Face Facts, Our Democratic Leadership Is Ill-Prepared For This Fight

[Yavin4]

They're not prepared to take on the corporate and right-wing media. They don't have any ideas of their own. They only want to moderate Republican ideas. They have no respect for the Democratic base and take us for granted. They're willing to throw any member of their base, unions(free trade agreements), Gays and Lesbians(Defense of Marriage Act), the elderly (Social Security Privitization), the working and middle class(Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy), the young(education cuts), and the truth(De-Regulation of the media), over board to the please the almighty, moderate, swing voter. To me, the only purpose that the Democratic leadership serves is to convince Democrats to accept Republican ideas.

Spare me the "you're-not-a-team-player" and "don't-criticize-the-leadership" posts. If you can't understand that the Democratic leadership in Washington needs to be changed, then the fight is lost long before it begins. Right now, no one, NO ONE, in Washington represents your interests, your values, and your issues. NO ONE. Not the courts, not the media, not the government, and esp. NOT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS. The only thing that the DLC does is convince Democrats to not be Democrats. We're fighting a war without leaders.

Hell, the insurgents in Iraq have better leaders than we do.

[donco6]

1. Fight? What Fight? Why do I always miss everything!

<sarcasm OFF>

[Nikepallas]

2. Could not have said it better myself. I just wonder when the rest

of the country realizes just how screwed we really are.

[Walt Starr]

3. Can't disagree with a thing you've said

No flames from me. The rEpublicans know what to do with leadership like we have, they FIRE THEIR ASSES!

I'm waiting until February. If the party goes the way I think it'll go, I'm going third party and will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live.

[Cobalt Violet]

4. They've already through the under-class in a long time ago.

I say "come on in,there is plenty of room out here in the cold."
Did the middle class,seniors,young,and unions really think they wouldn't dump your concerns too?

We have a very lame leadership. They can't even say FRAUD because they are affraid of what Hannity and O'Reliey will say.

[Yavin4]

5. What Kills Me Is That Some People Here Expect the Dems

to do something about voter fraud. Are you kidding me? Why if the Democratis leaders went after voter fraud, they might not get invited to be ridiculed on Sean Hannity's show. Can't have that now can we?

[Walt Starr]

6. That's harsh

Well deserved, but still harsh.

It's time to get harsh with these assholes.

:evilgrin:

[Cobalt Violet]

7. The longer they put the fight off the bloodier it's going to have to be.

:-(

[jrthin]

8. True, true, true.

Our dems are tripping over themselves trying to "work across party line," even if that means putting our values on the selling block.

[m berst]

9. agreed

I can't understand why anyone here would be resistant to the view you expressed here, yet many are.

It is not only "our" values and interests and policies that are being tossed in the dumpster, and I hate it when the basic foundational positions and principles of traditional liberalism are characterized as "fringe" or "far left." The people - the overwhelming majority - are being oppressed, and it is the needs of the people that are being neglected and the rights of the people that are being destroyed. This is not an issue of "left" or "right" let alone "fringe" or extremism.

The oppression is coming directly from the right wing, yes, but we make a mistake to focus the blame (for want of a better word) on them. Tyrants have emerged in every generation in every land. The blame for the current situation is properly assigned to those who were charged with protecting us from the tyrants, and have so miserably and undeniably failed in their duty.

[Lexingtonian]

10. I don't buy that

There seems to be no end or bottom to the hysterical, stupid, ideas being tossed about this forum.

You may want to learn a bit more about U.S. history. The country has never had much of a hardcore Left, and its political axis scheme has generally been 'orthogonal': a kind of cross scheme, one axis of which is Liberal-reactionary (socially) and the other Right-left (economically). Individual Americans don't obey this scheme but their political groupings do. It's the result of it being a colonialist political system originally. (The scheme in Canada is more strongly so, actually- Canadians still live by a stronger sensibility of civil rights in private life and by a weaker sense of real political power.)

Secondly, the historical pattern here is typical also for a historically 'normal' three-generation long cycle of society-wide change. During the first 25-30 years, while the changes of the previous cycle are still being accommodated and the argument for the next set of changes is unpopular (<30%), the liberal side dominates. During the middle 30-35 years, where the support for the argument for change is a minority with real political power, the reactionary side dominates and things are increasingly polarized as the argument for change reaches 50% support. For the last 10-15 years of such a cycle the argument for change has won and the reactionaries- now a minority of 40-45%- negotiate out the best deal they possibly can while they have enough power left, which amounts to some degree to a buyout/payoff. (The argument about slavery ended with the last part of the thing falling through- the Southern planters decided slaves were a form of capital rather than merely a form of labor to them. The Civil War resulted.)

[Yavin4]

11. My Rebuttal To Your DLC Argument

You may want to learn a bit more about U.S. history. The country has never had much of a hardcore Left, and its political axis scheme has generally been 'orthogonal': a kind of cross scheme, one axis of which is Liberal-reactionary (socially) and the other Right-left (economically). Individual Americans don't obey this scheme but their political groupings do. It's the result of it being a colonialist political system originally. (The scheme in Canada is more strongly so, actually- Canadians still live by a stronger sensibility of civil rights in private life and by a weaker sense of real political power.)

Where in my post did you see me say that I want a hardcore leftist political party? Where? I want to stop corporate-reiligious-fascism from taking root in this country, and that makes me a hardcore leftist? I want full citizenship rights for Gays and Lesbians. I want to maintain a solid SS and Medicare system. I want a national healthcare system which ALL other first world nations have and which will CREATE JOBS because healthcare costs act as a barrier for hiring. I want a complete separation of church and state. I want a balanced budget, and I DON'T WANT MY CONUTRY INVADING ANOTHER NATION WITHOUT CAUSE!!!!!

These aren't hardcore leftist issues. These are mainstream issues which have been preverted by a corporately controlled, right-wing media, and because of weak-kneed, "dont want to offend the moderates" Dems like yourself and our leaders in Washington, these issues have become "leftist".

Folks, this is what I'm talking about. Our leadership and people like, Lexingtonian, has let mainstream issues become labeled "leftist".

[Lexingtonian]

13. Ha ha, very funny....

That's a load of crap, Yavin4.

I have no idea what ideas are labelled 'mainstream' or 'leftist'. And I offend moderates all the time. We have opposite styles: I consider moderate but determined means best for achieving fairly radical ends in the long run. You insist on pretty radical means/efforts for pretty moderate ends in -what seems to me- quite the short term.

I don't know what's wisest in the present situation. I get the feeling you don't really either.

[Q]

16. They'd be calling us 'commies' in another time and place...

...but you're right that the so-called moderates of the DLC variety have joined with the RWingers in labeling what should be mainstream American values as 'far-left'. Their motivation is transparent: label the opposition as 'extreme' so that no one will take them seriously. It worked during the cold war when 'commies' were the enemy and now when 'terrorists' and 'far-lefties' are branded as enemies of the new state.

It's sad that part of the Democratic party has not only become enablers for the RWingers...but have joined them in a propaganda campaign to rival that of the McCarthy era.

[Cobalt Violet]

12. Just what idea are you calling "stupid"?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Again, Dick Durbin should be leader, not whip

Pelosi's better than Reid and Daschle but I'm pissed when I found out that she won't give Cynthia McKinney her seniority.

[KG]

15. the dem leadership is made up of morally corrupt political cowards;

careerist for whom losing has no adverse consequences (like losing there jobs.)

until something happens to change this, the dem. party will continue is spiral to irrelevancy.

[kentuck]

17. We need to take our Party back...

It's pretty obvious. Most have sold out to corporate interests.

[Pepperbelly]

19. Irrelevent ...

unless we take care of the bare-bones competence of the people represeting us to the public. See my post below.

[Pepperbelly]

18. The problem is more basic than that ...

Our paid professionals SUCK. How many of you watched representatives of the party or Kerry or "the left" or whatever during the election saw competent representation? I cannot recall a single one.

For starters, our people NEVER have a sufficient grasp of the facts of the matter to even recognized when the gops start lying, much less the facts needed to make it radioactive for the dirty bastards. If our people do not know the facts, they cannot well represent us. And the real BITCH of it is that they are PAID to know the facts. And yet they do not.

When they do speak, the repeat ad nauseum STUPID fucking talking points that do not say a DAMNED thing. "Kerry's a liberal!" "Labels are of no value." Give me a fucking break! So bland it makes me gag.

Dale Bumpers, the retired U.S. Senator from Arkansas, dealt with that same crap in every election in a conservative state and he beat it everytime. How? Simple. In the debate, face to face with his challenger, he would remark that if opponent x was denied the use of the word 'liberal', he would have absolutely nothing to say. He would smile and laugh with the crowd and then, when fuck nuggets brought it up again, all Dale would have to do is smile and the audience would LAUGH when the word was used.

Very simple device.

Our people MUST be willing to do the grunt work of learning the facts and staying up to speed IF they are going to accept the lucre and monies they get by being a talking head representing US. They are doing their job poorly. They are lazy and self involved and not putting in the work that the job requires.

AFTER they learn the facts, they then need to step up to the plate and call the lying bastards on their lies AT THAT MOMENT AND TO THEIR FACE. Make it radioactive for them to lie. They lie because they have learned that they can get away with it and if they are faced with it immediately so that they cannot lie, they have absolutely NOTHING going for them.

[Yavin4]

20. Right On!

How many times have we've seen Dem strategists appear on these news shows stumbling around their arguments. Any 3rd grader could take down a Hannity or a O'Reilly if they are armed with the facts.

[Deja Q]

21. I will not flame you. Indeed, the DLC sealed their coffin when they said

they didn't want people like Michael Moore representing them.

Now the DLC has been a long time biparticapitulator, but they alienated MANY people with that comment, hopefully MILLIONS.

[Cocoa]

22. how are the dems in favor of SS privitization?

on Meet the Press, Harry Reid surprised me by being very clear about Social Security.