DNC and fucking reactionary hacks track this: no party donations without choice & public option

[dusmcj]

Hey - you want to talk about playing with fire ? Try this: There's people out there who are tired of 8 years of failure to beat the Republicans with the most beatable candidate since Hoover fronting for them, the inability to come up with any more cogent tactic than to put the word "fight" in email subject lines, a lot of wealth-derived privilege and backroom politicking with precious little to show for it, and generally giving way to reactionary rollbacks of a modern civil society based on the primacy of individual rights because you have your tails between your legs just as much as the worst Republican when it comes to the prospect of losing your votes, you seat and your privileges.

You are burning the loyalty of millions of Americans who remember when the Democratic Party actually represented the public interest, and the human interest, when it wasn't in danger of being as compromised as the GOP by being beholden to money, and who have stood by Democratic candidates via Party mechanisms such as the DNC, DSCC and DCCC with donations and volunteer time.

We do not need a Party, rather a party needs members. Don't get the two directions confused. This is a representative democracy after all, and parties just as other institutions exist solely to serve the people. Not the other way around.

IF YOU DO NOT REPRESENT US WE WILL NOT SUPPORT YOU.

IF THERE IS NOT UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE AND FOR A ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION IN THE HEALTHCARE PLAN THAT THE DEMOCRATIC -MAJORITY- CRAFTS IN CONGRESS

and that unequivocal support is clearly implemented by Party leadership hammering reactionaries and go-slowers into line or into silence

THEN THERE WILL BE NO MORE SUPPORT VIA PARTY FUNDRAISING EFFORTS. NO MONEY FOR THE DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc.

ONLY DONATE TO INDIVIDUAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS. NO MONEY FOR THE PARTY IF IT FAILS US.

The polls are clear, a clear majority of the US public supports both reproductive choice and a public healthcare option worth the name. This demographic needs to be represented by Democrats in Congress. Failure to do so means they are either ignorant, or beholden to minority interests, i.e. corrupt. Neither is acceptable. You don't get to contribute to the Talibanization of American society, the GOP and millions of ignorami it effectively represents already have that squared away.

Wanna bet on characterizing my viewpoint as naive ?

You wanna bet that I'm a lone whackjob and that the party faithful will be brought into line ?

Try it.

To borrow a line from a movie, for every one of us you see there's a hundred ready to take their place. You want to bet otherwise ? Try it out and see where it gets you.

We're done with your bullshit.

[ProSense]

1. Yup, the 50-state strategy failed.

Let's all just pick who we want to support, with no organized effort behind each candidate, and see how that works.

I have my doubts.

[dusmcj]

11. time to prove that the Party will deliver what it got elected for /nt

[Le Taz Hot]

24. The 50-state strategy was Deans!

And just look at how this administration has treated him! And Obama's favorite, RAhm, trying to take credit for the 50-state strategy. Well, Dean's out now and Kane is going BACKWARD to ensure even more of the base bails. Trust me, it WILL go back to the 6-7 state strategy Rahm and McCullough loved so much -- and FAILED.

[depakid]

26. Rahm's the one who recruited the blue dogs- often at the expense of more progressive candidates

and it's come back to haunt the party.

[Birthmark]

2. You're not alone in the least.

I talk to many regular type people who voted for a real change last November. They voted for Obama and the Democratic Party. From their perspective, they're seeing very little. I think that many of them will pass up voting in 2010.

Personally, the Public Option was my line in the sand. If there isn't a strong PO...I'm done voting.

[Old Codger]

3. That is my plan

I will donate only to individual candidates that profess to have the same goals as the majority of the country,and a voting record that proves it not necessarily my views and wants but he nation as a whole as I see it...

[LeFleur1]

36. What if....

The "people" want to discriminate? What if they want spies monitoring your phone calls and other personal conversations? What if they want our government to torture anyone who they think might have information they could use? Majority rule does not work in these types of instances because too many people are either stupid or evil.

[rwheeler31]

4. This is a great strategy if you want another Gop rule.

[Old Codger]

5. From here

It looks pretty much like a GOP rule anyway, the people we voted in are too busy kissing repug asses and caving in to them to get anything of any real value done...

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. +1

:thumbsup:

[Bitwit1234]

19. You posted exactly how I feel.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. And we don't want GOP rule because...

... they might send more troops to Afghanistan? They might give bailouts to billionaires? They might propose a health care plan that leaves private insurance in charge? They might not prosecute the war criminals? They might continue extraordinary renditions? They might not do anything about outsourcing or predatory business practices? They might not stand up for reproductive rights? They might not stand up for GLBT rights? They might continue Bush's educational policies?

[rwheeler31]

12. We have no patience, why do you suppose all you wishes

have not come true in less than a year? This is tuff stuff if you are not up for it go third party.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Just ONE of them would have been nice

especially when you consider what FDR and Ronald Reagan and George Bush managed to do with their respective agendas in a year (much as I despised both Reagan and Bush). They didn't sit around wondering how to please the other party. They didn't take advice from holdovers from previous administrations. They knew what they wanted to do and they DID it.

[Dr.Phool]

33. If they would at least TRY, it would be nice.

[dusmcj]

16. they're not wishes, and when party anointees don't get that, it's Time For A Change (tm) /nt

[Old Codger]

23. Not at all

I am not saying any of this would be easy. The point is that they have caved every time, they didn't even give a half-hearted attempt at single payer, they came out of the starting blocks with it "off the table" because it would be hard to do, back when they took over congress Pelosi said impeachment of * and darth was "off the table" so another non starter... they won on our hopes of justice and they failed miserably I do not think they can do everything in a year or even 2 years or one term but they give up before they even start....if they had tried and lost at least they could say they tried but they did not even make a stab at it...some good things have come out, but non were hard to do if vote counts and lack of resistance from the other side means anything.

[dusmcj]

7. when it starts getting hard to find out which evil is lesser, why bother

absolutism on no legislation of private consensual morality - what I do with my gonads is no one's business except the consent-capable people I do it with.

no support for reactionary ignoramism in social or economic policy

prudent social spending which demands demonstrated personal responsibility in exchange for public monies

appropriate long-term policy formulation on environment, industry, labor and foreign policy which reflects both a clear understanding of the primacy of the public interest in all things, and that in regards to business that equates to prudent, necessary and sufficient regulation of business.

reestablishing and implementing a vision of the United States as being a prime contributor to leading the human race and the planet to a modern future of implemented individual rights for all living things, and humans living in a modern, educated, functional civil society with economic and political justice.

If the Party can't get it up to deliver that, what the fuck is my motivation for supporting it.

So far the Pres is delivering it significantly. If the Party can't keep up with its individual members who are doing so, it seems pretty easy to know where I'm going to put my money - I don't need apparatchiks who waste my donations. I do need public servants who represent me in public office.

[ShortnFiery]

13. +1 This time I will NOT feel guilty: Voting ONLY for Liberal-Progressive Democrats. eom

[JoeyT]

8. Sorry, that threat doesn't really work anymore.

Our party should be defined as something besides "The party that isn't the Republicans.".

[quiet.american]

9. I hear you. Apparently, there are some even here who have short memories & short attention spans.nt

[Greyhound]

41. Not at all, what we do have, and it's quite understandable that you don't recognize it,

after all, you haven't seen it for decades, is commitment to principles and the backbone to stand up for them.

[Daemonaquila]

22. If it quacks like the GOP, it might as well be the GOP.

I don't need a Democratic-Party-In-Name-Only in power. When the Dems sell out their core principles, they' don't get my support. The Rethugs were taken over in large part by ideologues playing hardball on certain party issues. Currently they're dealing with a fight over ideology from the far religious right as well as a very different, "traditional" conservative side and the remains of the neo-cons. Despite that, they're still keeping traction because they're sticking to certain (often sick) core principles and staying on message.

By contrast, the puny-brained DLC center wants us to compromise all principle for the sake of mythical party unity that results in no real progress for Americans. It ain't gonna keep happening. It's time that the Progressives in the party take a page from the GOP-sectarian playbook and start playing hardball with the DNC. I'll worry about keeping Democratic hands on the wheel, everywhere, at all times, when being a Democrat means something more than making "practical" decisions about which constituency group to throw under the bus for political convenience.

[dusmcj]

10. it's not time to stop voting, it's time to start raising hell.

If the Party's institutional memory is too short to remember Chicago 1968, that's unwise.

And if this statement of mine motivates any readers who might think themselves "Connected" to see if they can prompt some law enforcement interest in this ungrateful nonconformist, then 1. go fuck yourself, and 2. the public servants whose time you'd be wasting will have nothing to find. It's been tried before. Again, go fuck yourself. In advance. It'll save you time later.

If it turns out that the Democratic Party produces a net result which suggests that they too are shills to the ignorami, to the upholders of the status quo of the unquestionable sanctity of the pursuit of self-interest by any means necessary, that they too are equivocators who pave the way for the exploiters and defilers, then the Democratic Party will lose.

Don't jerk yourself off wondering whether this is a threat. Consider it a statement of historically well-founded fact.

[rwheeler31]

14. I know that the majority of people do so much better

when Dem's are in charge, but these things take time.

[PHIMG]

18. Sometimes a purge is warranted.

Something is seriously wrong with the leadership of this party.

[annabanana]

20. morning kick . . .n/t

[depakid]

21. "8 years of failure" -make that 9 years of failure on the policy front

and in the face of a Republican implosion. How pathetic. Seriously.

[pleah]

25. K&R

[unkachuck]

27. a big K&R....n/t

[Starry Messenger]

28. "We're done with your bullshit"

I can get behind that.

[Kaleva]

29. I've heard these threats for many years yet the end result is always the same.

People make solemn vows and proclamations but in the end, they convince themselves that the specter of a Republican victory is too great a risk not to support and vote Democrat.

I saw this happen in the old Howard Dean forum. Many Deaniacs said it was Dean or no one. But as Dean's campaign imploded, many quietly drifted off to the Kerry forum and to a lesser extent, to the Edwards forum. A few former Deaniacs would come back to the Dean forum every so often to cajole the dwindling, remaining few to get real and start supporting Kerry (Edwards) who had the only realistic chance of defeating Bush and thus prevent the destruction of this nation.

[Yuugal]

30. Its different this time

We have congress and the presidency locked up solid, something we haven't had for a long long time, and failure is not an option because the American people aren't as dumb as party people think. When the dems epic fail for the next year, the reps will take heart and we will get stomped in 2010. I'm just not budging anymore. I'm 44 and my whole life our progressive ideas are ignored while every piece of corporatist crap that comes along gets passed. I don't want to relive the 90's and Obama has made promises he not only didn't keep, he is off trying to get nafta II for the pacific rim so we can lose every last job left.

I am so done with this bullshit. Not one more dime EVER, unless its to a progressive. This policy applies to this site as well. If even one more progressive gets bounced for not towing the party line, DU will never see a cent from me again and I been paying for 5 years. I just paid yesterday and that was right out of my very limited food budget. All so I can watch the pom pom squad beat us down while the mods smile and nod to each other.

[dusmcj]

34. I will support individual Democrats; I will not support the loser machine

You didn't listen: since the Democratic Party machine is failing to serve our purposes, I will no longer fund it. I will only fund individual campaigns (which will most likely be Democrats). The point though is exactly that - it's not about affiliation, it's about platform content.

It is NOT a "group thing". Leave the herd behavior to the GOP, they're working hard to represent that evolutionary demographic.

[csziggy]

37. I will vote for Democrats over Republicans but will NOT donate money or time to DLC, DCCC, DSCC

Since Pelosi took impeachment off the table, I've been telling all those groups that I will no longer donate to organizations that do not reflect my desires or the will of the people. Instead, I donate to the individual candidates in my area that best fit my political views. I will not donate to people I cannot vote for, either because of geography or because of philosophy.

Of course due to the amount of money I've had to spend this year on medical bills, even with health insurance, I cannot donate money at all. So my donations will have to be work, volunteering for the campaigns of the people who I plan to vote for.

[BzaDem]

31. It is amazing to me how people like you actually think you are relevant.

Seriously. You should call the DNC and tell them this. They will laugh you off the phone.

You have it completely backwards. You do need the party, and the party does not need you. People in the party will be perfectly fine whether or not they are in power. If Democrats lose in 2010, there are plenty of cushy, well paying jobs for former Congressmen (in fact, they would probably make much more than they did in Congress). And aside from that, there are plenty of campaign finance loopholes that parties can use to make up for any money you lost (and then some).

You, on the other hand, obviously need the party, or you wouldn't be spending day complaining on a message board centered around that party. If you really didn't need the party, you wouldn't care enough to be angry about it.

To be clear, your strategy (withhold funding from the Democrats because they didn't win enough pro-choice/pro-public-option seats in Congress, as if somehow withholding funding will increase the progressive caucus's membership in Congress) is as naive as it is stupid. But I'm not really talking about the strategy here. I'm really wondering why people like you think you can single-handedly implement any strategy that will somehow take precedence over typical macro-political forces that affect any election. We will lose many seats in 2010 (with or without your money), because that is what happens to the President's party in midterm elections. Obama will be re-elected in 2012 (again, with or without your money). If you think you are somehow going to make the party more progressive by withholding funds from the party (as opposed to increasing funding), best of luck to you.

[dusmcj]

35. It's amazing to me how people like you think you'll create useful change

I uhh, need the party.

Bu-bye.

Macro-political forces ? I'll have a macrobiotic sandwich.

No, son (or baby), I don't need the Party. The party is going to hit a steep learning curve (with its forehead, it looks like) where all the hacks in cushy jobs you mention are going to whine about why we're not enthusiastic about paying out for the Party line, and the reply will be "because you weaklings didn't implement it". Because you were coopted just like the GOP you increasingly resemble.

And things will go back to what they should always have been, about the individual candidate and what platform they choose, and whether they represent their constituency, and whether their views align with yours and merit your vote. It's not a "group thing".

And yes, by the way, I'm exercising myself about this because I along with millions of others gave my money and time to Party actions, including the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and others. We had eight years of failure to beat a loser opposition, with a lot of mouthy emails with the word "fight" in the subject, but no one getting it up to tell people who used 'liberal' as a slur to go fuck themselves. In public, with the Party visibly behind the action. Instead, we got to see a lot of apparatchiks slapping themselves on the back about the victories BillC had won for them. And now we continue to see a lot of apparatchiks slapping themselves on the back about the victories BarackO is winning for them. Note the lack of action nevermind victory on the part of the apparatchiks themselves in this scenario.

Well, if millions of their fellows can be unemployed, so can the apparatchiks.

Thanks for your best wishes.

[Dr.Phool]

32. Response sent back to DSCC fund raising letter this week

Sorry Guys,

The Democratic Party that I’ve been a member of and donated to all of my life has become a miserable failure.

I will not send you another nickel. Ever.

You already have a Democratic Senate. You can’t do anything with it, and you’ve allowed yourselves to be captured by corporate interests, and Wall Street, and you no longer support the American people.

You’ll probably use the money to elect, and re-elect, more DLC trash and Blue Dogs. No thanks.

Sadly,
My Name
-----------------------------------------------------------------

And NO, it's not a hateful knee-jerk reaction. I'm a former Democratic congressional candidate. I've had my dealings with both Rahm and Ford, when they headed the DCCC. I've seen them both fuck over good progressive candidates during the primaries, in favor of Republicans they've recruited.

I've managed two congressional campaigns, and worked several other campaigns.

I resigned my DEC position in protest when our majorities continues funding the Iraq war. I changed my voter registration in, protest, when they gave telecom immunity.

When they start representing me again, I'll start supporting them again. And I ain't holding my breath.

[Kaleva]

38. The party is organised...angry individuals are not. Who outlasts who?

[dusmcj]

39. angry individuals, as long as conditions are not improved.

or are you peddling the futility of ethics ? "We all have to become corrupt and compromise, because expecting the truth to prevail is naive". That would be remembering your own failures, and looking for affirmation from others that you're not inadequate for "losing" (which language is part of the dualistic mindset of the slavers to begin with). Let's hope that's not what you're saying.

[timzi]

40. K&R - Love Seeing The Support - I've Already Protested To The White House

several times & will probably do so again. Link to add your voice, lets make it a chorus:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact