THIS is why I said we need a third PROGRESSIVE party (4.00 / 1)

Any time I have mentioned this I get "well let's just fix the democratic party" - problem is the democratic party is like half as dirty as the GOP, but still dirty enough where we would have to get rid of 2/3rds of our guys to make the party what it ought to be.

Getting pretty fucking tired of getting these guys elected for them to go on and help out the greedy banks, corrupt insurance companies, and scumbag pharma industry.

We work, send money etc to get democrats elected for change and sure we get a some window dressing change, but the fundamental structure that keeps the elite class large and in charge does not get scratched at all.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 15:12:49 PM UTC

Very good, David (4.00 / 4)

I have been somewhat vocal since the election, in my curmudgeonly way, in raising red flags about all this talk of "filibuster-proof majorities".

First there was the, in my opinion, excessive attention focused on Franken.  I'm as in favor of seating him as anyone here (and wish Harry Reid would do more) but Nirvana won't arrive if and when he is seated.  

Even more telling was the brief euphoria over Specter.  It's probably a GOOD thing that he's been so completely intransigent on every issue of importance to us.  Rip our blinders off right away, Arlen.  Thanks for that.  Very bracing.

Then there were various suggestions, in my opinion misguided, for procedural reforms in the Senate to overcome the roadblocks.  I think these underestimate the need that the current incumbents NEED these roadblocks, which allow them to talk the talk and hopefully appease the voting base of the party without walking the walk and falling afoul of the funding base of the party.  Public opinion polls are one thing, campaign bucks are the other.  

As the saying goes, "money talks, bullshit walks".  To win we will have to beat this, and procedural games won't cut it.

Neither will constant making fun of the Republicans.  They may be stupid, their poll numbers may be through the floor, but has anyone noticed that we haven't beaten them on a single important issue since Obama won?  

Republican BS still flows through without comment as obvious truth throughout the mainstream media, aided and abetted by Obama's need to appear "bipartisan".  What good is bipartisanship if it is nothing but bipartisan ratification of Reaganism?  

Which of these "memes" have you heard any effective counter for in even the "liberal" media?

• "Activist" judges are bad, "strict constructionists" good, and they are what the Republicans provide.  (Anyone ever forced to explain how Bush v. Gore was "strict constructionism")?
• "Card check is coercive."  (Anyone heard any discussion of actual examples of coercion by union-buster consultants?)
• "Teachers' unions are the reason our children can't read.  More funding doesn't work." (Unasked question:  Do our elites really want to educate all our children or is the testing regime just a way to ensure it doesn't happen?)
• "Any attempt to save jobs in the United States is evil 'protectionism'".  (Anyone ever ask why the outsourced should be expected to remain patriotic under such a regime?)
• Joe Biden was roundly mocked during the campaign by Sarah Palin for his suggestion that paying your taxes was a patriotic thing to do.  I happen to agree.  (Have you heard anyone take this issue on?)
• Etc. Etc. Etc.

We won't beat all this crap this just by laughing at Republicans.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 15:43:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would support a third party if it weren't as dumb like the (0.00 / 0)

greens were in 2000. A party that would only run in district where it can't tip the scales to a republican.  A lot of northeastern dems are shockingly conservative for the people the serve.  Schumer always shocks me.  Frankly Joe Biden was that way too.

I don't like Pelosi as much as a lot of people.  I think she granstands to look liberal but behind the seens undercuts us in several respects. Like she did on the recent credit card reform and on the Iraq war.  I would have actually voted for Cindy Sheehan had I lived in her district, because republicans just aren't viable there, and it isn't possible to tip the election to them.

I would like to create a new progressive party for the blue parts of America.  Leave the Democrats to the corporatists, then confine the republicans to the South where they belong.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 16:07:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can someone explain to me ... (0.00 / 0)

why a lot of people think Barbara Boxer is a Progressive hero?  Is it just because of environmental issues?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 15:26:55 PM UTC

progressive heroes (4.00 / 5)

I think this one of the major problems when it comes to Democrats, "liberals", and "progressives". Anyone who is forcefully left of center on any number of non economic issues is worshiped and held up as a paragon of progressive virtue.

For me, it's - "it's always the economy, stupid!"

Unless a Democrat is good on labor/working class/middle class economic issues, they're not going to be high on my list.  

I vote Democratic, I think Independent

---

by: ACD @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 16:09:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Partisanship as smoke and mirrors (4.00 / 5)

It's long appeared to me that this whole game of partisanship is but a smoke-and-mirrors stage show, part of a long proven 'divide and conquer' strategy.

Keep the country divided between two sides. Those on the Right blame the Left for all of our problems, and those on the Left blame the Right. And our elected officials are happy to play this game because it quite effectively distracts from the fact that behind the scenes (and sometimes not even that hidden anymore) both sides work together on behalf of big money interests.

The Dems aren't "weak" or "spineless", though they're happy to have us call them that. That doesn't even make sense. They're all just people, on both sides, and they all act the same. What does make sense, rather, is that the Dems just aren't representing 'we the people', no moreso than the R's, because their actions, just like the R's, is to vote in the interests of big money interests instead.

The proof is in the pudding.

Both sides are, in fact, to blame for all of our problems.

Clearly, our entire federal government (both sides of the aisle) is completely corrupted by money. Neither side represents the common people.

And even voting an ostensibly progressive person into Congress makes no difference, because from the day they walk through those doors, either they play by the rules that are in place, or they're gone next election cycle. The powers that be run the show, and no crusader for the common good is ever allowed to have any effect at all on how things continue to work.

Just look at Jon Tester and Clair McCaskill. Just two years after the progressive Left rallied behind them, they just voted for big banks (stuck it to their constituents) rather than the people who helped get them elected. Do you think they had a choice in this?

As a realist, I see no hope at this point. The foxes flat out own the hen house.

Both sides in Congress work for the same people, and it ain't you and me.

---

by: cufford @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 16:41:18 PM UTC

Depressing post (4.00 / 1)

But I agree with your observations because that is basically what I see as well.

It is no wonder so many people are apathetic - ignorance truly is bliss.

The more closely I follow politics, the more faith I lose and the more disheartened I become at how things work.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 16:56:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what vote are you refering to? (0.00 / 0)

of McCaskill's?  Where's your pudding?


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 17:17:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

virtually every new Senate Democrat from 2006 and 2008 (0.00 / 0)

voted for the cramdown (Tester is the exception.)  It's all nice to say everyone is to blame, but the netroots focus on electing Democrats was correct.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 17:09:54 PM UTC

That I agree with (0.00 / 0)

I absolutely agree that it's worthwhile backing PROGRESSIVE candidates - doing that and making a distinction between progressives and hacks can change things over the long haul, for sure.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 20:07:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Perfectly Legal" (4.00 / 1)

Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston.  It describes how both parties have been guilty is setting up tax laws and regulations favoring the ultra wealthy.

Then, when you've gotten really pissed and depressed, read "Free Lunch" which diagrams how government has been skewed against the average person.

I do not think starting a 3rd party will solve this mess - all that will happen is that the GOP will take advantage of the split on the left.  Instead, we must make our Democratic elected officials more responsive to our needs.

FWIW - I believe President Obama is a darn good first step, and that he can take us a way down that road.

---

by: GWMustGo @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 17:27:04 PM UTC

replacement second parties could work (0.00 / 0)

if the goal was to be the second party in the parts of the country where republicans simply are not viable.  

They have to have a goal of becoming the second party then they have to only run where they aren't likely to play spoiler.  They're are many places they can do this.

I don't care for most dems.  Obama included. I only care about progressive issues.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 17:33:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there is no progressive (0.00 / 0)

party, only a con and con light, and this is just another example of that reality.
when will the progressives in america have a real choice and not a vote for the lesser of two evils.

---

by: pc @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 06:46:07 AM UTC