Members of Progressive Democrats of America check in please.

[liberaldemocrat7]

I have set up a forum for you at http://progressives.aceboard.com

Enjoy.

[Perry Logan]

1. Today's top thread: "Ten exciting new ways to screw things up for the Democrats!"

[peacebird]

2. How so? Is being a progressive democrat somehow detrimental to the party?

:wtf:

[OzarkDem]

3. Thanks

What a great idea, though I hope Prog Dems keep posting here at DU.

[liberaldemocrat7]

4. I do too but I want progressive Democrats to have a place free of Bush dog Democrats

and conservative and moderate Democrats.

[Syntheto]

6. I can understand your anger, but...

It just seems that so many people want to go someplace where they can sing to the choir and be patted on the back with shouts of "You go, Kid!!!".

They don't want to hear any dissent whatsoever from their world view. They don't want to be questioned, they don't want to be criticized.

Surely you realize that the only candidate that will win an American presidential election is one that has the backing of one or the other two political parties? Why, because of the threat of Blackwater Mercs breaking up meetings? No, because a modern American, multimedia campaign is prohibitively expensive.

Maybe if we could get legislation passed that would allow any political organization with a million members (using an arbitrary number) to have equal television and print media time, we would have a more fair system, but you would have to accept that while the many people who consider themselves Left of Left Center would finally have a voice, there would be a Right of Right Center group who would have the same right.

Wait, you say that those people wouldn't be allowed to spew their venom in the America you envision? Well, you would find yourself very disappointed because that wouldn't be an America most people would be comfortable with and it wouldn't fly.

That's probably why we don't have any equal time available, because while you are a good person and convinced of the righteousness of your cause, there are people who you would consider Nazified Klu Klux Klanner Skinheads who are just as convinced in their crusade.

The best we can hope and work for is a government that is somewhat left of center, make that the Center and then tack further Left. It's a process.

I mean no disrespect, but actual politics and government is a cynical, cold-blooded business, and many times you have to hold your nose to get anything accomplished.

If you don't work within the existing system, and you can't magically change things over to a more equitable one, then you are, by default, outside the system and ineffective.

If you just want to vent, and who could blame you, there are plenty of places to go where your views won't be criticized and you will be congratulated on your insight.

Right now, at this time and point, however, we are on the brink of beginning the hot phase of the election cycle, and we need everybody to pull together, yes, even if it means holding your nose.

If we fragment and don't show a united front, the Republicans are going to win in 2008. It is that simple.

Again, I mean no respect. I wouldn't have written such a long post if I was being critical.

My advice to folks who hold views further Left than I do, for what is worth, work on getting your chosen candidate or representative into a Cabinet-level position in the Democratic Administration.

Congressman Kucinch, in my opinion, again for what it is worth, would make an ideal Secretary of State.

Take care.

[liberaldemocrat7]

7. Should I unite behind the most conservative Democrat: Hillary Clinton?

I like Bill Clinton but I did not like that he threw millions of welfare beneficiaries under the bus with the 1996 WHELFARE law that he signed.

With the flag burning legislation that Hillary supported and that she has not uttered a peep to repeal medicare part D and replace the drug benefit and place it into part B with no premiums, deductibles, coverage gaps or means tests leads me to believe she will toe a similar corporate line that Bush has.

However I will not vote for Ralph Nader or some other candidate in 2008.

I hope people unite behind the least conservative viable candidate John Edwards. but if Hillary gets the nomination I will either abstain voting for President in NY or vote on the Working Families party line which will probably have Hillary as their candidate and votes for her on that line get added to Democratic votes but I will vote for her on that line as a protest.

[Syntheto]

8. Realpolitik is a nasty, disgusting business, but ..

as with every birthday after fifty, while it sucks, it certainly beats the alternative. The very best compromise is to position the designated Democratic candidate (read: The one who has the actual best choice of winning the general election) and to petition in an organized fashion, to have your candidate (If he/she turns out not to have enough backing from the National organization to become the designated candidate) appointed to a Cabinet-level position in the new Democratic administration.

I can't tell you who to vote for. As the police in our rural area told my father when a dog bit me as I was riding my bicycle: "Let your conscious be your guide."

You may have to hold your nose when you do it, but if you don't work within the system, you're going to be marginalized.

For the record, I think Congressman Kucinich would be more effective, and the perfect choice to become Secretary of State in the next administration, than he would even as the President.

Mrs. Clinton would be the best choice for Defense, but, hey, that's just an opinion. No one doubts that she's one tough bitch, and I mean that in a good way. The R Team means it in a bad way, but they would even they would have to grudgingly admit that the Thatcherite aspect of her character would be an asset in that position.

Geez, talk about the Carrot and Stick approach to foreign policy! Hey, deal honestly with Dennis, or you're going to have to deal with Mrs. Clinton.

Don't give up; we've all still got until around to 27 December before we need to starting concentrating efforts behind one person.

[Breeze54]

9. That's not true at all.

I am a member on MANY messageboards and one more isn't going to hurt.

[Syntheto]

10. I'm sorry, but I don't understand..

I wasn't saying that DU should be the only place anyone should post. The only problem I see is when people go to websites that don't offer any challenge to a person's assumptions. My post was aimed at folks who post here on a subject, say, like impeachment, and get indignant when people post critical comments, and the poster takes it personally.

Some people do, and they gravitate towards sites where their views won't be questioned. That's fine, but I think that people who do that start developing a worldview that incorporates the belief that everyone in the country agrees with them, and therefore, America is a totalitarian police state and Bush and Cheney are Beezelbub and the AntiChrist, respectively, etc, etc, so forth and so on.

With all due respect, are all the messageboards that you're a member of saying the same thing? If they are, then where's the diversity of thought and opinion?

There are a lot of people here who have disagreed with me, and some have even been offensive with personal attacks, even though they have never met me, don't know me, don't even know what I look like or really, what gender I am. All because I made a comment critical to their world view.

I don't take it personally, but I can't take them seriously, either. Politics is a dirty business, which calls for thick skin and machavellian maneuvering. We've got a little less than two months to really get behind the designated candidate from the D team. If we fragment because we take every criticism to heart as an insult to our intelligence and who we are as people, then we're going to lose the White House to the other side.

[Breeze54]

11. The members of the other message boards do NOT agree on everything but

the place does allow for discussion without browbeating, and I think that's the point.

I am a member at diverse websites, lots of different opinions.

I've been on many other boards since the late 90's and we won the house and senate in 2006, ;)
so your premise that we'd "we're going to lose the White House to the other side."

is not true.... Doesn't holds water.

[Syntheto]

12. We have a difference of opinion, that's all...

and I'm taking into account some of the reactions I've had when I've expressed the opinion that impeachment is a nonproductive venture during the current election cycle, so I admit the possibility that I am primed for that kind of argument.

I do disagree, though. I said that we'd lose to the other side within the context of: "If we fragment.."

There are people who feel that they were lied to by House and Senate, who were voted into office in 2006, but have the mistaken notion that because the Democrats hold a majority, it follows that Congress is the exclusive domain of Democrats, to the exclusion of Republican representatives in both legislative bodies.

To some people's way of thinking, after 2006, the war in Iraq should've stopped IMMEDIATELY, and the present administration should have been IMPEACHED the very next day, removed from office and sent to the Hague to face trial for WAR CRIMES.

When that didn't happen, and it's not going to, a lot of people professed to feeling used and were therefore not going to vote in 2008 because of the betrayal by the people they put into office in 2006.

That is what I've been dealing with. If the Democratic leadership has a fault, it was for allowing their constituents to believe that a coup, because that's what it would take to do all the above, was being promised to them.

Again, if we fragment and some people decide that they are going to protest by refusing to vote Democratic because they felt used and betrayed by the Democratic leadership, then, yes, the other side is going to win, because politics is not all light and honey. It's deals being made and compromises having to be stomached. It's always going to have a smoke-filled room aspect behind it and while idealism is the engine that drives the philosophical direction, it is not going to come through the processed completely unscathed.

It is strictly a win/lose proposition; either they lose and we win, or they'll be back.

The very first thing people have to understand is that there are people on the other side being manipulated by their leadership, and that they feel just as strongly about their political views as our side does, even if they're wrong. They can't be ignored, but the only way their worldview can be changed is if it's demonstrated to them that their leadership is powerless because they're ideologically bankrupt.

Yeah, we won all those seats in 2006; so what? Bush/Cheney are still there, they're pushing what they want to push through, we have troops in Iraq, and none of the two major points the leadership was supposedly voted in to achieve have been accomplished, and it realistically doesn't look as any of it will.

To a lot of people's mind, it was a very hollow and meaningless 'victory'.

If a Democratic majority with control of both houses of Congress is unable to accomplish anything, then what have we won?

If we're able to put aside our differences and shoulder the burden of common cause, there's a very good chance that we could have a mandate, and that's what we need. We need the Congress, and the Executive on our side.

[Breeze54]

13. We haven't finished cleaning up the house and senate yet!!

That takes time and election cycles but there are many people working

on that; including Russ Feingold and his Progressive Patriots Fund.

We, unfortunately, have 40 blue Dogs calling themselves Dems and they need to go!

But the Dems did make head way in the last election and it's looking good for '08 too.

[acmavm]

5. Nice. Sometimes the apologists for our do-nothing reps get

a little grating on the nerves.