The Crazy Party

by: Natasha Chart

Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 23:00


"... Every time Obama tries to take on a progressive cause, there's a major political party standing in his way: the Democrats.

... We don't have a left and a right party in this country anymore, we have a center-right party and a crazy party.

... [Republicans] actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.

... Bottom line: Democrats are the new Republicans. ..."

I don't know though, maybe we should try being nicer to them and then they'll give us what they campaigned on telling us they wanted. Perhaps we should pretend like we can't see that they just want power for its own sake. Thoughts?
Natasha Chart :: The Crazy Party

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Crazy Party | 95 comments
In the immortal words of John Doe of X fame-- (4.00 / 1)
I've tried. And then I've really tried.

There's just some people that I can't get along with.

* * *

So I think I'm getting a similar result set on this "being nicer to them" concept.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

"... they just want power for its own sake. " (4.00 / 3)
Word!
Hell yeah (4.00 / 3)
I totally agree
Is government inside the beltway so crazy that only comedians can understand it? (3.43 / 7)
If you really want to understand how crazy things have become with our two-party system in the nation's capital, watch Bill Maher above give the most coherent, comprehensive and hilariously funny analysis yet to hit stage and screen.

Thanks so much, Natasha, you made my day!

He is right on when he says the Democrats have become, in sum and substance, the new Republicans, while the old Republicans have checked into a loony bin.

He is also right on when he says we need a new party for progressives.

In my view, such a third party is all that the emerging progressive majority needs to launch the Progressive Revolution that is getting underway — so that we can finally enact a progressive agenda into law.

Okay, Nancy, who's the progressive candidate for President in 2012? (0.00 / 0)
Do you have a list?

Is Dennis Kucinich on it?

Where does the money come from?

No links, please! Just a few relatively simple answers.  

[ Parent ]
Kucinich... LOL (4.00 / 1)
Love the guy... I give him money.... but, I'm amazed he can even win his home district...  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
I think we should try to elect people to congress (4.00 / 6)
first.  The fact that the greens focus on the Presidency above all is one of their failures.  
[ Parent ]
There are already progressives in Congress. (0.00 / 0)
But the most progressive vote in the last 10 years was...

Almost defeating the supplemental appropriation for war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wasn't this the grand anti-war coalition that we were waiting for?

The only problem was...

Our grand anti-war coalition had 173 Republicans in it.

Harharharhar!!!

[ Parent ]
Let's focus on a building a new third party, not on candidates (3.33 / 6)
Special interest campaign money has a lock-hold on the Democratic Party and all of its processes, from primaries to the general election. It will take decades to reform it, if ever it can be reformed.

It doesn't matter who you elect under the Democratic aegis. As soon as even progressive Democratic candidates get into office, most become political chameleons and sell out their constituents by selling their votes to corporate campaign contributors (so they can stay in office forever and get freebies like the government-paid health care system they created for themselves but refuse to provide the American people).

What needs to happen is for voters to be provided the tools they need to set their policy agendas, build political networks and winning voting blocs around their policy priorities, and use their networks and blocs to run candidates who will enact their agendas into law.

In order for voters to get this power, we have to re-invent democracy, as I describe in my book, Re-Inventing Democracy. THIS CAN BE DONE BEFORE THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION provided we integrate into a seamless, user-friendly platform all the re-democratizing Internet inventions I describe in it. Internet entrepreneurs and technologists know how to do this.

I will contribute my patent-pending invention, the Interactive Voter Choice System, to this effort because it is the only mechanism I know of that gives voters the free tools they need to build and manage their own networks and voting blocs and use them to get control of electoral and legislative processes so they can run and elect their own candidates.

I know you do not want links, but the way this could work to permanently put voters in the driver's seat of U.S. politics and policy-making is too complicated for a blog comment.

But my book (which can be read free online) may be worth reading because it shows how we can change the system forever and stop obsessing about electing candidates in a corrupt system that will corrupt them regardless of how progressive they may seem at the outset.

Obama provides proof positive of this argument. When the venerable Helen Thomas asserts that Obama is following in Bush's footsteps, you know that our electoral process is a sham and a waste of time. No matter who we elect under it, we will get the same policies because the same special interests will be calling the shots, irrespective of which party is in office.
 

[ Parent ]
Building a party without candidates... (4.00 / 1)
Any number of people have "learned their lesson" about the Democratic Party from Obama and forgotten everything except that one little lesson, which was obvious enough long before Obama appeared on the scene. The Democratic Party is corrupt right down to the ground, and anybody who didn't know that before Obama was elected is an idiot.

Meanwhile, third-party dreamers are suffering from a delusion that American voters vote for ideas.

And how stupid do you have to be, to believe that the sloganeering pretty man Obama was elected because of his ideas?

So when I hear the usual brain-dead chatter about a third party which will somehow get generic candidates elected, based on beautiful ideas, I have to believe that the same people who "learned their lesson" from Obama didn't really learn anything, and don't even have the most minimal and elementary understanding of politics in the United States.

It ain't about ideas, Buckwheat!

Unless you have a charismatic candidate who can get himself or herself elected, your "progressive third party" is just a sad joke, like the Greens with the painfully unintelligent and erratic Cynthia McKinney at the top of the ticket, or the Party for Liberation and Socialism, which is running the "student leader" Frances Villar against Michael Bloomberg for Mayor of New York.

Ms. Villar's outstanding political accomplsihment (so far) is getting herself elected as... president of her building's tenants association!

Harharharhar!!!


[ Parent ]
Mighty Strong Language! (0.00 / 0)
The phrase "brain-dead chatter about a third party" is hardly an enticing invitation to continue the dialogue.

Nonetheless. . .

My invention, The Interactive Voter Choice System, allows voters to decide what their agendas are, find like-minded people who share their priorities, and then build political networks and voting blocs that they can use to run and elect their own candidates.

They can work inside or outside existing political parties — and create their own! It is also possible to use the invention to start a new party from scratch, which you might discern if you read what I have written to try to explain my idea.

To get the picture, it is important to stop thinking about starting parties from the top down that are loaded with pre-set ideologies and policy priorities, and have party officials and "charismatic candidates" ready to run on their lines. This is a replication of the existing U.S. political party system that has already proven itself a failure.

The Interactive Voter Choice System works from the bottom up. A bunch of us could get together and try to create a federation of the political networks and winning voting blocks that voters themselves create at the grassroots using the invention. But the invention would prevent us from getting control at the top and then foisting off our own priorities and candidates on them.

There is no way that it could be used to replicate the current special interest controlled party system. I designed it to enable voters to circumvent this system and prevent it from taking over ever again.

The more I see Obama trying to create a single uni-party of center-right political bedfellows, instead of leading in the progressive direction that the voters elected him to pursue, the more I think my invention is the only possible foil to his strategy and the only possible mechanism for re-democratizing our political system.

[ Parent ]
You probably don't fit the "strong language" categories. (0.00 / 0)
The "strong language" in my comment applies to Democratic pollyannas and Obamabots still claiming Obama is "progressive." You probably don't fit either category, Nancy.

I also don't claim your internet devices can't be useful.

But democracy in the USA has been driven by personalities for over 200 years, and you can't even begin to build a party without charismatic politicians.

[ Parent ]
Who is "You" (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the clarification!

But, to follow on, when you write "you can't even begin to build a party without charismatic politicians", who is the "you"?

When the voters themselves have the power to build political networks and winning voting blocs, using social networking inventions like mine that enable them to set their agendas and select their own candidates, we won't need "charismatic candidates" to emotionally seduce voters into voting for them.

Voters will willingly go to the polls to vote for the candidates whom THEY put on the ballot to implement voters' policy agendas.

Charisma will no longer be a determining factor, although lots of new candidates will come up from the grassroots and quite possibly they will be quite charismatic.  

[ Parent ]
"You" is you. (0.00 / 0)
You can't build a party without charismatic candidates. Nobody can.

The internet didn't change the basic fact that people vote for people, not ideas.

There were more ideas flying around the internet in the last election than at any other time in the history of the world, and what did we get?

The charismatic bullshitter, Barack Obama, a con-man with no real "ideas" whatsoever, except promoting himself.

But maybe you think you can reinvent human nature with your web devices...

Good luck with that.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, just think of past 'Mr. Charismas', like Richard Nixon and LBJ (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Of course, for a dumbass who thinks "charismatic" means pretty... (0.00 / 1)
LBJ is just the same as some "tenant association president" whose face nobody can remember for 15 seconds...

But thanks for chiming in, metamars!

Your silly misreading of charisma is just another demonstration why ideas don't really matter in politics.

For voters like metamars, the world of ideas begins and ends with "I'm hungry," and all the rest is just word-salad.

[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah, that's EXACTLY what I thought! (0.00 / 0)
Your psychic powers are extraordinary!

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org
[ Parent ]
I like it! (0.00 / 0)
Until we build a political party whose politicians are responsive to our needs and not those of big business, it won't matter how many progressive Democrats we try to put up.  The moneyed establishment at the top will always work to ensure they are marginalized.

Send me an e-mail.  I'd like to do what I can to help.


[ Parent ]
No point in reinventing the wheel, rebranding, etc. (4.00 / 2)
Eventually, though it will take a lot of effort, we're going to have to take this pig's ear of a Democratic Party and turn it into a silk purse.

They talk like they ought to, people like that. We have to figure out how to make them do what they said. Maybe it means primary challenges. Maybe it means painful attack ads. Maybe we just need to say mean things about them until they capitulate, which always seems to work for Republicans.

Gov. Dean showed us what to do, told us that it might take a while. I'm not a very patient person but the world moves at a slower pace than I'd like and there's nothing I can do about it. Though we will take this party back.  

[ Parent ]
I sort of agree (4.00 / 7)
sort of disagree. Bringing in a third (or fourth!) party doesn't mean you have to abandon the others. What it does is

1) provides more voices
2) keeps important issues from being locked out by the natural coalitions that take place within massive parties like the Dems or GOP
3) attracts more people if these third parties are comprised of different socioeconomic backgrounds/cultures
4) gives the voter leverage, as now he has somewhere to go, a party with viable candidates to support, when the existing parties ignore him.

And Item Four is what I think we are really missing. We have to have alternatives, and Dem politicians need to know we have alternatives. We'll never get anywhere, as long as we have nowhere to go.

So sure, let's take back the party like Dean said, and support the Dems at the ballot box when they're right. But when you look at your ballot and see a candidate here and a candidate there that you know will never work for you, then we ought to have the opportunity to choose someone just else who is viable.

Of course, fusion allows us to vote for Dem candidates, and still vote our conscience. But that's a whole 'nuther topic!

[ Parent ]
Alternatives to incumbent Dems are a good thing (4.00 / 2)
I just don't understand why some people are so obsessed with third parties. The best way to get progressive candidates in office is by winning Democratic primaries.

Think about it. If you can't convince the left half of the electorate that your candidate is superior, then what chance do you have in a general election where you also have to overcome the conservative vote?

[ Parent ]
I would politely disagree with your premise (4.00 / 6)
because often, the electorate in both the primary and the general thinks it has voted for a liberal candidate, only to be disappointed. Look at Murray and Cantwell in Washington State, for example (But there are numerous others).

So its not that voters weren't convinced, its that the politicians abandon their platform as soon as election night is over. After all, don't economic populist policies often enjoy majority support among the electorate...yet those same positions will never see the light of day in Congress.

And keep in mind, third parties are not the domain of the Left, the Right can have its third parties too. My hope is that the current meltdown of the Republicans, combined with the progressive frustration with the Dems, will lead to a third and fourth party in the very near future. People can cross back and forth between them...that's fine, that's the idea. I think a system with four or five major parties would be good for the country. And it would force change in the way Congress is run (committee assignments, filiubusters, etc.

[ Parent ]
They all lie like hell until they get elected. (4.00 / 6)
Then, they join the chorus of political whores and hacks.  

Speak softly and carry a big stick....   that is exactly what we need to do to this so called working man's party.  I am amazed that unions keep getting snookered by these liars, first Clinton and now Obama.  Unions are starting to look as gullible as Evangelicals.  

Until we can cause them pain, they won't even bother to give their constituents anything but lip service.   When netroots organized and took out Lieberman, they came over to see what these blog people were and then they proceeded to campaign against the Democratic winner and for their crony and pal.

We need to make them lose and/or bleed money when they run.  We can't compete with the money, but we ought to be smart enough to fight a gorilla war that picks them off, one or two at a time.   And please, no more "more and better".  Webb and Tester are just more Blue Dogs.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
"Until we can cause them pain" -- that's the whole point, and we've been doing the opposite -- (4.00 / 1)
which tells them to keep on doing whatever the hell their funders want.

it doesn't matter if our fights cause Repubs to take seats -- stopping those who continually lie and betray us all and hurt us is most important.

[ Parent ]
Good lord (4.00 / 2)
http://www.progressivepunch.or...

http://www.progressivepunch.or...

Yeah, Webb and Tester, with their 85% progressive voting records, are just like Republicans.

Please get a clue.

[ Parent ]
Wish that were true, but look at Jon Tester, for example (4.00 / 1)
He's voted more often than not against the people.  One of the few Dems to vote against the right of people to adjust their mortgage in bankruptcy aka cramdown.  Voted against a cap on usury aka craven interest.  

Sorry, but Bill Maher also once said, "We elect liars" and con artists, I might add.  

[ Parent ]
Not quite (4.00 / 1)
In MN we have a somewhat open system that has allowed alternative parties to routinely compete in state-wide elections. Sure, its a stunted version of a multi-party system and I'm not going to hold it up as a model, but the presence of a third candidate that is not beholden to the interests of the main-stream parties tends to tamp down the rhetorical grand-standing and re-focus the debate on details and policy. Granted, this focus is provided by the alternative candidate rather than the electorate, but its a value nonetheless.

Take Keith Ellison for example. He has been elected from a very blue district (my district). The GOP candidate was, essentially, a foil. Ellison could have breezed to victory (which he did anyway) without having been substantively challenged. But, because the alternative candidate was include in the debates and the campaign, Ellison was forced to clarify and expand on his ideas and policy goals. Now, I have supported Ellison ever since he was in the city council and I will likely continue that support in the future. But the presence of an alternative party candidate that was given a chance to compete in the public debates made for a more substantive race and, ultimately, strengthened Ellison in the same way that a good sparring partner hones a boxer's skills.

At a bare minimum the alternative party candidates take away the low-ball campaign strategy of simply running as the opposite of the other party. You know, "vote for me because, at least, I'm not a Republican".  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
That same argument (4.00 / 2)
Is why I suggest that religious conservatives have actually had less power in our current system than they would under a multi-party parliamentary system.  Just look at the the disproportionate power that Shas has sometimes had in Israel.  Now imagine a single-issue religious conservative party that might even learn to be economically liberal, but has no problem being a swing party (let's call it the Jim Wallis Party) and the difference between a truly progressive party being the main party in a center-left coalition or being in the minority rests upon a progressive willingness to give in to the Jim Wallis Party on enough "culture war" type issues.  Now imagine that health care and climate change legislation hangs in the balance based on your decision.  What are you going to do?

Under the current system, religious conservatives have gotten shockingly little of their agenda passed relative to the neocons and business monkeys despite their supposed power within the Republican Party because they've been used by GOP power brokers.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Israel has set the bar lower than most (0.00 / 0)
pr systems. It isn't a argument against pr.  It is an argument against the Israeli version. Israel could change it easily, but their political elites find these parties useful so it doesn't.
[ Parent ]
So what? (0.00 / 0)
It's not as if Shas is some teeny tiny party.  For an example of a tiny party, look at the Greens, who can't even get enough support in Israel to get even one Knesset seat.  That sounds pathetic.  I would expect at least 6-7 parties if you could abolish the two parties and start from scratch.  The balance of power will be held by centrist parties who will thus have influence disproportionate to their numbers.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Israel also doesn't have a normal distribution (0.00 / 0)
of political ideologies.  Anyway, I expect the republicans may hang on in the south for decade or more.
[ Parent ]
I tried the Dean method got (4.00 / 4)
Obama.  While I wish you success, it isn't my focus anymore.
[ Parent ]
Exactly! Dean led the way. Why has that movement fallen asleep? (4.00 / 1)
No longterm changes came from the pioneer spirit of 2004 and 2005. What has happened to the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party"? Why did they surrender control of the DNC so easily? Well, I guess we know why they did, they got carried away with the Obama craze. But I guess many now see that is was premature to give the guy so much power. If the DNC was still toeing the progressive line, it would act as a nice counterweight to Obama's more centrist policies, and would prevent him from wandering too much to the right side.

So, progressives have to start again building a lasting presence inside the party. No castles in the air, pls, the US democracy is a two party system, and division will only help the rethuglicans. And the progressive caucus in the House shows that progressive power centers inside the party are possible, and can apply left wing leverage. That's the way to go, we need more of that. And, in light of the elections 2010, taking back the DNC would be great. Hey, what's Howard Dean doing now? He's only 61, much too young to retire!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
People got spoiled (4.00 / 2)
The 50-state strategy is actually an incrementalist strategy.  What happened was that Bush and the Republicans imploded, with the timing on the housing bubble timed perfectly to make them look as bad as possible. That lead to some people giving way too much credit to Dean's strategy when semi-intelligent monkeys who can draw a "D" next to their name had a good chance of beating Republicans.  People have fooled themselves into thinking this was supposed to be the apotheosis of the progressive movement.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
It was a combination of the two. (0.00 / 0)
Dean's 50-state method did work, albeit not nearly fast enough under normal circumstances.  But last year and in 2006, as you point out, did have the benefit of good timing - the GOP imploded.


[ Parent ]
I agree. (4.00 / 2)
The plutocrats have a party already, and that's the GOP. They aren't entitled to two of them.

In fact, they can have the Democratic Party when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I suggest you buy some mittens (0.00 / 0)
Your fingers must be getting pretty cold.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
"Obama is bad" - compared to whom? / splitting equals losing (0.00 / 0)
    I posted a diary a while back, called "Obama is bad" - compared to whom?
   I keep seeing articles that make me want to re-post it. Your post above is one.
   I do agree with you that Obama has been disappointing. He is a moderate rather than a Progressive. But... "a new party for progressives"? Are you kidding me? Have you forgotten how Nader helped Bush steal the 2000 election from Gore?
   I DO agree with Darcy Burner that what America needs is "more and better Democrats". But splitting the Democrates into two pieces is NOT the answer. Splitting equals losing. I would love it if the Republicans would officially split into the Libertarian Social Darwinist party and the Theocratic Christian Taliban party. If they did that, they would lose even more influence.
    What we need is a fourfold strategy: First, elect as many real Progressives as possible, in the House, the Senate, and elsewhere. This includes seating Al Franken.
    Second, build a strong Progressive movement within the Democratic party. Be willing to primary the DINO's (for example, help Joe Sestak beat Arlen Specter). If we Progressives make it clear to the Democratic leadership that we want them to act like real Democrats, they will be less swayed by the dollars of lobbyists.
    Third, we need to remove the Republicans from power. I will do all I can to expand Democratic control of the Senate in 2010, even if it means helping the most Conservative Blue Dog defeat the most liberal Republican. The party of Bush does not deserve to control anything larger than a tiny Alaskan town like Wasilla.
    Fourth, we need to change the national dialogue. For years now, "liberal media bias" has been one of the favorite Orwellian labels of the Right. It is true that blatant racism and sexism are unpopular, as they deserve to be. But Big Media is Big Business, and Fox is not the only corporation to regurgitate right-wing talking points about the economy. We need to support progressive media, such as MoveOn, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Air America, and so on.
    Once the Democratic Party has more than twice as much membership, and twice as much money, as the Republican Party... once the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is much stronger than the Lieberman/Specter wing, which is much stronger than the entire Republican Party... then and only then can we seriously consider splitting the Progressive Party away from the Democratic Party. If the Democrats win every election for the next decade or two, then I will think about supporting a progressive third party. Until then, do NOT forget what Nader did to Gore in 2000.

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?
[ Parent ]
There's already a Progressive Party. (0.00 / 0)
http://www.progressiveparty.org

That's the Vermont chapter's web site.  Ask them about starting an organization in your home state, if one doesn't already exist.  The Vermonters have also created and implemented a solid electoral strategy that, more or less, has garnered enough seats in the state legislature to have a real impact on legislation - even if that impact is only to the extent of preventing bad bills from being made worse.

So let's stop beating around the proverbial bush and start reforming progressives' namesake political party in all fifty states, not just the two or so we have now (Washington already has a chapter, but it along with Vermont's can be grown more).


[ Parent ]
Oh, bullshit (4.00 / 2)
44 Democrats in the Senate voted for capping interest rates on credit cards. ZERO Republicans did. If you can't see the difference there, there is something wrong with you.

This Democrats=Republicans riff was old when Nader tried it in 2000. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

Nobody ever said there wasn't a difference (4.00 / 3)
What we've said is that the difference isn't near great enough.
[ Parent ]
Did you watch the video? Maher just said exactly that. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
He said (4.00 / 5)
that over the last two or three decades, the Dems had moved to the right, and were now occupying the space on the political spectrum previously occupied by Republicans, who themselves had gone even further right and then broken down into incoherence.

Ergo, there's still a difference, but unless you believe that the country is in need of a center-right business party, that difference is not near great enough.

[ Parent ]
I'm still not seeing the "center-right business party" (4.00 / 2)
Again, 44 Democrats in the Senate voted to cap interest rates on credit cards. That's 3/4ths of the caucus.

The reason we haven't seen a greater move in a progressive direction is not because of the Democratic party. It's because our system of government is inherently conservatively biased. Rural, conservative states with low populations are overrepresented in the Senate, and then on top of that you have the Senate filibuster.

All you need to do to see where the problem lies is compare the Senate with the House of Representatives. We have no problem passing progressive legislation in the House.

[ Parent ]
Well they're are a myriad of examples (4.00 / 6)
of how they are a center-right party, but let's take the one topic that you identified: the Sanders bill calling for a cap on credit cards of 14.9%.

You seem impressed by the fact that a strong majority of Dem Senators voted for that bill. But why is that impressive, given the fact that all the bill aimed to accomplish was the re-instatement of laws against usary that were on the books for many decades, up until the early '80s. If banning usary, one of the most hated practices in history, across almost every civilization, is your definition of liberal, there's probably not much I can do to convince you that the Dems are a center-right party.

I think its been so long since a strong progressive government was in power (LBJ), that some may have difficulty conceptualizing what it would look like. Perhaps that's why we have milquetoast policy proposals in the immediate aftermath of perhaps the greatest systemic failure in the country's history.

So let's turn it around, and think for a moment about what the party of FDR or LBJ or even Truman might have done in February. Years of regulatory capture and influence peddling had led to a situation where the economy was in danger of cardiac arrest, and the banks were coming to the federal government for massive billions in taxpayer wealth. A strong left wing party of the people should have demanded and won public financing of all federal campaigns, with monies set aside for state level campaigns (for those states who chose to participate).

Now THAT would have been a game changer, that would have been progressive populist, that would have lived up to the party's greatest moments in the '30s and '60s. That is what a strong left wing party would look like.

[ Parent ]
And last I checked, the bill was gutted. (0.00 / 0)
It was Senate Democrats who killed a cap on interest rates back in May.


[ Parent ]
The effect of having Democrats in power (4.00 / 5)
... is basically the same as electing most western nations' center-right parties. It's not about no difference, it's about the overall policies they enact not being progressive.

Yes, the Democrats are by and large tolerable. They aren't completely batsh*t insane bigots, for example, and that's to their credit. But they're not very liberal, either, by modern standards. There are issues about which they're more conservative than Democrats in the 1930s.

I do prefer a center-right government to rule by sex-obsessed xenophobes, yeah. Though I'd rather have a center-left government, and far rather a liberal government.

[ Parent ]
You're being charitable! (4.00 / 6)
I think the Dems are well to the right of most center-right parties in Europe. If I had a choice between the Christian Democrats of Germany or France, and the American Democrats..., guess who I'm going with!

One thing that Maher brought up, but we have't commented on, is how modern Dems are earning their trade by mimicking the old Dem brand of economic populism and basic civil liberties. Amazingly, after generations have come and gone, that brand still lingers enough to be effective, even when few modern day Dems live up to it.

That residual strength should tell us all something about what really constitutes American bedrock.


[ Parent ]
Capping interests rates at what? (4.00 / 3)
Democrats voted down Bernie Sanders bill that said 12% and passed this touchy feely and totally empty credit card bill you think is so great.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Capping credit cards seems an odd issue to take a stand on (4.00 / 2)
Where if you look at:

1. Handing the banskters trillions of dollars with no accountability and no transparency;

2. Gutting the Fourth Amendment with FISA [cough] reform

3. Executive powers generally

4. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Surely that "the differences aren't great enough" is obvious for even the most committed to admit.

And how's card check coming? And that's before we even get to health care.

So, NR, I could theorize a lot about what's wrong with you, but for the sake of a policy-based discussion, I won't.


I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, let's talk about health care (4.00 / 2)
The Democrats passed SCHIP. I guess you don't think childrens' health care is important?

The Democrats passed Lily Ledbetter. I guess you don't think women deserve equal pay for equal work?

The Democrats passed $780 billion in stimulus. I guess you don't think jobs and infrastructure are important?

The Democrats passed a tobacco regulation bill. I guess you don't think protecting kids from smoking is important?

The Democrats allowed stem cell research. I guess you don't think finding cures for devastating and debilitating illnesses is important?

I could go on. And this is just the stuff that the Democrats have been able to accomplish in five months, in spite of the inherent conservative bias of the Senate.

And you are complaining about card check, but the VAST majority of Democrats SUPPORT card check. Not ONE SINGLE Republican does. I guess that's not enough of a difference for you, either?

People here don't discuss the many progressive stances held by the Democratic party; they are simply taken for granted. It results in some very skewed perspectives, to say the least.

[ Parent ]
Your baseline is remarkably low (4.00 / 1)
And I'm sure you could go on.

Do, please, compare my list to yours. Can you seriously argue that they're of the same weight and scale?

As for card check, my "complaint" is that it's not passed. Some people look at the words, others look at the actions and the results. That's the difference between us, I guess.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
The difference between us (4.00 / 1)
is that I understand the REASONS why certain things haven't passed, unlike you, who is apparently completely ignorant of the workings of our political system.

And your "remarkably low" comment reveals that you don't think any of the things I listed are important. So I guess there IS something wrong with you. Good to know.

[ Parent ]
Well, when somebody descends to the personal... (4.00 / 1)
as an argumentative tactic, it's clear they have no real answer.

As is made clear by your second response: "You don't think any of the things I listed are important". In fact, I'm arguing that the things you list are, perhaps, important, but the "weight and scale" (above) of makes my list more important. It's a comparison, see?  If you're satisfied with the Dem's achievements so far, then bless your heart! It's just that your baseline is lower than mine. I tend to think that gutting the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is more important than an unpassed card check bill, but YMMV  and, apparently, does.

I will leave it to readers more discerning than myself to determine how a descent to the ad hominem and an inability to respond on-point says about you.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Hey, great debate tactic! (0.00 / 0)
Start in with personal attacks, then when someone hits back, whine about them getting personal.

It's very Republican of you, actually.

[ Parent ]
So why are you using the tactic? (0.00 / 0)
Because you, not lambert, are the one who started in with the personal attacks.


[ Parent ]
Oh, and also (0.00 / 0)
you're dishonest in claiming that all the Democrats have going for them is an "unpassed card check bill." But I know better than to expect honest debate from you at this point.
[ Parent ]
Haw (0.00 / 0)
I think people are perfectly capable of reading the thread and making their own judgments. I don't confuse the argument made with the person making it. Good luck in your future endeavros!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
I think people are perfectly capable of reading the thread and making their own judgments.

On this point, at least, we agree.

[ Parent ]
Like I said... (0.00 / 0)
good luck.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Lily Ledbetter does not guarantee equal pay (4.00 / 2)
It allows a longer time frame to sue.  It's a start, but it is not an equal pay bill.

The Democrats could have outlawed addictive and unhealthly chemicals in cigarettes. They could have said cigarettes can just contain tobacco. Instead they passed a weak regulation.  

Those of us who you accuse of skewed perspectives have actually been at this awhile.  I wrote a piece in 2005 called "Hey, Get Your Own Party".  At the time I thought there was a slim chance we could still take the party back from the Eisenhower Republicans who had gradually been taking it over.  Now I believe the shift is complete.

They give us gruel like this good but small bills to keep us behaved.  But many of us don't want to be domesticated pusses anymore.

To the barricades.  

[ Parent ]
If Nader was such a BS artist (4.00 / 1)
Why were the mainstream parties so frightened of him that they would not allow him to compete fairly?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
We're all cheering,... (4.00 / 1)
...but, so are the Democrats in congress...  There's nothing more they love than being called out by a liberal for not being liberal enough...

Unfortunately, in their minds, Maher managed to give them a boost, not a reprimand...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

It's not as dirty a word as they're used to thinking it is. (4.00 / 2)
They'll get that eventually or they'll be replaced with people who do.
[ Parent ]
Look at Obama's approval/disapproval numbers.... (4.00 / 4)
and its only the beginning.   People expected him and the Democrats to actually change something.   I think the next election is ripe for a third party candidate like Ross Perot, only not nuts.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
You might be reading too much into it (4.00 / 2)
I wouldn't be too surprised if rising gas prices is the biggest contributing factor to Obama's poll numbers dropping, but I haven't actually checked the dates.

I do think there is a space for a Ross Perot type if that person embraces the issues of the federal deficit, opposing both the bank and auto bailouts (as well as the government taking an ownership stake in GM), and illegal immigration.  I'm not sure if I like the idea of that sort of nativist populist power base coalescing, but it's definitely a segment of the population that exists and would feel unrepresented by either party.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
If Obama is bailing out autos, it sure is hard to tell. (4.00 / 4)
Secondly, I favor support for our manufacturers including autos.  What I don't support is bailing out the health insurance industry and the banks.   The failure to even put single payer on the table when our country is broke and can't afford anything more is nothing more than a bailout of the insurance industry.  They are protecting it from taking a hit, unlike they did to autos with NAFTA.  

Ross Perot was about that "sucking sound", and Ross Perot made his fortune off the auto industry.  He wasn't about pushing GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy.  If Obama and the Democrats had passed single payer and relieved GM, Chrysler and Ford of their health care burdens, they wouldn't have needed a bailout to weather the bank heist and credit crunch.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I assumed you wouldn't like the party I suggest (0.00 / 0)
But I think there are a significant number of people out there who don't really see a difference between giving money to banks and giving money to auto companies.  It's one and the same to them.  They wouldn't be right, but you don't have to be right to be politically potent.

What I'm saying is "be careful what you wish for".

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
the auto companies are doomed (0.00 / 0)
under the present system too.  So that threat isn't very meaningful at this point. Even if Obama saves them, he seems to be subsidizing there departure from this country. Let's just face the fact the dems have shrunk the pie so much, that you don't have anything to threaten us with anymore, much like the Labor party in Britain.
[ Parent ]
Can't do much about ignorance, can I. n.t (0.00 / 0)


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
This could go very well or very badly (4.00 / 1)
The country also might end up accepting a right wing populist. It's unfortunate that so much "progressive" criticism of Palin is class- and sex-based, because it leaves us open to attack from that quarter.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
here here (4.00 / 1)
maher hit it right with his comments, most people don't even know what being a liberal means or is, being a liberal is to belong to the smallest minority in the us bar none.
smallest segment? (4.00 / 4)
I don't believe we are a minority. Poles that show conservatives to be in the majority always ask the participants directly what they identify themselfs as, liberal or conservative. The majority answers conservative mainly due to the slander the "liberal media" has heaped on the word LIBERAL itself. When asked their position on issues, the large majority support the liberal/progressive side on most issues. This is just more proof of the power of the press (in this instance used to mis-educate the public) for the benifit of their corporate masters. I believe we are the substantial majority, as evidenced by the need of the rape-public-cans to cheat to "win" elections, and the dems to lie to win elections.  

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR
[ Parent ]
I would be more nuaned than that (0.00 / 0)
If people are forced to choose between liberal and conservative, I think there are a significant portion of the population who take positions that are more liberal than conservative within a contextual framework that is more conservative than liberal (and not just because of what they are fed by the media).  So, I think there is a liberal majority more often than not policy positions, but also a conservative majority in terms of worldview.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
3rd party enables GOPers (4.00 / 5)
as a general proposition not true in every single case unless and until electoral reform is achieved.

That means, to me, IRV at a minimum and proportional representation as a maximum.  I am all in favor of either.  Two factors account for the fact the Dems as a whole are quite to the right of mainstream conservative parties in Europe: (1) much stronger unions in Europe; and (2) parliamentary forms of government.

Do whatever it takes to overturn Buckley v. Valleo.  And dump the EC, perhaps the most single most regressive political arrangement in America.  3rd parties focusing on the presidential level is unmitigated idiocy, at the present time.  Start with local government and become a viable party moving up through the institutions.

Until then, barring unusual particulars, progressives need to focus on changing the Dems even though that is very frustrating.  It is always possible to make a poor situation worse.  But it is also possible to make a poor situation better.

What part of Buckley v Valeo do you want to overturn? (4.00 / 1)
That case is a mess: a rare per curiam opinion plus five additional opinions consenting in part and dissenting in part.  Scalia and Thomas want to overturn it.  The Buckley in the case is James Buckley, who can claim he won the case.  Buckley happens to be a third party member (New York's Conservative Party) who won election to the US Senate.  He actually wanted minor parties to be exempt from campaign contribution disclosure laws.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Expenditure limits are unconstitutional (4.00 / 3)
The court upheld contribution limits and reporting requirements.  I have no problem with either.  Scalia and Thomas want to overturn because the court upheld contribution limits.  That is not why I believe it should be overturned.

What I find troubling is holding as unconstitutional expenditure limits, both in terms of what it has spawned in politics and for lending weight to the idea that spending money = political speech.  Sure, this protects everyone, including unions.  But the net overall effect is to permit unfettered political dominance by the uber-wealthy.

I would permit as constitutional all three expenditure limits at issue in the case: independent expenditures, self-financing, campaign expenditures

The fact the case is a mess is not why I wish it to be overturned.

[ Parent ]
so what if it does enable GOPers? we have GOPers in charge even now (4.00 / 2)
we don't lose anything by voting out Dems that hurt us bec they're all hurting us and continuing -- and even expanding -- all the horrible shit.
[ Parent ]
Depends (4.00 / 2)
If you mean replacing our conservative Dems with more progressive Dems, I am with you.  If you mean replacing bad Dems with good 3rd party candidates, I am with you, assuming you can show a viable path to victory a prospect I find dubious under present circumstances, at least in the overwhelming majority of instances.

As bad as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al seem right now, as angry as I am on many, many issues, I do not think it is fair to say "we don't lose anything" if instead we had McCain, Boehner, and McConnell.  Don't think that at all.  So, if that is what you mean, I disagree.

[ Parent ]
i disagree -- they didn't stop a single Bush thing, and now are expanding all of them to boot -- (4.00 / 1)
what's different now?

what did WE get from giving them the Senate or giving them the WH?

they haven't even tried to reverse the Bush horrors -- and are actively fighting to expand them -- esp the WH.

[ Parent ]
Liar (0.00 / 1)
they haven't even tried to reverse the Bush horrors -- and are actively fighting to expand them -- esp the WH.

You're lying. One of Obama's first actions as president was to end torture.

[ Parent ]
i'm not lying -- we still torture, train others to do so, and are renditioning to (4.00 / 2)
3rd countries who do so.

we're expanding Bagram as well -- where they still refuse to allow the red cross and human rights orgs in.

and we have no proof they're not torturing at Gitmo, which is still open, and where prisoners are still dying suspiciously.

[ Parent ]
Liar (0.00 / 1)
Obama stopped us torturing right after he took office. Stop lying. Just because you hate Obama with every fiber of your being does not give you the right to lie about him.
[ Parent ]
prove it. (0.00 / 0)
you can't -- and he didn't.
[ Parent ]
Prove it (4.00 / 1)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
i'm for throwing out all those who hurt us and refuse to work for us -- (4.00 / 1)
no matter what party, and no matter what the result is.

i'm for replacing all who won't use our govt for us instead of for the wealthy.

there are many ways to do that -- what's vital is that they no longer be rewarded with more power, or given our votes even when they fail and lie repeatedly.

they have to be held accountable -- and the only way to do that is to punish them and remove them from power.

[ Parent ]
Maher's comments exemplify (4.00 / 1)
the reason Congress members REJECT a 3rd party, and 4th, and 5th....
As long as there's little difference in the 2 parties, little changes.
Social Democratic Party? (4.00 / 5)
Is it time for a Social Democratic Party in this country? How about the Social Democrats of America (SDA) for a party name. You know, a fiscally responsible party not afraid to raise taxes to assure a good and comprehensive social benefit system that would also produce lots of domestic jobs. I have Denmark in mind as a place to look for ideas/institutions.

SDA could take a few seats in Congress, advance these ideas, and regularly reveal the influence of lobbyists in legislation under the banner of "Who Owns Congress?" End the farce of being "progressives" within the Democratic Party just for the hope of capturing the White House. The new party would focus on Congress only and stay away from Presidential politics, most of its members backing the Democratic presidential candidate.

Social Democracy in a nutshell:

... Encourage a healthy private sector market system to produce wealth.

... Provide a safe and sound financial and fiscal system to help business to thrive and citizens to save.

... Use the nation's wealth productivity partly to reward business entrepreneurs, owners/investors and innovators with a reasonable degree of wealth.

... Use the nation's wealth mainly to sustain a good social benefit system.

... Tax accordingly to reduce/avid budget deficits.

we need justice -- economic and social justice -- not private sectors policies that profit by hurting us (0.00 / 0)
and stealing from us -- and winning even when they lie, cheat and fail.
[ Parent ]
We've All Seen That 3rd Party or Primary Challenges (4.00 / 1)
won't get the job done.  As long as the rules of the electoral game stay the same, the result will stay the same - there may be some progressive victories at the edges from time to time, but not enough to really matter.  

The whole game is built on private money buying public votes.  "The left" will never be able to outspend the corporados, who own the system, so we will generally continue to lose in the electoral arena, whether pushing 3rd parties or primary challenges.  Also, Americans have been taught the futility of mass mobilization, so we won't use our numbers in the streets to force change either.

Public financing of elections is the way out - if a campaign only has $4 of public money to spend per voter (the price of a beer, the traditional measure of what it takes to buy a vote), that should let the quality of a person's ideas determine their competitiveness, not the size of their friends' bankrolls. Otherwise, American elections will continue to be like professional wrestling - the show can be fun to watch, but the outcome is predetermined.  

but this crowd won't do public financing -- this system works too well for them, and against us -- (4.00 / 1)
we should have had electoral reform in 2000, and in 2004, etc...

we never will get it as long as we continue to vote in those wholly owned by corporations.

[ Parent ]
We need to change the way people get into public office (0.00 / 0)
We need to make it so that anyone who is concerned with politics and the future of our country - no matter what their background, career, income, social connections, class, etc. - can run for office and win.  If we have ordinary liberals, like us bloggers even, run and win, we'd be less likely to betray our principles than what we get right now, some sleazy lawyer or lobbyist who's used to saying anything to get ahead.

Plus, we need to change the way people run for office so that it's not as dependent on big money and other ridiculous BS.  I have a feeling that the process of running for office might actually change people; all the back-bending and scraping for scraps of money may very well twist even the most hopeful liberal idealist into an illiberal establishment creature.  Hell, maybe even Max Baucus and Ben Nelson were liberal idealists at some point in their lives (highly doubt it but it's a very remote possibility).

Public financing of elections is a big part of achieving this.  Grassroots based political action networks that work to get liberal activists elected (e.g. DFA and Wellstone Action) are also very important.

[ Parent ]
Tony Kushner said it years ago (4.00 / 5)
"The terms of the national debate have subtly, insidiously shifted. What used to be called liberal is now called radical; what used to be called radical is now called insane. What used to be called reactionary is now called moderate, and what used to be called insane is now called solid conservative thinking."
That's the Overton Window in action (4.00 / 3)
And accepting incremental tinkering and calling that "progressive" is helping to nail the Overton Window firmly in it's current position.

In reality, if the "progressive" blogosphere were screaming for single payer, and hammering on that the way they hammered on Sarah Palin, we just might get public option. As it is, they negotiate with themselves, and there's no pressure at all on The Greatest Orator Of This Or Indeed Any Time to move left. Well done, all.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
I thought we had a shot back in 2005 to take the party back (0.00 / 0)
I wrote a piece called "Hey Get Your Own Party".
http://montanamaven.com/2009/0...

Alas, Maher is right.  It's a done deal.  We need a real labor party.  Green Labor Party or New People's Party or The Common Sense Party based on the ideals of Tom Paine.

The Crazy Party | 95 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox