were beaten with clubs and hit with rubber bullets and bitten by police dogs...but still we marched and protested because we believed in what we were doing. We weren't deterred by threats or the thought of 'looking bad' to those who wanted to keep the status quo.

- It's becoming clear why the Democratic party has lost so much ground in the last two decades. The will to fight and defend the Bill of Rights has simply withered away...replaced by moderates and centrists afraid of their own shadow.

- You won't get your country back by being nice or playing by the Neocon's 'date rape' rules. They have literally taken full control of our once free country and threaten or intimidate anyone who opposes them or their tactics. If you don't have the guts or the nerve to participate in civil disobedience...then stay out of the way of those who do have the resolve to oppose fascism and totalitarianism.

- FIGHT for what you believe in...or be prepared to live as a slave to the corporate state for the rest of your life.

[Q]

1. A warning: we just might have to take to the streets...

...to stop the killing in Iraq and the middle east in general. Are you prepared? Or will you just sit back and say: thank you sir, may I have another?

- Freedom is not free. You must fight for it every day of your life.

[liberalnurse]

3. Yes!!!!

I have realized this since 2000 election take over. Dean has the right idea. There are a lot of angry Americans and we do Want Our Country Back.....

Dean 2004

[Q]

5. I have to chuckle at all the threads about Nader...

...calling him a danger to the Democratic party. That's a phony argument. The biggest threat to the Dem party is apathy and blaming OUR problems on others.

- We didn't lose in 2000...the election was taken from us by the Bushies and their corrupt supreme Court. That wasn't our fault...but we ARE to blame for not fighting hard enough to expose the election fraud that destroyed our democracy.

- With few exceptions...our party has become like the whipped dog who cringes every time his 'master' approaches. The Bushies know this...and that's why they treat us like a whipped dog.

[Terwilliger]

36. You'll love this reply to the Tomasky article

FEEDBACK

||| NADER

DAVID SCHWARTZMAN, DC - If Democrats really want to beat Bush then they should welcome a strong Green Presidential candidacy. A Democrat sounding like Bush will be defeated. If Nader hadn't run in 2000 then Bush would have likely really beaten Gore instead of assuming power in a virtual coup. Look beyond the endgame in Florida, Nader pulled Gore to sounding more like the progressive he really wasn't, thereby energizing the core Democrats to come out to vote. Same thing happened in 1948, with Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party pulling Truman to the left, giving him a victory over Dewey.

Of course, Nader made some mistakes in his historic 2000 campaign, for example, by not running strategically and not relating his main theme of corporate domination to how racism is used for its reproduction. Hopefully the Greens will do it better in 2004. The Green Party needs to win over the core constituency (labor and minorities) of the Democratic Party to really emerge from its marginal status, and it won't succeed without making beating Bush a goal in its campaign. It could then challenge the new Democratic administration to fulfill its false campaign promises as a real opposition party without the false spoiler stigma following 2000.

http://www.prorev.com/indexa.htm

[HFishbine]

76. I've wondered

in response to those who say Gore would have won if it hadn't been for Nader. Who would have won if Gore hadn't been in the race?

[Jeff002]

47. Don't just point fingers at representatives, and yes, Nader is culpable

Democrat citizens deserve their share of the blame, let's face it. After the 70s, when times were good, the democrat citizenry sat back on their laurels and stopped getting involved. They weren't protesting, they got comfortable. This isn't a situation where our representatives are the only ones out there supposed to be fighting the republicans, we're supposed to be engaged in the struggle with them.. all the finger pointing is an exercise in laziness. We're supposed to back them up, show our support.. yet when times get tough, we sit back and lay all the blame on our democrat senators and representatives.

On the Nader issue, he like Bush share responsibility. Nader lied throughout the campaign.. yet Naderocrites make excuses for him, claiming that they were attempting to win power.. well, do liars deserve power? I for one say NO! Nader is just as corrupt, with at least back in 2000, over 8 million dollars in dirty corporate investments.. big oil, the pharmaceutical industry, raping the Niger Delta (yellow cake Uranium anyone?), the military industrial complex, frankenfoods, sweat shops, the lot. Nader ridiculed the true issues of the left, racism, sexism, poverty, while at the same time exploiting them. Let's be honest here.. while taking republican money to lie about Gore and other democrats, including the late Paul Wellstone. Let's be honest here.. it's not democrats rolling over or expecting us to take it.. it's the greens.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicRic]

50. Hit the nail on the head !

Untill the Dems start showing more backbone and challenging this pResident more ,Iam sorry to say we will be stuck with him for another (dare I say) four years ! Then to top it off ,I dont see any of the ones trying to give bush the boot, giving me any reason to be excited about their chances. I will probably get flamed for saying so ,however I believe that Al Gores dropping out ,was a blow to our need for a united front against bush in 2004. I dont think its to late to correct this decision, and the sooner te better. The media is going to paint any of the Dem contenders as lacking the exprience our country needs at this time. Al Gore has 8 years exprience under one of the most sucessful Presidents in recent history! The reasons why he should be in this race are to many to list , as the reasons why he would win again !

[mdmc]

52. Well met Q!

Lets build up our party, and not tear down the Greens.
The old dem mantra "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." has been countered by the Green mantra, "A vote for a Conservative Dem is a vote for the death penalty and the drug war."

Both could be true. Both help the GOP. Only a true opposistion party can take down the GOP. If the Dems want to be Bush lite, they should expect true resistance to the GOP from the Greens.

GOP = Bush
Dem = Bush lite
Green = Chronic

[Mairead]

66. The second biggest threat

is the willingness to embrace the golden screw as it impales us.

Anyone who claims to be a Democrat while touting 'fiscal conservative', bowb-your-neighbor politics is either a liar or a loonie.

[Iverson]

93. Bill the Galactic Hero?

Chingers are everywhere.

[Mairead]

99. yep, gotta defend against them Chingers

can't let those little scunners land us in the cagle.

[Iverson]

106. Well I'll be bowbed!

A snappy double-right-handed salute to you!

[BiggJawn]

2. Right On, Q!

It was ridiculous to see some of those "What would you say if they did that to one of OUR people" posts. I was under the impression that was SOP for ReTHUGs attending Democrat rallies.

I was reminded of discussions of Anarchy. Wonderful topic to discuss over herb tea and clove cigarettes, but practically unworkable. It Seems to Me that some people consider Democracy in the same light, an intellectual discussion. Don't get your hands dirty, you might break a nail. Mom always told me to Play Fair.

These folks would have stood on the bridge at Concord and waved their arms around and screamed "Wait! this is ILLEGAL! Those are the KING'S SOLDIERS!!!"

[RandomKoolzip]

4. Q- I agree totally!

I've just been reading Studs Terkel's "Hard Times," about the Great Depression...Do you think there'd be another bonus march when the troops come home and find their benefits slashed, etc.? I don't know...Most liberals are too damn milquetoast these days. Biden, Kennedy, Clinton, Daschle: wake up, motherfuckers! Fight for your constituency!

Reading the post about the Rove speech last night, I too was appalled that people were pissing themselves, talking about how "this could backfire," make us "look bad," etc. Are you kidding? Neocons have no such worries, that's why they're always taking the power! Jesus, guys, the only way any progressive change was ever implemented in this country is when people took DIRECT ACTION! The suffrage movement, the anti-war marches of the 60's, etc.

My father helped shut down Yale in 1970 during the student strike. He marched in the front of the pack with the Black Panthers. He was proud to be liberal and he was determined to make a change. If he saw how ridiculously cowed into silence today's left is, he'd be spinning in his grave.

[Q]

8. Whew. Thanks...I was beginning to think I was alone...

- We tend to forget American history...and the very long fight to make the Bill of Rights more than toilet paper for the neocons.

- We've become little more than a banana republic with THUGS in charge that have absolutely no regard for our Constitution or international law.

- The neocons call us unpatriotic or unAmerican for speaking out about their abuses of power and anti-Constitutional legislation. But please keep in mind that this country was FOUNDED by revolution so that we could have a government that represents ALL THE PEOPLE...not just the select few in power.

[BurtWorm]

22. Don't worry. You're not alone.

Thank God more and more of us are ready to fight for what's Left.

[kentuck]

6. Crippled by fear?

It's not so much "moderation" as it is the fear of taking a position because it might come back to bite you. It seems Democrats are much more cautious in this regard than Repubs. Repubs say go for it..if they are proven wrong, they will figure out how to "spin" it at that time. For example, passing the taxcuts, with the possibility and likelihood that huge deficits would follow. But that did not keep them from passing the taxcuts. (If Democrats only believed in healthcare as strongly)

The same applies for the war in Iraq. Democrats are fearful of taking a position because they don't have the same confidence in their ability to spin their position if they are wrong. They are frozen by indecision. So they vacillate. In doing so, they permit the right-wing to ram thru legislation that they know is not good for our country.

But there is hope that the war in Iraq will help some Democrats to recover from this fear syndrome. They need to take a stand. If they are wrong, they will not be totally wrong. They will recover and survive any issue that is divisive by nature. They have nothing to fear but fear itself.

[Q]

10. I added fear to the title...

...because you're absolutely right. FEAR is a big part of it...our reluctance to fight for what we believe in.

- But we MUST NOT be afraid...and there's no reason to be if you BELIEVE that our country is worth saving. The US used to be the ENVY of the entire world. Third world countries modeled their governments after ours: democracy, free elections, equal rights and a justice system that protected the rights of the people.

- Now we're the most hated country on the face of the earth. Why? Because we've abandoned everything that made us good and fair. And we let it happen without much of a fight.

[kentuck]

11. But "moderates" can be brave and take a stand also....

But I agree that the fear is mostly in this part of the Party. Of course, they might argue that they are being pragmatic and rational. They do not wish to emulate the Repubs. Somebody has to mind the store.

[Q]

14. Of course we don't have to emulate the Neocons...

...but we MUST let them know that we're willing to at least put up a fight in the name of the people.

- The Dem congress absolutely came ALIVE when the neocon chair called the cops on them for doing their jobs. That's the way we need to start responding to each and every neocon insult to our rights and laws.

- This country supposedly belongs to all of us. It's time we start acting like it.

[Terwilliger]

7. I love the smell of revolution on a Saturday

:hi:

[gulliver]

9. True. This isn't a game.

The other guys have taken off their gloves. Bob Dole said that he wanted a politics where we have a contest of (paraphrasing) political opponents, not enemies. That's not where things are now, thanks to the Republicans.

The Republican party (lead by amoral thugs like Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and the Bush "neocons") has become uncivil, even vicious. They've asked for a fight, and that's exactly what they should get. Anything less is appeasement.

Unfortunately, this is like a pick-up game of basketball where one side decides to start throwing punches to kick the other team off the court. In other words, it's not a game any more.

[Q]

12. The Bushies didn't take control of our country by accident...

....this has been planned for a very long time.

- David Stockman once quoted Gingrich as saying that the US government must be destroyed and discredited before it could be rebuilt in the neocon image. (But it had to be done while a Dem was in office---that's where Clinton came into the picture) That's exactly what they've done...and now they're well on their way in eliminating policies and programs that benefit the people and cut into profits of international corporations.

- We're now an 'occupied' country...no different than Iraq. We have no more rights than the Iraqis under Saddam. The only 'freedom' we have left is that of the consumer and slave to the corporation.

[RandomKoolzip]

15. You're right... the conservatives and their lackeys have taken off the

gloves...Ann Coulter in Time Magazine talking about how the democratic party just "needs to go away... they're going to go the way of the Whigs," etc.

The new republican mindset is the eradication of liberal thought and action in America. They talk about "crushing" our party, about making liberals obsolete, they terrorize our represenatives and senators, they want us to die. I've never heard of a democrat calling for the eradication of the republican party; we've always granted them their piece of the pie because we're decent people. For forty years the democrats had control of the Senate, and in those years, there was always civility, the two parties always worked in compromise.

It is very different today. Once the right wing got control of the presidency and the Senate, and the supreme court, all rules governing bipartisanship flew out the window. They intend to NOT give us our fair share; they play dirty. The only way to get these bastards to sit the fuck down and start acting human is to fight back! I often hear from conservatives about how the reason they hate us so much is that we've got no spine... they RESPECT shows of force, because that's a language they understand. They cannot respect a masochist.

Let's start fighting the regime!

[Q]

18. Good post...

...and I agree with your view that the Neocons have thrown out any semblence of working WITH Democrats for the good of the people.

- But this is exactly what happens when you appease tyrants and despots. We need to wake the hell up and look around and see that the neocons want more than just a majority. They want complete control and a one party system of government.

- Will we let them have it?

[jyund]

25. 40 years

From a LibCon (liberterian conservative) point of view, the left has gotten everything it wanted for the last 40 years. Leaving aside the value judgement of whether it was desirable or undesirable, they got what they asked for.

Of the course the Dem's did'nt protest this setup.

Since that time, this lopsided deal collapsed. The Conservatives simply persauded the majority of the electorate that they were right.
As a result, they ended up with more Representatives, Senators, and the Democrats were left with one less president. This how democracy is supposed to work. It is interesting to note that now that the left has lost the hearts and minds of the American majority, their response is anger and threats of violence.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prodemsouth]

39. Way to go Random!!!

These fuck heads read Ayn Rand and they think they know everything.

[BurtWorm]

34. Persuasion has nothing to do with the Republican grip on power now

The Republican party has used slander, dirty tricks, lawsuits, and other extraelectoral means to get its unpopular ideas not only into the "mainstream" but into the White House. Your party is in power not because the people voted for it, but because you were willing to resort to every stupid political trick in the book--impeachment over blow jobs, purging and disenfranchizing African-American voters, demonizing manual vote counts, Supreme Court selection--to get your guys in power.

[robcon]

13. I think Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party with moderation.

Nixon's Southern Strategy damaged the Democratic party by eliminating the Solid South. The word "liberal" became a dirty word to a large part (majority?) of white people. Mondale and Dukakis were not firebrand liberals, but were hopelessly overmatched by the conservative wave.

Clinton, one of the founders of the DLC, in his "Sister Souljah" moment, and his "end welfare as we know it" statement positioned himself as a centrist, and he won easily. His accomplishments: NAFTA, WTO, and welfare reform solidified his presidency. He became the first Democrat since FDR to be re-elected.

Gore was centrist enough to be elected in 2000, and he got more votes than *.

Kerry, Dean and perhaps Gephardt are too paleo-Democratic to win in '04. Lieberman has the best chance in 2008: he is socially liberal, but has the national defense chops to limit *'s advantage in that area.

Voters want the Democratic Party domestic programs, but our standard-bearer has to limit *'s ability to "wave the flag." Lieberman's the one who can beat *.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

16. Lieberman, um no.

[opihimoimoi]

21. True, we gatta be assertive, courageous, and steadfast in our desire

to Keep America from becoming a Konservative Korps run by the Bushy Boys.

I don think Joe will do the trick either.

[Q]

17. Clinton saved himself...not the party.

- Jesus...how can you say anyone 'saved' the party when we're in the minority and Bush* is considered a 'hero' to half of America?

- Gore didn't win in 2000 because he was a 'centrist'. In fact...the DLC centrists abandoned Gore because he wasn't enough of a centrist appeaser.

- Don't believe the swill put out by the party centrists. Gore won because he spoke out against Bush* and the corporate state. (Gore once truthfully called them 'greedy'.)

- I'm glad you brought up the DLC...because they're one of the main reasons the party has lost SO MUCH power and respect. They seem to like being slaves and toadies to the GOPers.

[RandomKoolzip]

19. You want to lose, dontcha?

Jesus, that makes as much sense as a LaRouche pamphlet! Centrism = Compromise. The American people do not respect compromise, whether they are conservative or liberal. Americans want a FIGHTER, they want a rugged, no-bullshit dirtyfighting mixer-upper. Centrists/ swing voters will vote for anyone who is STRONG and willing to fight for what he believes... this is why Mondale and Dukakis lost so badly; their image was that of non-combative, "nice" milquetoast non-leader centrism. Clinton won because his image-makers were so adept at grabbing the youth/ baby boomer vote, and because Perot split the vote for the right.


Plus this thread is not about your favorite candidate; it's about GETTING OFF Y O U R O W N A S S and doing something! Taking direct action YOURSELF!

[Q]

23. Excellent! People respect representatives that fight for them...

...and isn't that what America is all about: the people?

- Not too long ago...blacks and women didn't have the right to vote. Blacks were intimidated, threatened and beaten for showing up at the polls. These rights weren't given to them freely...we had to fight for them.

- I wish that more Americans would study history and read about the long struggle to get to where we are today. In just three short years...the Bushies have practically taken this all away.

- How did they do it? They invented enemies and lied about the need to go to war. It hasn't been officially announced...but our nation is in a state of MARTIAL LAW.

[RandomKoolzip]

29. True. People need to know what the Haymarket Riot was,

who Sacco and Vanzetti were, what the WPA was, etc. There's a lot to be learned about where we are today by studying the events of the pre-WWII administrations.

In Terkel's "Hard Times," what's most interesting is the hatred most of the rich conservatives still felt for FDR thirty-some odd years after the New Deal. One reason they always give for that hatred is his willingness to compromise with them! See, we don't know the rules of the game! In case you don't realize it, conservatives control the system, and the only way we can make some progress is OPPOSING the system, not playing "nice." This is Ultimate Fighting, not Yahtzee!

[kentuck]

20. The Democrats controlled the House and Senate when Bill Clinton was...

first elected. They did not need saving. They were doing quite well as the Party of the people. They were having difficulty winning the White House but really, which is more important? Personally I would prefer to have control of the House and Senate and an occasional term in the White House than to have the present status of the Democratic Party. I think it is not true that Bill Clinton "saved" the Democratic Party.

[Q]

24. Agreed....but many of us seem to be playing 'politics as usual'...

...and expect the 2004 election to get us out of this mess.

- But no one seems to have a plan if the Bushies steal another election or somehow pull off a win in 2004. I hope that most Dems aren't naive enough to believe they won't try to circumvent democracy once again.

[Generic Other]

27. A kinder gentler Bush Democrat is worse than the real thing!

If we have to put up with 4 more years of Bush, the whole damn country is going to implode. And that is exactly what I hope does happen. We need a New Revolution to take back what has been stolen from us--our country. To hell with EVERY GODDAMN one of the pigs currently in power. They can join the people or get out of the way.

I am sick of them all. If Democrats want my vote, they need to represent me. Democrats who want to be Republicans need to go find their base in Freeperville.

on edit: typos

[Mairead]

100. I'm with you!

No more nose-holding. It's the turn of the 'moderates' and 'centrists' to hold theirs. Real change or else.

[Terwilliger]

31. why are conservatives telling the Democratic party how to act?

gotta :shrug:

If Democrats believe in their party, they'll be partisan. If they don't then the Pukes will win.

[Prodemsouth]

44. I will have to tip my hat toTerwilliger. So true.

One of the most simple profound things I have ever read on this site.
Don't usually agree with you. A one swing nail on the head.

[Terwilliger]

54. well, even a sundial is right tw--....er...

once in...a clock...can't--won't get fooled again!

[kayell]

68. Sorry, WRONG answer

You can't save a party by turning it against its basic principles.

All that the DLC strategy has done is help the repubs move steadily rightward, while still managing to look like they are not complete facists, because, hey, they aren't that far from the dem position. That and DLCers don't tear apart the liberal gains of the past century at quite the incredible pace that repubs do. DLCers don't turn every thing over to the corporations quite as fast as the repubs do. DLCers don't do any of this quite as fast and viciously as a repub would, but they still keep moving this country in the wrong direction.

If dems keep nominating and running "centrists" who are still turning the country over to the fat cats rather than keeping it for the people, when are we going to admit that they are not really the Democratic Party???

[the_sam]

85. Socially liberal?

Bullsh**. He's been on the 700 Club!

[the_sam]

89. And ruined the country

Sure, his behavior guaranteed a steady flow of corporate contributions, but other than that...

He strengthened the death penalty. He destroyed the welfare system. He pursued international trade, financial, and monetary policies that have been disastrous for the Global South and drove down wages in the manufacturing sector here.

Clinton's Democratic Party is not worth saving.

[Jose Diablo]

26. Civil Disobedience-Yes, Violence-No

I agree the time has come for some serious non-violent civil disobedience.

Violence will not work at this time. IMHO. All violence will do is raise the level of fear in 'moderates' and allow the corrupt leaders of our government to use the police against their political opponents.

The huge 'middle class' will remain docile as long as they are unaware of what is really going on. It has been said elsewhere in DU, make the news media report the truth. This is how to engage that 'middle class'. When they become aware, watch what happens.

There IS a place for violence, but only IF and When normal channels for changing the wrongs have been exhausted. The mechanisms for instituting change are still in place. People still retain the power to change things IF they chose to take a stand.

And in the end, the People still have weapons, if it comes to that. But we are far far from needing the guns at this time. Lets keep the guns out of it until (or if) we really need them. It's way to soon to even think about going down that path.

[Q]

28. Violence is NEVER the answer...

...which is why the Bushies are in so much trouble in Iraq.

- I began this thread because I was APPALLED at the reaction of some DUers about Rove's speech to the Hitler youth being 'interrupted' for 30 seconds. I've never advocated violence...but I believe it's our duty to make it more difficult for the Bushie banana republic plan to succeed.

- It's true that most Americans don't understand the danger. That's why we have to keep up the pressure on those who think Democracy is optional in a free country.

[Terwilliger]

33. KUDOS to Medea Benjamin and Code Pink

I dont know if they were the people involved here, but they've been very vocal in the face of power. I'd like to see a Democrat shout down a Republican JUST ONCE! And I dont mean pundit a pundit.

[Prodemsouth]

35. My cup of coffee this morning.

thanks Q, everyone else, except the one "libertarian conservative"-ha
sounds so trendy and the Lieberman poster, Yuck. Lieberman is no fighter. The best point is the Repugs only understand a good fight. We need to fight back, but we also must unite. As for Clinton, time to as he put it, move on, away from him and Hillary.

[BurtWorm]

30. Duh.

No one is advocating violence. I hear people advocating action, fighting fire with fire, arguing and advancing from positions of strength and conviction. No one is going to get turned on to vote for a party of wimps.

[Terwilliger]

32. Well, it should never come to guns

but, in the end, thats what it really comes down to...do we revolutonize through war or better common sense?

[Q]

37. Allow me to add one thing:

- I'm very disappointed at all the current crop of hate Green and Nader threads. Not that I don't think that Nader's an asshole...but it distracts us from our need to get the Democratic party on the right track.

- I used to bash Greens all the time and I even coined the term "GangGreenies'. But then I realized it was our own reluctance to get into the fray that was the problem...not the existance of third parties.

- We should keep in mind that third parties on the Left came into being because the Democratic party wasn't fighting hard enough to protect the rights of the people. The Greens would simply disappear or be absorbed into the Dem party if we once again took up the mantle of the 'party of the people'.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I Thougt The Jets Were Gang Green

[Terwilliger]

43. which Nader himself has said

He's not running because he's some kind of Republican. He's running because he knows there are big problems with the Democratic party.

[Redleg]

67. Better common sense? Are you kidding?

Sure, it would be nice to be able to educate these right-wing fools about the values of democratic processes, economic fairness, conservation of resources, etc but I believe they won't learn the lesson until it is too late.

I too hope it doesn't come to gunfights in the streets, but if it does, I am well armed and well trained to use them.

[Terwilliger]

104. you've already lost

revolutions dont happen by force...they happen when a body politic has shifted in its own focus....

its like an earthquake

[Redleg]

107. That's your theory of social change.

I agree that armed resistance by us liberals will likely end in our deaths and be ineffective as a means to change the system. I also do not see how we are going to change the status quo when those on top (the wealthy, big corps, right-wingers) rig the system to screw the rest of us and then place the blame on liberals and on Bin Laden, Hussein, etc.

[Generic Other]

45. Violence is inevitable

Are WE THE PEOPLE ready to exchange our freedoms to become citizens of a total police state driven by a mercenary military economy? Do we intend to continue in our present course, or will we be forced to take a stand?

It may not be in 2004, but WE THE PEOPLE can only postpone the inevitable for so long. When the leaders can no longer get the people in this country to fight the wars,(and we all know the chickenhawks in charge won't risk their butts)the government will have to take more drastic measures to force our cooperation.

A draft will certainly divide Americans. Parents of the current pampered generation of young people have "invested" too much in their children's futures to allow them to become cannon fodder. And even ghetto kids will begin to weigh more carefully the option of voluntarily joining the military as an escape from a life of violence and lack of opportunity.

And so who will be the first president in this century to turn our own troops against Americans in order to force his will on us? When will violence become inevitable? Will Americans gladly kill other Americans? Need I ask? To deny that this country is facing a coming reckoning is to ignore reality.

We have clear choice in 2004. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld want to promote the PNAC Pax Americana, robocop vision of America's place in the world
Some Democrats evidently like this idea too. Time for honesty here.

Do WE THE PEOPLE want to commit our country's resources, manpower, and money to fight continual war for the profit of a few? Are we willing to live the rest of our lives as targets of hatred because of our country's global actions? Will WE THE PEOPLE allow our leaders to commit any atrocity to stay in power?

Are we freedom loving people or slaves?

I don't think it matters who is elected in 2004, because without a total overhaul of the system, and a serious attempt to address these issues, our country is not going to survive our lifetimes. We will be the ones that destroy ourselves from within. Either by apathy or conscious design.

I liken our condition to a big boil on someone's smirking mug. Do we let it continue to fester and try bravely to ignore the problem as the Democrats seem willing to do, or do we pester the thing like mad as the Repubs are doing? Either way, the festering pus pocket is going to erupt. And it's going to hurt.

2004 is a tube of Clearasil. Cover-up.

[Jose Diablo]

59. Yes its inevitable, but lets make them the aggressors

I wonder about these so called 'free speech zones'. Does it mean that I can have freedom of speech only some some areas? Areas that some politician decides for me?

Or should I have freedom of speech where ever I am.

Peacefull protest is a fine art. A basic principle is provoking a response and of course have that response reported as unfair, even unamerican.

What if a peacefull gathering was organized at some 'free speech zone' and spontaniously the crowd decided they wanted to march to a non-free speech zone. Of course, some well selected epitaphs could be uttered provoking a response of those wearing blue.

Its non-violent, except by those in blue. And of course it would be an expectation to recieve a few knots on the head. But hey, it would be worth it.

Stage set, now enter the media reporting the inequities of those in power.

[Prodemsouth]

38. I thought most people were cheering the Rove protestors

Did some pink tutu's chime in "oh no-we don't want to fight back like they do- it makes us just like them." Geeze why does our side attract such losers.

[Q]

42. They're not 'losers'...they just don't understand the danger...

...of appeasing tyrants.

- Another thing: our nation has adopted a policy of first strike...AKA 'preemptive deterrence'. Many don't seem to understand that this policy is illegal and immoral...and puts our country in even greater danger.

- This is one more issue we must protest against...and not allow the Bushies to keep this policy intact while they lie about the need to attack nations that pose no direct threat to the US.

- So many issues that endanger our liberty. We need more Dems willing to play the role of a 'Paul Revere' and warn of the dangers.

[Andy_Stephenson]

41. A truer statement I have never heard!

"It's becoming clear why the Democratic party has lost so much ground in the last two decades. The will to fight and defend the Bill of Rights has simply withered away...replaced by moderates and centrists afraid of their own shadow."

Go along to get along.

[leftofthedial]

46. right question

wrong tense

[Cocoa]

48. something imaginary won't bring down the democratic party

People didn't react with horror, most people supported the protests.

A few DUers dissented, and they were promptly shouted down.

But no, the Dems do NOT depend on shouting people down, either here at DU or at the place where Rove was speaking.

The dems will win by protesting articulately. When Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel and all the other dems spoke out on the House floor against the GOP's fascist tactics, I understood every heart-felt word they said. They were full of passion, but they weren't ranting.

Plus there's the fact that Drudge might be full of shit. Was anyone arrested? If not, then his account was probably exaggerated.

[QC]

49. Sorry to break up the Mutual Admiration Society meeting,

but since I'm getting the straw man treatment here I guess I should speak up.

As I said in the other thread (don't you just love meta-threads?) my objection is not based on fear or ignorance of what Bush has done, and I am not sitting here in a pink tutu.

I am, however, hesitant to let Tom DeLay be my moral compass. Once we begin to adopt his tactics, where do we stop? Should we disfranchise opposition voters? Send rent-a-mobs to disupt recounts? How about suspicious plane crashes? Those have proved very effective. This is a very serious question: how do you fight an enemy without becoming that enemy?

Experience has taught me to be very skeptical when people talk bravely about revolution from the comfort of their homes. I grew up in a union family, and I remember how all the guys at the plant would talk very courageously about sticking it to management--it was all Solidarity Forever, you know--until management made some quiet threats, and then it would be my dad and a very few others left on the picket line while the others slinked away.

Even had some experience of this on my own, while trying to get benefits for the graduate instructors at my college. I was elected to the grievance committee and, like a fool, accepted. Once again, it was Solidarity Forever, until the chancellor let it be known that he would fire us all if we didn't drop it. Then my colleagues became scarce, the aging hippy professors with the Che posters in their offices refused to back us up (exploited labor is not so bad when it gives you a 2/1 teaching load, I guess), and we got our asses handed to us.

[Q]

53. Have you even read these posts?

- Actively opposing the DeLays in the Neocon forces doesn't make him a 'moral compass'. And it doesn't mean we have to use their tactics.

- Nor does it mean that we must always bring a 'knife to a gunfight'.

- I haven't used the word 'revolution' except to say this country was founded on such. I 'grew up' marching in the streets and protesting against illegal and unConstitutional wars and for civil rights. I 'talk bravely' because I've been there....and I know that speaking truth to power actually works.

- I guess it comes down to this: we either believe in America and the Constitution and Bill of Rights...or we simply give lip service to what so many have fought and died to protect and defend.

- The 'centrists' of the Democratic party have simply given up and joined the forces we used to fight for good cause. There's no excuse for it.

[QC]

56. Yes, I've read every one of them.

Please point me to where I advocated rolling over, bringing a knife to a gunfight, failing to defend the Bill of Rights, etc.

Honestly, the last time I saw this many straw men was at the Halloween barn dance.

Actively opposing the DeLays in the Neocon forces doesn't make him a 'moral compass'. And it doesn't mean we have to use their tactics.

Please develop this point further, because it's really the crux of why I am uncomfortable with mobs shouting down even loathsome people like Rove. It just seems a bit too Freeperish to me.

[Prodemsouth]

55. You don't get it.

People are not saying be like Tom Delay -just don't fucking roll over like the defeatist elitist hippy professors you mentioned.

[QC]

57. Believe me, I want to stick it to DeLay.

But I don't think that shouting him down and thus making him a martyr is a very good way to do it.

Better to show him for the horse's ass he is.

[Q]

62. "Shouting him down"? These are your words.

- No one is suggesting we should act like DeLay. We're fighting against the likes of DeLay...which means we have to demonstrate how his tactics and one-sided policies are wrong and decidely unAmerican.

- Democracy works ONLY when everyone is allowed to participate. Too many Dems have been cowed into submission by falling for the propaganda that to speak out against Bush is unpatriotic. Anyone studying history knows the exact opposite to be true.

[Cocoa]

58. excellent anecdotes!

thanks for sharing them. I've had similar experiences, and I agree, I think that kind of thing is what this is all about.

It's just bluster, and it's pretty ridiculous, imo.

[Generic Other]

60. Stupid anecdote

The graduate students did not lose because they had no back-up. They lost by capitulating. "We had our asses handed to us." So, did they not say "fuck you" and apply to another school?

Blaming the hippy professor was so much easier.

Sometimes breaking the machine is the only way to stop it.

[Cocoa]

61. It's about people talking big

I've found the more people just talk, the more full of shit they are.

Less talk, more rock.

[QC]

101. It was a little of both, actually.

The grad students backed down and those who had been talking big refused to support us, even though they had tenure and could not have been fired for it. They might have lost a research grant or something. GASP!

As for going to another program, do you know what that involves for someone who's far along in a PhD program?

But all this is beside the point anyway, which was that lots of people talk big until some actual sacrifice is required, at which point they disappear. This happens all the time, as anyone who has been inolved in any sort of activism knows from experience.

[Terwilliger]

63. Which is why the Democrats will never win anything again

if they don't believe in what they believe in...who the fuck is going to vote for them? Right-of-center 21-54 white males? Leftists who actually believe in leftist ideals? Soccer-moms, who are told every day by a clucking media that liberals are stupid and can't run the country?

I would love to get out in the streets to change this country, but I won't do it to perpetuate the status quo. I did go out in the streets to try and stop a war. Guess my "focus group" wasn't important.

[Cocoa]

64. the dems will win on the issues

It's important that the dems have "fight" of course, but it's not everything.

I'd say it's about 15% "fight", and 85% issues.

Plus, the dems are showing huge fight.

Protesting Rove I wouldn't even call "fight", I'd all it a sideshow, and all we know about it is what Drudge is reporting.

What I'd call "fight" would be the coordinated attack on Bush, and the coordinated counterattack on Bill Thomas. They are getting their message across loud and clear. Bush is damaging our nation's credibility, and the house repubs are running the house like a dictatorship.

[Q]

65. You can't 'win on issues'...

...when the other side owns the media and distorts those issues to mean something else.

- Take national security for instance. The neocons and their media have successfully created a MYTH that they're 'better' at it. Yet...nothing could be further from the truth.

- How do we counter this argument? By pointing out the NUMEROUS GOP national security failures...staring with 9-11 and the so-called 'war on terrorism'.

- Show the video of Bush* sitting on his ass with school children while America was attacked without a response from the neocon WH. Show just how little time they spent on the terrorism issue before AND after 9-11.

- Go on the offensive instead of trying to work with them in bipartisan 'date rape' fashion. We've been on the defensive for far too long.

[Cocoa]

69. there will be some of that

like I said, about 15%.

[Generic Other]

71. I agree with you Q

The time for being silent is past. It's time to confront head-on.

Pandora's box is already open. And there are too many Americans who sat and watched all manner of evils slither out without doing a thing about it. And now that it's too late, they slam the box shut with only one thing left inside--hope.

I think we have to take drastic action, not just "hope" things get better.

[Jose Diablo]

73. Owning Media

Yep, it is true. The newspaper and TV media is owned by a few people. This is not the only media though. Fact is, I seldom watch TV and never read the paper. I am not the only one like this either. All my news comes from the internet.

The internet is not owned by anyone. With the internet in existence it is impossible to control the content of news without killing the commercial applications riding the 'net as well. I am sure those in power would love to try, but how can the content be controlled when anybody can access international sites as well as domestic. To be sure, China tried by using special routing in the Cisco switches, but I imagine it 'leaks' like a sieve.

The easy media like TV and papers can be controlled (spiking). But ALL media cannot be controlled.

There is still time to make a difference.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

70. Gotta fight . . . taking a back seat to Bush regime never did us any good.

We have to confront him at every turn to show America they have a CHOICE.

[kayell]

72. Well said

Being the "polite" party will win neither the battle nor the war.

Did the strikers of the turn of the century and on win union represention in the factories by being polite? Did women win the right to vote by being polite? Did black gain access to the voting booths by being polite? Did women win equal rights (or something approaching that) by being polite? Did gays win the recognition we have by being polite?

Hell no! Progress and rights come about because people - in Montgomery, at Stonewall, in towns and cities everywhere - get fed up and say, hell no, I'm not going to take it anymore!

[Q]

74. Notice that most 'centrists' have nothing to say...

...accept to praise Clinton and look for more ways to appease the Bushies?

- Talk about resting on your laurels. Yes...the Dem party has done great things in the past...but they're letting it all slip away as they play patriotic games with Bush*.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

77. You can praise Clinton without appeasing Bush.

And oh, by the way, since you seem to like dogging on centrists, when was the last time a non-centrist liberal won the presidency? Don't diss the centrists or you'll never see another democratic president.

[Q]

78. Clinton is the one appeasing Bush*...

...and I see no reason to praise him for it.

- You seem to be thinking ONLY in terms of the presidency instead of a liberal ideology. It wasn't a 'liberal' president who gave blacks and women the right to vote...it was the people marching in the streets.

- It's a losing strategy to constantly frame arguments in terms of 'winning' the WH. Liberalism (to me) is about doing what's right...even if you lose.

- Right now the Neocons are launching a frontal attack against ANY Dem that questions the Boy King* and his insane policies of war and first strike. Those Dems boldly speaking out are being left to swing in the wind by the CENTRIST DLCers...who seem more interested in working with the Madman in the WH rather than oppose policies that are literally destroying the infrastructure of this country and any chance of peace in the world.

- DLCers aren't bad because they're 'centrists'....but because they're enabling Bush* by not making HIM accountable for his bad acts.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

80. I respect your opinion but winning is everything.

A liberal ideology doesn't do us any good unless we are in a position to enact policies reflective of our liberal vision. So, yeah, you are right. I am thinking ONLY in terms of winning the WH. And if you want to see your ideology applied in America, you better start thinking that way too.

[Iverson]

95. not a chance

When you disassociate winning from the ideas that supposedly motivate you to win, then winning becomes nothing but a technical gesture.

Not good enough, m'friend. Ideas count for something.

[edward]

81. Here are the non-centrist liberal presidents:

Johnson, Kennedy, Roosevelt. What's your next question?

[whoYaCallinAlib]

84. You just made my point . . . that was a long time ago.

The electorate has become much more moderate since then. If you want the WH, you gotta run in the middle. I didn't make that rule . . . that's jsut the way it is.

[edward]

88. how long did it take Reagan to take the white house?

his own party thought he was a nut and did not respect him for a long time.
and our politics are right wing. "centrist" is defined by that rightward shift--that means "conservative".
Agreed, you have to win, no question. but the centrism of the democrats has been proven a failure. I don't care what people want, Gore lost, he is not the president.
Clinton praising bush? gross, but that is Clinton's failure as a leader--he is a failed man. boo hoo. he worked and had many successes, but is a failure at leading the party.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

94. I have no idea where you got your information on Reagan.

Let's just say you would have a hard time proving it. Second, I don't think for a second that centrism has been proven a failure. It's just the opposite. Only centrist democrats have won the WH since Johnson.

[edward]

96. Response:

The republican party did not like the right wingers. Eisenhower would be a mainstream democrat today. Nixon was not a right winger and criticized those extreme politics. I probably should have emphasized that the republicans did not respect the right wing politics of people like Reagan. 1980 is really a profound moment is politics, the country was never as reactionary as that.
Centrists? Carter. ok, I liked him but he got beat bad. Not a good recommendation. Clinton? Two terms. Impeachment. Although the impeachment was wrong, he was too weak to prevent it.
Al Gore, "centrist", lost. To a drunken failed businessman. Pathetic.
Sorry, where is centrism a success? Clinton is one(flawed) success.

[Iverson]

97. centrism

Centrism got the Democrats the first two-term president in a long time. It also lost all three branches of government and basically let the right-wing opposition set the agenda. It was a moderating influence upon that agenda all the way up until it wasn't.

[Sophree]

75. Yes. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

79. Re: the Rove speech

I do see civil disobedience as a "legitimate" tactic to right genuine wrongs, and I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the interruption of the Rove speech really fits into any statement with real political value.

It would possibly awaken people to who Rove is if he was confronted on some specific issue or action he'd taken, say with some clever theatrical gesture, but just simply not letting him speak I don't think has any political value in that I don't think it would gain any new detractors against this administration. It gets people here fired up, and I admit my first reaction was like "YEAH!" But in the book /Blinded by the Right/ by David Brock he talks about his conversion to conservatism beginning with an episode similiar to this, and he starts seeing liberals as hypocritical in their valuation of free speech.

I feel it's a complex issue about the proper application of disobedience, not an issue of whether or not people are willing to disobey.

[Q]

87. The disruption of the Rove speech shows that people are tired...

...of the lies and the Bushies using 9-11 to protect the Boy King* and keep the people afraid of speaking out.

- It probably doesn't mean much in the overall scheme of things...but it does show that people are fed up.

- As I see it...the main problem is that we let so many opportunities to do the 'right thing' pass us by. Why? Is it fear? Apathy? The answer is that we have allowed the appeasers among us to take control of the party and try to steer us down a non-confrontational path.

[Cocoa]

92. you're making an awful lot out of a Drudge article

Do we have any account of this other than from Drudge?

If not, then how do we know if this even happened. Or if it happened, if it happened like Drudge said.

If we know so little, how can we know what it means?

[buddhamama]

82. fear

is not what 'they're' exhibiting.

it would be nice to think so because we can be comfortable with fear as an excuse, but, imho, it is something much more.

they have become comfortable with themslves within the bonds of America as it stands today and do not wish to upset the apple cart and their place in it.

over confidence too, that they're safe from the 'bogeyman'.
they play the game so shouldn't they think so right.

but that paints an uglier picture,doesn't it?

[the_sam]

83. Exactly why we need a third party

I think that all the non-sectarian progressive third parties in America should unite as one "progressive front" and start seriously cooredinating their efforts at campaigning at the state and local levels, then in congressional races.

It's important that we elect a Democrat this year. But at the same time, the progressive movement should maintain its independence from the Democrats.

There's a great article on this topic in Z Magazine this month.

[the_sam]

86. I'm demonstrating at the DNC as well as the RNC

They're increasingly mirror images of one another.

[buddhamama]

90. the 'party' didn't do anything until they were 'forced' to

the party is only as good as its members.
while the majority of those who participated in the struggles belonged to the Democratic party, it was the individuals/groups who led the way not vice versa.

once the People's voice was heard they took action.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

91. You are absolutely right.

Playing nice will certainly not return what has been lost.

One of the most sorry things I saw on 12/12/2000 was an image of the lone protestor at the Supreme Court.

Those who think that * will not be running in 04 are fooling themselves.
Those who think the CIA will "turn" on him seem to forget that his daddy is from that crew.

The criminals who now have the reins of power in this country will stop at nothing and WILL do anything to keep them.

If a forceful candidate from the Democrats does not forcefully oppose them, the situation for us and the world will only get worse.

They need to be shouted down, they need to be loudly opposed, they need to be protested at every turn.

I think what we need is a complete stop to "business as usual", a national strike until the bastards resign and agree to jail time.

If this crew of thieves and killers stays in power much longer, nothing short of violence will remove them.

So let's be as forceful as possible before violence becomes necessary.

[Q]

98. Indeed...the Neocons have been trying for decades...

...to get what they have now: nearly complete control of the US government.

- The only thing that seems to be standing in their way are the few Democrats left willing to put their careers on the line to do what's right for the country...not the party.

- Perhaps what's wrong with today's politics is that we tend to think in terms of Republican and Democrat...right and left...instead of citizens of the United States.

[naughtybutnice]

102. I think you should go with a Moderate

Good evening everyone. This is my first post on the DU. I'm visiting from the neoconservative Hannity forum where the thinking is downright scary at times. I'll be up front with you and say that I'm neither Republican or Democrat , I'm Independent. I'm not interested in party propaganda, I just want the plain, unvarnished truth from whoever is willing to tell it like it is. Since I've been labled as a liberal so many times on that other forum, I thought it was time to check you guys out.

So much for introductions.

Here's how I feel about Democratic party viability next Nov. The mood of the country has been decidely conservative since 9/11, BUT people are also starting to see the shortcomings of the Bush administration.
In order to have a fighting chance at winning, we need a Moderate Democrat candidate. Going way over to the left to counter-balance Bush is a guarenteed loser. The Democratic candidate should not overly criticize the war, but should have a definite exit strategy in the ME. He should definitely have winnable talking points about the economy and the environment! This should almost be a no brainer because Bush is really weak in these areas. The most difficult part about a sucessful Democratic strategy will be to talk about national economic recovery. Republicans are just waiting for the opportunity to jump all over someone who only speaks the truth by saying that tax cuts will have to be put on the "back burner" for the time being. There's gotta be a tactful way to do it. Anyway, that's my thinking....if you want to win in '04, better go with a moderate.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

103. Bullseye.

Nice shot. Agree completely. Welcome to DU.

[Q]

105. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'moderate'.

- There's nothing wrong with moderation unless it entails allowing criminals to go free simply for the sake of not appearing 'partisan'.

- Today's 'centrist' wants to have it both ways: they want to win elections with promises of 'good government' while allowing THIS government to get away with some of the worse crimes ever committed against this nation.

- How is it possible to believe these promises of a better and more responsive government when they refuse to make THIS WH accountable? That's not moderation...it's capitulation.