My Ultimatum to the Democratic Party: Enough is Enough

[debbierlus]

(To the few dem leaders who fight the fight & stand up with all you have....this does not pertain to you...the party has abandoned you as much as it has us)


I have tried. I really, really, really, have tried hard. My position has been to work for positive change within the democratic party, & dedicate myself to getting progressives elected. I have tried working with you, giving you the benefit of the doubt, pleading with you through letters, calls, & personal visits to uphold the constitution & represent the people. But, YOU are making it impossible to continue to stay with you. YOU are making it impossible to work with you. How can I work with you when I am constantly fighting for you to do the right thing? It is exhausting enough to have to always be fighting the Republicans, it is ridiculous that I have to battle with you, as well. And, not only do I have to fight to make you stand up for what is right & just...I have to work with the on-line grassroots media to speak out against all the lies, manipulations, & slander the rigt wing throws at you without your response. I do not mind being a part of the new media, it is empowering. I DO mind very much when you don't speak out as well, & HELP instead of hinder our efforts.

So, I am giving you an ultimatum. Stand up for our democracy now, stop acquiescing to the illegal actions & policies of the Bush administration, & start working for the people you supposedly represent. I realize their are limits to what you can do. I understand the politics and difficulties of your job. But, the following incidents are NOT acceptable in any way, & they are VERY MUCH in your power to do something about:

Granting Bush expanded spying powers under the NSA wiretapping program. Today, it came out that you are going to cave once again & allow the telecom companies immunity for following Bush's orders EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T KNOW THE FULL DETAILS OF WHAT THIS PROGRAM ENTAILS, COVERS, & THE SCOPE & EXTENT OF ITS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS...In August you temporarily extended Bush's powers, & I was in shock that after all the betrayals, all the lies, all the known constitutional violations perpetrated by this administratin, you would go along with granting any more power to this criminal administration.

You refuse to stop funding for the war. You just allowed another 150 billion dollars for this fiasco. Money we don't have. Troops we don't have. For a failed policy that has accomplished NOTHING other then to destabilize the entire region & make a few contractors extremely rich. 40 cents of every dollar goes to a private contractor. Private contractors who are really Mercanaries.
Why do you not fight with every breath in your body to stop this? Our military is broken. The people sent for endless tours of duty, in this endless unethical fiasco, are broken. FUND A WITHDRAWL, not the war. Tell them NOT ONE PENNY IS TO BE SPENT ON CONTINUING THIS CONFLICT. And, if Bush ignores & defies you, IMPEACH THE BOY KING DICTATOR, as you should have the second you took office. Impeachment is a constitutional duty when a President overreaches, but you are more concerned about your own political skins to uphold the LAW. The really ironic thing is that by doing your DUTY, you would garner more political support, improve your image beyond anything you could imagine. You have no understanding of the true political climate in this country. Your approval is worse then the Presidents precisely because you don't stand up to him.

If you continue to refuse to do your duty & uphold the constitution as you swore to do, you leave me no choice. I will break from the democratic party & work with the millions of other people who are equally disenfranchisd & work to create a party that represent the people. You always take for granted your 'base', treating us with complete disdain because you believe we will always be there no matter what you do. You know we won't vote Republican. And, we won't. But, nor will we continue to abide by a impotent party that can't or won't represent our interests. Doing the same thing over & over & expecting to get different results has been said to be the definition of craziness. I will not keep banging my head against the same wall. I will not keep giving my money, my time, my passion to a party that does not even represent what I believe. I will no longer give you the luxury of being judged on the deeds of a past party that no longer exists in anything but rheoteric. I am prepared to accept you as what you have shown to be, another arm of the one party corporate rule.

This is your last warning. I will not abide this any longer. Do what is right or lose your base to a future party that will leave you as a historical note.

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Think of it: That powder must be bone dry by now. n/t

[debbierlus]

2. It isn't even powder anymore, it dissipated into the atmosphere

[madinmaryland]

91. I think Bush took all the powder

and snorted it.

[ShortnFiery]

3. "This is your last warning. I will not abide this any longer."

I'm with you! We are often shouted down by the pro-establishment corporatist, but we are far from alone in our feelings of complete disenfranchisement for our beloved Democratic Party.

For the first time in my "voting life" --> I can NOT ... NO, I WILL NOT vote a third time for the DLC's Darling(s) to fill Our Executive Branch.

[debbierlus]

7. People over Party....

First, last, & ALWAYS.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Amen Sister!

:thumbsup: :hi:

[D23MIURG23]

159. and Policy over Party!

:think: :hi:

[tomreedtoon]

4. And what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to simply not vote for the Democrat? Are you going to take your complaints to the convention in Denver? Are you going to write another scathing letter to the editor? Clue me in as to how you will use your anger to do something effective.

By the way, the "what are you going to do about it?" comes from Greg Palast, who also got people angry, but who also provided no effective way to change things.

[HughBeaumont]

15. We COULD do this, but that wouldn't necessarily be . . . "civil" . . .

138 million of us could rise up, abandon our livelihoods, financial situation be damned, and storm the White House and the homes of the uber-wealthy plutocrats like Lee Raymond, Dick Cheney, Larry Ellison, the China Mart Family, etc. The nation as well as the entire world's economy (especially our major trading partners, THANKS to said rich people, China and India) would be thrown into mass upheaval. Thousands upon thousands of us can get nuked and dusted by Blackwater, button-pusher Cheney and the police, all of whom would protect the interests of the "betters". Those that succeed somehow in getting past them and onto the homes of the rich and fascist will find them either suicided or fled to Paraguay. We wouldn't have a nation's capital because it'd be radiated or blood-drenched, as would our major cities.

And then what happens?

Would someone in the population know how to rebuild everything from scratch again? How long would that take? What sort of government would arise? What would stop it from being as predatory as the last one? How do we know that the same cycle of exploitation/unfairness/economic inequality wouldn't rear it's ugly head the second time around?

A "blood in the streets" vision would have consequences none of us could even imagine. You think you're dealing with a Nixonesque bunch here? Those guys are long, LONG gone. This is an authoritarian by any means necessary corporatocracy now. They couldn't care less about our voice. They couldn't care LESS about OUR future; they only care about THEIRS. Time value of money models and mercenary economics are how they own and operate. 3-4 million people around the world were in the street protesting the war in 2003. They went to occupy anyway.

At least Nixon, shitty of a president as he was, had a sense of country and legacy. These people don't care about popularity. They never have. If they would, the minimum wage wouldn't be less than 8 dollars an hour like it is now, there'd be no wars and we'd be a responsible society catering to the needs of the individual.

When we elected a democratic congress to stop funding this war, is it somehow OUR fault that they instead gave the Failure Fuhrer blank checks?

When I voice my opinion in protest in DC, was it my fault for not being disobedient enough to get an arrest record and a felony tacked to my ass?

We TRIED caring. I guess we failed because we chose to go through life trying simply to pay our bills and raise our children right, which is difficult enough as it is. I guess we failed because the US isn't passionate enough to want to turn DC into a gorewash. Frog-march politicians and you still have the corporations, the people that REALLY run this country and have stacked both parties with lapdogs.

Who deals with the Corporations and the shitheads that run them? Are they gonna be burned at the stake or forced to abandon their greedy tendencies?

[tomreedtoon]

150. Got another suggestion, less devastating, more appropriate.

Go to Denver. Picket the convention. Do whatever...and I mean whatever...to make it clear to the delegates and the watching media that the Democratic Party has betrayed you.

That way, you'll still have your jobs and society and all the rest of that. You'll have a Republican President in 2008, but you'll have that anyway whether you protest or not. This way, the Democrats will realize that they lost, not because they failed to pleased their Republican lords and masters, but because they didn't listen to the people who elected them.

And you'll be on TV. Think about that!

[backscatter712]

18. I'm sick of being powerless.

Because that's what we are right now - powerless, told "Shut the fuck up, peasant!" while the rich cocksuckers in both the Democratic and Republican parties steal our wealth from us, throw us into wars that kill us, and leave us nothing but crumbs and a smirk.

I'm fucking sick of it. I'm not abandoning the party, the party has abandoned me. As far as I'm concerned, if we're not going to get served by the Democratic Party or the Republicans slimebags, it's time to bring the whole fucking system down. If we the people are going to be slaves, I'd rather die fighting. I'd rather see this entire country go down in ashes so long as those rich cocksuckers burn with us.

Give me one fucking reason not to. ONE REASON!

[txaslftist]

77. One Reason:

pssst: The Ron Paul revolution.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

127. I think the Democratic Party

1) needs redemption;

2) the best way for it (and the planet) is to nominate Al Gore.

This would be a way to repudiate all the wannabes in the Senate who voted for an immoral war, the Patriot Act, torture, etc., etc., etc.

It also takes back the power for the people!

[ldf]

154. sometimes i feel exactly the same way

sometimes it seems the only thing that would work would be a total collapse, then hopefully, a rebirth that returns us to the core principles this country was founded on.

either that, or we resign ourselves to failing in this noble experiment.

complete failure, as the rich continue to get richer, and more removed from the reality THEY have created, for THEIR benefit, which WE have to live in, whether we like it or not, whether we can survive or not. they would truly be the masters, and we would truly be the slaves.

it is more likely that they already are, and we already are. we just haven't gotten to the point of accepting it, yet...

maybe that is the problem, we HAVE accepted it.

they live at a level that allows them to be completely unaffected, they can do as they please anyway. the rest of us are, literally, collateral damage.

it is, again, literally, two worlds that are very far apart, and getting farther.

and they have shredded the constitution in the process.

can you ever in your wildest dreams imagine that this country would tolerate the lies for war, a policy of preemptive war just because some country MAY do SOMETHING at SOME POINT in the future, complete destruction of a country that did nothing to us, be willing to torture, thereby putting our own troops at a greater likelihood of receiving the same treatment, accept being spied on, accept that we have no privacy, accept an excuse of a mainstream media that REFUSES to air the truth? and ALL of this being enabled by our very own democratic party leaders, who refuse to do hardly anything? (but "keep their powder dry", "pick their battles", and then give the pathetic excuse in the whitehouse everything he wants...)

our only consolation is that at least they will keep us entertained. because that's the only reason they get away with it. as has been said, americans are that unique combination of being the least educated, while being the most entertained, people on the planet.

between just trying to survive and pay the bills, working longer hours, we spend those fewer leisure hours distracting ourselves.

is it unconsciously, because we can't admit what is happening? or consciously, because we don't care enough to do something about it, have accepted it?

do we, the discontented, refuse to play, allowing total collapse, and a possibility for a rebirth with new leadership? or do we experience total failure to take our country back, with all resulting repercussions, which will probably end in collapse, anyway?

i only disagree in one way with your post.

calling someone a "cocksucker" is not an insult. look around you at where you are at. LOTS of cocksuckers here.

oh? it is just a figure of speech? this isn't deadwood.

whatever.... it indicates volumes. it makes you sound more like a bigot, than a patriot.

you know what i mean, vern?

[CaptJasHook]

180. But that the dread

of something after death,
the undiscovered country, from whose borne
no traveller returns, puzzles the will
and makes us rather bear those ills we have
then fly to those we know not of.

Thus, conscience does make cowards of us all.

[Toots]

99. Vote for Stephen Colbert

And I believe most every state has at least one independent running for Congress.

[davekriss]

239. Infiltrate!

Get involved at the grass roots, take our party back!

In fact, that's what the enemy has done to us. Iirc, the county commissioner in Florida in 2000 responsible for the butterfly ballot was a Republican up to the time she ran for county commissioner. She switched parties in order to win the office. And of course we all know what happened next. My mother was one of those who accidently voted for Buchanan -- the first time she voted for somebody other than a Demnocrat in 47 years of active voting.

[nightrider767]

5. Only Two Candidates Will Bring Change

Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Every other candidate is telling you up front and to your face, that they will continue the status quo.

So ask yourself, who's more to blame, the system or yourself? Are you voting for real change?

Of course, if you happened to be a Kucinich supporter then you would be absolved, though still screwed.

And I do feel your pain brother.

[debbierlus]

8. That would be Sister :)

:)

[nightrider767]

11. Ahah!

I stand corrected! Thank you very much. :think:

[bobbolink]

29. Ron Paul "would bring change" alright... he'd kill off poor folk faster than *

Or maybe you think that's just fine?

[nightrider767]

61. I don't

Seems I may have inferred an endorsement for Ron Paul. I'm not. I'm just saying he's the anti-party candidate like Kucinich.

Speaking of the poor. How come the Katrina victims have been forgotten? We got a ton still living in FEMA trailers and it's not really being addressed in the debates.

It's frustrating isn't it? Is this still the Democratic party?

[bobbolink]

85. Yes, we are forgotten, and invisible!

It's ALL of us poor folk who have been forgotten.

The Katrina people were forgotten BEFORE Katrina hit, which is why they suffered so much.

"Is this still the Democratic party? "

I guess I'm prevented by the rules from answering that.

:(

[txaslftist]

78. Nonsense.

There may be things he advocates you don't like, but he's made it very clear he's not going to radically change any of the programs that help the poor.

[bobbolink]

86. Nonsense right back atcha. Some of us live on $623 a month, and

are barely alive.

He then taxes us for everything we buy, and....

....we fall off the edge.

But, I don't suppose that matters to you.

[txaslftist]

95. I don't think you've researched his economic ideas.

It doesn't include any increase in consumption taxes or sales taxes.

Paul has pointed out that if we were to get rid of the Federal Income Tax completely, AND NOT REPLACE IT WITH ANYTHING, we'd still have the same federal budget we had in the year 2000. Although he disagrees with the welfare system, he recognizes that people depend on it, and he's pledged not to leave those people in the lurch. Unlike most other candidates, when he says he'll do something he'll do it; when he says he won't, he won't.

Someone is giving you bad information.

[bobbolink]

98. clearly, I've "researched" it more than you have, so dispense with the sneer.

The pledge of a libertarian ain't worth the paper it's on.

[txaslftist]

100. No sneer intended. I didn't mean to be offensive.

I found what you posted to be innaccurate, based on what I've read. If I'm wrong, please show me how.

[bobbolink]

101. He said right in a debate that he would use sales taxes...

His own mouth.

Those of you who champion libertarians need to look CLOSELY at the damage to poor people!!

[txaslftist]

107. Here's RP in his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80

This is not as scary stuff as you make it out to be.

[D23MIURG23]

163. Its similar to what I've heard Gravel say on taxes.

[txaslftist]

218. Yes it is. Different parties, but similar generation and sensibilities.

I've often said I'd take a real, Goldwater-style old-fashioned conservative over a neo-con any day, and neocons are found in both parties.

[bobbolink]

193. And when it turns out to really hurt poor people, you're going to be there to rescue us, right?

I'm sure it would bother you tremendously.

I can't believe I'm arguing this point with a "liberal".

Or, maybe you're just that other "l".

[txaslftist]

215. You think the present system doesn't hurt poor people?

The past fifteen years or so have been the most regressive period in terms of real incomes in our nation's history. For the first time in many generations, our wealth distribution has been regressive; ie- the rich get richer and the poor, poorer.

This regression started under Bill Clinton (although under the Clinton prosperity it was just a variance between relative wealth improvement, not an actual decline), and has accellerated under George WTF Bush. What programs does a centrist like Hillary offer that will differ markedly from the centrist programs initiated under her hubby?

You feel a need to assign me a letter, so you can have an idea where I stand on stuff? Well, I'm a Democratic precinct chair, in a very conservative city, with a strong libertarian leaning. I'm also anti-war, anti-spying, anti-torture and anti-deficit.

I'm also strongly anti-inflation, which is how most of our government is financed, by the way.

On each of these issues Ron Paul has been consistently better positioned than Hillary has. She voted for the war, for Chrissakes, and then turned around and voted to authorize the one we're in with Iran (a covert and nasty little war of provocation and financial support for insurrection, so far, but ready to go hot on any pretext).

So before I cast my vote, I have to decide not only if a Hillary presidency will be good for me personally (it would), but if I can stomach this war dragging on and maybe a million more people who never did me a flick of harm getting murdered violently.

You worry about poor people? Fine. I'm pretty sure that no matter who is president, the Democratically controlled house and senate will protect them.

I worry about dead people, and the people we're about to kill.

[D23MIURG23]

220. Thank you for bringing up the HRC Iran vote.

I think this needs to be pressed more. She talks as though she wants to end the war in Iraq, but then goes passively along with the run up to Iran at very least (I'll leave it up to others to decide whether she is actively hawking or merely appeasing the next neocon policy disaster). To my mind we have nothing more than her campaign slogans to assure us that neoconservatism won't be the guiding principle in her foreign policy.

[txaslftist]

222. You're welcome.

And welcome to DU.

It's election season, which means there'll be a lot "get on board or you're not a real democrat" stuff, especially once we pick a nominee.

I expect to banned about then.

Still, nice to meetcha.

[bobbolink]

227. End of discussion. You've made it clear you have no worry for the likes of me.

You have NO idea how close I came to dying, and may yet in the next couple of months.

Yeah, those Dems, including people like you, are taking care of that just fine.

Have a fine life.

BYE.

[davekriss]

240. It's not the first time...

...income has swung into the hands of the very rich. Current concentrations of wealth and income were seen in the Guilded Age and in the Roaring Twenties. Both led to steep and lengthy Depressions, which is likely what we have in store for us.

On edit: And the current "regression" didn't start under Bill Clinton, it started under Ronald Reagan.

[sendero]

178. Exactly...

... where would those revenues come from. They are not enough to balance the budget already.

You sound like a typical Libertarian, delusional to the point of pity.

[txaslftist]

213. Here's one possible source.

http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/irs.htm

[reggie the dog]

105. what if

The state you lived in picked up where the feds let up and you were able to get say 1000 dollars a month with a state funded program. If the war was ended, the military reduced and drugs legalized and taxed the government spending would go down and we would be able to better fund social spending without raising taxes. People could end up paying less taxes and getting better social services. Ending the FEDERAL income tax does not mean ending the STATE income tax.

[D23MIURG23]

161. I live on about that amount/month

and I still say he is better than the other republicans.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Ron Paul, huh?

He's an infection on the ass of America. He's right on exactly ONE issue ....... and you think he's the equal of Kucinich????????????????? Talk about looney ....... sheesh.

[nightrider767]

59. I stand by my post

You may not like him, and I'm not selling him. And I'm certainly not comparing him in any way to Kucinich. What I am trying to show is that there are only two candidates who really have an agenda for change. You may think Paul's a nut and he very well may be. But my point here is those two candidates are the only ones who advocate real change.

All the other candidates are advocating sort of the same as we got now, plus a touch of their own finesse.

Anywho, it doesn't matter in the long run does it? If either one is nominated, they'll be summarily destroyed by the powers that be.

Hey another Navy brother!

Cheers, ex VP46!

[reggie the dog]

104. one?

war, medical marijuana, drug prohibition, spying without having a warrant, repeal the patriot act. There are many issues he is great on to leftists, granted his stance on abortion is terrible to leftists as is turning social spending over to the states to some on the left (others say why not, look at the UK or the EU as examples to follow).

[nightrider767]

118. So Many issues,,,,,

Make's it nearly impossible to pick the perfect candidate. Actually, let's face it, 90% of the voters will have to give up an issue or two to be able to pick anyone.

It's not a conspiracy. It's like buying a new house. There's always gonna be an issue or two you'd rather not have....

[Virginia Dare]

52. Ron Paul would bring change, that's true..

mind-bendingly scary and terrible change, but I guess that's beside the point, eh?

[nightrider767]

62. Hornet's nest

OK, sorry, not selling Ron Paul. Maybe I worded that post a bit off. But if we want change, and we're not happy with the performance of the new Congress, why are we not embracing the candidate of real change? In this case Kucinich.

I think that COngress is following the lead and the platform held by our Democratic front runners, and it's not taking us in the direction many people in the party want to go.

[Virginia Dare]

68. I don't embrace Kucinich..

because absolutely nothing about his deeds convince me that he would actually be capable of bringing about that change, not at the present time anyway. Pointing out the problems and solving them are two different things.

The bottom line is one man CANNOT bring about wholesale change, Kucinich couldn't and neither could Gore. If they tell you they can, they're lying.

The change is going to have to be systemic and society-based. It will have to take a near catastrophic event such as "The Great Depression" to bring about the change of which you are speaking. Americans as a whole are not going to come out of their comfort zone at this point in time, regardless of how pessimistic they're feeling.

I'm not completely happy about the job Congress is doing, but much of the blame can also be placed on conspiratorial obstruction by the republicans and the corporate owned media for spreading pernicious propaganda. I also never expected them to perform miracles within 6-12 months.

Let's get the White House and the majority in both Houses, if they still can't come up with some real change, THEN we've got a problem.

[nightrider767]

69. Hey I'm with you all the way

Even if my candidate doesn't win the Democratic nomination, I'm voting Democrat all the way.

I'm looking for change, simple things like end the war, and a sensible approach to defending this country from terrorism. Doing things the smart way. Using this countries recourses to the betterment of the masses.

Now if things aren't going to happen that way, then yes, put me on board for a gradual change for the better. Because as you eluded to, the American brain may not be open to taking the big steps. We all started with the baby steps. And that is fine as long as we are headed in the right direction.

[f the letter]

202. Your post was perfectly clear

Why is everybody jumping on you for equating the candidate who is least like their party in both parties? That is not an endorsement, it's a fact. Ron Paul is very different than the rest of the republican candidates, and that is not a value judgment.


And what is the "libertarians eat babies and are delusional" stuff? It's as defendable as any other 'ism' or 'cracy' in itself. Although i'm firmly in favor of government having a major role in education, health care, education, arts, public roads, communications, and everything else, libertarianism isn't 'delusional.' It's an idea. If not for the actual state of the world today it might be a possible 'ism' just like several other well-intentioned 'isms' any of us could name.

[txaslftist]

81. Yeah. Like ending the war with Iraq and closing all those overseas bases.

That would be mind-bendingly terrible, all right.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[reggie the dog]

106. Paul for president over Clinton but still Democrat for senate and house

Repealing the Patriot Act is possilbe with a Democratic majority in congress. Leaving Iraq is possible with a Democratic majority in congress. Ending the war on drugs is possible if the Democrats have the majority in congress. Reducing military spending is possible with a Democratic majority. Making abortion unconstitutional is not possible with a Democratic congressional majority. It is also not possible without a 2 thirds supermajority and a majority of Democrats in 2 thirds of the 50 states. In other words Paul would get to do some of his projects but others stand no chance in hell if the Democrats have a majority, or even a minority bigger than one third, in Congress.

Going to war in Iran with Clinton as president could get approved by a Republican Congress, or a congress made up of 40 percent Republicans and 11 percent "DLC/BLUEDOG" Democrats and the war in Iran begins, the war in Iraq never ends, the war in Afganistan does not end, and I am still a criminal for smoking grass or hash.

This is a very likely outcome if Clinton is elected president. It is a likely outcome if Obama gets elected. Paul is the only Republican I would vote for over these 2 Democrats. You folks may not like it, but thats how I am. I would vote Paul for president over Clinton or Obama just for the wars. I will still vote Democrat for state senate, state house, federal senate and federal house and if it looks like our governor in Illinois will not win in a landslied I will not vote Green like I (and 10% of Illinois) did in the last election. (Illinois has become more progressive since I left 4 years ago in my opinion. I get the feeling that the downstate big city cultural divide is becoming less and less important.)

[txaslftist]

112. I'm with you 100%.

For me, it's the war, domestic terror, torture and secret prisons that trump the rest of my concerns.

We've caused the needless deaths of over a million souls, and the indescribable misery of countless others in a place that's never done us harm. To me this trumps such concerns as "party loyalty" or any domestic economic issue.

Hillary voted for the war. You can parse that how you like, she did. She's also ratchetting up the pressure for another one. I won't vote if she's our nominee. I'll leave the presidential selection blank.

[mnhtnbb]

122. I would add Edwards. He's not a corporatist.

[nightrider767]

129. I Like Edwards Too

But as far as I know, I don't think he's made bringing our troops home right away that firm of a commitment. Nice like-able guy though.

But since he's a trial lawyer, I for one would like to see him more aggressively pursue the offensive. Seems like sometimes he hesitates and does not come in strong enough.

Great guy though. I'd vote for him any day.

[mnhtnbb]

226. Cutting off the funding for the war and getting a timetable to bring

troops home is a big priority for Edwards. He put out a proposal last February. The problem is the media
has, and continues, to ignore him in favor of Clinton/Obama.

On edit: see this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2088881&mesg_id=2090329

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[robinlynne]

9. Well today was the final nail in the coffin. The dems and rethugs negotiated

FISA and are granting immunity to the telecoms companies.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[bobbolink]

31. We're smart people.. we can stop toeing the line and put our heads together

and come up with a way to take back our country.

PNAC is no smarter than we are.

They have the power of the corporations behind them, but we have passion.

I'm willing to bet we can think of a good path to take...

[DemBones DemBones]

208. We can if we can get more people to realize

that the OP is right: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only candidates proposing real change.

Presumably none of us care for all the changes Ron Paul supports but can support most if not all the changes Dennis Kucinich proposes.

So the only thing to do is support Kucinich. Stop listening to the mediawhores and lying polls and support the man who will change things.

Otherwise, it'll be meet the new boss, same as the old boss (though probably more capable of speaking coherently.) For me, speaking coherently is not enough change. I want policy changes.


Hi, bobbolink :hi:

[robinlynne]

45. I agree, in general, but this fisa immunity shifts the country 50% more to the right.

I'm too upset to have an answer right now.

[me b zola]

92. Oh no.

Was this before or after Dodd put a hold on the bill? Please say it ain't so.

[Zandor]

12. LOL!

Democrats won't do enough to stop Bush, so I'll make it more likely a republican will get elected in 2008 by going all Sheehan or something.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Awe, it's not enough for you to start all those FREAKY threads, but now you darken our door?

:( :shrug:

[Zandor]

55. Folks disagreee at a discussion forum

Don't expect an endorsement of all OP's. Trust me on that one.

[T Wolf]

16. Democrats won't do ANYTHING to stop Bush...

Exactly how much slack are we supposed to cut them? Is there anything they could do that would cause you to say, "Enough?"

[OzarkDem]

21. Dem leaders in Congress are losing the race themselves

they don't need any help from loyal Dem grassroots.

They're demoralizing their base and turning off swing voters. They have been good at doing those things, not much else.

[Zandor]

51. Loyal Democrats support Democrats

Those disloyal help Republicans get elected.

[The Stranger]

74. When people elected, so-called "Democrats," refuse to uphold the Constitution, abandon their Base,

and enact Republican legislation, then they are no longer Democrats.

There is a line, and they crossed it long ago.

[txaslftist]

80. So?

Joe Lieberman was a Democrat.

Was his re-election by "loyal Democrats" to all those terms such a great thing?

There are suckbutts in both parties, and good people in both parties.

I don't see much value in being "loyal" to a party that isn't "loyal" to me, frankly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Hmm when did the 11th commandment become part

of the Democratic Party?

:scratches head:

After the last seven years of lock step from the other side you sure you want THAT?

I know you do...

[puebloknot]

149. Kirche, kinder, kuchen... or words to that effect.

This is the 21st Century. Dems are no longer confined to kitchen, church, and the maternity hospital.

Loyal Democrats support Democratic ideals, wherever they find them.

[Oldenuff]

155. I'll vote my conscience

Thank you very much.

[puebloknot]

156. As will I. nt

[Danger Mouse]

182. Party over country! Party over country!

You're a laugh a minute.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Rhythm and Blue]

49. So will you, though,

as you force a split in the liberal vote and the conservatives waltz into unprecedented power. See: Nader, Florida, 2000.

[Tesha]

71. Social Democrats seem to run most of the civilized world.

Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists seem to
run most of the civilized world.

Just not the US where "socialist" is used in the
same sort of "ooga-booga!!!" way as "Naderite!".

Tesha

[Rhythm and Blue]

108. That's true, yeah.

Other facts that are equally interesting and equally appropriate as responses:

1. Chinese is the most commonly spoken "language" in the world, though the catch-all term 'Chinese' usually includes many mutually unintelligible "dialects" that would more properly be called languages.

2. Countries that were part of the British Empire at the time automobiles were introduced tend to drive on the left side of streets. Most others tend to drive on the right, though of course there are exceptions.

3. When people around the world look at a rainbow, they see as many "bands" as their language has base words for colors. (That is, words like "Red" and "Orange," not "Mauve" or "Teal.") Rainbows are gradients and do not have any bands at all.

[Tesha]

115. Way to avoid the question! You're a sterling example of a modern "Democrat".

Way to avoid the question! You're a sterling example
of a modern "Democrat":

"Hey! Look over there! Bush still sucks more!"

Tesha

[Rhythm and Blue]

117. You didn't actually get around to asking a question, dear.

You simply pointed out that socialism is extremely common in industrialized nations. This is true, and in and of itself has no bearing on American politics whatsoever, and especially has no bearing on what I had said as regards factionalism and Nader in 2000.

[Tesha]

125. Don't "dear" me -- you and I are *NOT* friends.

And my point was pretty clear; your list of
non sequiturs was just an in-artful dodge and
attempt to change the topic.

Tesha

[Rhythm and Blue]

128. Your point was nonexistent.

You followed up my reply with a non sequitur. I provide three other non sequiturs, and say, "See, now, you didn't actually reply to what I said." You then said "YOU'RE DODGING MY QUESTION." I say, "I don't see a question there at all." Now you say I'm dodging your question again.

Here, let's make a deal. You figure out what it is that you want to ask me, and then you ask me a question. Then I will reply to the question. Won't that be fun?

Now, to remind you what you were attempting to reply to: "(If you split off and vote for a third party, you indeed render the Democrats impotent, but you will do the same to yourself as well - paraphrasing, since your post I was replying to got deleted by the mods), as you force a split in the liberal vote and the conservatives waltz into unprecedented power. See: Nader, Florida, 2000."

Note that "Socialism is a strong political force in many European countries" is not an appropriate response, as it has nothing to do with:

1. Factionalism
2. Third parties
3. Elections in America
4. Republicans
5. Democrats
6. Nader
7. Florida
8. The 2000 election
9. Anything I wrote.

[Tesha]

130. Any meaningful reply to your question will get deleted so I shan't bother.

But I do wonder which of the DUers on your side
alerted on my earlier post to get it deleted?

Perhaps the arguments on your side aren't strong
enough to stand against ours?

Tesha

[Rhythm and Blue]

131. Translation: "All I've got is flamebait." nt

[liberation]

166. Hello Mr. Pot, here is Mrs. Kettle... and she is damn excited that you are calling her black!

I always get a chuckle about tools like you using the logical fallacy that a vote for Nader would have been a vote for Gore.

Although, I would like to see you tap dance your way out of this: A vote for Gore was actually a vote for Lieberman... So? Maybe you should look at the mirror when blaming the debacle that was the 2000 election, and sorry... blaming it on a poor sap who fought to make seat belts mandatory ain't going to cut it this time. I lost respect for a big chunk of the Democratic apparatus once they started using poor bastard Nader as a escape goat...

Anyhow... sure every thing is fine, nothing to worry... LALALALALALALLALALLAAA..... I just want to see who the likes of you blame next time when the Dems get their ass handed to them in the next election.

[Rhythm and Blue]

186. I'm not claiming that *every* vote for Nader would have been a vote for Gore. 1% would have done

well enough.

Secondly, I'm not the one saying, "I can't respond to you because it'll just get deleted again."

Finally, "escape goat?"

[Zandor]

53. While more soldiers die in Iraq

because a Republican gets some Nader type help in 2008.

[Tesha]

63. You know, after a while your "NADER NADER NADER" blather loses its steam.

You might have a point about the soldiers *IF* the Democrats
had a plan to end the war, but they don't, so your point is
moot.

Tesha

[Rhythm and Blue]

64. But yet people are still threatening to repeat 2000, using the exact same "logic." nt

[Tesha]

65. So don't run DINOs -- then you'll avoid the problem. (NT)

[Rhythm and Blue]

67. Silly nt

[Tesha]

70. No more silly than constantly voting for "Democrats" and constantly being disappointed...

No more silly than constantly voting for "Democrats"
and constantly being disappointed when they turn out
to be DINOs.

Tesha

[truebrit71]

87. Don't you have some Pro-Hillary/DLC thread to start somewhere...

...:eyes:

[Zandor]

102. Maybe a little later n/t

[lateo]

88. Trolol!

Your trollfu is weak.

[againes654]

17. This says it all IMO

You always take for granted your 'base', treating us with complete disdain because you believe we will always be there no matter what you do. You know we won't vote Republican. And, we won't. But, nor will we continue to abide by a impotent party that can't or won't represent our interests. Doing the same thing over & over & expecting to get different results has been said to be the definition of craziness.


This is the problem IMO. Well said. K&R

[Individualist]

27. Agree!

Rewarding enablers with our votes encourages more enabling. The current congress (with the exceptions as noted by the OP) pretty much proves that point. No enabler will get my vote.

[Rhythm and Blue]

19. "Democrats aren't doing enough to stop Bush, so

I'm going to stop supporting them and let the Republicans waltz to unlimited power!"

[OzarkDem]

22. Its not just about Bush

Dem leaders don't stand for anything anymore.

They don't represent Dem values or the party platform. They hate their base and they turn off swing voters.

At this point they're pretty useless for anything besides grubbing for corporate donations.

[Rhythm and Blue]

24. mmmm...no.

Democratic party membership is at an all-time high, and "unnamed Democrat" is kicking "unnamed Republican"'s ass. The base is larger than ever, and more independents than ever say they trust the Democrats more than the Republicans in polls.

You ≠ America.

[Raksha]

172. Yes, Democratic Party membership is at an all-time high,

and the Dems would have even MORE support if there were actually something there to support. Unfortunately, there isn't.

[Rhythm and Blue]

187. Playing "they'd be even higher if they did what I want" hypotheticals

is fun, but does not support the claim that the Dems do not have a base.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[backscatter712]

23. Supporting the Democrats doesn't seem to be doing us any good.

I'm only supporting the Democrats as long as they support us, and I'm seeing precious little support. They sold out our Constitutional birthrights, AGAIN.

Fuck them. I can take only so much of their shit. There has to come a point when I have to cut them off.

Dennis Kucinich gets my support. Noone else. NOBODY. If you don't like it, kiss my ass. Lose to the Republicans for all I care. As far as I can tell, there isn't much difference between the Dems and the GOP anyways - all I see is a game of Good Cop, Bad Cop. So what difference would we get in the outcome if the Dems lose, if the Dems won't stand up for our rights? I don't see any.

[Rhythm and Blue]

25. Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

Or do you think that "they're all the same" is good logic in 2008 but was bad logic in 2000?

[backscatter712]

28. Al Gore isn't running this time.

You really think Hillary's going to bring the troops home?

After all the campaign money she took from all the big corporate war profiteers? Why would she cut off her gravy train?

[Rhythm and Blue]

32. Answer the question, please.

Do you believe Al Gore would have invaded Iraq? Or do you believe that "the two parties are the same" was bad logic in 2000 but is good logic in 2008?

On edit: and $50,000 is a "gravy train" now? Jeesh.

[backscatter712]

34. No, but...

Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich are among the few politicians I respect anymore, and both of them have been or are being forced to the sidelines because they refuse to play ball with the corporate rapists. They're not the power-wielders in the Democratic Party, people like Steny Hoyer, Ken Salazar, Nancy Pelosi are. And why is that? Because they'll put on a good show for us peasants, then they'll follow the choreography and cave, just like they did today.

Let me ask you a question. Say we had a Democratic President, and the numbers in Congress were reversed - the GOP had a bare majority, and the President demanded that they pass a bill to say, increase funding for abortion/family planning clinics. Would you see the same charade from the Republicans? Would they put up a good show for a while, then bend over and cave?

[Rhythm and Blue]

35. I don't think you'll like the answer to that one.

The Democratic house has voted against the wishes of the President more frequently than the Republican house did against Clinton. So, ah, fail.

[backscatter712]

42. Not on what counts.

Sure on meaningless earmarks and such, the GOP gets shot down, surprise, surprise. But when it comes to the vital bills - war funding, civil liberties, FISA; the Democrats fold like origami.

Explain to me why I shouldn't be royally pissed at this?

[Rhythm and Blue]

47. This is the same logic people used in 2000, you know.

1. Ignore 95% of the bills that are passed. Ignore even things you thought were crucially important when they were being passed, like social security, minimum wage, ANWR drilling, 9/11 commission reforms, etc.

2. Focus on the 5% of bills you did not want to be passed that were passed anyway. Call these "the only issues that count." For Clinton, it's Iraq spending (nevermind that only 3% of Americans want to see the war immediately defunded, and most want a phased withdrawal as she's proposed). For Gore, it was anything seen as favorable to corporations.

3. They're just the same!

[Marrah_G]

179. I have come to this conclusion

The republicans realize they don't have a shot in hell to win, so what they are desperately trying to do is to split the party or talk people into just not voting because "it doesn't matter anyway" using the same old tactics. Unfortunately I see many here who fall for it.

[Virginia Dare]

60. Have the repubs been able to make abortion illegal?

honestly, since Bush came to office and after 2002 when the repubs came to power, have they been able to make abortion a crime? Why do you think that is?

[Virginia Dare]

56. And would he have appointed Alito or Roberts to the SCOTUS?

Would he have appointed all of those corporate scum-bags to cabinet positions for the sole purpose of gutting the federal government? Would he have left those Katrina victims to die? Would Kerry? Of course they wouldn't.

Bullshit on the "no difference" meme. Bullshit a thousand times.

[Rhythm and Blue]

58. Every time a liberal claims there's "no difference,"

A Bush appointee gets his wings.

[debbierlus]

30. Re:read the post. The point is they are allowing Republicans unlimited power

And, they are rendering the Congress impotent. This is a crisis. America is quickly becoming a fascist state & the dems are allowing this to occur without any vision into the long term implications.

If the dems won't use their power to stop the violation of Constitutional law, what use are they? THEY are ALLOWING the Republicans to waltz to unlimited power with control of the Congress. What use is supporting a party that will not stand up for our civil liberties & fulfill their oath of protecting & defending the Constitution?

[Rhythm and Blue]

33. Nope.

America isn't becoming a fascist state. Republicans aren't really getting any legislation they wanted passed. Civil liberties are not being seriously threatened. Constitution is not being destroyed. Sorry. That's all hyperbole.

[reggie the dog]

43. quite a few

democrats voted for all that shit you just mentioned

[Rhythm and Blue]

48. Democrats literally voted for fascism? Must have missed that one.

[reggie the dog]

103. where were you

when the Patriot act parts one and two were voted on?

[Rhythm and Blue]

110. Why, here in America.

Patriot act ain't fascism any more than medicare is communism.

[reggie the dog]

132. do you really believe that?

domestic spying? federal agents given the power to secretly search your home without ever telling you they were there or without getting a warrant.

not to mention the prison in Cuba.

[Rhythm and Blue]

136. Yes, I do.

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator
Nope. We have free and fair elections, with the exception of the travesty in Florida in 2000. Bush will be gone in 2008, and probably replaced with a member of the opposition.

stringent socioeconomic controls
Nope.

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
Not at all.

and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism
Yes.

and racism.
Not as a policy, no.

So we have "belligerent nationalism." You also see authoritarian tendencies and a disregard for the law. However, those do not amount to fascism; those amount to a republic in which the current President has repeatedly overstepped his boundaries.

[reggie the dog]

139. lets see here

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator
Nope. We have free and fair elections, with the exception of the travesty in Florida in 2000. Bush will be gone in 2008, and probably replaced with a member of the opposition. (Ok ok, only one blatantly rigged election, nothing to worry about)

stringent socioeconomic controls
Nope. (no, of course not, the Republicans and Democrat voting with them have been doing all they can to help the poor, the working, and the lower middle class residents of the USA) playing off of 9-11 and scare tactics to pass laws and wars, no that is assuredly not a sign of an effort to cotrol the masses. And the companies that control the government seem to represent a government compramised by economic forces (new fascism)

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
Not at all. (what do you call it when the cronies of the leaders pressure their media outlet to ignore or minimize certain stories? mostly opposition stories?)

and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism
Yes.

and racism.
Not as a policy, no. (New Orleans was not blatantly racist enough for you?)

So we have "belligerent nationalism." You also see authoritarian tendencies and a disregard for the law. However, those do not amount to fascism; those amount to a republic in which the current President has repeatedly overstepped his boundaries.*



I also offer another definition.

The definition of fascism in my household dictionary "oxford advanced learners dictionary from 1995" quote fascism (also Fascism) noun an extreme right-wing political system or attitude, which favours strong central authority and does not allow freedom of speech endquote

extreme right ring politics, check
favouring strong central authority, check
doesn't allow freedom of speech check (patriot act provisions calling for "free speece zones" inherently imply that free speech is somtehing which can be limited, therefore making it not exist.

[Rhythm and Blue]

140. ...

It would be nice if you would take the time to italicize or bold previous comments. It's hard to read what's going on here.

Now: coming into power by a fraudulent count in a state does not a dictator make. He was fairly re-elected in 2004, and his party was fairly defeated in Congress in 2006. He has gotten very little of what he has asked for since his re-election; after his social security reform push completely collapsed his "ownership society" (which was what he wanted to make his second term about) was left by the wayside. He never wanted to be associated with Iraq past his first term.

Secondly, "attempts to control the masses" are very vague. Every government attempts to get people to agree to their policies--that is called leadership. Some administrations use unethical means. However, there is a very real difference between demagoguery and fascism. Convincing people to go along with a bad idea is nothing at all like mandating a bad idea. Also, failure to pass good health-care reform is not fascism either.

Thirdly, "pressuring media outlets" is not censorship as in fascism. When the President tsk-tsks a media outlet for running negative stories about him, that may be duplicitous, and when the right wing mounts pressure campaigns to get favorable coverage, that's a violation of public trust. But it is not the same as actual censorship, in which the government monitors publications. The words of Democrats are not censored, nor are they withheld from the public. The opposition is not rounded up and thrown in jails, nor threatened with their lives. Nobody is afraid to run for office as a Democrat. Nobody is afraid to march in public against Bush. Nobody is afraid to call him a terrible president in a public speech. It isn't fascism.

Fourthly, Katrina was a result of massive incompetence and inhuman levels of indifference. That is not the same as a policy of racism. If Bush had said, "Blacks are hurting the nation, and Katrina is their just punishment," now, that would be what we're talking about here.

Fifthly, Bush certainly allows freedom of speech. Papers can print what they like. TV stations can run what they like. You may say what you like. "Free speech zones" are a restriction on the right to assembly, for police purposes. While offensive, they do not represent a legal threat to free speech, nor are they considered a legal precedent for further restrictions on speech.

And finally, while Bush's policies may seem extreme to us, and his central authority strong to us, neither are anything so bad as fascism as it has been actually practiced in history.

[liberation]

165. Of course if you use Mussolini's definition of Fascism as Corporativism....

... then you may actually get a clue.

Nice exercise of "Who are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" though... What is the going rate for a tool these days?

[Rhythm and Blue]

188. Yes, but if you use that definition,

most every government in the Western world is "fascist," unless you use arbitrary lines of delineation between "acceptable" and "fascist."

[davekriss]

183. "We have free and fair elections"

No offense, but what planet are you living on?

There are two votes in America: The money-vote, followed by the democratic-vote. Nothing gets on the agenda of the democratic-vote that hasn't first passed the money-vote. The problem with this is, those with more money get more votes. So the agenda is narrowed to just those things that either advance the interests of the monied classes, or certainly does not hurt their interests. Only those candidates that espouse the agenda set by the money-vote are considered "serious". So our near-monopolized major media tell us every day.

Given that our electoral choices amount to selecting a near-fascist from an overt-fascist, we hardly have "free and fair elections". Where's the choice? Mr. Smith does not go to Washington. And I haven't even mentioned the very successful voter theft and suppression techniques of the overtly fascist faction of our one party state.

Mussolini defined "fascism" as the marriage of state and corporate power, a government by and for the corporate elite. That is exactly what we have today.

Really, if there's any hope for the future of the Democratic Party, and thus for America, we (progressives) really have to dig in and takeover the local machines of the Party. We have to find ways to dilute the power of the "money vote".

[Rhythm and Blue]

189. Shady campaign financing and a lazy media are not fascism.

Not all bad things are alike.

[davekriss]

194. No, you are missing the big picture

It's systemic, built in to our political system now. A vast majority of our elected officials serve not you or me, but their major campaign contributors. But it goes deeper than that: Although there are and will continue to be exceptions, the system culls out most truly progressive candidates before you and I get a chance to vote for them. We're often left with a voting choice from the Republicrat apparatchik, which isn't choice at all really.

Now if that apparatchik consistently votes in ways supportive of monied elites (which they do), then we have government by and for the corporatist elites, we have instantiated Mussolini's definition of fascism.

And we don't have a "lazy" media, we have a muted media. And it is muted because 5 board rooms set the agenda for permissible discussion over the airwaves, cables, and pixels they control. 5 companies now own more than 90% of the major media outlets in this country, and they excercise editorial control by chill. Ashleigh Banfield's career trajectory is an example of what happens if you stray from the permissible agenda.

GE, who manufacture sophisticated weapon systems, owns NBC and MSNBC. It is no wonder then, in the days leading up to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, these media outlets argued day in and day out for how the war would be fought, not whether or not it should be fought. Those were not lazy newsreaders, they merely understood the script given to them by their corporate masters.

Rhythm and Blue, things are much bleaker now than you perceive them to be. Anyway, such is my belief.

[Rhythm and Blue]

195. I believe you are over-ascribing motives to unrelated phenomena.

The failure of progressive candidates to gain media support is not evidence of a media conspiracy (organized or otherwise) again them, but is rather a result of their lack of appeal to most people. Super-liberals Dennis Kucinich does not get much media coverage for the same reason that Tom Tancredo doesn't--neither garner much appeal except for among political extremists, even when their views are exposed. To some degree, this is indeed self-reinforcing; the American political mainstream is narrowed as viable candidates rush to cram themselves in that small political space, and as the media only cover those, the mainstream is narrowed further still. However, this is the unavoidable result of a lazy and profit-driven media, not evidence of "media culling."

The Democrats and Republicans often act in ways that benefit corporations. However, there is a great deal of difference between the two parties. It may be simply the difference between regulated-corporatists on the left and anti-regulation corporatists on the right, but the two sides are certainly not working together, nor are they united in attempts to stamp out dissent.

Unfortunately, what you propose amounts to defining all governments that exhibit any degree of economic liberalism as "fascist." While there is nothing preventing you from doing so, that is hardly a useful definition, and certainly a misleading one.

[davekriss]

204. I'll take a regulated-corporatists over...

...an anti-regulation corporatist anyday, but that is what I meant by near-fascist vs. overt-fascist.

You say,

"The failure of progressive candidates to gain media support is not evidence of a media conspiracy (organized or otherwise) again them, but is rather a result of their lack of appeal to most people

In a recent poll discussed here at DU, the policy ideas espoused by Kucinich win hands down over the competition. So Kucinich, as Clinton whispered to Obama when she thought she was off-mic, "can't be serious". Why can't he be serious? Because he doesn't represent the narrowed agenda of the monied class. That his positions are widely embraced by the Democratic base is irrelevant. What are the consequences of his popular positions? Not only is he not taken seriously by the mainstream press, he is derided by the front-running corporatists in our Party who are, of course, thoroughly embraced by the media.

The fetishism of the commodity — the domination of society by "intangible as well as tangible things" — attains its ultimate fulfillment in the spectacle, where the real world is replaced by a selection of images which are projected above it, yet which at the same time succeed in making themselves regarded as the epitome of reality.
-- Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle

It is not a "conspiracy", as you say, but a systemic, rightward slip of the institutional goal posts. As the center slips right, the extremes on the left appear more isolated and "looney". But to conclude that the left loses simply because their ideas are unpopular begs the question. First, the ideas ARE popular (example the desire for single-payer universal healthcare, or the end of the war), but those that can project "image" -- i.e., the monopolized major media, the stolen bully pulpit of the Office of the Presidency, the cooperation of the fascist fundamentalist churches -- tell the average guy that they are alone, "looney", in their desire for universal healthcare, in their desire for policies that hold good jobs in America, and so on. The bottom 80%, though vast in number, is rendered insecure and vulnerable to the appeal of demogoguery. Political vipers like Rove and Bush skillfully take advantage of the rendering and grab power. The vipers use the usurped megaphones of office to push the populace further right (by cultivating a culture of fear). Things are very bad.

You say,

"...the American political mainstream is narrowed as viable candidates rush to cram themselves in that small political space, and as the media only cover those, the mainstream is narrowed further still. However, this is the unavoidable result of a lazy and profit-driven media, not evidence of 'media culling'."

You suggest the media "only covers" the small political space because they are lazy and profit driven. You must ask yourself why they cover such a small space. I claim it is the narrowing of the permissible agenda. Mainstream journalists that stray outside what's permissible, well, have committed a career limiting move (I understate! Banfield is a cohost on a 1 hour a week Court TV show now).

I think Chomsky and Herman documented the process here very well. When the Board of Directors of a media conglomerate chooses its Chairman of the Board, they no doubt choose someone who they believe will make money for them. But, without getting into the philosophy and psychology of the "Other" (hey, read some Kristeva), they are heavily biased toward electing someone that shares their interests and values, someone that will preserve what they believe in.

When the Chairman selects his CEO, he chooses someone not too distant from his own values; when the CEO chooses his executives, he does the same; when the executives choose their editors, they do the same, and on down the line. The result is an organization with a bias: A bias toward supporting the interests, values, and vision of its owners.

Think of it: Is an editor likely to run a story that will hurt the interests of the organization's owners? Absolutely not. (I don't claim that this system-conserving bias is absolute -- there's always the Watergate example, and there is much room for wiggle -- but in general this is true.)

Prior to the Reagan-inspired march to deregulation and subsequent media consolidation, a great many balance sheets were competing for every media dollar; each had to find its own voice in the wilderness and each hoped their voice would thrive (and so the organization would survive). The result of this regulatory-forced competition? Well, slap my side silly! A Darwinian march to an economically stable strategy: A "liberal" media!!!! Not a FOX, just the sane voice of a Walter Cronkite! (I put "liberal" in quotes, note, because the truth is we had a system-supportive centrist media prior to deregulation instead of the ideologically inspired mess we have today.)

Now take away the regulatory safeguarding of the public trust. Take away the Rule of Sevens, the Fairness Doctrine, and what happens? Mergers, consolidations -- less competition -- and an increased monopolization of the agenda. And what does that mean as to the "politically small space" covered today? The Board Rooms of the 5 mega-media conglomerates have defined the agenda; the newsreaders know what is permissible and what is career suicide. In 2000 it was much safer to cover the color of Al Gores suites rather than whether or not Bush was AWOL or guilty of insider trading at Harken; much safer to debate tactics for war rather than whether or not we should go to war; much safer to avoid the crimes of the Bush administration and focus on the low polling the current Congress has. Not laziness, but a consequence of removing the regulatory protections we had in place that kept any one interest from dominating the public discussion.

(OK, I have an appointment and have to go, surely this is an incoherent ramble but I have no time to edit and fix. Suffice it to say I disagree with you, Rhythm and Blue.)

[txaslftist]

79. America is already no longer free.

I don't know how you define "fascism", so that's a whole 'nother discussion, but when the Executive has the power to imprison you on his own say-so, hold you for as long as he likes, deny you counsel and deny you the right to a trial or even charges against you; when he can "render" you to another country to be tortured and murdered, you aren't free. When he can surreptitiously record what you say on the phone or in your home without a warrant or judicial oversight, you aren't free.

Our executive has done these things. Our congress has expanded his right to do these things. Our judiciary has declined to intervene.

So you may not think we're a "fascist state". That's a matter of opinion. But we are no longer under the rule of law, and we are no longer protected by the constitution. That's a matter of fact, policy and practice.

You may not think the sky is falling. That may just be because it isn't falling on YOU.

[kath]

142. "civil liberties are not being seriously threatened"

What. The. Hell. Planet. Are. You. Living. On??

Torture, rescinding habeas corpus, military tribunals, warrantless wiretapping and other spying without warrants. And the president can declare ANYONE an enemy combatant, just on his say so, then that person has virtually NO rights whatsoever. Tasering run amok.

Dissenting voices are declared "treasonous", witness MoveOn.org ad and other instances. That is some scary shit.

Our democracy is being shut down, the signs are all there.

[Rhythm and Blue]

191. You aren't allowed to protest now?

You can't print what you like, say what you like? Democrats are being thrown in jail? That's what happens under actual fascism.

[proud2BlibKansan]

197. No, no, no, and yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2077029&mesg_id=2085590

[Rhythm and Blue]

199. Temporary detainment by a idiot cop is not the same as

a government policy of stifling dissent by disappearing dissenters, as happens in actual fascism.

[davekriss]

206. Rhythm and Blue...

...this is a "free speech zone", the internet. Safely contained and tucked away from the mainstream. If we ever threatened State power, we would feel the traditional jack-booted heel of overt fascism in seconds.

[Rhythm and Blue]

231. I assume you can back up this claim in any way?

If you're referring to threatening the existence of the state or rule of law, well, police will shut down violence in any country. But if you're referring to peaceful protest, well, you're going to have to provide some cites.

[davekriss]

236. Kind of hard to cite something that hasn't happened yet

However, that you ignore the glimpses we've already seen just astounds me. You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Here's one quick example, a brief glimpse of the jack booted heel coming down:

Paramilitaries, Embedded Journalists and Illegal Protests. Think This is Iraq? It's Your Country
By Jeremy Scahill
http://www.omnicenter.org/justicecollection/repression.htm#miamimodel

We had watched him the night before on the local news in Miami praising his men for the restraint they had shown in the face of violent anarchists intent on destroying the city. In reality, the tens of thousands who gathered in Miami to protest the ministerial meetings of the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit were seeking to peacefully demonstrate against what they consider to be a deadly expansion of NAFTA and US-led policies of free trade. There were environmental groups, labor unions, indigenous activists from across the hemisphere, church groups, grassroots organizations, students and many others in the streets. What they encountered as they assembled outside the gates to the building housing the FTAA talks was nothing short of a police riot. It only took a few hours last Thursday before downtown Miami looked like a city under martial law...

After last week, no one should call what Timoney runs in Miami a police force. It's a paramilitary group. Thousands of soldiers, dressed in khaki uniforms with full black body armor and gas masks, marching in unison through the streets, banging batons against their shields, chanting, "back… back… back." There were armored personnel carriers and helicopters...

The forces fired indiscriminately into crowds of unarmed protesters. Scores of people were hit with skin-piercing rubber bullets; thousands were gassed with an array of chemicals. On several occasions, police fired loud concussion grenades into the crowds. Police shocked people with electric tazers. Demonstrators were shot in the back as they retreated. One young guy's apparent crime was holding his fingers in a peace sign in front of the troops. They shot him multiple times, including once in the stomach at point blank range...

In the times in which we live, this is what democracy looks like. Thousands of soldiers, calling themselves police, deployed in US cities to protect the power brokers from the masses. /Posse Comitatus/ is just a Latin phrase. Vigilantes like John Timoney roam from city to city, organizing militias to hunt the dangerous radicals who threaten the good order. And damned be the journalist who dares to say it-or film it-like it is.

Now for the video: http://www.archive.org/details/miamimodel This one is long (1.5 hours) but gives context. The action starts at about the 28 minute mark. This is one glimpse of the jack-booted heel.

A shorter video covering the same 2003 FTAA event here: http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=view&video_id=10413&media_id=6161&browse=0 And one more short video: http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=view&video_id=10412&media_id=6160&browse=0

[davekriss]

241. You never responded to my previous post on this point

I take it you concede the point?

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[Rhythm and Blue]

192. In real world, where real-world things happen,

and where not all abuses of power are tantamount to the specific form of government that is fascism.

[proud2BlibKansan]

196. Well it looks like I am not the only DUer calling you on this

I am sure that a large majority here does indeed believe it is fascism.

[Rhythm and Blue]

200. Are you sure you want to play "strength in numbers" on this?

First, what the majority believes is unrelated to what is actually the case.

Secondly, a majority of Americans--and certainly a majority of political scientists--certainly would not say that we are living under fascism, and I would say that those are better "strength in numbers" samples than a glance at the most vocal people on a sometimes fringey, often alarmist internet board.

[proud2BlibKansan]

201. Since the majority of Americans are going shopping and watching

American Idol, of course they wouldn't say we are living under fascism. They aren't paying attention.

However, that does not negate the fact that we are indeed living under fascism.

[Rhythm and Blue]

203. It neither negates nor strengthens that proposition.

Public surveys do not define truth.

Again, not all abuses of power are tantamount to the specific form of government that is fascism.

[davekriss]

207. Can you explicitly define "fascism" for us?

Perhaps we share differing definitions...

[Rhythm and Blue]

230. Already did elsewhere in the thread nt

[davekriss]

232. That was a pretty weak definition (nt)

[Rhythm and Blue]

235. It's also the definition used by most political scientists.

I assume "weak" means "does not apply to America, so I reject it as not conforming to my desire to label America as fascist."

Please give me a definition of fascism that applies to America, but not to Canada, Great Britain, Russia, Mexico Germany, and Spain. Or is it your opinion that all Western governments are fascist?

[txaslftist]

217. A rose by any other name...

You can quibble about fascism and whether your Webster's includes what we have going on today.

Certainly, whatever it is, it's comfortable. Unless you happen to black, in which case you've got the whole racial-profiling prison-industrial-complex to deal with; or muslim, in which case you've got the whole "my phone calls back home are all monitored and I might get shipped off to Egypt to be tortured" thing to cope with; or a pothead, in which case you've got to deal with the whole "hide my stash or the cops will steal everything I own" rap...

Than it's not so comfortable.

Tell you what. I'll let YOU define it.

Define what form of government we have when the president can, by executive order, take any person that comes under the power of his agents into custody and hold them to be tortured without trial or charges for as long as he so deems. What form of government limits the rule of law to it's citizens and not it's executive? What would you call it, sir, when a nation sports the largest prison population in the world, both as a raw number and as a percentage? What do you call a nation where selected citizens' phone calls can and are being monitored and their phone records turned over to an executive without a warrant or any court review? Where corporate control has seized and consolidated great chunks of formerly independent media that now broadcasts material that varies little from city to city?

What do YOU call it?

Because you've said it isn't fascism. Fine.

Sir, I submit to you, it is not freedom.

[proud2BlibKansan]

177. No there is no fascism in America

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2084456

[Tesha]

38. There *ARE* other choices, espceially at the Congressional level...

There *ARE* other choices, espceially at the Congressional
level where the roadblock of the Electoral College doesn't
exist.

Tesha

[davekriss]

209. I think it is from the bottom, up that we will reclaim America

That means more local participation in our party machinery. The roadblock here, at the Congressional level, is gerrymandering.

[leftchick]

20. they do not give a fuck what we think!

Now the corporations and health care industry and defense contractors? That is another story entirely. I am with you sister! Except I am not giving a warning.

K&R!

[Rhythm and Blue]

26. That would be because the netroots are irritable, fickle, and small in number.

No use pursuing a few hundred thousand people who'll probably find a reason not to vote for you anyway. The fact that so many voted for Nader--and are claiming they'll do the same in 2008 unless 100% of their demands are met--is enough to tell candidates "don't bother with these folks, they won't support you anyway."

[leftchick]

36. lol!

'unless 100% of their demands are met' that is pretty funny!

[Rhythm and Blue]

40. It's pretty much true. HRC has voted with the Democrats

over 95% of the time, and holds 100% ratings from NARAL, APHA, SANE, ARA, and 89% by the LCV (and 0% by the Christian Coalition), and we still have people claiming "SHE'S A REPUBLICAN."

[hootinholler]

75. That's because she is a moderate.

Lots of overlap between Republican and Democratic moderates. I think she's an acceptable republican, as opposed to Lieberman who is not an acceptable republican.

I'd rather have a democrat.

-Hoot

[Usrename]

109. I only wish she were acceptable.

Contrasting her with Lieberman is a distinction without a difference.

[Rhythm and Blue]

111. She is a Democrat, not an "acceptable republican."

She votes with the Democratic party nineteen times out of twenty. She, as I have already stated, has both a 100% NARAL rating (among other liberal groups) and a 0% Christian Coalition rating. She is no more a Republican than she is a wombat.

[hootinholler]

133. Oh, come ON, Your litmus is right to choose?

How about ending the senseless bloodshed sometime before 2014?

What has she done to bring the criminal administration to heel?

Oooooo, I've got 100% NARAL rating. Screw the Constitution, screw the troops, help the insurance corporations!

-Hoot

[Rhythm and Blue]

135. I don't have a litmus.

I listed several other endorsements, and referred to her voting record. She votes with the Democrats 19 times out of 20. She has favorable ratings from the ACLU, American Public Health Association, and League of Conservation Voters as well. Feel free to declare someone "a republican" based on one issue if you like--even if she has taken the position (phased withdrawal) that a plurality of voters agree with.

[hootinholler]

141. Answer my question, please...

What has she done to bring this criminal administration to heel?

-Hoot

[Rhythm and Blue]

143. As much as any other Senator has.

She's participated in the Democratic investigations of WH wrongdoing (as you may recall, they have stonewalled/destroyed evidence at every turn), and recently signed on as the only co-sponsor to the Webb bill, which would effectively prohibit an invasion of Iran by forbidding funding from being allocated towards such an action.

However, she does not spend most of her time talking about such things, no. Most of our politicians are more concerned with actually passing legislation that will help people than they are about passing symbolic resolutions castigating a politician for previous actions.

[hootinholler]

147. "as much as any other Senator has"

That's what I'm talking about! I expect more from alleged Presidential timber.

:shrug:

I have a real hard time supporting anyone who voted for the Patriot Act. Who didn't act regarding torture, violations of international law, the Military Tribunals Act, yadda yadda, Sonny and Cher, the beat goes on.

I can't fathom how anyone who loves the Constitution, has sworn to protect and defend it, could vote for her.

I can't fathom how anyone could support the continuation of the Heath insurance scam in this nation.

Don't vote against your interests.

-Hoot

[Rhythm and Blue]

153. I don't plan on voting against my interests.

I'm still largely undecided for the primary, but it probably won't be Clinton. If I had to pick right now, it'd be Richardson, but I'm considering casting a Kucinich protest vote. I'm certainly not a fan of HRC by any means--I just think the attacks leveled on her are largely insane. She's a Democrat through and through, though she isn't nearly as liberal as I'd like to see.

In the general election, voting for anyone but the Democrat is voting against my interests, and I will donate, campaign, and vote for whoever wins the nomination.

[davekriss]

211. "I will donate, campaign, and vote for whoever wins the nomination"

So will I. There is no alternative: We live in a duopoly.

[paulk]

216. No, no - you just don't get it!

Here on DU anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is a REPUBLICAN!

Now do you understand?

:sarcasm:

[davekriss]

210. Despite our disagreements on this thread

I was very vocally against Nader's campaign in 2000 even though I admire him for his life's work. After watching the Republican Party machinery hack away at Clinton in 1998, I thought there was a good chance we'd lose the election and thus I was very wary of Nader's ability to siphon off votes. Of course my worst nightmare came true.

Though I am way left of most Democrats, I am a straight-party line voter and have been since 1976. The reason is I am voting, not for a single candidate, but for formation of healthy coalitions of politicians that will cooperate on a platform (though the platforms have been far from perfect). However, these are trying times and may lead me to rethink how I vote.

[NotGivingUp]

41. The charade is over. Our one-party corporatocracy has been exposed over and over again.

Now what are we going to do about it?

[Virginia Dare]

50. Vote Nader!....n/t

[Beelzebud]

66. The funny thing is that Nader looks more like a Democrat, on policy issues, than most Democrats...

[leftchick]

113. more and more every year

the dems keep pulling to the center (right) and look nothing like they did forty years ago.

[sellitman]

174. Yeah...that worked so well the last 2 times.

:sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

44. The RNC thanks you for your efforts

[bpeale]

46. YEA!!! AT LAST!!! someone who believes as i do!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. K&R for common sense.

And, for real "practical politics".

If they want our votes, they have to earn them.

[Javaman]

57. Don't tell us, write this to them. nt

[AuntPatsy]

72. Or send this thread to them once it fills up as far as it can...

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. KNow the feeling and they know what we want

they refuse to do it for political expediency

They have done this before

It costt them the WH

You'd think they'd learn

[Tesha]

82. It's more fun to yell at us. Less productive, but more fun. (NT)

[CrispyQ]

83. Here's the part they don't get:

"The really ironic thing is that by doing your DUTY, you would garner more political support, improve your image beyond anything you could imagine. You have no understanding of the true political climate in this country. Your approval is worse then the Presidents precisely because you don't stand up to him."

Well said & I couldn't agree more! Every day more outrages & nothing is done. What has become of the subpoenas? I've googled & find nothing current.

I will vote for the dem nomination in '08 if only for the SCOTUS, but I feel my party has abandoned me. I don't know how many more times I will go to the polls after '08 if the dems don't step up to the plate & start representing We the People instead of the fucking corporations.

[txaslftist]

84. Well, there's always this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

[CrispyQ]

93. or this . . .

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

snip...

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

More on why we need to overturn corporate constitutional privileges, (a.k.a., corporate personhood) here: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/index.html

[txaslftist]

96. Most Excellent! Thank you!

[Generator]

89. Ha. Ha. they don't care about you

unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars to give to their campaign. They do everything they can to disenfranchise voters-voters are becoming mighty irrelevant.

Third way is going to be a revolution. (take that Mark Penn and Rahm and Harold Ford-yes we are the enemy-you always KNEW that didn't you-as Mr. Bob Boulderang once said so eloquently probably on the verge of that tombstone- "the anti-war movement is a cancer on the Democratic party."


They despise us.

Sometimes things have to die to be born anew. But probably not for another decade at least.

You are correct in sensing that. I don't see it yet-but it's the only real answer.

[Mme. Defarge]

90. I stopped being a useful idiot

for the Dems a few months ago when, in total frustration, I re-registered as an Independent.

Your post is right on target. Any congressman/woman who won't enforce subpoenas needs to look for a career opportunity elswhere.

[Rhythm and Blue]

116. So you stopped being useful, then? nt

[Mme. Defarge]

212. I still

knit.

[FuJun]

120. That's Real Helpful...

"Mme. Defarge (864 posts) Thu Oct-18-07 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
90. I stopped being a useful idiot
for the Dems a few months ago when, in total frustration, I re-registered as an Independent.

Your post is right on target. Any congressman/woman who won't enforce subpoenas needs to look for a career opportunity elswhere."


If you are an Independent, why are you still here? This is Democratic Underground, not Independent Underground, and I have alerted a mod about this.

[Rhythm and Blue]

121. We have many independents here.

The loyalty test that exists in the rules pretty much boils down to "Do not use our bandwidth to support non-Democrats for office." Independents can be here, they just can't agitate against Democrats in general elections.

[sss1977]

152. excuse me, what?

"If you are an Independent, why are you still here? This is Democratic Underground, not Independent Underground, and I have alerted a mod about this."

Wait a second, this comment was so ludicrous, I can't tell if it's facetious or not. Are you seriously suggesting this site is purely for the blind support of the label "Democrat", and not for democracy itself as a concept and its inherent principles? If that's actually true, I need to stop visiting this site and reading mindless drivel like this. I get enough of that in the mass media thank you very much.

And as a side note, the next time someone offers you two ways to choose your own death, you go right on ahead and make your decision for the least painless option of the two. But personally, were I in that position, I'd rather invent a third option, like I dunno, kicking him in the balls maybe?

Just because you're given two options, doesn't mean those are the only options that exist.

[ellisonz]

160. Read the rules in full.

"Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect"

"Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so."

[proud2BlibKansan]

176. This board is not restricted to Democrats

Read the rules before you call someone out and say you alerted on them, brainiac. :eyes:

[FuJun]

223. Actually...

I did read the rules, but consider it courtesy to inform someone I'm alerting them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

233. Then you need help with reading comprehension

:crazy:

[Danger Mouse]

190. Dumbass, he/she is still allowed to be here.

But nice try.

[FuJun]

221. Same to you...

Being here is one thing, advocating "independent" (code for 3rd party) candidates is quite another. Speaking of rules..."dumbass" breaks at least one I should think.

[txaslftist]

224. People advocated third party candidates here all the way through

2000 (Nader), 2004 (Nader again with his silly bell), and 2006 (independents, libertarians, etc)

This isn't Kos, and it isn't an official organ of the Democratic Party. You need to loosen up your ideas of what kind of speech you're willing to tolerate, or you aren't gonna be very happy here or anywhere else on the web.

[mnhtnbb]

123. Hubby and I both re-registered after 2004. When the Dem party called

several days ago, I gave them an earful. And I told them no money to the Dem party--only individual candidates--until they start standing up to Bush. I don't think the caller cared.

[Mme. Defarge]

134. Out of curiosity

what did it for you after the '04 election?

[mnhtnbb]

225. The Dem party has refused to recognize we're not just dealing

with cheats and liars. We're dealing with people who willfully disenfranchise the voters of this country.
They did it in 2000 through the Supreme Court and rigging the voting rolls in FL. They extended their
methods to other states in 2004, and we got exactly what we'd been warned we'd get: another stolen election.

After 2004, it was evident to us that the Dem leadership was part of the problem.

[Mme. Defarge]

228. Exactly!

My bet is that they'll support Hillary all the way.

[Mme. Defarge]

229. A Big MERCI

to all of you who came to my defense! I will most likely vote for the Democratic candidate in '08, but wanted to send the party a message and let off steam.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. No more excuses: They're not using the power that they HAVE to

block bad legislation by

1) Not letting it out of committee

2) Voting against it

3) Refusing to let it come up for a vote until the Congresscritters have had a chance to read it.

With an "opposition" like this, we're screwed. There are still some great Dems, but not nearly enough of them.

[spanone]

114. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[porphyrian]

119. Heh, I just did that, too. - n/t

[debbierlus]

126. It seems to have struck a cord. The dem base is a very bright one

And, they are not sheeple. The dem party NEEDS us to exist. We CAN create another viable party. If they won't represent us, what choice do they have?

[peacebird]

124. must admit I agree 100% - the party has drifted WAY too far right for my tastes

and our Democrats in congress (with a few notable exceptions) have shown NO courage or spine. Caving repeatedly to the fear of Repukes calling them "soft on terra".....

[Pastiche423]

137. Bravo!

[proud2BlibKansan]

138. We need to take our party back

Last night an activist friend told me the only thing that keeps him involved is the desire to take the party back and get rid of the evil DLC and their hold on the party. Made sense to me.

[Solar_Power]

144. Agreed, but HOW?

Have any ideas?

[bonito]

145. K&R!

:thumbsup:

[iamahaingttta]

146. I don't think most of you people get it...

They're trying to kill us off. There are too many people on the planet, and they're trying to get rid of as many of us as possible as quickly as possible. Most of the Dems are in on it, just as much as the Repukes are. We are in an epoch-shattering moment in the life of the planet, and those in power are trying to lessen the odds that nobody survives by setting up a situation where they survive but you and I don't.

Get it?

Most of the Dems got the memo and have made their choice. They might not be reveling in the bloodshed like the Repukes are, but they're determined to survive at any cost. So forget about the fucking details of this wiretapping bill or that health-care bill to cover poor children. They want the poor children dead, and they want you dead. The only thing you can do now is to protect yourself and those close to you. Nobody else is gonna do it for you.

Get it?

I'm sure debbierlus is a nice person and all, and I would probably like to give you a big hug. However, the OP is a bunch of whiny, childish gibberish. They don't give a fuck about you, my sweet friend. Get over it. They're trying to kill you and me and they will succeed unless you do what you need to do to protect yourself. They don't represent you, they represent themselves and the money interests that paid for them. You can and should die for all they care. Preferably in a long, drawn out, painful and horrible fashion, because there's more money to be made that way.

Get it?

We are in the midst of the 21st century American version of Stalin's purges. GWB is Pol Pot. Not to belabor the point, but they want you dead. Now. There are certainly a few Dems who are not on board with all this, but they are few and far between, and they tend to die in plane crashes. They don't give a fuck about "duty" (to you!) when it's a choice between their children and your children.

Sorry...

[puebloknot]

151. Sorry? Recant! You're telling the truth -- and almost lost art in America. nt

[Psyop Samurai]

158. Now, THAT's a thread stopper! And, unfortunately...

I get it.

Of course, there aren't REALLY too many people on the planet - at least, not in the way their mythos suggests - but that's pretty much the script of the apocalyptic zombie murder/suicide cult that's taken over.

I don't, however, agree with your characterization of the OP as childish and whiny. I read it as a very stirring and heartfelt "last call" for accountability by someone who's been badly betrayed (as we all have). And, frankly, I see no reason why he/she should "get over it". Good for you if you can.

I don't think you were saying that to be mean, and I get your point. I believe you will likewise get my point when I ask, if it truly is now "every man for himself", how is being here in any way furthering your survival? Understand, I've asked myself the same question.

A problem I see with the "survival" meme is that it actually plays into the apocalyptic insanity being perpetrated, when what has been needed all along is a regimen of radical truth, leading to accountability. I personally think it's too late for such a regimen to prevail, and have long since given up trying to force the matter (as we are dealing with a profound psychological and spiritual problem, well beyond what "facts and evidence" can sway), but I hold out for signs of hope, and I really don't know what sort of intervention or transformation may occur. Then again, (and in the interests of full disclosure), my survival skills aren't all that good. :)

There will be no "critical mass" devoted to "doing the right thing" at some future date. It is just us. The OP's ultimatum makes sense within the context of DU, but there isn't time for all that. The traitors must vacate, or they must be removed. Period. This has been plain as day since at least 2004 to anyone with no interest in "politics", but with mind and soul still intact.

To those who have been so intent on playing by the rules (and, admittedly, are no doubt much better at it than I), I would have to ask, "did you think these were the 'good nazis'?" The Reichstag was an EMPTY BUILDING, for Christ's sake! Hello...

[Raksha]

173. Oh hell, I was onto that one a couple of years ago,

right after the Repukes stole the 2004 election. But I thought it was the neocons who wanted to kill off the surplus population and reduce whoever was left to serfdom. I never thought the Dems were in on it until recently, but now I'm seriously beginning to wonder...

[davekriss]

214. Interesting post

What do you base this on?

[puebloknot]

148. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, we have to draw a line in the sand...

...and stand up for principle. No more compromise, no more triangulating, no more Dem lies, no more selling us and our progeny down the river.

If now now, when?

[LWolf]

157. My ultimatum was made almost 3 years ago.

Not much effect, huh? Maybe yours will carry more weight.

[ellisonz]

162. Have you made the cross yet?

[jafi]

167. Progressive dems need you.

Dear debbierlus.

Please realize that the leadership of the democratic party, at the present time are not progressives and do not represent the progressive wing of the party, I respectfully ask that you do not turn you back on the progressive democrats in the party, that need the help and support of people like you and me if they are to create a more responsive government that Americans can be proud of. Not all dems are part of the problem but if we want good government we must support true progressives and not confuse them with the non-progressive members in the party, remember there is a difference. If you want to hear true progressives check out http://www.pdamerica.org/

[democrank]

168. Welcome to DU, jafi.

Progressive Democrats of America site is a breath of fresh air for anyone seeking permanent relief from the constraining influences of corporatist DLC Democrats. It`s a place where old-fashioned Democratic values are still held in high esteem and where speaking truth to power is not viewed as some kind of far-out, radical notion.

[deacon]

169. I respect your fury- these jokers in charge now don't value the grassroots

of the party. The seem to be comfortable vying for status quo. It's an awful mistake since making enemies with the grassroots becomes something that grows and grows. They are stupid beyond belief.

[Perry Logan]

170. But fellas...the Democrats in Congress fought the administration at record levels.

I know y'all love to throw these tantrums, but the facts prove you wrong:

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

[davekriss]

238. That is refreshing to remember! (nt)

[gleeindc]

171. Get some anatomical parts, Dems

I am very encouraged to see a number of entries (DU, AmericaBlog, Salon.com, etc.) in various sites today calling on the Dems to get a spine, some balls, whatever. Thanks to the author of this for saying so well what so many of us are feeling. I am passing the link on to a number of friends who have felt this way and wondered if they were alone. debbielrus, I salute you.

[femrap]

181. Between the Blue Dogs

and those same 17 Dem senators that I write to, my postage bill is at an all time high. And never mind Pelosi and the Dems on the Judiciary Committee.

I just wish the Dems would tell us what W is using to blackmail them (dropping nukes on Iran?) and clear the air for IMPEACHMENT. Shit, the American people hate W...even the repugnants.

Great post.

[debbierlus]

184. Thanks all, it seems we really share the same frustrations & anger

The democratic base is smart, strong, resourceful. They need us more then we need them. If they can't represent their base, we
will find people who will....

This is a tough fight.

[specimenfred1984]

185. Welcome to ignore

that was the last post I'll read of yours.

[mondo joe]

198. Not that I don't appreciate and share your frustration, but I sincerely wonder

if you believe this is going to effect any sort of change, and if so, what?

[Imagevision]

205. debbierlus> I applaud your post, you couldn't have made it any clearer to a

Bunch Dem leaders who are riding on actions that are long gone but only remain in memory. Someone posted here a week back that; "the new Dem's are republicans" nailed it properly also.

It really does appear that this *new world order* has already fixed itself in play and will only be continued with the proper leaders installed, Bush, Hillary etc...

[Poppa]

219. Enough is enough

You have captured my thoughts 100% regarding our spineless congressional Democrats. Sign me up!!! I am so frustrated with those cowards that I am ready to join a third party movement which is something I never thought that I could or would do. I will, along with a vast majority of my friends and colleagues, not hesitate to do so if Reid, Pelosi, Baird, et.al. continue to act like Quislings and support Bush as he destroys our Constitution.

[debbierlus]

234. Here is the DIRECT LINK...Go write in Mr. Gore

http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll

[Beerboy]

237. That's pretty funny. Is there a rim-shot smiley?

n/t