"Changing the Party" by not voting for a Democratic nominee

[Sparkly]

Let's say you want to "change the party." They haven't done enough to end US involvement in the Iraq war, they haven't impeached, right down to they haven't "adopted Nader's issues" -- whatever your reasons. And then the Democratic voters nominate someone you consider way too "Republican-lite."

What do you do?

One answer: Vote third party or don't vote at all in the general election. There seem to be three main rationales for how this will change the Democratic party.

Rationale #1:
They have to earn our votes; keeping our votes from them sends a message and will make them run a REAL Democrat next time!

Problem: It doesn't work. What's the "message" if a third party got 3% of the vote, while Republicans get 53% of the vote? "The country is conservative," "The Democratic turnout shows they're not as passionate or organized as Republicans," "Evangelicals are a stronger voting block than liberals," etc... We aren't "making" other Democrats vote for a more liberal candidate in the next primaries, and we aren't "making" individual Democratic politicians run on more liberal policy platforms.

Rationale #2:
The party is Republican lite! There's no difference between the parties. We need to start building a third party!

Problem: Reality. It hasn't worked; and polls show there's no way it's going to start working now.

Rationale #3:
Give the Republican party its full control. They'll run the country down to complete disaster, but all the inadequate Democrats will be out. The Democrats who come back will be the liberal ones, and the country will be ready for them.

Problem: We just saw what happens when the GOP is in full control. They get the bully pulpit, the power to run elections, court appointments that last decades, and legislative set-backs on issues Democrats have fought long and hard for - and the party that "comes back" still has to be quite "moderate" in many states.


Having 5% or less of Democratic (or liberal independent) votes go anywhere BUT for the Democratic candidate in a general election does not "change the party" toward a more aggressive or more progressive stance. ("Aggressive" and "progressive" are different things that get mixed up in people's minds, I think.) It effectively shifts power and policy even further from where we want it to be.

Change comes from building numbers within the constituency; a small number of votes just doesn't have the muscle of a large number of votes. Work to change voters' minds -- that's the only way to change the politicians who represent them.

Not voting Democratic in a general election is completely ineffective at making these changes, and in fact, counterproductive. If it's about emotion, then just be real about that. "Nobody's paying attention to me, I can't get my way, and I'm angry" -- if that's what it's about, at least be honest. But please, don't rationalize it as "changing the party." It doesn't.

[Zandor]

1. K & R

Fight for more progressive candidates in the primaries, but back the Democrats in the general.

[Totally Committed]

10. I will fight for the progressives in the primaries (if there are any),

but I will no longer simply vote a Party line, just for the (D) behind the name. I can't, in all good conscience, do it any longer. I can't vote for a Party that does not represent me and my principles, no matter which Party. I can't vote for a Party that does not fight for what's right, no matter which Party. I can't vote for a Party that says it's for one thing, when it's really for another, no matter which Party. I can't vote for a Party that says it's for peace and votes for war, no matter which Party. I can't vote for a Party that claims to represent the poorest of the poor, the most defenseless among us, and the HUMAN RIGHTS of ALL Americans, and serves the Corporate Master first and above all, no matter which Party.

I will not vote Third Party, because the reality is, Sparkly is right, it doesn't work. A third party will never be viable in this country as long as the Electoral College stands. It is only a "spoiler" until then, and that is not what I'm after.

Instead, for the first time in a very long life, I simply will not vote. It's my personal line in the sand, and I will not cross it. I will not work at the polls. I will not drive voters to the polls. I will not register people to vote. I will not donate. I will not walk door to door or phone-bank. I just won't. The Democrats are on their own until they give me a candidate I can vote FOR, with an open heart and a clear conscience. Only then will they have me back, and not until then.

You all must do what you think it right in your hearts of hearts, so I hope you will respect my right to do the same.

TC

[truedelphi]

56. Have you managed to catch Lewis Black on the idea of the two party system

Republicans - they stand up in Congress and go, Okay everyone here is a really bad bad idea that we have have to make happen.

Democrats - They Sh&* on the bad idea.

So there ya have it. The bad idea in one hand, or the bad idea with Sh&* on it in the other.

Right now that sums it up for me. In my wilder dreams, Kucinich gets organized and the media runs with him and I wake up on Jan 20 2009 a happy woman. (I mean, Paris did say the other day that she wanted to make a difference - who knows maybe she could share the media attention she gets with Dennis.)

Probably ain't gonna happen.

[DemBones DemBones]

93. Now that's an intriguing thought!

Paris Hilton using her fame and money to help Dennis Kucinich get elected. I like it.

But I still want to get my daughter's Chihuahua a tee shirt that says "I hate Tinkerbell. That bitch has everything."



(Note to mods: "bitch" here refers literally to a female dog, namely Paris Hilton's Chihuahua, "Tinkerbell.")

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Primaries.

Move the party left in the primaries.

Not to mention, since there are far fewer voters in the primaries, your vote has proportionally more power to effect change.

Problem solved.*





*Unless one gets weak in the knees pondering that it will be harder to get elected in the general because of the lack of an incumbent. By its very nature that will mean that the other party lacks an incumbent as well.

Problem solved.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Amen

[HooptieWagon]

12. In their infinate wisdom

the DNC has decided Florida's primary will no longer count.

[Tesha]

40. It worked so well in CT, didn't it?

We did think we moved the party leftwards in the Connecticut
primary. But the bigwigs decided they liked their Good Old
Boy more than they liked the will of the voters, so they:

A) Did nothing to support the actual Democratic nominee

B) Did a fair amount of work to support the Good Old Boy.

For me, that was the absolute end of "hold your nose and
vote for the Democrat" loyalty; when it was a lefty calling
for people to hold their noses and vote for the D, they
decided to vote for the Good Old Boy instead. I always
suspected it would work that way, but the CT Senate race
finally provided hard data.

No more nose-holding for me.

Tesha

[Totally Committed]

42. That was the last straw with trying to work within the system for me, actually.

No more nose-holding for me, either.

No matter what WE want, if it's not what the Party "leadership" wants, f*ck us!

TC

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. Then lets get rid of the leadership.

One by one.

Or ten by ten.

[Sparkly]

49. "Vote for the Democrat loyalty" SHOULD have elected Lamont.

The Republicans had a field day with that one. :mad:

[Totally Committed]

55. The Democratic Party "Leadership" sold us out on that one, too, Sparkly...

Every time I think of that particular election, I get sick to my stomach.

Even Barbara Boxer, arguably on e of the most "Liberal" Senators, campaigned for Lieberman. It was disgraceful. Reid promised Joe he would not lose his "seniority" or committee assignments AFTER he decided to defy the will of the Democrats in CT.

Ugh........ :puke:

TC

[Sparkly]

63. Disgraceful is right.

No argument from me there. :puke: I just wish CT voters had pushed back hard enough to elect Lamont.

[skyblue]

76. Here's the deal with Lamont.

Voters may have thought he was trying to buy a seat from the senate because he donated millions of his own money in the campaign.

Democratic leadership probably did not say so in so many words, but they probably felt he could not be a winner in the general because of the bug eyed winey thing or because CT -the state in general- was highly empathetic to Lieberman at the time. Maybe their polls/research indicated he was not persuasive enough to represent the Democrats to All voters. And maybe even be a threat to Electable Democrats. Or maybe they looked at his campaign strategy (as well as Lamont's style, smarts, delivery, coherence, spontaniety etc.) and thought he'd loose and they'd loose less if they still considered Lieberman as one of their own. If you choose to take down Lieberman you'd better get a different candidate.

But why didn't Democrats all vote for DeStefano? To me that sucked. Guess maybe they vote for the person than by party affiliation???

[Tesha]

81. Or maybe they just didn't like the idea of a lefty winning, ehh? (NT)

[skyblue]

85. He didn't win because of his presence not because of his politics.

Sorry, but I'm sure there are people who just didn't like the concept of someone buying a senate seat and believe me there were some who definately did.

Bug eyes made him look more out of control. Other things looked stupid. The Jimmy Stewart ad for one. Started from Scratch.
It's not like the campaign was a brilliant one. It's not like you can ignore polls and research.

People were used to Lieberman so he had the advantage of not being thought of as an opportunist. People who have liberal opinions do get elected in the state of CT.

Maybe the people of CT are more backwards than you think. DeStefano, another Dem, lost in a complete landslide.

The cut and dry they just didn't want a liberal to win doesn't work for me at all. You have to look at the whole picture. Lieberman is a powerful presence so you have to do something else.

[Tesha]

88. You're thinking of a different "they" than I am.

You're thinking of a different "they" than I am.

The "they" that I'm speaking of are all the big-name
Democrats who didn't come out and campaign for the
Democratic candidate. And not long before that, many
of them were even willing to campaign for Lieberman,
the not-Democratic candidate, although they mostly
got shamed out of going quite that far.

The party big names (who *LOVE* to tell us that we
have to vote for the Democratic candidate, even if
he's a Republican-Lite asshole) couldn't seem to
make the effort to get Ned Lamont elected, could they?

And I'll remember this going forward.

Tesha

[malikstein]

3. "the only way to change the politicians who represent them."

It should be clear by now that both the Democrats and the Republicans represent the Establishment, not the American people. You can vote until you are blue in the face and they will still do what the Establishment wants. That's why we are still occupying Iraq and don't have adequate health care.

[Sparkly]

7. Does not voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election help this?

Polls indicate the public strongly disapproves of BushCo's handling of the war, but doesn't want immediate withdrawal; rather, they want reduced troop levels, benchmarks, timelines, etc. -- exactly what the Democrats in Congress have been TRYing to push forward, blocked by Republicans in Congress and by Bush. A Democrat in the White House would certainly help.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[welshTerrier2]

4. nope ...

i will not vote for candidates that don't represent my views. you want honesty? yes, i'm angry. i'm very angry.

will this "change the party?" no, probably not. i think it's a false argument to suggest that's the motivation for not voting for corporate candidates. is there a faint hope that might, in the long run, encourage the party to at least start looking to "harvest" alienated voters on the left? sure, it's a faint hope but it is not the primary motivation.

and, as long as we're talking about honesty, what have years of phone calls and personal meetings done to end the war in Iraq? year after year after year and they are still handing bush funding bills with no conditions. what has it done to get real global warming legislation? what has it done to get real health care? playing inside the system hasn't been any too effective either.

perhaps the reality is that we are a "fringe" minority. so, what's the message? work hard and convince everyone to agree with us and if we fail, just go along with the bullshit? no thanks. i'm done with that.

and your post also fails to acknowledge that "just not voting for the eventual nominee" is NOT the only action many of us are taking. choosing to do that, should that be the case in 2008, does NOT mean we won't still try to influence what our representatives do. it's not an either or situation. we can continue to work where we think progress might be possible and still not vote for a bullshit corporate candidate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. It sucks that people buy into the meme that

populist candidates are not electable.

[Sparkly]

9. Don't let strong emotions get in the way of reason (and reading)

I know you're angry. Who isn't?

will this "change the party?" no, probably not. i think it's a false argument to suggest that's the motivation for not voting for corporate candidates.
So do I!! And that's my argument in a nutshell.

work hard and convince everyone to agree with us and if we fail, just go along with the bullshit?
That's a separate, much larger question. My point is simply: Don't pretend that empowering Republicans changes the Democratic party along the lines we may want.

and your post also fails to acknowledge that "just not voting for the eventual nominee" is NOT the only action many of us are taking.
My post is about ONE thing: The notion that not voting for the nominee "changes the party."

I know it's hard to separate out different lines of thought sometimes. This is one line of thought on a complex tangle of arguments and emotion. Just mentioning it, obviously, triggers a whole lot of other "kitchen-sinking."

The topic is "changing the party" by not voting for the nominee. That's all. Can we stick to that topic for this particular debate?

[welshTerrier2]

11. Can we stick to that topic?

i don't think we should view the argument in the narrow terms your OP presented. I think it makes a false case that the primary motivation of those who are so angry with the party just intend to hold their breath and stomp their feet until they get their way.

many of us are dedicated political activists who have worked our asses off for the changes we seek. I don't see that kind of respect reflected in your post.

i've already acknowledged that I agree that voting 3rd party probably will NOT change the Democratic Party. But your post didn't acknowledge that working within the system and holding our noses and voting for corporate Democrats hasn't "changed the Democratic Party" either. In that sense, I see the argument in the OP as needing to be broadened. It's easy to say leaving won't help; that doesn't make the case that staying will help either.

The problem I have with threads like these is that all they do, without much real analysis by the responders, is encourage carnage. all the true bluers recommend the thread and say how foolish the "lefty freepers" are. "don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out." wonderful ... that hardly addresses the real issues like Iraq, global warming, health care, fair elections, centralized media control. people showing their disdain for those who leave NEVER seem to demand that candidates start really addressing these issues. i mean NEVER. all i hear is "purist" and "perfect is the enemy of the good" ... it's such crap. no one called for "perfection". the message is that we aren't being heard and we aren't being respected and we aren't being represented. the message is that the entire political process has become a sham. it's pretense. it's fake. it will not address the changes we need.

is there frustration? you're damned straight there is. plenty of it. most of us have NO ANSWERS. we do NOT believe that "going along" and "working within the system" has provided much progress or any hope.

so, if you want me to reiterate my straightforward and unequivocal agreement with the narrow point about leaving not changing the party, you got it. i think the impact, and perhaps the intent of the OP, was to do more than that. in the end, i think it distorted what most of us are saying and why we're saying it. i think the reasons for leaving your post described are more what you and others have been hearing and less what many of us are actually saying.

btw, feel free to pop in on the thread I started about "leadership". it elaborates on the reasons I MAY not vote for anyone in 2008 or MIGHT even vote 3rd Party. The issues are just not being addressed.

[Sparkly]

19. You're reading a whole lot into this that I didn't even address.

I never said anything about "the primary motivation of those who are so angry with the party."

This is about VOTING, and specifically, the argument that not voting for the Democratic nominee will help change the party. The various actions we take beyond decisions about our votes are separate matters.

"I don't see that kind of respect reflected in your post."
This is really weird to me, wt. I'm writing about objective, realistic effectiveness of one particular stance. I am not disrespecting "dedicated political activists" at ALL.

"voting for corporate Democrats hasn't "changed the Democratic Party" either."
My point: the general election is basically up-or-down; it's not a vehicle for "changing the party" in any direction. It is a choice between Democrats and Republicans, and that's all it is.

"we aren't being heard and we aren't being respected and we aren't being represented."
I understand.

"is their frustration? you're damned straight there is. plenty of it."
Obviously. I'm certainly not disputing that.

"perhaps the intent of the OP"
With all due respect, I think you're jumping to conclusions, accusing me of ulterior motives, and distorting the very simple point I'm making for reasons I can't fathom.

I think the pronouns "we" and "some of us" and "many of us" etc. draw a false line between the "frustrated and angry" and the "presumed not frustrated and angry." You've decided, it seems, that making one simple argument as I did equates to political non-activism, complacency, and support for corporatism and war and opposite you on "global warming, health care, fair elections, centralized media control" and whatever else you brought up. YOU used loaded words like "crap," "disdain," "purist," "sham," "foolish," "pretense," "fake," and ironically, "encourage carnage;" then impugned my motives in making one straightforward point.

If it's about your emotion, please acknowledge that it's about your emotion with direct honesty and don't run it out further than it actually goes.

[welshTerrier2]

23. heightened sensitivities

if i have misconstrued your intent, and I do have deep respect for you, then I apologize.

[Le Taz Hot]

96. Oh, my, yes!

:applause: :woohoo:
Excellent!

[Totally Committed]

13. As JFK said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."

No, it probably won't "change the Party" this time, and probably not for a while. But, if people keep voting for the shitty candidates that are allowed to buy the nomination of this Party, and triangulate it to the Right, and disregard those of us who would not have it that way, we must do something now. We must attempt to be heard, or things will never change.

Did the man facing the tanks in Tienamen Square change China? Probably not. But, it sent a message that not everybody thought what was happening in that country was right. It was not a meaningless gesture.

The truth is, I could not sleep at night if I didn't make a statement now. I could not rest if I didn't at least send a signal that what this Party is doing and who they keep nominating IS NOT RIGHT TO ME. I hold no illusions that I will be noticed or even missed. But, I know I will have started a ball rolling. Maybe. And it that possibility that is my concern now.

Sparkly -- :hug:

TC

[Sparkly]

20. You're talking about the nominations.

That's a different subject.

:hug: <- back atcha, TC!

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. You do realize that not voting for the lesser of two evils

empowers the greater of the two evils, don't you?

What good does it do to vote for the few progressives down ticket if the top of the ticket goes to the other party which will squash anything those progressives come up with?

[Totally Committed]

25. I've thought about that, and it certainly is a Catch 22, but, in the end

I decided that I had to do what I felt would send the message I wanted to send.

I am not recommending my course of action for everyone, but for those whose who feel as I do, it could be the right thing to do. I have reached the end of MY line. I am taking a considered course of action. And that, as they say, is that.

TC

[DeepModem Mom]

8. K&R, #5.

[wryter2000]

14. K&R

I hope some people listen to this.

[HooptieWagon]

15. Didn't they get the message Nov 06?

If politicians aren't going to do what we've elected them to do, then there is no reason to keep voting for them. Hillary supports the war, she's not going to end it. And does anyone think Hillary will give back the Imperial Presidency? Not a chance. If the country is on the wrong track, why vote for a candidate who enthusiasticly endorsed that wrong track and has no intention of changing it just because they have a (D) after their name? If we act like sheep, we will continue to get fleeced.


Note: The fundies are having this same discussion.

[Totally Committed]

27. "If we act like sheep, we will continue to get fleeced."

This is where I am in my thought process, as well. That's a good way of putting it.

TC

[riqster]

39. Fleeced vs. Slaughtered.

Dem vs. Reep.

[Totally Committed]

43. And, you're happy with that analogy?

I'm speechless.

TC

[riqster]

44. Happy, no. But it is accurate.

Look at the worldwide reign of terror unleashed by the Reeps since 2000. Slaughtered is what many thousands have been. Slaughtered in Palestine by Bush's buddies. Slaughtered in the Middle East by Bush. Slaughtered in Africa and South America by Bush's contemporaries. People in America have no clue about the total impact of the Occupation. Here it is legal, there it is life or death.

And thus our votes are a life or death matter. If you help the Reeps win (by not voting for one in the General Election), yeah, you might teach the Dems a lesson eventually. But many more will die while we wait for the DLC to get a clue. I am not willing to see others die so that my political philosophy comes out on top.

Yes, slaughtered. The Bushistas are guilty of mass murder, and we MUST stop them from killing more innocents. More Reeps = more enabling, more global warming, more death. If all my vote does is save lives, it is good enough. Stop the slaughter. My vote will be ANTI-REEP, not PRO-DEM. But it can help save a life.

[bvar22]

60. How?

The top two Democratic candidates have pledged to CONTINUE the WAR and protect the PSAs.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.
However, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Clinton said the American troops would not play a role in trying to curb sectarian violence.
Rather, they would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government "if the Iraqis ever get their act together."
Obama outlined a plan for maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq similar to Clinton's.
"Withdrawal would be gradual, and we'd keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wide war, to go after al Qaeda and other terrorists," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

Between the Democrats (Clinton 90s) and the Republicans (both bushes) the USA has killed over 2 million Iraqis. Neither of the Pro-Status Quo Democratic frontrunners will change things.

[riqster]

64. All-or-nothing thinking gets us nothing.

By your logic, fewer American soldiers on the ground in Iraq would amount to "no change". That's ivory-tower, philosophical twaddle. Reeps will put MORE Americans on the ground in Iraq (and have said so). They will attempt more imperialistic adventures, too. Less is not enough for me, but it is a helluva a lot better than the Reep plan.

This debate shows a basic split that exists in all political groups, and our is no exception: ideological purity vs. practicality. Throughout history, Ideologues have NEVER run a successful government over the long run. Marxists failed. Monarchists failed. Theocrats failed. The Wingnuts have failed. And if we try to run the world from our 'principles', we'll fail too.

We have got to prioritize humanity over philosophy. We can debate other matters when our country isn't murdering thousands of people each week.

[some guy]

65. fine.

" Reeps will put MORE Americans on the ground in Iraq (and have said so). They will attempt more imperialistic adventures, too. "

Then they'll bring about the collapse of the goddamned empire sooner.

" We can debate other matters when our country isn't murdering thousands of people each week. "

Fine, once the empire has collapsed, then we can debate how to rebuild an actual republic, by, for, and of the people.

It has been estimated that during the Clinton years, some 500,000 Iraqi children died - with NO US troops on the ground in Iraq. Madeline Albright called that "acceptable."

[bvar22]

66. Ideolgical purity?

Pleeeeeeeeeeease. :thumbs down:

Here is "Practical".
Leaving Iraq ASAP means less US casualities.
That IS practical Thinking.

Continuing the Occupation with a vague promise of bringing some of the troops home at some time in the future IF (BIG IF) the situation in Iraq "stabilizes" is "more of the same" (in FACT, THAT IS the Republican Plan).
More of the SAME = More of the same. You can't get more practical than that.

Before I will believe ANY Democratic candidate on their plan for Iraq, I will need to hear their position on the PSAs, the Permanant Bases, and the Imperial Palace (Green Zone).

Spare me (and the rest of those who question authority) the Pro-Corporate "talking points" about Ideological Purity. These are ISSUES...plain and simple. Complete withdrawal from Iraq and turning the resources of Iraq over to the Iraqi People has NOTHING to do with a specious argument of Ideological Purity.

[Independent Democrat]

92. Centrism has failed too.......

All the "centrists" went along and supported IWR. So don't sit there and pretend that the middle of the ground is the way to go. We are dealing with neocons here, these are people who are void of morality and rarely compromise.

So given these modern-day realities, I don't view "centrism" as a logical way of dealing with right-wing extremists.

[LoZoccolo]

16. To change a party or the government in a democracy, you have to change peoples' minds.

Evidently some people aren't willing to do that, opting to make lives miserable instead through splinterist tactics that get the Republicans elected. They are willing to go vote and make themselves feel good, but that's where it stops.

[MadHound]

17. A little short on your history there friend

And a little long on rationalization

First, the pressure of third parties has worked before. FDR was worried about the threat from Socialists in his re-election bid. Thus he nimbly nicked a couple of planks from Socialist platform and made them his own. Good thing he did, otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

In addition, both parties are made up of coalitions, all of which require proper care and feeding. The trouble is that while the 'Pugs do this well, the Dems do not. The party has moved steadily rightward for over thirty years now, to the point where a large minority within the party has been systematically demonized, ignored, and left with nothing except the exhortation every two years to vote Democratic. The same scare tactics are employed, the same tactics are trotted out, but the rewards are not forthcoming. Even when there is a vast majority of the voting public calling for the end of the war, the Dems refuse to use every tool at their disposal to bring it to an end. The reality, or at least the perception of it among most people is that if you are not funneling in money to politicians, your opinion is meaningless.

But actually major parties have been brought down before. Granted, it is rare, but it has happened and can happen again. The biggest block of the voting public isn't 'Pug or Dem, but independent. The section of society is those who actually don't vote. A progressive third party that can peel off a large section of the Dems base and inspire the non-voting public to come out and vote will indeed eat the Dems and 'Pugs for lunch. The Greens have this in place, a party that isn't beholden to corporate America and whose platform is dedicated to ending governmental corruption and doing what's right for the regualar person. A mass influx of disgruntled Dems might actually provide the spark to really launch them. Sure, it may not be next election, but it took a few election cycles to get rid of the Whigs too.

No, I don't want to hand control over to the 'Pugs, but is handing it over to the Dems much, if any better. We're all headed towards a cliff, a long fall. So far the only things that the Dems have proven is that they are willing to slow down our approach, but not change our direction. Yet that is exactly what we need. Therefore it should be prudent to look elsewhere for that change of direction, to try every tactic to get the Dems or somebody to change the direction that this country is headed, and to do so by any means necessary.

And finally, the onus is squarely on the Dems. We are not their minions, we are not just votes. We are, as designated in the Constitution, citizens of this country and we are the ones who are ultimately in charge of government. Sadly, it seems that people in this country have abandoned that job and allowed corporate America to take over instead, in both parties. It is time that we took that power back, to exert our rights to demand change, and if a party or politician fails to represent us, replace them with those who will. If the Dems want our vote, then yes, by God, they do have to earn it, much as you and I earn our paycheck. If they fail to earn our vote, then we have the right, the duty to put into place people who will. Anything else is shortchanging we the people and allowing Corporate Amercia the control of our government and our lifes.

[Sparkly]

26. You're long on words that don't pertain to the point

"replace them with those who will" -- Fine. How? With a third party?

[MadHound]

41. Then perhaps you should re-read my post

I was addressing the historical shortfalls of your OP, and how the failures of the Democratic party can and will lead to the rise of another party to take its place. I don't think that I was being obtuse about this, are you?

[Sparkly]

47. "can and will lead to the rise of another party to take its place"

You honestly and seriously believe it will? When do you think that will happen?

[puebloknot]

72. The biggest block of the voting public....

In my emotionally delirious state (being a woman and all) over what we can do to take back America (and make it what it never was really -- a truly evolved country), I keep thinking that there are enough pissed off and finally awakening Dems, Repubs, and Independents, that we could, in short order, pull together and elect some people who give a damn about the future.

"Build a field and they will come"! It's worth a try. If it's a Democratic field, I'll be delighted.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Excuse me, but that was

an EXCELLENT post and it addressed the question you just asked. Did you actually READ the response?

[Atmosphere]

18. Or we could all vote for

Ron Paul.

[Totally Committed]

22. That's a brave post for a newbie.

Welcome to DU.

I don't agree with you, btw, but welcome anyway!

TC

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

50. Welcome to the DU, but Ron Paul has some serious issues on the issue of race among other things

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3332742&mesg_id=3332742 read this, if you scroll down you will find he was one of 2 people in the House to vote against the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act.

[riqster]

24. We do not have the luxury of waiting for party change

People are dying around the world because the Reeps are in power. They ARE worse than the Dems.

Party reform is important, don't get me wrong. But until we have fully implemented a true multi-party system, there is a binary choice. Reep or Dem. If fewer people vote for Dems, Reeps win, and the GOP's reign will cause more innocents to die. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

People here are, in the main, fairly comfortable. Few, if any of us, are in the Middle East, Africa, or any other place where the Bushistas' actions have their largest impact. It seems sensible to to debate long-term change and the tactic of vote witholding to force same: but the planet and its inhabitants don't have that luxury.

As a former homeless man, social activist and traveler, I have seen the impact of Republicanism, and it is beyond belief until you thrust have your hands into the filth, trying to save a life.

Our individual votes carry a greater responsibility than individual officeholders or offices. Who occupies the seat of power in Washington, DC has the power to end all life on the planet; and to spread misery and injustice likewise.

It is laudable but shortsighted to focus on philosophy when lives are in the balance.

[Totally Committed]

28. "People are dying around the world because the Reeps are in power. They ARE worse than the Dems."

Those same people are dying because of Democrats, too, my friend. Democrats MY VOTES help elect last Nov. 6th, and every night I go to bed SICK knowing that. I can't take it any longer. They don't give a rat's ass what we want.

The Repubs are worse? Then, give me some REAL Democrats to vote for. Otherwise, I will not vote. Period.

TC

[riqster]

33. If the Dems you helped elect could actually wield power, I'd agree

But they have too slim of a majority to be effective.

[Totally Committed]

35. Then, if they want the majority, maybe they should run Dems that people like me

could actually vote for. And, the rest of them could grow back their spines.

Just a thought.

TC

[riqster]

37. A very good thought, and I agree

That's why we must involve ourselves in the primaries. If it's Dem vs. Dem, I am all for pushing Left as far as we can, and in fact it is what I do.

[Le Taz Hot]

98. That argument has been countered

time and again. It's amazing to me that anyone is still using it.

[HooptieWagon]

29. The Dems are in power now

and little has changed. And even more people have died around the world, thanks to the funding the Dems gave king george for his "surge".

[riqster]

32. The Dems are NOT in power

Reeps can block anything they want in the Legislative branch. They own the Executive and Judicial branches. A slim majority in the Senate and a slightly larger one in the House do not constitute power.

[rockymountaindem]

36. Unfortunately, too many people believed their own rhetoric

about 2006 being the most important election ever. It's merely the start of what will need to be a long process of national emergence from the shadows of the Bush administration.

[riqster]

38. Amen.

The Occupation was carefully planned and executed over a period of decades (read the Powell Memo), and it will take even longer to clean up.

[zalinda]

30. I am a liberal progressive, although I probably have been

branded a "go along to get along" person. Most on this site are advocating a movement left for the dem party, there is no denying that. The problem is that some have decided that the only way to do that is to whine, yell, insult or stomp their foot. As a parent, I can tell you that you can easily turn off your ears to that type of behavior. And if any of you have ever watched one of the "nanny" shows (okay so I was curious) you will also see that a child will turn off their ears to a parent yelling at them all the time. And, if I was a dem politician and I heard a dem group continually tell me that I was not doing my job, when I'm working my ass off, I'd turn them off too. Isn't there an old saying "you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"? This is very true. When was the last time that you sent an email thanking your rep for trying to insert an item into a bill to help us. Did anyone thank them for the minimum wage increase? Did anyone thank them for trying for stem cell research? Did anyone thank them for investigating this administration? These things were not done for corporate interests. And what will the answer be? Of course not, they are doing their job, we just tell them when they are not doing their job, that's our job. Bull! Our job is telling them when they are doing something good and when they are not. Every one wants to be liked, and that includes dem politicians, the more thank yous that they get, the more they are going to want, it's human nature.

It has been said over and over on this site, that we put the dems in charge to end the war. Maybe you did, but I don't think that was the major reason people voted that way. There was and is so many reasons to vote dem, and I think our dems are trying to fulfill ALL the reasons that they were voted in. Every day we hear of more subpoenas being issued, more areas being investigated and more items being inserted into bills, that will affect the average American.

They are swimming against a red tide, not only do they have to keep their heads above water, they have to beat off the sharks, watch out for floating debris, find out what is causing the red tide (while trying to fix it), deal with people who say they aren't doing their job and raise money so they can keep fighting the red tide.

If you think their jobs are so easy, run for office. Lay out your platform, raise the money and travel from meeting to meeting to get a chance to run. If you want to affect change run for office in your community. You really need the view point of being an office holder to understand what our reps are going through and how they are feeling.

zalinda

[More Than A Feeling]

58. Agreed, more flies with honey than vinegar.

So if partisan advocates laid off the browbeating, shaming, and pre-emptive blaming, they would be more likely to get their way, wouldn't you agree?

[LWolf]

31. Change the party?

I can't say that I wouldn't like to see the party change. That wouldn't be true. I'd like to see the party excise the corporate cancer that riddles it. I'd like to see the whole nation do the same.

I still have enough respect for individual party members that I will leave that choice up to them. I support choice. They can choose to support the corporate cancer by supporting the corporate candidates forced upon them as the "major," "electable," (read corporate here) candidates, or not. If the majority so choose, they are choosing the direction of the party. Fine.

I respect the right of others to choose, and I honor my own right by choosing to hold the party to a higher standard. To work for change. If I am in the minority, and my work has no effect, that's fine, too. I can accept defeat. I will not accept a forced march in the wrong direction.

Rationale # 4:

If you believe that your vote makes a difference, if you believe that your vote has value, then you spend it that way. You don't profane the right to vote, and the opportunity to allow your vote to speak, by throwing it away on a candidate you can't, in good conscience, support. You don't vote "against" the opposition. You vote FOR the change you wish to see.

That one vote won't make the difference. But when enough voters vote their conscience, vote for the CHANGE they wish to see, It WILL, inevitably, make a positive difference.

Therefore, in good conscience, I MUST vote for the change I wish to see. If I don't, then I am causing the problem, rather than being part of the solution. All the partisan propaganda in the world; all the big money, the vicious campaign attacks, the derision, the bullying, the political gang warfare in the world won't change that.

I wish to see the removal of corporate influence from government. Therefore, I will not vote for corporate candidates, or those who support corporate agendas in Congress. I will vote FOR those working for the masses.

I wish to see universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care. Therefore I will not vote for those who wish to continue the corrupt corporate insurance delivery of health care. I will vote FOR candidates who actively, concretely work to deliver that.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I certainly hope that Democrats will, like me, vote FOR what they most want. If what they most want is a "win" at the cost of the issues, then we have a fundamental disagreement about the direction of the party. Does that mean I should wipe the corruption off my hands and leave the party behind? It could. If enough Democrats want to say, "Get lost; it's our way or the highway, and we don't need you or your vote," I could walk away. Until that time, I'll stay to fight another round, and another.

It's a fight for the integrity of the party. To read your rationales above, that fight has already been lost. I believe differently.

[Sparkly]

46. The value of the vote

I agree with you philosophically, but we differ on practicality.

"It's a fight for the integrity of the party. To read your rationales above, that fight has already been lost."

No, this is a matter of HOW we can fight effectively.

You say you "vote for the change you wish to see." When that isn't possible, I vote TOWARD the change I wish to see. That's the difference. I don't want my vote to help move the country in the opposite direction of the change I wish to see.

It's definitely not about "a win at the cost of the issues" -- it's all about the issues. But it's about the issues, and how we can effect them, in a practical, pragmatic, realistic, sense.

[LWolf]

61. I guess, then, that I don't see a corporate Democrat

as moving the country TOWARD abolishing corporate control or influence. I see them as perpetuating that situation. I wouldn't cast a vote for a Republican, either; they lost any chance of a vote for me during Reagan's tenure. The Democrats haven't lost that chance. I'll still vote for many Democrats. Just not all of them.

I know the argument about how not voting for a corporate democrat might enable republicans. I don't agree. I think corporate democrats enable republicans. The performance of too many Democratic reps since 2000 illustrates that point.

I think corporations are bipartisan; they'll fund and manipulate whatever party wins, given the opportunity. Given politicians willing to play with them.

I fight differently. I understand and respect those Democrats who don't agree with me. I think that if most Democrats truly believed that opposing corporate control of the country, of the Democratic Party, of the whole political system, with their vote could make a difference, they'd join me.

If they did, that difference could become reality. That's what I'm working for.

[some guy]

67. well said.

:applause:

[More Than A Feeling]

34. You should have given more attention to emotion.

Much of politics is run on emotion. If people feel bad about taking a certain action, no matter how much you think they are working against everyone's interests, then you can browbeat them all you want. You can show them charts and explain the error of their ways all you want. Fewer people will still take that action.

The solution: win hearts and minds. Get people to feel good about your political product, whether it be a candidate or a policy, or get a better candidate or policy that they will feel good about. At the end of the day, blaming, shaming, and lecturing just leave everyone frustrated.

[Sparkly]

48. I guess I believe in facing reality.

It's like -- you can't have hot tea. You can have iced tea, or hot coffee. There's no way to make such a choice sound any better than it is. Maybe it's frustrating and infuriating and whatever else -- and those feelings are fine. I'm not sure there's a way to make people "feel good" about it, or that they should; but nevertheless, we have to be realistic, think through our choices, and be clear about their impact.

[More Than A Feeling]

52. So do I, but what I see makes you uncomfortable, and I don't know if you are facing it.

I like that you are attempting to reach out and understand people who are wavering about voting Democratic in the GE. You're trying to speak their language, and respect their goals, and that's good. But what I see is that advocates of party unity, as a whole, couldn't be
doing a better job of alienating exactly the people they are trying to reach if that was their goal all along. I understand the frustration that causes people to issue imperious lectures, browbeating people through pre-emptive fingerpointing (which you are not doing, and I commend you for that), but it isn't winning anyone any popularity contests.

It doesn't work. It reinforces stereotypes about advocates of party unity, and about Hillary, because everyone knows that she is the candidate that causes the most people to consider not voting in the GE. People don't want a candidate whose supporters only give them consideration when they issue threats not to vote for the nominee at all. They feel ignored most of the time anyway, and then the one thing they undoubtedly control, their vote, gets taken for granted, well, what is left but to threaten to take it away. Then, instead of reflecting that maybe the wisest strategy isn't taking people for granting, it's suddenly not the fault of people who nominated such an inconsiderate candidate, its the fault of the people who are fed up with being ignored and taken for granted in the first place. They don't like being blamed for a problem they didn't create.

If you want to face reality, face that reality, and promote ways of interaction that are different from the old game of taking people for granted, browbeating them, pre-emptively blaming them, and so on. As you said, it doesn't work.

[Sparkly]

59. It's not about discomfort, it's about clarity (at least on my part)

Your post mentions feelings of being "taken for granted" and "ignored" quite a number of times. My point is to separate feelings from action.

I hope people can just SAY, "I feel taken for granted" or "I feel ignored." Then we know it's about feelings.

I hope people can also say, "I'm not voting for the Democrat because I feel taken for granted and ignored, angry and frustrated," etc. At *least* that's honest.

But saying that not voting for the Democrat is an effort to make positive changes to the party is, I believe, rationalizing or, perhaps, flawed logic.

I certainly don't think browbeating or blaming are productive on *either* side of these arguments. If there are stereotypes, as you said, about advocates of party unity, there are also stereotypes about those who'd not vote for the Democratic nominee. There's frustration on both sides of this. I think it's good to set that aside and think clearly, honestly and rationally about options and choices, results and consequences... and feelings vs. facts.

[More Than A Feeling]

62. I see it as the ultimate expression of keeping the faith.

Which would you rather have: people who care enough to want to believe that what they are doing is ultimately for the good of the party and America, or people who don't give a flying fuck about the party or America because they've lost all hope?

Calling it rationalizing or flawed logic may be accurate from your perspective, but that's also a very pessimistic way of looking at it.

Asking people to be honest about their feelings to people they perceive as not caring anyway is asking for a lot, probably too much, in my opinion.

[Tejanocrat]

45. Frankly, I think all the Democrat-on-Democrat Swiftboating during the primary erodes party loyalty.

I've ALWAYS voted for the nominee and I'd DEFINITELY vote for the nominee if I lived in a swing state, but my willingness to vote for our nominee may be tested this election. I'm 99% likely to vote for the nominee, but that 1% of doubt hasn't been there in the past.

My belief in "vote for the nominee no matter what" is weakened a tiny bit every time I read a post in this forum which does nothing but spread a demonstrable lie about Kucinich, or passes along a phony right-wing talking point about Edwards, or trashes Obama on some topic that is wholly unrelated to any campaign issue.

[Sparkly]

51. Ouch!

I wasn't around DU during the last primary season -- I understand it got pretty nasty. I know the feeling you're describing, though. All I can say is, try to focus not on the people who are lying about other Democrats, but on the people who suffer most when Republicans are in power... In other words, I know it can feel unacceptable to align one's self with posters we've come to dislike (not to mention candidates we don't like!), so try to stay mentally-aligned with the people who would be most hurt by another Republican administration, especially on issues that mean a lot to you. This might not be the time, anyway; but once there's a nominee, I think seeing them debate the Republican nominee usually shows the differences starkly enough to get past feelings about their supporters on message boards. I hope so, anyway! :hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Yes, more of this!

This is exactly the way advocates of party unity should try to reach out. Sparkly, if every Hillary supporter and partisan advocate took approaches like this one, Ralph Nader might be out on a street corner somewhere holding a sign that read "will drop pants for pennies."

[GeorgeGist]

53. I'm pretty sure ...

based only on objective reality, that most registered voters are well aware that the two-party system is dysfunctional. So maybe the polls will change after the primaries, or maybe not.

[MGKrebs]

54. Good post. We have to achieve some sort of separation

between the principles that we as ideologues pursue and the reality of (allegedly) democratic elections. We do it with our issues. We haven't achieved perfect equality yet, or perfect justice, but we keep working. We don't abandon our advocacy for choice when we don't get everything we want. We don't abandon the ACLU when they fail to take up a case we want them to or lose one once in a while. We take what we can get and keep working.

One doesn't have to compromise their principles to cast a vote for a Dem.
There are a finite number of choices and in an election, we can measure the candidates against an ideal, but just because we vote for someone who doesn't meet the ideal does NOT mean that we have abandoned our principles. It's just the best we can do right now and we'll keep fighting.

[KaptBunnyPants]

69. "Nobody's paying attention to me, I can't get my way, and I'm angry"

Demeaning the people who you are trying to convince to stay within your organization is not the most effective of tactics.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. Problem with the problems

"They have to earn our votes; keeping our votes from them sends a message and will make them run a REAL Democrat next time!

Problem: It doesn't work. What's the "message" if a third party got 3% of the vote, while Republicans get 53% of the vote? "The country is conservative," "The Democratic turnout shows they're not as passionate or organized as Republicans," "Evangelicals are a stronger voting block than liberals," etc... We aren't "making" other Democrats vote for a more liberal candidate in the next primaries, and we aren't "making" individual Democratic politicians run on more liberal policy platforms."

This is kinda already been proven false. In 2006 democrats did the unthinkable and ran on a mostly anti-war platform, against the better judgment of some of the "pundits". The result? Surprising victories in surprising places. "establishment" candidates probably wouldn't have won, but the ones who paid attention to 2004, did.


"Rationale #2:
The party is Republican lite! There's no difference between the parties. We need to start building a third party!

Problem: Reality. It hasn't worked; and polls show there's no way it's going to start working now."

Polls show nothing of the kind.


"Give the Republican party its full control. They'll run the country down to complete disaster, but all the inadequate Democrats will be out. The Democrats who come back will be the liberal ones, and the country will be ready for them.

Problem: We just saw what happens when the GOP is in full control. They get the bully pulpit, the power to run elections, court appointments that last decades, and legislative set-backs on issues Democrats have fought long and hard for - and the party that "comes back" still has to be quite "moderate" in many states."

Recent election results have PROVEN otherwise.

It IS about changing the party or leaving it behind if it doesn't stand for the things we want it to. You can't keep enabling someting and hope it finally agrees with you (kinda like staying in abusive relationship... I know he loves me, so I let the beating go).

[Totally Committed]

74. A Third Party in a country with an Electoral College doesn't work.

It only ends up being a "spoiler" for one side or the other.

What I would truly like to see is two distinctly different Parties, with our side ready to dig in and do the work of making this country finally enlightened and free. I'd like Democrats with backbones. I'd like Democrats who would just vote for what's right, and not just what is politically expedient. I'd like Democrats that were out to make peace with the world instead of dominating it. I'd like a Democratic Party that was fully engaged in the problems of environmentalism, Peak Oil and Water, and Global Warming.

Is that so wrong? Is it THAT unrealistic?

TC

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Unless it wins the electoral college

If the 3rd party gets the majority of votes in a majority of states, it will have enough of the electoral college to win.

[Totally Committed]

80. I see that, at this point in time, pretty much as impossible, really....

We fought our asses off to getLamont elected in CT, but couldn't while up against the Democratic Party "leadership" and "machine". Republicans have stopped even answering subpoenas. How in gawdsname would a third Party be able to win the Electoral College vote against either of the two major Parties? I don't think so.

TC

[Milo_Bloom]

82. By Getting votes

" How in gawdsname would a third Party be able to win the Electoral College vote against either of the two major Parties? I don't think so."

By getting a majority of votes in a majority of states.

Its funny you bring up CT, where a 3rd party candidate actually won.

With the current choices coming from the dems and gop, a 3rd party candidate is a pretty easy fit right now. If Gore or Clark (or both) jump in, it would change things a bit, since they are "tow the line" types. However, without that, a 3rd party will have a fairly easy time.

[Totally Committed]

84. I think what you have to understand is this:

The "leaderships" of the two major Parties will never let that happen UNLESS they back the Third Party candidate as they did in CT.

Lieberman would never have stood a chance in CT if the Democratic AND Republican Parties did not ban together and back him.

But, moe than that, I was speaking about the national election. The one for POTUS. That's really where the Electoral College comes into play. The Electoral College is not even bound legally to "elect" the POTUS we elect. It's tradition to do so, but it's not the law (I don't think... I could be wrong), so all the "leaderships" of the two Parties have to do is make sure one from the two major Parties is "elected" when the College convenes, and that won't be hard. They just need to apply pressure to these already-politically-connected people, and -- voila! -- no Third Party POTUS even if the popular vote is won.

I just don't see it happening in my lifetime is all.

TC

[Milo_Bloom]

89. No, no, no...

The "electoral college" is made up of representatives chosen at the state level, BY THE CAMPAIGN. So, you are correct, they are not BOUND by the votes, they care chosen as representatives, but they are chosen by the candidate on the ballot. So, if a third party wins in CA, they send THEIR slate of electors to the electoral college and unless those people decide to switch their votes, they will vote for the 3rd party candidate.

Jesse Ventura wasn't endorsed by any party and he won in MN.

Yes, that is state, but all you need is to win the plurality of votes in the right states and the 3rd party candidate gets their electors sent to the electoral college and before you know it, 3rd party candidate is elected.

Where it gets hard is when no candidate gets enough votes in the electoral college. That is the hurdle, but if the disatisfaction with the current choice of candidates remains where it is today, getting a third party this time around will not be difficult or even far-fetched.

Clinton/Edwards vs Rommey/Guiliani/McCain ???

That is a third party just waiting to happen... all establishment candidates that won't even appeal to their own base and certainly won't interest independent voters.

[Sparkly]

86. For all intents and purposes, Lieberman was the GOP candidate.

Edit: With a little help from some Democrats, too. :(

[Totally Committed]

87. Agreed.

But Reid promised him, even before a vote was cast in the final election that his seniority and committee assignments would remain. Thaht tells me the "fix" was in, and it was our own Party that did it to us.

TC

[puebloknot]

71. "If it's about emotion...."

Do you think it was cold, hard rationality that drove people to the streets in Ukraine and Mexico, to protest political malfeasance? Do you imagine that the Solidarity Movement in Poland was devoid of emotion?

I heard Vincent Bugliosi speak in California, shortly after Selection 2000, and something he said has stuck in my mind: "History will show we should have been in the streets."

Any thinking person has to acknowledge the brick wall we can run up against in our own minds with regard to how to vote. In my own case, I'm exceedingly and openly angry, and I find your attributing such an emotion to my, and others', not getting the personal attention you assume we might like to be dismissive, ridiculing, and coldly "rational."

I was born into fundamentalist fanaticism in this life, and have had occasion to give deep thought to what is in store for us if we end up with a fascist theocracy (If???). I'm also the daughter of a WWII soldier who fought fascism from Normandy to the Ardennes to Czechoslavakia, before returning home. I feel as if I'm watching a slow-motion movie of America's going right down the same path to fascism that Germany did.

When we see with intelligence and clarity (as many of us do, through a veil of emotional intelligence)that our Democratic leaders are simply not doing what they were elected to do, and when we see our country dying before our very eyes, then it follows that we must begin to consider alternatives to our current "two-party" system, which has morphed into one corporate country club, and the People be damned.

When I give thought to voting outside the strict parameters of the Democratic Party, I don't consider that I am changing the Party, threatening or browbeating them into following my wishes. I am looking at things from a higher and broader perspective, which has to do with how this country is going to survive without leadership which is devoted to the rule of law. I am aware that many elected officials may be doing what the German High Command did -- trying to sweat it out until the whole nightmare passes, and hope to keep what Germany *was* intact. Unfortunately, appeasement didn't work then and it won't work now.

No one I know, and certainly not I, knows exactly how we are going to pull out of our current mess. But inharmonious fights on this board, or anywhere, wherein people are looked at as traitorous or lacking in intelligence, or psychological balance, or political sophistry, because they speak out with passion about their concerns for our country, are not helpful.

I am not sure that there will be enough time left in my life span to see any meaningful change in the country. But I have a daughter who will live in this world for a long time to come, as will the children she may have someday. And I have a love for history, and an undying wish to see this world, and especially this country, give up its fascination with raw power in exchange for creating something infinitely, and yes, idealistically, better.

"The thought is mother to the deed": I don't remember who said that, but I see it as an inspiration to try to make change through intellectual understanding, heavily laced with the emotion of love for this country, and the people of the world. I'm not referring to the starry-eyed, New Age "Think it and it is so" view of our evolving society. I'm talking about the human quality that causes people to climb mountains that are too high, to lift cars off a child that are too heavy, to stand up and sing an operatic piece in spite of personal lack of self-esteem (like that YouTube piece that someone posted here last week).

If we continue to spin in a mantra of "We don't have the votes," or "A third party can never work," then we're going to continue to get exactly what we have now -- and it ain't pretty. I think it is quite erroneous to suggest that the politicians we have now are simply a reflection of what We, the Dumb People, deserve. It certainly appears to me that Nancy Pelosi decided well before the election of 2006 to assert her own will in lieu of that of her constituents in California (not to mention the rest of the country) in terms of her stubbornly refusing to contemplate either impeachment or cutting the funds for the war in Iraq.

I do not know how we are going to extract ourselves as a country from corporate dominance. I do not think that storming about in temper tantrum mode, as you seem to suggest here, will be the answer. Neither do I think that ivory-tower detachment will do the trick. What I think about that is that rationality is often the last refuge of a truly frightened individual, who is holding on to what has been because what will be is difficult to discern.

I watch with concern and disdain as the Democrats devote their time and energy to the coming election in 2008, while people are dying in Iraq, and people are living with fear and trembling here at home over lack of health care, loss of jobs and homes and cars, fear of the future for themselves and their loved ones. That is enough to stir some pretty potent emotion, and I see that as a more effectual catalyst for change than crunching the numbers over an election that is still considerably distant in time.

There are many days when I consider that I am wasting my time with thoughts of the coming election because I'm far from sure it will happen, or if it does, it will be stolen again. And I feel often that my personal focus should be on how I'm going to live at a very primal level, should things continue as they are. I'm not alone in those thoughts, but I know that I will not sit it out if I have a chance to vote. I strongly believe I've been played for a fool for three election cycles now,, but I'll give it one last try, if I get the chance. I just know that I am going to vote for someone who speaks in the most sincere and intelligent manner of solutions to our problems, of massive change (because that's what it will take). I won't simply spit in a Democratic ocean any longer, out of guilt or misplaced loyalty. I will understand why others might make a different choice.

There has been a lot of rage against Ralph Nader, but many have rightly said that he was right on many, many issues, and he was not the reason we have not had a Democrat in the White House over the last six years. I did not vote for him, but I concur in that opinion.

Somehow, we have to break the deadlock we find ourselves in, and tell the truth to ourselves about what it is we really are getting from our Democratic leadership. If we can throw out all incumbents and start fresh with the Democratic Party, I'm right here, ready to give my support to that effort. I simply can't dumb myself down enough to consider that likely.

Please excuse my verbosity here. I acknowledge that your post was likely written out of your *own* fears for our country.

Judy Barrett
Santa Fe

[CreekDog]

73. I vote for the Dem always, have even held my nose for Dianne Feinstein

A stronger Democratic majority means more power for our issues. It also means that we don't need blue dogs to get them passed.

[Totally Committed]

75. What ARE "our issues"?

Seems that withdrawal from Iraq was "our issue" in the last election. What about Election Reform? What about corruption? What about so many things that this Party has sat still for since we handed them our mandate?

I know, I know.... "they didn't have the votes". Bullsh*t! When the Republicans want to pass one of their morally and legally corrupt measures, they ALL vote together to make sure it passes. It's calle "whipping" the votes. There doesn't seem to be the moral or the real authority present in the "leadership" of either House of Congress to whip votes on our side. None, whatsoever.

It's so disheartening, maddening, and frustrating to feel we have been duped all this time. It really is.

TC

[CreekDog]

78. No, you are not correct

Republicans can pass things because they have the White House. Thus 218 votes will pass anything.

Democrats have managed 218 votes, and the war funding issue was an example. It was the veto threat that ended that effort.

As for election reform, Rush Holt's bill to guarantee paper ballots is set to pass. The lobbying reform measures have passed also.

You are not being duped by your own party, but we didn't take control of everything and not every issue is agreed to by every member of the party, that's just the reality.

Democrats were able to hold their own in many, many votes and Republicans have not all voted in lockstep either before or after the 2006 elections.

I agree with your frustration but you don't have your facts right.

You are acting like Pelosi and Reid were out to trick us. The reality is that if the bills they put forward had passed with veto proof margins, they would be law now...troops would start coming home soon, the minimum wage would be going up without any compromise, election reform would be law and even health care would have a chance of being addressed.

But we don't have veto proof margins and we don't have the White House.

Face it, elect more Democrats and it can change. Any good idea will simply not get past the president. That's Government 101 class.

[Independent Democrat]

91. Bottom line is that we all voted for change in November.......

The Democratic Party thus far has failed to implement any meaningful change on the ISSUES THAT MATTER (and the war is the single biggest issue out there). Congress' approval rating is now at 14%, that's lower than Bush's approval rating. Not only is the Dems Congress not doing anything about Iraq, they are now passing resolutions to up-the-ante against Iran. What the hell is that all about?

So if you guys don't get your act together and stand up to Bush Co. (as most Americans want), and if you don't put a lid on this catastrophic phenomenom known as neoconservatism, then you guys are going to lose that congressional majority come next election. You can bank on that.

[roseBudd]

77. In Paul Hackett's special election against Jean Schmidt to replace Portman a DUer...

stated she didn't do any GOTV on a thread I started about how I attempted to increase turnout in urban 2nd district areas to counteract the auto R voting of the white flight suburbs, that she didn't "feel" Hackett on women's issues.

Well I didn't feel Schmidt on any issues and look what we got.

Hackett/Schmidt was extremely close and many believe Schmidt's Clermont County cheated. This was a low turnout election we could have won.

Not doing anything and or not voting accomplshes NOTHING

[tkmorris]

83. I recently posted a thread in which it was interpreted......

I recently posted a thread in which it was interpreted, INCORRECTLY, that I advocate such a thing.

I don't.

Come election time I will vote for the D for president, unless we nominate Dick Cheney. I might be one surly sumbitch that Tuesday, but I will vote for the Dem. The point I was trying to make however, and still am, is that if we nominate too centrist a candidate A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILL DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE RAILING AGAINST.

We can't simply ignore that. If we want to win the election by inspiring the base AND attracting Independents we have to nominate a candidate that does that. If we want the anti-Iraq war vote we need a candidate that doesn't fucking equivocate about it. If we want people to come to the polls who are pissed about the state of our healthcare system we must nominate a candidate that proposes real reform. If we want people fed up with the political process to vote, we have to promise them real reform (publicly funded elections isn't a bad idea). And so on.

Defending a centrist candidate by trying to browbeat people into voting for them WILL NOT WORK. You don't need to convince me, hell you've got my vote, but you DO need to convince 100 million plus other people. And believe me, Repub-lite won't do it. Your logic is impeccable, and I am right there with ya, but come election day you need more than logic to win. You need people going to the polls to VOTE, and to get that you have to give them a compelling reason to do it. Some of our candidates look as if they might fail in that regard.

[Independent Democrat]

90. What the fook are we supposed to do?

I am opposed to the war in Iraq, I don't want another bullsh1t preemptive war with Iran, I back universal health care, I don't want our jobs siphoned off overseas, I'm tired of having to kow-tow to corporations 100% of the time, and I'm sick of constantly voting for Democrats who are bent on collaborating with Republicans while alienating their base.

Make no mistake about it folks.....DLC Dems are part of the problem, because they have spent these past 7-8 years rubberstamping Bush's failed policies.

[Ethelk2044]

94. People have a right to vote for whomever they want

No one is going to change the way they are going to vote by you posting this. It will just make sure they follow through on what they said they would do. It is still a democracy and people have a right to choose who they want in office.

[Le Taz Hot]

95. Here's another option:

Write in the person's name you think should be president. I did that in 2004 because I couldn't stomach Kerry (that "yes" vote for the IWR did it).

And when Hillary is shoved down our throats in 2008 (barring a Gore entry), I'll write in a REAL Democrat's name.

When the party wonks put up a candidate who actually represents Democratic Party values, I'll vote for their candidate. Until then, this "shut-up-and-vote" bullshit is just that.