I'm beginning to think that there is no difference between R's and D's

[Melodybe]

I think with the exception of a few, and I say few Dean, Boxer, Clark, Conyers, and maybe a small handful of others that they are all the same.

Tricking us into believing that we are not a corporatist nation. Pacifying us to keep from revolution.

Is it too late already?

[billyskank]

1. Shhhh!

You're not supposed to say that! :)

[cthrumatrix]

30. they are servants to $$$$ corporations with a few that speak out

this is why Dean is important and should be supported

[mcctatas]

2. I guess you just have to go with the lesser of two evils theory...

although I still believe the Dem's to be more populist and generally on the right side of the issues. Maybe there's not much difference between moderates of both parties, but the neo-con christian conservative whack jobs are definately from another planet altogether.

[uppityperson]

3. There is a difference, sometimes it looks closer than others.

20 yrs ago I was disgusted at how close Rs and Ds seemed. Now they are further apart, mostly. There are some that are closer, and sometimes (often) democrats are not as liberal as I wish, but there are fundamental differences. We have to keep trying, and appreciating any differences and positive things we can. And keep on their shit, all of them.

[Psephos]

4. There's certainly less difference than we like to pretend.

Big-time politicians are generally a ruthless, narcissistic lot who feign an interest in "public service" but pursue power the same as any boardroom executive. R or D, what does it matter? They should put an M behind their names instead...for Me.

Very few exceptions in the big leagues. Funny how all the conspiracy theorists and hall-of-mirrors fetishists at both ends of the political spectrum think their own pols are exempt.

Heh. Sheepledom is a many layered onion.

Peace.

[Melodybe]

6. Exactly! What does it matter if they have an R or a D next to their name

if they sell us and our rights down the river with every vote.

God this is depressing.

[guiglodon]

14. Are there differences between R and D?

For a general context, I would submit that all politics plays
out ethically between the poles of The Sermon on the Mount on
the left and Social Darwinism on the right.  Both, in their
own ways, are too idealistic to work in the messy business of
human governance.  Roughly compared, the former suggests
communism and the latter fascism.  Likewise, The Sermon on the
Mount ethical edifice gives primacy to cooperation and
compassion as the proper paradigm for human social
organization whereas Social Darwinism, carried to its logical
conclusion--one might say extreme--proposes a jungle-like,
everything goes, unbridled competition in human affairs,
morroring the doctrine or theory of survival of the fitest. 
Extremists in these opposing camps could both argue that their
system would bring about the greatest good for the greatest
number.

The prime example of SOTM organization put to practice would
be the communist/socialist system of the Soviet Union, which
had both successes and failures, but endured for some seventy
years and, in the contemporary wisdom of political
scientists/politicians/journalists "imploded." 
However, several of its tenets have been borrowed and
implemented with considerable efficacy in other cultures,
notably the EU.

Hitler and the Third Reich might be taken as the most
spectacular example of the SD ethic.  This variety of fascism
was defeated militarily from the outside.  But the fascist
tendency festers and grows in certain third-world countries
and even in, YES, even in our beloved USA.

Wags have described our form of government as Corporate
America, with two right wings, called the Democrat(ic) and
Republican parties.  D and R.  Reds versus Blues.  In the
history of our country a two-party system has emerged,
presumably functioning competitively to form the better
coalition of conflicting interests in such a manner as to win
the majority of a diverse electorate and thus govern with
predominance over the other but with limited power and quite
vulnerable to losing its overdog status.

Personally I believe that all of us are innately and
congenitally selfish at birth.  I also believe there is
something in us, developed through evolution, which somehow
informs us that cooperation, beyond the mere instinctual, such
as parental "love" for offspring, is a vital
necessity in continuing the species.  This of course is
magnified through cultural transmission.  I was a child of The
Great Depression who embraced the progressive thinking and
activism of the Sixties.  My brother was born in 1945 and has
no inkling of what "The Sixties" was all about.  He
feels no antipathy toward the neo-cons who drive the Bush II
administration.

I believe in my mind and in my gut that politics in America is
way, way too far in the direction of Social Darwinism at
present.  I have great admiration for such Democrats as
Jefferson, Lincoln (I know, I know), TR, FDR, Truman and on
today's scene Kucinich, Biden, Dashle, Boxer, Dean, the late
Paul Wellstone, John Lewis and on and on.  Since our party
system does not admit purists to positions of power, one might
argue that the (from my point of view) "good
Democrats" are doing what they can in this climate.  They
must choose wisely when to compromise and when to draw the
proverbial line in the sand.  Ending on a rather pessimistic,
possibly cynical note, I say support these good D's and wait
for the R's to screw up.  Some day it may be l929 again or
l974 or l992.  Yes, Virginia, it does matter whether R's or
D's are upperdogs.

As for the multi-national corporations, there, I repeat THERE,
we have at present a seemingly hopeless, intractable
phenomenon.  That one is way too big for me.  But here in
America let's encourage, support and even honor our D's, the
good ones that is.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi guiglodon!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[0rganism]

5. There's a difference

Sometimes it doesn't seem like enough of a difference, but there is a difference.

The homogeneity is a byproduct of the corporatists holding enough sway over the electoral process in the vast majority of congressional districts to severely restrict the dialog between viable candidates. In order to get the sponsorship needed for an effective campaign, all but a handful of electable candidates must conform to a certain pro-capitalist mold. So we get a few, like Kucinich and Conyers and Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone, RIP, with the confidence to speak their hearts and minds on the issues, while most are bound rhetorically and legislatively by constraints imposed by their true underwriters.

7. I like this analysis

"It's helpful to look at it kind of like a pyramid. At the top of this pyramid are the people that rule this society and in particular you've got those that are represented by the Democratic Party on the one hand and the Republican Party on the other hand. And there is struggle between them. This is very obvious, right. Think back to the 2000 election: that was the most boring election in recent memory, and all of a sudden it turned into an extremely intense and interesting thing, not because of what they said and did while they were campaigning, but because of the way the election came out (or didn't come out). So then you could see that there is very sharp struggle among them. And if you look at this kind of pyramid thing, on the top of this pyramid is the ruling class and its different political representatives, which (even though it may be a bit oversimplified) we can look at as the Democrats on one side and the Republicans on the other. And for decades now these people who are grouped around Bush and the kind of people that they represent have been working and preparing a whole thing in society--a whole infrastructure you might call it--a whole structure within the society itself that could move this society in a whole different way towards a fascistic kind of thing when things come to that.

Look at this whole religious fundamentalist thing they've got. This is an effort to deliberatively build up a base of people, millions and millions and millions of people, who are frightened by the idea of thinking--I'm serious--people who cannot deal with all the "complicatedness," all the complexity of modern society, who want simple absolute answers to the complexities of this society. This whole religious fundamentalist thing is based on mindless absolutism--like that bumper sticker: "god said it, I believe it, and that settles it." And of course, as I spoke to earlier, what "god said" is what these reactionary human authorities tell them god said--not simply what's in the Bible, which after all was written by people, but also what these people alive today say the Bible means. And, as a matter of fact, these "authorities" themselves ignore parts of the Bible that are inconvenient for them to talk about now. For example, they don't really want to go out with a program saying all children who strike their parents, or simply are disrespectful to and rebellious against their parents, should be executed. Because that would expose them for the crazy maniacs that they are. But if you literally believe what's in the Bible, you should uphold that.

Now here's another example of how they get these people to be unthinking stormtroopers. The conscious political operatives, representatives of the ruling class, that have been organizing and "cultivating" these Christian fundamentalist forces, had a real problem because for years and years and years the people in these fundamentalist movements have all been trained with the idea that "the Jews are the killers of Christ." That's how they have been identified--"the Christ killers." This is what you learn if you learn Christian fundamentalist religion: the Jews are the ones who crucified Christ. So, naturally this makes them kind of crazy haters of the Jews. But there is a problem. You see, the people who are on top of this--not the people who are unthinking foot soldiers of this, but the commanders on the top, the Falwells and the Pat Robertsons and all those people, with their connections right to the highest levels of society and government--their problem is that they are strategic operatives for this imperialist system and for a particular section of the ruling class within it. And for this ruling class and for that section, the state of Israel is tremendously important, strategically, for everything they're trying to do in the world.

So here you have a big contradiction for the Christian fascists: The state of Israel is a Jewish state and they proclaim the Jews to be "Christ killers," and yet you've got to get people in these Christian fundamentalist movements to be unthinkingly supportive of the state of Israel. How do you do that? Well, here is what you do. You tell people that, according to the Book of Revelation in the Bible, the creation and existence of the state of Israel is a crucial step in the process leading to the "second coming." So therefore, if Israel is destroyed it will set back the forces of Christ and advance the forces of Satan (or the anti- Christ) in terms of the "second coming." Therefore, the state of Israel has to be defended at all costs, get it? So this is the way they get these people.

Now, again, they've been working on this base of people for decades. They've been organizing and not only creating this whole broad movement, they've also been organizing what you could call cadre formations--political structures and political operatives in things like the "Promise Keepers." The "Promise Keepers" is a fascistic fundamentalist religious organization which not only calls on men to make their wives subordinate to them, and wives to submit to their husbands (lovingly, of course) but it also sets out to organize an actual structure of people who will carry this message and this program into every part of life: into their job, into their kids' little league baseball teams, and all the rest of this. They've been building this up for decades now. So they've got a sort of a fascistic mass movement and an organized cadre they're building within this society, an organized structure of political operatives.

And, while this is very important for them, they've got something even more important. They've got a heavy influence in the command structure of the American military. There is a book, for example, called Making the Corps . It's written about the Marine Corps--it covers the basic training of people in the Marine Corps. And one of the things that comes out in that book is how the command structure of the U.S. armed forces is becoming "politicized" (in bourgeois reactionary terms). One of the big principles of the U.S. military has always been that it's not a political army, it's not a politicized force. It doesn't take part in politics, it upholds the chain of command through the Constitution, and it doesn't get involved in politics, and it doesn't have a specific ideological stand. But then, over the last few decades, there's been an increasing influence of the Christian right-wing fundamentalists among the officer corps of the military. So now it's a highly ideological military officer corps that identifies politically with this extreme right-wing fascistic kind of program and movement in this society.1

So let's look at this whole picture and look at what they've been putting in place and then think about this: what do the Democrats--from their own position within the ruling class--what do they have to counter this with?

Here's the pyramid, and here are the Republicans over here (on the right) with their shit going down to this right-wing social base of religious maniacs and fundamentalist fools. Okay, remember the aftermath of the 2000 election, when they were dealing with all the "hanging chads" and "pregnant chads" and all the rest of that in Florida. There was one point where in one precinct in Florida they were counting the ballots, and this group of operatives--Republican congressional aides--came down there and banged on the doors of the precinct where they were doing this and actually intimidated them out of counting the ballots. Now, that was significant in itself but it was also symbolic of something much bigger than that particular incident. What it's symbolic of is that these forces are quite willing to call into motion this fascistic kind of force that they've built up when they feel that they need it, and they're willing to bring it all the way into motion and turn this into a whole other kind of religious, fundamentalist, fascistic society if they feel that's where they need to go.

On the other hand, here are the Democrats at the top of this pyramid (on the so-called "left"). Who are the people that they try to appeal to--not that the Democrats represent their interests, but who are the people that the Democrats try to appeal to at the base, on the other side of this pyramid, so to speak? All the people who stand for progressive kinds of things, all the people who are oppressed in this society. For the Democrats, a big part of their role is to keep all those people confined within the bourgeois, the mainstream, electoral process...and to get them back into it when they have drifted away from--or broken out of--that framework. Because those people at the base are always alienated and angry at what happens with the elections, for the reason I was talking about earlier: they are always betrayed by the Democratic Party, which talks about "the little man" and poor people and the people who are discriminated against, and so on. And at times they'll even use the word oppression. But then they just sell out these people every time--because they don't represent their interests. They represent the interests of the system and of its ruling class. But they have a certain role of always trying to get people who are oppressed, alienated and angry back into the elections. You know: "Come on in, come on in--it's not as bad as you think, you can vote, it's OK." This is one of the main roles they play. But the thing about them is that they are very afraid of calling into the streets this base of people that they appeal to, to vote for them. The last thing in the world they want to do is to call these masses of people into the streets to protest or to battle against this right-wing force that's being built up.

So, this gives a sense of the real danger that exists now in this country--of the whole direction toward a qualitatively much more repressive and, yes, even a fascistic form of bourgeois rule.

But it's a very sharply contradictory and two-sided thing. We should understand that. On the one hand, things get moved farther and farther to the right, and all the Democrats do is raise a few whiny objections and then find their position at "the left wing" of the juggernaut that's moving farther and farther to the right.

The Democrats always present themselves as the "reasonable center" and as the ones upholding the Constitution and orderly Constitutional rule in society, as it moves further and further in this fascistic kind of direction. But the other side of that, as things are sharpening up in society, is that there are tens of millions of people who hate the direction that things are going in. We've seen this in the aftermath of the election, and we saw it around the Iraq war. And it's not just the Iraq war, although it very definitely is that.

Millions and millions and millions of people have a deep, visceral gut hatred for everything that's represented by Bush and the whole direction that group is taking things. And one of the interesting things that's happened is that, because of the role the Democrats are playing, they're paralyzed to a significant degree from offering any alternative for those very alienated and angry people.

Part of the reason why the demonstrations against the Iraq war were as massive as they were is because people felt they had no choice. The Democrats refused to offer them an alternative. If you think back to the elections in 2002, the congressional elections, it was a perfect time, if a party like the Democrats actually wanted to oppose what the Bush group was doing in its whole move towards war, they could have gotten a massive turnout of people voting for them. People were almost begging the Democrats to take a stand against it, but for all the reasons I've been pointing to, they look at the situation and they say, "Well look, we might not like some of the Bush program either, but if the shit comes down, if everything goes down, and it's a struggle between us and them, they can call all their crazy people out into the street and they can get big sections of the military to go with them. Who's going to go with us--who that we aren't afraid to call out?!"

So, to a significant degree, they're paralyzed, and this is one reason why there was tremendous mass mobilization, particularly against the Iraq war, even before it began, because people felt the need for something to be done. They were looking for people like the Democratic Party leaders to do something, and they didn't do it, and people felt strongly enough and they said that we have to move on our own, anyway.

This is significant in itself but it also demonstrates a positive potential in terms of revolution. I'm not saying that we are on the threshold of revolution right now, but just looking down the road, and looking at the potential, one of the things that leads to a revolutionary situation is that millions and millions of people feel that something is intolerable. They want certain leaders at the top of society to lead them in doing something about it, but those leaders are not in the position to and don't want to lead them in doing it--so whom do they turn to? The people who are willing and determined to lead them to do it and to take it somewhere. So this is a situation that's full of great danger; but the same situation--or the other side of the contradiction--is that it holds much positive potential for struggle now and for revolution as things unfold.

Think about it--how they run this game with elections. You've got this whole traveling circus out here now of Democratic Party candidates going on this speaking tour around the country. And interestingly enough, there was this thing in Time magazine talking about Al Sharpton, and it said that Sharpton is, in essence, an illegitimate candidate--that he has no chance of being president and he has this whole funny past, the Tawana Brawley2 case and all this stuff.

But isn't it strange, they said, that when they have these Democratic Party candidate meetings, Sharpton's the one who gets the best response from people, other than this guy Howard Dean, because those are the only ones even pretending to talk about anything that people feel deeply in their guts these days. Whatever the intent of Sharpton, the objective role of people like that--and even more of Howard Dean--has been to get all those people who are alienated and angry, and feel the Democrats have betrayed them, back into the arena: "Come on back because the primaries are coming up--vote for your candidate, there is a place for you." And, then what happens? Your candidate doesn't win, he doesn't get the nomination--but then they have the next step for you. Now they got you leaning that way and they say, "but, do you want Bush again?" Okay, so your candidate didn't get in there, so we got Dickhead Gephardt as the candidate,3 but, still, it's better than Bush, isn't it?"

Then you are paralyzed because you've been brought back into their arena where you can't do anything effective. This is going to be a tremendous tug and pull on this huge body of people-- literally, already, tens of millions of people--who feel this deep gut hatred for what's going on. Are they going to get brought back into the fold, or are they going to get increasingly brought into resistance?

Now that doesn't mean that the dividing line should be drawn, or can be drawn, over whether you vote or not in the next election. That would be foolish. Many, many, many people are going to vote for the Democrats--people who are also going to know that the Democrats aren't going to do shit--and we have to get out and do something to move these people in a better direction: we have to unite with them in that part of it, in their opposition and deep hatred for the whole direction of things, and bring them forward, because it's going to be proven again and again that these Democrats don't represent any way to stand up and fight against all this. So we have to develop a certain sophistication, a certain maturity, a certain flexibility, a certain all-aroundedness about how we approach these things. A certain dialectics--of recognizing the contradictions and how they are moving and developing--in order to actually build the kind of movement which can have a major impact now and can actually lead toward revolution."

- Bob Avakian http://rwor.org/a/1269/avakian-elections-revolution.htm

[Melodybe]

9. Wow, really good stuff

scares the hell out of me, but good stuff.

[cthrumatrix]

31. so what "choices" do we really have..? The game is rigged.

[OneBlueSky]

8. one the major issue -- the ones that really count -- there isn't . . .

the war in Iraq, bankruptcy "reform", etc. . . on the issues that really matter, telling a Republian from a Democrat is like choosing between Coke and Pepsi . . . they both rot your teeth . . .

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Social Security isn't a major issue?

What about the environment?

[bluedeminredstate]

10. I wonder too if it's too late.

The breathtaking absence of courage and a sense of honor, along with the Dem's unwillingness to go down fighting against the GOP's naked aggression and powermongering has me almost despondent.

I always thought the Supreme Court was sacred. Off limits to partisan maneuvering, but my faith in people doing right evaporated that night in December 2000 when I realized that even that institution wasn't above the lure of absolute power.

I just want to see some courage - even in small ways: a Senator questioning the events of 9/11 such as where the fuck was NORAD and why don't we know yet? Why was our military response so feeble when the most heavily defended airspace in the world was breeched (with quite a large warning in the case of the Pentagon)? Why did Wellstone's plane crash and why hasn't the NTSB moved faster on this bizarre case? Why was terrorism dismissed as a motive almost immediately? How did they know? Where are all the BILLIONS of missing taxpayer dollars from the Iraq debacle and the absolutely staggering amount of money the Pentagon has lost? When will the hearings on those issues take place? And why are they slapping around the UN when the US government has much more to account for?

Just a little courage - maybe a fraction of what Conyers has. He needs some help from the big guns and they remain silent.

:cry:

[extropianDreams]

18. grand misdirection...

one spectacular event, an orchestration of evil
justifies imperialist invasion and control.
a grand misdirection of planes and implosion,
got everyone's attention.

energy flows where attention goes.

look at where most of our attention goes: perpetual complaining. it seems to be a challenge individually and collectively. we complain about how life has treated us poorly, some justifiably so. collectively we complain of an evil empire and explore every glaring infraction to an infinite degree. perpetual debate. perpetual study.

the only realm to compete in is capitalism. I mean, waddaya gonna do drop out and live in a commune?

you'd need to commoditize democracy. needs some serious re-branding, don't u think? well, it's happening right here with DU running popup ads, etc. (see, ya gotta even look out when they vilify all popup ads.)

if you're gonna use some sort of viral marketing teknique then u need an effective enterprise. maybe instead of focusing attention on evil and the neverending details of it's machinations we might focus on goodness. hmmm, evil is so easy to define but goodness is a bit tricky, eh? how about a live-and-let-live level playing field?
this is where the rubber meets the road.

I don't think we have the time to complain about what's wrong but DO what is RIGHT!

[newyawker99]

24. Hi extropianDreams!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[iconoclastNYC]

11. HELP change the party.

Donate to the good democrats. Email/call/harrass when the bad democrats do bad things. I emailed Obama to yell at him about his dean comments.

you can read the email on my blog.

[Melodybe]

12. I did call Obama, Biden, and Lieberman

Lieberman is such a chicken shit though there is NO way to get a person, you get transfered to a voice mail where the box is already full.

ARRG it is so aggravating.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. I've never been sent to voice mail calling a senator.

NEVER. And i've called alot, including Liberman around the cloture vote for the bankrupsy bill.

Are you calling during business hours?

[Melodybe]

16. yes, I've called him atleast 100 times in the last 2 years

always Joe's stupid voice on the answering machine.

Never have I gotten a secretary, not once.

[Dirk39]

13. They represent two different fractions of those, who rule us...

I'm from Germany anyway:-)

They represent two different fractions of those, who rule us:

the hegemonists and the globalists. Within those, who rule us, these differences count. Since there is no common outside thread anymore as communism, the corporatocrats struggle against one another. We're not part of the game, but one shouldn't underestimate these differences.
In the MTV and Fox world we live in, this might translate into one criminal corrupt piece of sh*t playing saxophone and getting impeached because of sex, not because of murdering 500.000 Iraqi children or covering Iran Contra (Mena) or using drug money to support his campaign, the other one doesn't play saxophone, but plays right-wing religion. And both of them fell in love just recently. As is seems.
It's really funny somehow, how many DUers are surprised about the friendship between Bush (esp. Bush I) and Clinton these days. This friendship started during the cover-up of Mena and Iran Contra.
The U.S. is a totalitarian ultra-capitalist one party system with two right wings as Gore Vidal puts it.

Dirk

[DemBones DemBones]

23. An outside perspective is most welcome, Dirk.

I'm afraid we all get too caught up in side issues and don't see what's really going on. Maybe we subconsciously choose to be distracted, not wanting to see the depressing truth.

I'm even wondering if the witchhunts against Clinton were designed as distractions to keep us from seeing what the government, with or without Clinton's knowledge, was doing. Some of us can't be distracted with celebrity trials or missing girl stories but we're not immune to distractions. And most of us don't want to think ill of "our guy" so we let Clinton get away with NAFTA, welfare reform, etc. The witch hunts made us feel protective of "our guy" Clinton so we forgave him everything, just like we forgave Gore for his mistakes in 2000 and forgave Kerry for backing down on contesting the vote in 2004.

No doubt our criticisms of ** make his supporters more loyal to him, more willing to ignore things that should be ringing all their alarm bells. How can we combat that?

Will the day ever come when all of us (American voters) start looking at all of them (our political leaders) objectively, not being seduced into supporting someone because of his party label? It seems that when we reach this level of cynicism and disgust that many of us just drop out, quit voting, quit trying to bring about change.

Got any advice from Germany? Are things better there, in your view?

[Broken_Hero]

17. By and large yeah...

I would agree with you. When i first started paying attention to the politics of the USA, i noticed that there were very few differences between the R's and D's, but i did notice right away, which side i was more akin too. I didn't start being aware of politics until the election of 2000, and when i heard GWB lawyers say that a recount, wouldn't be fair and this and that, i knew i could never side with them.

But there are minor differences, albiet you got old timer democrats in there, whom dont' want to shake the boat, but the people you mentioned above, Conyers, Boxer etc, are not afraid to shake the boat. People who make money/work for government usually won't cut off the hand that signs their checks, and Boxer, Conyers etc, are not afraid to cut off that hand, cause they realize the hand that really matters, is the hands that vote for them.

I hope change happens really soon, but i doubt it, but im' optimistic about it, otherwise a revolution will happen, i just hope we don't have to trudge down that road.

[Disturbed]

20. There were big differences once.

Liberal Accomplishments


Social Security;

Medicare-Medicaid;

PeaceCorps;

unemployment insurance;

welfare (for the poor andcorporate);

civil rights;

student grant and loan programs;

safety laws (OSHA);

environmental laws;

[tabasco]

19. Yawn. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.............

:boring:

Start paying attention.

Who do you think is fighting Bush's attempted destruction of Social Security?

Dems need to get back to the roots but to say there is no difference is simply uninformed. Placing Dean as Chairman is a step in the right direction.

[LightningFlash]

21. Dean is the only one who deserves to be Chairman. I'm behind him.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Social security is boring.

Medicare is boring. The environment is boring. We should only be interested in exciting issues like impeachment and gay sex in the white house!

[theophilus]

25. I say make a few exceptions and THROW THEM ALL OUT and start over. n/t

[arwalden]

26. Ralph... Is that You?

[MadHound]

28. Welcome to life under the two party/same corporate master system of gov't.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that we the people count for much less in our political system than the corporations and wealthy folks who give obscene amounts of money to both parties. What is going on now is that a good cop/bad cop routine is being worked on the populace, but the ultimate goal, enriching the few while the rest of us our reduced to serfdom, is being pursued by both parties.

The only way that this hijacking of our government can be stopped is a three step process. First, vote only for candidates that refuse to take corporate money. This leaves very few Democrats available, a notable exception being Kucinich. However there is an entire party that doesn't take corporate cash as a matter of policy, the Greens. The second and third steps are to make publicly financed election campaigns a reality across the country, and to also make IRV a reality nationwide. If we implement these three steps, we will be able to reclaim our government. If we don't, then our inevitable descent into a plutocratic nation will continue unabated.

[LynneSin]

32. You're right but....

One revolution at a time. Let's get rid of the repukes first and then when we have a majority in either the house and/or senate, then we'll go after the DINOs

People here at DU complain to me why I'm not doing more to get rid of Carper and/or Biden here in my home state of Delaware. You tell me, which is more important - getting rid of one of my democratic senators (and feasibly leave an opening for a republicans) or driving 30 minutes north to my neighboring state of Pennsylvania where Rick Santorum is going to have the fight of his life holding on to his senate seat this year.

WE can't feasibly elimate every bad senator and represenative out there just like I can't do a complete makeover of myself all in one sitting. But we make a list and start at the worst offenders and then we'll work our way down. Then maybe in 10-15 years we'll have a Congress that we can be proud of - one that represents the people.

[applegrove]

33. You cannot stop all the corporations. What about the corporations

involved in the computer sitting in front of you? The question is not should corporations exist.. but what their role should be and how to regulate them.

P.S. the internet is a great leveler. You should get involved in a group like buyblue to help the corporations see the benefit in being better citizens.

I mean - Ben & Jerry's! Come on!

[lateo]

34. Your are correct....

And it is time the Democrats got rid of them.