Want Nader out of the race? Embrace his agenda...it should be ours, anyway

[Ken Burch]

We need to be the anti-corporate power party.

We need to be the pro-electoral reform/fair elections party.

We need to be the pro-worker party.

We need to be the peace party.

We need to be the social justice party.

We need to be the TRUTH party.

None of this is rocket science.

The way to win is to be real and fight like hell.

Centrism is dead and will never come back to life.

Fuck big donors.

Fuck K Street.

Fuck the Beltway.

Let's Mobilize the Silenced Majority!

Here's to Victory in 2008!

Another World is Possible.

[Mojambo]

1. FUCK yeah.

K'n'R

[Steepler0t]

2. Exactly

Truer words have not been spoken on DU in awhile.

:toast:

[zalinda]

3. It will never happen, Nader wouldn't stay out of the race

no matter what, his ego won't let him.

zalinda

[Ken Burch]

4. Embracing his agenda will at least make him as irrelevant as possible.

It never did the party any good to turn away from Nader's values in the first place.

The way to win is to be strong, fight for the people, and defend ourselves when attacked.

Centrists don't do any of that.

And a Democratic party that is clearly to the left of the GOP on all issues is the only kind WORTH electing. Again, the Nineties proved what happens when we get in after abandoning our principles. Eight years of uselessness was the result.

[LoZoccolo]

6. He's made himself irrelevant by giving us the worst president in a long time. n/t

[Ken Burch]

13. I'm not a Nader defender in terms of his tactics. Fine he shouldn't have run in 2000

(Of course, you are equally obligated to admit the Dems shouldn't have provoked him into running by kissing corporate ass for eight years.)

The only kind of Democratic Party that can ever win again is a progressive, anti-corporate, pro-justice party. If Dems had run like that in the Nineties, we'd have won and there would have been no Green Party.

Nader happened because the DLC made him happen. Learn from that.

Centrism is dead. Just telling progressives "you HAVE to vote Democratic and you have no right to expect anything from us in exchange for that vote" like you want to do is wrong and can't work. Why defend failure?

[enough already]

89. It's our fault, Not Nader's.

When our candidates refuse to embrace these common sense ideas, we leave a massive vacuum for someone to fill.

[uberllama42]

210. Why do you still pretend that Bush's victory had anything to do with Nader?

Even without Nader, the election was hopelessly rigged in favor of Bush in both 2000 and 2004. Remember that only about 30% of people who voted for Nader in 2000 would have otherwise voted for Gore. 30% of Nader's paltry vote totals is miniscule compared to the votes the GOP stole from Gore in both Ohio and Florida in both elections.

I will grant that Nader's run was reckless in consideration of the possible effect he could have had on the results. His politics do not justify his egotism. But to suggest that the rigorous and systematic Republican efforts to steal those elections would have failed without the little extra push constituted by the Nader factor is ludicrous.

[LoZoccolo]

214. There is a fallacy in your argument. n/t

[uberllama42]

221. Okay...

Care to specify which fallacy? Argument from authority? Argument from antiquity? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? False dichotomy?

I'd be more than happy to accept your point if you can signify the lapse in my reasoning. Simply telling me I'm wrong doesn't get us anywhere.

[LoZoccolo]

227. I'm giving you time to figure it out yourself. n/t

[Ken Burch]

228. LoZoccolo thinks he's above actually having to make a case for his position

I'd advise him to seek help about this tendency, as it's an early symptom of Irritable Benchley Syndrome(IBS).

[LoZoccolo]

229. Nope.

I'm giving our fellow here an exercise as a learning experience.

[Ken Burch]

230. Nope yourself.

You're just being condescending and arrogant. Which is par the course for you, since you think that progressives and activists should simply fall in line behind whatever you and Rahm think is the Way to Power. An approach that worked so brilliantly in the Illinois 6th this last year.

[uberllama42]

232. I don't need your vague, condescending bullshit

Like I said, if you have a helpful criticism, fire away. If not, keep your mouth shut. Playing "I know something you don't know" is not going to win you any friends, nor any arguments.

[LoZoccolo]

233. You should already know what's wrong with your argument.

I'm not going to beg you to see it.

[LoZoccolo]

5. I've got a better idea.

Here is an original video about how to reach the Naderites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xOdATCFM30

Splinterists ran a Green Party candidate against Lamont in Connecticut last year; there is no reason to think they'll ever be satisfied, and their candidates receive Republican funds to defeat the Democrats. These are people who really don't care about getting things done; they only want to feel "different" and self-righteous.

[AtomicKitten]

7. the Greens ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone in 2002

go figure

[Telly Savalas]

11. It's not surprising.

Some people are to the left of even the most leftist elements of the Democratic Party. One shouldn't expect them to vote Democratic.

[eridani]

14. They had no choice

If they hadn't run someone, then anyone could have used their ballot slot, even a Republican. They deliberately chose someone with no name recognition over Winona La Duke, who supported Wellstone.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. The Green Candidate could've not campaigned and endorsed Wellstone

But I don't recall that being the case. In fact I recall Ralph Nader coming to Minnesota to campaign for the Green Candidate. And just because Winona La Duke had the good sense to endorse Wellstone (she had the good sense to endorse Kerry in 2004 as well) doesn't mean that they didn't try to get her to run.

[eridani]

28. Their strategy was deliberate

They HAD to use their slot or risk having it taken over. Local Greens mostly backed LaDuke on this.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. They could have filled their slot and not campaigned, they campaigned

Therefore they opposed Wellstone

[eridani]

36. MOST of them did not

--following the lead of LaDuke.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Nader came to Minnesota and campaigned for the Green Candidate

I don't care what MOST of them did, the party ran a candidate and campaigned against Wellstone.

[Bjorn Against]

158. Are you sure about that? I have a link here that says he offered to campaign with Wellstone.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.16A.nader.wellstone.htm

On edit: I just found this link, perhaps this is what you were referring to. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200209/25_mccalluml_nader/ Either way though, it is pretty clear from reading that article that Nader was pretty comfortable with Wellstone, and he was not endorsing the Green candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

199. Read the article, Nader endorsed the Green candidate

It may have been a lukewarm endorsement but it was still an endorsement.

[Bjorn Against]

213. I did read the article and it said he did not endorse the Green candidate

Ralph Nader stopped short of endorsing Tricomo during a Green Party fundraiser in Minneapolis.

I am not always a big fan of Nader's tactics, but we need to get our facts straight and it appears that Nader did not endorse the Green in that race.

[Hippo_Tron]

217. He also said "There's no reason for the party to back Wellstone"

Call me crazy, but that sounds like an endorsement for Tricomo even if the author of this article doesn't interpret it as one.

[Ken Burch]

15. Exactly what did "Mr. Oooga Dooga" accomplish there?

Do you really think acting like an impaired two-year old is effective political tactics?
(no offense to actual impaired two-year-olds intended. They display FAR more intelligence and political savvy than Oooga Doooga Boy there.)

So basically, you're approach to the problem is just to say "fuck off and do what we tell you" to these people? Tell us, please, why you think that would work, since it didn't in 1996, 2000 OR 2004?

You can't expect progressives just to come back to us without ANY concessions.

[LoZoccolo]

84. It is "dooga dooga", and that was me.

I am Mr. Dooga himself.

Nader's percentage drastically reduced between 2000 and 2004, so I would say that it works.

[Ken Burch]

118. Ok, "dooga dooga".....whatevah.....

I do think there were OTHER factors at play though...like the fact that 80% of the Nader voters from 2000 voluntarily swung to Kerry because they WERE willing to put a vague, bland notion the greater good before their own principles, even though the Kerry campaign made no conciliatory gestures to these people whatsoever(an act of indifference I assume even you would admit was foolish).

Still, you were being a childish jerk and you didn't actually stop Nader guy doing what he was doing. He looked sane and you looked like a toddler on steroids. Nobody in your own footage was impressed with your attempts at comedy.

Is there a reason you couldn't at least TRY treating these people with dignity and respect? Is there a reason you still refuse to acknowledge that our party CAUSED the rise of the Greens by its obsession in the Nineties with abandoning all meaningful differences with the GOP?

I hate to put it this way but...geez, what a spazz...dooga dooga yourself...:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

122. I consider his Naderite statements, and my "dooga dooga" to be equal in stature.

That is the point of the video.

[Ken Burch]

126. Well, you're the only person who got that point.

Disrespect and contempt don't work for Dems. Everyone watching you thought you were an idiot. You should've been canvassing for Kerry or working a phone bank or doing something actually useful.

Pathetic.

[LoZoccolo]

132. Not so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=9382#10756

[truedelphi]

163. And it's our party's candidates that concede

rather quickly -even Kerry after promising that he would not till every vote was counted.

It was Nader and David Cobb the Green Party's Presidential Candidate, that funded the massive
vote recounts in Ohio in early 2005.

While the alternative parties put their money where their mouths were, the Democratic leadership buried its head in the sand, pretending that the election could not have been stolen (Kerry's concession speech still leaves me speechless - in it he just flat out denies the appeal that his platform had for those fo us who voted for him.)

He not only conceded, he stabbed We the Voters in the back as he did so.

Would it have hurt the guy to waited a full 48 hours? Some people put their lives on hold for months trying to get him elected.

[rudy23]

8. Thank you! Blame the Democrats who sold us out, not Nader.

I mean, you can blame him a little for the right wing support he's taken, but his platform makes him closer to being a true Democrat than most of the candidates we put out there.

Why don't Democrats just play to their base more, and stop complaining when people don't hand their vote to candidates who've abandoned their values?

[Ken Burch]

17. Exactly. There IS no "center" any more, so there' s no point in dissing our base to appeal to it.

The only way to win is to fight for the Silenced Majority, the Rainbow Majority, the Global People's Majority.

That's where victory is.

A "pro-Business Democrat" is a Republican. It could NOT be worth just going back to the Nineties like Hillary and LoZoccolo want us to settle for. Only a REAL Democrat can win this time.

[pnwmom]

43. Where is your evidence for that?

You keep saying it, but I know lots of Democrats who consider themselves moderate to center.

[Ken Burch]

46. The polls that show overwheming majorities for single-payer and AGAINST the warm for one thing

And the polls that show that, while people may CALL themselves "moderate to center" their actual views are progressive.

The way to win votes outside of our base is NOT to dilute our principles, but to show our courage and leadership by fighting passionately for them. That's what convinces less idological voters that we have the strength of character to be trusted with power.

Our presidential candidates haven't done that in decades. Mondale refused to give a "hell yes, I'm a liberal and here's why" speech at any point in his campaign. Dukakis cut Bush's lead in half in the tracking polls when he said "Yes, I'm a liberal"(he lost because his advisors, most of whom went on to advise Kerry sixteen years later, wouldn't let him say it again and wouldn't let him fight back against the right-wing smears. Clinton won on personal charisma, and would have won as a REAL Democrat.)

It has always hurt us not to fight back, and not fighting back has been what the "party pros" and the Beltway types have always demanded. If they get their way and inflict Hillary the Sure Loser on us, you know it will happen again.

[LoZoccolo]

125. Then why do people like Kucinich only get like 3% of the vote? n/t

[Ken Burch]

138. The press had nominated Kerry in advance

Dennis got no money, and people obsessed with meaningless trivialities like his looks and his eating habits(as if having a president who would be certain never to die of a heart attack was a bad thing.)

My own experience was that virtually every person I ran into in the 2004 campaign who was voting for someone other than Dennis told me that Dennis was the candidate that person actually agreed with.

Kerry lost because he refused to be the man he was in 1971. And centrist hacks like you encouraged that blandness and lack of clarity. It was YOUR fault that Kerry lost.

[LoZoccolo]

141. Then how come they also nominated Dean in advance? n/t

[Solon]

165. You forget that Dean is a moderate...

He was marketed as a "liberal" in the media, but he was never one to begin with. Most of his support did come from "grassroots" at least initially, however, being grassroots tells nothing of someone's political affiliation. Most were Democratic partisans of one sort or another, then the "scream" incident occurred, another media created "folly" of the Dean team, and he was then out of race practically overnight.

[Ken Burch]

182. The denominated him in advance right after that.

Remember the smear about Dean's "scream"? That was the media playing with their microphones to make the guy look like a wacko when he wasn't.

[blm]

169. The press worked to STOP Kerry and made no bones about it throughout 2003.

You all seem to forget that Kerry hd to fund his own campaign the last two months because the DLC and establishment Dems wanted him out and steered money away from his campaign.

The media hounded Kerry or ignored him at crucial times because he was bad for their corporate masters.


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval
Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And HERE is how the establishment treated Kerry, Ken - learn the truth before you add to their backstabbing and deceit against Kerry:



This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg




Wonder why?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[wyldwolf]

53. he has no evidence of that. It's been the meme of the left for three generations

The inconvenient fact for Ken is that over half of the newly elected Democratic congress members joined the DLC and the Blue Dogs. Independents who'd voted GOP over the last several election cycles broke our way and it is simply vanity to think their political ideology did a 180 and they're suddenly Naderites.

[depakid]

124. I have excellent evidence right here:

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth

http://home.ourfuture.org/reports/20070612_theprogressivemajority/

Full Report: http://home.ourfuture.org/assets/20070612_theprogressivemajority_report.pdf

Not that the corrupt and cowardly elements that "lead" and advise the party seem to care....

[RufusTFirefly]

9. Like, totally!

As a life-long, never-been-anything-else Democrat, I've gotta say that the demonizing of Nader that occurred, particularly in 2000, is a total loser tactic. If you accept that we lost in 2000 (and I don't; the election was blatantly stolen), the grownup, winner-type tactic would be to do some harsh, no-holds-barred self-analysis: what did we do wrong? how can we do better?

But the quick-fix, loser-type tactic (tried and true throughout history, I'm afraid) is to demonize the Other. In this case, the Other was Nader and the Greens. We lost, not because we let the election get stolen or we compromised our core Democratic principles, but because of that rumpled looking guy from the Green Party, who wasn't even a member of the party he was running for President for!

Pathetic!!

Dating back to FDR (and maybe even before), the core Democratic principles, many of them outlined by Ken Burch above, are not only America's principles, they're winning principles!!!

For those corporate apologists, take a lesson from the experience of "New Coke", which tasted like Pepsi and failed spectacularly.
New Coke failed with loyal Coke drinkers because it tasted like Pepsi. It failed with Pepsi drinkers because Pepsi tasted even more like Pepsi.

Don't vote for New Coke. Let's bring back the Coke Classic of the Democratic Party and send those Pepsi Republicans packing!

[Solon]

50. You hit the nail on the head!

My question is this, if the Democrats lose in 2008 due to concessions to Bush over the next year and a half, who will they blame? The Greens again, or just the majority of voters who decided to stay home?

[creeksneakers2]

149. Nader caused the loss in 2000

Nader, and the Greens that is. Everything that is wrong with Iraq and the rest of America is that way now because the Greens wanted to make a statement about how special they were and how important they should have been.

Nobody could have stolen the election if it wasn't very very close.

[RufusTFirefly]

152. Thanks. If you say so.

But I'm afraid you prove my point.

[struggle4progress]

10. Much of Nader's agenda is really right on the mark

[bonito]

12. Good words K&R!

[FredScuttle]

16. "His" agenda? SNORT

Yeah....maybe 30 years ago. I would take Ralph Nader a lot more seriously if he didn't feed at the trough of Republican cash that tried to get him on the ballot in a number of states in 2004. Saint Ralph? Fuck him.

[Ken Burch]

19. I DON'T think Ralph is a saint. I'm just saying the agenda his campaign stood for should be OURS.

You don't honestly disagree with that, do you?

You want to take Ralph out of the picture(like I do), then get our party to stop nominating gutless centrist weasels like Kerry or the 2000 version of Gore. There is nothing in the 2000 Green agenda Democrats can't support.

Why stay with bland, arrogant centrism when you know nobody wants that anymore?

The point is, we can no longer ask progressives to vote for us WITHOUT major concessions to progressive values. Got that?

[blm]

172. Baloney - Nader knew that Kerry was the top anti-corruption lawmaker in DC and took great RISKS to

do it - because Nader himself had his organization help Kerry on investigations into BCCI because Kerry was getting NO HELP from other lawmakers.

Nader also knew that Kerry WROTE the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill in 1997 as an advocate of public financing for campaigns since 1985.

What amazes me is that you don't know this.

What did YOU do in your life that shows ONE PERCENT of the courage that it took for Kerry to save lives in Vietnam, or risk his life even MORE than that when he investigated and exposed IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning? You think he wasn't targeted then? You think he didn't live with death threats from taking on powerful enemies like Nixon, Reagan-Bush and their loyal CIA thugs?

[Ken Burch]

219. Kerry gave Ralph excuses to stay in the race:

1)By fudging on the war when it was obvious by then that no prowar voters were ever going to vote against Bush and that the country HAD turned against the war.

2)By refusing to let the party have an anti-Patriot Act plank in the platform when by then all the pro-Patriot Act voters were totally right wing and permanently unavailable to us.

3)By making our convention a "politics-free zone" with no discussion, no debate, no ideals, and nothing but "Vote Kerry, he had a great biography".

4)By the jackassed, bloodyminded, arrogant strategy of challenging Ralph's ballot lines. We all know now that that was a waste of time and money. EVERY penny that was pissed away on the challenges should've been used for GOTV and voter registration.

I hate Ralph. Most of his voters came to us even though the party made no concessions to them. You know perfectly well we'll lose them again if we take the same tack in 2008. The hardline hardass approach DOESN'T work. Engagement and dialogue and embracing the ideals of those people does. Try positive tactics for once. Try courage. Try fighting the GOP instead of minor parties for once. Try acting like our principles are WORTH DEFENDING.

That's all I'm saying. It ISN'T Ralph-worship and you all know it.

There's no reason for our party to "stay the course" on this issue.

[blm]

220. Baloney - Ralph KNEW BETTER than to blame Kerry for Dem PARTY decisions

during that time.

Ralph KNEW better. Just because millions of you DIDN'T have the background history of Kerry's to hang your hats on no matter what the Dem PARTY strategists pulled, Ralph DID.

And don't even try to PRETEND that YOU or any one ONE PERSON in DC has risked their actual NECK and career to oppose the corruption in DC more than Kerry has. You can't NAME another person who pulled back more against the fascism and corruption of the last 35 years than Kerry. Your post was baloney based on media-driven perceptions concocted by the CORPORATIONS and centrists you claim to be against.

Rubbish.

[Ken Burch]

224. The NOMINEE isn't responsible for what happens at his own NOMINATING CONVENTION?

Say what?

Fine, Kerry was good on corruption. But he didn't even speak out forcibly in defense of his own position on THAT, ffs.

And, btw, I base all I know on my own research, derived largely from the alternative press(the only press that tells the truth in this country)not anything that "centrists" say.

Face it, Kerry got called a "flip-flopper" because he did what Shrum and the rest of the centrist hacks and recovering Dukakis staffers told him to do. If the guy had even spoken ONE CLEAR DECLARATIVE sentence in that fall campaign, he'd have kicked Dubya's ass. He lost because of the "nuance".

[blm]

226. So the CORPORATE MEDIA that INFORMED YOU pretended - they EDITTED OUT

most of his references to BCCI and terrorism, and sometimes even MOCKED it as boring.

But the main point is that Nader KNEW BETTER than most that Kerry could be depended on to open up government to the scrutiny of the people, and he STILL ran.

And Kerry WON. He ran well enough to win so BushInc had to steal it....yet again.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Sure thing ... As soon as the Greens stop taking $$$ from the GOP.

A friend of my enemy is my enemy.

[Ken Burch]

21. I'm not an apologist for the Greens doing that.

Get it straight. It's the agenda, not the party or the man.

The way to win is to be progressive and courageous. You know I'm right about that.

Centrism means defeat. Hillary means defeat. Gore could win, but only if he's clearly left of where he was in 2000. If he gets dragged back to that mushburger of a platform, even YOU would have to admit it wouldn't be worth trying to elect him.

No more bland arrogant centrism. Only a progressive, grass-roots power-to-the-activists party can win. We have nothing to gain from big donors and business types. None of them actually disagree with Republicans anyway.

Power to the people. It's the only way to win. Centrism Is Death.

[AtomicKitten]

26. power to the people ... ALL the people

Democracy includes everybody, even the * hiss * centrists. Attempting to limit the Democratic Party to a narrow ideology isn't democratic, and that goes for all aspects of the political spectrum.

Power to the people means ALL the people, and our elected officials should represent a cross-section of Americans. If you seek to change the makeup of representation, field and run candidates, but don't disregard how loud a cohesive voting block resonates at the ballot box.

Rather than throwing himself at the top job repeatedly, embarrassingly, over and over again, Nader should devote his energy to building an alternative party from the ground up and stop taking money from the GOP for the express purpose of defeating Democrats. That makes Democrats kinda cranky and not particularly snuggly when the idea is floated that they should kowtow to Nader's "agenda."

[Ken Burch]

31. I actually agree with much of what you said in the third paragraph.

Please believe me, I'm NOT saying we should KOWTOW to anybody. I'm just arguing that what that campaign stood for, whatever you think of the guy(and at this stage, believe me, I don't think much of him anymore) you can see that what his campaign's principles were should be OUR principles. They WERE our principles once. We gained nothing by abandoning them.

As to centrists, well they have a right to a voice somewhere, but they don't have the right to demand that the Democrats ignore the progressive majority and water our platform down to nothing, like Clinton and the 2000 version of Gore did. There was never any excuse for "centrists" (read conservatives, you're a conservative if you supported NAFTA and opposed single-payer health care, and you know it) to be given absolute power in this party like they had in the last Democratic administration, an administration where CEO's and defense contractors mattered and unions and the poor didn't.

[AtomicKitten]

34. There is a reason Congress has a 23% approval rating.

It is because they are NOT carrying out the will of the people that put them into office. The resistance is loud and the Democrats in office would be irretrievably retarded to ignore it.

End the war, impeach the bastards.

[Ken Burch]

37. That's right.

Er...was there somewhere in that post where you were disagreeing with me?

Really, Kitten, we're basically on the same side here.

[AtomicKitten]

38. um ... hello?

It was a discussion, not a disagreement, well maybe a teensy bit about the Greens, but I used to work for them so I come already loaded with plenty of 'tude on that subject.

Cheers! :toast:

[Ken Burch]

39. OK. glad to discuss it with you then.

Thanks for participating in this thread, btw.

[truedelphi]

176. I think I'd make a minor change

End the war, you b^%$rds. Impeach!

[Ken Burch]

183. Ok.

n/t.

[ShortnFiery]

56. That's not the point AK. We should embrace their goals - many should be our goals. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

74. Greens taking $$$ from the GOP meant to defeat the Democrats

makes it a bit awkward to work together. Nader hammering the Democrats more than he does the Republicans makes it tough to feel all snuggly towards the Green Party, Independent Party, or whatever party will have him.

I suspect the point really is that those so disgusted and dismayed with the Democratic Party probably should just leave the party. I'd rather that happen than have to constantly look over my shoulder to see who's taking a bite out of the party's ass during an election.

[MadHound]

64. Got any evidence of that?

Yes, Nader may or may not have taken money from the 'Pugs in '04 but that is when he wasn't on the Green ticket. I would be interested in seeing any evidence that you have that the Greens took GOP money.

[AtomicKitten]

72. *

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/31/150227
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/25/1422233
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/34242_green07.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/4/165830/7578
http://www.attytood.com/archives/003603.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/politics/main2039638.shtml

[MadHound]

75. LOL! And damn, I thought you had widespread evidence that the Greens were in the pocket of the 'Pug

Ooo, two isolated incidents, both of which have prompted the Green party to take steps in order to insure such things don't happen again. Meanwhile, the Democrats are electing Republicans, like Lieberman, right into office. Which is the worse crime? Yeah, I thought so, and unlike the Dems, the Greens are actually taking steps to correct their errors.

Oh, and would you please drop all the Nader references. The man dropped all ties with the Greens after the '00 election. Thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

77. LOL! And damn if you aren't disseminating the evidence you requested.

Your quick response indicates you either already knew or are fully prepared to dismiss the evidence you requested.
* I swear I only stabbed him twice, officer.

And having been employed by the Green Party at one point, I assure you I am well versed on their history and have formed a legitimate opinion, so you can drop the pretense of feigning ignorance one minute and pretending you have all the answers the next. Thanks.

[MadHound]

146. How about both?

You brought up two individual cases of what, thousands? Yeah, I knew that you'd grab for those two, and I got a bonus on top of it, when you were trying to lump Nader's '04 run in on with the Greens. If you supposedly worked with the Greens, then you should damn well know that Nader wasn't on the Green ticket in '04, so your "evidence" is utterly invalid.

But let me ask you this one, how many Democrats have accepted money from Republicans? And we can eliminate the petty state and local shit, let's just keep it at the national level, otherwise we'll be here all night.

But noooo, you probably don't want to discuss that one do you? Too many implications behind that mess. Better to pick on those poor Greens you supposedly worked for, after all, it isn't like they don't make an easy target what with an entire electoral system stacked against them while the Dems and 'Pugs control the game:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

203. where do I start?

My original comment was regarding Greens taking money from the GOP. You declared 'peshaw, there is no evidence of that' to which I provided evidence of that and gave you bonus links to Nader also taking GOP money (nod to the OP), never connecting the two, but no worries because your magical powers of extrapolation took care of that.

I'm not interested in your harangue against the Democrats in the midst of an election because you have made it pretty clear you follow Nader's assertion that there is no difference between the parties. On that point, we vehemently disagree. I also reject your attempts at taunting me into an argument I'm not interested in having because I find Nader entirely full of shit most of the time these days. Too bad really, because I remember a time when he had some good ideas.

Good luck on that setting yourself up to be outraged thing you got going on, but I suspect the problem really lies in the fact that you probably don't belong in the Democratic Party considering it is beyond redemption in your eyes. I see them as the only viable vehicle to change and that is not only my prerogative but a valid opinion whether you like it or not.

[MadHound]

208. In other words,

You really don't have much of substance to add, so you will try to analyze my motivations and subtly mock them, all the while presenting yourself as somehow holier than thou.

That's OK, hey you're at least partially correct, I am outraged at what the Dems have done, and failed to do. And yes, I do consider the party almost beyond redemption. Note, I say almost. It is people like Kucinich and Feingold who actually give me a very small ray of hope concerning the party.

But tell me, how can the party be a "viable vehicle of change" when it instead marches in lockstep with the 'Pugs on such basic issues as the war, corporate conduct, and people's disappearing civil rights? When the only apparent difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration is simply one of sheer speed. Yes, Bush is pushing us towards that proverbial cliff edge at a high rate of speed, but it isn't like Clinton wasn't going in the same direction, only at a slower rate(remember NAFTA, welfare "reform", '96 Telecom Act, etc). Yes, we do live under the two party/same corporate master system of government, and the sooner that you and other people wake up to that fact, the better off we'll be.

But instead, you continue to cling to the idea that the Dems will rescue us all, somehow, some way. That's OK, I understand, having been there myself. But after thirty five years of working, toiling and supporting the Dems, the spectre that has confronted me is horrible to behold. Unless Kucinich is elected, this war will continue. Mark my words, despite what they're saying now, the top three candidates will not bring the troops home if elected. Nor will they roll back the outrages of the Bush years. Why? Because their corporate masters, the same ones as the 'Pugs have, won't allow them to(if you don't believe me, go back into various campaign books from the past few cycles, and note all of the double giving by corporate entities).

But hey, you were once a Green right, you should know all of this stuff, after all it is the rationale behind the Greens wish to have publicly funded elections. Probably the only way we can get government back into the hands of the people. You should also know that the Greens have many platforms that strive to help the people, once a priority of the Democrats, but looking at their record over the past decade or more, it is a priority no more. Sad, really, don't you agree?

But anyway, back to the point, yes, you gave me Nader examples, but again, they were from his '04 campaign, when he wasn't affiliated with the Greens. And yes, there have been a couple of individual examples of Greens taking money from 'Pugs. Interesting though, how many examples of Democrats taking money from 'Pugs, yet you don't seem to condemn that. Why not?

So keep your sight deliberately blinded, don't look up and look around you. God forbid that you see that which you most fear, the truth. The Dems count on you keeping your head buried in the sand, and you're doing a good job of obliging them. And while this is your option and your right, don't fault those of us who are looking at the bigger picture and coming to a different conclusion. I haven't fully abandoned the party yet, but yes, I'm very close. Condoning the ongoing slaughter of innocents doesn't sit well with me, no matter which party is doing so. And so far, I've seen little of substance coming from the Dems on this issue, especially since they went ahead and caved, thus providing more funds, and more lives for the meatgrinder. But hey, it's OK when the Dems support the war right, they're really trying to bring the troops home, or something:eyes: And people like yourself thing Nader's positions are looney. Geez.

[AtomicKitten]

225. your pattern of

psychoanalyzing based on misinformation is screaming ... I have told you specifically and posted here before many times I wrote a political column as a staunch Democrat for the Greens so, you see, my core principles have remained intact for years. But I'm flattered you consider my confidence holier than thou; usually that sort of name-calling indicates feeling threatened in some way.

You haven't digested anything I've said. Your post is littered with a number of misconceptions and flat-out BS with sloppy reframing and regurgitating with bellicosity and silly posturing what you think you've read. I have had this same lame conversation with many, many folks before, people who summarily and carelessly muddle fact, reality, and history to fuel their unfocused rage. I don't have the inclination nor time to waste with people that cling to olde tyme anarchist rhetoric, don't listen, are more interested in lobbing snark than figuring this mess out, and, well ...

:boring:

I'm working through groups for impeachment, ending the war, and correcting election fraud. And the irony of that - the money point - is you are so blind you can't even see how much people here at DU have in common. I seek to find that thread of common cause and purpose, not out-snarking you here at DU.

Have a fabulous weekend.

Edited to include something you may or may not find of interest: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1121804

[LoZoccolo]

135. Here.

http://www.attytood.com/archives/003603.html

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Didn't Someone Give Hime The Message?

We just need to suck 5% less than the Republicans, and keep our powder dry.

:sarcasm:

[rpannier]

22. He's not going to stay out because we have the same message

Nader became about Nader over 10 years ago.
He's not going anywhere and he'll take the Democratic Party down with him.

[Ken Burch]

24. So because you're pissed off about the past you want us to stay centrist and lose again?

Christ, what monumental, self-destructive arrogance.

I'm NOT a Nader apologist. Get it?

My point is, the agenda his campaign was about should be OUR agenda, and that that's the way to win. Why not accept that?

Why stay with the bland, centrist status quo when you know it will never work again?

Only a progressive Democratic Party can win, and ONLY a progressive Democratic party is even worth trying to elect.

You know it wouldn't be worth it just to try to bring Clintonism back.

[rpannier]

25. When did I state I wanted to stay centrist???

Christ!
Just because I recognize that Nader won't go away doesn't mean I'm supporting a centrist position!
I got your point, I disagree with your analysis that Nader will go away!

[Ken Burch]

27. What you aren't seeing is that we can neutralize Ralph and WIN by embracing that platform,

We can make the guy far less important and make our work easier.

You don't have to worship His Royal Ralphness to see that.

And I DON'T worship the guy.

I'm getting sick of some people in this thread refusing to accept that.

(I'm glad you don't want to stay centrist. Sorry for snapping at you.)

[rpannier]

30. Thank you for the clarification. My apologies as well

I agree with you on neutralizing him with your suggestions.

At least half of the blame, if not more, of the misunderstanding falls on me.

I've been in a really crappy mood today and my brain is working really slow.

Thanks again for the clarification and your apology.

Again, my apologies as well.

[Ken Burch]

32. no worries.

Hope tomorrow is a better day for you.

[CreekDog]

155. you shouldn't have apologized actually

Changing the platform for better politics, or better values or a prudent combination is good advice.

Changing the platform to gain apparently 1% at best of votes for that reason is stupid, it's just stupid.

If you want to argue that Dems should take on Green issues for the moral benefit, fine, go ahead and make that argument on the basis of intrinsic value.

If you want to argue that as a strategic move, changing our platform drastically to "get" 1% of the votes, which doesn't count which votes we would lose, is simply silly.

[Ken Burch]

185. It would be a lot more than 1%

It would also include millions of people who DON'T vote because the establishment wing of our party is afraid to say anything that actually matters.

We can win by speaking truth to power. We can win by having courage and the strength to defend our principles under attack. Moving away from liberalism has just weakened us and made the victories we did get meaningless(We all know that winning in 1992 and 1996 ended up having no value whatsoever).

[CreekDog]

193. Possibly a lot of people that don't vote

But...we all have met people and know people that don't vote.

People that don't vote tend to be apathetic, that's why they don't vote. Sure they SAY they don't vote because nothing is motivating them, but I think it is a cop out covering up for laziness at being educated, not wanting to make a hard, cold decision that may not be everything they want in a candidate and so forth.

You know, somehow, almost no matter what the candidate, some 90% of the African American vote goes to the Democrat. Frankly, anybody who can't be bothered when the most beleaguered community in the USA can and comes out and votes Dem --those who don't vote are not my priority. Those who vote are my priority.

I am sick to death of trying to please people who don't vote. Usually 3 questions reveals they are unnappeasable and/or simply ignorant and further, that voting simply isn't important to them or they would have found something, something to vote for in all these years.

Regarding the progressive option inspiring them to vote, thats Bullsh--. I live barely outside of San Francisco. The choices on our ballot usually include progressive and extreme progressive, certainly during primary season. Those stupids who don't vote, don't vote in our elections either, despite amazing choices they would have nowhere else.

You know in the SF mayoral race, there was a Green (Gonzales) against a Democrat (Newsom). The end was a photofinish. Greens and progressives didn't turn out in spectacular numbers, despite having what apparently you think would bring out progressive voters.

Time for tough love against those who don't vote.

My word to those who don't vote: Show up and vote, if you can't decide, vote on what you can decide. If you don't go to the polls, shut up unless you start going to the polls.

Do your job, you're American citizens, your job is to vote and if you don't like the choices, actually get involved in the primary process. Don't stand around wait until the general election and decide you don't want to play because everything wasn't set up for what you want.

Bahhhh!

[Ken Burch]

201. And the reason you think that arrogant mulishness would work is...?

n/t.

[roseBudd]

192. we shouldn't have to do anything to appease someone who thinks he's the best thing

since sliced bread

[Ken Burch]

218. It's not about APPEASING Ralph as much as it is stealing his thunder and doing what's right.

Can you and everybody else who keeps implying that I'm a Green or a Ralph groupie please at least TRY to get that through your heads?

I HAD to mention Ralph's name to make the point. The point being that just bitching about the guy and insulting his supporters doesn't do us any good. Why is that so hard to accept?

It was stupid to piss away millions of dollars challenging the guy's ballot lines. That just pissed off his supporters, made us look like bullies and made it a point of honor for Ralph NOT to get out of the race. Learn from that and DON'T DO WHAT DOESN'T WORK again. Got that?

[mzmolly]

29. Nice agenda, but it's not Naders.

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

33. Well, no, not exclusively, but it hasn't been the agenda of any Dem ticket in years

I invoked Ralph in response to all the gratuitous Nader(and Nader-supporter)bashing, bashing that, at this stage, serves no constructive purpose. Some people think that all we have to do is say "you HAVE to vote for us with no concessions ever because of 2000". That approach can never work, and I don't understand why our centrist hardliners like LoZoccolo refuse to see that.

The Green Party grew in the Nineties because OUR party had no soul and no principles, at least at the top levels. We must NEVER let that happen again.

[mzmolly]

41. Oops please see post 40 for your reply.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

40. I feel that to the degree these things are reasonable, Democrats

DO embrace this agenda. Especially with the ability to raise funds via the internet. WE are raising more money than the R's - and we're doing so with small donors.

I will say we have to reconnect with "workers/unions" in a real way, but I feel we need a Democratic President to really do some lasting good in that regard. That said, we did just increase minimum wage.

Nader on the other hand had a stock portfolio that rivaled Cheney's - including investments in Haliburton. He took money from big Republican donors citing "democracy" as a rationale. Nader is a phoney, anyone can talk a good game, but what he is just that - talk.

[Ken Burch]

45. And once again, I'm NOT a Nader apologist.

I'm talking about what the campaign was about, not the guy himself. Can you not understand the difference?

[mzmolly]

159. I just don't think his campaign was really about these things.

But, I do think you've made great points KB. No offense from my end, I just wanted to clarify that these are not Nader's actual "values."

[pnwmom]

42. Put that way,

it sounds like extortion.

[Ken Burch]

47. It's EXTORTION to expect our party to actually stand for something? Bullshit!

The actual extortion was the DLC's demand that the party abandon all major differences with the GOP. That got us nothing that mattered. The party and the country were worse off AFTER Clinton than they would have been if the GOP had held the White House throughout the Nineties. If they had, the Dems would have held Congress and the poor would not have been persecuted through "welfare reform". And if they had, NAFTA would never have passed.

This was a disgrace. It proved that power without principle wasn't worth having.

[Solon]

49. Wait, what the fuck? And all that "Vote my party or else" shit ISN'T extortion?

Gods forbid the Democrats ever get their shit together and vote on principle, can't have that, may threaten the corporate donors! Bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

54. the only group who threatens such is the left

[ShortnFiery]

57. Whaaat?

I remember all kinds of intimidation during both the 2000 and 2004 election. Yes, I was tempted NOT to vote for the Democratic Nominee, but due in NO part with the "pressure" I independently decided that it's better to get "A Democrat" in the Presidency EVEN IF they are not as liberal as I wished them to be.

However, many of us "left of center" have compromised FOR THE PARTY and what do we have to show for it? The Bankruptcy Bill? More spending for an illegal war?

It's time to not consider LIBERAL a dirty word within The Democratic Party. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

60. Whaaat???

Not a day goes by in the netroots without calls for running third party or sitting out this or that election. The OP in this thread even states that if we don't want Nader, we better play by "progressive" rules.

[ShortnFiery]

66. You know, many did vote "write in" or stayed home before, and many more will in 2008

if the DLC anointed candidate continues to warmonger. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

68. As Harry Truman said in 1948..

"I'm glad to have won without the leftwing of the party."

[ShortnFiery]

71. It always makes my day complete whenever you imply that I'm "leftwing"

Have a great Blue Dawg day! :hi:

[wyldwolf]

73. I've made no implication. I've stated it outright.

[ShortnFiery]

76. As only you can do so well.

;)

[wyldwolf]

78. I'm quite certain others could do it as well. But why do you always say "good day" or "bye..."

...but then come back and respond again? Can you not make up your mind?

[ShortnFiery]

79. Oh, I just love to banter with one so approachable. n/t

[wyldwolf]

80. ... and you have an even greater lust for diverting the topic

[Ken Burch]

119. I can tell by the long list of "ignored's" in this thread that you've met the big bad wyldwolf

I can tell you, it just gets worse.

The man still wants us to party like its 1995.

[wyldwolf]

120. asking for facts and sources always did get under your skin, Ken.

As I recall, you put me on ignore when I discovered the polls your were quoting didn't really exist.

[ShortnFiery]

150. Yes, he's a real "Prince"

;) ... er, not. :hi:

[Le Taz Hot]

215. So that's who that is.

Carry on.

:evilgrin:

[Solon]

143. Bzzt, wrong, there was yet another thread trying to extort the left's vote...

from yesterday, its here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3317839&mesg_id=3317839

[wyldwolf]

167. bzzt! wrong. THIS thread was first

[Solon]

168. So, what's your point?

This particular thread that we are in is a call to action, to help the Democratic party, not divide it. The fact that so many people have such a negative view of changing the party to make the Greens irrelevant tells me that you are more interested in bitching than helping your own party.

[wyldwolf]

170. uh, no. This thread is warning Dems to conform to Nader's agenda or else

[Solon]

173. Or else what? The left is "irrelevent" according to you...

So they wield no power to begin with, and hence can be ignored, and can vote Green all they want because it doesn't make a difference anyways, right?

[wyldwolf]

174. that's up to the OP's interpretation

[Solon]

175. Weak deflection, answer the question.

[wyldwolf]

177. I did answer the question. The OP is a threat. A weak one, but one just the same

[Solon]

180. That's not the question I asked, I asked if YOU think the left is irrelevent.

You have yet to answer that question, so forget about it.

[wyldwolf]

184. the question you asked is up to the OP's interpretation. A threat to take away votes is still ...

... extortion

[Solon]

186. How do you "take away" votes that you haven't earned yet?

I thought the way Democracy worked was that a candidate tells folks about their platform, or the platform of the party they are a member of, then they try to EARN votes based on that platform.

[wyldwolf]

188. exit polling showed that a major percentage of Nader votes would have gone to Gore..

...if Nader had not run. Nader took the votes, mostly out of the bullshit the left was spouting on how there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

[Solon]

190. First you are conflating the left with the Green party...

which is inaccurate to say the least. Second, votes can only be taken away AFTER the vote occurred, of course those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if there was no choice! However, it was just as likely that they would have stayed home instead, and not vote at all.

The fact of the matter is that the Democratic party failed to turn those voters to Gore DESPITE Nader being in the race. You can deflect responsibility all you want, but that is the simple truth.

[wyldwolf]

204. no, I am not. Greens are part of the left and there were plenty of Dems who voted Nader

[Solon]

212. And plenty on the left also voted for Gore, your point? n/t

[wyldwolf]

235. Gore didn't throw the election to Bush

[some guy]

48. nice post

I voted Nader in both 1996 and 2000.

I have not forgotten that NAFTA passed a Democratically controlled house, a Democratically controlled Senate, and was signed into law by a Democratic party President.

I very reluctantly voted for Kerry in 2004, after voting Kucinich in the primary.

I'd like a real candidate for 2008 please.

[Vidar]

51. Great post, Ken.

[wyldwolf]

52. LOL. No.

Most points good. Others simply ludicrous. Ken is lashing out because a centrist is leading in the Democratic presidential race and the Blue Dogs just elected four new members. How else can you explain the head scratcher statement that centrism is dead?

[ShortnFiery]

58. I sure hope that those in the DLC don't choose to play this election out like the last two.

I don't want you to lose the hard way by ignoring those in your party who are to the left of center ... that way WE ALL LOSE. :(

What's the definition of *insanity* again?

[wyldwolf]

59. what exactly did the DLC do in the last elections? Gimme details with sources...

[ShortnFiery]

61. Here you go! In essence, the DLC pisses on the Liberal Democrats and then intimidates

them into voting for "The DLC Democrat" for President lest they be a traitor to the party.

I say, according to the DLC, LIBERALS do NOT belong in the Democratic Party.

That Sir, is part of the reason that the Republicans were able to steal the past two Presidential Elections, i.e., the DLC despises liberal values that our party has once held dear.

Bugga! Bugga! Bugga BOO! The DLC warns us *little people* within the net roots of the DANGERS OF LIBERAL FUNDAMENTALISM - see below for the full BUNK ;)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253901

snip

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | June 2, 2006
The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism

But if they want to be a serious and permanent element in progressive politics, they should resist the temptation to indulge themselves in mean-spirited vengeance against Democrats like Joe Lieberman who proudly defend the Clinton legacy and warn against counter-polarization as the sole answer to Karl Rove's polarization strategy. And they should understand the signal that the effort to purge Lieberman sends to voters with serious doubts about the party, especially on the national security and cultural issues he is so identified with.

Sen. Barack Obama perfectly captured the dangers of liberal fundamentalism last fall, in a diary he posted on the DailyKos blog site, a hotbed of anti-Lieberman sentiment:

To the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straight jacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted. Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority.

--------------------------

We couldn't agree more. A party with no room for Joe Lieberman -- or for that matter, such occasionally lonely dissenters on the left as Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders -- is a party with no prospects for a majority. It's the worst possible time for Democrats to make that choice.

--------------------------

Yes, aren't we all THRILLED within The Democratic Party, that our esteemed Senator Lieberman was re-elected so he can now shamelessly promote an invasion of IRAN? :wow:

BTW I don't think Obama entitled his diary entry as such: "The Dangers of Liberal Fundamentalism" :thumbsdown: Talk about spin!?!

[wyldwolf]

62. you used an op-ed from a year ago??? LOL! LOL! LOL!

A man stating his opinion in June of 2006 cause damage, retroactively, in 2000 and 2004! :rofl: OH! By the way, THIS THREAD is a prime example of what the op-ed was talking about!

OK, now seriously. Give me some sources that show what you claim about the DLC.

[ShortnFiery]

63. An Analysis/Commentary by the DLC. Since when is LIBERAL a dirty word to the Democratic Party?

That is a quite strong opinion piece as it clearly demonstrates how AFRAID those within the DLC and Blue Dog Democrats are of us *evil* Liberals. It's shameful how you disrespect our values.

Stop making excuses. The DLC screwed up in the past two elections and it also FAILED to support the people by *demanding* we re-elect a warmonger whose view is contrary to all that us Liberal Democrats hold dear.

To not recognize our views - to dismiss them as "Liberal Fundamentalism" is just plain wrong.

You know that, don't you? And it's continuing today ... unabated. :(

[ShortnFiery]

65. OK, here's one from 2004 condescendingly entitled "Lessons for Liberals"

Lessons for Liberals
By Peter Ross Range

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=170&contentid=253070

Friends, it's time we talked. You've wondered for a while now why I abandoned the barricades of staunch liberalism and became a centrist. After all those years close to the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement -- a lifetime spent trying to save America from what we considered its worst instincts -- I had quit the field in favor of something practical called Clintonism. "You're not a pragmatist, are you?" one of you asked, aghast, over good wine at a Washington dinner party.

You were especially shocked last year when, contrary to everything you'd come to expect of me, I supported the Iraq war. I was part of a group known in the commentariat as liberal hawks -- except that I was no longer a full-fledged liberal. Domestically, I had become a moderate more interested in winning elections than arguments. I'd come to appreciate the efficiency of free markets, and became an adherent of Clinton's blindingly obvious dictum, "The best social program is a booming economy."

Internationally, the first Gulf War had turned me from a near-pacifist into one who believed that force had to be used to do urgent good. In a second Iraq war, I said, of course people would get hurt; but far more will get hurt if we do nothing. Tony Blair's words were my thoughts. I may yet come to regret my support of the war; we'll have to talk about that again soon, too. But better now to talk about the last election.

/snip

snip

Friends, the election wasn't stolen, and the American people weren't stupid. We just got our proverbial left-leaning butts whipped. So what's the lesson, and why should it matter to liberals? I think those of us who came up in the glory days of post-Roosevelt liberalism have lost sight of the fact that we are minority members of a coalition party that has to include a lot of those people being called zombies today. Because we won big in the 1960s and 1970s -- civil rights, Vietnam, Watergate -- we came to believe there is a permanent liberal majority in America, if only it would wake up! But that's not so. Liberals are a minority (21 percent of this year's voters) like blacks, Hispanics, environmental activists, and -- think of this! -- evangelical Christians. Liberals have to learn to reach out to people who are different from them, but just as important, to our coalition. Yet because liberals are often well read and well spoken, and much given to counting pinhead angels, they have a hard time making common cause with, say, gun owners -- though they may have much in common on many issues, like family values, not just economic concerns.

/snip

In other words, the DLC has no use for Liberal Democrats. :thumbsdown:

[wyldwolf]

67. You're still using op-ed pieces!! And tell me how they show how the DLC chose ...

..."to play these elections out?"

[ShortnFiery]

69. Because these Analyses and Commentary REFLECT the values of The New Democrats,

Blue Dog Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Council.

Time will prove which one of us is correct, but I submit that The American People are growing tired of a War-Mongering and Pro-Corporate Congress as is reflected by their 23% approval rating published yesterday.

I believe you are 100% in error with regard to the will of the American People.


Again, time will show which one of us is correct:

Americans are Pro-Corporation and Free Trade Centrists;

OR

Americans are Pro-Labor and Regulated Capitalism - about two clicks to the Left of Center.

[wyldwolf]

70. but op-eds after the fact certainly don't effect elections retroactively

:shrug:

And you've given no indication as to how that could be so.

LOOKOUT! The boogeyman (DLC) is under your bed... bwahahahahahahaha! :rofl:

[zalinda]

82. You will never convince these people

The OP knew he would get a heated discussion because he HAD to make the dems wrong and Nader right. He had to say the N word.

If this was the 70's, his viewpoint may be valid, but it's not. A lot has happened since then, the repubs have moved the country way over to the right, more right than Eisenhower or Nixon. How many are protesting what the CEO's make? How many are protesting about having to buy cheap Chinese stuff? Hell, how many are protesting about the high cost of gas? Many think it's the gas station owner who are ripping them off, not the oil companies.

In order for the progressive, YOU WANT TO RUN, and have him win, this country would have to make a sudden left turn. And the only way a sudden left turn would be possible is if something like the Great Depression happens. I know you may be disappointed in who is running, but I'm not. I don't have a favorite because anyone other than a repub is okay with me. This country is HUGE it takes a long time to turn it from right to left, look how long it took it to turn from left to right, and they had the media behind them. While we can sit here at DU debating politics, there are so many out there who seldom or never get on the net. They get their news from their local 6 o'clock news. We have so much more information available to us and at our fingertips, many here forget that the vast majority don't have that luxury.

And, I will say it again, attacking dems as a whole, only reinforces the opinion of some that ALL politicians are crooks, so why bother to vote or it doesn't matter who I vote for. THAT'S how Nader was able to take so many votes. You want the dem party to change, then join it and work within it to change it. Raging against all dems as repub lite does a great disservice to this country, because it is not true.

You don't destroy something you want to make better, you apply tender loving care to each area until it is fixed.

zalinda

[GeorgeGist]

93. As I see it ...

your message is to make the Democratic Party better and that conflicts with Nader's message to make the country progressive.

[wyldwolf]

98. why does Nader (or anyone that supports him) think they can use the Dem party as a vehicle...

... to realize their objectives?

[Ken Burch]

121. I was challenging our party's leaders, not "attacking dems as a whole" zalinda

And my thread is about galvanizing the party to action and clarity, not negativity.

There are a LOT of people protesting against corporate arrogance. There are a lot more who would if they thought our party was listening.

And yes, our country may have moved right in some respects since the 70's, but the 90's proved that our own party's move to the right didn't do anything to change this, and, in fact, may have helped make it worse.

And let me say this once again...I DON'T love, worship or these days even LIKE His Ralphness. It's the agenda his campaign was about.

Centrism doesn't work for us. Deferring to the GOP on the issues doesn't work for us. 1994, 1996(when Clinton blew what should have been an easy recovery of our Congressional majorities because it might have cost him two or three meaningless percentage points in his own share of the vote)2000, 2002 and 2004 prove this. 2006 was a PROGRESSIVE ANTIWAR victory and everyone here knows it. Our Congressional leaders have only hurt us by refusing to act like we have a mandate.

I have said everything I've said here out of love and support for this party. We have to change. The DLC way will never work again. Why fight reality?

[ShortnFiery]

55. Bravo! I could not have put it better myself.

:yourock: :patriot:

[mike_c]

81. absolutely spot ON....

eom

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

83. Bill Clinton = Grover Cleveland

It's the new era of the robber barons.

[wyldwolf]

86. ...wait! Let me catch my breath...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

88. Why? How is the comparison so odd? nt

[wyldwolf]

90. the better question is how is that comparison valid.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

91. Both were anti-worker, pro-robber-baron Democrats

Both faced a rising grassroots opposition (populism back then, new progressivism today).

[wyldwolf]

97. Not at all so.

The Clinton administration created over 22 million new jobs and average hourly earnings increased 3.8 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation - the best records ever in this respect. I'm sure the American worker really felt gipped.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

99. How much did the cost of necessities and education increase?

Maybe you can find out and tell me.

[wyldwolf]

100. I just told you wages increased faster than inflation

We also saw the lowest poverty rate in two decades, and an increase in the minimum wage. There is abolutely NO case to be made that times were bad for the average American worker.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

101. Depends which worker. I'll tell you that industrial workers were strangled n/t

[wyldwolf]

102. how can you tell me that? Stats?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

106. You know the stats n/t

[wyldwolf]

107. In other words, you "know it in your heart."

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

108. You do. Do you get paid to propagandize for Clinton and the DLC? n/t

[wyldwolf]

109. LOL! Spin, dodge, divert...

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

110. I'm curious. Do you get paid for this? n/t

[wyldwolf]

111. Are you still in high school?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

113. Nope. I'm a college grad. Now you tell me, do you get paid for your DU activities? n/t

[wyldwolf]

114. why do you act like a tigerbeat progressive? Dodging, spinning. Now tell me about those stats

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

127. Maybe I'm wrong about those stats. So are you paid? n/t

[wyldwolf]

128. Maybe you were wrong? LOL!

Why not use the "search" function on DU and find my answer to the first 100 times someone asked me that question.

Just because one is passionate in what they believe and knowledgable of Democratic party history, doesn't equate to paid status.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

130. Are you paid or not? Yes or no? n/t

[wyldwolf]

131. Every other Friday I get a check from the IT company I work for. So yes. Are you paid?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

133. Are you being paid as a consequence of your activities on DU? n/t

[wyldwolf]

134. No, are you?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

136. No I'm not being paid, but I believe you're playing with the truth

[wyldwolf]

137. Why would you think that? Because I seem to have facts right in front of me, and you don't?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

139. Partly. Normal posters don't have all the facts at their disposition n/t

[wyldwolf]

140. Some posters don't do the level of research I do. Plus, I've had all the same discussion before.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

142. You're not a liberal? n/t

[wyldwolf]

147. I'm a liberal as defined from 1932 - 1968

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

151. Me too. That's far from being a DLCer n/t

[wyldwolf]

153. actually is isn't

There is only one faction of the party closer than the DLC to being FDR/Truman/Kennedy Democrats and that is the Blue Dog Coalition.

Conservative on national defense, proponents of Wilsonian Liberal Internationalism, moderate to conservative on social issues, strong advocates for civil rights.

Don't feel bad. Most people here DON'T know the history of the party in terms of ideology and policy.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

156. What about the most important: economic policy, social security, and social services? n/t

[wyldwolf]

162. I'll address them

Economic policy: The cold war era liberals were liberal on economic policy. The taxed and they spent. Mostly on military and social services. Here is where today's left breaks with them in this regard. Today's left would rather spend less... much less...on military matters and more on social services, than the liberals of old.

The DLC are proponents of social services but don't believe the tenants of the new deal and the great society should be set in stone forever and ever. They recognize the economic realities of a changing economy. That is what their version of welfare reform was about (and it was much more progressive than what the GOP controlled congress gave us.)

Bill Clinton's economic package of '93 was a DLC creation for the most part. Al From, who was a low level economic advisor to Jimmy Carter in the 70s, saw the problems then and formulated a (mostly) winning economic philosophy.


The Blue Dogs' primary mission is to promote fiscally responsible budget reforms and accountability for taxpayer dollars. They are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party made prominent during the presidencies of Johnson and Truman.

The tie that binds all Democrats, though, are social programs of varying degrees.

[sellitman]

154. I think you hit the nail on the head.

He is a paid DLC'er or should be.

[wyldwolf]

164. I think you live in a bizarro world

[DemBones DemBones]

92. Yes, like Cleveland, Clinton was an enabler of the rich

and had troubles keeping his pants on, too.

Clinton is very intelligent, articulate, and persuasive. He could sell a noose to someone about to be hanged by a lynching party. But he is a moderate Republican in his heart. He talks the talk but look how he failed to walk the walk: he signed NAFTA, supported the WTO, bombed Iraq daily for most of his presidency, kept an embargo against Iraq that caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children, and he decided to "end welfare as we know it." I don't know what happened to all the women and children he kicked off the welfare rolls but I doubt that their lives are better today.

Many Americans are chronically unemployed, cannot find work, or are underemployed, working some half-assed job that pays little and has no benefits. Many have no health insurance and no money to pay for health care so they don't get treatment when they're sick. Many are homeless. Bush has made things worse, but Clinton was not the prince we like to think he was.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

94. Notice the silence when Clintonians are presented with facts n/t

[wyldwolf]

105. not a single fact was presented. Plenty of leftwing truthiness, though

[wyldwolf]

104. Clinton was an enabler of the middle and lower classes

Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

More Than 22 Million New Jobs.
Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades.
Household Income Broke $40,000 for First Time in History.
Unemployment the Lowest in Over Three Decades.
Highest Homeownership Rate in History.
Lowest Poverty Rate Since 1979.
Largest Drop in Child Poverty in More than Three Decades.
Tax Cuts for Working Families.

Yep! Just like Grover Cleveland.

[Bonobo]

85. K&R! Bravo!

[enough already]

87. That Nader is such a radical. Why would anyone support that agenda? n/t

[GeorgeGist]

95. How clever to ...

steal Nader's intellectual property, so the Dems can take credit.

[Ken Burch]

191. Ralph didn't invent any of the above. He just helped bring it back.

Ralph blew it after that with his pointless 2004 campaign, where he not only screwed the Dems but also the Greens. He should've let it go at campaigning for David Cobb.

There was no reason for Ralph to make punishing the Dems his highest priority that year. He knew perfectly well he wouldn't get Kerry further left by running again in the fall.

[DemBones DemBones]

96. Vote for Dennis Kucinich!

Kucinich takes no contributions from corporations.

Kucinich voted against the Iraq War Resolution and against the PATRIOT Act, promises to end the war and repeal the PATRIOT Act.

Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment against VP Cheney.

Kucinich meets all the requirements you want for the Party:

Kucinich is anti-corporate power.

Kucinich is pro-electoral reform/fair elections.

Kucinich is pro-worker/pro-union. He still belongs to a union.

Kucinich is pro-peace.

Kucinich is pro-social justice party.

Kucinich is pro-TRUTH

Go, Dennis! Kucinich 2008

[Ken Burch]

189. Already planning to. I'm also trying to get the other candidates to do the right thing

And be just as courageous as Dennis.

Obama isn't a real progressive, not with his "let's not ask anything of Democratic candidates" attitude. You can't trust candidates to be progressive or worthwhile unless you've got it from them in writing.

"It's enough to elect ME" isn't good enough.

[librechik]

103. Ok. join us and help us change--And that goes for Nader too.

He's nothing but a wedge to divide liberals at this poiun, unless he bends and compromises too.

[Ken Burch]

179. I joined years ago. I'm not a Green or a Naderite.

I'm a loyal progressive Dem. I'm just trying to get our leaders to face reality.

Bland centrism doesn't work. Letting the GOP control the agenda doesn't work. Courage and conviction DOES work.

[rinsd]

112. Wamt Nader out of the race? Simply do what we did in 2004.

Challenge his ballot signatures paid for by the GOP.

[depakid]

117. what was that- lose?

How about creating a contrast between the far right Republicans and progressive Democrats. Why not take back the constituency rather than suppress it?

[rinsd]

145. It was fraudulent effort by the GOP to undermine the Democratic Party (nt)

[Ken Burch]

123. That was millions of dollars pissed down the drains for nothing.

That money should've been used for GOTV.

Challenging ballot signatures for Nader didn't gain US a single vote anywhere. It just made us look ugly and arrogant.

[LoZoccolo]

129. Yes!

:thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

234. ...said the champion of pointless bullying arrogance.

...who will then go on to blame "liberals" when this tactic fails to elect our ticket next time, as it inevitably will.

Is there a REASON you're so in love with ugliness and futility?

[Judge_Mental]

160. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to actually try being

Democrats instead of trying to be mealy mouthed republican-lite center-chasing continuous losers?

[acmavm]

115. Screw Nader. He should be campaigning for dems.

[depakid]

116. Why?

What has the Democratic "leadership" done in the past 12 years or so other than legitimize and enable the far right agenda?

The OP simply listed some of the things that many consider (actually, what many of us REMEMBER) to be traditional Democratic values. Perhaps if the party stood up for those again, there would be a significant constituency for a person like Nader to begin with....

[ulysses]

144. here's why they won't.

There are folks at the higher levels of the party who *want* continued "centrism", and more than a few among the rank and file who agree. They want progressive votes - witness the continuing spasms over Nader, seven years on - , money, and silence.

[creeksneakers2]

148. Very few want anti-corporate

While I and others may want the government to protect us from some things corporations do,I thank God for corporations. Corporations give us jobs and products. A corporation is just a group of individuals who get together to perform lawful business. Its not by definition a criminal conspiracy.

You can call yourself a Green but if you hate people doing lawful capitalistic business you are a communist. Communism is not popular. No matter how many Democrats give all the lines you think would convince the public that communism would work, you will never get more than 5% of the vote, and you'd have to be very lucky to get even that.

[ShortnFiery]

157. Then you thank God for the incoming Fascist State we are about to fully realize?

I choose to love, instead, REGULATED Capitalism. You know when there's actually *competition* among say Media Outlets and Radios stations?!?

What we are in the process of realizing now is a MERGING of Government and large Multi-National Corporations (see Halliburton moving main office overseas).

We need REGULATION of these mega-corporations. Ideally we need to decentralize their control by breaking them up for SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSHIP.

If you still think, "Thank God for Corporations" please consider this:

"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal." _Benito Mussolini :wow:

http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html

AND THIS

The U.S. Constitution was written by individuals who believed in the classical liberal philosophy of individual rights and sought to protect those rights from governmental encroachment. But since the fascist/collectivist philosophy has been so influential, policy reforms over the past half century have all but abolished many of these rights by simply ignoring many of the provisions in the Constitution that were designed to protect them. As legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed: "he eminent domain . . . and parallel clauses in the Constitution render . . . suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers' compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation." It is important to note that most of these reforms were initially adopted during the '30s, when the fascist/collectivist philosophy was in its heyday.

Planned industrial "harmony." Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government's interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be "coordinated" by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was "too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic . . . intervention, case by case, as the need arises," Mussolini complained in 1935. Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward "certain fixed objectives" and would "introduce order in the economic field." Corporatist planning, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, would give government intervention in the Italian economy a certain "unity of aim," as defined by the government planners.

These exact sentiments were expressed by Robert Reich (current U.S. Secretary of Labor) and Ira Magaziner (current federal government's health care reform "Czar") in their book Minding America's Business. In order to counteract the "untidy marketplace," an interventionist industrial policy "must strive to integrate the full range of targeted government policies-procurement, research and development, trade, antitrust, tax credits, and subsidies-into a coherent strategy . . . ."

snip

Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and German fascists of the 1930s have also been adopted in the United States in some form, and continue to be adopted to this day. Sixty years ago, those who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany did so because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise, and individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they hope to achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.

--------------

IMO if we don't wash out the Pro-Corporatist (anti-regulated capitalism) out of The Democratic Party, we will be enveloped by the full realization of FASCISM.

Welcome my son, welcome the the CORPORATE MACHINE. The Corporate United States of America. :scared:

[creeksneakers2]

161. I think you are using extreme examples

that don't apply here yet. I think we were on the road to Fascism here but since the 2006 election we've at least slowed that down. I agree that stopping fascism is the most important thing Democrats can do. That makes it essential that we don't divide ourselves and let the GOP take over.

I,like almost all Democrats, want the party to represent the poor,working and middle classes against excessive infuence and dishonesty from the wealthy elites. That doesn't mean that our interests and the interests of corporations don't often overlap.

I've never heard of a Democrat who is against regulating capitalism.

I don't agree that breaking up large corporations is going to help, except where there is such concentration that competition has been partially or completely eliminated. There are economies of scale that large companies can offer.

You give news companies as an example. How could somebody produce global news without a large corporation, like CNN?

[Solon]

166. Can you please answer one question?

Where do the interests of corporations and the people overlap? Can you give me one example?

[Ken Burch]

187. These days, almost nowhere.

It's in the interest of the people to have worthwhile services and durable consumer products at a reasonable price.

It's in the interest of corporations to put out goods that are overpriced and wear out in a few years(planned obsolecence).

It's in the interest of the people to have a liveable environment.

It's in the interest of corporations to produce goods and services with the least investment and greatest short-term returns, even if this poisons the air, land, and water.

It's in the interest of the people to have job security so they can make long-term investments in their lives and have personal security and a sense of peace and wellbeing.

It's in the interest of corporations to throw people out of work whenever the hell they feel like it and give their CEO's massive bonuses for organizing as many mass layoffs as possible(double points for mass layoffs on Christmas Eve).

It's in the interest of the people to have affordable universal healthcare, so they can live healthy lives and take the jobs they actually want to do, rather than do meaningless drudgery just because that's the only way to get bennies.

It's in the interest of corporations for people to have no health care coverage outside of the miserly packages they deign to offer so that we all live at the mercy of the executive beast gods.

Does this clarify the picture for you?

Clinton stopped BEING a Dem when he started hanging out with CEO's. CEO's are always part of the dark side.

[creeksneakers2]

209. One question

If corporations are so terrible,why does the left get so upset when one moves overseas?

If you are expecting corporations to be nannies, you will be disappointed. They'll do what is in their own best interests. We rely on regulation and competition to keep them working in our interests.

You give the example of lifetime jobs. Who is going to pay for lifetime jobs? If the economic logic behind a job disappears, how can corporations keep paying people?

I think you are wrong about universal health care. Most corporations do provide health care to their workers and it costs them plenty. They'd love so see the government pay for health care and have been holding secret meetings with liberal groups for years. Corporations also have an interest in a healthy work force.

If a corporation's only interest is in producing shoddy goods at the cheapest price, then why do so many products improve?

Its not in the interest of corporations to overpay CEOs. I'd like to see more shareholder involvement in these decisions. Legislation is being considered.

[creeksneakers2]

207. We want corporations to produce goods and services

Corporations also produce jobs. They want to do these things to make money. I'm glad they want to produce goods and jobs for money because we need goods and jobs.

Corporations want good schools to train their workforces.

If a corporation needs clean water to produce their products, they'll be in favor of clean water.

Corporations like regulation of the investment market so people will be more willing to invest.

[Solon]

211. We want SOMEBODY to produce goods and services, it doesn't have to be corporations...

could be co-ops, could be non-profits, could be the government itself, depends on the service. For example, some places I definitely do NOT want for-profit corporations is electrical generation, water and sewage, mail, roads and railways, gas and heating, health insurance, etc.

Other businesses need to be heavily regulated, such as food and drug production.

Do corporations want any of these things to either remain or change? Depends on the corporation, most want more privatization of basic services, others want Universal Health Care, others(Insurance lobby), don't. Most are for trade liberalization with no international regulations or standards related to child labor, labor safety, or unionization.

The fact of the matter is that most corporations do a cost-benefit analysis related to their costs and profits. Basically, they have to minimize costs, usually by externalizing them, and maximize profits, which may include layoffs, outsourcing, docked wages, removing regulations, etc.

The point is that, since Corporations aren't publicly accountable in any direct way, they are not interested in the public good. This is a simple fact.

[ShortnFiery]

171. I don't think you fully embrace the realization of increased CONSOLIDATION breeds corporatism ?!?

Please consider perusing the follow article:

Fascism in America By STEW ALBERT

http://www.counterpunch.org/albert08232005.html

When making judgments about fascism's presence we should not just look at the final totalitarian model that developed in Europe during the 1930s. Fascism passed through various stages and wasn't born overnight in its final horrible form. And it's possible that America will never go the full route. It may even develop am Americo-fascism with a human face. But there is a difficulty with this speculation. The fascisms of Europe evolved in opposition to the rise of the proletariat and the challenge of socialism. Hence it included and corrupted certain aspects of socialism in its practice. It always contained an element of welfare state in its structure and defined itself as a middle way between liberal capitalism and socialism. :wow:


and The Dawning of Fascism in America

1. Fascism is the authoritarian rule
2. Fascism and Capitalism become one.
3. Fascism uses rabid nationalism to rally the masses.
4. Racism often becomes part of fascism.
5. Fascism is often lead by a cult like figurehead.
6. Fascism uses the tools of violence and terror.
7. Fascism beliefs of mysticism and irrationals.
8. Fascism is radically opposed to communism. (being pro-REGULATED Capitalism is not Communist!)
9. Fascists are consistent and rigid in their beliefs. (vote for the DLC candidate or you're SCUM!)
10 Fascism calls for national unity. (DLC: what's so wrong about Holy Joe?)

[Solon]

178. I don't think creaksneakers2 understands the concept of a duopoly, or limited markets...

The Media is a classic example of a few companies PROPPING each other up while claiming to "compete". They only compete in certain sectors of the market, usually entertainment, but at the same time collude in the news reporting business. This is true of radio, cable stations, and broadcast stations.

[ShortnFiery]

195. Agreed. We both realize that our government and corporations are getting ..

way too comfy with each other and THE MERGING OF THE TWO is the realization of FASCISM. :thumbsdown:

Thanks for the perspective. :hi:

[Ken Burch]

181. I DON'T call myself a Green. I call myself a progressive Dem.

Oh, and redbaiting is SO 1953. Nobody's a Commie now. There are no Soviets to BE anybody's puppeteers.

What matters is political democracy.

The workers and the people can run the country ourselves. I'm fine with small businesses too, and coops. We do not owe everything to the rich.

[CreekDog]

194. This whole thread is predicated on a straw man/lie

That says that John Kerry wasn't progressive...he was
That says Al Gore wasn't progressive...he was
That the Democratic leadership in congress are purely centrists and unwilling to distinguish themselves from Republicans preferring instead to be "centrist". No way,
Nancy Pelosi hasn't
Harry Reid hasn't
David Obey hasn't
Barbara Boxer hasn't
Jim Webb hasn't
and the list goes on and on...

The fact that Bill Clinton was a bit of a centrist was simply a fact of the 1990s when America was more conservative and Republicans were ascendent. His politics simply meant we held the White House, when the numbers suggested someone more liberal couldn't have. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we held the White House.

Do I think that's the formula for 2008? No, but I think it was the smartest in 1992, and 1996. In 2008, we have a more liberal electorate and we have an obvious party and administration to run against and we should not co-opt their worst positions in our running.

[ShortnFiery]

197. Many of the people you listed are Corporate Enablers first and foremost.

Words cannot describe how disappointed I was with Barbara Boxer campaigning for one each, warmongering Joe Lieberman, out of some displaced friendship and/or Senate Loyalties. I can forgive if she has truly learned from this experience that her constituents MUST come first.

We are not talking liberal vs. conservative. (I personally don't care much for the word "progressive" because, IMO, it seems to be open to amorphous sorts of eclectic interpretations. But to each his/her own.)

What we are discussing is the increasing strangle-hold that The Military Industrial Complex and other Corporations have OVER our elected representatives.

If this does not change, our only alternative is to slowly change the composition of OUR CONGRESS, i.e., vote the corporate first loving bums OUT. http://voidnow.org

[CreekDog]

196. And by the way, Ralph Nader is repellent to true Democrats

I would stay as far away from the Nader name, because the rank and file Democrat now simply hates Ralph Nader, regardless of what he says, because of what Nader did and said in 2000 and 2004.

And Ralph Nader was so willing to lie and obscure the truth to promote his own candidacy (remember the Wellstone thing), that I doubt anything we do in our platform or anything we do to nominate progressives/hard core liberals will impress him.

Remember, he campaigned against Wellstone.

He campaigned against Wellstone.

He lied about Al Gore.

Nader is kryptonite for us. A liar and a jerk that we want to appear less like --not more like.

[ShortnFiery]

198. Read the OPs post again? We're talking about Democratic VALUES, not Nader, the person. n/t

[CreekDog]

200. I read the original post

Nader won't leave the race simply because we "embrace" his agenda. He stayed despite a quite liberal agenda from both Gore and Kerry.

And if even Wellstone was not progressive enough to keep Nader from campaigning against him, then there is no way in hell that anything we do, short of nominating Nader, will keep Nader out of the race and from running against Democrats.

Nader is kryptonite and he's not going away no matter what we do until he gets tired of running and looking like a fool.

And he's not doing progressives any good by claiming to be the only progressive and garnering 1% of the vote in 2004 and 2.75% in 2000. In other words, his meglomania about his role in the election manages to understate the progressive votes that are actually out there, nearly all of which went to Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

Stay away from Nader, that is a road to heartache for progressives. Nader is about Nader at this point, he is has hurt liberal causes in recent years and has not indicated any desire to change course.

[ShortnFiery]

202. If you won't address my point: Embracing *Democratic Values,* NOT Nader the person ...

we will not get anywhere. :shrug:

Please step away from your hatred of Nader, the person, long enough to consider the fact that we need to reaffirm these Democratic Values listed above?

[CreekDog]

205. I said earlier embracing progressive, liberal values is a good thing

And I consider those Democratic values too.

I was taking issue with the original post and many subsequent posts that make it sound like Nader's values are what we want (when I wonder if he has any any more) and makes it sound like our leaders in the Democratic Party have no Democratic values. I find that a straw man so easily knocked down.

It's like saying:

Nader would go away if Democrats act like Democrats (Nader hasn't gone away, despite plenty of Democrats are liberal and proud of it)

[ShortnFiery]

206. Then I suggest that The Democratic Party not be ashamed of their

LIBERAL base. Not progressive (that gives DLC centrist wiggle room) but again, LIBERAL is not a dirty word. MANY of our values listed above used to be proudly proclaimed within OUR Party Platform and should be reinstated for 2008.

[Zynx]

216. Nader will not be a problem again.

People aren't as stupid now as they were in 2000.

[GreenPartyVoter]

222. Wish I could give this a rec

[fujiyama]

223. LOL

Nader should be of no worry considering he got less than 1% last time, however, with a Hillary nomination I could imagine third party candidates doing better...

[LittleClarkie]

231. Do we also need to be the arrogant hypocrite party too

Should we also take money from the RNC and claim it's because they believe in our agenda. Perhaps we should criticize ourselves more than we criticize the RNC

Bah.