I am so enraged....why bother voting Democrat anymore?

[femme.democratique]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700571/site/newsweek/

Regarding abortion....

"But a handful of those senators—including Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, Arkansas Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh—have joined a new progressive advocacy group, Third Way, that hopes to move the party to the center on a number of cultural issues, including abortion."

Sorry to say, but I won't be voting Democratic again unless the party reclaims its progressive roots. What the democratic party doesn't get it that it ISNT the cultural issues that are the problem - they need to get those millions of people who don't vote and don't care about politics to WAKE UP! I strongly feel that of all the non-voting public most are liberal and just need to be educated on why politics and governance matters to everyday life.

Green party here I come!

[NYCGirl]

1. Third Way calls themselves a "progressive advocacy group" with that stand?

Now I've heard everything.

[Radical Activist]

59. kind of like a moderate Democrat

saying he's from the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, just like Paul Wellstone. It doesn't add up.

[NYCGirl]

77. When you're saying it to a meeting of the DLC, it sure does add up. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

82. never miss a chance to bash Dean...

sigh

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I agree 100%. This is just the first step.....the inch before they take

the arm......................!!!!!!

[Solly Mack]

3. progressively what exactly?

progressively becoming republican?

[Walt Starr]

4. Time to start a NEW party

The Progressive Party.

Simply take all the ideals the Democrats USED to stand for and adopt that as our platform!

The Democratic PArty can then go the way of the Whigs.

[ZombieNixon]

6. Or, rather, reactivate the Progressive Party? n/t

[Lorien]

19. Aren't they already quite active in Vermont?

somebody posted a link here once. They seem like good, old fashioned 1970s dems.

[Johnny Noshoes]

43. OT

Man I love that cat :D

"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings." — John F. Kennedy

[Johnny Noshoes]

45. Okay

when I started the OT reply there was that great cat picture - then it disappeared so if there's any confusion about what the hell I was talking about I hope this clears it up. Ooops

[Johnny Noshoes]

47. Sounds good

Sounds Like a good idea to me. We give the Dems one last chance and then we strike out on a new path.

"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings." — John F. Kennedy

[bvar22]

60. Try these guys out before you leave:

Progressive Democrats of America. They are holding a Progressives Summit in DC during (and immediately after) the coronation of bush*. They are working to form an alliance with the CBC.

http://www.pdamerica.org/

Here is their statement on Iraq:

PDA believes the unilateral invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic mistake and that it will prove to be one of the biggest fiascos in American history.

PDA wants Democratic Party leaders to speak the truth about America's invasion of Iraq.

Here is what PDA believes and what we believe needs be said.

* The invasion was illegal under both the UN Charter and the US Constitution.

* It was unprovoked, unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary.

* It is obscenely expensive at a time when non-military government programs are starved for resources.

* It is based on distortions and deceptions and falsehoods -- not by accident, but by design.

* That the costs incurred by the US are borne disproportionately by the poor and underprivileged.

* That it was not motivated by a quest for phantom Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but by the Bush Administration's determination to control Iraqi oil, to provide vast opportunities for war profiteering by American corporations, and to build 14 new American military bases in Iraq which it intends to keep there for decades to come.

* That the Iraqi people deserve reparations for the harm we have inflicted on their population, their country and their national soul.
(more)

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/pda_iraq_statement.php

There are local chapters in some states, and the list is growing. You
can check here for a grassroots contact in your area.

http://pdamerica.org/caucuses.php


I'm supporting this organization for a while....until the 2006 elections. Then I will decide if my once cherished Democratic Party is beyond hope. If it is, I will help drive the stake through its heart.

[Johnny Noshoes]

102. Thanks I will

:hi:

[tabasco]

66. The best way to guarantee abortion being outlawed...

is to split the left into powerless, impotent mini-parties that scream loudly but accomplish nothing. This would assure unending republican rule. I think the OP knows this.

[tedzbear]

5. I have already re-registered as a Green Party member.

Bye-bye centrist (but actually right wing) Democratic Party.

:bounce:

[LittleApple81]

8. I will be doing the same. Democrats will be Repug lite...White elephants

as far as I am concerned.

[fujiyama]

7. The senators listed above

are from pretty conservative states. I understand how and why they will vote for their own political survival.

Hopefully they won't have too much sway on the rest of the party. The main thing is telling people WHY we are pro choice. The whole "pro life" movement is simplistic and idiotic. Kerry has a point in making sure you point out that you don't necessarily LIKE abortion, but it's important to keep it safe and legal, because if it's not it's going to happen anyways.

But people don't like to think. It's easier to talk about the "murder of the unborn" rather than help with those that are born, or making practical sex ed and contraceptives available to all.

On edit: I was just reading the article. It's terribly biased. Check out this clip (capital letters added):

"But as a step toward ultimately preserving that basic right, some Democrats now favor embracing COMMON-SENSE restrictions on it. One possible initiative: a bill banning third-trimester abortions with broad exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

[cap]

9. how about "murder of the mother"

when u can't get an abortion on medical grounds.

How about "disabling the mother" when a girl's reproductive system gets screwed up 'cause she's too underdeveloped to have a kid.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. But, they were able to get elected in their areas, with their beliefs,

without changing the basic tenets of the Democratic Party. These guys are talking about changing what the party as a whole should stand for!!! That is a whole different thing.
The fact that the pro-life Dems could still be elected, and in fact, Reid could hold a position of leadership means that the party, as it is, is open and accepting. There is no reason to change its basic tenets. Why should the Democratic Party try to be more like the Republican Party!!??? If you want that kind of party..join the Repugnants!!!!

(meant as a response to POST #12)

[salin]

21. Not Evan Bayh - the repubs

don't even run serious candidates against him. THis is all about his national aspirations.

[proudbluestater]

29. Unbelievable!

"One possible initiative: a bill banning third-trimester abortions with broad exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

Idiots! This is PRECISELY what Roe v Wade SAYS ALREADY!

[Hippo_Tron]

62. But economic centrism is NOT popular in the south, nor anywhere

The senators from Arkansas get elected probably because it's the state of Clinton. Mary Landrieu BARELY wins her elections because Louisiana is traditionally democratic. Bayh wins with hefty margins because he was a two term governor, his dad was a senator, and he has a huge bank account, so the GOP didn't bother running a credible candidate against him. Max Cleland, DLC member, LOST his seat, as have many others in the south.

Those who point to the DLC being the organization of Clinton and his success have to remember that Clinton ran a very populist campaign in 1992 and came to the presidency as the first self-described "activist" president since Lyndon Johnson. Clinton did become much more centrist during his administration, but his success in 1996 came from being an incumbent with a good economy and also from standing up to Newt on the government shutdown and making the GOP look radical. Clinton left office with a higher approval rating than when he started, but I guarantee that if he had championed and won progressive goals during his administration, history and the American public would have had as high if not higher regards for him than Reagan.

[impeach the gop]

10. screw the cowards

This is our party. and by god we do own it.

They can go take a hike with traitor joe

Why should we always be the one having to be
shoved aside?

Piss on all of them

they'll come back crying when they get it thru
their skulls, WE THE BOSS!!
we foot the bill not them PERIOD
I'm not gonna be pushed around anymore

[femme.democratique]

11. I just had to change my avatar....

That article was the straw that broke the camels back. Especially hearing Kerry state that namby-pamby drivel...now instead of "Smart Women vote Democratic" it is now "Smart Women Know Darwin Had It Right!"

We definitely need a viable third national progressive party. Don't know that the Greens will fit this bill....but you have to start somewhere.

[paulk]

12. there are pro- life Democrats and

pro-choice Republicans. Did you just discover this? The Democrats you mention all come from red states - and their positions on social issues very likely had a lot to do with their getting elected.

The Democratic Party is a coalition. If your single issue stance forces you to a third party - by all means, go for it. I'm sure you can convince all those "millions of liberal voters who don't vote" to come to your side.

[femme.democratique]

17. paulk, I sense you are a tad terse?

How arrogant for you to assume I vote on a single issue. The problem is a clear lack of direction and this manifests itself in hot-button issues like abortion. Unfortunately, this party is heading nowhere but down, and without a real leader this will only continue. After the election more DINOs are popping out of the woodwork. It saddens me because I have voted democrat in every election since 88. Nowadays, the party is a sad shadow of what it once stood for. I'm sorry you feel tied to a particular party - but one thing I have learned is that you have to vote your convictions. The Democratic party now has displayed little conviction and has done nothing to earn my continued support.

Also, I feel quite insulted by your comment:

I'm sure you can convince all those "millions of liberal voters who don't vote" to come to your side.

Do you disagree that there are many in the general public who feel disenfranchised by the present political system and need to be reached out to by progressives? If you want to stick with the flip side of the republican party, go for it. I for one wish to participate in something that actually represents my beliefs and won't sell them up the river just to get more votes in Arkansas!

[paulk]

20. As the OP, you based this thread on a single issue

It's not arrogant to take you at your word.

You trot out the old canard that there are just millions of voters out there waiting to vote for a liberal or third party, with no supporting proof other than wishful thinking to back up your theory.

I WILL stick to a party that actually has a chance at getting people elected, if you want to waste your vote on feeling morally superior, by all means, go for it. But don't expect to come on this board, trash the Democratic Party, advocate for a third party, and expect everyone to agree with you. Or be polite in their disagreement.

[m berst]

28. "old canard?"

I haven't heard it very much - nowhere nearly enough. Over the last 5 years I have often found myself as the only one espousing this. Seems like a fresh idea to me, not an old canard. Calling it an "old canard" that is being "trotted out" just seems like a covert way to discredit the idea.

"You trot out the old canard that there are just millions of voters out there waiting to vote for a liberal or third party, with no supporting proof other than wishful thinking to back up your theory."

I can't speak for the poster to whom you are responding, but for myself this is far from "wishful thinking" and more like "vivid memory."

[paulk]

36. it's trotted out by the fringe left and third party types

every four years. It's what's going to fuel the great uprising that throws the Democrats/Republicans out of office.

Hey, it's a great idea - it's just not based in any kind of reality.

Because it never happens.

[m berst]

39. "fringe left" ??

"Not based in reality" ??

And the reason it isn't based in reality is because "it never happens?" Maybe it never happens because people talk about what is "based in reality" instead of dreaming of a better world. Dreaming of a better world is what Democrats once did without fear of being ridiculed as being out of touch with reality or maligned as a "fringe."

Where is this fringe left? I haven't seen it in 40 years.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, but can you consider that there could be a contrary point of view to what you have expressed here that has some legitimacy?

The Communist party and the John Birch society are what we once called the fringe element. It is really sad to see that applied to any one here.

[paulk]

54. when the fringe left proves to me they can win elections

I'll stop calling them "fringe". Dreams don't win elections, votes do. That's reality, and stating a fact is not "maligning" anyone.

You haven't seen the fringe left in forty years? I guess it's just a matter of definition... I would define the Naderites and the Greens as fringe leftists. Or fringe elements. When they can win elections - (at least for the side that represents at least some of their ideology, rather than the side that least represents them), then I'll be willing to grant them some political credibility.

[bvar22]

70. Keep working to "republicanize" the Democratic Party.

You'll get your wish.

Progressive Democrats did better than the repub lites at holding their congressional seats and at winning new seats, ala Cynthia McKinney. Goodbye Daschle.

If "Fringe Leftists" are those who believe in:

Strong Environmental Protections

Universal HealthCare

Well Funded PUBLIC Education

No STUPID Wars

Corporate Accountability

Criminalizing Corporate lobbying

REAL election reform (Publically funded, IRO elections)

No NAFTA (et al)

Bi-Lateral trade treaties protecting Labor Rights, Human Rights, and the Environment

Honoring Constitutional Protections

Then call me Leftie Fringie.

Here is some REALITY for you. The MAJORITY of AMERICANS support the above positions. Why don't EITHER of our Parties?

[paulk]

79. I'm not working to "Republicanize" anything

What I'm trying to get across is, basically, the idea that political parties are coalitions and that political races are fought on a state and district level.

Do you think Cynthia McKinney could win a Congressional race in South Dakota? Do you really think a progressive Democrat would have done better than Tom Daschle?

Perhaps the majority of Americans do support the things you list - but the majority of Americans who support your list don't live in Indiana, Louisiana, or Arkansas - the states of the Senators mentioned at the start of this thread.

And that is the whole point...

[bvar22]

83. No. You missed the point.

The Truman Doctrine was in effect in South Dakota.

”When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." ---Democratic President Harry Truman



"When the Senate Democratic leader is defeated while spending $16 million attempting to get the majority of 500,000 votes, the problem is not a lack of funding or effort." ----Nov 3 Theses

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/2004/11/002671.html



"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
-- Benjamin Franklin




You would think that Daschle's defeat would provide a clue for the DLC, and probably has. But the Corporate Masters have issued their orders, and their lackeys at the DNC/DLC WILL comply.

We, the citizens and grass roots Democrats, have no bearing in these decisions.

[paulk]

91. The Truman Doctrine????

LOL

Bush won South Dakota by 21 FUCKING percent! And Kerry is far more of a liberal than Daschle.

I'm sure glad you're not in charge of Democratic Party strategy.

Stick with the PDA.

Please.

[bvar22]

99. "Bush won South Dakota by 21 FUCKING percent"

EXACTLY!!!!!

Now pick up the CLUE!

[Zhade]

85. Boy, good thing for McKinney that Georgia is so progressive!

NT!

[paulk]

92. that is exactly the point...

:party:

[Zhade]

93. I'm sorry, I don't follow you. What's your point, exactly?

McKinney won in Georgia - not a state known for its progressive nature.

Daschle lost in SD - not a state known for its progressive nature.

So what is your point, again? I'm not understanding you.

[paulk]

97. McKinney's district in Georgia is heavily Democratic

it's not a statewide race. The House in South Dakota, because of SD's small population, is a statewide race. South Dakota gets only one House seat. Stephanie Herseth - the Democrat who won that seat this year - has many extremely conservative positions.

McKinney couldn't win in South Dakota because she's too liberal. Herseth would probably have a hard time getting the nomination in McKinney's district, even as a Dem., 'cause she's too conservative.

please refer to post #61 for the rest of my point.

-and now I must go to bed...

[Zhade]

103. Not a statewide race...fair enough. That's a worthy point.

NT!

[m berst]

71. labels

So a "Naderite" is a type, and that type is "fringe" and you can tell that they are "fringe" because they are "Naderites?"

It is not a matter of definition in the sense that you have your labels and I have mine. You have labels that seem to define themselves. I say the labels are useless.

The labels don;t tell us about the people. The people tell us about the labels. If you think that the labels you put on people tell you something about them that will cause a lot of confusion.

[paulk]

75. a "Naderite" is someone who voted for Nader

A "Green" is someone who voted for the Green Party candidate.

If those are labels, they are labels defined by actions.

???

[m berst]

87. I disagree with that

A person who voted for Nader is a person who voted for Nader. There is no group called "Naderites" except for the purposes of creating divisions and breaking down communication.

This is a cat chasing its own tail. People who take showers aren't "showerites" they are people who want to get clean and chose the shower over the bath. People who voted Nader are people who want to take the country back from the tyrants and chose to vote for Nader rather than Kerry. Calling them Naderites because they voted for Nader, and then saying that they vote for Nader because they are Naderites is an answer looking for a question. It is a way to put people in group that you can then conveniently ridicule. They are ridiculed because they are in that group and they are in that group because they are ridiculed. It doesn't tell us a thing about them, while it pretends to.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

46. "How arrogant for you to assume..."

Don't worry, he does that to a lot of us.

Welcome to DU!

[paulk]

57. what's arrogant, Zhade

is for you to assume that you speak for other people.

[Zhade]

84. I don't. I'm just speaking from observation.

I'm sorry, I do find you arrogant. Exceedingly so.

[Zhade]

88. You know what? I should apologize.

Even though I do find you remarkably arrogant at times, there really was no reason to point it out. The poster did a fine job defending her points herself.

So: I apologize for just whacking you out of nowhere. That was uncalled for.

I still don't agree with you, but next time I'll try to be more civil. :evilgrin:

[BrklynLiberal]

13. See cartoon at this thread. It perfectly shows the logic of trying to

find common ground with these neo-fascist Repugs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2818929

[Lorien]

14. George Lakdoff put it simply and brilliantly:

As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: “Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party’s progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are.” It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side’s positions are worth moving toward, while your side’s positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right.

From: http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=748

[BrklynLiberal]

16. IT is simple and brilliant. It is why we CANNOT move to the center

cause it means we are moving closer to the Repugs...not closer to any position that reflects American thought. Those idiots are falling for the same media crap that the rest of the public that voted for Bush fell for. I cannot believe it!!!!

[G_j]

23. this is THE quote for Dems to seriously contemplate!

I'll post it again:

"As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: "Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are." It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right."



From this article:

THE NEXT DNC CHAIR: WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

Arianna Huffington, AlterNet

Anyone raising the idea that the party needs to "move to the
middle" should immediately be escorted out of the building.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20699 /

[Lorien]

34. I thought about starting a thread JUST for that quote

but I didn't know if someone had already posted it. The article is a few days old. Lakoff does seem to wrap up the case against moving further rightwards very neatly. Let us pray that the powers that be find the wisdom to listen!

[mitchum]

18. I feel the same as you

[zeek]

22. I am happy to see the party move that direction

There are a ton of pro-life liberals out there who don't vote democrat soley because of the abortion issue.

When you talk about our "progressive roots" you are talking about the issues that will continue to keep the pubs in the presidency and sideline the democrats.

Look at the democratic presidents over the last 50 years: Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Trueman. None of them were progressive on cultural issues. And I can't say I remember, but I'll bet all except Clinton were pro-life.

[G_j]

24. first off

I am offended by the term "pro-life" just as I am by the ridiculous term "Compassionate Conservative" they are both labels created by hypocrites.
Granted there are people who sincerely believe they are these things.
But by definition NOBODY who supports Bush can be either pro-life or compassionate.

secondly, if they want to take the party that way think of the CSN song "Wooden Ships" :hi:

[proudbluestater]

31. I highly doubt your assertion, Zeek

"There are a ton of pro-life liberals out there who don't vote democrat soley because of the abortion issue."


A TON of pro-life liberals? Show me ONE.

[CTLawGuy]

89. thats not correct

Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Trueman

Clinton wanted to promote gay rights in the military and is pro-choice

Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act knowing it would cost the Dems the South for an entire generation.

Kennedy was a friend to African Americans

Truman ran on a platform of civil rights for African Americans in 1948. that is why Strom Thurmond stormed out of the convention hall.

These dems were quite progressive on social issues.

[FormerDittoHead]

105. I agree as well - let's get this topic away from the Repub's

I assume you've read the article, and the actual proposal.

As someone has pointed out, Roe v. Wade already bans 3rd trimester abortions... (so I'm kind of mystified why people here have a problem with this) however:

1) The new Supreme court may very well overturn Roe v. Wade for generations to come. Do you really want to dig your heels in, reject this proposal and then go back to the 50's?

2) Red State voters believe that 3rd trimester abortions "on demand" (and not necessarily threatening the life of the mother) are going on "all the time".

Proof of #2:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22partial+birth+abortions%22+%22on+demand%22&btnG=Search

A bill (or constitutional amendment) like this would take this "hot button" issue off the table from the Republicans who are stealing votes away from those who would otherwise gladly vote Democratic (or stay at home)

[Smeggy]

25. haha, that's ripped off Tony Blair

However, its SHOULDNT be about cultural issues, it should be about politics, thats why Republicans are winning, they're diverting attention away from their awful policies with stuff like that.

[charlie]

26. Eh, it's only a DLC offshoot for the Senate

They're all DLCers and Bayh is the DLC chairman. They won't be up to anything they haven't already been doing. It's just a rebranding for their little coterie.

[BUSHOUT]

27. Sorry to say, I think you're being a little silly

These people are free to move more to the "center" if they want. Just because someone's a democrat doesn't mean they are required to act like sheeple. That's the rightwing MO.

I submit you're "enraged" over sweet pea all. Vote green party like a miffed customer if you like. My vote is to replace evil/stupid people with thinking people...and that means a democrat vote.

[m berst]

32. that is backward

It is not those of us who are advocating that the Democratic party return to representing the people that are asking people to be "sheeple" or acting like "miffed customers" in this debate.

It is ironic that when we call for an end to being treated as sheeple or criticize the party leadership for being out of touch with the traditional values of the party and for failing to advocate for the interests of the poor and the blue collar people, we are accused of using a right wing MO.

I strongly resent this top to bottom attitude from centrist Dems that we have nowhere to go so we don't need to be taken seriously. Numbers mean nothing in this debate and are just used to discredit powerful ideas. By discrediting them, they never get to the people, so the people can't evaluate them, so this results in low numbers which are then justified to marginalize the left and to jeer and ridicule them as well as "fringe" and extremists" and "far left."

I haven't changed my positions on the issues in 40 years, How come the same positions that were once seen as middle of the road Democratic party are now seen as "far left?" That is the question that the "centrists" and DLC apologists can't answer. I say "centrist" but really we are talking about halfway between what used to be the old liberal wing of the Republican party and the extreme right IMHO.

[BUSHOUT]

40. Your opening paragraph misrepresented me. Thus I skipped the rest.

[m berst]

41. sorry

I am so confused. :) Sorry I misread your post. Can you re-phrase your point? For some reason I can't get it (blame me, not you).

[BUSHOUT]

56. re-read the topic post, then read how you characterized it

while you defended it to me.

The topic post is advocating or supporting none of the noble things you refer to. You got my point OK, the disconnect is you're not looking at my post in the context of what I'm replying to.

[m berst]

69. right you are

I see it now, thanks. The op confused me. Well actually, the op plus the responses too it confused me. Oh well, I can't tell up from down anymore at DU.

Thanks for straightening it out. So you and I agree then, yes? Except on the op that is.

[Killarney]

30. Before you abandon the Democratic party completely

shouldn't you see what the stance is of the candidate running for office?

I mean, ok, based on this you wouldn't vote for Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, Arkansas Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. But you don't even know who our candidate for 2008 is yet and you don't know his/her position on this issue or any issue for that matter and you're already going to vote Green? Seems kind of stupid to me.

Oh, and by the way it would be a vote for the DEMOCRATIC Party, not Democrat Party.

[m berst]

33. I agree

As an old veteran Democrat, one thing that really surprised me at the boards and in person over the last couple of years is that all of the positions that were once standard and agreed upon in the party are now controversial and subject to heated srgument. Here are some examples -

1. Social Security - I can't believe that people argue about privatizing SS on a Democratic board.

2. Progressive Income Tax - This shouldn't be controversial either, yet people argue in favor of a flat tax or a national sales tax.

3. Race issues - The confederate flag is controversial and we have people defending it, and the bogus and ridiculous idea of "reverse racism" gets serious play, as well. Saying that the war on terror or the war on drugs are racist are met with vehement disagreement. And the recent blatant and wholesale disenfranchisement of AA voters gets very little interest or outrage.

4. "Free markets" - This illusionary idea seems to have permeated the entire culture and we have Democrats arguing in favor of the idea that there is such a thing as the free market and that somehow social policy should be left to its imaginary dictates. It is especially shocking to hear Democrats include labor as one of the "free market commodities" that should be freely bought and sold.

5. "Free trade" - Free trade is a code phrase for the right wingers and corporations, and really means exploitation of labor here and abroad, and the destruction of our industrial base and economy for the profits of private corporations.

6. "Privatization" - Here we are living in an unprecedented era of public property being given away to business, and yet we have Democrats defending the idea of privatization as possibly "more efficient" or "more economical. This extends to the privatization of the public air waves, and there are a shocking number of Democrats who don't grasp the concepts involved in regulating the media.

7. Gender equality - How this issue can be confused or contentious among Democrats is a complete mystery to me. Beyond choice, there is no clarity at all, let alone consensus on this issue.

8. Poverty - Just today I saw people arguing that no real poverty exists in America, excepting that it is the person's own fault, and saying that Americans are spoiled whiners.

9. Suburbanization - Do not, I repeat DO NOT criticize in any way the suburban lifestyle among Democrats. That is a big change from 30 years ago when most Democrats lamented the demise of our cities and saw suburbanization as wasteful sprawl and as white flight and as driven by fear and greed.

10. Mass popular culture I, celebrities - Do not criticize the consumerism and cult of personality that dominates our culture, because you will get a violent reaction from people defending their heroes. A recent example was eminem - he IS our savior and anyone who questioned that was accused of "reverse racism" and worse. Pop icons have become the template for judging all leadership, which makes it just about impossible for issues to take precedence over personalities. If I see one more argument over a political personality in the party here I think I will go batty. And the arguments aren't over substance, they are all about hero worship.

11. Mass popular culture II, consumerism - From films to food to cars to credit to gadgets to TV, people are awash in consumerism and "lifestyle choices" and will defend that to the death. The consumer mentality and the idea of "shopping" for "personal choices" that fit one's "lifestyle" is a pattern for how people approach everything, including politics. If the corporations have your dollars, your time, and most of your brain, how can you think clearly about social justice?

12. "Personal responsibility" - This is another right wing code phrase used to justify an anything-goes social free-for-all, yet some Democrats argue that it should be a model for all political decisions. This leads to seeing anyone's misfortune as their own personal fault, and so renders them unworthy of compassion. People are said to be making "poor choices" or to be defective or irresponsible in some way when they are in trouble.

13. Hatred and bigotry - Not only do an alarming number of Democrats fail to understand or defend the victims of racial hatred, but they engage in their own ongoing vicious hate-fest against their own "them" - repukes, fundies, Southerners, etc. Most Democrats imagine that as a Dem they are "officially" against intolerance, so they don't have to worry about actually practicing tolerance.

With all of that confusion and disagreement on issues that once were not controversial and for which there were solid mainstream Democratic party positions at one time, it is no wonder that the message of the party is not clear. Yet, the latest rage is "framing" the issues, as though it is the delivery of the message that is off rather than the message itself.

Democrats endlessly argue about what tactics are the "right" ones to use, while the results and goals and principles are subject to "reality" and "electability" and compromise. They are process driven.

Republicans on the other hand, look at practicality when it comes to tactics, do whatever works, while rigidly and uncompromisingly holding to their goals and principles. They are goal driven.

Democrats are actually proud of this and brag about being part of the "reality based community" in response to the Republicans, who are making their own reality. Democrats would rather be the "good guys" than achieve goals or gain power. It is all part of making the "right choices for myself" and having a "personal lifestyle" that they can feel good about. "Live the change you want to see" is a popular mantra.

14. Constructive criticism and analysis - such as this post IMHO - are often seen as "disloyal" or "negative" by many.

[Zhade]

86. Why are you surprised? Right-leaning disruptors abound on DU.

There are even some here who deny the very fact that this website was founded on - that the 2000 election was stolen.

It's been proven, it's why this site was founded, yet some "Dems" deny it. And it's in the About section, so it's not like it's a hidden message on the DU decoder ring.

[mhr]

106. Thanks Excellent Summary!

eom

[Sparkly]

35. Seems like a corruption of the word "progressive" -- and an odd article

Was it only the article's author who called Third Way a "progressive advocacy group," or are they calling themselves that?

In any case, I'm not sure she fully understands the issue at hand.

Polls show that most Americans support legal abortion, yet they also favor some restrictions, particularly after the first trimester.

There already ARE restrictions, particularly after the first trimester. This is a perfect example of how Democrats do NOT need to change stands on issues, but need to be better at communicating those stands and the reasons for them.

Democratic lawmakers have found themselves boxed in by a pro-choice orthodoxy that fears the slippery slope—the idea that allowing even the smallest limitation on abortion only paves the way for outlawing it altogether.

Again, does she think there are NO limitations right now? Does she think the Democratic party platform includes a push to outlaw all limitations?

As a result, most Democrats opposed popular measures like "Laci and Conner's Law"—which makes it a separate federal crime to kill a fetus—and a ban on the gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion.

THAT is a slippery slope because it easily leads to considering the fetus a citizen-person thus making abortion murder under the law.

I am not clear on how much of this article is the author's misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation and how much of it is the "Third Way" Democrats' actual message.

It strikes me as WRONG on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start!

[B Calm]

37. I'm not a one wedge issue voter, but if the democratic party

doesn't fight the cheap labor cons on vote fraud, I see no reason to vote anymore!

[Redleg]

38. That's three Dems, not the whole party.

Go ahead and join the Greens. Their candidates have done so well.

I do agree that Dems need to get back to their economic populism roots. Screw the social issues. It's up to us as individuals to decide if we want an abortion or not or if we want to recognize gay marriage or not.

[jobycom]

42. Just one group of Democrats-- so what? Go vote Republican if it makes you

happy.

The Repubs have groups within it who are trying similar stunts, acting moderate. That doesn't mean the Repub party is moderate. So you have a few Dems trying inane stuff. That doesn't mean the party goes that way.

And for the record, the Democratic Party has never once been a progressive party. Give me one Dem president who was anything other than moderate. Carter won by being moderate to right, and lost when he governed a little to the left. LBJ was left on civil rights and social issues, but Nazi on military issues. JFK, despite his ill-researched reputation, was moderate at best, often opposing civil rights and telling both sides he agreed with them on the Viet Nam war. Truman was moderate. FDR was borderline progressive.

The myth that the Democrats have ever been a progressive party is just nonsense. It's always been about like it is now-- split down the middle, trying to figure out what would win an election. Before the South went Republican, half the party was more conservative than the Republicans.

Despite all that, the Dems are still the only party that's ever done a damn bit of good for this nation. Well, since the Civil War days, that is.

[UTUSN]

44. And You Will Be Voting for Whom????????? Eh???? n/t

[G_j]

48. same question to you n/t

??????????

[Stinky The Clown]

49. I don't like this. I don't want more centrism, but ......

I understand this. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Indiana.

[Kilkenny5]

50. Two words for you:

"Good Riddance"

If someone doesn't agree with you, just pack up your pail and leave the sandbox.

Instead of fighting you're leaving.

For that alone, good riddance.

[Lorien]

51. I think it's more than just agreeing or disagreeing

Some of us are tired of being on the losing side, and if the DLC /DNC insists on maintaining the same failed course, then we're doomed to remain on the losing side. If the party refuses to reform, then there's little choice but to build a better one elsewhere that's truly progressive. Either way, we lose in the short term. The best we can hope for is a "rebirth" of the democratic party, or the uprising of a new party that will reinvigorate the base and eventually sweep elections.

[G_j]

53. thanks for taking the time

to explain this simple concept. I can't believe how hard it is for some to understand.

[paulk]

61. how is electing Democrats like those mentioned

a "failed course"? They are conservative/moderate Democrats elected in conservative/moderate states. Do you really think a liberal/progressive could win a statewide race in Louisiana/Arkansas/Indiana? Would you rather see Republicans elected to fill those seats? Would you really rather have a filibuster proof Republican controlled Senate?

At least with these Senators in our caucus we can hold the line in areas that ARE progressive.

[G_j]

52. please explain

"fighting" ...a rather nebulous statement if you ask me...

[robcon]

55. This is the "Best way" to win elections

Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor and Bayh are among the best and brightest Democrats.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. No they're not, they're all lightweights

Name one broad visionary idea that has come out of the mouth of any one of those four.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. All of the people mentioned in that post are lightweights

Regardless of their policies, they shouldn't be chosen as the nominee because they will loose.

[Deja Q]

65. About many issues. Voting Dem makes no sense. DLC on Moore clinched it

for me.

[mike_c]

67. former dem here, proud to be green....

The GP USA has the courage to speak up against the war, against social injustice, against corporate governance, and against unbridled environmental degradation. The Green Party is everything that progressive democrats have wanted for decades. I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil.

[shance]

68. I wouldn't call these people Democrats. They're Republican lite*

How many times do they have to show us how "Republican" they are?

And Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold, and Harry Reid's more than consistent siding with the Repbublicans. I hope Im wrong, however, the list seems to be growing.

Just because individuals "call" themselves Democrats, does not in fact make them a Democrat.

Those little words "legislative record" speak volumes above any rhetoric.

[G_j]

73. right

one can call themselves anything, words and language are trashed and turned upside down as a science these days.

[shance]

76. Hi G_j

:hi:

[question everything]

72. They are like retiring Senator Hollings

who was interviewed earlier today on "60 Minutes."

Why, asked Mike Wallace, did you vote against Thurgood Marshall for the Supreme Court? Because, came the reply, I would not be elected again if I did not. Pure politics.

These are senators of red states and worry about their next elections.

It is assumed that many Democratic Senators of Red States will end up voting with the White House...

[chaska]

74. I've been thinking about changing my registration to Green.

I'm going back left. These bastards can go or not, but I'm done with this pug lite sh*t.

[bvar22]

78. You can find REAL Progressive Democrats here:

The Progressive Democrats of America.

If you are SICK:puke:of Corporate owned Democrats (republicans in donkey suits), check out this alternative.
They are holding a Progressives Summit in DC during (and immediately after) the coronation of bush*. They are working to form an alliance with the CBC.

http://www.pdamerica.org /

They are Democrats who are taking a stand against the republicrats.
Here is their statement on Iraq:

PDA believes the unilateral invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic mistake and that it will prove to be one of the biggest fiascos in American history.

PDA wants Democratic Party leaders to speak the truth about America's invasion of Iraq.

Here is what PDA believes and what we believe needs be said.

* The invasion was illegal under both the UN Charter and the US Constitution.

* It was unprovoked, unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary.

* It is obscenely expensive at a time when non-military government programs are starved for resources.

* It is based on distortions and deceptions and falsehoods -- not by accident, but by design.

* That the costs incurred by the US are borne disproportionately by the poor and underprivileged.

* That it was not motivated by a quest for phantom Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but by the Bush Administration's determination to control Iraqi oil, to provide vast opportunities for war profiteering by American corporations, and to build 14 new American military bases in Iraq which it intends to keep there for decades to come.

* That the Iraqi people deserve reparations for the harm we have inflicted on their population, their country and their national soul.
(more)

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/pda_iraq_stateme...

There are local chapters in some states, and the list is growing. You
can check here for a grassroots contact in your area.

http://pdamerica.org/caucuses.php


I'm supporting this organization for a while....until the 2006 elections. Then I will decide if my once cherished Democratic Party is beyond hope.

If it is, I will help drive the stake through its cheatin heart.

[elshiva]

80. I Will Always Vote Democratic

cos I care very deeply about gay rights. Voting green takes votes away from pro-gay candidates like Kerry and gives them to Bush.

I am sick of "the lesser of two evils" argument as well. As if both candidates are the same. This election pitted a mature, diplomatic Senator against a monkeychild.

[chaska]

90. But if the path the party has chosen has guaranteed that we lose...

how is the gay community served? We must fix the party. You haven't been listening to Dr. Dean lately, have you?

One possible way to attack the problem is to show the Dems how many liberals there are. By growing an alternative party the Dem party gets the message that "Hey, look at all those votes that we aren't getting, we had better go after them." By joining the Greens we pull the Dems to the left.

BIG POINT though: Joining the Greens does not mean you HAVE to vote green. I believe in the Green party platform (which includes a gay rights plank) more than the Dem platform, but I have always voted Dem. But I will not go further right. I will go left from here. We will take our party back. The Democratic party has become a party of socially liberal Republicans now. I won't stand with those people. I'm a Democrat. THEY should be the ones leaving. But they have a stranglehold on the party ... and stranglehold is exactly the right word. They're choking the life out of it.

[elshiva]

94. Of Course Iisten to Dean, I love him

One time on NPR Dean said it was a mistake to move to the right because Clinton moved to the right. Bill Clinton won because he was Bill Clinton.
We should be proud and stand together as Dems and other such phrases

Greens' ideas pull us to the left, I do agree but few green candidates have won and even has the chance to follow up on their plans.

The gradual Pro-gay actions of dems like Kerry, Dean, and Kucinich are preferrable to pie in the sky.

[chaska]

95. The path that brought us here has made us the minority party.

Dem's used to be the majority. We must go back to being Dem's again. We cannot stay here in the "red" zone. We are not a conservative party, so why do we allow our leadership to act like we are? We won as liberals once. We will do so again.

...unless we decide that the status quo (losing) is preferable.

[chaska]

81. Even better, but I may still register Green. It sends a message...

Please note everyone that there is a difference between registering Green and voting Green.

If the Green party looks like a threat. The Dem party will get the religion (so to speak) real quick.

[UdoKier]

96. How can they move it to the center, when it's already there?

We are a centrist party on "cultural" issues, and a center-right party on economic issues, as far as I can see.

As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't BUDGE on church/state issues, and we should move to the LEFT on economic and foreign policy issues.

[w4rma]

98. They're in the South and it's on culture issues. So I don't care.

They can do whatever the heck they want, on culture in the South (and only on culture in the South), for all I care.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Third Way is the new (old) name for the DLC

this is the way the new Laborites under blair call themselves, the Third Way.

they are trusting you don't know who they are

[bvar22]

101. You can call a pile of dogshit a "ROSE",

but just changing the name doesn't do ANYTHING about the stink!

[MadHound]

104. Good for you, you will be in good company, and can actually effect change

Once again this country is being ruled under the two party/same corporate master system of government. The only way that we're going to bring about change is by threatening the two major parties, and the only way to do that is to go to a third party, build it up and make it competitive.

The situation is much the same as it was in the early twentieth century, when again both major parties were under the thumb of corporations. When the rise of the Socialists, enough votes were taken from the Democrats that they felt the need to move to the left, steal some socialist ideas, and in general become more responsive to the people.

This is what we need to do, except we need to take it one step further, and build the Greens into the second party, consigning the Dems to the trashheap of history. We need a real opposition party, not just a faux one, which is what the Democrats have become.

So welcome to the Greens, you are one of a growing tide. Together we will change this country and give it back to the people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

107. "Third Way"(D) + DLC(D) = RNC(R)

Sounds like they want to move to the "center" of their pals the Republican Party.