Why I'm voting Democratic in 2006

[Timbuk3]

I've been arguing with a (supposed) ally for several days, now. He constantly joins the RW/Naderites in loudly proclaiming "there is no difference between the two parties" and I'd finally had enough. I decided that every time he said that I'd challenge him. I gave him the Democratic platform ("cheap rhetoric", he said), I pointed out that 21 Democratic Senators voted against JR114 ("not unanimous, and look what they've done since", he said), and on and on and on that way.

"There is a difference between the two parties if living in a free society matters to you", I said, and he (once again, it's all he can do) turned the subject to foreign policy.

Only once did he agree, when I pointed out that the US Constitution is under attack by the GOP. But he's still convinced that, to use MY words, "there is no hope."

This is what he thinks: "In the face of an utterly perverted and manipulated political reality, the only "uniting force" can be found in an almost universal distrust of the status quo and of today's politicos." and "I'm old enough to remember McGovern's try at running on grass roots. Been there, done that."

To which I replied:

Let me tell you about somewhere I've "been", and what I've "done".

On the morning of the Presidential election, 2004, I got up early even though I had taken the day off. I wanted to vote as soon as the polls opened, because even though the state I live in would clearly go to Kerry, PA was close and I could still help. I stood in line for nearly an hour before I cast my vote, then I got in the car and drove to downtown Philly. It was sort of a mad-house, as some people had volunteered to hold signs that said, "Honk if you're for Kerry" and the horns were going off constantly.

After a short meeting I was sent to Conshohocken to be an "area leader", coordinating the effort to ensure that pro-Kerry voters got to the polling place in a pro-Kerry area and actually voted. We sent people out in groups of two to canvass the neighborhoods, knocking on doors and politely asking people if they'd voted yet, reminding them how important their vote was if they hadn't. We'd mark off the houses that had voted, and made multiple trips through the same neighborhoods to catch the people who weren't there, on the previous passes.

This meant that we spent quite a bit of time hanging out near the polling place, trying hard not to be in the way, but watching what was going on. There was another group there, law students from DC, who had come to ensure that no voters were challenged by Republcian operatives. They were fun to talk to, and I learned more about the Federalist Society talking to them than I've ever learned on a message board from people who worked every single day to oppose them. The description that seemed most accurate and succinct was "creeps". Think Ann Coulter, and you can see why.

The Federalist Society wants to change the constitution in ways that your posts tell me you wouldn't accept. The Federalist Society backs the GOP, exclusively, and the Democrats can do nothing to stop them, because the GOP holds the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee so even the "pocket veto" used so successfully to hold up Clinton's judicial nominees in his last two years in office can't be used against them. This is all part of their long-range strategy to remake the country in their image, and they're nearly there. If George W. Bush has appointed a judge who isn't a member of the Federalist Society, I'm not aware of it. We're on the verge of a "veto proof majority" of right wing extremist judges on every federal court in America, just waiting for the opportunity to find things like "gay marriage" amendments and "the Bible is the supreme law of the land" to be constitutional. The extreme right wing is patient. They know that we're not paying attention to what they're really doing. We're too busy arguing amongst ourselves about which Democrat is the most "pro-war", and if we start to pay attention they call congress back for a special session that applies to only one person, or they rattle sabers at Iran.

Back to the story.

While I was standing by the polling place I met a pleasant woman who was there to support Arlen Specter. "He's a moderate", she explained. I spoke to some of the other people there who are on "our" side, and they said, "It doesn't matter. A Democratic majority is more important than allowing a 'moderate' Republican to retain his seat," but I wasn't convinced, yet. A little later on a Specter staffer came by and I spoke to him. He pointed out that the odds were good that the GOP would retain control of the Senate, and "wouldn't you feel better with someone like Specter in charge of the judiciary committee than someone like Sam Brownback?" I thought that made sense, at the time, and I began speaking to the other Specter supporter almost as if she was an ally.

Of course we know what happened.

When I finally left the polling place it was dark. Kerry had been declared the winner of PA, as well as DE, and I was proud to have done all I could to help make that happen. Then, just as I was leaving, I heard on a TV in the lobby that the Bush camp was challenging some votes in PA. It wasn't over, yet. I never did hear any more about it, in the car on the way home or on the tube as I watched the returns, or in the days that followed when OH was still open to question. Kerry did eventually win PA, but it wasn't enough.

Specter won PA, too, and he assumed his rightful place as head of the judiciary committee. Of course, he was immediately challenged by the extreme RW, they wanted to ensure that even the least qualified and most extreme judges could be seated by the committee, and they weren't sure Specter was their man. He didn't let them down, though. Just yesterday he put through the "marriage amendment", over the objections of Senator Feingold, and in spite of declaring himself that he opposed it. And, of course, we have Alito and ROberts, two judges who will rule in favor of corporations and against people every single time, seated on the SCOTUS for life. The odds are good that these two ideologues will be on the bench until I die.

So the "progressive purists" are free to argue all day long about why no one deserves a seat at the table. "They're too...they're not...enough" sounds great, and it's less filling, too. But the end result will be the same. More Federalist Society judges filling more seats, waiting like ticking time bombs to approve of the most discriminatory and one-sided laws. The tyranny of the "majority" will become the law of the land, and the protections for the least among us will be destroyed.

So by all means, continue to criticize EVERYONE. Say nothing good about ANYONE. Don't vote, or vote for a third party. The GOP will continue to win, but hey! You'll be able to say you held on tightly to every single one of your values even as the right to hold them is mercilessly stripped away from you, and even as our children's future darkens.

And please don't complain when President Jeb orders the nukes be used to protect OUR oil. I mean, what was God thinking when he put OUR oil under all those muslim countries, anyway?

I'm going to vote for the Democrats, this year.

[Ringo84]

1. Re:

THANK YOU for voting for the good guys.

That makes for extremely scary reading. Damn. Can anything be done at all?
Ringo

[Timbuk3]

2. Absolutely!

Vote. Help GOTV. Send every like-minded person you know (who isn't registered to vote) to this link: https://ssl.capwiz.com/congressorg/e4/nvra/ Send money to any progressive cause dedicated to electing progressive candidates. (I like "Democracy for America" and "Give 'em Hell Harry", myself.)

And don't let the bastards get you down.

[Ringo84]

12. Re:

Thanks. I will.

I've had ENOUGH.
Ringo

[uppityperson]

3. I've had this conversation and thoughts also.

My response is that I am going to vote dem, hoping to salvage things so perhaps I can next time vote who I really want to, and to continue to work at getting the dem party more towards what I want. Sign me a librul uppityperson.

[Timbuk3]

5. I'm with you on that

The time to get rid of the Democratic shit-heads, and I'm not saying there aren't any, is in the primaries.

For example, if I lived in CT, I'd be working my ass off for Lamont, but if Lieberbush won the primary I'd hold my nose and vote for him.

Step one isn't get rid of the "bad Democrats".

Step one is get rid of the GOP majority.

The rest can follow.

When you're in a bus that's going off the cliff you don't criticize the person in the seat next to you for what color shirt they're wearing, you club the freaking driver over the head and set the brakes.

[Faygo Kid]

4. You have captured what is at stake; remarkable personal epiphany

My first presidential vote was for George McGovern. It may still have been my best. We need to kick Dem leadership butt, and must never forget that without Nader in the race in 2000, Al Gore would be president. Even Rove couldn't have swung the result through fraud in that circumstance. But I like you are no "purist." These people must be investigated, and stopped, and that means Dems.

[Timbuk3]

6. Committee chairs and subpoena power DO matter

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

BTW, thanks to the two recommenders.

[alvarezadams]

24. Zactly

What appears to be a constant on many boards is that many supporters of either party seem to identify themselves with their "colours" as opposed to the ideals of their parties. "Projection" seems to be a pretty common malady.

IOW, progressives support the DNC because they perceive the DNC as representing progressive ideals ... when in fact it hasn't been progressive in a long time. GOPers are having their "Frankenstein moment" right now as they discover that their xenophobic tendencies run against the wishes of the GOP's corporate stringpullers with regards to immigration/cheap labour.

It certainly doesn't help that political marketing has taken the place of ideologies. Candidates can pick and choose stances according to demographics - which is hardly a way to govern or to progress. The shallowness of platforms isn't exactly positive either; GOPers are RIGHT when they say that the DNC has no plan. It doesn't - it has a shallow wishlist that is as deep as a puddle. Kerry's and Deans websites offered very little in the way of depth, which was very disappointing considering that the net gave them a chance to get into some detail without sacrifice.

The GOP, of course, is even worse... but that's THEIR problem.

If we want to get anywhere as a nation or as a party we need to reinvent our ideology and not merely follow the conservative machine.

[onehandle]

7. I'm a Yellow Damn Dog. I want the House BAD! nt

[MH1]

8. Thank You. Great post. K & R. nt

[Timbuk3]

9. Thanks!

One more rec and I can rub his face in it. ;->

[EST]

16. As rec #5 , I had not read any of the comments posted yet,

did not know you were shilling for votes, so my recommendation was demonstrably heartfelt, no other influence. Good content--good job.

[Timbuk3]

21. Hey thanks number 5!

It's even better that your reasons were good! ;->

[Timbuk3]

10. Take the poll

I'm a relative noob on DU, so of course I forgot to include a poll here, but I cross-posted this on Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/19/204234/125

If you want to take the poll (below), use the link. Sorry I didn't include it here.

For this years election

# I'm staying home.
0%
# I'm voting third party.
0%
# I'm voting GOP.
0%
# We're all doomed. I give up.
0%
# I'm voting Democratic.
80%
# Answers 1-4 are the same. WTF?
20%

[teknomanzer]

11. Idealism has its place...

Such as social movements developed in the true grass roots, but in politics pragmatism rules the day. Socially I will work for my ideals and push to influence political leaders, but come voting time I will be pragmatic. Its not about holding my nose, or picking the lesser of two evils. Its more about picking the side that is more likely to be influenced by people like me pushing those ideals forward. For me its going to be a Democrat.

[Timbuk3]

14. I agree with you

I've also noted many times that I've never voted for the perfect candidate, and I never expect to. It used to be a matter of choosing the candidates who *most closely* represented my own ideas and principles. Now, with the monolithic "single issue" theocratic vote, it's a matter of survival.

We need to beat our own "outsiders" in the primaries. The general elections are no place to punish the people who can give the committees back to the progressives.

[teknomanzer]

17. Absolutely...

I like people like Nader and the Greens, I share their ideals, but the reality is that politics is always far behind the progressive movements. America is a two party system, whether we like it or not... and you have to learn to play the game according to those rules. The best a third party candidate can hope for is to be a spoiler, and in that case the candidate would be working totally against their ideals... divide the left and the right wins. You get what we got in 2000. To say there is no difference between the parties is absurd. Sure both parties suckle on the corporate teat, but democrats have the best chance of being weaned.

If you want to influence mainstream politics you definitely do it in the primaries... thats where the future platforms are developed... the winning candidate usually takes notice of the strong support his or her opponent received and tries for greater inclusiveness.

[alvarezadams]

25. I disagree

"Such as social movements developed in the true grass roots, but in politics pragmatism rules the day. Socially I will work for my ideals and push to influence political leaders, but come voting time I will be pragmatic. Its not about holding my nose, or picking the lesser of two evils. Its more about picking the side that is more likely to be influenced by people like me pushing those ideals forward. For me its going to be a Democrat."

Haven't we been pragmatic long enough? Through "pragmatism" we've seen the party and the country move insensibly to the right. By being pragmatic we've allowed today's DNC to become more RW than the pre-Goldwater GOP.

If a non-progressive Dem wins an election, what message are we sending?

I say that it is indeed the time to stand for ideals - and I'm being pragmatic. We might or might not win some seats in Congress in 2006 - in either case it is clear that the DNC leadership won't do much with a majority if it earns one (Pelosi has already discounted impeachment). Congress itself is hardly respected at all by the majority of the electorate anyways. And a dem Congress will be the ideal scapegoat for the misadministration's failings.

So I'd like to make a sacrifice (in the chess sense) - lets move the DNC back towards the left so that when 2008 comes around the lines will be clear.

If we always sacrifice our ideals for political expediency, what the hell are ideals for?

[teknomanzer]

34. Foolishness...

enough has been sacrificed on the alter of "voting for ones ideals."

I'm no fan of the DNC but I can't allow the country to slide further towards the flaming pit of Gehenna with Republicans at the helm. It ends this year. 2008 is too damn late. We need pubs out of congress now to put the brakes on this insane neocon agenda.

[joemurphy]

13. The Republicans are the party of big money, corporationism,

Christian evangelicalism, those who have no compassion for the poor or the oppressed, social conservatives, nativists, xenophobes and bigots. They are militarists, imperialists and unilateralists. They believe that government is really only about having a lot of weapons and they like to use them to start wars. They are really, at bottom, just greedheads.

I vote for the Democrats because we're better than they are. We're for the workers, the unions, the minorities, the environment, multiculturalism, pluralism, and internationalism. We believe that government can be used to improve people's lives. We are more egalitarian and altruistic.

Democrats aren't saints. But our core values are better than theirs and make more sense in the world we live in today.

That's why I vote Democratic.

[Timbuk3]

15. Here's what's truly scary

The extremist RW fundagelical churches that have supported the GOP for years are pissed off because, now that "we have delivered the Presidency and the congress to you" the country isn't moving backwards fast enough!

(BTW, I think Christians are just fine. It's "christians" like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, and that ass-hat from Westboro that I can't stand.)

Oh, and thanks to that fifth recommender, whoever you are.

[vssmith]

19. "christians" like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson....

are not Christians at all. They are Pharisees.

[ProSense]

18. Excellent post!

I wish I could give it 2 rec's.

[Rainscents]

20. Excellent post!

I live in WA State and Cantwell has challenger this time and I am voting for challenger. However, if Cantwell win the primary, I will vote for her in Nov with my nose closed.

[alvarezadams]

22. I'm here

I'm the "supposed ally" that Timbuk's been posting with on another board. And there's nothing "supposed" about me - I -AM- his ally even if he and I don't agree on aspects of the political debate. He is, above all, a friend whom I admire.

What Timbuk has failed to do is to actually express what we were arguing about.

Our argument began with an observation of mine - that strategically it might not be a good move to gain power in Congress in 2006, and that I will likely abstain from voting in the upcoming elections. The idea behind my stance revolves around my understanding of the GOP/corporate spin machine; a victory in 2006 will undoubtedly play into the hands of the spinmongers by affording them a scapegoat for the failures of the administration. In the event of a Dem victory in 2006, the GOP would be able to point to an "obstructionist congress" as the cause for its failures instead of having to face the reality of their incompetence by themselves.

FWIW, my vote would be utterly useless anyways, being that I would have to vote in the ex-Dixiecrat state of Mississippi - so my abstention would be more useful as a gesture than a vote would by itself.

Timbuk, whose heart is certainly in the right place, seems to have become somewhat passionate in his disagreement with me. He's pointed to ideals, the likelihood of a conservative scotus majority, me "giving up", etc. To a certain extent he's emulated Dubya's/Pompey's "you're with us or you're against us" stance - and said that it is unrealistic to expect a "perfect candidate". And here's where we differ.

I am ideologically a social libertarian. IOW I believe in a state whose function is the common weal - withour infringing our rights as individuals. The extreme version of my ideology would be considered "anarchist" or "anarchosyndicalist". I am probably more "progressive" than most posters hereabouts.

Needless to say I have never felt particularly represented by any US party. I have supported the Dems in the past as a "lesser evil" - recognizing that the GOP represents not only a danger to our liberties but a danger to the world at large. I was an "ABB" in the last election. The last potus that I have any respect for is FDR - although I appreciate some of JFK's rhetoric (pity that it rarely coincided with his actions).

For me the issue is between short-term expediency and idealism. Today's DNC differs little from the GOP in many senses. It has embraced neoliberal economics/globalism (see Bubba's support of NAFTA), it has contributed directly towards the attempted overthrow of Chavez' Venezuela, it is equivocal regarding our participation in Iraq. And if one considers the DLC, which might or might not represent the real power within the DNC, the DNC might be considered a "GOP Lite". The DNC's progressive pedigree dates from McGovern's time - since then it has done little more than appease a corporate-funded and astroturfed movement of the electorate towards the extreme right.

So here's the crux of the biscuit. I am a progressive but "my" party only plays lipservice towards progressive ideals (eg. it has "fielded" national health programs since Truman, only to fold to the AMA every single time). "My" party feels that it is necessary to seduce the "center" in order to "win" - which is tantamount to not winning at all. Why should I give support to a party that doesn't take progressive ideals seriously if they get in the way of achieving power - a power that they haven't used to apply progressive ideals for decades?

It seems to me, sitting far away in Europe, that if I support the DNC I am being played like a fiddle just as much as the most cogdissed GOPer from the heartland.

Cue Timbuk to chant "no hope" and wring his hands in despair at my "treason". This time, however, I am here to counter his chant.

Since it is clear that the system is perverted and corrupt - so clear, in fact, that even the GOP base appears to be sick of Congress... I will support a candidate of ANY party that propounds REFORM. Until the political landscape is cleared of the $1 billion/year "conservative"/corporate thinktanks, tax-exempt political churches and the compendium of tools that corporations have used to shift the "center" somewhere close to falangeism - it is pretty clear that progressive "liberalism" will continue to be a bad word.

I am HOPING that another mugwump movement will come about or that some populistic leader will come out in favour of real reform. Until then I see no hope of being represented - particularly by a party that isn't even clear on its progressive "ideals", that has already discounted any idea of holding the current admin accountable for its crimes (thanx, Pelosi), that has abdicated its role regarding scotus nominations...

[alvarezadams]

23. Wish list

I am also hoping that the current surge of grassroots progressiveism will ultimately prevail. I hope that we can tell the DNC to stop appeasing the right and to start being progressive again.

It's not the end of the world if, by sticking to your guns, you might lose an election or two. It IS the end of MY respect if you drop your guns in order to occupy a seat that you won't use in a constructive manner.

---------

I'm sick to death of low expectations that are invariably disappointed.

[Timbuk3]

26. Hey Alvy!

>>What Timbuk has failed to do is to actually express what we were arguing about.<<

That's generally what happens when only one side of a dispute is told. That's why I made sure you were aware of this thread. So you can tell your side.

>>Cue Timbuk to chant "no hope" and wring his hands in despair at my "treason".<<

LOL

No, that's not what I'm going to do. (BTW, have I EVER used the wored "treason" in this exchange? Here, or anywhere else?)

>>This time, however, I am here to counter his chant.<<

What I would propose is that you and I do this again when this site is busier. Late on a Friday night is no time to start a thread if you want participation. I have no strong preference on who should "go first", but one of us should post a new message at a time when the other is aware of it, and we can resume our arguments when we both have the time, and (welcome) interjection by others is more likely.

At the very least you have to admit that where we've been discussing this, before, has had very few views.

And lest there is confusion going forward, my objections to your words are not based on any mistaken belief that the Democratic party is perfect. One need only look around this board, or Kos, to see that Joe Lieberbush is far from popular, and as you know I join in that disgust.

My objections are based on the concept that "there is no difference" between the GOP and the DNC. The easiest example is the ownership by the most extreme elements of the mainstream "christians" like Falwell and Dobson of hte GOPs domestic agenda, but there are others.

One place where we disagree is in what we believe is "important" about those differences.

You seem to believe that foreign policy trumps all, and I disagree with that. I have zero tolerance for bigotry, and the GOPs actions on gay marriage and immigration, their refusal to reach out to the NAACP while giving speeches at such racist bastions as the CofCC, their obvious favoritism of the wealthy over "the lazy welfare queens", all speak to their commitment to divide us into "conquerable groups" right here at home.

But the readers of DU, who aren't familiar with you yet, should know that you and I have a long record of agreement that things are out of control. We disagree about methods and means to right the ship of state, not that it needs righting in the first place.

[alvarezadams]

29. Hey Timbuk

I'll repost my response from another board...

"My objections are based on the concept that "there is no difference" between the GOP and the DNC. "

ARE there any differences? I mean beyond the cosmetic?

Sure, the GOP panders to the fundies and it moving towards adopting some pretty egregious legislation in order to appease them. But the politicos are not idiots and are certainly not fundies themselves - they can probably give a rat's ass about the subject. What they want is the power that the fundies give them... in order to do pretty much the same as the neoliberal-embracing DNC would do if IT was in power. In THIS sense I see little difference between the two parties.

"You seem to believe that foreign policy trumps all, and I disagree with that"

No - I just see it as another lithmus test.

" I have zero tolerance for bigotry, and the GOPs actions on gay marriage and immigration..."

Ditto - but we're seeing just how reality pans out regarding immigration, aren't we? The pandering to the electorate is getting trumped by the need to pander to the corporate base. In the end the entire GOP platform can be interpreted as pandering to the latter base - and the talking points of welfare queens, drowning gubmint in a bathtub and all the rest - are just the demagoguic translation of that overriding interest. They play the bigotry card because they know that they can get elected on said bigotry --- in order to give the corps more Joementum.

But what of the Dems? They too are demagoguic. They support social programs inasmuch as these get them votes - and once in power we have, once again, pandering to the capitalist machine. Perhaps less so than the GOP, but not by much.

And I -am- on record as seeing the DNC as the lesser of two evils.

"You and I disagree about methods and means to right the ship of state, not that it needs righting in the first place."

With you 100%.

"I say that defeating our "internal opponents" (like Lieberbush) during the primaries is the way our system of government works."

With you here too - but I WOULD like to see a reform ticket, and would even vote GOP to get it (if the reform was real).

"I am not going to agree that allowing an extremist Republicangelical to hold onto his/her seat will lead to a change in the system, or to any success for liberals or progressives. It's not an effective means for change."

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I still think that I'd rather sacrifice 2006 for the sake of 2008 - mostly because it is clear that a Dem congress isn't going to investigate or indict, will play the GOP-run game, and can only be used as a scapegoat for admin failures. Th DNC has made it clear that it won't make a stand on the supremes... so what do we gain other than the unenviable position of "running" an institution that has approval ratings that rival Dubya's.

"Then we need to push the Democrats to reinstate the fairness doctrine."

Why didn't the DNC do it under Bubba?

[Timbuk3]

33. And my reply

(Also "from another board", cut and pasted because I need to get away from the keyboard for a while. R/L always trumps cyberspace.)

>>ARE there any differences? I mean beyond the cosmetic?<<

Yes. That's part of the point I'm making. Yes, there are differences between the GOP and the DNC.

I think that we agree that the GOP is good with framing and giving lip service to craft an illusion of what they stand for that the voters buy into, even when the ACTIONS of the GOP prove beyond any doubt that it's only lip service. Would you also agree that the Democrats aren't as good at that?

Ask an average voter and they say "The GOP is strong on defense, supports the military, has 'good moral values', and cuts taxes." Their MESSAGE sounds good, to some. Ask an average voter what the Democrats stand for and you'll get <crickets>. Is this because the Democrats stand for nothing? Seriously, do you believe that the Democrats stand for nothing? Or is it possible that their message is drowned out by the VRWC and even you, my fierce ally in righting the ship of state, can't hear it?

>>Sure, the GOP panders to the fundies and it moving towards adopting some pretty egregious legislation in order to appease them.<<

Exactly. And they're busy putting judges in place who will support that egregious legislation. More of them, every year.

>>What they want is the power that the fundies give them... in order to do pretty much the same as the neoliberal-embracing DNC would do if IT was in power. In THIS sense I see little difference between the two parties.<<

You may use those words to support your thesis that "there is 'little' difference" (at least you're no longer saying "no difference"), but you have NO EVIDENCE beyond what some Democrat in a different time and place did. I again remind you of the Dixiecrats, and ask you for a CURRENT example of a Democrat who's POPULAR with the grass roots and/or "the base" who isn't different from, say, Roberts (the K senator who's stonewalling the investigation into Bush's war crimes) or Brownback (who is going to SERIOUSLY keep trying to make the Constitution subordinate to the Bible.)

You complain about both parties "pandering for votes", but you overlook the expectations of those voters, themselves. Are the fundies not angry that their anti-American, anti-Constitution agenda isn't being carried out? Are the GOP politicos not aware that if they don't start passing those anti-American, anti-Constitution laws they will lose the power they crave?

And you conveniently brush off any claims that the Democrats will do anything different with ZERO evidence that it's true.

Don't believe what the media tells you about this. The Democrats have never shied away from saying they'll "investigate" abuses of power. Do you seriously think that they won't, or that those investigations won't turn up SERIOUS abuses of our system by a party that's been absolutely corrupted by absolute power?

They aren't saying "Yes, we're going to impeach the President" because THEY DON'T HAVE TO, and that would be a lousy platform in any event. What they NEED is committee chairmanships, and the ability to bring bills to the floor (as well as the ability to kill GOP bills in their infancy.)

It's inescapable that you believe that things will have to get worse before they can get better, even though not a single poll in months (years?) supports your POV. The country is PISSED OFF. How much more angry do you think we have to get?

One more thing. I've avoided commenting on your "mugwump" idea, mostly because that could be a thread of it's own and my goal is to stop the rhetoric that "there is no differnce" (and you chaning it to "little difference" is encouraging in that regard.) I think a "mugwump movement" would be a good development. I also think it's an out of reach pipe dream. The GOP has backed itself into a corner. Either it delivers to the most extreme elements of society, or it will soon be out of power. They know it, even if you don't. They are truly between a rock and a hard place, and joining with Democrats to truly reform the government is NOT going to happen until the extremists are purged from the GOP. I believe that failure to enact the extremist agenda will drive them out of the system faster than anything else you or I can think of. They really thought they had control of the country after 2006, and the drop in Bush's approval ratings is largely due to his failure to give them the hellish vision of America they voted for.

If the GOP doesn't deliver, soon, they will have no place to go. Certainly, they can't go to the Democrats. There IS a difference between the two parties.

[LoZoccolo]

28. "...I have never felt particularly represented by any US party."

So? Go get a box of crayons and some construction paper if you want to express yourself. Politics is about getting things done, because no matter what you choose, things will get done which affect other peoples' lives.

[alvarezadams]

30. Representation?

"So? Go get a box of crayons and some construction paper if you want to express yourself. Politics is about getting things done, because no matter what you choose, things will get done which affect other peoples' lives."

Might you not consider that posting here is virtually crayons and construction paper? I'm posting because I WANT to change things - it's part of my participation in the political process.

[LoZoccolo]

32. I encourage constructive criticism.

I'm not happy with everything the Democrats do either. But I will not take my decision, knowing the material impact it will have on other peoples' lives, and use it in a way that will make things worse - sometimes fatally worse in the case of the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and global warming - rather than better. Especially if there are more effective ways of changing the tilt of the Democratic Party, that don't involve dubiously making peoples' lives miserable until they see things my way.

[LoZoccolo]

27. The "progressive" purists won't take responsibility for their own failure.

If someone wants more "progressive" candidates, they will have to spread "progressive" ideas to the voting populace, and get their "progressive" candidates into the general election through a primary such that they could also win the general. That's not my ideology, that's reality. And it's this reality that the "purists" won't take responsibility for. And it's this same reality that a lot of us have to live in, and live with the torturous consquences of. It is almost like these white, middle and upper-middle class, often male purists like to torture the rest of the populace for not thinking like they do, by unleashing Republicans on them. As a matter of fact, I've seen advocacy of human suffering by the Republicans to make people more "progressive" right here on this board. They are sick people.

Oh, and they're institutionally racist too.

[alvarezadams]

31. In defense of the purists

I don't know if my progressiveness is "pure" or not. Frankly it is immaterial.

What I am certainly aware of is that the underlying problem for progressives is that they are running against a behemoth that outspends them by a factor of many tens, if not hundreds, to one. The "swing" to the right has not been a natural process but a well-funded and well-coordinated attack that began under FDR and has not ceased.

"Liberal" has been turned into a bad word for many, thanks to the likes of AEI, Cato, Heritage, dozens of PR firms, fundamentalist churches and the like.

This is why MY principle concern is reform. There isn't a chance in hell that progressive candidates will progress as long as the cards are so stacked against them - and having virtual sleeper cells of regressive conservatives in the DNC doesn't make things any easier.

IMO we have an excellent opportunity right now to make a change. The electorate is off Dubya - Congress' approval ratings are almost the same as the misadministration's. Can there be a better time to approach reform than now?

There's even an historical precedent to today's situation - the mugwumps.