Where are the peasants with torches and pitchforks?

[Bill Todd]

(The following is something that I posted at a small site that isn't very fond of the DLC, but it poses a question that I suspect there's a far better chance of getting answered by the far larger population here: where are Democrats who are sufficiently dissatisfied with Kerry's current positions congregating to attempt to actually do something to influence him and the party to change them?

There are sentiments expressed below which many here will doubtless disagree with. Knock yourselves out, but don't expect me to engage you in this thread about them: they're here only to indicate what kind of reservations people like me have to make it clear the kind of organization we're looking for.)


Where are the peasants with torches and pitchforks?

Or, in the words of William Bennett, a man for whom I had no respect even before he was unmasked as such an egregious hypocrite but who did have occasional flair with a phrase, where is the outrage?

I decided at the beginning of February that I could not support any DLC-anointed Democratic candidate this year. I had already written off Lieberman almost a year earlier, based on his public stance on the Iraq war, but had otherwise remained ABB, albeit with increasing levels of discomfort, until it became clear to me just how thoroughly the neocon wing of our party had managed to subvert the primary process toward their own ends. Being a Dean supporter, I of course had no lack of company at the time - in fact, I was a relatively late defector from ABB group-think.

But a funny thing has happened since then: many of the most vehement Dean-or-bust proponents are now equally vehement ABB (which now means Kerry) adherents, with nothing but the passage of a few weeks and the collapse of the Dean candidacy to explain the rather drastic change in conviction (if something as readily changed as this can rightly be termed 'conviction' in the first place). When pressed, they claim that they just really hadn't understood just how BAD (can you say "Baaaaaad"?) Bush was (not that they seemed to have had any difficulty in such matters back when they were solid Dean supporters, though), or that they were just caught up in the Dean enthusiasm and now are able to think more pragmatically.

Well, maybe. As for me, I don't see any improvement in the situation, rather the reverse:

Now that the Democratic primaries are over and the general electorate is waiting to be wooed, Kerry is looking decidedly neocon on economic matters, refusing to reverse the trend for corporations to pay less and less of the total tax burden (around 10% today, vs. around 30% 30 years ago) and when push comes to shove favoring cuts in social programs instead of reversal of Bush's middle-class tax cuts to return to the eminently reasonable tax levels of the Clinton administration (gee, if he'd listened more carefully to Howard, he'd have known - but of course that wouldn't have allowed him to chastise Howard for 'raising taxes on the middle class', would it?).

Kerry is also looking decidedly neocon in his essentially imperialistic attitude toward foreign policy - just prefering the velvet-glove PPI flavor over the iron-fist PNAC variety.

The Middle East? Well, on April 15th he offered the unqualified observation, while supporting Bush's blessing of Sharon's plan to make many Israeli settlements permanent, "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel." Fair and balanced, I guess.

Health care? Let's leave the corporations in charge: they clearly know best.

Patriot Act? Waffle, waffle, waffle - support your local sheriff in a kinder, gentler way.

And some reports even have him compromising on environmental issues, an area where he used to be pretty much unassailable. I'd have trouble believing this, if I didn't see activity like http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/politics/campaign/16KERR.html .

I've been hanging out a fair amount at the Democratic Underground for several weeks, where there's a large population of fairly opinionated (which doesn't necessarily mean left-of-center) Democrats. And fully half of them seem unhappy with Kerry, though most plan to vote for him: in two recent polls, half or more respondents said his foreign policy was 'way to close to PNAC in nature and that they were not at all satisfied with his general leadership.

So what I want to know is, where's the rebellion? We may have a presumptive nominee, but we sure as hell don't have a platform for him to run on (and if elected be held to) yet, so there's time to fix the problem there - if enough Democrats stand up and demand it. Torches and pitchforks, "Yeaarrrrrgh!" and all: I still want my party back, even if I have to threaten it with a loss next November to get it, and it's hard to believe that there isn't at least some significant number of other Democrats out there who still feel the same way - plus a lot more who would help by raising their voices even if they'd stop short of withholding their vote if no real change occurred.

I'd back Dennis if he were willing to bolt the party and stand against it if the platform didn't make significant moves toward the left, but I see no evidence that he'd do that. I could just forget about the presidential race and focus on helping progressive lower-level candidates, but that would simply allow the party to adjust its allocation of resources accordingly, because the aggregate level of support would not be changed at all.

Leaving the party entirely to join with Nader or the Greens doesn't seem quite right. First of all, they're both far too solicitous of the Dems, talking about limiting their campaigns to non-swing states and focusing on bashing Bush: they may help get some issues aired that might otherwise not have been, but that's what people like Howard and Dennis have been doing for the past year and it doesn't seem to have moved the Democratic party a nanometer off its DLC butt (though it did throw a scare into them for a while). And it's possible that either or both would throw their support to Kerry at the last minute if things seemed close, without having obtained any substantive compromise.

Besides, it's still my party and I want to fight for it, not just abandon it. Why go to all the effort of building another national organization from the ground up when we've already got one whose members stand for the same kinds of things that we do? If we don't fight, we can't win - and if Kerry is elected as a DLC flunky rather than as a true centrist/progressive, we may not have anywhere nearly as good a chance to win for the next decade (after all, we won't have Dubya to scare the rank-and-file with any more, and the DLC has retained control for the past decade despite a record of abysmal failure - think what it might do with a success).

So: has anyone heard any whispers? Meet behind the barn at midnight, and bring a 2x4? Or is the party so far gone that I really should go to Nader, because he at least provides a rallying point? I suppose it doesn't really matter what Democrats' ideals are, if they're not willing to fight for them.

- bill

[aquart]

1. Give Bush 4 more years and you'll see us.

Feudalism will be back in force.

[markus]

2. First, we get rid of Bush

Then we talk.

[Kanary]

3. Your words are dynamic, and the discussion is important

However, as you can see, the DLC has infected DU to the point where no rational discussion of these issues will take place.

If you know of a venue for discussions such as this, I'd be most interested.

Kanary

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Kanary]

12. I've wanted more than discussion, also

It seemed reasonable to me, when Kerry's nomination seemed certain, that there would be a welcoming of other supporters, and a wider discussion of the ideas, and formulating plans of action. That *still* seems reasonable.

But, all that came about was loud shouts of "get in line", and several outright declarations that we "leftists" weren't wanted, needed, or even seen as part of the Party.

It's clear that this nomination is isolating many in the Party, and there needs to be LOTS of action along those lines. But, I'm sure as heck not able to keep withstanding the taunts, and nobody else I know is, either.

So, as you state in part of your writing, my interest has definitely waned, and it will become clear in the coming months that there are thousands, probably millions, like me. Wonder what they'll do then? Scream at us louder?

It's really too bad... reasonable people really can discuss all this, and come up with some plans of action.

Kanary

[blondeatlast]

35. DU Admins are allowing thoughtful criticism; some vocal DUers

are not. Examples: the virulent DK haters and the ABK crowd. I spar with both on a regular basis and will continue to do so. Neither position is a threat to ****it.

As long as the debate is thoughtful and focused, I'm willing to engage in the it. But there are too many on both sides of the DU fence who want their way, and theirs only.

Don't give up on DU just yet, please. One of your pet issues (Universal Single Payer healthcare) NEEDS every voice we can muster to push for it, and I believe that many in DNC leadership do pay attention to DU.

[Skinner]

16. Supporting the Democratic nominee is not a DLC value.

Supporting the Democratic nominee is a Democratic value. Whether you are a liberal or centrist, John Kerry is your only viable candidate left.

We certainly try to have rational discussions on these issues. But let's keep in mind that it does not help the progressive cause if we rise up in revolt against the only human being on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush.

[Ardee]

21. strong words faulty premise

The progressive cause will never be served by supporting the right wing, never, ever. John Kerry and his DLC cronies are part and parcel of the problem with our nation and supporting Kerry because he isnt Bush (though in political reality he really is closer than most of you think)does nothing to change the face of American politics.

I see the same tactics on the right of the democratic party as I do from the right of the GOP, makes one wonder dont it?

PS nice post Bill Todd

[salin]

24. Discussing, critiquing, and looking for ways

to build a broader and stronger progressive base - that is legitimate.

Working to organize to work against the democratic candidate... that is another thing altogether. I could be wrong, but especially in line of the (essentially) "I will get flamed for some of what I write - but I won't discuss it with you on this thread" tone... and the lack of response to a few who have provided thoughts for possible discussion of starting a long-term framework for the same end (a broader more powerful progressive base within the party which makes the party have to become more responsive) makes me read this as less about discussion and critique and more about recruiting folks to actively organize to oppose the presumptive Democratic candidate. That makes me a little uneasy.

[sangha]

26. I think it's an effort to organize, and not discuss, because

the poster claims to be "not really familiar" with anti-Kerry borads, and then goes on to give a fairly detailed description of the anti-Kerry boards out there, including descriptions of how one version of a board was better than another.

It's sounds pretty familiar to me.

[Ardee]

37. another premise that misses the point

why oh why do some , the same ones again and again, treat differences as disloyalty? Is it such a flaw in their vision of how a democracy works? Is it a denial of the obvious fact that debate, discussing, the airing of grievances all lead to stronger political action and more useful campaign rhetoric?

I personally am of the belief that most of it comes simply from those with an agenda, one that supports the right wing takeover of the democratic party, one that suported the overthrow of the Iraqi government and one that uses distain and distoriton to keep others from noting the decline in membership and popularity of the party.

When an erudite poster like Salin calls criticism of Kerry's stance some sort of cabal working towards the defeat of the party I must take pause and check to see if Ive fallen down the rabbit hole. I wish that I could vote for Kerry, honestly I do. I have been voting for forty years now and have voted for a non democrat exactly twice, both times for Peter Camejo in the gubernatorial race in California.

I cannot and will not be untrue to my vision for this nation, I cannot and will not accept a candidate that ,again and again, sounds like another Bush. I will continue to speak out against this rightward suicidal stance of my former party, not as some fifth columnsist but as one who sincerely wants to see the restoration of my former party to its rightful place in the political scene.

[Kanary]

25. You're right, skinner. It's time for some of us to leave

Some of us have very VALID and frightening reservations about the way the Democratic Party is going, but it's not welcome here, so it's time for us to find other venues.

Thanks for offering a home on the web in the past.... May we meet again sometime when this country is safer.

:hi:

Kanary

[Skinner]

27. It's not time for anyone to leave.

You are not the only person with valid and frightening reservations about the Democratic party. I think most of the people on this message board would agree with you on that. And such discussions are welcome.

But I think rising up against the Democratic nominee will do little to help the progressive cause. We admins are upfront about the fact that we support the nominee, and we hope this website will not be used to work for his defeat. But there is still plenty of room for disagreement and discussion, from all parts of our coalition.

[Kanary]

28. You want plenty of room for disagreement and discussion

But those of us who have valid concerns have been called all kinds of names, and it's condoned.

The Party is losing many of us over this, yet..... we're told "Be sure not to let the door hit you in the ass".

I would *think* that would be as troubling as a freeper invasion.

But, I would be wrong.

I appreciate your reply, yet I also know the reality....... I talk with many people who are just as afraid of Kerry as I am, and I know the degree of disaffection. There's a serious problem. Yelling at me here, and others like me, isn't going to make that problem go away. It just makes us go away.

I know that it matters not, but I'm already facing extinction, and it has hurt considerably to find that most "Dems" here have absolutely no compassion for that. When I've tried to voice exactly what it is that worries me, I'm just derided and dismissed, and those are the polite ones.

I realize that my life, or lack of it, has no value here.... but when I hear all the calls for "Get out the vote", and for bringing poor people back into the Party, all I can do is shake my head. I have a foot in both worlds, and have some insight to offer, but... all I get is dismissed.

So, I'm sure this isn't what you wanted to hear, but this is MY concern, and it's a very serious one.

The future of the party depends a lot on whether Dems continue to be the party for the poor.

Judging from what I, and others, have received here, that isn't very damned likely.

We're just seen as "trying to bring down the nominee".

Hogwash.

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

33. at the same time...

those of us who DON'T have concerns have been called all kinds of names, and it's condoned.

Do you want to be able to express your opinion without being disagreed with?

[Bill Todd]

29. It may be too fine a distinction for some of the hard-liners here to grasp

but rising up in an effort to influence the current positions of the presumptive Democratic nominee is an entirely appropriate activity for concerned Democrats to engage in - especially before the party platform has been constructed.

The question of whether such activity is appropriate for people who consider themselves Democrats after the platform has been agreed upon may be slightly more debatable, but I wouldn't say much more so: I find it entirely possible to consider myself a Democrat while remaining willing to oppose specific Democratic candidates or elected officials because I feel that their positions do not reflect core Democratic principles, but there are certainly positions that the party could take at the convention which would instead make me question whether I still wished to be a part of it.

That said, clearly DU is free to enforce whatever rules it decides to, just as its members are free to go elsewhere if those rules become unpalatable to them. But my reading of the current rules reveals no incompatibility in letter or spirit with what I have posted here - which was a direct question about where one might find others with similar sentiments about organizing rather than any attempt to organize such people here.

- bill

edit: A direct question which still lacks any answer - not even That Place Which Must Not Be Named seems to qualify.

Given the degree of dissatisfaction that clearly exists within just this group of activist Democrats about Kerry's current stances, that really amazes me: I truly understand (and fully share) the level of disgust with Bush (and even more with his neocon handlers, who have earned it over a longer period) that seems to drive the ABB fanaticism, but would have expected some non-negligible percentage of Democrats to have kept their heads about them nonetheless.

Is it really considered better to drive such people out of the party than to try to address their concerns within it? I could understand this view from a DLC perspective, since it's probably the best way to retain their control at the expense of some calculated risk in November - but the party regulars don't have any such vested interest to protect.

- bill

[wyldwolf]

32. bye, Kanary

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. There is indeed such a venue

But we "aren't allowed" to name such a place here ;)

[blondeatlast]

19. Beat me to it!

[Bill Todd]

30. So I just discovered

I had heard that allegation elsewhere (no, not there), but had written it off as hyperbole or paranoia.

- bill

[blm]

39. Where people who rationalized Dean's 11 years of centrism

and ignored his appointment of conservative judges while governor, exalting him on high while dumping on Kerry who carries a 30+ year record of liberalism that even Kucinich can't match?

Where you are required to pretend that Dean was NEVER for pre-emptive war as decided by Bush even though that was as much part of Biden-Lugar as the IWR?

[Bill Todd]

41. And where I can't point you for a B/L refutation, so I'll post it here

The Iraq War Resolution Which Passed vs. The Biden/Lugar Variant

Until shortly before the Senate vote on the Iraq War Resolution, Kerry opposed it, favoring the Biden/Lugar variant (as did Dean). However, when push came to shove, he supported it (and of course voted for it). Without wishing to go down too deep a rat-hole, the distinctions between the IWR and the Biden/Lugar variant have been so widely misrepresented that a quick review seems appropriate (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31884-2002Oct2¬Found=true for additional comments).


Biden/Lugar

"Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the president shall make available to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after Sept. 12, 2002, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1)." (reportedly from the New York Times, 10/1/02 - I do not have a direct reference for this wording, unfortunately)

Note that since no such U.N. authorization for use of force was ever obtained, Biden/Lugar would have forced Bush, before starting the war, to provide Congress with his determination "that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary" - a very specific assertion of need (certainly at least close to the threshold of what can rightly be termed self-defense) for which he could later be held accountable and if appropriate impeached.


The Iraq War Resolution

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." (The complete text appears at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/politics/03HTEX.html?ex=1082520000&en=fbc23828cadaaffb&ei=5070 ; the first 1.5 pages are standard Congressional meaningless "Whereas..." embroidery.)

This resolution merely required Bush to assert that war was necessary to protect our 'national security' - itself a rather poorly-bounded concept - or to enforce "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions", a sufficiently vague grab-bag to make later accountability comfortably nebulous. Furthermore, it conveniently ignores the fact that absent U.N. approval, the U.S. had no right under international law (nor under U.S. law, by virtue of the fact that we have ratified the U.N. charter as a treaty) to attack Iraq for any reason save self-defense against an imminent threat (a point that was not lost on Paul Wellstone at the time - see http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100413.htm , right at the end).

Bush himself rejected the Biden/Lugar variant because he claimed it would 'tie his hands' ( http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml ) - and indeed at least to some degree it would have. The ACLU held that view as well ( http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html ). In any event, those who assert that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar was equivalent to Kerry's support for the IWR are simply wrong: Kerry's vote for the IWR supported the war in a way that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar would not have, and Kerry voiced no other real opposition at that time while Howard was increasingly critical.

- bill

[ACK]

4. Get out there and change the system

Listen progressives. Read Koko1's thread and her top post in the thread on Why Kerry and Bush agree on so many issues.

Most of this was my response to her and now to you.

I like Kerry. I admit but I also admit that I am big pragmatist.

The man is left of Clinton, Lieberbush and the way the DLC ran Gore last time.

Listen we are talking about trying to free ourselves from the demon oil. Imagine Clinton or Lieberman saying that? I damn well thought not.

Neither Clinton the second time or Gore really had a healthcare plan. Kerry is talking about it. This is good people.

At least he is talking about modifying NAFTA! At least he does not support FTAA thank goodness. There are plenty of hardcore DLC'ers that would not even go there.

I think Gore would have been just as good or better than Kerry is going to be on the environment but Kerry has always voted the right way on this.

Do I like everything Kerry stands for? Hell no, I got significant differences.

Is he as left as Kuicinch or Nader? Heck no, I see that. I admit that.

But he is a small tiny miniscule step in the correct direction.

But how can we move things even further to the left?

Ok, the Dem establishment has taken all the wrong conclusions from the success of Clinton. They are convinced if they keep moving to the right and just do not act the corrupt fool that they can win back the Reagan "Dems". They are wrong.

You have to forge a new populist progressive voice. You actually have to take your message to the hated sheeple and do the end run around the whore media and use the new media to its most effective end while at the same time getting out in true old fashioned grassroots efforts for the face to face unless you want a people's movement without the people.

Was the DLC right that some issues needed to be moderated on for the national stage? Yes in small part.

There are three issues that Americans are extremely conservative about:

1. Gun control. Bait the extremists with gun safety laws but otherwise on the national stage bite your tongue. America likes their guns.

2. Death penalty. The American people want revenge and believe in an eye for an eye. Outside of a safe liberal district you better be ready to make a hard decision about this one.

3. Strong military. This is the fun one. Clinton cut pentagon costs, closed bases etc..etc... He still won re-election. How? Don't frickin' talk about it endlessly. Say your doing it because you have to balance the budget or something else. Give half the money you save from any cuts to military families or something. Just never, ever, ever, ever talk about the military being anything else besides #1. Bullshit? Sure. Essential. Yes.

Everything else go wild.

Foreign Policy. Personal liberties. Trade and Commerce. Social programs.

Remember Mondale. He once said that the American people in polls agree with 95% of the Democratic platform back in the liberal days of the Dem party. Why did they still fail?

Well, you can go all freaky liberal but be ready to explain outside of typically used liberal phrases.

People talk about Kerry talking Senate talk in his speeches. Well people here talk intellectual liberal talk a lot here. When you are taking the message to the people you have to be able to -- duh -- talk to the people.

Find the populist voice. Study Clinton and Edwards not for their positions but the way they connect and talk to the crowd.

Oh yeah, political candidates need to either be charasmatic like Edwards or have the serious common touch like Truman. Remember Dukakis. He had neither.

Also remember one final vital thing. The thing that my grandfather always remembered about the GOP. That is the fact the GOP is the party of the monied interests.

If you go populist you have to peg them for this.

Like my grandfather use to say, "The Republicans don't care nothing about nobody except the rich man."

I have never seen anything in my life to make me think different. Capitalize on this hard.

It took the Repukes twenty years of so to manipulate the media and stabilize the thinktanks, the talking heads and the talking points. We have not got that long. If you want a people's revolution man you have to get the people and convince them.

Two words:

Progressive populism
oh yeah
in a pretty charasmatic tv friendly package.

+

[Bill Todd]

8. Thanks for a thoughtful reply

Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether the lesser-of-two-evils factor trumps the strengthen-the-death-grip-of-the-DLC factor. I hope that you're right in your view, and that the longer-term plan that you describe will be successful in some reasonable amount of time.

But I hold the other view, that now is the best chance we're likely to have to loosen that grip this decade, and that if we don't do everything we can to do so then longer-term efforts may well be unsuccessful too. So I'm still looking for like-minded people actually organizing something concrete in the way of immediate pressure, while viewing your approach as a parallel avenue for effort rather than as a substitute.

- bill

[ACK]

9. Reasonable people can agree to disagree

And understand when the twain shall never meet without slipping into blind hatred.

That being said I do agree this is the perfect time.

I see Kerry as progress to the left next to Clinton.

Take that and move other members of congress to the left and elect more liberals into safe districts.

We have to formulate a true populist progressive voice and get the message out.

Sure we cannot be so idealogically stubborn we cannot moderate but we have to form a core set of political values. Then we have to move on that core hard.

We have to get back to our base of unions, teachers, African Americans, environmentalists, and activists. Listen to our core and speak to the real concerns. We have to stop pissing on our base. I think that was very crucial in turning off many union members to the Democratic party.

+

[KoKo]

34. Get involved locally and try to contact your Precinct Chairman for Dems

where you live. Get the names of the fellow Dems in your area and try to meet them. Knock on their door and give them some literature. We have so many Dems in our conservative area of NC who want to get involved and are against the Iraq Invasion and Bush but they don't know what to do about it. They want to get information they want to know who to call and how to fax and who their Congresspeople are (Yes...hard to believe but it's true!)

Yesterday at our Caucus Polling place my husband and I had folks asking us who their Congressperson was for their district. They didn't know who was running and some said they vote Dem but just never really cared about politics before but they want Bush out and they are angry over why he isn't being investigated for Iraq! I'm telling you these are the folks we need to reach. They aren't political like those of us here are. And the ones who have computers don't know how to get to progressive website for information. I was telling folks "Buzzflash" because of the links to media outside the US and because it's all progressive.

Here in my area of NC there are folks who want to do anything to get Bush out and are angry with this war. Who would have thought? But they want something to do! Not just to vote. They want to be involved.

I think the local level is where the "pitchforks and torches" are.

It's unbelievable the anti-Iraq Invasion at our County Dem Precinct Convention yesterday. A resolution Praising Edwards for running for President and urging support for him to be Kerry's VP was overturned by three votes! Our convention was filled with Dean/Kuchinich Precinct Officers who had gotten themselves involved. The County Party Operatives were shocked that we didn't support our "favorite son" but we had the votes and Edwards behavior had angered us so much that we organized.

Things are changing in the grassroots. If you all go out there and contact the Dems in your area, you will see. I didn't believe it until I saw it with my own eyes yesterday.

[NMDemDist2]

5. what people forget about a true democracy (IMHO)

is that it is DESIGNED to work slowly at best. Democracy means compromise every time on many issues.

For example-- you have two groups who passionately believe opposite sides of an issue. What democracy gives you is the forum to discuss what are non-negotiable and what can be compromised on. After much haggling, consensus taking and struggle the two groups end up with something that neither one can passionately agree on, but that both sides can live with ("until the next time" they both snigger evilly to their diehards)

This is the foundation on which the strength of a democracy is built, and we need to understand that we HAVE to give a bit and be willing to let the other side win a bit to get along

Just a thought :hi:

[Kanary]

7. Forgive me for wanting a change

when my very life depends on it.

Kanary

[NMDemDist2]

10. I am just giving some "background" and am wearing out shoes

walking the streets and knocking on doors, registering voters and educating everyone I met. It takes every bit of discipline I can muster not to scream in their bored selfish faces the truth, but I know that is not the way to get people engaged. I just keep chipping away at the pessimism and the apathy and pray.

At least I will know I gave the effort and will take to the streets and get teargassed and jailed again if I must, but honestly it will be a lot harder at 50 than it was in the 70's (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weaker)

[buycitgo]

31. "what people forget about a true democracy (IMHO)

is that it is DESIGNED to work slowly at best. Democracy means compromise every time on many issues. "

by your definition, we've already LOST our democracy.

look at what these freaks have done, under guise of past and future "evildoer" depredations.

they've attacked at flank speed on EVERY conceivable front, from the bill of rights, to voting rights; from the budget, to the congress' right to appropriate money; from the phony war on drugs, to the
phony war on terror.

these examples are the tip of the radical, fascist agenda which has been set in motion at BLINDING speed, compared that at which your democracy works, and it's just as dangerous as what happened in Weimar Germany, due, if nothing else, to the sophistication of modern propaganda techniques, media concentration, and the utter abrogation of said media's fourth estate responsibilities.

that said, this is a most interesting and provocative discussion, and, though I lean toward those who despair much of Kerry's appalling policy statements (Israel, Venezuela, business tax cuts, to name three), there is no choice but ABB this year.

As Howard Zinn said the other night on AAR, at least with Kerry, there's a very thin ledge on the precipice....with Bush, there is NO ledge at all, and if he's once again inserted into power, we're off the precipice and into the chasm.

[On the Road]

6. Unfortunately, the Time to Do That Was in the Primaries

I am a big Dean supporter. I wish he had won the nomination, but the voters have spoken.

I was horrified by Kerry's comments on Israel, too. However, Dean said some things that were not too far afield when he said his position "was closer to AIFAC." It's tough to find an honest broker in either party.

I'll talk about any issue there is. But I have no appetite for a rebellion against Kerry. He's our nominee. We can protest directly to him -- I would be be all for an organized lobbying effort. But no circular firing squad this time.

[KoKo]

36. Good Grief, Ribo! Who's organizing a "firing squad" against Kerry!

What did I miss? I see folks like myself who are trying to change the party from the bottom up to counteract the Liberman wing, but I think any "firing squads" have been "tombstoned." :shrug:

Or, is anyone still supporting Dean and Kucinich's ideas and trying to work their ideas into the Dem Party Platform at the Convention considered a "firing squad" against Kerry. If that's the case then I imagine I and others would be lumped in with that very unfair judgement.
:shrug:

[TreasonousBastard]

13. What we are doing...

is working through the local organizations and attempting to get the eye of the Kerry campaign to hear our individual issues.

And, should he win, we will continue to broach them to him. Win or lose, we will continue to broach them to Congress.

We will not solve anything here or in any other forum-- we have to get into the real world and work through real people and organizations. Discussion here is good, rancor is not. Discussion gives us ideas for the real work, rancor wastes our time.

It is a given that anyone perceived as a wingnut on either side cannot be elected as President. The public will not vote for either an admitted rightwing neocon or an avowed liberal. The public wants stability more than anything else, and even if it would like a better healthcare system, it's not going to elect a radical to get it. Attempting to pull Kerry further to the left will pretty well gurantee his loss.

As an avowed pragmatist myself, I don't see this election as getting what I want-- I see it as eliminating a grave danger to the Republic now sitting in the White House.

We have been down this road many times before, and while free discussion about how things SHOULD be is interesting, how they are GOING TO be is something else entirely.

I am a Socialist more than anything else, perhaps moreso than many on this board, and although I would love to see more of my vision enacted, I have little hope that it will be. What I do expect, or at least have hope for, is that I will see more of the foot in the door without Shrub and his hidden masters.

And, that is as it should be. Some of my views are held by a very tiny percentage of the population, and it would be as unseemly to have them forced upon the country, or even likely Democratic voters this year, as it is distressing as having others' forced upon me. Many things should evolve, and not be shoved down all our throats too fast. If the concept is good, it will eventually take hold. There are often more urgent matters to be seen to.

So, this endless gnashing of teeth and nailbiting over how Kerry is forcing us lefties into the lap of Nadir remains what it always was-- either delusional thinking or outright trolling.

[Bill Todd]

14. Had you actually read the post

you would have seen that it's not about gnashing of teeth: it's a direct question about where one can find a group of people actively organizing to take a solid bite.

- bill

[blm]

15. You don't know what you're posting about. Kerry's plan to close loopholes

that the corporate tax cheats are using is PERFECT.

Kerry is the FURTHEST LEFT of the DLC and Howard Dean governed as the FURTHEST RIGHT.

Try the facts and the truth. Some reading and comprehension will help you get there. There is too much at stake in November and the spreading of disinformation is NOT acceptable, even if it is based on on innocent ignorance.

If it is NOT innocent, well, it would be no surprise to me that operatives are at work to divide the Democrats just as they've done for decades.

Isn't that how Lucianne Goldberg cut her sharp teeth?

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Why do you continue to spin Kerry as a leftist liberal.....

....when everything he has said and done since the PNAC overthrow of the government on 12/12/2000 has been decidedly NON liberal, and the positions he's currently advocating in his campaign indicate more of the same.

If Kerry closes tax loopholes, that's great. I would ask why he hasn't been working on that in the senate though. Admittedly I'm a little skeptical of any multi-millionaire advocating tax reform, whether it's Steve Forbes, John Kerry, or Bill Gates' dad, but I guess it's always possible one of them could be sincere about it.

But tax loopholes are a secondary concern to the need for a complete rebuke of this global fascist foreign policy employed by the current fraudministration, and instead Kerry (courtesy of PNAC stooges like Marshall, Beers, etc.) is only doing a bit of minor cosmetic surgery on it (I won't go for the Botox joke ;) ).

Seriously, PNAC in any form is simply unacceptable. This reckless policy has destroyed this country's reputation and has given the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world an actual reason to hate us, especially when now bombing mosques isn't even off limits.

[blm]

20. Because the Senate has TOO many Repubs and DINOS to overcome

the outcome.

He filibustered where he could the last couple years and now is campaigning to WIN in November. YOU may not like it, but MANY of us do.

Guess you didn't notice that Kerry appointed two tough LIBERALS to important DNC posts to represent his interests there....Dick Durbin and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. You can't catch a clue from that?



BTW... Dean supporters who complain about any centrist rhetoric from the Kerry campaign are being disingenuous because Dean governed WAY to Kerry's right and Kerry kept the DLC from going TOO far right by pulling against the more rightwing part of the DLC(like Howard Dean) for all those years. Never stopped you from EXALTING Dean.

[salin]

23. theme that confuses me

granted I haven't had much time in the last month or so to be following these discussions - so it may not be new - is the conflating of Kerry's positions to PNAC.

There seems to be a dumbing down of what PNAC is, and therefor the threat that it presents. PNAC represents a line of thought that believes that to maintain dominance (economic as well as militarily) that the US needs to create and maintain havoc and tie other countries up who might, in the future, be able to create a counterbalance militarily or economically. Prior to the PNACers getting their way in Iraq, papers from like minded thinktankers talked of create disruption in southeast asia (tie up China and others) and other parts of the world beyond the Mideast (which has always been a focus). Ironically the PNACers have created the exact opposite reality - we are stretched so thin - that we have lost our ability to even diplomatically deal with very dangerous issues and other countries have had to take lead roles (the opposite of the idea of the US dictating everything with the goal of perpetual chaos in which the US always dominates.) During the close to nuke standdown between Pakistan and India... while we spoke, it was Russia that played the major mediating role. Currently as Bolton spit nails and created a toxic atmosphere in NKorea talks (last winter the NKoreans walked away from the table and refused to comeback unless Bolten was NOT there)... China has been taking the leading negotiating role.

I digress.

Kerry's unwillingness to call for immediate and total withdrawl from Iraq should not be conflated with being "PNAC". Even while I, to this day, disagree with his war vote (including his rationale at the time), I recognize that his rhetoric in the prewar escalation was consistent with his rhetoric at the time of the war resolution vote and always called for international participation at the most major level - quite the contrary of the PNAC disrupt/create chaos/dominate and allow no other power to emerge.

Yet I keep reading this reference (of Kerry being akin to PNAC).

While I can get discussion and criticism over his approach to changing US policy in Iraq (initially add more troops for stabilization along with internationalizing troops and then lowering presence) - I do understand it. However conflating this to PNAC - waters down what PNAC stands for - and makes it harder to detect pure PNAC policy moves that continue to subtly move forward even while we are mired in Iraq.

Personally I think that is dangerous in the long run. The blurring what the PNAC ideology is pushing - and thus being less able to explain to fence sitters WHY it is so dangerous to geopolitical and economic stability in the US and in the world... to where more and more people understand it - understand the infiltration of these thinkers into so many agencies within our government... think post Iran Contra - folks stepped away from some of the worst aspects of that debacle and didn't keep pushing the multiplicity of dangerous policies (and the thinking behind them) of those folks.. and here we are twelve to fifteen years later... and those same personalities who pushed those policies are back in high levels of government. Why? Because the public didn't fully internalize that it was more than just a single /arms/hostages sort of deal... but a set of policies (far beyond just Iran and Nicaragua) so there was no running these folks out on a rail nor public outrage when they reemerged.)

[Ardee]

38. Excellent post salin, thanks

While I almost unanimously agree with its content the one point I would make is that when Kerry advocates policies that ,in substance, are quite similar to those of George W. he ,however unintentionally ,gives credence to the extreme views and wishes of the far right, PNAC included.

I firmly believe that, to wrest the WH and policy decisions from this small cabal, Kerry must perforce run to the opposite of Bush ,instead we see him, and the party as a whole move further towards Bush. This confuses voters, gives them no clear choices and makes a Bush victory more likely.

[Bill Todd]

40. Points of similarity are not the same as equality

For example, Marshall is a direct connection between Kerry and PNAC, but Marshall is not Kerry (nor is he - edit: the entire - PNAC). Still, his strong presence in the Kerry campaign is disturbing.

At least equally disturbing to me is the strong similarity between Kerry's rhetoric and that of the PPI. PPI also is not PNAC, but both share the same fundamental premise that might makes right in foreign policy, the main difference being in just how blatantly and amorally that might is exercised.

Little of this is, at least to my mind, related to Kerry's stance on how the aftermath of the Iraq war should be handled. But it is quite closely related to Kerry's basic position (dating from before the war began, though often hidden by exhortations that we should not 'rush' into it) that the war itself was justifiable (regardless of how much he may have criticized Bush's handling of it).

- bill

[Zorra]

22. My pitchfork stays in the barn until after the election. n/t