It's time the Democratic Party realizes that it is not entitled to Progressive support.

[Daemonaquila]

The recent sell-out of 50% of the American population by Bart Stupak, the continued tolerance of (heaven help us, former VP candidate) Joe LIEberman, and the cries of "Traitor" leveled not at them but at Representative Kucinich has underlined one fact - the Democratic Party has split and the gap is growing wider. Rather than addressing the substance of the Progressives' anger at the center-right "leadership," many in the party have returned to their favorite whine: the Progressives are purists and dreamers, they just don't understand what it takes to be effective, and They Are The Trouble In The Party That Will Cause The Party To Lose The Next .

I've got news for the "mainstream" Democratic center-right - YOU are the reason you are going to lose. "Winning" your agenda is automatically a loss for all those you throw under the bus to do so. The Progressives have nothing to gain from playing your game. We can either stay in the party, vote our consciences, and fight every lose/lose proposal, or we can decline to participate, or even experiment in 3rd-party politics.

The bottom line is that you insist on taking us for granted, and are shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you - when we don't play along. Well, get used to it. Unlike the Gore/Kerry/DLC fence-straddling surrender-monkeys, Progressives have learned that actually fighting for a cause is effective. We win some and we lose some, but at least we'll go down with our honor intact, ready to fight another day. Without the Progressives, the Democratic Party (TM, happy little corporate entity) is passionless and rudderless, perfectly willing to be the party of kinder, gentler corporate shills. So kids, you need us more than we need you.

Case in point: I remember the 2004 election street canvassers. Their favorite come-on line was "Do you want to help beat George W. Bush?" Well, of course. But what happened when they were asked about who we were supposed to support? They rapidly got tongue-tied. They couldn't come up with any talking points about poor old Kerry. What did he stand for? Not being Bush. What were his ideas for America? Something other than Bush's. Why should we go campaign for this political titan? BECAUSE HE ISN'T BUSH.

That's not enough, but sadly that's the best the party seems to be able to come up with these days. "Vote for us - we're not the batshit crazy Rethuglicans." Sorry, Dems - you need to stand for more than being a protest vote against someone more mentally unstable. Wild flailing aside, the Rethugs held it together for 8 years because they stuck to their batshit crazy dogma, and repeated it until it bored into America's brain like an angry weevil. The Dems need to borrow a page from that playbook - they must be willing to stand up for certain principles and refuse to sacrifice the flavor of the week (immigrants, gays, women...) for political expediency. Building "the big tent" doesn't mean sacrificing principles until the people think you're the harmless (and useless) option. It means bringing the people into the shelter of that tent and offering true refuge and respect. The game isn't about maintaining power at all cost, but about using to do the right thing, the hard thing, as long as you've got it.

[Oregone]

1. They figure you got no where to go. Its either them or the party of crazy

Often overlooked is the party of my couch where I drink beer and masturbate to public television

[Echo In Light]

72. And can safely count upon that, every time, w/o fail

Mission Accomplished

[SandWalker1984]

204. If they screw up health care reform, I'm going Independent

I'm tired of Republidems or Demoreps asking us to vote for them, then going to Washington and becoming corporate lap dogs.

IF they screw up health care reform, if they leave us with mandates but no strong public option, if they take away women's rights to abortions and birth control pills (why is Viagra covered under insurance but not birth control), give us fines and jail time if we decide to "opt out" of their corporate slavery masked as health care, then I am going to vote in every election from here on out for a 3rd party candidate.

If enough of us vote 3rd party, then maybe, just maybe the corporate lap dogs will get the message that we are not going to sit quietly and put up with their selling us out any more.

[truedelphi]

215. + 1. n/t

[Demeter]

91. They THINK They Do Not Need Us

and I'm thinking we do not need them, either.

[loudsue]

125. That's why we need Howard Dean.

He knew which side the bread was buttered on.

[defendandprotect]

170. Yes . . .

but we also need a Plan B --

[hay rick]

127. Sad but true.

Our choices on election day tend to be between the merely bad and the truly repulsive. Once you get to that point, the choice of the merely bad seems like the adult, responsible thing to do. The obvious "democratic" remedy to this dilemma is to get much more active in the primaries before you arrive at that fork in the road.

Sitting it out on your couch would be the cheese-eating surrender monkey option- although you do make it sound appealing.

[placton]

167. it's about time our part got on the ballot!

[FrenchieCat]

2. You are not speaking for Progressives,

You are speaking for yourself....

because please know, just like everyone else, Progressives don't all agree with each other,
which is why you cannot speak for all of us....
instead we, like you, all get to speak for ourselves.

[Daemonaquila]

4. *Chuckle*

So threatened by dissent...

[Skittles]

11. it is indeed pathetic

[Inuca]

19. Actually

I think Frenchie WAS talking about dissent (which of course includes the option of dissenting with the point of view expressed in the OP, as incidentally do I).

[Aleric]

63. No...

Frenchie was stating the obvious, which is a sign of weak faith.

[theHandpuppet]

48. Didn't take long, did it

Predictable as the sunrise.

[Bluebear]

84. chuckle? guffaw!

[SammyWinstonJack]

86. True. nt

[Cha]

166. You're not speaking for me.

[truedelphi]

216. She left out the part about

We Progressives who Rah Rah Rah Sis Koom Bah whenever Obama's name is mentioned, whenever a matter is left up to the DLC and the DLC succeeds, whenever progressive means status quo, corporate enlavement, yes sirree that is what was left out of her post.

[Oregone]

6. Well, truthfully, "progressives" is just another lame ambiguous term thats been co-opted

So I say drop it like a rock at this point, just like the old stolen labels we've had to run from.

The reality is, if I gotta be something, Im a fuckn socialist. And, speaking for them as a self-appointed spokesman, NO ONE is entitled to our support, period.

[Daemonaquila]

7. Cheers.

You are right, of course. I knew we were in trouble as soon as the party started suggesting the use of "progressive" to stamp out that horrible "L-word."

[tmyers09]

12. This is true.

In reality, progressive means exactly what it says. Progress. Move forward. To what however, is different for everybody. Me, I'm for:

Single Payer health system, or at the very least an opportunity for anyone to buy into Medicare

The full legalization of marijuana

A woman's right to choose, and have the process be cheap and easily accessible

A much higher tax for the very wealthy in our society

Much stricter regulation of Wall Street

Full equal rights for GLBT people

Full unemployment and food stamps, no timetables or restrictions

Publicly financed elections, and the banishing of lobbying from our government

Tougher regulation of polluters, and removal of tax cuts for oil companies

Larger focus on alternative energy and the rebuilding of our infrastructure

Drastic reduction of the military budget, and a policy based on diplomacy rather than trying to be a global police

Amnesty for immigrants, and allow for their easy transition into our country

Full support for unions, and a much higher minimum wage, one that somebody can realistically live on

REMOVE THE CHURCHES' TAX EXEMPTIONS AND ENFORCE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Penalties for companies who move jobs overseas

More focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for less serious crimes

Stricter gun control, mainly background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun

More funding for education


Am I a dreamer? Maybe, but these dreams can become reality if we work hard enough.

[TicketyBoo]

28. You're not likely to get any of those

unless you put

Publicly financed elections, and the banishing of lobbying from our government

at the top of the list.

If that gets accomplished, many of the other things may be possible. I don't see how any true progress can be made without comprehensive campaign finance reform leading the way.

I don't agree with all of those items on the list, but I do agree with most of them.

I particularly do not agree with amnesty for immigrants who have come here illegally because we've been there; done that. Within 20 years, we had seven times (!) the number of illegal immigrants that we had when amnesty was granted, so amnesty just seems to be an open invitation for more illegal immigration. If we're going to do amnesty over again, we'd just as well forget we even have borders.

[Vincardog]

70. You're not likely to get any of those until you put Banning BBV from our elections at the top of the

list. No election should ever be decided by corporate massaged "votes"

[reggie the dog]

79. I agree with all of your ideas, sadly

people like us have no place in American politics. We are the "loony left" in the USA. We would just be left of center in France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark.....

[bvar22]

134. The MAJORITY of Americans agree with us (and Dennis).

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls (2005) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

The Leadership of BOTH Political Parties is significantly to The RIGHT of mainstream America.
They are successful ONLY because they completely control the FRAME of political choice in America.

In 2008, America was allowed to choose between:
1) A Pro-WAR, Anti-LABOR, Free Trade, Pro-Corporate Democrat.
or
2) A Pro-WAR, Anti-LABOR, Free Trade, Pro-Corporate Republican.




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.

[truedelphi]

220. Thank you for posting that. it was one of my favorite statistical

memes ever,and I had lost it.

[bobbolink]

192. Notice the lack of poverty and homelessness in your list.

Oh well, we don't mind....

Obviously, you no longer want our votes.............

[defendandprotect]

173. Progress/Liberal are certainly less ambiguous than "moderate" or "conservative" ...

which have both slipped the bonds of any sanity --

Liberals/Progressives can come together on an agenda --

but an individual moving somewhere will be meaningless.

[Luminous Animal]

8. You have no clue what progressive means.

It means nothing. It is a marketing term to blunt the rightwings successful campaign to slur the word liberal.

[Aleric]

54. Which is another indicator of DNC cowardice

Progressive *does* mean something or, at least, it did until Terry MacAuliffe (sp?) co-opted it de to his fear of L-word. When a progressive uses that word it stands for issues. When a democrat ses the word it means "I'm too chickenshit to admit to being a liberal."

[defendandprotect]

174. Nonsense . . . there is historical and solid meaning to "progressive" and "liberal" . . .

[Greyhound]

10. Yeah, actually progressives generally do agree on a variety of issues, that's what makes

us progressive. The Democratic Party used to stand on those principles and we changed the nation for the better doing it. The current fashion of weaseling and capitulating and plain old selling out principles has kept this party out of power for most of my life.

People generally don't like what Republiks stand for, but they know where they stand. People don't trust Democrats because they like what they say, but never know what they'll do once they get in.

[suzie]

16. Your last sentence is such a great explanation of why the gentleman

in your photograph has no chance at higher office.

[John Q. Citizen]

116. My guess is he has a much better chance than you do. Or do you dispute that?

[Kermitt Gribble]

147. I have never seen a post from you that isn't trying to bash Kucinich.

Is that your only purpose here?

[defendandprotect]

175. BRAVO . . . !!!!

Keep saying it !!!

[Hannah Bell]

13. sure s/he is. you're kidding yourself. ps: there's nothing "progressive"

about the current dem configuration. in almost every arena, it's pursuing regressive policy under the rhetoric of progressivism.

you must think people are fucking stupid.

[tavalon]

44. Well, the OP speaks for me

Does a damn good job of it and even though Rahm thinks he can throw the fucking progressives out, he's wrong. And so is Obama if he listens to that foul mouthed idiot.

[truedelphi]

217. Survey says -

From Spring of 2008--

32% of all Americans consider themselves Democrats
238% consider themselves Republicans

And a whopping 40% consider themselves independent of either party.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. Oh, my dear, you are ANYTHING

but progressive. You've a LONG history of defending anything with a "D" attached to it. And the OP spoke very well for this Progressive.

[Lorien]

69. He/ she speaks for me

and I'm a Liberal Progressive who no longer finds true representation from the Democratic party.

[reggie the dog]

81. no longer????

I am 30 and aside from Kucinich and Sanders I really cannot name anyone that stands up for the little guy, which ironically is where somebody from the working class, like me, finds themselves even with an MA......

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. Sorry, Frenchie. Daemonquilla is speaking for me

The mainstream Democrats have lost it. They have no more principles.

I agree about 2004. I campaigned earnestly for Kucinich (as part of a campaign that gained DK 17% of the primary caucus votes in Minnesota and even won him some precincts), but after Kerry went over the top in electoral votes, I door-knocked for him, too, including all day on Election Day, and what I found was the following:

1. Anybody who didn't already hate Bush was indifferent to Kerry.

2. Kerry's campaign had one of the worst websites I've ever seen. In order to find out what he thought about anything, you had to wade through multi-page, policy wonk position papers. I saw other candidates in down-ballot races who put their major positions on the front page in headline form. That's what works.

3. I saw Kerry speak twice in Minneapolis, and both times, the enthusiasm was more against Bush than for Kerry. At the first event, Max Cleland and John Edwards were the introductory speakers, and BOTH of them had a better rapport with the audience than Kerry did. At the second event, Kerry seemed to be wearily reciting a canned speech.

4. Never once did I hear Kerry talk about positive things that he would do if elected. The average voter thinks, "What's in it for me?" and Kerry never answered that question.

5. Kerry was compromised because of his vote for the IWR, so he never gained more than lukewarm support among the anti-war people.

Now the Dems are finally in power. They have the White House and both houses of Congress--and what do they do? They compromise with the Republicans at every possible opportunity.

Note that the Republicans accomplished a lot more even when they had majorities in only one house. They successfully blocked legislation they objected to.

The Dems allowed a lot of bad stuff to go through after 2006, the DLCers' excuse being, "But we don't have a veto-proof majority."

NO, but they had enough votes to BLOCK bad legislation, and they never even tried that.

Might as well have Republicans in Congress for all the good these corrupt DLC and Blue Dog types are.

I'm lucky in that my Congressman Keith Ellison is one of the good guys, for the most part, and my state legislators are awesome. Al Franken is off to a good start. But my senior Senator Amy Klobuchar is a typical DLCer: unable to take a firm stand on anything unless it's really trivial. She infuriates constituents by responding to their opinions with wordy, vague descriptions of issues without indicating where she stands, but she tends to vote with the DLC. She needs a primary challenger as much as anyone I can think of.

Peek outside the Beltway. Peek outside the party offices. Read the online comments to the NY Times and your local paper. The anger is real, the suffering is real, even if the writers are terribly misinformed about its causes, and the Democrats seem so far removed from all of it.

[FrenchieCat]

141. I don't care if 10,000 people stated that this poster was speaking for them......

the point is that progressives are not simply who the poster decides,
and neither are progressives defined by those piling on to this thread like teenagers attempting to get their little hit in.

The pile-on is cute, but proves nothing, and certainly doesn't prove that "progressives" agree on issues in lock steps just like the Bush extremists do.....

[defendandprotect]

177. Obviously, you're excluding yourelf -- great . . . but you don't speak for all of us . . .

And progressives/liberals certainly can decide on a course of action -- an agenda --
and carry thru -- together -- not individually.

[saracat]

213. And the pile on is usually on the liberals.And the so called "New" Democrats

demand lock step on every issue. They behave exactly like Bushies. Exactly. Watching them turn themselves into pretzels justifying Stupak and arguing against choice and supporting anti-choice Democrats say it all. Political expedience rules the day. They stand for nothing but putting a win in the Administrations column.

[Cherchez la Femme]

129. Progressives hold many similar principles

albeit they don't agree with each other 100% of the time
however when it comes to denigration time after time of the same principles, they're going to think much the same.

What they will do about it is the real question. All I can say for myself is I will not support a party that not only doesn't support, but disparages me.

And the fault will NOT be mine.

[bigwillq]

143. And not everyone agrees with you.

But you can't handle that.

[FrenchieCat]

145. I know very well that not everyone agrees with me......

and I'm handling things just fine, but thank you daddy.

I'm not the one telling others how they should think,
or what they should do, if you hadn't noticed.

But hell, I was stereotypecasted a long time ago....
so I know that what I say doesn't mean shit to the hard core
folks who seriously believe that Insurance companies will be made to suffer,
if no HCR happens. I don't have a problem with any of it, including the pile on!

Hey Bigwillq, get off my ass, there's someone already there.
THanks!

[bigwillq]

152. What is up with this Daddy thing?

:shrug: believe what you want, babe. But if people don't agree with you or you're point of view, you most certainly do have issues with it. You post some vile poop when people don't agree with you. Telling posters they are not "liberal" if they don't support what you think they should support. I have never, ever done that.

And, honey, you are hard core. Just in a different way from those you mentioned above. But I guess it's ok for you to be, huh? But I guess you haven't noticed.

[FrenchieCat]

157. I'm not different from anyone else.......

you just think that I am....
because I don't hold the views that you think I should.

So no, I'm not hard core, daddy.......it is just that you think so.

[bigwillq]

158. And those people you mentioned

are not hard core either. It's just that you think so. And I don't hold the views that you think I should, Mommy.

[dflprincess]

149. She spoke for me n/t

[stevenleser]

156. You're not going to make a dent, my dear Frenchie

People who post and think like the OP are determined to only listen to those things that support the way they want to think about politics. They never think about:

1. Why Nader couldn't get 5%

2. Why Kucinich never gets any support from the voters when he runs for the nomination.

3. The destruction ideological purity just cost the Republicans in NY's 23rd District

4. Historical catastrophes where left groups refused to unite under the strongest (usually center left) candidate and allowed far right crazies to get elected. (Bush, Hitler, etc.)

As another poster pointed out, the reason why politicians in a Democracy tack to the center is because that is where the most people/constituents and thus votes are. There is no great mystery or conspiracy there. In fact, this whole argument is trite, boring and should be obvious since it is one that has been replayed umpteen times over the last 70+ years in most western countries. Its like the whackjob justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to marry a mixed couple in that I cannot believe we are still having this conversation. The truth should be obvious.

Now, call me crazy, but in my opinion, the job of Progressives is to try to move the center, not penalize politicians for feeling or being drawn to it. I've been preaching this very thing for at least 5-6 years. Progressives should be having town halls, talking to groups and trying to get everyone at a grass roots level to move left, this includes talking to Republicans and getting them to try to see the light, hence some of my activities lately. If the center moves left, guess where the politicians go?

This isn't as exciting as threatening interparty war and saying, "I'm as mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore", but if you are into trying to actually make change and not noise, well, you can finish that thought for yourself.

[FrenchieCat]

159. Well, I'm enjoying the pile-on.......

it's nice to watch folks get their irrelevant jollies.....

I'm actually glad I can make folks feel good about themselves....
cause self esteem is important, no matter who one steps on to feel it.

[Daemonaquila]

196. It's easy to feel falsely superior but forget the embarrassing details.

Like why, despite the invincible "wall of lawyers," it more or less took a Green and a Libertarian holding a goddamned bake sale to look into election theft in Ohio.

You self-appointed "strategic thinkers" take yourself so seriously you have no idea how hilarious you really are.

[stevenleser]

207. You don't know the half of it, I am afraid

Just google my name in quotes and Ohio election.

[TheWatcher]

160. I'm a bit confused

When did they start spelling Progressive "A-P-O-L-O-G-I-S-T"

I swear, I can't keep up with all these new trends. :)

You kids and your XBox 360's, your American Idol, Your 'V", Your PS3's, Your MTV, Your Party Line.....

[stevenleser]

163. Thats one of those words that has been beaten to death until it no longer means anything

I've seen it used in virtually every context to describe everyone. It's a word that ought to be chucked in the dustbin of history like many other labels. Its a cheap end run around having to articulate an argument.

[donco6]

165. How on EARTH would you know?

You haven't even seen the BACKSIDE of a progressive in 12 years.

[defendandprotect]

171. Progressives agree on most issues . . . they have to come together .. . .

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. K&R Very well said.

[Ken Burch]

5. I'd amend that to "not AUTOMATICALLY entitled"

Having said that, I do agree with you.

[tmyers09]

9. Put this in the greatest.

I love that kind of fire. If only we can mobilize and get the party brass to take us seriously.

[JoeyT]

14. It seems like the right wing Republicans aren't the only ones trying to purge a party.

The conservative Democrats are doing their level best to ensure liberals are pissed off enough to go third party. Or that we just piss off and stop bothering them. I'm not really sure what their goal is.
I couldn't count the number of times tonight I've seen what amounts to "We don't need you stupid liberals.", and the party seems to be backing that to a large extent. Given the amount of disillusionment among the left, the next election cycle could go pretty badly for the Democratic party...After all, we're the ones that are motivated enough to man phones and fight for causes. (Causes other than "Rah! Rah! Go Team!" that is.)

[TransitJohn]

162. I know the plan.

It's to get the corporatist whores from both parties together in the mythical "center", leaving the Bachmanns, et. al., on the right too small to do anything, and we decent liberals on the left, too small to do anything, and they'll keep siphoning all the cash the turn the earth's resources into upwards and upwards towards the criminal degenerate gamblers on Wall Street.

[defendandprotect]

178. DLC goal is quite clear . . . move the party to the right . . . same with the Dem conservatives ...

[BzaDem]

15. The funny thing is the more people like you who leave, the further right the candidates go.

For a Democratic candidate, it is not an unsurmountable tragedy when a liberal Democrat decides not to vote. It simply means the Democratic candidate moves further to the right, to make up for it. Clinton is a perfect example of this. He had no problem being re-elected, since for every progressive who didn't like him, he simply moved further to the right (and helped enact the Republican Congressional agenda). I highly doubt he would have done this if progressives would have stood with him. But politicians do what is necessary to get re-elected.

The Nader example really shows how toothless these people are. Sure, they succeeded in getting Bush elected. But 90% of them came back to the Democratic fold 4 years later, for an arguably less liberal candidate. Why is that? Because they quickly realized the in-your-face consequences of their actions. Any experiment to vote third party or stay home will be short-lived for this reason. Most will come crawling back to the Democratic party even if the new candidate is far more conservative than the one they wouldn't vote for.

Of course, one could look at the actual way to bring the party left, which is to elect more Democrats (to marginalize the conservatives in the party and actually elect a majority of progressives to Congress). But that would be too rational for these people. Instead, we will continue our cycle of Vote Democratic/Stay home when we don't have a large enough majority to get everything done/Democratic candidate moves to the right to win, with an occasional Vote Nader/Crawl back to Democratic party a year later. Until we improve our education system to teach people how our political system actually works, this cycle will continue.

[bluetrain]

17. You're out of your mind if you really believe Nader voters got Bush elected. He was inserted by the

thoroughly corrupt Supreme Court after failing to pull off a "win" even with massive election fraud.

[BzaDem]

18. ... and there would have been no court case had one percent of the Nader voters

voted for Gore.

[bluetrain]

21. Gore was not a progressive candidate. Lieberman made his name on being aggressively

pro-censorship. Why on earth would anyone but the fearful, the ignorant and the centrists (often one in the same) vote for conservative wet noodles pretending to be liberals?

[BzaDem]

30. So you are admitting it.

Most rational people agree that Nader caused Bush to win. But you are admitting that that was the whole goal in the first place.

[bluetrain]

34. Where are your stats on "rational people"? You're a joke. Stop wasting my time.

[BzaDem]

37. I was being charitable. In reality, it is all rational people, by definition.

If you don't believe Gore would have won if Nader dropped out, you are irrational. :hi:

[bluetrain]

38. lol, way to make your case! You corporatists are all the same: willfully delusional.

[reggie the dog]

87. Jeb still would have cheated Florida

There was a Libertarian candidate on the right in 2008. Is that why Obama won???

[suzie]

142. Wrong. Jeb would did all he could to bring Florida in for his brother.

But if you look at actual voting numbers, he couldn't have if all the "too good to vote for Gore" purists hadn't voted for Nader.

Gore needed 9 more votes in each county in Florida to win. I know at least 9 Nader voters who didn't want to dirty themselves by casting their vote for one of the major political parties. And then spent the next 8 years whining about the administration they put in office.

[frylock]

155. greg palast doesn't see it that way

[reggie the dog]

85. No, most people who dont give a damn that the recount in Florida

was stopped by the supreme court BEFORE that recount found that gore actually won..... Most people I know can see fraud, a scandal with votes in a state controlled by the brother and decided by a court full of people appointed by the father......

[defendandprotect]

180. YES . . . !!!

[PVnRT]

89. No, it was all those conservative Democrats who voted for Bush

that resulted in it being close enough for a Supreme Court case. Nader is and was largely irrelevant.

[defendandprotect]

181. 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voting for Bush didn't help . . .

[BzaDem]

31. So you are admitting it.

Most rational people agree that Nader caused Bush to win. But you are admitting that that was the whole goal in the first place.

[Selatius]

24. One could easily argue the same if Katherine Harris hadn't illegally purged 50,000+ Black voters.

Multiple factors were in play in 2000. Nader was just one. To blame it all on him is being a bit obtuse.

[BzaDem]

32. None of the other factors would have mattered if Nader didn't run.

I don't expect Katherine Harris to act honestly. But I do expect Nader (someone who claims he is a progressive) to get the hell out of the way.

[Selatius]

33. The fact that you wouldn't expect a person in a government post to be honest speaks volumes about...

the degraded nature of this country and the bigotry of lowered expectations, and it is a sad commentary on this sick republic, indeed. More and more politicians are running to gain some power for themselves instead of to serve the public.

I grew up in a different era. Back in those days, you weighed the factors equally, and if somebody in a government post like Harris did wrong, she was considered the aberration that should be removed, not the guy who ran simply because he could. Nowadays, people automatically assume it as normal instead of an aberration.

As far as Nader and Harris go, Nader did no wrong. He was simply exercising his right to run; that is what a republic is all about. Harris, on the other hand, likely violated civil rights laws and should've been indicted, convicted, and imprisoned.

[Daemonaquila]

49. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

BZADem, you had me with you until you started in on that jackass Nader. Nader is to blame for nothing except for his own lack of substance and giant ego. Blaming him, however, is a great example of how Dems take Progressives for granted. Nader should've stayed out of the way? Oh, hell, no. How anyone could've considered voting for him makes me *facepalm*, but he owed the Dems and the left nothing. Do the Dems want to avoid "risks" like that in the future? Then they need to do more than pay lip service to the left side of the party.

[BzaDem]

55. He doesn't owe the Dems or the left anything, but one would think he would want to help his country.

We live in a mathematical two party system (unlike most other countries that have democracies that structurally allow third parties). The only purpose of a third party candidate for President is a spoiler, since a third party candidate cannot win the electoral college.

Whenever there is a third party candidate, Dems simply move right to make up for the lost votes. They don't have a choice. If they moved left, they would lose more than 1 vote in the middle for every vote on the left. It would be political malpractice not to move to the right in the face of a third party candidate.

If Nader doesn't like this, he should work to pass a constitutional amendment to change the system and allow for Instant Runoff Voting or some other such concept that would allow third parties to serve purposes other than spoilers.

[reggie the dog]

90. hello, the Libertarians run a candidate every election

Nader was the FOURTH party candidate, see 2 on the right, and 2 on the left.

[defendandprotect]

184. Nice reminder . . . .

[defendandprotect]

185. We're living in two-party slavery which Nader has been pointing out for decades . . .

he's also been pointing out the buying of government and elected officials by

corporations --

Democrats are also blocking and co-opting third parties because they like things

the way they are --

WE all need to move to get IRV voting -- and, of course, the information about that

is getting around mainly because of third parties/Nader --

[Daemonaquila]

199. Ah, yes - the entitlement rears its head.

Anyone but a Dem or a Rethug is a "spoiler." Sorry, the country does not belong to the 2 parties. Go ahead, and ignore the historical multiple parties and the winning candidates from the Federalists, the Whigs, the War Unionists... Granted, there have been 2 strongest contenders for many years, but that can and will change over time. Methinks there needs to be more "spoilage" until the Dems and Rethugs get it through their thick skulls that they're just the current fad - lucky them.

[reggie the dog]

88. I supported Nader because I was born in 1979

and have never seen the Democrats actually do anything for working class people like my family (aside from Kucinich who is marganalized by his own party).

[Romulox]

65. No logician, you. nt

[defendandprotect]

183. Nonsense ...... DLC also talked Gore out of running a "populist" campaign . . .

which Gore regretted openly later --
he understood what the DLC is mainly there to accomplish!

[defendandprotect]

182. Election stealing/treason Democratic Party likes to ignore . . .

and the story and details were there BEFORE the election --

Grey Palast had the story early -

[Greyhound]

25. Or had the 3,000 votes cast for Buchanan in Palm Beach(!) been accurately cast for Gore,

or had the recount been allowed to complete...

Face it, it was a coup and we accepted it.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Or the 10-11 million Democrats nationwide

and 300,000+ in Florida hadn't voted for Bush.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Oh, criminee!

There would have been no court case if his TENNESSEE constituency had voted for their own, if there had been no Katherine Harris if Gore had asked for a recount of the ENTIRE state, had Florida's governor not been the brother of Gore's opponent, had the Democratic representatives in Broward (iirc) county objected to the butterfly ballot, had Gore not gone all party milquetoast on us -- that's a start. Nader? Absurd.

[Art_from_Ark]

202. Gore's home state

It's the buckle of the Bible Belt. In some places, "good ol' boyz" still seem to be fighting the Civil War. To them, Gore wasn't "one of their own". He wasn't someone they could "drink-a-beer-in-a-pickup-truck-and-throw-the-can-out-the-window-with". He was "just another Warshin'ton insider".

[Flaneur]

77. Of if all those Florida Democrats hadn't voted for Bush.

[reggie the dog]

82. What makes you think that Nader voters would have voted at all

had Nader not run????? Besides the supreme court gave away the election before the recound proving gore won florida was complete

[defendandprotect]

186. Correct . . . Nader brought out voters who did vote for Democrats . . .

[suzie]

227. The fact that most of them voted in every other election?

Including primaries and off year elections?

9 votes in every county. Do you know how few that is?

And Greg Palast may be a nice guy, but he doesn't live or vote in Florida, far as I know. Maybe to Nader apologists, he is the expert.

To those of us who lived through the 2000 election, not so much.

[theFrankFactor]

117. Can't be Because Gore Sucked Ass Can it? I mean, really. How to you NOT stomp W.?

[defendandprotect]

187. Exactly . . . Gore followed DLC rule - "no populism" and he went down quickly ...regretted it later

And then there was the lovely Lieberman -- !!! Trojan Horse Lieberman --

[frylock]

154. and if my aunt had nads she'd be my uncle

[aquart]

41. Still trying to shed the guilt, huh?

Maybe you Nader voters can molt.

[reggie the dog]

93. I have no guilt, I supported Nader

but went directly to work after school and I VOTED FOR NO ONE IN 2000. Tipper Gore's role in censorship of rock music turned me off to that ticket. I liked that Republicans in Illinois were anti helmet law even for kids as opposed to the Democrats who did not want to fund social programs in an era of tax cuts but who would tell me what to do for my own good, but I hated the religious right. I was either going to vote Libertarian or Nader but I was apathetic. After W got in I voted against him twice without really voting for anyone. I voted for the most likeley to beat W or McCain because of 2 immoral wars, the Patriot act etc. If Obama turns out to be a center right president I will proabably vote against that but against to the left. So many imorovements have to be made to the USA before I can even dream of moving my family back there that I would like to see an actual start, not repub light.

[defendandprotect]

179. Absolutely . . . plus .. .

300,000 "Democrats" voting for Bush in Florida!!!

600 illegal military ballots counted for Bush in Florida --

GOP-sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-Dade county mandated

by the Florida State Supreme Court!!

etc . . .

[truedelphi]

218. And Bush was helped by those who don't vote at all.

A lot of the [pot smoking indie "thinkers" I know who don't bother to vote - they are the ones that need scolding. Not hte ones who care enough to support someone, anyone and who work hard for causes.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. It essentially boils down to a classic game theory problem called the ultimatum game

Player 1 offers to split a dollar any way he or she wants to between himself and Player 2. Player 2 either accepts the offer or rejects the offer and everybody gets zero. The nash equilibrium of the game is for Player 1 to take 99 cents and offer Player 2, 1 cent and for Player 2 to accept the offer. While a rational Player 2 will be pissed as hell, they will still take the offer because 1 cent is better than nothing.

While this is an oversimplification it does essentially boil down to a situation where Player 1 is the Democratic Party and Player 2 is the liberals. If the Democrats offer them 1 cent it's still better than absolutely nothing which is what they will get when the Republicans win.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Too many people would rather live on their knees than die on their feet.

[Daemonaquila]

51. Much too oversimplified.

This problem works much better when sometimes Player 1 and Player 2 wind up at $.20 and $.80, and sometimes at $.99 and $.01. However, when most of the games end up in $.99 and $.01, Player 2 loses interest and takes $0, knowing that it ends in Player 1's $0 as well. Sometimes it's worth changing the game.

[Hippo_Tron]

104. Those are certainly valid modifications of the game

The principle remains the same, however. You can re-work the payoffs such that after receiving 1 cent after so many turns, Player 2 starts to actually lose utility and thus they wind up back at zero and will be indifferent between taking action.

Player 1 will then change their strategy to give Player 2 the .20 and .80 split just enough times to keep them from being indifferent. The point is that the Democrats will give women's rights groups just enough to keep them from being indifferent and keep them in the game.

[Romulox]

66. It's not necessarily rational for Player 2 to acquiesce in your scenario.

It is far more rational for Player 2 to deny Player 1 his payout, when it is taken into account that Player 1 will use that money to assure that he is the one selected to split any additional dollars in further iterations of the game. In other words, Player 2 may derive more utility from denying Player 1 power than by accepting meager scraps. This becomes especially true the closer Player 2's payment comes to zero...

[Hippo_Tron]

102. I'm saying that's how the game is played now within these confines

And I think that is a realistic description of what goes on right now. Obviously if Player 2 wants to do better than 1 cent, Player 2 needs to start playing a different game. The game you suggest is actually quite an interesting one and one that I certainly had not thought of.

[reggie the dog]

94. there is a problem in there

a rational player 2 would tell player one to sign a 50 50 contract or there would be no deal. If player one refused a rational player 2 would tell them to go fuck themselves because making 1 cent whilst enriching somoneone else with 99 cents for the same effort IS INSANITY. A rational person would make everyone have 0 cents but walk away with their pride. I will not sell out humanist ideals to members of the Democratic party who answer to the assholes who fund their campaigns instead of leading their country to a more humanist place.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. And indeed it does sometimes work like that, however...

However, pride is probably not as strong of a motivator as you would think. In fact, if you want to factor that into the game you can assign a numerical value to one's pride and take that into account. Lets say that your pride is worth 10 cents. The Democrats then only have to give you 11 cents to get you to accept the bargain.

Now, you might say that pride should be valued to a point that a self-respecting person demands a 50-50 split. But in real life I don't believe the payoffs are scaled that way.

For example, lets say you have a choice between supporting a Democrat or sitting out. If you sit out the Republican wins. Now if the Democrat wins he will pass a law saying that women have to watch an ultrasound before having an abortion. If the Republican wins he will appoint judges that will overturn Roe v Wade. So it becomes a question of which outcome is worth more to you? Keeping your pride and losing Roe v Wade or giving up your pride and also having to swallow a crappy ultrasound law.

[cornermouse]

50. In case you didn't notice, people already tried that

(stayed in the party, held their nose and voted for the "liberal") and what was their reward? The democratic congress put women's rights on the table as a bargaining chip. We'd have to be really stupid to keep believing that its our fault that the party took a sharp turn to the right.

[waiting for hope]

135. +1

The party I used to believe in has done more harm to destroy the platform - read page 15:

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Under Reproductive Health Care - "We will never put ideology above women's health .." and page 43 as a real slap in the face ... "Our policies recognize that human rights are women's rights and that women's rights are human rights." So woman in other countries can get better treatment than women here at home ...and page 50 is the real betrayal:

"Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."

If this piece of shit amendment stays in - I'm out.

[Ken Burch]

64. It wasn't worth electing Blue Dog Dems to "elect more Democrats"

If we don't have the votes for real healthcare reform, it's all Rahm's fault. He should never have forced the nomination of right-wing candidates under the Democratic banner. None of the Blue Dogs have ever been worth anything to us. A Democrat that doesn't vote like a Democrat isn't a Democrat. And you've lost the right to ever call yourself a Democrat again if you're against the public option. No other vote you can make can ever make up for that one.

[reggie the dog]

83. Even if I agree to your BS about Nader costing the election

I would argue that it is better for a right wing Democratic ticket to lose in the long run because the image of Democrats is tarnished by centrism. It makes Republicans stronger because it seems as if the Democrats cater to the Republicans as if they knew the Republicans were really correct or something. I would much rather have a Republican than a right wing Democrat in power. Then an actual LIBERAL could get in power again in the future. I am still waiting for Obama to end the two damn wars, legalize grass, and have a public health program like ever other wealthy country in the world but he is seeming more and more like a right wing Democrat. I will not vote right wing democrat in 2012. I will vote Green, like I will do for governor in Illinois next time (and as I did last time) and as I do in French elections because the Green party represents me much better than the Democrats do. HOW CAN A LEFT WING PARTY WHICH IS CENTER RIGHT HAVE THE AUDACITY TO TRY TO KICK OUT THE LEFT OF CENTER PART OF THE PARTY?????

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. That's exactly right, reggie

If the Dems acquiesce to Republicanite positions, it tells the public that those positions are "normal" and bolsters the Republicanites' contention that anything else is "far left."

The party leaders are pushing THEMSELVES rightward in response to bribery (oh, sorry, "contributions in order to gain access" is the preferred term, I believe) from the corporations.

I saw through Obama early on, and knew that neither he nor Hillary Clinton was a leftist, or even a liberal. I saw that the Corporate Poo-Bahs didn't care which one was nominated, because neither one would do anything to harm their positions as masters of the universe. I voted for Obama, but I refused to campaign or contribute. I was NOT going to wear out good shoe leather or empty my increasingly meager bank account to support someone who did NOT represent my interests.

(And no, of course McCain didn't represent my interests, either, but I'll hand this to the Republicans: What you see is what you get. Michelle Bachmann is predictably loony and doesn't even try to run as a sane person.)

[RadicalGeek]

22. Personally

I wonder if maybe we progressives/liberals, etc should start trying to build the infrastructure that would allow 3rd parties to run.

Working for proportional representation in federal elections (IRV for Senate seats and proportional rep for the EC), and public funding of elections, media reform, etc, would have the added effect of making it so that truly progressive Democrats in the model of Wellstone and Kucinich could win races more easily as well.

[Selatius]

36. That would likely require a constitutional amendment.

It can be next to impossible to pass a meaningful amendment. If you had tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery pre-1860, you wouldn't succeed except through war.

As Frederick Douglass aptly said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will." Getting the Democratic and Republican Parties to accept some form of run-off system like IRV or some other representative method would be akin to telling a man who wants to live to put a gun to his own head in a game of roulette. He won't do it on the chance the revolver does have a round chambered.

[druidity33]

46. Well, IRV is coming to Mass...

There is a ballot initiative and an educational campaign going on right now in Massachusetts to set up IRV voting in State elections. If we get enough signatures, it'll be on the 2010 ballot... we're nearly there already.

It's not a Constitutional amendment, but it's a start.


:shrug:

[Selatius]

53. Very true, but what happens is the US is divided between states with IRV and those without.

Likely, some of the more liberal states would be the ones to feature IRV voting, while conservative leaning states would rather opt with the traditional first-past-the-post method, which is a system that basically favors a two-party system. The nation would be divided.

[druidity33]

57. i'm not so sure...

With the conservative base becoming displeased with moderates. When i sit and actually explain IRV to people, it just seems fairer. I think most people just don't understand how it works. How do you think IRV would've affected NY-23? How do you think Daggett's votes would've been parceled out?

:shrug:

[RadicalGeek]

47. For one

Like the pic and the quote. I've read a bit of Chomsky.

Two:
I don't know about needing a constitutional ammendment, at least not the US Constitution. Maybe at the State level, and I can imagine a lot of the Red States wouldn't be to keen on the idea.

[Selatius]

23. Sorry, but I see no evidence that the Democratic Party will be better than "We're not Republicans."

Not any time soon. The Democratic Party has fallen into disarray following the dissolution of the New Deal Coalition that held it together for so long. It fell into its weakest state in the last 60 years when it completely lost control of both houses of Congress in 1994. It's only 2009, and rebuilding any semblance of a functioning party that is representative is going to take decades.

Exacerbating the situation is the movement of some right wingers into the Democratic party because the Republicans are currently purging center-rightists in favor of far-rightists and religious ideologues. They run as Democrats to exclaim that they're not Republican batshit crazy, but on substantive issues, they offer something only a little better than the Republicans.

[Greyhound]

26. How depressingly accurate...

[quakerboy]

35. apparently they are

Lets check the vote tally on the bill... yep, turns out they are.

Welp, there goes that party.

[republicansarewhores]

39. I think we need to create a new website.

The PROGRESSIVE Underground.

Use it to gain ground building the third party we desperately need instead of put up with the "eat shit" abuse from Center-Right Dems.

It's time.

RAW

[Luminous Animal]

43. You are welcome to start your own little hidey hole on the intertubes

I'll argue here and save my political activism for real life. You know, where local on the ground organizing makes a difference. The rightwing recognized that 30 years ago when they started putting effort behind electing school boards and such. Grooming candidates for county and state offices and then promoting them to federal offices. If you want to make a difference, start organizing to oust the blue dogs in every level or your local and state government.

[TwilightZone]

75. Already been tried.

The sites tend to become little more than places for people to bash DU.

[theFrankFactor]

118. I Invite You!

These pussy-ass Demo-crats make me throw up a little in the back of my throat every time I read of their proud chest thumping mediocrity. Fuck this corporate bitch service and self loathing warm piss. That shit isn't going to garner respect for LIBERALS, Progressive or even Democrats. I says "KICK ME, I'M A DEMOCRAT"!

If you'd like to join with some unconventional Democrats, Liberals and Progressives...

[republicansarewhores]

226. Hey Frank...

I listen to your podcasts every week and have visited your site, just didn't poke around for the forum there yet. We've corresponded on Myspace. The guy whose pics you saw with Malloy. ;-)

Good to see you here. Would be nice if we could mobilize a real world progressive front against the "thank you sir, may I please have another" Dems huh?

RAW

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Mithreal]

42. K&R

[still_one]

45. Don't worry, they aren't getting blue dog support either /nt

[emulatorloo]

52. I stopped reading when you attacked Gore and Kerry.

Both of those guys have done a lot

Stupak is an idiot. If you are in his district vote him out.

[Romulox]

67. Gore didn't run as a progressive at all. I have no idea what Kerry ran as...

a Vietnam vet who could out-war W, the best I can tell... :shrug:

[PHIMG]

56. Problem is 50 Reps and 15 Senators that were implanted into the party by Big Money

These big money people don't belong to the Democratic Party they belong to the Big Money party.

There has to be a purge. Until then, our party does not belong to us. It belongs to the Big Money Party because they have a veto on our legislation.

[Le Taz Hot]

58. Excellent!

Excellent analysis and excellent writing. Welcome another Progressive to DU. :hi:

[LWolf]

60. Same in '08.

SO YOU WANT MCCAIN?!??

No. I didn't want either of the major choices in '08.

And Obama has ably demonstrated why.

[reggie the dog]

95. Ok so McCain would have probably bombed Iran by now

and Obama has not. That is the only reason I voted for Obama instead of voting Green. Don't you every wonder why the Republican's base is mostly made up of poor and working class people????? BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS LONG AGO ABANDONED POOR AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE! The Republicans give the poor and working class some "family values" bs and actually votes how they say they will as opposed to what is it that the Democrats do or stand for these days????

[LWolf]

168. I don't think

McCain would have "likely bombed Iran by now." He seems to approve of many of Obama's moves so far.



I agree about abandoning the poor and working class. :(

[lonestarnot]

61. K & R!

[LoZoccolo]

68. If you want to leave, DO IT. Enjoy your role as Sister Soulja.

Probably most of you won't do it anyways (Nader's huge drop from 3% to a fraction of a percent tells me this group does respond to a sound spanking), but we can then also use you to distance ourselves from Republican accusations of a far-left agenda. You can be our whipping boy if you want! We'll get more center votes than lost progressive votes, I'm guessing. DO IT!

And if you think this is harsh or inflammatory, remember what you just did: threaten us with violence at the hands of the Republicans.

[treestar]

71. The center is the center for a reason

Wherever the center is, it's a reality.

Enjoy just raging at the machine if that's all you want to do.

[reggie the dog]

96. What makes the bribed people in you photo

any better than bribed republicans???? How does selling out womens rights for some bs health care reform which will serve to enrich private insurance classify as good? You do realize that on health care the USA is the laughing stock of the wealthy world dont you?????

[GreenArrow]

73. I think you've got that backwards.

It's time progressives realize they are not entitled to Democratic Party support.

[redqueen]

74. What makes this post extra funny is that you're in Texas.

:rofl:

[inna]

78. ?

[redqueen]

80. Texas = very, very red.

It's very hard to get a Dem elected here. Many Dem voters here are centrist/moderate.

And I don't mean centrist/moderate by DU standards. :rofl:

[TwilightZone]

100. The Texas state House is 77-73 R/D

And that's after a Dem switched parties to R this weekend.

It's a lot easier to get a Democrat elected here than you might think. We picked up a bunch of seats in '06 and '08.

[redqueen]

103. I've lived in Texas all my life.

I know it's not impossible to get Dems elected.

I also know there won't be many like Kucinich elected here.

[TwilightZone]

105. I agree that Kucinich isn't about to get elected here.

But claiming that the state is still "very, very red" isn't really accurate anymore. When the state House is nearly 50/50, that's about as purple as it gets.

In addition, Obama won the four largest metros and most of the border counties.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/tx.htm

[redqueen]

106. The four largest metros huh?

How about our federal Reps and Senators? How many of those are blue?

I appreciate what you're saying... but I said what I said in regard to the OP. Context.

[TwilightZone]

110. If you're going to mock someone for being inaccurate...

you might want to be sure that your basis for said mocking is firm. That's all I'm saying.

Is Texas still conservative? Sure. But, Texas no longer looks "very, very red" to a lot of people who live in Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and pretty much anywhere along the border. They all went blue, partly in '06 and more so in '08, and they represent a pretty significant chunk (albeit still a minority) of the Texas population.

As far as the U.S. House goes, it would look nowhere near as red as it does if not for Delay's gerrymandering and the subsequent failure to correct the jigsaw puzzle he created. The Austin metro, for example, is in several Congressional districts, primarily to ensure that most of them remain R. The appearance of conservativism in the House reps from Texas will long outlast reality. All is not as red as it appears.

Edit: for the record, I agree with you re: the OP. Threatening to withhold progressive support here isn't much of a threat. I'm defending Texas, not the OP. :)

[redqueen]

113. No no no... didn't intend to mock you...

I was just saying, it's nice that the urban areas are getting better, but let's put it in perspective. The kind of Dems that get elected here aren't most often the Henry B. Gonzales kind. Sadly.

And yeah, you're damn right re: that fucking gerrymandering, but that's what I'm saying - Texas politics is a contact sport, as Molly used to be fond of saying. :) Thankfully I think the pukes overreached with that gerrymandering, and the TTC... we'll see. As for me I live out in the sticks, and it is NOT like the big cities.

[TwilightZone]

115. Agreed.

I spent a lot of years in Nebraska, and the circumstances here remind me of that in many ways. The rural areas are ridiculously conservative, and the cities are a mix of primary-city liberalism, mixed with moderate/conservative suburbs. Austin is interesting, in part because it's really diverse politically. I see that happening in the other metros, as well, but you're right - we're not about to infiltrate the rural areas and we're not about to elect a bunch of liberals! I just hope that the Ds eventually outnumber the Rs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. What about the late Henry Gonzalez?

He was a fantastic populist Dem, one of the few who stood up to Reagan.

[redqueen]

111. Yes... it'd be nice if we could elect more like him.

I think we might be getting to the point now where we can... but during the 80s, that's when a LOT of people from up north moved here, and... well, we used to be a blue state before the Reagan Dem crap. Not that there's any correllation, but... well there it is. Thankfully, things seem to be changing ever so slowly, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[TwilightZone]

112. I spent years in Nebraska. I was shocked that Obama won an electoral vote there.

I never believed that I would see that happen - I believed that NE, even Omaha, was too conservative. And, yet, it happened. So maybe there's hope for Texas, after all.

[liberal_at_heart]

76. My vote is not certain

I have voted democrat every election, but I am tired of our politicians being bought off by corporate interests, and I certainly don't respond well to being told how I have to vote. My vote is my vote, no one else's. I will not be bullied. I will not vote a certain way just because I've been told to.

[reggie the dog]

98. right on

[whoneedstickets]

119. You're absolutely free to vote as you wish.

And equally as free to live with the consequences.

[liberal_at_heart]

126. Telling me I am free to live with the consequences works about as well

as the Christians telling me I'm going to burn in hell because I'm not a Christian. It doesn't work.

[LatteLibertine]

92. If we try hard

we'll be able to get the GOP back in power.

[Echo In Light]

97. At the higher levels of the corporate/state nexus, that's EXACTLY what is wanted

Otherwise the dog n pony show doesn't work so well if all of the Divide & Rule is focused within just one side of the two-sided coin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. As long as we hold our noses and buy the "not as bad" BS they'll keep thinking they're entitled.

The idea of politicians earning votes is foreign and dangerous to many here.

[newtothegame]

114. hahaha yeah right. As long as we obsess about making "history" with our candidates...

instead of enacting progressive legislation, they'll always have us by the short hairs.

[winyanstaz]

120. K & R

I am loving all the posts lately...for a while there I was thinking Dems had forgotten how to stand up and fight. :)

[grantcart]

121. You are free to join Mr. Nader or start your own party, but it won't actually

change the rules, you will still have to get 51% of the House of Representatives to agree on a legislation and then you will have to get Senators representing 83% of the population to agree to get something passed.

[branders seine]

122. like an out-of-control drunk,

this country and its corporate-representative parties need to hit bottome before they can be fixed.

[Cleita]

123. Thank you for saying what needs to be said.

I have already decided that the mainstream centrist Democratic organizations are not getting one more penny from me, nor my volunteer time in elections unless I really believe in the candidate. I will vote against any DLC sponsored billionaires in the primaries and hold my nose for those I have to vote for just to keep a Republican out. I'm going to speak heresy now. I am looking at supporting the Green Party with my contributions and with some of their issues. They are doing great work on election reform and that's the issue we need to work on now. No, I'm not becoming a Green Party member but I do support a lot of the work they are trying to do because the Democrats aren't doing it. We need election reform to get real progressives in office and put the corporate whore caucus out to pasture for good.

[valerief]

124. Well, our gummint is acting more like the Repocrat Party. Sigh. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

128. The attacks on Kucinich were a real WTF moment for me.

I mean, REALLY? HE'S the bad guy now? How do I get off this bus

[jtrockville]

130. I agree. Dennis is, and has always been, for the people.

Why would we turn our back on him now? Because he is protecting OUR interests instead of the interest of the party?

[suzie]

146. As long as "the people" are males.

[Forkboy]

Would you rather DK was still against reproductive rights?

How would that help females? And does his 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood mean anything to you, or do they not care about women as well?

I've asked you this before and you just flee like a coward, so a how about answering for once?

[jtrockville]

164. Don't hold your breath Forkboy.

[suzie]

224. I'd rather Dennis Kucinich resign from the Congress and become an activist, a position

to which he seems to aspire.

Given how much he votes with Republicans when it comes to actually passing legislation and his record of opportunism in changing his Henry Hyde-like stance against women, I don't have any expectations of Kucinich voting for anything that would help females--if his vote were critical.

[Forkboy]

225. Good thing NARAL and Planned Parenthood know more than you clearly do.

Because we all know that 100% ratings from both help support your view that he never votes for anything that helps women. :eyes:

[quaker bill]

131. When it comes to dancing bears

it is not that the bear dances well that actually matters, it is that the bear dances at all which is worthy of note.

There is no notion of entitlement on their part. You invent this notion of a "sense of entitlement" because you actually think this bear can dance well and is simply witholding its best performance to insult you or serve others. This is a self centered notion and utter foolishness. The fact that this bear does not dance well has nothing to do with you, because it is simply not in its nature to perform to your satisfaction. Witholding your applause, vote, or funds will not cause the bear to dance better. You can pick another bear if you wish but it still will dance no better, and it is quite unlikely that you will ever get into the circus tent to try.

While it is fun to walk the earth with the belief that we are owed something, we might be just as well off believing that bears will waltz gracefully for us, if we only raise enough funds to impress them. Personally, I am impressed to the extent our politicians simply agree to stop killing folks for no good reason, or at least agree to kill them less frequently, whenever it is that they happen choose to get about that.

[sellitman]

132. Take your ball & bat and leave.

I am a Liberal. I am a disgusted Liberal.

I am also a pragmatic one.

Unless the "other side" splits in two your soap box spells nothing but victory for the "Rethiglicans".

It stinks,

It smells.

It is life.

Unrec'd

[ecstatic]

133. I think the margins (sadly) are still too thin... So abandoning the party now

will only be shooting yourself in the foot.

If one day we have a huge margin in the congress and senate and shit still isn't exactly like what we want, then I'll understand your point.

[Politicub]

136. Do people who have no means or no hope entitled to your precious progressive support?

Because like it or not, nationally the democratic party is our best hope for helping the broadest number of people.

If it violates your progressive purity to support the dems as a party, then by all means find someone that you like and send them your love. What I do is support progressive politicians locally and in the primaries, but I don't sacrifice the good for the perfect when it comes to national politics.

But I believe I can be both progressive and liberal as well as politically realistic when it comes to trying to do something for the least fortunate among us.

My only regret as a liberal is being lumped in with the all-or-nothing progressives who couldn't give a damn about getting anything good done because it offends their tender sensibilities.

[bajamary]

137. Vichy Dems didn't approve contraception

Dear President Obama,

Why are you against an American woman having birth control paid for in your so-called "health reform" bill?

Why did you ask the Democrats way back in January to have contraception taken out of any health reform bill?

What does your wife think of that or is it okay with Michele as well?

What a friggin' disaster.

This is NOT health REFORM.

This is non reform health care bill is actually several steps BACKWARD for We The People. And it's a huge financial windfall for your buddies in the health industry.

I deeply regret every hour I worked to get you elected by you going door-to-door in MI, IN and WI for nearly four months.

I will never again support, vote for, or work for, either you or your Vichy Democrats (aka Corporate Democrats).

Shame of all of you.

[bikingaz]

150. I'm for contraception but against public paying 4 abortion & viagra

proper birth control should be paid for by public monies.
lack of control should not.
and don't give me that bogus talk about forgetfulness , condoms breaking or latex intolerance, etc.
that is just bs

[ncteechur]

138. The game is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY ABOUT WINNING.

You are a FOOL if you think that it is not. It is all about winning. If Democrats lose, progressives lose. We all will suffer under a republican president. We have done that for 8 years. This is a center left country. If you want to push it more left, you better stay in the party and keep working it left. It is not a far left party. The independents that make up the middle 40% of the electorate will bend either way.

Quit being a baby, put your adult pants on, suck it up that the House passed a bill that you may not like and work to make it better in the next steps.

[Daemonaquila]

203. Honey, it's about winning the real fight.

It's not about winning for the sake of winning. Don Henley described the sellout centrist kids' attitude perfectly -

Today I made and appearance downtown
I am an expert witness, because I say I am
And I said, 'Gentleman....and I use that word loosely...I will testify for you
I'm a gun for hire, I'm a saint, I'm a liar
Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like....what's it worth to ya?
Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution
No remorse, no retribution
Just people selling t-shirts
just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning'

You know nothing about me, but it clearly gives you great comfort to think that the party has something to offer me in my own work. Instead, my best wins have come in the courthouse, the statehouse, and city halls with the help of other real bastards like myself and without the help of the party - but it's amazing how fast the politicians come running when they need the help of a winner. Thanks, I'll let the party come asking. I have no need to beg for scraps.

[lib2DaBone]

139. There are options open.. just where those options are right now is not certain..

one thing is clear.. people are dog-tired of the DLC Corporate Dems.

[WeDidIt]

140. Might want to check with the Republicans

to see how this same shit being demanded by teabaggers is working out for them.

Same shit, opposite side of the political spectrum.

:eyes:

[stevenleser]

151. Shhh, people don't like obvious facts raining on their parades!

;-)

[Kermitt Gribble]

144. Wow!!! Unbelievable post, Daemonaquila !!!!

I agree 100%. No more voting for the lesser of two evils, just because the lesser has a 'D' behind their name. Maybe the Dems will come back to the left after they lose our votes in 2010 and 2012. If not, we can unite behind a third party.

K&R!!

[Capn Sunshine]

194. and then we can all ride our unicorns off to magic marshmallow land

Right after we recover for the surgery to reapir the place where monkeys flew out of our butts.
Don't forget the free tatoos for all!

[Capn Sunshine]

195. Yes, the blue unicorn is humping the pink one

How apropos

[Kermitt Gribble]

197. Keep up the snark.

You so-called centrists keep trying to push us lefties out of the party and you'll be crying after 2010 and 2012. Since it's all about party victory for you, I would think you'd be trying to drum up all the support you can.

[Capn Sunshine]

208. I'm a "so-called centrist" because I think you're full of shit?

I'm a bazillion miles from a "so called centrist"
But then again, I do more than post on message boards in the internet tubes.

[Kermitt Gribble]

223. Well,

if you don't have any problem supporting politicians that work against your best interests, that's your problem.

[gtar100]

148. Absolutely correct!

The fact that big business buys off these lame DLC types and then pretends they are the shit just shows the soft middle of corporate America. Fearful of change, fearful of boldness and higher vision, always looking for the safe, easy way.

[Nikki Stone1]

153. Any suggestions about where to go?

If enough of us voted in a bloc, we could definitely send a message.

[defendandprotect]

189. I think it's up to someone like Howard Dean or Kucinich to -- and/or WOMEN, UNIONS ...

to move and then liberals/progressives can move with them in a bloc --

But while we are here, we certainly have to be targeting the C Street/Family --

and the Dinos/Blue Dogs and most of all -- the poisonous DLC.

[20score]

161. K and f'n R! Well said.

[defendandprotect]

169. The liberal/progressive block of Dems has to solidify . . .

know what they are planning, what they are doing, and where they are going --

Individuals don't matter to Dems -- a bloc movement would.

[w4rma]

172. BS. Keep the abortion debate out of the health care reform debate.

This bill isn't the place to make a stand on abortion. Just be happy with the status quo (which is the result of the Stupak amendment).

[Aleric]

188. You aren't paying attention

Obviously, you aren't paying attention. The Stupak Amendment does NOT maintain the status quo, it has the potential to take away coverage from women who currently have it. That's a step BACKWARD.

[defendandprotect]

190. Absolutely . . .!!!

[Xicano]

176. That was so very well said.

Thanks for posting Daemonaquila. This liberal is behind you.

[leftstreet]

191. K&R

[ProleNoMore]

193. Proud Progressive - I Stand With Dennis Kucinich

eom

[L0oniX]

198. F*ck the damned blue dogs, dinos, center right and the f*cking damned DLC.

The only one I will ever vote for again is Dem Kucinich 2012 or I will never vote again ...period! Fool me once ...fool me twice ...uhhh ...don't get fooled again. (stupid ass Bush fuck head anyway)

:wtf:

[athenasatanjesus]

200. Its al about the primaries

We need to stick with the democrats and just push them towards the left through primary battles.

[dreamnightwind]

219. You got it...

That's exactly the place to attack. We're still Democrats, it's the corporate Dems who don't belong, they believe in corporate profit over good lives for the citizens of this nation.

Fight it out in the primaries. What we really need is an organized progressive liberal democratic-socialist wing of the party that operates autonomously enough to organize, to fund-raise, and to win primary battles.

This already exists to some degree, with organizations like PDA and MoveOn. We need something a little more solid, an actual subparty that, at least at first, continues to live under the umbrella of the Democratic Party.

The more solid we can make this, the closer it resembles a real party, with its own platform, a refusal of corporate money, and candidates who truly believe in it, we can win some elections and put the fear of the left into the Democratic party leadership.

I saw Lanny Davis on the tube awhile ago, perhaps a month, anyway he was reminiscing about the way things worked under the Clinton administration. He said (I'm paraphrasing) they would invariably tack as far right as possible when trying to achieve results, and they'd expect the left to just suck it up and support them anyway, because the left had nowhere else to go.

That has to change. A 3rd party is one way, a subparty that wages primary battles is another way, and I think it might be more effective.

I have no doubt we could win some primary battles. And when we lose, it'll be up to each subparty voter to examine his/her conscience when it comes time to vote in the general election.

By the way, assuming you're really new around here, welcome to DU!

[maxpower]

201. Agreed

It started with Clinton moving the party to the center. We need to take back the Liberal mantra, and drive these assholes over to the right. My feeling is the anti-war sentiment drove a lot of republicans to switch sides. I'm sorry a leopard cannot change his spots.





Peace,
Max

[NJGeek]

205. ehh i'll stick with the party

good luck on the lunafringe!

progress is being made, that is all i want to see. progress.

[emsimon33]

206. Yes! You have spoken the truth.

[mistertrickster]

209. Because the alternative is RALPH NADER! (nt but heavy sarcasm)

[tomp]

210. kucinich 2012! nt

[saracat]

211. K+ R One of the best posts ever.Thank You

[Eric68601]

212. My vote is slipping.

I am also progressive. If I don't see reform in health care the way it should be. I will no longer support a candidate just because I see a (D). And as much as I like Obama, I would gladly cast my vote away if Kucinich ran for his seat and vote for him instead.

I'd personally have no probs with a split to the Progressive party.

[tomm2thumbs]

214. sitting on our hands for one election might teach a few some lessons

tough love has to be tough, or it doesn't work

[intaglio]

221. Could I suggest that the OP and supporters

Go form a message board called "Progressive Underground" if they cannot stay with the Democratic Party? Though this may sound like snark it is a serious point because of the UK experience.

Back in the bad old days of the 1980s and 1990s the UK was governed by a Conservative Party was able to move further and further to the right because of an ineffectual Labour Party that had surrendered to its extreme left wing at an organising level, and to inept or venal representatives on elected bodies. The reason for this ineffectiveness was that only the extremists were willing to do the hard work of organising because there were never any tangible results in the way of power, the inept representative were in place because they were harmless and the venal ones because they were corrupt and corrupting. Then along came John Smith, who began to change the old party and bring it back into the heart of politics.

John did this by embracing values nearer the centre and shutting down the noisy rhetoric from the far left wing, yet despite this John kept the left with the party and kept the party on the left. Because of John's sterling work Labour again became a competitive political party - but then he died and his place was taken by Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and the "New Labour" project. The Left resigned and moved into a multitude of minuscule campaigns. This moved the party into the centre right ground abdicated by the Conservative party whilst limiting the Labour social agenda.

This relates to the current problems of the Democratic Party because your "John Smith" has been elected President. Please do not think that Dr John Dean was your equivalent, for his British mirror is the much maligned and deeply underestimated Neil Kinnock; you even have a parallel Tony Benn in Dennis Kucinich.

OK, enough with the parallels - how does this relate to the current problems faced by people on this board? It relates because if the left separates itself from the main body of the Democratic Party it will allow centrists and deep right wingers more room to operate, again leaving the left isolated.

Why should the left separate? Is it because, for the first time in US history, there is a Healthcare bill which admits the principle that US citizens should have healthcare as a right? Remember however flawed this bill is it is this principle which is important not the flim-flammery that attracts the left wing ire.

Should the Left separate because the President has failed to initiate all of the policies they prefer instantly? Well, sorry, but in President Obama's view he cannot act in that dictatorial manner. Read "The Audacity of Hope" because in that book President Obama makes it clear that he is a constitutionalist who believes in the 3 arms of government. He may be head of state but his job is not making laws, for that is the role of Congress; nor should he judge the constitutionality of laws, for that is the ambit of the Courts. I believe from reading, that the President sees his job as the governance of the executive, the directing of policy and protecting the Constitution.

What role is left for the Left? Should they pick up their toys and leave, which will just allow right wing Democrats to pull the party to the right? Or should they stay and do what they do best, organising and working for more progressive Congressmen. The left must nurture the roots of the party, ensure that the RW are challenged at the Primary stage and, if necessary, removed. If the left accomplish this then the agenda of the left will, eventually, be fulfilled.

[jeanpalmer]

222. You say

"We can either stay in the party, vote our consciences, and fight every lose/lose proposal, or we can decline to participate, or even experiment in 3rd-party politics."

There is an alternative. Dennis Kucinich in 2012. I'd love to see a one-on-one between DK and Obama. DK has all the right positions. Unless Obama does a 180, DK would have a ton of support -- the kind that Obama had in 2008 - foot soldiers and donors. It would be worth fighting for, as opposed to voting for a Republican clone. It would divide the party, but the goal is to prevail on the issues. After 4 years of recession and Republican lite policies, the party and the country would be ready for a more progressive agenda.

In fact, I'm sending an e-mail to DK's office today to encourage him. The handwriting is on the wall. It's time to start preparing.

[mdmc]

228. --