Is this the DLC...??

[LUHiWY]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0824-25.htm


"The unspoken subtext of this increasingly bitter debate between the Democratic Party establishment and the supporters of people like Ned Lamont and Hillary Clinton's antiwar challenger, Jonathan Tasini, is a referendum ordinary people have unexpectedly decided to hold on the kingmaker's role of the holy trinity of the American political establishment -- big business, the major political parties and the commercial media. The irony is that it's the political establishment itself that has involuntarily raised the consciousness of its disenfranchised voters.

The surge in support for Lamont initially came from people motivated by two simple things -- a desire to protest the war in Iraq, and physical revulsion before the wrinkled, vengeful persona of Joe Lieberman. But the party, in fighting back, attacked not on the issues but on the means of protest -- blogs, grassroots activism, Lamont's independent wealth. In doing so, it threw into relief the essential parameters of the problem, which is this: The Democratic Party has been operating for two decades without the active participation of its voters.

It raised money by appealing directly to companies in private fundraisers, and it used the commercial media to enforce its policy positions, in particular its desire to "clearly reject our antiwar wing," as Al From put it a few years back. It's a simple formula for running one-half of American politics; you decide on John Kerry two years before the presidential vote, raise him $200 million bucks, and let CNN and The New York Times take care of any Howard Deans who might happen to pop up in the meantime. The same greased track is being prepared for Hillary Clinton right now, and we can be quite sure that guns are already being aimed at Russell Feingold.

It's been an essentially oligarchic system of government, where all the important decision-makers have been institutions, with any attempts by ordinary people to circumvent the system coldly repressed. Remember 2000, when Ralph Nader was not only not allowed to debate with Al Gore and George Bush, but wasn't allowed in the building -- not even allowed in a second, adjoining hall in the building, not even when he had a ticket? Well, we have a replay of that proud moment in our history going on now, with Hillary's Senate primary opponent Tasini being shut out of debates by New York's NY1 TV channel (owned by TimeWarner) which is insisting that qualified candidates not only reach 5 percent support in the polls (Tasini is at 13 percent and rising) but raise or spend $500,000. Said NY1 Vice President Steve Paulus: "All Tasini would need is for each to send him a dollar. Right now, with the money he's raised, he does not represent the party he claims to represent.""

[Vincardog]

1. he does not represent the $$$$$, he claims to represent.the people

can it be any more clear that MONEY rules this country? We have to elect real liberal DEMOCRATS in November by a landslide if we are going to have a chance of regaining our country.

[Bluzmann57]

2. I heard Tasini on Schultz

or some show or other the other day and he rightfully said that he shouldn't have to buy his way into a debate. He is a viable candidate and should be able to air his views on NY tv. This tells me that they are scared of him and others like him. They do not want another Lamont.
on edit- I think it was Hartmann's show I heard him on. I guess it doesn't matter, just thinking out loud, so to speak.

[PassingFair]

3. K & R

Nice Rant.

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. This is categorically bullshit

"You decide on John Kerry two years before the presidential vote, raise him $200 million bucks, and let CNN and The New York Times take care of any Howard Deans who might happen to pop up in the meantime."

Really? Is that why the media declared Kerry's candidacy dead in the water right before the Iowa caucus? Is that why Dean raised more money than any other candidate? Is that why Dean was on the cover of Rolling Stone, Newsweek, and Time right before the Iowa caucus?

Lies, lies, and more goddamn lies. When are the whiners at Common Dreams (and DU) going to stop making dishonest excuses for the fall of their golden boy? This post is a slap in the fucking face to Iowa Democrats, who, contrary to your holier-than-thou patronizing, are capable of thinking for themselves and chose the candidate they liked best. I suppose anyone who didn't support Dean isn't a "real voter"? Give me a fucking break.