When You Complain About "The Democrats"

by: DaveJ

Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 09:00


Here is why it is so important to vote:  Darrell Issa has eye on subpoena team,

Rep. Darrell Issa, the conservative firebrand whose specialty is lobbing corruption allegations at the Obama White House, is making plans to hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators if Republicans win the House this fall.

The plan is to bankrupt everyone in the government with lawyer fees and tie up the administration so they can't get anything done.  The accusations, lies and smears will dwarf the Clinton-era and the slime will destroy people's faith in government and democracy.  That works for them.  It helps put the big corporations in charge.

Imagine what this country will be like if this new breed of teabagger Republicans gets back in power in even one House of the Congress!

We can complain that Democrats didn't legitimately investigate Bush-era corruption, war crimes, torture...  We can complain that they held no one accountable after Bush left office for the corruption, lies, war crimes, even torture.  We can complain that some - even many - Democrats have not stood up for us against the wealthy and powerful.

BUT when you complain about "the Democrats" you are misinterpreting the problem in a way that misdirects you from the necessary action to solve the problem.  The problem is SOME Democrats, not THE Democrats.

Are you complaining about Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, for example?  Take a look at this Daily Kos diary that was top-rec'd over the weekend, Sen. Whitehouse EXPLODES! "America . . must never be on it's knees before Corporate Power"!

(T)his American Government of ours should never be on its knees before corporate power, no matter how strong. It should never be in the thrall of corporate wealth, no matter how vast.

And what about Rep. Alan Grayson?  He's a Democrat..

So you may be getting my point.  We need to get rid of BAD Democrats, and we need to work hard to bring in more Democrats like Whitehouse and Grayson!

Sen. WHitehouse transcript below the fold.

DaveJ :: When You Complain About "The Democrats"
Here is the transcript:
Mr. President, we have watched with horror the unfolding disaster in the Gulf. We have seen precious lives lost; hard-earned livelihoods hammered; treasured ways of life imperiled.

We have seen the largest deployment of resources ever against an environmental disaster.
We have seen astonishing corporate negligence.

But we have seen something else too-something that ought to be a lasting lesson from this catastrophe: we have seen the revolting specter of an agency of government subservient to - captive to - the industry it is supposed to regulate.

From the Minerals Management Service, supposed to regulate deep sea oil drilling, here's what we have seen:

From the 2008 Inspector General's report on MMS's Royalty in Kind program based in Colorado:
• Senior executives steering lucrative contracts to an outside company created by the executives;
• Staff failing to collect millions of dollars in royalties owed to the American people and allowing oil and gas companies to revise their own multi-million-dollar bids;
• Staff accepting gifts and money from oil and gas companies with whom the office was conducting official business; and
• Staff participating in social events with industry representatives that included illegal drug use and sex.

From the IG report, the Inspector's General's report, released last month on the MMS office in Lake Charles, Louisiana:
• The District Manager telling investigators: "obviously we're all oil industry."
• Employees accepting numerous gifts from companies doing business with the MMS, including a trip to the 2005 Peach Bowl on a private airplane, skeet shooting contests, hunting and fishing trips, and golf tournaments.
• An MMS inspector conducting four inspections of oil drilling platforms while negotiating a job for himself with the company that owned those platforms, and finding (guess what?) no violations during those inspections.

And a 2007 Inspector General Report into the MMS' Minerals Revenue Management office cited, and I quote:
• "Significant issues worthy of separate investigation, including ethical lapses, program mismanagement, and process failures."

As my hometown Providence Journal wrote in a recent editorial, "The Deepwater Horizon accident has made it painfully clear that, in its current form, MMS is a pathetic public guardian. Neither it nor BP was prepared for a disaster of this magnitude, and MMS' cozy relationship with industry is a big reason why." I agree with the Providence Journal.

The scope, the extent, the insidious nature of corporate influence in regulatory agencies of government - this question of regulatory capture - is something we should attend to here. It is the lesson. And it raises the question, beyond the Minerals Management Service, how far does this corporate influence reach into our agencies of government?

The wealth of the international corporate world is staggering. The five biggest oil companies just this quarter posted profits of $23 billion dollars. That's a 23 with twelve zeros behind it-in just one quarter.

The Republican appointees on the Supreme Court just overturned decades of precedent and a hundred years of practice to give these big corporations freedom to spend unlimited funds in our American elections.

Put it to scale; consider $23 billion of pure profit, just in one quarter, by Big Oil. And compare: the Obama and McCain campaigns together spent about $1 billion in the last election. Do the math: for 5% of one quarter's profits, Big Oil could outspend both American presidential campaigns. That may be some politicians' idea of a happy day, because that is who they work to please, but it is wrong and needs to be stopped.

But think: if that's what corporate influence could do in a national election, think of what those vast powerful tentacles of corporate influence can do to a little government agency like the Minerals Management Service:
• Revolving doors to lucrative jobs in the industry so you're set for life;
• Sports tickets, gifts, drugs;
• Constant, relentless lobby pressure and threats of litigation;
• Steadily inserting industry operatives into regulatory positions.

Inch by inch, the tentacles of industry reach further and further into the regulator, until it silently and invisibly comes under industry control, and becomes the industry's puppet; until it is serving the special interests, and not the public interest.

This is no new phenomenon. Marver Bernstein wrote about regulatory capture 55 years ago. He explained that a regulator tends over time to "become more concerned with the general health of the industry and tries to prevent changes which will adversely affect it," to become "passive toward the public interest." This, he said, "is a problem of ethics and morality as well as administrative method," and he called it "a blow to democratic government and responsible political institutions." Ultimately, this leads to what he called "surrender:" "the commission finally becomes a captive of the regulated groups."

If you don't want to go back half a century for a discussion of regulatory capture, look to last week's Wall Street Journal editorial page, where a senior fellow at the Cato Institute writes, "By all accounts, MMS operated as a rubber stamp for BP. It is a striking example of regulatory capture: Agencies tasked with protecting the public interest come to identify with the regulated industry and protect its interests against that of the public. The result: Government fails to protect the public."

There is plenty of evidence that the oil and gas industry had captured MMS. And when you have a captured agency, you get what we've seen:
• Altering, deleting, or ignoring warnings and recommendations from government scientists. A draft environmental analysis for drilling in the Gulf from May of 2000 included the haunting prediction that "the oil industry's experience base in deep-water well control is limited" and a massive oil spill "could easily turn out to be a potential showstopper for the [outer continental shelf] program if the industry and MMS do not come together as a whole to prevent such an incident." This unwelcome observation was deleted from the final analysis published.
• Oil and gas company employees filled out official inspection forms in pencil, for the MMS inspectors to trace over in pen.
• Nearly 400 categorical exclusions, shielded even deepwater drilling from thorough environmental review.
• Cut-and-paste Environmental Assessments were provided by oil and gas companies. BP's Environmental Assessment listed walruses as a species of concern in the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. President, there are not, and never have been, in the memory of man, walruses in the Gulf of Mexico. When they are writing about walruses in the Gulf of Mexico, you know 1) they are cutting and pasting out of documents in Alaska, 2) they are paying no attention to what they write because they know it doesn't matter, and 3) they know perfectly well that MMS will never catch the fact that they've cut and pasted, because they're not looking at it either.
• MMS adopted wholesale for its oil and gas drilling "best practices" proposals of the American Petroleum Institute, and then they made most of those best practices only suggestions.
• There's been virtually no enforcement: According to the MMS website, between 2000 and 2009, civil penalties averaged less than $130 per well per year on our Outer Continental Shelf; and only three criminal referrals were made to the Department since 1990 in the last twenty years.

Add it all up, and there is no real question MMS was a captive regulator. So the question is, after all those years of corporate control of government in the Bush years, how far-reaching is the insinuation of corporate influence? We know big Pharma wrote the Bush pharmacy benefit legislation. We know big oil and big coal sat down in secret with Dick Cheney to write their energy policy. But down below the decks, down in the guts of the administration's agencies, how far were the tentacles of corporate influence allowed to reach? How many industry plants are stealthily embedded in the government, there to serve the industry, not the administration or the public.

Well, how is it looking, Mr. President? Well, it is not looking good. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for instance, gave up its watchdog role years ago and became the lap dog of the big Wall Street financiers: raising leverage limits; refusing to investigate Bernie Madoff; and helping to precipitate the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

29 miners were killed in a West Virginia mine with a safety record that President Obama called troubled." The Mine Safety and Health Administration has been described as a "revolving door" with industry, staffed by people with mining companies' interests at heart, even at the expense of worker safety. The Bush head of MSHA, for instance, oversaw the rewriting of regulations in 2004 that allowed conveyor belt tunnels to double as ventilation shafts, a practice that contributed to a fatal 2006 Massey mine disaster.

Who knows how far it leads? Think of the timber rights the taxpayer gives up every year, the grazing rights, the multi-billion dollar contracts to big government contractors, the oil and coal leases on land, the carnival of public wealth at which these big corporations feed.

The vital question is this: are these assets of our nation still in the hands of servants of the nation? Or have the servants of the nation quietly and insidiously become the servants of the big private corporations who want to profit from that public wealth-corporations for whom every dollar of a sweet deal, every avoided expense allowed by a cozy regulator, every corner cut in safety or environmental protection, goes straight to their bottom line and right into their pockets?
The big, multi-billion dollar corporations - Is this who we want safeguarding our national assets? Is this who we want controlling agencies of the United States government?

Mr. President, Winston Churchill once said, in a phrase that I like, that history turns on sharp agate points. What is the sharp agate point on which the history of this Gulf catastrophe should turn? What lesson of history, if left unlearned after this disaster, are we condemned to repeat?
I hope that the lesson we learn is this one: that we can never, never, never again let agencies of the government of the United States of America fall so far under the influence of the corporations they are supposed to regulate.

This government of ours, founded in a Revolution pledging the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of those early patriots;

This government of ours, which has raised for more than two centuries the promise of freedom in human hearts;

This government that lifts its lamp aloft to brighten the darkness of chaos and despair in far distant corners of the globe;

This government, whose finely tuned balance, crafted by those Founders, has seen us through civil war and world war, through westward expansion and great depression, through the light bulb and the Model T and the Boeing 747 and the iPod.

This government, of ours, formed by Washington and Madison, Jefferson and Adams, and led by each of them; and later led by Abraham Lincoln, and by Harry Truman, and by Theodore Roosevelt and by Franklin Roosevelt and by John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

This American government of ours should never, never be on its knees before corporate power, no matter how strong. It should never be in the thrall of corporate wealth no matter how vast.
This American government of ours should never give the American citizen reason to question whose interests are being served. Never.

In this complex world of ours, Mr. President, government must protect us in remote and specialized precincts in the economy. In those remote precincts, few people are watching, but big money is made.

We must be able to trust our government, both in plain view in front of us, and in corners far from sight, to be serving always the public interest, not doing the secret bidding of special interests; of corporate interests, because that's where the big money is at stake.

Have we now learned, have we now finally learned, from the financial melt-down and the Gulf disaster, the price, the terrible price, of all those quietly cut corners?

Have we now learned what price must be paid when the stealthy tentacles of corporate influence are allowed to reach into and capture our agencies of government?

I pray, let us have learned this; let us have learned that lesson. I sincerely pray we have learned our lesson, and that this will never happen again. But let's not just pray.

In this troubled world God works through our human hands; grows a more perfect union through our human hearts; creates his beloved community through our human thoughts and ideas. So it is not enough to pray. We must act.

We must act in defense of the integrity of this great government of ours, which has brought such light to the world, such freedom and equality to our country. We cannot allow this government - that is a model around the world, that inspires people to risk their lives and fortunes to come to our shores - we cannot allow any element of this government to become the tool of corporate power, the avenue of corporate influence, the puppet of corporate tentacles.

I propose a simple device, in this country of laws not men - of rule of law - and that is to allow our top national law officer, the Attorney General of the United States, to step in and clean house whenever an agency or element of government is no longer credibly independent of the industry and businesses it is intended to regulate.

When a component of government is deemed no longer credibly independent of the corporations or industry it is supposed to regulate, I suggest the Attorney General be allowed to come in and clean up:
- To hire and fire and take personnel actions, to assure the integrity of the personnel;
- To establish interim regulations and procedures, to assure the integrity of the process;
- To audit permits and contracts and assure they were not affected by improper corporate influence; and, if they were,
- To rescind them where they are not in the public interest due to that improper corporate influence;
- To establish an integrity plan for that component of government;
- All subject to appropriate judicial review where private rights are affected;
- And then the Attorney General can get back out, with his or her job done: sort of like an ethics trusteeship or receivership.

Mr. President, I'll conclude by saying that the damage to America from the corporate takeover of the Securities and Exchange Commission was nothing short of catastrophic - just in my home state, just in Rhode Island, 70,000 Rhode Islanders are unemployed, and many have lost homes, retirement, health insurance. The toll is devastating.

The damage from the corporate takeover of the Minerals Management Service has also been catastrophic; and who knows what potentially catastrophic damage lurks in whatever other agencies of government have silently succumbed to corporate takeover, but just have not exploded in disaster? If the financial catastrophe and the Gulf catastrophe, and whatever other catastrophes lurk, if they have any meaning at all, it is that business as usual is no longer enough to stem the tide of corporate influence, insidious, secret corporate influence in agencies of the United States government.

It is an institutional problem: relentless, remorseless, constantly grasping and insinuating corporate influence; it will never go away; it will only worsen as corporations get bigger and richer and more global; and there has to be an institutional mechanism in place to resist it, so that it no longer takes a catastrophe to call the failure of governance of an American regulator to proper attention.

I think this is the right way. If a colleague has a better idea, I'm more than willing to listen. But, one thing I know: after our economic catastrophe and this environmental catastrophe, this much, at least, is clear: we can no longer wait for catastrophes to root out improper corporate influence in our government, in this government of our United States. We have to at long last address the problem of insidious regulatory capture, of agencies of our government captive to the industries they are suppose to regulate.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This is true... (0.00 / 0)
http://www.johnkerryisadoucheb...

That's where your line of argument gets us.

I agree that we need to take our grievances with SOME Democrats out in the Primaries and support (at least by voting for) all Democrats in November.  However, we can do more than vote for a Democrat that fights for us and let a crappy Democrat fall on his/her face by doing nothing except voting for them.

You can say what you want about how terrible it would be to have a Republican controlled house but I would respond that many people (myself included) 30 and younger would probably be much much less engaged in Democratic/Progressive organizations and activism if it weren't for GW Bush.

If THE Democrats can't get EFCA or a Public Option or Too Big to Fail passed and if they can't take a stand against needless war in Afghanistan and Iraq, then maybe things have to get worse before they can get better...  I hope not but I'm starting to wonder.


oh pffft. (0.00 / 0)
Its so wonderful to hear people call for fascism so we can have what? Social democracy? You arent going to get anything better than what the people who vote want, and probably fart worse. Let society collapse, let the far right win and all you get is more far right.

There is only one answer, that is: more work, far more work.
Yeah it's hard slogging, yeah its filled with disappointments, but there is no other path.

Teach this:

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944  State of the Union message to the Congress of the United States:

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people-whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth-is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights-among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however-as our industrial economy expanded-these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men."[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all-regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."



--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Have to get worse before ... (4.00 / 3)
Ernst Thalmann thought the same thing.

He died in Buchenwald.

(Note this is a canned comment I use in reply to this argument.  See Inches and Rope to Right-Wingers?  "Take these people seriously, and fight them at every opportunity. Don't give them an inch. Don't "give them enough rope." I really don't like to think about right-wingers with ropes -- because more likely than not they will hang YOU.")

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Okay okay... (4.00 / 1)
... I'm not saying we let Republicans win just because we didn't get what we wanted.  You're right to that extent.

I am saying that the less of two evils is just as prone to outright disaster as well.  That's what the Kerry link was all about.  Out of fear, we the people who vote Democrat chose him over Dean in 2004 because he was the "safer" and more established Democrat and then we all apologetically supported him through the rest of the campaign and we ended up with Bush again.  Is that the answer you're looking for?  Should I be donating to Blanche Lincoln's campaign right now?

Look you can bandy about weak corporate Democrats all you want, but in the end you have to give voters something and someone to vote FOR.  When we plan our tactics out of the fear of what the Republicans might do we're playing reactive politics in which they are STILL in the drivers seat.

My point in all this is we should all vote for people with a D by their name, but we really need to put our money and resources toward the BETTER Democrats and let the Republicans and the corporate Democrats take care of themselves.

Maybe a more aggressive and pro-active question is this: how do we -- at this current moment -- take over the Democratic party's leadership?  Who specifically do we need to focus on replacing with a BETTER Democrat.  For many primaries its already too late for 2010, but that just means we have more time to field a great candidate for 2012.


[ Parent ]
"Democratic party's leadership" (4.00 / 2)
There are a whole lot of sucky corporate Dems, but our already Herculean task of replacing them with better Dems is compounded by the fact that the Dem leadership is against us in this battle. The netroots' best move was helping Howard Dean become DNC chairman. Obama served us a serious setback when he replaced Dean with the less than worthless Tim Kaine. It seems pretty clear to me that we need to wrap our brains around the necessity of an adversarial relationship with Obama. I'm not sure what our leverage is. He seems perfectly content to shit on his base and lose his majorities in Congress. I hope he enjoys his upcoming stay in Darrell Issa's Magical Funhouse of Endless Subpeona's.

Perhaps what we need is a shadow party - an opposite world version of what Karl Rove is creating on the right. Not a third party, but rather a separate and uncorrupted party apparatus whose explicit purpose is to wield more influence in the Democratic Party than the eco-sphere of corruption that currently runs the show. More than a caucus, less than a third party, - separate conventions, a separate organizational structure, an agenda to focus and leverage power to basically take over the Democratic Party - influence the rules, choose the DNC chairman, etc.

I know there are many ongoing efforts in this sphere, but it seems like they could be much more effective if there is an explicit organization. It can't be based on one or more "leaders." There needs to be something analogous to the U.S. Constitution that lays the groundwork for a movement to which people can attach themselves to like they should be able to attach themselves to a political party if both of our parties weren't already owned by the plutonomy. Ground rules would need to be set so that such a movement would remain a people's movement and participants can be assured that it will not eventually be co-opted and contolled by the rich and powerful like The Democratic Party has become.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
We don't have much leverage at this point (4.00 / 2)
It seems pretty clear to me that we need to wrap our brains around the necessity of an adversarial relationship with Obama. I'm not sure what our leverage is.

Where we had the leverage with Obama was during the primary.  And, to get a sense of where that went, one needs only look back to David Sirota's diaries during that period.

This is one I remember, for obvious reasons.

If Not Now, When?
by: David Sirota
Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 23:29

The message in the comments sections was consistently, Not now!  And, well, here we are.

We might not need a shadow party if we were willing to take the risks we need to take when we have the opportunities to take them.  I really don't believe there is a way to circumvent the risk.  If we're absolutely unwilling to face the risk of loss - as we've demonstrated we are - the best we've been able to do is slow the descent (although, I'd argue it more appears that we've lowered the ceiling beyond which we will be able to ascend).


[ Parent ]
"leverage with Obama was during the primary" (4.00 / 1)
Well, he has broken many promises he made during the primary and even the general election. Getting him to pander even more so he would have more promises he could break does not really address the main issue. The party is owned and controlled by the same wealthy and powerful interests who own and control the Republicans. This requires a structural solution. Why was Obama able to fire Howard Dean? Why are the DSCC and DCCC allowed to intervene in primaries? Why are Dems who block votes on elements of the party's platform allowed to keep committee assignments? Why does an organization like OFA that is the personal tool of a single politician have so much power and influence? If we do not create a structure that is bottom up, we will remain at the mercy of top-down entities. I see only inadequate progress or failure if this issue is not addressed.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I saw the Obamabots during the caucuses (4.00 / 2)
Cult of personality, Obama's promise to bring peace and end nastiness, weak generic Democratic issues, feel-good rhetoric.

Obama built a personal following so that he wouldn't have to listen to us. He also gained a bit of independence from the pros that way, but he was playing a different version of their game, and it was easy for them to make a deal.

As I keep saying, the present state of the electorate is a big part of the problem.


[ Parent ]
Largely, I agreed with you (4.00 / 1)
The parallel I wanted to identify, but didn't articulate very well, is the basic premise about not pressuring Obama, is the same premise we're faced with here.  We must defend on all fronts, at all times, and at all costs because we can't let the other side - no matter who they are - win.  I don't know that there are any left, but if a had the choice between a liberal Republican and a centrist Democrat, I'd chose the Republican.


[ Parent ]
How do you *know* (4.00 / 4)
that the "alternative" would have prevented Buchenwald?  Have you a crystal ball for seeing the road not taken?  

This "canned comment" strike me as not helpful.  It's first cousin to a bumper sticker.  It might, or might not be true, but we have no way to know, do we?

And, what do you figure we're giving the Republicans every time Obama codifies one of their most heinous transgressions against the Constitution?  We're not giving them inches of the rope, we're giving them the whole freakin' rope.


[ Parent ]
Well this time (0.00 / 0)
they are talking openly about "Second Amendment solutions" to things.  This makes me even more nervous than right wingers and rope.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
The right has to continually expand it's extremism. (4.00 / 3)
The whole point is to scare you. Apparently, it's working nicely. It scares me too at times. But they have to keep ratcheting up their violent rhetoric, lest their own base become complacent or perhaps start thinking like individuals or something. They have no choice, given the track they've chosen for themselves. They simply cannot stop it now. Fortunately, most of these people are really quite stupid and cowardly.

This is a scary situation on so many levels. But the status quo is not sustainable nor supportable. In the end, we either stand on our values or we sell them out for a moment of not being so freakin' scared--but only  a moment. I can't do the latter anymore. I'm too fed up with having my future (and that of my friends, neighbors and anyone else who isn't sufficiently rich) threatened by a bunch of whinging, lying, corrupt weasels... in my own alleged party no less!

The elites of both parties have a most symbiotic relationship with each other. They both serve to pump up each other's bases, blinding them in the process. Until that relationship is torn asunder, we're basically stuck in reverse gear, lurching towards the 19th century.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
The second amendment talk isn't campaign fluff (4.00 / 1)
There's a considerable far right subculture that hopes for domestic violence. I run into them from time to time, even though I try to avoid them. They're not impressive, admirable, or intelligent, but weapons are great equalizers and I can see them doing a lot of damage.

[ Parent ]
Don't I know it! (4.00 / 3)
As you say, it's not campaign fluff. Some of them really do mean it and some of them are already acting out. That will only get worse, I'm afraid, since they have quasi-official spokesmodels in corporate media, government and sometimes in law enforcement.

I've met a few of them myself. Definitely not pleasant people.

That said, the response to these murderous half-wits isn't to be scared in front of them, because that is precisely what they are trying to accomplish. In my limited experience, fear invites violence from these people simply because they are pathologically interested in attacking people perceived as "weak." This is why they can't help but attack women, children, paraplegics and so on. They actually think that's cool, somehow.

They need guns because they are weak. They need your fear, because they are cowards. Cowards can be most violent, as we see all the time. But they are still cowards and should be treated as such.

When you act, or fail to act, out of fear of them, they have the initiative. That's basically my point.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Remember (4.00 / 3)
"Guns don't kill people, FOX News viewers do."

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The burden of proof is the other way. (4.00 / 1)
No one "*knows*" anything in politics or history. But the general rule is DON"T LET YOUR ENEMIES TAKE POWER, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE MURDEROUS.  Anyone who suggests the opposite is the one who needs to prove that they're  right.

[ Parent ]
Again, you have to look at what has actually happened (0.00 / 0)
Our own President has been instrumental in keeping Progressive policy from happening.  By NOT taking action against the most egregious trespasses against the Constitution and Progressive/Liberal values, THE Democrats (not just some Democrats) have indoctrinated them.  So we already have a scary disaster situation.

Again we plan our behavior based on the fear of a small but violent group of people we are -- by definition -- being terrorized.

Instead I'm arguing that we need to recognize the people in office who are working with us and the other "Democrats" who are working against us and support both proportionally to how much they have supported us.

No need to get hysterical.


[ Parent ]
There are no Republicans working with us (4.00 / 1)
Who's hysterical? once

What we're arguing about is whether we should be willing to accept a Republican takeover just to punish the Democrats. Some people have even talked about voting for Republicans in protest.

DaveJ is arguing that we can't do that. One of the examples he used was from Germany 1932, when some factions were willing to let the Nazis win the election because they (wrongly) believed that the Nazis would self-destruct they gained power. People said that about Reagan too. It's one of the worst strategies.

Again we plan our behavior based on the fear of a small but violent group of people we are -- by definition -- being terrorized.

We're planning our behavior on the basis of our belief that we cannot let this small but violent group of people have any share of political power. We cannot play "the worse, the better" game. We cannot punish the Democrats by letting someone much worse take over. Your argument is horseshit.  


[ Parent ]
Did I say punish THE Democrats? (0.00 / 0)
I'm saying that OFA and the DNC seem to think they don't need or want our input for the actual governing of the country, they just need our votes in November.  Fine!  I'm not going to punish them over it by voting Republican or donating to the right winger organizations out there.

But I'm also not going to just donate to THE Democrats (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) this year like I did in 2008.  I'll still work to elect better Democrats and donate what I can to those candidates and I'll vote for who ever the Democrat is on my local ballot.


[ Parent ]
Democratic Leadership can't tell the good Dems from the Bad ones! (0.00 / 0)
And THAT isn't even the biggest part of the problem.  In fact, the bad Dems get more support from Obama and Co. than do the great Dems.  Blanch Lincoln even had a former Pres stumping for her?!?  

The body dies from the head down.  Our head is dead - are we going to let "conventional widsom" destroy our gains?  You bet, as long as, Rahm and Clinton and Clinton and Co. are at the helm.  Just watch the "leadership" evicerate the Liberals while calling out for bipartisanship - are you listening President Obama?  

Maybe like Leukemia, we need to bring the body to near death to achieve success?  Who wouldn't like to see Obama investigated for claiming that Off-shore drilling was safe?  (snark)

We can't just keep doing the same thing and expect different results.  Dave, Conventional Wisdom is idiocy!


Completely agree (0.00 / 0)
BUT in November the calculation is will we be better off with the Republicans running the House or Senate.  I think we won't be.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
We wouldn't be better off, but how much worse does this get? (4.00 / 7)
Seriously. As much as I tend to lean towards your argument much of the time, it's pretty clear OUR party is broken. When the party elites take asinine pleasure in bitch-slapping the party activists and base, where is there for them to go but down?

We effectively have a one-party, corporate state. OUR party is going to loot Social Security. The Repubs will too, of course, but at least then there might be real opposition, instead of this happy-clappy crap coming from the Democratic elites. OFA wouldn't be around to support Obama's looting of Social Security if the Democratic Party were to suffer a major earthquake.

One thing ought to be perfectly clear at this point: The Democratic elites have more in common with the Republican elites than with the Democratic Party Base. This is the only reason why they act like Republicans (with better manners, of course) when it comes down to policy-making. They are too corrupt to save, at this point.

The Democratic Party does not offer any real alternative to Republican rule. If they did, there wouldn't be all this hyperventilating and massive hippie-punching going on.

I can't honestly tell you I know what the solution is.  In the short-term, I don't think there is any clear solution. Longer-term, I think the Democratic Party is headed down a path similar to the Whigs. They will become a well-funded corporate rump of a party and will whither over time as people bolt. They can stay in business with that model, but they won't be able to convince anyone they give a rat's ass about anyone but themselves.

What I do know is the persistent appeal to Tribal Identity is already starting to fail. The only way to turn that around is if Democrats start acting like Democrats and serve their constituencies. They aren't doing it now and I seriously doubt they ever will.  All they've got is this, "But, but, those nasty Republicans will be in charge and that will suck even worse than us!"

Point taken, but that's not enough.

The problem is the middle and lower classes are now realizing they have real survival issues to deal with. They are coming to realize that BOTH parties have it in for them. We are entering a crisis of legitimacy here, not merely some partisan kerfuffle.

Tribal politics isn't enough to get past that anymore. Survival issues trump empty rhetoric every time.

Personally, if the Dems lose majorities in either house, I'll be surprised. It could happen and I expect them to lose some seats in the redneck districts. I think 2012 is when we see a genuine meltdown for Democrats, once they've looted SS to pay for Project Imperial Overreach.

Instead of trying to convince us that the Thugs are really that much worse, the elites should wake up and realize there's more to life than their own perks and bribes. Maybe they should put the public and national interests before their own paydays. That would certainly help prevent a complete meltdown!

Problem is, they don't know how to do that.  

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Indeed. (4.00 / 4)
Seriously, I'm done with this "vote for us or else" fearmongering. It's distasteful and wrong when the Republicans do it, and no less so coming from Democrats.

If my lousy vote is apparently so critical that it could ruin the country, then maybe "our" party should do more to earn it rather than trying to bully it out of me.


[ Parent ]
It's a classic guilt trip, isn't it? (4.00 / 2)
I react rather poorly to guilt trips and passive-aggressiveness, yet sadly, those two things make up the bulk of the intra-party messaging within the Democratic establishment. Yeah, it's OUR fault if everything goes to Hades! It's not the fault of people who actually possess real power! Noooooooo!

Nothing will change until more and more people simply say NO to this crap.  

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
I have a friend (2.00 / 2)
who swears he won't vote for a Democrat even if the Republican platform that year is to kill HIM, by name, if they get into office.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
If that's not commitment, I don't know what is. :^) (4.00 / 1)
That does sound rather extreme, doesn't it? Then again, that's also what happens when you betray people. They become your enemy. I take it he feels betrayed or a reasonable facsimile. It shouldn't be too hard to understand at this point, even when it sounds a tad over the top. This stuff is too important to just let go. We're talking about survival issues here, not a bunch of utopian pablum.

I didn't have terribly high expectations of Obama. I expected him to be pretty much like Clinton, not really rolling back the Bush agenda, but not furthering it either. Instead, he went full bore on expanding the BushCO agenda in every major policy area. I voted for a radical right-winger! Ouch! That won't happen again!

So while maybe I don't feel terribly betrayed, I do understand the Party leadership's interests are in direct opposition to my own. They are earning new enemies for themselves every day they go to work. The fact these people simply assume they can rely on a bunch of partisan talking points appealing to tribal identity in an election year to keep the proles in line says way too much about their mental feebleness. Maybe it's all the inbreeding amongst the blue bloods...I don't know. Maybe they ruined their schools right along with ours. Maybe someone else can answer that question.

What I do KNOW is the people I've been supporting for many, many years now expect me to grow old in poverty--to further line their own pockets with illicit cash and prizes.

They crossed the line with the deficit commission. That is a sin too foul to forgive. Period. We all have our breaking points, don't we?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
There's that "THEY" again (0.00 / 0)
"They" betrayed you.

Did Alan Grayson betray you?  Howard Dean?  Sens. Whitehouse or Sherrod Brown?  Maxine Waters?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Okay. My bad. (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't being sufficiently specific.

That said, I think you know quite well which "they" I'm referring to. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, DNC and all their corporate benefactors--including the very Republican Pete Peterson--are the "they" I was referring to.

My question on the "they" is this: which "progressives" will go along with the Cat Food Commission just because they are told to?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Of course not, (0.00 / 0)
But we might as well recognize that for every Grayson, Dean, Brown etc. we have one less than stellar Dem and probably one totally unforgivable "Dem."  So if we are to make that distinction, then what?

It's as if you are turning the valid criticisms hurled at Democrats in general, and saying that because SOME Democrats are working for us we should support all Democrats equally.

I think supporting (with money and time and maybe even with votes) all Democrats makes as much sense as as chastising all Democrats.  

AGAIN - By no means am I saying we should sit out of the election or that I'll never vote Democrat again.  What I AM saying is that we should work hard for Grayson, Dean, Brown, Waters; work harder to field more of those kinds of candidates in 2012 (including primary a challenge for Obama); and let the fucking DNC and OFA worry about protecting "our" majorities in Congress.


[ Parent ]
like your comment, but (4.00 / 2)
The Dem leaders surely CAN tell who supports their  (capital over people) agenda. Easily verified by seeing who they supported in the primaries.

Good metaphor of leukemia treatment. Maby the party can be saved after being brought down by disappointed voters. Maby not. Either way the 30+ years of choosing the least evil has only resulted in lifestyle reduction for most citizens/voters.

But the party leadership likes the way it is, they will not change until forced. These past few decades has proven to them it pays to lie to the public during campaigns. And because the alternative is worse, we reluctantly (every time) gave in...proving the leadership correct.

Can we blame the leadership for taking the easy, profitable, and obviously accepted path? They have no reason to change this successfull formula.

We do.........

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
The problem (4.00 / 7)
The problem is SOME Democrats, not THE Democrats.

That's one way to frame it.  And, on the surface, it's hard to disagree with that framing.

My own frame is SOME Democrats are good on SOME issues. For example; Grayson has been outstanding on financial regulation, transparency re: the Federal Reserve, and the economic crisis.  His defense of ACORN is one for the books.  He is, however, abysmal on the US' relationship to Israel, imo.

The effort to elect more and better Democrats needs a little less emphasis on More and a lot more emphasis on Better.  And, getting that done is hard.  The institutional forces of the Democratic Party are arrayed against anyone who tries.

I'd ask how many of our Better Democrats voted against the Patriot Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the amendments to FISA, and the rest of the roll backs on our civil liberties?  Why are the supplementals for the Department of Defense nearly always guaranteed to pass?  Why has OFA been deployed to help re-elect Jim Matheson rather than help Claudia Wright?

I won't argue against your premise.  It's correct as far as it goes, and we have very few options for working within the system other than what your premise suggests.  But, we need to get square with the idea that the odds in this game favor the house.  And, if that weren't enough to cope with, there are those within our own ranks who will work to defeat even the idea of Better Democrats.  And, those institutional counter-weights who will put their resources behind Republican regressive orthodoxy.

I'm not going to argue that reforming the Democratic Party one legislator at a time can't be done.  It's nearly the only option open to us.  But, I'd point out that people's life-clocks tick now, and it's very difficult to arouse people to put their shoulders to a wheel that very well may not turn in their lifetimes.


I'm not exactly an optimist, but.... (4.00 / 4)
I might have written your comment myself, but not so well, and certainly not so early in the morning. There is one mitigating factor, though, which should be mentioned in the current context, and that's the context itself.

The political paralysis so beneficial to the habitués of Washington and New York can't continue as it is for very long in the face of all those stubborn facts which keep pressing against it. The failed economy, the failed wars, the impoverishment of the people, and environmental disasters likely to dwarf even the BP spill, are a far worse threat to their continued dominance than anything that we can generate on our own.

If it turns out to be true -- and I suspect it will -- the end of the Israeli blockade of Gaza should remind us once again of the difference between individual defeats and collective victories. If what we believe is true, and we stick to it, the latter are as inevitable as the former.


[ Parent ]
I assure you (4.00 / 1)
you will never find someone to vote for who agrees with you 100%.

As for you wondering why OFA is helping Matheson and not Wright. Claudia Wright doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the 2nd District of Utah. We're lucky Matheson is even there at all.  


[ Parent ]
I am a Greenwaldite. I respond very poorly to Democratic Loyalists. I am unaffiliated because "independent" wasn't an option. (4.00 / 2)
With that out of the way...

Where did I write that I wouldn't vote for Alan Grayson if it were in my power to do so?  And, since I can't vote for Grayson, I donated money to his campaign instead.

Why is OFA stumping for Matheson?  OFA.  Not the White House.  Not Matheson's incumbent colleagues.  Not the DLC or the DNC, or the rest of the establishment alphabet soup.  Why OFA?


[ Parent ]
The national party shouldn't involve itself in primaries (4.00 / 4)
except for very, very rare circumstances.  That money should be saved for defeating Republicans.  

[ Parent ]
sometimes to defeat Republicans (0.00 / 0)
the party needs to get involved in primaries, I see this as the perfect example of that.  

[ Parent ]
It should be extremely rare, though (4.00 / 3)
and that's not what we've been seeing over the past ten years.  The national party had no business involving itself in the Blanche Lincoln primary, for example.  

[ Parent ]
Totally with you on this (4.00 / 2)
Locally we should be deciding who represents us.  Bottom up not top down.  National party should stay out of primaries.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
You're illustrating part of the problem. (4.00 / 6)
The problem is: what does the party stand for? What is the Democratic Party about?

The very notion that we're lucky to have Matheson is pretty silly, when you think about it. He stands opposed to the values articulated by the vast majority of rank and file Democratic voters. So we're not lucky to have him. He's a problem, not a blessing.

A saboteur is a saboteur, regardless of whether or not he's in "our party" or not.

In supporting Matheson, OFA is hanging out it's shingle as a reactionary outfit. They will similarly be campaigning in support of looting Social Security when the time comes. No liberals are allowed in the supposedly liberal party, eh?

How on earth is it even remotely practical for any organization to reject it's core values and thusly most of it's clientele? In business or in politics, this never ends well. Only a large helping of hubris can lead organizations down this path.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
When you support douche bags like Matheson, (4.00 / 3)
you make it impossible to be taken seriously as the party of working people. Branding requires consistency. Endorsing corporate shills like Matheson cannot be in the long term interest of the Democratic Party. DTOzone needs to step back enough to see the forest for the trees.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Can't we agree on the basics? (0.00 / 0)
Where do you split with the Current Dem Administration?

*Iraq War?
*Afghanistan War?
*increased agressive and expansive war policies?
*No jobs policy? (tax cuts don't count)
*No energy policy? (tax cuts for oil corps don't count)
*Diminished constitutional rights?
*pro-corporation / anti-labor?
*pro-israel / anti-palestine?
*for-profit health insurance (not healthcare)?

Please add to and enhance the list.  We have MAJOR differences and the media will NOT give voice.  We have the internet - for a while longer anyhow.


[ Parent ]
Well said! (0.00 / 0)


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Taking our eyes off the Republicans (4.00 / 2)
Your post, Dave J, is good in showing why it matters who is running the Congress after these midterms.

So in addition to our usual and tiring debates about electing more vs. better Dems (yes, we need to elect better ones, yes, we need sometimes to work at throwing out the bad apples, like Blanche Lincoln) still we ALSO need to be taking whacks where we can at the vilest of the Republicans who are being allowed to dominate the scene and set the agenda.  We may not able to do anything about Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin, but is Michelle Bachmann unbeatable in Minnesota?  Having her scalp on a pole might do us quite a bit of good down the road.  At worst we'd then have one less excuse for Obama squishiness.

We have to be able to do more than one thing at a time.

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


Bachmann is gerrymandered into a safe district (0.00 / 0)
It will be an up-hill battle in the general election. That said, Bachmann is becoming something of an embarrassment for the state, so there may be an opening. Especially if an Independent joins the race in a way that splits off her Tea Party/Business base by running to the middle. Long shot.


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


[ Parent ]
Gerrymandering - too clever by half (0.00 / 0)
In California the Dems gerrymandered the districts, giving themselves a big majority and squeezing the Republicans into a few safe seats.

Trouble is in California it takes 2/3 to pass a budget and we are very close to having that but can't dislodge the Republicans in those safe seats.

AND in the last election the Dems could well have taken every district except for that gerrymandering.  In Senate District 19 Hannah-Beth Jackson came within 800 votes!  Big corporations cam ein at the last minute and pumped millions of dollars into that state race for one Senate district.  

Just 800 votes - too clever by half.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Gerrymandering reform should be a central issue (4.00 / 1)
Safe seats create corruption.  

[ Parent ]
California passed (0.00 / 0)
what looks like a neutral redistricting system.  I wish Texas was doing it at the same time, because this does give the Republicans an advantage of a few seats n Congress.  But it might help fix our problem here.  Except we also passed an initiative getting rid of the parties.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Well, Texas never will (0.00 / 0)
unless it is forced by the feds, or Hispanic dems move into the state enough to make the demographics more competitive.  The state government is well aware that the current Texas map gives Republicans the advantage.  It was intentional--they carved Austin into five Congressional districts, after all.  

[ Parent ]
By the way, (0.00 / 0)
one of the things that I really like about PR and multimember districts is that you can just draw districts based on natural demographic lines--metropolitan areas and rural areas with a common economy, and then all the census would do is move reps back and forth between these districts.  It almost entirely removes the capacity crooked gerrymandering shenanigans.  

I really, really wish California or New York (or Texas, I guess) would experiment with STV


[ Parent ]
Works both ways here (0.00 / 0)
Keith Ellison (my Rep.) and Martin Sabo before him are in strong blue districts. To their credit, they have taken this as a platform from which to push the left end on the Democratic Party spectrum, rather than a safe place in which to be a Blue Dog. The electorate keeps them somewhat honest, too. Through primary, caucus. and alternative parties.

The whole concept is an abomination from a democratic perspective, though. That much is certain.


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


[ Parent ]
Keith Ellison was an independent candidate (0.00 / 0)
He was not the choice of the party leadership. Neither was Paul Wellstone. Neither was Alan Page on the State Supreme Court.  

[ Parent ]
Careful with "Independent" in Minnesota (0.00 / 0)
There is an Independent party and Ellison was not their candidate. That was Tammy Lee. You are accurate, as far as the primaries and the caucuses went for Ellison and the others. However, by the time the general election came around, Ellison was the DFL candidate and the gerrymandering came into play. Ellison has been in the DFL since he was my city council rep, he has never been an independent (AFAIK).

Gerrymanders do not count for state-wide races, like Senator. Al Franken that was challenged from within his own party, most intensely during the primary, but the negativism bled over into the general election, as well. The Independent party candidate was former Senator Dean Barkley.


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


[ Parent ]
Gerrymandering Schmerrymandering (4.00 / 1)
Bill Freakin O'Reilly's saying she's gone too far.  

If our side can't do anything with that then we should just fold our tents and go home.


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


[ Parent ]
The first step is to encourage/egg her on (0.00 / 0)
and let her talk.

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


[ Parent ]
I can't help but wish (4.00 / 6)
there were someone in the White House giving this lecture to Obama, to help him understand why he needs to support his base.

Montani semper liberi

At some point (4.00 / 7)
it may become necessary to realize that President Obama does not consider us to be his base.

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


[ Parent ]
His drop in the polls may be speaking to him (0.00 / 0)
But, I'm sure he thinks it's because the Progressives aren't getting on board.

Side note:
Why don't they want to "Plug" the Horizon fiasco?  

Is it because they couldn't capture the oil (well, the millions of barrels that arent spilling into the ecosystem)


[ Parent ]
They do want to plug it. But they can't. Not yet. (0.00 / 0)
Where that question is most poignant is in the first month, when the WH was deferring to BP saying, "Well, it's their oil after all." BP started the kill wells rather late, precisely because they wanted to "fix" the well and get the oil.

Now they're eight weeks from completing the first attempt at a kill well. There's a second one being drilled also, weeks behind the first one. If any of these work, it could take many attempts before it works. They basically have to drill down through one mile of water and three miles of ocean floor to hit a target the size of a dinner plate on a bias and then mill through the casing to inject concrete and "kill" it. In Australia last year, it took five attempts to kill that well and the water was shallower there.

It's possible none of them will work. That would mean 2.5 BILLION bbls of oil and methane into the oceans.

Cue Karen Carpenter: "We've only just begun....." (jeez, is that tacky enough?)

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Absolutely right (4.00 / 1)
The same line of argument came out of the New York State Senate vote "this is alllll the Democrats' fault!" and it was unspecific and more harmful than helpful. Specifics matter.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


Sorry, but that line... (4.00 / 4)
...you used to open your case ("The problem is SOME Democrats, not THE Democrats") is so wrong that it borders on delusion.

It is THE Democrats at the elite level that are the problem. (Yes, it is.) It's the elites of the party that want to be Republican-lite, starting with our current president.

It's the elite of the party that are pushing deficit hysteria (and that includes our president and his catfood/deficit commission.)

It's the elite of the party that killed actual health care reform and gave us the insurance company support monstrosity they call reform instead.

The problem is THE Democrats and I am quite finished supporting them. As long as we remain idiots and continue to fall for "Ya gotta vote Dem or the boogeyman will getcha!" line of crap, we'll keep on getting the same crap that we're getting now.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm done with it and it matters not how many excuses that you or others make.

Want me to support Democrats? Find me Democrats that act like FDR Dems, or Truman Dems, or LBJ Dems, or Howard Dean Dems. The Al Smith/Barack Obama Dems can kiss my arse.


Agreed (4.00 / 1)
I have to agree with everything you said.

[ Parent ]
You refute yourself (4.00 / 1)
...you used to open your case ("The problem is SOME Democrats, not THE Democrats") is so wrong that it borders on delusion.

It is THE Democrats at the elite level that are the problem.

That, by definition, is "some Democrats".  Admittedly the powerful ones.

Does Open Left exist primarily to provide a place where progressives can vent their frustrations?  That doesn't seem all that useful to me.  We need to be discussing what we should DO, not how we FEEL.  

Yes, I'd rather be in the position we are in now than the one we were in in 2008.  When we had to accept the audacity of hope.  Think it will get BETTER in the next Republican admin?

I don't give a rat's ass whether YOU support Democrats or not.  I don't want the Republicans back in, however.  Sorry.  I don't want more Republicans on the Supreme Court telling me that only corporations have free speech.  If you let them back in now, you may wind up cementing them in place for another generation.  I don't want to wind up in a position where revolution is the only option.  We may get there anyway, but it's worth something to try to avoid it.

More talk about what we should DO, less about how we FEEL.  Please.

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


[ Parent ]
Corporate free speech is a bad example (0.00 / 0)
The democrats on the court have been just as bad n that one, and Pacific Railroad is very old, well established precedent.  

Not to mention that the conservatives were actually the ones to decide correctly in a case like Kelo v. New London.  

Now on things like surveillance, gay rights, abortion rights, etc., you're spot on.  


[ Parent ]
Wasn't Citizens United decided 5-4? (0.00 / 0)


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

[ Parent ]
"More talk about what we should DO, less about how we FEEL. Please." (0.00 / 0)
Probably as you do when you support the one-party Dem-Reps as your many pronged "action agenda" you have laid out so clearly and in such detail.

[ Parent ]
Primaries. Direct activism to candidates. Bundled contributions (0.00 / 0)
You know, direct political action that shows that political stances have consequences and that you can do the right thing and not lose over and over.  

What is your solution, other to say 'screw them all' and stay home?  A solution, by the way, that leaves the remaining party structure more conservative, and more inclined to run to the center, which makes the remaining Republicans more conservative, etc etc.  


[ Parent ]
because electing Obama worked so well. (0.00 / 0)
You ask me what my solution is. First let us not kid ourselves about the rotting pile of crap that is today's Democratic Party. Obama is crap; an accurate and representative leader for the party. I think much more constructive would be to see ourselves as dissenters criticizing and refusing to support in any way the Democratic face of our one-party leadership (Who do the Democrats represent? Maybe different corporations; maybe different military security but the they adopt the same basic foreign policy, the same military solutions, much  of the saame economic policy,allow the same drilling for oil, the same attacks on teachers, the same refusalt to help the unemployed, to build infrastructure. Do they represent a different class? Workers? I think we hurt change b yh acting in this self-deluding way. Admiral Sestak with his support of Afghan escalation is going to change things? He can chang things or he can promote the Afghan war...he cannot do both. Selling him as an alternative is both dishonest and destgructive. How about YOU addressing that instead of acting so holy). Everything we do should b e independent of the Democratic party, maybe not ALL but certainly almost ALL. The idea that we can do both, DOES NOT WORK. Sniff the air and smell the rot.

[ Parent ]
Yes, because the activist base totally dropped the ball on Obama (0.00 / 0)
he wasn't asked to say or do anything during the campaign.  he just kind of dog whilstled to the base, and relied on the base being pissed off at Bush.  

Had there been some sort of holding him accountable during the election, perhaps things would have been different.  Instead, we just played damn identity politics.  

Power building is a slow, systematic process.


[ Parent ]
What "activist base"? (0.00 / 0)
An unpleasant, but logical case can be made for not making too many demands of a candidate during an election. If the candidate doesn't win, then none of the candidates' positions can be championed by him/her as office-holder.

And, indeed, when such arguments were presented, they would sometimes be married with "now, make me do it" FDR quotes, showing that the author had given some thought to being more demanding when their candidate actually won.

Well, we found out around a year ago May that Obama cut a deal with Tauzin, effectively stabbing us in the back. Where was the base, then? Why didn't they demand an apology, then? Why didn't they even try to "make him do it"? (PCCC made some welcome noise, but have been pretty lame since then.)

For some reason, you mention the activist base dropping the ball during the campaign, but say nothing about them dropping the ball a year ago, and nothing about them dropping the ball now. Today.

Do tell us, won't you, whether or not you support the "activist base" trying to extract an apology from Obama for his healthcare back-stabbing, and doing so NOW. TODAY.

I usually get no answer when I post these sorts of questions, so I'm not expecting one, now. But that, I suppose, is symptomatic of the problem with the so-called "activist base". If the "activist base" won't speak truth to power, when the agents of power are Democrats, I can't say that I'd expect it to answer questions designed to point out it's fuddy-duddyness and/or lack of spine.

Another idea: somebody ask the principals at Black Agenda Report for advice. While I find some of the memes they push dubious, I have to admire their out-spokeness. (No surprise that they now have their own show on the progressiveradionetwork.com, which was started by the also-outspoken Gary Null). I can't say that they'll have any stellar organizational ideas, but at the very least they can serve as role models for moral courage.

Jane Hamsher has also been asking some of the right questions, lately, having to do with effectiveness.

=====================================================

"Fortune favors the bold".

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
voters have a hell of a lot more leverage over politicians (0.00 / 0)
when they are candidates running for president than when they are sitting presidents not up for reelection in two or three years.  

Sure, I'd love an apology from Obama on a lot of things.  But there's not a lot of leverage to be had against him right now.  And that's no excuse for not vetting him and making him actually take policy stances two years ago.  And what the hell does this non sequitir have to do with a discussion about primaries?


[ Parent ]
Excuse me, but WHO will lead the primarying, if not the "activist base"? (0.00 / 0)
And if the activist base is so spineless as to tolerate getting stabbed in the back, with nary a whimper, what makes you think that anything they do would inspire large numbers of people to follow them?

Perhaps I should re-phrase my title, to make things clearer:

What "activist base" that anybody would respect are you talking about?

Sure, I'd love an apology from Obama on a lot of things.

I'm not sure you get the point, completely, which is probably my fault. The point wasn't to attain some sort of closure, sense of forgiveness, etc. The point of demanding an apology was to make clear to that deceiver that he can't finesse his way out of every lie he tells. Not without the public knowing, which, frankly, they don't. At a recent job, I actually asked around, to see who know about Obama's deal with Tauzin. Unsurprisingly, nobody even knew who Tauzin was.

If Obama's a complete sociopath, well, that won't make much difference, directly. In this case, though, nothing will make a difference, directly. But even here, by making an example of Obama, other Congress critters who played their supporters for fools, also, (and aren't complete sociopaths, themselves) will have something to think about the next time they're considering shafting the voters.

But there's not a lot of leverage to be had against him right now.
Really! How do you know this? Absent any concerted effort to make it clear to the liar-in-chief, as well as the American public, that they've been played for fools, on what basis do you predict that doing so would all be for nought?

One guy who surely would disagree with you is Obama, himself. When Conyers directed some criticism his way, Obama met or called him, and asked him why he was "demeaning" the Presidency.

Gee whiz, is it possible that Obama is not a complete sociopath?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Yes, goddamn it, exactly (0.00 / 0)
The activist base should be leading the primary challenges, rather than engaging in this navel gazing idiotic debate about leaving the party.  I'm calling for more active challenging of conservadems in primaries.  That is my point.  

Right now, in June of an election year, the congresspeople are a much, much, much softer target than Obama.  That is all.  


[ Parent ]
Do you believe that the "activist base" can walk and chew gum at the same time? (0.00 / 0)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I grant you that

Right now, in June of an election year, the congresspeople are a much, much, much softer target than Obama.

What exactly is the problem with letting the nation know about Obama's backstabbing healthcare lies, while simultaneously going after the "softer" targets?

Also, which actions do you think would draw more attention?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
I'm calling for something concrete and actionable (0.00 / 0)
build institional framework to purge conservadems, using existing political frameworks to do so.  If you want to yell and call out Obama on whatever, feel free.  It is completely consistent to do both.  But really, it seems like most on this thread want to do the latter, and don't really give a damn about the former.  

[ Parent ]
I'm also calling for something concrete and actionable (0.00 / 0)
Well, I have just recently:

Operation Expose Obama

In spite of the specificity of the title, what I called for was de-legitimizing (via exposing their corruption and lies) not just Obama, but the Democrats and the Republicans in the federal government.

De-legitimization is completely consistent with not abandoning (necessarily) these 2 mainstream political parties. The idea is not necessarily to free voters to vote for 3rd and 4th parties, but to shake things up so that the process of purging god-awful "representatives" from the Federal government can begin, in earnest.

I'm agnostic about 3rd parties, and if the net result is that either the Democrats or Republicans (or both) get displaced from the #1 and #2 slots, so be it. However, I'm perfectly happy to have two parties, one with a donkey mascot, and one with an elephant mascot, as #1 and #2, provided they have decent people in them, who put the desires and welfare of their constituents above that of lobbyists representing plutocratic forces.

There's a rather obvious (to me) piece of the puzzle missing, and that is a candidate pipeline. However, you have to start from somewhere, and at this point, I wouldn't wait for a candidate pipeline to begin 'Operation Expose Obama'.

Because primaries are mostly or completely over, it is too late to support new Democratic primary challengers, so for those people who may lean Democratic, but are disgusted with the Democrat running in their district, they may be able to vote 3rd party. If you're a Democratic partisan at your core, you don't want to excite that 40% to vote for somebody other than the local D, but otherwise, going after Obama as well as the D's and R's may be just the thing to inspire real hope for real change - and get you out to the polls.

Not only do I call for the simultaneous de-legitimization of Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans, but I further claim that doing so simultaneously is synergistic. People are tired of hearing partisan crap. Even if it's true that 30% of the public are Republican lemmings, and another 30% are Democratic lemmings, that still leaves 40%, which can create major political earthquakes. I don't have figures at hand, but I expect that most of that 40% know that both D's and R's have been betraying them.

====================

So, to summarize, the concrete, actionable elements that can be had, right now, are in the areas of education, leading to changes in voting behavior. From my Operation Expose Obama post, directed to Jane Hamsher:

If you do decide to be a leader with an Operation Expose Obama type of effort, please think of ways to propagate the message well beyond "blogging to the choir". (I know FDL helps run TV ads, which is great, but I'm calling for additional and frankly cheaper methods of attack.) Google ads, college newspaper ads, asking your readers to pass out leaflets at the coming BP demonstrations, passing out flyers on July 4, passing out flyers at Tea Parties, passing out flyers at Coffee Parties. As usual, Nathan Aschbacher makes a good points, in this case about not directing the pressure so much directly at legislators, who know damn well the problems and what would help people more than corporations.

Unfortunately, in the process of propagating political messages such as Operation Expose Obama, there's still no candidate pipeline available, to simultaneously draw people's attention to the sorts of people who a) have expressed an interest in running for office, if there's enough support and b) we can find out their positions years ahead of time. IMO, when we have much needed democratic infrastructure built out, no public-minded citizens' group would even think of spending time and $$ propagating political messages, without simultaneously directing people's attention back to democratic infrastructure, including (but in no ways limited to) a) voting blocs and b) candidate pipelines.

Because of the phase of the election cycle we are in, we are limited in what we can do to get better people to run. But getting the word out NOW about the corruption of Obama/Dems/Repubs will lay the groundwork for getting people to run for office, later.

From my perspective, you are trying to encourage people to be myopic, and get caught up in short term electioneering struggles, once again. At least some of the people on this thread know better.

If I'm wrong about other people on this thread knowing better, well, then I'd say that they are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. When your president stabs you in the back, if you don't make him pay a price for that, don't expect him to hold back the next time he is looking to plunge a brand new knife in your back.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
And there's even an existing model for how this CAN work (4.00 / 1)
with how Falwell, Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan took over the Republican party in the '70s and '80s.  The internet has made most of those techinques more, not less, effective.  

[ Parent ]
"You ask me what my solution is. " (0.00 / 0)
And you don't answer.

We're doing what we do and are pretty well aware that it's an uphill battle. If you have some ideas about something better to do, come out with it! You seem to resent our asking.

There are plenty of people who follow the disaffiliation and protest strategy which you seem to be advocating. There have been people like that continuously for decades, and I was one of them for most of 35 years. Did we accomplish anything? Not a whole lot. It strike me, though, that you should just join them.  


[ Parent ]
I think I did answer. (0.00 / 0)
The fact you are looking for THE ANSWER is a mistake. I think I answer clearly we should build a movement of protest and dissent which makes the Dems everhy bit as much of a focus as the shitty Republicans. That way when the faces of the entrenched power change party we have AN ANSWER. No to their dangerous and destructive policies. What you want is an answer that effectgs change now...it's not going to happen. Obama and the Dem-boys have been yelling it in my ear for the past 18 months. Have you somehow missed this? We are not going to get any meaningful change from the shortterm policies of building the dem coalition...better break it down and bring out some of the good people. Please let me know if you at least understand that this is an answer agree with it or not. I think it makes much more sense than continuing doing something that clearly goes nowhere and defies reality. Acting like the Democrrats are somehow the party of reform or change or peace or for workers,or......

[ Parent ]
I said nothing about THE ANSWER (0.00 / 0)
We're doing something you don't like. What should we be doing instead?

Why should Democrats doing the right thing right now be asked to leave the party? The "D" means nothing, getting rid of the "D" achieves nothing.

Building a movement like that is what everyone wants to do, but people have been working on that for decades with limited success. Dave, Paul Rosenberg, and I have all worked outside the Democratic Party more often than that. That strategy has its good points and bad points, and the three of us, at the moment, don't think that it's the way to go. It's up to you to show that it is, not just to tell us what's wrong with what we're doing.

As I've said elsewhere today, gett8ing the word out is what we need to do, and it's our weak spot. Deciding on particular strategies isn't our real problem. If there were 1,000,000 or more active committed progressives giving money every month and working out in the community, or if there  were 30 million or more committed progressive voters, we could deal from strength instead of weakness.  


[ Parent ]
Sorry if you didn't write this. (0.00 / 0)
But some one  using your name did and it is in this thread:

"What is the answer?   (4.00 / 1)
Bring something to the table.

The American system is heavily biased toward two and only two parties, but it also produces parties without much identity or discipline which are really just coalition hodgepodges. The strategy we're advocating here involves getting as many as possible of out people into the D coalition.

But our real problem, as I've said, is not enough people, not enough mobilization, not enough committment.  Not strategy.
by: John Emerson @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 15:21 "


[ Parent ]
Have you considered an intermediate strategy of a deliberately disloyal voting bloc? (0.00 / 0)
As John Emerson says, below,
The "D" means nothing, getting rid of the "D" achieves nothing.

Why be committed to either a Democrat or a non-Democrat?

Another strategy:

Why not be committed to a Democrat who meets some sort of minimum standard, but non-committed to any Democrat who does not meet that same, minimum standard?  (And, in fact, an adversary during primaries. See, e.g., theFullCourtPress.org)

===================

The sort of debates one sees in this thread have a sort of endlessly repetitive quality to them. I've thought, from time to time, to write a diary called "If the CIA is smart enough to hire political game theorists, why aren't progressives?"

The subject is obvious from the title. The purpose of such a diary is slightly less obvious. It's to inspire people to spend less time in conflict, and more getting and actualizing the advice of a domain expert...

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
I think I did answer. (0.00 / 0)
The fact you are looking for THE ANSWER is a mistake. I think I answer clearly we should build a movement of protest and dissent which makes the Dems everhy bit as much of a focus as the shitty Republicans. That way when the faces of the entrenched power change party we have AN ANSWER. No to their dangerous and destructive policies. What you want is an answer that effectgs change now...it's not going to happen. Obama and the Dem-boys have been yelling it in my ear for the past 18 months. Have you somehow missed this? We are not going to get any meaningful change from the shortterm policies of building the dem coalition...better break it down and bring out some of the good people. Please let me know if you at least understand that this is an answer agree with it or not. I think it makes much more sense than continuing doing something that clearly goes nowhere and defies reality. Acting like the Democrrats are somehow the party of reform or change or peace or for workers,or......

[ Parent ]
I believe I made a suggestion (0.00 / 0)
One person has deigned to comment on it.  Why not get more involved in the Clark-Bachmann race?  Or suggest another target.  

Naah.

We're SO beyond that sort of thing.  It's not nearly left enough for us, the intelligent ones.  We know what's goin' on.  The scales have been lifted from our eyes.  We have advanced to a higher plateau of understanding - that we're fucked no matter what we do.  And this insight is so key that we must spread it all over the internet.  We'll show Obama.  We'll sit on our hands and continue to moan about the betrayals.  We'll say I told you so.  Even if we didn't back in 2008.  The important thing is that Obama be punished.  What happens to the country?  Not our problem.

Sorry, to me it's weak.  It's drama queenery.  Why bother if you don't believe anything can be done?  Why SHOULD Obama take us seriously if that's all we can do.

If we're so serious and so committed, why does Obama matter at all?  Just push what we need to push.  Do you suppose the right wing built its juggernaut over a four year period?  Do you suppose they didn't suffer setbacks along the way?

And please note, I'm not telling anyone to shut the fuck up.  I'm not asking for one punch to be pulled in criticizing Obama - who deserves all of it and more.  But I do counsel a clear eye in assessing the scene, both in assessing Obama and the Republicans.  I want us to get the best we can out of a bad situation.

Taking out a loathsome Republican or taking out a loathsome Democrat.  Both are legitimate activities for us.   Damn right I want you to tell me what your analysis tells you  we should DO.


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


[ Parent ]
Good suggestion (4.00 / 1)

Donate to Tarryl Clark.

Clark is an ordinary DFL Democrat, which makes her more liberal than most national Democrats. It's a very difficult district but a mediocre candidate did fairly well last time. Bachmann has a craziness beyond the normal Republican.

Both candidates are getting a lot of out-of-district support.  


[ Parent ]
No, I don't refute myself (0.00 / 0)
The elite power brokers are the leaders of the party. For all intents and purposes, they are the party. And so long as people tell me that I have to vote Dem or the boogeyman will get me (which is to say that I have no choice), they will remain the party.

The only way that liberals and progressives will ever gain power is by learning to say no. The Blue Dogs know this. Conservatives know this. It's time for liberals to know this as well.

I'll vote Dem when Dems represent my interests. They have to EARN my vote. It is not a given.


[ Parent ]
The main thing we need is more ProgressivesDr (0.00 / 0)
Driving a hard bargain with a weak hand gets nowhere. Here at OL we've recently found that most Democrats are OK with Obama. The reason why conservatives are able to bargain tough is because about 20%-30% of the electorate is fanatically conservative. Blue Dogs don't have those numbers, but most are all of them are from specific districts where they can't be challenged from the left, but only from the right, and they can bargain tough with the Democrats because for them being a Republican is an actual option.

We don't have that heft, and we really aren't willing to see the  Republicans in office, so we're in the unfortunate position of having to play our cards carefully.

As I've said several times, the main thing we need to do is increase our own numbers by going out to people who are uninformed, misinformed, uninvolved, unaware, etc., and bring them actively to our side. All the "bargain tough" arguments depend on the belief either that we have the numbers, or that people will flock to our banner automatically once we put our ideas out there. That was what Nader (and I) thought, and it wasn't true and it didn't work.


[ Parent ]
primaries. primaries. primaries. (4.00 / 4)
20 years ago, Republicans used them to make their party completely beholden to their base.  Scare them of a strong primary challenge, and their behaviour will change.

Pull back from the game and make yourself irrelevant, then it will not.  


[ Parent ]
Also, (4.00 / 2)
when left-wing voters disengage, it only makes right wing democratic voters more influential.  

[ Parent ]
Not it isn't (0.00 / 0)
What is this "The" elite?

"Find me Democrats that act like FDR Dems, or Truman Dems, or LBJ Dems, or Howard Dean Dems."

Watch the videos I posted.  And there are plenty of others.


--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
How about these guys? (0.00 / 0)
Companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill are hiring a bevy of high-priced Washington lobbyists and consultants to help them weather the crisis, as investigations heat up and calls for policy changes intensify.

BP, which has garnered the bulk of public attention and contempt for the spill, has assembled a formidable team of Democrats for its Washington lobbying, legal and public-relations offensive. There is Tony Podesta, who heads one of the District's leading lobbying firms; legal adviser Jamie Gorelick, a top Justice Department official in the Clinton administration now at the law firm WilmerHale; Hilary Rosen, a former recording-industry lobbyist who heads the Washington office of the Brunswick Group, a public-relations consultancy; and Michael S. Berman of the Duberstein Group, who was a longtime aide to former vice president Walter F. Mondale before becoming a lobbyist. Dan Eggen; Washington Post; June 21, 2010
[emphasis mine]

You've at least heard about the concept of a revolving door, right?


[ Parent ]
Fight the leadership, support the good guys (4.00 / 4)
The Democratic national leadership strikes me as hopeless with no exceptions that I can think of, but there are plenty of good Congressmen who are not dependent on the leadership and don't follow their lead.

That's one of the messages I've taken from my studies of progressivism and populism 1890-1940 -- that a Congressman  can be on the Democratic Party line on the ballot while working independently.

We've seen that for a long time with the Blue Dog Democrats, though I'm not sure how distant the party leadership is from the Blue Dogs any more. There's a pretty good nucleas in there now, and if it were two or three times bigger it would be a real power.

The "D" and the "R" mean literally nothing by themselves. Most of the many third parties I've seen in my lifetime amounted to nothing. The exceptions (George Wallace in 1968, Ross Perot in 1992, and Jesse Ventura in Minnesota) weren't wouldn't be usable models for Democrats.  


You talk about the blue dogs, (0.00 / 0)
as if they were the problem. Nonsense. The problem is the rest of the Democrats. DaveJ says the problem is SOME Democrats not THE Democrats. No DaveJ, this is transparent bullshit. He says look, look Alan Grayson is a Democrat too. Wow. Pretty f**king thrilling (be still my racing heart)a Democrat who is not a complete douche. Not so very great either. I know, nevermind. You know what I mean, DaveJ knows what I mean it is entirely obvious that 80-90 percent of Democratic officeholders (as opposed to the electorate) are completely worthless corporate whores, anti-labor, favoring polluters, the war machine, assaults on civil liberties, the health insurance industry, banks over people,...Obama is NOT a blue dog, but (I know it infuriates the Obama poodles amongst us) a certifiable piece of Democratic crap. That is not my opinion. It is scientifically verifiable. Sestak, the Afghanistan War promoter is sold to us by you and Bowers and maybe DaveJ as a "good guy"????? Please tell me how supporting a war promoter is supporting a "good guy". A trillion dollars flushed down that toilet, with maintenance of a disastrous and dangerous foreign policy and derailing any domestic initiatives and providing the basis for continuing assaults on civil liberties and assaults on  internationally respected norms of  behavior concernin g rendition and torture. Seriously! Tell us who all the "good guys" are; do name names; it can't be hard after all; DaveJ tells us it is SOME Democrats not THE Democrats. Take all the time and space you need.

[ Parent ]
90% of the electeds are wrong on ALL of that? (4.00 / 1)
Or you can check off one of those things against a lot of them?  This is hyperbolic nonsense, and you don't have any damn solution for any of this.  You just rant over and over and over.  

[ Parent ]
and you just apologize over and over again for a party that is an integrable part of the problem, (0.00 / 0)
You apologize over and ove, by not rejecting them and acting as if they stand for anything that helps anyone's life. On issue after issue, just enough of them turn back progrezsive change but enablers like you play your essential role of not allowing criticism actually go to the heart of the problem. The Democrats are bought and paid for and function accordingly. Why do you? Dissent is doing "something"; that is what we should be dissenting. Rejecting this dishonesty and betrayal; not supporting it. Keep doing it if you must; but don't act bewildered if you end up electing a better Dem like Sestak and he turns out to be another Obama.

[ Parent ]
I'm not saying to not critisise (0.00 / 0)
What I am saying is that you're eventually going to have to do something.  Pulling out of all engagement is going to end badly.  And the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  If a Sestak turns into another Obama, you have to primary Sestak then.  And regardless, a Sestak is better than a Specter.  

This is a long slog of a process that will never end.  But its the only effective way to reign in any of this.  I'm in full support of ballot reform at the state level.  But:

1) Even with a parliamentary congress and proportional representation, coalitions need to be forme,d and the larger party will always lead those coalitions.  You run into the same problems of compromise and 'purity', just at the parliamentary level, rather than at the ballot box.  

2) Absent ballot reform, you're not going to build an effective third party.  And even if you could, the resources required to build a national, competitive third party would be far in excess of a set of successful primary challenges, particularly when you compound by the amount that a few successful primary challenges scare incumbents.  

But yelling on the internet and taking your toys and going home isn't going to move a single politician on anything.  It will just leave the Democratic base that much more conservative.  


[ Parent ]
You mightg not think so, but (0.00 / 0)
in fact you ARE indeed saying that criticism that tells the truth about just how bad the Democrats right now are is beyond the acceptable pale.And let me add in the same general way that Giordano,Bouie, and other party apparatchik function. I have maintained over and over again here that electing Sestak to take one relevant example creates another "Obama-disappointment". So why don't you give that a moment's thought and tell me how that helps. Others have observed that the Dems outside of power are an impotant force in fact in defending social security; however in power they are supportive of Obama-Alan Simpson's responsible efforts to attack social security; out of officethey are strong for a public option...in office decidedly less so. In the minority they are firm supporting EFCA and DADT and opposing offshore drilling...in power I think even you know. Outside of power, they don't support torture, renditions and escalation of war; in power we have one betrayal by Obama and
Dems after another. (Of course the responsible thoughtful response is to enable this. Sure. Well thought out!).

[ Parent ]
Politics isn't binary. it's not even close to binary (0.00 / 0)
You seem to have this mentality that all elected officials are either total rats, or not.  but there are a slew of issues, and a variety of positions one can take on any.  Across the whole spectrum, all you can do is slowly move them.  

And the primary challenges have done that.  perhaps not as much as you like, and certainly not as much as I'd like.  But it has moved the caucus--primaries created Blanche Lincoln's derivatives language, for example.  


[ Parent ]
Oh you are so right. (0.00 / 0)
It is not "binary". If you don't like Bush Cheney, it might turn out that the answer might NOT be Democrats or Obama or the 90% of the elected Dem officeholders who are in bed with and controlled by corporate power even though that's what the saimple-minded binarist might think. And the "do something, elect more scummy Dems" as the binarist's simple-minded response to the consensus Dem-Rep wisdom and policy might just be too much of a binary reaction.

[ Parent ]
What is the answer? (4.00 / 1)
Bring something to the table.

The American system is heavily biased toward two and only two parties, but it also produces parties without much identity or discipline which are really just coalition hodgepodges. The strategy we're advocating here involves getting as many as possible of out people into the D coalition.

But our real problem, as I've said, is not enough people, not enough mobilization, not enough committment.  Not strategy.


[ Parent ]
Yes, all of the politicians in Washington are 100% identical (0.00 / 0)
on all policy issues.  Vote totals, public statements, past histories, and everything else be damned.  

[ Parent ]
By the way, (0.00 / 0)
I am not ashamed at your accusing me of "ranting". I do not know what it takes to make you and other Democratic-Party-supporters-in-the-face-of-daily=betraysls come to that level of dismay and anger. I ranted at Bush; and I will rant at Obama and the Dems since they are following the same policies by and large. Just curious...did you "rant" at Bush, or did you just channel your activity into more constructive and responsible acts. For the record, if you did, they didn't work. You might want to revisit that. You know, learn...

[ Parent ]
Oh, I'm angry too (0.00 / 0)
but there is a difference between pissing into the wind and taking the fight to them.  Feel free to continue doing the former.  

[ Parent ]
Velatan... (0.00 / 0)
Better to piss in the wind than...
fall to your knees and have them piss in your face.

Just saying.


[ Parent ]
Where in this entire damn thread do I say 'follow leadership' (0.00 / 0)
Or even 'follow leadership blindly'

I have never seen a single person who is yelling 'the democrats are evil' at top volume refute that it is far simpler to take over the Democratic party than it would be to build a new party.  The only counterargument in this entire thread is that perhaps the new primary people would be captured by special interests upon election.  There is no reason to believe that the same thing wouldn't happen with a powerful third party, though.  

No matter what you do, the end result is that your'e going to have to start organizing and primarying bad democrats, and scaring them into good behaviour.  And, once again, the Republican model from the late '70s and early '80s shows that this is totally possible.  


[ Parent ]
And I accused you of ranting (0.00 / 0)
because you cited a completely made up and wildly wrong statistic with no evidence.  

[ Parent ]
By the way, (0.00 / 0)
I am not ashamed at your accusing me of "ranting". I do not know what it takes to make you and other Democratic-Party-supporters-in-the-face-of-daily=betraysls come to that level of dismay and anger. I ranted at Bush; and I will rant at Obama and the Dems since they are following the same policies by and large. Just curious...did you "rant" at Bush, or did you just channel your activity into more constructive and responsible acts. For the record, if you did, they didn't work. You might want to revisit that. You know, learn...

[ Parent ]
One historical note (4.00 / 5)
re: Clinton

31 Democrats defect, support impeachment inquiry

Merely supporting and electing Democrats doesn't preclude Democratic defections.  I am willing to bet that should the Republicans re-take Congress, they will have a sufficient amount of help from the Democrats to ensure they accomplish their goals; they'll have plenty of help from the "other side of the aisle."  Hell, for all we know Jim Matheson will vote lock-step with 'em.  And, the pundits will cheer It's bipartisan! and, therefore, Good.

And, given stuff like this,

The Obama administration and its pundit-defenders

I'm not sure Obama and complicit Democrats aren't deserving of an inquiry.  I'd have preferred it be the Bush cabal and their Republican sidekicks, but Pelosi took it off the table.  

Each next challenge comes with an increasing cost.  I get the argument around lesser of two evils, but by failing to confront our own side meaningfully when we have an opportunity to do so, we move from one level of pain to a much greater level of pain.  From a large risk to a much greater risk.  We didn't want to tank the health care bill when it didn't contain a public option and, ostensibly, millions who have no access to health care yada yada... and so we face Republican obstructionism on steroids, instead.  It's a run scared/false choice strategy to me and, increasingly, not one I'm inclined to support.


A tad presumptuous, I'd say (4.00 / 1)
First off, my ultimate goal is a more progressive and humane America, not ensuring national-level Dem politicos remain in power. If and when I feel that voting against the Democrats or for another party is a better means to that end I will make no apologies for choosing that course. I do not currently feel that way, but if I did, someone screaming at me about how crucial it is to protect the Democratic Party will have little influence on me.

Second, I am unhappy with the vast majority of the Dems in DC for both sins of omission and commission. Most of them are bad in varying ways and to varying degrees, even if they are not all equally bad or equally culpable for bad policy and political outcomes. That does not mean I will vote or organize for another party unless #1 above obtains.  So the implied association "criticize the Dems" and voting for Republicans or against Dems is not true, or at least not necessarily true. I fully recognize bad can become worse and worse can become catastrophic.

Third, it is not totally unreasonable to conclude that a) the party post-2000 has moved (marginally) to the left at least in rhetoric if not in policy and both are important. I'd say marginal, not necessarily sustainable, but palpable; b) the major reasons relate of course to changing circumstances (the Great Recession, the horrors of Bush), but part of that was perhaps a move to solidify disaffected voters on the left and Nader voters. Maybe not, but not beyond the pale and if true it lends wait to the argument that many develop that the threat of loss is a necessary condition to compel the party leftward.

Fourth, blind, unyielding adherence to the "lesser of two evils" paradigm, no matter how large that lesser evil, can take the country to some very, very ugly places as politics get ever further pulled to the right, because, "it could always be worse".

Fifth, not even the most trenchant critics of the party claim no Democratic leader (e.g., Whitehouse) ever says or does anything of any value whatsoever. Your few counter cases are not really that relevant to an overall assessment, especially when you consider individuals rarely set the agenda. You laud Whitehouse. He wanted to prosecute some Bush officials. How's that working out?

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


How's your strategy working out? (0.00 / 0)
From your confident presentation I'd assume that it's progressing wonderfully.

People who have a better idea than what we're doing should tell us what it is.  


[ Parent ]
You might reread (0.00 / 0)
My strategy is (I'm guessing) pretty close to yours: I vote for Democrats. I organize for Democrats. I give money to Democrats.

But I resent attempts to scare me into towing some party line while ignoring, or at least not verbalizing, my critical views when, where, and how I want. If that pisses off some people, I'm OK with that.  

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


[ Parent ]
Have you been around long (0.00 / 0)
Everyone here criticizes Democrats and the party as a whole all the time. This thread is more about, #1) "I'll never vote for a Democrat ever again" and #2) "Let them lose. They're just as bad as the Republicans. After they lose, then we can make our move".

this might just be a misunderstanding between us.  


[ Parent ]
I responded to the diary (4.00 / 1)
and did not read all the comments before replying. Perhaps that was a mistake. But the tone of the diary I think I got pretty clearly. Surely it is equally obvious, to this group, that the GOPers as a whole are worse, and so the scare tactic seems unnecessary, ill-considered (especially the tone) and beside the point if the point is "what tactics are available to us to make Dems better" rather than are "Dems better or worse than GOPers overall". The latter is a pretty silly question on its face.

In terms of your comments...

#1 is just stupid (the view, not you) and an unnecessary emotional outburst that can be safely ignored pretty much all of the time. Hell, I've said it more than once and then my rational mind resumes control in time for the next election.

#2 I do not currently embrace but the argument merits some consideration (at least the first and third sentences) as a question of tactics for improving Dems. In such a discussion, I do not think the way this diary makes the point about the GOPers being worse is particularly helpful.

Been here three summers but come and go as time permits.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


[ Parent ]
Dave wasn't writing only for regulars here (4.00 / 2)
#1 and #2 are both frequently expressed, here and elsewhere. They come up all the time.

It seems to me that DaveJ made a pretty good case against #2. I thought something like that in 2000, but GWB turned out to be much worse than we'd be led to believe. This does not strike me as a good time at all to choose the "let them hang themselves", since they leadership is still far right and very determined, since they still have a large constituency even crazier than themselves, and because they're authoritarians who are weak on the rule of law, much less civil liberties.

As I've said several times, if we had more popular support a more aggressive strategy by progressives might be justified. As it is, the hard right outnumbers progressives 2 or 3 to one.  


[ Parent ]
"Fair" is unfair (4.00 / 1)
Currently, Democrats attack corrupt Democrats but mostly avoid attacking Republicans.  Republicans attack corrupt Democrats and totally avoid attacking Republicans, corrupt or crazy as they may be.  The result is that although the Republicans are considerably more corrupt, the public is left (because of our own foolish "strategy") thinking that Republicans are pure as the driven snow and Democrats are a cesspool of corruption.

I see the fruits of this every day.  New Jersey elected a "white knight" Republican who is one of the most corrupt Governors in the state's history.  That's saying a lot.  Christie made phone calls when US Attorney to save his crooked stock broker brother from indictment.  He kept his job by prosecuting only Democrats (it was a "Christmas gift to Karl Rove that took him off the list of US Attorneys slated to be fired).  All of this is public knowledge and yet this ultimate bully was lauded for many years by the state's media while Corzine was continually attacked.

One more thing.  Nearly all of the Democratic politicians he prosecuted were minorities.  The guy is a bigot as well.

If we had attacked the lying miserable SOB from the start, he never, ever would have been elected dogcatcher, never mind Governor.

We repeat this mistake over and over again.  Go after Bush and Christie and Rove and the whole corrupt lot.  G after "heckuva job, Brownie."  Go after the people at BP and put em in jail.  Hey, have them clean up the beaches while wearing orange jump suits.

Otherwise, we make the same mistakes we make on policy where we compromise with the devil.


There is no "the answer" (4.00 / 1)
We are going against entrenched forces which are well organized well financed and with lots of very genuine support. We will not change the direction of this country easily. But one thing is clear continuing to support Democrats is the wrong path. The Democratic coalition is not worth much. We are more likely to stop the coming attacks on Social Security and Medicare with Dems in minority than with Obama and the rest of this corrupt dishonest grouping leading the attack. And our efforts are better put in making our dissent and opposition to the Dem-Rep politics public,open and insistent. If Dems satisfy us in deed, sure we'll support them. Supporting a Sestak, hoping he will be progressive is stupid and dangerous. He will be another Obama-disappointment, and misleaders like Bowers and DaveJ are leading us in avery bad direction...to say nothing of the little prick Markos. Sometimes "doing" is not doing and worse is counterproductive; we all want changes and soon. It's not going to happen that way. Change real change will occur if and only if the crisis worsens and the one-party ruling wisdom is seeen to be vacuous; supporting phony democrats makes us a useless, distrusted voice when problems become crises. We should have been screaming for the last 12 months about every Obama betrayal from the bank bailout, to Afghanistan to offshore drilling
Much of his administration is just recycled Bush-Cheney crap; we should say so.

"But one thing is clear" (4.00 / 2)
To you, maybe.

You really haven't proposed much of anything and seem annoyed that you've been asked to do so. You apparently overestimate our numbers and power. You support the "the worse, the better" "let them win" strategy, without any idea of whether it will work, which it seldom does. You seem to believe that there's going to be a spontaneous groundswell of opposition to the Republican policies at some point, but people have been waiting for that to happen for 30 years now and it hasn't showed up. And finally, you've made it the choice between supporting Democrats all the time or never, every Democrat or no Democrat, which is the specific mistake Dave was arguing against.

We're in a very bad place and most of us are racking our brains figuring out what to do. I jump around all the time, defending Obama against right-wing criticisms while making left criticisms myself. I think that the stimulus was too small; they think it was too big. I think that the credit system needed to be reconstructed, but that the finacne groups shouldn't have been subsidized; they think that there should have been no bailout at all. I think that Obama is too much like Bush on military policy, they think he should nuke Teheran. And so on.


[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
I jump around all the time, defending Obama against right-wing criticisms while making left criticisms myself.

We need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

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


[ Parent ]
Obama's betrayal (0.00 / 0)
Obama's presidency has just led to credibility for all of the
Bush policies that he has endorsed.  He is a more competent politician than Bush so was able to get more awful crap done!

His cat food commission will be his crowning achievement of betrayal for all who have voted for him.

Bush is attempted assault on Social Security, failed miserably. Obamas will not, all in the effort of bipartisanship, of course.

I do not prescribe to the evil Empire theme in the above post, and will not vote for any crappy Democrat regardless of the evil Republican running against him. I will vote for a third party or in the case of Obama I will vote for his Republican opponent as he has proved more dangerous than a Republican ever could.


"He has proved more dangerous than a Republican ever could." (4.00 / 1)
That's just idiotic.  

[ Parent ]
obama's betrayal (4.00 / 2)
  Republicans have been trying to dismantle Social Security since it was created. Obama will succeed where all Republicans have failed.

Sorry, I do not feel it is idiotic. He legitimizes Republican policies and tactics.


obama's betrayal (0.00 / 0)
  Republicans have been trying to dismantle Social Security since it was created. Obama will succeed where all Republicans have failed.

Sorry, I do not feel it is idiotic. He legitimizes Republican policies and tactics.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox