There Will Be No Winning Candidate in '08!!!

[kerrygoddess]

Until the day comes when grassroots supporters, activists, politician's spokespersons, et al, learn to stop the senselss attacks and bashing and start supporting the Democratic Party, it's values and principles and it's members including all candidates and politicians.

The so and so is better, the he said she said, the he did she did, is 90% what is wrong the Democratic Party.

Yes, I get that we are the party of dissent, but guess what that dissent is supposed to be directed at the other party not our own.

The Republicans get this... why can't we? On any given day we are feeding Karl Rove lunch on a silver platter. They're eating this up and no matter what anyone says no one cares.

So, I've made my plea here once again. Can we all work together towards change. Can we stop snarking and saying things such as I don't like so and so or F' so and so... and can we get some work done or do you all want to see '08 go down the toilet?

[politicasista]

1. Amen Kerrygoddess!

:hi:

[kerrygoddess]

2. Can I Get A Witness!

Sing it Sista!

Edited because I can't type tonight!

[AntiCoup2K4]

69. OH YEAAAAAHHH!!

[brainshrub]

3. The people who complain the loudest about the bashing

are the onces who still defend the man who decided to roll-over in the face of opposition.

The bashers aren't the onces who turned tails and ran when the fraud happened. The bashers aren't the ones who refused to spend money on a recount in Ohio. The bashers aren't the ones who sat idly aside as our Democracy was hijacked a second time.

No one is bashing Kerry for losing. good candidates lose elections... nothing wrong with that. But a candidate who has shown that he is unwilling to fight back when the cookies are on the table, simply don't deserve support.

AWOL. November 5, 2004. It ain't bashing when it's true.

I've read your posts and you are a intelligent, loyal Democrat. If you get behind a candidate who hasn't betrayed his base, and you'll be surprised how little bashing you'll see on DU.

[kerrygoddess]

6. There you go making my point...

Thank you.

Have you looked into all Kerry supporters records to see if they donated to the recount? Were you counting who was sitting on the bench? Were you tucked up JK's butt while he was supposedly doing nothing or did you just suddenly choke on your cookies and miss the point?

You bet I am intelligent. Smart enough to know that your snide remarks are a bash and smart enough to know that you don't get it.

[brainshrub]

10. Silly me!

If Kerry had used the 50+ million he had in his coffers to fund a re-count... then Kerry supporters wouldn't have had to spend their own money to fight for something that he was sheepishly avoiding.

And, as as added bonus, Kerry supporters wouldn't have to be so defensive about bashing all the time.

[kerrygoddess]

13. Um... Read the FEC rules please

Only money raised specifically for legal fees after the election could be used for the recount. Primary Money can only be used during the Primaries and General Election Money can only be used during the General Election.

It was determined that there was not 50+ million in the coffers within a short time after that mis-infomration was released. You must have missed the memo, so we'll forgive your implications.

[BrendaStarr]

17. Hey Kerry Goddess I was just like you

I constantly reminded people to support Kerry during the election.

But the way he took a dive was really bad.

And basically, Howard Dean is party chairman today because people spoke up and didn't roll over.

And BTW we are the party that believes in free speech.

And we really have to have a better candidate in 08.

And the jibe about donating to the count really isn't a very good argument. It reminds me of the low kind of arguing that right wingers use.

[kerrygoddess]

19. Please don't compare yourself to me

You don't know who I am or what I am about other than what you may read of my posts here.

You post reminds me of....well I won't go there dear.

[LittleClarkie]

24. What dive?

What dive was that. Do you mean the concession? Candidates have been conceding since this country began. Surely we weren't going to expect a month's fight at the end of EVERY election. I don't really see how he could have done anything else than what he did.

So... what dive? Can you explain?

I don't think you were "just like" Kerrygoddess. She isn't whining now, for one thing. I supported him too, btw. Carried bumper stickers and buttons and yard signs everywhere. Slowly went from ABB to Kerry fan. And I remain thus. Toward Kerry mostly I feel just sorrow that this man is not our president. I'm entirely more pissed at Bush and his supporters for that fact than I could ever be toward Kerry.

And I think we let him down too.

[kerrygoddess]

25. No whine...

:hug:

[Discord]

9. please, you have a right to like, dislike, support or not

any Democrats you want. BUT. She is right and we need solidarity now in this party more than ever. She not once in her post even mentioned Kerry, but you took your shots anyways. You can not like Kerry all you want, but the public bashing needs to stop. Can we all just put this aside for now and focus on the issues at hand?

[brainshrub]

11. It was about Kerry.

These days, most people who complain about bashing are supporters of Hillary, Kerry or Lieberman.

Of the three, Kerry is the most honorable. I'm just still pissed at how he surrendered. I'll get over it.

[kerrygoddess]

15. Darn Discord

My username is a dead giveaway! That and my icon and sig line. LOL! I'm a marked woman! A dreaded Kerry supporter, who also cares about her country and where it heading and sees the need for unity in the democratic party.

Thank you, kind Discord.

[Discord]

28. your quite welcome.

and yeah, that sig and handle might draw a bit of ire toward ya. lol

[LittleClarkie]

27. That's what I'm talkin' about

As Dukakis says in a recent interview on DailyKos, talking about 2008 now weakens the party. We don't have time to beat each other up. We need to get busy doing the grassroots work that needs to be done.

I just want to see support for positive action from ANY Democrat, even someone we would never dream of voting for in 2008. That person is Clinton for me. But if someone posted an article about her election reform bill, I wouldn't seek out the thread only to say "FUCK her in 2008" and bring up some past transgression, even though I think we all know at this point she'll be running for prez.

I'm equally as annoyed with those who shout "Where the Fuck is Dean!" "Dean should be commenting on this!" yadda, yadda. I need Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Reid, Boxer and any other Dem willing to oppose the Shrub to succeed. And anybody heading in their direction to bash them will have to step over me. Not criticize, bash. There IS a difference.

I wish the mere mention of Kerry's name wasn't a red flag to some folk, enraging them. But I guess it is. But that won't stop folks from posting articles when they appear in the media, or from letting folks know when a bill that might be important has been presented. And I wouldn't expect folks who support Dean or Boxer or Clinton to have to stop posting their whereabouts or major speeches or major bills either. To me, it's the same. I wouldn't ask the Deaniacs to knock it off. I wouldn't tell the Clarkies to shut up. I wouldn't tell the Clintonistas to go to hell. I hope for the same courtesy.

[LittleClarkie]

20. No, the bashers are the ones who can admit they were part of the loss

which would lead to self-examination beyond "Fuck the candidate" and perhaps help us to fix what's wrong with this party and the country. Can't have that. That might be productive. The HORROR.

Yes, those who complain about the bashing still defend that candidate. And will continue to do so whenever healthy criticism turns bitter, twisted and as misinformed on the left as your average freeper is on the right. It's amazing how similar the talking points are.

And that goes for undue bashing directed at any of our Democrats. I have Dean's back. I sorta hafta. It's like having to like your brother. We're fam. And I do rather need him to succeed.

Dem Party Back Watch on duty.

[kerrygoddess]

22. "Dem Party Back Watch on duty. "

Here! Here!

Exactly! That's my point. I've got Dean's back, Hillary's back, Boxer's back, everyone of the Democratic politicians ... I've got their backs. They may not vote 100% the way I would like them to vote all the time, but they are our leaders and we need to support them and buld the strength back up in the Democratic Party. Them we can start making changes.

If they do things we don't appreciate, email them, call them, send letters, but for God(dess) sake, don't tear them down for just being which is what 90% of the damn bashing is.

[Laurab]

49. This thread was NOT about that man

but once again, even without mentioning his name, the Kerry bashing started quite early. Kerry is not the only dem bashed on DU - many are. It can change from day to day. Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Clark, Dean, Lieberman, Biden, et al. One or two probably deserve to be bashed, but I don't think Kerry is among them. Nor do I think this thread was asking who we should or shouldn't bash.

I believe KerryGoddess was asking that we STOP doing the rethugs job for them on DU.

Why is it that even a thread like this invites Kerry bashing? It was about our party, it did not mention Kerry, but it was about unity and not eating our own I think. Why do Kerry bashers take any opportunity (and this one was a stretch) to bash the guy?

You are entitled to your opinion about John Kerry. This thread did not ask for it.

[bgb217]

4. I see...

... the he said she said attacks all over the Republican party, too.

[kerrygoddess]

8. Really...not nearly

as bad as hte Dem's not nearly. There is a reaosn they screen all Bush supporters and did not allow comments on the Bush Blog or do you not understand that?

[sandnsea]

5. Well, it was a good try!!

No, they won't ever get it.

:hurts:

[Discord]

7. I agree 100%

We need to focus our anger, frustration and contempt to the ones that deserve it across the aisle.

Thank you for posting this KG!

[LTRS]

12. First the Dems need to get on OUR side

... and stop selling us out, like on the bankruptcy bill, union busting, approving illegal wars, and pushing anti-choice candidates.

Repugs suck, but to tell you the truth, that doesn't make the dems wonderful. If they can't get on board with the dem agenda, then I can't get on board with them.

I call it having principles.

[kerrygoddess]

14. I hate to break this to you

But there are more moderates in this country than liberals or conservatives... so unfortunately if we want to get back the democratic power base, some of the further left leaning liberals may need to suck it up and try to find some common ground with the moderates.

[LTRS]

16. And the reason for that is wussy dems afraid to

live by and support the dem agenda. The majority support choice, the majority support equal rights for gays and lesbians (if not civil unions), the majority support responsible fiscal policies, and no cuts to healthcare funding. The majority support SSI. The majority don't support the war. -- regardless of WHAT they call themselves.

Yet there the pussy dems sit, afraid to stand by their principles. Rah, rah, posts like yours just encourage the root cause of the problem. I'm not a "my party, right or wrong" drone. Sorry.

[kerrygoddess]

18. Dear one

speak for yourself... the voting people of this country don't all believe in the liberal platform. Sorry, it's a fact. Incase you missed it, there a huge contingent of conservatives out there and then there's a huger contingent of moderates. Some are Dems, some are Repubs, so play both sides of the fence, some are Independents and so on.

So posts like your just show that there's some far left liberals who think it's okay to call those who disagree with the wussies and pussies. Nice.

The point is that we all need to make some concessions now and then. It's a fact of life. You can't stomp your feet and get your way everytime. That's what democracy is about and it's also what respect is about.

[LittleClarkie]

21. I find it interesting when some folks say Kerry was to far to the right

of the base. Ahem, the base ain't far left. We at DU do not represent the base. I'm a moderate here, and a raging liberal where I live. I find that weird to say the least.

Frankly, I think folks like Ed Schultz come closer to the rank and file. The rank and file is upset, but not ready for revolution just yet. I do hope Big Ed succeeds therefore. I think he could be just the ticket. He's too moderate for some here. But that's okay.

[kerrygoddess]

23. It's all relative and redundant

If we aren't getting anywhere,isn't it.

[Q]

36. There IS no 'liberal platform'...

...because the so-called Conservative Democrats have disregarded the liberal philosophy to please their corporate sponsors.

What you arrogantly call the 'liberal platform' is nothing more than a base set of values and principles that put people before government and their corporate partners. Yet the New Democrats love to call this the politics of the 'far left'.

Moderates also like to pretend that they're a majority and that THEIR politics of concession and compromise is acceptable to a majority of Americans. This charade allows them to sacifice the needs of the many for the greed of the few.

This isn't about liberal versus conservative versus moderate. It's always been about truth versus lies, right versus wrong.

You can call for unity all you want...but Kerry and other Democrats have lied to the American people and refuse to admit they're wrong about their support for an illegal, unprovoked war against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or the 'war on terrorism'. This isn't simply a difference of opinion. Democrats that continue to support Bush's illegal war(s) are as much to blame as Bush. They're lying to the American people and have needlessly put Americans and Iraqis in harm's way.

To make matters worse...Kerry gave a wink and a nod to corporations when he insisted that he wasn't a 'redistributionist' Democrat. Everyone knows what this means. It means that he believes in corporate over social welfare.

Unity isn't about marching in lockstep or supporting a candidate simply because they're a (D)emocrat. Unity is about forming a consensus behind an idea...not shoving it down their throats with threats and intimidation. And it's certainly not about forcing people where they don't want to go.

The problem is that our party has made so many concessions that it's conceded itself into minority status.

Democracy is first and foremost about a government of, by and for the people. It's about truth and honor and integrity. In fact...democracy loses when there is too much concession and compromise...especially when compromising with those who want to destroy democracy.

[Daphne08]

42. I must agree with you

Most Americans are moderate in their thinking whether they be Moderate Democrats or Moderate Republicans.

[LTRS]

50. I said the MAJORITY support dems on those issues

... and a MAJORITY is what you need to win. Now if only folks could believe that wimpy, waffling dems would actually DO the things they SAY they believe in, we would be golden.

And THAT is the problem. Not that there aren't enough of us mindlessly singing the praises of a party that talks the talk, but seldom has the guts to walk the walk.

You want a change in this party? Then hold their feet to the fire, because THAT is what it will take to win.

[Discord]

31. clueless. please try to understand politics,

and the dynamic base of the blue states. your as trapped into the box of ideology as some of the right wingers are. and wasn't one of the Dem core values tolerance? I see that one doesn't suit you so you can toss that out but still call yourself a "true Dem"

And since I joined the Dem party on the ABB position, as MANY MANY MANY of us did, if your party doesn't want my vote because I only agree with 80% of the Dem platform instead of being a Dem sheeple, I'm sure the Repugs wouldn't care that I only agree with them on 1% of thier issues, so long as I pull the red handle down on election day... that right... keep pushing people out of your party like this and soon you'll really be feeling alone and powerless.

Get a clue.

[flpoljunkie]

48. Agree. Dems must not be afraid to stand up for what is right. Dean was

right when said, "We cannot win by being Republican Lite."

Being fiscally responsible and supporting equal rights (what some call social liberalism) and standing up for average Americans against runaway corporate greed ought to be "populist" and have broad appeal across "blue and red" America.

Senator Democrats' failure to stand up and block the one-sided bankruptcy reform bill was a missed opportunity. When Diane Feinstein withdrew her support, after voting for the bankruptcy bill in commitee, this could have been an opening for Democrats to stand up for average Americans. They chose not to do so.

It makes one wonder if the Democrats are indeed the party of economic justice or are mere pretenders. Why give the despicable Ralph Nader fodder to prove his oft-stated contention there is no difference in the parties with votes like these?

[Laurab]

51. I'm not a "my party right or wrong" drone either

I keep track of how dems vote, I watch what they do, I state opinions on what they say or do. I follow these things so I know who I would like to see re-elected, also to be aware of what's going on with my party.

I do not "bash" for the sake of bashing. There are many people who do. I don't understand it. Never have and never will. The democratic party is far from perfect, but it sure as hell beats the alternative. When we eat our own, we are assisting the alternative party, in my opinion. That is the LAST thing I want to do.

[MollyStark]

55. Those "moderates" vote like republicans

They need to start voting like democrats and that has nothing to do with "far left liberalism".

[Clarkie1]

64. I agree!

"But there are more moderates in this country than liberals or conservatives... so unfortunately if we want to get back the democratic power base, some of the further left leaning liberals may need to suck it up and try to find some common ground with the moderates."

However, that doesn't mean we need to give up our values. What if we can find a candidate who hasn't been stuck with the "Washington East Coast Liberal" label? What if we have a candidate who can make "liberal" not sound like a dirty word to Southern church-going folk?

I have to say, Kerrygoddess, I really am surprised by that statement coming from such an ardent Kerry supporter for 08'(apparently). This isn't an attack on you or Kerry, just letting you know my honest surprise.

I agree with your sentiments regarding working together, as long as we don't put our heads in the sand in an effort "not to offend" someone else at the party.

[Discord]

30. seems to me that you know very little about

how politics really work. Principles are fine and good, but having principles does not equal getting things done. simply put, there are reasons they vote the way they do, and on the surface, it may appear that they are voting against the party, theres alot more going on behind the scenes that you might not be aware of. The sad truth is its called playing politics. We do not have a majority in the house or senate, so we are forced into a position where we have to play politics to get something done.
A couple quick examples...

Say the Republicans propose a bill. The bill is absolutely horrendous, but they have enough votes due to majority to pass the bill.
Now we have 2 options. delay tactics, which is usually nothing much more than delaying the inevitable. now understanding that with still over a year until the next elections, we cannot delay a bill long enough to hope for a majority swing to alter the vote. So we delay the vote, and after some period of time... the bill passes. AS IS!
The second option is curb the damage. deliberate with the other party and basically say... look, I'll vote for your damn bill one one condition... you change the wording or content of the bill in these areas... and I'll support the bill. This is called damage control which is the mode the Dems are in at the moment. Now the bill passes, but is less damaging than the original bill proposed.

Its called politics. And while on the surface to someone who doesn't understand it, it looks as if the Dem was in support of the bill. But in truth they did what they could to minimize the damage and we're indeed working in our best intrest.

Theres also something called vote favors, meaning that a Dem will vote in favor of a bill they oppose in exchange for a vote from a Pug on a bill or amendment that they might have otherwise opposed. This is called... picking your battles.

Does this all really suck. You bet it does. But its just the way it goes in Washington.

Now, one other point I'd like to make to hopefully help you understand one other aspect. Deep Red State Dems CANNOT... I repeat... CANNOT run in a red state on a pro-choice platform and have any chance of winning. Conversely, a Blue State Republican cannot run on a pro-life platform and have any chance of winning. They understand this. Why can't you? My rule is... as long as they are not actively campaigning to alter the existing laws surrounding abortion, I could care less what thier personal stance is. I would also bet that many so called... "pro-life democrats" are really pro-choice. they just can't run with that position successfully in thier states.

I'm sure I can find at least one vote cast by ANY Democrat in office that I wouldn't agree to. Does that mean I shouldn't support any of the Democrats? Sounds kinda silly right? I agree.

[marcologico]

33. Kerry has principles. He didn't toss out abortion and he still won.

He also ran a clean campaign from start to finish. Others are less scrupulous and they got left in the corn patch.

I think that sums it up.

[Discord]

34. great work tearing down other dems

to support your candidate.

think you could make a few more generalizations please.

oh, and don't forget your regular Dean bash and make sure to flame me again with derrogitory comments and baseless claims.

You know how much I love that stuff.

[marcologico]

35. I'm sorry, but you're mistaken on all counts. (n/t)

[lojasmo]

40. Kerry won? Please visit realityville. EOM

[marcologico]

41. If he didn't, why have we been bashing him for the last 3 months?!?

But don't worry, he won, so our reputations are safe. :)

[lojasmo]

43. Because he ran a piss-poor campaign, and conceded too soon. EOM

[marcologico]

44. I'm going to pretend you're being ironic

and congratulate you on understanding the point of the thread. :)

[Laurab]

52. Please visit election theft and reform threads. EOM

[lojasmo]

58. I understand about fraud and manipulation.

The sad reality remains that Kerry et. al. failed to address this after 2000, and Kerry lost in 2004

[LTRS]

54. Um, Kerry didn't win

And self delusional dems are not the key to winning. It amazes me how many people here prefer to pretend Kerry actually won rather than face the problems with the party.

Kerry lost because he waffled and weaved and bobbed on every issue imaginable. Face it.

[marcologico]

59. Were you awake on election night?

Not only the exit polls but the internal polls of BOTH campaigns pointed to a Kerry landslide all day. Then at about 8 p.m. EST things took a turn. It seemed suspicious at the time, and everything I've read since has simply confirmed that the election was stolen. So I wouldn't call it a delusion.

However, I'd call the perception that Kerry "waffled and weaved" pure right-wing baloney, brought to you by your local cable TV company. The lies are real enough but they're still lies.

[LTRS]

76. Yes, and I was AWAKE during the campaign too

Again, he lost because he DID waffle, weave, and bob on every issue imaginable. I could have told you that BEFORE election night.

[LTRS]

53. You couldn't BE more wrong!

You are wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to start. I'll skip your comment about the idea you have that I don't know anything about politics -- you don't have a clue what I know and what I don't know. So much for half assed assumptions on your part.

1. Principles absolutely DO win elections. If Bush isn't proof of that, no matter how much most of the country disagrees with him on specifics, you simply have not been paying attention. People want strong, principled leaders even if they don't agree with them on every issue, because they know they never will agree with them on all issues. What we have is waffling, cowering leaders who cave on basic principles (which I have already noted) for fear of offending someone. They will NEVER, EVER, not in a million years win an election by that method.

2. Favor a bill they oppose as a trade? LOL LOL LOL! THAT's why they voted for the bankruptcy bill, and to union bust over homeland security, and for an illegal war, and the patriot act? Really? What did we get in return? I can tell you (and I do know) Not a DAMN thing. No, they voted for those things to either line their campaign coffers or because they are political cowards.

3. As for your silly abortion argument, the majority favors choice, and PA is NOT a red state.

4. Sorry, it isn't one issue anymore. It's issue after issue after issue, as I made clear in my first post. You and others can keep pretending it is, but the problem with the Democratic party goes FAR beyond their votes on one or two issues.

The problem is that they are too cowardly to stand up for their own agenda. And cowardly is not what people are going to vote for.

[fishwax]

77. it may be playing politics, but it's not playing it very well

and so the dems have gotten their asses kicked in the last three election cycles. I'm not saying damage control is never necessary, but it can create problems when it's the only strategy conveyed. After the 2000 election, the dems were devoted to damage control, because the country "needed healing," we were told. Another way of playing politics is, when you know a bad bill is going to pass, to rally the troops against it, die on that hill, and then rally around the cause. That way those who supported the bill, being clearly defined against the opponents, can't easily avoid the consequences when things go bad. That's in contrast to how Bush was able to slither through the economic troubles, because the tax cuts, after all, were "bipartisan."

Look what the GOP did immediately after Clinton was elected. They were in the minority in both houses and had lost the White House. But they didn't play damage control, they voted in a bloc against Clinton's budget. Sure, they lost the vote, and the budget passed, but two years later they grabbed the house and ten years later had the senate and white house as well. That was playing politics too.

I agree with your point about red state dems. I can think of politicians here in Oklahoma that I'm sure are probably pro-choice, but I know they have to hedge their bets. And I also agree, generally speaking, with holding the vitriol for the other team, rather than eating our own. (I get so tired of the "(insert name) has gone to the dark side" or "(insert name) is a traitor" threads.) But there are many different ways to play politics, and the Democratic game plan hasn't been successful lately. It only makes sense to point that out.

[applegrove]

26. I agree. If we act like the animals..another one will be President.

We are either under a big tent which is a plurality.. or we tear ourselves apart and turn into tribes..the easier to be ruled by the elites.

I'm a fiscal conservative but social liberal and am very interested in the 'structure of power' and making sure the people not the elites rule.

[robbedvoter]

29. Uh, ya think voting reform has anything to do with 2008 or as usual

it's all about how delicious kerry is?

[latteromden]

32. Ya think you could pay attention to what she's saying as opposed to

the username it's coming from?

[mtnsnake]

37. We will have no winning candidate period, until we

start attacking Republicans on TV....just like they do to us all the frigging time. They're doing again to us with their latest barrage of TV campaigning for the Chimp's Social Security plans. Instead of telling the truth about Social Security, they're blasting Democrats for sitting on the sidelines "doing nothing about Social Security themselves except for opposing Bush." And we sit there and let them lie about it like that without any ads blasting them in return and without explaining the truth of what's really going on. Pathetic.

[trudyco]

38. Why are '08 threads in here?

I thought there was a special board for people who want to skip what some of us think is the immediate stuff:
Election fraud
MSM complicity - we need our own news
Dems who aren't voting like Dems
Stopping creeping Fascism and bad legislation - protesting, petitions, getting the word out, letters to officials and newspapers, etc.
Potential Financial and environmental crashes
And, lastly, '06 elections

Frankly unless you make a dint in election fraud - trying both national and state level legislation and then maybe getting a respected international group to do an extensive independent exit poll at future elections it doesn't matter which candidate you support/bash. Too many here keep acting like we still live in a Democracy.

[marcologico]

39. You're probably thinking of GD.

My understanding is that GD-Politics was specifically set up to handle presidential primary threads, which this one is.

On the other hand, that was before my time... :)

[mattclearing]

45. Sorry, can't help you there.

Not until we get corporate whores our of our public offices.

Lieberman is a shining example.

He's going to snipe at everything I believe in, and he's going to do it in the name of the Democratic Party.

I reserve the right to respond.

[sniffa]

46. because even DUers

have their LittLe fucking agendas, and their candidates - and they'd rather have the dems Lose if their candidate isn't the nominee.

fuck aLL y'aLL who are Like that - you've been marked.

[marcologico]

47. you got it sniffa!

sniff on!

:headbang:

edit to add headbang

[welshTerrier2]

56. "There Will Be No Winning Candidate in '08!!!"

Until the day comes when elected Democrats learn to stop senselessly ignoring the grassroots supporters, activists, politician's spokespersons, et al and start representing the traditional viewpoints of the Democratic Party, it's values and principles and it's members.

The so and so is better, the he said she said, the he did she did, is 90% what is wrong the Democratic Party. We cannot continue to have our elected officials running around in an ad hoc manner without having them truly represent ALL Democrats ...

Yes, I get that we are the party of dissent, but guess what that dissent is supposed to be directed at the other party not our own. And of course, we all understand that this dissent and criticism will continue because most Democrats have very little say in what the Party does ... so, I assume we all agree that the only way to find a meeting of the minds is to push as hard as we can for Party reform ...

The Republicans get this... why can't we? On any given day we are feeding Karl Rove lunch on a silver platter. They're eating this up and no matter what anyone says no one cares. It's way past the time for elected Democrats to stop voting WITH the republicans and stand up as a real opposition party ... for starters, let's do all we can to pull the funding for bush's insane "war" in the Middle East ... that ought to get old Karl a little spun up ...

So, I've made my plea here once again. Can we all work together towards change. Can we stop snarking and saying things such as I don't like so and so or F' so and so... and can we get some work done or do you all want to see '08 go down the toilet? instead of blindly supporting Democrats, let's make sure they are responsive to us, the voters ... let's demand that they listen to what we have to say ... let's put our focus back on defining who we are as a party and how our ideas can best serve our country ... that's the only way to win ... unity must be earned by hard work ... and party reform is the only path to get there ...

btw, are the "Democrats" described in this article the ones we should be supporting?????

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/032305/podesta.html

[flpoljunkie]

63. Thanks for the link to the article. The answer is we let these 20 Dems

who signed the letter urging Hastert to bring the bankruptcy bill to the floor, know that we are watching, and we assume they will not be supporting the one-sided bankruptcy bill that was passed in the Senate because of what they said in this letter:

"We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling."

Let's hope they meant it--as the Senate bill pointedly left out these "important new consumer protections."

This is why Diane Feinstein refused to vote for cloture on the bill after she had voted it out of committeee. She said they had been promised the chance to make changes in the bill to protect consumers and that did not happen.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/8/202044/7026

[CTLawGuy]

57. you know what this reminds me of...

"9-11 just happened so we need unity in the US. So let's vote for Bush's agenda, inlcuding stripping of our liberties in the Patriot Act, and an unnecessary war in Iraq. If we don't then we weaken America."


I call BS.

This is about power politics. In our system, because of its design, the parties are NEVER completely unified. Every Democrat has the right to, and should be encouraged to, try to shape the party as they see fit.

I will criticize Democrats when they do not act like what I consider to be a Democrat. I will not feel bad about it. I have the right, as a Democrat to do so. The majority may not agree with me, and thus the party may not follow me. However, I still possess the right of free speech.

[lojasmo]

60. "When you give up your values in order to win....

you lose, and end up having no values, so you keep losing."


Howard Dean

[marcologico]

61. He would know :)

[lojasmo]

72. Sure, I've been reading your posts here for a while

Excellent primer on supporting those who have abandoned their values.

[kerrygoddess]

70. who suggested we run anti-abortion Dems...

[lojasmo]

71. Did I say anything about abortion?

How about the patriot act? How about giving monkeyman the keys to invade Iraq? Plenty of reasons for me not to vote for ANYBODY who espouses the values, and votes for the agenda of the NDC.

[lojasmo]

78. Bullshit as usual

please provide a quote if you're able.

p.s. you won't be, because you're making stuff up....as usual.

[TheWatcher]

62. While I agree with EVERYTHING you said.

This only works in countries that have FREE and FAIR Elections.

Until the issue of the Voting Machines is dealt with, you can organize, come together, and be as activist as you want.

It probably won't matter as long as the Electronic Voting Tabulation remains in the hands of four PRIVATE CORPORATIONS, heavily tied to GOP interests and The Christian Reconstructionist Movement.

I have said it before and I will say it again.

2006- They will steal a Super majority in the House and Senate

2008- If they run a Tuna Fish Sandwich for President or a Tonka Toy Truck, it matters not. There will be enough Electronic Voting Infrastructure in place to negate ANY democratic Electoral Process.

This isn't what most on this Site want to hear. It matters not. it DOES NOT and WILL NOT change the reality of the circumstances we face.

AT ALL.

Positive thinking, Grassroots Organizing, Activism, Coming Together, Working Towards Common Goals. These are all important, honorable, and necessary.

But to do so while ignoring the core issue of the Voting Machines is a waste of time, and will prove to be FOLLY.

Don't like it? Don't Believe it?

TOUGH.

I don't and I don't want to believe it either.

However, wishing something wasn't true, does not render it impotent in it's relevance or make it's prominence as a problem go away.

It's later in the game than you think.

And the solutions and remedies we MIGHT still have left to solve this are becoming more unpalatable everyday.

And if things continue like this, it won't be long before they will no longer be able to be POSTED.

At least in public.

[stillcool]

67. Thanks for your post...

i can not even contemplate the idea of an election. There is no there there...i hate to admit it, but it seems to me that a race to the bottom is our best chance for salvation. Make it quick so we can maybe not suffer as badly, and get the hell out of la-la land. Tonite i read two conflicting stories about 85 'insurgents' getting killed..here's the link for one;
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12645853-23109,00.html
everytime i think i have a handle on things i get blown away again. Its almost as if i need someone to interpret the language, and then determine the intent. Crazy.

[cquik18]

65. Agreed...

...but the Dems and grassroots need to huddle up and decide WHAT they're going to do about 2008. We as grassroots have the chance in 2006 to start weeding out the traitors, sellouts, and knee-pad squads that pose as Democrats; then we put the pressure on them to fight the Bushies, or THEY get sent home with a comic book and an apple as well! The neocons already have their picks for the White House, you can be sure!

http://www.cyberjive.com/stuff/w.pdf

[LittleClarkie]

66. Indeed, but we won't huddle up if we're still fighting primary battles

I wish people weren't already going down that road. Needless fighting.

[libodem]

68. make sense to me

and what you are saying needs to be said...we can not underestimate our opponent....They are power-mad, zealots, with an agenda, and we are sitting around fighting with ourselves

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Silverhair]

75. Clark can win. NT