On being an ideologicaly pure leftist in the Democratic party.

[MadHound]

One of the latest memes, nay, even insults being passed around DU is that those of us on the left are ideological purists. Uncompromising, unwilling to work with others, no better than the RW fundies, looking to take over the party.

Let's step back and take a look at this in the light of reality. If you were around here during the '04 election, you will recall that those of us on the left not only held our nose to vote for Kerry, but actually got out and worked hard for him. In the '06 election campaign, we got out in force to put Democrats into majority power. In '00, if you will look at the stats, you will find that it wasn't leftist Dems who voted for Nader, but instead it was the regular Green voters, joined by first time voters or those who hadn't voted in many years that made up Nader's constituency.

In fact as you go back through the campaigns over the past forty years, time and again you will find the leftists heavily involved in the various campaigns, getting out the vote, working the street, manning the polls, giving our money, blood, sweat and tears.

Yet over the same course of time, we have seen a shift in the Democratic party. It has grown more conservative, more corporatist, and in many opinions, more spineless. We on the left have indeed compromised with this, our very support of the party, sometimes flying in the face of our best interests, testifies to this ability of the left to compromise. Yet seemingly it seems that everytime the left compromises an inch, a mile is taken instead.

Sooner or later, any group of people that has been ignored and maligned will rise up and say enough is enough, this far and no further. I think that time has now come for those of us on the left. After working our ass off to put in a Democratic Congress(with the mandate of stopping the war), we are presented with the specter of having the top of the Democratic ticket dominated by candidates who cannot promise an end to the war during their first term. The current leader, Hillary, has stated time and again that she will keep troops in a live fire zone in order to guard bases, train troops, and go on combat missions against Al Quaeda(funny how similar this mission is to Bush's current position, scarier still how close it is to our "official" rationale for our Vietnam involvement).

We're treated to the spectacle of watching our top tier candidates ditching entire segments of Democratic constituents(usually on the left), doing deals with corporate powers, and moving ever rightward on the issues.

I think that the dynamic that we see here is the left is finally saying enough is enough. We have compromised ourselves this far and no further. That it is time that not only should the party compromise with us, but that indeed the left even needs to be rewarded for its contributions to the party. After all, ever other segment in the party gets its strokes, why not us? Finally, I think that the left is simply repelled by how far right the party has moved. We have woken up and realized that this is no longer the party it was even a quarter century ago. The party of the worker, the ordinary guy, the trampled and disempowered has become the party of corporate power and centerist dogma(which is suspiciously similar to old school moderate Republicans).

So perhaps it is time that the rest of party compromise. Throw the left a bone, give us a reason to vote for the Democratic candidate, rather than simply voting against the Republican candidate. FDR recognized this long ago when he nicked a couple of planks from his challengers on the left, the Socialist party. He took these two planks and made them his own, and in the process won his first re-election handily and bequeathed us with two social programs that are now the bulwark of the party, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

This was a man who knew how to compromise with the left on issues. Hopefully today's candidates will learn their lesson from this and do likewise. Otherwise, it may not only cost the Dems the election next fall, it might cost the party its very existence.

[Faux pas]

1. !!

:applause:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. You've really struck a chord for me. I've been utterly baffled at the

number, here on DU and in my own life, of folks who are saying they're Democrats without supporting a single liberal issue.

Centrist or moderate sounds to me like "go along to get along".

We don't need any more of that type of thinking within our ranks. MKJ

BTW, K & R, wonderful read, thank you.

:kick:

[MadHound]

6. Thank you,

As an active party member for thirty five years, I've watched this unfold for a long time. I really think that the root cause of all of this is the corrosive influence that corporate campaign contributions have had on our party. It has been disconcerting, to say the least, to watch as our corporate contributions have risen, while simultaneously our party stances have become ever more corporate friendly.

I think that if we took corporate money out of elections, this problem would correct itself. If not, I think that it will be a disaster, not only for the party but also for our country.

[FarCenter]

27. Contributions by small and medium business are probably the biggest problem

Small and medium businesses are much more numerous than large corporates, and thus have more clout. While sometimes corporations, they are often LLCs, partnerships, and proprieterships with a direct interest in political outcomes at the local level. Bond underwriters, law practices, real estate developers, civil engineering firms, construction companies, etc. have the greatest incentive to gain influence over politicians.

[MadHound]

29. Numerically you're correct

However if you look at the dollar amounts, you will immediately see that large corporations contribute much, much more than small businesses, and thus have an inordinate amount of influence on both our party and our government.

[riona]

121. And, oh boy, the benefits these corporations reap!

And, what benefits do average Americans get from these corporations? We get our benefits and jobs sent overseas. They get offshore accounts, and super tax rates. We get taxation without representation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. Local businesses may influence local politics - we see it all the

time with developers pushing unlimited growth schemes - but they have little to no influence on national politics. For that you need the major corporations, national and international, which are often at odds with local businesses. Look what NAFTA did to the US textiles industry - thousands of little plants shut down, and the work farmed out to Mexico. But WalMart did well enough by it.

The problem is that the law sees no difference between the little manufacturer with 112 employees and the multi-national with 112,000. When people bitch about "corporations" they are not talking about the the local mill (unless, of course, it refuses to unionize).

[peacetalksforall]

49. Yes, excellent post within an excellet thread. Thanks to all.

[deutsey]

54. I think Walter Karp in "Liberty Under Siege" concurs

His book is about how briefly, in the mid-'70s, there really was moment in American politics when the elites lost control and "the people" gained it. This, according to Karp, frightened not only the elites in the Republican/right wing side of the aisle, but among the old Democratic Party machine as well.

[pnorman]

157. "Liberty Under Siege"

I had never heard of that book until now, but it looks good! It's available at Amazon really CHEAP ($1.50 --- used, like new). I just dropped it into the Shopping Cart. THANKS.

pnorman

[Cha]

42. Hello, Sweetie...they're

infiltrators who like traitors need to be chameleons. It helps their cause..which is? Hmm? I'd have to guess..the downfall of the Democratic Party and it's People Oriented Principles.

To me.."Centrists or Moderates" who have no Democratic Principles are actually fascists! :wow:

[Voice for Peace]

47. The Philosophy Of Liberty

putting politics aside for a moment
this is really worth watching:
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

a flash animation which I think is universally relevant to all of us.

[Skittles]

193. spineless bastards, that's what they are

like Lieberman they should declare themselves repukes and get some f***ing therapy

[leftchick]

3. k&r

:applause:

[stimbox]

4. Bravo!

:bounce:

[Spazito]

5. It is not unlike the value of one's friends, imo

I appreciate most those friends who care enough about me to point out when I am wrong as opposed to agreeing with me even when they know, at heart, I am wrong. It is even more important for my best friends to be honest with me when my words and actions can affect others in less than positive ways.


Edited to correct grammatical error.

[burythehatchet]

7. Rock on Hound Dog!

[mike_c]

8. hear hear! recommended!

Excellent post.

Yep-- I've been raked over the coals here for "ideological purity" and unwillingness to compromise liberal ideals, but that ignores the truth that I voted solidly Democratic for thirty years before finally throwing my hands up and deciding the party has just moved too far to the right to represent me any longer, at least in terms of national politics. Today's democratic party is largely to the right of NIXON, for crying out loud. My ideology hasn't changed that much since the 1970s-- but the democratic party has.

One thing that never seems to change is the demand that leftists support the party centrists without any reciprocation. Over and over we hear that WE must compromise for the good of the party. I cannot recall EVER hearing the party centrists-- who are now so far to the right that I can no longer recognize their politics as similar to my own-- I cannot recall EVER hearing them say "it's time to move to the left because the left has helped us out time and time again." You never see centrists spreading the love to leftist candidates-- there's always "too much at stake."

This upcoming election is the watershed event, as far as I'm concerned. Dissatisfaction with the GOP is at an all-time high. The 2008 presidential election is the democrat's to lose. The democratic party candidate is a virtual shoo-in because the GOP has screwed things up so badly that only the hard-core GOP faithful will likely support their candidate. Never has the democratic party had so little to risk, or at least not since Nixon was driven from office with Watergate biting at his heels. And yet, when it would be easy and relatively painless to compromise with the left, the democratic party puts virtually all its resources into advancing center-right candidates whose positions on many of the issues important to the left are worse than any we've seen in DECADES.

[scarletwoman]

20. Hear, hear! To BOTH your posts!

For myself, I think that when you get told enough times that your ideas are not really welcome, then it's probably time to move on to a different endeavor.

I think it's foolish to look to electoral politics for solutions, when so much of it is part of the problem. I think it's time for progressives to concentrate on building a social movement outside of partisan politics.

sw

[MadHound]

24. Thank you, I appreciate that.

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the party over the past year. Their lack of a spine, their lack of progress, their failure to follow through on the mandate to end the war.

Now we're being presented with the same ol' corporate candidates who are more beholden to their corporate masters than their flesh and blood constituents.

It is quite possible that this is the year that I abandon the party. All depends on who gets the nomination.

I would love to build a social movement outside of politics, but sooner or later I think that one would have to get political again in order to implement it.

[scarletwoman]

36. "sooner or later I think that one would have to get political again in order to implement it." True,

but the political implementation stage can't happen until the movement has reached enough strength and cohesion to FORCE attention from the power structure.

Frederick Douglass already pointed this out clearly and unequivocally: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

sw

[eridani]

217. I've been hearing people on the left say "build social movements and pay no attention to politicians

--ever since the early 70s. Hey, how's that strategy been working out for us, eh? :sarcasm:

[scarletwoman]

256. I don't know -- do you see any big social movements happening besides the fundies?

And hey, they actually accomplished ALOT. None of it good, of course, but they DID do it by way of building a social movement. There's been NO concomitant leftist social movement.

No, we've all been busy believing that electoral politics was the only way to go -- faithfully voting for lesser evils as long as they had a 'D' behind their name, and excoriating anyone who questioned that strategy.

We DON'T have a social movement, we need to START one.

sw

[eridani]

258. What we have is a whole bunch of small social movements--

--focused on issues. We have union organizing and peace vigils, election reform and feminist actions, LGTB issues and the environment. The Rockridge Institute folks are right--we need some values-based unity among all these groups.

[mike_c]

32. "...building a social movement outside of partisan politics."

I absolutely agree. That is largely what the Green Party is about locally here in Norcal, but the party identification is primarily one of convenience-- the real issue is building a social movement based upon principles of social justice and empowerment.

Your comment reminded me that much of the progress we saw during the last half of the twentieth century grew out of the social movements that defined that time-- the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the counter-culture movement, and the anti-war movement come to mind right from the start. They created the ATMOSPHERE needed to catalyze change, despite institutional resistance, and when they began to lose steam during the last couple of decades of the twentieth century-- or at least seemed to lose some of their vitality-- the "liberal" democratic party began to move so far to the right that it became tough to recognize. This also coincided with the unprecedented rise of corporate power during the forced wartime economy that has persisted for the last fifty years.

You've reminded me that there is indeed a culture struggle underway, and that the best way to win the culture wars is to build culture that's meaningful and compelling. That's real grass-roots politics-- politics that reflects cultural imperatives and human values, politics driven by social movements that put the welfare of citizens before the profits of corporations or the fortunes of politicians. The corporate-political axis, the military-industrial complex and their pet politicos, have snuck their own social movement in to control the national agenda and we need to undermine it the same way.

[scarletwoman]

46. "The corporate-political axis, the military-industrial complex and their pet politicos, have..."

...snuck their own social movement in to control the national agenda and we need to undermine it the same way.

I like that word "undermine" -- that is precisely what we have to do. We need to work subversively, underground, under the radar, outside the parameters; building the framework for an alternative worldview to take hold in the body politic. Out of changed consciousness comes changed action.

sw

[nashville_brook]

64. what if, instead of paying HOA fees, communities paid themselves dividends.

i'm all about undermining. :evilgrin:

[scarletwoman]

85. Hey, anything can happen when people decide to stop giving away their power!

Break your chains! The System will never break them for you, it will just keep wrapping more chains around you while claiming that it's for your own good.

Only when people STOP believing that they have no other choices will the new choices begin to appear.

Workers of the World Unite! Power to the People!

"Without a struggle, there can be no progress." (Frederick Douglass)

sw

[nashville_brook]

87. eggsactly.

[nashville_brook]

62. when "doing your thang" creates change -- the personal is political.

i agree that more can be done in terms of building social movements outside of partisan politics, but i think that there's plenty of (revolutionary) social movements that already have a great head of steam. maybe we're so close to them, that we fail to see their revolutionary potential.

marriage, for instance, in a vestiage of feudal tradition that has almost no meaning anymore.

so, gay marriage might be an example of a revolutionary social movement. what if we could *intentionally* form families outside of *religious marriage* that imparted legal/economic benefits (rights/privilages) of heterosexual baby-making relationships.

for example, why shouldn't otherwise unrelated elderly people (widows, perhaps) be able to form social contracts with other people where they share legal/economic privileges. this would make practical sense for people whose primary relationship might have ended thru death.

bill hicks said that the reason why social structures are crumbling is that they are no longer relevant. in a way, i think a transformation of our idea and practice of marriage has the potential to transform society as a whole.

another social structure that might be ripe for extinction is energy use. oil over $100 a barrel could make oil IRRELEVANT. what if people needed to drastically rethink how they work and live? what if our world suddenly got much smaller, where the focus of life happens in the context of "community" rather than "city."

partisan politics would likely die on the vine in a postmodern internodal community.

[scarletwoman]

71. I agree with everything you've said -- "a transformation of our idea and practice of marriage...

...has the potential to transform society as a whole." Excellent!

Energy use is the biggy for me. Decentralized, community-based energy generation from local resources would literally shift the balance of power (in ALL its connotations!).

"Postmodern internodal community" -- I like that. :)

sw

[nashville_brook]

74. your post has sparked a big discussion here in RT about creating community value...

when feudalism began to crumble, the merchantile class emerged. i think that there's some amazing potential for forming communities of production so we stop dispersing our value outside of the family and start "keeping it in the *family" -- the idea is define families differenty.


what if we answer the housing slump with rethought communities -- transform fallow developments into economic engines. you don't PAY HOA for landscaping -- they pay you. we pay each other.

[scarletwoman]

93. "forming communities of production" -- That's EXACTLY the key thing.

It covers so many levels: Resource use, energy generation, meaningful work, economic self-sufficiency.

I live in a very rural area, mixed farmland (mostly dairy farming) and forestland along with state parks, rivers and lakes. I've long had this fantasy that each farm could be a node of energy generation -- either through biomass, solar or wind, whatever fit best -- whose excess could feed into a locally-owned central collection and transmission point, providing essentially "off-grid" energy for everyone within a certain radius.

Just think of what achieving "energy independence" on a small scale, replicated in communities all over the country would do!

Just think if your Home Owners Association decided to build their own wind turbine or solar panel array to provide electricity (and profit!) to each member!

I really do think we can change the world -- the time is really getting to be right -- but we're never going to be able to fix this mess with the same kind of thinking that got us into it.

sw

[nashville_brook]

109. i live in an extreme suburb of orlando -- built on swamp and SPRINGS

talk about a valuable natural resource. what if our community used the springs as a community resource. they could form a little economic center -- maybe housing a spa, recreational area, or even water as a product (using it locally as a utility or selling it to neighboring communities who might have a resource we'd want to purchase).

as an aside, i'm on the fence with the "suburban" life. i've lived in semi-urban gentrified communities working toward a "new urban" ideal, and i've lived in small towns with rural foundations. the "suburbs" were supposed to be a horrible to live, but i find this one fairly okay ("okay-topia" is what we've taken to calling it).

it's called a "conservation" development in that all the houses have either a piece of cypress "forest" (swamp, beautiful amazing swamp) or ponds to look out on. few houses back up to other houses -- so a lot of the natural beauty and wetland functioning (bird, critter sanctuary) has been preserved. yes, there's gators, everywhere. the neighborhood is like one giant greenway.

to the west of our suburb is Celebration, FL which was built as an extention of Disney's EPCOT center. EPCOT originally meant "experimental prototypical community of tomorrow." Celebration is EPCOT's autistic child. it strives to bring home and work into unison, but it simply can't go there in a humanistic way. it gets the words but misses the beat.

it seems to me that if we kept our productive energy nearer to the family unit (which needs to be more largely defined) we'd be CREATING value instead of dissipating it. shit, our neighborhoods are already going in this direction as families term-up to rent housing. we have a couple of houses near us with multi-families (it's not just for immigrants anymore). what if, instead of driving 30 minutes to dissipate our time and value at a job that means nothing to us -- what if we kept that value at "home."

i'm very optimistic about virtual social structures such as DU (for R and D) and eBay (as a storefront) to serve purposes in postmodern internodal communities.

[scarletwoman]

118. Fascinating about EPCOT. Heh.

To me it all boils down to communities being economically self-sufficient through small-scale and localized income-producing industries of various sorts -- whatever is most ecologically suited to your area.

sw

[Johnny Noshoes]

182. "Decentralized, community-based energy generation from local resources "

I live and work in NYC. Everyday I ride an elevated train into Manhattan from Queens. I've often wondered what if all those apartment house rooftops exposed to the sun had solar arrays on them that could be linked to provide supplemental power to the community. Just an idea.

[scarletwoman]

189. It seems like such an obvious idea. And think of the job-creation aspect of setting up a whole new

energy infrastructure. No more massive blackouts, lower bills, cleaner air... Decentralized energy generation would utterly transform our entire political and economic system.

Power to the People!

sw

[nashville_brook]

200. there should be incentives -- if you put energy back into the grid, you should be paid

just like the corporations generating power.

there also needs to be a complete re-thinking of tax incentives for rooftop energy. solar is just one method. there's also little windmills you can purchase that generate power. geothermal is another method, where waterpipes are used to passively store and radiate heat.

people should be encouraged to "green america" one roof at a time. tax credits would be a great first step.

[leftchick]

94. ironically

I have just started reading Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, 2003 updated UNEDITED version. Which I did not even know existed until I went looking for a copy of the 1906 version, which I read 30 years ago, for my son. Reading it reminded me how much we need a real socialist movement again in this country. Like NOW!

[scarletwoman]

96. "...we need a real socialist movement again in this country." We need a viable Left, for sure.

We have alot of work to do, and I just don't think it's going to happen through party politics.

:loveya:
sw

[leftchick]

104. no it will not

it will be underground at first, then perhaps an actual revolution? I hope I live to see it!

back atcha sista! :loveya:

[scarletwoman]

107. I don't want a revolution, just an evolution. We fight evil through energetic progress in the good.

;)

sw

[nashville_brook]

110. werd.

[ProudLiberal7]

119. I think.....

...we need to do both. Electoral politics without an active, vibrant social progressive movement to push them to do the right things are where we are now and why the Democrats are what they are. A social progressive movement without the means or people positioned to put their positions into policy is...well...The Green Party. The Greens have a great platform and ideas - without people in office to put that those ideas into effect, it may as well be scrap paper.

National polls show that a majority of Americans are with us - not the right or the timid middle. It's past time to get that movement going and to get people who elected who'll put the movement goals into action. These aren't conflicting goals, it's why we wear two shoes: we need both feet to move forward.

[scarletwoman]

131. Yes, both, but you won't have success in the 2nd if you don't build up the 1st, FIRST. (nt)

[loudsue]

127. I agree....much like what Al Gore has done with global warming.

The whole world is behind him on it, and those who oppose him look as foolish as they truly are. We need to BE the "bully pulpit", and take our ideas to the masses. Let the politicians look as foolish as they truly are.

:kick:

[MadHound]

22. Thank you, and you're correct

Hell, even a dead Democratic dog could win the presidential election this year. Why not extend ourselves and bring in issues that really would help our society, UHC, publicly financed elections, ending the Iraq war:shrug:

Instead, the Dems seem dead set on promoting more of the same ol' same ol' corporately compromised crap.

[Bjorn Against]

9. Enthusiastic K&R

This needs to be sent to the top of the greatest page, you are absolutely right. The left in this country has been forced to compromise a great deal, and we have gotten virtually nothing in return. No more, we are tired of being ignored time and time again.

[pscot]

10. Ideological "purity" of any kind

is an indicatition that forty percent of your brain isn't working.

[TahitiNut]

38. There is no such thing. Pretending there is and labeling another in such a fashion ...

... is an "indicatition(sic)" that eighty percent of your brain isn't working. :shrug:


"Ideological purist" is a sneeringly condescending epithet employed by the willingly corrupt - where 'corruption' is the literal antithesis of 'purity.'

[Cha]

86. Precisely!

"Ideological purist" is a sneeringly condescending epithet employed by the willingly corrupt - where 'corruption' is the literal antithesis of 'purity."

That's what I've been tryin' to say..Freakin' disingenous for the corrupt dinos to label the party they're trying to infiltrate as "Purists".

[EFerrari]

117. The neutral term might be "intellectual coherence"

where being consistent in your philosophy, values and actions might be a good thing.

lol

[scarletwoman]

122. Also known as "integrity". And of course, "coherence" implies psychological integration.

:D

[EFerrari]

137. Maybe I am guilty of hyperbole.

lol

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

147. No! Not at all! I just love to play with words, is all.

I'm loving this thread, btw -- so many of my favorite DUers showing up!

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

202. Funny you might call it that, considering what the Fecal Fuhrer's minions said.

According to the editors of The New Republic, for instance, those liberals who refused to get aboard Bush's friendship train to Baghdad were motivated by "abject pacifism" characterized by "intellectual incoherence," with views all but indistinguishable from "pierced-tongued demonstrators."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071112/alterman

This is, as one might guess, a reference to another sophistic screed by Lucianne's demon spawn at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticle.nationalreview.com%2F%3Fq%3DMDE5OGRjMGFmNzk5YTczMjc2MjQxY2U4N2RlYmY5MjQ%3D&ei=keA3R6DzNZrsiwH_3Nn4CQ&usg=AFQjCNEjgrxPsLC-wKmazq4IMjhNQOdZ-g&sig2=wl1N5AxQnAR3ANpgcnD-1Q

[EFerrari]

204. Ick! That's 'way too close!

:scared:

[TahitiNut]

210. I'd say it's an affirmation of what you said.

After all, from the "war is peace" and "Iraq is a democracy" crowd, the odds are that the truth is 180 degrees from what they say. Rarely does such a truth get said in the precise same terms by coincidence, unless it's clear.


Actually, it's funny that I remembered the article in The Nation and connected the two. Too often, I see something (some phrase or allusion) and it triggers some vague sense of vuja de but I can't put my finger on what it reminds me of. In this case, I was able to do so. That's unusual for me - since I have almost no skill at retaining mental footnotes or bibliographic references. When I read, I read critically and with the abjective of comprehension and integration - NOT citation. So, I'm very rarely able to track back.

I probably remembered it because it's such a projection from some of the most ideologically incoherent, politically exploitative, and regurgitative political people of any time I remember.

[Usrename]

225. Fascinating insight TN. I'm glad you were able to recall it.

It's this kind of thing that provides some pretty unshakeable validation that our observations are real. You see, even though I know the nightmare is really happening, it's easy to periodically slip back into thinking that some of these Orwellian connections are somehow imagined or at least exagerated. Not so, this is really happening, and none of this stuff is hyperbole or mythical!

[scarletwoman]

257. Yes, this really is happening. Too many people are afraid to look it in the face. (nt)

[Kurovski]

11. K&R

"Yet over the same course of time, we have seen a shift in the Democratic party. It has grown more conservative, more corporatist, and in many opinions, more spineless."

I don't see that it naturally grew into that, I think it was a very conscious effort on the part of corporate America.

When we have 70% of ALL Americans wanting to protect the environment, no matter the cost, that would seem to be at least one indicator that the corporatist "growth" within the Party is manufactured.

[MuseRider]

12. K and R

Ideological purity does not mean that you can't compromise when you have to it is just that we have compromised for so darned long this is where it has gotten us. If we had not ever compromised we would either have a real Democratic party in the old style or a strong, viable third party. Compromise with what goes for a Democrat these days? Not any more.

Great post. Thanks.

[MadHound]

21. Hey Muse!

You and I are going to be at loggerheads here in a couple of weeks. KU vs MU at Arrowhead. Sorry, but the Jayhawks are going down:evilgrin:

However I must say that the very strong showings by out entire conference is wonderful to behold, and the bafflement of the East coast oriented pundits is fun to watch.

MIZ-ZOU!

Peace:hi:

[MuseRider]

70. Rock Chalk Jayhawk Kaaaaay Uuuuuuu

or however they spell it. LOL I do know that KU has been doing well but I never follow it at all. Anyway...I will be for KU I guess.

Peace back at you. :hi:

[intheflow]

13. K&R

[bonito]

14. K&R!

[Hun Joro]

15. Well said!

[pberq]

16. Kick & Nominated - great post!

[LWolf]

17. I would suggest that we are all "purists" of one sort or another.

Ideological purists are the natural enemy of party purists, who put party before ideology every time.

I would also suggest that party purists don't compromise. They're willing to compromise on issues every time, but they're not willing to hold the party accountable. They aren't willing to hold themselves accountable for the corruption that this practice engenders, either.

[MadHound]

19. So it comes down to, at this point in time, which is more important.

The issues, or a party that refuses to address those issues? For me, I put issues such as peace, civil rights, and what's good for the common man above party loyalty every time. For a long while I subscribed to the notion that these issues could be advanced through the party, but sadly, it has become obvious that is no longer the case.

[LWolf]

69. The issues always come first.

The issues are the purpose of the party. When that purpose is corrupted, then the party is irrelevant.

[bbgrunt]

186. great way to look at it LWolf.

[LWolf]

188. Well, it's the way that makes the most sense to me, anyway.

:hi:

[bvar22]

18. K&R

When the CEOs of the Health Insurance Industry, Armaments Industry, and Wall St banking firms give me a seat at their boardroom tables, I'll offer them a seat in the Democratic Party.

Until then, I won't be supporting any "Centrist Triangulators". :puke:





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[creeksneakers2]

23. Catch the bones?

Universal health care for one. It will cost over $100 billion a year to be financed by tax cuts for the rich.

I know, its not good enough for the far left.

[MadHound]

28. Frankly, I think that if the party committed to true single payer UHC,

You would see people swarm back to the party in the millions. People tend to vote in their own self interests, and so many people are so strapped by health care bills, UHC would be a winning issue. One issue would cause a sea change, why not try it?

As far as funding goes, yes, we can fund it. However it would require us pulling out of Iraq, which, sadly, a large portion of the Democratic party doesn't want to do.

[creeksneakers2]

44. Single payer is popular until

the part about people having to give up their existing health coverage comes up. The % for that is in the 30s. With endless blasting from health care insurers, the numbers would likely get worse.

[Bjorn Against]

48. Yes, because we all know that people love to pay hundreds of dollars in months in premiums...

People would feel bad if they didn't have to send those hundreds of dollars per month to pay for their existing coverage with their insurance company. They would also miss fighting with their insurance company over the phone when the company refuses to pay their bills. People just love the insurance industry so much they would all cry if they never had to deal with them anymore.

Why the hell would anyone want to give up on paying insurance premiums, we all like having that big hole in our wallet as we pay for a service that we don't know will be there for us when we need it.

[creeksneakers2]

56. Lots of people have their employers pay all or most of their

premiums. They risk having to pay more in taxes if there is single payer.

There's also fear of the unknown. How well would the government plan work? That could be a life or death decision. I can understand why many people would opt to stick with what they know.

[Bjorn Against]

68. Well people know the current system doesn't work...

And there and the majority of people pay a good chunk of money for their health insurance, and even if their employer does pay most of it that is still essentially coming out of the employee's pocket as by paying more on health insurance many employers are paying less in wages. Many other employers don't provide health insurance at all, or only provide a crappy level of coverage.

Look at any country that has single payer health care, and you will see the majority of people are happy with the system. Here in the US the majority of people are unhappy with the current system.

And because you seem to be making an argument that people are financially better off with the current system, then I should make note of a basic fact. We pay far more in health care costs than any other country in the world, yet we are ranked number 36 worldwide. We are paying way more and getting way less than the countries that do have universal health care. Watch Sicko, it spells the whole issue out very well.

[creeksneakers2]

79. I'm not posting to endorse or oppose single payer

I'm responding to the idea that the far left never gets anything from the rest of the party. They do get things, but seldom all the far left wants. Single payer is a tall order politically. So is universal health care but that's more doable.

There is a long list of items the right wing would love to eliminate in America that the far left and the moderate Democrats,together, have kept alive.

[noiretextatique]

106. healthcare is not a "far left" issue

neither is a a single payer healthcare system or universal healthcare. it is a human issue. the problem is how these issues are characterized by the interests who do not want this type of change.

[tomp]

195. exactly right. far left canada and germany for example...

...have taken that ideological purity path to the obvious extremes we see in those countries. how we can even allow diplomatic relations with them is beyond me.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. No they don't. Do you actually work?

"Lots of people have their employers pay all or most of their premiums." Not true, if you mean by 'lots of people', the majority of working americans.

"They risk having to pay more in taxes if there is single payer." Actually they might, however increased payroll taxes will be offset by an end to premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc., and the corporations who are still doing the right thing in terms of paying for at least part of a quality insurance program, will see a large reduction in costs. In addition, by spreading the costs across all businesses and workers, and by cutting the healthcare insurance industry out of the picture, and by having the government use its purchasing power to negotiate the best possible rates from health and pharmaceutical providers, our per capita health care costs can be brought down to the levels found in other modern industrial democracies while the quality of service provided can be brought up to meet those same levels.

[creeksneakers2]

95. 159 million Americans receive health insurance through

employers. That's lots of people.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. And the vast majority of those people pay premiums

deductibles and co-pays. The worker paid share goes up every year. The number of uninsured goes up every year. Hardly anyone gets 100% paid health insurance, in fact I don't know anyone who gets that.

The facts are that businesses pay 20% of our total health care costs, 60% of the costs are already paid for out of taxes, and 20% is currently paid out of pocket by those receiving services. The days when large corporations paid for most of the costs are long gone.
http://www.pnhp.org/PDF_files/ReappraisalofPrivateEmployers.pdf

The share being paid for by businesses shrinks every year as they shift their costs onto their workers.

In addition, the insurance industry, with 31% administrative overhead, is a corrupt burden that we simply can no longer afford. We have the planet's most expensive per-capita healthcare system that produces mediocre results. Instead, if we restructured along the lines of other nations with single payer universal healthcare, we could easily afford a world class healthcare system at reasonable costs.

[Raster]

230. There you go again, Warren, injecting facts and figures into the discussion.

[eridani]

219. And that insurance might well be worthless

In fact, the opinion of anyone who has never been expensively sick about their health insurance is utter tripe by definition--it has exactly the same value as my opinion about whether my local fire department is any good, that is to say zilch. I have no real information one way or another, and with any luck, I'll never have to find out.

[lame54]

198. bull

Employers are shifting more and more of health care cost to their employee's, even in union jobs. You would actually cut administration cost if you went to a true single pay-or plan. People who perpetuate that lie have never had to fight for coverage or benefits nor have they had to pay high premiums. California enacted strong laws in 1994 regarding Health Insurance Companies and they found ways around them. It is time to take them out of the equation.
patty lame's wife

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Odd that, as everyone I know HATES their health insurance

which in general goes up in price and goes down in service every year or so.

[Vincardog]

92. Universal single payer does not require anyone to give up their coverage. It covers everyone period.

If you have coverage and want to pay for a policy that will not pay for anything covered under another policy you can pay for the coverage you will never use.

In fact you are exactly the little lamb the insurance company wants sending in the premiums anyway.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

222. I'd give up my existing coverage in a heartbeat

and I know plenty of people who'd be delighted to GET some existing coverage.

[eridani]

218. No it won't; not at all

As Kucinich always keeps saying "We are already paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it." Since our current health care expenditures are double those of countries that already take care of everybody, all we have to do is spend them on health care instead of middlemen.

[Me.]

25. The Funny Thing Is

That while our party is moving more center-right, the country is becoming more progressive. I know few believe me when I post the threads but it is happening, silently, almost stealthily. Just yesterday I saw a thread here on DU that said for the first time a majority of Americans (52%) favor civil unions for gay people. That is the first time ever for that. In time, as the country goes forward, it is going to become more and more obvious. The law of diminishing returns will finally kick in for republicons and corporatists.


‘Why A Conservative America Is A Myth’
http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/

[MadHound]

31. Yep, you're right

And actually this population shift to the left has been going on for years now. Moore, Palast and others have illustrated this point well in their writings.

[intheflow]

61. Yes, the LW backlash is a bitch.

And that's "bitch" as in, "It's bitchin' that people are finally waking up!" :P

I see what you're describing as having historical precedent. During the Robber Baron era 100 years ago, things were mighty bad for the majority of people living in this country. But those repressive political times gave rise to the the modern labor, women, child, and animal rights movements, food safety regulations, and even laid the foundation for the Civil Rights movement (in that the NAACP and other like groups were founded in the early 1900's). So it's inevitable that we grow more progressive again... I just wish the Dem leadership would wake up to the fact that the backlash cometh--and work harder to make it cometh sooner.

[Virginia Dare]

170. Politicians don't drive the backlash, the people do...

it's coming, and the Dems will be in a better position to go the way of the people than the repubs. Mark it down.

[intheflow]

184. Very true.

But the backlash has already begun, imo, and I just want the leadership to recognize it's appening, to acknowlege it and respond to it as it unfolds now.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

233. Rep. Kucinich and Sen Edwards seem to have a much greater understanding of the

existence and significance of the backlash than some of their Congressional colleagues.

What a heady time to be a political leader, if one is enlightened. Gore has long understood this, even back to five or six years ago.

How often, as a politician, can one do what is morally and ethically right AND have that/those stand(s)be extremely benficial for one's political career, as well?

How much more of a win/win could it be?

MKJ

[Hatchling]

26. K&R

Thank you.

[MrMickeysMom]

30. Right-O. Aren't you describing the "Democratic Wing" of this party...

... when saying, " We have woken up and realized that this is no longer the party it was even a quarter century ago. The party of the worker, the ordinary guy, the trampled and disempowered has become the party of corporate power and centerist dogma(which is suspiciously similar to old school moderate Republicans)..."

I will not apologise for refusing to compromise further (when MSM and some here shove the so called Democratic platforms of HRC and BO up my ass) ...

"ENOUGH", citizens, enough. Please re-discover this through reading Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" if you need further convincing.

[fascisthunter]

33. Great Post

It's a common attempt by those who are more conservative than they are willing to admit publically.

[cali]

34. nobody is calling "those on the left" ideological purists.

I'm on the left. I've always been on the left. I'm calling some people here who hold certain positions, ideological purists. And that is a distinction with a difference.

Who's an ideological purist in my book?

People who constantly proclaim that there is no difference between the democratic party and the republican party.

People who insist that Kucinich is the only real democrat

People who say they'd vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. (don't vote at all if you feel that strongly)

People who insist that the majority or all dems are actually collaborating with the repukes and actually want perpetual war.

You don't speak for the entire left, anymore than I do. And yet you have no hesitation speaking for an entire group.

[MadHound]

40. *Sigh*

Do I really need to provide links for you? Do I need to spell it out in great detail for you?

You keep claiming that you are some sort of leftist, but your very actions and posts betray you. You're constant attacks on the left, your constant position of upholding the centerist and corporatist positions. Do you really think that you're fooling people around here?

I never claimed to speak for the entire left, again you are hurling semantic attacks when there is nothing there. This is a common tactic of yours, one that is old and tiresome. Frankly, it is those such as yourself that I'm addressing in my OP. However once again, either intentionally or not, you are failing to get the point. Perhaps that should tell you something, eh:think:

So go ahead and hurl some more pithy insults, I'm not going to respond. I've found that sometimes it is best to deal with people like you, who jump all over the most minor of points is to simply not respond. It isn't productive to do so anyway. Peace:hi:

[cali]

58. Sorry, we disagree.

And you haven't provided links, so that's moot, isn't it? Yes, I'm a liberal with a progressive economic position. And no, I haven't done anything here that could demonstrate that I'm not. I don't like dogmatism. So what? I actually know lots of liberals who don't care for it.

I'm not the hurling pithy insults here and I'm not the one telling someone else that they aren't *really* a liberal. I suggest you look at your own words.

And what's minor to you, may well not be minor to me- and visa versa.

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

171. Semantic attacks..

yes, you tell Cali that she claims to be "some sort of leftist" but the fact is that she's not YOUR idea of leftist is she? Yes, there are many of us here who are liberal Democrats who don't see eye to eye with you and many others, but yet every day we are accused of upholding centrist and corporatist positions.

I'm not here to fool anybody, however I know there are plenty of others who are, on both sides of the political spectrum.

But Madhound, just because we don't agree with every single one of your positions politically doesn't mean that we can't possibly be liberals. I submit to you that it is you yourself who is not getting the point.

[MADem]

221. Well said.

I get accused of that corporatist/DINO crap all the time, from people who know nothing about me or what I do, day to day. It's usually because I don't buy off on "Kucinich is a great leader" or "Chavez is the answer" threads.

It's kind of sad.

[EstimatedProphet]

239. Why do you get to define who is left and who isn't?

[MrMickeysMom]

50. Describe "Left" cali

After reading what you are, I'd like your criteria of that word, if you don't mind...

:think:

[cali]

59. I've already given a list of the

positions I hold which I consider to be liberal and progressive. I think a definition of left entails a long explanation with historical references. Perhaps you feel like offering your definition? Here's a link in which I describe positions that I think of as liberal and progressive:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2257523&mesg_id=2257523

[MrMickeysMom]

80. Ah, so you're a liberal and progressive with undefinable components therein-

Went to your link. You seem to be what I'd describe as a Democrat, if that means anything. Maybe when you took offense to what is "left" and "right" stems from these labels no longer fitting nicely to our so-called criteria, I talked a little bit about it here-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2258892&mesg_id=2259033

I like your definition a little better, but then you showed that you have a problem with other Democrats finding much difference between Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, Well, I used to think Ron Paul was the only Republican that made enough sense for me to be interested in. On the other hand, I used to think Hillary was to be the saving grace (back in 93-96), Now, my thought is that Ron Paul is bit too much wacka-doodle for my vote (not anyone else's mind you), and Hillary... well, I paid attention to the very minute she sold herself out on the mess she was to have saved in my mind.

But, you say, we may as well NOT vote, if we think there is little difference between the two. That is incongruent with liberal thought. If you're any kind of a liberal, you'll consider this,.

BTW, my long winded definition of a liberal is a state of constant thought and conflict. This type of person gives themselves heartburn due to the valued system of analyzing process and outcome of our 3 branches of government. He/she probes much information within each party's so-called platforms, then continues to judge its meaning, maintaining flexibility, while the bullshit meter runs.

[cali]

91. sorry, your post is a bit confusing to me.

Which of my positions, specifically, did you find to be not liberal or progressive?

My anti-war stance and activism? My wanting the troops out at the soonest possible date? Perhaps my belief in gettint the U.N. and Iran's neighbors inolved?

My positon on elections and campaigns? Is IRV not a liberal position? How about getting corporate money out of the process?

My support for single payer healthcare?

My position that we shouldn't attack Iran even if they develop nukes?

Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly what you find as not liberal or progressive in those positions.

I haven't a clue as to what you're referring to, or even what you're saying in the part of your post about Ron Paul and Clinton. Maybe you could provide a link for what you think/claim I said.

I actually like your definition of liberal, but if you classify yourself as a Dean liberal, you perhaps don't know him well. I like Dean but he's not really that much of a liberal. He was my guv for 11 years, and I'm definitely far to the left of where is was, and even where he is today.

[MrMickeysMom]

105. Now, I think you are confused...

As I said, I read your link, then read your previous post, which was a lot of talk, but less walk. I'll cut and past what you said several posts before the last-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's an ideological purist in my book?

People who constantly proclaim that there is no difference between the democratic party and the republican party.

People who insist that Kucinich is the only real democrat

People who say they'd vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. (don't vote at all if you feel that strongly)

People who insist that the majority or all dems are actually collaborating with the repukes and actually want perpetual war.

You don't speak for the entire left, anymore than I do. And yet you have no hesitation speaking for an entire group.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You seem to think people shouldn't vote at all if they would consider Ron Paul over HRC, don't you? Please... let's be real here. I don't need to link any other statement to call attention to your own words and how they ring hollow when "defining yourself". You seem to know yourself well, but waste no time in pegging other people. In my book that demonstrates a poor ability to walk the walk of liberalism.

Yeah, I've been a Dean-centric person and I've read his book and was a big part of the 04 campaign. I'm not personal friends or an insider anymore than you are. Liberals can sure argue, as you and I both do on this forum, but pay more attention to what it means to do that with a liberal point of view in final analysis. You'll find that neither you nor I have the right definition all the time of what it is, or isn't. It's kind of funny that this was the point of my message. If you didn't get it, there's always next time.

[cali]

112. Do you consider condescension a liberal value? I don't .

And sorry, you're oozing with it. Funny that you're giving me a lecture on liberalism and saying essentially that because I don't fit YOUR definition I'm not really a liberal, and yes that's what you were saying.

But before I quit this little back and forth, let me explain something to you about my Paul/Clinton remark: I was being respectful to people who have said over and over again that they cannot vote for her in the general. I don't agree with that, but I am trying to show some respect for others' convictions. I don't claim to have phrased it well, and besides, I absolutely stand by my statement about voting for Paul over Clinton. Liberals should not be voting for that xenophobic, anti-woman creep.

[MrMickeysMom]

154. Oh brother, what can I say?

I'm oozing with condescension? Then, let me apologize for that, guy. I'm very sorry I was putting you down in addressing your post.

So, liberals should not be voting for THAT particular xenophobe? Huh... I see. So, we need to direct ourselves to another kind, or didn't you know we're all xenophobic to some degree?

Oh well, I know better than to ask you to apologize for all the hypocrisy. I think I know why the OPoster didn't bother with you further.

Take care of your pure self!

[lame54]

201. I and lame have received many condescending lectures

for our stance on impeachment and support of Kucinich. We have never said we would vote for Paul. I do have a problem with being told constantly that Clinton is the only viable candidate and I should just get over it. Sorry but I expect that type of rhetoric from the right not from the party that I have supported for over thirty years. So tell me why should I bother to vote if the candidate is already chosen for me? Why even bother to hold an election?
patty lame's wife

[bettyellen]

52. wow. you must have your head in the sand, if not somewhere else...

or else you're being willfully ignorant, in a tres lame attmept to derail the conversation- which wouldn't suprise me.

[cali]

60. no. I'm not trying to derail anything.

I'm responding honestly. Your simply throwing out ad hominems.

[bettyellen]

78. you seem to be the only one not noticing this RW meme's increasing use by "centrists" here

no one else is denying the phenomenon, or parsing words to make light of, or excuse it.
hence, the accusation of head placement. :hi: i find it most disingenuous....

[cali]

183. I don;t adhere to the "everyone else thinks so" and thus it's "true"

school of thought. That's simply group think; deciding that something is true or not because others do. And it's not even an accurate statement. There are plenty of people here wh disagree with you. Most amusingly the large number of recs given any post that repeats the meme you're pushing, gives lie to the assertion that centrists and moderates are pushing a right wing pov here. It is, quite frankly, rank bullshit. I don't accept bullying, and I don't, as you so clearly do, accept group think.

:hi:

[mike_c]

53. speaking strictly for my own personal experience...

...and understanding that much of that is simply my personal perception-- i.e. not speaking for any group-- my experience has been that over the course of my voting years, which began in the early 1970s, the democratic party has represented my interests less and less with each passing election cycle. It has reached the point of being largely irrelevant to my political interests and detrimental to what I view as the good of the nation. If you'll concede that my experience is likely shared by others, we suddenly have "an entire group" with good reason to be dissatisfied with the direction of the democratic party. A sum of poorly served individuals.

I think several of the specific points you raised obfuscate the issue more than they help to resolve it. "There is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" is both a rallying cry and a metaphor for their increasing convergence on issues important to the left, but it has never been a literal truth, and focusing on it literally does little to advance dialog or change. It simply stalls progress in order to argue a semantic point.

Likewise,"Kucinich is the only real democrat" expresses important differences between Dennis Kucinich and the more centrist democratic party candidates, but is not literally true-- if anything, Kucinich is the "least" democratic candidate in the sense that the democratic party has marginalized him to a far greater degree than the "front-runner" candidates. And yet Kucinich DOES hew to the fundamental principles that most democrats would probably describe as their core values while the front-runners dance around those values until everyone is thoroughly dizzy and confused. Is it any wonder that he cuts through that confusion like a welcome gust of cool air in hell?

And so on. The fact remains that the democratic party must represent SOMEONE in this representative democracy, yet increasing numbers of heretofore loyal democrats feel disenfranchised by their own party. If the party doesn't represent us-- all of us under the big tent-- we're left to ask who it does represent. Who benefits from democratic party politics? Who pulls the strings, and on whose behalf?

[cali]

66. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I appreciate them.

Yes, I do understand the frustration you describe with the two party system and with the convergence of the parties on key issues. I look at the bankruptcy law that so many dems supported as emblematic of that convergence. It goes way beyond war and peach issues to the looming issue of corporate control of our law making bodies. That's why I'm so big on IRV. It really would be a huge step forward in opening up the two party system.

I do have trouble with the "there's no difference between the parties" line, and although I'm sure you're right that it is oft used as a rallying cry, quite often it is used literally; I'm convinced of that. Just as I'm convinced, given the context, that often cries of Dennis is the only real dem, are meant literally as well. And we're not talking about statements in which he is compared to other dems running for president, but statements comparing him to all other dems in the Congress.

You claim that increasing numbers of dems feel disenfranchised, and that may well be true, but whether it's the extremism of the republicans (I tend to think that's it) or some other reason, more, not less people are identifying as dems. Just check the recent enormous Pew poll/report. So although I believe you're probably correct that some long time dems are feeling disenfranchised, the party doesn't seem to have much motivation to be broadly inclusive of those who identify as being on the left. I don't feel particularly disenfranchised; perhaps because I don't identify that strongly with the party, and because in my state there is the opportunity to keep building the Progressive Party.

I think the Dem party has the opportunity to move back toward the left in the coming years. I suspect that's a pendulum that's inexorably swinging, but unless we do something about corporate influence, we won't be able to take advantage of the potential.

cali

[Ken Burch]

187. Actually, that would be the majority of Democratic Congressmenbers and Senators

Not the majority of registered Democrats.

If the majority of REGISTERED Dems were being heard and respected by the Beltway and on the Hill, we would no longer have a party with a losing bland centrist face anymore. We'd be headed for a landslide victory.

(And Cali, if you ARE on the left, I have to say that's kinda news to most of us, since you spend most of your time on DU, from what I can see, attacking US and acting like we're spoiled children just for expecting something from the people we elect.)

[Yuugal]

35. Great post nt

[WillyT]

37. Bravo !!!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:


:yourock:

[IndianaJones]

39. lmao. nt.

[Nay]

41. I totally and completely agree. I also have been an active Dem

for 35 years, and frankly, the Dem Party has changed so much as to be unrecognizable. The suspicious thing is that all the polls say that voters are NOT that centrist, and are sick of Pubs, and STILL the Dem Party insists on being pretty far to the right. Many of us have come to the chilling conclusion that the Dem Party has secretly been taken over by (insert villain here)just as the Pub Party was openly taken over by right-wing religious nuts. The problem for all of us regular Dems whose ideals did not shift over the years is that now we literally have no one to vote for, and we haven't had anyone for years. Sure, we always have someone to vote for in the primaries, but never in the final winner-take-all bout.

Thus, the problem -- most of us in this position simultaneously feel that the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot by NOT encouraging and supporting more left-leaning candidates when change is so obviously in the wind, blowing an easy cakewalk into the White House; along with the concomitant fear that certain Dems WILL win, and then fail to act much differently than they are acting right now! In other words, they will roll over for a minority Pub party just as they refuse to fight them now! After a certain point, most of us (not just the lefties) will realize they have rolled over for reasons other than "to keep the powder dry," "because we don't have the votes," "because it would divide the nation," and other nonsensical crap. They are rolling over because they belong to someone else, while still (barely) kissing up to us.

I ask: What finally happens to the husband who screws every woman in the neighborhood (and intends to keep on doing so ad infinitum) when his wife finds out and tells him the bouquet of flowers just doesn't cut it anymore? There comes a time when you throw the bastard's shirts onto the lawn and change the door locks. In my opinion, the Dem Party is perilously close to being that cheating husband.


I personally considered Bill Clinton to be the best prez the Pubs ever had, and I regularly tell them so. That does not mean I think he was a good Dem prez. All us true lefties were appalled at NAFTA, the Telecom Bill, etc. I have NEVER considered his wife to be any kind of Dem candidate for a lot of reasons (all have been documented on DU forever), and the thought of her as president creeps me out because I don't see her doing any of the stuff necessary to save this nation economically, politically, etc. And you know what? If she doesn't get the job done, the Pub's mighty Wurlitzer will gleefully burst our eardrums with a barrage of noise about how the Dems ruined the country. The same Wurlitzer, which COULD have been played by the Dems LO THESE LAST 7 YEARS, has been totally silent, lying unplayed by the media, our reps and senators, pundits (except for a few notable exceptions). OUr greatest fear is not that the Dems won't win, it is that they will -- and proceed to blow the (slim) chance they have to pull the nation out of the hole by acting like scared schoolgirls when some Pub stands up and says something nasty. All this time they should have been up in everyone's faces, screaming right back at them!

[cyclezealot]

43. I don't believe is defining ourselves by ideology

Issues are what motivates me. Yes, certain Issues I won't compromise on. Particularily, if compromise means compromising our well being. Ideology pure. Not sure I know what that is. Not even sure I have an ideology. Goals for the US , yes.

[JAbuchan08]

45. If only one side is compromising, it's not an f'ing compromise

We compromise with the center then the center compromises with the right. There is no compormise in the left direction, because we have no value.

Even our own party values the voters of the Republican party more. They spit in our faces and then complain when we spit right back.

[leftist_not_liberal]

177. Would that I could recommend this post.

[earth mom]

51. Thank you. I could NOT have said it better myself because I'm mad as hell about what's going on.

:applause:

p.s. What exactly are Obama's and Hillary's positions on Social Security? They think it's broken even though it's not, just like * & Co. :grr:

[deutsey]

55. Thank you. That fact that someone even needs to lay out what you say

shows how far from first principles the Democratic Party has strayed.

[tekisui]

57. knr.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. What we are seeing, as you said, is people waking up

and that is why some of us are going... fuck party... give me class interest.

Does it sound socialist to some? Of course... especially those "centrist" who are in many cases the moderate republicans who
were kicked out of the RNC...

Two corporatist parties only mean one thing... fascism... and we are there.

Recommended

[scarletwoman]

125. "...that is why some of us are going... fuck party... give me class interest." Hell yeah!

Succinctly put! Well done!

:toast:
sw

[Usrename]

65. Great post!

You might be an idealogical purist if you believe in basic values like truth, justice, and the American way.

It's sickening how eager some folks are to willingly compromise even our basic human rights.

Everything we stand for is being destroyed in Bush's scorched-earth doctrine of fascism. Everything. Complete annihilation.

I refuse to support torture or extraordinary renditions or imprisoning people without a trial. Go ahead and call me an ideological purist. I think that description fits.

And if you wish to stand up for those folks who refuse to speak out LOUDLY and denounce these practices, then I'll call you a fascist. I think that description fits, too.

At least let's keep the terminology correct.

[undeterred]

67. Thank you for saying it so eloquently.

:kick:

[Cha]

72. And we can't call them

fascists. Oh well..I'd rather be a "purist" but that's not what it is..that's their bogus framing.

I'm no purist..I do like the Democratic Principles, though, and don't like infiltrators passing themselves off as dinos.

So fookin' lame.

[Yael]

73. Adding a rec for ya

Excellent read! :applause:

[pinto]

75. Good points on FDR compromising with those to his left to forge a successful agenda.

I think his ability to make this work was also his position in the party. He was able to ride out the cries of 'socialism!', sell the agenda in the light of needing an answer to the desperate straights the country faced *and* enact it.

Millions of Americans have benefited from his political skill.

[AntiFascist]

81. Remember that this all began with Bill Clinton....

As much as we like to look back on the Clinton era and its economy with fondness, realize that the whole strategy of compromise, triangulation, and appeal to the centrists originated with the DLC which was founded by Clinton strategists. Although people prospered during the Clinton administration, this strategy set us up for the current posture of the Democratic Party which has led to a deeper divide between the classes, a compromise on war which has thrust the nation into incredible debt, and a dangerous dependency on China. Also realize that my post is not a scathing criticism of the Clintons, it is merely pointing out an inconvenient truth.

[Cha]

90. Verrrrrrr-rrry

Inconvenient.

[Perry Logan]

82. What a cheeky thread--from the folks who threaten to quit the party on a daily basis.

I get my impression of progressives almost entirely from DU. As far as I can see, they rarely do anything but attack Democratic leaders in public (brilliant tactic)--sometimes in the most vicious terms, say whatever they can to lower morale amongst Democrats, and do their best to spread Republican talking points. They uncriticially accept--and endlessly repeat--every single thing the media says about Democrats. All the while praising themselves for their moral purity. It's just incredible.

The progressives at DU are obviously snobs, making no secret of how morally and intellectually superior they are to the herdlike, run-of-the-mill Democrats (witness the OP's comment about progressives "holding their noses" to help the Kerry campaign). They will not hear a word in defense of the Democratic Congress, even though the facts suggest it has not done badly at all. But--as this thread demonstrates--the progressives' minds are made up. They were going to say the Democrats caved in, no matter what really happened. The Democratic Party are the bad guys in their movie, and that's all there is to it. It would be useless for the Democratic to compromise with such divisive people.

[Bjorn Against]

98. You decry progressives for what you call "vicious" attacks, yet then engage in name calling yourself

So we are all "obviously snobs", huh? You sure do make a lot of broadbrush attacks on a significant segment of the Democratic Party while you decry them for doing the same.

Pot meet kettle.

[scarletwoman]

99. Here, let me turn the other cheek:

[AntiFascist]

100. Yet more centrist mischaracterization of progressives...

How many lies are you willing to tell about us?

1.) True progressives most often spend most of their time criticizing the Bush administration and its neocon policies. We are taken aback when we see centrists endorsing and enabling these policies.

2.) Morale is lowered when we see our Democratic leaders playing along with Bush and Cheney, and when we see the media totally ignoring our cause. Progressives on DU are often trying to raise morale and show that there may be hope, particularly with candidates like Kucinich.

3.) When do we ever accept anything that media says about us? The "Democrats" in the media often represent centrists like you who are spreading lies about progressives.

4.) Moral purity? When does one have to represent oneself as morally pure in order to fight to save the Constitution, or roll back neverending war, or criticize Dems who endorse torture? Hyperbole anyone?

5.) How many true progressives are elitist snobs?? I think the characterization here is more representative of the upper class centrists who would associate with Pelosi.

6.) How many times do we have to say it: the Democrats are not the bad guys, its the other side which is pure evil...but as fellow Democrats, we will have the greatest affect by criticizing those on our side who enable the evildoers.

One thing I will agree with: It's just incredible.

[jgraz]

158. Correction: it's more right-wing mischaracterization of centrists

The majority of the country supports the policies of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. That makes us the centrists. There are very few true leftists on DU, and if they ever really voiced their political views they'd be TS'd in seconds.

[AntiFascist]

167. I see it more as hawks versus doves...

the majority of the country is turning against war in the ME, but the majority of lobbyists still support war. The Democratic leadership has chosen to go with the lobbyists.

Also, Republicans may be facing the same dilemma since Ghouliani is toeing the neocon line, which should be an increasingly unpopular tactic. Pat Robertson has thrown his support behind Ghouliani, which just goes to show how easily the Religious Right will sellout their idealism in order to support the war-mongering neocons.

[PassingFair]

103. Better get used to us speaking out in public...

we are taking back our party.

Get ready.

[MadHound]

108. Well, first of all, if you're getting your impression about anything from the internet,

I really suggest that you get out and about more, meet real people face to face and get to know them.

Secondly, have you ever considered the why of people threatening to quit the party, the why of people denigrating our current Congress, the why of the criticism from the left? Have you ever considered the history of what's behind these matters? I have, I've lived through it, and as I outlined above, the Democratic party has moved ever to the right, leaving the left behind, refusing to reward their base, simply expecting them to fall in line and vote D. I'm not alone here, some anonymous chat board poster, there are plenty of serious politically oriented people out in the real world who have noticed this trend and decried it. Pundits from Olberman and Stewart to nationally known political scientists like Tremblay, Phillips and others have weighed in on this issue, with essentially the same points that I made.

Oh, and for your information, the "holding your nose" quip is a phrase used by virtually everybody within and without the Democratic party. Around here I've seen the most die-hard centerists use it, along with those on the left and every spectrum in between. But hey, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominem attack. Gee, maybe you have a snob prob yourself, ya think?

But I suppose a lot of your problem is that of perception. You decry a snobbishness that really is all in your mind. You point to my phrase as some sort of proof, do you really have any? Yes, there is outrage, deep, serious outrage. But snobbishness, I don't think so.

But I think that all of your rant is merely a lead in to your real point, a justification for your position that the party shouldn't compromise with the left. You are entitled to hold that opinion, but consider this. You see the anger and the outrage growing among the left here. Now, apply that to the real world and ask yourself if the Democratic party can do without all of those workers, all of those donations, all of those votes? Are you really willing to cut off your nose to spite your face? Or would the wise course be to give a bit here to get something else there? FDR opted for compromise, and wound up being arguably the most successful Democratic president ever. That, in and of itself should be a lesson to you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Spot the RIGHT WING MEMES

1.- THe most obvoous one... The progressives at DU are obviously snobs... This is the classic latte drinking liberal meme... always a winner.


2.- Oh this one is also a winner... Liberals are whiners and nothng else... they rarely do anything but attack Democratic leaders in public

And this is a classic case of projection

do their best to spread Republican talking points

Given I just highlighted the two OBVIOUS RIGHT WING, REPUBLICAN, talking points.

[stranger81]

139. here's another . . . . it's useless to "compromise" with others more left in my own party,

but productive to compromise with the Republican party.

[jgraz]

161. Beat me to it. That's the key to the conservative viewpoint here on DU

There's no question where their sympathies lie: it's with the corporate pillagers, the authoritarian thugs and the mealy-mouthed Bush enablers. They say "Hell Yeah" when a progressive speaker gets roughed up by the police, and "Hell No" when the victim asks for healthcare. They want less diversity, less freedom and above all less equality and justice in this country.

They call us "snobs", yet they think they're somehow better than we are because they're willing to accept suffocating injustice, just so long as it only hits people poorer than they are. They also think they're better than Republicans just because they give lip-service to a little more reproductive freedom for women. What they don't realize is that what really counts is RESULTS, and the RESULTS of their politics are almost indistinguishable from the politics of George Bush, Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

[HughBeaumont]

240. Yeah, let's just allow our party to take the country's needs for granted.

Let's just please the betters instead. After all, poor people don't hire others.

Go away, Perry Lieberman.

[GeneCosta]

84. I'm a socialist willing to compromise with leftist progressives

Not corporations. Not conservative Democrats. We've had that for the past 30+ years. It's time to get back on the fervor started in the 60s -- radical change. A better world.

[jgraz]

162. Welcome to DU

Always good to meet another socialist -- especially since we represent the majority view in this country. :hi:

[leftist_not_liberal]

178. Good to see another genuine leftist speaking up

:hi:

[cuke]

88. I have to admit that

it was worth my while to take you off ignore to read this

I disagree with almost everything you said there, but at least you've outlined your issues without resorting to ridiculous rhetoric. Well done!

Now you go back on ignore

[MadHound]

120. LOL! I knew that I intrigued you, and that you couldn't bear to keep me on ignore.

Hell, I bet you're reading this now!

But be that as it may, now that you know the issues, perhaps you should think about this, whether or not you agree with them. Because quite frankly, from a purely pragmatic view the Democratic party needs the left if they're going to win. If the left isn't catered to and rewarded every once in awhile(a regular occurence with every other section of the party), the left is going to leave, and where will that leave the party? You can't expect to any group of people to work their asses off, sacrificing money, time sweat and blood for years and decades on in, suffer attacks, insults and denigrations from with out and within their own party, and expect them to stick around and remain loyal when their loyalty isn't rewarded.

FDR and other wise Democrats were wise enough to recognize this simply fact, are you? Let's hope the Democratic leadership is, otherwise you can kiss the Democratic party good bye, for they won't survive without the left, much less win anything.

You don't have to be a leftist to get on board with this, just pragmatic. It is real politik, pure and simple.

[cuke]

128. Thanks for the response

It reminded me to put you back on ignore. I'll just point out that there are reasonable arguments to be made (and you made a few of them in your OP) for your postition. I would discuss them but after our last encounter, I question our ability to do so in a civil manner

[jgraz]

163. Good move. You need to take Common Sense in small doses until your system adjusts to it

:P

[cuke]

124. deleted

[stevedeshazer]

89. You speak for me and a lot of other folks on the left.

Thanks for sayin' it.

[mudesi]

97. Kick (nm)

[bluriley]

101. Ideological Purity?

I rarely claim abject ignorance or purity of any stripe.

But I confess that the term Ideological Purity is devoid of meaning--to me.

[rainy]

113. This is an outstanding post, but, I won't even except bones anymore.

They always throw out a few bones, the Ohio election thing after the election, better health care, better roads and schools, but, nothing really ever changes.
Great post!

[rainy]

114. K and R. n/t

[Guaranteed]

115. I think "ideologue" is a fair criticism of many here. Take impeachment.

Many here are REALLY upset that the Democrats haven't pushed forward hard on impeachment. The anger and unwillingness to accept that it's not a good idea, along with the unspecified shouts of "Save the Constitution!" in support are a telltale sign of ideology- and partisanship- at work.

Frankly, I just kind of wish that if we were going to get so worked up over something, it would be something more worthwhile. But that isn't how people think when ideology is at stake...

Invade Iraq, at all costs....

[tomp]

208. wow! you couldn't be more wrong.

"...The anger and unwillingness to accept that it's not a good idea (impeachment)..."

---as if the rightists' role is to decide what's a good idea and the left's role to accept it and not get angry. believe it or not, i'm sure most impeachment advocates have considered all the problems you foresee and have decided to advocate for it anyway (because it is truly an excellent idea, as ideas go).

"...unspecified shouts of "save the constitution"???

---are you mad? i've seen hundreds if not thousands of quite specific references to the particualr aspects of the constitution the left wishes to save. to suggest otherwise is lame, bald assertion, and really crappy rhetoric.

"...a telltale sign of ideology- and partisanship- at work."

---you mean there's a history of people going around with unspecific shouts of "save the constitution" so that now we know that when we hear that we know we're seeing "ideology" and "partisanship"? that's what makes something "telltale", right, seeing it repeated so often you come to know what it represents? where is that happening? where are these unspecified shouts? i don't hear them, have never heard them. really, what the fuck are you talking about?

it's patently stupid posts like yours that make me a leftist snob, obviously.

and p.s.: what's wrong with partisanship? we could use a little on some of these important votes where dems line up with the repubs.

[Guaranteed]

214. LOL...patently stupid, eh?

Well, since you didn't understand it, let me clarify. Because, as "snobbish" as you may be, I'm smarter than you are. Guaranteed. So I'll try to help.

#1- No, it's not the "rightists'" role to decide what is a good idea and what isn't. What will happen in the event of an attempted impeachment/removal is apparent to most everyone but those who don't wish to see it (like you). It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that, first off, the media will have a field day demonizing the Democrats for doing it with less than a year before the '08 Presidential Election, and that it will act as a rallying call for the Republicans. If we lose the White House in 2008 because of your stupid, emotional outbursts, is that "good" for the Constitution?

The practical blindness you exhibit is a TELLTALE sign that you are an ideologue.

#2- More than that, impeachment supporters haven't said anything about exactly what impeachment will accomplish as far as "saving the Constitution." To begin with, Bush will NEVER be removed from office. We will NEVER get the 67 votes for a conviction. That is a FACT- and you need to come to terms with it. What that means is that, no matter what we do, that clown is going to be the President until 01/20/09. We have to prevent him from doing damage by simply acting as a check on him, through Congress, not removing him. In that regard- and toward the goal of protecting the Constitution- focusing on isolating him politically and passing legislation to limit his power would be much more effective. In other words, the other branches need to beat him back, since we have no chance of removing him. And what will passing articles do to "save the Constitution?" Nothing. So what the hell are you trying to do?? People parrot the "Save the Constitution!" stuff but don't even think about what will be effective in doing so- or what they even mean by "save the Constitution!" FOCUS.

Lack of clearly defined goals and success is another TELLTALE sign that you are an ideologue.

Those are just some of the points surrounding the impeachment issue. But the main idea I'm trying to get across here is that those who are pushing for impeachment like this are awfully reminiscent of a group of guys called "PNAC" who got it into their heads that invading Iraq would be great fun, and wouldn't let go of it despite everything they were told. They acted like IDIOTS- charging forward with no thought whatsoever. And it was because they were ideologues. They didn't care about reality. They cared about their stupid pet idea, and seeing it implemented.

[MADem]

223. Uh, oh...you're in trouble now!!!

You'll be accused of being to the right of Attila the Hun for daring to inject facts into the discussion, or alternatively, you'll be accused of covertly desiring the success of the rightwing because you're not going along with the program, and are able to see things with a clear eye.

[tomp]

253. this post just as stupid as your last.

essentially no different from the first. no new content except your opinion and predictions.

there was nothing about your post that i didn't understand except how a person could hold the opinions you do and still be typing, 'cause there are a whole lot of brain cells that are clearly not working. of course it could never occur to you that i could understand what you're saying AND think it is stupid, but that's just more proof of your stupidity.

MA DEM suggests that you introduced facts. the two of you think your opinions count as facts. i don't see one stinking fact in the whole pile of rubbish you consider intelligent discussion (ok, i'll grant you the pnac did act the way you suggest. of course, it just goes to prove your stupidity even further to think that it applies to me or the left wing of the dems).

but thanks for continuing to make my point for me.

[datavg]

116. What You're Totally...

...missing is that you shouldn't be in the party to begin with. That's been the case since about 1970.

You should be in the Green party. Most of your policy stands align with them. People in California have already figured that out. Most of Santa Monica city council is Green. It's even more so in the Bay Area.

The party has become more conservative because the country has become more conservative...and that's because our demographics are changing. We're a lot older than we used to be (not like Europe, but getting there) and we're also not a blue collar, manufacturing economy anymore. More people have college educations and own stocks and equity based financial instruments now than at any time in our history. What happens in the stock market matters to most people!

In the end, the party will split. It almost has to. What's left after the schism will realign to the center...and then it will begin winning elections as if there was no tomorrow.

You just watch. This is gonna happen in our lifetime.

[rainy]

123. we are all missing the point. "Truth has a well known liberal bias" says

steven colbert. The fact that the truth lies on the left is being overlooked. Going with the green party is giving up hope as we all known the corporate leaders will NEVER allow them to be elected. Our only hope is to get the truth out the best way we can. We have huge odds against us. But, we mustn't forget that we have facts and knowledge on our side. Stating that the world is moving more to the right doesn't mean anything. They are just less and less informed by the powerful lobbies and corporate media. The truth could free us all but we can't handle the truth as a nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Actually the country has begun a leftward lurch

as it does every generation

The very conservative fifites were followed by the liberal sixties and seventies, which were followed by the conservative eighties and nineties... and due to the exccesses on the right, you see a lurch to the left

Now, how far it will go... why do you think the fascist hammer is falling?

But the country is lurching to the left.

[rainy]

134. I agree and I think it's because of how easy it is to get information these days.

[noiretextatique]

133. but greens are getting elected

locally, which in indication that the world is not moving to the right. it's a start in the right direction, not "giving up."

[datavg]

138. Steven Colbert?

Who the fuck is he? He's not even in the news business. He's not a journalism professional.

But then again, that's part of my point. It's always the same unfocused, juvenile bullshit...and the Republicans use it against us, cycle after cycle. Decade after decade.

You're right. The Green party won't be permitted in office, but the same thing appears to be happening to Democrats.

The message is: if you're mentally or emotionally disturbed, stay out of office. At least in this instance, I agree.

This description fits Kucinich perfectly. He's funny looking. People make fun of him. Everything he's ever touched turns to shit. He was mayor of Cleveland and ran it into bankruptcy. He's now representing the wide side of Cleveland in Congress, and that place is absolute economic black hole. I'm originally from NE Ohio. I grew up watching him make a fool of himself, every single day. Now the whole fucking nation can watch him...while his constituents suffer.

I do hope Pelosi calls in a few favors from the old neighborhood in Baltimore. This guy needs to feel the branch creak. He doesn't know who he's messing with.

[BulletproofLandshark]

145. Colbert's not a news professional?

The so-called news "professionals" aren't professionals anymore either! If mainstream journalists were still (ever?) into reporting the facts instead of backing an agenda their bosses tell them to, there would be no need for Stephen Colbert to have a "fake" news show. There's more truth in 1 hour of The Daily Show/Colbert Report than in a full day's programming on CNN or Fox.

[datavg]

150. The Mere Fact...

...that you equate Steven Colbert with the likes of Andrea Mitchell and Bob Schieffer goes a long way to tell me what's wrong with the Democratic party and why it can't seem to win elections when and where it counts.

God, that's sad.

[BulletproofLandshark]

152. No one ever said Colbert was a real journalist.

But if a half-hour comedy show is what it takes to air the issues that Bob Schieffer and Andrea Mitchell aren't allowed to discuss, then that's what it takes. The last time I checked, Stephen Colbert was just as American as the "professionals" and he has the same right, and I applaud his efforts. Also, we've taken the majority in both houses of Congress since Colbert's show went on the air. There may not be a correlation, but it does render your contention that Democrats can't win elections moot.

[scarletwoman]

149. So, let me get this straight: you're hoping someone calls a hit on Kucinich?

Nice.

[datavg]

151. I'm Hoping...

...that Nancy Pelosi finds a way to reign him in, so the professionals who run campaigns and perform opposition research can do their jobs without further distractions.

She has to be under pressure from the big donors...and yes, there are Democrats on Wall Street. Tons of them.

Tony Coehlo, call your office.

[scarletwoman]

156. Ah, the Wall Street Democrats. That is pretty much what this thread is about, you see.

There are a great many of us who do not feel that we are the same constituency as they. Furthermore, we believe that THEIR interests have very little congruency with OUR interests, and are often outright inimical to our interests.

[datavg]

168. Yep...

...and either they are gonna pick your leaders or the Republicans in the Dallas suburbs are gonna pick your leaders.

That's how our system works. It ain't pretty but that's how it works.

Those are your choices. With the way things are going, the Republicans in the Dallas suburbs will win...and you'll see more and more influence on public policy coming from fundamentalist Christians. Some friends of ours gave us a collection of videos to watch called The Truth Project. This is very professional, sophisticated stuff presented by a retired Air Force Colonel who has a Ph.D. It's powerful and well done. Focus On The Family bankrolled it and it must have cost them a ton of bucks to produce.

Either that, or you leave the country. And a lot of progressives will leave. It's happening now.

There's a live feed from Miami right now, with three or four liberal journalists and George Soros fielding questions from people in the audience. When asked about impeachment, Soros told the guy point blank that with the caucuses and primaries being so close, the Democratic leadership's decision to not pursue impeachment was the correct one.

That is exactly what I've been telling you here! Fucking word for word.

The same guy was trumpeting the Green party as the only logical alternative for progressives. Amen, brother.

I haven't missed a beat here...and I'll tell ya something else. If Democrats don't get act shit together soon and speak with one voice, they're gonna lose control of the House.

Then the shit will really fly.

[scarletwoman]

174. It won't be the fault of leftists if the Dems lose the House. WE're the ones who keep urging them

to fight on the side of the People.

[MadHound]

185. There is a third alternative

Take the corporate money out of the election campaigns via publicly funded elections. This should be the rallying cry of all liberals and progressives, for it will return control of our government back to its rightful owners, we the people.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe than an impeachment drive will hurt the party when the majority of Americans are in favor of impeachment hearings at this point. Not only will it resonate with the American public, but it will help salvage the image of America abroad.

Impeachment is the losing proposition that so many make it out to be. I think that it would make a fine campaign issue, one that the majority of Americans favor and that resonates with the public.

[kenfrequed]

249. You play a lousy game

And it is an extremely short game.

By playing corporate/fat cat friendly you gut populism. Populism (albeit a sort of twisted Elmer Gantry populism) is what the repugniks manage with their cloak of false piety and their values schtick.

People sense what is wrong: falling incomes, working longer, harder, and more productively and yet have little to gain. Education is further and further out of reach of the working class as debt forces those that try into veritable serfdom. The neighborhoods fall apart as civic engagement is replaced by corporate cronism. Walmart and Walstreet are beating the crap out of Mainstreet and the politicians don't seem to respond. Iraq, Media regulation, and healthcare are perfect examples where NO solution can be legitamately UNLESS it plays the appropriate piety to large powerful corporations.



The Conservative Christian Creeps have sold people on the idea that it is all about sin and immorality. And they are able to scapegoat the "immoral" for all of these problems. The real difference is the Robertsons and the late Falwells of the world get it. They are (or were) aware of peoples frustrations, struggles, hardships, and tragedies and they then go about cynically twisting and using this to their own advantage in terms of raw cashola and political power and influence.

[kenfrequed]

250. To expand.

The reason this is a bad short game is that it concedes most Democratic position and sells out the base and the progressive vision, which can inspire voters, for appeasing Banks, Isurance companies, and large corporations. While they can give you money, they cannot vote and have no conscience or sense of loyalty.

Being loyal to the Walstreeters is a riding a vicious rabid tiger. You can't get off or it will tear you up in its ravenous hunger.

[tomp]

209. who the fuck is steven colbert?????

he's the guy with the titanium testicles who stood onstage and insulted the fascist administration to their faces in one of the funniest pieces in the history of comedy. he'd make a better president than any democratic front runner.

[eridani]

220. So, why did the city of Cleveland give him an award for saving public power? n/t

[kenfrequed]

248. Uhm

Actually the banks refused to certify the usual loans to the the city if he did not sell and privatize the local energy company.

I suppose he could have gone along... and privatized, resulting in an even more massive rip-off of the city.

[BulletproofLandshark]

143. I just don't see the country being more conservative

Only our politicians

[datavg]

144. Fair Argument. It Seems...

...that politicians are more conservative because there are more of them. Wall Street has been in process of relocating our professional population from the Rust Belt to places like Dallas, Atlanta, Austin, Phoenix and Las Vegas for about thirty years now.

That's why there seems to be this sea change. You're not imagining it.

The action (demographically speaking) is in the south...and that's where the conservatives live.

Even Democrats in Texas are conservative. I'm basically a Texas Democrat who got relocated to California.

[EFerrari]

247. Most of the Santa Monica city council wear the badges of libralism

and behave like centrist Democrats and, imho, that's generous. And most of the board of supes in San Francisco are not Greens.

[noiretextatique]

126. ideological integrity, anyone?

triangulation, appeasement, and outright capitualation don't spell integrity in my opinion. i happen to define myself as progressive, but integrity is an issue that should transcend ideology...it should also transcend party loyalty, especially in a time of crisis. democrats of every ideological stripe should be disturbed by the direction and strategy of the party, particulary since the coup of 2000...because: THIS IS A TIME OF CRISIS...IT'S BEEN A TIME OF CRISIS!!!!!!!
the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expectin a different result. i will vote for a democrat who has integrity in the presidential primary (kucinich), but i cannot and will not vote for somoene like dianne feinstein ever again. if thst means i am a purist, then so it is.

[scarletwoman]

135. Oh, beautiful! Excellently said! Brava!

:applause:

So nice to see you, noiretblu, it seems like ages!

:loveya:
sw

[noiretextatique]

136. hey there!!! great to see you

:hi: scarletwoman. it has been ages. i don't come around much anymore because it all makes me too angry :D i have to put some limits on these days.

[scarletwoman]

153. Well, it's really a treat to see you, and I totally understand about necessary "limits".

A person could go crazy otherwise! :P

Bon Santé!
:hi:

[TahitiNut]

203. Is it any surprise that I wholeheartedly agree with you?

(((((Karen))))) :loveya:

[natrat]

130. please these corporate PAID posters are just whores

[femrap]

132. I get the feeling that

many 'regular' Repugnants have come into our Party so to hijack it.

I agree with your OP...and the only candidate speaking for me is Dennis Kucinich...and somewhat Edwards.

[zalinda]

140. You blame the Democratic party, okay then.

Here's the thing, hippies (and I was one of them) were characterized as dirty, drug taking, lazy cowards. You saw it all the time on TV. Along comes Reagan, and he seems sane, fatherly and soothing, a balm for this country that went through the turbulence of the 60's. Many, many dems voted for the man, not once, but twice. What that said to the dem party was we need to move to the right, we have a bad "hippie" image. As more rightist politicians became elected, what was the dems to think? We need to move to the right. And that was probably the correct thing to do. While WE may have been ready for more leftist thinking, I don't think the country was. It had been tossed about quite a bit in the 60's, upsetting all different types of "norms". It may have been in the throws of correcting itself. It seems now that people are waking up and saying, "normal is not okay any more, I want change". This happens as a people grow, and we have to remember, as countries go, ours is quite young. In some ways we are still finding our voice. I think the country is ready for a change.

I know many of you who are reading this thread are die hard Kucinich supporters, and I applaud you, as long as it doesn't wreck our chance to get a progressive in office. I just realized what Kucinich reminds me of, an old hippie. If you listen to him, it's exactly what we would sit around and "rap" about. We knew it was pie in the sky when we talked about it, but it made no difference, this is what we wanted. And I can truly say that my hippie days were some of the best days of my life. But, I am also a realist, I know Kucinich doesn't have a chance of winning the election, much less the primary. I have not listened to Dodd or Biden, and it may be a disservice to them that I haven't, but I have found what I wanted and needed in Edwards. He has told me that my leftist views are okay, in fact in some circles, he is coming off as Conservative. This tells me that he may be OUR Ronald Reagan, some one who can pull this country to the left, without kicking up a shit storm from the right. If he delivers even half of what he has promised, this country will be 10 times better than it is now.

My only concern about the left ideologues is that they vote for Kucinich, and we don't get Edwards.

zalinda

[noiretextatique]

148. what would you call people who vote for

obama, clinton, biden, or dodd...or edwards, for that matter?
do you consider them idealogues as well? i was a democrat back then, and i never voted for reagan...a lot democrats never voted for him. reagan appealed to the worst in the american psyche...to its history of racism, sexism, and militarism, all with smiles and a jovial manner...and that's why he won. he rode into office on a wave of resentment that had been brewing since the civil rights, anti-war, gay rights and feminist movements. and he presided over two of the most corrupt administrations in american history. he was a complete disaster for america and the world, and a lot of us knew that he would be from the beginning.

[zalinda]

166. No, I wouldn't call them ideologues

simply because they don't have the attitude that if I can't have MY PERFECT candidate, then I won't vote. There may be many anti-Clinton ideologues, but that wasn't what the OP was talking about.

Reagan was the feel good candidate. Did he do bad things, yes........but he did them with a smile. And, that is what mattered to a lot of people. We, here on DU, tend to forget that the rest of the country is not as involved with politics as we are. Let's put this in perspective, about 100 million people have regular access to the Internet, whether at work or at home, we have about 100,000 registered users. The plain simple truth is that politics is way down the list of what people care about. They do not equate what is going on in DC with their life, unless something directly impacts them.

My personal belief is that Edwards has the best chance of uniting the country. While Biden and Dodd have been around for a long time, they don't seem to have that youthful bounce people will look for in a fighter. Kucinich will be deemed to weird, what with his vegetarianism and all. Obama, too black, not black enough, weird muslim name, too young, too inexperienced, all of which has been said, so his message will get diluted. Clinton is a lightening rod, too many people hate her on the right and the left, and this is not hate that is logical, so you can't argue with them. Gravel, is way out there, he's the crazy uncle. So, by process of elimination you've got Edwards. He's the golden boy, the football hero, the guy who got lucky and became rich, the steady family guy, who also weathered tragedy. He has been the fighter for the little guy against corporations. He tells you what he's going to do, and how he's going to do it. He can pull repub votes and that's why I said he might be our Ronald Reagan. And like Ronald Reagan pulled the country to the right, I believe Edwards can pull the country to the left.

I don't get a vote in the primaries, I'm registered as an Independent, so I get literature from all sides of the aisle. And even if I did vote in the primaries, I doubt if my vote would count for much as I live in New York. My concern is that the leftist will only vote for Kucinich or Gravel in the primaries and we would end up with Clinton. According to some web site some one here posted on DU, Edwards is to the right of Kucinich and Gravel, but to the left of every one else running for President. Logically, he should be our candidate if we truly want to turn this country left.

zalinda

[noiretextatique]

176. i don't understand your characterization...is kucinich "the perfect candidate"?

if so, perhaps more democrats should vote for him, that way we would have the most liberal candidate.
reagan certainly did do "bad things," including iran-contra. of course he smiled: he was an ACTOR!!!!! it was all an ACT...meanwhile, we were training death squads all over central america. but so long as he smiled, none of that mattered. reagan reign was, until now, the most criminal and depraved administration in modern history....way beyond "bad." americans are woefully ill-informed on just about everything, and that ignorance is a part of the reason why we are where we are right now...on that we agree.
having said that, i could vote for edwards, and i do understand your point. however, i think most people will go with one of the two media darlings, obama or clinton, so i am not sure he has a chance anyway.

[lame54]

207. my thoughts exactly

but you put it into words
Thank You!
patty lame's wife
:yourock:

[stranger81]

141. Fantastic post, and crystallizes much of divide on this board.

Seems to me that the "ideologue" label is used on this board to describe anyone who subscribes to a set of political principles instead of a so-called "pragmatist" political strategy devoid of any guiding principle or belief.

[Stuckinthebush]

142. Just about to leave this community...

...but then you come along and make me feel like there are still leftists on this Board. Thank you! What a beautiful and timely post!

[scarletwoman]

159. Of course there's still leftists on this board -- did you see this 1068-vote DU poll?

10-26-2007 DU straw poll of all announced Democratic candidates

Poll result (1068 votes)
Biden.......(72 votes, 7%)
Clinton.....(112 votes, 10%)
Dodd........(42 votes, 4%)
Edwards.....(330 votes, 31%)
Gravel......(9 votes, 1%)
Kucinich....(379 votes, 35%)
Obama.......(106 votes, 10%)
Richardson..(18 votes, 2%)

This is the biggest polling sample we've ever had on DU. Hope that cheers you up a bit!

sw

[Stuckinthebush]

179. That is uplifting..you are correct about that

The Clinton and Obama crowd must be just incredibly vocal because it seems that they are a majority here.

It's good to see we still have a large amount of progressives!

Thanks.

[cascadiance]

245. I believe they are more vocal and I think there's a reason for that...

Most of the rest "leftist" of us go the spectrum and discuss many different issues of concern to us all over DU. Many of us don't "dwell" on the election and the polling that's coming out for it. Clinton and Obama supporters I think are FAR MORE focused on the election than we are, and as such are more obsesses with putting out daily polls and articles analyzing the candidates relative poll positions. I think that they tend to be more Clinton and Obama supporters and aren't regulars in other issue threads (impeachment, outsourcing, health care, etc.) I think speaks loudly for how they aren't as concerned about the core issues as we are, and that they are looking at things more like a horse race or a football game and what they can do to WIN, rather than what they can do that is RIGHT for the country and addresses the many problems we face now.

[MadHound]

160. Oh please, don't leave

There are times when I despair also, but then I remember that first,this is the primary season and that is never our best time around here. Second, I'm a stubborn old fart and don't move easily. We need all the voices on this board, yours included. Take a break, sure, I've done that. But don't just up and leave, we'll miss you and that will give too many people the satisfaction of driving one more person away.

[Stuckinthebush]

180. I'm sticking around...

it's just very difficult to see this place deteriorate this way. I've been here since the beginning and it'll be tough to get me to leave. Hell, I'm so used to coming here first thing in the morning to read the news, I wouldn't know what to do while drinking my coffee if I left!

Thanks for the note!

[MadHound]

194. It's actually good to see you,

Haven't heard from you in awhile. Lots of old names gone, always a good thing to hear from those still around.

Yeah, that whole coffee/news thing keeps me coming back too.

[Stuckinthebush]

199. I just lurk mostly now

but make a post every now and then. It saddens me to see the fighting.

Good to see you too MadHound.

[T.Ruth2power]

146. Phil Ochs

Love Me, I'm A Liberal
by Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[watrwefitinfor]

229. Excellent post.

Phil Ochs - how we miss him.

Welcome to DU.

Wat

[pnorman]

155. K&R!!!!!!!!

n/t

pnorman

[omega minimo]

164. "it may not only cost the Dems the election next fall, it might cost the party its very existence"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2260108

[Lorien]

165. Thank you for so eloquently putting into words my own frustrations

and thoughts about what has happened to my party. I was active in the Democratic party since my early childhood in the late 1960's when I participated in protests with my Liberal parents. Despite decades of service to my party, I no longer feel that I have representation in DC outside of Kucinich (and I no longer live in his district). I've been holding my nose since the party chose Dukakis in '88 and I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever be allowed to breathe freely again (though I was enthusiastic about Gore in 2000-I was still upset about Lieberman in the VP slot and the horrid campaign that they ran).

[nealmhughes]

169. Well, folks can say I cut my hair around a bowl and call me Judge Bradshaw for all I care,

I make no qualms at being a pragmatic idealogue. Think of it as Plato's forms. Now I may not be able to get ahold of a "perfect" table or chair, but by gummy, I can go out and make or buy a reasonable facsimile thereof!
"What has a corporation done for you lately?" ought to be the Democratic Party's rallying cry.
It is clear that the Party is in the midst of a rather civil civil war at present -- actually has been since the days of FDR dumping Henry Wallace as V.P. -- and few have been willing to address it openly. Perhaps quietly in the closet, but few have dared to say what is wrong with the Party's leadership and the bulk of the elected officials once they take their oaths in DC. Perhaps the physical closeness of people who can call David Rockefeller or Hank Kissnger or Bill Clinton make them lose their bearings and their Peoria upbringings and Peoria values.
Kant, in "Was ist Aufklarung" posits that one can never be "enlightened," but that one can be in the process of being enlightened, and furthermore, that enlightenment is the process of breaking free of self-imposed bonds, such as political and religious recieved wisdom. Then Manny (I call him Manny) says that it is out of fear and laziness that we refuse to make decisions on our own.
People will tolerate a lot so much as the previously intolerable is not added upon too suddenly, you know. Why? Fear of the unknown? Fear of having to make new decisions that were not necessary before? Fear of breaking with "authority" or "tradition" out of fear of ostracism? All of the above, perhaps.
Myself, I fear but few men, and those all have the look of Bruce Dern on a PCP binge about them, and none are politicians. What in the world do we have to fear except for self-imposed fears?

[scarletwoman]

172. Wonderful post! It's very much the same dynamic as "battered wife syndrome", imho.

The familiar -- even if it's dysfunctional and destructive -- is more comfortable than the unknown.

sw

[idgiehkt]

197. yeah, but moderate dems are coporatists at heart

and the working class is riding the downslope that started with trickle-down economics, got ten times worse NAFTA forward and now is being eaten alive by cheap Chinese labor. I truly believe these trade agreements are what have crippled the democratic party. We don't have a platform anymore, because there are no solid jobs to be had. Plants are unstable and mobile. If dems aren't underpinning families with real, solid jobs and a good economy, it makes the right able to vampirize them with religiosity and jingoism in a heartbeat. We. Have. Nothing. To. Offer. Maybe to ourselves, to idealists, but to the working man...nope.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

173. Everyone I know who was in on the Kucinich campaign in Minnesota in 2004

also bit the bullet and door-knocked and phone-banked for Kerry, as well as spending eight hours tramping through Twin Cities neighborhoods on Election Day.

So did the Dean supporters. So did the miscellaneous peace activists I know. Even the Greens didn't endorse a presidential candidate that year.

I'd like to see the Democratic party try to operate on just its "moderates" alone.

It would serve them right.

Of course, then they'd blame their defeat on their candidate being "too liberal," so they'd nominate Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller in 2012.

[leftist_not_liberal]

175. The same people who say leftists should compromise

with the so-called centrists (i.e corporatist millionaire right wingers) in the Democratic party are very, very often right wingers themselves and even if not, they are so interested in go-along-and-get-along that compromise with the lockstep corporatist, racist, warmongers that make up the core of the Republican party is also just fine. Better to compromise. Better to make steady minor steps they say.

Well, you know what? Your steady steps are IMAGINED. In doing things your way for a generation, the Wrong Fucking Way, the entire political spectrum has shifted so far to the right that I still blink in amazement when I think about the capitulation of this wonderful new Democratic congress.

It was a sight for those sore eyes to see TahitiNut's thread demonstrating that the bulk of the membership on DU is indeed pretty damn far left despite the many verboten topics and the shrill but numerically tiny "voices of reason" who post hundreds of times a day selling their "moderate" memes. Even as a newby, I can already think of some names off the top of my head. Surely, you folks who've been around know exactly what and who I am talking about. At some of that shit, one wonders if 50 cents a post remains the going rate ...



The proof is in front of our very eyes that this ALL ABOUT CLASS. Moderates need to wake up or get out of the way. Their reasoned voices and the media coronation of right wing candidates like Hillary and Barack are very much why so many people do not participate in either party; regular people here in the 'hood know it is a rigged game for the elite. They're not as gullible as some active Dems seem to be. They can't afford it.

As a downright fuckin' commie, I can tell you that reading some 19th century Russian history about its liberals is in order folks. You'll find they didn't do a goddamn thing for the people. In many ways we are seeing the same thing here, both in the chasm between the party faithful and its ruling class leaders who betray us, and then again (ad nauseam) in the spirit of "compromise" between the corporate duopoly leadership above that.

[iamthebandfanman]

241. YOU need to wake up

and stop playing into peoples hands by having this false moderate versus left war!
there is none!


this is about corporate money loving politicians who dont deserve support from ANYONE.


stop adding fuel to the left versus centrist fire.

its rediculous.

[magellan]

181. I don't know about ideological purity...

...unless you're talking about the desire to see a return to the Rule of Law and a government of, by, and for the PEOPLE...but your post is spot on in describing how I feel about where the Democratic Party is headed, and the lemmings who are taking it there, and I thank you for it.

[johncoby2]

190. If you block walk as much as you write...

You candidates will do great!

[dpbrown]

191. Vichy Democrats = Surrender Monkeys

Defeatocrat Bastards

[Greyhound]

192. 100 Recs!

:kick: & R

[idgiehkt]

196. well said

shifting right is not helping dems. They will lose to the right on abortion every time and if they abandon abortion then the party is over the cliff as far as non-moderates are concerned. I'm sick and tired of it just on this website, not even taking into account the larger scheme of things. I spent a huge amount of my life in a town full of progressives, real ones, and I read so much retrogressive, reactionary crap on this site that it just boggles my mind. I'm fine with people saying they are partisans but they ought to at least learn what a progressive is before they call themselves one.

[drmeow]

205. AMEN

Although there is one place where this is wrong.

I have actually been getting more and more left every year (not that I was EVER right - I wasn't even voting yet and was livid at and afraid of Reagan from day one) and have voted Democratic all my voting life except for once. I did vote for Nadar. The reason I voted for him was because I live in Arizona and there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that AZ would NOT go to that evil sub-human psychopathic predatory satanic prick and his drug-addict frat boy so I cast a protest vote.

I don't think its so much that we have willingly compromised as it is that we are to scared of the alternative so we have voted for increasingly right wing fake Democrats. I thought the worst had happened with our current Fascist in Chief until I saw the latest crop of Nazis that make up most of the Republican candidates and some of the Democratic ones as well. Thank God for Kucinich - he allows me to believe that there are liberal politicians left.

In addition to corporate financing, the other factor that has hurt the left's cause is the corporate mass media whom the Republicans have used to brainwash and manipulate the American people (many of whom actually are ideologically decidedly left of center) into voting against their own interests by feeding them propaganda, playing on fears, and outright lying. Quite frankly, if the media didn't spin the candidates, if every candidate was allowed equal time and was forced to state their views outright, if we had REAL debates instead of talking points, then maybe ... MAYBE ... we could take back our country.

Actually, the writers strike could be the best thing that happens to the Democratic party ... maybe if the masses turned off their TVs for a few months and woke up out of the apathetic hypnotic state they are in, they would revolt. I'm not holding my breath, though. I'm just wondering how long it will be before I have to find a way to walk over the border with just the clothes on my back like the Van Trapps (and, worse yet, how I'm going to bring my cats with me).

[OzarkDem]

206. DLC strategy is to ignore the base

ostensibly because "Dem candidates don't need them, they'll turn out to vote anyway".

My prediction: The Dem who wins this time will be the one who doesn't treat the base like a one night stand. Republicans and conservative values are widely discredited among the electorate.

The candidate who wins is the one who caters to mainstream US voters - and those are Democratic party voters. The ones who believe in the ideals of JFK, FDR, Harry Truman,Jimmy Carter and in the old days, Bill Clinton & Al Gore.

[kelligesq]

211. Yes, yes and yes. Thanks for saying what needed to be said.

from a lefty.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

212. Let me tell you what my old man said about 1932.

It was the first time my dad could vote.
He said there was no difference in the Dem and Rep platforms, or very little.

So he voted for Norman Thomas.

What happened? FDR was elected and started the social safety net that Norman Thomas, Presbyterian minister and Socialist, advocated. Now Social Security, minimum wage, 40 hour works, time and a half pay for overtime, and such are not extras, they are "entitlements".

All because FDR campaigned as a moderate but then realized that the country would go fascist (probably under Huey Long) unless he created agencies to put the people to work for the government to do what needed to be done -- like infrastructure, etc.

[drmeow]

213. Democratic Luther?

We need to write up a our own "95 Theses" and nail it to the door of the Democratic party.

OK, I could only convert some of his theses to leftist ideals ... anyone want to take a stab at it, too? I found it here Luther's 95 theses here:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

Out of love for our country and the desire to save it, the following propositions will be discussed at Democraticunderground.org, under the collective leadership of its members. Those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the name our democratic principles.
1. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America intended the government of this country to serve and protect the people.
2. Serving the people means providing those goods and serves that are difficult or impossible for individuals to create on their own (i.e., large scale communication, transportation infrastructure, etc).
3. Protecting the people means providing a barrier between those variables that interfere with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the people. This includes external threats (other countries who would seek to control the American people), internal threats (groups of citizens who would take away the rights of other Americans), individual threats (individuals who would commit criminal acts against another American), natural threats (fire, flood, etc), economic threats (unemployment), and health threats.
4. Government will fail in its role as long as those who govern fail to recognize their fundamental role.
5. Corporations are not people.
6. Corporations do not have the rights of citizens.
7. It is the role of government to protect citizens from corporations which represent an internal threat.
8. The freedoms outlined in the Constitution are imposed on individual people, not on corporations.
9. The government does not give those rights to the people, they are inalienable.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those politicians who accept money from corporations and reserve service and protection for those corporations.
20. Therefore elections need to be publicly funded.
23. If it is at all possible to grant the services of government whatsoever, it is necessary that these services be granted to all citizens, not just those who can buy them.
25. The power which politicians have, in a general way, is just on loan from the people.
36. Every citizen has a right to full services of the government.

[Seabiscuit]

215. Thank you. What a breath of fresh air. I've seen that "purist" label bandied about like that here

on DU and wished I could place it on a hot poker and shove it right up the guilty posters' arses.

[Norrin Radd]

216. k+r

[sss1977]

224. Cheers to you

My fellow Idealist. Brother, I'm with you.

[Enrique]

226. have you noticed the dems moving to the Left as of late?

say, since Bill Clinton.

[MadHound]

235. No actually I've seen them continue to move towards the right,

And towards a more corporatist position. Clinton himself was a corporatist, witness NAFTA and the '96 Telecom Act among others. Nor would I say that such stands as welfare "reform" or "don't ask, don't tell" are fairly conservative also.

No, sorry, but the slide has continued unabated, it not getting quicker over the past decade.

[Enrique]

243. I think they're moving away from free trade

do you think the democrats have become more supportive of free trade agreements? What about their opposition to CAFTA?

[lostnotforgotten]

227. After Watching The Party Abdicate Responsibility For The Vote

I will no longer sit back and accept the leaderships standard pablum and pep talks.

As the saying goes, "... you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas."

[Le Taz Hot]

228. Excellent!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Armstead]

231. Great Post. The Dermocratioc party has shifted to the right too often

I consider my beliefs mainstream middle-of-the-road liberalism and progressivism. Same as it's been for about 35 years.

Not looking for a revolution. Just a society where common decency is at least given as much of a chance as greed and self-interest. One where the government is an honest broker and a protection against the forces of Wealth and Power.

Pretty damn straightforward. But over the years, the Democratic Elites have helped the GOP push the spectrum so far to the right that I find myself on the "far left" of the political spectrum.

At this point, I find that the Green party positions seem more moderate than the Democrats.

[OneBlueSky]

232. the "ideological left" that we occupy these days . . .

was, in past years, the center . . . what today is considered the center was, in past years, the far right, and what today is the right was in past years extreme fascism . . .

[HughBeaumont]

234. You would think that wtih so much at stake . . .

. . . there'd be more enthusiasm towards NOT going with a candidate you know is going to have trouble with the South and stands a great chance of losing Ohio and Florida.

Anymore, "who sucks less" is beginning to be our choice in elections. And the finger-wagger flamethrowers constantly browbeat us for our refusal to play this loser's game, calling us "obstructionists" and "false Democrats".

If the Republican candidate were to say something like:

"I think we should stay in Iraq for decades. I believe every Middle Eastern nation is a threat to every God-fearing citizen in this country and we shouldn't leave the correction of that problem off the table. I think free trade and job offshoring, while painful to some, is a good thing for America's long term growth. I believe America should be led by an elite class of business leaders and we as a government and a Republic should do whatever it takes to please them and make them happy. Otherwise, they'll take their business to someplace other than America. Let's face it: you go with any plan other than the wealthy getting their way 7000 fold over the working class, and you'll have a creeping socialist menace inching it's way into the very capitalist foundation that's made this country GREAT! Socialism is not the answer. I believe in letting the FREE MARKET decide the proper solution for the overblown health care "problem" in this country. I believe in giving up a few constitutional rights to be safe . . . maybe MORE than just a few. After all, the Consititution was never written for the times we face now. You simply have to have faith that my beliefs will come true."

Sounds creepy? Those idiots would toss their full support behind such an asshole and not even question once whether it might not be such a good idea to elect someone with that kind of bullshit mindset.

That's them. The Democratic party should not want to be like them, and give the nomination to a person with less-than-democratic positions on issues like the war, economy, health care, etc.

It is not up to the VOTER to submit to the whims of the party, no matter how oppositional (don't give me "realistic") that candidate's platform seems to the characteristics our party should be about. It's up to the PARTY and the CANDIDATE that party selects to convince their potential electorate that they are the best candidate to represent the needs of the American people. Their job is not to please people that win multiple lotteries every year and call it "compensation".

That's simply saying it's OK to have a party take more than a great deal of it's constituent's needs for granted, just so long as we defeat the Republican candidate. It says that the Democratic candidate may not be able to address the needs of the people ALL the time, so you just have to take the good with the bad, and that's just the way it is. Yeah, because that logic has worked SO well the past couple elections, hasn't it?

If the candidate in question offers not much difference in platform, then what is the point of even having a fucking election?

A Murdoch-trumpeted, pro-free-trade, pro-Big Insurance Health Care war corporatist vs another Murdoch-trumpeted, pro-free-trade, pro-Big Insurance Health Care war corporatist is not a choice. THAT is a wasted vote and a wasted Democracy. And THAT is what NEEDS to be corrected.

Great post, BTW.

[happygoluckytoyou]

236. IF I WERE ANY MORE ON THE LEFT....I'D BE ON THE RIGHT

The NEO-CONS were once on the LEFT... but at a certain altitude, LEFT AND RIGHT circle around to meet each other....

The Right has White BIGOTS................The Left has Minority BIGOTS
The Right has always been hawkish.........The Left at times advocates war against the hawks

THE OPPOSITE of being an EXTREMIST is being a CENTRIST


I am a proud, and often exhausted, enemy of the EXTREME.

WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO, IS "RE-CALIBRATE" THE CENTER... A LARGE STEP TO THE LEFT

-----do not be so cynical of "republican-lite" democratic candidates...
--------much of what they say is to get elected
-------------that IS the game

because like it or not.....GORE does have to fly around in a fossil-fuel world to promote the ecology

like it or not.....EDWARDS does have to get $200 haircuts to promote ending poverty, and labor causes

.....and so on....

the president DOES have to be wealthy, to meet and greet, to get along, to meet behind closed doors, to say disagreeable things in order to garner votes....
-----------and like it or not, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED KERRY OR GORE TO LIE CHEAT OR STEAL IN ORDER TO NEVER HAVE HEARD THE NAME OF GEORGE W BUSH.....
so if a candidate needs to push a little to make this happen.... i'm okay with it

[Finite]

237. You're not wrong but..

Mate - try being a supporter of the Labour party, we've had to put up with 10 years of disappointment! At least you lot haven't lived through it yet..

[amb123]

238. It's not a contest between left and right.

The ONLY issue of the 2008 campaign is:

DO YOU SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS OR DO YOU NOT?!

THE LIBERAL PATRIOT SUPPORTS THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

THE FASCISTS (The GOP and the Corporatist Democrats) DO NOT!

[rhett o rick]

244. I totally agree. The left/right, red/blue, demo/repub are distractions from the real issue that u

stated. I am sorry but all other issues pale compared to the reestablishment Constitution protections and the rule of law.

[Gregorian]

242. Here is why I desire left. (I'm not sure where to post this)

The right excludes. The left includes.

The right says no abortions. The left says don't have an abortion if you don't want one.

Everyone gets what they want with the left. Only a few get what they want with the right.

Is this thinking incorrect?

[rhett o rick]

246. Great post. But pleez help me out. What issues do leftists support that centralist don't.

I am some what confused here. I have always considered myself fairly central, but I strongly support Constitutional protections and the rule of law. It seems that that makes me a lefty. Why? Don't the centralist's of the party believe in these issues?? Is it leftist to shun those (of any party) that support torture and Mukasey??

I don't mind being called a lefty, but I see it as a means to marginalize people and stands.

I am serious, someone pleez explain.

[EstimatedProphet]

251. You are aware of the fact that change is incremental, right?

And one of the biggest reasons that the Republicans are now looking at 2008 in terror is because they tried to force their positions as fast as possible, with no regard to what any other opinions were.

So why exactly should this work for us, and not for them? You can't win people over by beating them on the head. If you want to really influence politics, you have to work with people who don't agree with your views. They will always be there, regardless. And they are every bit as entitled to their opinion as you are.

The pendulum swings. It doesn't teleport. Turn your back on those who are at least partly representing your views, and you guarantee that those who want to get rid of your views entirely will be able to do so.

[angstlessk]

252. I would say the republicans failed because they pushed MINORITY

policies...most people are more progressive than either party. Most would accept tax increases for universal health care, most would prefer we spend more on AMERICA THAN IRAQ...progressives are OVER 50% of the nation...republicans pushed 'terry shavio' and tax cuts for the EXTREMELY rich...against the MAJORITY..sorry not the same!

[EstimatedProphet]

254. Nope

It's the act of forcing that shuts people down on change. The Republican views weren't in the minority after 9/11, not by a long shot. Still people got tired of them because the Republicans were so smug and belligerent about their views.

It takes time to change people's attitudes. We will get farther by helping them come around, rather than demanding.

[Freddie Stubbs]

255. Moderates show spine when they stand up to far left and represent the center