The pickle in which Progressives/Liberals find themselves (and the only way out):

[rateyes]

A few weeks ago, I was watching one of the "news" channels (don't remember which one, nor who was talking) and, one of the guests speaking about progressives/liberals said--and I'm paraphrasing---that Democratic leadership in Congress has the luxury of taking the progressive/liberal wing of the party for granted---that the leadership really doesn't need to listen to progressives/liberals---because they know that the only place that progressives/liberals have to run is to the Democratic party.

Think about that. Congress, under Democratic leadership, can pass funding for the Iraq war over and over again, and though the progressive/liberals are angered---it doesn't matter in the end, because the leadership knows that come election day we progressives/liberals will go to the polls, hold our noses, and keep voting for even the most conservative Democrats in the name of having a "Democratic Majority."

Congress can pass FISA legislation giving immunity to the telecoms, backed by none other than Harry Reid---the supposed LEADER of the majority---and, as angry as the base becomes, we'll still pull the lever beside the names of those who capitulated to the administration because we have no other alternative---no place to run other than into the arms of those who have ignored us time and time again, because the alternative is even worse.

Congress, to throw the base a bone in an attempt to keep us happy and make themselves look like they are actually doing something, can issue subpoena after subpoena---and, then not enforce them in the name of "we don't have the votes"--again, making progressives/liberals mad as hell---and, in the end the leadership knows we'll come crawling back on election day and put the incumbents back in office.

Nancy Pelosi can take "impeachment off the table"---and progressives/liberals will be up in arms demanding that she put it back on the table---and, she'll just blow us off with the line "we've got other more pressing priorities" and, as angry as we are, she'll not only be re-elected to her seat, but she'll also be elected by her colleagues as Speaker of the House, yet again.

My progressive and liberal friends, you know this is the case. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party has become irrelevant to electoral politics. We are taken for granted because the leadership believes (because they have no reason to believe otherwise) that we will keep voting for Democratic candidates, no matter what.

Therefore, regardless of which party is in power, our concerns will always be the last to be addressed. That's a political reality.

So, how do we change it? How do we progressives/liberals become relevant again? I hate to say it, but the answer, I believe, is in banding together and refusing to vote for any candidate who does not subscribe to our ideals of a government with three co-equal branches of government that is run according to the Constitution.

That means we will have to put up challengers to some Democratic incumbents in Democratic caucuses and primaries. That also means that we might even have to withhold our votes in the General Election from people like Representative Jim Marshall (my representative) even if it means for the short term we have to live with a damned Republican.

We have to say loud and clear to the Democratic Leadership, "WE WILL NO LONGER BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. If you will not do the job that you were elected to do, we will withhold our votes from you, and find someone who will. And, if we can't find that someone, we will still withhold our votes from you."

In my business, if I don't do my job, I will be fired. The same should hold true for our elected Representatives and Senators.

"What," you say, "if this course leads the Democratic party back to "minority status?" Let me ask: Was it really that bad when we were in the minority? Look at all the legislation that has been favorable to Bush and his cronies, that has hurt the Democratic Party and the country, that has been passed and signed into law AFTER the Democrats became the majority party! We're still funding a war. We still have politics being played in the Justice Department. We are still condoning torture. Bush continues to commit war crimes with impunity.

I'm looking long term here...50 years down the road to when my children will be retiring. Something has to change, or they are in deep trouble. And, change will not come if we progressives/liberals keep acting in the same fashion we've acted for the past 20 years...allowing ourselves to be taken for granted, and running to the "Party" for answers that never come.

This country was never meant to be ruled by one political party. It was meant to be ruled by "we the people." We, the people, have to change, because if we continue to do what we always did, we will always get what we always got. Doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results, is pure insanity.

Your thoughts:

[sniffa]

1. no money, no votes

no more being taken for granted. if you don't stand up for yourself, then you'll keep getting trampled.

[rateyes]

2. That's right. And, we need to stand TOGETHER...

in that. There is power in numbers.

[sniffa]

5. indeed

don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. "what are you going to do, vote Republican?" only goes so far.

[rateyes]

That's the "allowing ourselves to be taken for granted"

part of the equation. "What are you going to do?" My answer: "Something different, because what I'm doing now isn't working."

[zonmoy]

3. perhaps we need to ask what would happen to the democratic leadership

if we decided to not vote for them if we decided to go green or other progressive party in order to force them to listen to us.

[rateyes]

4. Think they might start listening? nt

[zonmoy]

6. if they don't then we might as well write off our republic/democracy

because their not listening to that would be the ultimate signal that our country is no longer run by the people or by laws for that matter.

[rateyes]

7. True that. nt

[cali]

8. no thank you.

I want nothing to do with people that think that:

"That also means that we might even have to withhold our votes in the General Election from people like Representative Jim Marshall (my representative) even if it means for the short term we have to live with a damned Republican."

I've lived with the repukes long enough. I want a larger dem majority, not a repuke one.

If you had your way, we'd be even further up shit creek. I'll work against my pretty good dem congressman in the primary because I feel he should be supporting impeachment (if anyone runs against him from the left) When it comes to the general, I'll damn straight mark my X next to his name.

[rateyes]

10. Go right ahead. That's your right.

And, that's why nothing will ever change. I'll be damned if I will vote for a Republican like Jim Marshall, regardless of whether or not he calls himself a Democrat.

A skunk by any other name still stinks.

[sniffa]

12. stinks bad too

[rateyes]

15. To high heaven.

:hi:

[TygrBright]

9. Actually, I think we can take a useful example from the fundy nutjobs...

...who were so effective at co-opting the Republican Party and driving hard right. I watched it happen. They tried it first with the Dems, but we weren't having any, so they marched across the aisle to the GOPpies, where they were fabulously successful because back then hardly anyone really participated in party operations at the grassroots level.

They just started showing up at all Party functions, running for Party offices, doing the scutwork, taking over the local volunteer coordination, running in local elections, and slowly accumulating power at first the local levels, then the State level, then finally at the national level. You can see how effective this tactic was by watching any GOPpie Prexy candidate debate and watching all the old white farts tying themselves into knots trying to play to the fundy nutjobs.

It started in the sixties, continued in the seventies, and got really rolling in the eighties. It's resulted in twenty years of controlling first, one of America's major political parties, and eventually, the entire government.

Politics is run by those who show up and do the dirty work, not once, not twice, not just this year, but over and over and over again for years. And who invite their friends to help. And who form effective coalitions and use the party process to advance their agendas. For YEARS. Not days or weeks or months.

Do we have the patience for it? Can we handle the long slog? Or are we just whiny instant-gratification moogs who will pick up our marbles and go elsewhere if we don't get what we want, RIGHT NOW?

The Democratic Party can be turned. Perhaps now more easily than twenty years ago, because so many years of DLC control and big-money politics have pretty much driven the grass roots out of party participation altogether. They've let a lot of the local organizations go slack. They're soft targets. No, getting control of the Lincoln County Second Precinct Democratic Board of Directors isn't going to get us out of Iraq tomorrow or get us national health care next year. But if we get enough control in enough localities in enough states, we WILL get a progressive agenda advanced. Maybe sooner than we think.

helpfully,
Bright

[rateyes]

13. Excellent post...

that's part of the solution...running true progressives all across the board against phony Dem incumbents.

[redqueen]

27. Excellent post!

Yes, it takes a LONG time... but we must never stop pushing them... HARD.

[OregonBlue]

11. I wrote to Chuck Schmer today about this very thing. Basically told him he is wrong.

We are reaching a point of such frustration that we are just shutting down. Many of my neighbors have already changed their voter,s registration to independent and many others are so dejected they are just tuning them out. I told him that at a recent community meeting what I heard was not "throw the Republican bums out" but "THROW THEM ALL OUT". We are tired of being ignored and tired of being taken for granted. Sent copies to Senator Wyden and Speaker Pelosi too.

[rateyes]

14. Good for you. They need a reality check. nt

[OregonBlue]

17. Yah, maybe we're wrong, maybe we will all capitulate in the end and hold our noses

and vote but I don't think so. I have lots of seniors in my community (hell I'm just short of being a senior myself) and they are very dejected. Not paying much attention any more, don't think it's worth the effort since no one is listening.

[rateyes]

20. I won't vote for anyone who doesn't hold progressive ideals...

and, I don't care what they call themselves. What is the point in that?

[JDPriestly]

16. Vote Edwards. He will challenge these do-nothingers.

[OregonBlue]

18. Hear Hear!! We really do need his kind of change.

[rateyes]

19. I'm leaning that way...

but, I won't pin my hopes on any one person, or even one party.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Just Like He Did As A Senator!

Not.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. Right. He's all talk. nt

[hootinholler]

57. The least worst of the top 3

Hardly progressive. Has he called for accountability? Will he prosecute or pardon the current cabal?

-Hoot

[rucky]

21. I know this sounds wierd, but...

I still think a third-party is a viable option - IF a fourth party is created from the right at the same time.

So what I'm proposing is a deal with the Devil, and the simultaneous formation of two more parties where disaffected voters can go - or at least threaten to go - if the corporate diumverate continues to ignore progressives from the left and nutbags from the right.

[rateyes]

23. Some of the best ideas sound weird at first. nt

[readmoreoften]

30. I've been saying this for a long time. We either have to take over the Democratic Party

like the Republicans did throughout the 90s, or we need to make a deal with the fundies and make a 4-way split:

Progressives: single payer, pro-choice, pro-labor, gay marriage, anti-globalization
Dems: moderate on health, pro-choice, mixed labor, civil unions, pro-globalization
Repub: wealthy elite, frat boys, socially conservative (but mixed on abortion and civil unions)
Conserv: homophobic, racist, Christian wing nut freeper freaks, pro-capitalist

The way I see it, in this scenario, the DEMS WILL ALWAYS WIN because the Republican base will flee to the Conservatives. Worst comes to worst we'll get a Conservative pres. every now and then, but we already have that with no hope of a progressive win.

[rucky]

31. Now DK and Ron Paul have something to talk about. n/t

[rateyes]

32. lol. nt

[rateyes]

35. Good points, all. nt

[HeraldSquare212]

22. Good primary fights send a message nt

[rateyes]

25. We've got to keep sending those messages! nt

[polichick]

24. Lou Dobbs might not be a favorite here, but he's right about...

...people leaving their parties and registering as independents ~ why be part of the base that's taken for granted??

[rateyes]

26. If the Democratic party doesn't show some backbone in the

next year, we might be surprised come election day. And, we won't be able to say that we didn't deserve it, IMO.

[readmoreoften]

38. I'm pretty much giving the Democrats, as a whole, one more election cycle.

I'll still support the progressive Dems who stand up to Republicans, but if we lose this one (due to fraud or incompetence) or if our nominee doesn't take serious steps to set this country back on track (strong NLRB appointments, addressing anti-gay hate, either ending or making MAJOR progress on fixing Iraq, and rolling back the march towards Iran... if that doesn't happen I will begin to fight for an opposition party after 2010, maybe the Progessive Dems.

Substantive change or you lose my vote.

[rateyes]

33. ..

[rateyes]

34. ...

[rateyes]

36. .....

[rateyes]

37. !!!!!

[rateyes]

39. Shamelessly kicking and hoping for one more rec to keep

this conversation going.

[cali]

40. Here's your fifth rec

'tis the season.

[rateyes]

43. Happy Holidays.

and thanks. :hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

41. I have called my rep's office many times over the last few years. They are much more

responsive now. I've called when I've been unhappy (often) but I've also called when she votes the way I'd hope she would as my rep.

Please, please, please, keep those calls and letters coming to your district's representative. Especially if it's SOH Pelosi.

MKJ

[Perry Logan]

42. But they HAVE shown backbone. The Democrats showed the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years.

If your premises are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong, too.

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any
other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):
The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous
record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a
mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the
chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000
votes on the House floor in 2007.
Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison,
the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in
1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any
records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.
Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in
6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a JulyMcClatchy report. “If this
pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous
record number of cloture votes.”
It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under
his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record
“for the fewest days in session in one year since the end ofWorld War II.”
bThere are countless investigations going on. Healthcare is on the table. The internet is safe for now. Our wounded vets are no longer lying around in their own urine. The Senate Ethics Committee is back in action. Many 9/11 Commission recommendations are being passed. A bill to increase financial aid for colleges has passed--the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill. The President's signing statements are being investigated. Legislation to restore habeus corpus has been approved. The Senate Armed Services Committee has passed legislation "that would grant new rights to terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. The unions have a voice in the government now—as do gays, women, and minorities. The environment has a fighting chance. The House passed the Taxpayer Protection Act, to protect taxpayers against "identity theft, deceptive Web sites and loan sharks." It also makes it "easier for taxpayers to retrieve property lost as a result of a wrongful Internal Revenue Service levy and directs the IRS to notify lower-income people that they qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit." The House approved a bill spending $1.7 billion over five years for cleaner water. There's a new House committee devoted solely to addressing the issue of global warming. And so on.

[rateyes]

44. Good on all that...

but, on profile stuff that matters as much as all the other stuff, when they have the power, they have refused to exercise it.

Confirmation of Mukasey.
FISA with telecom immunity coming to the Senate Floor.
Refusal to hold impeachment hearings.
Not holding INHERENT contempt proceedings.
et al.

The Democratic leadership has all the power on those issues.

[tavalon]

45. As well,

we now have a resolution regarding Christmas being a Christian holiday we like a lot.

[OHdem10]

46. No one could feel any more disheartened at times than I do:

but, it is important that the Democrats win the nest election.

Here is one of the biggest problems IMO.There are going to be
some open seats--an opportunity for additional Democrats. Those
Congressional(House and Senate) seem to look for people who look
and act them. This means more Blue Dogs and DLCers. The Democratic
Party has to learn that being just like Republicans but nicer
is not going to cut it. When the people say they want change
they mean real change. The GOP has won all these years because
primarily--they believe something if it is wrongheaded. The Repulicans
even the newest kid on the block come across as confident and
is willing to take a stand. Right now the GOP is in the dumper.
But they stand tall , act as confident as they did when their
ratings were soaring. They stand together(even Republicans who
are not sold on the Iraq Mess). What happens they successfully
block the Democrats at every turn. Because certain parts of the
Democratic Party serve the same Master as the GOP, often the
Democrats come off as lacking confidence and their ability to
lead is questioned.

Here is what is at the very core of the problem: Conservarism
has been taken too far and as a result our country is on the
brink of disaster. For too long the Democrats cluelessly
let the GOP define Conservatism as Abortion, GOD Guns and Gays.
Economic Conservatism was not even mentioned. Economic Conservatism
when not regulated and or pushed back WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE A SOCIETY
OF HAVES and HAVE NOTS.--HAVE LITTLE and HAVE LOTS.

Because, many Democrcrats on the HILL bought into the Regan KOOL AID,
they have assisted the GOP in running the country into a ditch.

In the Past, Liberalism was used to tether , control, runaway
Economic Conservatism, Capitalism. As Pope Benedict so accurately
states, Communism is not good, but UNREGULATED Capitalism is not
good either. In the past, Liberalism was the antedote to Conservatism.
There has to be balance between Conservatism and Liberalism to
have a healthy functioning Democracy. There is nothing fighting
back. Our Party threw out Liberalism by permitting the GOP to
smear it. It is much easier to be the Me TOO , I will be
conservarive but niceer as the country goes down the drain.

This brings me to the point: It will takw some time to make
the changes we wish to see. First we must change the image
of our party. "Just a collection of interest groups, but not
mainstream.". As Tom Brokaw says, it appears, appears is
operative word---our only contribution is Political Correctness.
This sounds harsh but we have to be able to accept criticism
and be willing to make changes.

At one time The Democratic was the brave defender of the Working
Class. In honesty, can we really say we have done this over
the past 40 years?????

Now, the only ways for things to change is for Liberals and
Progessives to unite. We are where we are. The Days after
the election Progessives-Liberals in earnest work with states
and districts to re-establish a Real Democratic Party. This
work can bear fruit and push the Dinos in the correct direction.
We need to win the next elections--even if there are Dinos involved.

[rateyes]

47. But, when the progressives are the majority in the Democratic

Party, why the hell do we capitulating to the DINOS?

[OHdem10]

49. The Problem is the DLC and Blue Dogs some of whom are

DINOs seem to control the HILL. This is where Legislation
is passed, Wars are funded and change finally takes place.

[Armstead]

50. Great Post -- But I partialy disagree

It's always "give them one more election cycle."

The problem, IMO, is that the Democratic Elite ignores Us (and I consider Us to be moderate liberal to diehard progressive) whether the Democrats win or lose an election.

When we lose we have to "hold our nose" and go along with the Corporate Elitists and Vichy Democrats to regain power. But when we win, we're told we have to "hold our fire and keep our powder dry" because we haven't got ALL the power...or because we can;t LOSE power.

There's always a reason given, and we're told we have no choice.

We have to find a way to FORCE a change in this.

I believe -- even in the upcoming election -- there are alternatives to pursue in ways that don't hurt chances for electoral victory. On the contrary, IMO, the best way to put Democrats into power -- and hold on to it -- is to make them pay attention to us.

[nashville_brook]

48. link --> that was Laurence O'donnell on KO, November 16 -- here's the quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21900169/

O‘DONNELL: Well, the only thing, Keith, is the possibility of doing an all-out real filibuster fight which is to say, all they‘re doing now is taking a vote in which the Republicans in effect threaten a filibuster if you try to go around this vote. A filibuster is a pretty ugly thing. And I think the Democrats are afraid of running a real filibuster fight in the Senate because it will look like the whole government has ground to a halt, and it‘s just showmanship. So, they fear-looking ineffectual in one way and they fear-looking like showboats in another way. And they‘re not getting where the left side of that party wants to go and they‘re just hoping that they will have forgiveness on the left side of their party on Election Day in 2008.

OLBERMANN: Any chance that they won‘t? And what happens to the left side of the party if it doesn‘t support the Democratic candidate in 2008?

O‘DONNELL: The Democratic calculation in the Senate is always the left has nowhere to go but the Democratic party. I‘ve never been in a meeting in the Senate where there was any other presumption.

[rateyes]

55. Thanks for that. That's the quote. nt

[nashville_brook]

56. i think a LOT of people picked up on this!! like, "news to us" that we don't matter.

sheesh.

[Orangepeel]

51. that's what primaries are for

if the candidate who best agrees with me can't win the democratic primary, then maybe most democrats don't agree with me.

:shrug:

So then I have a few choices. I can get more voters to agree with me. I can convince them to re-prioritize, so they put more weigh on the issues that I think are most important. I can, in the general election, support the candidate who better represents my interests, even if it is only marginally better. Or, I can stay home and cut off my nose to spite my face.

I choose to avoid the last option. I know that there are people who argue that it is the only way progressives can prosper in the long term is to suffer in the short term. IMO, that contributed to getting us bush in the first place.

[bvar22]

52. K&R for further consideration and discussion.

Just pulling the lever for anyone with a "D" behind their name is what got us in this mess.
It is way beyond time to consider other options.


We DID have some success in 2006. WE sent Joe Lieberman to the showers in the Primary!
The NUTROOTS took on the conservative Democratic leadership and the Clinton machine and WON!

It was a NATIONAL effort, coordinated on the Internet, FOCUSED on one particular sinner that brought victory. I donated to Lamont (along with many other outstaters). At a point, the NATIONAL interest in Lamont generated its own publicity that forced the CorpoMedia to take notice.

The IMPORTANT words:
National
Coordinated
Focused

The Internet based Progressives should agree to select one or two of the worst offenders and CONCENTRATE our efforts on them in the Primaries. Initially, we should limit our efforts to the True Blue States (to avoid electing Republicans), but as our power grows, we can attack the myth that "Only conservative Democrats can be elected in Red States" (BS). A Populist Democrat with National backing running on a platform of Economic Justice for Working Americans can get elected in ANY state.

The Vichy Democrats saw what happened to Lieberman, and are aware of our POWER. At some point, they will HAVE to start throwing us some crumbs. We CAN stop the slide to the RIGHT, and maybe even start moving our Party back where it belongs.


Beware of the DCCC and the DSCC!
They are the activist arm of the DLC.
They finance and support CorpoDems to run against grass roots Progressives IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.
The DCCC and the DSCC are the ENEMIES of Progressive change.





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[riqster]

53. I push for liberal, progressive Dems

...if all of us did so, this conversation wouldn't have to happen. But as it is now, the moneyed class are in the Dem's faces and we are not. Guess who gets listened to?

I am supporting Kucinich in the Primaries, and it is at least partly because the mainstream Dems do NOT want him in the race. He's "too liberal", they bleat. To me, that's why we should support him. It will get the party's attention, and move them left, even if Kooch just gets into the higher single digits.

Primary support of progressives will lead to change. And if we work hard enough, we can shove them through in the General, too.

[MissWaverly]

54. I gave them no money today

they want my money, they can impeach, they want to suck up to Bush and give him everything he asks for, fine, no money, no support
from me. I still give my money monthly to the DNC but for the house and senate fundraising committees, the answer
is a big fat NO.