To those who promote breaking with the Democratic Party...

[expatriot]

...because of the corporate influence over some of its officals and the collaborationist strategy of some of its officials in dealing with the administration, please read this. For a few days now I have been meaning to post this as I became aware of an increasing number of threads and posts that have voiced increasing discontent with the Democratic Party and anguish towards the future effectiveness of progressives in the party. With all respect and to be quite frank, when I first read the threads I thought they were the work of freeper operatives who were trying to plant the seeds of divisiveness between us (as I myself have done over the years on FR, playing the part of the uncompromising ultra-conservative who rants at Bush's willingness to compromise), but I soon realized that at least most of the posters were sincere. I cannot think of anything sillier and more self-destructive that progressives could choose to do then to break with the Democratic Party... what possibly could we have to gain? We would marginalize ourselves politically and handover the Democratic Party wholly to the DLC - The Democratic Party would continue to be the second half of a two party system -albeit a Democratic party neutered of its progressive activist base and all the more the GOP's and the corporate media's bitch. Tonight, in this thread I would like to raise two points. The first as to why I think the idea is naive and completely baseless and the second point as to why I, frankly, believe much of these posts are in violation of DU rules.

I have more points I would like to make in response to this foolhardy notion of breaking with the Democratic Party but I this post is already too long. Remember, it is not principle we are arguing here but rather strategy. Thank you.

First point: Federally, our electoral system nearly decrees the duopoly of the two party system. Third Party movements arise when there is a sizable constituency that lies unclaimed by either party and they are shorlived until either, because of their size, one of the major parties concedes a few planks in their platform to their cause, or the temporary disturbance in the shifting forces of politics resettles as to the third party constituency is reabsorbed by their former party allegiances. With this said, there are always third parties in this country with a quite marginalized impact that do have but a fleeting (if that) on the body politic.

Multi-Party systems (parliamentary) systems foster multiple parties because you can vote for any ticket you like and the next morning the various parties come to the bargaining table with their percentages of the vote-won and form a coalition government. If we had such a system of course I would be voting for a progressive ticket every time because I would know the more votes such a party got the more bargaining power they'd have in forming the next government.

But we have a winner take all system.

As an example, let's just say for the sake of argument a week before the next election in some country with a parliamentary, multi-party system it was decided (by magical powers that everyone accepted, remember this is just an example) that the party with the most votes would win the ENTIRE government.... there would be no bargaining for who got prime minister, finance minister, labor minister, etc. but rather the party with the most votes got to pick the entire cabinet. In this alternative world, you also gave all the parties a week to either change or withdraw their names from the ballot. What you'd have is a LOT of horse trading all of a sudden. the center-right parties would be all of a sudden be in talks with the conservatives and the conservatives would be willing to talk because god forbid a LEFTIST party got the plurality of votes. Same thing on the left. What you'd have is the alliances being drawn up each alliance trying to keep the plurality edge over other alliances until you got down to two major alliances. Because the leftist party, who'd normally get 10% of the vote and often enjoyed playing the king maker in forming a government with the the center-left party would KNOW that its 10% wouldn't mean SHIT anymore the morning after.

That is why we have a 2-party system. We have to form our coalitions BEFORE general election day... so when do we, as progressives, "go into negotiations" with the centrist elements of our party? That is what primaries are for and that is what messaging is for.

Point#2
In the rules of DU it says....

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

So, in short, Democratic Underground is a forum for progressives who accept the premise that the most effective political impact progressives can make in our political system is to simultaneously work for progressive change within the Democratic Party and thereby within the politics of the nation as a whole by working from within the Democratic Party.

In my humble opinion, if you are of the opinion that progressives can no longer be effective within the structure of the Democratic Party and are advocating a breaking of ranks of progressives from the Democratic Party then perhaps, as illustrated by the above excerpt, this forum is not the one for you since you advocate a distancing from the Democratic Party that most assuredly is quite the opposite of "support Democratic candidates for political office."

It is one thing to be vocally and actively supportive of progressive Democratic candidates in the primaries to unseat the centrist-corporatist-conservative Democrats and to debate (many times heatedly) policy points with the centrist-corporatist-conservative policies of the less-progressive elements of our party - we need to do this - it is essential: it is quite another thing, however, to be calling for a break with the Party because of these different constituencies within the party we do not agree with or to threaten abandonment of the party if, i.e. a DLCer is elected to serve as our nominee in 2008. Yes, we need to work our asses off to get the progressive banner in the front of the Democrat's parade but we mustn't leave the parade in protest.

Thank you once again for your time.

[Child_Of_Isis]

1. I say we all go Independant.

DU is a big place! Someone will eventually have to take notice.

[stray cat]

20. I would love to go independent but more than that I want to win.....

Right now we have a two party system and any group that splits off from that during major elections gives the balance of power to the party they disagree with the most.

If we are lucky the religious right will get a third party candidate and split the republican vote. However, I think they are too smart to do that. Unlike progressives who keep their purity ie the green party and lose any practical power to promote change in major elections.

[femrap]

47. Sure wish Ross Perot

would come back and run....he's the reason Clinton got elected. Southern Dems are are just Moderate Pugs...Clinton disappointed me...got into bed w/ big biz....NAFTA and then he decides to spit on poor women and 'reform welfare.' How can you reform welfare and NOT provide child care...? I guess he did try to run down the IE (irresponsible ejaculators) and get them to pay child support....

In my entire life....I had one president that I liked....Carter.

This DLC has got to go...they want to have military recruiters on college campuses? I don't get it....they're just like pugs....and they do a bad job of imitation...it's embarrassing.

[dweller]

2. any particular threads

you would like to refer to as examples?

dp

[expatriot]

5. Here's two for starters

Here are two to begin with

Title: Progressive Democrats and Greens should form a coalition.
excerpt: "Of course if that fails, then the progressive Democratic-Green coalition can front it's own presidential candidate as well as it's own platform."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1968990&mesg_id=1968990

Title: I think people disagree on DLC strategy because of where they stand.
Thread: DLC and CAFTA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1964233&mesg_id=1964372

For example, I do not view the DLC as the centrist wing of the party. I view them as the right wing of the party. I view the Progressive Caucus as the left wing of the Party. And I view the entire party as centrist when averaged out.

So, from my perspective, why would I support a right-winger, even if he won the Dem primary? I would vote Green/Independent/Socialist/non-Dem in that particular race or not vote at all.

I don't know about purging these guys just yet, but I do think that on this issue, just enough of them voted against the Democrats to let CAFTA pass. I wonder if they were told to by corporate sponsors. And I think they need to be watched closely with votes so that we all can make the decision of whether or not to keep them together as citizens of the Dem party.

This is why I have done the 3 analyses so far. It's data for us.

[wli]

3. I support the Democratic party and elimination of the two-party system

The two-party system has directly contributed to the loss of Democrats' Congressional seats due to gerrymandering and the like. Proportional representation also encourages broader participation in the political process by encouraging more ideologically-focused parties. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is particularly desirable.

This is completely compatible with support for the Democratic party, and in fact part of my intent is to advance it over the Republican party by this means in addition to giving third parties greater voice.

ON EDIT: clarified wording regarding two-party system

[expatriot]

11. yes, I agree..but structural reforms need to be made to our electoral

system in order to get that done. I, too like the STV idea... it is almost like a hybrid between our direct election system and the multi-party system. But good luck getting anything like that passed on a level higher than a few very progressive municipalities and counties.

[wli]

12. the way to push it is large-scale collective action

We need to make something like a mega-union in order to collectively bargain with the government.

[expatriot]

16. let's save the unions before we start talking about mega-unions :)

i gotta go to bed, 'night.

[wli]

17. granted, there is some serious trouble with keeping unions together

I have no idea how to accomplish any of this.

[mitchtv]

4. the primary season is the time to get all purist

I allow myself to indulge in some myself.That is our ideal, to put our best ideas to the test of an election. Come the elections I will support the Dem.In the primary however, Dems like Feinstein will see no support from me

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. feel the same way

I cannot vote for Difi in any way, shape or form

[mike_c]

30. this is a real dilemma for me....

I too will NEVER vote for DiFi again. Frankly, I think unseating her is one of California's top political objectives for progressives. She has betrayed her constituents repeatedly in favor of corporate interests, war-profiteering, and so on.

[expatriot]

23. that is okay.... withholding support from DLCers in the primary season

in favor of more progressive candidates or just as a protest (if there is no progressive challenger) is one thing, but spitting fire and poison about how you are withholding support from the party in the GENERALS is quite another. Now having said that I know some people say things they don't really mean just to make a point (i.e. "If Bush gets re-elected I am leaving the country") but the negativity tends to feed off eachother.

[mitchtv]

41. I blame Democrats, who did this kind of thing

to Gray Davis, for Kindergarten Governor. It couldn't have happpened without partnership with Dems, who refused to see what good he did, and blamed him for the energy crisis.

[OneBlueSky]

6. I don't think anyone's "promoting breaking with the Democratic Party" . .

rather, they're expressing profound dismay at how the Democratic Party repeatedly and blatantly breaks with US! . . .

[expatriot]

8. two examples in #5

i can find more if you want.

one advocates progressives breaking with the democratic party and forming coalition with greens if we can't get the democrats to come up with a progressive candidate.... the other one says the poster would vote third party if a Democratic not of his/her preference won the primary. it is one thing not to vote for a Democrat in the privacy of the polling booth, but to publicly advocate support for a third party candidate over the nominated Democratic candidate is not exactly showing "support Democratic candidates."

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. Inn the early 1960's the rightwing was only a minority of the GOP

They persevered and eventually controlled the whole of the party and now control all three branches of the government and the media as well.

I strongly recommend reading "Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus" by Rick Perlstein. Available at Amazon at
:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080902859X/qid=1122794140/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3243555-3107851?v=glance&s=books
It gives some good insight at the position I believe genuine progressives are now in with the Democratic Party.

If I thought a third party was a viable alternative-I would support it. Earlier on I did. It became clear to me that this is simply not an option--at least for now if one wishes to be at all affective.

_____________________________________


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[Montauk6]

10. Here's my problem with all this

Gore got the popular vote. Kerry, demonstrably farther left than Al, MAY have done likewise; but even if he didn't, he still pulled in MORE votes than any other presidential candidate in US history, except for Bush (and that's only if Bush's totals are real).

In 2000 and 2004, the prez races had very questionable circumstances surrounding the voting.

Yet, YET what is it we hear from the DLC, time and time again? We're out of touch, we're too far too the left, progressive politics aren't realistic. Always this so-called need to put on a centrist smile and sweep all remnants of a great liberal tradition under the rug (in which case, the question is begged, who's abandoning whom?)

So the bottom line is: fight tooth-and-nail for some honest voting and THEN figure out if the party is too left or tight.

[expatriot]

14. I agree.... there is a contest for the soul of the party and that's

healthy and necessary.


I have gone to the DLC website for the first time in the past couple of days because of these threads just to really look at what they are promoting and let me tell you, I always knew they were our centrist wing but I did not know how very Republican _some_ of their issue statements are. I VERY much disagree with their stances on issues and support challenging their ideas very much. Having said that, I'd take their positions on issues any day of the week over GOP isses... they are not the same shade of evil by any means.

My beef is with the people who are saying, either in effect or literally, "I can't be in the same party as the DLC! They are corporate sell-outs and they either have to leave or I am!"

[liveoaktx]

32. Since, right now, this is a two party system, I'm a Democrat

but for now, just like some members who continually post DLC-oriented topics, I also reserve the right to speak up loudly about why I will NOT vote for a DLC candidate. Doesn't mean I will leave the Democrat party but I may choose not to vote in a particular race. I won't vote for Hillary or any DLC candidate-the time to express this, I think, is NOW while other potential candidates are considering running, so that they will know there are some Democrats who want honesty, anti-militarism, and corporate pandering out of the party.

[julianer]

13. Similar debates have raged in the UK

about the Labour party.

The Labour party used to have a system of internal democracy which, on paper at least, allowed ordinary members to have some influence on party policy. Blair ditched that.

The left's tactics used to be to get its policy passed at conference and to drag the party to the left. That is no longer possible, since policy arrives freshly minted from Blair's bigot twitch sensor.

But in the absence of party democracy there is little point in trying to reclaim the party - it is moribund until Blair goes, though the Labour Representation Committee is trying. Blair will keep triangulating away and making things worse for working people.

So, at the moment, there are two different left efforts going on - one is to build Respect as a viable electoral alternative, the other is a regroupment of the left inside the Labour party. Both strategies are consciously designed (only partly as far as Respect is concerned) to drag the Labour party back to its traditional ground.

So I would say, in the final analysis, it is about policy and not party - if you can get the Democratic party to perform a progressive role then good enough - but that process might be helped along with strong electoral competition from the left.

Do both, in other words.

[expatriot]

15. good post, but progressives are not disenfranchised from the DP

Dean's politics may not be progressive but there is little doubt that it were progressives who got him within a hair's width of the nomination, thereby changing the tone of the election and later it is no doubt the progressives who got him the Chair. We may not have nearly complete control over the party as the religious conservatives have over the GOP but there is no doubt that we solidly control the grassroots of the party and and that we can be mobilized when needed to take control of the party apparatus. We very well may need to remind the DLC of that with a massive show of force in both the primaries of 2006 and 2008, what I saying is that we are not an endangered species being silenced by the DLC yet. The DLC is trying to influence the party with communicatiing ideas and influencing policy makers in the party. But we control the grassroots of the party and thereby the policymakers and the candidates. So we still are in the game.

[julianer]

18. I don't think anyone wants to leave

their party. I joined Labour as soon as I was old enough back in the 70's, but you have to accept it when your party is no longer capable of acting in your class interests.

If you find that it is impossible to wean the DP leadership off their corporate funding and their rightward drift, you have to admit it and organise elsewhere - the road may seem to be longer and harder, but that isn't necessarily the case. The mere existence of a viable alternative to the left may well bring the DP party back to its roots.

We've got to stop these buggers triangulating us into irrelevance. My hope is that Respect will grow in strength and in doing so will bring Labour back to the left - at the moment in the UK there is definitely room for both. Whether I then rejoin Labour or remain in Respect, I don't know. I'll have to wait and see.

So I reckon you should stay in the DP and try to reform it, but, at the same time, support all efforts to the left of the DP - don't see them as enemies but allies in trying to reform your party.

[bvar22]

19. Please read the Democratic Party Platform 2004,

then come back and tell me with a straight face that "Progressives are not disenfranchised from the DP"

[expatriot]

22. If I remember right, The 2004 Dem Platform was little more (nothing more)

than campaign literature for Kerry... it is not even on the Democratic Party's website anymore... but I just went there (the website) for the first time in quite a while and wow... it looks nice and has a lot of good stuff on it RE: Rove and Roberts, etc.

[femrap]

48. I think the Platform removed the

ERA (Equal Rights Amendment......and that's for women, not gays and lesbians) in '04.....that really pissed me off. Hey, in my day...Equal Marriage meant that a hetero husband was finally going to carry his weight around the house and help with raising the children and taking out the trash....

Yoko was right...and John believed her.

[eridani]

51. Dean's policy positions may not be progressive, but--

--he progressive where it counts the most, namely in his advocacy of grassroots control of party structure.

[BamaBecky]

21. I'm considering this candidate>>

www.karlschwarz.com

Bama

[madfloridian]

24. You are right...a lot of this going on. It's a shame.

I think a lot of it is on purpose. When the 50% raise in fundraising by the DNC under Dean was announced, the same thing happened. Shortly after that the DLC started dominating the news with the Hillary stuff.

Then two days ago the email went out about the fact that 25 states had been included already in the 50 state plan. Well ahead of schedule.

Then there were more threads about the DNC and how folks are going to form other groups.

We have a chairman who is trying to rebuild the party on small donations. His expressed purpose is get more smaller donations. And here come the 3rd party advocates whenever there is a success. When there is a success, there are more threads like this.

[ClassWarrior]

25. Let's not forget that it's only since the Selection of 2000...

...that Progressives have been building a "farm system" within the Democratic Party to bring good, solid candidates up through the ranks.

I know that's not the instant gratification that so many seem to want around here. (Thanks for the short attention spans, Corporate America!)

It requires some patience from us, but it's real, substantial change from within. And rather than being impatient, or throwing hissyfits and bailing from the Party, we should all be pitching in with groups like Progressive Majority to help make this happen.

NGU.

[Burried News]

26. The opposition to Bush and the GOP needs to be honest

forthright and truthful. The deception you admit to in your post is not acceptible to me. Were it clear to the people that Democrats were the party of truth, honesty and integrity, I think we would win most elections.

This forum is sponsored by the Democratic Party. Excluding posts as you suggest, seems counterproductive to me. However, I support KOS when he does it and I can accept you if you do it, but it is suggestive of a kind of purity along Leninist lines.

I cannot adress all of the thoughts that come to me because your post is excellent and thought provoking but I have two more.

Are Political Parties that which RULE or are they instruments to make democracy work, to translate hopes, dreams and principles into political reality? What is it we are really trying to accomplish? If it is the later, that takes love - where is the love. I see the calculation and even passion but without love we are nothing. (I am an ex-christian but I will never abandon that Biblical lesson. Never.)

PS Howard Dean speaks to me and for me. God love ya Howard.

[mike_c]

27. so ban me if that's your solution....

I and all the other lifelong dems who have had it with today's democratic party. Democrats want unity, but appear utterly unwilling to offer progressives any policies they can live with, so such calls for unity are exactly equivalent to saying "give up your ideals and just vote in lockstep with us."

If the democratic party wants unity with progressives IT MUST OFFER A PROGESSIVE PLATFORM. How many times do we have to say this? The dem party has relied on the lack of other alternatives to keep progressives in line for decades now. The 2000 election showed just how bankrupt that strategy is.

Amerika's "winner take all" electoral system is a dual edged sword-- not only does it undermine 3rd party movements, but it also forces the two primary parties to either work for the votes that lie outside their centers of political distribution or to, as you've done, simply demand blind alliegence. Instead of calling for lockstep unity against a common foe, the democratic party should work for the votes of progressives by incorporating progressive issues into its platform. Instead, the modern democratic party flees those issues like the plague and demands loyalty "because the alternative is worse." It sounds to me like the party has a vested interest in keeping the alternative worse!

You don't want to hear these views expressed on DU? Sorry, but all that will achieve is silencing the left-- an objective that you apparently share with the republican party. It will certainly not bring me back into the democratic party fold. Only a return to the traditional values of the democratic party will accomplish that. I have voted for democrats since Nixon was president, and I have watched the democratic party move further and further to the right over those years. It no longer represents me on the issues that are most important to me-- social justice, a foreign policy not based on greed, people before corporations, equal access to health care for everyone, free public education, safeguarding the environment before the "rights" of businesses-- I could go on in this vein for some time, but I'm sure you get the point. Finally, at 50, I realized that my loyalty is to doing the right things, not to any particular political party, and especially not to a party that consistently refuses to address those issues. The democratic party has squandered my loyalty-- 30 voting years of it.

[expatriot]

33. For one, I didn't make the rules, For two....

no one is banning or silencing progressives in the Democratic Party.I am sure Al From of the DLC would love to silence progressives in the Democratic Party if he could but he doesn't have the power. Progressives in the party do have considerable power when mobilized.

For being a lifelong Democrat it is surprising that you are only now having a problems witth the amount of corporate influence in the party. The Democratic Party has always been a tent home to many political movements.... the progressives have always been wrestling with more moderate/conservative elements for influence... that's the rule of the game.

You say "You don't want to hear these views expressed on DU? Sorry, but all that will achieve is silencing the left-" No.... it won't "silence the left" it makes sense that if you are no longer supportive of the Democratic Party then a forum which has as rule number one.... "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office" may not be for you. I am sure there is a Green or an SWP or an ISO forum out there somewhere (all 3 being parties I have belonged to at one time or other).

You said you have voted for the Democratic candidate for 30 years. You voted for Clinton in 92, 96, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and now you say the Democratic Party is dissing you because of the DLC? It is not the DEmocratic Party that has changed, my friend... it is you.

[mike_c]

44. yep, all except Kerry in 2004....

I voted for David Cobb in the last election (and of course add Carter in '76 and '80, Mondale in '84, and Dukakis in '88, as well as the off year elections in which I voted solidly democrat since 1974). I wasn't quite old enough to vote in November '72, but McGovern's candidacy, and especially his opposition to Nixon and the Vietnam War, cemented my liberalism and my long relationship with the democratic party. And of course, I grew up with Kennedy and Johnson in the WH. No, I haven't just recently become disillusioned with the dems-- it's been an on-going process that has only reached critical mass in recent years as I've been disappointed over and over, and especially since Clinton's presidency. I voted for Gore in 2000, but without much enthusiasm (notwithstanding the Al Gore who emerged during 2003, who impressed me much more).

Still, my essential political identity remains democrat, despite my support for the green party. If the dems embrace a progressive platform I'll support them again immediately. THAT'S what I was really voting for all those years-- the liberalism that I believed was the democratic party's legacy.

Plus, I joined this community around the same time you did in early 2002, and was still OFFICIALLY a dem then. There are lots of likeminded folks here-- dems and former dems disgruntled by what's happened to the party during the last 20 years or so.

[expatriot]

35. Give me examples....

you say.

"If the democratic party wants unity with progressives IT MUST OFFER A PROGESSIVE PLATFORM"

Give me examples of how the Democratic platform has become less progressive in the past few years.

secondly, are you telling non-progressives in the Democratic Party that they are not welcome in the party? I am a progressive but understand that if we did not appeal also to non-progressives we would be marginalized.

[Kitsune]

28. I would be much happier about supporting the Democratic party

if I could tell the difference between them and the Republicans without looking up to see whether they have an (R) or a (D) next to their name.

This isn't hyperbole, since I frequently have the idiot box on as background noise while I work at the computer, picking out soundbites and shouting obscenities at the TV when I hear something particularly egregious. When I look up to see whom I have just insulted the ancestry of, it is not uncommon to find myself looking at a Democrat instead of a Republican.

I freely acknowledge that not all Democrats are spineless, meanlymouthed faux-Republicans, but said faux-Republicans certainly seem to be the ones running the show. Unless and until the progressives get their party back again, I will have to continue to feel sad that I would support the two-party system if only there were more than one party.

[expatriot]

34. oh come on..... jesus christ.

why don't you read some voting records once in a while?

You'll probably point to some vote like the Patriot Act or authorization for force in Iraq or some vote like that but look how the votes break down between party in the scorecards put out by the unions, environmental groups, etc. etc.

I am curious... what about a discussion forum with this as a rule: "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office" attracted you when you say things like "I will have to continue to feel sad that I would support the two-party system if only there were more than one party."

[eridani]

52. How do you explain the CAFTA vote, then?

95% of Dems opposed and 95% of Repubs favored. That looks like a major difference to me. We even had fewer defectors than they did--15 vs. 27.

[Gregorian]

29. The problem is with THE PEOPLE, not the party.

Yesterday I met a reporter for the local paper. This is in a somewhat deomcratic area, in a blue state. He did not know what the Downing Street Memo is.

[madfloridian]

31. How would he know, really?

Unless he is on forums on the internet. Our news here mentioned it once briefly, now they don't discuss it at all.

If you spend a day off the internet, just watch network news, cnn, or msnbc or read the local paper...then you don't have a clue about it.

[Gregorian]

39. I should have said, it's the PRESS.

Yes. He's a reporter, not a journalist.

My point is- if HE doesn't know, then basically noone knows. And therein lies the problem. Few in this country is informed with the truth.
We are missing an integral part of our government (the press). And that is why we are where we are.


I thought about this after I met him. People work. People are busy. It's all an excuse. A good one. With real journalism, we can be somewhat lazy and still get the truth. It's a very tough time for America. And yet, we have the most advanced mediums to communicate. Crazy.

[SharonRB]

36. Great post, expatriot!

It's exactly what I've been thinking and saying when I've had a chance. We must stick together in order to take back our country. The Democratic Party has room for people who don't necessarily agree on everything -- that's part of what makes us Democrats. We are not Sheeple, we can think for ourselves, but we must stick together. If we don't, the Republicans will be in power for a long, long time. Everytime someone in power in the party says something you may not agree with, it's crazy to say -- "That's it. I'm not voting for them." It's just biting off our noses to spite our faces.

For example, I know a lot of people on DU don't like Hillary. I probably won't vote for her in the primary, either (it's not so much that I don't like her, but that I think she's divisive). However, if she should get the nomination, we need to fight like Hell to get her elected. The alternative will be disastrous. I will stand behind her or anyone else who gets the Democratic nomination and I hope all other DUers will do so as well.

[brentspeak]

37. Kick

:kick:

[welshTerrier2]

38. "if Democrats act like Republicans, they deserve to lose"

first, let me express nothing but disdain for anyone who seeks to censor the deeply held views of any progressives in these forums ... let's hope no one is doing that ...

and second, let me quote (from my .sig) that radical, left-wing extremist, Ted Kennedy, on the subject of whether NON-PROGRESSIVE Democrats who far too often mirror the votes of right-wing republicans, deserve our support:

"In the face of their tactics, we cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices. We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose. As I have said on other occasions, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

The BP seemed to put very little emphasis on the statement from the rules that requires us to be "generally supportive of progressive ideals" ... would that include opposing Democrats who continue to vote for more neo-con killings in Iraq? would it include opposing Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy bill? would it include opposing Bob Casey who would force a young teenage girl raped by her father to give birth against her will? i don't consider that being generally supportive of progressive ideals ... i consider it being generally supportive of Democrats winning no matter what right-wing views they hold ...

PDA, whose views and values seem to me to be very much in line with a very strong majority of DU'ers, has called for an arrangement between progressive Democrats and Greens ... one of the benefits of this arrangement to the Democratic Party is that when no Green is running, Greens have pledged to fight for any progressive Democratic candidates who are ... i, for one, will welcome their support ... apparently you consider this type of coalition building hostile to the Democratic Party ...

it is time for us to seize power from those who have driven the Democratic Party into a minority status ... it is time to put an end to the power of those who have muzzled the left in the Party as you are trying to do ... don't try to hide behind the rules ... the moderators and admins do an excellent job here balancing the voices of dissent against the best interests of the Democratic Party ... it is only whiner losers who seek to exploit the rules to muzzle dissent ...

if you want to debate the issues, fine ... but leave the administration of DU to those clearly more qualified than you are ...

[AJH032]

40. good post (n/t)

[omega minimo]

42. I am really sorry but

you weaken your position and devalue your words when you resort to:

"-albeit a Democratic party neutered of its progressive activist base and all the more the GOP's and the corporate media's bitch."

Two sentences later you write:

"I, frankly, believe much of these posts are in violation of DU rules"

which is exactly what you have done.

"While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted. "

We have been round and round on this on DU. No matter how much determination one musters to overlook crude language, there is a problem, still. Especially at the level that you are advocating (so articulately) it seems reasonable to think you might "exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view."

Sexism represents an enormous blind spot for the Democrats and for DU-- it is a pitfall that will continue to damage and divide the party.

I was interested in what you had to say-- but you brand yourself and your advocacy of the party in a self-limiting fashion. By resorting to "the corporate media's bitch" you may inadvertently cause readers to underestimate your grasp of the broader issues that the party must address.

[Catchawave]

43. I will never leave the Dem Party, however,

I'm choosing to donate directly to candidates, rather through the DLC/DNC/DCCC, because I have no control how that money's spent !

I did donate an affirming 25.00 to the DNC in honor of Howard Dean, but I'm no longer responding to blanket requests to donate to "help elect Democrats". Been there, done that, have too many t-shirts and a donkey pin to show for :)

I had more fun donating $10 to Hackett's campaign, even though I can't vote for him, than the $250 I sent Kerry, and I don't think a cent of it reached Virginia in 2004!

[Mark E. Smith]

45. The people who would leave the Democratic party because of the DLC

.. or some such shit are basically the same people who endlessly justified voting for Nader in 2000 because "there is no difference between Bush and Gore."

Of course, none of them would own up to saying that today.

This is our perpetually indignant 1%. The only question I have is that, given their relatively small numbers, lack of any real political clout, not to mention a nearly nonexistant loyalty to the Democratic Party, why should anybody care?

Better to place our bets on people we can count on.

[expatriot]

46. Yes, I voted for Nader in 2000 and very soon there after

joined the Democratic Party (I had come to Nader from politics even further left - socialist) and have been a yellow dog ever since.

[femrap]

49. You voted for Nader in 2000?

And now you are telling life-long Dems to stick to the party....? I thought the rules said that all Nader voters in 2000 were banned!!!!! LOL.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

58. Good point.

eom

[expatriot]

60. I was young.

Now I am five years a veteran of the Bush years.

[delhurgo]

50. I agree, and imo the Democratic Party would be in a much better

position if it continued to move right on economics and pushed this loud 1% out of the party. All they do is cause trouble. There'd be more room then for moderate republicans that can't stand the religious right, and for independents. There are literally millions and millions of votes to be had if the Democratic party was able to stop pandering to the far left.

I'd like to see the party keep its positions on civil liberties (abortion rights, free speech, sep church/state,..), but move right on taxes and spending, Defense, and gun-rights. This is what Kos means when he talks about the "Western Democrat" philosophy. Its sort of "libertarian lite". And this is what Thomas Jefferson intended for the party anyhow; he was a believer in "a govt that governs least, governs best". How it got to be what it is, quasi-socialist, I don't know. But its time for a change.

[Bridget Burke]

57. "move right on taxes & spending"?

You mean, continue to cut taxes & spend wildly on war & the development of new weapons?

I believe the "loud" percentage is more than one. We won't become better Democrats by becoming more like Republicans.

[Vinca]

53. The bottom line is this:

vote what you believe is your conscience and if it's not for the Democratic candidate, you're helping to hand victory to the Repukes. That's just the way it is under the current system. Remember Nader? I'll vote for whatever Democrat is the candidate in order to regain power . . . but that, of course, won't shut me up. The Democratic Party isn't perfect, but it's better than the current regime by a long shot.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

54. Maybe our job is to hold some feet to the fire, huh?

"My way or the highway" is GOP standard operating procedure.

I appreciate your thoughts, but I am not going to lessen my criticism (when merited) one little bitty iota. And I will leave DU when I am either banned or when I feel the time is right, and not one second before.

Have a great Monday! :hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Completely agree. Thanks. nt

[mmonk]

56. We have to have politicians

willing to take our positions before we have power. Money is in control of the system now and only courage can win back the party.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. I stopped reading after this . . .

"With all respect and to be quite frank, when I first read the threads I thought they were the work of freeper operatives"

Same old talking points. I just love hearing sock puppet "arguments" on DU. Like I don't get enough with our own media.

Vee shall NOT tolerate ze dissension! Save it, we've heard it before. :eyes:

[expatriot]

61. sorry, i didn't know it was a talking point. i will run my thoughts past

you next time. Once, again... I didn't make the rules but I definitely see the rationale behind them.

[TankLV]

62. So now you just know I'm a freeper. Riiiiiight.

But yet you didn't come here to defame anybody or make wild unproven accusations that are against DU rules.

Riiiiiiiight.

Hey MoPaul, Catwoman and all you others - let's go back to freeperville where we left it to come and post all our strategic posts!

Riiiiiiiight.

The DLC never ceases to amaze me with their sleaze slander tactics.

And you are a willing dupe to fall for it.

God forbid we should try to change the direction of the car we are riding in or try to get out as it continues towards the cliff or oncomming cars.