a warning to the party's center ... and a warning to the party's left too

[welshTerrier2]

DU'ers trying to stifle the voices of other DU'ers ... there has been a veritable parade of these threads the last week or two ...

i call these holier than thou DU'ers party cheerleaders ... here's some of their hideous script: you MUST vote for every Democrat on the ticket ... how dare you criticize Democrats ... you're just helping the republicans ... you're all violating the DU rules and should be banned ... if they won't ban you, they should lock you all up in your own "whiner's forum" ... you people are the same people who voted for Nader ... you're all trolls trying to help the republicans ... you're purists who don't give a damn about winning ...

if the above script applies to you, get a clue! how dare you try to stifle the voices of other progressives??? my purpose in coming to DU and writing on DU is to CHANGE the Democratic Party ... i do NOT like what the party has become ... i am not a Green or any other third party supporter ... i'm a Democrat ... that does NOT mean that my first allegiance is to the Democratic Party ... it is NOT! my first allegiance is to what I believe is best for the country ... when the so called progressive party sells out its traditional values, and i believe in many areas the Democratic Party has done so, i am not going to leave; i'm going to stand and fight for the soul of the party ... i won't elaborate on a laundry list of issues here except to say that i believe the party has abandoned American workers and has lacked the courage to stand up to mega-corporations and big money ... and for those who use the "script line" that "we're out of power and there's nothing we can do", take it down the road ... that won't sell here ... Democrats need to speak out aggressively and regularly on these issues ... that's the only way things will change ... no, we can't control the votes in Congress today; that does not absolve elected Democrats from taking the case to the American people ... as i said, take that argument down the road; it doesn't sell around here ...

and let's not try to use the phony debate tactic that portrays those who criticize the Democratic Party as "extremists" ... most DU'ers who criticize the party do not ascribe to the notion that there's no difference between the parties; most did not vote for Nader; most do not want to see republicans remain in power ... if that's your "script", take it down the road, buddy ... it won't sell around here ... i do not ascribe to any of those arguments ...

and finally, in still speaking to the party's cheerleaders, allow me to offer you some advice ... if you NEVER criticize Democrats, you will have ZERO credibility ... when you regularly appear on threads that criticize Democrats for their votes on Iraq, or their votes on NAFTA or CAFTA or whatever, or their votes on failing to "out" bush's REAL MOTIVES in Iraq, then and only then you'll have some credibility ... if you do that, then and only then can you effectively make a case to be "pragmatic" and vote for a straight Dem ticket ... then and only then can you show your agreement that you support a genuine progressive vision but you think the best way to achieve it is to elect more Democrats ... condoning torture and pro-war votes and bankruptcy bill and all the rest of it because it provides electoral success and the issues don't matter is not going to build any support for your arguments ... until we know you stand with us on the issues and share similar values, your calls for what you consider to be pragmatism will go unheeded ... cheerleading is only tolerable when it's backed up with substance ...

but, having said all that, here are a few words to my friends on the left ... i consider myself one of you ... i read the threads and discussion about the worldcantwait calls to not vote this year ... the essential arguments seemed to be that Democrats have supported the war; they've supported Casey who opposed a woman's right to choose; they've supported the corporate agenda and voted for right wing Supreme Court nominees ...

let me say that i do NOT have a problem withholding a vote based on your political beliefs and your values ... don't let anyone beat you up about sticking to your guns ... frankly, i can't imagine i'm going to be able to vote for a Democrat in 2008 ... this year, however, i'm going to vote a straight Democratic ticket ...

the trick to all this seems to be finding a balance between the hideous, obvious evils of the neocon nightmare and finding a way to let the so called "opposition party" know that what they're doing is NOT OK in many instances ... how do you navigate between those two conflicting objectives? don't expect anyone to give you a clear answer to this ... there isn't one ... my take, for 2006, is that the left has not adequately conveyed a detailed, specific agenda to the party ... some of that is our own fault; much of it is the party's failure to provide adequate forums for dialog ... the bottom line is that withholding a vote this year, absent a clearer message and better communication, will do more to elect republicans than it will to send a message ... i'm afraid the message will just not be heard ... and, contrary to what those jackass cheerleaders keep screaming at us, i think we're all aware of just how evil this neocon regime really is ... it's hard to conclude that republicans across the board don't need to be driven out of the halls of power ... while i hate to send the wrong message to Democrats, and i fear if they do well in November they'll believe they're on the right track, the neocons are just too dangerous ... never before have the fundamentals values of American society been so threatened ... my two cents, for what it's worth, make 2008 the intra-party battle, not 2006 ... i'm voting a straight ticket this year ...

[gully]

1. Glad your voting straight party ticket in 2006. I agree with your

strategy, "make 2008 the intra-party battle."

[LoZoccolo]

2. "how dare you try to stifle the voices of other progressives???"

How dare I? Because the arguments against the "hideous script" are tired, and the people we argue against while we're using that script already know what is wrong with what they're saying. That's how I dare to "stifle" (I'd call it more "responding" since I have no power to stop anyone. I do put a ton of people on ignore though; I don't have to listen to every waste of time that comes my way). We've heard it a thousand times and it wasn't compelling the first nine-hundred and ninety-nine. Sick of getting in the same argument over and over again that serves no purpose.

[wyldwolf]

4. not only are the arguments against the "hideous script" tired...

...they're factually challenged, as well.

I can't count the number of times someone here has passed along a little political urban legend, seen it shot down, then pass it along again a few weeks later.

[wyldwolf]

3. nah, welshTerrier2

No one is trying to stiffle anyone's voices. This is a discussion forum. Like the rules say, "People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here."

For what it's worth, if the intra-party battles continue (online, which is about the only place I see it), then I will be right there stiffling discussing it.

[welshTerrier2]

6. yah, wyldwolf ...

your statement that "No one is trying to stiffle anyone's voices" is NOT correct ... and just for the record, i did not accuse you of doing so ... i don't think you do that at all ...

but some do ... i saw one post in the last day or so that posted the DU rules and tried to argue that criticism of Democrats violated the rules ... there's another thread on here today talking about locking the "whiner's away" in their own forum and not permitting them to post in the main forums ... here's a link in case you want to criticize the poster for what he said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2255399

i call that an effort to suppress discourse ...

[wyldwolf]

10. nah...

your statement that "No one is trying to stiffle anyone's voices" is NOT correct

Sure it is. Explain to me how anyone on DU has the power to stiffle anyone's voices (unless, of course, they are a mod or admin)

I'll bet you a steak dinner that EVERYONE on DU knows that they can't wave their hand and make someone shut up.

Wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that NO ONE thinks they can stiffle anyone's voices and NO ONE is trying to?

and just for the record, i did not accuse you of doing so ... i don't think you do that at all ...

I didn't think you were referring to me. Mainly because anyone who has been here long enough knows that I love a good debate and if anyone's voice was stiffled, all the fun would be gone.

but some do ... i saw one post in the last day or so that posted the DU rules and tried to argue that criticism of Democrats violated the rules ... there's another thread on here today talking about locking the "whiner's away" in their own forum and not permitting them to post in the main forums

I see a lot of that stuff, too, but so what? When I see someone claim absurdities like "the DLC aren't Democrats, what are they allowed on a progressive board," that to me is an invitation for discourse. (and we all know I can sling discourse and datcourse with a database of information at my fingertips.)

[welshTerrier2]

13. "trying"

in your first line, you quoted what i wrote: your statement that "No one is trying to stifle anyone's voices" is NOT correct" ...

in your second line, you wrote: "Explain to me how anyone on DU has the power to stiffle anyone's voices"

the second statement is not responsive to the first ... i did NOT suggest that anyone had the "POWER" to stifle anyone else's voice ... i said they were trying to do so ...

btw, i'm sorry there's been so much focus in this thread on the issue of stifling ... i didn't intend to make that the primary focus ... what i did intend to make the primary focus was the failure of DU cheerleaders to understand the purpose of party critics ... i believe that purpose is to highlight where they disagree with elected Democrats in the hope of building support for their views and pushing the party to reflect those views ... some on DU seem to believe that it is unacceptable under the DU rules to criticize the party even if the party violates their beliefs ... and some argue it harms the party to criticize it ... these points were what i was trying to emphasize in my post ... the issue of stifling was not intended to be the central theme ...

[wyldwolf]

15. why would anyone try to do something they know they cannot do?

[welshTerrier2]

16. have you never tried to fly?

SONG TO A SEAGULL - written by Joni Mitchell

Fly silly seabird
No dreams can possess you
No voices can blame you
For sun on your wings
My gentle relations
Have names they must call me
For loving the freedom
Of all flying things
My dreams with the seagulls fly
Out of reach out of cry

I came to the city
And lived like old Crusoe
On an island of noise
In a cobblestone sea
And the beaches were concrete
And the stars paid a light bill
And the blossoms hung false
On their store window trees
My dreams with the seagulls fly
Out of reach out of cry

Out of the city
And down to the seaside
To sun on my shoulders
And wind in my hair
But sandcastles crumble
And hunger is human
And humans are hungry
For worlds they can't share
My dreams with the seagulls fly
Out of reach out of cry

I call to a seagull
Who dives to the waters
And catches his silver-fine
Dinner alone
Crying where are the footprints
That danced on these beaches
And the hands that cast wishes
That sunk like a stone
My dreams with the seagulls fly
Out of reach Out of cry

[wyldwolf]

17. not since I was a kid.

[welshTerrier2]

18. i hope for you that ...

one day, you will be a kid again ...

we need more of that ...

[wyldwolf]

19. If I ever am, I will have the good sense not to jump off rooftops

[Debs]

50. Why would you jump off a rooftop

I wasnt that stupid even as a kid. You try to fly by taking off FROM THE GROUND

[Don1]

40. Your assumption is a defeatist assumption.

Try what is reasonable and just. Radical centrism is not a universal answer and only works sometimes. Be eclectic and dream of a better tomorrow, not the status quo.

[wyldwolf]

47. Is isn't an assumption, it is a fact

Show me one example where anyone short of a mod or admin has ever stiffled anyone's voice on DU.

And what does this have to do with "radical centrism?"

[Debs]

49. Not to enter into this debate

I DO want to answer THIS question

why would anyone try to do something they know they cannot do?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I do it all the time, because you dont just fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting.

[wyldwolf]

53. so is your contention that voices on DU NEED to be stiffled?

Because that is what this debate is about - specifically. NO ONE on DU can stiffle (or even try to stiffle) anyone's voice because unless you're a mod or admin, it cannot be done.

[Don1]

39. You are contradicting your friend.

Your friend in answering to stifling progressive voices, admitted it. She wrote: "How dare I? How dare I? Because the arguments against the "hideous script" are tired..."

[wyldwolf]

48. nope! Not contradicting anything

Now there may be people on DU who lack the will to defend and support their positions on any given subject and feel "stifled" because people won't just shut up and agree with them but they're not suited for political discussion board.

[robcon]

5. ..and let me say I disagree with your premise.

The people who argue (like me) that we should vote a straight ticket, and those who argue we should withhold support from some Dems, are BOTH free to post on CG.

It is phony issue, IMO, to argue that anyone is "try(ing) to stifle the voices of other progressives."

Post on, welshTerrier2, and I'll do the same. Don't feel "stifled" because I disagree with you.

[welshTerrier2]

7. phony issue?

here ya go: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2255399

i have no issue if you disagree with me; i have a big issue with those who don't want to hear criticism of Democrats in these forums ... without criticism, we are not a voice for change ...

[robcon]

9. Then post there, welshTerrier2!

Is it that you can't take the sarcasm? Or you don't have an adequate or punchy retort? What is your problem?

As I wrote before, no one is stifling your ability to respond, or to start this thread, or to ignore those who disagree with you, or to attack those who disagree with you.

Feeling "stifled" is your INTERNAL problem, welshTerrier2, IMO.

[welshTerrier2]

12. nice of you to personalize the discussion

nothing like an ad hominem argument ...

[Stinky The Clown]

8. welshie, you make good points ......

..... and I gave this thread a nom.

I see things just a tad different from you, however. I don't think anyone's specifically trying to stifle dissent. Actually, what I think is going on is that we all see the polls. We all see how very, very close we are to getting a majority in Congress ..... in both houses. We also alls ee the slime that's flowing in earnest from the other side. This will be a fight. A serious fight. The midterms are almost always about the partisan bases. We need - deperately - every vote we can get. (I don't want to get into a side discussion about the security of our votes - that's well discussed elsewhere).

This latest insult to our country wrought by a well planned and well organized RW machine. This bill thathas us all up in arms was planned to happen exactly when it did. It was for several purposes. It was to excite their base. It was to hang the Dems with a 'weak on terror' label ....... and it was planned to rip us apart at the very moment we need unity.

I think your take on things .... straight party now and then the internal stuggle for control of our side in advance of 2008 is exactly right. We simply can NOT afford to loose even one seat that isn't countered by two pick-ups.

So much more to say, but I need to get ready to catch a flight ......

[mom cat]

11. Good analysis of the tough moral choices facing us.

We can neither cut off our nose to spite our face or fall for fairy tale stories about how the Democrats will save us.
I am fortunate to live in a district where my two senators and my rep all fought against the bill to kill habeas corpus so I personally do not have to make the kind of draconian choices that face many voters this year. May the Great Spirit guide all of you who are in such an untentable position.

[bowens43]

14. There's only one choice facing us.

Which party is more likely to slow down bushes agenda?

That's it. That's the only question of any importance at this time.

[Pithy Cherub]

21. That is the what. The how is more important. Why even more so.

A party that is unable to stand in defiance of laws that are blatantly unAmerican has serious drag on its sails in trying to say what it would do in the face of what it did do. That is a credibility gap that has to be bridged. That is merely speaking to a method of crossing the bridge. The Democrats will get votes and any Democratic pol that believes they were all given happily is in for a rude awakening. The day after election day will be for celebratory victories and then seeking even more primary pols whith spines to throw off the cowardly appeasers who voted to enable the republican agenda with bankruptcy bills, hideous appointments, IWR, and torture.

The internet is growing in power and heft, especially the Left. By 2008, party discipline will fall outside of Washington and the voices of people who pay attention to the Will of the People will climb in value. So yes, advocating a capitulation now, means more people will endure a Sore Loser Lieberman-like future. on edit: Pols are being put on notice.

[welshTerrier2]

23. the simplistic "we have to win"

what we do today constrains, at least to some degree, what future we are able to bring about ... said another way, once a torturer, always a torturer ...

those who see winning as only coming in black and white are blind to the impact of today's actions on the future ... in fact, they believe, absent winning, there is no future ... and they couldn't be more wrong ...

Democrats, as an opposition party, need to give voice to the ideas and values we hold ... they cannot just violate those values in some mythical pursuit of electoral victory ... in fact, in SELLING OUT TO WIN, they may be assuring our defeat ... the public knows "politicking" when they smell it and they do NOT respect it ... Democrats, for example, have put a great premium on burying the "McGovern weak on defense meme" that republicans have prospered from so greatly ... but, instead of choosing a SMART strategy on defense, they keep voting more and more money for bush's war ... Americans don't see TOUGH; they see politics as usual and they do NOT respect it ... in trying to look tough but in actuality SELLING OUT, Democrats look like they are afraid to mix it up with bush over the war ... it portrays the party in a terrible light ...

so, there are two arguments here, not just one ... the first is that what the "we have to win" crowd is missing is that the current appeasement strategy may not be at all pragmatic; it may be causing us to lose ... and the second, of course, is that, as many have correctly observed, it becomes hard for Democrats to differentiate themselves from bush (on the war for example), when they have voted for it in the first place ...

and the black-and-white we-have-to-win crowd also fails to understand the impact of the party's current conduct ... the problem goes well beyond locking us into "pragmatic" positions in the future ... two additional problems occur (and perhaps many more) when our "representatives" fail to represent our values ... the first obvious problem is that such votes will clearly alienate a substantial component of the base ... it's not just those really wacky DU lefty extremists; it may be hard to believe but there just might be plenty of other "real" Democrats who don't like to see their reps voting for torture or voting to oppose a woman's right to choose ... to paint such critics as "extremists" is absurd ...

and yet another problem that occurs from the "win at any cost" simplicity is that it fails to understand, and implement, the most important long-term strategy all political parties must have ... and what is that? is it just winning? no, it isn't ... winning is not a strategy; it's a goal ... as you quite correctly pointed out, it's important HOW we win ... part of the HOW is that we must EDUCATE VOTERS on exactly what our values are and how we hope to implement them ... the WAY TO WIN is not to vote the republican line to get elected ... all that does is reinforce republican ideology ... IT FAILS TO EDUCATE the voters we hope to attract ... actually, it does educate them but it does so with the exact opposite message ... to paraphrase someone: republicans make better republicans than Democrats do ...

it is NOT just about winning elections ... elections are a SNAPSHOT IN TIME ... it's the state of voters on election day ... no one is arguing that state is not critically important ... but what shapes the state of the electorate on election day is an ongoing, multi-year, education campaign ... if we teach the wrong lessons through the actions of our elected representatives, we will not be winners of the hearts and minds of the American people ... to try to separate HOW our reps vote today from what our fate will be is sheer folly ... winning elections is made up of thousands of "smaller battles" to educate the public; let's make sure our actions are teaching the right lesson ...

[Pithy Cherub]

24. The "win at all costs" crowd heavily subscribe to

the Machiavellian notion that "the ends justify the means." Ironically, that is a very republican type of thinking. The certainty that any Democrat is better no matter what excludes philosophy and morality from discussion in the public square. To advocate for votes one must have a reason to believe that the vote is going to a worthy purpose or person. Democrats need to review the history of ancient Rome where votes were bought and fast forward today where silver pieces aren't the coin of the realm, but acceptance amongst the political elite in the nation's capital is vastly more important. The wrong audience is being put first, especially in the hands of those that enable the Bush agenda.

Being accepted as a Democrat has meant leaving ones morals and principles at home while in the public square. Voting is only one aspect of a real functioning democracy. Lifting one's voice in dissent and calling for public participation in discussion of ideals at any time, especially just before an election, should be something Democrats are proud of doing and being. Instead, there are those who become ensnared in the republican Fear & Torture Shoppe and less apt to speak up when priniciple is at stake. Principl should be defended 24/7 not just as an election appears. If one is unable or incapable of making make a righteous, persuasive case for their votes in office, then that seat belongs to a more worthy member of the Democratic Party that will stand proudly for Amercia.

You have written beautifully what I strongly believe welshTerrier2!

[ellacott]

22. We've got to stop fighting amongst ourselves

Which party is more likely to slow down bushes agenda?

That's it. That's the only question of any importance at this time.

This is the most important question. You guys should already know that there were more than one objectives with this bill. This administration didn't just want to torture. They wanted to try and show the Dems as weak and also to seperate us internally.

[Totally Committed]

25. Tell me how. I really want to know!

I sincerely believe a huge chunck of my Party is WRONG, or being taken over by Republicans in Democratic clothes. I am ready to fight for that POV... and so are they.

How do we make peace?

TC

[ProudDad]

46. The answer to your question is Neither!

They're the two right-wings of the business party.

The dems may be a little "kindler and genler" when it comes to domestic political and personal rights though so I'd rather see them in power than the fascists fucks who are...

Lucky for me, I DON'T HAVE TO VOTE for Feinstein though. Yipee!! :bounce: :bounce:

[mom cat]

26. I wish I could still be so simplistic. We also have to chose how to

undermine tyranny
stop global warming
stop the endless war
and so many other urgencies.
Although many democrats have these values, it is clear that many do not. I will not support those who would shred the constitution, ignore the ultimate peril to the world, or advocate the loss of more lives for a war based on lies.

[DancingBear]

32. You have made the argument for us "dissenters"

The question should be this:

Which party should STOP the Bush Agenda?


You argue that a "little bad" is always better than a "lot bad", but fail to understand that bad is cumulative, and "liitle bad" times "X" equals "lot bad."

This is how the Repubs play the game - they want 5000 later, they need 250 now, they ask for 750 tomorrow.

When we setlle for 500 they smile and start the game again.

Eventually, they get 5000, in a series of "little bad" jumps.

It is Negotiating 101, and we/you fall for it over and over again.

Whether you jump off a cliff running or are slowly pushed over the edge, the results are the same: you still fall.

Slowing down don't mean shit.

Say the word "stop" over and over.

Dennis Kucinich will say "stop."

Joe Biden will say "crawl to the edge."

In a million years, you will never get a Democratic Congress full of folks like Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers.

Never.

The party, as currently constituted, will not allow it.

Think about it.

27% of them voted for torture.

We have to stop crawling.

It is killing us.

[sendero]

44. If only it were that simple..

... members of that party who consistently vote for every piece of legislative effluent that Bush** produces aren't helping at all, they are hurting.

I reserve the right to actively withhold my support for those folks, and to criticize them as well.

[Totally Committed]

20. "let me say that i do NOT have a problem withholding a vote....

based on your political beliefs and your values ... don't let anyone beat you up about sticking to your guns ... frankly, i can't imagine i'm going to be able to vote for a Democrat in 2008 ... this year, however, i'm going to vote a straight Democratic ticket ..."

I honestly cannot say what I'll do in 2008 yet, but I agree with you totally about this year -- I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket. And, I say that knowing I will have the easy job of voting for Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick -- yes -- but, I do agree this year it is important to have the Democrats prevail. I need to see what they do with that chance, should we be able to give it to them.

As usual, I loved your post wT2! It got my recommendation. :yourock:

TC

[AtomicKitten]

27. I'd be loathe for my 20-year-old son to think not voting

was anything other than not participating in democracy.

The Torture Bill was yet another GOP-orchestrated vote to put Democrats between a rock and a hard place before an election. Each time the Republicans ratchet up their fear-mongering and their pre-election dares to the Democrats, and each time the end result is Democrats so sickened by politics that they declare their intention to not vote or vote third party. In my opinion, the fall-out from these GOP manipulations and machinations must make Karl Rove very happy indeed.

The first vote my son cast in 2004 was in yet another stolen election. Election fraud remains unchecked. I will do everything in my power to fan the dying embers of hope and optimism for my son's sake and try to keep at bay the raging cynicism and pessimism. For my part, I will not succumb, I will not yield, I will not surrender. I'd be a lousy parent if I set any other example for my son.

[welshTerrier2]

28. "GOP manipulations and machinations"

a most interesting post, AK ... i have a very close friend whose last vote was cast for George McGovern in 1972 ... he's from the "it's all bullshit school" ... it's a most tragic business ... i have spent some 30 years trying to persuade him to vote ... i have failed miserably ... a vote, however constrained by corruption, electoral fraud, or minority status is nonetheless a valuable commodity that should never be "wasted" ... how we define what is wasting a vote is often the issue ...

much of what is put forth as part of the rovian neocon agenda is mostly for political purposes ... in the case of the torture bill, perhaps one of its multi-objectives was to indemnify certain republicans from future prosecution ... but i agree with your fundamental premise that, as always, sitting on top it's all politics to box the Democrats into a corner ...

and on that point, i consistenly have been feeling that the Democrats have NOT responded correctly ... and i'm not just talking about my "purist" values; i'm talking pure party politics ... IF (and this is not totally clear), those Democrats who voted with the republicans did so for purely political reasons (i.e. their votes aspired to be "pragmatic"), i believe they are hurting the party politically ... Americans, at least most Americans, have a very strong perception that the Democratic Party and most of its representatives strongly oppose bush and certainly do not condone torture ... so, when certain Democrats vote with the republicans on torture legislation, what is the political impact? and i'm specifically focusing on the best case scenario which means looking at the political reaction in those representatives' "red states" ... the reaction in bluer states to a "mixed message" is likely to be along the lines we're seeing in many DU responses ...

my belief, and this comes up over and over and over on almost every controversial issue, is that the Democrats, rather than being seen as a party that FIGHTS FOR ITS BELIEFS, is seen as a party that is AFRAID TO STAND UP FOR ITS BELIEFS and is UNWILLING TO "RISK GOING FOR IT" ... that is NOT a good political strategy in my opinion ... now, it may be true that some voters would see these red state Democrats as wimps if they voted for such touchy-feely things as fundamental human rights and the upholding of the Geneva Conventions' standards on the treatment of captured enemies in a war ... so, yes, we could lose some votes by sticking to our guns ... in fact, we might lose a few seats by doing so ... it would be foolish to not accept that as a possibility ... HOWEVER, and this is a big deal, i think it paints the party in the overall "big picture" in a very bad light ... it stinks to high heaven and it has me hearing my close friend explaining to me how "all they all care about is getting elected" ... see, this "local business" of needing to win in the red states is costing us in ALL the states ... it fails to paint the right picture of the party ... there are something like 70 million people who could have but didn't vote in the last election; voting only to "win" fails to reach out to this enormous pool of possible votes ... some of these potential voters want to see candidates with "the courage of their convictions" ... when they smell someone is not sincere and lacks integrity, they stay home ....

instead of reacting with FEAR to rove's "manipulations and machinations", the path to victory, in my opinion anyway, lies in educating the voting public every single day about what our deeply held beliefs are ... how weak are Democrats if we can't even make the case to most voters that TORTURE IS UNAMERICAN AND ITS WRONG???? if we can't make that case, exactly what case can we make????????????

i'm not sure if this was a point you were making but i also wanted to respond to the phrase you used about "raging cynicism and pessimism" ... i certainly see that as an appropriate description of those who refuse to vote ... i would not, however, apply it to those who vote third party or to people like myself who are trying to CHANGE the Democratic Party ... if i had no hope, i wouldn't spend time around here trying to explain what the hell i thought was the best thing for the country and the party ... Change Agents who have no faith that things can change are rare birds indeed ... i see those of us who are passsionate about charting a new course, either inside or outside the Democratic Party, as optimists ... we may be realistic enough to realize that change will be painfully slow, but we still believe it is possible ... our message is "keep the faith and keep fighting" ...

in the end, i see those who "put on airs" to win as the ultimate cynics and pessimists ... they believe they must be REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE ... the path towards the light is paved by educating the voters; not by sending a cynical message of appeasement ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. You're right, not all non-voters are ignorant sheep

One of the most interesting non-voters I knew was not only liberal and knowledgeable in an up-to-the-minute sort of way but had once been an advisor to a late, lamented Democratic Senator of the 1960s. He was so disgusted with the kinds of things that were going on in Washington that he refused to participate. In particular, he saw Bill Clinton as a fraud, a "slow-motion conservative" who pretended to be a liberal but was allowing the conservatives to frame the issues.

When the alleged opposition party is timid and not united, it creates cycnicism among the voters.

The same thing has happened in Japan, where voter participation is about the same as ours, around 50%. The Liberal Democratic Party is moving increasingly rightward, but the opposition is so disorganized and so dependent on personalities rather than issues that they've governed only for two brief periods since 1956. I've asked expats living in Japan who they would vote for if they had the right, and they've all said that all the parties are corrupt, except for the Communists. (I think it would be funny if all the disaffected voters voted Communist, just to scare the LDP, but I have no influence over there.)

It looks as if the same thing is happening in the UK, too, where Tony Blair has not undone any of Margaret Thatcher's work and has proposed more of the same. Yet voters who hate these developments have nowhere to turn.

[tomreedtoon]

29. Start planning to send the Democratic Convention a message.

It would be the 40th anniversary of the protests of the 1968 convention. Those protestors complained because the Democratic Party was supporting the War in Vietnam, and was refusing to listen to people who wanted official opposition to the party.

With the terror vote, and with the general spinelessness of the Democratic Party, there's even greater reason to have protests at the convention, INSIDE the convention, in the media and all over.

So, why don't you people who want a better Democratic party, and can afford to take the time off work or from your family, start jockeying to become delegates to the Democratic Convention? You might have to hide your true feelings until the actual convention, but it would be a great event when you do come out of your closet and start embarassing the lame-o's we are being forced to support with votes.

[Diogian]

30. Awww Crap

Frequent reader - InFrequent poster here.
The first five paragraphs of this post I was sitting up in my chair and making proclamations of agreement out loud!
Finally somebody with cajones speaking up.

Then I got to the last two paragraphs and realised why this thread was left open...
Damn. DDSOS

Have a nice day

[welshTerrier2]

31. the destruction of the republic

i think it's great when "infrequent posters" take the time to participate ... i only wish you had written more so that we could discuss the issue in greater detail ...

my interpretation of your post is that you believe we on the left should punish the party NOW by withholding our votes ... or perhaps you were suggesting that we should NOT necessarily vote a straight ticket but could still vote for "acceptable" Democrats ...

as i said in my OP, i would have no problem with either of those positions ... we should vote what we believe is in the best interest of the country ... that's my standard and if Democrats or anyone else doesn't like it that's too bad ... vote what's in the best interest of the country ... period!

in reading your post, it sounds like you support my process (vote your beliefs) but object to my conclusion (my beliefs are wrong because i've endorsed voting a straight Democratic ticket THIS YEAR) ...

i am furious at the Democratic Party for their utter failure to stand up to bush on the war ... they are playing politics with the war while both Americans and Iraqis continue to die on a daily basis ... it is utterly disgraceful ... the blood is on their hands too!! ... i hope you agree ...

the question i wrestled with, based on these views, is whether to vote for any Democrats at all this year ... as i stated in the OP, i don't think this decision can be made in a vacuum ... we need to BALANCE the fascism being imposed by the current neocon regime against what we believe the Democrats would do if they were in power ...

if instead, you choose to make this decision based only on the conduct of elected Democrats, you might well reach a very different conclusion ... i think it is fair to ask what the Democrats have done or have tried to do to stop the march towards fascism ... my conclusion is that they have been cowardly and, as a party, have NOT spoken out enough on the clear and present risk to our democracy ... and they have done virtually nothing to stop the war or to rally the American people AGAINST the war ... their little game playing "we would use different TACTICS" does not stand in opposition to the war ...

but that is, in my view, not the right way to measure how to vote this year GIVEN THE SEVERITY OF THE THREAT THE NEOCONS POSE ... this is not an ordinary election ... i believe, this year more than ever before, time is of the essence ... we are truly nearing "the end days" if this is allowed to continue ... global warming, that really could destroy all life on the planet, has reached a tipping point ... Constitutional protections long-believed to be the core of our country's values are being repealed ... propaganda and lies and distortions and secrecy are the modus operandi while ultimate power is being consolidated ... and electoral fraud covers their mistakes whenever the public begins to see what's really going on ... put simply, this is the greatest crisis (with the possible exception of the civil war) the republic has ever faced ...

will the Democrats make things better? as i've said, they've been a huge disappointment ... i understand fully the desire to send them a powerful message ... frankly, they deserve it ... they have become badly disconnected from the common citizen ... but to withhold a vote this year, i believe certain factors would have to be present ... first, if the intent of withholding a vote is to send a message, that message would have to be able to be understood ... i'm not sure we on the left have "made our terms clear" ... we need to be more organized and send a much clearer message ... punishment is kind of meaningless if its intent is not understood ...

second, if the intent of withholding a vote is to build a third party, and again i have no problem at all with doing so, i fall back, this year, on what's at stake ... in a normal year, i think i might have voted third party ... i never have before ... i just can't get to the point that this is a "normal year" ... the realm is being attacked ... we have perpetual war; we have global warming; we have religious nuts cheering for the "end times"; we have no warrants for wiretapping; we have nationally sanctioned torture and we have no truth which is the lifeblood of democracy ... the Democrats may not have earned my respect; the republicans have earned enough disrespect for me to vote for the only viable opposition no matter how disappointing it's been ...

and finally, the Democratic Party is not monolithic ... there are some Democrats, like Conyers, Waxman, Slaughter, McGovern and a handful of others who are doing all they can under difficult circumstances ... if the Democrats controlled the House, i think they could be far more effective in pressing progressive causes ...

the bottom line here is that i do NOT believe Democrats, however much i disagree with what they've been doing, would push for a fascist state the way the neocons are doing ... today's Democrats are far too hawkish; they are far too corporatist; they are far too imperialist; but i do believe they respect the Constitution and civil liberties ... electing them will not bring about the ideals many of us cherish ... not electing them, however, will likely bring about the destruction of the republic ... i just can't see how you can reach any other conclusion ...

i'd be very interested to hear your response to this ... in fact, i'd be very interested to hear anyone's response to this ...

[Diogian]

34. response

Hello Welsh,
I donate to the DNC. I go to the local meetings. I put thier placards in my yard. I even vote for most of them! Then they let me down... repetitively...
Suppose the dems win the house and the senate, let's go a little further and say they win the presidency to go with the house and the senate!
Do you think they will undo any of this bad legislation?

Me neither.


On scale I loathe repukes at a 9.7
The dems loathing scale is running at 9.0

It's like a choice between far right wing neocons (called republicans)
or centrist right wingers (called democrats)
Either way, the republic is virtually doomed.
Sorry I'm such a realist. There's always the chance that I'm wrong.

Anyway, good luck in your endeavors.

Diogenes

[Q]

35. I believe that you have to distinguish between...

...old and 'new' Democrats. There's no doubt in my mind that the 'new' Democrats would carry on where the Neocons left off. They would leave many of their programs in place...such as the 'war' on terrorism, privatization of government, elimination of social services and the dumbing down of public education.

The 'third wayers' have been working for decades to take over the Democratic party. They finally succeeded in 2000...when they made the 2000 coup possible with their silence about the Bushies and smear campaigns against Democrats that spoke of the takeover of our government by corporate interests.

The mistake liberals and progressives made during the 80s and 90s was to underestimate the power and the money behind the DLC.

[Eric J in MN]

33. I'm not trying to silence anyone.

I'm giving my opinion on how they should vote (for Democrats including disappointing Democrats.)

That's what political discussion is often about.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. I'd K & R

but this is over 24 hours old. Like the poster above, you had me right up until the last paragraph. In the name of humanity, some actions (torture comes to mind) are not up for compromise. And before those from the wolfpack soil their britches in hysteria, I'm not in a swing area.

[welshTerrier2]

37. voting strategies and empowering your values

OK, let's discuss the last paragraph ...

first, let me say that this was and is an incredibly hard position for me to take ... if you're expecting a strong argument against the point you're making, forget it ... this was not a black and white, the "other side has no merit" kind of decision ...

the truth of the matter is, i'm in a blue state and my votes this year are pretty easy ... i can't honestly say i could pull the lever for a war supporter or an anti-choice candidate or anyone sick enough to vote for torture ... again, if you're looking for a strong argument from me against your position, i just don't have one ...

but in weighing all the evidence, here's where i landed (if i've landed ... my position MAY BE subject to change) ... when people like yourself make solid arguments, i am very open to them ... in fact, i'm very eager to hear them so that i can continue to evaluate my position ...

so, how can i call for supporting all Democrats THIS YEAR given my assessment of what they've done and what my values and beliefs are? am i willing to cast a vote for a pro-torturer to help Democrats take back the House or Senate? if they do, will that lessen the likelihood torture will continue? are we likely to see at least some resistance to the march towards fascism? are there other key questions that should be asked to make this decision?

i just can't see any way to escape the reality that, given more years in control, republicans will repeal the very core of our democracy ... they are pushing toward a state that does not allow oversight or any checks and balances whatsoever on the Executive branch of government ... the very last vestiges of power will be stripped from We The People ... are we in agreement on this point?

and it is certainly fair to say that some Democrats, perhaps largely DLC, have pushed for policies that are all too supportive of the republican agenda (see the Ted Kennedy quote in my sig line) ... let me say i 100% agree with you, make that 110%, that some issues are just NOT UP FOR COMPROMISE!! but in choosing a voting strategy, what is the best way to achieve that non-compromise?

if we look at any given candidate in isolation and we see they voted for torture (can you believe we even need to discuss this topic?), we could easily conclude that we should never vote for them ... how sick is it to condone torture ... to quote former President Jimmy Carter:

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0929-10.htm

"I've been deeply embarrassed as a civil rights advocate that we have had the American government stand convicted around the world as one of the greatest abusers of civil rights," said Carter, the 2002 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

"What has happened the last five years has brought discouragement and sometimes international disgrace to our great country," he said.

you can't make the case any clearer than that ...

HOWEVER, is viewing a candidate in isolation (i.e. based solely on one candidate's votes and actions and statements and values) in the best interest of the country OR should we look at a wider picture? the wider picture, and some may even disagree with this, is that if Democrats had more control, we would not be passing laws that condone torture ... while it is true that some misguided Democrats voted for this garbage, most did not ... is it therefore fair to conclude that Democrats, if they had more control, would have blocked this insane legislation? i think the answer is yes ... what do you think?

i feel the same way about all this "legalized spying on Americans" legislation ... i do NOT believe the majority of elected Democrats want to see all power, unrestrained power, accrue to the President ... i believe that most Democrats, even conservative Democrats, believe in the traditional American system of checks and balances ...

my objections to much of what the Democrat Party has been doing for a long time now runs very deep on many critical issues ... but this year, i can say with some certainty that we have never been as threatened to lose the republic and a system of governance that most of us deeply value ... it is an easy path to vote against those who voted for torture; it is an easy path to vote against those who voted to give bush unrestricted access to wiretapping; it is an easy path to vote against those who voted for war and will continue to do so; it is not easy to accept the contradictions of our political system and realize that voting against these deeply held beliefs MIGHT BE the best way to empower them ...

animals in the wild sometimes choose to chew off their leg to free themselves from a hunter's trap ... perhaps that is the choice we are offered today ...

[Don1]

38. I agree with you.

As progressive Democrats we choose a path between what should be and what can be. We accept that things are not perfect and we try to make things better anyway in rational ways. And because we are rational and realistic, we will make things better and we will undo the damage wrought by this crazy cabal of neo-cons. Read this:
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0929-31.htm

[welshTerrier2]

41. PDA: "on behalf of all Democratic HOUSE candidates"

it's interesting to note that Tim called for strong support of Democratic HOUSE candidates (in the article you cited) ... i understand his feelings ... the specific line in the PDA article was: "Finally, while PDA certainly understands the difference between a progressive Democrat and a DLC or centrist Democrat, the group urges vigorous work on behalf of all Democratic House candidates in November."

this intra-party war needs to get patched up immediately after the election or you can write-off '08 ... the current slate of Dem '08 candidates is unacceptable to me at this time and i will not be supporting or voting for any of the big names in the primaries or in the General Election ... either they are going to have to chart a new course, we are going to need some new candidates, or much of the left will not show up for Democrats in 2008 ... the current situation CANNOT CONTINUE!

[ulysses]

42. it won't be, though.

this intra-party war needs to get patched up immediately after the election...

I don't see how anyone is going to do more than put a bandaid on it between now and 08.

That said, I find myself in the novel position of being relatively pleased with quite a few of our potential presidential nominees...:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

54. ulysses, who ya got in '08?

[ulysses]

58. Feingold.

I'd be perfectly happy with Edwards, Gore or Clark, as well.

[Don1]

43. I don't think Hillary is a good choice either.

Feingold and Gore are okay. I mean, sure Kucinich would be even better, but how realistic would that be for the base itself to support Kucinich? But, yes, this is talk for later. If we can get Conyers to be the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader imagine what it would do. The American people and the Democratic party base itself will become much more politically literate as a result of all the stuff uncovered once we have authority to uncover it and write up the committee reports.

[welshTerrier2]

45. Carpenter did not call for strong support for SENATE Dems

the point i was trying to make was that Carpenter, at least in the article you referenced, did not call for strong support for ALL Democrats ... he specifically mentioned supporting HOUSE Democrats ...

for this year only, i think a straight ticket is unfortunately necessary ...

[wiley]

51. So now you're a "warning center"?

"while i hate to send the wrong message to Democrats"
"i do NOT like what the party has become"
"frankly, i can't imagine i'm going to be able to vote for a Democrat"
"that does NOT mean that my first allegiance is to the Democratic Party"
"allow me to offer you some advice"
"my two cents, for what it's worth"


Why don't you just keep your two pennies and accept the brutal fact that I is capitalized in the English language. No one's gonna trash you for that amazingly consistent error, but seriously, "jackass cheerleaders keep screaming at us"?


OMG!

[welshTerrier2]

55. "i" am an anti-capitalist ...

that's why ...

[LWolf]

52. I don't know what/how I'm voting yet.

In the 2 big races (governor, U.S. House), I'm voting for the Dem. They are decent choices, although I'm ambivalent about the governor. The thing is, I'm not ambivalent about his Republican challenger. My vote won't be going 3rd party, because I don't want that rw nutcase challenging the current incumbent to end up in office.

I'm also voting for the Dem challenging my local R rep in the state house. That will be a tough race; the R "fits" the local majority pretty well. Still, the challenger's campaigners have hit the local paper with at least one LTE each week giving him a glowing reputation. He's a good fit for me on issues. We'll see.

I don't know if there are any other seats open on my ballot; if there are, they would be for local offices, and they are up for grabs. I'll be looking for the anti-growth/development candidate, or the candidate that agrees to add the cost of infrastructure, especially new schools, on to developers, or the candidate that is determined to maintain the rural character of this region. Issues come before party here.

So, really, while I am disappointed and angry, to say the least, of the Party's performance in Congress, in big campaigns, on big issues, when they offer me the best choice on the ballot, they've still got my vote.

That said, the "Party" ought to be clear on this: I don't owe any party my vote. They owe me representation, and they EARN my vote with their stance and work on issues. It would be a grave error to take my vote for granted. Perhaps that needs to be the clear message that is trumpeted loudly from every precinct.

[oc2002]

56. I agree with the ORIGINAL POSTER. This site is about democratic issues.

Not just the democratic party, which as far as anyone that reads and is informed, knows that any party can be corrupted and bought like any other institution.

The Ideals are far more important, not the party, which is just a bureaucratic machine.

[welshTerrier2]

57. think of this model

the republicans like to say that those who criticize the government's policies are un-American ... what we really are is "un-them" ... we oppose what they are doing TO America ...

so it is in the Democratic Party ... the "cheerleaders" like to say that we are anti-Democrats ... what we really are is "un-those" in control of the party ... we oppose what they are doing TO the Party ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. I'm lucky in that I can vote positively for the Dem Congressional

nominee, who is against the Iraq War and for national health care.

I have real reservations about the gubernatorial and Senate nominees, but these days, Tim Pawlenty has wreaked such havoc on Minnesota that anyone who is Not Pawlenty has my vote. But there's a strong third party candidate in the race this year, one who comes off as more sensible than Jesse Ventura, and I'm seeing signs of support for him, so anything could happen. I can live with either the Dem or the independent winning, but I'd hate it if the independent split the anti-Pawlenty vote enough to keep Timmy in office.