Discussion points: If you know the rebuilding of the Democratic Party

[xultar]

meant that we'd have to hand over the WH and the Congress to the Republicans for the next 4 years are you willing to do that?

I hear a lot of canned phrases here I agree with and don't agree with. But I want to know what is behind those phrases. Like if DU were the hub for the realignment of the Democratic party what would we do? What action steps do we need to take? So...

What would be your plan for rebuilding the Democratic Party?
When you say hold our leaders accountable what exactly do you mean? What are the action items we need to do to hold someone accountable? Vote them out? Call, email, withhold donations? Actively vote for a non-Democrat or sit out to purge a candidate?
What are the Democratic party principles? What are your political principles? What do you do when there is a conflict?

I don't see how we can do anything if we don't work together. We'll never work together if we don't know what each other means. Let's do something instead of sitting here and yelling at each other.

Now for those of you who say I'm doing the lockstep thing and we don't lockstep...look away for a second.

---------------------
How will we ever get anything done if we don't have some common ground or understanding. For the life of me I can't figure out how we can get anything done if we don't have even some common foundational principles. It won't work if we don't all follow the same actions to the solution. We gotta get together on this. All we do on DU is yell at each other about how we don't lockstep but when the rubber meets the road we don't get shit done. Why is that? So if you were going to plan some actions that we can all do to get to a certain place or goal what would it be. What are your priorities for now to election day 2k8? What actions would you have us do to get to that goal as a single force to show we mean business?

---------------------

OK you can look back now. What goals would you like us to reach by 2k8? What are the plans to help us reach those goals? I think we should pick a couple of issues and see if we can achieve them as a community? What do you think?

[zalinda]

1. It took the repub party decades to get where they are now

and it's taken Bush just 6 years to undo all their work. I know that they were probably going down the road to ruin, as soon as they got in power, but Bush has been the catalyst to bringing every day people to think repubs are immoral.

Here's what I think we should do. Get as many dems as possible in office, period. I don't care if they are blue dogs, yellow dogs, progressive or conservatives, just get them in office. Once in office hold them accountable to the public. If you don't like how that person is doing, find someone to take their place when it is time to re-elect. But, you should know that some dems represent very conservative districts, and in order to keep their job, they are going to do what their constituents want them to do, not what progressives want them to do.

We should praise when warranted and deride when warranted, not silence until they do something that we don't like and then they get smacked upside the head. Praise can do wonders, because then they know they are on the right track. They, after all, are our employee. You wouldn't wanted to be treated like a junk yard dog all the time, and neither do they. I think the GOLDEN RULE should apply to everyone, including our reps.

zalinda

[xultar]

2. I really like this plan. I do believe our best bet is to put as many Democrats

in office that we can now and then do some heavy hitting.

I still could be swayed on the purge now idea. As long as they could guarantee me a win in 2k12 if we don't win in 2k8. If there is no way we could win the WH and Congress in 2k12 I can't chance it. I am living day to day for 1/20/08 as it is. IT frightens the SHIT out of me to think that I'd have to go another 4 years under a Repbublic but if it would guarantee that we win in 2k12 with a more left Democratic party then I could tough it out.

[warren pease]

3. Here's the part that pisses me off...

As you say, "But, you should know that some dems represent very conservative districts, and in order to keep their job, they are going to do what their constituents want them to do, not what progressives want them to do."

And you're absolutely right. However, there are also quite a few very left districts -- none more so than Pelosi's 8th District in San Francisco -- where progressives aren't being represented. She may think she's the speaker, but her first duty (after upholding the Constitution and defending the country against all enemies -- foreign and domestic) is to her constituents, most of whom are outraged that impeachment remains off the table. I sincerely hope Cindy Sheehan eats her for breakfast next year.

Up here in Portland, all four Oregon Dem congresspersons are pretty progressive in their voting records and special interest group ratings, but none has co-signed Kucinich's impeachment resolution, HR 333. Peter DeFazio, member of the House Vaterland security committee, was denied access to the filthier parts of BushCo's martial law plan (see presidential directives NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 of May 8, 2007 here: http://tinyurl.com/yqthor). Here's an excerpt from an article on the subject:

<<<Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure “bubbleroom” in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio said.>>>

Rest of the article here: http://tinyurl.com/yslepy


Point being, what does it take to wake these people up? The people in his district are screaming for impeachment, he's denied access to what may be the domestic battle plan of the Fourth Reich, and all he can do is scratch his head and say gee whiz? Insufficient response.

So why is it that dems in conservative districts are always careful to avoid antagonizing the right, but alleged progressives in left-leaning districts never seem to give a damn about their progressive constituents, except for making the right noises at primary time. And as soon as they're elected, they suddenly act like they're representing some district in scarlet red Kansas and ignore progressives until the next primary.

I know part of the answer is that progressives are stuck with democrats, given the alternative. Still, I think the 110th congress is making the best case possible for third, fourth and fifteenth parties to form and rise to prominence, maybe based on just a couple of core issues instead of an unattainable platform of empty promises.


I dunno... There's got to be a better way than this corporate-funded bribocracy.


wp

[zalinda]

10. I understand what you are saying

But our only way of reform is to get the dems in power and insist that we have public financing of elections.

The reason that the dems don't act the way the repubs do to their constituents is because the repubs know that if they break ranks, all the churches in the area will tell their congregations about it, and to withdraw support with money and votes for that person. We don't have that ability. We are not a major voting block. We are tiny groups all over the place, and so we don't have the power that the fundies do. The fundies are organized with tons of money supporting them. Plus, they have the media.

Only now are we getting some power through the Internet. But we netroots people are not the majority. The majority of people, even those calling for impeachment, don't vote. Or if they do vote, they do not do any studying to see if the candidate is worthy. Many, many people vote on gut instinct, stupid I know, but that's what we've got to work with.

Let's face it, we are political junkies. I doubt if many people even know who the top 3 people are in each party running for President. And the sad truth is, most of those don't even care. Most think all politicians are crooks. I hear that time after time. It doesn't matter who I vote for, because nothing changes. Well, this time something changed, Bush changed it and they are feeling it. Does that mean they will go out and vote, probably not. Sigh! But, if there weren't people like us, trying to change our country for the better, we would all be lost.

zalinda

[warren pease]

11. Problem with that is...

I wouldn't expect Dems to vote for public financing when the current system is doing pretty well for them. For one thing, when's the last time they voted for any true reform measures that their constituents wanted? For another, it keeps the two party system intact by excluding any progressives who don't also happen to be billionaires. And for another, much as they bitch about constantly having to grovel for money, they refuse to acknowledge the implied payback that comes with this legalized system of bribery.

They all minimize influence-peddling by claiming that the money's just buying "access," which would be bad enough since I can't afford to buy that same level of access and therefore my views will never be adequately represented. But what's really for sale is lack of regulatory oversight and favorable rulings in any criminal or civil proceedings the top contributors may become party to.

To quote the former senator from Kansas, Bob Dole, back in 1983 before he became the leading GOP bribocrat, "When these PACs give money, they expect something besides good government in return."

As to third parties... I'd like to see a SECOND party emerge, instead of the two factions of the Business Party who now pretend to oppose one another but actually pursue nearly identical policies. Yes the GOP is well beyond hopeless and the dems are much better on social issues. But their domestic agenda, if there is one, doesn't offer much to the chronic poor, the working poor, the victims of racism and all the other "isms," those killed or crippled by the US health care scam -- or any other group besides campaign donors. (Kucinich excepted in all of the foregoing.)

On foreign policy, I hear Obama advocating bombing Pakistan, the entire senate voting to accept BushCo lies about Iran, the House voting more and more money to feed BushCo's blood and oil lust, and the entire pack of presidential aspirants trying to outdo each other in their support for military aggression and, be definition, the continued slaughter of brown people half a world away. (Again, Kucinich excepted.)

As you might guess, Kucinich has my vote, but of course he's been deemed "unelectable" by the only people who count -- the corporate whores masquerading as political experts on TV and talk radio. I can honestly see myself not casting a vote for president next November if these corporate opportunists are the best the democratic party can come up with.

Gore could get my attention, but I doubt he wants to bother with another year of personal vilification at the hands of the next version of "swift boaters" and their echo chamber in mass media.

Absent Kucinich pulling off a miracle in the primaries, or Gore entering the race, I think I'll be voting local candidates and issues only next year.


wp

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. The "lockstep thing" works

I get as frustrated with Democrats who don't "do progressive" as anyone here, but I can look at the last 25 years of history and acknowledge that the Republicans had the right idea for obtaining power.

They created think tanks solely for the purpose of destroying liberalism. We don't do that. We create vertically-oriented foundations to study an issue and promote it. If a conservative happens to stumble into the right view on the issue, or gives lip service to its goals, the foundation promotes him. This is exactly wrong. We want to destroy conservatism, and ESPECIALLY those who are moderate about it. The ones who are batshit crazy? We want 'em to remain in office as a bad example. Ted Stevens? Come back! Don't run off! Bill Frist? Stick around! Your cats are welcome too.

Sorry about that Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter. You gotta go. You guys are almost reasonable - we can't afford to have the opposition associated with reasonable people.

[Exiled in America]

5. Yes. Winning the long term victory means accepting the possible cost of short term losses.

That's the only way things will ever seriously improve.

Repost from other thread:

It's not even remotely complicated. In fact, its quite simple.

The key to a strong party is for its members to remain committed to its core principles and demand - at all costs - accountability from the party's elected officials.

It is short term, narrow minded thinking to be afraid to hold party leadership and elected representatives accountable for fear that it might result in a loss of party power. Sometimes it will result in a short term loss of party power. However, in the long term it is the only way to maintain a party with any power at all.

The idea of "party loyalty" must be loyalty to core principles, not persons, be they party leaders or elected representatives. When a person betrays those principles, he or she betrays the trust given to them by the people. Those persons should be replaced.

When the party strays very far from its principles, as the Democratic Party has done for years under the wilting pressure from conservatives attacking those principles from within, it becomes weak and ineffective. We've lived under this for too many years, while apologists cry that if we ever take a stand and stop voting for weak, ineffective, bought-and-paid-for, closet conservative pieces of crap, we would be "hurting the party" or ensuring a Republican victory.

There are worse things in life than a short term Republican gain. Like a long term Democratic failure. After a decade of Republican control over most of government, Democrats finally had the chance to make a stand. The fact that they have not done so (the congressional leadership and enough "blue dog" democrats) is why ultimately this opportunity to reestablish long term democratic control will be squandered. The best thing that could possibly happen for this country and this party is for democrats to start having principles rather than just doing anything and supporting anyone with a "D" after their name in order to "win."

What exactly is won when we do that? Nothing. Sometimes "disciplining" the party in order to create necessary course corrections to stay on principle means suffering an election cycle where the other guys win. I'm sorry, but that's how politics works. If you don't like it, sit down, shut up and sit on the sidelines... and to borrow a phrase, let the "adults" be in charge. Winning at all cost gets you next to nothing. Voting for any democratic simply for sake of party "loyalty" gets you ineffective, compromising, cowering, pathetic representatives who take YOUR philosophy (simply winning at all cost) and make it THIER philosophy (not every doing what's right and simply trying to win reelection.)

The only option for a better long term future of this country and for the party is to demand accountability from elected representatives.

First, we need to come to a consensus on that the core principles of the party actually are. Everyone always talks about the "big tent” of the party. But if there are no lines of distinction between this party and any other party – if every point of view is “supported” then there is no party in the first place. We need to come to agreement on what the essential principles of the party on, and then maintain freedom in the non-essentials.

Second, you then demand accountability from the people you elect and from the leadership of the party. When elected representatives betray essential party principles, you refuse to vote for them again. Ideally you ensure than someone else wins the democratic nomination. But if they are the candidate for reelection, you don’t vote for them. You don’t vote for people who don’t uphold the principles of the party of the reason they were elected in the first place.

YES, this man mean in the SHORT run that the other party wins the election instead. Sometimes it could even mean turning congressional control over to the other Party. And in the short term, that’s a sad thing that can potentially mean hard times for real families. But that’s the price you pay. It’s aint all pretty flowers. In the LONG run, you fill the party with strong leaders, people of principle and courage, people who care more about doing what is right for the country and the party than they do about their own careers. And when you do that, you can guarantee that the party WILL come to power again, and when it does, it will KEEP power longer, be more effective, and do more to aid the wonderful people of this country.

In 2008, if I had the ability for vote for all Democratic Congressmen, I would not vote for a single one that vote to approve the war appropriations bill. That act needlessly signed the death warrants of countless American men and women and innocent Iraqi civilians. I would not vote for a single Democrat that voted for the enhanced surveillance powers or the leadership that capitulated with the administration to give them what they wanted. That was an outright betrayal of the Constitution of the United States of America. I would hope that a better, more courageous democrat would win the nomination. But if not, then when a Republican replaces a worthless Democrat “in name only” the message can be sent loud and clear to the leadership of the party, “we will not tolerate democratic party representatives that betray the parties core principles. We would rather LOSE than win by STANDING FOR NOTHING or by adopting the policies of our opponents!

That’s how you win in the long run ….. you have to be willing to lose in the short run, if that’s what standing up for what’s right means.

[zalinda]

6. Does "Contract with America" ring a bell?

The dems went out of power, did the dem party become stronger? Beating a donkey because it's not doing the work you want him to do, or trading him in for an elephant doesn't make sense. Feeding him and taking care of him, moving him this way or that, will get him to understand what you want done. It takes patience.

You seem to have a narrow viewpoint. It's my way or the highway. I'm sorry, but that doesn't really work in the real world. If more repubs get elected, more dems will move to the right, it's common sense. The people want someone on the right, so I'll move over there and be more like that. But, if more and more dems are elected, you will effectively move the country more to the left. And with that, you will have repubs moving more to the left, because they want to get elected.

Government is slow moving, that is the way it was created. Bush only moved it this far to the right because he over stepped his powers and he had a complicit media to help him, as well as the congress and senate. We DON'T have the media on our side, so any win that we can get is a huge step. Once there is a dem power to be reckoned with, then you go about taking out those who are too far to the right, and you choose your targets carefully. If Pelosi doesn't rep your district, take her out. But, to not vote for a dem because he/she is not everything you want, is political suicide and possibly a risk of never having a progressive government.

zalinda

[Exiled in America]

7. I'm sorry, if you were right I would agree with you.

The dems went out of power, did the dem party become stronger?

Of course not, but thank you for making my point, not detracting from it. The democrats were too busy trying to figure out how to triangulate, capitulate, be more like republicans to try to win, be afraid to stand strongly by their principles, and they - under the pathetic failing guidance of the DLC - kept themselves out of power under the completely misguided belief that in order to "win" they had to have no principles at all.

You seem to have a narrow viewpoint. It's my way or the highway. I'm sorry, but that doesn't really work in the real world.

You sir, are lying about my point of view. And you are using the cheap and deceptive "that doesn't work in the real world" screed to attempt to make my point of view seem unreasonable. I said, quite clearly in fact, that I don't believe things should be "my way or the highway." But I pointed out, quite correctly, that we have to stand for something, otherwise there is no party at all. We must have AGREEMENT IN THE ESSENTIALS and FREEDOM IN THE NON-ESSENTIALS. In other words, we have to have unity around the core principles of our party, and then freedom for party members to disagree about the non-essential issues.

That's not my way or the highway. That's just a basic, common sense understanding that there has to be some basis of agreement and that there are SOME essential things that can't be compromised. That's not unrealistic. That *IS* the real world. That's the way it works.

[zalinda]

8. So, basically you are saying

let's destroy the party to save it? Yeah, that'll work. The neo-cons became the power within the repub party because they went into it and moved it to their way of thinking. But, instead you say let's let them win more elections so MAYBE we will find the people that will measure up to your standards. How many people are you willing to let die so you can have your perfect dem party? Because whether or not it's the battlefield or no health care, people will be dying, until you have your perfect party. Let's let our kids grow up uneducated, but able to take tests. Yeah, that'll work. You are willing to throw away an entire generation of children to get your perfect party?

I have no idea what you think your perfect party will accomplish. But us imperfect dems will work to bring the ideals we hold dear, and move the party inch by inch to our way of thinking without destroying it. We will strengthen the party without weakening it. We do have core principles but, because we are a big tent, we see different ways to achieve what we want.

And, here's what every dem can agree on: health care for all, good education for all, a right to be paid fairly for work delivered, good infrastructure, good jobs, fair taxation, basic rights for all people and a government safely net. What is wrong with that?

As for those things that not all dems can agree on, that will take work to bring about. I am not looking for perfection, I'm looking for workability. With the dems, I can work with them to bring things around, with the repubs I can't.

And, if the repubs continue to keep power? Do you think they would EVER let the dems win again, no matter who you would put up for election? They would only let enough dems win, to make sure that the dems always look like they are ineffectual. That is the real world of politics.

zalinda

[BuyingThyme]

9. The foundation is as solid as ever.

We need to ridicule the leadership and force them to go away. They simply do not share our values and love of country.