If you can't see this then your values and mine have nothing in common

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

The courts in America would NOT be so dangerously stacked against the values of ordinary Americans were it NOT for the intent of Republicans to make the judiciary an arm of the Republican party. George Bush got SOME judges through, but all the cries about pink tu tu Democrats ignore the DANGEROUS judges they have blocked.

People who claim to wish to protect democracy with a small "d" MUST notice that we are DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to ONE PARTY RULE. We don't have the house, we don't have the senate, and as of YET we DON'T have the WHITE HOUSE.

The ONLY line LEFT in the sand is the judiciary which is being stacked MORE AND MORE with right wing lifetime appoitments. From the rights of the individual property owner, to the rights of COMMUNITIES to regulate polluters, to the rights of a WOMAN to decide what her choices should be, the ONLY line we can leave in the sand is through the judiciary.

How did this come about?

Read about the Federalist Society and the vetting of judges intent on promoting the law and economics movement here:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/law_and_economics.htm

how does this affect corporatism and YOUR EVERYDAY LIFE?

Read about that here:

http://www.metrolink.net/~cmueller/ii-09.html


Who else agrees this is a MAJOR problem?

Read here:

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/civilrights/judicialappointments.cfm
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/

DOES THIS REALLY MATTER IN THE LONG RUN IN TERMS OF DEMOCRACY AND YOUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS??

Read here:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/george_t.htm#_ftn1


Now TELL ME ABB does not matter and the two parties are the SAME.

ANYONE BUT BUSH!

[AngryYoungMan]

1. RIGHT ON!!!

I am rapidly losing my patience with all non-ABB points of view.

[CivilRightsNow]

23. And Im rapidly losing patience with those that want assimilation.

What kind of shit is that?

Oh, and the other person that said they were sick of Vanity voting.

Heaven forbid you want someone to represent you in government.

Heaven friggin forbid that I hold people to some level of moral decency... That I refuse to vote for some sellout that has his hands so far in the corporate purse that they are stroking gwb's prostate from the inside.

Assimilation has gotten us here. I refuse to carry on that grand old tradition. Vanity my ass.

How can you people ask that of us? That we become the sheep that you accuse the Republicans of being?

It blows my mind. This party is changing, and it sure aint for the better.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Heaven's forbid you read the supportive documentation in my post

rather than waiting for a single savior to miraculously get elected and turn the tide.

[CivilRightsNow]

47. Did I respond to your post?

Im curious. Cause I sure didnt think I did.

I've read your documentation.. I realize how screwed we are.

But you and I have different solutions.

I respect that you did your research, but dont somehow assume that it's something new under the sun that is going to change my mind. Im glad you found it and are forming your own opinions. That's great. I advise everyone to FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS and RESEARCH THE OPTIONS.

Nobody said anything about a savior. I just dont desire a corporate whore as a president. The savior comment wasnt even applicable to my post.. but hey, whatever trips your trigger.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. If you had read my supportive documentation, you would have seen how

via the courts corporations have sought to limit your rights because they could afford to and have gotten very sympathetic ears via the Law and Economics movement.

Thanks very much for proving my point.

[CivilRightsNow]

93. Whatever floats your boat...

you just dont get it.. and honestly, I dont care.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. My final effort:

What kind of shit is that?

It is the kind that requests people look at the big picture

Oh, and the other person that said they were sick of Vanity voting.

I cannot answer for them

Heaven forbid you want someone to represent you in government.

There are three branches of government: Legislative, executive and judicial. I just pointed out the best way to have someone represent you even when the other two are not in your control.

Heaven friggin forbid that I hold people to some level of moral decency... That I refuse to vote for some sellout that has his hands so far in the corporate purse that they are stroking gwb's prostate from the inside.

I might add the Supreme Court allowed Clinton to be sued for sexual harrassment while a sitting president so apparently some aspects of the judiciary DO appeal to your desire to hold people to a level of moral decency.

Assimilation has gotten us here. I refuse to carry on that grand old tradition. Vanity my ass.

I say dividing our momentum has gotten us here
there is strength in numbers

How can you people ask that of us? That we become the sheep that you accuse the Republicans of being?

I don't use the term sheep. PErhaps you have me confused with someone else

It blows my mind. This party is changing, and it sure aint for the better.


I have no idea how old you are but I am 45 and have been advocating for labor rights in the field since before half this board was drinking out of a cup. In the 80's and 90's when I was busting my ass and dealing with the complexities that led to today, where were you?

[CivilRightsNow]

106. Ill try one last time with caps and stuff for emphasis

"I cannot answer for them"-- MAYBE BECAUSE I DID NOT INTEND THAT MESSAGE IN RESPONSE TO YOURS. MAYBE BECAUSE I INTEDED IT FOR THE PERSON WHOSE MESSAGE I REPLIED TO. Novel, eh?

WHEN DID I REPLY TO YOUR FLIPPIN' POST?

Can you please tell me? WHEN DID I DIRECT THOSE COMMENTS AT YOU?

DO YOU HAVE TWO NICKS?

DID YOU SAY YOU WERE RAPIDLY LOSING PATIENCE WITH THOSE THAT WERE NOT ABB?

"There are three branches of government: Legislative, executive and judicial. I just pointed out the best way to have someone represent you even when the other two are not in your control."-

No shit sherlock. I got that in 4th grade American history. Im glad you caught on. Do you want applause? What exactly do you want? With the exception of a handful, the people in office, in all branches are corporate whores. If you want to deny that. Have fun with it. The whole system is so fucked that by the time you get to the place where you even run for office you have sold out. That's my opinion. I dont care what yours is.

I might add the Supreme Court allowed Clinton to be sued for sexual harrassment while a sitting president so apparently some aspects of the judiciary DO appeal to your desire to hold people to a level of moral decency. -- How do you know if my idea of moral decency is suing someone for a blow job? Did I ever say that? What if those people dont represent my idea of morality in government? Keep trying to pidgeonhole me into whatever stereotype you have created of people who dont wish to assimilate to your ABB sentiments.

I say dividing our momentum has gotten us here Would you like a cookie? What do you want me to say? Good for you! I dont agree. So.. am I supposed to suddenly have a change of heart and run into your arms and say.. oh, you are so right! Your eloquent posts have made me realize the folly of my ways....

I don't use the term sheep. PErhaps you have me confused with someone else Do you need some windex for your monitor? Can you not read who I reply to. I do not comprehend how you think I was speaking directly to you with that comment.

You know what..

Never mind. I dont give a shit what you were doing in the 80s and 90s. I dont care about all the things you think you have done to deal with the complexities that lead us to today.

Shit aint that complex. It's commonsense. Ill make decisions for myself. I wont judge you for making decisions for yourself. BUT I will judge those fascist pigs that tell me that I must assimilate to their view of what is best being ABB and respond back to them with a mighty FUCK YOU.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

109. Wow you're pissed!

I am sorry for addressing your post when it wasn't to me.

The rest of your response was in anger and all I will do if I respond point by point is get another angry response.

This thread was an appeal to reason.

That's all.

In the earnest attempt to NOT do anyone's thinking FOR them, I posted a thread complete with my line of thought and supportive documentation so that they may think for themselves, read for themselves and reach a similar conclusion.

[blondeatlast]

147. Then why do you keep replying? nt

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. "you and I have different solutions." - you haven't offered any solutions

Simply being against things -- is not a solution.

What are your suggestions?

How can we work towards positive change?

Are you FOR anything? Or are you simply AGAINST the status quo?

And if you are for something, what do you believe is the best way to work towards that goal?

[CivilRightsNow]

94. *Insert fake golf clap here*

I feel no need to reoutline my opinions in every thread. I responded to a specific post.. #1, in case there is something blocking that in front of your screen.

My suggestions are that assimilation is fascist bullshit that is no better then the "You're either with us or against us" ideology of the right.

You choose what you wish to do with that. Im not into creating a syllabus of jane and dick ways that patriotic democrats are supposed to behave on issues that really amount to a hill of beans compared to the big picture.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. In other words, you offer no solutions, no ideas, no hope for the future.

Have I summed it up correctly? You are welcome to set the record straight if I have mischaracterized your position.

[CivilRightsNow]

107. Sure....Ive spent 607 posts doing nothing..

you are completely correct. Everytime someone asks me these same stupid questions over and over.. I should break out my coffee and a comfy chair and write a dissertation on what I think everyone should do.

[DemBones DemBones]

111. DU is a pretty big place -- how do we know what

you've said before? I'm not sure I've ever "seen" you here before, and you did say something about having different solutions.

If you find yourself discussing the same issues again and again, welcome to the club, and may I suggest making a file of responses and using cut and paste?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. If you think your ideas aren't worth repeating, that's your choice.

But of course, you would have to state those ideas at least once, in order to repeat them.

[blondeatlast]

146. If you want your username to mean something, you MUST think about SCOTUS.

If you can't see the difference between us and them, fine. But if you think Bush isn't going to nominate anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-Constitutional rights judges to the Feds and SCOTUS, think again.

We'll meet again in Gitmo after the Bushistas shut this site down and haul us all to Gitmo for sedition.

Don't think it won't happen when GWB is a lame duck with his own party in both houses of Congress. Cheney can smell our blood already.

[magnolia]

76. So what do you suggest?

That everyone agrees with you on who to vote for???? Or should each of us just vote for the person who most closely agrees with us. The only thing that will accomplish is getting Bush another four years. But who cares as long as none of us has to compromise our precious opinions!!!!

We are not sheep if we look for common ground...if we sacrifice some of our own views for the good of the whole. We are not a herd...we are a team and that requires being team players. Alone we accomplish nothing...together we can accomplish anything.

[CivilRightsNow]

96. wow.. the.. point... is... slippery... eh?

That everyone agrees with you on who to vote for????

Of course, that was exactly my point! ABB fo life, foo.

[library_max]

79. So write in your own name on the ballot.

That way, you'll know for sure that you're voting for a paragon of moral decency who will represent your views without any variation whatsoever. And you'll be voting for someone who has the same chance of winning as any third party candidate.

Or, as an alternative, you could choose from the actual choices and try to do something to make the country better, even if only a little better. If you don't choose from the actual choices (R or D), you're leaving the real decision up to those who do.

[CivilRightsNow]

97. How bout I write your name on the ballot?

Because this is what I want to teach our future generations.

Dont buck the system.

Fall in line.

That's a good girl.

You cant make a difference... well, you can.. but only if you do what we tell you!

Huzzah! Left Right Left.... Left Right Left... About face. What? A better world? What a different way of doing things cause the current way isnt working? What? What? *BANG*

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. "a different way of doing things cause the current way isnt working?"

We are still waiting to hear, what, according to you, that different way of doing things is.


You have the floor.

??

[library_max]

105. Sure.

That makes sense. Because what good did voting for a Democrat ever do? FDR, JFK, LBJ - they didn't make the U.S. a better place, did they? And all three of them had leftier opponents who deserved the votes of every left-thinking voter. If enough people had voted for Debs, for example, the nation could have been spared the horror of the New Deal.

No, you're right. Down with politics as usual! What good have Democrats ever done us?

[CivilRightsNow]

108. Fabulous..

Cause you know..

Im bashing every democrat in the history of the US. I said that FDR and JFK didnt make the world a better place (I have no problem saying LBJ was a royal clusterfuck).. you are right! Down with me!

I issued blanket statements going back to the beginning of time!!!!

Im not a democrat from a MA family that has been democrat since I was in the womb.

I wasnt talking about THIS ELECTION and THESE CHOICES.

I was talking about every democrat since the dawn of time.

Right on!

[library_max]

110. Principle's the same.

Get it?

Every good thing that has ever happened in American politics has happened because of mainstream politicians (the kind that actually get elected). And in every one of those elections, there was somebody who was too pure to compromise who wasted his vote on a splinter candidate and vehemently opposed the good guy (FDR, etc.) as "politics as usual." Fortunately, in those cases, the refuseniks weren't numerous enough to screw the rest of us over.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

127. I've now read your every post on this thread and you have ranted

and raged against the system and you've got a different idea.

I've not seen one idea forthcoming and I'm not going to go fetch it from other threads.

All I have seen is useless ranting and NO viable alternative to the premise raised in the opening of this thread.

If you are wondering why nobody is listening, it's because you haven't proposed anything.

I'd like to say this exchange and your contributions on this thread were really enlightening.






Really I would.

[HuskerDem]

140. First election syndrome has been rife in here lately

Tons of Democrats who are still riding around on their training wheels are having red-face pouty lip temper tantrums because they didn't get their way and OF COURSE the world revolves around them.

They ARE the center of the universe you know.:nopity:

[blondeatlast]

148. So true. I've tried to be patient and forgiving, but no more.

The gloves are off. I won't let BFEE enablers off the hook anymore.

No pity? Eff that. NO MERCY!

After 28 years of voting and activism, I feel it's my duty to teach the youngsters what politics is all about. It ain't purty, kids.

[CivilRightsNow]

176. Thanks to all you Baby boomer enablers

Cause Im truly giving a shit about listening to the folks that got us where we are today.

Yeah, you guys had a shitload of solutions, eh.

Congrats on the world you handed me and my children.. we are oooh so looking forward to cleaning up your apathy, greed, repression, pollution and corporatization. Thanks alot.

From a bunch of folks who dropped the ball after watergate and let this country degenerate into a festering shit pool. Excuse me if I think your ideas are tired, outdated, unreal and just plain pathetic.

Let's go march some more, in our free speech pens. We can have fun waving our little banners at each other.

Let's go vote some more.. cause working from within the corrupt system makes a difference. I mean, look at the difference it made in 2000! Im going to laugh at all of you when you see what pathetic difference it will make this year. But that's your answer. You say the foundation of democracy is sound , I say it isnt. I reject your system and what it has become in it's entirety. I will not hitch my wagon to your dying star. I'll vote for the person that my conscience lets me live with. I will not sell out who I am and what I believe in like all of you.

What a sad world when our "elders" tell us to suck it up, this is the way it is, we are powerless to change it. Now step in line Johnny and vote ABB. You are either with us, or against us.

My message is a message of hope. A message saying that we can change the world, that we can have true democracy. That the people that represent us can be good and just and actually representative... but we cant have it without a fight. How typical of the lazy american to think that it would be that simple as just voting ABB. History has shown time and time again that it isnt that simple. People must fight and people must die.. but most importantly, people must fundamentally change.

Until the people revolt there will be no change. Keep feeding this same system.. keep enabling it.. keep fooling yourself into believing anyone but bush is somehow going to fix things. Keep looking for the easy, clean, lazy man's answer.

My solution? Bring on the revolution and all of you pathetic whiny consumeristic patriotic murkins can get the hell out of my way.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

177. Boy...I read that whole post...every word...and HOPE isn't

what was communicated at all.

[The Magistrate]

194. Indeed, Ma'am

It always boils down to the "enablers" swill, in that sort of thing, does it not? That is always the chant of those who prefer to direct their vitriol against the Democratic Party than against the reactionaries gouped under the standard of the Republican Party. It is by now my inclination to take tham at their word, and accept they take the Democratic Party as their leading enemy, since that is the target of all their criticism, and their criticism takes the porm of apologias and excuses for Republicans: it is not Republicans responsible for bad things, but Democrats who "enable" and lead them astray. They sound like a lot of defense attorneys claiming everyone but their client is responsible for the dead clerk on the floor of the liquor store; anything but the man who pulled the trigger is pointed to as being to blame that the unfortunate fellow was shot for the couple of hundred in the rifled till.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Richardo]

2. This is why I think Delay is even more dangerous than Bush...

His "one party" agenda is in plain sight and he's been moving on it for YEARS. K Street project with Grover Norquist is only the institutionalization of his long-standing extortionary approach as Minority (later Majority) Whip. No money, no access.

[indigo32]

3. Amen Teena

Amen

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Please everybody..read the supportive documentation

I'm not kidding.

[jonnyblitz]

5. yup

:thumbsup: :hi:

[Dookus]

6. You are, of course, exactly right

but you won't change any minds.

If three years of this Bush presidency has failed to convince anyone of the perils of "vanity voting", then nothing you or I can say will.

I define "vanity voting" as the belief that voting for only idealogically "pure" candidates is acceptable. It's also misguided - nobody is pure. Not Dean, not Nader, not any politician I've ever seen in my lifetime. Anybody who expects purity in politics is headed for a lifetime of hurt and disappointment.

[ShimokitaJer]

17. You misunderstand the purpose of voting third party

And calling it "vanity voting" is deceptive. It's not about believing one's candidate is ideologically pure. It is about recognizing that many of the actions of the Democratic Party threaten Democracy as much as the actions of the Republican Party, because it is in their interest to choke off real progressive change in order to hold onto power.

There is little wonder that you don't understand the debate, since all of your arguments are overly simplified (I'm sure the strawmen are very easy for you to knock down). Here's a primer for you:

We don't think that there is "no difference" between the parties, but we do believe that both parties serve and benefit from the corrupt two-party system under which there is no motivation to effect progressive change. Individuals within the system may work for progressive change, but it is the nature of the system to stifle it, since change threatens the hold on power of the two parties who control it.

We don't think there is any candidate who is ideologically pure. Rather, we think the exact opposite: candidates are ruled by those who finance them. You are the one who is naive if you believe that the candidates will somehow remain free of the influence of those who put them in power.

What you call "vanity voting" is NOT the easy way out. Voting along party lines regardless of the candidate (the ABB approach) is the method which requires the least thought and is the least likely to result in progressive change. Voting for someone outside the system, on the other hand, requires not only research into what that candidate really stands for, but soul searching over whether or not the consequences are indeed worth it.

Many of us are going through that soul searching right now, and I can tell you one thing without doubt: belittling our commitment to fight the kind of corruption Bush represents while you cast your vote for one who has helped enable him is NOT the way to push us toward the Democrats.

[Dookus]

18. I'm not naive...

I've been actively involved in politics for almost 30 years.

Personally, I don't care one whit about "being nice" to people who would prefer to see the country suffer another Bush term just so they can say "I told ya so". I am not responsible for instilling common sense in anyone. I will continue to belittle people whose overgrown sense of their own importance allows them to fuck over my country for another four years.

[ShimokitaJer]

22. Once again, you misunderstand the point

No one is asking you to "be nice." We are telling you that you are wrong. You blame those who you claim allowed Bush to fuck over the country for four years, but continue to elect the same Dems who enabled him to do the same.

We are telling you that unless you demand better of your party, then you will inded get another four years of this bullshit.

[blondeatlast]

62. We are addressing the issue of Federal court and SCOTUS

appointments.

Please frame your argument with that in mind.

[iamjoy]

72. The Third Parties

Just as you say the two parties are corrupt and not wanting to give up their power, any of the third parties are greedy to get power.

It is naive to think that in the current political climate a party can rise to power without major sources of funding.

[library_max]

82. Throwing your vote away will not produce progressive change.

Every progressive change in the history of this country has been brought about by the actions or appointments of officials who were elected from one major party or the other. The pace of progressive change tends to be incremental, which is frustrating to some of us. However, that's how things get done.

Voting third party never works, never will work. No third party candidate has ever come close to winning the presidency, not even a hugely popular former president (TR). Crumpling your ballot and tossing it in the wastebasket will have the same practical effect as voting third party.

[zoeyfong]

120. in spite of your insistence, voting 3rd party is not 'throwing ones

vote away.' Yes, it's true that progressive changes are enacted by the two major parties....because, uh, they are the ones in power. But if, when, and why they enact those changes is dependent on the electoral pressures they face, including the pressure of losing an election if they *don't* enact progressive change x, y, or z. I think you are being highly simplistic and short-sighted if you don't see that. Whether or not a 3rd party candidate has a realistic chance of winning is hardly the whole story as to whether that party can affect the reality on the ground.

When democratic politicians win by ignoring issues that many of us consider to be make or break issues and by essentially hastening the republican takeover of this country, there in no point in my encouraging this to be repeated by helping those politicians be elected.

[library_max]

179. You've got it exactly backwards.

Politicians remember the people who helped them get elected. They do what they can for those people. They also remember the people who tried to prevent them from getting elected, but not in a good way.

The part of the left that splinters and opposes the Democratic nominee will either succeed or fail - either cost us the election or not. If they don't, if we win in spite of them, they will just have proved that they are irrelevant, that we can win without them. If they do, if they cost us this election too, all they'll earn is our hatred.

Don't believe me? This year is the best possible test case for your theory. Nader voters in Florida put Bush in the White House. By your logic, the DNC would have been on its knees before Nader, promising him anything he wanted to get his support, after that show of electoral "power." Well, did it happen? No, it did not. First, because any gestures in the direction of the far left will cost us more votes from the center, votes which will go to Bush. Second, because only a fool rewards his enemies for being his enemies.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result. The result last time was Bush, in case you've forgotten.

[zoeyfong]

195. So if dems lose the middle once, will they give up trying to get it?

Of course not, so that's the end of your theory. Politicians go where the votes are, and while there may be more votes in the middle, the competition is also greater and it reaches a point of diminishing returns; besides, it's not like dems are down 30-60 and they absolutely must get huge numbers of votes in the middle to be competitive. Winning presidential elections in america right now is largely done at the margins. Also, you seem to think that it is impossible to combine progressive and mainstream issues; i do not. That is why i am sick and tired of dems who do nothing but chase public opinion rather than making the tiniest attempt to pro-actively shape it.

Secondly, regarding your point about this election being the test of my theory, i say you are looking at things in much too short of terms. Government is an enormous social institution that has a massive amount of momentum to it; it is in no way going to undertake the magintude of reform necessary in one or two election cycles. But a start must be made. I think if the dems were to lose maybe three times in a row because of a split in left of center votes, they would seriously reassess their strategy, and make sure to address at least some of those issues before the next election.

Lastly, you are quite right that dems could simply find a way to win without the left; I fully recognize that possibility but I am willing to take the gamble because i don't think that such a win would be very satisfying to anyone.

[library_max]

197. This is 100% wishful thinking.

The middle isn't threatening to vote third party if we don't accede to its demands. So that's the end of your theory. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

Winning presidential elections in America right now is not largely done at the margins. It may look that way from the margins, but it isn't that way. On what do you base that statement? Or do you mean that this election is going to be won from the margins, unlike the last twenty-five or thirty presidential elections? If so, where's the support for that contention?

You seem to think that you can just wish change into existence. The mainstream will support leftwing issues which they never have supported before. All it takes is pro-actively shaping public opinion, whatever that means. Saying so apparently makes it so.

I'm sure you've noticed how the country has moved to the right under Bush. That's the product of two things - the total right-wing domination of the agenda (White House, Congress, judiciary, media), and a national crisis (9/11) which produced wild nationwide panic and paranoia. Leave the Republicans in charge for three or four more administrations (manufacturing national crises as the need arises) and you won't even recognize what is meant by the word "left" at the end of it. It will probably be considered radical to hold elections every year, or to allow criticism of the president-for-life in any form or venue whatsoever.

This long-term business is a cop-out, an excuse to do what people know doesn't work and can't work because it makes them feel good to do it anyway. It presupposes that reality is somehow going to magically change itself sometime between now and the "long term."

[zoeyfong]

205. Of course the middle is threatening to vote "3rd party, " if the left and

right are the other 2 parties. The middle is not going to move left and vote nader just because i demand it. Jeezus H. Christ, i am not saying the the middle doesn't matter, and what pray tell, are these fringe issues that you think i support which would lose so many votes in the middle?

And by "pro-actively shaping public opinion" i mean leading, rather than following. Ex: when bush was whipping up the alleged iraq threat, dem leaders should have responded with rational, fact-based opposition, i.e there is no convincing evidence that iraq poses a threat to america, pre-emptive war is likely to make us less safe, not more safe, we should be focussing on alqaeda, the war will be a quagmire, and lastly, resolutely refusing to okay the IWR. Instead, they basically echoed the fear-mongering of the bush admin. and the mob mentality reported in opinion polls; their actions amplified the hysteria, rather than reduced it. That is following in the worst way. Leaders make the case for what the know is right, and they bring people to their side. Our democratic 'leaders' right now have absoluely no concept of this. They are all about being shaped by the polls rather than shaping the polls, As long as repugs are out there demagoging every day from talk radio, fox news, right-wing think tanks etc., and dems are just passively trailing along behind them, we will not progress.

Btw, your poo-pooing of long term thinking is not going to help the dems. The repugs developed a long-term startegy years ago and obiously it is working like a charm.

[library_max]

207. Still magical thinking

(what little I can understand of it).

Return with me now to the magical bygone days of 2002. 9/11 was less than a year ago. Public paranoia is rampant. It is not possible for news anchors even to ask President Bush an awkward question (to say nothing of actually criticizing him in any way) without receiving hundreds of death threats and thousands of accusations of treason. Cars without American flags displayed are vandalized in many parts of the country. Remember?

So, by you, all the Democrats had to do was to explain how Bush was full of crap regarding WMDs and the Iraq war rationale (remember, Bush had the intelligence sources and they didn't) and that would magically have "brought the people to their side." They should have reached out and "shaped the polls" somehow and just magically reversed public opinion.

Gee, I wish that what is true and right had that magical power to be automatically recognized and understood by the general public. But it doesn't.

The Republican strategy has been for the right wing to shut up and support the Republican nominee whoever it is (Bush was NOT their first choice, neither Bush I nor Bush II). And you're right, it's been working like a charm. Wish the Democrats could use it.

[zoeyfong]

213. Well, gee, why don't we just give up and love big brother already?

I'm sorry, your lack of backbone is exactly what's wrong with dems. It's bad enough among dem voters, but it sure as hell has no place among the leadership.

I did not claim that standing up to bush on the war would have stopped it, but again, you are utterly unable think of the long-term consequences of a party demonstrating courage. A party that is consistently strong, principled, and courageous will attract loyal supporters, even those who do not agree with every dem position, and it will in fact bring people to the democratic point of view. If you recall, immediately after 9-11 very few americans thought sadaam was behind the attacks, and yet at the time of the iraq war, 60-70% of americans believed he was. Where did they get this idea? From the talking heads, of course. Our democratic leadership is obliged to at least *try* to reverse the momentum of this misinformation by speaking the truth.

Weakness is not attractive, and as clinton said, the sheeple prefer a president who is strong and wrong to one who is weak and right. You are totally underestimating the power of displaying courage in the face of opposition. COURAGE SELLS, and if our leadership can't take the heat, then let them get out of the kitchen; there are many people, far better than them, willing to take their places. Hell, i live in western SD and i've twice had people call my place of employment and try to get me fired over my bumper stickers; i have quit jobs over principles far less weighty than war and peace, i have stood up to crowds, i have written numerous anti-war letters to the editor (this is a small town and my name is in the phone book), and i'm not saying i'm wonder woman; i am just a regular person. Someone worthy of being a leader of this country had damn well better have at least as much courage as i and millions of other people do, and if i had the public's ear the way that members of congress have, i would have been telling the truth behind bush's criminal war from every rooftop.

Actually, the repub strategy is lot more far reaching than you suggest. It involves splitting the non-aristocracy vote with cultural supremacy issues, i.e. segregation, gay rights, combining church and state; in this way they obtain the necessary raw numbers of votes to be elected. Once in power, they redistibute wealth upwards to their campaign contributors in order to ensure their re-election and the continued powerlessness of the masses. And running interference, to make sure the poor joe-sixpacks don't catch on, is the republican/corporate controlled media. The Southern Strategy, the media domination and think-tank propaganda generators did not just spring up by accident one day, they are part of a well-thought out, long term strategy.

And with regard to 3rd parties splitting repub votes, yeah they were united behind ABC in 2000, and look what it got us. Any one of the other repug candidates would have been better. I just don't think that an obsession with winning at all costs it good for dems or america.

[library_max]

220. Possibly we could approach this on a less personal note.

Regarding "the long-term consequences of a party demonstrating courage," are you saying that, for example, the American Socialist Party has not been "consistently strong, principled, and courageous"? And yet we don't see them winning a lot of electoral votes in presidential elections. Isn't it more a matter of voters agreeing with a party's "strong, principled" stands? As a matter of well-established fact, taking strong stands that offend most of the electorate is one of the best ways to lose elections and hurt a party, short run and long run.

Bill Clinton said "sheeple"? I'd bet any amount of money he didn't.

The "profile in courage" you recount in commendable in its way, but the question is, what did it all accomplish? At the end of the day, accomplishments are what matter. Of course, it is possible to console ourselves over lack of accomplishment by assuming that what we do today will produce tremendous improvements in the long term. The phrase "pie in the sky" was coined to describe just that kind of thinking.

Winning isn't everything, but if you don't win you accomplish nothing. You can call me a coward all you want, but it won't change that fact.

[MurikanDemocrat]

200. Where did you ever get that idea? That is absolutely false that

winning presidential elections is largely done at the margins. That has never been the case.

There is a law of diminishing returns alright, and it works AGAINST the margins. The majority of the rank and file of the Democratic voters is simply not going to accept a far left agenda. The small minority on the left fringe (the perhaps 1%-2% that might go 3rd Party this election) does not have the leverage in numbers to dicate the agenda to the majority of the Democratic Party. Elections are fought over the 10%-15% of swing votes in the center. The votes lost in the center would be 10 times greater than what the left fringe could make up by their votes. Do the math.

[zoeyfong]

204. If the margins don't matter, then who cares about Nader?

Also, you failed to address the fact that the dems have been moving right and watering down their message for ten years and it hasn't worked. If there are all those decisive votes to be found there, it's pretty sad that they haven't managed to win any of them. If it's all about the middle, then why haven't dems just moved there and won already?

And what issues do you imagine that i support which are so radical that it would push dems into the republican party? Btw, i have never voted third party and would not exactly consider myself on the fringe of the dem party; my positions on issues is largely what the democrats *claim* their positions are. I have just reached the conclusion that both parties are actually obstructions to reaching their stated goals, because the stated goals are really just for public consumption and vote getting. Unfortunately, it appears that they are both rotten to the core and entirely controlled by the aristocracy of this country. The last three years prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would that it were not so, but it appears that there is no choice but to go around the establishment, and god-willing, surround it and choke it off.

[MurikanDemocrat]

212. You're right. Who cares about Nader. He's insignificant.

He will get 1% of the vote this year IF he's lucky. I don't care about Nader one bit.

Your comments about no votes in the middle effecting any wins are simply not grounded in reality. I don't know where you have been, but we have won the last 3 elections with the votes in the center. Although the last election was stolen by the USSC and Bush selected, the Democrats DID get the majority of votes. And did you forget Clinton won the 2 before that?

There's really no sense discussing this with you if you are going to make believe things as you go along.

I have no desire to sway you from "going around the establishment and choking it off" either, which I presume means voting 3rd Party. I think you should register your vote as you see fit.

[zoeyfong]

214. Uh, never said votes in the middle don't count.

I am saying that it is entirely possible to get a healthy chunk of the middle *and* get the left. If dems *only* go for the middle, they will lose the left; meanwhile the repubs will continue to have their chunk of the middle plus the right. You do the math. That is what i mean about the margins; dems had better find a way to get the left along with the middle, otherwise they have simply forfeited those votes; and in a country this closely divided, a few percent makes all the difference. The repubs benefit from the greater pack mentality on the far right, they are less likely to go 3rd party than the far left; they also learned some lesson from the last few elections, and are not afraid to throw their base a good number of bones to keep them in line.

Regarding the last 3 elections, clinton won with what, at most, 43% of the vote? Remember ross perot, who took a 19%? of the GE vote in 92, most of that being center right. Perot didn't do as good in 96 but still took some repub votes. The fact that clinton won those elections was proof positive that the major parties can't afford significant losses from their base. In 2000, which was more of a head-to-head dem vs. repub, nader's 2% was still decisive, proving again that the major parties can not afford to ignore their bases.

And yes, i know gore actually got more votes, but if he had also gotten nader's 2%, there would have been no recount.

[DemBones DemBones]

104. Why give time to researching and soul searching

if you already know that you're going to vote for a third party candidate?

A third party candidate cannot win, so what difference does it make if he or she meets all your specifications?

What is the advantage of voting for a third party candidate? As I see it, only that you will be able to say to yourself (and others, if you choose) that you knew better than to vote for the major party candidates.

Many of us know what the problems are, in fact, know better than to expect much from a Democratic president, but also know that voting third party is not a solution. Voting for the Democratic nominee may indeed be voting for the lesser evil but it certainly preferable to voting for the greater evil or helping the greater evil win by refusing to vote for the lesser evil.

The point of the initial post is to demonstrate some of the ways in which voting for the Democrat -- or the lesser evil, if you like -- will benefit us, will help protect our rights and help prevent the complete takeover of our courts by the right wing. You're arguing that that is not good enough. I'll agree with that as a philosophical point. But you get nothing from voting third party. That makes it a lousy strategy from a practical viewpoint.

I've been voting since 1968 and it's taken all this time for someone like Dennis Kucinich to come along as a candidate. I'm delighted to be able to vote for Dennis in my primary -- and very disappointed that he's gotten so little support from the left. I haven't been hopeful about a presidential nominee since Georga McGovern in 1972. Who knows if I will ever feel truly hopeful about a presidential campaign again?

But I keep voting Democratic because the Democrats keep the GOP from taking over. When the Democrats are in the White House, things are better in the U.S. and some progress can be made. The Democrats aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the GOP. And there is no realistic, viable alternative.

In 2000, I was really turned off to Gore. But I went to the polls and I remembered what Harry Truman said:

"Always vote for the better man. He is the Democrat."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

128. Except that a vote for a Democratic president

is not a vote for the Democratic party. One can change the party while still having the presidency....Republicans did.

[ShimokitaJer]

135. THAT is an excellent point

And that's why each of us has to decide whether a vote for the particular Democratic candidate will indeed help to change the party. There were quite a few in the mix this year that I genuinely thought had the strength of character and the will to change the party. One by one, they have been forced out in favor of those in whom I have less faith.

I'm not telling anyone here that I will vote third party no matter what. I'm merely saying that I refuse to guarantee my vote to the Democratic Party candidate simply because that person is the Democratic Party candidate. If the party platform actually contains something resembling progessive issues this year, and if I have faith in the candidate to carry them out, then I would be very proud to vote for the Democrat.

But don't call me a traitor for failing to guarantee my vote to mediocrity and the status quo.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

138. But if you are sending up progressive members to congress

and we are working our way through the senate...don't we earn the right to push the agenda just like Gingrich did?

Why must it rest with the president?

Presidents seem to follow the polls...we are the impetus for how the polls go by taking the same multipronged approach they did.
Not by installing their agenda via our own mutiny.

[ShimokitaJer]

162. We may earn the "right" to push our agenda

But when have the Democrats in Congress ever done so? I'm sure they have lovely ideals, but if they don't have the will to fight for them it doesn't do anyone any good. In addition, with the rise of the "New Democrats," I'm not sure how lovely those ideals are anymore.

You speak of "our" agenda versus "their" agenda. If you're speaking of Bush and the neocons, then their agenda is completely repulsive, and yet the New Democrats' agenda shares much in common with it. That's why I'm trying to use my vote not just to replace "their" agenda with "our" agenda, but to change our agenda into something I can be proud to support. Calling myself ABB and promising to support whatever candidate they tell me to does NOTHING to further that goal.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

165. Sorry but I must object to blanket statement as they lead to innacurate

viewpoints.

Perhaps you can tell me your exact agenda prior to my answering because frankly even when the platform was NOT entirely clear or unified, the Democratic party did indeed live up to much of MY agenda, i.e. labor rights, consumer protection, women's reproductive rights, funding public education and many more items,

There are 300 million people in this country. There can't be 300 million agendas. If you are committed to a particualr agenda, then it is incumbent upon you to send members to congress that represent a VIABLE voting block for that agenda. The numbers of most third party vote blocks don't amount to a hill of beans in presidential elections BUT MIGHT amount to a decent amount of power in congress.

Again, if your vote does ANYTHING to enable George W Bush to take the presidency, then I would assume your own agenda is undermined. By virtue of the DU definitions of participation, your agenda must have much more in common with mine than his.


Feel free to spell out yours but please don't use the generalizations you did use.

And in the primary, I can see your point in regards to stacking up delegates if your agenda more closely fits another candidate's such as Dean's and whoever he will throw those delegates to. In the GE...all I see is mutiny to your agenda and mine.

You haven't proven otherwise yet.

[Rowdyboy]

7. The courts are the OVERRIDING issue with me

You're right, this is the last line of defense we have and if Bush wins a second term, we've lost the courts for 30 or 40 years. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I am terrified of that possibility.

[blondeatlast]

60. Indeed, and the youngsters just don't get that.

I'm old enough to remember the SCOTUS that brought us Miranda vs. State of Arizona, Roe vs. Wade, US vs. Nixon (the SITTING PRESIDENT, folks--think VERY CAREFULLY about that, please).

Dangerous times, my friends, these are dangerous times.

[zoeyfong]

121. Actually, the court issue is the only one that holds any water

because at least it is somewhat forward looking. The ABB "sky is falling" ultimatums are otherwise completely shortsighted and unconvincing. But even the court issue isn't all that compelling because there will *always* be court vacancies to fill, and if this is sufficient to make voters choose candidates who are impediments to progress on virtually every other front, then we are in a sorry state indeed.

[serryjw]

216. You should be TERRIFIED....WHY is no one taking my post seriously?

Can no one see the hand writing on the wall. IF they believe they may lose the White House, they have the votes to pass this and SCOTUS will get marginalized on all the important issues.....please go read these articles......It is posted under 'general discussion'

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationA

original post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1173143

[jansu]

222. This is to them, more important than who wins the WH this year!

That should scare you.....

“The passage of this bill should be regarded as the most important item on the conservative agenda this year! It is….....more important than who wins the White House this November.” from the above yuricareport site.

Exactly why we must fight them on all issues. This is probably why Bush has come out against the gay marriage......they believe they could get this bill passed, because Americans would be so outraged about those uppity gays, and build on the fear, that once again the congress would give up and the Ameicans would say Thank you, take all of our Constitution and rights!

They must be stopped on all levels!

[Brucey]

8. Agreed.

Repugs have the money and power and lack any scruples, therefore they will likely take charge of everything. They not only control House, Senate, and White House, but also dominate the Supreme Court, most State Legislatures and Governorships, the media, and increasingly the public schools (K-12 plus higher ed). We have the Internet mostly on our side, labor unions, women's groups, and environmental groups... but must "share" those interests with the Greens. It looks like a losing battle... but Bush* has been so bad that some of the public is starting to see the light.

[rucky]

9. Stop taking the bait, NMSA

ABB vs. not ABB isn't the real debate, or else ABB would've won by now.

So answer this, instead: What role, if any, do you see progressives playing in the party?


Some folks just need some reassurance right now. And they deserve some. they're pissed off & I know that's pissing you off.

BTW: the links are pants-crappingly jaw-dropping. I didn't mean it wasn't postworthy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Progressives do far better with a court sympathetic to them

Were it not for the Law and economics movement, coporations could NEVER get away with SLAPP suits designed SOLELY to bankrupt public participation.

Any progressive who has been around any number of years should know this.

This, to me, indicates the poor understanding of how we got where we are.

The Johnny come lately's to the progressive movement would do far better to understand the courts' roles in getting here today.

[rucky]

39. so are ya going to educate or pull rank?

"If you can't see this then your values and mine have nothing in common"

isn't exactly a rallying cry, is it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. Pull rank? Educate? Did you read my links?

[indigo32]

52. While I agree with you about the courts

Rucky has a very valid point. We all need to lighten up for a little while.... this has become nothing but a vicious cycle... with both sides playing off the other. Somewhere it has to stop. Hell right now they've got 8 1/2 months to cool off...if we let them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. I am simply trying to point out to Rucky how the courts play a role in

the manner in which progressives get heard, supported, bankrupted via SLAPP suits etc.

They have 8 and one half months to read this thread...they can bookmark it and come back to it on another day.

I intend NO acrimony, but while the embers claiming "all is lost because Dean pulled out because he was assassinated by the media and we have no voice" are still hot, I simply thought I would toss a bit of water on that one...before a much more dangerous and untamed backfire is started.

[rucky]

59. I read your links

The people who you wanted to read your links did not read your links.

why? because you had to tie it in with the silly ABB debate. which brings me back to my first response.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. Because my point was that this very reason confirms why ABB is not

silly.

But I'll just give up. You win..I must sugar coat it while people vent and emote without being armed with actual causes beyond any single president.

[library_max]

85. It isn't possible for the party or the candidate

to be all things to all people. Every concession to the left loses us votes in the middle. Before you say it, yes, the center has moved to the right. The only way to move it back is to get our guys into office and start setting the agenda and controlling appointments and the "bully pulpit." The time for either party's base to start making demands is when that party is fully in power, like the Republicans are now. Calls for "real change" when you're out of power are just self-destructive.

It's no fun to be on the fringe politically, and even less fun to acknowledge the fact. If my vote was the only one that counted, Ralph Nader would have been elected president in 2000. But I knew at the time that he didn't have a chance in Hades of winning and that the important, practical thing was to vote for Gore and against Bush. Electoral politics is not about emotional validation - it's about deciding who is going to run the country.

[littlejoe]

86. Thank god! A lucid thread.

[library_max]

95. You can tell because it's so popular.

*crickets*

[zoeyfong]

122. Why will 'our guys' move left, if moving right WINS?

And btw, you continue to believe that 3rd party people are purists who will not vote for a candidate who isn't exactly to their liking. You are wrong. I am willing to let a *lot* of stuff slide, and have done so many times. What i will not let go by is a deliberate vote to get people killed because it was politically expedient. I voted for gore in 2000 because i believed that there *was* a choice and that fundamentally, gore would go in the right direction. It is precisely because of the disaster that has been wreaked on this country by GWB *with* the aid of democrats that i must say it is time to take a stand. I will not help kerry get elected and thereby be complicit in continuing the pillaging of this country and the disgracing of its name and the name of the democratic party.

[library_max]

174. No, you'd rather help get Bush elected.

Because that'd be SO much better. :eyes:

No extremist thinks he's an extremist. No purist thinks he's a purist. Means nothing.

The reason I think things will move left with Democrats in power is because they have every time it has happened during the last 100 years. Remember, that's "in power," not sharing divided government. The New Deal and the Great Society/Civil Rights victories were the result of Democrats in the White House, Congress, and the judiciary.

[zoeyfong]

196. Whatever, and Jesus christ, the New Deal was what, 60 years ago?

And speaking of being in power, the dems don't seem to be in much of it lately, and that's after at least 10 straight years (since the 1994 repub congressional landslide) of moving right, chasing the mythical whitebread middle, and still losing. That is why i am banking on sending them a clear message that they better start trying to get some votes on the left, or it's not going to matter if they get a few votes in the middle.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

198. An article in the LA Times today pointed out something interesting

Kerry and Edwards spent almost nothing on commercials in the days immediately following the Wisconsin primary on Feb. 17, according to the independent monitor TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group, based in Virginia. Although the two rivals have announced new ad buys this week, it remains highly unlikely that they will saturate the airwaves before "Super Tuesday."

Analysts cite several reasons for the diminished role of campaign commercials.

First, Kerry and Edwards have little spare cash, and are spending much of what they do have on such basics as candidate travel, state-to-state organizing and voter turnout.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/complete/la-na-ads25feb25,1,2760672.story?coll=la-elect2004-complete

For all the tripe I keep hearing about GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENTS, I know of nothing more grass roots than the candidates actually taking time to GET OUT to the voters rather than invade their homes through their TV's.

[library_max]

199. Gee, I thought you were one of those long-term thinkers.

A thousand years in the future, okay, but forty years in the past (the Great Society) is too far, man. Well, I can't help it, it's the last time the Dems were completely in power. Government tends to be divided most of the time, and then there's a limit to what either side can do.

Both parties have always "chased the whitebread middle," with good success or bad. Until 2000, we were doing no worse than divided government - neither party in complete control. You remember 2000, right? When a significant portion of the left decided that they could accomplish more by making a protest vote? That's what got us complete Republican control of everything, not the Democrats chasing the "whitebread middle."

So I guess you already sent that message. How are you enjoying the response so far? Getting everything you wanted now, are you? No? Then maybe sending messages doesn't work. Maybe what works is to support the party of your choice and get them into office. The right understands this. Surely we're not dumber than the right?

[zoeyfong]

206. You might as well claim that repugs are the party of Lincoln.

My point is that that the dem party of today is not the same as it was 50-60 years ago, and the issues facing the country are different. The dem party has seriously lost its way and is not equipped to deal with these realities now.

And again you blame the dems 2000 loss on nader. Look i voted gore in 2000, and was opposed to nader voters, but at least i have the fortitude not to blame gore's loss on nader. Many of those nader votes would not have gone to gore anyway, just like i'm not voting for kerry, regardless of whether nader runs. Besides, if it's all about the middle, why would or should dems possibly be concerned about 2% of nader voters? Of course it is not all about the middle; the left and the right form the heart and soul of their respective parties. If this were not the case there would just be one big, stagnant party in the middle, and the left and right would be permanently left out in the cold.

Regarding sending messages, *every vote* sends a message, whether it's dem, repub, or 3rd. I think your bitterness toward nader voters is going to prevent you from seeing ways to improve the dem party. It's like alcoholism; you have to admit there is a problem, before you can solve it. If bush gets four more years it will not be on my head.

[library_max]

209. I think maybe I finally understand what the problem is here.

"If this were not the case there would just be one big, stagnant party in the middle, and the left and right would be permanently left out in the cold."

You don't seem to grasp the fact that both parties are competing for the middle. The Democrats can't just "claim" the middle. The Republicans are working as hard for middle votes as we are. Why do you think President Bush floated the trial balloon about Mars? Why do you think he pushed a prescription drug benefit for Medicare? Granted that both are pervertable into boodle for rich Republican-supporting industries, but do you see that they're also bids for saying, "See, I'm not all conservative"?

If you think that one party (the Democratic Party) can just "claim" the middle, I don't blame your frustration for their failure to do so. But the point is that middle voters are courted assiduously by both parties. The Republicans tend to talk about tax cuts and family values, the Democrats about jobs and health care. Usually, the middle splits more-or-less down the middle - it's not a monolith you know. The reason the country tilts 50-50 politically is because both parties are fighting tooth and nail over the middle.

The big Republican advantage nowadays is that the right has come home to roost. They don't demand red meat issues in the campaigns and they don't insist on picking the candidates. Neither Bush was particularly to their liking, father or son. But they back the Republicans no matter what, and now they're getting their reward, now that Republicans control all branches of the federal government plus the media. The right isn't mucking around "sending messages." They're electing candidates (real ones). Go thou and do likewise.

[zoeyfong]

215. Of course the're both fighting for the middle!!!!; that doesn't mean they

don't need their bases!!!!!! Yes, dems do not try to get the religious fundamentalist vote, and repugs do not try to get the pro-gay marriage vote, because it's never going to happen. They go for the 'swing' votes that they think they can peel off; that doesn't mean they don't need their base votes as well.

You seem to be envisioning a permanent 3 party system - one huge monolithic party in the center, and 2 small fringe parties on the left and right. That is not the way it is. We have a **2 party system;** one party is left of center, and the other party is right of center. Every left of center vote the dems lose is one more that they have fight repugs tooth and nail to get. You are the one who thinks that middle is just going to fall into the dems' lap. Point is, if repubs have their base sewn up, plus they have whatever votes they can get in the middle; they will end up with more votes than dems, if dems are only going for the middle and give up the votes of their base.

You know the "Anybody But..." goes in cycles; when a party has been out of power or feeling abused for a long time, they are likely to be vaer unified and do anything to beat the other party. But sometimes after their party has been in (or out of) power for a while, if certain segments of the party feel that they have been abandoned or betrayed, they may revolt and split the party, thus allowing the other party to win. Moral of the story: "Anybody But ..." improves a party's short term chance of electoral success, but simply counting on permanent, blind loyalty of all left/right of center voters is not going to be a long term winning strategy for either party. Btw, you might note that Reagan and Bush Jr. was/is careful to tend to the repub base; the anti-gay marriage ammendment, faith based initiatives, anti-environmental legislation, anti-worker/pro-corporate/pro-aristocracy tax structures, etc. were not put in place for the middle. Bush Jr. is very mindful that his daddy is perceived to have abandoned the repub base, which helped lead to his downfall in 92.

[library_max]

223. With respect, I think you missed my point.

As you say, two parties, one right and one left. Repubs "have their base sewn up" because their base acts in its own self-interest - it sticks tight to the Republicans. It doesn't "send messages," it doesn't threaten to bolt, it doesn't act abandoned and betrayed. It knows which side of the bread its butter is on. It didn't want George Bush senior and it didn't want George Bush junior, but it supported both. Bush-the-younger ran as a compassionate conservative, a uniter not a divider, et-crap-cetera. He didn't run as a red-meat conservative, and he didn't promise the Religious Right jack in the campaign - not an anti gay marriage amendment, not faith based initiatives, not anti environmental legislation, not diddley nothing. But they hung tight and had faith and put him in office with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. And now they're getting their reward.

But the left can't seem to be happy unless they are dictating candidates and campaign platform planks. It's threaten, threaten, threaten, and bolt, bolt, bolt. It doesn't matter whether the Democrats have the reins of power or have their noses pressed up against the glass from outside, much of the left expects to have its own way and its own way of having it, right now, or else. The "base" gets its reward after the election, if an only if the election puts its party completely in power like the Republicans are now or the Democrats were under LBJ. And even under optimal conditions, the base never gets everything it wants, not by a long shot.

Depending on "blind loyalty" from its base isn't exactly a Republican strategy. It works the other way around. The right's strategy is to stick tight to the Republicans and support their nominee and Congressional candidates and get their party elected to power. So far, it seems to be working, short term and long term. The left's strategy of making demands and preaching ideological purity seems to be working less well.

[rucky]

149. 1) What's logic have to do with it?

2) You're preaching to the converted. I begrudgingly accept the ABB strategy as the least crappy of all possible strategies - barring a DK miracle comeback. (Votes with enthusiasm don't count any more than votes with noses held)

3) Apparently electoral politics IS emotional to some people. How could it not be - this is a very grim reality we're dealing with. So if backing off a bit may help your short & long term strategic goals, wouldn't you urge people to back off? That's all I'm doing. We have 8 months to see how this movement shakes out. Woo-hoo Nader's running. Dean's body isn't even cool yet. Feeding the fire now will only solidify positions. Don't tell me people didn't get emotionally involved, when they believe we squandered a chance to beat Bush AND reform the party all in one election - because we fear some fictional swing voters would object. It's equally emotional to see people repeating the same mistakes as 2000 and undermining a simple, solid strategy. Damn right it's emotional, so let's just show a little patience and respect & give these pissed-on/pissed-off people a chance to support each other & come around on their own. And for the ones who are stirring the pot just for kicks, fer chrissakes don't feed into their power trips. They're just looking for some sort of power to wield - as are the ABB or STFU people. It's more emotional & psychological on BOTH sides than it is political. the sooner you see that, the less frustrating it will be for all of us.

4) You = y'all, not "you". Just ranting about the whole damn travesty.

[charlie]

10. Thank goodness

O'Connor has so far held off on her desire to retire during a Republican administration. I'll bet the gin-swilling monkey is vexed by her change in plans.

[blondeatlast]

65. She has indicated that she won't retire as long as GWB is in office.

For those who read between the lines, her intent is pretty obvious.

[BL_Zebub]

89. If this is true, why doesn't she issue a public apology

for her part in the Coup? I'm aware that she's opposed the other members of the Felonious Florida Five on a couple key decisions recently, but there remains the story of her reportedly angry reaction on election night when the media whores called the race (correctly) for Gore. Supposedly even her husband was worried after her display of venom - and he's a Republican too!

[blondeatlast]

150. She realizes she made a terrible mistake. Admitting it

would ruin her. Don't tell me you don't have a self-defense instinct.

[HFishbine]

11. By the numbers

How many Bush nominees to the court did the tutus approve and how many have they rejected?

[gottaB]

19. How many Pickerings can dance on the head of a pin?

That argument had some resonance with me in 2000. I'm younger than that now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. Read my supportive documentation. The answer in in the study at the bottom

Or must I do all your work for you?

[HFishbine]

67. That's sweet

I remember now. As the dems pointed out on the house floor recently, they've approved 168, blocked 4.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. 4 that are the last line of defense before it gets to the USSC

There is merit in wisely choosing battles.

[littlejoe]

12. It is not so much that the republicans want the courts as

an arm of their party. It goes much deeper. It has to do with the dominionists, and the dark agenda that they have for this country.

For many years they have successfully infiltrated the most powerful positions in the land. Four more years of bush will only solidify their stranglehold on power.

[denverbill]

13. Yada yada yada.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200210/101002b.html

The raw numbers, not percentages, reveal the true workload of the Senate on nominations and everyone knows that. Anyone who pays attention to the federal judiciary and who does not have a partisan agenda must know that. In addition, Democrats have moved more quickly in voting on judicial nominees of a President of a different party than in any time in recent history. Led by Majority Leader Daschle, the Democratic majority in the Senate has confirmed 80 judicial nominees, including 14 circuit court nominees, for a President of a different party, in just 15 months since the reorganization of the Judiciary Committee. In comparison, in the first two full years of President George H.W. Bush's Administration, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 71 judicial nominees. In fact, during the first 15 months of the first Bush Administration, only 23 judges were confirmed, with eight to the circuit courts. Our confirmation of 80 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees in just 15 months is historic progress for a President and a Senate led by different parties.

<snip>
The Committee has voted on 100 of the 103 judicial nominees eligible for votes – 97 percent. Of those voted upon, 98 – 98 percent – have been reported favorably to the Senate. In addition to the 80 judges already confirmed, another 18 approved by the Judiciary Committee await Senate action on the Senate Executive Calendar.
<snip>
---------------------------------

[Dookus]

14. Do you believe a Democratic president

would nominate the same kind of judges? That's the issue.

[ShimokitaJer]

21. No. That's not the issue.

Will the Democrats fight to get their judges nominated and overly conservative judges blocked? That's the issue.

Look at the way the Republicans were able to defeat so many of Clinton's appointments in committee. It's disgusting and partisan, but they were willing to fight for it and they got their way. Our Dems in comparison bow to Bush's will and aren't willing to fight, and Bush gets his nominees into positions of power.

Promising the Dems your support without demanding a backbone is not going to change anything.

[blondeatlast]

68. I think we are demanding BOTH. I sure as hell am.

Any Democratic leader who doesn't realize this is THE ISSUE deserves your disdain. If we have to force it upon them, fine; I'll do it.

[ShimokitaJer]

137. Not if you are ABB, you aren't

The only criticism I have here is for those who are demanding that everyone toe the line and vote for the Democrat, no matter who it might be, no matter what the Democratic platform looks like, and no matter how the candidate might be dealing with Bush.

Promising your vote to the party in advance means promising to give your vote to your hypothetical Democratic leader who doesn't get it if need be. And that's what I refuse to do.

[blondeatlast]

145. These are dangerous times, my friend. DANGEROUS.

Anything is better than 4 more years of the BFEE machine. I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I'm ABB all the way. I despised Bill Clinton at the time; now I'm fucking nostalgic for those days.

If you can live though 2008, vote 3rd party. It's your right and your privilege. But if it ain't there in 2008, well, hindsight is always 20/20. And we'll meet again in Gitmo.

[ShimokitaJer]

164. Still voting out of fear?

Then you're right where the neocons want you. Their agenda moves forward whether it's pushed by Bush or the New Democrats, so what do they care that Bush steps out and Kerry steps in? All they care about is that the American public is kept scared enough never to upset the status quo... and they're succeeding beyond their wildest expectations.

[blondeatlast]

168. OHFERCRYINOUTLOUD.

Which party is going to protect:
Right to choose?
Miranda rights?
Free speech?
Seperation of church and state?
Misuse of the executive branch; look to Nixon vs, United States in 1972?

It sure as hell ain't the Republicans.

Suit yourself--obviously I can't convince you. But you are simply ignoring the impact your vote will have on the Supreme Court. If putting your head in the sand makes you feel better about the disaster of another Bush term, so be it. If you aren't concerned about a lame duck president with a same party majority, I envy you.

To me, another Bush term gives the BFEE and cronies a shiny ticket to run roughshod over the Coonstitution, the courts, and the citizens. They've already done it; they sure as hell won't play nice when GWB doesn't need to even think about re-election.

Really, I envy you. I have too much concern for my fellow citizens to let another Bush term happen. Even you, friend, even you.

[library_max]

88. How do you figure?

If Bush is president, he will continue to make the same kind of nominations - probably worse if he a) is actually elected and b) is a lame duck. So it will be up to Democrats to "fight." Now, mind you, the Democrats are a minority in the Senate, so they don't have the actual votes to block nominations, unlike, say, the Republicans under Clinton. So "fight" mostly means "lose" no matter what they do, no matter how much "backbone" they show. They don't give you extra votes in the Senate for being tuff or talking louder.

If Kerry or Edwards is president, he won't nominate these kinds of wingnuts in the first place. Problem solved.

So how do you figure that the solution isn't supporting the Democratic nominee but demanding "backbone" from Senate dems?

[blondeatlast]

144. I think you replied to the wrong post--I'm with you.

[library_max]

188. Thanks for the support.

On my computer, it says I responded to post #21, ShimokitaJer's post "No, That's not the issue." That's the post I intended to respond to.

[denverbill]

25. No, NSMA said this.

"but all the cries about pink tu tu Democrats ignore the DANGEROUS judges they have blocked."

Those 'bold' Democrats have blocked only about 3 of the biggest nutjobs. Pink tutu's is exactly what they are.

Read that letter from Leahy. He and other Democratic leaders were falling all over themselves trying to prove how unobstructive they'd been to Bush.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. From your own article, he was defending the BLOCKS from claims of

partisanship>

Are people so blind as to not read their own supportive documentation and keep it in the context in which it was stated? People are.

Thus, when partisans harp on the nominations of Terrence Boyle and Carolyn Kuhl and other nominees without home-State Senator support, they know they are being misleading.

BTW...WE BLOCKED those nominations.

[denverbill]

78. I read the article.

The entire friggin article was bragging on how many of Bush's judges they'd appointed. In his first sentence he terms it a "historic demonstration of bipartisanship toward this President’s judicial nominees" which "has been overshadowed by partisan attacks in this very chamber and in the press."

I.e., he is saying we appointed damned near everyone Bush sent us, except these two, and now partisan attacks are being made on us for refusing those two.

Leahy, and others, were fighting back against claims of 'obstructionism' which had been lodged by the pukies. Well, fine and dandy Patrick. You aren't obstructionist. In my book, you are a pink tutu Democrat who is so accomodating to Republicans that you get all upset that they call you 'obstructionist' when you've been bending over backwards trying to appoint everyone they send up.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. And justifying the blocks of their 4 most dangerous choices which are

the last line of defense prior to heading to the USSC where it becomes the law of the land.

[denverbill]

90. OK, I give up.

I fail to see how Leahy bragging about how many Republican judges Democrats have appointed proves the Senate Democrats weren't pink tutu Democrats.

"In the 15 months before the reorganization of the Judiciary Committee after the shift in Senate majority, the Senate confirmed only 32 judicial nominees, including three to the circuits. Under Democratic leadership, we have already confirmed 80, including 14 to the circuit courts, in just 15 months."

Yes, the appointed twice as many judges as did the Republicans. They can surely claim they aren't obstructionist. Good luck with the pink tutus though.

[Edwards4President]

117. This is much more complicated than you seem to realize . . .

It is necessary to understand the nature and workings of the Senate before criticizing the Democrats' strategy or progress. While it sounds great in theory, it is impossible to block every one or even a significant number of Bush judges. First of all, believe it or not, all of Bush's judges have not been objectionable. Therefore, it makes no sense to beat up on Senate Democrats for approving many of them.

Let's not forget that the Republicans have the numbers to approve every one of Bush's judges and filibusters are extremely difficult to mount and maintain. The Estrada filibuster was a huge undertaking that no one believed the Democrats could pull off. The fact that the Democrats managed to do 6 (not 4) filibusters is absolutely mind-boggling. Expecting yhem to have engaged in dozens or scores of filibusters is an outrageously unfair expectation - it just cannot be done.

Moreover, regardless of what we think about any particular Senator or the vote he or she took, we cannot look at them in a vaccuum - they must represent the constituents in their respective states, most of whom have no stomach for their Senator using all of his or her resources on fighting over judges.

The Senate Democrats - especially those on the Judiciary Committee - have done a masterful job in stopping the worst of Bush's judges. They have managed to do this even though they are completely outnumbered and had little political or public support for what they did. They have done this while taking enormous heat from their constituents on the one hand, and being mocked as tutu-wearing pansies by Democrats - most of whom are not their constituents - for not fighting harder.

John Edwards is a perfect example. Yes, he voted for many of Bush's judges. That's because, as he has said, he doesn't believe that judges should be rejected purely on ideology. He objected when Republicans did that to Clinton's judges and his sense of integrity leads him to apply the same standard now that the shoe is on the other foot. He does, however, fight judges whom he believes allow their extreme conservative ideology to affect their decisionmaking, particularly those who

Have you ever watched a Judiciary Committee hearing or markup? If you have, you've seen the Democrats stand up for what's right, fight hard against Bush's judges, even when they know they'll be voted down. Not only that, but they have worked tirelessly to improve bad legislation that, although it's a foregone conclusion that it would pass out of committee, passed out with fewer bad provisions than if the Democrats hadn't gone to the mat (check out the asbestos and class action bills, for example).

So, while it may feel good to dog out the Democrats for not doing as much as you think they should, I urge you to take a closer look at what they've had to work with. You might see that they've done a much better job than you're giving them credit for.

[chiburb]

15. Agreed.

Going back to 1968, many, many idealistic supporters of McCarthy (and Kennedy) refused to vote for "establishment", "old guard" Humphrey. Too close to Johnson (they said). Too close to Viet Nam (they said). Combined with Wallace winning 5 Southern states, this attitude of "taking my ball and going home" allowed Nixon to win by 500,000 votes, and MANY more thousands to die in Viet Nam.

I know the topic here is the Judiciary, but my point is that ABB is NOT acquiescing to the DLC... it's saving the country from further rape, pillage, and plunder.

[Zomby Woof]

16. our values ARE alike

But then, you're my California Proxy Gene Splice. :D

[lastliberalintexas]

20. I agree to an extent, Teena

But I think that you are giving our party leaders too free a pass on their actions in failing to protect the judiciary. Scalia and Thomas were both confirmed by Democratic Senates, and the vast majority (about 98%) of Shrub's appointees have made it through in the last 3 years. We did still control the Senate for some of those 3 years, and I do feel that our party leaders failed us during that time.

No, we won't nominate wackos for the courts- but we sure will confirm them. We need to demand that our party do much more to protect the courts- otherwise, we will lose them anyway.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Look at it in context...to do otherwise is to pretend there wasn't a HUGE

fight on Thomas' nomination nor a HUGE fight on Rehquists appointment as Chief justice immediately PRIOR to scalia which was PRE Bork...which was right about the time the Dems got the actual grasp of the Federalist Society.

Demand yes..but remember...a bunch of "so-called" outsiders wrought this new vetting process upon us and made it the MESS that it is by taking a page out of our OWN book via the contentious BORK nomination.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. Yes, but the fight means nothing

once the actual votes are tallied. Great, the Dems stood up and SAID that Thomas wasn't qualified and shouldn't be confirmed- and then many of them turned around and voted to do so anyway. Words are nice, but actions can kill.


I understand how frustrating it is to think about even more RWers on the courts. I live and practice in a Dem area of Texas (even if not liberal), and yet we have to face 2 new appointments to the bench from Shrub. They are very pro-defense, very much in the corner of Corporate America, rather young for federal judges- and should never have been confirmed! One of them was actually confirmed while we still controlled the Senate, which is one of the reasons I remain so angry with our party.

I simply expect to see something more from our Dem party leaders about protecting the courts than mere platitudes. Like actually blocking more judges than are confirmed, like actually making the fight public so that people can see the nuts that the repubs are trying to appoint, like actually standing up and being counted when it matters. Otherwise, as I said in my previous post, nothing will change since we will continue to confirm the repubs' choices.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. Pickering and Pryor were not confirmed, they were recess appointments

They couldn't argue that Thomas wasn't qualified. He was. Their arguments were based on his ideology.

[lastliberalintexas]

61. I disagree- Thomas was not qualified

And many of our Dem Senators DID argue that, even if they ended up voting to confirm. If I remember correctly, the ABA even scored Thomas as unqualified. We had ample reason to refuse to confirm Thomas, and our elected officials should have done so. Had we refused to confirm Thomas, we could have gotten a a more moderate appointment a la Souter or even held out until after the next election in the hopes of a Dem win.

All of this would be a moot issue had we shown backbone back then and refused to confirm Thomas. One less RW idiot on the Court, one less vote for Shrub in 2000.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. I'll go back and look that one up in the interest of accuracy

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

167. Coming back to this point:

Thomas' nomination was challenged MORE on concerns regarding he VIEWS on Natural Law than on his qualifications. Liberal orgs and the NBA had issues with him but he was not deemed UNQUALIFIED.

He was confirmed in the Senate 52-48

Here are supportive articles to remind people of the HEATED debate concerning his nomination and the actual DILEMMA it placed for liberals to DISCRIMINATE against a black male when there was CONFLICTING testimony regarding Hill's allegation which BTW were LEAKED without her permission NOR request:

http://archives.cjr.org/year/92/1/thomas.asp

While there WERE valid questions concerning his senate testimony, it seems that the HILL hearings undermined these inquiries.
http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~ybf2u/Thomas-Hill/stuwrk/f931/Geer/geeress1.htm
Because so much of the discussion regarding his nomination hinged upon the questionof "was Clarence Thomas guilty of sexual harassment?", when Anita Hill and her supporterswere not able to provide conclusive proof of his guilt, the Senate confirmed ClarenceThomas's nomination. On September 27, prior to the publication of Anita Hill's charges, theJudiciary Committee took a vote. The result of that vote was a seven to seven tie and theCommittee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. After ananonymous source disclosed the existence of those charges, the very nature of the chargesseized the public's attention. If attention had remained focused upon his lack of judicialexperience, it is very likely that Clarence Thomas would have been passed over in favor ofa more qualified nominee.


Therefore, it's difficult and appears that not only did Nina Totenberg and NPR DERAIL the inquiry into his quslifications, they also made it impossible once the public got polarized by the inquiry and hearings regarding Hill.

Again, I wouldn't necessarily CATEGORIZE this as a "sell-out" case. There were implications far beyond simply selling out.

[edzontar]

24. The court matters, of course.

I will be voting for the Dem nominee, even though Kerry DID vote to confirm Scalia.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. As should be obvious to anyone who has been on this board

for more than a day or so, I'm a Kucinich supporter and find all the "socially acceptable" candidates to be too timid.

HOWEVER, when it comes to the judiciary, I know that I have to vote for whichever Democrat is at the top of the ballot in November.

If Bush gets another four years and starts appointing "Christian" reconstructionist judges (like a scary high school classmate of my brother), we'll be on a fast train to fascism.

So vote for whomever you want, but then don't complain if all of a sudden you find that the courts are simply rubber stamping whatever evil schemes the Republicans come up with.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. I accuse those who don't agree with you of narcissism or immaturity

There, I said it.

Years ago, a wag in the Bay Area coined the term "Virtuecrat", but it didn't really stick.

When it comes to the General Election, anyone who doesn't see that the Democratic candidate is the only way to stop the Republicans is not paying attention; anyone who doesn't see that stopping them is imperative is mistaken.

Many are truly abhorrent of the IWR and its resultant debacle, but if this is something that stops them from voting against the man who caused the war, they're helping the true enemy more than anything else. Unfortunately, self-reflexive image mania has far too much to do with political affiliation. Far too many conservatives are so because they want to be thought of as tough, no-nonsense and self-reliant. Far too many leftists are so because they want to be lauded as sweet, spiritual, caring and gentle lambs of whatever. Face it, folks: each approach is narcissistic and selfish, and each causes its believers to do things that are decidedly against their own interests. (In the case of leftists, also against the interests of society; conservatives simply don't give a fuck about other people.)

Bush must be stopped. If Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Tse-Tung could bury the hatchet for over ten years to get rid of the common enemy, then our visionaries and idealists should be able to scrape up the decency to do the same. It's one thing to influence the nomination, but to screw the general election for the sake of not wanting to be seen as being in complicity is just silly.

[David Zephyr]

29. I Hope You Feel Better Now That's You've "Said It"

Keep wagging that finger at the Left within the Party --- you know, those people that have begrudgingly stuck with the Party over the years as it moved further and further to the right.

Keep telling them how "immature" they are and how "narcissistic" they are. I suppose you believe that this is a great way to keep them from finally bolting for good this time.

And you do this on the very day that Nader jumped in the race, too.

Great formula you have there. Haven't figured it out, yet. But I know you must have.

[edzontar]

33. Right. Whatever happened to trying to ATTRACT and EARN votes?

Kerry or whomever is not ENTITLED to anyone's vote.

These are personal decisions.

I have stated repeatedly that i will be voting for the nominee, but at this point this will be IN SPITE of the mind-numbing drum-roll of the ABB contingent.

Need I remind you that it was your candidate who was promoted as being so "electable" ?


And he seems to be doing well in the national polls at the moment,


So why all the puffed up cries for COMPLIANCE NOW?????

It is not over yet. Be patient. Try to concentrate on psting goos reasons to vote for your man.

Is that not reasonable?

[lastliberalintexas]

34. I find it ironic

that it's apparently more important to cater to the people who left the party in the 80s and try to get them back in the fold than it is to stand by those who've fought the good fight through the lean years. Prodigal sons indeed.


:hi: David

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. I find it ironic that progressives don't recognize HOW many of their

arguments were NOT lost in legislation but in the courts.

Perhaps some day I will post a history ckass for progressives complete with district and supreme court decisions to enlighten the dissaffected.

Hundreds of judges make a much bigger difference than one president where limiting and extending rights are concerned.

[lastliberalintexas]

55. I know that already

The ADA is probably the easiest, most recent example for me to cite as to why the courts are important. Legislation passed by a moderately left Congress, signed into law by a (moderate?) repub president, and absolutely emasculated by the RWers on the bench.

My problem in these arguments over the courts is simply that some people refuse to acknowledge that some Dem officials are as complicit in the RW takeover of the judiciary as the repubs are. Our elected officials continue to vote to confirm, we continue to complain that the RWers are taking over the bench, and never quite grasp the fact that it is partly the fault of the Dem party!

Until we admit there is a problem...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. Read Lahy's statements above posted by DenverBill which were intended

to rebut me but actually support me.

This didn't all happen without the media framing it in the minds of the public and Democrats having to tread a fine line that Republicans did NOT when they blocked judges.

I am not saying there IS no problem....and I agree that we must give whoever our president is a house and senate to work with...which is exactly why I didn't view Dean as a panacea to anything.

[David Zephyr]

69. I Think They Do Recognize It.

The Radical Left knows that most all progress comes from direct action, not political action.

In the case of the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and Vermont ruling about gay unions, the court deserve some credit -- as you have pointed out -- but actually, it was the homosexual couples themselves who took direct action by refusing to go along with the laws. I give them the most credit for their brave stand.

The same in the recent SCOTUS ruling on sodomy. Did the Court really deserve the credit for their fair ruling (overturning their early 1980 ruling in favor of sodomy laws)...or did the interracial couple in Houston deserve the true credit for direct action in refusing to abide by Texas laws --- laws supported by Texas Republicans and Democrats?

I certainly prefer the appointments of Democrats to the Courts to those over Republicans, and I know that you know I feel this way, but attempting to scare Lefties into voting for any Democrat on the sole issue of judicial appointments is a weak strategy to do so, in my opinion.

It's a component, but in the end people, even enlightened Lefties like me, will always be more motivated to vote FOR something than solely AGAINST something.

You are herculean in your effort to hold this cracking glass together, NSMA. Nader's announcement today does not bode well for the Party. He did it just as the Left has, once again, become marginalized in the Democratic Party. Smart guy, huh?

Your efforts would be leveraged if your candidate got the message to reach out to the Left now...before it's too late.

700,000 Dean volunteers up for grabs at this very moment.

Ralph Nader sees it, but does the Democratic Party? It doesn't look like it to me. In fact, there seems to be a growing impatience with us. Just look at PurityofEssence's post. Might as well point the way to the door.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. Please David...I appreciate you but in your emoting and threatening

over the matter you just proved my point.

Politicians say what they say so that they MAY get elected. Once they get elected, they put people on the courts that will either limit or protect your rights.

Fine. Slam the door...you're getting your own foot caught in it.

I no longer care to argue this point with you as I value our friendship more.

I don't plan to get married, pregnant and if I got a life threatening illness, one bullet will cure it.

I have less of a dog in this hunt for the common good and can use another tax break.

[blondeatlast]

84. SO TRUE--"lost in the courts."

Here's a brief refresher course--

http://www.landmarkcases.org/

If anyone doesn't get the power of the SCOTUS yet, I suggest you look up US vs. Nixon (SITTING US PRESIDENT!).

Everyone who thinks the current SCOTUS would rule the same way for GWB...

Nevermind. I like DU too much.

[jonnyblitz]

38. I personally am ABB but I agree with your post 100 %

and I COMPLETELY understand why others would want to go third party.

[David Zephyr]

49. They Are Being Told to Get Out.

I guess we make them uncomfortable.

I think Nader has sensed this, don't you?

This finger wagging at the Left by the Moderates who control the levers of the Party is planting some very bad seeds that will produce a less than desirable harvest this Fall.

And they call us immature?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. No they are being asked to think about the fucking consequences of

their fucking actions all the while plugging their ears going LA LA LA I can't hear you.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. That includes me

As this party has stupidly thought its survival would be helped by willingly destroying itself, I've stuck with it and tried to influence from within.

One thing galling to those of us who do compromise is the constant inference from others that only they are pure of heart, and only they truly feel and care. That's annoying, inaccurate and abusive. We feel too, and we take many hits along the way. If you don't like my rebuttal to Dean hagiographies, remember all of the endless personal derision heaped on the rest of us by the Dean camp; to not absolutely love the man was proof of one's calumny, and we had our collective noses crushed into it endlessly. We feel too, and we have hopes and desires for our future. Who's more ethical? The one who would risk the future for the sake of idealism or the one who would risk some ideals for the sake of a future? Yes, appeasers say much the same thing, and there's always an excuse to abandon one's ethics, but one can be practical and still be ethical; one can also be so ethical that one is wholly impractical.

Idealists, non-compromising purists and other partisans often credit themselves with being the only ones who truly feel. This is not only inaccurate, it's self-aggrandizing and abusive to others. To dismiss vast tracts of individuals out of hand is to show oneself as close minded and egocentric. (Believe me, I see the irony between this and my previous shot-across-the-bow.)

The idealists and extremists are our soul, yet much as fringes define all parties, the real battle is waged in the center. Voices of honor are what should guide us, but in the end, the stark reality should be our determinant. The derisive destruction wrought by the many who have thrown down various gauntlets based on litmus tests is hard to prove or disprove, but perfectionists always cause trouble. The ends don't justify the means, but the means don't nullify the ends either. To "vote one's conscience" and let a pack of hyenas consolidate their control is of no spiritual beauty, it's a form of monasticism based on the unattainable.

Yes, it's demoralizing and infuriating having idealism quashed by the forces of compromise, but from this vantage, it's equally so to have realistic hopes for survival crushed by adamant purists. Our only ticket to survival is with Edwards or Kerry; any other ride is doomed. If you can dispute this statement, go ahead and do so. If you think it's not important to fight for the better of two flawed futures, then please examine the possibilities of the Junta's Brand X.

What do you mean by your last two paragraphs?

[LoneStarLiberal]

35. You're Right (Reich) On

I'd merely add to your post and say it's not just the Republicans that are seizing the Judicial branch, it's a particular variety of Republican: The Social Conservative.

The Social Conservative (within the context of the Judicial branch) is the judge who will not acknowledge such "activist" decisions as Roe vs. Wade but yet will use his or her own stamp of activism under the disguise of "original intent" to legislate America back into the 19th century.

[Lefta Dissenter]

36. If I get started,

I'll probably blow a gasket, like I did yesterday. So, I am calmly writing in support of your post. You go, girl!

(long deep breath,..... count to 10......)

[HowdyDUit]

37. ABB is ok with me as long as ABB supports Gay Marriage

That is MY line in the sand. You are with me or against me.

[Lefta Dissenter]

41. so if the clear choice is

someone who supports civil unions vs. the one who will be battling for DOMA and whose wife said that gay marriage is very, very shocking... I can't imagine you'd stick with the status quo! :shrug:

[HowdyDUit]

53. Screw civil unions

If the ABB candidate won't come out to support my RIGHT to marry my partner I will stay home and celebrate our RIGHT to love eachother and ignore the homophobic candidates.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. You can get a law passed or you can have a court stacked with judges

who have traditionally extended and protected the rights of the gay community...one is only good as long as public sentiment permits it...the other has to stand the test of constitutional challenges by judges that interpret the constitution as not limitng your rights....ala...the USSC overturning the Texas sodomy laws.

It's your choice....hold me over a barrel, you are holding yourself over one too.

[blondeatlast]

43. Can I get an AAAAAAAAAAMMMMMEEEEEEEEENNNNNN!

This is the 1000 pound pink elephant that we don't talk about. This is THE ISSUE that draws the line between them and the Democrats.

These are lifetime appointments, kids. We stand to lose Bader-Ginsberg, the ONLY real liberal on the court. The rest are moderate-right or severe right.

These are dangerous days for the uninitiated.

We MUST discuss the elephant now, before it is too late.

[Maddy McCall]

45. Again...

:yourock: NSMA!!

[mmonk]

46. exactly

That's why I'm voting for the Dems no matter what (no third party this time).

[tedoll78]

50. Oh my gawd.. people are here are actually using their brains!

THANK YOU for bringing this up.

People may while about how Candidate X doesn't agree with them on Issue B, all while conveniently omitting the fact that their nominees will very very likely forward their cause on Issue B. THAT's thinking ahead, thinking logically.

Kerry or Edwards may only serve 4 or 8 years; William Rehnquist has been there since 1973 - 31 years!

A good judge is the gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving, and I won't let the illogical voters around here forget this!

[Walt Starr]

57. The judiciary is the only reason I will vote for the ham sandwich

If we had a younger SCOTUS, I'd be third party all the way this year.

[blondeatlast]

71. It's the predicament we all face, Walt.

In the end, SCOTUS is the deciding factor for me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. Would you like it with mustard? Cheese? Rye or sourdough?

I appreciate your recognition of this fact and will fly to any location to serve it up just like you like it.

Really. I mean it.

Thanks for the recognition of what difference you CAN make with or without your preferred candidate.

[littlejoe]

91. Let's see now......When was the last time a third party

candidate ever had a snowball's chance? Hmmmmmmmmm.....I'm still thinking.......


Oh yeah, it was....NEVER!

Third parties are a joke and a distraction in this country, and most likely will be for the remainder of my life.

[Walt Starr]

103. Hmmmm, looking bback, it was 1992

Perot actually lead in the polls until he went into looney mode. His presence also guaranteed Bush the Elder would lose

And the Republican Party was originally a third party.

I guess third parties can be meaningful.

[library_max]

112. The Republican Party was not originally a third party.

The Whigs were deader than a doornail before the Republicans got up and running. Who was the Whig presidential nominee in 1860? Who was the Republican nominee in 1856? The two did not overlap.

As for Perot, the polls mean diddley. Lots of people say they'll vote third party and then change their minds when they actually get into the voting booth.

The hard fact is that a third party candidate has never come close. That is so for rock-solid reasons endemic in our winner-take-all political system. Perot, for example, won zero electoral votes. The third-party candidates who did better were strictly regional candidates, and regional politics on that scale is dead.

[Walt Starr]

114. We'll see

We'll see in 2008.

I guarantee you, no incumbent Democratic president will get my vote in 2008.

[library_max]

116. That's surprising and disappointing.

So (let's say) Kerry ends up winning the thing. Winning big enough to get at least a whisper-thin majority in both houses of Congress (not likely, but possible). Then let's suppose he turns out to be the liberaliest liberal ever to come down the pike. That's entirely possible if he's got the votes in Congress, candidates rarely govern the way they ran (has Bush been a "compassionate conservative"?). Suppose he enacts single-payer, reforms trade to balance in the needs of labor and the environment, turns Iraq over to the UN and pays reparations, reverses all the Bush tax cuts, etc. etc.

But too bad, you've already guaranteed me that no incumbent Democratic president will get your vote in 2008. Way to give us a chance.

[Walt Starr]

118. Yup, he still would not get my vote

Until we dump the two party system, this country will always be fucked.

[library_max]

175. Then it always has been fucked.

Because it's always had a two-party system, from George Washington's day to now. But shoot, now that you want a 200+ year old system "dumped," I'm sure its days are numbered.

[IrateCitizen]

190. Let's see now -- rather than seek to improve a tenuous coaliton...

... you have instead chosen to indulge in mindless invective all in the hopes of "one-upping" somebody else. :puke:

How very noble of you. I hope your sense of smug-satisfaction keeps you warm at night. :shrug:

[absyntheNsugar]

64. RIGHT ON

nt

[joyautumn]

83. Clinton's Breyer is Law and Economics

I agree, and Nader publicly warned voters in 2000, that another DLC Dem in the White House would stack the Supreme Court with more Law and Economics nutso's like Stephen Breyer. If we get more strict constructionists like Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas, then there won't be the corporatist takeover of the SC. Instead, the court will decline to interfere with Congress, and strike down any attempts by Federal regulatory agencies under the President to usurp the lawmaking role of Congress. So that is why, if we could trust Bush to appoint more Scalia's and not more Breyers, I would vote Bush over any DLC Dem like Clinton.

But since I don't trust Bush to make nixon-like or daddy-Bush-like appointments, because I think he might very well be just like Clinton and appoint more Breyers, I have no choice but to vote Nader, because he is the only one who has vociferously opposed the Law and Economics agenda and sworn to make it a litmus test for any appointments he makes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

102. The Democratic Party actually created an org to counter the L and E

movement called the American Constitution Society. You might want to check them out.

[curse10]

92. Absolutely correct!

The Dems and Repugs are NOTHING alike. ABB! Always!

[oasis]

99. "It's as plain as day, ABB all the way.

[Kimber Scott]

115. It's really not that bad...

Save for a few Anti-ABBers here and there, most people in the Democratic Party, many Independents and even quite a few Republicans realize how important it is for there to be a regime change in the U.S. this year. Don't let the Anti-ABB people get to you. Out in the REAL world, as opposed to DU, and even on DU, there really aren't that many of them. We all need to stay focused. The times, they are a changing.

[DemBones DemBones]

119. As much as I'd like to write in Dennis Kucinich's name in November

I'm not going to do the "pure" thing and imperil future generations of Democrats.

Dennis never got the media attention or poll numbers that Howard Dean did, and those of us who supported him were often told that he didn't have a chance. Now that 18 primaries have shown that Dean couldn't draw anywhere near the number of votes that his supporters expected, Dean has quit campaigning, and his supporters are greatly saddened, and angry.

Maybe it's better not to build up great expectations for a candidate until they have the nomination sewed up. I can't speak for all Kucinich supporters but it seems that most of us will commit to voting for the nominee, despite our disappointment that people dismissed Dennis as too far left or nor presidential looking and our anger with the mistreatment he received from the press. If we can't get Dennis in this year, at least we can help get Bush out.

I will still proudly vote for Dennis March 2 and I want him to go to the convention and lobby for his views. But it now seems that the only people who still have a horse in this race are the Edwards supporters and the Kerry supporters. Besides the Dean supporters, there were many Clark supporters, and a good contingent of Kucinich supporters here at DU, and we all have to adjust to what's happening.

I hope all DUers, being better informed than the average voter, will also come around to voting for the Democrat since that's the only way to do any good in the election. Voting for Nader or another third party candidate, or writing in Dean, Clark, or Kucinich, will not help any of us, and could facilitate the election of Bush and thus a great deal of harm.

[MurikanDemocrat]

123. I don't need convincing, and I see good candidates without the ABB mantra

But I'll give you a kick, and bookmark for later.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

124. thanks

[Democat]

125. Thank you for the post!

Maybe you can get Nader on the phone and have a talk with him? :)

[oasis]

126. 4 more Bush years will be worse than the last 4. ABB.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

129. Even though it got tense this was my first enjoyable conversation

in this forum.

Thanks.

[unfrigginreal]

130. It's always about the courts

I can't remember one Presidential election where the courts weren't cited by both Democratic insiders to Democrats and Republican insiders to Republicans as the reason that they must vote for their Party. So there's no reason to think that the same argument won't be used in future campaigns and therefore holds no special urgency for this election.

What you should examine is the reason that we are becoming "DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to ONE PARTY RULE." That's the real threat.

[MurikanDemocrat]

131. I think she just did

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

132. Yes it's always the courts..for the most part,..always has been

Don't blame me. I didn't make up this shit. I was born into it just like you.

[Exgeneral]

133. Didn't Ralph Nader take the lead on this issue?

While Kerry took the money?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

134. Ralph Nader? Lead? LOL

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

141. No not really

He did and was informative in the matter but how is that the lead?

[blondeatlast]

151. Let's have some pithy debate while you are here.

Naser? Lead? You are joking, of course.

[quaker bill]

136. Advice and consent

You see, under the constitution, all we really need is 40 principled democratic leaders in the Senate who will refuse to cooperate with Bush*.....

Oh! Now I see the problem! No wonder you are worried!

Principles = 'Unelectable'

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

139. OK and they all come from states who define principled differently

no?

[Mairead]

142. NSMA, I agree that the courts are top in importance BUT THE DEMS HAVE

SOLD US OUT!

Not ONE SINGLE APPOINTMENT should have been allowed past. We had a frigging coup d'etat in December 2000. BushCo should have been allowed exactly ZERO permanent appointments to anything (actually the Five Felons should have been removed from office and the election done over, but that's a different issue).

The bottom line is that saying 'oh we must vote for the Dem nominee because the courts are so important' ignores the fact that even if we do knuckle under, the sacrifice might well not make any difference at all.

The only REAL solution is to make sure the Dem nominee is a fang-and-claw activist, not an appeaser, not a sellout, not a guy who always takes a firm, principled stand on all sides of every issue. 'Activist' does not describe anyone who caved in on the IWR and 'PATRIOT' act, the two major sellout opportunities (war crimes and police state) since the Coup.

[Paulie]

143. I recall how proud the senate was in affirming all those bush appointies

when the dems were in charge. WTF is up with that????

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

152. Sorry my friend..while I may agree that that would be nice,

it will happen when hell freezes. The candidates gave it their best shot. They have no delegates.

While I may agree or disagree with what SHOULD have happened, I am looking forwar at what WILL happen.

People need to look to the votes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her wing of the court to know...we are a HAIR away from losing SO much.

Was it wrong to be bipartisan? Probably so. Were FAR more judges blocked than the naysayers are claiming via the Senate acting pro-actively? Yes indeed.

Have appointments at the appellate level been blocked..yes?

Say what you want about pink tu tu Dems and get them and the Republicans in congress from your state out of office...but the USSC is molded by the current White House occupant.

We will see two maybe THREE appointments in the next term....

The COMMON good requires dumping do-gooder ideology in favor of the ONE place your activism will matter.

[blondeatlast]

153. Again, Teena, beautifully said.

I think the problem is that many of the non-ABBs are experiencing their first GE. I swore I was gonna be nice to them, but I just can't anymore.

You and I know the disaster is UNDER the water, it can't be seen, but we know it's there. And it may very well kill us all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

154. There are some first election people

but there are also older resigned voters, and of course the scholars who Nader appeals to because he is an academic...but academics and reality sometimes really don't jive too well.

Life isn't a model on paper in some dissertation...it's happening NOW.

[blondeatlast]

155. And it will keep on happening for the next 30 years,

until this SCOTUS is gone at last.

Like I say, there's an elephant in the room.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

156. Sorry no Elephants allowed here

:D

[blondeatlast]

157. Heh, heh. I KNEW you could get that smelly thing outta here!!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

158. Trying real hard

Thanks for keeping this kicked

[Mairead]

163. I'm not one of them, however

And I'm far from 'resigned', though I suppose I have to accept that I qualify as 'older' (on the outside, anyway). Nor am I really an academic.

I think the people who qualify as 'resigned' (and perhaps as older, too, on the inside) are those who claim that we're already cooked, that it's already over, and that all we can do is submit and stumble catatonically into line because resistance is futile. Of course, that could be faux resignation instead, a crafty ploy by people who really don't want change; people who are happy with the Bushian/DLC status quo. Difficult.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

170. hey I am voting for Kucinich in the California primary

as I want some numbers behind his message and I want him to see the support. That said, i am voting DEM in the gE even if my primary vote doesn't amount to a hill of beans..when considering the concerns of this thread, I have clearly stated why it matters to me.

[Mairead]

172. Well, ya can't say fairer than that, so: thanks!

(I still say the Dems have repeatedly sold us out, though)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

173. I think it is tough to mount a fight that is coming at you from every

angle. I think some of it can be tied to corporate money and some of it tied to fatigue.

I also think a lot of the acrimony comes about from people taking historical events out of context...certainly with the confirmations of Scalia and Thomas...the Anita Hill thing was a leak that disrupted the debate about his actual qualifications.

[BruinAlum]

159. Impressive effort

This is indeed a very urgent issue. I am a Kerry supporter, and I would have supported any of the candidates. I'd support a steaming pile of dog shit over Bush.

I wonder if it will change any minds though. I see some that are so set in stone for such irrational and emotional reasons that have nothing to do with logic or reason. It's depressing - like watching people implode, or have a nervous breakdown.

Good luck.

[DeepModem Mom]

160. Thank you, nothingshocksmeanymore --

[MurikanDemocrat]

161. need reinforcements back on page one!

[Frank_Person]

166. If you like the ass kickin' your gettin' now vote your "heart"...

if you want to turn this ship around (littel by little) vote to friggin' WIN!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

169. I'm willing to concede there's some emoting going on that will pass

but not if it's too uncontained for too long..all Republicans need to do is throw money at Nader again like they did in 00 to capitalize on this emotional radical element and our fate is sealed.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

171. kick

[MadHound]

178. You. . .are. . . so. . . close. . .nsma,

And yet you don't quite get it yet.

WE'RE ALREADY LIVING IN THE ONE PARTY SYSTEM! Yes it has two wings to it, but being as that both of these wings are supported by the same corporate masters, how can you say otherwise? Especially after the voting performance we've seen over the past ten-fifteen years. Can you honestly say that it was a Democrat who pushed through welfare "reform"? Can you honestly say it was Democrats who passed the Patriot Act? And if your speaking of judges, well what happened with the Clinton appointees on the issue of corporate personhood and rights? Oh that's right, they voted with their conservative bretheren on this issue.

I will grant you that there are still SOME differences between the 'Pugs and the Dems, but these differences are slowly being reduced, and the parties are quietly becoming merged. Voting ABB simply validates this process! That is why it is important to have a viable third party as soon as possible.

Short sighted, short term win at all costs politics got us into this mess. Application of more of the same ol' same ol' won't help us get out of it

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

180. First of all corporate PERSONHOOD also gives you the RIGHT TO SUE

corporations. Second, I am SO fucking OVER the Patriot Act argument. The Patriot Act was signed as a result of the inefficacy of FISA warrants to pursue terrorists and portions of it were drafted after OK city. The fact that the law will sunset is proof that the legislature specificall Democrats realized it might set a dangerous precedent if misused and all frontrunner Democrats agree it needs to be revised as it HAS been abused and goes too far.


I cannot overcome the welfare reform argument but DO feel it would have been revisited for the negative effects had we not had an 80 million dollar zipperhunt.

[MadHound]

192. Still close, but alas, no cigar

First off, I could already sue any damn corporation I felt like, in fact twenty, hell, even ten years ago it was a lot easier. Also before corporations became gods in the US, there was the threat of the corporate death penalty to help keep them in line. Alas, various courts around the country(including courts with sitting Clinton appointees) have for all practical purposes taken this threat away, thus allowing corporations to run rampant with little or no fear of the consequences.

Regarding the Patriot Act, first off only16 parts of it were written with a sunset provision, other more odious parts, like the sneak and peek provision have no sunset at all<http://www.cdt.org/headlines/20040127a.shtml>(click on the CDT overview of the sunsets, a pdf). Secondly, Bush is already agitating to make ALL of the provisions permanent, and judging by the spinelessness of the current Dems on other issues, he will get his wish. Secondly, FISA warrants actually are a very effective(though unconstitutional) tool, the Patriot Act is simply catching up other provisions of law to the intrusiveness of FISA. Also, the only revisions to the Patriot Act that I've heard any of the candidates talking about are the upcoming Patriot II provisions. And some of those have already been passed, thanks again to the spinelessness of the Congressional Dems. The only candidates currently speaking out against the Patriot Act are Kucinich and Sharpton, and they want to do what is right, scrap the whole damn thing.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with your viewpoint on these matters. The evidence is there plain before us that we have entered into the "two party/same corporate master" system of government. The only real difference between the two big parties is the speed with which they hurl this country off the cliff edge. Therefore I find it imperitive to work towards bringing about a viable third party, one that is not beholden to corporations. The one that fills this bill is the Greens. Therefore the goal this year is to get to the magic number, five percent, in order to receive matching funds. After that, the sky is the limit. I'm thinking long term well being as opposed to short term feel good. Kerry has proven himself to be just another corporate whore, willing to sell his soul for thirty pieces of corporate silver. How can I condone a man who has the same mentality as Bush(just in a kinder, gentler form)? Therefore I going to go my own way, the way my conscience dictates. Condemn me if you wish, flame me if you must. But in the long term I think you will thank me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

193. What are you talking about? The decision granting corporate

personhood goes back to 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern
Pacific Railroad). If you are talking about pulling corporate charters that is another property issue entirely. If you are talking about enforcing the Sherman AntiTrust act, then I need go no further than Clinton's case against Microsoft which was on the right track and COULD have set precedent in other cases but was pulled off the table when Bush took office.


I don't condemn you or flame you, I simply think you form opinions that are not based on facts. It is the public right to be wrong.

Go for it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

201. I'm waiting!

[salin]

181. Clearly the two parties are not the same - well done and documented

post.

The only thing I might add - would be for those who are discontent with the direction of the party... would be to think about a short term and long term strategy - with short term being getting rid of the bushcorportist/neocon/religiousright axis from their perch in the white house... a second strategy of moving that same axis (esp tom delay and crowd) out of their domination in Congress - and a much longer term vision/strategy - for moving both the party, and the public conversation as a whole to the left.

Perhaps there is common ground to be found in that discussion - the immediate threat is huge - and there is no more immediate place where it is demonstratable... and no more longer-lasting impact (long after teambush is gone) than in the court.

However the conversation around ABB - when it gets resisted often seems to be resisted out of a sense that doing so validates the entire rightward lurch of our country... and while the source of the problems are GOP related... there has been some complacency and even some participation from our own ranks that has helped slide us in these directions... thus the conversations start to break down ... where if perhaps we could start validating the concerns of both camps (the immediate ABB need, and the need for long-term strategy to "take the party (and public) back")... we could start discussing short-term and simultaneous long-term strategies - and then boiling those things down into actions that we, collectively and individually can take to both of those ends.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

182. I think Tom Hayden addresses your last paragraph well

snip
Each of us may decide to back an individual candidate, and that can expand our movement. But let's not let ourselves be swallowed in any single campaign. When the candidates ask for our time and money, let's also ask them to join our movement around a new vision of what America can be.

As the global forums have insisted, "Another world is possible," words embraced by the French foreign minister when the US war was rebuffed at the UN. The vision of another world already is becoming manifest in local struggles:

A reform of the global trade system with enforceable standards to protect sweatshop workers and rainforests, not simply investors in video cassettes and privatizers of water. - The re-regulation of crony capitalism, from Enron abuses to public financing of elections. - A shift from being the world's leading arms supplier to greater investment in the UN's anti-poverty programs. In JFK's time we spent one percent of our gross domestic product on fighting poverty; today it is 0.13 percent, little more than zero. - Resisting the oil, chemical and utility conglomerates from Cheney's task force to the Bolivian pipelines, towards energy conservation and renewables. - Promoting grassroots participatory democracy in decisions that affect people's lives, as a vital ingredient in governing.

George Bush can be defeated; even the polls confirm it. But who knows if the Democratic Party can defeat him? Who knows if we can bridge the differences between the Democrats, the Greens and Ralph Nader? Politics is a power struggle, not an exact reflection of public opinion. But the fear and loathing are out there, building, and with enough dedication in 2004 we can remove this cloud over our future.

We owe it to ourselves, to our progressive traditions, and perhaps most of all to the world, to prevent a second term for this president. The way to assure a democratic future politically is to prevent what the conservatives conceive as a Second Coming. So I ask your righteous suspicions about electoral politics, set aside your attachments to any single candidate, and see this as a powerful convergence of many campaigns to defeat George Bush. The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=4385

[salin]

183. I agree with that... and perhaps... if we are going to win

which I personally think grows to be a greater likelihood with each passing day that Wandcrew have not been able to pull themselves out of their current free-fall... then perhaps the time is NOW to start saying... so we win... WHAT NEXT. It is in that next phase that we can help shape the direction that swells behind a presidential win...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

186. No argument from me. My point is to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot

so that what's next remains relevent and possible. Apparently that is void of principle according to some.

[salin]

187. Don't worry about the "Some"

most will come around - a few won't. However I think that the aversion that gets hit - has to do with a feeling of helpless/hopelessness (ala it doesn't matter anyhow)... and if the conversation were channeled into short/longterm and were to start discussion actions - I think some of those currently expressing aversion (with whom you and others are right now sort of at standoff/talking past each other position) - might reengage in this discussion. Trying to find the way past the loggerjam... that is most productive in the short and longterm.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

189. That's fine as long as they can understand the hopelessness

I feel when I come to find out that if I try to change it within the system I am part of the problem. It's pretty apparent on this thread.

There isn't a form of hopelessness that's more hopeless than the other.

[salin]

191. Indeed

and I think this is the root of some of the problems we are all having - hopelessness taking different forms, being taken out on each other... and reactiveness to the forms it takes - when it is expressed with inneundo and projections (as sadly is too often the case...) :-(

[Maat]

184. And this is covered in Brock's book ....

Blinded by the Right.

[bhunt70]

185. great post NSMA

[saracat]

202. Bravo ! Bravo!

You have said what needed to be said. Unfortunately, many on DU no longer care about the big picture but prefer to pursue a personal agenda that leads nowhere. I have given up attempting to convice those that will not hear but congratulations to you for such a wondeful and infrmative post.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

203. Thankyou

It's easy to hurl invectives and propaganda. It's much more difficult to think and consider that there are three branches of our government..executive, legislative, and judicial and the chances of getting away from monolithic agendas is MUCH greater in the latter...and the USSC CASE on Divinity Schools today PROVES my point as in a 7-2 decision, we may see far reaching tenacles to issues such as vouchers.

[jonnyblitz]

208. well...you convinced me

in this and your other posts therefore I will vote for the DEM and agitate on the fringes. I don't feel the need to trash the remaining candidates. what is the point anymore of that? :shrug: In the end am I gonna vote for Bush or Nader ? I think not....

this thread has been around awhile eh? :hi:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

210. Thanks Johnny and one final point

I'm not saying anyone needs to abdicate their values system in the matter. I'm not saying they should give up the good fight. I'm not saying they should have no principles and I'm not saying that anything is handled if we get one small victory.

I AM saying that what was taken from us over the years was taken a piece at a time...we can pull it back a piece at a time...it didn't happen overnight..it won't be corrected overnight...slowly throwing those in the Senate and Congress that have become BUMS out on their asses is fine with me...tossing the baby with the bathwater doesn't make sense.

To anyone that wants wholesale transformation..I DO think it's possible...but when people begin to pull away from any strength in the ACTUAL numbers, they DELIBERATELY relegate themselves to the minority.

[jonnyblitz]

211. yup.

:toast:

[tameszu]

217. Fortunately, the Olin fund is winding down

It was in the will that it would only exist as a foundation for so long, and then it would just give the entire principle away in a big, slimy explosion of money for conservo-law.

If it weren't for Olin gifts, there probably wouldn't be any Repubs at Yale Law at all. =P

[frustrated_lefty]

218. Ok

hey, I'm voting.

But while I'm doing it, I am asking how the fuck we got here. HOW did the courts get stacked? HOW did we lose Congress.

We lost that to weakwilled, flipflopping rich pricks.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

FL

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

219. You're wrong

(hey you said to tell you that ;-) )

it is addressed throughout the thread

[nolabels]

221. The sign posts along the road are indicating a sharp turn ahead

They have corrals to keep all the animals in one spot. With the collapse of any real or credible enemy needing or wanting to make an immediate threat, we are all left to fight among our selfs.

Pogo would be proud