I hope a strike is not necessary to reign in Democratic "centrism."

[BurtWorm]

After watching Bush's bizarre performance yesterday, my belief that he and his adminstration are dangerous to the democracy, to the economy, and to world peace has been strongly reinforced. I am utterly convinced that a ham sandwich (with or without cheese) would, in fact, make a more capable and more intelligent president.

As a Dean supporter, I am preparing myself for a disappointing end of an exhilarating campaign. I hold out hope that Dean will continue to acquire enough delegates to make a stand at the convention in favor of internal reform of the party, toward empowering individual Democrats without deep pockets, toward building and strengthening the party base, toward making the party "leadership" more responsive to the voters.

I would love to see Dean win the nomination, but I am prepared for the eventuality that he won't. Last week I asked in another thread if the time was ripe for a strike of grass roots supporters of other campaigns, as well as Deans', to make sure the powers in the Democratic Party don't take our passion and our votes for granted. As many who support the front-runner were, apparently, horrified to learn, there is support for such a strike.

I hope it doesn't become necessary.

I hope the front-runner takes pains to demonstrate his understanding that we will not accept risk-free politicking. We will not lightly accept two scoops of vanilla at the top of the ticket (even though a double scoop vanilla cone would make an infinitely better president than the idiot in chief currently installed). We will not accept more comments scolding us for "crying in our teacups" about "election" 2000. We will not accept ceding the Republicans ground on the morality or necessity of the war in and occupation of Iraq. We will not accept business as usual, in other words.

The front-runner could risk angering us, but then he will risk losing us. I'd rather him risk angering that other base, the one from that other party. He can't lose them.

[redqueen]

1. They blow us off

Expect lots of lip service, followed up with as little action as possible.

I think it'll take a strike at least. Probably more like just an en masse defection to another party.

[aquart]

2. Define "strike."

Because I haven't the smallest clue what you mean.

If you mean staying away from the polls and letting George win, we are not on the same side.

[BurtWorm]

3. No financial or other support

No donated time to the campaign. And if the nominee and the party continue to show contempt for the grass roots, possibly no vote in the GE, either. This is called driving a hard bargain.

[IrateCitizen]

4. What I think it's more accurately called, BurtWorm...

... is a lose/lose scenario.

I'm far from a fan of the way the Democratic Party has treated its progressive wing over the past 15 years or so -- but I also don't harbor any illusions that some kind of "strike" will be pulled off against them.

Look outside the narrow box of electoral politics. It's far from the end-all, be-all.

[BurtWorm]

6. You never know unless you try.

:shrug:

In my opinion, it's now or never. If the centrists (by which I actually mean the DLC/corporatists, to be clear about it) think they can get off scot free, they'll be encouraged to keep trying to get off scot free. No more accommodation to them. If Kerry is such a progressive himself, he won't have a problem demonstrating that he gets it and there will be no need to strike. But if he panders to a mythical swing-state centrist bloc, he may have a harder time than he should have. That's just the way things have to be if change is going to come. Hard bargain!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. No it's called mutiny and coersion

You have every right to be heard but if you are in the extreme minority, you don't have every right to control.

The fact that this is even floated by Dean supporters smacks of autocracy being just as alive and well on the left as it is on the right.

For all my liberal stripes and years working on class and labor issues, I fear Dr. Dean has finally turned me into a dreaded centrist.

I resented it when Nader did it and I resent it now.

[BurtWorm]

11. If we are even 1%, we're a dangerous minority to take for granted.

Elections are "won" and "lost" on tiny percentages like that.

I'm not asking for raging Leftism. I'm asking for the nominee to give the progressives their due, to stop the drift to the right, to stop empowering donors at the expense of voters and activists. I want the party and the nominee to say that impeachment and "election" 2000 are *causes* still, rights to be wronged. I'm not expecting them to dwell on the past, but to give it its due. Anger over those faultlines is an energy, and the Democratic Party better use it or lose it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Great..now define how the nominee would do that to pass muster

If we ask 100 people, I guarantee we will vet 100 litmus tests.

Anger is an energy alright....but look at what happens to a split atom when it is harnessed versus unharnessed.

[BurtWorm]

34. You're right about a diversity of litmus tests fundamentally

but I think there's a basic consensus among those supporting Clark, Dean, and Kucinich (and maybe Sharpton, I don't know), that the war in and occupation of Iraq are immoral. I doubt I'm alone in needing the nominee (whoever it is) to assure me that he would not make a mistake like that again. I don't think I'm alone in needing the nominee to assure me that he will not go along with the way foreign policy has been done in DC for far, far too long, i.e., with the US acting as though the interests of its corporate class are the only moral interests in the world.

What I want to hear from the nominee is that not-Bushness is not enough. There's a reason why all of these impassioned people are Democrats. There's a reason why Democratic values impassion people. All I want is a sign that the Democratic nominee gets it. I will strike if I hear excuses for the war and promises to use force as Bush did but somehow "better" than Bush did. I'll strike if I see Wonderbread like Bayh being chatted up for VP.

This doesn't mean I won't ultimately vote Democratic. I'm a Democrat. A sucker for Democrats. But I probably won't give money or time. And I will not attack third party progressives or other strikers for deciding not to vote Democratic, as I was relentless about doing in 2000.

By the way, if Kerry becomes the nominee, I will be listening very carefully to what he says. If I hear what I want to hear, my strike is over.

[Ficus]

74. brilliant

If we ask 100 people, I guarantee we will vet 100 litmus tests.

TRUE.

[The Magistrate]

32. Please Consider Carefully, My Friend

We both share, certainly, tremendous anger over the '00 Coup, and the attempted Coup of '98. These angers are very widespread; they form a great deal of the real ground of this upcoming election, and will do so whether they are talked up by a candidate or not. The rank and file of the Party is in a cold rage by now, and will act on that, without need of prompting.

Money is to political efforts what bullets are to battles. So long as this remains the fact, those who supply the money will be treated well, for they cannot be done without. The best practical means available for persons who wish to reduce this feature to adopt is to supply bodies; to be, in other words, the persons who use the bullets, which are, of course, useless in battle without infantry to fire them. The more bodies are provided at the least cost, the less the need for cash in proportion within the total effort made, and the more influence those who move the bodies may exercise. If you would have influence, show that the victory was won by your efforts: you will then be valued. If it can be claimed defeat is the result of your absence, you will be excoriated and written off, instead.

The drift to the right is more a feature of the political landscape than of the Party, which must of necessity fight on the ground that exists. To check this national drift, the first thing that must be accomplished is to deal a resounding defeat to the leading exponents of reaction, to strip from them the mantle of the victor, and so disincline people from associating with them as the likely winners of the contest. Even if the defeat is dealt by a figure you feel is merely less reactionary, it will still have this effect. Remember that the great preponderance of the people will not view the likely nominee quite as you do. Should the candidate be Sen. Kerry, throughout the campaign he will be denounced by the enemy as the epitome of extreme leftism, and should he triumph, a great many people will therefore have come to say to themselves, "Hell, I can vote for a leftist after all!" It will then be easier to approach them, to get them to see that, in fact, a lot of what they believe is actually leftist, and a great deal of what they want can best be secured to them by left programs.

"Think of it always; speak of it never."

[eileen_d]

40. Beautiful post.

"If you would have influence, show that the victory was won by your efforts: you will then be valued. If it can be claimed defeat is the result of your absence, you will be excoriated and written off, instead."

Much of the debate seems to come down to the old question: Whether to work within or outside of "the system" to change it. Working in "the system" can be painfully slow, while working outside "the system" may provide more immediate gratification.

I am all for the right of people to form third parties, if it comes to that, but I have never understood why a third party such as the Greens thinks it has a right to influence what the Democratic Party does. You can't quit the team and expect to continue calling the shots.

[redqueen]

12. But we're not the extreme minority

Weak-kneed spineless Dems learned in '02 what Dem voters thought about their 'centrist' decisions wrt the war.

If they want another, more harsh display of that lesson, I say we give it to them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Thanks for illustrating my point

[redqueen]

20. ?

And your point is.... ?

:shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

24. redqueen, what do you think Dennis would advocate???

I doubt he would be calling for such tactics. In fact, I would think that he would pretty strongly speak out against them.

He would do so not because he necessarily supports the corporatists, but because he realizes that such an effort would be futile, and lose-lose for progressives in the end.

[redqueen]

28. Not psychic, but I would guess you're right

But I'm not Dennis. I'm not that good. I am pissed. I am so pissed that I feel that I have literally thrown away my votes for the past 14 odd years because I kept believing in Democrats. I got burned bad by Clinton and I won't walk into a punch that way ever again.

If another DLCer wins, that's it for me, sorry. I can't stomach being part of the problem anymore, sorry.

[IrateCitizen]

35. And how's that anger workin' for ya?

I get good and pissed off myself, redqueen. But it's important to channel that anger into righteous, constructive outrage. If you just embrace it as anger for anger's sake, it won't do anything good for you in the end.

That's what I see happening with people who say, "Screw it, I'm dropping out of the system." If you think that those in the system didn't listen to you before, why on earth would they listen to you now?

And there's also this misconception about electoral politics as the end-all, be-all of existence. There's a pretty big universe out there outside of electoral politics -- and in some instances, it's possible to make an even bigger difference in those circles.

[redqueen]

41. Sure, but we're talking about votes & grassroots support

not the rest of the universe outside of electoral politics.

What kind of righteous, constructive efforts would you think would be more effective on our party? Certainly sending in my comments with my regular donation hasn't mattered one bit. Obviously losing our dominance on the hill (and everywhere else) didn't teach them. What will?

I've given my time and hard-earned money to the DNC, the DSCC, local Dem groups, etc. If they screw this one up too, that's it. I can't take giving them my support and then being spit on anymore.

I'm not saying 'screw it, i'm dropping out of the system.' I'm saying the system is broken beyond repair, so I'm most likely going to be joining a party that actually at least looks like an opposition to the corporatocracy.

[BurtWorm]

42. I think a strike like this would be constructive.

Democrats should not write off progressives (which they have been too ready to do for too long), any more than progressives should write off Democrats (though they have more reason to).

[eileen_d]

47. Democrats should not write off progressives - I agree

But if progressives walk away, why should Democrats chase after them?

It's like quitting a team in sports but still demanding the right to call the plays and change the rules.

[BurtWorm]

52. A strike is a sign that progressives don't want to walk away but will

if the Democratic party makes clear (as it has for far too long) that it has no use for them.

[library_max]

102. Games people play.

This is the game called "Look What You Made Me Do."

Nobody can "make" you walk away. If you don't want to walk away, if you don't want to make your little contribution to giving George W. Bush a second term, then don't. It's really that simple.

[library_max]

105. No, they felt the power of 9/11 paranoia.

There are no facts to support the contention that the Democrats would have done better in '02 if they had gone farther left. They probably would have done a lot worse.

[zoeyfong]

68. It's not 'control.' No candidate is owed anybody's vote.

I think the democratic party faces a simple choice - embrace the left or abandon it (again, this time completely). If the majority of the dem party doesn't care about opposing unwise, unjust, unnecessary wars, the environment, gay rights, worker's rights, health care etc., then let them simply abandon this constituency and shift the whole party to the right and compete there. As a member of the democratic wing of the democratic party, i'm not really concerned about this because i know which way history is going in the long term; for the most part, the 'radical left wing' is the tip of the spear. We have justice and logic on our side, and it is only a matter of whether we and our leadership choose to do the work to bring the rest of america to us based on the force of our argument, or whether we choose to move toward the middle in the hopes of inadvertantly capturing some unwitting 'independents.' The dem party has taken the latter route for too long and is now completely shut out of power; it is going to have to decide whether it is truly the liberal party, or whether it just wants liberal votes. If it abandons us for good, another party will emerge and grow which does represent us, just as surely as the sun will shine.

[Ficus]

8. I agree with you on some points but what is the "grass roots"

I understand what it is, however you speak of "grass roots" as being some unified block of Democratic voters. Grassroots refers to down and dirty activism, in which Kerry has his own grassroots support. He has his own meetups, volunteers, and so on. All candidates do, just to different levels.

I think you may have been meaning to say "contempt for the progressive wing" or something along these lines.

[BurtWorm]

23. The campaigns primarily funded by small donations.

You could also split them along the pro-IWR/anti-IWR faultline. I'm referring to the campaigns that have links to the pro-democracy/anti-war movement.

[Ficus]

33. okay thanks

understood, you were talking about the size of contributions, not volunteer support or actual contributions.

I would venture to say, however, while numbers may be larger in some campaigns, I think you are able to find activists from anti-war or pro-democratic reform in the Kerry and Edwards campaigns as staff and volunteers. I do know some, as well as activists for pro-choice, civil liberties, and environmental causes.

[BurtWorm]

36. That's true. I'm talking about percentages, however.

I'm still eagerly waiting to hear something from Kerry to make me get with his program, if need be.

[ShaneGR]

7. Just so you know, with or without "strikers"....

There will still be millions of us organizing, campaigning, and doing whatever it takes to get rid of George W Bush. We haven't placed our hopes of our single candidate above defeating Bush.

In 2000 I tried to talk sense into the Nader people, not this time around. You want to stay home? Go ahead, we've got work to do and distractions won't be healthy anyways.

[zoeyfong]

51. I haven't placed my hopes on a single candidate either.

I could vote for Dean, Clark, Kucinich, or Sharpton. Not kerry. I see that many of you assume that he is better than bush (enough to outweigh the damage his war support has done to the democratic party and america); i do not assume that he is so much better than bush that i am willing to have him representing america as a democratic president.

[blm]

9. You support centrism and corporatism when you support Howard Dean.

He's the biggest corporatist and centrist in the race. His longtime record proves it.

If you hate liberals with strong, longheld liberal ratings, then DON'T support Kerry or Kucinich. Their liberal ratings are way too high. Especially on the environmental and labor issues and civil liberties.

[JVS]

16. It is a shame that Kerry mothballed his liberalism

[blm]

26. It's a shame Dean governed as a corporatist and centrist.

That must really suck for those who believed his campaign rhetoric once they found out the truth of his record.

[JVS]

30. Oh dear. Fiscal responsibility is so awful. Just as bad as preemptive war!

So Dean is centrist on a couple issues, I can deal. There is a massive difference between stealing the GOP's thunder (e.g balancing budgets and taking that off the table for them to attack you with) and caving to their desires. (IWR, NCLB, etc.)

[blm]

Dean was for pre-emptive war as per B-L. Also big on deregulation.

Including deregulating electricity - highly unusual for a Democrat. Also supported Bush on Yucca Mt. Dean publically supported Bush over Kerry on Afghanistan strategy even though it was proved a failure.

Dean supported TIPS on July 2002 MTP, something I never even heard from another candidate.

Dean's history of statements on civil liberties is appalling and sounds like Bush.

You forgive alot along as its Dean.

[JVS]

53. BL was preferred by the ACLU

[blm]

57. And so most of B-L was adopted by the IWR.

Shortly after the ACLU letter.

[NashVegas]

64. If He's Such a Corporatist

Why has Dean gone on record for wanting to break up corporate media, the #1 enabler of them all?

[no name no slogan]

99. Good point, but

if he's so in favor of breaking up the media, why are some of his top contributors executives at big media companies? :shrug:

[blm]

118. Because his original corporate stance wouldn't gain him votes

in the primary would it?

Geez. The guy was known for pushing deregulation as governor.

Does a man's RECORD while in power mean nothing compared to his rhetoric on the campaign trail?

[Rowdyboy]

10. This sort of thinking brought us George Bush in 2000

I don't care for John Kerry particularly, certainly not with the intensity I have for Clark or Edwards, but this suggestion plays right into Karl Rove's hands.

Go, if you must, but threats like this are counterproductive. Threatening blackmail if you don't get your way is not a winning strategy, for the party in general or the left in particular.

[BurtWorm]

43. What has the opposite kind of thinking brought us?

What did it win us in 2002?

[Rowdyboy]

48. The White House wasn't at stake in 2002

But we did win in 1992 and 1996 and it wasn't because of threatened "strikes"

[BurtWorm]

54. In 2000, many progressives up and left the Democratic Party

to vote for Nader. Why did they do that? Why did the Democratic Party allow them to do that? Do they want another ill-timed mass-defection on their hands? Is it okay with them to write off any group that actually goes to the polls to vote?

[Rowdyboy]

72. If they're going to go, they're going to go

They proved that in 2000. And nothing we can do or say will stop them, short of total capitulation.

Vaya con dios...

[BurtWorm]

79. The Greens were outside the party. They were gone.

But we're inside it. We'll go, too, if the Dems signal they don't want or think they need us. (That would be slitting their throats, in my opinion. They do need us.)

[Rowdyboy]

91. Actually, I know quite a few 2000 Nader voters who have already

guaranteed me that, short of Lieberman, they'll be back. It works both ways. The greater good lies in salvaging what are left of our civil liberties while its possible-not "restructuring" the Democratic party. You can demand all you want-just get in line behind women, blacks, Hispanics, GLBTs, labor, native Americans, moderates, environmentalists, southerner's and north-eastern liberals. The Democratic party is a huge organization with a lot of competing interests. I loathed Carter in 1976, hated Mondale in 1984, and Dukakis was my last choice in 1988; certainly wasn't crazy about Gore. Tough shit. Once they were nominated, they became MY CABNDIDATE 100%. The alternative was so evil that I held my nose and voted for them. Just like I will if Kerry or Dean is the nominee this year.

I'm concerned with getting rid of George Bush-everything else is incidental and unimportant.

JMO

[Kanary]

14. Nothing left to lose

There are those of us who are now pushed to the wall... that's what "centrists" don't get. As often as they are told, they won't get it until/unless they are pushed to that same wall.

Clinton showed us that "centrism" will NOT draw lines.... it will keep fraying until there isn't enough fabric left to *hold* a line.

Hear this, "centrists"....... without taking a strong stand, those of us on the edge will keep getting cut and cut until there are lots of deaths. There's nothing left to cut of the "safety net" without doing severe damage. Is that OK with you? Are you going to quietly accept lots of people dying right here in the US because it hasn't yet affected you?

To this point we've accepted over 500 deaths of service people in a war they never should have been in, and goddess only knows how many thousands of Iraqi deaths because we settled for "centrism". Does the war have to come home to our citizens right here within our borders to get the point across?

Strike? If that's what it takes, you bet.

Because there are so many of us who have nothing left to lose. And, fortunately, there are those who understand that and will hold a line.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Yes that's why he nominated two of the USSC justices that have voted

more frequently in line with liberal issues.

Three USSCJ's will likely retire in the next term..two of whom are older than dirt and may die first.

Nothing left to lose?

[Kanary]

55. That's for YOU

I guess you didn't read what I said about me, and people in my situation.

If I'm dead, what does it matter to me who is on the court?

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[The Magistrate]

37. Of Course There Is Something Left To Lose, Ma'am

"It can't get any worse!" are the most dangerous words in the language; nothing has ever been shown so routinely to be false.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[zoeyfong]

45. There may be (s.th. left ), but Kerry could be the one to lose it for us.

The 'D' behind kerry's name doesn't mean a lot when he so willingly allowed himself to be a tool in bush's criminal war. How am i supposed to believe that he's not going to do something even stupider once he gets in office?

[bowens43]

50. Do you want to throw out all of the Dems in the house and Senate

who voted for IWR? As far as the (D) goes, Kerry's liberal record (other then IWR and the Patriot Act) speaks for itself.

[Kanary]

58. Could you please go back and READ my post?

You seem to be on autopilot.

I wasn't talking about the IWR, nor the Patriot Act. Never once did I mention that.

I talked about the cuts that the "centrist" Dems have and will make in the "safety net".

Please, read my words, rather than filling in your own.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[zoeyfong]

71. Well, I live in SD, and i'm not voting for Tom Daschle this year....

I have finally had it. Frankly, yes, i'd like to see all dems (and repubs) who voted for IWR lose. People who don't care about the war really don't get the depth of the outrage against it; I ask you, if you believed that John Kerry was complicit in murder, would you vote for him? I hope not, especially when there are perfectly good candidates who didn't support the war, and contrary to what the media says, *are* electable. However, it doesn't help when dems continue to stampede rightward in an attempt to show how 'patriotic' they are; all that does is legitimize the war and bush's whole 'tough guy' presidency, and pull the rug right out from under those dems offering principled opposition.

[Kanary]

111. I applaud your stand, zoeyfong

I know that isn't an easy decision to come to. It's really a pisser that they have put us in this situation.

You have a very good point about them pulling the rug out from under the principled opposition. Very well said.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[Kanary]

56. Once again, you aren't listening

Of course it can get worse.... we can elect a centrist Dem, who will make more cuts, as did Clinton, and there will be thousands and thousands of deaths right here in the US.

Does that matter to you??

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[redqueen]

59. Everyone knows the centrist will make cuts that may kill YOU

but what is more important is that we get no more right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court.

Too bad about you dying and all, but you know... priorities.

/sarcasm



Seriously, Kanary, I despise the pro-corporate influence of these DLC more than I can say, but I do agree it's got to be ABB in the GE.

After that, though, all bets are off AFAIC. Green, progressive... anything but Democrats who care about the little person about as much as Republicans do.

[Kanary]

62. Thanks for caring.

You've given me permission not to bother with anything at all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. The problem with your assertion is that the number of Americans

living BELOW the poverty level went DOWN under Clinton.

[Kanary]

63. The people Clinton was responsible for cutting off

Suffered tremendously.

Since they have not been tracked, nobody knows how many deaths occurred.

It simply isn't important.

Not to the Dems.

Not to the Centrists.

And, I guess, not even to Kucinich supporters, according to the above post.

Some country.

Kanary

[redqueen]

66. I hope you didn't take my sarcasm for seriousness

I always forget to do the rolly eyes thingy or the /sarcasm indicator.

My point was that despite how horrible of a choice it is to vote for this pro-corporate, anti-people guy or that pro-corproate, anti-people guy, there is a difference. That difference has been correctly identified as the extremely serious issue of Supreme Court appointees.

While I agree that it's not much of a choice, it is one we should all make in the GE.

I don't support any candidate but Kucinich, but I'll vote for a yellow dog if it's running aginst bush.

[Kanary]

70. I'll say it once again

What difference does it make to me if I'm dead???

You see, you all want me to "do the right thing" and vote ABB.

But, when it comes down to it, you're not saying you're interested in doing anything for me, and the others in my situation. As long as I do what is "right", then ...... devil take the hindmost, as far as my life is concerned.

Group after group after group is tired of being told "You have no where else to go, so vote for us, and close your eyes and think of England when we screw you".

You're the ones who would have to live with the court, etc, not me.

See? Some of us are facing something very different.

Kanary

[redqueen]

76. I see your point

But do you see mine? Even if, worst case scenario, you will end up being cut off and left for dead, do you truly not care what happens to your countrymen after you're gone? (I'm assuming you don't have kids, or this would be a much easier argument to make.)

If you're going to suffer whichever way it ends, wouldn't you want to do what you could to ensure that no others suffer unduly? In other words, do you want to become like those that dismiss your concerns out of hand? Or would you rather stay true to your beliefs, and do what good you could, under those circumstances?

[Kanary]

114. At one point, not too long ago, I would have stuck to "principles"

But, thanks in part to DU, I have clearly seen just how invisible some of us are. I can now more fully appreciate why a lot of people don't vote... they know they are invisible, and it just doesn't have to do with them. Until/unless the rest of you GET this, it isn't going to change. You know, I could say that it's quite selfish and unfeeling to be asking me to do something for the rest of you, when there is so little concern for me. I mean, really, look back through the replies to what I said... did ANYONE express any kind of caring for my personal situation (which also is the situation of many others)? Do you see *ANY* voice of support? Do you have any idea how that feels?? Then, to press me to care about others... well, I'm taken aback at that. Certainly not the "caring Dems" of old.


"If you're going to suffer whichever way it ends, wouldn't you want to do what you could to ensure that no others
suffer unduly?"

AGain, I'm taken aback by the coldness of this reply. No concern, no regret, no caring.

Y'know, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way the rest of the folks are going to get it is when they DO suffer unduly. Harsh? Yeah. But so is what has been said to me.

Think that through a little.

There's a person on here who gets lots of support because a family member is going to be sent to Iraq. Yet, I live with this constant anxiety, (on top of chronic illness), and what comes back to me... .... think of others, and do for others.

I hope you ponder that a little.

Especially the next time you hear someone saying -- again-- how we need to organize the poor, get them registered and take them to vote. Think about that. It's all for the sake of others, not for the poor themselves. That's called USING PEOPLE.

Kanary, discouraged and disgusted --- and just a tad hurt.....

edited to say that I've said all I need to on this. It really does hurt to know just how little those here actually can care for another human being, and what I've said was NOT for my benefit, but to get others to think just a little. If this doesn't cause some pondering, then nothing will. I'm totally discouraged. And definitely ready for that strike.

[The Magistrate]

65. If You Think, Ma'am

The results of the continuance in power of the worst elements of reaction will not cause more harm to the people and the country than even a less reactionary figure would do, it is open to question how much attention you have been paying over the last several years. These people are to drive down wages and bankrupt the Treasury, which will have the consequence of removing any safety net on fiscal grounds, and of destroying the savings of ordinary folks when the inevitable inflation comes to liquidate the accumulated government debt at a dime on the dollar; during President Clinton's administration, wages rose, and the Treasury swelled, making available monies to meet people's needs in future, and securing the value of their savings.

[Kanary]

117. Maybe if you "ordinary" folks got squeezed to the wall

like some of the rest of us, you wouldn't be lecturing me abut how much I "haven't been paying attention".

When you can express any concern, rather than telling me what to do, then we'll have a discussion.

Until then, don't expect all the poor folk to be terribly interested in *your* problems.

It goes both ways.

Kanary

[The Magistrate]

122. You Presume A Great Deal, Ma'am

And on such short acquaintance, too....

Still, the point remains, and you make no attempt whatever to engage it. Four more years of the criminals of the '00 Coup will do far more damage to the people and the country than any nominee of the Democratic Party today would. If you think depressing wages and devaluing money brings benefit to the poor, please explain the mechanism by which this occurs, for it is beyond my knowledge. It is clear you do not engage these points because you have nothing with which to oppose them; you know they are true, and that to refrain from voting for the nominee of Democratic Party in the upcoming election is a course both materially and morally bankrupt, because it will tend to bring greater harm upon those you claim to champion.

[library_max]

101. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

Politics isn't about what you want, it's about what you can get. You have to aim for the center because the center is where national elections are won, every time, no exceptions.

You're angry about the last three years and so am I. You can blame "centrists" if you want to. Do you really think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq? Would the safety net be better off or worse off if Gore were president instead of Bush?

One of the main things that cost Gore the election was Nader voters who were "holding the line," especially in Florida. If less than a tenth of the Florida Nader voters had voted for Gore instead, the election theft wouldn't have been possible. The first mechanical count and every subsequent count would have come out for Gore.

People are dying? News flash - everybody dies eventually, no matter who is president. "The poor will always be with us," said Jesus Christ, the ultimate liberal. Heaven on earth isn't going to come, certainly not by politics. It's always a question of better or worse. And any of the Democratic candidates would be better than Bush.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. I urge you to go on strike, and stop threatening to go on strike.

lol

[BurtWorm]

38. I'm on strike. This is my way of picketing.

;)

[Monte Carlo]

18. Serious Q: How will they distinguish a strike from regular voter apathy?

It would seem to me that a strike is only useful if the intended target knows its a strike. If a strike consists of non-involvement and indifference, how do you know that the powers-that-be in the Democratic party won't just write it off as continuing voter apathy, something they've known about and ignored for years? As a matter of fact, how do I, John Q. Voter, distinguish the two from my distant viewpoint?

[BurtWorm]

39. This is why I think it's not just a matter for individual conscience,

with all respect to CWebster. I think this needs to be a movement, and we need to form a bloc within the party to counter the undue influence of the DLC, for example. And we need to make our presence known through letter and telephone call campaigns to the DNC and the committee to elect.

If Kerry gave me a good strong sign today, I'd personally drop out of the strike. But I want to see a progressive bloc take root in the party. I don't want to see progressives leave. I don't want to see the Democratic Party write progressives off, or vice versa.

[Monte Carlo]

44. I don't think strikes work with political parties.

They are a different animal than the corporations and other unfeeling businesses of the world.

But I agree with you, it needs to be more than individual action, it needs to be collective action. Our presence does need to be felt; Dean did a very good job of doing that. I just don't believe that this will be accomplished by leaving the party; in a way, you need to be a monk to be a heretic. I think the best way is to go about it is to bring more people on. Again, Dean showed it can be done, but it just needs to be more than any single candidate. It needs to be something that transcends the voting cycles.

[BurtWorm]

46. I'm not at all talking about leaving the party. I am a Democrat

unfortunately. I want my party to stop writing off and riding over progressives. I want to stop the bleeding of progressives from the party. This year more than any other, the Dems need progressives. But they can't count on having their support if they don't earn it in some way.

[sleipnir]

19. Kerry will get no money from me or any support.

Actually, I'll probably send him a $0.02 donation with my own two cents attached in the comments box about how he sold out the Party and decided to become a Bush rubberstamper.

[eileen_d]

21. If you feel it's necessary, go for it. n/t

[BootinUp]

22. Just hold the pickle, ok?

[CWebster]

27. It is up to the individual conscience.

As things now stand I will not vote for Kerry. I have no qualms about that whatsoever. For those so inclined to be outraged - it should've been taken into account before expecting me to rally behind the annointed nominee who represents everything about the Democratic party that I reject.

Kerry and his tough talk about military service as the only thing he has to hit Bush up with - doesn't impress me, in fact it disgusts me.

[bowens43]

29. military service and his extremely liberal voting record......

[On the Road]

31. There's a Solution Somewhere

As the nominee, Kerry will have to deal with a loss of enthusiasm. It will not require planning on anyone's part. And he will have to deal with dissent from within the party if he wins the presidency.

For Kerry to fulfill his potential in the general election, he needs to throw a bone to the activist wing -- not necessarily the left, but the people who supported outsider candidates -- Dean, Clark, Kucinich. Frankly, I don't know if he will be perceptive enough to do it.

There is a longer-term problem of how to take back the party from within. There are some very good models for how to do this. The Christian Coalition, NRA, and neocons all developed influence out of all proportion to their numbers within the GOP. There are some lessons there.

[paulk]

78. I don't understand what kind of bone you need him to throw...

Kerry has one of the best lifetime liberal ratings in the Senate. He has fought for liberal, progressive causes all of his career, starting with his opposition to the war in Vietnam. His credentials on the environment are impeccable.

Honest to God, I do not understand what you people want. Or where you get your information on Kerry from.

[Capn Sunshine]

49. The strike thing is no rumor

remembering the many many folks HD brings to the party trying to change what we were just witness to, in California yesterday at the caucuses the predominate theme was strike if they don't offer some reform, or vote ABB and leave the next day.

I'm one of the corporate bundlers you read about: i rasied 186,000 bucks for Gore , and I can tell you unless I get a big fat apology and some indication of a willingness to reform, my bundling duties will be on hiatus.

I'm tired of being taken for granted by the party just because I've no where else to go.

I think I understand what Sharpton is up to: he thinks by helping Bush win that he will actually be empowering black voters as a national force not to be taken for granted.

Well off liberals are feeling the same way too, I promise you.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

67. It is not about ideology, blm. It's not about left and right.

It's about the principle that the way things are done and have been done for too long between both parties is corrupt and needs to be changed. The Democratic Party can't afford to be polite to the GOP anymore.

[blm]

90. And centrists like Dean corrupted the party and lied about it.

Dean showed his corruption by lying about the other candidates and misrepresenting his own record to hold sway over those who had no idea of his appalling views on civil liberties or his coziness with corporations.

He pointed fingers and too many joined him without first examining his record and those he accused of doing the very things he spent his entire career doing - compromising and aligning with the GOP.

[BurtWorm]

94. All I know is Kerry voted for IWR, No Child, and the Patriot Act.

I think I know why he did. I can learn to live with those accommodations. I just want to see more evidence of a further vision than I'm getting from him.

[library_max]

106. Every Senator except Feingold voted for the PATRIOT ACT.

Including Paul Wellstone and many other liberal icons. It was a crazy time.

[BurtWorm]

128. Did every Senator vote for the other two?

[library_max]

129. A majority of Dems voted for the other two.

It would really be helpful to look at twenty years of Kerry's Senate votes rather than just those three. Politics in the U.S. has been insane since 9/11.

[Hoppin_Mad]

69. Martin Sheen, arrested doezens of times for his beliefs was DUPED !

As were the HUNDREDS of other prominent Dean supporters.

How could we ALL be so stupid ?

I wish I had YOUR insight !

http://www.takeyourcountryback.com/DEAN/ENDORSEMENTS/Howard_Dean_Endorsements.htm

[blm]

75. Yes. I do believe that many BELIEVED Dean's rhetoric was real.

His record on civil liberties, pushing deregulation for energy industry, and other procorporate positions taken against the environment were appalling and unfortunately not scrutinized by the media.

[Forkboy]

77. Whenever I hear someone use the term "real liberal" it reminds me

of the repugs saying "real American".I suspect both groups using the term are fairly clueless about "real" anythings.

[blm]

88. Take out the real, then. Most liberals I know

would NOT be taken in by Dean's coopted internet rhetoric. Most are appalled by it, and prefer a more accurate, fact based discourse by someone with a record that matches the campaign voice.

Most liberals I know read a man's record and would not put themselves out for such a corporatist like Dean. Not the liberals I know, anyway.

[Forkboy]

96. That's better

Now I agree :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. OK I finally feel threatened and coerced enough to vote for Dean

I will admit I was wrong to vote for the guy that did NOT have closed door meetings with corporations in order to lock out the environmental lobby in Vermont.

I will admit, I was wrong to think that people were in this to actually take the country away from a madman and apparently by the tactics illustrated on this thread hand it over to another power hungry madman.

I admit, I was wrong to challenge totalitarianism. It is only bad when Bush is telling me what is good for me. It is GOOD when Howard Dean holds me over a rack and does it.

BTW, there was just a thread the other day posted by a Dean supporter excoriating John Kerry for bundlers.

[BurtWorm]

83. Do you seriously think I'm trying to extort Dean votes out of people?

I'm suggesting that the Democratic Party can be a home for progressives, or they can write progressives off in their fatalistic desire for swing votes.

Is this election about more than unseating Bush? Shouldn't it also be about making sure a Bush never happens again?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

86. Yes I honestly think you are doing that whether you realize/acknowledge

it or NOT.

Hopefully, this post will live as I do not wish to attack the messenger, but the message is that if your guy does NOT prevail, you will work AGAINST winning by doing less or doing nothing. That is NOT the way to land a seat at the table. The way to land a seat at the table is to demonstrate that your movement is SERIOUS in its support and that its platform is viable and worthy of inclusion.

On edit: For me, SO MUCH of what makes having another Bush NOT happen again rides on unseating him that it is impossible to separate the two. Didn't want to ignore your other questions.

[BurtWorm]

92. I can see why you might think that.

You may even be right that my subconscious motive is revenge for the unexpected loss of Dean (after a year of build-up). Who knows?

What I do know is that I have been living with rage over the last election for going on four years. It still motivates me. I have been living with rage over the rush to war and occupation for going on two years. That also motivates me. Dean has been the only candidate who is exactly on the same page with me about both of those travesties. For me, Bush's installation is not just a matter of partisan politics; it's a sign that something is horribly wrong with the Republic. The war issue is not just a partisan disagreement about how to throw an imperialist war; it is fundamentally about the people's will not to go to war being thwarted.

Kerry has rubbed me the wrong way on both of those issues. I need to be convinced that he fundamentally gets it on both of these issues. Is he going to permit the rot to continue, or is he going to fight it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. Better to aim for the moon and miss it than aim for your foot and hit it

If George Bush wins, you'll never know the answer to your questions.

I disagreed with Kerry's vote on IWR. It still doesn't alter for me the fact that the war would have happened regardless and in a less predictable manner than it did.

When anger clouds rationality to the point of dividing us further than we already are, I say that anger is no longer useful and you are not using it...it is using you.

Kerry can never make that vote up to some and everythng he says in opposition to Bush now is framed by Dean's supporters as though he is copying it.

I am through trying to mollify that request.

IF absolutely nothing on his website nor any of his appearances since then has moved you, who am I to think that anything I can say would make a difference.

Wouldn't it just be more honest of you and a few others to admit that nothing can?

[library_max]

100. It's a mistake to depend on politics to validate your feelings.

Politics is about who wins and who loses, about who gets to make policy and who gets to sit and watch. It's not about validation, vindication, or revenge. No matter who wins in 2004, it won't change thing one about 2000. No matter who wins in 2004, we can't "uninvade" Iraq.

Elections aren't about the past, they're about the future. If Kerry had been president, do you honestly believe that we'd have invaded Iraq? Remember, he'd have had the real intelligence, not the phonied-up crap Bush and Powell, etc., peddled to the Senate. Do you honestly believe we'll go on any more such cowboy expeditions (as we probably will with Bush) if Kerry is elected? Do you believe that Kerry, if elected, would appoint Supreme Court justices who would place partisanship above the law, the way the Scalia five did in Bush v. Gore?

You need to look at John Kerry's 20 year voting record in the Senate. He is at least as liberal as Dean. The whole country went nuts after 9/11. It was probably a good time not to be a member of Congress. Now that sanity is being restored, it makes more sense for us to have some perspective rather than crucify our representatives for every crazy vote in a crazy time. The whole country is having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of having believed the lies and supported the war - most people did both. Which resonates better? "I and people like me were smarter than the rest of you," or "Bush lied to all of us"?

[Walt Starr]

73. HMNTVABB

I will, in all likelihood, do the following on November 2nd:

Hold My Nose To Vote for Anybody But Bush

If I am required to do this, I will become a harsh critic of the new president every time I consider what he is doing to be wrong. This will include protests etc. Holding my nose and voting is done specifically to rid the world of the criminals currently holding office, this is not carte blanche for a new group of criminals. I will also hold out the possibility of voting Republican in 2008 should the Democratic nominee win and disappoint me.

This also should not be construed as actually supporting the nominee, nor will I necessarily donate time or money to the nominee.

[DrFunkenstein]

80. The "Crying In Our Teacups" Comment

It is a serious distortion to suggest that Kerry is insulting Americans outraged by the 2000 hoax. Kerry has made it explicitly clear on several occasions that we should do more than bitch about the robbery, we should start kicking ass.

[redqueen]

87. May I ask what he did, besides tell others to do something?

Wasn't there something that House Democrats were trying to get help from the Senate with? Didn't they get no help?

[dolstein]

82. Well, this Democratic centrist thinks the Party has lurched to the left

I can't help but laugh at all these complaints being voiced by Dean and Kucinich supporters regarding the impending nomination of John Kerry. After all, Kerry would easily be the most liberal Democratic Party nominee since McGovern in 1972, and arguably the most liberal since FDR. There are probably no more than a handful of Democrats in the senate who could plausibly claim to being more liberal than John Kerry -- and Teddy Kennedy isn't among them.

I'm beginning to think that some people around here won't be satisfied until the Democratic Party adopts an explicitly socialist platform.

[BootinUp]

84. Funny that

you are absolutely correct. It is not because of any of the candidates. It is becuase of a tremendous number of grass roots support and also just pissed off Democrats in general.

[Walt Starr]

85. Speaking strictly for myself

I know Kerry's record is far more liberal than Dean's, yet I still support Dean.

My problem here is not liberal vs. conservative.

My problem is establishment vs. maverick.

I despise the establishment because the status quo is what's wrong in the world.

I'll still probably hold my nose and vote for the person with the (D) after their name because I despise Bush so much.

[dolstein]

89. Sounds like style versus substance to me

We both agree that Kerry is more liberal than Dean. Anyone who has actually bothered to look at Dean's record as governor -- as opposed to the ridiculous pandering he's engaged in on the campaign trail -- would know that. But apparently this pandering goes a long way for some people. I just don't know why people are so willing to trust someone like Dean -- who has a pattern of governing as a centrist -- and so willing to distrust someone like Kerry, who has compiled one of the most liberal voting records over 18+ years in the Senate.

Personally, I find it hard to trust either. I'd much rather support someone like Lieberman -- a consistent centrist -- or Edwards -- a consistent populist -- over Dean (a centrist posing as a leftist) and Kerry (a limousine liberal posing as a populist).

[BurtWorm]

93. Forget left and right, liberal and conservative.

Does the corruption of the system require a left-right solution? In my mind it requires someone who sees something's wrong and knows how to deal with it.

[library_max]

110. What's wrong is Buckley v. Valeo.

As long as the USSC decision equating campaign money with free speech stands, the corruption will continue. Half-measures like McCain-Feingold don't work, as we are seeing now. Until Buckley v. Valeo is overturned, the name of the game in American politics is going to be money.

Now, suppose you are a boxer or a fan of boxing, and they change the rules to allow every fighter to take a baseball bat into the ring and use it. Terrible rule, right? But would you try to change it by getting into the ring without a bat? No, that's just a quick way to a skull fracture. And in politics, unlike boxing, you only get to change the rules when you've won enough fights. We've got to fight by the rules, repugnant as they are, until we can get enough USSC justices to change them.

[BurtWorm]

113. That's an excellent point.

Very good analogy, too. :thumbsup:

[library_max]

119. Thank you. /nt

[BruinAlum]

97. I’m getting so sick of these threats. Go ahead and strike.

The overwhelming desire of the record number of voters showing up at the polls is to select a nominee best able to unseat George Bush. They are angry. Democrats, Independents, and yes, even Republicans.

As far as the majority of voting Democrats are concerned, the general election is about unseating George Bush. The majority of voting Democrats are NOT seeing this election as a litmus test for major reform within the Democratic Party. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, the will of the majority does not correspond with a radical agenda of a small percentage of the extreme left.

I’m not saying I do not agree that reform is not needed, I’m only pointing out that the agenda of vast majority of Democratic voters does not correspond with an unyielding litmus test a small percentage of the extreme left would impose.

The majority of voters do not blame Kerry for the Iraq war. They place the blame directly on the Bush administration where any reasonable person knows it belongs. Nor do the majority of voters take Kerry’s words about election 2000 out of context and reframe them to suit an agenda better suited to Dean propaganda.

I’m sick to death of the coercive threats and tactics I read here from a small minority of disgruntled Dean supporters. Your guy is losing so you advocate taking hostages to get what you want. You are nothing but a terrorist. I want reform, AFTER we get a Democrat in the White House, no matter who it is. But I don’t want you on my side. I hope they throw you out on your butt so the rest of us can get some work done.

[BurtWorm]

104. No need to get personal.

:hi:

Up to the very end, your points were well taken.

[BruinAlum]

115. I appreciate that

My expression of angst is not so much at you personally but a culmination of the numerous threads I see here recently, from a minority of Dean supporters, suggesting third party bids, or like you, a strike. Or the numerous Kerry hit pieces from people deliberately promoting misinformation and out and out lies. In other words, actions intended to divide Democrats, and help Bush.

As I said in my previous post, I do agree that reform is needed. And believe it or not I feel we need the voices of our minority activist base to help us achieve that goal. But I don't agree, nor will ever the majority of the Party, that the priority of any single election, particularly THIS one, is about radically changing structure of the Party.

To quote RowdyBoy in a previous post:

"You can demand all you want-just get in line behind women, blacks, Hispanics, GLBTs, labor, native Americans, moderates, environmentalists, southerner's and north-eastern liberals. The Democratic party is a huge organization with a lot of competing interests."

So, while I appreciate your priorities, I see them as the interests of one of the many minorities within the Big Tent. And I will continue to abhor coercive and divisive tactics, fiercely oppose them and flat out reject them.

[Rowdyboy]

116. Wow, somebody actually quoted me?

Thanks!

We're all in this together and we must remain so if we are to have a chance to win.

[library_max]

98. Well, no Democrat is going to try to get support from the Republican base.

That'd just be stupid. But the nominee, whoever it turns out to be (including Dean) will have to appeal to centrist and swing voters if he wants to have any chance whatsoever of winning the election.

You need to look at the context of that "crying in our teacups" line - the very next line was, "Don't get mad, get even." For the rest of it, everything depends on how you choose to interpret things. If you don't get a non-stop supply of left wing red meat, are you going to be "angered"? If so, it's futile. The nominee, whoever it turns out to be, isn't going to be able to aim all or even most of his campaign at the left edge of the Democratic base. That's how you lose in a landslide.

So if the point of this thread is, cater to us or we'll wreck you, this is the delightful murder-or-suicide choice, "Kill yourself or we'll kill you" routine coming back for its zillionth encore on DU. All it accomplishes is to legitimize backstabbing and party-splitting. We don't need another repeat of Florida 2000, thank you.

[BruinAlum]

103. A murder suicide pact

That's exactly what this is.

Coersion from perhaps 1% of the fringe to impose it's agenda on the majority or they will take their marbles and find a new game. Pay the ransom and lose a greater percentage of the center.

Do the math. It's a losing propostion.

A perhaps 1% membership doesn't get you control of the platform.

[BurtWorm]

107. I'm not looking for control of the platform.

I'm not looking for a socialist manifesto. I'm looking for a sign that the candidate is not in it purely for personal ambition, is aware of the opportunity he will have--the responsibility even--to stop the rot (the corporate corruption of politics) that is eating away the heart of the democracy and begin to return the power to the people.

[library_max]

109. But, given Kerry's twenty-year voting record.

93% from ADA, 96% from LCV, all his endorsements, etc. etc. etc., what sign could you possibly be looking for that would convince you? Isn't it possible that you like Dean and don't want to like anyone else (particularly the person who replaced him as front-runner) no matter what the facts are?

[BurtWorm]

112. Kerry has been my second choice.

I voted for Kerry in 1984 when he won the Senate for the first time. It's not that I don't "like" him. "Liking" has nothing to do with it. Trust is more to the point. Kerry lost mine with IWR. He's progressively lost more and more over time.

I've actually been much more open to Kerry than most Kerry people have been toward Dean. I don't think I've ever said an unfair thing about him. I've raised questions, and I still have questions, now that it looks like he's on his way to securing the nomination.

Contrary to what a lot of you all seem to be thinking, I have absolutely no delusions about this being just about me and Kerry. It's about the Democratic party and the people it expects to vote for it.

[library_max]

120. Wait -

So you're talking about organizing a "grass-roots" strike against your own second choice? Geez, what would you do if somebody you didn't like got the nomination?

[BurtWorm]

121. If someone I didn't like at all got the nomination...

I probably wouldn't care so much. I'd stop posting here and join the Greens. Especially if there was coercion to shut up and get with the program and absolutely no hope that the nominee would hear me at all. I am hopeful that a progressive bloc can flex some muscle and get the respect from the Democrats that the far right gets from the GOP.

Just consider Kerry and the "Marriage Amendment" act question. If Kerry had the clear, unambiguous respect for the left that Republicans have for the right, he would outright reject the idea of constitutionalizing the definition of marriage. He would say flat out, "Hell, no, I will not vote for DOMA," not "It depends..." There should be no debate about this from Democrats: the constitution is not an opinion poll! It's not a toy for special interest groups to sanctify their pet issues with!

If I were a full out Kerry supporter I would be all over his ass about this, and I don't understand why Kerry supporters just sit there and take it.

[library_max]

126. Because we want him to win.

Because we recognize a political trap when we see one. Because we don't want him to cough up a sound bite for a Rove ad that paints him as anti-marriage. Because you only get to do something about your principles after you get elected.

You won't catch Bush making red-meat talking points for the far right. He didn't in 2000 and he won't in 2004. What about SOTU, you ask? Oh, alas. Those positions are not "far right." They only look far right from the far left. I wish that wasn't so; but wish in one hand, spit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

[BurtWorm]

127. This Amendment stinks from a Constitutional standpoint.

It should be trashed for that alone. That's a principle everyone ought to be able to recognize, and the people who can't recognize it won't vote for Kerry if he's endorsed by Jesus Christ.

[MaddogTerp]

130. not to nitpick, but

for the most part, the ones who would be most influenced by an endorsement from Jesus Christ are the religious right-wing, and they are already solidly in the Bushie camp. if the rest are on this side of the isle, they are probably Kerry people already and it won't matter anyway.

[BurtWorm]

132. They'd claim he was really the anti-Christ if he supports a Democrat.

[library_max]

131. Oh would that this were true.

But it isn't. Tons of swing voters won't be "able to recognize" that principle. Tons of religious people (not all of whom are Republicans by a long shot) are up in arms about the possibility of gay marriage. They think they are going to be forced to recognize gay marriage as a sacrament in their churches. The purpose of the amendment is to get Democrats to speak against it, so they can be painted as anti-marriage. It's a trap.

[BurtWorm]

133. The fact is that the President and Congress are not going to settle

the issue. The courts may. Dems should not even flirt with playing the game according to Repub rules.

[LoneStarLiberal]

108. Election Cycles, Grassroots, and Strategy

I think any discussion of a strike, going third party before the election, or any other disruption of the Democratic ticket for this year is a very bad idea and tantamount casting your ballot for Bush/Cheney 04.

Let me clarify: The Dean campaign has contributed some very revolutionary ideas and instruments to the political process. These should be pursued and expanded, building on the mistakes of the Dean campaign and harnassed to revolutionize our party and the American political system in general.

But it simply cannot be done in one election cycle. It's not going to happen this year. Overthrowing the entire Democratic Party as-is was always a foolish dream to aspire to in the limited space of one election cycle. The Dean folks found themselves at once trying to lead a revolution, fight the Democratic Party's leadership, fight eight other Democratic candidates, and fight George W. Bush all at once. The war was lost because of making too many enemies in the course of a gambit that was never going to succeed. This is primarily why the Dean campaign finds itself in its current position; an election year (and the year before) is about getting your candidate nominated and elected, not about overthrowing your entire party's hierarchy AND getting your candidate nominated and elected.

"The Dean model" is not discredited by the returns to date. Think of it in terms of a software project: The Dean for America campaign was a beta version of The Next Big Thing, something that gave all of us a taste of what can be done but that also had some major flaws in it that need to be addressed before it is ready for production. This is where we're at right now; the returns and evaluations are in for the beta version's performance to date and it needs to be tweaked. A year of tweaking (2004-2005), then two years of expansion of the concept and practice of the Dean campaign (2005-2007), and then Dean 2.0 is ready to hit the bricks in 2007 for the 2008 campaign cycle.

It is in this time (2004-2007) that you need to take the message of change to the Democratic Party, not now and not in 2008. Fight the battles where they make the most sense on terrain where you optimize your chances of winning. Taking this message of change to the Democratic Party also keeps your base mobilized and keeps your visibility up within the politically active and politically inactive citizenry.

In conclusion, I believe you cannot say "Dean or else..." in 2004. The concept hasn't been given enough time to succeed. Saying "Dean or else" in 2008 is exactly where you ought to be; by then you have waged the revolutionary change on the party and expanded the mobilization concept beyond its digital chains and ironed out the flaws in Dean 1.0.

In my estimation the only thing that can ruin the chances for the Dean model to succeed in 2008 and beyond is if enough Dean supporters in 2004 bolt while their candidate does not, thereby assuring George W. Bush of victory in 2004.

[BurtWorm]

123. You make some good points.

I am tortured over this, because I believe Bushism is an evil that has to be eradicated. At the same time, I want to kill it at the roots, make it very, very difficult to become reality again. Of course, if I were a Republican I would be arguing in favor of measures to outlaw the opposition. But I'm not against the idea of opposition, even to my own ideas, or to my ideological party. It's one of the great structural weaknesses of liberalism, this tolerance for dissent and disagreement, because, as Isaiah Berlin pointed out, it tolerates the existence of the devil that wants it dead. Nevertheless it's one of the reasons liberalism is at heart superior to the alternative. It is, at base, about freedom.

Let me make clear yet again that my position most decidely is not "Dean or else." My position is just this: If the Democratic Party is aware that it needs progressives to win and to rebuild the party at all levels, then it has to give us something in return. It has to earn our contributions of time, money and even votes. I pick this moment to make this point because it should be absolutely clear to any Democrat that the party does, in fact, need progressives. Now is the time for the party to right the wrongs of the last 30 years, when it tolerated marginalization of the left. Is it any wonder why Republicans are the dominant party in the US, despite their appeal to a minority of voters? I think it's precisely because the Democrats let the left go, and the left stopped caring about being marginalized. Why should the right have a voice in the "mainstream" and the left be relegated to second-class status?

[shivaji]

124. sorry...I am either Dean or Green

If neither Dean or Green candidate is on the ballot, I will
save the gas and stay home. The country is in dire need of
change in direction. With Kerry you will need a magnifying
glass to see the change.

[John_H]

125. Cool! More "Dean Democrats" in action!!!