Greider: Be Willing To Destabilize The Party

[marmar]

via OurFuture.org:



Greider: Be Willing To Destabilize The Party
By Isaiah J. Poole

April 17th, 2009 - 10:39am ET


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


Journalist and author William Greider is urging the labor movement and other progressives to get tough with the Democratic Party, even if that means putting the party's majority control in the House and Senate at risk.

Greider, who was at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington Thursday to discuss his latest book, "Come Home America," said that groups that have reliably supported Democrats over the years needed to more aggressively counter the ability of conservatives within the party to "blow the whistle" against reforms that working people are fighting to gain. In saying that, he bolsters the case of progressives who have argued that they must act as an independent force that alternately cooperates with and challenges Democrats, including President Obama.

Greider said that progressives should respond to those southern Blue Dogs and other conservatives by telling the party, "We are going to their districts and talk about what they’re for and what they’re against. Are they for whacking Social Security or aren’t they? Let’s put it on the table. Let’s have an honest debate about that. If that makes people nervous, that's good."

“Yes, I am for putting candidates into selected districts who themselves have no great prospects for winning, but who may very well destabilize that safe seat for an incumbent. I’m for that," he went on to say. "And if that leads sooner or later to Democrats losing their majority control, yes, that’s a real threat. And think about it, Democrats. If you want to do something about it, you can. If you don’t, we are going to try to destabilize your comfort.” ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009041617/greider-be-willing-destabilize-party

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[geek tragedy]

2. Labor doesn't need a pundit telling them

how to get results.

[Jim Sagle]

17. Yeah, actually they do.

Because labor ain't gotten nuthin' but shit in several decades.

As those of us who paid any attention at all observed.

[Roadcyclist]

52. I feel as though many on here are too beholden to the Democratic party

I enjoy this site tremendously. In my mind the only true America is one that is constantly embracing a more progressive agenda. We can all argue what the definition of progressive is and most will never agree. But, it isn't he Democratic party of the last forty years. And, I am tired of listening to the Obama supporters stating it has only been sixty days. I voted for Obama but let's get real. In sixty days he has allocated more money to fund wars, has excused torture, has endorsed policy that bails out criminals and puts it on the back of poor Americans, he has failed to address the monopolies that need to be broken up in the economy, has waffled on unions and wages, has seemingly caved by allowing insurance companies to extort massive profits in healthcare versus true transformative healthcare, has done nothing to address globalization which is a secret code word for stealing from the middle class and driving down wages, etc, etc, etc.

Greider is the only person I hear, with a voice, willing to address the fact that the Democratic Party needs transforming. That the status quo of the party is a failure. And, that Obama, while a potentially great leader is too beholden to the elements destroying our country. And, that may actually cement his failure.

We need to take the Democratic party or some party in a new direction to restore America's democratic ideals

[defendandprotect]

21. Are you kidding? Labor went from highest 39% unionization to now 11% or 9%?

Wages have been either stagnant or in a downward spiral for 40 years!

Minimum Wage is a poverty wage ---

And what have Democrats done for women?

What is it doing for women internationally -- first thing is to set things

right in Afghanistan and Iraq where we have taken them back yet to even worse

conditions!!!

[Two Americas]

46. you believe that?

Labor union leadership has too often become a gentrified elite, hob-nobbing with management and with the powerful, and rather than organizing, expanding and strengthening the movement, played footsie with and merely rubber stamped Democratic party politicians rather than fighting for the workers.

This is not so much about getting results as it is which results we are fighting for.

The is no more powerful example of the dangers of putting partisanship first, and seeing the election of Democrats as the solution. "Democrats are better than Republicans on Labor issues. therefore we will put all of our efforts into electing Democrats" has been the thinking. Meanwhile the Labor movement has gotten weaker and weaker, and the leadership more and more out of touch with the rank and file.


...

[quiller4]

86. Particularly not Greider n/t

[amborin]

88. we also need to cut the big farm subsidies, and fund social security, now off the table, alas

[Laelth]

3. Hear, hear. Greider is right.

We must hold the party's feet to the fire and be willing to lose conservative Democrats. They're not helping much, anyway.

:dem:

-Laelth

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, it's time to fight for control of the party too.

We kicked their asses twice in a row now, after they lost and lost and lost.

[defendandprotect]

22. Yes, but then Obama took the DLC into the White House with him --- !!!

[bemildred]

70. One election, or two, is not going to do the job. nt

[UTUSN]

5. Ah, yaas, let us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Again.

Before clicking-in, seeing the topic's title, why did I hope against hope that the party being referred to, in a Democratic discussion board, was going to be the Rethug party?!1

[readmoreoften]

6. Yeah, it's been a real "victory" for labor all right....

:eyes:

Shows what little you know about it.

[UTUSN]

10. Yeah, the personal attack is always useful, isn't it.

My post was totally general, about the two parties. The victory was in the global sense, not about any one specific sub-group. But I'm sure you knew that as you replied.

[Two Americas]

84. no personal attack there

There is no "victory in the global sense" that justifies betraying what you dismissively refer to as "one specific sub-group."

There is no such thing as victory that does not include supporting teachers, supporting Labor, opposing torture and calling for prosecution of war crimes - and dozens of other "specific sub-group" interests. We all stand together or we do not stand for anything.


...

[salguine]

12. Problem is, fewer and fewer people are sharing in these "victories".

[truedelphi]

50. , as the new Jesus, forgot one of the more important things Jesus did

The real Jesus kicked the money changers in the butt.

[omega minimo]

15. it is!! The R Lite Party. See, you were right!

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

23. Right, because we believe right-wing/DLC propaganda and progressive action is dangerous!!!

What . . . no mention of "it's only been 60 days!" . . . ????

Minimum Wage is a poverty wage ---

Social Security is being targetted not only by the right but by those

right-wing/DLC Democrats who LOVE compromise for the benefit of the few/corporations!

[defendandprotect]

25. Greider is not recommending that anyone . . .

should vote for Repugs -- nor will anyone who wants CHANGE.

[LWolf]

7. I agree. nt

[stillcool]

8. well that's an interesting gambit...

a Republican is better than a blue dog. hmmm..even if we lose the majority?

[omega minimo]

16. is that what he said?

:wow:

[Dr.Phool]

18. With Blue dogs, we still don't have a majority.

[defendandprotect]

27. PLUS, Emmanuel/DLC has been soliciting more "Blue Dogs" . . .

in other words working exactly in reverse of what Greider is suggesting we do

in response!

[defendandprotect]

26. Greider is talking about third parties . . .

not Repugs ---

And if all liberals and progressives supported third parties vs "blue dogs" for instance --

what Greider is saying is that Democrats would wake up. They certainly do not want to lose

control again. Democrats don't want to begin losing voters again who will drop out if the

party moves to the DLC-right.


Remember, we can all also support more progressive candidates even "out of state."

[Jakes Progress]

55. If you don't, you have no gambit at all.

If blue dogs and corporate-controlled Dems know that all progressives are shooting blanks when they complain, why would they listen. My reading is that if progressives want the party back, we may have to lose for a term or two. Not appealing, but really no worse than always kissing corporate and neo-con butt. Think of the last election as a battle. If we win an election but lose the war with the forces of evil (the republicans) we are still lost. Corporate types and neocons have a longer view than most Democrats. We like to think that because we won an election, everything is going to be great from now on. Winning an election is not the end; it is the beginning. Currently it seems that winning the last election has begun very little.

[Tesha]

58. One reason why Democracts aren't more widely supported is that the DLC and the Blue Dogs...

...ensure that the Democrats are perceived as not actually
standing for anything. They do this by holding and quite
publicly espousing Republican policies as though those
policies were the policies of actual Democrats, leaving
people confused and believing that we don't actually
stand for anything.

Letting those Republicans in Donkey's clothing go (or
defeating them in primaries) would do a lot to clarify
what we *DO* stand for and exactly who would benefit
from *ACTUAL* Democratic progressive policies.

Tesha

[slipslidingaway]

9. knr n/t

[bvar22]

11. I will be sending donations to primary challengers to the WORST offenders.

Evan Bayh is up for re-election in 2010.
There is at least one InterNet based group raising funds to target him for replacement.
I'll be there.

[defendandprotect]

29. I'll join you in that --- !!!

[Vidar]

13. He's right. The party continues to shit all over labor.

[omega minimo]

14. "....destabilize your comfort."

[defendandprotect]

30. Two years of re-funding the wars --- !!! But we can't afford Single Payer Health Care--!!!????

[nashville_brook]

19. "destabilization" isn't necessarily a bad thing -- if the comfort zone is inhospitable to The People

and it is -- especially regarding labor issues including healthcare. This isn't a "threat" to the party -- it's a necessary step to cleaning up the messes of the last few decades (Glass Stegall, Commodities Modernization Act, globalism, etc etc).

[defendandprotect]

20. This is Plan B . . . .

Journalist and author William Greider is urging the labor movement and other progressives to get tough with the Democratic Party, even if that means putting the party's majority control in the House and Senate at risk.

and . . .

Greider said that Obama sounds as if he wants "to recreate Wall Street as it existed before the wreckage….That is a fallacious goal. You can’t do it….And he shouldn’t do it."

Instead, "if the president made some personnel changes and came out and said, 'We are going to have to spend some money on burying the zombies and distributing the parts, but here's the banking system I want to leave behind four years from now, five years from now, eight years from now, people will be applauding in the streets."

The public will support a plausible plan for a new and more equitable financial system, Greider said. “As long as they are trying to restore the old order, they will have justified public anger, and they will probably fail.”

And why have labor and women stuck around so long?

This is a tough subject here at DU where any criticism of Obama and Democrats -- and suggestion

that we should not continue support NO MATTER WHAT -- brings on attempts to censure -- or censor!


Thanks marmar... I hadn't seen this and love Greider!

[Amonester]

24. As long as 'new' candidates continue to associate palin 2012 (or any...

other repugnant of 'em) with supporting torture (with pictures) - to make sure they'll never stand a chance to win any 'true moderates with morals' votes for decades - maybe 'losing their majority control' is not a 'real threat'

[defendandprotect]

32. Repugs now TORTURE, WAR, BANKRUPTING TREASURY party . . .

and will Americans forget that they also tried to knock off Social Security and

heist the money off to Wall Street? Imagine where we'd be now if they had

succeeded in that!?

Meanwhile, they have damaged pension funds making Social Security even more important!!!

[bvar22]

37. Democrats should worry about being associated with those....

....who pamper War Criminals.

[democrank]

56. Thank you, bvar22.

[cali]

28. no thanks. I'm not into fruitless sacrifice.

[defendandprotect]

31. For too long . . .

Democrats have feared that while other Democrats have simply dropped out

and labor has suffered a downward spiral over 40 years!

We've now been re-funding the wars for two years under Democratic Party rule!!!

What sense does that make?

[cali]

33. well, the democratic party has grown in recent years, not shrunk

and though I agree about labor, i don't see Greider's suggestion as one that makes any sense at all. Who the fuck got us into those wars? Repukes. And wars aren't all that repukes do to destroy this country. The very thought of those people getting back into power makes me shudder. Challenge blue dogs, fine, but vote for the dem in the general, is a much more productive avenue.

[defendandprotect]

35. You're suggesting we are mainly interested in the . . .

welfare of the Democratic Party? No . . . this is about small "d" democracy --
Not political parties. It's about labor and the downward spiral of wages.
It's about financing two wars and the bankrupting of the Treasury!
It's about Single Payer Health Care vs corporation/insurance-drug companies!

HOWEVER, Democrats who dropped out have not been voting did come out to try to
influence the elections this time around in response to a PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL
MESSAGE by Democrats. Remember the day after the 2006 elections, Pelosi confirming
that Democrats were elected to "end the wars" . . . ??? That's on film.

Again -- Greider isn't talking about putting Repugs in office . . . he is talking
about supporting more progressive Democratic candidates against "blue dogs" -- and
you can do that from out-of-state. And more and more of these states are turning
"blue" -- i.e., liberal/progressive -- which would indicate that more voters will
support more liberal/progressive candidates than "Blue Dogs."

Greider is also saying that if all liberals/progressives supported these more
liberal Democrats, they would win.

Greider is also suggesting that if there is no more liberal candidate vs a "Blue Dog"
then a more liberal third party candidate could be elected if liberal/progressive
Democrats supported that candidate.


And, additionally we still have problems with electronic voting machines which began
coming in during the mid-to-late 1960's . . . just around the time the Voting Rights Act
was passed, coincidentally! IMO, every Repug win since then is questionable - going
back to Nixon/Humphrey!

[cali]

36. not. even. close.

I'm suggesting that the welfare of the country, the world and the entire fucking universe is imperiled when repukes are in power. What Greider is suggesting would likely lead to repukes getting back in power. he says so himself. I'm happy to support progs over blue dogs in the primaries, but I'm not going to be voting third party in the general. And if someone from the left challenges my progressive rep, I won't be supporting that person.

[defendandprotect]

38. Who's been financing the wars the last two years --- DEMOCRATS --!!!!

I guess that hasn't been a threat to the world . . . ?

Who's been covering up TORTURE the last two years . . . ?

Who has failed to sufficiently respond to GLOBAL WARMING with immediate anti-corporate

action . . . ?

Who is telling us that we can bail out Wall Street and elites but we can't have

Single Payer Health Care for everyone which is the cheapest way to go . . . ???

Who is spending 8.5 TRILLION plus another $3 or more TRILLION for bailouts for

criminal capitalists . . . ??

Which Democrats are calling for RE-REGULATION OF CAPITALISM which is the basis

of the financial crisis . . . ???

And that crisis has not only destablized America, it has destablized much of the world -- !!!

Greider is telling you it is worth a risk in targeted areas, against targeted "blue dogs"

to chance liberal/progressive backing of a more liberal DEMOCRAT opposing the "blue dog."


At the worst, backing a third party candidate which would block Democrats and Republicans.

It's time to give up DLC-thinking in the Democrats Party -- it's over --

or we are!


I'm suggesting that the welfare of the country, the world and the entire fucking universe is imperiled when repukes are in power. What Greider is suggesting would likely lead to repukes getting back in power. he says so himself. I'm happy to support progs over blue dogs in the primaries, but I'm not going to be voting third party in the general. And if someone from the left challenges my progressive rep, I won't be supporting that person.

[cali]

39. oh for fuck's sake. If you can't see how much worse things are under repuke control

if you can't see the depth of misery they inflict and how much greater that is than under dems, if you can't grasp that unions, women, working people and everyone but the uber rich are better off when the dems control congress, than you're utterly and hopelessly blind to reality. it's really that simple.

Just pathetic and warped and fucked up.

[defendandprotect]

41. Again, no one is talking about voting for Repugs . . . they're finished .....

Try to have some political courage, at least ---

STOP living in absolute fear of the right---!!!

And try to understand that this isn't debate . . .

Just pathetic and warped and fucked up.

It's a reflection of insecurity and inability to continue debate.



Again, have Democrats been financing wars the last two years?

Have Democrats prosecuted anyone?

Have Democrats stopped TORTURE?

How about wiretapping -- what did Democrats do about wiretapping?

What did Democrats do in two years to move Single Payer Health Care?


What needs to be stopped is the downward spiral -- and that is happening

even under Democratic regimes. AGAIN, NO ONE IS LOOKING TO ELECT REPUGS ---

but it takes some courage and intelligence to progress ---!!!


The message to the Democratic Party has to be loud and clear -- move to the left.

Dump the DLC--!!!

[cali]

54. please don't give me that kind of faux noble crap.

first of all, chickadee, I don't live in abject fear. Stop projecting. Yes, of course dems have been funding Iraq and Afghanistan. Those aren't the only issues. Duh. And justice isn't some instant presto breakfast food. It's complicated and it takes time. There's been impediments of monumental size in the way of prosecutions- as fucking anyone conversant with the real world, knows. What you ask? up until 3 months ago, a repuke justice dept and a repuke White House, not to mention a bare majority in the Senate. This isn't rocket science. The childish impatience and my way only, is so all American of you. That in itself is quite amusing.

Have Americans stopped torture? Either you believe Obama when he says that we have, or you don't. I do.

The dems have been lousy on wiretapping. No argument there. I've written my rep and Senators about it repeatedly. I'll do so again.

It is utterly laughable to think that dems could have done anything about single payer, and furthermore, I'm with Obama. I think the best way to get there is via reforming health care and introducing a public option. As more and more people sign on to that, the insurance industry will lose more and more of its power.

You want instant gratification and you want everything YOUR way. There have been big changes in the last 3 months, from the Ledbetter Act to environmental policy and rule changes to foreign policy to energy policy to a stimulus package and more.

I don't expect that everything I want will happen instant presto and I don't fucking think much of idiots who do.

[defendandprotect]

75. "Of course, dems have been funding Iraq and Afghanistan" . . .??????

I just finished telling you --- and presume you read nothing/???? --
that immediately upon the Democratic win in 2006 Pelosi CONFIRMED THAT
DEMOCRATS WERE ELECTED TO END THE WARS.
****************************************
Clear enough -- if not, you can see and hear her saying that on film!


"Justice takes time" . . . ? How long did it take for the GOP to impeach Clinton?????????
Gee, I just don't know where they got the time???? :eyes:


Re torture . . . no one can be sure -- including with Panetta's comments to Congress --
that torture isn't happening somewhere. Have we prosecuted any higher ups who conspired
to violate the Geneva Accords/Military Law and our Constitution????

Did you notice that Bush began wiretapping as soon as he took office in February????
That's how soon they approached the communications companies and got started!!!
That was SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE 9/11--!!!
**************************************
Where are the prosecutions?

The dems have been lousy on wiretapping. No argument there. I've written my rep and Senators about it repeatedly. I'll do so again.

And Obama voted for new FISA law ---


OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL TO DO ANYTHING ON HEALTH CARE ...
All he has to do is lift age restrictions from Medicare -- and we're set to go!!! IMMEDIATELY !!!
Meanwhile, Single Payer is the CHEAPEST WAY TO GO -- Why do anything else?????


You want instant gratification and you want everything YOUR way. There have been big changes in the last 3 months, from the Ledbetter Act to environmental policy and rule changes to foreign policy to energy policy to a stimulus package and more.

I don't expect that everything I want will happen instant presto and I don't fucking think much of idiots who do.

No -- big change would be Single Payer Health Care which would provide 2.5 million jobs --
and help every American.

Big change would be taking over the auto companies and starting to build electric cars which
would help the workers and help Global Warming.

Big change would be stopping the bailouts and letting criminal capitalism fail while helping
the workers. Renew the Welfare Guarantees which Clinton overturned with Gore's blessing!

Stimulus . . . ??? for whom? Capitalists!!

Big change would be RE-REGULATION OF CRIMINAL CAPITALISM!!!

I don't fucking think much of idiots who do.

I totally believe those first four words . . .!!!

[Tesha]

64. You love to say things like this.

You love to tell people they're pathetic and warped and
fucked up.

But somehow, even when the Democrats are in power, they
*DON'T DO JACK SHIT* about any of the really big issues.
Labor? Women's rights? Gay rights? Education? Healthcare?
The Constitution? Ending the wars?

Democrats aren't going to do anything about *ANY* of that
because actually doing anything might jeopardize their
hold on power. And that's what it's all about: holding
power, not doing the right thing for we the people.

Tesha

[maryf]

51. Who is keeping us in war, ooops occupations?

Democrats. If people keep voting the party line for the sake of voting the party line we'll never change the system...and right wing democrats will keep running until there really is no difference...

[cali]

53. sorry, those aren't the only issues,. And there are significant differences

even if some on the left are too fucking dim to grasp that. It's just pathetic.

[maryf]

73. Pathetic is the word

there are differences but they are becoming less distinct by the day...and when it comes to issues that truly matter, like the occupations, the distinction is negligible. The biggest differences small as they are, I think, are in the least significant issues.

[defendandprotect]

76. The wars, re-regulating capitalism, Single Payer Health Care, Global Warming . . .

are the most important issues . . .

You seem unable to refrain from treating posters with normal human respect . . .

and you're on ignore.

[xxqqqzme]

43. Then you and all the rest of us,

end up being what is sacrificed. That is what is in the streets right now and the Democrats have been enablers of it. Did they stop funding the Iraq occupation after they were elected to do so in '06? Did they take the b**h criminals to task?

Change I can believe in? Unfortunately, that 'hope' is fading fast. The Democratic Party is in teal danger of losing all those new, young shining, optimistic souls who believed in change and climbed on the Democratic bandwagon in '08. They can just as easily jump off. The blue dogs are dragging us back to the caves and they have to be stopped. There is, obviously, no real leadership in the Senate to rein them in. They knew that which is why they opened that door and stepped through.

[colsohlibgal]

34. Yes, Yes, Tes!!

I'm down with this idea big time. How on earth can these blue dogs call themselves democrats while voting against a new usury law? I'd love to see all of them explain how they are for 35% interest rates being charged to consumers - even consumers with good credit now.

Of course blue dogs aren't the only problem. Obama is increasingly making a lot of us nervous; he hires Wall Street insiders, who helped cause this mess to fix it. He's doing all he can to maintain the NSA spying on all of us, he wants no part of single payer universal health care.

The puzzle is why Obama is changing his stance on so many things. There aren't many choices - he could have been lying all along to get elected, he could have been bought off, he could have been sat down by the real power brokers and told the facts of life in DC - maybe even, as some have speculated, he was shown what has happened to people who tried to buck the status quo (JFK, RFK. MLK). That's about it IMHO. Whatever. much like Bill Clinton, he seems to be settling in as almost republican lite, at least on many issues.

To get any substantial change we have get big money interest out of the capital, we need to get news shows back to actual critical reporting (now only seen on Comedy Central), something 100% different than the blatant cheer leading that helped sell (not to all of us ) the insane and criminal war in Iraq.

[Tesha]

65. He's not "changing his stance".

There's a reason why he was seventh on my list
and not first. Before the election, there wasn't
a dime's bit of difference between his policies
and Hillary's absolutely DLC policies. We all
knew that going in to the election.

Some people may have deluded themselves into
believing he was a progressive, but that was
*NEVER* in evidence; he was simply the candidate
who survived the primaries.

Tesha

[Mithreal]

40. No point in arguing with some "Dems" here to place principles first.

One either does or does not.

Greider's audience is those who place principles first. Others need not reply, they are part of the problem.

[flyarm]

42. Morals, Values and Principles..

When people are willing to give these up for one man or one party over nation..what is left????????

Whatever is left ..isn't worth having!

[Historic NY]

44. Of course he wants us to implode...he wants failure...

thats the best way for the GOP to come back. Grant we have Blue Dogs but the party should expose them for what they are, DINO's. An organized movement within the party would only sow the seeds of discontent and doom us to certain failure. He sounds like he wants to sell books or a sequel.

[defendandprotect]

77. Right ...Greider is a Dem-basher, Obama-hater -- and just selling books -- !!!

:sarcasm:

Just in case you needed that!!

Greider has been working to protect democracy for decades ... in his writings and

in his warnings.

That's small "d" democracy ---

quite different from a political party!!!

:think:

[onehandle]

45. Screw that. This is Nader talk. This is what gives us a President Bush.

Anyone who plays this game with a sitting Democrat in a risky district can go to Hell.

[defendandprotect]

78. You're so right . . . Supremes didn't give us Bush...Election steals didn't give us Bush . . .!!!

The 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida who voted for Bush didn't give Bush his "win" -- !!!

The GOP fascist rally to STOP the vote counting in Miami-Dade County mandated by
the Florida Supreme Court didn't give us Bush --- !!!

The 600+ illegal military ballots counted for him didn't give us Bush!!

3,000+ "Butterfly ballot" votes approved by Democrats which went to Pat Buchanan
didn't give Bush the election -- !!!

And it wasn't tens of thousands of Florida votes to other third parties -- Libertarians,
Socialists, etc. which gave Bush his alleged 527 winning votes . . . or was it 134
winning votes . . . or was it 54 winning votes????

Before you even begin to accuse Nader try looking at this long list above . . .
and then give some more thought to the electronic voting machines which have been
stealing elections for the GOP since the mid-late-1960's . . .
Coincidentally, just about the time we passed the Voting Rights Act!

And, finally . . . the recount by the press consortium says that Gore won the election, including
in Florida, no matter how you count the votes . . .
******************************************************************

[Redwraithvienna]

47. So his idea is to destabilize the Democratic Party...

and then when the GOP is back in power ... it will see its faults and give workers more power ...

or am i getting something wrong here ?

This idea is about as stupid as the teabag protesters , protesting against their own tax cuts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Yep. Make them work for our votes.

Simply slapping a (D) behind a name doesn't make him/her worthy of a vote.

[defendandprotect]

79. We need to gain LEVERAGE over the Democratic Party . . .

voting for them no matter what they do --- giving them money no matter what they do
isn't the way to get that leverage!

[democracy1st]

49. K & R

[billyoc]

57. K&R

[KoKo]

59. Truly...this is what it's really all about. Our latest Dem Presidents have been Figureheads

for a party of Corporatists/Manipulators...just a few steps away from the Republicans on most issues except the social.

It's not Obama that many are questioning...it's our Democrats in Congress and the Party who still think they can do "business as usual" now they have a Dem in the White House. Most of the Party Establishment and Funders are in bed with the Republicans in the "One Party/Wall St./MIC RULES" mind frame.

We've got to keep at that "bottom up" approach or nothing will ever change and Obama could go the way Clinton and Carter did before him...whether he serves one term or two...he will set the stage for a Repug Return if we don't reform our Democratic Party.

[glitch]

61. And that would make him mediocre IMO. He will only be a great president if we push him to be

progressive - again IMO - every other DUer's mileage will no doubt vary.

[KoKo]

67. Pushing to be was what I felt was the "deal" ....and I'm not giving up on reforming Dem Party...

because we see that Third Party just doesn't work...so we've got to "reform" what we've got.

And, you'd better believe those Repugs have the power and money and influence to get their ACT TOGETHER well before us. Their record is better if you check out Dem Presidents vs. Repugs in the last Century and you notice how the Repugs manage in short time, to repeal most of what Dems do in the few times we've gotten one into the Presidency.

This is not a time to laugh and chortle over how weak the Repugs are...but a time to go FULL FORCE to build our Dem Party so we never have to be afraid when we elect a Democratic PRESIDENT AGAIN...about whether they are doing the will of the people of our party.

I think Obama understands that...but now that he's President...he has to be "one of them." That's the problem. It isn't HIM ...it's US DEMS!

[glitch]

69. Totally agreed. (this is rare). nt

[MessiahRp]

60. If Labor was smart it would stop endorsing Democrats altogether

Their blind endorsements are taken for granted and all these pro corporate DLCers do is help Republicans fuck unions over even more. Frankly the Democratic Party doesn't deserve the support or the campaign help and it really isn't the party of the working class either.

Rp

[KoKo]

68. True in some ways..what you say. Tainted by Mob they've had a hard

time getting their act together since Hoffa. And, frankly, the unions WERE infiltrated by the same kind of filth that infects all movements for Workers and Human Rights throughout the Centuries.

It's cycles. You can "keep 'em clean" for the first 10 years or so...and then you gotta PURGE consistently... Question is: "WHO does the purging?"

[defendandprotect]

81. Actually, using Mafia was one way to destablize the unions . . .

during the Reagan administration this was also rampant ---

using Mafia to destroy unions, prevent new contracts, prevent new members ---

prevent true and fair negotiations -- and when they still couldn't get what their

elite clients wanted ... they resorted to other methods.

[defendandprotect]

80. Women's groups have also long done the same thing . . . !!

[Two Americas]

62. the fault line here

There is a deep division here and that division can be seen on every subject.

One group sees the party as the best thing to align with, the best hope. That over-rides everything for them. They will argue that support for the party is the only practical way to ever advance the principles and ideals we support. They think that people criticizing the party or the party politicians puts the party at risk. They see the party as the only hope, so that puts everything at risk.

Another group sees support for the party as secondary to support for principles and ideals. They will argue that speaking out for the principles and ideals is the only way there will ever be a party worth supporting. They think that people promoting party first puts the principles and ideals at risk. Since the principles and ideals are all that matters, putting them at risk makes whether or not the party prevails irrelevant.


...

[MessiahRp]

63. If Labor was smart it would stop endorsing Democrats altogether

Their blind endorsements are taken for granted and all these pro corporate DLCers do is help Republicans fuck unions over even more. Frankly the Democratic Party doesn't deserve the support or the campaign help and it really isn't the party of the working class either.

Rp

[Grinchie]

66. Fianlly, some common sense! We voted for change, we need to fight for it.

The moneyed interests have insinuated their way into the Obama administration. We have tons of Ex-Clintonites that were present when Bill Clinton laid the framework of the politicization of the DOJ, and now we see the Blue Dogs, and of DLC Republican lites with their hands on the control mechanisms.

Some would like to say that Obama is doing a lot, but they are more or less in balance with the things that the right wants, which I suppose is the "Centrist" position of things.

His stance on FISA is a biggie when it comes to status quo on government surveilance of the citizenry, and although one would like to think it is used for good things only, the fact is that their is not enough money in the budget to secure and system as powerful as Warrantless Wiretapping from abuse. Even if they did have the mechanics in place, I certianly don't want to pay for something that enables the destruction of privacy on a mass scale.

Another thing is this war machine spending, the bailout of the banks, on top of massive deficit spending. The stimulus plan I have no problem with, but the consequences of Inflation are very real, and I see the US inflating it's way to "Sustainable" median home prices of $600,000 for a chicken coop. The banks win, we lose, because food will be 1000 dollars a week, but only if wages go up accordingly.

It's all relative, but labor is usually the last to see a pay wages for Cost of Living, unless you're the CEO of a large corporation.

We are all aware that the Inflation rate has been manipulated, right alongside the Consumer Price Index for many years. This alone has diverted Trillions of dollars for Social Security recipients, Government employees, and servicemen alike. We here nothing about this in mainstream media, or form the government.

Finally, we have to wonder how it is that GMO's have such a free run inside our food supply. As more research leaks out of how little we know about toxins, allergans, and ongoing poisoning of our planet, we blindy trust the Corporations to tell us it's safe, even when evidence says otherwise. 90% of american want labeling of GMO's equivalent to that existing in Europe, in order to be able to choose whether they want to be guinea pigs or not. Why don't we have this? Who fights to get these issues resolved?, and why does the mainstream media absolutely ignore GMO? Why is it that American MSM did not report the Banning of Monsanto Mon8 10 Maize in Germany? (If they did, I certainly did not see it)

Why is it that the most effective new law in years to enhance the safety of the food supply, HR 875, is dumped onto the blogosphere by opponents making false claims that it will make it illegal to grow a tomato, or that somehow it would benefit Monsanto, which could not be farther from the truth? Who is doing all this disinfomation to confuse an already weakened, stressed out american public?

The administration has not taken a stand on GMO at all as far as I can tell, and Vilsack is not a promising guy in the USDA for any change here.

We all know that the Clintons were very cozy with Tyson and Monsanto, and through the lack of any clear message, we must assume that they still are influencing the new obama administration. We have to keep fighting for what we believe in.

The poor slobs that fell for the tea parties don't realize that they are fighting for the right of Rupert Murdoch to retain his billions, and that the Republican party is glomming on to gain some sort of political relevancy in the process.

When the "Real" taxes increases come, they will all be burnt out and won't even notice.

No, we have to keep pushing, fighting, resisting the status quo and standing up for the change we actually need to survive the next epoch.
No violence, no hate, no racism, just the ability to look at problems, identify the roadblocks toward growth, and remove them where necessary.

[TheKentuckian]

71. Ahh, the old shrink the tent to get less watered down technique

Yeah, that doesn't work. I'll take functions poorly over doesn't work at all. Not in the environment we live in. This rhetoric would have some minimal hope at positive results if the Republicans weren't utterly batshit or if we had a Parliamentary style government but here in binary land the choice is the Democrats or allow the Republicans to rape the country and the world with reckless abandon and breakneck speed. At least Democrats do their screwing slow and ease. They even usually bring lube.

Sorry, I'm a strong believer that only a fool refuses to take the lesser of two evils and that allowing Republican control is, current context, the stupidest thing we can do as a country. All that happens is they make the world altogether worse than they found it, eventually everyone gets fed up and puts a Democrat in, who then becomes hated for not making all the ills right in far less time than it took to break, then the right and the left hammer away until even worse Republicans are elected.

Then we quickly forget all about how caucusing works. Allowing Blue Dogs to be replaced by Republicans just lets the GOP set the agenda as well as allows the new GOP rep to become the incumbent and then its hell to remove them again and it usually has to be someone edging conservative to steal a little of their base to make the switch which creates new Blue Dogs.

I'm not seeing the endgame that results in a better agenda being initiated in the short, mid, or even long term. Just people patting themselves on the back for living their conscience.
Take away Snowe and Collins and then compare any Republican to Bayh. If you can't tell a fairly substantial difference in some pretty important areas then you're being dishonest.

Here in the Binary States of America it is pretty clear and easy Republicans gawd awful, Democrats at least sane, many (maybe even most) decent. In fact awful is measurably better than gawd awful, when we get to the choice of Republican and Republican-lite.

[defendandprotect]

82. What doesn't work is doing the same thing over and again and expecting different results -- !!!

The Democrats have been co-opted by the right -- we have the corporate DLC now in
the White House!!!

Hillary Clinton and Emmanuel are part of DLC leadership--!!!

How does this make any sense?

We are in a downward spiral because we keep voting for the lesser evil --- !!!

[Time for change]

72. I agree

Blue dogs will ruin the Democratic Party if we let them. The American people, or at least American Democrats, are way to the left of them. And I trust Greider's opinion. Nothing will change if we just passively accept the direction that the blue dogs are trying to take us.

[TheKentuckian]

74. Eliminate the Republicans as an effective political entity and get back at me

nt

[Two Americas]

85. that wouldn't matter

It is not a sports contest between two teams. The Republican party is merely the political expression, a front group beholden to the people they answer to, the wealthy and powerful few. As representatives of the wealthy and powerful few they relentlessly advances their needs and desires. To a certain extent, the Democratic party politicians answer to the same few. How are we supposed to block that if we cannot hold the opposition party to any standards and allow them to roll over for the wealthy and powerful while we stay silent? Of what possible value is it to have "our team" win under those conditions?

Destroy the Republican party, and the wealthy few will merely pour money onto the Democratic party and use that as their political agent. That is already happening.


...

[bertman]

83. HEAR!! HEAR!! I couldn't agree more. Keep preaching, Mr. Greider. We're listening.

[defendandprotect]

87. k i c k