What's Wrong WIth The Democratic Party, Part #74,397

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 14:30


In the discussion thread of my diary last weekend, "Fuck Rahm Emanuel! (aka Karl Rove) Mobilize Yourself", I made the following comment, which got 17 "4"s:

Rahm's Just A Symptom Of What's Wrong With The Party

A healthy political party wouldn't let a putz like him within 30 miles of real power.

You keep a diverse party together by giving everyone something important that they want, and asking them to sacrifice something less vital.  You don't ask all the sacrifices to come from the same people all the time, and you damn sure don't yell obscenities at them when they push back.

This is true regardless of the fact that the folks you're favoring are the least fucking loyal party members, and the ones you're screwing are the most loyal.  You're supposed to do it the other way around--another symptom of how failed the Democrats are.

I thought it was worth highlighting again, because it goes right to the heart of the matter about how the Democrats are trying to govern by violating such a fundamental precept of politics.  It is, quite literally, insane of them to be acting like this.

Insane, but hardly surprising, as William Timberman reminds us in a new comment in the discussion of my diary, "Who's Calling Who Crazy? Centrist/Extremist Theory & The Marginalizaiton of The American Majority ":

Centrism as the heart of darkness

I've never quite gotten over our terrible struggle with the liberal suits in the Sixties, who still blame us for the destruction of the Democratic Party, and have absolutely no intention of ever letting the likes of us help to rebuild it.

The good news, I suppose, is that it's still considered impolite to blame Fanny Lou Hamer, or Martin Luther King for upsetting the liberal applecart. Blaming DFHs, though, remains forever in fashion. Swine like Rahm Emanuel take particular delight in it, and why wouldn't they? Without phantom menaces like us lurking in the darkness beyond the DCCC,  no one with the slightest commitment to sanity would ever accept the absolute inevitability of their domestic War of Assassins with the Republicans, or their worship, in the national temples of foreign policy, of American manifest destiny in its most decadent and violent forms.

This gets it exactly right.  The corporate wing of the party is permanently at war with the party's activist base.  Permanently.  One might have hoped that Obama would have brought about some sort of truce.  After all, it would have been the smart, prudent, pragmatic thing to do.

No dice.

Paul Rosenberg :: What's Wrong WIth The Democratic Party, Part #74,397
The Versailles narrative about how the Democrats messed up is that it was all their fault for abandoning their base (i.e. cutting the blacks in on the leftovers from the New Deal).  They shouldn't have been so contemptuous of the folks who voted for them!

(Also, they shouldn't have spent so much money on the blacks.  If they're not starved half to death, they just don't work.  Haven't we learned anything from slavery?)

The reality, of course, is that the New Deal coalition had always been built on a deep-seated contradiction, and the Southern oligarchs could only keep their privileged position for so long, it was inevitable that the coalition would fragment someday.

Thus, the question always was, what were the Democrats going to do about it?  The strategy they decided on was "blame the hippies."  Not really the best possible choice, since the Republicans already beat them to that one.  But they were determined to run with it, anyway.

And, of course, blaming the DFHs was just a means for reigniting the McCarthy-era struggle to rid the party of its leftists--those who had been the most dedicated activists throughout the New Deal era.

In short, what we're living through right now is the continuation of a very, very long intra-party war, one that most new activists have literally no knowledge of whatsoever.

People need to be very clear about which side of this intra-party war Obama is on.  He's on their side, not ours.

People are fooled by the fact that he was once a community organizer.  Big deal.  Their side is not very good at developing talent.  They excel at buying it off, once it's developed to s certain point.  Obama is just one of thousands, tens of thousands over the years.

People get confused sometimes, when Obama echoes the rightwing criticism of the Democrats in the 60s, the way he did when he praised Reagan to that Nevada newspaper's editorial board.  But Obama wasn't so much echoing the rightwing criticism of Democrats in the 60s as he was faithfully reciting the corporate Democrat catechism.

It was the corporate Democrat catechism that echoed the rightwing critism of Democrats in the 60s.

Of course their policies are disastrous failures.  Of course their health care "solution" won't materially fix our broken system.  It won't come close. It's designed not to come close.  The same is true of their climate change "solution".

In the exact same way, LBJ knew that he couldn't win the Vietnam War.  But he fought it any way.  The difference with LBJ was profound, however: he pursued one doomed policy in order to protect his pride and joy--the Great Society agenda.  It was a fool's errand, but it had a noble purpose to it.  Today's Democratic Party leaders have no more noble purpose than keeping themselves in power.

That's it.

Period.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What's Wrong WIth The Democratic Party, Part #74,397 | 88 comments
I don't always agree with you, but.... (4.00 / 10)
....this article is spot on!!!  Hopefully more people will start realizing this!  Non-corporate Democrats are used as stooges within the Democratic Party.  I have given up on this party and I hope others do as well.  If you really want a change we need a new party that places itself as one of its main tenets as a challenger to multi-national corporate power in this country and around the world.  Multi-national corporate power is the issue of our age.  Everything else is a distraction.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

the party's infrastructure is too corrupted by the DLC ... (4.00 / 3)
... and other corporate interests to work within ... particularly the party's leadership.  I've been saying this for a long time, but too many demo-zombies ... including some of the writers here, but definitely not this writer ... who refer to themselves as progressives still fight this.

But I don't blame progressives for trying to work within the infrastructure of the democratic party, that would have been the most efficient way of effectuating their goals. However, this sell-out, piled upon the many others, should be enough to get them to pull their heads of their party's ass if they are truly progressives and don't just like the catchy title.  It will be a lot of work to build the infrastructure necessary to effectuate real change, but the sooner we get to it, the better.  A lot of time and money has been wasted already.  

IMO, we would have been better off with clinton II than obama. At least the progressives would/should have known what she was about and we could have begun the hard work of building the infrastructure for a progressive agenda and a possible 3rd party instead of wasting a very important 6+ months ... and a lot of money ... deluding themselves in the pope of hope.

Z
 

[ Parent ]
There's an obvious solution, but no one seems to want to implement it. (4.00 / 3)
That's the third party solution, one created and controlled by progressives, just as uncompromising as the Republicans in terms of maintaining a core set of principles and willing to fight to the very bitter end to achieve its goals - but with a decidedly progressive, compassionate, truly righteous ideology and platform.

This is not something we should do lightly, or that we should create with any expectations of gaining concrete, short-term results.  We must build locally and work up, progressing to state- and national-level offices - all while maintaining unyielding devotion to our progressive principles.  Ours must be a long term agenda, for it will take at least a generation to build up to the point where we can successfully win any meaningful power on a national scale.

But we have to do it, and we have have to do it now.  We have to stop making excuses, stop wasting our time, energy, and dwindling reserves of money on the corporate scumbags in some vain hope that they won't rape us quite as viciously as the other corporate scumbags.  If we don't do this, we have no one to blame but ourselves and certainly no right to complain about how bad things are.

That's my two 2¢.  Take it or leave it.


[ Parent ]
If you want a third party, then why don't you do it? (4.00 / 4)
There are already several anti-corporate third parties: the Green Party of the United States, the Socialist Party USA, and several others.

Instead of talking about creating a new third party, why don't you join one of these? Or why didn't you join long ago and get David McReynolds elected president? Or if these parties are not good enough for you, then why don't you create a new one? What are you waiting for?

[ Parent ]
Check out my most recent entries. (4.00 / 1)
One of the tougher things about rallying around a third party is coming up with a solid platform on which to build it.  Then the next step is getting people in one's locality to jump ship.  I have the unfortunate luck of existing in a heavily Democratic county, so it's tough convincing the people I know or have met to leave the Dems.  That doesn't mean I'm not trying.


[ Parent ]
Thanks! TIme to accept Obama was a mistake. (4.00 / 5)
Folks:

I'm at the point now where I really can't listen to Obama anymore.  I worked for him, I gave money to him and then voted for him but now realize that he's all rhetoric and no substance.  Sad to say but the majority of the left and progressive have yet to accept that fact.

Obama has turned his back on the lesbian and gay community and now he is caving in to corporate interests to gut the health care reform bill.  I no longer expect anything out of his administration except a loss when he sadly runs for re-election.  Face it a good chunk of the Democratic base is stuck - either we turn out backs on the corporate President or we do what we always do - go out and work out tails off for him and then be disappointed when he gets elected.  There is a third way and its hard but its the only choice we have except giving into the status quo - we walk.  We let the presidency go to the Republicans and let all the blue dog and corporate owned members of the House and Senate loose too -

There is always the option NOT TO VOTE perhaps its time we do so.  I figure it won't take the corporate owned Democratic Power Structure long to figure out what happened.  But that is down the road - right now we can do one thing - demand that our members of the House and Senate kill the gutted Health Care Reform Act.  This is going to be incredibly hard, the pressure will be on them to vote yes for the gutted bill so Obama can claim a victory but it won't take many votes to do it - 10 or so in the Senate and between 40 and 50 in the House.  If we kill that bill Rahm and company will take notice.

To say he was a mistake would suggest that there was a better feasible (4.00 / 2)
option. Would you like to name that candidate?

What Paul's describing here is systemic.

[ Parent ]
Sadly (4.00 / 1)
there were no candidates in 2008 who reflected what this country really needed to halt the nation's decline.
[ Parent ]
Well maybe not (4.00 / 7)
But it should've been clear to anyone with ears and eyes that Edwards would've been lot better. Indeed, it was possible (though far from guaranteed) that he might taken the right side in the class war.

He was a frustrating and flawed candidate (no one, except maybe two people,  knew just how flawed) and he might've been just as bad, or almost as bad, as Obama on foreign policy and civil liberties. But on economic issues, the signs were there: from the people he surrounded himself with (Labor activists) to positions he took (fair trade) to the rhetoric he used (corporate power has a "stranglehold" on our democracy) to his willingness to blast "corporate democrats" to his proud embrace of the Democratic base (unions, trial attorneys, ACORN, the netroots.)

You could argue, of course, that it turned out to be a damn good thing that more progressives didn't rally behind the most progressive viable candidate in the race, but I hope that next time around, more of us see the signs.

In any case, no single pol is going to cure what ails us.

[ Parent ]
Two Americas (4.00 / 5)
I've just returned from Netroots Nation and one theme that recurred throughout nearly all of the meetings, panels, and speeches I attended was the rapidly expanding inequality that characterizes virtually every sector of our society -- from healthcare to Katrina, jobs to energy policy, race to reproductive rights. I didn't hear anyone use the actual phrase, but it's just an undeniable fact and Edwards was the only candidate who articulated it during the campaign.
[ Parent ]
We are creating "soft" reservations for the disowned (0.00 / 0)
Native Americans were softly imprisoned in reservations because they were not needed by the US economy. We are now doing the same thing to many sectors of the US population for the same reason.  
[ Parent ]
It should have been clear (4.00 / 1)
to anyone with eyes and ears that there was something phony, cynically opportunistic about Edwards' emergence post-2004 as suddenly some purist liberal looking out for the poor and downtrodden.

He'd had his one term in elective office in the senate, and basically voted as a Dem moderate, including some noxious hawkishness with his Yes vote on AUMF.

His New Edwards 2008 campaign was about as believable as the New Nixon product of 1968, and like Dick's con job on the public, had Edwards, in a miracle, ever gotten elected, there would have been a fair risk that he would have reverted to his old ways.

A candidate has to have more than just a set of pleasing programs, a nice stump speech, and a pretty face.  Edwards just didn't have credibility as an RFKesque champion of liberal causes.  Voters acted reasonably in turning him aside once again.  

[ Parent ]
To me though... (4.00 / 2)
...Obama was just as transparent.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR
[ Parent ]
Except That (4.00 / 4)
(1) Edwards was a trial lawyer before that who specialized in fighting corporations on behalf of little people.  So his economic populism did not come out of nowhere.

(2) Edwards hailed from a much more conservative state than either Clinton or Obama, neither of whom was particularly populist.

So there was nothing clear at all about Edwards.  He showed significantly more promise than you are willing to grant, but he still stopped short of the full-throated positions that would have gotten me firmly on board.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
He won me over (4.00 / 2)
when he hired Amanda Marcotte. The man had the good sense to recognize the second coming of Molly Ivins and put her on his payroll.

Of course, he threw her out when the going got rough, but he was a pol after all.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yeah, Well (4.00 / 1)
That was typical of how he continually lead the pack and fell short at the same time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Yeah, Well (0.00 / 0)
That was typical of how he continually lead the pack and fell short at the same time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Yeah, Well (4.00 / 1)
That was typical of how he continually lead the pack and fell short at the same time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
True, he had that background (4.00 / 1)
as a trial lawyer to build up his lib creds, but otoh he also had the highly paid work with the hedge fund and the massive house/compound that worked against him with the sort of blue collar and grass roots true libs he was trying to attract.

With little public record to go on, people just had trouble getting a clear reading of the guy.  And they had a sense that there was something in his message that seemed a little too good to be true and too convenient in its timing -- as with the sudden hard shift, with full apology, against his own AUMF vote in late 2005.

Meanwhile, with people puzzling over the no-longer fresh Edwards, they had fewer questions about the well-known and vetted Hillary, and they were impressed and even dazzled by newcomer Obama, who didn't project as a slick lawyer or carefully calculating pol and was a more dynamic personality and speechmaker than either of them.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure that big house (4.00 / 3)
actually worked against him in the real world, as opposed to Versailles. Remember it was the NYT and Maureen Dowd who couldn't get enough of his $500 haircuts, anymore than they could quit talking about Al Gore being fat.

In the real world, people like their rich people humble and their humble people rich. The answer to "Who wants to be a millionaire" is "just about everyone."

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Could be, Sadie, (4.00 / 2)
but otoh it could be one of those rare times when the annoying Villagers said something that had resonance in a few key sectors of the party Edwards was trying to tap.

I'd imagine that even though Edwards was embarking on at least year 3 of campaigning for the presidency, and was no longer new, he was still in a fundamental way an unknown with the public.  And that moving into an enormous mansion was something a more known quantity could do w/o controversy.  Ditto for the ultrafancy haircuts -- which probably didn't help him with your typical blue collar guy ...

[ Parent ]
He was unelectable. His affair (0.00 / 0)
would have been blood in the water.  
[ Parent ]
Sure there were. (4.00 / 1)
Nader, Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, and even Edwards were all viable options.  It's just that they were shut out of the process and not allowed significant media attention so people would know who they were.  Even Edwards, who had better name recognition as a former VP candidate, found himself marginalized for daring to tell the truth on the campaign trail.  The point is that these candidates were out there.  It's not that there were no viable alternatives.  It's that people like you refused to consider them, and so our options were reduced to a choice between too horrendously bad politicians, each guaranteed to maintain the status quo.


[ Parent ]
Feasible is where you make your error... (4.00 / 1)
...multinational corporations will do their best to make sure that feasible will always mean a pro-corporate Democrat and a pro-corporate Republican getting elected.  They do not care about most issues except that the candidate's policies be pro-corporate.  It is no mistake that Obama's largest contributor was Goldman Sachs (an adversary to progressive populists), his early comments on NAFTA being conveniently forgotten, and now the public option being dropped from so-called "Health Care Reform".

So the key thing is to vote for whomever will challenge multinational corporations whether victory is feasible or not, and no matter what it should not be a Democrat (there are of course a few exceptions) or a Republican.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

[ Parent ]
a lot of time has been lost deluding on the pope of hope (4.00 / 1)
IMO, we would have been better off with clinton II than obama. At least the progressives would/should have known what she was about and we could have begun the hard work of building the infrastructure for a progressive agenda and a possible 3rd party instead of wasting a very important 6+ months ... and a lot of money ... deluding themselves in the pope of hope.

But, obama was the smarter choice at the time becoz he was an unknown.  I never thought he'd be this bad and I had lost hope in him after the FISA debacle.

Z  

[ Parent ]
You didn't know because you didn't bother to look at his record. (0.00 / 0)
If you had, as I did, you'd have known he was poison.  Always read up on candidates for public office.  GovTrack.us and OpenSecrets.org are excellent sources for perusing candidate records and where they get their money.


[ Parent ]
This isn't about the candidate (4.00 / 5)
How can Paul's discussion of the Democratic Party devolve into a discussion of the merits of various candidates for president?  Obama has done nothing that has put him out of step with the Senate or House caucuses.  This tells us that this is not about the person who sits in the White House - it's about the party.  

I'm not saying that who won the Democratic nomination was irrelevant, but we place so much attention on this one thing that all other elements of what's going on gets drowned out.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

[ Parent ]
Not voting is the same as, or worse than, voting for the wrong candidate. (4.00 / 1)
Either way, the effect is the same: you signal to the powerful that, grip as you do, you're not discontent enough with the status quo to actually try and change it.


[ Parent ]
OFA asked me to phonebank to (4.00 / 19)
gin up "supporters for reform" for my local blue dog's upcoming town hall meeting. I said no.

What I really wanted to say was, "Obama is the Bipartisan president, why don't you ask Bipartisan Americans to make phone calls for him, or better yet, Republicans? I'm a Democratic American."

I will go to the meeting, of course, but as myself, representing my own point of view (i.e. public option or nothing).

Montani semper liberi

Mean (4.00 / 4)
But I like it!
[ Parent ]
If that's "mean" we sure could use a lot more of it. (4.00 / 2)
Part of the problem in the American left is its timidity against the far right.  Too many of us make the assumption that right-wingers are human beings, basically decent if deluded people.  They're not.  They are subhuman, savage, and they consider anyone who does not obey to be subhuman and game for whatever they decide to inflict as punishment.  We really are dealing with animals when we deal with right-wingers.  They have been waging a vicious war on the American left and, by extension, the public at large, for decades.  If we don't wake up to that truth and start getting into full-on battle mode, if we don't get at least as in-your-face and angry as they, we're gonna keep getting our faces torn off and nailed back on upside down.


[ Parent ]
Most animals I know (0.00 / 0)
Are nicer than rightwingnuts.

But you are mostly right. We keep on waiting for a reasoned, civil debate to take place on major controversial issues. Ain't never going to happen, as if it ever did with civil rights, medicare, social security etc.

[ Parent ]
We share some of the blame (4.00 / 3)
They have been given no reason to fear us.

Until we go after one or two of the worst offenders is a place that could bloody both us and them, they will continue to take us for granted.

A Nelson, a Byah, a Conrad.  

Why not go where the buck has been said to stop? (4.00 / 1)
An Obama

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
So, now that we all agree that the Democratic Party is a party of corporate hacks, (4.00 / 6)
what must we progressives do to enable the emerging progressive majority to get control of elections and legislative policy-making in the U.S.?

We here at Open Left have now figured out a couple of dozen ways of expressing the reality that the Democratic Party and the large majority of its candidates and elected representatives, as well as newly elected Democratic president Obama, do not represent the current progressive electoral base and can not be made to represent this base or the emerging progressive majority.

And now that HHS Secretary Sibelius has indicated this morning that Obama and his corporate fellow-travelers in Congress have killed the public option (Obama's disingenuous town hall disclaimers aside), what are we progressives going to do about it?

More talk, hand wringing and whining?

Continued impotence in the face of legislative acts and omissions by Congress, the president and the corporate special interests that control both, which have brought the U.S. to the brink of economic and financial diaster?

Or are we going to get to work to use the tools at hand to empower progressive voters to get control of government by getting control of existing political parties or starting new parties?

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government
and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.

 

At one time I would have said lets try to take over the... (4.00 / 3)
...Democratic Party.  I no longer think that is the best course to take.  We need a new party that has as one of it main purposes the challenging of pro-multinational corporate power.  They now own the system, there has to be a countervailing force opposing them.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

[ Parent ]
Yes and No (4.00 / 3)
The Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) described in Paul's piece is a bottom up, self-organizing tool that progressive voters can use to build socio-political networks, coalitions and winning voting blocs that can choose between getting control of existing political parties, like the Democratic Party, or starting new parties.

As Obama is now discovering, even with Organizing for America (OFA), the grassroots mobilization arm of the DNC, he now lacks an electoral base that he can call upon to defend his legislative initiatives. This translates into an opportunity for progressives to take over the party using IVCS as a strategic lever.

BTW, the reason Obama's electoral base is now inactive and rapidly eroding is that in order to champion the interests of his corporate campaign contributors, he has violated too many campaign promises -- especially that he would advocate legislation giving the federal government the power to negotiate drug prices and that cheaper priced drugs could be imported from Canada.

He has now done just the opposite by forging an agreement with the drug lobby that there would be no price negotiations or drug importing from abroad.

Voters empowered by IVCS will put an end to such electoral ruses and elect representatives who will enact THEIR policy agendas into law. They will have the political clout to either take over the Democratic Party or create a third party for the emerging progressive majority that will leave the Democratic Party high and dry.

 

[ Parent ]
I agree with what you are saying... (4.00 / 3)
...but I think there are two large obstacles with using the Democratic Party as a vehicle.  First, the pro-corporate Democrats are in complete control of the party.  You can maybe name Sherrod Brown or Russ Feingold etc as allies, but they are as far away from party power as you and I are.  The corporate Democrats will not yield power without a bloodbath.  Secondly, I think the recent history of the Democratic Party is an obstacle.  The party has not really stood for anything since the 1970's, it is come to mean a big nothing.  It accomplishes very little.  Even when it wins like it did in 2008, I really believe it is because of the disastrous policies of the right, not really anything that the Democrats stand for.

I have been to your website in the past, and think you have some very powerful ideas, and the mechanics of it are very interesting, my opinion though is that it would be better utilized establishing a new party.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

[ Parent ]
You are probably correct, although (4.00 / 2)
it would be possible to both start a new party using IVCS and take over the Democratic Party from within, just to prevent its officials from trying to hold on to power by leveraging the party's control over electoral processes.

For example, it would be far easier collecting signatures for progressive candidates using the party process, ie using district leaders to collect signatures, than to try to collect the humongous number of signatures that some states require third parties to collect to get their candidates on the ballot.

Also, once it becomes obvious that with IVCS, voters can act autonomously to swamp any party's efforts to run candidates that do not have a solid electoral base to begin with, plutocratic parties like the Democratic Party, which try to use corporate campaign contributions to clobber any insurgent candidates who try to run against party-backed candidates, will realize that they are doomed.

Right now, well-organized parties can get their candidates on the ballot with very few signatures, and then use corporate campaign contributions to get them elected by smearing their opponents and/or railroading low information voters. Now that corporate interests have figured out how they can use mobs of rabble rousers to upend the democratic process by intimidating voters with threats of violence, we may have entered a new phase where the electoral process is becoming too hazardous for regular folks to venture into.

Parties that operate like this must be either neutralized or taken over from within.  

[ Parent ]
I feel bad saying this (4.00 / 1)
but I find your invention either silly or naive.  For example, here is one quote from your description:

"they will spontaneously turn the socio-political networks they have built around policy agenda setting into winning voting blocs."

Have you ever tried to get a group of people to spontaneously do ANYTHING? In any group of people about 50% don't want to do anything, another 30% want to give opinions and not do anything, another 10% will do small tasks if asked, the the other 10% will take on the bulk of the work but can only physically do so much.

I agree with you all about Rahm and company. But if we want to do something I urge everyone on this thread (especially those talking about how we need to build a third party) to try a little experiment.

Try, if you can, to get 10 progressive people to all come to a meeting, and at that meeting try to get them to all come to consensus on a project that they, as a group of 10, could do together. Then get them all to agree on how that project will be executed, who will do what, what the goal will be, what the follow up will be, etc -- and then start doing it.  After six months ask yourself how much has been done and then ask yourself what you have learned about what it ACTUALLY takes for a group of people to "spontaneously" achieve something.

Yes, you can organize people through web tools but plenty of them already exist -- facebook, dfalink, the Obama website, meetup. That isn't the problem, the problem is people who are willing to do the ACTUAL work of organizing.  

People are busy, they have lives, they might be willing to give an hour here or there to some cause but would really rather have other people do it. (That last sentiment is one we see in this thread from the gentleman who complains that no one will start a third party.) If you want stuff to happen it doesn't take web tools, it takes time-consuming, one-person-at-a-time on the ground organizing.

[ Parent ]
Do you really understand how the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) works? (4.00 / 2)
You are correct in the problems you cite. Many of us have experienced them first hand.

But these problems can be overcome.

Below are excerpts from recent writing of my own that might make it clearer how IVCS can solve the real problems you correctly cite:

"The primary purpose of the solution is to provide voters across the political spectrum access to a single website providing them user-friendly tools and services, free of charge, which they can use to set their policy agendas across the board and identify and contact (indirectly) any number of other voters whose policy agendas are statistically similar to their own. Once they establish contact, they can use the same tools and services to decide whether they want to join forces to attain shared objectives, and, if so, how they wish to proceed.

If they cannot arrive at a qualitative consensus, then they can go for a quantitatively-based consensus.

"The invention is built around the use of a sophisticated, mathematically-based consensus-building mechanism that uses statistical techniques to identify which voters' policy agendas are similar and put voters with similar agendas in touch with each other. Because the consensus-building mechanism is mathematically-based, there is no inherent limit on how many voters using the solution can decide to group themselves within a single socio-political network, coalition, voting bloc or political party.

"To increase their numbers to the levels required to win elections, they can use the solution to continuously build consensus around shared policy priorities, and even use it to cast electronic votes to decide which policy agendas attract the highest numbers of votes. They can keep refining their agendas until they have the votes to win primary and general elections.

"The solution, instead of splintering the electorate into a multitude of fragmented groups or parties, makes it technically and politically feasible for any number of voters within self-organizing socio-political networks, coalitions, voting blocs and political parties to use the invention's consensus building tools and services to build common agendas and use them to nominate and elect candidates who will enact their agendas into law."

[ Parent ]
Well, to be fair, "tools at hand" should read "tools soon to be at hand" (4.00 / 1)
God willing, that is. What progressives could do, right now, is start a transpartisan dialog. To be specific, a transpartisan dialog which focuses on electoral strategies, and probes openness to cooperate at the ballot box. (To which end a healthy dose of relating tales of betrayal from party bigwigs, by both Democrat and Republican rank-and-file, would help create a constructive, if humbling, atmosphere.) There have already been significant efforts at constructing tranpartisan solutions, but my (admittedly sketchy) reading of "Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life", by Chickering and Turner, (references here) revealed no electoral strategy, at all. An electoral strategy is necessary, of course, because what if your wonderful Congress critter doesn't give a hoot about your wonderful transpartisan proposal, perhaps because it's at odds with his big donors' desires? It's also necessary, IMO, because getting non-corporatists Dems and Republicans into office would empower the electorate, even if the compromises hammered by such Congress critters bear no resemblance to the transpartisan proposals created outside the halls of Congress, that Chickering and Turner pointed to.

For those who can't handle talking to libertarians, e.g., they should still be able to handle talking to Green Party members.

There's also groups like the PDA which don't abandon their principles just because they get pressured by Democrat bigwigs to do so, and that work within and without the Democratic Party. I wonder if they are amenable to embracing a trans-partisan electoral strategy, perhaps solely with the Green Party, for starters?

From a libertarian's perspective, an enticement from the lefty side, I strongly suspect, is an offer to get Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) elected. (I don't know the details of the demographics of the state he's running for, and don't want to bother looking them up, so don't beat me up for this.) What sort of help lefties would expect, in return, is just the sort of question that a dialog could answer. Maybe getting Sestak elected in PA?

Trouble-maker that I am, I think I'll go float this idea at ronpaulforums.com, myself.  :-)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Done (4.00 / 1)
I created a thread here, and asked the ronpaulforums community to reply. Basically, I suggested trading primary votes and 40 hours grassroots activity, between PA and Kentucky voters. The progressive Democratic types who live in Kentucky form 1 que, the libertarian Republican types in PA form another que. Your 'partner' is a person in the adjacent que, who has the same number, as you. If there is no such person, that means that their que is shorter than yours, so you are not obligated to do anything.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com
[ Parent ]
He didn't kill anything. The bought and paid (0.00 / 0)
for Senators did.  
[ Parent ]
Who do you think handed them the knife? (4.00 / 2)
You can't afford to be this naive.


[ Parent ]
A larger question (4.00 / 2)

 Why IS there such a thing as the "corporate" wing of the Democratic Party?

 There's a perfectly viable Republican Party available for those whose values tilt that way. Why do they identify as Democrats?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Someone said it earlier (4.00 / 10)
on this blog, though I forget who it was. The Democratic Party is the "lifeboat" party of the plutocrats. They much prefer the gilded comfort of the GOP, but when that one starts to leak too badly they pile into the dingy with the commoners. Try to push us out and commandeer the oars, too.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Was that someone me? (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
I guess it was! (4.00 / 1)
Credit where credit is due.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Identity. (4.00 / 2)
 Much of the corporate wing was born into solidly Democratic families. HRC wasn't, but she's a feminist, so.

One of the reasons I tend to think someone like Rahm is such a mediocre strategist is that his self-perception and goals do not match- he isn't candid enough with himself about what he is selling to properly sell it. His goals are rendered murky by his own self-deception.

[ Parent ]
The GOP was already bought off (4.00 / 2)
and that left Democrats on sale.

I mean, what other party do you expect the plutocrats to buy off? The Greens?

They choose to be "Democrats" so that they can be different than the "GOP". In name, anyway, which is good enough to put one over on enough voters every few years and that maintain their power.



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

[ Parent ]
To be cynical, and truthful, one of the problems with the progressives ... (4.00 / 1)
... is that they have no muscle.  They have not been able to tap into the dissatisfaction of the unions and the minorities, groups that are more likely to practice UNcivil disobedience ... groups that feel they got little to use ... to build a critical physical mass.  Look at the effect that a small bunch of idiot seniors had on this debate.  What muscle has the progressives co-opted for their causes?

Z

Correction: "... groups that feel they got little to LOSE ..." (0.00 / 0)
Z
[ Parent ]
Interesting remark. (4.00 / 5)
One might have hoped that Obama would have brought about some sort of truce.

Why?  Obama's a member of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.  Why expect him to make any truce with what his wing sees as the eternal enemy?  Haven't you realized by now that Obama has always had and will always have far more in common with the hardest of the hard right than he has ever had and will ever have with the progressive wing of his own political party?  When you can acknowledge and accept this fundamental truth, it will be much easier to acknowledge and accept the obvious solution to the problem with the Democratic Party.

I guess what I'm trying to say is a longer version of what Bill Maher said on his show, namely, "Democrats are the new Republicans," and Obama is a perfect example of this truth.




Great clip.... (4.00 / 1)
...I am actually getting some hope, people are starting to see what is happening.  Lets take action.  We need to organize a new party!!!

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

[ Parent ]
It's less that Obama's a member of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party (4.00 / 6)
than that he currently aligns himself with it because it's the more powerful wing of the party right now. If the progressive wing was more powerful, not only within the party, but against the GOP and corporate interests, then I'd fully expect Obama to align himself with it. I take Obama as his word that he's non-ideological. He's wherever he needs to be at the time, in terms of political opportunism. A true cipher. Kind of a modern day Tallyrand.

It's not about Obama at this point. It's about the makeup of the party. We're probably going to have to lose some Blue Dog and ConservaDem seats to the GOP via primary challenges to scare it sufficiently to shift to the left (or move it there simply by getting rid of them). And by caving on health care, Obama may have just made that possible. His first term appears to be a lost cause for the left at this point. We need to refocus on '10 and beyond.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
And what do you think his alignment and allegiences make him? (4.00 / 2)
Obama was never for single-payer, and his record of gutting genuine health care reform goes back to at least his days in the Illinois state senate, according to The Boston Globe (which also wrote about the effects of his screw-the-poor housing policy record).  Obama is, indeed, a prime example of how far to the political right the Democrats have gone.  It is that he and the rest of the party have sold out completely to corporate interests.


[ Parent ]
Forgot to add... (4.00 / 2)
You mention that Obama aligns himself with the corporations because they're powerful and the left isn't.  Isn't that the problem?  His interests are in sucking up to power.  That is not the sort we want representing us anyway.  Power must ever be the tool, not the goal.  That the corporate wing of the party respects and obeys power indicates a lack of integrity.


[ Parent ]
If one temporarily removes the ideological dimension (4.00 / 5)
from these discussions and realities, one realizes that, stripped of their alleged (and, I'll admit, in some cases actual) ideological differences, corporate Dems and corporate Repubs--who are the real power behind each party, the current dominance of the Limbaughs and Becks nothwithstanding--have much more in common than they have in opposition.

They're both basically about monied interests and power lording it over everyone and everything else. And they have been regularly colluding to make this so, be it from a right or left-flavored perspective. That they do have some ideological differences allows, and perhaps requires, that they formally align themselves with right or left. But on actual issues and policy--the stuff of governance--they are united far more than they are divided.

So the real division in the country isn't between right vs. left, but between those with money and power, and those without it (or with far, far less of it, as you don't have to be literally poor and totally powerless to be on the outside). Not to deny right-left ideological differences, which are far more pronounced among those without serious money and power than among those with it. But it's really a secondary factor, in terms of what actually happens in politics.

Unfortunately, those with money and power in both parties have effectively implemented a divide and conquer strategy among those without money and power, splitting us into left and right camps so at odds with each other that we can't see how the one thing that we have most in common--our having so little money and power--trumps all the things that we are divided over (e.g. abortion, gun rights, race). So instead of right and left representing what they do in most other counties, i.e. those at the top of the economic and power order vs. everyone else, they represent secondary "social" issues.

Quite clever, and hardly confined to the "suits" in the Democratic party. It's a bipartisan strategy, not necessarily explicitely worked out between the two in all its details, but certainly an understanding that they've been successfully implementing for decades, the way that rival European imperial powers worked out agreements and understandings between each other after they realized that their greatest enemy was not each other, but revolutionaries and radicals who had the crazy and dangerous notion to liberate the masses and in so doing destroy their masters' centuries-old prerogatives. Strategic alliances to divide and conquer.

The thing is, unless and until we can disabuse disaffected people on the right that we have more in common with them than they realize, that the social issues that they care so much about just aren't as important, and that the crazy ideologies that they've been fed to distract them are just that, crazy, we won't have the numbers to form a viable third party in the US. And that's simply not going to happen any time soon.

More likely, if Obamacare does indeed fail (in terms of delivering a viable alternative to the present system), as today's news reports indicate that it will, we'll see movement back towards a third party on the left, while the far right continues its shift away from the GOP and towards yet another third party on the right, a la Buchanan and Perot. Leaving us with two strong centrist parties, and two weak outlying parties.

Which could well hand control back to the more authoritarian of these two strong centrist parties, which has shown a remarkable ability to pull its far-right elements back into the fold after they've had their little rebellious episode. Dems, not so much.

And THAT should be the core argument we should be making to these centrist corporate Dems for why they shouldn't be persuing a strategy of centrist corporatism and capitulation. If they want to stay in power, the ONLY way to do that is by shifting the party left. They are dreaming if they think that they can govern from the center (let alone center-right) and stay in power. The GOP owns that center, and every time Dems try to capture it, they lose, big. And they will do so again, if they continue to persue this not merely unprincipled strategy (as if that shouldn't be enough to dissuade them), but simply STUPID strategy.

Then again, we're dealing with morons like Rahm, capitulators like Reid, and go with the flow types like Obama. Hardly bold strategic thinkers and doers, whatever their fanbots think.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

I actually think a new party.... (4.00 / 1)
....that perhaps takes most social issues off the table allowing members to support or oppose social issues at a personal level, but rallying around the idea of challenging multinational corporate power across the board.  It would eliminate the fracturing of a divided group that economically have a lot in common.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

[ Parent ]
That's less a party than a coalition (4.00 / 2)
But even there, I'm not sure that we can bridge our differences on these other issues at the present time. It's not just social issues, I should add, but also ideological ones, especially over the role and size of government. A lot of these people are low-tax, small-government libertarians--who hypocriticially support the trashing of the 4th amendment--and we simply don't have sufficient common ground with them right now to bridge that, I suspect.

Plus, a lot of them are crazy racists, and I don't want anything to have to do with them. What unites us economically is, at present, probably not enough to unite us politically. Which is why I still believe that pushing the Democratic party leftward via activism and primaries is our only viable near-term strategy for effecting meaningful progressive reform. Until reality catches up with us, we have to make the most of reality.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Another horrible party pragmatist: James Carville (4.00 / 1)
Just read his most recent nonsense at RawStory:
Democratic Party strategist James Carville offered up a new strategy for Democrats to follow in their battle to reform health care: Let the GOP defeat it, then defeat the GOP at the ballot box.

At a roundtable discussion with Republican consultant Mary Matalin and host John King on CNN's State of the Union, Carville argued that if the Democrats can come up with an agreement that is supported by most Democratic members of Congress, they should let the GOP filibuster it, thereby killing health care reform and effectively painting the Republicans as being the party that opposed fixing the system.

That, Carville implied, would backfire on the GOP in upcoming elections.


http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/...

Isn't that totally nuts? Deliberately let the most important legislation in years fail, even though Dems are in the majority, just to create a talking point against the GOP in 2010???
Imho this is a perfect example of a party insider having become so obsessed of gaining power that he totally forgot that politics is only the means and policies are the goal! Now, really, what is more important, a healthcare reform that would benefit hundreds of millions of citizen now, or to gain some seats next year? I have always despised Carville since I noticed that his advice almost always always serves the rethuglicans much more than the Dems, but this is a new low. What a jerk!

If the alternative is no public option (4.00 / 6)
and mandates, then Carville is actually, and quite strangely for him, exactly right.  

The drips and drops coming from Sibelius and others suggest that the bill that Obama hopes to sign will represent a massive giveaway to the insurance industry without any meaningful oversight.  As such, it's a gift the GOP and will ensure that the Dems enjoy minority party status for decades.  

[ Parent ]
Almost everybody knows the Dems have a solid majority... (4.00 / 1)
...that should even be able to overcome a filibuster. There can't be any good excuses for a failure to deliver. I don't think anybody will buy it if the Dems blame the GOP for the desaster.  
[ Parent ]
Dems have 60 technically (4.00 / 1)
in their caucus, but not necessarily all those votes to back a substantial health bill or even overcome a filibuster.

Especially if we consider that by late fall, Kennedy still is not available to vote, and Byrd's status to be there to vote is iffy.

Then of course we have Ben "Nighthorse" Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche "Absolutely No Relation to Abe" Lincoln, and the friend of the insurance industry, Max Baucus.

Carville may have offered some good advice here.  

[ Parent ]
Do you think the public will understand that? (4.00 / 1)
Hell, we have just seen the polls that show that 12% don't know that Hawaii belongs to the US! And one third still believe in Saddam's WMDs. Face it, Americans aren't into nuances. And the last election showed that. Obama promised healthcare reform, period. Any failure to deliver will have consequences for him and the Dems.
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure understanding it (4.00 / 1)
makes it any better. I understand failing to win after fighting, whether it be with the Republicans or the more conservative elements of the party. But for the party (or some subset of it) to fail to fight and then say they can't be held accountable because they didn't have the votes misses the point that there hasn't been much effort to seek the votes. (I don't count capitulating regardless of the facts as a serious effort to win votes - it was either disingenuous or foolish - which one does not concern me.)  

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel
[ Parent ]
Dems first argument to the public (4.00 / 1)
wouldn't be about caucus numbers and all that, but they'd talk about how the Party of No utterly refused to play ball in bringing health care reform.

Then they might mention how when Medicare was passed, a number of Republicans came aboard to help it pass.  But not this group of insurance company-backed Republicans.

And so forth ...  

[ Parent ]
You Mean Making An ACTUAL Political Argument? (4.00 / 1)
What a novel idea!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Well, what we're going to see is people correctly blaming the Dems (4.00 / 4)
for the disastrous consequence of a bill that has mandates and no public option.  The GOP will benefit.  

So damned if you do, damned if you don't?  I'd rather take the chance of temporary damnation and get a good policy - like Social Security and Medicare - that future supply-siders will fuck with only at their own peril.

[ Parent ]
Btw, he's in a discussion with his own wife? On TV? (4.00 / 1)
What kind of nonsense TV is that? What will be next, Donna Brazile talking with herself, moderated by Chris Mathews???
[ Parent ]
Believe it or not... (4.00 / 6)

 ...I think James Carville might have a point here. And I am NOT a fan of his by ANY means.

 A bad bill is worse than no bill at all -- because it will produce the illusion of reform without providing any actual reform. And when the bad, one-tenth-of-a-loaf bill (which is where we're going here) fails to actually improve people's lives, the IDEA of "reform" will suffer a body blow from which it will take a long, long time to recover.

 However, with NO bill at all, the status quo just festers a while longer, and the public dissatisfaction with it will rise commensurately. Which would open the door for reform again.

 You can argue that people will not be helped with no bill. That's true. But people won't be helped with a crap bill, either, and the political fallout would be far worse for the Democrats.

  I think Carville is right.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
I Agree With wobbly & Master Jack (4.00 / 5)
The way this thing is headed right now, that would be a way to save the Dems from passing a real turkey, and give us a chance to come back and pass something much, much better.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  This was Carville's turn.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Even if no plan would be better than a bad plan... (4.00 / 1)
...the "Carville option" won't work. Healthcare reform was THE central point of Obama's campaign. Nobody will accept excuses if the Dems don't deliver. Blaming the GOP is ridiculous regarding the Dem majority. No, imho there would be hell to pay in 2010 if the reform is left ot die.
[ Parent ]
If they don't have the votes then it's not an excuse. nt (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Reality. What A Concept! (0.00 / 0)
Still needs sizzle to sell it, tho.

But I think we've got the b-roll for that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
If they don't have the votes, it's the failure of the party. (4.00 / 3)
This didn't happen very often during Rethuglican rule, bills failing despite the GOP holding a majority. And that's the stadard that will be applied to the Dems. I don't think the public will have much patience with lengthy explanations about the limits of party unity and political reality. They will see this as a gross failure, pure and simple.
[ Parent ]
What good is found in passing a bad bill? (4.00 / 3)
The down-side of Carville's strategy is that is requires Democratic party members to win the messaging battle in the M$M. Have they EVER managed such a thing?  

I think his strategy has merit, but I lack any hope that this group of political hacks that passes the Democratic Party could ever manage to enact it an win.


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

[ Parent ]
Well, this remark has me puzzled (4.00 / 1)
The difference with LBJ was profound, however: he pursued one doomed policy in order to protect his pride and joy--the Great Society agenda.  It was a fool's errand, but it had a noble purpose to it.

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.  Are you suggesting Johnson was under pressure from the Right in Congress to go into VN?  If so, that would seem contrary to the history I've read.  Even his very conservative southern Dem former senate mentor, Dick Russell, was very skeptical about the US going whole hog into Nam.  And he was about as hawkish as they come.  

There was no substantial movement from Congress or from without, in the 64-5 period, that compelled LBJ to cross the line and send in the combat units.  It was his choice -- apparently motivated in major part by his desire not to be, as he put it, "the first president to lose a war."  

In that period, there was no right flank to have to protect.  And after the massive Dem/liberal gains of the 64 election, fought in part over Lyndon's very popular position of not sending "American boys to do the fighting Asian boys should do", the right (in both parties) was even less influential in Congress as progressives gained a working majority.

What he had to do, following suspicions over Dallas and given his rep as a hawkish and Big Oil/anti-union senator, was protect his liberal flank.  That he set out to do with La Grande Société.  

But his "bitch of a war" (his words) kept getting in the way of the GS as time went on and the war's costs massively rose and one or the other venture had to get less funding.  He chose to sacrifice his GS.  

That's an awfully interesting way of "protecting" his alleged "pride and joy".

Question for those adocating starting a third party (4.00 / 3)
I have a question for those saying we need to start a third party ...

what about the Green Party?

Here is a very progressive, seemingly non-corporate party that has actually somewhat established itself. They are on the ballot in many states, have won a few seats here and there -- it is certainly a big head start over starting from scratch.

What is the reason for not joining them and helping them to further build?  

Re: why the Green Party is a failure (4.00 / 1)
The problem with the green party is that they don't want to win.  It really is as simple as that.  They are just a debating society that doesn't want to dirty their hands with power.  Its really very, very sad - I'd probably be a green if they tried to win but right now they are a joke.
[ Parent ]
They've got very little organization. (4.00 / 2)
From what I've observed and from what first-hand witnesses have explained to me, it seems the Greens are too crippled by personality conflicts within the party and a general lack of organization beyond the local level.  That's not exactly something I care to wade into.  I'd much rather start fresh and offer progressives - including disaffected Greens - something we can rebuild from the ground up.

http://www.progressiveparty.org

http://waprogparty.org

These are two states, Vermont and Washington, wherein the progressive Party of the United States (which is a homegrown organization that has been around in one form or another since 1912) has reformed and built solid organizations.  In Vermont, I happen to know, the party holds several seats in the state legislature.  They even have Bernie Sanders representing them in the U.S. Senate, and last year they ran a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is exactly the political party we true progressives need representing us.  I'm trying to reach out to people here in NE Ohio, where I live, but it's tough in a Democratic party stronghold such as Cuyahoga.  If you know anyone here who's interested and whom I have yet to make contact with, please let me know.


[ Parent ]
speaking of bernie sanders... (4.00 / 1)
i wouldn't mind persuading him to lead our burgeoning, theoretical new 3rd party, for a presidential run in 2012.

of course, i'm also a fan of nader, mckinney, and kucinich.

[ Parent ]
I would 2nd that!!!! (0.00 / 0)


Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR
[ Parent ]
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." (4.00 / 3)
One of my favorite patriots, Nathanael Greene, said that. I've been watching the Great Entertainer and Putzbo (as in "A healthy political party wouldn't let a putz like him within 30 miles of real power") trumpet their batting average of bloop infield flies while believing how dastardly clever they are, and I'll rise and fight again, but damn it, this one should have been a no-brainer.
It's not socialism, it's not fascism, but feudalism that I fear. These days just shouldn't be THIS dark. I know that if the election went the other way, we'd be doomed. I hoped that if Obama won, we'd at least have had a chance, albeit slim versus none. But I don't know now.....
If you have a chance, read "Rise, and Fight Again: Perilous Times Along the Road to Independence," by Charles Ford. Greene's southern campaign, and what those people went through, is jaw dropping incredible. Arnold's Canadian campaign and Washington's Trenton and Princeton campaign may pale in comparison, if only by degrees.
And then, there's kids, some like this:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009...
And watching these soulless SOBs sell them out for their 30 pieces of silver has me a bit down right now. But I'll try and do like my subject line says.
Which side are you on? (4.00 / 3)
I'm on the side that the other two sides are trying to suppress:

Side 1: The Republicans

Side 2: The Goldman Sachs wing of the Democratic Party

and ....

Side 3.

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

Karl Rove praises Rahm Emmanuel (0.00 / 0)
I get Karl Rove's anti-public option blog disguised as a newsletter.

The Rove blog I just received gushes with praise for Rahm Emmanuel.

The real Republican Party and permanent government is the DC Machine: corporate/lobbyist legislation machine. The populist mobs are sincere dupes used by the DC Machine.

Contrary to deluded liberals, the real Republican party rules. Elections do not matter. But the Republicans won't object to winning in 2012 on Obama's record:  failed health reform, failed Afghanistan war, failed job growth, huge deficits, same sing-song blah-blah.

It's time for a US Social Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)
It's time for a somewhat conservative US Social Democratic Party:

- Which works for the creation of a Nordic style social benefit system.

- Which divests corporations of all tax breaks.

- Which shamelessly imposes a progressive income tax system and high taxes on luxury goods, purchased here or abroad.

- Which sets up regulation based on a hierarchy of principles and criminal penalties for violation and the seizure of at least 50% of all assets. The first principle: do not lie to customers. Second principles; Take every effort to avid harm to customers/clients. Third principle: Do not harm the economy with excess risk.

- Al imports must match US environmental standards and minimal labor standards (safety, sanitation, decent wages by local standards).

- Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Focus only on winning seats in Congress, not running a presidential campaign. get plenty of interviews on TV, YouTube.

I like the name Fair Deal Party.

What's Wrong WIth The Democratic Party, Part #74,397 | 88 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox