Bill Moyers: Change can't come from within the two parties. They are frozen, paralyzed, purchased.

[Better Believe It]

Bill Moyers: 'We Have Two Parties Serving Corporate America and No Party That Serves the Middle Class or Working People'

Published on Friday, November 25, 2011 by The Open Mind / PBS
The Open Mind: Bill Moyers Journal... The Conversation Continues
Interview with Bill Moyers
Originally aired on July 9, 2011


MOYERS: … I, I honestly … I saw a poll the other day … 52% of the American people believe that both parties no longer reflect their interests. And I am part of that 52%. I can no more defend the Democratic Party than I can praise the Republican Party. I mean I don’t understand the weird things going on in the Republican Party. I do not understand this marriage of ideology and the language and, and, and the irrelevance, the immaturity of their political discourse, the sheer opposition that they set out to mount against Obama … that partly due …

But I do know why the Democratic Party is corrupted. They decided that they would go to the same sources of great wealth … corporations and others … and they are today in thrall to many of the same corporate and rich powers that the, the Republicans are.

We have two parties serving corporate business America and no party that serves … ideally … that serves the middle class or working people. And so I, I’m without a party, Dick. I know we always have to make some choices in election … you make a slight degree of … you’ve got to cast your vote so it’s this decision based on this differentiation.

It cannot come from within the two parties today. They are frozen, paralyzed, purchased. And so it’s got to come … Howard Zinn’s great message … and he was a flawed historian … he was … we know that from his life and his records. But he got this right. He said, “Do not look to your leaders to bring about change. Change comes only when people organize and fight from outside the system, when the change that they need … everybody he said … every ordinary people … every ordinary person should be a history maker”.

Read or see the TV interview at:

http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/media/bill-moyers-journal/2330/

[coalition_unwilling]

1. Cue the anti-Naderites in . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .. 1 - n/t

[bvar22]

12. Uh-Oh... Here comes a flock of Waaa-Waaas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnSIUc2KX-M






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Enthusiast]

58. I was going to post a follow up with that link

after reading your header. You beat me to it. :rofl:

[FreakinDJ]

65. If Nader said it no one would listen to him

[Xtraneous]

104. Yes, because, like Howard Zinn, a hero of history, and all other humans

he had flaws. So tell me, who else has been right for so long on so many issues so consistently? It was not Nader who screwed the Democratic Party, it was the Democratic Party in running a putz, weak candidate (thanks to the DLC) who refused to challenge the election fraud caused by Republican election bureaucrats, corrupt machine/software companies, the corporate media and the corrupt supreme court. Nader has focused most of his attention on the format of our purchased government. He is one of the reasons why it is so important that OWS resist any attempts at singling anyone as a leader. Because then even its supporters will eat the movement alive based on such human flaws no matter how charismatic that person may be.

Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com, who's been a hero to the voter (of both parties), to the foundation of our democracy. Someone who has consistently stayed focused on the corruption of our electoral systems, has never berated Mr. Nader for his candidacy. And why is that? I can't answer for him, but I suspect because he is a real journalist, not a party dupe like the posters here who won't let go of an extremely inaccurate, biased evaluation of the facts.

[Scuba]

120. +1

[patrice]

159. "Oh air, pride, plume, here BUCKLE and the fire that breaks from thee then . . .

a billion times lovelier, more dangerous, Oh my chevalier!

G.M. Hopkins' The Windhover

[rtassi]

174. + another

[cantbeserious]

2. Yes - Moyer's Speaks The Truth - Is It Time For DU To Become 99% Underground?

eom

[Better Believe It]

5. No. Keep it DU. But Moyers views are certainly worthy of thoughtful discussion on this board.

Because we want to keep it a democratic discussion board where all progressive points of view are welcomed.

[indepat]

44. Sadly to me, so many of my progressive views have been flamed on this

board. Guess it serves me right for not supporting the many RW policies and agendas continued/initiated by this Democratic administration. :shrug: :patriot:

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

50. 99% Underground better than DU which suggests alliance with "Democratic" party ... !!

Would be a healthier situation to move to "99% Underground" --

The nation is progressive -- this is a liberal nation --

that's why elites have had to corrupt our politicians and take over the press --

that's why they've had to invent dozens of RW think tanks and fake organizations --

from GOP's Christian Coalition to GOP's "pro-life" murderers -- !!


On and on - a Hollywood Soundstage set of faked organizations --

including more than 20 years of Koch Bros. funding the DLC take over of the Dem Party!!

[Better Believe It]

63. This isn't Democatic Party Underground (DPU)although many here vote for Democratic Party candidates.

I understand your points. I'm just not so sure that would be the best way to continue the promotion of the broadest democratic discussion and debate among DU'ers who differ on the whether or not the Democratic Party can be reformed or taken over by true progressives.

I think we can agree to disagree on this matter at this particular time without excluding or marginalizing advocates of any particular political strategy. I believe DU'ers should continue to mobilize and organize in united mass actions (i.e. OWS) against the ruling rich that we can agree on while at the same time respecting and debating the different opinions on what kinds of electoral activities we should engage in.

[defendandprotect]

93. Are you sure?

After all, not much of anything but Democrats and supporting them can be discussed

here -- right?

And we do need the "broadest democratic discussion and debate" right now. Especially now!


And this is exactly the point ....

whether or not the Democratic Party can be reformed or taken over by true progressives

That's a very limiting way to look at things -- politics of, by, and for Democratic Party.

Think we need that "broadest" discussion of what our other options may be.


After twenty and more years of Koch Bros/DLC how do we find out what's left?

Is Obama what's left?

And what kind of an opiton is it to vote for EITHER of the two corporate parties?


OWS is timely and where we should be going -- no doubt about that!


However, the Democratic Party is now under the control of the Third Way which is even

further to the right than Koch Bros/DLC --

and soon DU will be very seriously involved in raising money for them --

Just before Obama entered the White House, DU passed along $280,000 from DU members to

the Obama which certainly also benefited the DLC and Third Way.

I think there's a lot to think about here -- including the idea of a name change.




A few weeks ago, I happened to catch Jonathan Cowan, Pres. of Third Way on C-span --

Cowan was making clear that the stance/policy of Third Way/Democratic Party is that

"the base of the party is to be ignored."

Further, that "populism, populist discussion is the equivalent of Karl Rove propaganda

of extremism."

Is that really what you want to support in any way?

[Auntie Bush]

172. Nonsence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

"the Democratic Party is now under the control of the Third Way which is even

further to the right than Koch Bros/DLC -"


The Dems are even further to the right than the Koch brothers??????

Where do you get your information/misinformation?

Who are you trying to defend and protect?

[defendandprotect]

197. Evidently you've read nothing here re the Third Way and Democratic Party?

What I said was that the Third Way is moving even further to the right than

the DLC -- which was funded by Koch Bros.


A few weeks ago, Jonathan Cowan, Pres. of Third Way which now controls the Democratic

Party made these comments on C-span about their policy/stance ---

which is that "the base of the party is to be ignored" --

and that "populism and populist discussion/debate is the equivalent of Karl Rove propaganda

of extremism."


New Deal is now Karl Rove extremism?



Many posters here have posted information on Third Way -- I'll include what I've saved of

it -- but there is lots in the archives if you know how to use it. Keep an eye on the

Journals, as well -- but we certainly need more discussion of Third Way because too few

seem to know about it!


Here ....

And make no mistake about the role of Third Way. Third Way runs the policy apparatus of the Democratic Party. In Congress, staffers attend regular Third Way policy briefings, where the group hands out pre-packaged legislative amendments in legal form, generic press releases, polling around those policy ideas, and talking points. It’s a soup-to-nuts policy apparatus. Most of these ideas are harmless – like increased volunteerism – but some are not, like various tax proposals.

The group has enormous juice. On the Congressional side, it has six honorary Senate co-Chairs, and seven House-side co-Chairs. Jim Clyburn, a co-Chair, is in the House Democratic leadership. Two current cabinet members are former co-Chairs. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, held regular briefings for the freshmen member staff in the last Congress.

On the administration side, former Third Way board member Bill Daley is now White House chief of staff. Ron Klain, who was Biden’s Chief of Staff, is now with Third Way. The White House is pretty much full of Third Way-style apparatchiks.

Third Way also echoes, nearly entirely, the White House’s political line (though it is slightly ahead on gay rights). Here’s Third Way praising the Gang of 6 talks, opposing cut, cap, and balance, encouraging entitlement cuts, pushing various free trade agreements

Finally, most of the Board members are from the FIRE Sector (Wall Street and real estate), including the head of equity trading for Goldman Sachs and one of the heads of investment banking for Morgan Stanley.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/third-way-document-proves-democratic-party-supports-institutionalized-looting-by-banks.html



And -- also keep in mind what Bill Moyers is telling you -- a few posts up on his interview

re BOTH parties being under corporate control.

As well, in June in Rolling Stone, Al Gore made clear that "Congress is controlled by the

oil and coal industry" --


If you need more info, let me know -- I'm sure we can round up more on Third Way for you!

[SidDithers]

150. Why don't you set up 99% Underground...

what's stopping you?

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

190. "thoughtful discussion"

You have all of 2 "thoughtful" posts in this "discussion."

This piece of brilliance being one, and the other gem?.....a comment about a stupid fucking bus?

Concern trolling?....oh hell yes! "Thoughtful discussion?"....not so much.

...and this?

"Because we want to keep it a democratic discussion board where all progressive points of view are welcomed." :puke: What a fucking poser.

[defendandprotect]

48. Agree DU needs a name change -- 99% Underground -- Great idea -- !!

We hear that there is no connection between the Democratic Underground and

Democratic Party, but when you raise a hundred thousand dollars or more for

a party, you must at least get a thank you note? No?

[cui bono]

87. Of course there is a connection, it's in the rules, isn't it?

You aren't allowed to say you are not going to vote for the Dem candidate, or at least to vote for a Rep or third party candidate against a Dem. Isn't that in the rules?

I'd say what I really think about the usefulness of this site but that got my post deleted and my user name changed to "Name Removed" last time. I did use the word enabler somewhere. :)

[defendandprotect]

94. However, also somewhere Skinner says clearly ... 'NO CONNECTION' between DU and Democratic Party ...

right?


:evilgrin:


I do recall that just before Obama entered the White House, DU turned over

$280,000 of DU members' money to him.

That's kind of a no conenction, connection? Totally free checking?

[Atman]

119. Maybe change the logo to a lower-case d.

democratic not Democratic. There's a real distinction.

[Le Taz Hot]

127. I'm not sure what the difference is between

censorship on a "Democratic" board and censorship on a conservative board but apparently it has something to do with being justified if one side does it but not if the other does it. My personal favorite was when I posted, "I'll vote for the person I think will make the best president" got deleted. :shrug: Trying to debate with both hands tied behind your back while hopping on one foot so as to not anger the DU gods/goddesses has become wearisome.

[defendandprotect]

199. k/r --- "wearisome" --- yep -- !!

[SidDithers]

153. Start your own friggin' site...nt

Sid

[gkhouston]

169. No, it's the current party that needs a shit-load of mind change.

Most DUers seem to be small d democrats. A lot of the cat fights here are between the "my party, right or wrong" and the "support democratic positions or get lost" factions.

[defendandprotect]

192. Agree -- but the idea being that a name change might change the mentality .... ????

As long as DU is collecting money from members and passing it onto the Demcoratic

Party, I think that will be a questionable connection/activity --

But, others might disagree -- ????

[polichick]

128. That works for me - since the party doesn't.

[blindpig]

3. .....

Well duh, Bill, you just figuring this out?

[WillyT]

4. K & R !!!

:kick:

[pmorlan1]

6. Bill Moyers is Correct

I agree with Bill Moyers and I'm glad he's speaking on this subject again.

[sam11111]

7. Zinn's history flaws? pls post here a five line or so summary for overbusy guy. thanks!

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Zinn was a generally bad historian who outright distorted facts to fit his version of events

also omitting conflicting evidence and citing highly questionable sources. The main thrust of his "People's History of the United States" is "look at what a basically fucked up and evil and cynical imperialist oppressive power the US really is!" and he's pretty happy to cherrypick things that support his thesis even when those sources are at best iffy (for instance in one place he cites David Irving, the infamous British Holocaust denier, for a death toll from the Dresden bombings in WWII far in excess of that generally accepted to make some sort of point about "look at how bad the Allies were!", which is very bad history). He's properly not a historian at all; he's a polemicist. He was less interested in historical accuracy than in selective reading of history to make a political point.

[jtuck004]

53. Facts? Polemic? If one can't win on facts, smear the character?

So the theory is that labor unions are comprised of troublemakers who cause the country harm, we didn't really kill all that many in Dresden when we bombed civilians in their homes, we didn't slaughter innocent old people and children in Vietnam, and we brought salvation to the savages in the America's and then sat down and had a hearty Thanksgiving meal with our new friends? Uh huh. Keep this up and someone is going to accuse our police professionals of brutality against "peaceful protestors" (everyone knows they are just terrorists with signs - well, anyone who is interested in "facts", anyway).

If one didn't know better they might think history was and is "white"-washed to make the U.S. look better, so the indebted can eat their 15% salt-water turkeys without thinking about the people our ancestors murdered, whose graves they robbed, whose bones are out of the way, in the ground, under the table, that they themselves might be ground under when it is time.

Maybe Zinn was more interested in historical accuracy than most of the people who write the books in our classrooms?

[Spider Jerusalem]

59. I didn't actually say any of that, so I'll kindly thank you not to put words into my mouth.

And Zinn had no interest in historical accuracy as such. His "history" is essentially a grim fable about the Good and Virtuous People being fucked up the arse by the oppressive forces of a dominating elite. It may be a rousing political document; it is not history. Zinn was not a good historian; "A People's History" lacks citations for its sources and has no footnotes.

[jtuck004]

114. Ok. I do think

that one who opines that Zinn's ""history" is essentially a grim fable about the Good and Virtuous People being fucked up the arse by the oppressive forces of a dominating elite" should try eating Thanksgiving dinner on a reservation in South Dakota.

Can be a grim time, despite the lively discussion of the beatings and pepper-spraying of otherwise peaceful protestors, and how they have it so much better these days (what with the lack of being shot at by the FBI and put in prison after being singled out for the color of your skin). But watching the movie where Custer gets killed always brings rounds of laughter and cheering ;), even if it gets turned off before the rest of the cavalry arrives.

Oh horrors, no sources and no footnotes? Zinn's book not only provides information that was conveniently left out of other works that are more palatable to the wealthy and elite, he points out where it is missing, and there are plenty of references for a real student to pursue. While I know there are those who assign integrity based on the format of a journal, I have noticed that discussions over control of the margins can prevent a more vital discussion about who is, or will be, controlling one's life.

imo, Howard Zinn had more integrity in his pinky than well over half the so-called educators in the two universities I attended had in their collective bodies. They grind out fodder for the 1%, doing their best to support a system that is in fact built to turn out people that can be more easily controlled. For me, thankfully, they were as predictable as always, leaving me plenty of time to roam through and read in stacks of books from authors long gone.

There are all sorts of opinion about education and writing, however. One of my favorites was Dewey. He wasn't much on testing, said the way to evaluate whether a student was learning a subject was to observe whether the student used what they learned outside of the class and school. Zinn's books is one (of several) that I will pick up and read again for the rest of my life.

ymmv however, and that's ok.

[defendandprotect]

193. Applause and a few cheers for your post -- k/r -- !!

:applause: --



:hi:

[Better Believe It]

223. It's all about class and class warfare .... something you apparently don't recognize.

However the rich do!

[defendandprotect]

99. +1000% -- fantastic post--!!

Ah, yes -- the "propaganda of white male history" --


:puke:



LOVE HOWARD ZINN -- !!

[rtassi]

175. +1

[rhett o rick]

156. History is written with bias. Maybe Zinn's bias is against your grain. nm

[dotymed]

181. While I agree that Howard Zinn did "cherry pick" a lot of

his information presented in A peoples History..., and yes he allowed his cynicism to overshadow other perspectives, IMO, his books are still pertinent. If for no other reason than to understand a perspective of a class that has felt betrayed since the beginning of America. Personally, I still reference his views but I do point out that Mr Zinn, (a spokeman for the downtrodden) does have a cynical view of most historical events in America. Personally, I am glad to have read his books and I came to that conclusion on my own. I do respect Mr. Zinn, his works and actions on the behalf the oppressed. JMO.

[defendandprotect]

198. Think Howard Zinn came up with about as fair a look at our history as possible ---

and justaposed with the "propaganda of white male history" -- I'd say it is

amazingly controlled in its criticism and truthtelling --

We are lied to from the moment we enter school -- yet we somehow know -- all the

while hoping that those who committed these crimes are gone.

Sadly, we are still in the same gene pool.


Can't recall exactly but I'm sure that Howard Zinn would have commented in his history

on the destruction of our environment --

That destruction/exploitation has now resulted in Global Warming which has destroyed

the planet. We are suffering very serious reprercussions of that destruction now --

and those repercussions will continue to accelerate in numbers of events and the

severity of the chaos.


Corporations/elites have bought off that criticism by lying to the public about Global

Warming for 50 years now -- at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to them.

But the public is awakening --

[Octafish]

8. How's Marc Rich doin' these days?

And Goldman Sachs? They OK?

Our (99-percent of us, anyway) austere future: What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

[libinnyandia]

9. The two parties aren't going away. It is possible though perhaps

not easy to fix the Democratic Party. Unfortunately people will continue to vote for Republicans, who can't be changed, except perhaps to go even further to the right. The problem is money in politics. The Ciizens United decision was a GOP decision.

[defendandprotect]

194. OWS is a message that BOTH parties are finished -- and the movment is to the LEFT ....

so don't see that they'll be any voting for the GOP by anyone in tune with OWS --

and think that's most of us.

Democratic Party is now under control of the Third Way which makes even clearer how

much further to the right the party is since the '08 election!!! YIKES!

[H2O Man]

10. Recommended.

I think that it is absolutely clear that positive change can not come from the two parties that inhabit Washington, DC. Lots of negative change can, though.

A small amount of positive change can take place at the various state's level; and again, lots of negative can be produced, too.

There is a possibility that some degree of positive change can begin within the grass roots level of the population, including a very small number of republicans who are repulsed by the reality of their national "leadership." There is, of course, more potential among grass roots Democrats. However, that is only possible to the exact extent that they recognize that the DC Democrats are almost entirely poison.

[lovuian]

11. yes they are owned by corporations and rich Both parties

the government and the people are on a collision course

and I see revolution and increased civil unrest

they have brought the greatest country in the world to a third world status

We are living in Dickens times
just replace the British Empire to the American Empire

[bvar22]

13. I stand with Bill Moyers.

...and thought he was being overly kind.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[BzaDem]

14. I hate to be the bearer of bad nows, but it isn't coming in any way OTHER than the two party system.

You can say what you want about how broken our system is. I would probably agree with most of what you say in this regard. But the system isn't going anywhere. The system is essentially structurally enshrined by our Constitution.

So you can continue to claim that the two party system will never deliver such change. But that just means we will never get such change. It does not mean that we will get such change under some other hypothetical system that we never will have.

[TheKentuckian]

22. The parties themselves are not even an afterthought, they have no mention, so either or both

can be replaced.

Also, we can have winners with less than 50%+1, so even more than two parties can run and win any election.

[BzaDem]

42. I wasn't saying that a party cannot be "replaced."

I was saying that we will always have a 2 party system.

The Constitution enshrines this through the electoral college absolute majority requirement (and the selection process if no one gets an absolute majority), the electoral college itself, the lack of proportional representation, and other properties.

[truedelphi]

77. Every nation that has single payer universal HC also has

More than two poltiical parties, whereas our nation has only two, and we suffer enormously on account of it.

And both those parties, the whole intent seems to be to create enough kabuki theater for the masses that the 1% can continue its game plan to take everything.

I am so proud of the Occupy movement, and I totally agree with you that even more than two parties can run and win any election.

[defendandprotect]

100. Great point -- !! But you can't undo the corporate 2-party lock by voting for it, can you ...???

[patrice]

137. There are more than 2 behavioral options. Why do people pretend otherwise?

Oversimplification is a trait of the Oppressor.

[BzaDem]

171. No one is pretending. There are not more than 2 actual options.

Some people can be "convinced" to enable the greater of two evils by voting for a mythical "third option," but they are simply wrong as a factual matter.

[patrice]

151. Doesn't it rather obviously depend upon what YOU DO after voting?

[truedelphi]

186. Yes and no. What really matters is who you are.

We citizens can sign various petitions that are dismissed out of hand by the WH.

We can watch out beloved community activists work for years and years, with true dedication, to see that the laws in each state are changed so that the ability for a sick person to have medical marijuana is recognized and made legal.

And then the President trumps the states' rights and has his DOJ come in and topple the medical marijuana clinics.

So I don't think you will find me a believer in anything but the Occupy! movement. I am sure I would feel differently if I was in the .01% Executive Class, as the President has done quite well by and for them. Helmsley is still collecting his half billions plus in executive compensation! (He heads United HC - a big insurer.)

It is obvious to me after some forty years of voting that the only people able to win the WH are always going to be in the arms of the Corporate Industry with their Big Campaign Contributions.

So now I stand in solidarity with Occupy!

[defendandprotect]

195. +1000% --- k/r

[Major Hogwash]

131. So, you've never even heard of the Libertarian party, the Green party, or the Constitution party?

Among many others, those parties have existed side-by-side for decades with the Republican and Democratic parties.

The American Independent party supported George Wallace for President in 1968.
They wound up with almost 10 million votes, mostly from Democrats in the South, and robbed Hubert Humphrey of winning the Presidency that year, and we wound up with Tricky Dick instead.

Our country has always had more than 2 political parties, but the other parties are usually controlled by whackjobs and losers.
Like Ralph Nader.

[BzaDem]

167. They are precisely as relevant as the number of seats and Presidencies they have won. n/t

[truedelphi]

179. Side by side go the other parties' candidates, except

little mention by M$M. No one except Democrats or Republicans at the televised debates.

The main stream media even ignored the reporting of the Pew Foundation and its study that found (beginning of Summer 2008) that only some 24% of eligible American considered themselves to be Republicans, some 36% considered themselves to be Democrats. This means the majority over both parties is unaffiliated with these two parties.

Once a caller into C Span was telling Brian Lamb what a farce this nation's system happens to be, and how few people really support the main two parties, and Brian Lamb looked so relieved to hang up on him, I thought he'd faint.

Of course the media relies heavily on the advertising by the mainstream parties, so they would have a great many billions to lose if they catered to the less mainstream parties.

[TorchTheWitch]

180. it's about funds not whackjob or loser leaders

The fringe parties can no longer be effective because they lack the money the two viable parties have. Back in 1968 we had a media that wasn't bought out who were willing to tell the people the truth and left their opinions in the op-ed pages. Television consisted of a handful of channels that only functioned during the day and evening and wasn't as inundated with ad space that could be bought up by campaigning politicians. Debates were even-handed letting every candidate equal time with decent questions. Politicians didn't spend nearly so much time campaigning in the first place. Votes were counted by hand. The tearing out of the eyes of party rank and file against party rank and file was relegated to the few fringe believers who were viewed as nuts by the rank and file in both parties. The politicians in both parties didn't beat the rank and file over the head with the "sin" of voting for someone who was not in either of the two most viable parties. It didn't take anywhere NEAR the amount of money it does today to be a viable candidate. Politicians did have some ethics and neither party was batshit crazy (though the ethics was demanded by a far more ethical populous that had a media that told them the truth and in whom they could trust).

People were far better educated and actually took an interest in civic duty. The average person paid attention to the news, could make sense of it, and understand what was going on in the world. Most people in this country today are dumb as a brick in comparison and far more easily fooled. People had better manners and believed that one didn't talk politics or religion outside of family and friends and were thus less easily swayed by false rhetoric being bombarded at them continuously and from all sides.

The Repubs have had whackjob and loser leaders since far longer than I've been alive, yet it never stopped them from getting elected. Look at Reagan and the last Repub goober we had as presidents, and look at the field of very obvious crazies the Repubs are presenting.

[defendandprotect]

196. Hogwash -- Computers were already with us in late 1960's delivering unverifiable results -- !!

Diffence in the Nixon/Humphrey race was 100,000 votes as I recall --

I'd question every electio nback to Nixon/Humphrey --

and Nixon also pulled an October Surprise in back channel dealings to

stop the Paris peace talks from going forward!


We keep ending up with corporate stooges in office because of

corporate/elite corruption of government and our elections!

[Major Hogwash]

209. You don't a clue as to what the hell is going on in this country.

Seriously.

[defendandprotect]

216. Are you saying voting computers didn't come in during late 1960's????

Or maybe you think they've only been used for benign purposes?

Maybe you disagree that Nixon pulled an "October Surpise" to STOP the Vietnam

Peace talks from going forward?

My apologies on the voting results -- Nixon evidently won by a final total of 500,000

votes -- but 43.42% vs Humphrey's 42.72%


'68 is also the year when they killed RFK --

McGovern tried for the nomination vs Humphrey

[Major Hogwash]

219. Are you saying that computers can vote?

I can pose Faux Snooze-like questions, too.

[defendandprotect]

220. Are you saying none of our elections have been stolen by computer voting?

[Major Hogwash]

222. How old are you?

Straight up.

[defendandprotect]

224. Hogwash -- straight up ... Voting computers are hackable or not -- ???

[Major Hogwash]

227. I knew you wouldn't answer that question!!! There's a tea party out there somewhere . .

missing their Mad Hatter!!!!

[defendandprotect]

229. Right -- anyone who understands voting computers are hackable is a "Mad Hatter" -- !! ROFL

[rtassi]

176. +1

[glinda]

25. Our Party needs to elect a majority of progressives.

[defendandprotect]

226. Unfortunately, we're only being give pre-selected corporate candidates ...

by both parties.

Now what?

[sabrina 1]

29. Once the Dem Party was basically infiltrated by people

fro the Third Way/DLC, the failure of a 'two party' system was guaranteed as both parties blended into one Corporate Party with just enough left of the Dem Party to continue the pretext that there actually IS a two party system.

What helped this takeover was Democratic Party Leaders and Political Operatives more concerned about 'winning' than anything else, pushing their base to vote for those very infiltrators who changed the direction of the Dem Party now possibly, not certainly yet, but possibly beyond fixing.

That will not happen again, at least not to the extent it did over the past few years as more and people now understand the harm they themselves did by supporting DLC and Third Way candidates. If the party is to be saved, those infiltrators will have to go.

[defendandprotect]

101. Not sufficient attention is being paid to Third Way control over Dem Party ... imo ... !!

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Are those your words or are you quoting a Whig?

Our Constitution does not require nor mention, much less enshrine, political parties in any number. You are wildly misinformed. Some of the authors of that document opposed Parties on principle. At this juncture, they seem to have been correct to oppose them.

[provis99]

56. you are essentially saying that change is hopeless.

[BzaDem]

71. No, I'm not. I'm saying that any change will come through a 2 party system. If you claim that change

cannot come through the 2 party system, then it is you that is saying that change is hopeless.

[Marr]

84. Political mobilization through a political party in this country is doomed to failure.

I think that's the point. That game is locked up, and easily controlled with wealth (now more than ever, with the Citizens United ruling). The last presidential election is a perfect example, where Democratic voters were invited to choose between two Third Way Democrats who were practically identical in terms of policy goals.

If activists' energies are devoted to electing one corporate stooge instead of another, nothing will ever change. Build a movement separate from our two bought-and-paid-for political parties, and if it's strong enough, they will vie for it's support.

[BzaDem]

170. Why would they vie for its support?

The truth is that the vast majority of the movement would vote for the Democrat anyway (despite what you may read on some message boards). As for the ones that don't, it is far easier for the party to flip someone in the middle from R to D than it is to flip someone that might ever consider not voting for the D. In fact, they get twice the electoral benefit from doing so -- the margin changes by 2 instead of 1. This is in direct contrast to change through the nomination process, where candidates have to move to satisfy a majority of the party.

And while Citizens United does allow those with gobs of money to disproportionally impact the market for ads, that only helps them so far as the number of people that let their vote be swayed by ads. As horrible a ruling as it is, it does not prevent someone from ignoring the ads, spending an hour to figure out candidate positions, and voting accordingly. In any case, Citizens United (and the rest of the "free speech" absolutist decisions) are not going anywhere until Democrats win enough successive Presidential elections to replace conservative justices.

Often, the most idealistic and intuitive proposals are the ones that describe exactly how the system doesn't work. Just because one wishes for the system to work a certain way does not mean it does or ever will. The road to change is very messy, and it almost always involves compromises and supporting of politicians who from an absolute perspective (as opposed to in relative terms) does not share many of one's own views.

[Marr]

188. Because it would be a voting block.

This isn't much different from the way the Republicans organized evangelicals as a voting block back in the seventies and eighties-- just much more broad. Ignoring a movement like OWS might be most profitable for our corrupted two parties as a whole, but individuals from within those parties could ride a big movement like that to victory, and they're not going to ignore that just because the party wants them to.

In or our last presidential primary, for instance, Democratic voters were effectively invited to choose between two Wall Street-friendly Democrats: Clinton and Obama. If OWS had existed at the time, I've little doubt that someone like Edwards would've made a bee line for their support, received it, and been considered a "serious candidate©" as a result. I'm not saying I wish Edwards were president here, mind you-- I'm saying that's an example of how a movement built separately from the party could outflank the party establishment.

As for compromising and supporting people who's views differ from one's own, that sounds very adult and civilized-- unless you happen to think that just about all of the party's leadership falls into that category. The occasional lesser of two evils is expected, but you're not going to build momentum with that-- you're just going to reelect the same good cop/bad cop crooks you've always had.

I disagree with you about most of the OWS movement voting for Democrats anyway, by the way.

[defendandprotect]

201. Exactly -- GOP/Christian movement was given start up-funding by GOP ... !!! Most of it funded by RW!

Just another party of the Hollwood Soundstage Set --

Dobson's group was also funded -- by Richard Scaife --

and Bauer's group by other wealthy RW --


Pro-life murderers were funded by White Militia groups -- and volunteers protesters

were picked up at Methadone clinics and paid!


GOP/NRA was radicalized and used to target not only liberals and moderates in the Democratic

Party, but liberals and moderates in the Republican Party!



T-baggers now funded by Koch Bros --

And Koch Bros. also funded the DLC and used it to infiltrate and influence the Democratic

Party over more than 20 years!!



Then there are the computers -- and the continued SILENCE of the Democratic Party!!



Terrific posts!


:hi:

[defendandprotect]

200. Agree -- k/r --- and not enough discussion of Third Way here ... most don't know ... ???

Democratic voters were invited to choose between two Third Way Democrats who were practically identical in terms of policy goals.

Keep on tellin' it -- !!


:hi:

[provis99]

92. no, you absolutely said it was hopeless.

If the Constitution created the 2 party system, and the 2 party system cannot be changed, you are saying the situation is hopeless.

[BzaDem]

168. The number of parties is not going to change. The platforms and makeup of the parties can very well

change.

For example, through the primary process, the Democratic party can move further to the left. The degree depends on the desire of a majority of it's members that it does so.

But a third party is not going to take over or win anything meaningful. It is not even going to pressure the Demcratic party to move to the left. In fact, the more votes Democrats lose to the left, the more rightward they move, to seek the persuadable voters in the middle. (They even get twice the benefit from doing so -- an R to a D changes the margin twice as much as a no-vote to a D.)

The one way to change our politics is to do it through one of the two parties. If you believe that this is impossible, then change is impossible.

[provis99]

202. nonsense.

We haven't had a critical realignment of the parties since the 1930s, and political scientists think we never will again, due to the onset of scientific party polling, and rapid communication. Both parties follow Downsian political theory, in running to capture the median voter in the general election. A party which doesn't seek to capture the median voter, such as the McGovern-led Democratic party in 1972, will go down in blazing defeat. Therefore there isn't going to be a change in the two parties, and since you say we are stuck with the two parties, so you are essentially saying change is impossible.

[patrice]

141. Bing- frakking -go, you all! Go back and READ Chomsky re COGNITIVE programming/propaganda, or Lakoff

[RegieRocker]

140. Yes. The US of A never had more than two parties and never will!

:sarcasm:

[SteveM]

187. And Dick Tracy's wrist T.V. will never come about...

Odds have always been, you are right.

That said, since things are moving too fast, and political institutions are being uniformly dismissed, and the American public doesn't know what they are about (once the consumption ethic has hit a brick wall), and the main people bitching about OWS's "lack of message" are MSM and the RW, then all bets are off.

What becomes more stark than your heretofore truth is the concreteness of your expression. With all respect, vacuum tube technology, flathead sixes, and ever more expressways is relic thinking.

The same applies to politics. If you have Arab nations doing the domino theory for real, if you have the Koch Brothers funding a massive consolidation of right-wing organizations, web sites, trusts, and funding sources, if you have the centrist Americans Elect pushing for the selection of someone, somehow by next summer, it would seem to suggest that things are running more quickly then either of us realize.

Ain't no one wants anything to do with the "left." Not Obama, Not the DNC, Not MSM. The "Left" is on its own, and if American's Elect (DNC 2.0) thinks they can find yet another "3d Way" to do the same stuff, then it would behoove us to find our own way as well.

[SidDithers]

15. Unrec...

Keep trying.

Sid

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[whatchamacallit]

28. Count on it Sid!

And you, keep trying to preserve the status quo...

[Bluenorthwest]

35. How's that Harper Government doing up there, Sid?

nt.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. Recommended....+94

[SidDithers]

49. Ain't democracy grant...nt

Sid

[mike_c]

70. rec'd

[ooglymoogly]

16. Bill Moyers speaks my mind....kr nt

[alittlelark]

95. +1

[bvar22]

17. Please go read the text of the entire interview.

You will be doing yourself a HUGE favor.
Other gems:

"I don’t buy the mythology of the free market … we saw the mythology of the free market pay off in 2008 with the collapse of the, of thirty years of that philosophy."

<snip>
I grew up among Conservatives, principled Conservatives who believed that the purpose of Conservatism was to hold institutions and people to certain standards. To offer a brake … b-r-a-k-e … on the passions and impulses of people.

"Well I am a … you know I consider myself a, a, a Progressive because I believe democracy should be a brake … b-r-a-k-e on human power … on power and greed.

They don’t agree with that. They believe that government is, is an obstacle to their ideology. I don’t. I believe good government is a way of checking the power of capital …

You know capital … raw, hungry capital can, like fire, turn from a good servant into a bad master."


<snip>

"And I keep trying to make sense of what has happened to the Democratic Party. When I grew up, the Democratic Party … while a very racist, Southern party was also for the working people. And it was for … my father … my father voted four times (laugh) for Franklin Roosevelt. He would have voted fifth and sixth times if he’d had the chance. And he never met Roosevelt, of course. But my father felt that he had a friend in the White House.

How long has it been since the working men and women of this country have felt to have a real friend in the White House?"



http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/media/bill-moyers-journal/2330/

Both of my parents grew up in the same part of Texas as Bill Moyers,
and they too would have voted for FDR a 5th and 6th time.
My liberal, populist, Working Class roots comes from them,
and from that part of Texas.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dover]

18. Yea Bill! I was so glad to read recently that he's coming back to television. Excellent timing! n/t

[DirkGently]

19. The current dynamic is that $ = election victory. That's what needs to change.

It will always be easier to get campaign dollars from a few wealthy interests than from a lot of less wealthy ones. As long as that's the case, the wealthy few will be the real "constituents" for elected leaders. We have to take that route away; make it useless.

[Telly Savalas]

54. For the most part yeah...

however there are some exceptions - like wasn't it Sen. Boxer's opponent that spent outrageous sums in the last election and got thumped anyway. (or am I getting that mixed up with another election in California?)

But you've hit the nail on the head - the way political information is transmitted and consumed in the US opens the door for wealthy interests to wield influence generally proportional to their ability to fund campaigns. Most strategies that center around a third party acknowledge this phenomena, but aren't very clear on why it magically disappears only when the leftmost of the two major parties is split, ceding the plurality of votes to the Republicans.

If you change the $=victory equation, you remove the necessity of a third party. If you don't change this dynamic, then any effort at a third party is doomed to failure.

[catzies]

72. Perhaps you were thinking of Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown in last year's gubernatorial n/t

[Huey P. Long]

21. occupy. -eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. The 2 capitalist party system provides the illusion of democracy in an oligarchy. K&R

[alittlelark]

97. +1000

[woo me with science]

164. Thank you. And those trying to claim that people "just don't vote for" third parties

are overlooking the fact that the two major parties have spent the past several decades carefully restructuring the electoral and debate process and the media so as to make it much, much more difficult for a candidate of any third party to gain participation.

It's certainly why Ron Paul chooses to run as a Republican.

[rtassi]

177. + more

[defendandprotect]

203. +1000% -- We get the privilege of voting for those whom corporations/elites select for us --!! ROFL

If it wssn't so sad --

an so successful -- !!!

It's worked for decades now -- and still few questioning the game!!



:hi:

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[whatchamacallit]

27. This is the truth

The efficacy of American Two Party Politics is the lie.

[defendandprotect]

30. Yep -- and we've known this for decades ... 2 corporate parties ... doesn't sink in somehow ... !!

[FlyByNight]

31. Regulatory capture...

...by the 1% has rendered any (small d) democratic, self-correcting mechanisms practically useless - and not by accident.

Congress is the 1% (the president and the SCotUS are too) and their campaigns are paid for by people - both real and corporate - usually wealthier than they are. Without significant campaign finance reform and the decimation of Citizens United, I don't think there will be truly meaningful change from within.

The Occupy/99% movement is - I hope - the leading tremor to the seismic shift needed within the US political system.

[alp227]

32. My question is, how did US politics consolidate in the two-party system

when in the past there have been Presidents, governors, and Congress members with 3rd parties like the Know-Nothings and Whigs, and John Tyler was even an independent for most of his presidency.

[patrice]

138. It didn't. If you talk to (& that doesn't mean POLL) enough REAL people, you find there ARE more

than 2 parties.

This "either ___________ or __________________" BULLSHIT comes from the brain programming we know as MSM.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. A-FREAKIN'-MEN! K&R Moyers is spot on.

They're both cut from the same CORPORATE cloth.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Bill Moyers is now on automatic unrecommend. n/t

[Safetykitten]

37. Yes, Moyers an unrec and Andrew Sullivan a wise sage voice. Amazing turn of events,

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. why?

[whatchamacallit]

40. Nice to see you're giving this decision the careful and measured consideration

you are famous for. :rofl:

[Vanje]

46. Oh. "Ignored" must've said something zany again.

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. LOL! My thoughts exactly.

[provis99]

57. heh. Now I wonder what "Ignored" said that was stupid again.

[Better Believe It]

64. I think he just threw Bill Moyers under the bus. It's getting crowded under here!

:)

[shanti]

79. yup

there's a reason s/he's there.

[fascisthunter]

82. awwww

dooga dooga dooga

[paulk]

89. explain yourself

or lose what little credibility you have left on this board...

[LoZoccolo]

103. I don't have to if I don't want to.

For instance, I could do so if I was asked kindly and not do so when I am "threatened" with a loss of credibility. It is up to me.

[paulk]

105. then I'm going to put you on ignore

and you used to be a poster that I had a good deal of respect for.

[rhett o rick]

107. I better follow suit. nm

[patrice]

154. Not very horizontal of either one of you. Same old divide & conquer BS. Anti-Revolutionary.

[paulk]

165. I disagree

the poster in question has, for the last couple of years at least, been one of the worst "divide and conquer" posters on this board.

unequivocal support of the leader, to the point of throwing progressives like Bill Moyers under the Obama bus, is my definition of "anti-revolutionary". Unless, of course, you were being facetious in your use of that term - in that denigrating the progressive left is one of the chief tactics of the true believers.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[patrice]

155. 1+ . . . that's the way I see it.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

144. Rule by mob? "Most people ______" = truth??? wow.

[tavalon]

98. Thanks for the laugh

A serious subject such as the coopting of American Democracy can be pretty heavy so thanks for lightening it up with a vapid comment!

[chervilant]

117. And,

you are relegated to my ignore list.

[Bonobo]

118. I automatically rec anything you unrec so that means you have no "unrec" power. nt

[LoZoccolo]

129. I am rubber, and you are glue, so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. n/t

[City Lights]

134. Are you in middle school? eom

[rhett o rick]

152. Thanks, we always look forward to your intellectual additions. nm

[City Lights]

133. LOL!

:rofl:

Your "auto unrec" list is growing.

If you stick to your pattern, I predict an influx of anti-Moyers one-line OPs from you in the coming weeks.

[patrice]

139. At least no longer an auto rec., not that responsible DU -ers du such things, that is!

;-)

[cui bono]

178. Deep Thought...

by Jack Handey ?

http://www.deepthoughtsbyjackhandey.com/random2.asp

[woo me with science]

38. Bill Moyers is absolutely correct. This is the reason for OWS.

When Obama was swept into office with both houses of Congress in 2008, people still had hope for change from within. After three years of corporate rule under a supposedly Democratic administration, that illusion has pretty much been demolished.

This is why people are massing in the streets. K&R

[certainot]

47. OWS is needed because the left lets 1000 coordinated radio stations undermine the feedback mechanis

ms a democracy depends on.

OWS is one of the few political entities louder than those radio stations in the last 20 years, for now.

[woo me with science]

61. The media is purchased along with Congress and the White House. nt

[truedelphi]

43. This continual movement of "intellectuals" to try and upturn the two party

System, indicates that much kabuki theater will cease to exist.

And how will us political types entertain ourselves, if this political system is indeed overturned, and a new system brought forth actually works? If we have a new political paradigm that actually ends the un-endable wars, creates a decent economic system, in which Banks and Financial Institutions don't decree Socialism for themselves and duplicitous fraudulent lifestyle for all but themselves, what will we political pundits do with our lives?

<sarcasm meant>

[defendandprotect]

204. Lovely thought that we would actually be working towards an end to wars ....

obviously OWS is a strongly anti-war movement, as well !!

And, imo, sending a strong message that BOTH parties are finished.


Sadly, capitalists/elites pretty much also finished off the planet with capitalistic

exploitation -- !!



:hi:

[certainot]

45. another of left intelligentsia analyzing politics in a talk radio vacuum

moyers does great work but here he admits the problem:

"I mean I don’t understand the weird things going on in the Republican Party. I do not understand this marriage of ideology and the language and, and, and the irrelevance, the immaturity of their political discourse, the sheer opposition that they set out to mount against Obama"

he doesn't understand it and few do because there is no written record to study the patterns and the effect of the constant think tank coordinated repetition from 1000 radio stations to 50 mil a week. simply put the GOP is now the party of limbaugh.

instead the left ignores radio, plays politics without a front line, and then wonders after the fact what keeps kicking their ass, playing catchup.

money has always been a problem but bought politicians usually need constituencies to point to justify their sell out and the GOP and blue dogs have the talk radio base, a made-to-order constituency for any corporate occasion, mobilized day by day by the talk radio gods screaming from every corner and stump in the country but invisible to the americans they attack because it hurts their heads to listen to it.

[nini]

51. I decided a while ago I wouldn't live long enough to see this country back on track

I'm 54 and it's going to take decades to undo the crap that started under Reagan. I doubt I'll be around. I also am not sure it will happen at all. We may have stepped too close to the edge this time.

This country will have a hard time recovering as long as the media is in control of the ones doing the damage.

[unionworks]

108. 54 here too

And I share your fears to the letter.

[ProSense]

55. From the OP:

<....>

It cannot come from within the two parties today. They are frozen, paralyzed, purchased. And so it’s got to come … Howard Zinn’s great message … and he was a flawed historian … he was … we know that from his life and his records. But he got this right. He said, “Do not look to your leaders to bring about change. Change comes only when people organize and fight from outside the system, when the change that they need … everybody he said … every ordinary people … every ordinary person should be a history maker”.

<...>

...can happen, but it takes more than elected officials. Even when elected officials act, ACLU: Obama's Commutation: A Prelude to Systemic Reform?

There are hundreds of thousands of Americans serving outrageously long prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenses as a result of our nation’s widely discredited and inhumane "war on drugs." On Tuesday night, President Obama did something he had not yet done as president — he commuted someone's prison term. While we applaud President Obama’s decision to allow Eugenia Marie Jennings, a mother of three suffering from cancer who has served 10 years of her 22-year sentence for selling 13.9 grams of crack cocaine, to return to her family 12 years earlier than she otherwise would have, we hope this stands not as a mere isolated gesture of generosity but rather marks the beginning of an enduring, fundamental change in the president’s systemic approach to drug policy.

We have commended the president for his role in the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack to powder cocaine sentencing disparity from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. But much more reform is still needed. Indeed, many nonviolent drug offenders — including Ms. Jennings — do not benefit from the newly reduced disparity. And even those who do benefit still receive a sentence that is disproportionately harsh and that disproportionately affects African-Americans.

Furthermore, while Ms. Jennings likely caught the president’s attention because of her particularly sympathetic story, strong legal team and a supportive United States senator, there are so many more like Ms. Jennings who don’t have such powerful advocates and yet are no less deserving of the president’s mercy. With hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offending Americans behind bars, sporadic commutations aren’t nearly enough to solve the nation’s current incarceration crisis or prevent us from perpetuating the unjust “war on drugs” in future generations.

<...>

...movements can do more to speed change.

[hulka38]

112. just as self described change agents can do more to retard change.

[patrice]

160. 1++++++ & key trait = "self"

[patrice]

162. BECAUSE they never have an answer for what to do with those who disagree, besides make them enemies.

[Enthusiast]

60. Kicked and recommended! nt

[bertman]

62. REC. Bill Moyers is right on target with his analysis.

Regarding Zinn's "A People's History of the United States", I have to agree that some of it seemed a bit off kilter. And I did wonder about no attribution for his historical claims; however, he did provide a perspective that offers a counterweight to our uncritical and jingoistic history lessons that have been approved by people who never wanted us to look critically at the REAL history of the U.S. That has value.

[Martin Eden]

66. "raw, hungry capital can, like fire, turn from a good servant into a bad master"

..."And if we don’t have ways to temper the ravenous appetite of capital we will keep having repetitions of what we saw in 2008 and ultimately the institutions which Conservatives should respect that provide this brake on human passion and, and excess will crumble. And we will be living in a chaos instead of a civilization."

-- Bill Moyers

[DeSwiss]

67. K&R

http://www.kickthemallout.com/">

[Citizen Worker]

68. Moyers is right. After seeing how the '92 democratic party nominating process was rigged in favor

of the DLC chosen candidate I began voting for the candidate without the D or R behind their name. I deviated from this in '08 hoping that Obama would live up to the hype and if he didn't people would be angry and head for the streets. Well, he didn't and we did.

[mike_c]

69. I've been saying this since 2002 or so-- the democratic party...

...no longer represents the people's interests any more than the republican party represents them. Both parties serve largely corporate, business constituencies, whose interests no longer align with the people they regard as "consumers."

[democrank]

73. "They are frozen, paralyzed, purchased."

Purchased indeed. And they`ll continue to be paralyzed and purchased as long as voters continue to make excuses, write checks and vote for more of the same.

[treestar]

74. Why should parties "reflect their interests" in any but the

most general way?

There is no official two party system. People just vote that way.

They have to band together with other people (a party) to get elected and have an effect.

That's been the system for ages and there has been progress and change before.

[Sportsguy]

75. Bill Moyers Is A Good Man And He's Right

Thank you for posting this.

[deutsey]

76. K&R

[shanti]

78. amen, brother!

:thumbsup:

[Raine]

80. Moyers is totally on point. nt

[fascisthunter]

81. The People will be deciding the Parties actions soon

and there is nothing the 1% or their bought and paid for politicians can do about it. They will try to resist, but in the end they are ours.

[Swede]

83. Shouldn't a majority of Democrats or Republicans in Congress unfreeze this?

When the 3 branches of government in DC just work to block each other?

[a2liberal]

122. How well did that work out between '09 and '11?

With one party having the largest majorities in recent history? You can try and blame the filibuster that all you want but that never stopped the Republicans from getting what they wanted under Bush.

[gulliver]

85. He put his finger on it, but then he mis-solved the puzzle.

Duh, "They decided that they would go to the same sources of great wealth … corporations and others … and they are today in thrall to many of the same corporate and rich powers that the, the Republicans are."

So one team (Republicans, for people who don't observe the obvious) takes massive amounts of payola. And then the other team decides they have to take money too. Why, oh why? I just don't get it. I'm mystified.

It has to be that both parties are bad! Just has to be! How can it be anything else?

It's just so frickin' stupid! I don't want to spoil it for you if you haven't figured out where he went wrong. The intelligent people already know. (No one tell the one's who don't get it yet!)

[Taverner]

86. This is it. Anything else we disparate polities say, this is IT.

This is the biggest problem we as Americans face

[Kablooie]

88. Yep. How many of us were delighted with the accomplishments of a full Democratic majority gov?

And since then, how many of Obama's choices have won the respect and admiration of the people in the street?

They are playing in the same dirty water as the Republicans.
The Republicans have become drunk and surly as well but no one has moved out into a pool of fresh, clean water.

And we are the ones who must drink the remainders.

[yodermon]

90. OCCUPY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

oh wait. Isn't that what DU is for?

[NancyBordier]

91. Organize outside the system with the Interactive Voter Choice System

A new platform for political organizing outside the system is described in
A System-Changing Solution for the OWS Movement? and also at www.reinventdemocracy.net.

It enables voters of all persuasions to:

• Set their own legislative agendas
  
• Connect with voters with similar agendas
  
• Build their own voting blocs and electoral coalitions
  
• Nominate and run their own candidates
  
• Elect their own representatives to enact their agendas.
  

[sam11111]

102. IVCS....... u need a name folks can remember

Folks avoid links...viruses

Pls detail it here

[NancyBordier]

182. The Interactive Voter Choice System is a Consensus-Building Mechanism

The Interactive Voter Choice System is a consensus-building political organizing platform that enables voters of all persuasions to come together online to collaboratively set common legislative agendas that bridge the political divides that have stalemated the two major political parties and virtually paralyzed Congress.

The web-based tools that will be provided by the platform at reinventdemocracy.net when it is fully developed will enable voters to build self-organizing voting blocs and electoral coalitions around transpartisan legislative agendas. The blocs and coalitions can then build transpartisan electoral bases that can nominate and run candidates on the lines of any political party they choose without special interest campaign contributions.

Since the blocs' and coalitions' electoral bases will outnumber and outflank the two major parties, for instance, they can put their candidates on the ballot lines of the two parties by making sure that enough of their members are registered in the party whose lines they choose to run on. By so doing, they can easily collect the signatures on nominating petitions for primary elections required by state election laws.

Typical Congressional races, for example, can require as few as 5,000 signatures, and sometimes even less. Since the turnout for Congressional primaries is usually much lower than general elections, the blocs and coalitions have a good chance at getting their candidates elected and placed on the general election ballot.

So while IVCS-enabled voting blocs and coalitions have the potential, IMNSHO, to supplant political parties as the driving forces of U.S. electoral processes, they can also get control of them and make sure that their supporters decide their agendas and can run the candidates they wish on their ballot lines.

Most importantly, IVCS enables the members of the blocs and coalitions to hold the representatives they elect accountable at the ballot box by comparing their legislative track records with the written legislative agendas/mandates that the voters gave them when they elected them. By so doing, they can put an end to the practice of candidates saying one thing on the campaign trail and then doing something else entirely when they are in office.

In essence, IVCS enables voters to re-sequence electoral processes. Voters FIRST set their legislative agendas and THEN pick their candidates. No more of the non-debating debates where voters set passively by while trying fruitlessly to ascertain what the candidates really stand for, at the same time that the candidates are trying to dissimulate what they stand for -- which is usually what their special interest campaign contributors want.

[CanSocDem]

132. Good info...

An easy and practical way to get this thing going.

And welcome to DU!

.

[NancyBordier]

183. Thank You!

So happy to be here!

[patrice]

145. LOTS of engineering questions BEHIND somethig like that. Wouldn't it be nice to see a

software engineering standards organization that would speak to the issues within various user environments?

[NancyBordier]

185. Please elaborate

Interesting observation.

Please elaborate.

[colsohlibgal]

96. Could Not Agree More With Bill Moyers

I just don't get why more "liberals" can't do the math, it shouldn't require a rocket scientist to shed the "matrix" and grasp reality.

I love Stephanie Miller, she's funny, I pay for her podcast. But the person who gets it on her show is her voice guy Jim Ward, not her.

These self described "happy clappy" dem Obama apologists are part of the problem, not part of the solution, they mean well but just aren't thinking it through.

The neo democrats cry for too long has been, in so many words, we may not be much but they are worse. That's true but we need other choices, we need real populist policies, not just not as bad as the others party.

As for Obama he has done a few semi nice things around the edges but anyone who has the welfare of regular folks on his mind is not going to, right out of the chute, bring in Wall Street pawns like Summers and Geithner as his financial gurus....and how anyone could misread those tea leaves is beyond me.

[eridani]

109. many people on the left have been saying the same thing for 40 years

Drop out of electoral politics and work on the outside only. How's that been working out for us? :sarcasm:

[CoffeeCat]

110. I no longer feel aligned with the Democratic party...

Moyers is right. Both parties are aligned with the corporations.

And yes, they all trod out the inflammatory social issues when election time rolls around--just
to get some fear-based votes out of us. And we vote for them, which has only allowed our
country to slip into Fascism.

I'm sorry, but I won't vote for a candidate based on social issues any more--such as being
pro choice. Yes, being pro choice is incredibly important to me. However, we don't
have a country left! We don't have a democracy any more! That's not hyperbole, it's the
truth. Allowing ourselves to vote for a Fascist, corporate kow tower--who doesn't mind if
he is owned by the corporations or is willing to help slide our country into a Fascist
state--is IGNORANT. We are ignorant voters if we sell out like that.

Our spineless, stupid politicians have prostituted themselves to their corporate pimps--who
now own them.

The United States is now a perverted form of democracy and the only way an election is
meaningful in this country--is if we have a candidate who will break the system, restore
our democracy, tell the corporations to go to hell and begin anew. And if we have no
candidate who will do those things--then the answer is not within the political system.

That's the very sad, very difficult-to-grasp truth. Believe me, I go in and out of denial
about it all of the time--because it's so horrible--but it's true.

[DallasNE]

111. This Is Too Bleak Of An Assessment -- Barely

While the Democrats are somewhat in the hip pocket of the same corporate elite as the Republicans there is still a huge divide between the two parties thanks to the likes of Grover Norquist and his complete sway over Republicans.

Moyers would do better to focus on Congress. That is where all progress gets bottled up by rules that make governing impossible. Even when Democrats briefly had 60 votes in the Senate it was next to impossible to get them to all vote one way as witnessed by Obama only getting 2 bills past the Senate -- the stimulus and the Affordable Care Act. All else was continuing resolutions.

I have long respected Bill Moyers but he is not focused on the right target this time although he makes some valid points on the target he is addressing.

[blackspade]

113. K&R!

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. knr

[a2liberal]

121. K&R (n/t)

[Bryn]

123. I first learned about America being the Corporate from CSI: Miami

One night I was watching CSI: Miami on TV years ago where one actor says

"America is no longer a country. It's now Corporate America."

That's when I woke up and sure enough it was true. I was a FOX news watcher even though I have NEVER been a "conservative". I just didn't know FOX lied. I thought it wasn't allowed! All of these before I found DU and learned more.

Would be nice if more popular TV programs bring this up often!

[Bryn]

124. Just found this on facebook

[DCBob]

126. The biggest reason we cant go forward is the hard core RW and the media backing them up.

Most people would support liberal/progressive legislation if they knew the truth and werent brainwashed by RW media 7x24x365.

[Better Believe It]

210. What liberal/progressive legislation on the economy/Wall Street are we talking about?

The puny bills that are described as a "jobs program" or perhaps more legislation to protect Wall Street and big business interests that are presented as "reforms"?

[Major Hogwash]

130. The problem with his article is that he uses a poll to support his theory.

And polls change like the wind, so this article means nothing.

[defendandprotect]

205. You need a poll to understand that corporations control both parties ... ???

Everyone knows what Moyers is saying --

and that's been true for decades --


Not only control, but Koch Bros. actually infiltraed the party by funding the DLC!


"Congress is controlled by oil and coal insutry" --

Al Gore/Rolling Stone-June


It's pretty much all in the hands of corporations -- including the Gang of 5 on the SC.

[Major Hogwash]

208. It's not about the stupid poll he refers to.

It's just Bill Moyers, drooling all over his shirt again.

There's been more than 2 political parties for more than 200 years in this country.

[defendandprotect]

212. Evidently, you thought the "poll" was important enough to mention .... ???

BOTH parties are under corporate control -- and we don't need polls to tell

us that -- or Bill Moyers, in fact!

Every political organization has been telling us that for decades now!

We do not have viable third parties because we don't have any form of IRV

voting.

And the two major parties have a LOCK on monopolizing the political arena --

in fact, they colluded together to put a private corporation in charge of the

debates! Even populist Democrats were knocked out of the debates!


And they have colluded together to block access of third parties and their

candidates to the political arena in every way possible!


Certainly, we saw none of the third parties taking part in major debates sseen

nationwide, save on C-span.


We have two CORPORATE PARTIES which are pre-selecting CORPoRATE CANDIDATES!

[Major Hogwash]

218. Because Bill Moyers built his entire argument on that poll. He mentioned it in line 1.

That's how weak his article was.
Taking a simple Logic 101 course in college would help other people see right through this piece of garbage.

[defendandprotect]

221. Moyers may have referred to a poll, but certainly he has also known for decades ....

that corporate money is controlling our government and our elections --

Moyers comments aren't "weak" --

Are you suggesting that Logic 101 would show that we don't have two corporate parties?


:eyes: --

[Major Hogwash]

228. Now you're claiming that you're able to read Bill Moyer's mind!!!

Welcome to the Twilight Zone!!

[defendandprotect]

230. Those who understand corporate takeover of both parties are in "Twilight Zone" ... ???

[patrice]

135. "True" Bill, but how do you separate correction from the INTENT TO KILL the best chance we've had at

Single Payer/Medicare for All that we've had in a long time.

And if you say, "We'll get Single Payer later, after we have sucessfully chastised the Democrats" you need to tell me how you are different from our current master who also thinks the ends-justifies-the-means in the suffering of those who will have to wait at least another decade for health care.

We, the American people on the average, got the corporate government that we earned with our own ir-responsible passivism, now the poor and elderly are to pay so that 3rd partiers can count coup and feather their resumes.

[patrice]

136. P.S. Not to mention how to separate correction from the INTENT TO KILL Labor's Right to Organize. nt

[TheKentuckian]

166. "Correction" needs definition before we can discuss whether killing is part of the package

or not unless you are saying that covert is always better than overt and that by employing different tactics that the end games are different.

There are a shitload of moving parts and far too many for snap thinking. I'm increasingly certain that the call is tough for long range prospects. In the end, odds increase that we are avoiding short term pain by pushing it forward with interest because we blunt dissent and entrench toxic systems in exchange for very short term booms that usually come with poison pills themselves.

Short term harm mitigation tends to be a quick and easy path to amoral, hand to mouth behavior, tactics, and goals along with highly situational ethics which in turn leaves one a far too comfortable stroll to evil.

[sarcasmo]

142. Two parties that serve corporate america, been saying that for years.

[Fly by night]

143. WE are the ones we've been waiting for ...

... if we never stop fighting.

[patrice]

146. Go out into the streets & talk to REAL people. You will find 2 parties is a lie propagated by the

CORRUPT system you hate.

[patrice]

147. Can't understand here why we're trusting a 2 partyself-assessment from a CORRUPT system we hate.

[patrice]

148. Why would a CORRUPT system tell the truth about ANYTHING, especially its own nature.

[patrice]

149. Question ALL authority, ESPECIALLY!!! that you agree with.

[patrice]

158. Just in case you missed it, that includes BILL MOYERS. Anything less is not freedom. nt

[ThomThom]

157. when a majority (52%) believe that they are not represented

trouble is not far behind
the people will take to the streets
OH WAIT they all ready are...occupy

[gulliver]

161. "I’m drawn to the Howard Zinns and the Ralph Naders..."

That line is basically it for me. I'm not sure whether Moyers is pandering to fools or is one. Truly, it is hard to tell which it is. I do notice that Moyers very carefully hedges his terms, so I am leaning on concluding that he is pandering, like a less flamboyant Arianna Huffington. Moyers isn't saying "I support Nader and third parties." That would be raw stupidity, and he knows it. Moyers is trying to maximize his own support, like any politician.

It is absurd, for example, to complain about Democrats taking money from corporations. Money is equivalent to firepower in the war of politics. Would Moyers have one side just lay down its arms? Does he think that if the Dems took no corporate money they would be pure and represent the people instead of just disappearing? That's exactly as likely as the pure, money free third party appearing. They are two sides of the same coin.

What the people who are complaining about the Dems need to try is persistence. In its character-revealing social form it is known as loyalty. Anyone who thought Obama was the Messiah in 2008 and is raging at him now should look in the mirror. That's where they will find the root of their disappointment.

If people empowered the Dems this time, instead of letting themselves be divided by money and ill-informed emotional appeals, we would see big changes for the better. If instead some continue to follow the nearest person waving a lollipop or a red cape, we will continue to suffer as usual.

[patrice]

163. Dare I allude to The PROFESSIONAL "Left"?

[Better Believe It]

191. " It's absurd to complain about Democrats taking money from corporations" Ya .... really absurd.

And it's also silly to think that politicians who are paid off by Wall Street and big business are doing their bidding.

"Money is equivalent to firepower in the war of politics."

Right. Nothing wrong with that big corporate firepower being used against working people.

I've read various attempts to justify Wall Street and big corporate control of politics but I have to admit that post tops them all!

[defendandprotect]

207. ditto

[Bobbie Jo]

217. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2383988&mesg_id=2383988

[defendandprotect]

206. Right ... we can fight corruption by voting for it --- !!! ROFL

Moyers is repeating what Ralph Nader has been telling us for 40 years and more --

corporations/elites have been buying government --

Also true that Howard Zinn told us that -- as have endless numbers of other liberal

commentators and record keepers!

Who could possibly find this "news" -- or "surprising" -- ???



Moyers is allowed to be on PBS because he'll likely put a viewer to sleep before

they hear him say anything worthwhile --

And that's why Phil Donahue isn't on TV any longer -- and certainly not allowed on PBS!


Or anyone else who would say anything that would wake up the nation!!


Like maybe letting the public know that oil industry has been lying about Global Warming

for 50 years and more -- at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to them -- and that

it is accelerating ever faster as we begin to feel the effects from 1960 onward!


Who will tell them that chaotic weather will be increasing in number of events and severity?

Or that earthquakes are part of Global Warming due to glacier melts which brings shifting

weight on tectonic plates?

[LiberalLovinLug]

231. Does he think that if the Dems took no corporate money they would be pure and represent the people?

Um.....yeah

Howard Dean with the 50 state strategy, and the Obama election team proved that you can raise a lot of money with valuing every citizen and getting a lot of small donations from average people using social media. I guarantee that the majority in polls that say they identify with the Occupy Movement are dying for a chance to put their money towards a party that would announce this.

If the Dems don't do this I hope that there is eventually an Occupy Party to fill that void.

[theophilus]

173. I believe pressure should come from outside and put pressure on

both existing parties. I have pushed for the Boomers to rise and make the politicians toe the line. OWS seems to be rising. Both parties must be held accountable and "scared" into doing what is right for the vast majority of Americans. How that "scaring" comes about is the issue. OWS must participate in voting and lawmaking to have a real effect. We have seen that some politicians will say anything to get elected and then serve the corporations. This insures the pols financial future. This must stop. IMO.

[lonestarnot]

184. !

[woo me with science]

189. Kick. nt

[KamaAina]

211. Coming from a lifelong Dem

who worked in LBJ's White House, this means something.

Now if we could just find a repuke with the guts to say it...

[defendandprotect]

213. Wait ....

You worked in LBJ's White House?

Wasn't Bill Moyers there, as well?


PBS let's Moyers on because generally he'll put the audience to sleep.

But, where are you on LBJ?

Did you know he was "clinically psychotic" as Pierre Salinger says he and Moyers understood?

How did the anti-war uprisings effect that White House? Honestly??!!

[KamaAina]

214. No, Bill Moyers worked in LBJ's White House. I was 4 when he left office.

Sorry for the grammatical slip-up. :-)

[defendandprotect]

215. No -- my fault ....

As I reread it, I can't imagine how I came to that conclusion!!

I'm somewhat distracted by a computer problem right now -- but wow!


:)

Apologies --

[upi402]

225. agree

to some this is still not glaringly obvious

[Myrina]

232. Kick and Rec

Thank you, Mr. Moyers.