Is there common ground in this statement?

[MineralMan]

We must not allow the Republicans to retake control of Congress.

Is it possible that there are some who cannot make that an important principle going in to the November elections? That statement seems to me to be one that everyone on DU can embrace. If I'm wrong about that, I guess I'm missing something.

I realize that we hold many different viewpoints about how we reach individual goals, but is this not a common goal towards which we can all work together?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That should be common ground for everyone here.

All true Democrats should be in agreement with your statement.

I know I am.

Recommended.

[MineralMan]

2. Thank you, Peggy.

[tavalon]

72. CP, I'm a Democrat and from that point of view, I agree

But, I'm becoming unsure about whether these people I'm being told to vote for ARE Democrats. I certainly don't believe that DLC or New or Third Way Democrats are actually political entities that have any more to do with the Democratic Party than the name "Democrat".

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Um, yeah.

100%

[Toucano]

4. +1 n/t

[sufrommich]

5. You are not wrong, that certainly should be

common ground.

[The Magistrate]

6. It Certainly Ought To Be, Sir

[NanceGreggs]

7. It should be common ground here ...

... but it isn't. And that's a damned shame.

[MineralMan]

11. Well, if that's so, I hope some of those who don't hold that goal

in common with most of us will explain why in this thread. If they have a reason not to support that goal, I'd be interested in why they feel that way.

[NanceGreggs]

15. I doubt they'll show up ...

They're all too busy posting in other threads about how Obama is complicit with Bush/Cheney in crimes against humanity, how the Democrats don't deserve their votes, how this Administration has sat on its hands and done nothing (other than serve its corporate masters) for the past year and a half, etc.

[JoeyT]

59. Well they might not be doing that if he wasn't complicit.

Stupid facts. They suck!

[NanceGreggs]

97. What really sucks ...

... is the stupidity of thinking such statements are actually 'facts'.

[JoeyT]

100. Yeah, really.

I forgot that he actually DID prosecute for war crimes. Damn, I dunno how I missed that.
How bout pushing for (And getting!) the ability to assassinate Americans without trials? Or for more warrantless wiretapping? And we're still detaining people without trials. Secret prisons? Still open.

Stupid of me to remember all that stuff.
Care to have a shot at defending any of it?

[tavalon]

74. I wrote a note above about my concerns

and I would like to talk about them. I value the input. I'm in the process of trying to figure out where I stand and what works for me. It helps me to have dialogue. To see where my logic fails or doesn't and what that means for what I should do, day to day and in an examined life.

[tavalon]

73. Hey Nance! I'm back. I stayed away all of a month

[MineralMan]

8. The reason I ask, of course, is that the entire House of Representatives

and a third of the Senate are up for election in November. Without solid Democratic turnout and efforts to get out the vote in the face of general apathy, I think we run a serious risk of losing ground in both houses.

And that doesn't even mention the various state legislatures, many of which are also up for grabs in November, along with gubernatorial races and local races.

I sometimes fear that, in our disagreements about one thing or another, we will lose sight of a very, very important basic shared goal.

[ZombieHorde]

9. I hope so, Republicans are horrible at governance. nt

[tavalon]

75. So, apparently, are Democrats

That is a huge problem in my opinion.

[Scurrilous]

10. I agree with that statement.

100% :thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

12. We've got some tough local governor races too

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Chris Dudley as governor in November. 40% of the country doesn't identify with a political party -- OR the Greens.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes, we do. In Minnesota, it's especially of concern, now that

Target and other corporations are pumping money into the campaign of a virtual teabagger candidate. Current polling shows the Democrats ahead of him, but there are three of them running in the primary. It's going to require a good effort.

We also host the congressional district of the vile Crazy-Eyes Bachmann. There is a strong grassroots effort to support her opponent, but the district is a strong one for Republicans.

There are so many difficult races. On the gubernatorial side, it looks like even Texas is in play, however. So, there is some good news building. We must keep the momentum going, though, I think.

[sandnsea]

28. Chris Dudley is a genuine nice guy

Treasurer of the NBA players association. Very well liked by everybody. Set up a cancer camp for kids. Not teabagger at all, that I've seen. I wish he were a teabagger nut, I wouldn't worry a bit then. Oregon is too blue for that. My Congressional District isn't, which is why I worry about DeFazio a little, but the state is. People will either decide Democrats have done an okay job and let Kitzhaber back in to keep it going (10% unemployment?), or let this nice new sports guy have a chance.

[slay]

14. I don't know.

here's why. of course i hate the republicans. things go to shit every time they are in power. however. the dems are NOT stopping them. they are delaying them at best. there is the course of thought that letting the republicans destroy everything so they can finally be discredited once and for all is better than just putting little Dem band-aids on stuff which just delays the inevitable - total corporate/republican control of the country. if the Dems don't chart an IMMEDIATE 180 degree change in governing style from the republicans that is going to be the outcome. and too many Dems are already bought off especially in the senate so in some ways, it would be more logical to go pure republican until everything went to shit - which wouldn't be more than probably 8 years at most. i don't know. i couldn't vote republican personally but i may sit out the election. i don't like being given a shitty choice, and a less shitty choice. they are both still shit.

i have no faith in the Dems to change the horrible path we are currently on.

[sufrommich]

16. I'm sorry but I have loved ones here in this country and

I want a better life for myself and them. Letting the republicans destroy my country as if discrediting them is even remotely important is bunk. Your OK with living in a theocracy run by corporations as long as you can point your finger and say "I told you so".Fine, cling to any idiotic premise you want to,just promise to shut up and take it if your wish comes true.

[slay]

21. My point is it's going to happen either way

Nader wasn't wrong - the Dems and Repubs are very similar, just the Repubs are so much more open about it cause their supporters are stupider. I hope I'm wrong. I don't want a corporate theocracy forced on anyone's family. And I'm not saying go vote Republican. I'm just not sure the Dems are doing much other than masking the problem. :shrug:

[MineralMan]

17. Then what's your answer? Clearly, without strong Democratic

effort, we'll lose seats. So, how do you justify not working toward the end of increasing our majorities? I guess I just don't understand the logic in what you're saying. If we could get past that stupid 60 vote barrier in the Senate, I think we could make progress faster. Yet, you seem to think that doing something you haven't defined will solve the problem. Or is it that you just don't care any longer? I can't imagine that's true, since you're here posting.

[slay]

23. I don't have faith in the current Dems in the senate, that's for sure

and I don't have much faith in Obama. I'm not sure I want to support a party as corrupt as the Dems have become. I'll vote for liberal Dems most likely - but conservadems - it's something I'll have to think about.

[tavalon]

76. Don't forget that before the 60 vote bar was placed,

it was the 51 vote bar. I'm not sure I could stand the shame if they started a song and dance about how they can't get anything done without a 75 vote majority. This one was humiliating enough. Because I was physically and mentally abused as a child (have had tons of therapy), I'm very sensitive to being emotionally abused (no one physically abuses me. It's in my life contract) and these last 18 months have felt scarily like that. I've been ignored, scolded, mocked (fucking retard, anyone?) and now, I'm being told that if I don't give it all I've got in November, it will be my fault if the Republicans get back into power. That sounds a lot like passive agressive manipulation on the part of the Democrats.

No, I'm not looking for a pony, honestly. I'm just looking to be treated with respect and having my opinion heard (not necessarily acted upon the way I would wish, but at least acknowledged). No, I don't think for one moment I will get that with the other party, hence the reason I will vote for the Democrats, as embarrassing as it is, and hope that maybe this time, if I do everything just like they say, they won't hurt me again.

[Cleita]

18. An idea is kind of germinating in my mind that we

should be holding Tea Party-like rallies locally every weekend, ones where we bring up kitchen table issues that are of interest to most people. The idea came to me when I was talking to a patient in the waiting room at work yesterday. The man has a chronic injury from a previous job that is treated with pain killers so he can work. His present job as a blue collar worker knows this and even though his company demands regular drug testing they are agreeable to his drug use as long as he has a letter from the doctor that it's on the up and up. He says it's important for him to keep the job because he has teenagers to support at home and the job has very good benefits including health insurance.

So far so good. So one thing led to the other and by walking this working class dude step by step through his concerns and the needs of his family, I was able to convince him to register to vote and to get his wife to register as well, because this election was so critical. I told him we couldn't have Meg Whitman for Governor because she would be worse than Schwarzenegger and that she was an elitist billionaire who had no idea what workers go through. We needed Jerry Brown. I also told him he had left a budget surplus the last time he was Governor. He was believing the ads where Whitman has claimed the opposite. I repeated she has lied about this and her ads are not factual. He didn't know that she lied. I told him to get one of his kids to look up it up on the internet. He has no love for Arnold and recognized what he has done to California. Next I pitched Barbara Boxer against Carly Fiorini. This wasn't so hard of a sales job because he likes her. He knew nothing about Fiorini so I filled him in on the details.

To tell the truth, it was too easy and I wonder if he wasn't just being agreeable with me. However, it struck me, if he was sincere, that many people are concerned about those issues, their jobs, their health care and their children's education. He was upset that funding for the school buses had been cut and his kids have to get driven to school or ride their bicycles, not a good thing in a rural area. I told him that Jerry would probably like to bring those things back and that when Jerry was Governor before, we didn't have homeless and kids got a free education in the State College and University system. He didn't even know that.

So, I don't know what we would call ourselves. I think we need to talk plainly about what interests sincere people, not the wackadoo Tea Partiers and start a real discussion with main street, working Americans. I'm not really fond of the coffee meeting idea. Frankly I would rather adopt something more meaningful for a slogan or movement than a beverage.

[MineralMan]

19. That might be one route. However, from over 45 years of

experience, what I've found to work better than anything else is doing precinct walking and listening to people and telling them what Democrats are trying to do to solve problems like the ones faced by your example.

I know that I've heard many, many stories while talking to neighbors in my own precinct and have been able to give them reasons to register and vote for Democrats.

I think the teabaggers have worn out this whole Tea Party public gathering thing. It seems to me that the old time grassroots door-to-door activism is more likely to actually bring results. It's actually pretty easy to do, and every candidate is looking for people to do this. It's hard work, but it's also rewarding.

Note: It always seems to work better when you precinct walk in teams of two: One man and one woman going together to each house. People are more willing to talk to a couple like that and it's safer than a woman going alone. I've always gotten better results using that strategy.

[Cleita]

22. Unfortunately, in California precinct walking doesn't work

that well. We can mail in votes ahead of time and the last time I walked a precinct just about everyone I talked to had already voted. Not only that because it's rural, the terrain is rough, hilly and the houses far apart. I fell down a hill in Pismo Beach and injured myself, so I don't do it anymore. Now many precincts are vote by mail only in my county. They don't even have a polling place. However, we do have parks throughout the county that people go to and beaches that swell up with visitors from other counties, some of them very red on weekends. I feel the beach and parks could be a real opportunity to talk to people about kitchen table issues.

[MineralMan]

24. Adapt to the conditions, I guess. In vote-by-mail areas, it would be

important to start the door-to-door work earlier, too.

[Cleita]

26. Our Democrats and precinct leaders never do. n/t

[MineralMan]

43. Then, maybe it's time to become a precinct leader. It's more difficult

where you are than in Minnesota, I know, but it's worth a shot. In any case, you can contact individual candidates and coordinate with them and ignore the organization. That's what I'm doing in my neighboring congressional district. In my own precinct, I am the DFL precinct chairperson.

[Cleita]

47. Not me. I have worked with our local Democrats since

I moved here until I had enough with the last election and with them. I'm too old to be a precinct captain. Walking precincts in my county is a waste of time. We always did better working fairs and festivals, IMHO or having rallies, but like you, our Democrats still walk the walk of the dinosaurs and insist on precinct walking and phone banks even though they are no longer effective, because back during the Clinton era it worked pretty good. Things have changed.

[sandnsea]

29. Something like Organizing For America?

Gee. No shit. Maybe if we'd done that from the very first day the man asked us to, we'd have been ready to push back against the tea party Last Year.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ofasplashflag/

[Cleita]

33. Perhaps, but without any politicians involved or parties

frankly. I want American people to talk to other American people about kitchen table issues and then work on getting the candidates that will most closely address those concerns. Most likely they will be Greens or progressive Democrats, but right now with all the money campaign corruption going on I think we need to keep this local and among the voters not the candidates.

[sandnsea]

37. Who do you think those candidates will be?

Honest to god. That's the entire point of the OP. They aren't going to be Republicans or Libertarians, would that be correct? You're highly unlikely to find a Green that can get any kind of broad support, except in a handful of small pockets of the country and I don't think even Pacific Grove is one of them.

That leaves us with four months to support Democrats.

God. It's Not Brain Surgery for chrissake.

[Cleita]

45. And where did you read those suppositions in my posts?

I have already identified candidates, Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer as the candidates for the middle and working class individuals for the next election in California. Now we need to bring people over who are undecided and perhaps not even party members. I threw in Green because there might be a good Green candidate in the future. Jeez. This is what's wrong. It's all the polarization of each side. I want to bring people together because they have the same issues in common. No, I'm not interested in President Obama's version of bi-partisanship, which is really about capitulation to corporate interests, who also have their issues and preferred candidates. We need to bring everyone together who isn't a corporation or who doesn't have a huge trust fund that's invested in Wall Street. See?

Now the time is for plain speaking. Our futures are very much at risk and for you to degenerate this conversation into suggesting that it will turn everyone into Libertarians and Republicans because they haven't drunk the party Kool-Aid is not helpful.

[Orsino]

20. Only for those of us who are awake.

I'll listen patiently to a lot of criticism and bashing of the Democratic Party, but goddamn it, the fire alarm is going off! I hope that every voter with a conscience will work to keep the GOP from gaining any more power, anywhere. I'd love for the Republicans to give the Dems some moral competition, but I just don't see it--and that's a fucking shame. It means that our party's candidates don't have to do any better to get my vote.

All that said, I'll not deny anyone the right to stay home on election Day as a protest. But Jesus H. Christ I hope that person is contributing in other ways.

[tomp]

25. foolish.

the powers that be which reside above the president and congress are going to do whatever they want, irrespective of D or R in power.

politics is all theater. this, exactly, is what the american people need to learn, and really fucking fast. i pray that in my lifetime i will see
some movement in this direction.

people who claim to understand politics yet talk like D vs R is what it's all about are deluding themselves and others,
and should be considered dangerous.

you are trying to lead us into the trap of making how we go into 2010 more important than how we came out of 2008. control of congress
would be a cakewalk if not for obama.

the unavoidable essence of your post is calling on progressives to suck it up and remain within or come back to the fold. i will vote for and/or
support candidates i believe in, i.e., true progressives, period.

i'll vote for jonathan tasini in my nyc district, if that choice is available to me, but there is not enough common ground between us
to get me to vote for charles rangel, period (though based on demographics, it's not likely a dem will lose, even without my vote).

[MineralMan]

44. I'm not trying to lead you to anything. I'm just saying that we have

to keep the Republicans from regaining control of Congress. You either agree with that or you do not. If you do not, then I'm not interested. Sorry.

[tomp]

67. republicans already have control of congress...

...via democrats. i just hate to see people waste the their time and energy to my detriment.

oh, and so only people who agree with you should respond to the op?

i should have known. that kind of attitude is inherent in your position.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Yes

In my state for senator it's that piece of shit repuke Dino Rossi up against Patti Murray. Rossi lost the governorship so now he'll bring his corrupt ass to the senate.

Patti Murray and Rep. Jim McDermott are 2 of the very few state politicians I respect, Murray because of some hard word she's done for vets, and McDermott because he's a dying breed of lefty liberal AND he's going to try and reintroduce the public option. They get my money and my support.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. I'm very disappointed in Patti's votes in recent years

There were a few things lately that even corporate loving Cantwell got right and Patti managed to get wrong.

But there's no question that Dino Soprano is a vile scumbag land raping industry piece of shit who should never be allowed ANY public office again.

As for Jim McDermott, I only wish we could get someone as worthy as him in the 3rd district. :evilfrown:

[ismnotwasm]

32. Yeah, I know she's nowhere near perfect

To say the least, but she does work hard. I'm a bit biased because I have one adult child who is a Vet, and one who is National Guard. (It was some sort of bizarre rebellion on their part, had to be, and the one that's political doesn't care for Murray, too many BS mass military 'emails') But Dino Fucking Rossi, please God no.

McDermott just shines in my eyes sometimes.

Ewwww I just looked up an article for your district, I'm sure you've seen it? Or if not here's a puke making comment

OLYMPIA — David Castillo knows what Republicans want to hear as he campaigns for the 3rd District congressional seat.
"Conservatism is on the ascent," he says, like a preacher at the pulpit, "and our moment is at hand."



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012168502_3rddistrict21m.html

[DevonRex]

31. ...

All? Here on DU? No.

There have been several threads stating a contrary opinion that has been supported by many DUers of late. This is not to name any specific group because there are many different types of progressives on this board.

[alarimer]

34. I am not sure it matters that much

Having control of Congress has done much good so far, except to highlight the fact that 99.9% of politicians are corporate whores, including so-called Democrats, most of whom do not give a shit about actual people.

Frankly I am not even going to bother to vote, or if I do, it will be for "other" or none of the above.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Curmudgeoness]

40. You are kidding, right? With partisanship everything, we can't

allow Reps to take over in Congress. Maybe we are not getting all that we like (and reading all the threads on DU, I don't even know what that is anymore), but we are not going backwards right now. You don't have to like politicians, but you have to do what you can to protect this country. And that is keeping Reps out of Congress.

[Zhade]

35. My take is different: we cannot let CONSERVATIVES -- of any stripe -- take over.

Or, to be more precise, expand their ranks.

I don't care what they have after their name, conservative thinking is a proven failure, and it must not be allowed to maintain a stranglehold on our country.

[LWolf]

38. I absolutely do not want

Republicans to retake control of Congress, or anything else.

So that's a sliver of common ground.

How about this:

Can we agree that we must not allow conservatives or neoliberals of any stripe to control Congress?

Is that common ground?

The poster above has a point.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I think you need to define your terms.

Generally, I think most of the people on this site have similar goals, if different ideas on how to get there.

[LWolf]

41. It sounds like you

see people as "all over the map."

I'm curious about the OP's response.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. I do. Don't you?

Perhaps you can give a brief explanation of what, to you, constitutes "neoliberalism", and start with that.

Edit: The OP's response to you was, curiously, fairly identical to my own. As in, define your terms. Go figure.

[LWolf]

52. Here are a couple of pretty comprehensive

explanations of neoliberalism:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

They both adequately fit what neoliberalism means to me.

All over the map? Absolutely. I think that the terms "progressive," "liberal," and now even "left" and "leftist" are all over the map, along with people; there is no consistent agreement on what constitutes any of them.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Based on the 5 basic points of neoliberalism on the corp. watch site, I would agree with you.

And I would be surprised to see too many people defending those philosophical approaches, here. In fact, I don't.

But I also don't think that the leadership of the Democratic Party has been actively advancing an agenda of, say, deregulation (#3) these past few years. Perhaps the re-regulation hasn't come fast enough or is too watered down, but that's not the same thing.

[LWolf]

80. Charter schools = deregulation of public education. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

111. I think that's a bit of a stretch, but, fair enough.

Still, hardly indicative of a wholesale ideological inclination. I'd like to see more teeth in the re-regulation process, like with Wall St. (re-instate Glass-Steagall, etc.) but, again, an insufficient lack of enthusiasm for re-regulation is not identical to a push for further deregulation.

[LWolf]

113. It's a tool to achieve more de-regulation.

That doesn't mean that all charter schools do a bad job, although some do, and, on average, they do not not outperform regular public schools. Just that the bigger purpose is bad for education.

I agree that there should be more teeth in the re-regulation process.

[MineralMan]

42. I'd have to know your definition of conservative and neoliberal.

Here's how I look at it, on a state-by-state basis: Even the worst of the Democrats vote on the correct side most of the time. The Republicans simply do not. In fact, they've obstructed virtually everything since the 2008 election.

So, depending on the particular state, there may not be any truly progressive candidate on the ballot. In such cases, I would always choose the Democrat. He or she would, at least, vote correctly some of the time, while the Republican would never do so.

This same situation applies down to the individual congressional district, such as MN CD-6. You won't like Tarryl Clark's politics in some cases. You already hate Michele Bachmann's. Which is the better choice. Not voting gives you Bachmann in that district, because it is about +7 Republican. We can, perhaps, toss her this year. I'm for that.

I'm simply not an all or nothing sort of political animal. I'm about movement, not instant goal-reaching, because I've seen that that is impossible in this country.

Not voting is a vote for the Republican. Voting for a third minority party candidate is a vote for the Republican. I will not do that. You may say I'm not pure enough. I say, OK, I'm not, then. However, the Republican option is as impure as it gets. No, thank you, very much. That's my position, and I'm willing to put the hours in, like I've done for 45 years already. That's my commitment.

[LWolf]

48. I understand most of what you are saying, but

am a little confused about one thing. You say you are not an all or nothing political animal, but it sounds like you are, when it comes to party.

That said, I see some common ground. Often there is no progressive candidate on the ballot, so there is really no choice to vote for a candidate I'm not going to like. I've done that for decades.

I'm also about movement, and while I'm idealist enough to want to keep the ideals on the table, and at the forefront of the conversation in Congress and the WH (not just in online forums,) I'm okay with movement in the right direction.

What I'm not okay with is supporting a politician whose words, policies, or actions are moving us in the WRONG direction, just because they are a Democrat. Further movement in the wrong direction is a deal breaker.

Even if said politicians can't accomplish the movement I'd like to see, I want to see them working to do so, not running the opposite direction.

What common ground do you see here?

[MineralMan]

53. What I mean is that I don't insist that every candidate who gets

my vote agree with all my positions. I only insist that they will not obstruct progress. If I were a purist with my vote, there would never be a candidate I could vote for. Truly. Never.

Philosophically, I'm an extreme leftist who wants a pure Communist society. Well, that's not going to happen. That's always been obvious to me. So, I work with what's possible every time there's an election. The lesser of evils is still less evil than the alternative. Once in a while I get to vote for someone who is not so far from my philosophy, but that's rare.

I also treat all politics as local, since that's the only venue where I can have any real hope of influence. Who's running in Tennessee? I have no idea and am not that interested. That's up to the Tennesseans. They have to work on their own political choices. They aren't interested in what I think. My days of driving across the country are long over, although I did my share of that in the 60s and 70s. So, now, I work in my own district, city, county, congressional district, and state. I work for electable candidates exclusively, and I know the difference.

I'm not a political purist when it comes to elections. That's what I mean. I don't deal in generalities or names of political positions. I deal with what is, not what I wish it was. I deal with the realities of the politics in the place where I live. There is a difference in the way the run of Republicans do things and the way the run of Democrats do things. Not all the time. Not on every issue. Not always predictably, but it exists. I have to work with that. That's reality. I can deal with nothing else.

[LWolf]

56. Okay.

What do yo do when they obstruct progress? I have a specific example in mind.

To answer an earlier question, I associate "conservative" with religion, with authoritarian structure, with racism, sexism, greed, bullies, and nationalists, to mention the first things that popped into my head. Here are a couple of explanations of neoliberalism that fit:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalis...

[MineralMan]

57. If they're from my sphere of influence, I try to replace them at

the next election. But, I see few Democrats who habitually obstruct progress. They may not move as quickly as I'd like, or in the exact direction I wish they'd take, but...

Republicans, on the other hand, seem to obstruct on a continual basis lately, regardless of the issue. I hope they'll pay for that in November. The unemployment insurance extension was a good example. They even hurt the people in their own districts. That's a bad idea, in general.

Thanks for the links. I looked at them. Lots of gray shades out there, it seems to me. I don't know anyone who fits any particular definition, frankly. That's why I resist such labels. They seem too changeable and nobody seems to have the same definition for any of them. It's just too hard to figure out what each person who uses them means by them. So, I ignore them.

[LWolf]

82. I'll offer up one area in which

Democrats are moving in the absolutely WRONG direction, and obstructing progress: Public education.

Instead of instituting policies that would actually help schools close achievement gaps, they are escalating the (originally) Republican privatization and union-busting war on public education. There are so many things they could do to improve public ed, and every school in the nation; I've offered up a long list here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LWolf

It's not a matter of speed; education "reforms" are speeding ahead faster than most. It's direction, and the direction is blatantly wrong.

And Democrats have been habitually wrong on this issue for more than a decade. It's not a small issue, or a side issue. It affects every single person in the nation, most of them directly.


So...what to do?

[MineralMan]

84. Well, you're right about that. In Minnesota, there are two gubernatorial

candidates who recognize that and are promising to move in a better direction. I'll be voting for one of them in the primary on August 10. I'm with you on the need to change the direction education has been going. It's in a sorry state right now, and needs some big changes. Living in a large city, I see the results of it every day. It's very, very unfortunate, and needs to be moved to a completely egalitarian system that focuses on teaching students not tests. The experiment has clearly failed.

[LWolf]

87. It's good to find agreement.

I hope your new governor keeps that promise. To move in a better direction, it will mean not competing for federal "Race To The Top" funds. The President and Secretary of Education have made advancing quickly in the wrong direction a requirement for that federal money.

[MineralMan]

88. Oddly enough, the current Governor pretty much rejected that, too.

It's a confusing time. Nobody actually seems to know what will make our public schools work. Everyone has an idea, but none, so far, have done the job. Here in Minnesota, the biggest problem is inequity in our school systems. As it has been for a long time, the inner city schools get crappy results, while the suburban schools are turning out some pretty good education. Oddly enough, those suburban schools spend lots more money. Interesting, to be sure.

One of the things I'd like to see is a legal requirement that all schools in the state spend exactly the same amount per student, then an amount set that would provide proper teacher:student ratios, with provisions on how those student dollars could be spent.

Dump the constant testing and let our teachers teach their students the academic subjects the students need to learn. If a school fails, dump the administrators of that school at once and bring in some new ones who will understand that they have to succeed or they'll be out on their ear, too.

We know how to teach children. Many schools are very successful at that. Use those schools as models and implement effective TECHNIQUES for teaching. Implement the administrative tools that work in those successful schools.

It's very, very frustrating to me. We can see schools that work, and yet we keep right on doing the same stupid things that don't work. Uff da!

BTW, we probably agree on far more than you'd suspect.

[LWolf]

91. Those are good points.

What we know (and by "we" I mean educators) is that one of the biggest factors determining success in school happens before students ever hit the doors in kindergarten.

Brain research tells us that birth - 2 years, more neural connections that will be needed for academic processing are formed than at any other time in life. From 2-4 years, things slow down a little, but are still outpacing what the brain will be doing later.

Those connections are formed, and strengthened, by physical activity, by exploring, touching, hearing, by direct interaction with the world and with people in the world. Children that come from more enriched homes have brains wired for success. Those that don't, don't.

Research also tells us that we can stimulate brain development in school, too. So those that come less ready can be moved forward. The thing is, so are their more ready peers, which is why some are perpetually behind.

That's why I put poverty at the top of my list of things to address in order to improve education. Why I support universal public preschools. And why I support making schools community centers that extend opportunities to students and families for support and enrichment.

All of the changes on my "wish list" are directly related to factors that affect student success. It's frustrating to know what we need, and to see us racing AWAY from what we need, instead. Educators actually have a pretty good idea of what works. We just don't have the support of enough of the public, or enough politicians, to make those things happen.

I know we agree on many things. I appreciate your effort to find common ground.

[MineralMan]

93. I agree that ending poverty is the first step. That's one of the

main inequities in our society. I have no idea how to do it, though, within the framework with which we have to work.

[ismnotwasm]

98. You're so right about education

I don't understand the move toward 'charter' schools, unless it's a purely political strategy with no investment in actual outcome for education in general. I think our political system is broken in several areas, and no where is that clearer than in education and health care.

I make a middle class income now--well I guess; I'm a nurse-- but it wasn't always that way. I was very poor. I listen to my middle class co-workers complain about 'public' schools. Many of them can afford parochial or other private schools, or they simply move out of the city to smaller, homogenized areas and commute. They're the types vote against levys to support public school funding because it often raises property taxes. They're the ones that continue not only 'white' flight, but a classist flight, the middle to upper income folks don't want their children mixing with the children of poverty, because they don't want to deal, or even see the obstacles poverty constructs for human beings.

It seems that words 'public school' have been framed to have a negative connotation to many Americans, even the ones that send their children there. (It's like what happened to the word 'liberal' or 'feminist') It's quite disgusting.

A little off topic, but you reminded me of something. I was talking to a patient of mine who worked with troubled youth, well make that criminal youth. We were talking about the justice system in general, we both agree that children shouldn't be tried as adults. I was saying something like 'kids need to pay the price for crime committed early and not be allowed to slip through the system until they're institutionalized"

He said something like "No, it needs to start before that, it needs to start with the little ones. If we funded and staffed schools properly, a good social worker could spot a kid headed for trouble BEFORE they get there and get them pointed in a different direction"

He is right

[LWolf]

104. He IS right, and that's one of the changes I believe in. nt

[LWolf]

105. I don't think there IS any one thing, or few things, that

will eradicate poverty. I think it's a long, uphill process that will require all kinds of things.

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care, or just national health care, would be a big start.

Ending NAFTA/CAFTA and outsourcing, and making sure that everyone who wants a job can get one, and can earn a living wage, is another step.

A strong set of safety nets for those who can't work. Universal, free public trade school or college after high school.

Affordable, high-quality day care, and before-and-after school child care.

Those would at least be a start. Connecting schools with resources and people to coordinate help to struggling families is part of that.

Closing the socio-economic/class gaps is just as crucial as closing achievement gaps, and, not coincidentally, they are closely connected.

[sandnsea]

46. What's your strategy?

How do you propose to keep a conservative from Tennessee or a neoliberal from Connecticut from taking office?

[LWolf]

50. This OP offers strategy I like:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8807838

Tennessee? Connecticut? I don't live there, I don't vote there, and I've never been to either place. It has to start with the voters in those states. Kind of a "think globally, act locally" effort. For my part, I'll be on board to do whatever I can to keep conservative central/eastern Oregon from re-electing Greg Walden.

[sandnsea]

58. Oh good. You keep Greg Walden from getting elected.

YOU do that. If everybody else in the country can do it, why certainly it should be a snap for you.

Let me know how it's going.

[LWolf]

79. Disingenuous of you

to pretend that I said I could do that. You know better. Are you trying to tell me that Walden can't be taken down, so I, and everyone else in his district who would like to see him gone, should just not try?

Are you disappointed because I have a goal that benefits the Democrats, and you'd prefer to frame me as an enemy?

Is it personal?

What?

[sandnsea]

99. You mean you haven't been trying?

I was sure you'd been trying your asses off. I'm sure Democrats in more conservative states are trying their asses off. I'm sure we were all deliriously happy when Jim Webb was elected, and look at the assinine "myth of the white privilege" piece he just wrote. Sometimes the best a district can do is agree to try to keep Republicans out. Sometimes a district can't even do that much. So if you can't even change your own backyard, why do you continue to think the solution is beating the fuck out of the people who have managed to change their backyard.

[LWolf]

103. I'm thinking that, despite the subject of this thread,

you aren't really too interested in finding common ground.

That's too bad.

[Wounded Bear]

49. You and I are in strong agreement there.

I'd love some better Democrats, but I will NOT support a Republican. I also will not vote 3rd party in any close election. I know that is not entirely ethical, but it's what I must do.

I do have some hope. It seems the Repubs are not sdvertising their party just yet. Most signs I'm seeing say "GOP" or have the "R" in small type. :)

Unfortunately, my state has taken the "partisanship" out of many races, and it is not always easy to spot a stealth candidate.

[Hekate]

54. Kick and Rec

[MineralMan]

55. Thanks. I do wish, though, that people would quit bouncing that

Obama ball off my woodchuck's head, though. ;-)

[JoeyT]

60. Yeah, I can agree with that statement.

I may not like a lot of the elected Democrats, but at least they're not batshit crazy.

[DevonRex]

61. I agree with that statement, as do some others here. But...

not all DUers agree with that statement, at least not without caveats added to it - as we have seen in this thread.

[MineralMan]

63. So I've seen. Still...if those of us who do work hard, we'll

prevail. Not necessarily today, but in the long term. And progress is almost measured in decades, not in months or years.

When I drove away from Birmingham, AL in 1965, after driving there from California and listening to Dr. King speak, I wasn't at all confident that things would change. I was 20 years old, and impatient to see the changes. It was disheartening, and I ended up joining the USAF not long after that, just to make a break from my life for four years. It did give me time to think, and that was a good thing.

The changes in the rights of different races are still not complete, some 45 years later but, looking back, they're most definitely there and the movement has been relatively steady.

In 1965, birth control pills were still rare, and women got their abortions in unsafe ways, when necessary, unless they had lots of money. I don't believe there were any, or only a couple, women sitting in congress. Progress has been slow, and is still ongoing, but progress there has been. Quite a lot of progress, and I don't think we're going back.

Those are two areas where I've been personally involved for a long, long time. There was plenty to be discouraged about, but little by little, progress was made.

There are a number of areas where progress has been less successful. We're still fighting stupid wars we should never have been involved with, and we seem stuck and not moving. Environmentally, we're still way behind where we should be, although there are signs of progress in that area, too. GLBT rights, which weren't even in my consciousness in 1965, have improved, but not enough. People can marry each other today, in six or seven places in the US, and that number is going to grow. DADT is about to go away. It'll probably take a few more months, but it's about to go away. Progress. Slow progress, but progress nevertheless.

When I was in high school, I thought it was inevitable that we'd end up in a nuclear war with the USSR. In grammar school, we had those under-the-desk nuclear attack drills, and my father actually built a fallout shelter under our house. I had nightmares in my early teens where nuclear explosions were going off in Los Angeles, about 30 miles from my rural community. It looks like that threat is winding down, though, and isn't a primary concern these days. That took a long time, too.

I'm 65 years old, as of next Thursday. Looking back at the way things were in the 50s and 60s, that progress is clearly visible. It wasn't at the time, and things often seemed like they'd never change.

Some things I've worked on and am still working on will not come to fruition while I'm still alive, I imagine. There it is. Life's brief. But, all of them are moving, if at a glacial place. The acceleration hasn't occured yet, but I'm confident that it will. I'm too damned old for defeatism any longer, and I've seen too much progress.

[Chan790]

62. No.

Sadly. It's gotten that far. On the issues I care about, unless the elected Democrats grow spines immediately, there is actual-zero substantive difference for me. I just can't care if the GOP retake the House and fuck you on your issues if it means a decisive defeat for the ruling-oligarchy of this party.

Pelosi, Reid and Rahmbo probably need to lose their jobs before I will give a shit again. President Obama needs to become more liberal than "they" accuse him of being.

I've said my piece...I ain't opposing the Democrats but I sure as f*ck ain't supporting the moderates, pragmatics, centrists, corporatists, DLCers, or fiscally-conservative Democrats. Fortunately for you, I can safely go to the polls in November and cast a straight Democratic ballot without supporting any of those. I probably will. I might throw a vote or two to the socialists. 'cause right about now, I like them better.

[Jamastiene]

65. Of course, there is, but it needs to be amended to be truly effective...

We must not allow the Republicans to retake control of Congress AND we must do everything in our power to elect more Democrats who vote like Democrats more often than not.

In order to be truly effective, we need more Democrats who will quit cozying up to the Republican party and ffs, quit voting with them so often. Just a few of them, and we are rendered ineffective enough that progress is slower than cold molasses, if at all. Replace just a few of them with more solid Democratic voting progressives and we could make progress much better and not be hampered as much.

There is power in the primaries as well as the general election. Sure, the general election is the put up and shut up time, but the primaries are VERY important too.

And before anyone says it, in case I have storms again later tonight and cannot answer, no, that tired old meme about "no, we can't" get more progressive Democrats in some areas of the country won't fly with me. Don't even go there. I don't want to hear it, because it is Debbie Downer, Nervous Nelly, negative bullshit.

I've seen solid bona fide progressives like Elaine Marshall and Bev Purdue kick major ass in a state that was extremely red not so long ago. President Obama took this state in 2008 also. If anyone had asked me if my state would have gone so blue in 2008, I would have laughed in their faces, then I started seeing progressives get out the vote like never before. Now, this place is on its way to being a contender as possibly a swing state.

If NC can do this, ANY state can do this. "No, we can't" is the cry of quitters. Can't expect to get anywhere if you quit before you ever even bother to try. Yes, the fuck, we can, dammit. If NC did it, any state, county, city, hamlet, podunk, or district can do it. Trust me on that one. I've seen it done. Nothing can convince me it is impossible now, because I have seen it done.

Hard as hell? Yes, lots of work involved.
Impossible? Obviously not.

Anyone who was thinking about saying it, don't even go there. I've already answered any possible negativity on that front ahead of time.

[Stinky The Clown]

66. Shame on you.

You've been four square in the game being played to alienate a good bit of the Democratic base and then you post this jingoistic nonsense with your chin all stuck out.

Tell ya what, Mineral Man, I'll be doing all I can do to get as many good Democrats elected as possible. And if that isn't possible, I'll be working for any candidate who I can vote for who is not a repubican.

Just as an example, were I in Florida, I'd be advocating for Meek, the Democrat, not LIFELONG REPUBICAN Charlie Crist . . . . as some here have been openly advocating and describing as "outside the box."

Shame on you for posting this.

I know you'll come back with a faux innocent "who me"? To which, were I to respond, which I will not, I would reply: "yeah, you."

Good evening, Mineral Man.

[MineralMan]

77. Thanks for your input.

I've been strongly advocating that people NOT vote for Crist, but for the Democratic candidate, and for the same reason you mention. Crist is a Republican, through and through. That opinion is completely in keeping with the reason for this OP.

The only actual statement I made in my OP that I hoped there was consensus agreement for was:

"We must not allow the Republicans to retake control of Congress."

Do you disagree with that statement? If so, I don't know what to say. That was the subject of the OP you seem to be shaming me about. That's it. I post other things, as well. This thread is about agreement or disagreement with that particular statement.

[Stinky The Clown]

78. Already asked and answered

Hint: Look for the bolded text.

Do I pass your loyalty test?

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

83. What loyalty test? I can't demand anything from anyone. I can only

ask questions and give my opinion. That I have done. I'll continue to do that. I can't compel you to write anything or keep you from writing anything. I'm not sure what power you think I have. I'm just a 65 year old guy in Saint Paul, MN. I am the chair of my local DFL precinct organization, such as it is. That position gives me no authority, either. Here, I'm just another DU member.

So, I can't administer any sort of loyalty test. It was a simple question. A number of people answered it. Some agreed that they could hold that sentence as common ground. Others said they could not. Some, apparently misunderstood the question and answered a question I didn't ask. It's DU. All of those replies were just fine. They were the opinions of individuals. I agree with some and disagree with others. That's life.

You appear to have some sort of animosity toward me. That's your privilege, but you sometimes say that I believe things I do not believe. I will correct such misstatements. That's my privilege. You're not even under any sort of compulsion to even read my posts. DU provides a tool that allows you to ignore everything I write. That's also your privilege.

The only thing that is certain is that I will continue to write here. I will ask questions and post my opinions. I'm sure that's OK with you.

[Stinky The Clown]

86. "who me?"

Have a really good day, friend.

Buh bye.

[defendandprotect]

68. If you've heard anything but that here . . .

then I think you misinterpereted what was being said --

We have to move this administration to the LEFT -- without losing ground or going

backwards --

If Obama can't handle that, then we need another Democratic candidate who will do it --

Feingold, Whitehouse, Grayson -- whomever --

[Hydra]

69. Huh...this was a weird post

Especially when you told the person further up that you weren't interested if the person doesn't agree with you.

How about we start here though, and I'll pretend for the moment that you aren't pushing an agenda:

Of course we want Dems in Congress- where are they? I count too many Repubs in Dem clothing at the moment.

[KakistocracyHater]

70. no, instead: we must not let America drift rightward one more inch

*

[tavalon]

71. I'm unsure

Hear me out. I'm still figuring this out so it's a musing in process. On the face, it's just blind/dumb obvious that the Republicans must not retake control of Congress. But, what if, by taking it back and exposing their Party of No tactics to the average, low information voter or even the low information/can't be bothered to vote potential voter, a huge groundswell of protest, even revolutionary change happens? What if the Democrats are just the kinder, gentler face of corporate fascism that keeps us calm while destroying us just as surely?

Since I don't know if I'm really seeing things correctly, I'm going to vote for the Democrats solidly in November but honestly I feel the same shame I would feel if I were an abused wife, with my black eye and my broken leg, hobbling into the jail to bail out my husband and take him home.

[blondeatlast]

81. I'm in agreement--and we need to make sure our party whips are on our side, too. nt

[MineralMan]

85. Yes.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Well I see tons of support here for Crist and he's not a Democrat

My electeds are and will remain Democratic. No Republican has ever taken a seat in an election I voted in, in the House or the Senate. I'm just lucky that way, so all of this whining is not something I understand. My Rep agrees with me about the administration's compromising strategy. Not with Rahm, with us. Voting for him is easy as pie.
It is all y'all in those places where Republicans keep winning, and Conservadems keep winning, it is y'all that have work cut out for you. CA. Gunna elect Fiorina and Whitman, because rather than working to elect Democrats, they are whining that other Democrats do not behave as they want them to, and whining that gay people have goals in life, and simply whining rather than canvassing, phoning, fund raising. What can be said.
My Democrats get elected. How about yours?

[MineralMan]

94. I've been saying that Crist is a very bad idea for some time.

He is, and will always be, a Republican.

[hulka38]

90. In your attempt to seek common ground

going into this thread, did you have a particular group in mind you were singling out with this question?

"Is it possible that there are some who cannot make that an important principle going in to the November elections?"

It sounds like a divisive or possibly coercive question couched in an apparent appeal for unity.

[MineralMan]

95. It was a question. I was trying to see if we could find some

common ground to use as a beginning to start working on the problem. Some people seem to have misunderstood my intent.

[hulka38]

106. It seems that there was some doubt in your mind

as to the commitment of some here towards keeping the majority.

[MineralMan]

107. There is. Some of the things I've read indicate that some DUers

are planning to sit out this election. Yes, I am concerned. Is that surprising?

[hulka38]

108. Not surprising. It's what I thought you were getting at.

Any, uh, particular group you were concerned about?

[MineralMan]

109. It's a valid concern. I was hoping that everyone could agree that

a prime concern would be to keep the Republicans from regaining power. I was hoping that I could introduce something we could hold as a common goal. What on Earth is wrong with that.

No, I don't have a specific group in mind. There are several such groups. Take your pick.

Bottom line is that if we cannot agree on even the most basic goal, we'll agree on nothing. What is your disagreement with the basic thing I set out in the first sentence of my OP?

[hulka38]

110. Keeping the majority is a valid concern.

You're also concerned that certain groups don't share that goal and you have several groups in mind that might fit that profile. How would you describe these groups you're concerned about?

[MineralMan]

112. That's simple. Those groups are made up of people who will sit out the election

or do something else, rather than voting to keep Republicans out of office. It's not so hard to figure out.

[hulka38]

114. Well, you've got the circular logic down

but have you given any thought to the groups' political philosophies and identities - that's what I'm interested in. Or do you want to avoid that.

[MineralMan]

115. That's not the point of the thread. So, sorry, but I'm not going to

start naming names or whatever it is you want me to do. I've been pretty clear with what I'm talking about. You can interpret it as you wish. I think we've exhausted this particular subthread.

[hulka38]

116. You wrote in the OP and elsewhere in this thread your concern about some people

and groups not sharing the same goal of keeping the majority. To be clear, I'm not asking you to name names of individuals, that would be wrong and against the rules, but again to clarify what group of people you're talking about. If you don't want to clarify this then what can I do but accept it?

[Cresent City Kid]

92. The problem is really two problems

We have the republicans who we know will go right back to trickle down and try to repeal whatever progress has been made by the current Congress. Plus we have the Democrats who cover a wider range of ideologies resulting in slow or watered down progress. Solving both of these problems will have to done at different speeds. Keeping the GOP out of power has to be done right freaking now. Moving the Dems to universally supporting real progress will take time. Much of the electorate and their Democratic represenatives need to be educated. This needs to start right freaking now.

It sucks that our choices are two more years of what we have now, or a step back toward Bushism. My personal view is that we need to keep the republicans out of the driver's seat for as long as we can. Keeping the Dems from taking us to the same place is a separate, and equally important undertaking.

[MineralMan]

96. I agree completely with that. We do need to rid ourselves of

the Blue Dogs and other Democrats who work against progress. That is a local issue, and must be solved by each congressional district each state. As individuals, it's very difficult to operate anywhere but in our own states and districts.

[NJmaverick]

101. I certainly hope there is

[mstinamotorcity]

102. If it isn't

then it should be. Even though the major legislation that has been put through congress did not address all the issues I have concern over,there is no way in HELL that I will choose the repug party to run this country ever again.And will be keeping my eye on my own Democratic Party.