Shall the populist come back from the grave?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Populist Party in the 1880s?

Folks it is time that people realize the Democrats have been coopted to the point that we now must seriously consider a third party...

Now I know historically the track record of third parties, must go the way of the do do... but one succeeded beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that was the GOP. Another one came close, the Populist party, which actually had a fairly strong representation in Congress (and woke the Democrats the hell up)... so it is time for those to consider voting third party and forming a third party. It is quite clear that the Democrats don't want us... and none of us could ever vote for a Puke (unless they do their wonderful switch as they are prone to do with the Dems... ) But history is clear, we must take the future into our hands... and the Democratic leaders are not leaders... so time to show them the door... and go our own POPULIST way.

And no, the Dems are not a valid alternative to the devils in DC... and as long as they are not an alternative, guess what? Diebold or not, the GOP will continue to win, after all better to vote for the devil you know, than the one you have no clue.

Oh and what happened to the Populists? By 1900 or so most of their ideas were absorbed by the Democrats... yuo may even know some of their ideas as the New Deal.

[Wilms]

1. .

[Tiggeroshii]

2. I concur.

The greens are the one party that can pick up if things totally go to shit in the Democratic party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Oh I know in the election in 06

I do hope they field somebody good in Cali, for DiFi is NOT getting my vote... enough people think this way, he \she may get a surprise

[Tiggeroshii]

37. No matter what, I don't wnat a conservative winning.

I don't want the vote to get too split up that a neocon/fundie gets her seat. But then again we might just win enoguh seats over all in the Senate, that the Greens will be able to win in the next election if they score big in this one. It would be nice if things work out enough for that to happen. However, I think that a DINO is better than, say, a Republican. As long as they're a part of the Democratic caucus, I'm coolw ith that. But a real liberal would be nice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. I will respectfully disagreeq

and why teh Dems should NOT run dianne... in 2006

[Tiggeroshii]

124. They shouldn't.

But it's not accurate to say she's a thorough Republican. She certainly is more moderate, and she votes a little bit more with her snobbish, millinionaire interests, but progressive punch gives her a progressive ratign of 83%, she'll compromise once in a while when she really needs to, but she'll still generally vote as a Democrat. Come on now, a true dixiecrat(probably the last) is Ben Nelson of Nebraska. That guy's a real Republican, voting for only 49% of Democratic ideals. The entire party gives in to corporate interests, and all that sort of corruption, but it still fights for a lot of the right things. Seriously, if you wanna pick on some real DINO's, start with the Nebraska guy and work your way up in order. check out their voting records here: http://www.progressivepunch.org/

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. With Dianne

it is strange, her voting pattern that is... and it truly goes down her social class. Things that affect California she tends to be better, after that... not really....

And she really POed me after the bankrupcy bill, that is when I really had it with her. Bear in mind, in 2000 I voted for her because she had a D after her name... I voted for Gore for the same reason, he had a D and I knew tht was good.... then the last five years have happened, and my gut tomd me on December 12th that it was time to pay attention... so I have been following all of them with a magnifying glass. Maybe I got spoiled while I was in hawaii but all of them were mostly among the good guys, even if Inouye was not stellar, quite better than Dianne...

Now I msut say it, my local congress critter she is good, and so is boxer, so it is not like I have the Duke, if you know what I mean

LOL

[ladylibertee]

144. Just do it after 2008 okay? LOL

[Voltaire99]

4. Agree with every word.

The public hates the war in Iraq and fears for our economic future.

Disgust and fear: portents of political upheaval. The time, as they say, is ripe.

Yet the Democratic Party is too coopted and clueless to lead. Alexander Cockburn's latest Nation column makes the case quite well:

http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn10012005.html

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. So educate me on why the Populist worked

try to tell me why these boys have shown no real opposition in five years, save the Black Caucus with honorary members (abercrombie)... please do educate me...

And yes I also know this is a minority party, so care to explain to me the votes for the bankruptcy bill by some scions of the party such as Diane Feinstein? Care to explain to me the continued support of the Iraq Debacle? Care to tell me the continued bowing and not fighigng from the leadership? How about the dominance of the DLC which keeps pushing the party to the right, and closer and closer to the Pugs? (The devil you know comes to mind)

I am not the only one who has noticed this.. many of us have... and if the party cannot take it, maybe it is time for them to leave the stage of history.

The true mark of insanity is to keep doing the same things hoping that they lead to different results

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

14. Somehow I see someone afraid to leave like she promised

"yes you will muddle along, and the term is MUDDLE along"
Whatever. Now take a hike/

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. How brilliant on your part

tell me how are you going to deal with the PERCEPTION that is growing that the party is not being led... by strong leaders.

Please do tell me... waiting here... and again you think I will vote for a republican with a D behind her name, yuo are dreaming... and any who is a DLCer has that problem.. give me a Hacket... don't give me a DLCer

(Yes taht is Dianne Feinstein)

My choice these days is a good D (they do exist such as Boxer, she is a figther) or a Green... live with it.

[MrBenchley]

17. Still not gone? Guess you ARE afraid to take that hike...

"you think I will vote for a republican with a D behind her name"
I really don't give a crap what you do, one way or the other. Tag along or don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. What are yuo talking about? I care to DISCUSS this

you care to flame people, how mature of you. Are you a party leader? If you are... we are truly in trouble...

I raised an issue going back to US History and all you can do IS CALL NAMES... how mature of you. Now care to discuss things or just leave this thread... obviously you cannot and will not discuss what is now being whispered by some WHO KNOW US HISTORY, which I see some Dems (read you) don't want people to know either... look on the bright side, I am not even mentioning the Grangers, who also had an effect... again New Deal.

those who refuse to learn from history (such as you) are doomed to repeat it... (The Dems came actually pretty close to loosing their primary slate in the House and were lucky the Progressives caucuses with them... it was a natural alliance, but you'd never know that UNLESS you read US History... which I see you are afraid off... just as you are afraid of discussing the REAL problems right now)

[MrBenchley]

23. I see you're STILL afraid to leave like you promised...

" obviously you cannot and will not discuss what is now being whispered by some WHO KNOW US HISTORY"
No shit, Sherlock. You want to go, go....

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. No you are afraid of having a discusion

you are a chicken, Sir. Very much so... I am asking you to DISCUSS the problems, but you keep going leave. No lets discuss.. DISCUSS... you are the one who is a chicken

What is at stake for you? What is this to you? For me this is the country, so what is this for you? Oh yes a Democrat for ever and my party right or wrong... where have I heard this before? Is this why you are afraid of discusing why Hacket worked?

[MrBenchley]

28. You shouted "Goodbye" but you're unwilling to go

"What is at stake for you? What is this to you?"
Me, I'm a Democrat. You wanted to leave the party--now GO.

"Oh yes a Democrat for ever and my party right or wrong... where have I heard this before? "
Who cares where you did anything?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. No you are unwillingto discuss

you are unwillign to discuss

What is worst yuo also misread, ON PURPOSE the Opening Statemetn... as you have misread the rest. This is a call for reform, this is a call for people to consider, that maybe we do need a true progresive party... READ what SHummer said today and then come back to me... he was NOT talking of International Answer by the way... we was talking of way too many people in the base... so if he believes that... maybe it is time for another historical shot across the bow of the Democratic Party

You Sir, do not know US History... and it shows

[MrBenchley]

36. Don't feel it's worth discussing with someone who wants to leave the party

"This is a call for reform, this is a call for people to consider, that maybe we do need a true progresive party... "
So go start one already. As for me,. I'm more than happy to stay here supporting Chuck Schumer and the Democrats.

"he was NOT talking of International Answer by the way..."
How the fuck do you know?

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. you did listen to teh C-SPAN interview, ddin't you

and he was not....

And I have yet to say I was leaving the party, but you know waht, I might as well go register Independent. If most democrats are like you, then I don't care for true believers on EITHER side, then again if I did that, we will surely get that idiot of a sneator called Dianne Feinstein, who I am sure you will defend, since she has a D after her name.

Look you don't want to discuss, and this is the mark of a true believer... for that I pitty you Sir.

[MrBenchley]

48. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

"we will surely get that idiot of a sneator called Dianne Feinstein"
Says it all (snicker)...

[Selatius]

52. I find it curious you are mute on answering her questions

Would you care to answer those same questions to a fellow Democrat who may have disagreements with the leadership of the party?

[MrBenchley]

56. I find it tedious to hear mindless Democrat bashing

She wants to leave and start her own party, let her go. I sure as shit don't have any problems with anything that happened today.

[Selatius]

67. Sure, but would you say there are no issues with the Dem leadership?

I certainly think there are big issues that need to be discussed with the leadership that many ordinary citizens would like to be addressed. Things such as the influence of corporate donations over politicians, corruption, free trade policies, etc. are massive issues that need to be talked about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Here is a relevant thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2132872

[MrBenchley]

79. Who throws a snit because Schumer dismisses extremists?

"there are big issues that need to be discussed with the leadership that many ordinary citizens would like to be addressed"
I guess I don't see how pissing and moaning aboutt people like Schumer and Feinstein gets anywhere toward that discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. they are part of the problem

and have been for a long time, in particular Dianne, is not a democrat that I can trust... to carry the party standard or to do what I need as a constituent... so as they say... bad candidates should not get a vote, even if they have a D....

I guess progressives scare the likes of you by the way

[MrBenchley]

86. Gee then don't let the door hit you on the way out...

"I guess progressives scare the likes of you by the way"
The only fear I see around here is somebody who seems curiously afraid to go after announcing she didn't want to stay...

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. I never said I was leaving

by the way is that all you can say?

Unfrigging amazing.

[MrBenchley]

101. So all that crap about starting a third party was just so much hot air?

Telling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. You read what you wanted to read

It is time for a shot across the bow, you read what you wanted to read... but that is SO TYPICAL of people like you, who CANNOT and WILL NOT discuss what is wrong with the party... and yes that includes publicly critizing the Third Way candidates... for THEY ARE WHAT IS WRONG IWTH THE PARTY.

[MrBenchley]

117. You wrote it and now you want to run away from it

"that is SO TYPICAL of people like you, who CANNOT and WILL NOT discuss what is wrong with the party... "
Funny, I think people who spend all their time bitching and moaning about people like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein are what is wrong with the party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Funny and I think that people like yuio

who are members of a football team unable to criticize them, is what is wrong with the party... so we'd better agree to disagree, for we will never agree... you put party above country, I put my nation above Faction... and that is a very different point of view from yours.

[MrBenchley]

126. So don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

Enjoy your third party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Whatever, you know you will have the honor to be

the second person ever put on ignore... oh and I am making this public

[MrBenchley]

132. In this case it IS an honor

[Selatius]

93. I'm not talking about Schumer and Feinstein per se

But I do believe there are issues that are being ignored, such as free trade and its effect on American workers. Things such as corporate special interest money and its effect on Democratic politicians (not to mention Republicans) who take them as well as other organizations that are bankrolled by corporate special interest money. These are big issues because they affect everyone of us.

I speak for myself, but I'm not here to bash anybody, but what I am here is to critically examine in a constructive matter these issues. I learn from others, and we trade ideas, and hopefully a concensus emerges. I'm not here to start flame wars.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Which is what I am trhing to do

but mister my way or the highway is threatened by some US History

And I agree teh big issues right now are NAFTA\ CAFTA, National Healthcare, and Labor issues (including the bankrupcy bill)

[MrBenchley]

99. Nobody here but us chickens...

"I do believe there are issues that are being ignored, such as free trade and its effect on American workers"
How publicly attacking Democrats helps that is a mystery to me.

[Selatius]

107. I'm no advocate of hurling insults at and attacking politicians

But I believe if change is to be had, then asking questions is the answer. To attack a politician is little more than a hatchet job, but to confront a politician about what he has done or his positions is different, and that is what is healthy and needed. I'm not talking about what is going on now with Schumer, but I speak of the whole issue in theory, in contemplation.

[MrBenchley]

110. But there's a difference between theory and the real world...

[Selatius]

115. No, what I said is sound

If there is a problem, one must first start observing and asking questions. Then a solution should be formulated based on those observations and the answers found to those questions. It's basically the scientific method. There can be no change for good if nobody bothers to question the existing order.

And there are issues the leadership has to address with the ordinary folks of America: The teachers, the doctors, the workers of America, etc.

[MrBenchley]

128. I disagree....

"There can be no change for good if nobody bothers to question the existing order."
And a circular firing squad doesn't do anyone a damned bit of good.

[Selatius]

139. Then how would you define constructive criticism?

If there can be no reasoned questions asked of politicians and our leaders, then how can there be change? The "circular firing squad" is a term I more associate to useless flame-wars I see on DU, not discussion or debate about policy. As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested in the latter but the former. What is needed is reasoned debate.

For example, one of the big questions is the power of corporate special interest money within the Democratic Party. We know some number of Democratic politicians take that money to fuel their political campaigns. The question is how much has it affected their decisions on certain pieces of legislation which may directly affect particular big donors and whether it is healthy for people who, frankly, don't have that kind of money (the middle class and the working poor) and what are people going to do about it. Such questions are valid questions to ask of our leaders.

[MrBenchley]

161. I'd define as something other than this crap

This incoherent wailing about a third party and mindless attacks upon Schumer and Feinstein really seems to you like "reasoned debate"?

[Selatius]

162. Mud-slinging, no; talk about 3rd parties, possibly

I could dig up Feinstein's voting record and point out which positions I agree or disagree with, but as I have said repeatedly over and over again, I'm not particularly talking about Schumer et al. at this point, and that would be different than insulting them. I agree wholeheartedly about you about the bitching; it's not constructive and does nothing at this time. Starting a letter writing campaign to apply pressure on said politician would be more worthwhile.

As far as talk of third parties go, that *can* most definitely be constructive. As history shows, the Populist Party introduced ideas that were eventually co-opted by the Democratic Party and became the ideas behind the New Deal. That, my friend, is progress. If starting a 3rd party is the only way to force the Democratic Party to address issues that have been long ignored, such as the abuses of the industrialists in the late 1800s, then it would, within reason, be something worth discussion. Don't you think?

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. yeah, yea, yeah

I am sure you will vote for a woman whose husband is a member of teh carlyle group, and quite the liberal senator who always looses in her home district... you should ask to people in San Fran what they think of good ol Diana... just that more Californians are waking up to her horrors... that scares yuo? Shoudl just save us some time and change her D for an R

[MrBenchley]

60. Tee hee hee...

What was her margin of victory in San Francisco again?

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. not that good, the rest of the state carries her every year

talk to people about how she almost sent the city into bankrupcy... and she is married to a member of the Carlyle group.

By the way, you are misrepresenting things, I did not say I will form another party, just that it is time for that to happen... time for a little shake up in the US political system, that scares you that much? Are you that insecure about your positions? WOW! Is history such a scary subject?

[MrBenchley]

73. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

"I did not say I will form another party, just that it is time for that to happen..."
Don't let me stop you then.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. You are delusional

and have yet to answer ONE question

Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2132872

Read and weep, for what shummer did today is part of a calculated policy, and the base is not happy or secure.

[MrBenchley]

84. Then don't let the door hit you in the ass....

"Read and weep, for what shummer did today is part of a calculated policy, and the base is not happy or secure."
Then go and take "the base" with you. If you can. But so far all you seem to want to do is sit here and piss and moan about liberal Democrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. that is all you can say

My god, that is a broken record!

Yuo are afraid of those who can see through the triangulation crap?

Unfrigging amazing!

[MrBenchley]

104. Nothing else needs to be said

You hate Democrats like Schumer and Feinstein, and you want to join a third party. Don't let me stop you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Ok you again raed whatever you want to read

I don't hate them, hell I don't hate bush, I hate the policies, and if the Dems run PROGRESIVE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE KIND THEY ARE NOT RUNNING IN MANY A CASES, they will not get my vote.

If you are happy voting for people who vote against your interests while holding a D behind the name, go for it, party before country I see

[MrBenchley]

113. You say keep saying goodbye and yet you won't leave...

"if the Dems run PROGRESIVE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE KIND THEY ARE NOT RUNNING IN MANY A CASES, they will not get my vote."
Yeah, you only seem to want to vote for "extremists." Enjoy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Ah now we know what you are

DLCer you are... I see, why you have a problem discussing what is the problem... ok, I got it, you like CAFTA and NAFTA and all that, thank you, took a while but now we know that you are a member of the DLC... so progressives are extremists to you... I see...

[MrBenchley]

119. "We" is extremely funny in this regard...

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. yet you do not refute it

DLC have fun

[MrBenchley]

125. Tee hee hee...

[FiveGoodMen]

173. You take a hike.

[ladylibertee]

11. Me too.Read my post please.

[ladylibertee]

9. No! I think we should remain faithful to our party and allow our

Democratic Leaders to continue to do what they are doing.NEWS FLASH! The Liberal base is SECURE.The strategy is to "win over" more support.In order to do this our leaders have to "convince" moderates and disappointed republicans to vote our party's agenda.They cannot do that the same way they would for us.We know what they stand for and POLLS suggest we are not going to waiver.Allow our Democratic Leaders to do what they "need" to do in order to gain that support so we can win by a landslide in 2006 and 2008.We are not the target this time.The staregic target is: GAIN MORE SUPPORT FROM THE OTHER SIDE!

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. maybe that is the problem

go after the 20% that votes and not the 60% that does not, and WILL RESPOND to a POPULIST message... as I said it is time... to review the lessons of US History... and by the way... you think I will vote for diane Feinstein? She is a republican but in name only

[ladylibertee]

19. No, go after both the 20% and the 60% with a balanced message that

reaches all of them.The entire nation is "interested" now more than ever.Scandal brings attention.I became a voter during the second term of Clinton.The whole thing got my attention.I became a Democrat right after that because I saw how they were trying to destroy the man over something so frivolous and stupid that it angered me.People are going to respond.they usually take the side of the one who's being "beat Up" on.Our democrats are aware of this and that's why you do not see an all out launch of political attacks.Sure, it may upset us as liberals, but polls suggest that we are resolved.We are faithful to our party no matter how pissed off we get.If you realize that what our Democratic leaders are doing (or NOT doing) is not just on behalf of our base , which is secure, but to gain support from the other side,you will not be so hard on them.

[Selatius]

61. The populist message should reach the majority of Americans

Standing up for the working man, fighting for better health care, fighting to improve public education, fighting to protect the environment--these are all pretty populist in nature. The perception of the Democratic Party nowadays is a party that stands for nothing, that switches and changes its positions every which way to trt and win, to triangulate. It's not the same as standing up for those principles and fighting for them. It may be why Bernie Sanders is so powerful in Vermont at present, for instance. It's his message.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. I wish I coudl vote for Bernie

by the way

[Tiggeroshii]

90. Maybe an Independant like bernie could rn in Cali!

Maybe?

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. We are hoping

What I am truly hoping is that by the primary the Dems run somebody in oposition to DIFi... but I have spoken to many dems, and locally she is in the GE.. we are voting Green, we cannot vote for a R or a R in name only

[Tiggeroshii]

108. Yeah, I'm thinking seriously about voting for anybody but her and a Repub.

:nods confidently:

[Tiggeroshii]

88. People seem more concerned about the power than they do progressivism

I think these people jsut care about having their party in power and giving blind trust to theri party. It hasn't occured to tanybody that the reason the GOP got the way it has was due to the blind trust it's voters gave to them for an entire decade. They get so powerful they don't know what they're doing -anything that'll keep em in power and bow to anybody they please. The only reason I'm voting Democrat is becaue for now I beleive they are different enought to get the Bush ou of the White House. But as soon as this guy's gone, a LOT of pressure needs to be put on the Dems to either get their act together or get out. I don't think that voting green would necessarily be voting AGAINST the Dems, but rather voting in an effort to encourage the Dems to change. I will not leave the Dems cause I do think we can still change them, but I will not put this blind trust in them that so many people do. I think that as soon as the extremist right is out, an honest left will soon develope,

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. and that was the lesson of the populist movement

they never got the big apple (the presidency) but in the end their policies became democratic policies... their height as a party lasted less than a decade, but their influence lasted three generations.

[Tiggeroshii]

134. As did Locke's and Madison's...

Locke was the guy who came up with the whole civil rights idea but it was never implemented until nearly three hundred years after his life. Madison put his ideas into our Declaration, but things didn't really start picking up legally until right before the civil war. You're always gonna have people's ideas influence the trajectory of society. Doesn't matter whether it's through political party or everyday traditional belief. The good things will make their stake in our heritage in some way or another.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. More than Madison it was Jefferson

Pursuit of Happiness cames straight from Pursuit of Wealth, but Madison's efforts came during the Federalists, and kudos for you, most people don't know this...

Personally I see somethign happening soon, becuase people are demandign it, I don't expect to live long enough to see the results of this peaceful revolution (assuming it stays peaceful) but it is here... not coming, but here

[Tiggeroshii]

147. I think it'll jsut be major changes within party

The Democrats and Republicans have gone through some major reformations over the last couple hundred years. I think that these will occur more as people insideand outside the party want the change. You're right though, people are wanting change, and it's either change or die, more or less...

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Yeah teh RNC started as a reaction to the death of the

whigs, (after Adamn's little debacle). They were liberal (for the time) and by the 1870s they were ahem infiltrated by money interests. The Dems were not much better and teh 1880s-1900 was the most corrupt period in US history until oh, today... I mean even Nixon was honest compared to some of those boys, in spite of Watergate, and Tea Pot Dome (A period scandal that broke after the McKinley presidency of 1900)

The Pugs have been known as the party of money for years, but they also becasme the party of "state rights" after the DNC had civil rights passed (and Johnson knew he was loosing teh south for at least a generation)

And the people are now demanding change, and it is coming... I can smell it... and it may surprise all of us in the form it takes.

[Tiggeroshii]

154. Maybe the Repblicans will be the sacrifice.

And the Democrats could one day replace them as the more conservative party. I would love to see all the Repugs joingin the Dems and changing it all around and then seeing the Greens or something turning into a major party. Nonetheless it'll remain a two party system. New reform would have to take place to really get third parties in. I'm reading a book talking all about the different various voting methods that would include third parties more heavily. I like those ideas and anything else that can diversify the electorate. I see the Republicans getting screwed all over right now and I wonder if they will truly go down as the "culture of corruption" and stuff. Oh my I better hit the sack. I'm tired. Nice chattin, g'night!

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. night, my turn to go to bed too

[MrBenchley]

16. Right on the money 100%!!

Good post.

[ladylibertee]

20. Thank You.

[MrBenchley]

25. You'll notice the person who says she wants to leave the party

doesn't seem at all in a hurry to go.

But then on a day when it appears the Republicans took a giant step forward on their collective meltdown, it was astonishing how many "Democrats" here spent their day pissing and moaning about the Democratic party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. No it is a day when we saw a US Senator

on C-SPAN call the extreme a fringe and he did not mean International Answer, he meant Progressives. (Shumer for all who wonder)

[MrBenchley]

29. Don't let us keep you....

If you don't think the extreme is a fringe and want to bash Chuck Schumer, you can take a hike, like you promised to do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. I did not promise anything

I raised a possibilyt if you think RAISING A POSIBILITY is bashing your precsious DLC or DNC members who insult progressives you sir can shove it!

Now what I can promise you is they keep this up, they will loose, for the devil that is known is preferable to the new devil... and if you do not know this truism, then Sir, you don't know politics

[MrBenchley]

44. You didn't bring much to the party, either....

"Now what I can promise you is they keep this up, they will loose"
Adios. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Yeah yeah yea, you are so thraetened by discusion

that this is your sing and song

[MrBenchley]

49. Gee, I'm not threatened by anything

You want to leave, leave. Nobody's stopping you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yes you are, you have YET to ansswer ONE question

you are too happy to tell ACTIVISTS who point a problem to go to hell.

So start anwering the questions, or are you threatened? I think you are

[MrBenchley]

63. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

"you are too happy to tell ACTIVISTS who point a problem to go to hell."
Whereas you seem utterly unwilling to take goodbye for an answer after you announced you want to leave.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. And yuo have YET to answer one question

the insecurity is showing

[ladylibertee]

31. Some of us are like little children ;exited and eager to see a fist fight

We are not going to see this.

[MrBenchley]

40. AS I recall about Little Miss Goodbye

from the gungeon, she was one of those who wanted to have gunfights in the street for some bizarre reason...

[ladylibertee]

46. Yeah, There is a huge misconception that our party has more extremist

than liberals.The fact is, while we are considered "extreme" by the other party because of our liberalism,we are not that extreme.We are a strong solid liberal party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Tell me who was the last one to run on this

platform? And why were many on this place asking for us to compromise on women's rights, and GBLT, as well as other CORE issues, such as labor? Tell me why did the Democrats vote for the bankrupcy bill? The ones that did?

See the party is a big tent, or purports to be one... and criticism is one of the good things of the party, except for people like my friend here. The Populists were brought into the big tent, right now the populists are being pushed out...

[ladylibertee]

57. It's called "Changing with the times" C'mon, sing it with me

"There is a season,turn,turn,turn,"
:*

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. So you will give up on roe

ok... all I needed to know

[ladylibertee]

70. We won't lose ROE ! Are you serious? Do you really think we are going to

lose ROE? I laugh. I simply laugh.Wait a few weeks.like, a month in a half.We will have Definite proof.Theres already a case on the docket.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. I don't laught

I knwo the republican leadership may not want to... for it is a wedge issue, but that does not mean you should count on it... and that is the mistake many Dems make, to take these issues for granted.

[ladylibertee]

83. Have you checked out little miss New Chick? In MANY ways, she can

identify with Liberals than Conservatives. Single,USED to attend a NON DENOMINATION Church,never been married, never had a child! HELLO!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. she can go either way

she also is a cronie...

HELLO

[ladylibertee]

96. Okay, so she's BI-Curious (politically) Guess what? Mr."I believe in

upholding settled law" can go either way as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. yes Brown vs Board of Educatrion

revised settled law

[ladylibertee]

105. They wont touch it if they know what's good for them.Hell, What's

good for the nation as a whole.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. What you see as the good of the Nation is NOT what they see

as good for the nation... the only reason they would not is, they need it is as a wedge issue... and I am possitive that Roe is under a severe thread, and they may just pull the trigger on this.

[ladylibertee]

123. I guess I am more optimistic because I grew up further to the right than

both of these people.I was a pastors daughter who taught sunday school for ten years.I was extremely self -righteous and had nothing to do with the government because I believed that it had no place in the Church.I knew that king james bible and I knew it well.I may have stepped out of the Church, but I still believe the government has no place in religion.I have a pro-choice bumper sticker on my car.okay? I may have been raised one way and have one set of beliefs, but the bible doe not teach me I have the right to force my interpretation of the scriptures on other people.So,if i can be a hard core Democrat with my background,she was in a non-denominational which is ALOT more liberal than Pentecostal.As a matter of fact, I was taught that her type of church was lukewarm and not really a Christian church.Hard Core republicans are pissed off for a reason because they have they same views I was taught.That's why I am so confident she will be more liberal than Conservative.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. If she is confirmed

as they say, time will tell... remember David Souter was expected to be a hard core conservative and he is not (in some things he is, but his rulings are pretty moderate in today's environment), but this is not the Warren Court either.

[ladylibertee]

138. I agree.Ladies and gentlemen, I present ."David Souter -ETT" lol

[MrBenchley]

51. Exactly so...

[ladylibertee]

58. Do you mean exactly HOW so?

[MrBenchley]

68. I mean you're correct in your perception of our base....

and of the effort to to reach out to moderates...

[ladylibertee]

72. Oh, Cool.Thak you.

[MrBenchley]

95. It sure didn't seem any insult to me

to have Chuck Schumer condemn extremists...

And I'll bet most Americans didn't sit around going "By golly, he means me!"

[ladylibertee]

127. I know.But I don't think he did mean them.People who think they

are extreme are really just liberal and those who are extreme, well,is she still with us? LOL:yoiks:

[MrBenchley]

130. LOL!

Hello
I must be going
I cannot stay
I came to say
I must be going
I'll stay a week or two
I'll stay the summer through
But I am warning you
I must be going...

[ladylibertee]

135. LOL ! I guess your through for the day.Talk to you later.Bye

[sadiesworld]

66. The base is NOT secure.

Take a look around you.

Moreover, how is voting for the bankruptcy bill and CAFTA and supporting continued occupation of Iraq going to "convince" moderates and disappointed republicans to vote for dems? The bankruptcy bill was railed against as much on RW sites as it was here. A huge majority of the American public opposes our trade agreements (why in the hell wouldn't they?). The public wants OUT of Iraq. How are these dem votes and positions supposed to appeal to moderates and disgruntled republicans?

Finally, what difference does it frigging make what letter is behind their names if they vote for this crap?

I left cheerleading behind in junior high.

[ladylibertee]

141. looks like someone else here needs a prescription for

OPTIMISM.I'm sorry you do not comprehend the big picture/I hope to see you on election day.We still love you.:grouphug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. So tell me exactly

how CAFTA\ NAFTA and bankrupcy bill are gonna help shore up the base? This is not about optimism.... or lack off, but a valid series of questions... and they go down to the soul of the party.

[ladylibertee]

150. ALL these are amendable.We first win back congress and the senate

and the White House,and we FIX it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. You've read CAFTA haven't you?

you realize that the US Senate has no jurisdiction on it any longer, don't you?

[ladylibertee]

153. Ladies and gentlemen, "The president of the United States"

[Armstead]

170. So you're saying Dems should ignore serving their voters?

That's the ultimate extension of taking a voting base for granted in order to go after some nebulous middle and placate the opposition.

I thought the point of politics and government is to actually advance an agenda and do something.

Saying not to serve those with liberal beliefs in order to chase voters from the otehr side is makes the whole exercise absolutely meaningless.

The way to win is to stand for something and do something that reflects your core of supporters. If you stand for something that works and is worthwhile, then that will win over those in the middle too.

[Oversea Visitor]

18. So when they come and take over the party

you going to stand and fight or form a new one :evilgrin:
Its your party too hey.

[ladylibertee]

22. Never going to happen.We will not gain "extremist" from the right

at all.Those who we gain are more like us than they realize.I'ts just up to us to "LIBERATE" them ;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. the Populist were formed in the 1870s,

to respond to some of the abuses, maybe many of the abuses, from the rail road barons (People often forget the guilded age was jsut as bad as today for most Ameircans... in fact it was worst)...

What the Popullsts did was run on a very progresive platform, limiting the railroads et al.. and just like today the Democrats back then were playing court to the Money interests... yes some things repeat thselves. by 1900 the Populists were gone (excpet a few die hards here and there) but the Democrats not only woke up, but absorbed most of the platform, what Clinton would have called triangulation... and by 1932 the whole thing became the new Deal... and yes by 1900 many Populist ran as Democrats...

[Oversea Visitor]

32. Well

if everyone were to remember being Americans first and being blue or red second then maybe this country be better run hey.

To err is human so you better watch the humans you elect. You let the politicians play with the red and blue stuff and you end up
:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I don't let them play

for me some of our politicisans on BOTH parties are truly making strategic mistakes... one for money, the other for money... and our voters don't know history.

Me.. what I woudl give for proportional representation... adn this fight might very well end up in either a hot revolution or a hot civil war... because the politicians are very cynical... on both parties. As to who I elect, why do you think I will not vote for certain Dems, oh christ that lack of purity may even get me banned if some of these people get their way... why? Becasue a woman who'se husband is a member of the Carlyle group does not my vote deserve... and her voting record speaks volumes.

[ladylibertee]

34. History does repeat itself.I will not say that you are confused about

which history is being repeated here,I will just simply suggest that you are mistaken.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Oh the patterns are there

and this is in many ways a time when Americans have to choose... and if you choose to believe in the leadership blindly so be it... I have fought with them and along side them for quite a long time.. and a leaderhip who is willing to diss the base, is a problem... (and yes Shummer has been around long enough to be somewhat of a leader)

[ladylibertee]

41. Any wise Democrat can clearly see Shummer has not dissed us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Oh but he did

I know some folks will not see it, but I do... I am sorry for he is mostly a good man.. but he did.

[Oversea Visitor]

39. But I do agree

US does need more than 2 parties to represent all her citizen views.
This country is too big for a 2 party system and the politicians knows it. At the end of the day the DEM and REP politicians dont want the system to change.Why more man less share hahaha.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Well the system was designed by the fuonding fafthers

to have no factions. They were quite horrified when factions organized soon after... and the system, which was designed for winner takes all, is very stable to allow for more than two factions, aka parties. Too bad that Johb Stuart Mill was late by 70 years. He was the genious who solved the problems with Proportional Representation

[Oversea Visitor]

76. Dont worry

Chimp Midas touch bush will self destruct the 2 parties system. It is really amazing what he can do :rofl:

Me going to see lots of traumatized Americans when bush finally finish with America :rofl:

[Oversea Visitor]

82. Yike

I dont think doing a :rofl: was good taste sorry all :cry:

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. the traumatized may include a hot civil war

actually... but yes, and been there done that, so I am truly not looking forwards to that.. on the plus side, we may be able to write into the constitution thigns like oh, proportional representation.

;-)

[Oversea Visitor]

102. Dont think bush can cause a civil war

Popular uprising maybe but civil war geee you giving him too much brains. I mean he is a walking disaster and civil war need brains.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. No it is not bush that will do it

it is the rabid right, they will open fire, because they may just loose all they almost achieved and at that point they will.. but it is a consequence of this. Bush does not want one, not good if you are the ruling class. As to uprisings... I can also see a Revolution, in which case he has lots to worry about... a Ceausescu scenario is not out of place here.

[ladylibertee]

54. My dear , that is precisely why BOTH parties are working overtime

at the threat of losing ground with their bases, by feverishly targeting these "middle ground undecided people" The chances of success are greater for the Democrats than they are for the Republicans right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. I personally would not bet on that

not with the definition as Republican Lite... sorry, but this is the impression that many of us have been fighting against, but now it is quite clear this is the preferred image. Go get a copy of the latest Atlantic Magazine and read the comments on the redefinition of the DNC, it is all about money, not ideas... and Shummer today proved it, at least to me.

[ladylibertee]

77. Not about cash; Well, maybe just a little bit.It's also for ALL of us

not just some of us.Only Jesus Christ is perfect, but he's not on the ballot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Nobody is perfect

and god does not play in human politics... whatever name it takes

[ladylibertee]

85. Precisely babe.We gotta take what we can get.

[Oversea Visitor]

91. I do agree

But if DU is a good sample of DEM you can feel the frustration. So the Dem elected representatives better wake up.

Ahhh can l borrow JC and Boxer for my country please pretty please.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Hmm I guess if we can arange that

sure... why not?

;-)

[Oversea Visitor]

112. Hahaha

True down to earth politicians representing the people are in the endangered species category nowadays.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. All over the world yes

it is not an Ameircan problem, it is just more acute over here

[Oversea Visitor]

133. Sigh

its a vicious cycle today US tomorrow somewhere else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. You kknow history

most Americans don't, that is why I sometimes refer to patterns of US History... for history in this coutry does repeat iteself closer to the original pattern than in other countries

Hell where I grew up... we used not to have a free press, these days I check their papers to see what is going on in the US.. when I was growing up the NYT was a reuqired read to decipher the local tea leaves

[NoodleBoy]

136. This makes me wonder-- how many people who complain about the Democratic

Party are actually INVOLVED in the Democratic Party?

How many of them are Precinct Committeepersons?

How many non-Presidential campaigns have they volunteered for?

How many caucus functions, fundraisers or meetings have they attended?

How many clubs are they members of?

Complaining about the party leadership, griping about a supposed lack of direction, and fetishizing the grassroots might make you look cool on the internet, but not doing anything to try to effect any of the above makes you look like a jack off.

The original post pretty much sounds to me like a non-voter saying, "You know what? I don't like our government, so I'm going to form my own."

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. I am

have been to AD meetings, and participated in elections and other stuff... so can I have my right to complaint now?

[NoodleBoy]

148. so you am been to AD meetings and "other stuff"

I'm suprised you haven't learned yet that Dennis Kucinich can't win every race in the entire country. Yeah, it'd be nice if he could, but really, face it, we're never going to win statewide elections in most states by saying "look at me!! I'm the most progressive in this race!!" Greens and independents do that all the time, but only one in the entire country has consistently held a nationally visible public office.

That kind of talk is reserved for primaries, and it doesn't usually play well even there. (By the way, I've noticed that a good deal of members of DU are still trying to fight out the 2004 primary.)

Also, if you had any respect for Federalism, you'd be glad that it was people in your own state, and in many cases, your own congressional, state legislative, or city council district, who decide who their representation or leadership candidate will be, because in reality we're really 50 state parties who just happen to share a good deal of ideology and who run the same national ticket. I'd rather have it this way then have someone from another state decide who my candidates would be, or to tell my if my opinions were "good" or "bad."

And by the way, one of my current State legisators ran a couple times in the past for the seat she's currently holding as an independent, to the left of most of the party here. After losing both times, she used the contacts in the community she had, and ran as a Dem. She won, and she's now the most progressive voice in the state capitol, and some people are actually jealous of me for living in her district.

So she tried the third party course, but then found that the best way to realize a progressive vision is to take what you have and work with it, not throw it all away because you don't like Zell Miller.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. yes I know how the system works

very well thank you

Why are you afraid of criticism?

by the way, I would bet that FDR would not be elected today either... for the parties, would not select him... too much of a radical... too bad..

Now his cousin TR, on the other hand, will make a fine Democrat today

[NoodleBoy]

156. dude... what?

"Why are you afraid of criticism?

by the way, I would bet that FDR would not be elected today either... for the parties, would not select him... too much of a radical... too bad..

Now his cousin TR, on the other hand, will make a fine Democrat today"

I'm usually not this harsh, but, what are you babbling about? Not being afraid of criticism is the first thing you have to be to be interested in politics.

And if you don't think an enthusiastic campaigner who has years of party support and a believable, achievable vision for a renewed America couldn't win a Presidential nomination, then I really don't know what you're babbling about.

Anyway, I'm tired and stuff. Go ahead and declare victory, since for most people on the net victory just means the person who stops typing last. Have fun with your new party, just don't be suprised if the only thing you succeed in doing is making American politics even more divisive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. the DLC alrady did that

and I pointed to US history, I am sure in the 1880s people said the same things...

;-)

those who refuse to learn from history, are condemned to repeat it... and we may well be on the way to having a third party on teh left arising. (or the greens running an effective campaign)

[skipos]

181. Well said. Repubs united behind Bush

even though many of them think he blows. Now that Repubs dominate all branches they can push their agenda to the right.

[ladylibertee]

146. BING 'the fuck" O ! Thank You! We got England and Germany trying

to way-in on our shit.Thank You.

[McKenzie]

159. "England"? Don't you mean "Britain"?

sorry for the national chauvanism - I'm Scottish and a tad touchy on this subject.

[McKenzie]

158. nadinbrzezinski - excellent staying power my friend

I admire your post for several reasons, not least of which is your persistent request to deal with issues rather than trading cheap insults like kids in a playground (or like the MSM trying to get us all to avoid the real issues). You are absolutely correct about the need for an alternative; we have a similar problem over this side of the pond.

It's refreshing to see democracy in full flight.

Thanks

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. Thanks and as an aside I had to chuckle over

your comment on Engalnd... most people this side of the point don't realize that England is is just one of the three members of that nice allaince... as it were...they don't teach no geography here, the better term is United Kingodon... but this side of the pond UK and England are the same... I know better.

And yes we need to start discussing these issues in more than just the screaming match... your side... what happened to Labor? Oh yes the Third Way... ::slaps forehead:: same problem we are seeing in many ways with our "wonderful" democrats... and no, not all are bad...

The difference is, you will have an easier time... here not only are we righing against a system that leads to a duopoly, but Americans who don't know their own bloody hisory... for the most part people don't learn of the Grangers and the Populists and other third parties until they heat college, and that is still optional unless you happen to be a US History Major...

[Douglas Carpenter]

160. If it was possible -- I would be all for it - but it's not going to happen

Been there -- done that

I share with you, your disgust with much of what goes on within the Democratic Party; the control by corporate lobbyist, the spinelessness and the detachment from the real world. I am especially fed up with all the lies and smear tactics of certain elements that want to silence the progressive ideas and ideals of mainstream Democrats.

I flirted with third party attempts a number of years ago. It became clear to me that we live in a two-party system whether we like it or not. The possibility of changing to a parliamentary system with proportional representation is about as likely as George W. Bush appointing Noam Chomsky to replace John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N.

We can give up hope -- or we can work to change the Democratic Party into a genuine progressive party. That won't be easy. But it is possible. In fact, it has already started. Why do you think the corporate-lobbyist element of the Party (a group long empowered by money and selfish motives--but lacking any constituency or base) is freaking out and resorting to their usual name-calling and smear-jobs.

On a positive note -- before you contemplate leaving the Party take a look at this post below--- great things are happening within the Democratic Party--things the corporate lobbyist cannot stop:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2129475

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. Look I posted this as a marker for history

not that I am leaving the party. Though I will NOT vote for Feinstein... (and this is how the Populists started gaining strength, enough people said NO I WON'T vote for this ally of the Robber Barons) History is quite clear, the US, by design, is not a parliamentary system. Our Founding Fathers saw some of the problems with their frictionless Constitution by 1800, but by golly could not fix it... and if enough people have had it with some of our leaders and vote for the third party candidate in the election, guess what? that alone will send shockwaves... (And as much as I love Bernie Sanders he will not be the one to do it, since he is very popular and I expect him to win)

Will it ever be fixed? After the trenches and the barricades, not before that... the two parties have way too much at stake to let go.

As to retaking the party... well you do know what the democrats have done in california after the virtual revolt, don't you? This is part of my disgust right now, the people had spoken but the powers that be retrenched themselves.

[KoKo]

163. Maybe you can start another thread when the "heckler" is not around.

Progressive Populism and how we can start a movement or maybe build on what might be bubbling "below the surface" would be a good discussion for another day. There's already another thread here somewhere with good links. But right now we have these "hecklers" who must be trolling
because the DLC is catching heat.

They aren't here all the time...so hopefully some of us can start to talk about how this might be furthered. I think we will have to do it within the Progressive Dem Movement. But starting NOW to find others who are Populists (and there are many here on DU who just aren't vocal about it) and connecting and networking with them would be a great start of a New Direction. :shrug:

We already have a large community of Dems here, maybe we can brainstorm amongst ourselves to start this new movement? Create our own little think tank right here and present a Position Paper at some point to the DLC DU'ers and see if we can get a dialog going.

[MrBenchley]

164. Hey, if you guys want to go, feel free.....

"But right now we have these "hecklers" who must be trolling "
Yeah, who else would start thread after thread attacking Democrats on a website called "Democratic Underground"?

[KoKo]

171. You know there is an "ignore" function, Mr. Benchley, don't you?

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

172. Yeah, I'm hip....

But why would I want to miss this inadvertantly comic rubbish? It's almost as funny as the Little Rascals establishing their "He-Man Woman Haters' Club" (only with less intellectual content)...

And the fact that the participants want to stomp around shouting "goodbye" and "don't try to stop us" while continuing to clog the forum is especially funny.

[KoKo]

174. There's also a "Hide Post" function.... are you aware of that one?

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

175. Again, why would I want to miss such spectacular silliness?

[KoKo]

176. Ha! A voyeur..... are you....?

I suspected as much...

[MrBenchley]

177. No, I'm a comedy fan

Again, the spectacle of huffy people clogging the forum shouting "goodbye" and "you'll miss us" while making no move to leave is a hilarious one.

It's almost as funny as the assertion at the jump that folks like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid are "quaking in their boots" over Paul Hackett.

[KoKo]

186. The Comedy is...that by replying to me...we've kicked the OP's

opinion out there on DU where many will see it...who don't reply...because they don't want to be caught up in your inane repeats.

So, by "dialoging me" you've let the post you found "comedic" live on and all those thousands who agree or disagree with the poster be informed that there is a "diversity" on DU. And in fact the real comedy for me is that "Democratic Underground" is viewed as "DLC Central" for some of you.

:D: Do you see the Irony? :D

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. I do, I epxected this to hit the archives early this

morning quite frankly.

;-)

[KoKo]

194. yep....it's amazing how a little bit of 'intellectual twit" can undo some.

and...Good that Your Poste get's Attention it Deserves!

:-)'s... It was worth the "dialog." :-(....hard as it was...

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. Oh it was

I am in the midst of one lower on this thread by the way, feel free to jump in

[PassingFair]

165. If I see another

Tee Hee Hee post, I swear, I'm going to :puke:

Glad it's not just me...

Thanks for the sane voice, KoKo01!

[nadinbrzezinski]

168. I will in about a minute

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. did here is a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2133976

[newspeak]

178. history repeats

yes, the populist movement was formed because the democrats and republicans were wheeling and dealing against the majority of the people--against farmers, laborers etc.... The only people who had influence in Washington, were the wealthy, think Rockefeller, Morgan, Case, etc...As today, cronyism was rampant against the interests of the people. I subscribe to the Progressive Populist that comes out of Iowa. Articles from Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower and other progressives can be found there. There's articles about family farms and of course, political commentary. Yes, today is really looking like the late nineteenth century.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. And it is repeating in ways that are almost comical

like the usual suspects trying to silence any discusion... and yes they KNOW who they are

[newspeak]

180. I've stayed pretty clear, but whoever wants flame away

I voted for Clinton the first time, you see, I knew that the Iran-Contra, BCCI event was much bigger than how it was being portrayed. I thought that the Democrats were going to expose the whole unsavory affair. But no, 32 indictments and all is gone. Then NAFTA, you know that was Poppy Bush's little baby, no way was that going to get through. Wrong again!!! Welfare Reform, what a joke!!!!! You know, my husband has been through at least a dozen corporate restructuring events since since Bush I with continual downsizing or do they call it "right-sizing" now, and less workers working more and more hours. Now there are some mighty progressive Democrats, like Conyers, Boxer, Kucinich (and of course, Wellstone), but there are enough worms in the party to take notice. On the Republican side, Snowe, seems to have integrity, as well as Jeffers. (he knew to change parties-he knew who he was dealing with) You know, I would like to see just a group of politicians who have at least honesty, integrity and empathy for the majority of Americans instead of their corporate, greedy cronies. I voted Green instead of Clinton the second time around, but also lived in a very red state (Utah). You know, I'm more of a fiscal conservative than what's in the house now, and I'm a social liberal. I am a Progressive--I'm tired of conservative, liberal, right, left--it's bullshit! Who's for the welfare and general well-being of Americans? That's what counts! I'm a conservative-I believe in conserving our environment, our treasury, our cities, our families, our workers, our rights!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. What is bubbling right under teh surface, the other elephant

in the room, is that people are begging for real progresive choices...

Oh and you will not get me to flame away... I agree

[KoKo]

200. The "Other Elephant" emerged in "Selection 2000" and it's been standing

there and folks keep throwing "comforters/quilts and other coverlets ovr it's huge bulk. But, the Elephant stands there with still enough exposed that it cannot be hidden.

Those who keep trying to camoflage it ...and ignor, bury or dispute that it's there are the ones that will never be part of a DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT.

They are the "Status Quo." The ones who walk by it...and even if they see some of it..they choose to ignore.

We HAVE A BIG PROBLEM AMERICA...FUN AND GAMES isn't gonna cut it anymore. We gotta get SERIOUS HERE...and support posts that ADDRESS THE ISSUES! :shrug: Lotta shouting...but needs alotta shouting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. yep status quo its his name

[skipos]

182. I'd like to know what you think about Nader's results in 2000

Personally, I don't think that swung the Dems to the left. It just helped to start 8 years of Bush.

I don't fault people for voting third party, but they shouldn't be angry or surprised when they help get people like Bush elected because of it.

If I had to sum it up simply, I like to support the most progressive candidate *that can get elected*. That's one of the reasons I was for Clark in 04. He was no Kucinich, but Kucinich would never be able to get elected.

In 2004, I was surprised to see a "blue" states vote enthusiastically against gay marriage. It made me realize that I am muchy more progressive than most of the country. Alas, I like to support the most progressive candidate that can get elected.

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. them were the words back in the 1870s and 1880s

we need to vote he for it was he, who could be elected.

As to Nader... I'd say you are blaming the wrong person... you should set your sights with the felonious five...

What happened in 2000 was an engineered coup... and Nader or no Nader we would have the same... what happened in 2004 was again an engineered coup, but with better cover... and mark my words... unless people get out in massive numbers not seen in recent US History in 2006... many more democrats will loose seats that should have you scratching heads.

Oh and the modern DNC would NOT run FDR either, too much of a radical doncha know? and he could never be elected either, not today, at all.

By the way not too long ago I would have agreed with you, but the elephant in the room, which noobdy wants to speak off... is there was a coup in 2000.... and Nader makes for a convenient excuse. I'd sugest readying all you can about Bush V Gore, including the decision and all you can on the 2004 election... for the true picture of what truly happened... and what the DNC does not want to confront either.

[skipos]

189. I choose to look at the party shifting techniques of the last few years

not 100 years ago. In 2004, Republicans united behind a President that many within his party didn't like. No one challenged his opposition. Buchanan didn't run. McCain and others got behind Bush even though Bush took a giant dump on them. Bush won. Now that they have the upper hand, they can push the Republican agenda further to the right.

Personally, I would love to see Republicans take the strategy that you propose for Democrats. I am hoping in a few years Bible thumpers will freak out when they discover that after 2 Bush appointments to the Supreme Court, and Republicans controlling every branch of the government, Roe V Wade is still not overturned, and run Pat Robertson as an independent. That would take a nice big chunk of voters out of the Republican candidate. Heck even if Democrats are silly enough to nominate a New England senator AGAIN, we would still probably win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

190. I will give you Santayana

THose who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it....

The parallels between the modern DNC and RNC to the Guilded Age are quite profound... (and the RNC has even taken a page out of Nazi Germany History)

that said, you are discounting, at your peril, the role of Diebold and GEMS in the elections

[skipos]

191. "that said,

you are discounting, at your peril, the role of Diebold and GEMS in the elections"

Not at all. If Nader didn't take 90,000 votes in Florida, there is nothing Diebold could have done about it. We would have had 4 to 8 years of Gore.

I am trying to do what I can about Deibold. And I also trying to do what I can about the tens of millions of people who legitimately voted for Bush. And I am trying to do what I can about the Republican controlled government we have developed.

In my opinion, none of those problems would be solved by splitting the ticket in 2008 like it was split in 2000. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

192. the elephant in the room is

that Nader or no Nader, bush would have won... it was a coup... having read the decision and all I could have gotten my hand on.

that said, what I suspect will happen is that the DCL is on its dying throes within the DNC.. and once they loose their influence you will see a far more progresssive candidate emerge... I am convinved until WE adopt progresivism and populism we won't win.. why? well big YAWN

You are asking us to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

oh and as to Diebold, good... we need to take private companies out of our elections.

[skipos]

193. no. sorry.

"You are asking us to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result."

No, I am asking Democrats to pick the most progressive candidate that can get elected. They didn't do that, those chose another New England senator.

You are asking democrats do the same thing that many (most importantly the 90,000 in Florida) did in 2000: split the ticket and vote for the progressive third party. Why are you are asking them to do the same thing and expecting different results?

[nadinbrzezinski]

195. you know what your problem is

you cannot see beyond the fact that if Nader did not exist, the CIA operation would have succeeded in placing GWB in power... it was a coup.

As to the Populist, if the Dems will run a populist candidate I am all for it, if they don't... and the candidate is a DLCer... sorry I will NOT vote for a DLC candidate, just as I will not vote for the puke... if I wanted to vote for the most extremist or the slightly less extremist, why not go for the beast we already know?

This is exactly the point that folks made in 1876... the exact same point, and now people are making it more loudly... why? The DLC is just a kinder version of Republicans

That said, READ all you can about Florida 2000, the conclusion I reached is, this was a CIA operation and a coup... so go on, blame Nader, I blame the true ones behind the curtain and it was not Ralph... it was.... a faction within the GOP, which took years to perfect their stealing of the race and the imposition of a Tyrant, a tyrannous.

Oh and this is a reality I hear more and more... it is bubbling just under the surface... you just need to listen to it

[skipos]

197. You are getting worked up

and you really don't need to. You can vote for whoever you like and split the ticket however you see fit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. No I am not getting worked up

just know the history... 2000 was a coup, 2004 a better covered coup... both were coups.

2000 they had the Nader shiny bauble to distract

2004 but we got the values voters on our side..

By the way for the record I voted for Gore in 2000 and for Kerry in 2004...

and in 2000 I also voted for DiFi, who will not get my vote next year and it has all to do with her voting record...

Now really find all you can about what truly happened in 2000 and hells bells while at it read the PNAC papers... it will be clear after you do

[skipos]

199. What do you think about 1912? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

201. Don't have nenough info on it

but I do on 2000 and 2004 open for some sources

[skipos]

202. In 1912

Taft got the Republican nomination, irritated Republican Roosevelt ran as an independent and split the ticket, helping Democrat Wilson to win. It was the most successful third party showing ever (27%), even better than Taft (23%) but Wilson (41%) wouldn't have won without it.

I think it is information worth considering.

[nadinbrzezinski]

205. yes it is

but I think we have reached a point where something dramatic will happen... or it may be spring time for hitler and might be time to hang that shingle called the American Dream

[newspeak]

185. what do I think?

I thought trading votes from blue states to red states was a good idea. The goal was to establish the Green Party-but people blaming Nader for the loss, is nothing but media spin to divide and keep progressives in check. There were so-called registered Democrats, libertarians, and independents who voted for Bush. Where's the outcry? I mean, I'd be more disturbed by a registered Democrat voting for Bush than a Green Party member! My thinking now, is to change within the party! If DLC can influence the party, than so can progressive democrats. Progressive influence within the party, means making sure that who runs with the Democratic label is not a neo-con ass kisser (oops, elephant kisser) in donkey clothing. It's time to get the crony loving DINOs out!!!! At the local level, and maybe some state levels, the Green Party can be very influentual forming progressive ideas, that could have an impact for the Democratic Party. I'm hoping it does. It seems that the difference with some Democrats and the Republicans, is that one of them uses KY and the other one doesn't while their screwing you! (noticed I used the word "some' meaning "not all."

[skipos]

188. I believe

that without Nader on the ballot, Gore would have won. I feel many Nader voters agree with me, since his support nosedived from about 3 million in 2000 to a half a million in 2004. If you don't agree with me, so be it.

"I thought trading votes from blue states to red states was a good idea. "
I am all for that.

"people blaming Nader for the loss"

I am not blaming anyone, I am acknowledging that his supporters helped to give us Bush. If Democrats feel the need to vote third party, that's fine by me. But they should accept the fact that doing so in 2000 didn't help swing Democrats back to the left one bit. All it did was help give us Bush.

"My thinking now, is to change within the party! If DLC can influence the party, than so can progressive democrats."

I agree.

[sandyd921]

204. There is a group

that appears to have a goal of contesting the DLC from within the Democratic party. The group is the Progressive Democrats of America. From what I have learned so far they are clearly committed to the social and economic ideals of the progressive movement but their goal is to realize these ideals by changing the party from within. From their website:

"Mindful of the continuing important differences between Republican and Democratic political values, yet fully aware of how much better Democratic candidates and elected officials must be to save our people and our planet from destruction, we dedicate ourselves to beginning the long, patriotic, nonviolent, and ultimately unstoppable process of transforming the Democratic Party."

As a result of my own frustration I have become very interested in this organization. We had a speaker from my state's PDA at one of my town's Democratic Committee meetings. He was very clear about this approach of the organization. This looks like it could be a possible route if the PDA can gain strength.

I noticed that the PDA has a forum on DU. PDA website: http://www.pdamerica.org/

[nadinbrzezinski]

206. Yeah I am actuallly on teh mailing list

and quite frankly much of what is going on, well with Shumer's little statement we got a true picture of how effective they may be becoming, or at least I hope so.

But the reality is, this is a fight for the party and it may come down to an outside force to wake them up... and I mean the power breakers... then again, a Green winning a national office will do it... (and no don't look at the presidency, best case scenario for that a seat in congress, next best, a seat in the Senate... there are way too many reason why the presidency is outside of the reach of third parties)

[Moderator]

207. locking

good topic, bad flames